New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Pat in Halifax]

Historically, this is not 100% true. Many of the STL (and follow on classes) were in fairly good shape mechanically as well as structurally. It was not cost effective however to rebuild from scratch and new combat system. I read an article a couple years ago by the current head honcho at Irving when he was still in the USN that went something along the lines of "We spend so much time during design determining ELE (Estimated Life Expectancy) yet it is generally the combat suite that determines the life of a combat vessel." The fact that we ran a ship until literally, it began to crack up, speaks volumes. Before you are tempted to throw the cracks on FRA and NIP, they were from hangar mounting and were not structural to the hull.

Pat

 

[jollyjacktar]

There are some pragmatists around town who use the term "self-divest"...  :nod:

Regards
G2G

Hmmmm, that leads me to envision unplanned/unwanted mass swim-ex/survival station drills...

 

[dapaterson]

CBC article on Canadian shipbuilding at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-vast-shipbuilding-plan-still-at-starting-line-1.3058147

At the core of the matter is a question. How much of a premium do Canadians want to pay to get a made-in-Canada Navy? What's it worth to keep the work at home, rather than going to the world's established shipbuilding nations?

Even traditional maritime giants often decide to send the work offshore in order to save a ton of money. The British Navy may have a history of 350 years and Rule, Britannia may be a nice song, but Britain hardly rules the waves anymore. So it's building four new naval supply ships at the Daewoo shipyard in South Korea, for roughly $1.1 billion (Canadian). That's for all four.

By contrast, Canada plans to build just two supply ships in Vancouver for $2.6 billion. That's right: our ships will be will be roughly five times more costly than the British ones. The difference is … theirs are nearly twice as big.

 

[Lumber]

CBC article on Canadian shipbuilding at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-vast-shipbuilding-plan-still-at-starting-line-1.3058147

I bet if we submitted a request to Daewoo, we'd end up paying munch more than the RN, such is our procurement process.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The solution is to order some hulls from overseas for the stuff we need now, ie the supply ships.

 

[Kirkhill]

I bet if we submitted a request to Daewoo, we'd end up paying munch more than the RN, such is our procurement process.

Assuming that Daewoo were interested in quoting - They may decide they want money up front to even be bothered. 

I wonder if industry-at-large isn't getting to the point that they will sell us what they have coming off an open production line but won't play when we start issuing (unrealistic) specifications.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Assuming that Daewoo were interested in quoting - They may decide they want money up front to even be bothered. 

I wonder if industry-at-large isn't getting to the point that they will sell us what they have coming off an open production line but won't play when we start issuing (unrealistic) specifications.

I as a tax paying Canadian have no issues with your last line.  Best equipment for the best price Canadian made or not.  We should not conintue to prop up companies becuase they employ Canadians. 

 

[MilEME09]

I as a tax paying Canadian have no issues with your last line.  Best equipment for the best price Canadian made or not.  We should not conintue to prop up companies becuase they employ Canadians.

I agree and disagree, building of equipment should always be done for the best price, anywhere in Canada or not. Long term maintenance should be done by Canadians in Canada.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I agree and disagree, building of equipment should always be done for the best price, anywhere in Canada or not. Long term maintenance should be done by Canadians in Canada.

I assume you mean from a 3rd line basis and further back ?  On that I would say as long as the cost and production are both of value.

1st and 2nd line repairs/maint of course will have to be done in Canada.

 

[Kirkhill]

2017 for a designer with a proven design ......

That would appear to rule out the Type 26 and the Damen XO but would allow -

FREMM - F100 - Sachsen - Nansen - Absolon-Huitfeldt - Zeven Provincien.

I would suggest, based on the OMT-Irving association that Absolon-Huitfeldt may have the inside track.  BUT Damen also built the Zeven Provincien and perhaps that could be parlayed into a Zeven Provincien base XO offer.  The other ships are more traditional and less flexible in their designs.

Canada Plans to Select Warship Designer By 2017
(Source: Forecast International; issued May 5, 2015)
OTTAWA --- The Canadian government plans to select a company by 2017 to design a new warship to replace the Royal Canadian Navy's Halifax class frigates and Iroquois destroyers. A proven warship design will likely be selected to reduce risk and the potential for cost growth. The design will be modified as needed to meet the Navy's requirements.

