Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Stoker]

Underway,

Question.  You state that the Navy wants a minimum of 190 personnel to man the ships??

I'm assuming that is for damage control & redundancy purposes?  I'd have thought the fewer personnel the better, to an extent (keeping damage control capabilities in mind) -- so to assist the Navy in manning it's platforms?

I think its 190 bunks with a actual crew complement of quite a bit lower. Same thing is happening with the Kingston Class and AOPS I believe,

 

[Underway]

I think its 190 bunks with a actual crew complement of quite a bit lower. Same thing is happening with the Kingston Class and AOPS I believe,

Not quite AOPS levels but yah.

190 pers comes from the RCN's evaluation of taskings, jobs and deployment types and has been stated a few times at various presentations/town halls when discussing the future fleet.  The RCN requires at a minimum 190 crew on a future frigate to do the full gamut of warfare tasks in a combat environment.  This includes a full Air Det.  This is the absolute floor.  More is better but less degrades fighting the internal and external battles simultaneously.

So of course that means CSC can, should and will operate with less core crew much (most?) of the time as missions/taskings vary along a spectrum all the way up to warfighting.

 

[Uzlu]

A trade challenge in addition to that Federal Court challenge.  The following article contains an error.  The De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates are already in service in only one country.

Failed bidder files trade challenge against Ottawa's frigate design pick

The federal government's decision to select a group of companies led by Lockheed Martin Canada to design and support the construction of the navy's new frigates is now facing a trade challenge, on top of a Federal Court challenge filed last week.

Alion Science and Technology Corp. and its subsidiary, Alion Canada, have asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to look into the procurement deal. They're telling the tribunal that Lockheed Martin's design will need substantial changes to meet the federal government's requirements, which would mean higher costs and more delays.

The company last week separately asked the Federal Court for a judicial review and an order quashing the decision, which saw Public Services and Procurement Canada select Lockheed Martin Canada as the preferred bidder on the $60 billion program.

Alion pitched the De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command (LCF) frigate, a Dutch-designed warship that is already in service in other countries.

More delays?

Depending upon how they play out, said defence procurement expert Dave Perry, both challenges have the potential to further delay the frigate program. Federal procurement officials had hoped to nail down a fully fledged design contract with Lockheed Martin by the winter.

Perry, who works with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he expects those negotiations to continue — unless the Federal Court orders them to halt.

"Unless there is a compelling reason to stop, they are going to keep going," he said. "There is a recognition of the urgency across the board."

That urgency is partly due to the program's legacy of delays, which have stretched the design competition out for almost two years.

Public Services and Procurement Canada would not comment on the matter because it is before the courts, but a senior official, speaking on background Thursday, said the federal government has up to 20 days to respond to the court challenge.

The official — who was not authorized to speak on the record because of the sensitivity of the file — said there is flexibility built into the timeline and the government is optimistic it can meet its goal of an early 2019 contract signing.

Perry said there are aspects of both the court challenge and the application to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal that he finds puzzling.

Alion claimed in its court filing that the winning bid was "incapable of meeting three critical mandatory requirements" of the design tender.

Speed bump

The company said, for instance, that the Type 26 cannot meet the mandatory speed requirements set out by the navy and that both Public Services and Procurement Canada and Irving Shipbuilding, the yard overseeing the construction, should have rejected the bid outright.

Perry said the criteria cited by Alion were among the first the federal government evaluated.

"The rest of Lockheed Martin's bid wouldn't have been looked at if the Crown and Irving was not satisfied that the bid met each of those [initial] criteria," he said. "It's a weird dynamic."

Alion's trade tribunal application argues in considerable detail that in order for the Type 26 to meet Ottawa's speed requirement, it will have to undergo considerable redesign.

The court application also cites the fact that the design tender was amended 88 times and those changes "effectively diluted the [warship] requirements" and allowed the government and Irving to select "an unproven design platform."

Unlike its two competitors, the Type 26 has yet to enter service with the Royal Navy. Competitors have privately knocked it as "paper ship."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-lockheed-alion-federal-court-1.4916881

 

[Good2Golf]

Not sure ‘paper ship’ is accurate anymore.  Construction of First Type 26 / City-class Frigate Progressing Well

Question:  If the Federal court and CITT challenges are not upheld, can the Government of Canada counter-sue Alion for any delay to the program that the challenges caused?

