Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Uzlu]

I thought the $62B was in service support and construction costs, but not life cycle costs.

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, other than the spare parts that will be purchased when the ships are built.

http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf

If Naval Group and Fincantieri are offering to build the modules in France and Italy with final assembly in Canada, their proposal will probably be rejected by the Liberals. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Frankly the cost of all that support is the same whatever ship your going to have, the costing needs to be separate, as does the contracts. The only cost that should be different is if there is a radical departure from the estimated support costs. Such as using 16" shells instead of missiles or nuke reactor as opposed to fuel oil. Then we can honestly compare the true costs of the different ships.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Let's get factual here:

These are the figures taken straight out of the PBO report on the CSC's cost. They are found at table 1 of the summary of findings, page 2 of the report - which is available on line (I am not posting the link because I wish to abide by Scott's new system for long documents but I haven't quite figured it out yet):

The PBO gives two figures for the program cost: One is in FY2017 dollars (i.e. this is what it would cost if we were executing the whole program in that FY and paid for it in current dollars of that year), then he gives the figures in "Then-years" (meaning the cost with inflation/dollar devalued along the way so that it is the actual price paid in each of the years a payment will be made in the future).

It Breaks down as such:

Total cost of program: $40B$ FY2017; 62B$ Then-yr.

Cost of development: $4.5B$ FY2017; 5B$ Then-yr.

Cost of the production (actual cost of ships): $28B$ FY2017; 45B$ Then-yr.

The rest*: 7.5B$ FY2017; 12B$ Then-yr.

*: The rest includes the following: Spares for the first two years and then spares for the rest of the in-service years (why the breakdown for the first two years, I have no idea); ammunition (this is for actual ammunition expenditure for training/forecasted ops during the lifetime, not for the original set of ammunition, which is included in the cost of production) facilities, documentation, training and Government program management.

As I have indicated at the time these figures came out, using the Australian Adelaide destroyers as baseline for the command/AAW ships, a FY2017 cost of about 4B$ each is in line with current costs. So, for three, you get the first 12B$ knocked out of the figure. The reminder of 16B$ for the 12 GP/ASW version means about 1.3B$ each, which is also in line with current price for such ships.
 

 

[Underway]

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21415/Navantia_Saab_Submits_Canadian_Surface_Combatant_Program_Bid#.WiF99v-nGM8

I'm not going to lie, the Navinata/Saab bid is genius.  Ctrl-F replace Canada with Australia and submit for the SEA 5000 program.  Just saved Navinata a pile of dollars in bid development.  If they get the Canadian contract awesome, here is your exact ship you require for the SEA 5000 program, massively reducing risk for Australia.  Every other bid needs to rejig for the Saab CMS and the CEA radars which are requirements for the Australian program.

CEA makes the CEAMOUNT/CEAFAR radar system which is very good by all accounts, arguably the best medium AESA for ships available.  Saab CMS is also right up there with the industry standard, maybe is the industry standard.

 

[Karel Doorman]

Let's get factual here:

These are the figures taken straight out of the PBO report on the CSC's cost. They are found at table 1 of the summary of findings, page 2 of the report - which is available on line (I am not posting the link because I wish to abide by Scott's new system for long documents but I haven't quite figured it out yet):

The PBO gives two figures for the program cost: One is in FY2017 dollars (i.e. this is what it would cost if we were executing the whole program in that FY and paid for it in current dollars of that year), then he gives the figures in "Then-years" (meaning the cost with inflation/dollar devalued along the way so that it is the actual price paid in each of the years a payment will be made in the future).

It Breaks down as such:

Total cost of program: $40B$ FY2017; 62B$ Then-yr.

Cost of development: $4.5B$ FY2017; 5B$ Then-yr.

Cost of the production (actual cost of ships): $28B$ FY2017; 45B$ Then-yr.

The rest*: 7.5B$ FY2017; 12B$ Then-yr.

*: The rest includes the following: Spares for the first two years and then spares for the rest of the in-service years (why the breakdown for the first two years, I have no idea); ammunition (this is for actual ammunition expenditure for training/forecasted ops during the lifetime, not for the original set of ammunition, which is included in the cost of production) facilities, documentation, training and Government program management.

