Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Underway]

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

Yes, everything on the west coast!

 

[MilEME09]

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

We would have the Astrix at least!

 

[MarkOttawa]

Our gov't estimates $C60 billion ($4 billion each for 15) for CSCs; meanwhile US Navy plans to procure made-in-US, roughly comparable, new FFGX frigates for around 1/4 the cost.  Yikes, the mad cost of the NSS.  A tweet by reporter for US Inside Defense:
https://twitter.com/LeeHudson_/status/950827634908385280

Lee Hudson‏ @LeeHudson_

Lee Hudson Retweeted Inside Defense

Only one vendor will build frigate. The cost estimate for follow-on ships is $950M (including GFE)...

Oh well. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Uzlu]

Our gov't estimates $C60 billion ($4 billion each for 15) for CSCs; meanwhile US Navy plans to procure made-in-US, roughly comparable, new FFGX frigates for around 1/4 the cost.

Are you saying that the price for the American frigates also includes costs resulting from development, production, spare parts, ammunition, training, government program management, and upgrades to existing facilities?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Our gov't estimates $C60 billion ($4 billion each for 15) for CSCs; meanwhile US Navy plans to procure made-in-US, roughly comparable, new FFGX frigates for around 1/4 the cost.  Yikes, the mad cost of the NSS.  A tweet by reporter for US Inside Defense:
https://twitter.com/LeeHudson_/status/950827634908385280

Oh well. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Mark
Ottawa

Mark, the Canadian estimate is NOT for $4B per ship. If you remove the other costs that are not part of the construction of the actual ships, they average more like 1.7 $billion Canadian (which is like 1.3 billion US$) accounting for inflation over the next 20 years.

The Americans only quote the construction price, and then, only the construction price of the first few frigates. By the time the last few US frigates come down the lines, I am willing to bet you, today, that they will cost somewhere around three billion US$ per ship. So the average cost per ship for the whole program will be very close and comparable in all aspects with the GP version of the Canadian ones.

In other words, their frigates, which will NOT include any of the much more expansive air warfare version, are pretty close to the actual Canadian price per unit.

 

[MarkOttawa]

I really can't say but still--from our gov't:

...
Canada’s defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged” (SSE), has committed to investing in 15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships...

SSE estimates these ships will cost $56-60 billion. Further costs for personnel, operations, and maintenance for the life cycle of the CSC ships are greatly influenced by the ship design and will therefore only be available later in the process....
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/canadian-surface-combatant.page

Cf. more on US Navy FFG(X), seem to have quite a bit of air warfare capability--don't know how might compare with most of RCN CSCs:

NAVSEA: New Navy Frigate Will Cost $950M Per Hull, More Than Double LCS Cost

The Navy’s new class of 20 guided-missile frigates could cost an estimated $950 million per hull, the Naval Sea Systems Command FFG(X) program manager said on Tuesday. That total is more than double the current cost per hull of both variants of the Littoral Combat Ship.

Speaking at the Surface Navy Association 2018 symposium, NAVSEA’s Regan Campbell said the new class of small surface combatant would set a so-called threshold requirement for a net average cost of $950 million for the 2nd through 20th hulls in the FFG(X) next-generation frigate program following a down select to a final shipbuilder in 2020. First-in-class for the new frigate is expected to cost more than the $950 million average.

That number is almost twice the about $460 million per-hull cost of the existing Lockheed Martin Freedom-class (LCS-1) and Austal USA Independence-class (LCS-2) Littoral Combat Ships currently under construction.

In comparison, a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer (DDG-51) costs about $1.8 billion to build and equip with sensors and weapon systems [emphasis added]...

While NAVSEA has not disclosed the bidders for last year’s RFP, USNI News understands up to eight or more designs are under consideration for the next phase of the program.

Those designs not only likely include existing LCS builders but also several European frigate designs. European shipbuilders, like Spain’s Navantia, have experience building smaller frigate-sized warships using the Lockheed Martin Aegis Combat System. Aegis shares a common DNA with the COMBATSS-21 combat system currently in use on LCS and planned for FFG(X).

“There are foreign ships that are competitors in the space and we anticipate those could be coming into play,” Campbell said.