Regards
G2G

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not quite AOPS levels but yah.

190 pers comes from the RCN's evaluation of taskings, jobs and deployment types and has been stated a few times at various presentations/town halls when discussing the future fleet.  The RCN requires at a minimum 190 crew on a future frigate to do the full gamut of warfare tasks in a combat environment.  This includes a full Air Det.  This is the absolute floor.  More is better but less degrades fighting the internal and external battles simultaneously.

So of course that means CSC can, should and will operate with less core crew much (most?) of the time as missions/taskings vary along a spectrum all the way up to warfighting.

I know that the British and Australian ships will be somewhat different but just out of curiosity, how does the above number of 190 crew compare to their (Brits/Ozzies) initial estimates for crew needs? 
I

 

[Czech_pivo]

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.

Well I hope that I'm wrong on the rest of my rant as the first item is now coming true....

 

[NavyShooter]

Prescient, however, I think you're wrong on the rest.

I think the CSC is going to die on the vine completely - especially if we end up with another Liberal Government next year.

My (terribly pessimistic) prediction is:
-CSC will cease progress - project will be cancelled.
-AOPS will become the defacto Frigate Replacement.  Production of AOPS will go from 6 to 15.  The last 9 will be modified to include a slightly improved operations suite - maybe move to a 40mm gun vs 25mm, add CIWS on hangar top, and shift the 2D RADAR from the Halifax Class to the AOPS to give it some 'coverage'

Our role will shift from supportive power projection to constabulary and humanitarian aid.  The ability of the AOPS to carry TEUs will be key to that role.

I can see the navy grasping at the straw it is offered, rather than losing it all.

Why do we need a Navy anyhow...?

It would have the advantage of fixing our man-power issues (65 crew per AOPS? vs 190+ on the CSC)  this would 'solve' all kinds of problems.  Single class of ship - maintenance is done by a form of ISSC - FMF's can be reduced in size, ammunition footprint is much smaller - CFAD Bedford and Rocky Point can be reduced - no complex missile systems, simpler training for the maintainers.  Many 'advantages' to doing this...which is why I can see it happening.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Prescient, however, I think you're wrong on the rest.

I think the CSC is going to die on the vine completely - especially if we end up with another Liberal Government next year.

My (terribly pessimistic) prediction is:
-CSC will cease progress - project will be cancelled.
-AOPS will become the defacto Frigate Replacement.  Production of AOPS will go from 6 to 15.  The last 9 will be modified to include a slightly improved operations suite - maybe move to a 40mm gun vs 25mm, add CIWS on hangar top, and shift the 2D RADAR from the Halifax Class to the AOPS to give it some 'coverage'

Our role will shift from supportive power projection to constabulary and humanitarian aid.  The ability of the AOPS to carry TEUs will be key to that role.

I can see the navy grasping at the straw it is offered, rather than losing it all.

Why do we need a Navy anyhow...?

It would have the advantage of fixing our man-power issues (65 crew per AOPS? vs 190+ on the CSC)  this would 'solve' all kinds of problems.  Single class of ship - maintenance is done by a form of ISSC - FMF's can be reduced in size, ammunition footprint is much smaller - CFAD Bedford and Rocky Point can be reduced - no complex missile systems, simpler training for the maintainers.  Many 'advantages' to doing this...which is why I can see it happening.

Christ in heaven - I can't think of a worse situation than what you've described above.  If those SOB's actual try something like that I would like to hope that the entire Naval Command just resigns their commissions in disgust and leaves the Liberals struggling to explain it all.  I also would hope that the Americans and the Europeans would kick us out of NATO in utter disgust as well.

 

[Journeyman]

I think the CSC is going to die on the vine completely - especially if we end up with another Liberal Government next year.

Our role will shift from supportive power projection to constabulary and humanitarian aid. 

Prescient, indeed.

There was a Canadian Naval Review  article last year by Kevin McCoy and Tom Tulloch, titled "Why Canada Needs a Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Ship."  Yes, the authors are Irving President and 'Special Advisor,' who clearly have the Liberal Party ear.

Maybe we could paint them white, with a Red Cross  Red Crescent  "Canada's back!" on the sides.  op:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Christ in heaven - I can't think of a worse situation that you've described above.  If those SOB's actual try something like that I would like to hope that the entire Naval Command just resigns their commissions in disgust and leaves the Liberals struggling to explain it all.  I also would hope that the Americans and the Europeans would kick us out of NATO in utter disgust as well.