The Navy has a requirement for 15 ships under the Canadian Surface Combatant program, representing a one-for-one replacement of 12 frigates and three destroyers. The acquisition effort has a budget of CAD26.2 billion, though a November 2013 report from Canada's auditor general suggested that the initial budget figures are more placeholders than estimates of actual program costs.

The audit also chastised the government for not revising the program budget in recent years despite changes in labor and material costs, and questioned how many ships the Navy will actually be able to afford with static budgets. Total acquisition costs may therefore be higher than current estimates suggest unless the Navy reduces the number of ships it plans to buy.

As it is, the program is already running a decade behind schedule. At one point, the program called for delivery of a new ship as early as 2014/2015. Currently, the first ship is not expected to enter service until the 2020s. Government briefings have suggested it could take 10 years to design the ships, and another 20 years to build them.

Canada's Defense Acquisition Guide calls for the acquisition of two CSC variants: an area air defense and task group command and control variant, and a general-purpose variant. The air defense variant would replace the long-range missile defense and command and control capabilities provided by the Iroquois destroyers, while the general-purpose variant would serve as the successor to the Halifax class. The air defense variant will be procured first, as Canada will have lost its destroyer presence by that time.

Two Iroquois class destroyers were removed from service in 2014, leaving the Navy with only one operational destroyer. HMCS Algonquin sustained significant damage in a collision with HMCS Protecteur in 2013, and HMCS Iroquois was originally slated for retirement in 2015 anyway. Due to budget shortfalls, the Navy simply decided to retire both ships early. HMCS Athabaskan is the only remaining destroyer.

The Canadian government announced in January 2015 that Irving Shipbuilding will serve as prime contractor on the Canadian Surface Combatant program. Irving was already set to build the ships under Canada's national shipbuilding procurement strategy, but the company's selection as prime contractor puts it in charge of managing all contracts associated with the project.

Link

If the vessels are built on Stanflex principles then I think all the Parliamentary Budget Office assumptions (and Lockmart profits) go out the window.  All the vessels can be built for-not-with and dispatched with available weapons or even UOR weapons acquired out of Operational funds.

 

[MikeKiloPapa]

FREMM - F100 - Sachsen - Nansen - Absolon-Huitfeldt - Zeven Provincien.

BUT Damen also built the Zeven Provincien and perhaps that could be parlayed into a Zeven Provincien base XO offer.

The De Zeven Provinciën and Sachsen classes might be proven warships, but perhaps also a little bit too proven, considering their designs will be nearly 20 years old by 2017, and almost 30 years old when a derivative could be in RCN service. The F100 and Nansen classes are only a couple of years younger and so have the same problem. Even the FREMMs and Huitfeldts, a decade newer still, will be "old" ships by the time the first CSC is supposed to be in commission in the mid to late 20's.

The timeframe involved in the CSC project makes me think that you shouldnt rule out the T26 and other newer designs such as Thyssen-Krupps F125 class, MEKO 600 or Damens Crossover XO137.
Maybe even US designs(Gibbs & Cox) could be in the running, probably through Lockheed Martin Canada.

Have there even been any official information regarding the requirements and specifications of the CSC ? How about the size of the vessel?... The ships you mention are all in the 5-6000 tonnes class, but modern frigate designs are getting much bigger, with displacement approaching 7-8000 tonnes, and with LOA figures of ~150 m and beam of +20m.

 

[Kirkhill]

The De Zeven Provinciën and Sachsen classes might be proven warships, but perhaps also a little bit too proven, considering their designs will be nearly 20 years old by 2017, and almost 30 years old when a derivative could be in RCN service. The F100 and Nansen classes are only a couple of years younger and so have the same problem. Even the FREMMs and Huitfeldts, a decade newer still, will be "old" ships by the time the first CSC is supposed to be in commission in the mid to late 20's.

The timeframe involved in the CSC project makes me think that you shouldnt rule out the T26 and other newer designs such as Thyssen-Krupps F125 class, MEKO 600 or Damens Crossover XO137.
Maybe even US designs(Gibbs & Cox) could be in the running, probably through Lockheed Martin Canada.

