Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 444157 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 747
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1400 on: January 08, 2019, 12:54:01 »
The question is not whether we can afford it but whether we are wise enough to invest.  The British fiasco that was Hong Kong in WW2 demonstrated that you can't go with a navy unless you have air support to protect it.  There are numerous artificial reefs courtesy of Japanese air power scattered around Hong Kong to prove that point.  An army needs some form of overhead protection or they too are toast.  To protect our shores we need both air power and coastal defence of some nature.  The  coasts are too long to suggest that ground based defences are the way to go so we need ships to  move the defences where needed.  This type of infrastructure investment doesn't come cheap but 2 per cent of our budget is really not a lot of money.  It only takes 2 I got 50 million dollars for you texts to pay for one F35.  So in short, the University of Calgary is only correct if you include the caveat that we have to stay with the current budget. 

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 59,704
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,100
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1401 on: January 08, 2019, 13:15:53 »
The question is not whether we can afford it but whether we are wise enough to invest.  The British fiasco that was Hong Kong in WW2 demonstrated that you can't go with a navy unless you have air support to protect it.  There are numerous artificial reefs courtesy of Japanese air power scattered around Hong Kong to prove that point.  An army needs some form of overhead protection or they too are toast.  To protect our shores we need both air power and coastal defence of some nature.  The  coasts are too long to suggest that ground based defences are the way to go so we need ships to  move the defences where needed.  This type of infrastructure investment doesn't come cheap but 2 per cent of our budget is really not a lot of money.  It only takes 2 I got 50 million dollars for you texts to pay for one F35.  So in short, the University of Calgary is only correct if you include the caveat that we have to stay with the current budget.

Just to clarify, it's not 2% of our budget that we're aiming for, it's 2% of our GDP. I believe our defence spending is far beyond 2% of our overall federal budget.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Online NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 184,806
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,061
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1402 on: January 08, 2019, 14:43:54 »
https://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2018/report-rapport-eng.asp

Last year's federal budget numbers.

Revenues: $313.6 B

Expenses $332.6 B

(Deficit $19.0 B)

National Defence last year got (from one source) $20.38B

That works out to being about 6.1% of the overall budget.

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1403 on: January 08, 2019, 15:07:34 »
And if you eliminated DND completely the budget balances itself!  ;D

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 255
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1404 on: January 08, 2019, 15:21:02 »
https://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2018/report-rapport-eng.asp

Last year's federal budget numbers.

Revenues: $313.6 B

Expenses $332.6 B

(Deficit $19.0 B)

National Defence last year got (from one source) $20.38B

That works out to being about 6.1% of the overall budget.

NS

And what % did funding on the National Debt compose of in the overall budget? In the 2016-17 Budget its was, in dollar terms, 24.1$ Billion - 3.9$ Billion MORE than we spent on Defence and that was 2yrs earlier.  With rising interest rates, that 24.1$ is going to be 26+ Billion very soon.

It not a question of 'can we afford this', its a question 'can we NOT afford this'.

In the 2016/17 Budget, we will pay out a total of 74$ Billion for things rolled up and called 'Fiscal Arrangements', 'Canada Social Transfer', 'Gas Tax Fund' and something called 'Other Transfer Payments'.  I have no doubt that there is easily 6-9% savings - pork - that can be found in that in that massive pile of money.  Money that could easily to allocated to Defence, at the low end of 6%, that another 4.4$ billion in funding and the high end of 9%, its another 6.7$ billion a year.  What would our Military look like if we added about 5.5$ billion a year, geared to inflation, to Defence straight off the bat?

So 'affording' these things is the easy part, its getting the Politicians and the people of Canada to wake the **** up and understand that this needs to occur.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,480
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1405 on: January 08, 2019, 15:25:13 »
https://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2018/report-rapport-eng.asp

Last year's federal budget numbers.

Revenues: $313.6 B

Expenses $332.6 B

(Deficit $19.0 B)

National Defence last year got (from one source) $20.38B

That works out to being about 6.1% of the overall budget.

NS

Is that DND money calculated at the beginning of the fiscal year or after all monies are returned at the end? 

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 747
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1406 on: January 08, 2019, 16:12:36 »
my error 2% of GDP.  Don't let it distract from point that we need to wake up and get the partisan politics out of the business of safeguarding our nation.  We cannot pretend to be an independent nation when we rely upon neighbours for defence.

