Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[serger989]

Or perhaps I'm entirely wrong again and what really happened was that after working with Irving and the Canadian procurement process once before on the AOPS the Danes decided that they wouldn't do that again to their people no matter how much money was involved.  :nod:

What did the Danes offer for the AOPS, was it their Knud-Rasmussen?

 

[Underway]

What did the Danes offer for the AOPS, was it their Knud-Rasmussen?

Odense Maritime Technology (OMT) were hired by Irving for marine engineering and naval architecture.

 

[serger989]

Odense Maritime Technology (OMT) were hired by Irving for marine engineering and naval architecture.

Oh I didn't know that, thank you.

 

[MarkOttawa]

If this is how it is in Oz,

Australia’s Domestic Navy Programs Burden Defense Budget
Political demand for local production inflates Canberra’s defense spending
...
[Weep at the numbers below]

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/canadian-surface-combatant.page

Just imagine the effect the CSC $55-60 billion cost estimate for 15 ships will have on CAF's budget--esp. as the ships will be under construction in mid-2020s at the same time as we are supposed to be buying 88 new fighters (after the competition just announced on TV):
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/canadian-surface-combatant.page

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Uzlu]

Just imagine the effect the CSC $55-60 billion cost estimate for 15 ships will have on CAF's budget--esp. as the ships will be under construction in mid-2020s at the same time as we are supposed to be buying 88 new fighters (after the competition just announced on TV):
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/canadian-surface-combatant.page

Less than fifteen surface combatants could be built overseas for less money.  But the Americans will put pressure on Canada to spend a minimum of two percent of her gross domestic product on the military.  So any “savings” will still have to be spent on the military.  A new fleet of air-independent-propulsion submarines, anyone?  Or do I even dare to use the n word?  Please note that I am referring to nuclear as in a SLOWPOKE-type reactor and not pressurized-water reactor.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If this is how it is in Oz,

Just imagine the effect the CSC $55-60 billion cost estimate for 15 ships will have on CAF's budget--esp. as the ships will be under construction in mid-2020s at the same time as we are supposed to be buying 88 new fighters (after the competition just announced on TV):
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/canadian-surface-combatant.page

Mark
Ottawa

All right. Time to work on those communications skills, me thinks.

Just like your alleged explanation of your original post bashing Quebec on the Coast Guard helicopters made no sense in relations to the actual original post, this one apposing an Australian graph to a mere "just imagine the effect of the CSC cost estimate for 15 ships" makes even less sense. What are you trying to say? What is your point?

How does an Australian graph related to their expenditures in Australian $ between  2018 and 2026 relates to our spending on CSC of about 55-60 B$ Canadian between 2023 and 2047?

If you are trying to intimate that their spending in country (don't know how you get there, the AAD are being built primarily oversea, the submarines, which haven't even started,  will be built in Australia but under the supervision of France and the replacement frigates may or may not be built in Australia - no decision on that yet.) is bringing them over 2% GDP  and is somehow bad and will have the same effect in Canada (which is untrue, as the 60 B$ has already been considered in the Liberal's most recent Defence Policy paper and has been proven not to get us near 2% GDP anywhere in it's whole time frame), I don't see any relevance to anything in that point.


Please elaborate. Otherwise, I am not getting it.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Simply highlighting budget pressures caused in both countries by insistence on local work, plus fact that Canada has a lot less money planned overall to squander that way on ships than Australia.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

All right. So Canadian dollar is almost at par with Australian $ right now (.97CAN to 1AUS $)

Hobart program, of three AAD destroyers: $9B AUS

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-22/air-warfare-destroyer-hobart-launch-techport-adelaide/6487870

Submarine program, of 12 replacement classic propulsion subs: $46B AUS.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/australias-government-under-attack-over-submarine-deal/

Frigate replacement program, for 8 frigates: $35B AUS.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-08/defence-warns-of-costly-delays-on-future-frigates-project/8883940

That is way more than Canada is planning to spend in the same time interval. Moreover, Canada's economy is about 15% bigger in GDP than Australia. And all in all, if you look at their spending $44B AUS of 11 surface warship, to our plan of $60B CAN for 15 warships, it's just about the same.