I'm sure there is a certain class of the RCN Officer Corps who would think this is a great idea.  I've already noted this mentality in certain individuals.  The ones that think we are a police force rather than warfighters.

The same ones that say we don't need submarines, the Kingston Class is a superb vessel, etc.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I'm sure there is a certain class of the RCN Officer Corps who would think this is a great idea.  I've already noted this mentality in certain individuals.  The ones that think we are a police force rather than warfighters.

The same ones that say we don't need submarines, the Kingston Class is a superb vessel, etc.

Must be related to those individuals that loved the Ross rifle....

 

[NavyShooter]

Christ in heaven - I can't think of a worse situation that you've described above.  If those SOB's actual try something like that I would like to hope that the entire Naval Command just resigns their commissions in disgust and leaves the Liberals struggling to explain it all.  I also would hope that the Americans and the Europeans would kick us out of NATO in utter disgust as well.

The thing is, it wouldn't be an immediate loss of capability - suppose the solution is to build the first 6 AOPS as currently approved, using that build cycle time to add the improved OPS/weapons suite (CIWS, 40mm, 2D RADAR) with the improved structural support to the hull and mast to support them.  (Incidentally, this would give our friends at ISI a bunch more money to do the re-design and let them give a 'sympathy' contract to LM for the systems integration of the 2D into the OPS room on the IAOPS.)

Then, as the next stream of 'Improved' AOPS start to come online, the RCN is told to retire the Frigates - one at a time.  So, the trickle-down of actual warships would take years...and the government of the day (whichever one it is) can simply point back at this 'reasoned decision' and say "it let us save in excess of $50 Billion dollars by doing this, so it only made sense, particularly in light of the projected $18-20B/yr deficit for the next few years.

Cancelling the CSC, extending a slightly more capable AOPS would save the government $50B, let them 'balance their books' just in time for an election, and the average Canadian will be delighted...so they'll get voted back in and will make it all come to pass.

There's the cynical side of me coming through...

 

[Czech_pivo]

The thing is, it wouldn't be an immediate loss of capability - suppose the solution is to build the first 6 AOPS as currently approved, using that build cycle time to add the improved OPS/weapons suite (CIWS, 40mm, 2D RADAR) with the improved structural support to the hull and mast to support them. 

Then, as the next stream of 'Improved' AOPS start to come online, the RCN is told to retire the Frigates - one at a time.  So, the trickle-down of actual warships would take years...and the government of the day (whichever one it is) can simply point back at this 'reasoned decision' and say "it let us save in excess of $50 Billion dollars by doing this, so it only made sense, particularly in light of the projected $18-20B/yr deficit for the next few years.

Cancelling the CSC, extending a slightly more capable AOPS would save the government $50B, let them 'balance their books' just in time for an election, and the average Canadian will be delighted...so they'll get voted back in and will make it all come to pass.

There's the cynical side of me coming through...

In that situation we become an Argentina, a Brazil, a New Zealand, a Portugal - not ever again to be taken seriously on the world stage. We get to sit at the kiddie table and use plastic (bio-degradable of course) knives and forks with a sippy cup.

 

[NavyShooter]

True....but....am I very far off in my reasoning?

Look at the CF-18 replacement...and try to convince me that you don't think the government would do this to the CSC project...particularly since it would see the continuation of production at ISI for years...and if LM did the systems integration for the 2D/40mm/CIWS, it'd be a great 'backfill' for losing the CSC contract...and even if the first few 'improved' AOPS (or IAOPS) came out without the full suite because LM was still 'working on it' they could be fitted for but not with, and the Government would be happy...and the public wouldn't know the difference...

 

[Czech_pivo]

True....but....am I very far off in my reasoning?

Look at the CF-18 replacement...and try to convince me that you don't think the government would do this to the CSC project...particularly since it would see the continuation of production at ISI for years...and if LM did the systems integration for the 2D/40mm/CIWS, it'd be a great 'backfill' for losing the CSC contract...and even if the first few 'improved' AOPS (or IAOPS) came out without the full suite because LM was still 'working on it' they could be fitted for but not with, and the Government would be happy...and the public wouldn't know the difference...