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1407 on: January 14, 2019, 09:05:27 »
Why build them in Canada?  We could be saving many billions of dollars if we simply buy them overseas.  Well, here is an argument in favour of building them in the great white north.http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/forbes-heres-why-we-cant-buy-our-warships-from-foreign-companies
Additional support for the build-in-Canada side versus the buy-from-overseas side:
Quote
Barring missile launchers and the Aegis combat management system, U.S. firms have not grabbed a large slice of naval work in Europe, and no change is on the horizon, according to Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London.

“Warships are historically linked to national power, and if you stop building them you are no longer seen as a great power — you are at the bidding of others,” Roberts said.

The Spanish, the British, the French — they haven’t given up shipbuilding, even if they were better off buying off the shelf, and we are unlikely to see a reduction of yards in Europe,” he added.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/01/14/an-ocean-apart-few-naval-vendors-manage-to-pierce-us-and-european-protectionism/
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 09:10:10 by Uzlu »

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 63
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1408 on: January 27, 2019, 10:47:52 »
https://mobile.navaltoday.com/2019/01/21/spain-starting-construction-of-new-f-110-frigates-in-may/

At about 1.0 billion US$ per ship, 5 units to be delivered between 2025 and 2030-31. The multimission bay, as far as i remember from other articles, is not as big as in Type 26, but is in parallel to the hangar. So she may carry up to two medium helicopters (NH90) side by side.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,076
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1409 on: January 28, 2019, 21:25:05 »
https://mobile.navaltoday.com/2019/01/21/spain-starting-construction-of-new-f-110-frigates-in-may/

At about 1.0 billion US$ per ship, 5 units to be delivered between 2025 and 2030-31. The multimission bay, as far as i remember from other articles, is not as big as in Type 26, but is in parallel to the hangar. So she may carry up to two medium helicopters (NH90) side by side.

“F-110 frigates will be replacing the Spanish Navy’s Santa Maria-class frigates which have been in service since 1986.”

Almost brand new by Canadian standards.  And, a 16 cell VLS? Please don’t let our gov take this as a nod to “12 is the new 48”.  The CSC are probably the last class of warships built for the RCN while Canada is still a country, I hope they build something that gives a chance to go down fighting.
Living the lean life

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,646
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1410 on: January 28, 2019, 23:08:19 »
“F-110 frigates will be replacing the Spanish Navy’s Santa Maria-class frigates which have been in service since 1986.”

Almost brand new by Canadian standards.  And, a 16 cell VLS? Please don’t let our gov take this as a nod to “12 is the new 48”.  The CSC are probably the last class of warships built for the RCN while Canada is still a country, I hope they build something that gives a chance to go down fighting.

You got me really confused with that statement - bolded in yellow - Cloud Cover. Care to expand?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,480
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1411 on: January 29, 2019, 10:17:26 »
I would say that he predicts that Canada as a whole will not survive longer than another 30 years.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 395
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1412 on: January 29, 2019, 12:42:48 »
I would take that bet.  In it current form Canada is coming apart at the seams.  I say 50/50

Case of beer meet back here in 21 years  :whistle:

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 63
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1413 on: January 29, 2019, 15:00:21 »
Almost brand new by Canadian standards.  And, a 16 cell VLS? (...) I hope they build something that gives a chance to go down fighting.
Well, by 2025 the first frigate to be replaced will be 39 years old.

The 16 cell VLS  has been very much controversial. I would rather opt for 24 at least. But consider these frigs are to be mainly ASW & EW, since the F-100s already cover the AAW with 48 cells each. 16 cells allow for 8x4 = 32 ESSM missiles plus 8 SM-2 or similar for anti-aerial defence. Harpoons (8x) are to be placed in canisters, not in the VLS.
They also lack some CIWS, will be "fitted for but not with" them.


Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1414 on: February 01, 2019, 15:54:57 »
Quote
Trade tribunal rejects rival's bid to block warship contract

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal has dismissed a complaint by one of the companies that was competing for the job of designing and helping to build the navy's next generation of warships.

Alion Science and Technology Corp. and its subsidiary, Alion Canada, filed the complaint in November and asked that the signing of the contract with the preferred bidder be postponed until the matter could be heard.

The trade tribunal, in a decision rendered late Thursday, said the company did not "have standing to file a complaint" before the agency.

Last fall, the Liberal government announced plans to award the design contract to a group of companies led by Lockheed Martin Canada and opened negotiations with the intention of completing a full contract this winter.

