• 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

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
46
Points
330
Uzlu said:
The surface combatant will probably be a very flexible design so that future blocks will always be a modified and improved version of the previous block—similar in concept to the St. Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie, and Annapolis-class ships.  St. Laurent was laid down on 22 November 1950.  Annapolis was completed on 19 December 1964.  That is twenty ships built in a bit more than fourteen years. 

These four classes of ships had the same hull and propulsion machinery but different weapons and sensors.  The surface combatants will probably have the same or similar hulls and propulsion machinery but different weapons, sensors, computers, software, and other equipment.  In other words, what will be done is probably going to be similar to what has been done.

I agree that this is likely. Plus with the added benefit that once the last Batch is complete, the 1st Batch will be up for Refit/Modernization, thus creating more work for a particular privileged shipyard.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
565
Points
1,060
Here's a question:

When measured over the timescale of decades how much does hull form really change?

My sense is that hull form changes do not bring orders of magnitude change in capability but rather bring marginal changes.... marginal changes in speed, in stability, in power requirements, in fuel efficiency. 
Therefore one hull form can be used as the basis for a large number of ships over an extended period of time.  The built hulls may wear out but the replacement hulls will look very similar even if their internal spaces are divided differently to accommodate different machinery, equipment and operations.

This suggests to me that planning to build a similar hull at a given yard over a period of decades, doesn't preclude constant upgrades and modifications in the ships based on those hulls.

The Arleigh Burkes (Flights I, II, IIA and III - first commissioned in 1988 with 82 planned and 65 currently active - some thought given to a Flight IV that would have carried production out to the 2040s - or a 5 to 6 decade hull form continuity) would seem to be examples of this.  I would note that the flights have also been subdivided and older flights have been modernized so the basic hull form has supported multiple ship designs over its life.



 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,489
Points
940
If you optimize the hull for speed in a smaller vessel, often it comes at the cost of hull life. Corrosion and cracking are big issues for a lot of these smaller vessels, an example is the USCG Island Class, hull cracking was very common. Reduced Scantlings to save weight, also mean that corrosion weakens the vessel much quicker. There is no free lunch in hull design, so if you want a corvette style vessel that can be an escort/ASW vessel, then it's likely not going to make a good minehunter.
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
36
Points
280
Colin P said:
If you optimize the hull for speed in a smaller vessel, often it comes at the cost of hull life. Corrosion and cracking are big issues for a lot of these smaller vessels, an example is the USCG Island Class, hull cracking was very common. Reduced Scantlings to save weight, also mean that corrosion weakens the vessel much quicker. There is no free lunch in hull design, so if you want a corvette style vessel that can be an escort/ASW vessel, then it's likely not going to make a good minehunter.

I’d like to see a few corvettes, MCDVS and OPVs. If you had 6 of each, it would cover all the bases. In addition to the heavy hitters, of course.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Can you please elaborate on the MCDV. What configuration and requirement for such a ship, if a new build. I was thinking something small, similar dimensions to the Kingston class but with full range of equipment an d proper acoustics for the hull. By no means a low end ship for a highly complicated mission.
And of course, an full EW/ SIGINT  suite, a feature I think every fleet ship should be fitted with in a navy of  such small numbers.
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
36
Points
280
whiskey601 said:
Can you please elaborate on the MCDV. What configuration and requirement for such a ship, if a new build. I was thinking something small, similar dimensions to the Kingston class but with full range of equipment an d proper acoustics for the hull. By no means a low end ship for a highly complicated mission.
And of course, an full EW/ SIGINT  suite, a feature I think every fleet ship should be fitted with in a navy of  such small numbers.

For myself, if the RCN were to build a 6 unit flight of “corvettes”, and that were to happen any time soon, I’d look into keeping the 6 best of our current MCDVS. If they could be refit and given the equipment to be dedicated MCM vessels, maybe you get another 20 years of service out of them. I doubt any of that will happen, though. There’s probably a better chance of Irving getting to build another couple AOPS and then the RCN retiring a few MCDVS in the next 7-10 years, IMHO.
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
128
Points
530
Uzlu said:
It looks like the winner is going to be announced today.

I'm sure we'll screw it up somehow and a lawsuit or two will be launched and a delay of 2-4yrs will occur during which time Irving will get another 2 AOPS.  After this delay and additional cost of the 2 more AOPS's, the CSC programme will be reduced to only 10-12 ships to be built over the 30yr timeframe, at which time the few remaining Halifax's will be 50+yrs old and will suffer complete degradation forcing the mothballing of the remaining ones.  This will ultimately leave the RCN with only 7-8 CSC's built with another 2-3 in the works during the years of 2035-36. And yes, the Victoria's will be still operational during this time period but all are restricted to shallow water diving.

Am I being a black cloud? Yes. But when I look to the last 30yrs for examples I know that I'm not off the mark.  EH101, C-27J, Victoria Class, F-35/CF-18, Joint Support Ships (total support for Vice-Admiral Norman), tanks, truck, rifles, uniforms (loved that forest green in Afghanistan during the early years), etc, etc.