In addition to previously disclosed requirements, NAVSEA has set range it would like to see for the number of the Mk-41 Vertical Launch System cells – an objective target of 32 and threshold of 16. The cells could field a single Raytheon SM-2 or SM-6 per-cell or four Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles quad-packed into a single cell [emphasis added]. In comparison, a Flight IIA Burke has 96 VLS cells.

NAVSEA also will require the FFG(X) field a minimum eight over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles with an objective requirement of 16.
https://news.usni.org/2018/01/09/navsea-new-navy-frigate-will-cost-950m-per-hull-double-lcs-cost

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

And the other point on the comparison: "now" dollars or "then" dollars.

If you want to big-up costs then you use "then" dollars.  If you want to minimalize costs then you use "now" dollars.  20 years at 2% results in a 50% increase in the cost of the last ship.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Still, one cannot but find this Defense News headline rather gob-smackingly ironic in the RCN context:

The [US] Navy's next-generation frigate comes with a big price tag
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/surface-navy-association/2018/01/10/the-navys-next-generation-frigate-comes-with-a-big-price-tag/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Czech_pivo]

Interesting article
https://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/warship/navantia-australia/pressreleases/saab-cea-technologies/

 

[MarkOttawa]

Is the USN crazy with its new frigate cost estimates?  Or are we in planning to pay C$4 billion each for (roughly) comparable RCN CSCs?  Note "Warfare Systems" in image:

Navy Says It Can Buy Frigate For Under $800M: Acquisition Reform Testbed

The Navy’s frigate program is pioneering new procurement processes to get ships faster and cheaper. For the frigate, that means the cost should come in below the current target of $800 million, the program executive officer for small ships said here. (The maximum allowable cost per ship is $950 million). For the service as a whole, it’s a first step towards what the Navy’s new acquisition chief calls “a culture of affordability” — a culture without which the hoped-for 355-ship fleet won’t happen.

The overall goal is “driving to a 355-ship Navy,” said James “Hondo” Guerts, the newly confirmed Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition. To get there, he said, “I’m not as focused on one single program as the culture of affordability.”

That said, “certainly, driving affordability in the frigate is going to be critically important,” Guerts told reporters at the annual Surface Naval Association conference yesterday. “I think competition will help us in that regard. I think our acquisition strategy of taking proven designs will help us in that regard. And so I’m optimistic about the affordability of that.”

[US]$950M? $800M? Less?

“The follow-on objective cost for FFG(X) is $800 million. We think we can get below that,” Rear Adm. John Neagley told the conference. Once conceptual design contracts are awarded — no later than March — “we’re going to use the next 16 months to work with our industry partners to really understand those details.”

The $800 million figure is the Navy’s target (“objective”) for the average cost of frigates No. 2 through 20 (the “follow-on” ships). The $950 million figure widely reported this week is the maximum average cost the Navy will accept for those same ships. Neither number includes the very first frigate, since the lead ship of a class has lots of extra costs: the initial development and design, setting up manufacturing facilities, and working out all sorts of teething troubles.

Neagley declined to offer any kind of cost estimate for that lead ship. There’ll be a first-take figure in the 2019-2023 budget plan released in February, he said, but that’s effectively a placeholder and may change as the program explores different designs and how to build them.

“We’re working with industry to understand that,” Neagley said. “That’s precisely why we laid out the strategy the way did — to engage industry early on this.”

Starting with a Request For Information last summer, the frigate program brought in potential shipbuilders to discuss the state of the art and the limits of what was possible. There was also “the greatest level of coordination, cooperation I’ve seen” within the Navy, Neagley said, between the various bureaucracies responsible for requirements (i.e. what the ship must do), resources (i.e. money), and procurement (i.e. actually buying the ship), as well as the eventual end users in the fleet. The goal of all this internal and external information-sharing was to refine the Navy’s requirements to something industry could actually build on schedule and on budget.

The service is now reviewing proposals from many strong contenders, Neagley said, all based on proven designs in US or allied service. (The Navy wouldn’t name them at this stage). That’s the field of competitors Guerts is hoping will help keep the cost down [WE GOT ONLY THREE BIDS FOR CSC].

Commonality

One way they think they can save is commonality. No matter which design wins, the frigate will carry a long list of standard Navy equipment, provided as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). The goal is to reduce both procurement costs — since the Navy’s already buying this stuff in bulk — and operations costs — since the training, maintenance, and spare parts systems are already set up.