Alion, Lockheed Martin Canada and the Spanish company Navantia were all in the running for the Canadian Surface Combatant project, which will be built at Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax.

The federal government issued a statement Friday and indicated progress towards a final contract was ongoing.

"Public Services and Procurement Canada is pleased with the CITT's ruling," said department spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold. "We have full confidence in our process, and continue to work toward awarding a contract for the design and design team for the future Canadian Surface Combatants."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trade-tribunal-warship-alion-1.5002298

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,076
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1415 on: February 05, 2019, 20:10:07 »
You got me really confused with that statement - bolded in yellow - Cloud Cover. Care to expand?

Sorry I missed this. I mean that it is unlikely this country can hold itself together for more than few more generations. Just my dismal opinion of the place.
Living the lean life

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1416 on: February 08, 2019, 06:45:57 »
Quote
Ottawa locks down design for $60-billion warship fleet

OTTAWA — The federal government will announce Friday that it has locked down a design for its $60-billion fleet of new warships following a series of high-stakes negotiations that appeared in jeopardy at one point because of a trade challenge.

Federal Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough will be in Halifax to announce that the government and Irving Shipbuilding are officially awarding U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin a contract to design the vessels.

The deal means that the Royal Canadian Navy's 15 new warships, which will be built by Irving and replace Canada's existing frigates and destroyers, will be based on the British-designed Type 26 frigate.

The announcement has been expected since Lockheed's design was selected as the best last October, over submissions from Alion Science and Technology of Virginia and Spanish firm Navantia.

Alion subsequently asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to quash the decision, saying Lockheed's design did not meet the navy's requirements and should have been disqualified.

The trade tribunal initially ordered the government not to award a contract to Lockheed until it could investigate Alion's complaint, but it later rescinded that decision and then tossed the case entirely last week.

That paved the way for the government and Irving, which is technically subcontracting Lockheed to design the ships it will build, to move ahead and award the contract.

Alion has also challenged Lockheed's selection at the Federal Court, though that case is expected to drag. Alion alleges that the Type 26 did not meet the navy's requirements for speed and crew accommodations.

While Friday's announcement means the government has now settled on a design for the warship fleet, more work will need to be done before steel starts to be cut in Halifax.

Defence Department officials will now sit down with counterparts from Irving and Lockheed to figure out what changes need to be made to the company's design as well as the navy's requirements to make sure they fit.

That process will have a direct bearing on how much the ships ultimately cost and how long they will take to build.

In a recent interview with The Canadian Press, the Defence Department's top procurement official, Patrick Finn, said the plan is to keep changes to a minimum to keep costs and schedule under control.

"This is ultimately about building warships that will be in service from the middle of next decade to 2070," Finn said, emphasizing the importance of moving ahead quickly and getting ships in the water.

"The destroyers have already been retired. … So principally from a defence of Canada, combat-capable, navy, time is of the essence."

The bid by Lockheed, which also builds the F-35 stealth fighter and other military equipment, was contentious from the moment the design competition was launched in October 2016.

The federal government had originally said it wanted a "mature design" for its new warship fleet, which was widely interpreted as meaning a vessel that has already been built and used by another navy.

But the first Type 26 frigates are only now being built by the British government and the design has not yet been tested in full operation.

There were also complaints from industry that the deck was stacked in the Type 26's favour because of Irving's connections with British shipbuilder BAE, which originally designed the Type 26 and partnered with Lockheed to offer the ship to Canada.

Irving also partnered with BAE in 2016 on an ultimately unsuccessful bid to maintain the navy's new Arctic patrol vessels and supply ships. That 35-year contract went to another company.

Irving and the federal government rejected such complaints, saying they conducted numerous consultations with industry and used corporate firewalls and safeguards to ensure the selection process was completely fair and unbiased.

And while government officials acknowledged the threat of legal action, which has become a favourite tactic for companies that lose defence contracts, they expressed confidence that they would be able to defend against such attacks.
https://www.nsnews.com/ottawa-locks-down-design-for-60-billion-warship-fleet-1.23627159

In the next article, there are errors.

“The event in Halifax, involving two federal ministers and Nova Scotia politicians, will mark the ceremonial start of a project that's expected to produce 15 warships to replace the navy's frontline frigates over the next decade and a half.”

