Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[FSTO]

Our office is discussing this article today. Here is my reply to one of our gang talking about "room for growth"

Quote “Considering we plan for ships to have a 30 year service life but then go on to drive them for half a century”

This is an unsustainable policy. You’d think that since we have spent all this money initiating the National Shipbuilding Strategy (or whatever its called now) that we’d plan for a 25-30 year lifecycle and forego the major refit at 20 years and just sell the bloody things and build new?



Anyone remember that place we poured billions into in the 80’s? Are we going to do that again?




I’ll just shut up now, and go back to grumbling.

 

[Underway]

I get the concern. However, the NSPS (NSP or whatever each new government wants to call it) is a program with no end. It's a continuous build for as long as we need ships. The first 15 CSC are going to be built over 20-25 years at which point the first ship will be retired to be replaced by ship 16. It saves the government billions to do it that way in maintenance and refit costs as no ship ever goes past midlife (or midlife is moved to year 12.5).

It's an entirely new way of doing business (and ensuring votes in Halifax). The paradigm of build and sail for 50 years at least for combat vessels is supposed to be over.

We won't know until I'm well retired if they stick to it, but that's the plan and what the RCN pitched in the business plan to the government when it was implemented. This is similar to the LAV fleet, GDLS just keeps getting LAV contracts, why wouldn't ISI be the same?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A asset cascading agreement to supply the older ship when it reaches it's planned retirement date to an ally (Chile, Philippines, etc )with a partial refit and a reduced price would be great. That means ITAR and other like issues could be dealt with ahead of time and the receiving navy can cross train in the last year of service.

 

[FSTO]

I get the concern. However, the NSPS (NSP or whatever each new government wants to call it) is a program with no end. It's a continuous build for as long as we need ships. The first 15 CSC are going to be built over 20-25 years at which point the first ship will be retired to be replaced by ship 16. It saves the government billions to do it that way in maintenance and refit costs as no ship ever goes past midlife (or midlife is moved to year 12.5).

It's an entirely new way of doing business (and ensuring votes in Halifax). The paradigm of build and sail for 50 years at least for combat vessels is supposed to be over.

We won't know until I'm well retired if they stick to it, but that's the plan and what the RCN pitched in the business plan to the government when it was implemented. This is similar to the LAV fleet, GDLS just keeps getting LAV contracts, why wouldn't ISI be the same?

I'll likely be long dead when that decision (re replacing the CSC) comes to pass.
Back when Ottawa III was being put together we knew that PRO/PRE were on their last legs and 280'S were well on the way to razor blade city. And we had a worked up yard and expertise to carry on with a continuous build and we let it fritter away.

I'm fearful and convinced we will do this again. I really really hope I'm wrong and that I'll have to eat crow. But I highly doubt it.

 

[Underway]

I'll likely be long dead when that decision (re replacing the CSC) comes to pass.
Back when Ottawa III was being put together we knew that PRO/PRE were on their last legs and 280'S were well on the way to razor blade city. And we had a worked up yard and expertise to carry on with a continuous build and we let it fritter away.

I'm fearful and convinced we will do this again. I really really hope I'm wrong and that I'll have to eat crow. But I highly doubt it.

I totally get it. Once bitten (well more like mauled) and all that. But me being positive: we did shipbuilding NSPS style before. From 1949-1989 we commissioned over 50 ships into the navy with the steamers, Cadillacs, carriers, minesweepers, hydrofoils and others. There was always a new ship being built and new technologies being pushed/tried.

The current fleet is basically a 1990 to present situation, where we built the frigates and MCDV's and stopped.

CSC is a long build. The frigates were built over the course of 9 years. Right now AOPS build has reached 6 years. The CSC is slated to go for 20 years after this. Who's going to be the government that cuts high paying high skilled trades union jobs out of the heart of Halifax after 30 years. CPC are pro-military. Liberals and NDP fight for the Halifax area seats. I think it's as safe as GDLS in London is and their constant LAV contracts.

 

[Fabius]

Given that its not just ship build but also ship design capability that we are looking to maintain would we not expect to see work on the next class of ship ( CSC replacement or next flight) start in the early/mid 2030s?
If NSPS is truly going to roll out as planned would we not actually see the ship program and design for the MCDV replacement start almost immediately after the first flight of CSC starts construction as well? We should be able to see that really get rolling in the mid to late 2020s.