Have there even been any official information regarding the requirements and specifications of the CSC ? How about the size of the vessel?... The ships you mention are all in the 5-6000 tonnes class, but modern frigate designs are getting much bigger, with displacement approaching 7-8000 tonnes, and with LOA figures of ~150 m and beam of +20m.

Good points "Mike".

That growth in the vessels also might suggest that the T45 hull form might not be a ridiculous starting point.

And the growth of the hull leads to questions about budgeting these projects.

Apparently early estimates are often done on the basis of displacement.  That supposedly works well for the civilian market where ships are more often than not just large holes in the water that can be filled with a variety of stuff.

I understand it is less reliable when working with naval vessels where the "stuff" is expensive.  In the past the tendency with warships was to make sure every spare space on board was accounted for resulting in a very "dense" fit.  That density estimate is one of the key factors in deciding vessel costs.

But, the recent tendency to "flex decks" suggests that warships are becoming less "dense" and that in turn would suggest that the cost of an 8000 tonne deep load ship with 2000 tonnes of deadweight after all naval systems have been fitted is actually going to be cheaper than the traditional cost estimate process would suggest.

That situation would seem to become even more true if the systems were separated from the hull using the Stanflex "fitted-for-not-with" philosophy.

The vessel has value as a floating island with minimal systems.  The more systems that are added the more valuable the ship becomes.  But the ship becomes more valuable in exactly the same way that adding an armoured regiment to a light infantry brigade makes the brigade more valuable.  In other words it is possible to build a specified number of hulls (at a low cost) for a given budget and then add systems, under separate budgets over time.  That not only keeps budgeted costs down initially (Irving would get something like 300,000,000 apiece for 15 CSCs and 100,000,000 for each of 8 AOPS for a total of 5.3 BCAD).  The ships would be the Absolons and Svalbards initially.  But with the other 20 BCAD in the budget the RCN could separately purchase varying numbers or modular mission masts, VLS tubs, guns, torpedoes, sonars, Landing Craft and UUVs and shift capabilities to suit missions.

The ship, at its inception, is nothing more than the Transport Platoon for all of the other elements on board that turn her into a Fighting Unit.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just to add to that line of thinking, if you look at the Flight III Arleigh Burke's, they're being tweaked to be able to generate massive amounts of electricity over previous designs in order power both their new radars, and planning ahead to the installation of directed energy weapons.

As planners, it would be negligent to not ensure that the CSC had that capability going forward especially with the acceptance that 'swarm attacks' with missiles or small UAV's may become a new and dangerous threat (the takeaway being that having 48 ESSM's when being attacked by 100 smaller missiles is math that does not work in our favour).


Matthew. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Nudder good point Matt.

Electricity.

On the Swarm Front you might be interested in this type of article: a potential stratagem for defeating GPS counter measures.  The Swarm is self referencing. It only requires two in the swarm to know their "exact" position ie one on the target and the other at home, and everybody else takes range and bearing from them - a variant of the old compass rose charts popular before Mercator.

As to communications:  line of sight laser is progressing.  Communications using Laser Range Finder and Laser Warning Receivers is not an impossibility.

Fielding of Battlefield Laser Comms - 2013

Fielding of Laser/MMW Combo as civilian cell tower alternative.

None of this directly relates to the NCSS except in the sense it demonstrates how quickly things might change and how any new design needs to be able to incorporate not only "the known knowns and the known unknowns but also the unknown unknowns"  and that is another argument for separating the platform from its capabilities.

Edit - Just realized I failed to include the link to the Swarm Navigation article:

http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/190825/files/dtn_navigation-si-web.pdf
http://www.swarmanoid.org/upload/pdf/DucDicGam08.pdf

 

[Kirkhill]

What a coinkydink.  Look at what I found in today's Defense-Aerospace press releases....  Link

Many of the same memes - max flex, fitted for not with, hulls, electricity (and water), civil-military duality.  (Oh, and relatively cheap 5.8 BEuro for 7 hulls including a Logistic Support Ship).

