• 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

My understanding is that the F-105 being proposed is actually closer to the Australian AAD's than the original Spanish F-100's.

As for scraping the "single class", I don't believe there is much chance of this. This constant single classing of ships seem to be a RCN fixation that originates in the  Saint-Laurent class era. The idea is single set of spare parts, single stream of training, etc., etc. Yet, the Navy made co-habitation of the St-L. and 280's work, so there is no real impediment to operating two classes of ships with differing functions.

I too would like to see two different types of ships, which I believe would make more sense in the end than trying to fit different functions in the same hull/powerplant.

In fact, it could be the government redeeming factor: Increase the plan slightly to the level proposed by the Senate defence committee, i.e. 18 surface ships. Get 14 ASW/GP variants and four AAD/Command variants. Leave the GP at Irving (that shortchanges them by one ship over 24 years  - I am sure some sop could be found for that) and get Davie in for the four AAD's. 
 
OGBD

While you're at it - how about adjusting the Irving buy to 3 pre-planned flights?  To permit controlled modification required to meet future, unforeseen requirements.
 
Shipbuilder appeals directly to Sajjan in warship design contest then doesn't deliver formal bid

French-Italian warship design was expected to be among leading contenders in Canadian contest

Just weeks before the competition to design Canada's next warship closed, a French and Italian consortium tossed what amounts to a political Hail Mary into the bidding process for the proposed $60 billion program.

Naval Group and Fincantieri delivered its now highly-publicised, eye-popping, proposal to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, CBC News has learned.

The pitch, which suggested Canada could save tens of billions of dollars, appears to be a frustrating parting shot for a consortium which had been considered one of the leading contenders in the highly-anticipated program.

It was a parting shot because CBC News has learned the French and Italian consortium did not submit a formal bid by the Nov. 30 deadline to make its FREMM-class frigates Canada's new surface warships.

"Fincantieri and Naval Group have made a business decision not to submit a bid under the current Request For Proposal (RFP) issued by Irving Shipbuilding Industry," said Alix Donnelly, a spokesman for Naval Group, in an email Tuesday morning.

The decision, he added, was made after a careful evaluation.

"We have finally developed a global proposal outside the terms of the official RFP to the Ministry of Defence to meet the Canadian needs on the long term, based on our FREMM program," Donnelly said.

What the French and Italian consortium was trying to achieve by making an informal pitch to Sajjan outside of the structured bidding process, remains unclear.

In a story quoting unnamed sources, The National Post reported last week that Naval Group and Fincantieri had pitched  a frigate replacement plan that would be $32 billion cheaper than the existing project estimate and involve building three of the 15 warships in Europe.

The informal proposal given to Sajjan, a copy of which was obtained by CBC News, also pledges a "fix price guarantee" and — significantly — promises to start construction of the first FREMM at the Irving Shipyard in Halifax in 2019.

It says it would charge $1.3 billion per ship, but "the final contract price will have to be defined by Irving Shipbuilding Inc.," which is the federal government's go-to yard for warship construction.

What the minister did with the pitch, dated Nov. 6, 2017, is unclear.

Sajjan's office would not answer questions on Monday and referred all queries to Public Services and Procurement Canada, which also declined to talk about the unusual proposal.

The federal government received at least three bids for warship design by the time the over 13 month competition closed, said several sources with knowledge of the file.

Among the acknowledged bidders is the Spanish-led Navantia-Saab team, which is offering its F-105 frigate design. As well, Lockheed-Martin Canada and British-based BAE Systems Inc. made headlines last week with the submission of their proposal. The third bidder remains unknown.

Federal officials made it clear previously they will not identify bidders until the process is over and a winner is declared.

Dave Perry, a defence analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he wasn't surprised with the latest development because the "French and Italians had been the most vocal about the problems they had with the process."

Bidders have complained Canada was asking for too much intellectual property data in its submission and there were also concerns about the transfer of top secret government-to-government information on systems such as radar and combat management equipment.

Officials close to the project, who spoke on background because of the sensitivity of the file, said dropping a proposal on the defence's minister's desk was an attempt to undermine the national shipbuilding strategy.

Perry was not prepared to go that far.

"I can't tell how much of it was a knock against the formal process; a suggestion that the current process is going to end in tears and this is a backup plan; or an acknowledgement that they [Naval Group and Fincantieri] weren't going to be successful," he said.

Industry sources have repeatedly suggested that the bidders were unhappy because they believed the process has been tilted in favour the BAE bid, which offers the Type 26 frigate, a warship that has only just entered production and has yet to establish a service history.

The Pentagon has indicated it is ready to open up its own much bigger program to replace U.S. Navy frigates to foreign warship designers.