 

[Underway]

Given that its not just ship build but also ship design capability that we are looking to maintain would we not expect to see work on the next class of ship ( CSC replacement or next flight) start in the early/mid 2030s?
If NSPS is truly going to roll out as planned would we not actually see the ship program and design for the MCDV replacement start almost immediately after the first flight of CSC starts construction as well? We should be able to see that really get rolling in the mid to late 2020s.

The first batch of CSC is basically three ships and the land-based test facility (stone frigate). I expect that the design will change with every batch as lessons are learned and engineering changes are submitted on the first batch.

 

[lenaitch]

Maybe at some point find a spot (and the power) for a CEW:

 

[Fabius]

What will be the next hard concrete indication that NSPS will actually result in a continuous build? I think it needs to be something other than the CSC blocks/flights.

 

[Pelorus]

Maybe at some point find a spot (and the power) for a CEW:

Energy weapons are likely the future as far as defensive weapons for a ship go IMO. If your only cost in an engagement is energy & wear and tear, you can stay out doing the business for a lot longer. While it may take a long, long, time to make them viable against a modern anti-ship missile, they should at least be viable against UCAV/drones, etc. in the nearer term.

I'm not an engineer by any stretch, but the COD(E)LOG-based plant should in my mind mean that in a combat scenario you're probably driving on the Gas Turbine, and the DGs should be beefy enough that you're capable of producing a significant amount of excess power over what you require for radars/weapons and other systems.

Once the tech becomes viable, if the ships were installed with sufficiently robust capacitor banks or some other sort of quick-discharge power storage system, you should be able to support energy weapons without radical changes to the plant I would think. I'm not saying that such a change would be easy by any means, but likely easier than in the current generation of warships out there.

 

[Underway]

What will be the next hard concrete indication that NSPS will actually result in a continuous build? I think it needs to be something other than the CSC blocks/flights.

Come talk to me in 20 years and we'll see if a new ship to replace all the CSC is being planned.

 

[suffolkowner]

I totally get it. Once bitten (well more like mauled) and all that. But me being positive: we did shipbuilding NSPS style before. From 1949-1989 we commissioned over 50 ships into the navy with the steamers, Cadillacs, carriers, minesweepers, hydrofoils and others. There was always a new ship being built and new technologies being pushed/tried.

The current fleet is basically a 1990 to present situation, where we built the frigates and MCDV's and stopped.

CSC is a long build. The frigates were built over the course of 9 years. Right now AOPS build has reached 6 years. The CSC is slated to go for 20 years after this. Who's going to be the government that cuts high paying high skilled trades union jobs out of the heart of Halifax after 30 years. CPC are pro-military. Liberals and NDP fight for the Halifax area seats. I think it's as safe as GDLS in London is and their constant LAV contracts.

I question the long term survival of the plan and its success if we are dependent on the type of agreements we have signed with Irving, Seaspan and to a lessor degree Davie. What cost control or certainty is going to come with assigning builds as we have done to the shipyards and then looking to negotiate the price? Is that sustainable? Can that survive the political/public and accountants knife? Can the plan survive with the three yards actually competing amongst each other for the work? Realistically thats 20 or 30 years down the road maybe so I wont be alive but I wonder

 

[MilEME09]

Come talk to me in 20 years and we'll see if a new ship to replace all the CSC is being planned.

We would, but you'll probably be retired, not care, and we would owe you more beer then we can afford

 

[CBH99]

Come talk to me in 20 years and we'll see if a new ship to replace all the CSC is being planned.

You’re banking a lot on life extending future medicine, aren’t you?

 

[Underway]

You’re banking a lot on life extending future medicine, aren’t you?

More likely the wife would have killed me well before then. Justifiably I'm sure. Even saints can only put up with so much before they snap!