Fincantieri and Finmeccanica Will Renew the Italian Navy Fleet

(Source: joint Fincantieri/Finmeccanica release; issued May 7, 2015)

Artist’s impression of a Pattugliatore Polivalente d’Altura, a hybrid design combining the attributes of an Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) with those of a multipurpose frigate into the same vessel. (Fincantieri image)


TRIESTE / ROME --- Fincantieri, one of the world’s largest shipbuilding groups and reference player in the naval shipbuilding industry, and Finmeccanica, Italy’s leading manufacturer in the high technology sector, will build and equip the units set out in the renewal plan of the Italian Navy’s fleet.

In the framework of this plan, OCCAR (Organisation Conjointe de Cooperation sur l’Armement, the international organization for cooperation on arms) has signed the order of the contractual performance for the construction of six patrol vessels (PPA, or Multipurpose Offshore Patrol Ship), with four more in option, and for one logistic support unit (LSS or Logistic Support Ship) with the consortium (Raggruppamento Temporaneo di Impresa - RTI) consisting of Fincantieri, agent, and Finmeccanica, through its subsidiary Selex ES, principal.

The value of the contracts for the seven units is approx. 3.5 billion euros, of which Fincantieri’s share amounts to approx. 2.3 billion euros and the one of Finmeccanica to about 1.2 billion euros.

The contracts provide different activation phases.

Today OCCAR has started Phase 1 for the construction of the first PPA and the logistic support unit for a total value of 372 million euros, of which Fincantieri’s share amounts to 220 million euros and Finmeccanica’s to 152 million euros. The activation of the next phases concerning the other units is expected to take place in the upcoming months.

The delivery of the logistic support unit is scheduled for 2019, while the first patrol vessel is expected to be delivered in 2021. The delivery of the following patrol vessels is planned for 2022, 2023, 2024 (two units) and 2025.

In general, this multi-year program for the renewal of the Navy’s fleet (known as the "Defence Act") will employ a total funding of 5.4 billion euros and foresees the construction, in addition to the aforementioned units, of one transport and landing unit (LHD) through a public contract with the Italian Ministry of Defence currently being finalized.

In particular:
• one logistic support unit (LSS or Logistic Support Ship)
• six patrol vessels (PPA, or Multipurpose Offshore Patrol Ship) and four more in option
• one transport and landing unit (LHD or Landing Helicopter Dock)

The fundamental characteristic common to all three classes of ships is their high level of innovation providing them with a considerable degree of efficiency and flexibility in serving different mission profiles. In particular, these are dual-use vessels, meaning that they may be used for both standard military purposes and for civil protection and rescue at sea operations, and they also have a low environmental impact thanks to a state-of-the-art auxiliary propulsion system generating a low level of pollution emissions (electric engines) and biological waste control system.

The consortium (RTI) was established according to the cooperation agreement in the field of naval vessels construction signed last October between Fincantieri and Finmeccanica. Pursuant to the agreement, Fincantieri acts as a sole interface to the client, while allowing to enhance Finmeccanica’s products range in the naval field.

In addition to building the vessels at its shipyards, Fincantieri will provide support over the lifecycle of the vessels in the first ten years, through the supply of logistic services (training courses, spare parts, technical documentation) during the construction of the vessels and of ISS or In Service Support (maintenance services), carried out during post-delivery operations, as well as components and naval machinery produced by the Marine Systems and Components Unit, such as shaft lines, wheelhouse, maneuvering propellers, fin stabilizers and other handling systems, the automation system and a part of the special supplies for PPAs delivered by the subsidiary Seastema S.p.A.

Finmeccanica, through Selex ES, will act as prime contractor for all of the new naval units' combat systems. Selex ES will provide sensors, such as the new multi-functional radar, and will also take on responsibility for all subsystems, included those provided by OTO Melara, WASS, MBDA and Elettronica.

In addition, Selex ES and Fincantieri will develop together the innovative “Cockpit” system. This system will, for the first time ever, allow for the integrated management of sailing and combat system operations, using augmented reality to allow both functions to be effectively managed with fewer operators.

Fincantieri’s Chief Executive Officer, Giuseppe Bono, commented: "This program has a deep industrial value, in addition to the significant geo-political implications with the relaunch of Italy's role in the Mediterranean. Indeed, it makes it possible to raise the levels of employment and development of technological research not only for our group, but for all the subcontractors.