Perry said he doesn't believe that, by itself, would have been enough to scuttle the FREMM bid.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-french-designer-1.4432705

We know the identities of the third bidders.
 
Chris Pook said:
OGBD

While you're at it - how about adjusting the Irving buy to 3 pre-planned flights?  To permit controlled modification required to meet future, unforeseen requirements.

Considering the current plan is for construction to take place over the next 24 years, I would already expect (hope they are smart enough for this is more like it) it to be the case. To have the exact same thing built in the last three years as was built in the first three, for sensors, combat systems, communications and weapons, makes no sense. You have to take in the lessons of the earlier versions of the ships and keep up with advancements in the fields I just specified.

To me, it's more like mid-way through the process, you have to bring the earlier models up to the level of the most recent ones through mid-life upgrades.
 
Lumber said:
Do you think there is any possibility, at all, of scrapping the single class idea?

My preference would be the DZP, as its sensor suite is more akin to what were using today, vice the F100 which is basically the same suite as an Arleigh Burke (with a hat).

Mind you, I haven't actually looked at any the submissions. Is the F100 being proposed with the same suite as what Spain is using, or something completely different?

Oldgateboatdriver said:
My understanding is that the F-105 being proposed is actually closer to the Australian AAD's than the original Spanish F-100's.

I too would like to see two different types of ships, which I believe would make more sense in the end than trying to fit different functions in the same hull/powerplant.

There is currently no possibility of not fitting it into the same hull.  The RCN solution for the future is to be able to easily convert a GP frigate into an AAD version so we will never have a capability gap again, and never lose the ability to operate in a Task Group again.  Whether this comes from gov't stupidity (not replacing ships), or accidents (ie: HMCS Winnipeg...) the plan is to either "add more/different radars and switch out missiles" to a GP version that you have removed from the old or damaged the AAD version.  This is to be done with relatively no fuss (say a 2 month refit), because all the platforms have the space to embark the Commodores staff and can do C&C stuff.

As for the F-100 bid the difference is the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radar systems.  They are completely different radar type to the SPY-1D which is the current mount.  They are active search S band and active fire control X band radars.  The SPY-1 is a passive S-band and requires a FC director of some sort.  The CEA radars are much more advanced and efficient then the SPY-1 but don't have the same power.  The currently operating CEA radars are perfect for frigates.  Doesn't mean that the AAW CEA radars aren't potentially bigger and better, with the simple expediency of adding more Tx/Rx groups.  They are pretty new to the radar ecosystem.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Considering the current plan is for construction to take place over the next 24 years, I would already expect (hope they are smart enough for this is more like it) it to be the case. To have the exact same thing built in the last three years as was built in the first three, for sensors, combat systems, communications and weapons, makes no sense. You have to take in the lessons of the earlier versions of the ships and keep up with advancements in the fields I just specified.

To me, it's more like mid-way through the process, you have to bring the earlier models up to the level of the most recent ones through mid-life upgrades.

Hope as a course of action? How about the past as a predictor of future action?

I'm afraid that my cynicism is at an extremely high level these days.
 
Underway said:
There is currently no possibility of not fitting it into the same hull.  The RCN solution for the future is to be able to easily convert a GP frigate into an AAD version so we will never have a capability gap again, and never lose the ability to operate in a Task Group again.  Whether this comes from gov't stupidity (not replacing ships), or accidents (ie: HMCS Winnipeg...) the plan is to either "add more/different radars and switch out missiles" to a GP version that you have removed from the old or damaged the AAD version.  This is to be done with relatively no fuss (say a 2 month refit), because all the platforms have the space to embark the Commodores staff and can do C&C stuff.

As for the F-100 bid the difference is the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radar systems.  They are completely different radar type to the SPY-1D which is the current mount.  They are active search S band and active fire control X band radars.  The SPY-1 is a passive S-band and requires a FC director of some sort.  The CEA radars are much more advanced and efficient then the SPY-1 but don't have the same power.  The currently operating CEA radars are perfect for frigates.  Doesn't mean that the AAW CEA radars aren't potentially bigger and better, with the simple expediency of adding more Tx/Rx groups.  They are pretty new to the radar ecosystem.

Well, in this case I recommend going with the DZP or F100.

It's better to have a destroyer acting like a frigate, than a frigate (type-26) acting like a destroyer.
 
Underway said:
As for the F-100 bid the difference is the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radar systems.  They are completely different radar type to the SPY-1D which is the current mount.  They are active search S band and active fire control X band radars. The SPY-1 is a passive S-band and requires a FC director of some sort.  The CEA radars are much more advanced and efficient then the SPY-1 but don't have the same power.  The currently operating CEA radars are perfect for frigates.  Doesn't mean that the AAW CEA radars aren't potentially bigger and better, with the simple expediency of adding more Tx/Rx groups.  They are pretty new to the radar ecosystem.