The project is expected to produce fifteen warships to replace the navy’s three decommissioned destroyers and to replace the navy’s frigates.  Close-out for the project is late 2040s.
Quote
Ottawa makes its frigate contract official, even as rival's court challenge goes forward

Failed bidder is challenging the contract process in Federal Court

A long-awaited contract to design the navy's next generation of warships — the kick-off to a $60 billion project — will be formalized in Halifax today, even as a challenge of the contract process goes forward in Federal Court and critics question how completely the bids were evaluated.

All of the paperwork for the design contract was signed in Ottawa on Thursday between the Liberal government, Lockheed Martin Canada, BAE Systems, Inc. and Irving Shipbuilding, the prime contractor, CBC News has learned.

The event in Halifax, involving two federal ministers and Nova Scotia politicians, will mark the ceremonial start of a project that's expected to produce 15 warships to replace the navy's frontline frigates over the next decade and a half.

The decision to award the contract to the Lockheed Martin-led team is the subject of a legal challenge by one of the other companies in the competition — Alion Science and Technology Corp. — and its subsidiary Alion Canada.

A third team, led by the Spanish company Navantia, also submitted a bid but has not challenged the decision.

Winning contract was only one screened for cost: sources

Sources within government and the defence industry said Thursday the federal officials running the competition who evaluated the bids did not look at the financial portion of the Alion and Navantia bids.

The competition was broken into multiple phases, with teams of federal officials evaluating different aspects of the complex pitches — screening them to ensure they met the navy's requirements and the federal government's demand for participation by Canadian industry.

The very last aspect to be considered, once the bids passed and were deemed compliant in those early stages, was cost and pricing.

The federal government, according to sources, said the only bid to be screened for cost was the Lockheed-Martin proposal, which pitched the British Type 26 design, also known as the Global Combat Ship.

It was the only bid deemed compliant, according to sources with knowledge of the file.

That has raised questions within the defence industry and among analysts, given the fact that both the Alion and Navantia designs involve warships that are already in service with other nations.

The Type 26 is just coming into production in Britain — a fact that figures prominently in the Federal Court case launched last fall by Alion.

In court filings, Alion argues that the winning bid was "incapable of meeting three critical mandatory requirements" of the design tender, including one requirement regarding speed.

The company said its proposal, the Dutch-designed De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command (LCF) frigate, was the best solution for the Canadian navy.

Critics of the federal process have long claimed that the fix was in for the Lockheed-Martin Canada bid and that the design tender was tilted in order to ensure the company remained in the competition.

A 'hypothetical' price tag

Neither losing bidder has been told precisely what was wrong with their bids, but they are slated to be briefed now that the contract has been signed, said defence industry sources.

Defence analyst Dave Perry said the process was deliberately structured so that the navy got the ship it needed, not the cheapest one.

He also said that, at this point, the price tag is "still a hypothetical cost" because the federal government and the navy have yet to spell out in precise terms the electronics and weapons that will be included in the warships.

"There's a process of requirement reconciliation still to happen, with Irving and the Government of Canada going in and taking a hard look at what kind of design" they have got and how it can be modified to meet the navy's needs, he said.

No one from Public Services and Procurement Canada was immediately available for comment.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-lockheed-martin-federal-court-1.5010673

Eighty-eight amendments later, Lockheed Martin submits the only compliant bid.  Thank God the competition was fair.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 15:42:09 by Uzlu »

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 255
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1417 on: February 08, 2019, 07:38:35 »
This is great news IMHO. 

Happy to see that the peanut continues to be pushed up the hill.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 59,704
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,100
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1418 on: February 08, 2019, 09:24:18 »
Would anyone who is better versed in the actual process be able to tell me when we can expect to see an actual design? We have the rough design, but I mean the actual design, layout, weapon and sensor fit, etc.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1419 on: February 08, 2019, 16:17:36 »
Would anyone who is better versed in the actual process be able to tell me when we can expect to see an actual design?
I do not know when the design is going to be ready.  But the Liberals have to tell the Royal Canadian Navy to know what it is that they want.  They have to set a very firm deadline.  AFTER THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN REACHED, NO FURTHER CHANGES TO THE DESIGN WILL BE ALLOWED.
 
If, however, the Royal Canadian Navy is allowed to make constant changes to the design, we could wait another ten years and the design will still not be ready.  So tell the navy that any changes to the design after the deadline has been reached will only be made to later batches of surface combatants or done during refits.