“I would like to mention that, as demonstrated in a study made by the Censis Institute, the shipbuilding industry is able to generate an economic impact in the subcontractor network up to almost four times the original investment, with an impact on employment equal to nine times the direct employees of Fincantieri. In addition, our Marine System and Components Unit will be revitalized too through the development of new high-tech products”.

Bono concluded: "As always, Fincantieri is committed to provide our Navy with high quality products, developed using the latest technology, on time and on budget”.

Finmeccanica’s Chief Executive Officer and General Manager, Mauro Moretti, stated: “This important programme provides the opportunity to build on Finmeccanica's technological heritage in the naval sector. Through the development of products for the Italian Navy's new ships, Finmeccanica is able to further expand its capabilities in new high-technology naval combat systems, and in particular in key strategic areas such as sensors, multifunctional radar, and multi-sensor integration. These developments ensure that the Italian Navy's ships are at the cutting-edge of new technology, and at the forefront of the international market, where Finmeccanica has an established presence and is recognised by the customer.”

Moretti concluded: "the commitment to this new programme confirms the intention of the company to further strengthen and invest in the high-technology naval sector”.

VESSEL CHARACTERISTICS

LSS – Logistic Support Ship
The LSS is a vessel that provides logistics support to the fleet, endowed with hospital and healthcare capabilities thanks to the presence of a fully equipped hospital, complete with operating rooms, radiology and analysis rooms, a dentist’s office and hospital rooms capable of hosting up to 12 seriously injured patients.

The ship is capable of combining capacity to transport and transfer to other transport vessels used for liquids (diesel fuel, jet fuel, fresh water) and solids (emergency spare parts, food and ammunitions) and to perform at sea repairs and maintenance work for other vessels. The defense systems are limited to the capacity of command and control in tactical scenarios, communications and dissuasive, non-lethal defense systems.

The vessel is also capable of embarking more complex defence systems and becoming an intelligence and electronic war platform.

• 165 meters long
• speed of 20 knots
• 200 persons including crew and specialists
• 4 replenishment station abeam and 1 astern
• Capacity to supply drinking water to land
• Capacity to provide electricity to land with 2500 kw of power
• Possibility of embarking up to 8 residential and healthcare modules
• Capacity to perform rescues at sea, through recovery and seabed operations (the ship is equipped with an 30 tons offshore stabilized crane)
• base for rescue operations through helicopters and special vessels
Delivery is scheduled in 2019.

PPA – Multipurpose Offshore Patrol Ship
The multipurpose offshore patrol ship is a highly flexible ship with capacity to serve multiple functions ranging from patrol with sea rescue capacity to Civil Protection operations, and in its most highly equipped version, first line fighting vessel. There will be indeed different configurations of combat system: a “soft” one for the patrol task integrated for self-defence ability, and a “full” one, equipped for a complete defence capability.

The vessel is also capable of operating high-speed vessels such as RIB (Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat) up to 11 meters long through lateral cranes or a hauling ramp located at the far stern.

• 129 meters long
• Speed of over 31 knots
• 171 persons of the crew
• Equipped with a combined diesel and gas turbine plant (CODAG)
• Capacity to supply drinking water to land
• Capacity to provide electricity to land with 2000 kw of power
• Possibility of embarking modular residential and healthcare zones
• 2 modular zones at the stern and at the center of the ship that allow the embarking of various types of containerized operating/logistic/healthcare modules (in particular, the stern area may receive and handle within a covered area up to 5 modules in ISO 20” containers, while the central zone may receive and handle up to 8 ISO 20” containers)

The PPAs will be built at the Integrated Shipyard of Riva Trigoso and Muggiano, with delivery expected, for the first vessel of the class, in 2021, while the following deliveries of the vessels will take place in 2022, 2023, 2024 (two units), and 2025.


Fincantieri is one of the world's largest shipbuilding groups and number one by diversification and presence in all high value-added market sectors, having built more than 7,000 vessels in over 230 years of its maritime history. Headquartered in Trieste (Italy), the Group has approximately 21,700 employees, of whom around 7,700 in Italy, and 21 shipyards in 4 continents.