I would assume the CSC bid would also include the CEAFAR2-L long range L-band radar.  The fist ships to be fitted with this will be the RANs Anzacs class, where it will supplement the in-place CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT, and replace the SPS-49.    https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/christopher-pyne/media-releases/148-million-radar-upgrade-anzac-class-frigates

The CEAMOUNT + CEAFAR + CEAFAR2-L suite will be fitted to the RANs future frigates irrespective of which designer is selected.
 
Navy Recognition
 

Attachments

  • CSC_Navantia_F-105_Frigate_Canada.jpg
    CSC_Navantia_F-105_Frigate_Canada.jpg
    34.2 KB · Views: 289
  • 2017 05 05  FREMM CANADA -  vue en mer + ciel.jpg
    2017 05 05 FREMM CANADA - vue en mer + ciel.jpg
    972 KB · Views: 385
According to CTV (the only news source reporting this story), the Feds have rejected the FREMM bid outright.
 
Lumber said:
Well, in this case I recommend going with the DZP or F100.

It's better to have a destroyer acting like a frigate, than a frigate (type-26) acting like a destroyer.

What's the difference?  Size and engineering spaces sure aren't.  Sensors and Weapons.  If the Type 26 comes in with a SPY-1F radar and the Aegis system what is it?  A GP frigate or a AAW destroyer?  At what point does the hull matter.  We took four ASW destroyers in the Tribals and converted them to AAW (yes major refit however you get my point).  We are at a place now where electronics are so small and powerful.  Sensors are being designed with scalability.  Weapons are interchangeable in the VLS launchers.

Czech_pivo said:
According to CTV (the only news source reporting this story), the Feds have rejected the FREMM bid outright.

No surprise there.

And that F-100/105 looks ugly AF.  Wow...
 

Attachments

  • cone.jpg
    cone.jpg
    71.9 KB · Views: 159
Underway said:
There is currently no possibility of not fitting it into the same hull.  The RCN solution for the future is to be able to easily convert a GP frigate into an AAD version so we will never have a capability gap again, and never lose the ability to operate in a Task Group again.  Whether this comes from gov't stupidity (not replacing ships), or accidents (ie: HMCS Winnipeg...) the plan is to either "add more/different radars and switch out missiles" to a GP version that you have removed from the old or damaged the AAD version.  This is to be done with relatively no fuss (say a 2 month refit), because all the platforms have the space to embark the Commodores staff and can do C&C stuff.

As for the F-100 bid the difference is the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radar systems.  They are completely different radar type to the SPY-1D which is the current mount.  They are active search S band and active fire control X band radars.  The SPY-1 is a passive S-band and requires a FC director of some sort.  The CEA radars are much more advanced and efficient then the SPY-1 but don't have the same power.  The currently operating CEA radars are perfect for frigates.  Doesn't mean that the AAW CEA radars aren't potentially bigger and better, with the simple expediency of adding more Tx/Rx groups.  They are pretty new to the radar ecosystem.

Could you do the reverse and "downgrade" the same GP hull to become a Kingston-Class replacement?  Less powerful sensor suite and combat system.  Drop the towed-array sonar and instead have capability of deploying a modular towed-array when required.  Mount the 57mm guns from the Halifax's instead of a new 127mm gun.  Eliminate the gas turbine and just have the diesel engines.  Don't mount with VLS launchers (equip for, but not with) so that if necessary you could drop in a missile like the Sea Ceptor that can be fired using the ship's surveillance radar rather than needing a fire control radar to provide a self defence capability.

You'd end up with a ship with a great deal of physical and mechanical commonality to the rest of the fleet, has great range and humanitarian/constabulary capabilities and in time of war can greatly increase our ASW capabilities by being able to embark an ASW helicopter.  The extra hulls, built over a stretch of years would go a long way to keeping the shipyards busy until we're ready to replace the original AAW/GP ships.
 
Those hulls, with the extra space, could even be used for transporting and supporting self-loading cargo......
 
To GR66,

I wonder if you skip most of the development costs and see if you could drop an Absolon superstructure onto that hull?

Not sure on how the beams compare as I know the Absalons are pretty wide ships.

Anyone know that level of detail on the contenders?

 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
To GR66,

I wonder if you skip most of the development costs and see if you could drop an Absolon superstructure onto that hull?

Not sure on how the beams compare as I know the Absalons are pretty wide ships.

Anyone know that level of detail on the contenders?