Again here, I don't see the point. Moreover, there has been no indication whatsoever that: (1) there is, as a result, any "budget pressure" in the Canadian defence budget or (2) that any money spent on the CSC is somehow "squandered".

Please, if you have point, explain it.

 

[MarkOttawa]

oldgateboatdriver:

any money spent on the CSC is somehow "squandered"

No. It's not a question of "any money" (the ships are badly needed, esp for ASW and ALCM defence [maybe vs [ICBMs too, need latest SM-3 and SM-6?] with the regrowth of the Russian navy subs with cruise missile threat in North Atlantic: 'USN “Admiral Warns: Russian Subs Waging Cold War-Style ‘Battle of the Atlantic’”–and RCN?'' https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/mark-collins-usn-admiral-warns-russian-subs-waging-cold-war-style-battle-of-the-atlantic-and-rcn/ ); rather are CSCs worth four billion each built by Irving, will the money for 15 really be there, and how will their cost affect other major procurements in the mid-2020s, e.g. new fighters?

Aussies face similar naval procurement, er, challenges, but simply are willing it seems to spend a lot more money to handle them.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Czech_pivo]

"Aussies face similar naval procurement, er, challenges, but simply are willing it seems to spend a lot more money to handle them."

They live in a much rougher neighbourhood than we do and the memories of WWII (threat of invasion by Japan when the majority of their military assets were in North Africa) are deeply entrenched in their minds.  In addition, they don't have to deal with the mindset of a significant number or slight majority, of the people of Quebec, who are distinctly pacifist and anti-military - I know I'm going to get alot of flak from this previous comment - but this goes back to the very foundations of an independent Canada.  The belief that the Canadian military is still a little brother of the British military still runs deep in Francophone Canada and until this is belief is changed or broken there will never be a significant increase in size/capability of the CAF during peace times.

Just look at the recent trends - our Navy will be smaller after this rebuild than what it was before the last rebuild in the early 1990s.  Our Air Force will be smaller after this recent announcement to replace the CF18's - we originally purchased 138 CF18s, now we are looking at buying only 88 - that's a difference of 50 planes, a 43% reduction in the number of fighters - has our threats/needs to defend ourselves in the air been reduced by 43%? 

Our population between 1985 and today has increased by over a 1/3 and our standard of living has kept pace and gone beyond this, so paying for these items shouldn't be an issue - its how its now being presented to us.  The accounting procedures have changed between 1985 and today. Now the 'total cost' for the entire lifetime of the product is being presented upfront - and stick shock is occurring. The cost presented to us back in 1982 (in the midst of the worst recession in Canada since the Great Depression) was $4 billion CAD for 138 planes - I'm willing to bet that price didn't include the cost to maintain, upgrade facilities, training, etc, etc, etc, etc, that the Government now tacks on to all procurement's, this totally confuses the general public.

Ask yourself this question - when you go and buy a house and you've got a budget of say 300k (yes, the person is not living in Toronto, Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary or Montreal) and you find and buy that house for 300k - you are NOT looking at all the costs of home ownership over the next 30yrs - no one is saying to you, ok, you've got to add in 4k a year for property taxes for the next 30ys, assuming an annual inflation rate of 3%, replacing the furnace a min of twice over those 30yrs at an assumed cost of 5k the first time and 8k the second, replacing the roof twice at an assumed cost of 6k the first time and 8.5k the second, etc, etc, etc - until you are then presented at the time of purchase of a total cost of 498K - thus leaving the potential homeowner to say - What?!?, we can't afford that!  We've got to find a cheaper alternative... that is what is happening to us now....

Ok, bring on the comments! :nod:

 

[Infanteer]

The belief that the Canadian military is still a little brother of the British military still runs deep in Francophone Canada and until this is belief is changed or broken there will never be a significant increase in size/capability of the CAF during peace times.