Finmeccanica is Italy’s leading manufacturer in the high technology sector and ranks among the top ten global players in Aerospace, Defence and Security. In 2014, Finmeccanica generated revenues of about 14 billion Euro. With 273 locations and production facilities in 20 countries, Finmeccanica is a multinational and multicultural group which boasts a significant presence in four domestic markets: Italy, the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Poland.

(ends)



Two New Ship Programmes Integrated Into OCCAR
(Source: OCCAR; issued May 7, 2015)
The Multipurpose Combat Ship Programme PPA (Pattugliatori Polivalenti d’Altura) and the Logistic Support Ship Programme LSS (Logistic Support Ship) have been formally integrated into OCCAR on 4 May 2015 with the confirmation of the PPA and LSS Programme Decisions and the respective contracts by the Italian authorities.

Both programmes are currently managed on behalf of Italy as the Programme Participating State.

The successful integration into OCCAR of these two modern ship programmes means a major expansion of the OCCAR Programme portfolio. OCCAR now manages 11 European Armament Programmes in various capability and technology areas, including also the Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MMCM) Programme which was integrated in March 2015.

The two classes of ships have been conceived, since the beginning, with enhanced “dual use” features, fit for traditional military tasks and also able to intervene during peace time, supporting Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Assistance Operations (i.e. modular hospital, electrical power/drinkable water ashore and containers). In other words, the ships are able to provide maritime security in war and in peacetime, 365 days per year.

The Pattugliatori Polivalenti d’Altura - PPA vessels represent the best example of a “one-size-fits-all warship” designed to perform a wide spectrum of missions, thanks to their remarkable capabilities in terms of modularity and flexibility.

The ships will replace patrol ships, corvettes and frigates and will initially be delivered in a full and a light configuration.

The Programme includes Development and Production of six ships (five in light and one in full configuration; with an option for another four ships) and the In Service Support for ten years.

The delivery of the First of Class is planned in 2020 for the light configuration (FOC L) and 2023 for the full configuration (FOC F).

The OCCAR-EA PPA Programme Division is located in Rome, Italy.

The Logistic Support Ship - LSS will be capable of supporting a naval Joint Task Force, to support disaster relief operations, to provide medical support (NATO Role 2 LM) and to transport naval and aviation fuel, fresh water, ammunitions, lubricating oil, food, spare parts and 20 ft ISO containers.

The LSS Programme includes Development and Production of one ship and the In Service Support for ten years.
The delivery of the LSS is planned for 2019.

The OCCAR-EA LSS Programme Division is located in La Spezia, Italy.

 

[Underway]

It makes me a little sad to see the "proven design" comment, as that most likely means the Halifax is the last true Canadian Warship.  However in our international world it really makes no sense fiscal or otherwise to reinvent the wheel.  But the Canadian standards issue means that we are probably going to take a basic hull design and modify the crap out of it, like we always do with canadianization, hopefully in the process getting an effective ship (hope springs eternal) as we cannot afford to miss with this.  Unlike  a lot of army procurement where we can miss and still operate to a certain extent, with billion dollar warships that take years to build that is not an option.

So what are we looking at for a basic ship.  Way back when the SCSC project was started they looked at a pile of technological options and evolving technologies.  The SCSC report looked at the tasks required of in those days a TSSU (tactically self sufficient unit) and ideal fleet mix.

The ideal fleet mix hasn't changed and neither has the requirements.  We still need to do all the things we were doing and currently can do.  SCSC concluded that to do all the things we want and provide room for changing technology the ship should be 6500+ tonnes. I'm going to say 7000ish in today's understanding of what sizes are effective from the NATO experiences of our partners.  This is right in the F125, Italian FREMM, Horizon Class, range.  The stock T26 is to light for what we want to do, mostly because of the requirement for the AAW space and the Cyclone storage.  A scaled down T45 might work as well.

Some of the challenges that could change who gets chosen are an ability to operate a Cyclone (very large by NATO standard ASW helo) in high sea states with a hauldown system.  This may eliminate some versions of ships that can't properly accommodate our helo's, not just land.  Of all the Canadian ways of doing things big ASW helos are perhaps the most obvious as I think almost all other navies work with small helo's on "escorts".  No other ship design out there I can think of has this as a integral part of its design.