I'd think that in order to sell it you'd want to absolutely minimize the changes and maximize the commonality.  Stick with a single hull.  Change only the very specific and limited things that you need to in order to upgrade to AAW or downgrade to Frigate-Light.  In my opinion you'd over complicate it (and greatly increase the cost) once you start mixing and matching elements from other ships.

 
Here we go again with Army people trying to tell us how to do ships!

GR66 said:
Could you do the reverse and "downgrade" the same GP hull to become a Kingston-Class replacement? 

... ... ... ... NO!!!!!!

Why on earth would you want to pay the fuel cost of dragging 7000 tons of bloody steel around to do the job of a 900 tons ship?

And to do what? What do you people think that the MCDV's do for us?

They are mine warfare vessels. Not only do you not need 7000 tons of displacement to do mine warfare, it's actually counter-productive to do so.

If you want to improve the MCDV's "constabulary" duties instead, again, why drag 7000 tons around at 18 knots (above which you need the  gas turbine), when you can get a 1500 tons ship that will do 25 knots on diesel at a quarter of the fuel expenditure!
 
Gov't statement rejecting Fincantieri/NavalGroup FREMM offer (not formal bid) for CSC:

Update on the Canadian Surface Combatant Request for Proposals

Proposals submitted outside of the established competitive process will not be considered

December 5, 2017, Ottawa – The Government of Canada is committed to open, fair and transparent procurement processes.

The Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Project is the largest and most complex of the projects launched through the National Shipbuilding Strategy due to the volume of ships being built and the need to carefully integrate required weapons and technologies.This procurement has been underway for several years, and the Government and its prime contractor, Irving Shipbuilding, have undertaken significant efforts to engage with industry to ensure this procurement is effectively managed.

The selection of  pre-qualified potential bidders began in August 2015 with an open and competitive prequalification process, and was re-opened in July 2016 to provide a second opportunity for additional interested firms to participate when the procurement strategy was streamlined. This pre-qualification ensured that potential bidders had the experience necessary to successfully complete a large, complex warship design project.  Finalized in October 2016, this process resulted in 12 prequalified bidders. Since then, the Government and Irving Shipbuilding have engaged with the pre-qualified bidders and developed a request for proposals (RFP), which includes a detailed evaluation plan, evaluation critieria and the process for submitting bids. On this basis, potential bidders worked for over a year to prepare their proposals.  The bidding period for the RFP closed on November 30, 2017, at which time multiple bids were properly submitted. Ultimately, the submission of a bid is a commercial decision which must be made by each potential bidder.

Recent media coverage referenced a proposal submitted outside of the established competitive process  alleging the ability to deliver CSC ships at a reduced cost. Establishing and respecting a bid and evaluation process that is consistently applied to all potential bidders is fundamental to a fair, open and transparent procurement. Without common requirements and criteria, it is impossible to consistently and effectively evaluate proposals. The submission of an unsolicited proposal at  the final hour undermines the fair and competitive nature of this  procurement suggesting a sole source contracting arrangement.  Acceptance of such a proposal would break faith with the bidders who invested time and effort to participate in  the competitive process, put at risk the Government’s ability to properly equip the Royal Canadian Navy and would establish a harmful precedent for future competitive procurements.  To be clear, any proposals submitted outside of the established competitive process will not be considered. It should be noted that a fairness monitor has been engaged to oversee the procurement process, and agrees with this approach.

With respect to suggestions that significant savings could be realized through this alternative process, this is far from evident.  It is important to note that a warship project budget must cover more than just delivering the ships. It must also include the costs associated with design and definition work, infrastructure, spare parts, training, ammunition, contingencies and project management. Typically, the acquisition of the ships themselves only represents about 50-60% of the project’s overall budget. As well, any prices cited without the context of applicable terms and conditions as indicated in the RFP (such as scope of work, divisions of responsibilities, intellectual property rights, warranties, limitations of liability, indemnities, etc.) are effectively meaningless.

The Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will work together to evaluate the proposals in accordance with the published evaluation plan [emphasis added].
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2017/12/update_on_the_canadiansurfacecombatantrequestforproposals.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
If you want to improve the MCDV's "constabulary" duties instead, again, why drag 7000 tons around at 18 knots (above which you need the  gas turbine), when you can get a 1500 tons ship that will do 25 knots on diesel at a quarter of the fuel expenditure!

We are paying the toll to drag a 6500 ton ship around at 18 knots to do constabulary work.  Its called the Harry DeWolf Class.  :rofl:
 
I know, Underway. I was only addressing the view of doing it in a"dumbed-down" frigate version. Doing it in a HDW doesn't make it any smarter.  ;D

And , BTW, leave it to the Navy to manage to build a 6500 tons ship with a crew of 65 and still not provide the seamen with 2-persons or at max 3-persons cabins as a living standard.  :facepalm:
 
Back
Top