I know that I'm going to ruffle alot of feathers by writing all of this - I want to be clear, I am not knocking a single member or the collective group of the Canadian Armed Forces - I'm pissed off at the Politicians, the Bureaucrats and above all - the Canadian public - who allow this to fester for decades and decades and do not a damn thing about it.  I stand with the simple soldier/airman/sailor who just tries his/her best on a daily basis and has to put up with all this crap. Total respect for them.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
88
Points
280
It could be 2023 before construction actually gets underway at the go-to yard for warships — Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-designer-canada-defence-1.4869268
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
64
Points
560
Official news release on Type 26 winning, quelle surprise:

Government of Canada delivers on its commitment to the Navy by announcing next steps in fleet procurement
...
The Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. have identified Lockheed Martin Canada Inc. as the preferred bidder to provide the design and design team for the Royal Canadian Navy’s future Canadian Surface Combatants.

While this represents a significant milestone in the competitive process, more work is required before a contract is awarded.

Lockheed Martin Canada Inc. must now go through the “due diligence process,” which includes:

    negotiations with the company on intellectual property rights
    an assessment of combat systems performance
    an assessment of the company’s financial capability to deliver the project, together with the verification of various other administrative matters

Should the preferred bidder not successfully demonstrate to Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. that it meets all of the due diligence requirements, then the next highest ranked compliant bidder will become the preferred bidder. The new preferred bidder will then have to successfully demonstrate that it meets all of the due diligence requirements.

The identification of the preferred bidder follows a rigorous bid evaluation process. This process has been, and will continue to be, overseen by an independent Fairness Monitor. To date, the Fairness Monitor has submitted a series of interim reports on the Canadian Surface Combatant procurement process, and each of these reports have not identified any fairness deficiencies.

More recently, the Fairness Monitor provided the following statement to Public Services and Procurement Canada:

“As the Fairness Monitor for the Canadian Surface Combatant project, we have monitored the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to the Request for Proposals and have identified no fairness deficiencies. It is our opinion that the evaluation of proposals was conducted in a fair manner. Decisions were made objectively and free from personal favouritism or improper influence, and the process encompassed the elements of openness, competitiveness, transparency and compliance with the Request for Proposals.”

A contract award is expected this winter, with construction beginning in the early 2020s [emphasis added, on verra].

The Canadian Surface Combatant project is the largest, most complex procurement ever undertaken by the Government of Canada. These ships will form the backbone of our Royal Canadian Navy and will be Canada’s major surface component of maritime combat power for decades to come.

The Government of Canada remains committed to being open and transparent at each stage of the procurement process.
Contacts

Media Relations
Public Services and Procurement Canada
819-420-5501
media@pwgsc-tpsgc.gc.ca

Media Relations
Department of National Defence
613-996-2353
mlo-blm@forces.gc.ca

Sean Lewis
Director, Communications
Irving Shipbuilding Inc.
902-484-4595
lewis.sean@irvingshipbuilding.com
...
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2018/10/government-of-canada-delivers-on-its-commitment-to-the-navy-by-announcing-next-steps-in-fleet-procurement.html

Mark
Ottawa
 

Privateer

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I was interested to see that Australia has also gone with the Type 26 for its next class of frigates.  Interesting that there could be a near-common CAN/AUS/UK frigate class.  All the better for inter-ally posting experiences!
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
64
Points
560
The Irving Gap!

Lockheed Martin selected as preferred designer [actually bidder I'd say] for Canada's next generation of warships
...
"The former naval officer in me is very excited," said Pat Finn, a retired rear admiral who heads up the Department of National Defence's material branch. "I've been around this for a long time."..

Some design changes are expected after the federal government selects an official winner and a contract is in place.

How many changes will be required is a critical question; Finn would only say he doesn't anticipate cutting steel on the new warships for up to four years.

That fuzzy timeline means the program is already months behind schedule. The design competition was launched almost two years ago, when the Liberal government said selecting a foreign, off-the-shelf design would be cheaper and faster than building a warship from scratch.

Finn acknowledged there will be a production gap at the Irving yard in Halifax of about 18 months between construction of the navy's Arctic offshore patrol ships and the frigate replacements.

He added, however, that the federal government is looking at a variety of options to keep the yard humming, including refit work on the existing frigates and possibly building an additional patrol ship, or ships.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-designer-canada-defence-1.4869268

Mark
Ottawa
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
88
Points
280
MilEME09 said:
So why cant they just start the CSC 18 months early?
Probably because the design will not be ready.  Strictly speaking, it is not the Type 26, but a modification of the Type 26.  But we are not talking about a few very trivial modifications.  I think, because the modifications are likely to be many and major, the Canadian version of the Type 26, if built, is much more like a clean-sheet-of-paper design than a modified off-the-shelf design. 
 

RDBZ

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
It will be interesting to see how well BAE supports the design and construction of three very different variants of the GCS base design concurrently.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
How hard can it be to delete a missile vls and insert a hair salon and some non-pronoun heads?
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
whiskey601 said:
How hard can it be to delete a missile vls and insert a hair salon and some non-pronoun heads?

As hard as they can make it ($) to milk the government or if as much as they can.
 
Top