As I have indicated at the time these figures came out, using the Australian Adelaide destroyers as baseline for the command/AAW ships, a FY2017 cost of about 4B$ each is in line with current costs. So, for three, you get the first 12B$ knocked out of the figure. The reminder of 16B$ for the 12 GP/ASW version means about 1.3B$ each, which is also in line with current price for such ships.

Still OGBD those are ridiculous prices for such ships,to give an example the new vMFF(replacement M-class)which will be a pure ASW/GP frigate will be in the region of about 600-800 million from what i've heard,those are more "realistic"prices,not "driven up" prices by Government or a shipbuilder.(sorry that's my take on it)That's the "purchase"price don't know the through life costs.

Oh and here's what's known right now:


weight/size: 6000 ton
length : ca. 140 m
propulsion : diesel-electric => 26 knots
armament :
- 2x76mm sovraponte(which means DART and Vulcano ammo)
- VLS 8x4 in front of the bridge,AA(8x4 = totalling 32 rockets )
- VLS 8x4 midships/aft for ASROC/ possibly for TLAM or SM-3
- RAM on hangar
- 30mm marlin in front of the bridge
integrated sensormast ( I500 )
Hangar : 1x NH90
Multi mission bay midships.

Nothing known about torpedo's/launchers right now.(but should be there)For now 2 will be built for the Netherlands and 2 for Belgium,hopefully the Netherlands will go for 2 more.

About the I-500 integrated sensor mast.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2014-archive-naval-exhibitons/euronaval-2014/2143-thales-presents-its-new-integrated-mast-i-mast-500-at-euronaval-2014.html"

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Karel, I think you are using US$, not Canadian.

1.3B$ Can is equal to about 870 million Euros.

I am pretty sure that the M class replacements will be near that cost. And, BTW, the figures you quote for the vMFF only include half the VLS spots the Canadian CSC will have. Add those extra missiles and associated systems in and you are talking an extra 80 million Euros or 120 million $ Canadian increase in price just there.

 

[Karel Doorman]

Karel, I think you are using US$, not Canadian.

1.3B$ Can is equal to about 870 million Euros.

I am pretty sure that the M class replacements will be near that cost. And, BTW, the figures you quote for the vMFF only include half the VLS spots the Canadian CSC will have. Add those extra missiles and associated systems in and you are talking an extra 80 million Euros or 120 million $ Canadian increase in price just there.

Yeah sorry i did use US currency,but for number of missiles it's 8x4x2(corrected that in my previous post,thanks to you mentioning that) so in total something like 64 missiles(in front and aft/mid)from what i've heared the ships will come in at about 700 million euros.(buying price)so yeah about a billion or so Canadian.(sorry for that)
Maybe an idea for Canada to join the building party/line maybe that means the ships will come in cheaper(number of ships).I know junior will never go for that(building abroad),but still a nice thought.The price i mentioned is with all the systems mentioned,at least it is for us.And offcourse the fact that these "to be build"ships are not existing yet(and not in the bidding process)

Then Canada could "end up" with 2 classes,the "The  Seven" and the new class then it would feel like home away from home,lol.(and to be fair have both our Navies have the best looking(and very capable) ships around,but hey i'm prejudiced.)

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I believe you had it right the first time Karel.

The vMFF (from what I have seen) is two times eight VLS spots for total of 16. Half of them (so eight) will pack the ESSM in quad packs, so thirty-two, but the second eight cells will pack only one missile each, including the surface to surface missiles, for a total onboard of 40 missiles.

The plans (so far) for CSC calls for 32 VLS spots (with three "blanks" used for servicing/electronics/etc. like we had on the IRO's - so total actual spots 29), 16 of which should pack quad ESSMs, plus eight independent SSM (Harpoons or follow-on), for total on the CSC's of 85 missiles.

