• 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

US defence media notice LockMart, BAESystems et al. bid (note costs near end):

Canadian Navy Competition Previews US Frigate Fight

The contest to build Canada’s next warship just kicked into high gear, and it’s a preview of the US Navy’s own frigate competition, with many of the same players. Earlier today — ahead of other competitors and the official deadline — Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems officially submitted the Type 26 frigate, which BAE is already building for the British Royal Navy. The Franco-Italian FREMM, the Spanish Navantia F105, and the Danish Stanflex are all likely competitors for both the Canadian and the US frigate programs.

Previously, I’d downplayed the possibility of the US Navy buying the Type 26, because the first frigate hasn’t been built yet, whereas the French, Spanish, and Danish designs all have long track records at sea. Having a track record is particularly important because America’s on a tighter schedule than Canada and therefore has less time to work out kinks in an untested product. The US FFG(X) program plans to award a construction contract in 2020, while the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program won’t make that award until the unspecified “early 2020s,” a date that’s repeatedly slipped.

But the Type 26’s entry into the Canadian contest suggests it’s readier than I thought. Putting together an industry team and a proposal package for the Canadian competition is, at the very least, good practice for the American one. And if the Type 26 goes on to get a good reception in Ottawa, that can only help it in Washington.

Cost & Capability

On paper, the Type 26 seems in many ways a good match for the US frigate requirements. Its primary role is hunting submarines, particularly to protect aircraft carriers and friendly ballistic missile subs — all top priorities for the US Navy as well. It will also fire anti-aircraft, missile defense, and anti-ship missiles out of the Mk. 41 Vertical Launch System, which is standard on US and allied warships (although the UK hasn’t actually developed the requisite anti-ship missile yet).

The Type 26 will have wide flight deck, capable of accommodating helicopters as large as the US Army (or RAF) CH-47 Chinook. It will also have a “modular mission bay” to accommodate specialized equipment from small boats to drones to relief supplies. That’s the kind of flexibility the US was hoping for with its troubled Littoral Combat Ship.

Unlike the high-speed, short-range LCS, but in keeping with the US Navy’s requirements for a long-haul frigate, the Type 26 will make a modest 26 knots but have fuel for 7,000 nautical miles. Displacing 7,600 tons (6,900 metric tonnes), with a basic crew of 157 sailors and accommodations for 208, the Type 26 is also a lot larger than LCS, as are all the frigate contenders.

The Type 26’s big problem may be the big price tag [emphasis added]. The Royal Navy is initially paying almost US$1.7 billion a frigate (it’s a £3.7 billion, three-ship contract). That’s nearly as much as the US Navy pays for a much larger and more powerful Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. While the Pentagon expects to pay more for a frigate than the approximately $568.1 million it’s currently shelling out for LCS, it probably won’t pay three times as much.

Now, the Americans and Canadians can expect to pay significantly less for the Type 26 than the British [emphasis added--for RCN good flipping luck]. That initial UK contract covers the cost of developing an all-new warship, a huge expense that other navies won’t have to replicate. It also covers the cost of figuring out how to build the new design affordably. Even setting aside development costs, the first few ships of a class always cost more to build than later ones, since industry learns how to streamline construction over time. So the cost of the Type 26 will definitely drop.

But by how much? Lockheed and BAE can offer estimates, but with the first ship still unfinished in the UK, they can’t offer any hard numbers on what subsequent ships will cost. That’s in stark contrast to their competitors, who all have multiple ships built.

The unproven Type 26 definitely has some disadvantages in the competition for the US Navy frigate contract. But if BAE and Lockheed want to enter it, it’s also definitely worth considering.
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/11/canadian-navy-competition-previews-us-frigate-fight/

Mark
Ottawa
 
In January of the following year, it became apparent that 600 of these would be required urgently for Col. Brown’s Battalion of the Rifle Brigade and that the Enfield factory would not be able to supply them in time. Thus the whole order was put out to the trade in London at a charge of 38s per rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_rifle

Radical procurement plan. 

Here's what I want.
Here's what I'll pay.
Who will bid?
 
Video up as well.  It's a essentially a rehash of other Type 26 video's with even the same music, however it doesn't say much about any weapons/sensors and has a very generic VDS in the picture.  Basically no new information.

I noticed the 25mm guns however were still on the hangar sides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfMqfoMQTs0
 
Not quite, Underway: They at least put in a Cyclone helicopter vice the Merlins in their original videos.  :nod:
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Not quite, Underway: They at least put in a Cyclone helicopter vice the Merlins in their original videos.  :nod:

Should have had a Chinook land on, after the Cyclone departed...  ;D
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Not quite, Underway: They at least put in a Cyclone helicopter vice the Merlins in their original videos.  :nod:

;D

I suppose if we are being picky, there are only 24 VLS on the foc'sle and the 24 CAAMS launchers have been removed.  The stern bay doors are different than the ones in the original video.  A number of antenna and radars are different the main one being a integrated mast with a fixed array and the ops room shown was completely different to the original.  It is essentially the CMS 330 Ops room with a different layout.
 
News is the Fincantieri of Italy and Naval Group of France are offering a FREMM variant at a guaranteed price of $30 billion dollars. 

I don't know the details of the offer and I'm trying to find an alternative reference. 

I'm not a fan of the FREMM and don't think it will match the requirements for the AAW version of the frigate very well or the number of personnel the navy wants to embark, but a $32 billion dollar deal is... exceedingly tempting. 