That quest for commonality standards in stark contrast to the predecessor program, the Littoral Combat Ship, which exists in two variants, each with some unique equipment. Accommodating all this US equipment will also pose a challenge for foreign designs.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/navy-says-it-can-buy-frigate-for-under-800m-acquisition-reform-testbed/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Fincantieri to bid FREMM frigate for USN FFG(X), will build in US with American partners--C$2 billion each offer, with Naval Group, for RCN CSC rejected by gov't as not made as part of required bidding process:

Fincantieri to Adapt FREMM Frigate for US Navy

Shipbuilder Fincantieri Marine Group has announced further details on its plans to adapt its FREMM frigate, already in service for the Italian Navy since 2012, to design the U.S. Navy’s new guided-missile frigate, FFG(X).

Fincantieri said it will lead an industry team, including Gibbs & Cox and Trident Maritime Systems, to design and build the ships at its U.S. shipyards, including Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM) in Marinette, Wisc.

The FFG(X) design is based on FREMM, a multi-mission ship capable of conducting antisurface, antisubmarine and electronic warfare, as well as air defense operations. Fincantieri is building 10 FREMMs for the Italian Navy, six of which have been delivered.

Design partners Gibbs & Cox will help to modifying the FREMM hull, mechanical and electrical systems to U.S. Navy standards, while Trident Maritime Systems will serve as the Electric and Propulsion System Integrator with responsibility to design, specify and integrate these ship systems and components.

“We’ve assembled a world-class team of partners to customize to American design standards and deliver an advanced, flexible and highly reliable ship to the U.S. Navy for their current and future needs,” said Francesco Valente, president and CEO of Fincantieri Marine Group. “Our American shipyards are tailor-made for building small surface combatants and we have a strong, established and reliable U.S. supply chain.”

Fincantieri FREMM-FFG reference design vessel. Six of the 10 FREMM ships Fincantieri is constructing for the Italian Navy are in service. (Image: Fincantieri)

https://www.marinelink.com/news/fincantieri-frigate-adapt432895

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Uzlu]

Is the USN crazy with its new frigate cost estimates?  Or are we in planning to pay C$4 billion each for (roughly) comparable RCN CSCs?

The total projected cost for Independence is 704 million USD. The US Navy had originally projected the cost at 220 million USD.  Is the USN crazy with its new frigate cost estimates?  Need more convincing?  Please take a look at http://www.businessinsider.com/navy-ship-cost-overrun-2017-3.  And from the link you have provided, we have this bit of gold:

Neither number includes the very first frigate, since the lead ship of a class has lots of extra costs: the initial development and design, setting up manufacturing facilities, and working out all sorts of teething troubles.

Neagley declined to offer any kind of cost estimate for that lead ship.

And there are no cost estimates for spare parts, ammunition, training, or government program management.  And the Canadian surface combatants will be built at a slower rate further into the future.  And the American frigates will get some savings per ship, because they will be building twenty instead of fifteen.  So, is it an apples-to-apples comparison?  Is it really fair to compare less than eight-hundred million USD to four billion CAD?

 

[Kirkhill]

Is the USN crazy with its new frigate cost estimates?  Or are we in planning to pay C$4 billion each for (roughly) comparable RCN CSCs?  Note "Warfare Systems" in image:

Mark
Ottawa

Does the US estimate include or exclude the GFE?

As far as the GFE is concerned - an interesting bunch of projectors/projectiles

2x 7m RHIBs

1x MH-60R (manned Seahawk)
1x MQ-8C (unmanned Kiowa/Jet Ranger)
1x VLS
8x OTH Missiles (Harpoon Replacements)
SSMM (Longbow Hellfires - also carried by the MH-60R and the MQ-8C)
SeaRAM

1x 57mm

Heavy on powered vehicles (in which category I include missiles)
Very light on guns
No torpedoes in the list. (although the MH60R carries the Mk54)

SSMM you tube video https://youtu.be/3Zry-DDwggg

Question - If this thing works off the deck of a truck why wouldn't it work from a Sea Can or the back of a truck?  Anti-Tank missiles.....