 

[MarkOttawa]

RFP closed:
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2017/11/canadian_surfacecombatantrequestforproposalscloses.html

So appear to be only four bids (if Fincantieri/Naval Group is actually accepted), nothing from Odense Maritime, ThyssenKrupp:

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/12/01/naval-group-fincantieri-join-forces-in-canada-warship-tender/

https://vanguardcanada.com/2017/11/30/navantia-led-team-submits-proposal-for-csc/

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-lockheed-martin-build-canadas-navy-new-frigate-23410

Plus:

...
Alion Canada, a subsidiary of the U.S.-based Alion Science and Technology, is offering Canada the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command frigate design. Alion, the prime design agent for the U.S. Navy’s DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser, has partnered with Damen Shipbuilding, Atlas Electronik and Hendsoldt on the Canadian program...
http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20171201-csc.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

What Fincantieri says, ships to be built at/at (but not by?) Irving:

Canadian Surface Combatant: Naval Group and Fincantieri propose to Canada a joint-offer based on the FREMM frigate design 01 December 2017

The Government of Canada has declared its intention to acquire an existing and proven NATO warship design that could be readily modified to best meet the Royal Canadian Navy requirements. French and Italian world-class shipbuilders Naval Group and Fincantieri, with the strong support of both French and Italian governments, will combine their expertise and present to the Government of Canada an “off-the-shelf”, sea-proven solution based on the FREMM frigate design for the supply of 15 surface combatant ships to the Royal Canadian Navy.

Should the offer be accepted, the future frigates would be built in Canada at Irving Shipbuilding in a very short time, maximizing Canadian Industrial participation and job creation locally through a dedicated and comprehensive transfer of technology, as well as integrating Canadian suppliers into the two companies’ global supply chains.

Naval Group and Fincantieri have previously collaborated on several major naval projects, including the joint development of the FREMM frigate.

Considered as a world leader in her class, the FREMM frigate is a versatile vessel able to execute any type of missions encompassing all warfare domains (AAW, ASW, ASuW, Land Attack, Command Ship, etc.). Both the general purpose and anti-submarine warfare variants are already in service in two leading NATO navies.
https://www.fincantieri.com/en/media/press-releases/2017/canadian-surface-combatant-naval-group-e-fincantieri-propongono-in-canada-unofferta-congiunta-basata-sul-progetto-della-fregata-fremm/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[AlexanderM]

I think it is absolutely absurd that we are building brand new warships with 16 and 32 vls cells. The range of the ESSM's is quite limited.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That's the whole friggin' point of ESSM's: It's a short range, super fast, anti-missile/aircraft self-defence (also known as point defence) system.

Not all 32 cells will have them in either versions. You are likely to find four to eight of them with the ESSM quad packs in the AAW version, so that 21 to 25 cells will be filled with SM-2, SM-3 or SM-6 as the case may require for Area air defence.

In the ASW/GP version, you are likely to have 12 to 16 cells filled with quad packs of ESSM, so that only 16 to 20 cells will be used for SM-2 or more likely SM-6. Would be surprised to ever see SM-3 on the GP/ASW version - it likely won't have the combat system and sensors required for the AAW job planned for such missiles.

As for the Netherland's vMFF, they are planned as ASW frigates and the 16 cells VLS they will ship is exactly the same number of cells as were on the M-Class they are replacing. The missiles are there purely for self defence.
 

 

[AlexanderM]

There is no explanation that makes it ok. You don't build brand new warships with 16 and 32 vls cells. The Frigates should have 32 the Destroyers 48, nothing less. It's laughable.

 

[Karel Doorman]

That's the whole friggin' point of ESSM's: It's a short range, super fast, anti-missile/aircraft self-defence (also known as point defence) system.

Not all 32 cells will have them in either versions. You are likely to find four to eight of them with the ESSM quad packs in the AAW version, so that 21 to 25 cells will be filled with SM-2, SM-3 or SM-6 as the case may require for Area air defence.

In the ASW/GP version, you are likely to have 12 to 16 cells filled with quad packs of ESSM, so that only 16 to 20 cells will be used for SM-2 or more likely SM-6. Would be surprised to ever see SM-3 on the GP/ASW version - it likely won't have the combat system and sensors required for the AAW job planned for such missiles.

As for the Netherland's vMFF, they are planned as ASW frigates and the 16 cells VLS they will ship is exactly the same number of cells as were on the M-Class they are replacing. The missiles are there purely for self defence.

the "self defence " missiles will probably be nsm's,that's what i heared.As for the total number of missiles,i will ask,1 moment.As i got it the total will be 32 missiles.