Also with a guarantee like that my first instinct is "What's the catch?"  Too good to be true usually is. I expect they want to build some of the ships in their own yards, or at least parts of them there.  Are they that desperate to keep their nationalized shipbuilding industries afloat they would offer a money losing contract?  Or are they non-compliant in some of their bid and want to circumvent the process?

Irving is heavily involved with the design selection.  I expect they will put up a fight and try to get all the money themselves.  I also expect bureaucratic resistance.

This has the potential to be a political football of epic proportions.  I suppose we'll see a battle between the navies priorities, jobs in Canada's priorities, strategic industry priorities and saving taxpayers dollars priorities.
 
Read the same article in the news.

*DS edit: Due to site guidelines.

Unless the design is non-compliant, I'm not sure how you turn down $30 billion is savings.

That is a ton of money to address other gaps....

Even from the Navy's own viewpoint, if they didn't want to cut corners on the SCC to help the other branches,  the savings could easily fund Shortfin Barracuda submarines as well as a third Berlin-class.
 
Savings of $32B.

One comment to the article was to build two fleets and save $64B. :rofl:
 
Isn't the total package of 62 billion the total cost to build/operate (incl. all staffing costs, etc) over the entire life span of the ships?  If so, then how can they be saying that the savings will be 32 billion?
Pound for pound (or ton for ton if you prefer), the total weight of the new Harry DeWolf vs the Italian FREMM is pretty much the exact same, so from the amount of steel needed to produce these ships, the cost raw materials would be similar. 
The Australians are expecting to pay 35B AUS for 9 frigates, (which the final 3 designs are the Type 26, the FREMM and a Spanish design) which works out to be 58B for 15 doing a simple mathematical calculation .  Assuming that the cost per ship goes DOWN as you build more ships, I'm not seeing how our projected costs of 62B adds up, it should come under 58B. 
Wouldn't it be nice if they decided to use the savings to build 10 nice new 1,500t corvettes for patrol duty (and scrap the Kingston's) and add a fourth replenishment ship? 
 
This basically means that Fincantieri/Naval Group is bowing out of the NSPS process and taking its parting shot at Irving.

Everything I read so far is that this "offer" from them with guaranteed price is for building the vessels outside of the NSPS. Basically, they would build them in their yards (or perhaps a different Canadian yard, with them in charge - Davie anyone?), but definitely not at Irving. That is the only way they can guarantee cost.

So their parting shot is just there to remind Canadians how much money they are spewing just for the privilege of home built. They know, however, that no Canadian government will ever spend that much money offshore for something they actually can get here, even at inflated prices (which is not the case, for instance for fighter aircrafts).

Rifleman62 said:
Savings of $32B.

One comment to the article was to build two fleets and save $64B. :rofl:

I see somebody knows my wife's logic when shopping, which explains why I am running out of storage in the house for all the stuff purchased years in advance of any needs (if it ever comes).
 
There might be another side to the Fincantieri offer:  Industry is becoming concerned that ships will be perceived as unaffordable.

The US model of high priced vessels (and aircraft) serves US needs.

It allows the US to use defense spending to support US jobs and the US economy.
It permits the US to build very capable systems.
It discourages other countries from trying to compete with the US by building comparable systems
It encourages third countries to see the US offerings as top of the line.

The US model also serves Canadian needs.

It encourages the domestic belief that defense is unaffordable (and unnecessary due to us hanging on to the US by its belt buckle).

However it does not serve the needs of foreign industry that wants to sell ships.

They need to convince third countries that ships are affordable AND that their ships are capable of meeting national strategic requirements.  They can win even if forced to concede that the US may have technological edges in some areas.

They can't tolerate the impression being left that ships are unaffordable - And that is the impression left by US policy and the accounting practices adopted by Canada, Australia and the UK.

They can't leave the impression that ships cost $4,000,000,000 per hull (the Canadian Model).  They need to present ships at $400,000,000 per hull (the Danish Model).

A first effort would be to show the Canadian Model as being one designed by idiots.  A good start would be to say that they would be happy to supply and support a fleet for half the price while still making a profit for their share-holders.

The odds of anybody buying anything from a Canadian yard just got longer.
 
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21415/Navantia_Saab_Submits_Canadian_Surface_Combatant_Program_Bid#.WiF99v-nGM8
 
Czech_pivo said:
Isn't the total package of 62 billion the total cost to build/operate (incl. all staffing costs, etc) over the entire life span of the ships?  If so, then how can they be saying that the savings will be 32 billion?
Pound for pound (or ton for ton if you prefer), the total weight of the new Harry DeWolf vs the Italian FREMM is pretty much the exact same, so from the amount of steel needed to produce these ships, the cost raw materials would be similar. 
The Australians are expecting to pay 35B AUS for 9 frigates, (which the final 3 designs are the Type 26, the FREMM and a Spanish design) which works out to be 58B for 15 doing a simple mathematical calculation .  Assuming that the cost per ship goes DOWN as you build more ships, I'm not seeing how our projected costs of 62B adds up, it should come under 58B. 
Wouldn't it be nice if they decided to use the savings to build 10 nice new 1,500t corvettes for patrol duty (and scrap the Kingston's) and add a fourth replenishment ship?
My understanding is that it does not include operating costs or maintenance for the life of the ships. It's just the cost of building the ships and we could likely get it down to $45B if we build them faster. In my mind anything more than $3B per ship is just nuts.
 
I thought the $62B was in service support and construction costs, but not life cycle costs.
 
And thereby hangs the tale:

The lack of certainty on what constitutes the price and the scope.

It serves the needs of those who would do nothing.
 
Back
Top