The upcoming new NATO standard for damage control run through Loyds of London for insurance, or at least the lessons learned from PRO, OTTAWA, etc..  Someone earlier in this thread (or another on here, can't remember where) I believe posted info on this, how ship design is now looking more at how you attack a fire, routes, fitted systems working with attack teams and ensuring there is a larger standard for insurance purposes and so on.  None of the current ship designs have this taken into account as the standard hasn't been promulgated yet.  New ships will have to be built with an eye to these requirements, and old designs may need to be reworked completely internally to deal with this.

Gateway C4ISR is a goal of the RCN.  I'm not sure if we have that capability in the FELEX but it certainly would be an excellent addition and was talked about as far back as Leadmark 2020.  That's a kit issue though not a shipbuilding issue as far as I'm understand.  Rejigging the comms antennae is important but not critical to the entire build of the ship. 

The main sensor system will have a large influence on the design for sure.  A SMART L combined with an APAR system is most likely, I certainly don't see a SAMPSON radar like the T45.  Its a proven combination, mature enough tech and in use with a number of NATO allies and not limited by ITAR issues.  What designs already have or can easily be modified for this combination? The missile loadout is also very dependant on the sensor system.  APAR, SMART-L is proven to work with SM2, ESSM combo.  The combat system is not new.  Asters work with the Sea Viper system, also mature but not with as many navies.  The choice of sensors will inform much of the rest of the design.

Most likely there will be a 127mm or equivalent on the GP version,  I don't see the AAW version having a Naval Fire support gun.  Any design needs to flexible enough to change out for a heavier gun on the GP version.  The 57mm was chosen for the frigate mainly because of its AA capabilities.  At the time of design of Halifax it was felt that this was an extremely important capability to have and added an excellent and effective layer to the AAW suite of a Canadian Task Group.  I'm not sure what the RCN opinion is in this new tech environment, I know the gun is extremely important due to its flexibility but generally the larger the gun the less effective it is in AA warfare (usually from rate of fire, though smaller guns also have less range).  But with RAM's, CIWS, Goalkeepers, etc... could you not layer on a heavier gun?  And with quad packed ESSM's you have literally quadrupled your missile capacity for short - mid range interception since the 57 was considered necessary.  With a APAR able to track and prosecute many targets has the "light" gun had its day?  Its an interesting question. Perhaps both a 57mm and a 127?  It doesn't seem very RCN to over gun though. 

Open architeture is going to be very important.  Even SCSC wrote about the possibility of directed energy weapons, and by the time the CSC steel is being cut they might be coming online for real, instead of trials and one offs.  Having the ability to switch the design between build blocks is extremely important for the overall fleet relevance.  Any chosen design needs that flexability and thats one of the reason they want a bigger ship.

As for propulsion its going to be an electric motor driven ship.  Those are fairly standard now and the tech is very mature.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am torn to a degree, Canada spends to much building the ships here, but without a certain number of new builds, the shipyards can not renew themselves and compete on the repair front. If we want domestic repair capacity, we need to give them a certain number of new hulls to ensure the equipment they use is new enough. I know the Westcoast yards have a good international rep for repairing on time and on budget, it would be nice to keep that ability here.
We need to get cutting steel now though as the shipyards are losing other contracts in order to keep the ways clears. I would like to see a stiff duty to prevent to many domestic coasting trade hulls being built overseas, but there must be realistic space and capacity before that.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Italians going for versatility, note also JSS-type vessel:

Italian Ship Production Deal Signed

Italian state shipyard Fincantieri and Italian defense group Finmeccanica have signed a long-awaited contract to start work on a flotilla of new ships for the Italian Navy.

In a €3.5 billion (US $3.9 billion) deal, the two firms signed up to build six multipurpose offshore patrol ships, known by their Italian acronym PPA, and one logistic support ship. The deal, which was handled through European armaments office OCCAR, envisages four more options for PPA vessels...

The logistic vessel is to be delivered in 2019, while the PPA vessels will be delivered in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 (two units) and 2025...