Just look at the recent trends - our Navy will be smaller after this rebuild than what it was before the last rebuild in the early 1990s.  Our Air Force will be smaller after this recent announcement to replace the CF18's - we originally purchased 138 CF18s, now we are looking at buying only 88 - that's a difference of 50 planes, a 43% reduction in the number of fighters - has our threats/needs to defend ourselves in the air been reduced by 43%?

Is there actually causality between these two?  Is "downsizing" a uniquely Canadian trend?  The US Navy is trending towards a historic lows for ship numbers as well.

 

[Underway]

Ok, bring on the comments! :nod:

Wrong thread for this stuff.  There are plenty of threads about Canadian politics and attitude to the military other places, including great pieces on Canada vs Oz comparisons.

On topic, recently read an Alion article in Frontline Magazine.  You can read the whole thing here.

Of note Atlas Electronik will be providing the combat management system and Hendsoldt will be providing the radar.  So looks like TRS-4D is an option.  Though the 3D model shows a radar that has different shaped panels then the TRS-4D.  Could it be that Hendsoldt will be installing someone else's radar?  It seems obvious that the APAR is not theirs so sourcing that is important.  Or could they be modifying their proven TRS-4D technology to increase the panel size for more power?  Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a "proven" radar system?

 

[Czech_pivo]

"Is there actually causality between these two?  Is "downsizing" a uniquely Canadian trend?  The US Navy is trending towards a historic lows for ship numbers as well."

That very well could be the case with the US Navy (and possibly the RN as well) but this 'fewer in number' case with the US Navy is more than offset with their increase in their Carrier fleet and 'force projection' that goes along with it.  Have our naval 'force projection' abilities increased or decreased over the last 10yrs?  Will they be increased, stagnant or decreased 15yrs in the future based on our current project timelines?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Wrong thread for this stuff.  There are plenty of threads about Canadian politics and attitude to the military other places, including great pieces on Canada vs Oz comparisons.

On topic, recently read an Alion article in Frontline Magazine.  You can read the whole thing here.

Of note Atlas Electronik will be providing the combat management system and Hendsoldt will be providing the radar.  So looks like TRS-4D is an option.  Though the 3D model shows a radar that has different shaped panels then the TRS-4D.  Could it be that Hendsoldt will be installing someone else's radar?  It seems obvious that the APAR is not theirs so sourcing that is important.  Or could they be modifying their proven TRS-4D technology to increase the panel size for more power?  Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a "proven" radar system?

Ok, I'll move it over there - sorry - mea culpa

 

[Infanteer]

That very well could be the case with the US Navy (and possibly the RN as well) but this 'fewer in number' case with the US Navy is more than offset with their increase in their Carrier fleet and 'force projection' that goes along with it.

That's not what the US Navy is saying.  Their carrier numbers are also at all time lows since 1942.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/22/fixing_the_navys_carrier_gap_110847.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-us-carriers-were-at-sea-for-the-past-week-that-hasnt-happened-since-world-war-ii/article/2611007

At risk of derailing this outstanding thread, all I'm doing is suggesting you rethink your premise that "Canadian force structure is shrinking because of uniquely Canadian political phenomenon" when it's clearly happening to other countries as well.

 

[Loachman]

we originally purchased 138 CF18s, now we are looking at buying only 88 - that's a difference of 50 planes, a 43% reduction in the number of fighters - has our threats/needs to defend ourselves in the air been reduced by 43%?

Fifty-four of those aircraft, in three Squadrons, were based in Germany then, as was a fourth Brigade.

 

[Karel Doorman]

Ah yes the "Cure process" is what I was thinking of.  Thanks for that Chris.

Going over the Alion bid here are a few things I noted.  Points line up the attached photo.

1.  APAR radar with the addition of what looks like a fixed array volume search radar.  Based on who's in the bid group anticipate its probably the TRS-4D Fixed Panel from Hensoldt.  They are found on the F125 Baden-Württemberg-class currently.  The mast appears to be larger to accommodate this change.