Offline Larry Strong

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 226,621
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,685
  • 546 days from 0 to being King of the Castle
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1420 on: February 08, 2019, 19:49:08 »
The la6test.....

https://ottawasun.com/news/national/feds-award-design-contract-for-60b-warship-fleet-to-lockheed-martin/wcm/f9c97fe9-be65-458b-82d5-dd4e4052fd27

Quote
HALIFAX — The federal government awarded U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin a long-awaited contract to design its $60-billion fleet of warships despite lingering questions about the selection process and a legal challenge from a rival bidder.

Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough announced the deal in Halifax early Friday, saying the Royal Canadian Navy’s 15 new warships will be built by Irving and based on the British-designed Type 26 frigate.

The initial contract with Irving Shipbuilding is valued at $185 million including taxes and will increase as design work progresses, the government said Friday, adding a policy will apply to ensure every dollar put into the contract will result in a dollar back into the economy.

Qualtrough made the announcement at Irving’s Halifax Shipyard surrounded by hundreds of applauding workers, and touched on the persistent suggestions it wasn’t a fair and balanced fight for the contract.

“Our government is providing the Royal Canadian Navy with the ships it needs to do its important work of protecting Canadians,” she said in a statement.

“This procurement process for Canada’s future fleet of Canadian Surface Combatants was conducted in an open, fair and transparent manner that yielded the best ship design, and design team, to meet our needs for many years to come.”

Lockheed’s design had been selected as the best last October, beating out submissions from Alion Science and Technology of Virginia and Spanish firm Navantia to replace Canada’s existing frigates and destroyers.

In a statement, Lockheed Martin Canada’s vice-president praised the decision.

“This award is true validation of our Canadian capability,” Gary Fudge said. “Our team is honoured, knowing that we offered the right solution for Canada and a proven ability to perform on complex defence programs.”

Defence Department officials will now sit down with Irving and Lockheed to figure out what changes need to be made to the company’s design, along with the navy’s requirements to make sure they fit. The department’s top procurement official, Patrick Finn, has said the plan is to keep changes to a minimum to keep costs and schedule under control.

Qualtrough said Friday the design work is expected to take three to four years to complete, with construction set to begin in the early 2020s.

The selection comes after difficult negotiations that saw Alion ask the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to quash the decision, saying Lockheed’s design did not meet the navy’s requirements and should have been disqualified.

The tribunal initially ordered the government not to award a contract to Lockheed until it could investigate Alion’s complaint, but later rescinded that decision and then tossed the case entirely last week.

Alion has also challenged Lockheed’s selection at the Federal Court, though that case is expected to drag on. Alion alleges that the Type 26 did not meet the navy’s requirements for speed and crew accommodations.

The bid by Lockheed, which also builds the F-35 stealth fighter and other military equipment, was contentious from the moment the design competition was launched in October 2016.

The federal government had originally said it wanted a “mature design” for its new warship fleet, which was widely interpreted as meaning a vessel that has already been built and used by another navy.

But the first Type 26 frigates are only now being built by the British government and the design has not yet been tested in full operation.

There were also complaints from industry that the deck was stacked in the Type 26’s favour because of Irving’s connections with British shipbuilder BAE, which originally designed the Type 26 and partnered with Lockheed to offer the ship to Canada.

Irving also partnered with BAE in 2016 on an ultimately unsuccessful bid to maintain the navy’s new Arctic patrol vessels and supply ships. That 35-year contract went to another company.

Irving and the federal government rejected such complaints, saying they conducted numerous consultations with industry and used corporate firewalls and safeguards to ensure the selection process was completely fair and unbiased.

Cheers
Larry

Proud sponsor of the Maple Leaf Legacy Project. http://www.mapleleaflegacy.ca

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 395
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1421 on: February 13, 2019, 14:54:07 »

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,076
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1422 on: February 13, 2019, 20:05:38 »
That's the first imagery I have seen with the Sea Ceptor installed aft of the funnels. So it looks like there is 24 Sea Ceptor fwd, another 24 aft, a 32 cell Mk 41 VLS fwd, (and 2 quad future NSM above the mission bay.) 
Living the lean life

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 153
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1423 on: February 14, 2019, 03:47:44 »
Sadly, I don’t think we’re getting that same missile suite. All the drawings of the Canadian variant that I’ve seen, show only the 32 cell VLS. And possibly a RAM box or two.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,076
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1424 on: February 14, 2019, 10:27:47 »
That's too bad, but predictable.
Living the lean life