 

[Prairie canuck]

With the UK and US turning to focus on the Pacific and restructuring accordingly I'm wondering if the CSC is ready for the Pacific. According to many sources the Pacific naval engagements will be dominated by long range missiles and in huge numbers. That being said should some of the CSC's be re-designed to abandon their air asset and hangar so that more VLS stations can be added? A dedicated missile defense frigate?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Energy weapons are likely the future as far as defensive weapons for a ship go IMO. If your only cost in an engagement is energy & wear and tear, you can stay out doing the business for a lot longer. While it may take a long, long, time to make them viable against a modern anti-ship missile, they should at least be viable against UCAV/drones, etc. in the nearer term.

I'm not an engineer by any stretch, but the COD(E)LOG-based plant should in my mind mean that in a combat scenario you're probably driving on the Gas Turbine, and the DGs should be beefy enough that you're capable of producing a significant amount of excess power over what you require for radars/weapons and other systems.

Once the tech becomes viable, if the ships were installed with sufficiently robust capacitor banks or some other sort of quick-discharge power storage system, you should be able to support energy weapons without radical changes to the plant I would think. I'm not saying that such a change would be easy by any means, but likely easier than in the current generation of warships out there.

With the safety precautions we require for a simple laser pointer, my mind boggles at how complicated we would make it.

The energy weapons are pretty interesting, but they seem to have a lot of really intricate and delicate components to work properly, so not holding my breath that we'll see practical applications of them in the near future, in power ranges that we can reasonably support. Aside from the power generation, needs a pretty beefy distribtion system, and the large gauge cables, etc add a lot of weight up high. You can carry a heck of a lot of ammo for all that, with proven, reliable systems, and some kind of drone based countermeasure is another good way to extend the envelope away from the ship.

I imagine they will roll out to fixed land based systems first, then start to figure out if they can be mobilized/marinized.

 

[Underway]

With the safety precautions we require for a simple laser pointer, my mind boggles at how complicated we would make it.

The energy weapons are pretty interesting, but they seem to have a lot of really intricate and delicate components to work properly, so not holding my breath that we'll see practical applications of them in the near future, in power ranges that we can reasonably support. Aside from the power generation, needs a pretty beefy distribtion system, and the large gauge cables, etc add a lot of weight up high. You can carry a heck of a lot of ammo for all that, with proven, reliable systems, and some kind of drone based countermeasure is another good way to extend the envelope away from the ship.

I imagine they will roll out to fixed land based systems first, then start to figure out if they can be mobilized/marinized.

I honestly think the opposite. The power generation a ship can provide on-demand is much greater assuming you have the margins (as we both know, many ships will not). But I agree generally that the only DEW we will be using is focused Electronic Warfare that we already have. UAS large enough to carry ordinance that can hurt the ship can be shot down with an equivalent cost missile. Any UAS that is smaller than that has to get close to do its job, so we can just shoot it down with shells.

At some point in time lasers will be good enough for some applications at close ranges. Right now those systems' best use is their amazing optics and tracking, not their kinetics.

The UAV problem at sea is really straightforward right now. How close is it and how big is it? Then you just treat it like any other aircraft. The real issue is proliferation, not necessarily the solution. A warship is designed from the ground up to detect and shoot down flying things. UAVs are far harder to deal with ashore as they are harder to detect and there are not as many effectors in the area to deal with them effectively right now.

 

[Navy_Pete]

@Underway That sounds like getting danger close to the start of the frequent MSE/CSE discussion on dirty power!

I think it will be great option (eventually), just mean it's a lot more than just slapping a laser on if you are looking to replace conventional systems (vice add it in alongside them). The optical tracking and threat identification is cool to see in real time, but I guess if we are talking about anti missile systems it would be another tool in the toolbox, and if it's gotten to within that close of the ship doesn't hurt to throw yet another countermeasure on it.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

@Underway That sounds like getting danger close to the start of the frequent MSE/CSE discussion on dirty power!

I think it will be great option (eventually), just mean it's a lot more than just slapping a laser on if you are looking to replace conventional systems (vice add it in alongside them). The optical tracking and threat identification is cool to see in real time, but I guess if we are talking about anti missile systems it would be another tool in the toolbox, and if it's gotten to within that close of the ship doesn't hurt to throw yet another countermeasure on it.

Dirty power. My favourite shipboard subject. And what dirty power does to expensive, modern electronics (not infrequently attached to a helicopter)….