Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 343260 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 179,591
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,894
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1250 on: October 15, 2018, 17:06:30 »
I'm a W Eng Tech - SONAR background.

Despite my techie background, I understand the operations side well enough.  On MON a few years ago, off Norfolk, we did a test with one of the subs.  I won't say the distance, but I will state that I watched it effectively disappear when they brought down their DG and secured to silent running. 

It was...a hole in the ocean.

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,867
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1251 on: October 15, 2018, 17:25:15 »
Nice to hear you couldn't hear them, better yet knowing our ASW types are no slouches either :)

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1252 on: October 16, 2018, 04:19:08 »
Updated Israeli version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_6-class_corvette

I’ve always liked the BRAUNSCHWEIG, though I’ve heard the German’s are having second thoughts about it’s place in the fleet. It’s a bit bigger than what I had in mind. Maybe something along the lines of a USN CYCLONE class would be a good compromise.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,867
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1253 on: October 16, 2018, 10:28:41 »
Interesting, about the same size as the MCDV, fast so it' likely gives up scantlings and hull strength for speed. I suspect they aren't that comfy to live on either.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 446
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1254 on: October 16, 2018, 11:32:38 »

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 170
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1255 on: October 16, 2018, 13:38:54 »
Just "go" for "Hollands",big enough,comfy,great radar,no teeth(but you can see everything that's commin towards you),lmao(just kidding)
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 13:41:31 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1256 on: October 16, 2018, 17:25:12 »
Interesting, about the same size as the MCDV, fast so it' likely gives up scantlings and hull strength for speed. I suspect they aren't that comfy to live on either.

It is certainly a much lighter vessel than the MCDV, and because it’s not built like a minesweeper, it’s hull form is more optimised for speed. Something along this line could be built anywhere, without having to worry about the 1000 tonne prohibition included in the NSS.  It’s a complimentary vessel in that it would fill roles unsuitable or too expensive to dedicate a frigate or AOPS to. 6-7 of these, with 6 AOPS and 6 refit MCDVS would make a good mix for the lower end of the fleet.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1257 on: October 16, 2018, 19:58:51 »
the "updated Israeli version" is 1/3 paid for by Germany, which helps things (1) the Germans will ensure no cost overruns and (2) Israel gets the Audi of corvettes. Nice!!

Offline JMCanada

  • Guest
  • *
  • 580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1258 on: October 17, 2018, 09:45:44 »
I would like to point to the numbers and types of combatants foreseen in other, similar, navies.
I refer to UK, France, Italy and to some extent to Australia.

All of them are working as to have a fleet of about 12 (Aus) to 19 (UK) combatants, not just patrol boats, ready by about 2030s.

All the europeans will include in these numbers 3 types of frigates/destroyers: AAW (Type 45, Horizon both french or italian type & Hobart) , ASW (type 26, Fremm and Hunter class) which may be called as well multipurpose, and light/multipurpose frigates (type 31, FTI, PPA).

For logistics, commonality, training and manning reasons i may agree that only two types of combatants may be the best choice, like the aussies have done. But there should be at least 2 types.

Specially considering the long time provided for delivery of the 15 CSC. By the time the last 4-5 units are being laid off, some systems will no longer be state-of-the-art and some new requirements may have come up to be included in the combatants.

Therefore I would like that either...
1) CSC are provided in two types, as originally depicted but now seems to have been forgotten, or

2) CSC (of only one type) should be limited to 9-12 units and by mid-production DoD should start the requirements and design process for a 2nd type of 4 to 6 updated combatants fitted for new roles.

IMHO.  ::)
« Last Edit: October 17, 2018, 09:50:36 by JMCanada »

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1259 on: October 17, 2018, 11:39:57 »
Specially considering the long time provided for delivery of the 15 CSC. By the time the last 4-5 units are being laid off, some systems will no longer be state-of-the-art and some new requirements may have come up to be included in the combatants.
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.

Offline LoboCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 90
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1260 on: October 17, 2018, 12:53:03 »
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.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 197,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,320
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1261 on: October 17, 2018, 13:12:27 »
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.



"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,867
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1262 on: October 18, 2018, 10:24:43 »
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.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1263 on: October 18, 2018, 16:34:29 »
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.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1264 on: October 19, 2018, 00:47:50 »
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.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1265 on: October 19, 2018, 04:19:57 »
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.

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1266 on: October 19, 2018, 05:44:44 »
It looks like the winner is going to be announced today.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 158
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1267 on: October 19, 2018, 08:41:05 »
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.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,214
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1268 on: October 19, 2018, 12:32:24 »
Type 26 is the winner...

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1269 on: October 19, 2018, 12:57:50 »
Quote
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

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 64,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,164
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1270 on: October 19, 2018, 14:12:07 »
Official news release on Type 26 winning, quelle surprise:

Quote
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Privateer

    Looking for the bubble.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 18,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 350
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1271 on: October 19, 2018, 15:13:58 »
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!

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 64,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,164
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1272 on: October 19, 2018, 15:14:27 »
The Irving Gap!

Quote
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1273 on: October 19, 2018, 15:51:11 »
For now, at least it's a step in a direction rather than hiding behind a file cabinet.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,524
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1274 on: October 19, 2018, 16:35:25 »
So why cant they just start the CSC 18 months early?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"