Ship characteristics, as described by Finmeccanica and Fincantieri:

PPA – Multipurpose Offshore Patrol Ship

The multipurpose offshore patrol ship is a highly flexible ship with capacity to serve multiple functions ranging from patrol with sea rescue capacity to civil protection operations, and in its most highly equipped version, first line fighting vessel. There will be different configurations of combat system: a "soft" one for the patrol task integrated for self-defense ability, and a "full" one, equipped for a complete defense ability...

The ship is 129 meters long, has a 171-person crew and can reach a speed of more than 31 knots. It is equipped with a combined diesel and gas turbine plant, can supply drinking water to land and provide 2,000 kilowatts of power...
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/05/07/italy-ships-navy-fincantieri-finmeccanica-selex-multipurpose-offshore-patrol-logistic-support/70937388/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I am torn to a degree, Canada spends to much building the ships here, but without a certain number of new builds, the shipyards can not renew themselves and compete on the repair front. If we want domestic repair capacity, we need to give them a certain number of new hulls to ensure the equipment they use is new enough. I know the Westcoast yards have a good international rep for repairing on time and on budget, it would be nice to keep that ability here.
We need to get cutting steel now though as the shipyards are losing other contracts in order to keep the ways clears. I would like to see a stiff duty to prevent to many domestic coasting trade hulls being built overseas, but there must be realistic space and capacity before that.

Sometimes a simple analogy makes things clear and a conversation at the NTO Mess Dinner the other night in Halifax made it clear to many within earshot. You can pay the garage down the road $45 every time you want your oil changed in your car OR you can spend a couple hundred dollars on a hydraulic jack, some good tools and a way to PROPERLY dispose of used oil and do oil changes yourself for the rest of your life for the cost of oil and filter alone. You may even want to branch out after 10 years and open a Mr Lube-type business after gaining all that experience and corporate knowledge and make your fortune eventually. You need to spend money to make money and I see NSPS as a long term investment. Canada SHOULD have a world class Shipbuilding industry and provided successive governments keep this or some semblance of this Program alive over the next 15, 20,25....years, we will have it. For those naysayers (like the CBC) who ask why no steel even been cut in the 4 years since the Program's inception; you obviously know absolutely nothing about long term, high end(meaning LOTS of $$$) procurement.
If I am buying a new car, I do a few months (or less) homework determining costs to operate, practicality, that kind of thing and three months down the road, I have my 2015 (insert 'off-the-shelf' car name here) in my driveway. If I want to buy a very unique car, a car tailored very specifically to my needs and wants, one that I will be able to maintain within reason, one I will have 20 years from now, one I feel will be cutting edge for quite some time, I may spend YEARS looking around but trust me, there will be a (turn key) 1963 split window black Corvette Stingray in my driveway! 


Pat

 

[GR66]

I personally think it would be preferable for Canada to build (at least most of) our own warships and maintain that industrial capability, as long as it can be reasonably competitive and high quality.  However, I don't see how we can do that with the small number of hulls we order and the many, many years between new orders. 

I think some of the other shipbuilders are on to the right idea with their flexible families of corvette to frigate-sized vessels (Damen XO, DCNS's Gowind, Blohm + Voss' MEKO, the Absalon/Iver Huitfeldt, etc.).  Possibly having our own version of such a ship family could generate enough foreign sales to keep the shipyards going between RCN orders, but does it make sense to try to compete in that market with established ship builders?

I imagine, given the size of our maritime borders and the probable expeditionary nature of many of our missions that there are a number of design features that are highly important to have in a Canadian warship that might not be as important for other nations.  I'm thinking probably range, endurance, a heavier helicopter capability, etc. are things that we may find missing in some of these foreign designs that really would be quite important for our ships.  Would there be enough of a foreign demand for a flexible design that incorporates these features that we'd want in our own warships as standard?  We wouldn't then have to compete directly with some of these smaller families, but could rather provide a larger, but still flexible, larger design to supplement those ships in another navy.  Something that would give some extra capability without being as expensive as a more dedicated design like a FREMM or Type 26?

Perhaps we could even partner with one of these other shipyards to build a "big brother" version of one of their corvette/frigate families that would share some commonality in design and equipment.  That would allow each shipyard to specialize a bit but provide potential customers with a broader range of prospective ship designs within a common family.