 

[MarkOttawa]

Chris Pook: more on USN FFG(X):

...This price includes the government furnished equipment, meaning equipment that is owned by the government and provided to the contractor...
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/1/10/new-frigate-to-cost-$950-million-each

For some reason link doesn't work here but that's what it says.

More:

...
The initial requirement will be for the FFG(X) to feature 16 Mark 41 vertical launch system cells, but a target of 32 seems more likely. These cells will be stuffed with four Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles each, or they could accept a single larger missile like the latest generation of SM-2 Standard missile. But the SM-6 in particular would give these frigates a highly flexible long-range weapon capable of air defense, terminal anti-ballistic missile defense, and even surface and land-attack. Deploying the Tomahawk cruise missile and ASROC anti-submarine missile might also be an option.

With 32 cells to play with, an FFG(X) could have its arsenal tailored to its mission. For anti-air warfare dominated missions, such as convoy escort duty, the ship could deploy with 48 ESSMs and 24 SM-2s or SM-6s. On a multi-role mission, such as an independent patrol, the vessels could deploy with 24 ESSMs, 12 SM-6s or SM-6s, 6 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles, and 8 RUM-139 VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles. For strike-oriented missions, the ships could deploy with 24 ESSMs and 26 Tomahawk missiles. Even without Tomahawk or ASROC capability, the ability to provide area air defense alone would take a lot of pressure off the Navy's overworked destroyer fleet...
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17535/new-frigate-program-heats-up-as-u-s-navy-says-it-will-pay-nearly-1b-per-ship

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks Mark.

Canadian accountants may have the same genetic markers as Canadian lab rats.  They come up with different answers than their American counterparts.

See Red Dye #2 vs Red Dye 40 and Saccharine vs Cyclamates. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Chris Pook: Thanks--if only we had some semblance of serious defence media in Canada, as opposed to MSM which spin everything in terms of politics plus our "specialized" ones such as Vanguard and Frontline Defence which depend on industry advertising:
https://vanguardcanada.com/
http://defence.frontline.online/

And, one suspects, the two most relevant think tanks are also dependent on such funding--disclosure: CGAI fired me as blogger after some six years :
http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/the3dsblog/
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/

Then there's the CDA Insititute:
http://cdainstitute.ca/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Underway]

Well convert US to Canadian dollars for starters and you have (as of 5min ago) 1.25 billion CAD for the project.  Also they don't do life cycle costs in their contracts like we do.  Finally by what they have listed on the requirements their frigate will be less capable than our frigate.  Lighter, less tonnage and less capable sensors/weapons with a smaller less capable helo setup as well.  Apples and oranges at this point.  Could change (as US programs do, they usually get bigger with christmas tree capabilities as well), but that's what I see here.

 

[Baz]

... with a smaller less capable helo setup as well.

How is a 60R plus an MQ-8C less capable than a Cyclone, except for hauling trash?

 

[Underway]

How is a 60R plus an MQ-8C less capable than a Cyclone, except for hauling trash?

Perhaps you need to explain how its more capable than a Cyclone instead of just sniping.  I also doubt they will be able to fit both on a frigate given the sizes of ship they are currently looking at operating.  Time will tell.

 

[Baz]

Perhaps you need to explain how its more capable than a Cyclone instead of just sniping.  I also doubt they will be able to fit both on a frigate given the sizes of ship they are currently looking at operating.  Time will tell.

I wasn't snipping at all..

The MQ-8C provides persistent surveillance capabilities without the requirement to cycle the deck.  Assuming the Osprey radar trials are successful it provides the surface early warning component.

Although the sono capabilities of the 60R are arguably not as good (I have a bias there) and I hope that the tactical data management also isn't at the same level (given that I have a double bias towards the Cyclone including being an ACSO) the, and the afformentioned can't haul as much trash, the radar is better being unencumbered by ITAR but most notably the stand off anti surface weapon.

Moreover, the USN doesn't look at them individually, but as a pair that complements each other.  This means the sum is greater than the individual pieces.  That's why I think they will insist on carrying both as that is becomig the norm.

Again I'm biased towards the Cyclone community, which I think is really starting to spread its wings, but I think the 60R 8C pair beats it for surface work and isn't far behind for ASW.  This is also ignoring that the USN has a muture capability wheras the Cyclone has a lot of maturing left to do.