2.  Replacement of the goalkeepers with Rolling Airframe Missiles.  That's going to save space for sure and probably some power.  It will increase probability of kill on a missile and increase engagement range of missile defence.  But it does reduce the ability of the ship to defend itself against surface attack from small boats.  Despite this change, lets be honest. It does lose some cool factor without the 30mm Avenger gatling guns.

3.  Speaking of surface engagement, looks like 20-25mm guns. One forward stbd and other aft port.

4.  Harpoon missiles fit in behind the forward superstructure.  They are behind a partial bulkhead to reduce radar signature and they fire over it.  Can’t see in this image so just labeled them for completeness.

5.  Platform for 20-25mm gun.  Not in the older design.  This is gun position is new to the CSC.

6.  40 cell VLS with strike length VLS integrated.  Space for another 8 pack.

7.  127mm Oto Melara  dual purpose gun.  Most likely it’s the 127/64 version.

8.  What is this thing? Assuming it’s EW of some sort.  Whether electronic support or attack I have no idea.

9.  Note, no rotating SMART-L radar.  It's been removed and replaced by the flat panel arrays in the larger mast.

This is a well thought out and proven ship.  There is isn't much new on here just a single radar modification and a few weapons swaps.  This actually might lead to a better radar signature as you no longer have a large rotating array.
Largest issue with the ship is the amount of modification that it’s going to require for the underwater warfare suite.  The DZP doesn’t appear to have a towed array of any sort that I can find a reference for.  That’s where the real engineering changes for her are going to be and most likely her weakest point in the bid.

To answer your question about the nr 8,it's thisOriginal LCF design)

Half of the ECM emitter array. On the starboard side of the hangar is the other set of emitters.(a bit late i know,sorry for that)

 

[Uzlu]

Maybe no bid based on the Baden-Württemberg-class frigate was good.  Unproven designs are risky.

The German Navy Decided To Return Their Bloated New Frigate To The Ship Store This Christmas
       
It's the first time the German Navy has rejected a ship after it was formally delivered.

Just weeks ago we told the story of Germany's puzzling Baden-Wurttemberg class Type 125 (F125) frigate program. Not only did we discuss the ship's odd mission and design features, but we also highlighted some of the troubling post-delivery issues with the lead ship in the class. These problems include a persistent list to starboard and the fact that the ship is dramatically overweight, which would limit its performance, increase its cost of operation, and most importantly, negatively impact the Deutsche Marine's ability to add future upgrades to the somewhat sparsely outfitted vessel.

Now the German Navy has officially declined to commission the vessel and will be returning it to Blohm+Voss shipyard in Hamberg. The decision to do so was based on a number of "software and hardware defects" according to German media reports. The noted software deficiencies are of particular importance because these destroyer-sized vessels will supposedly be operated by a crew of just 120-130 sailors—just half that of the much smaller Bremen class frigates they replace—continuously for months at a time. On top of that, the design's reliability is paramount as the four ships in the class are supposed to deploy far from German shores for up to two years at a time.

According to Navaltoday.com, this is the first time the German Navy has returned a ship to a shipbuilder after delivery. Baden-Wurttenberg had already missed its planned commissioning date last summer.

Complicating things further is the fact that the fourth and final F125 frigate, the Rheinland-Pfalz, was already christened last Spring.  Because of the concurrent construction and testing procurement strategy, these vessels are likely to suffer from at least some of the same issues as the lead ship in the class.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17185/the-german-navy-has-decided-to-return-their-new-frigate-to-the-ship-store-this-christmas

 

[Underway]

Maybe no bid based on the Baden-Württemberg-class frigate was good.  Unproven designs are risky.http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17185/the-german-navy-has-decided-to-return-their-new-frigate-to-the-ship-store-this-christmas

Can you imagine what would happen if the RCN returned a ship back to Irving because of problems? I would love to see that.

 

[dapaterson]

Can you imagine what would happen if the RCN returned a ship back to Irving because of problems? I would love to see that.

Would the RCN have anything at sea if they tried that?