Yes, you're hypothesis is entirely feasible, though I'm sickened to think about it.

In your scenario I'd loved then to see US naval assets going back and forth through the Northwest passage in 10-12yrs during the summer months, (maybe with a AOPS in the lead?) along with lots of pictures of US SSN's punching through the ice in January there as well.  Because that is basically what will happen and there will be nothing at all we could do about it.  Today with at least some legitimate naval assets in our fleet it wouldn't happen but once we are the equivalent of the Irish Navy or the Icelandic Navy it sure will - especially if a newer version of Trump is in power in the US. 

 

[PuckChaser]

You guys are forgetting that by "saving" $50B, that's $50B less pork-barreling that can go to Liberal-friendly Irving Shipbuilding. I could see the Tories perhaps doing that, but the Liberals would be biting the hand that feeds them.

 

[Kirkhill]

https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/final-report-on-2017-18-spending-shows-19-billion-federal-deficit-last-year

Just a point of reference - 50 billion isn't even a big chunk of change these days.  The government is going that far into the hole every 2 and a half years.  Small change for a 40 year project.

That is against a revenue stream of 323 BCAD and expenditures of 341 BCAD 

https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Tax_Alert_2018_No_07/$FILE/TaxAlert2018No07.pdf

So, the same issue as with the fighters - a big number (50 BCAD lumped together) or a small number (1.25 BCAD annualized).  It all depends what headlines you want.  And now that the government is buying headlines I am sure that we will get what we need.

https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/national-news/morneaus-update-bolsters-struggling-media-with-600-million-in-tax-measures-1131238

 

[Czech_pivo]

https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/final-report-on-2017-18-spending-shows-19-billion-federal-deficit-last-year

Just a point of reference - 50 billion isn't even a big chunk of change these days.  The government is going that far into the hole every 2 and a half years.  Small change for a 40 year project.

That is against a revenue stream of 323 BCAD and expenditures of 341 BCAD 

https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Tax_Alert_2018_No_07/$FILE/TaxAlert2018No07.pdf

So, the same issue as with the fighters - a big number (50 BCAD lumped together) or a small number (1.25 BCAD annualized).  It all depends what headlines you want.  And now that the government is buying headlines I am sure that we will get what we need.

https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/national-news/morneaus-update-bolsters-struggling-media-with-600-million-in-tax-measures-1131238

What the Libs should have done is allowed all taxpayers to deduct their annual CDN newspaper subscription costs from their taxable income.  Would promote more people to subscribe to these media outlets and still keep 'some' resemblance of an independent media in this country - now all of the media is in the back pocket to the federal Liberals - so much for freedom of the press.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Christ in heaven - I can't think of a worse situation than what you've described above.  If those SOB's actual try something like that I would like to hope that the entire Naval Command just resigns their commissions in disgust and leaves the Liberals struggling to explain it all.  I also would hope that the Americans and the Europeans would kick us out of NATO in utter disgust as well.

I think you will be sadly mistaken.  The days of Landymore are long gone.

 

[Good2Golf]

https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/final-report-on-2017-18-spending-shows-19-billion-federal-deficit-last-year

Just a point of reference - 50 billion isn't even a big chunk of change these days.  The government is going that far into the hole every 2 and a half years.  Small change for a 40 year project.

That is against a revenue stream of 323 BCAD and expenditures of 341 BCAD 

https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Tax_Alert_2018_No_07/$FILE/TaxAlert2018No07.pdf

So, the same issue as with the fighters - a big number (50 BCAD lumped together) or a small number (1.25 BCAD annualized).  It all depends what headlines you want.  And now that the government is buying headlines I am sure that we will get what we need.

https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/national-news/morneaus-update-bolsters-struggling-media-with-600-million-in-tax-measures-1131238

Indeed.

Over that same 40-year period, Canada will pay out $3.64T (yes, that’s 3-thousand and 640 billion dollars) to Canadians for OAS, CPP, EI and CCB, or about 80 X more money than investing in a reasonably capable small Navy.

Totally up to the Government to decide if it stays the course, or if they will reneg on SSE / Defence commitment/funding and vilify the Frigates and shape public opinion to kill the investment.  Then they may have to consider having ISI make a 20-ship fleet of high-speed ferries between Cape Breton and PEI...(only half joking).

Regards

G2G