 

[Underway]

There is no explanation that makes it ok. You don't build brand new warships with 16 and 32 vls cells. The Frigates should have 32 the Destroyers 48, nothing less. It's laughable.

I'm going to back OGBD up here with a bit of open source doctrine.  ESSM are ship self defence missiles.  The horizon is 25nm away so likely a modern sea skimming anti-ship missile will be detected at around 25nm by radar.  If it's emitting you might get a bearing on it from its own sensor head but no targeting solution.

When you have a fire control solution you shoot TWO ESSM at the target to get a high probability of kill.  Aster missiles only need one missile because of their different design and higher individual kill probability.  If the ESSMs miss you only (might) have time for one more salvo of TWO ESSM at the hostile missile, because you will only have somewhere between 30 and 120 seconds before the missile hits you from the horizon range.

Then you switch to your closer in defensive hard kill systems (RAM, CIWS, guns etc...).  That's the general doctrine for most NATO navies (not including soft kill systems).

One missile will take 2-4 ESSM to kill it.  4 ESSM fit into a single strike length VLS.  That means you can engage a single hostile missile with the entire contents of a single VLS.  If someone is shooting 16 ship killing missiles at you, well you are probably dead before you can even get off all 64 ESSM, as your pers and combat management system is going to be overwhelmed.  The rest of your unfired missiles are now an explosive liability.

Hence for light ASW/GP frigates 16 VLS are more then enough self defense capability.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You seem to be mixing many things here, Alexander.

First of all, there will be no CSC's with only 16 VLS cells. It is the Dutch replacement for the M-Class frigates that are planned that way. And in their case, it is perfectly appropriate as they are (by current scale) on the smallish size of frigate, with ASW in or near Dutch waters as primary concern, which provides them with shore based air cover when truly necessary. I'd like to point out that 16 VLS cells is also the figures contemplated by the RN for it's type 31 frigates and the French for their FTI (Intermediate Size Frigates), two projected types of vessels that are close in size to the HALIFAX.

As for the Canadian vessels, there is no more distinction between Destroyers and Frigates. The "single-class" combatant will be both or neither, depending how you look at them. But one thing is sure: the various variants will be same hull, general layout and power plant. The main differences will be in sensors, their integration into the combat system and the actual weapons mix.

They will all have 32 VLS cells plus eight deck launchers mounted SSMs. The 32 VLS cells will have 3 "blanks" leaving 29 active cells, which is exactly what the IROQUOIS had, but their mix of missiles will be more potent, and a lot more than the 16 cells currently found on the HALIFAX.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

There is no explanation that makes it ok. You don't build brand new warships with 16 and 32 vls cells. The Frigates should have 32 the Destroyers 48, nothing less. It's laughable.

Considering the talk about potential adversaries focusing on swarm attacks, I agree with you.  It seems very short-sighted.

 

[AlexanderM]

Just to point out the Frigate verses Destroyers is simply a classification, regardless of the hulls. I've made my opinion clear and it won't change.

 

[AlexanderM]

Considering the talk about potential adversaries focusing on swarm attacks, I agree with you.  It seems very short-sighted.

No Kidding! I read Putin's comments about swarm attacks and over-saturation, obviously we are the only one's who are listening. This isn't even a debate here, this is those who are looking clearly at the bigger picture verses those who don't seem to be paying attention.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Cdn Blackshirt, what makes you think, even for a moment, that a frigate/destroyer level of warship will find herself, all by her lonesome self, in a swarm attack environment?

Swarm attacks can only be expected in a near-peer conflict situation. At that point, no warship will find herself fighting alone and the whole of allied navies and their supporting air forces work together in an interlocked system of defence in depth, with no ship likely to find herself overwhelmed locally.

Look at Underway's post below: he is talking of 16 ship killing missiles strike. That requires either a large bomber type aircraft or a flight of eight fighters, trained in the specific art of naval strike, dedicated to shooting only at you, a mere little destroyer/frigate. Which nations do you know can muster such air power and throw it at a single destroyer/frigate instead of using it against other high value targets?

And Alexander before commenting on "people who haven't a clue", feel free to look up Underway or my qualifications to talk, unlike your profile - ours is plain to see and it does not consist on merely passing basic.