Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[MilEME09]

God he makes me angry.  What kind of idiot would design a multipurpose ship that would only deal with known imminent threats when the build program is a twenty year program and the ships will run for 35+ years?

The government of Canada has traditionally been reactionary, not precautionary in spending, and procurement, his line of thinking kinda goes along with what our country always seems to do, sadly.

 

[Kirkhill]

the build program is a twenty year program and the ships will run for 35+ years

And that is not an insignificant part of the problem.  Delivering ships in flights with shorter operational careers would save money.

Take a low inflation rate of 3%.  Apply it for 20 years.

$100,000,000 in 2020 will be $181,000,000 in 2040.  Virtually double the price for exactly the same ship - assuming you are not paying a premium to buy obsolescent parts that the market no longer supplies.

Same rate of inflation applied for 35 years.

$281,000,000 in 2055.  Triple the original price to directly replace 35 year old technology.

And if the "actual" inflation rate were the 8% I have heard bandied around when discussing military procurement then, after 35 years,

$100,000,000  becomes $1,478,000,000.  15 times the price or 15 ships will buy you 1.

 

[Navy_Pete]

That's where the $62B price tag comes from; the PBO took the rolling cost estimates and adjust it to 2040 values.

I'll see if I can find the studies on warship cost escalations (RAND?) but there are a few that show 8-10% cost escalation each year of delays.  In practical purposes you can tie that to costs and makes business cases to recover schedule delays easier, as it becomes a 'pay now or pay later' issue.

It'll be interesting to see how it rolls out; with the obsolescence for computers running at a 3 year cycle, configuration and obsolescence management will be a challenge between the first and last ship.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Note Type 26 going for RCN, RAN contracts too:

BAE joins race for new US frigate with its Type 26 vessel

BAE Systems is officially gunning for the U.S. Navy’s new frigate program with its new Type 26 frigate now in production in the U.K.

Company officials confirmed Thursday it had responded to the U.S. Navy’s request for information and were in talks with unspecified companies in the states about how it would build the ship for the FFG(X) program, according to a BAE official who spoke on background to discuss early developments.

“In terms of the technical requirements, its a good fit. ... We responded to the RFI and we’re confident its a pretty good fit,” the official said.

The Type 26, designed primarily as an anti-submarine ship, is competing hard for both the Canadian and Australian frigate programs [emphasis added, see below on current Irving link]. Anti-submarine warfare is a key requirement for FFG(X), which BAE thinks gives its frigate an edge. The design also incorporates a large mission bay that can be used as flex space for mission modules.

“The Type 26 is at the start of life, it‘s a new design and meets the new standards, and it‘s got adaptability built in,” the official said.

The ship’s mast could be reconfigured to support Raytheon’s Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar and will have enough power, space and cooling to support other requirements the Navy is looking to incorporate.

While the Type 26 incorporates or can adapt to virtually all the capabilities outlined in July’s RFI, including 36 vertical launching system cells and Mark 41 VLS launchers, the ship might be too rich for the Navy’s blood, according to Bryan Clark, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a former aid to former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert.

“I think they‘re leaning to something with a little less capability that will be a bit more economical,” Clark said.

The British Royal Navy recently inked a deal for the first three Type 26 frigates worth £3.7 billion (U.S. $4.9 billion). That cost averages to just a little less than an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, though that’s not a perfect metric because the costs would be different for a U.S. version.

Still, the Navy isn’t looking to buy a ship that compete’s for missions with the destroyer, said Rear Adm. Ron Boxall in an exclusive interview with Defense News in July.

“We don’t want the ship to be so big that it competes with the destroyer. We want this to be part of the high-low mix,” Boxall said. “So ensuring we get those capabilities at the best value is important.”

But the ship faces other headwinds as well, Clark said, because some of the competing designs already have ships they can show the Navy, whereas BAE Systems just cut steel for the first Type 26 this summer.

“The problem they‘re facing is the rest of [their competitors] have ships that actually exist,” Clark said. “You look at Fincantieri‘s FREMM, there are already hulls in the water you can point to. [Huntington Ingalls] can point to the National Security Cutter and say: ‘We could offer a modified version of this for the frigate.’

“The Navy made a big deal in the rollout of the RFI that it was looking for ‘proven designs,’ which likely means they‘re looking for ships that already exist [emphasis added--and RCN?].”
http://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2017/09/14/bae-is-in-the-race-for-the-the-us-ffgx-with-its-type-26-frigate/

Last year (Thales actually got this contract http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/royal-canadian-navy-ships-privatize-maintenance-1.4250961 ):

Irving Working with BAE Systems: Implications for RCN Canadian Surface Combatant?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/mark-collins-irving-working-with-bae-systems-implications-for-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Third time lucky one trusts:

New deadline established for competition to design navy's new warships

Defence companies and shipbuilders competing to design Canada's new fleet of warships have been given until Nov. 17 to submit their proposals.

It's the third such deadline for the design competition, which is the most recent -- and arguably most politically sensitive -- phase in the entire $60-billion plan to build 15 warships.

Participating firms were originally supposed to have submitted their designs for the new vessels in April, but that deadline was pushed back to June before disappearing entirely.

Defence companies and shipbuilders competing to design Canada's new fleet of warships have been given until Nov. 17 to submit their proposals.

It's the third such deadline for the design competition, which is the most recent -- and arguably most politically sensitive -- phase in the entire $60-billion plan to build 15 warships.

Participating firms were originally supposed to have submitted their designs for the new vessels in April, but that deadline was pushed back to June before disappearing entirely.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/new-deadline-established-for-competition-to-design-navy-s-new-warships-1.3600295

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Karel Doorman]

It seems like the Canadian version of the City-class(Type-26) was proposed and looks like it will have APAR-2 on it.  :nod:  (if my guess is correct)


https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/download/file.php?id=78

From this page:"Also, she appeared to have a 32 cell Mark 41 VLS forward and omitted the Sea Ceptor VLSs both forward of the bridge and aft of the funnel.  Aft of the funnel, she carried two quad Harpoon launchers.  Lastly, she was carrying SeaRams instead of Phalanx noisemakers in her waist positions. "

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and it looks like 2x25-35mm guns aft as well

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Not being a naval architect by trade, doesn't the helicopter deck seems a little closer to the waterline given the seas we operate in? 

 

[jollyjacktar]

You'll notice the black line going around the hull between the red and grey?  That's the DWL or designed water line for the hull.  It's got plenty of room between there and the flight deck surface.  She's cool.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Not being a naval architect by trade, doesn't the helicopter deck seems a little closer to the waterline given the seas we operate in? 

Your probably being deceived by conceiving of that ship as in the same size range as current  Halifax class frigates. She is not. She is much larger than the HALs, likely near 3000 tons more.

Use the Cyclone helicopter at the stern for scale. A Cyclone is probably around 15 feet high. That makes the height of the flight deck about 12 feet above the waterline, which is  more than ample enough.

Moreover, you will note that the overall shape of the ship is not the more frequent parallel, or "square side and width", that is more commonly used, but somethings described as "flared hull", That is the hull flares out from the water line going up to become wider and the sides also expand out from the ship's mid-length point. As a result, the flight deck is quite protected from seas and provides a much wider landing surface for the embarked helicopter.

This type of hull form also provides very good seakeeping characteristics without sacrificing speed.

On top of that, its a good looking lady.  [

P.s.: I like the 5 inch gun.

 

[Karel Doorman]

Your probably being deceived by conceiving of that ship as in the same size range as current  Halifax class frigates. She is not. She is much larger than the HALs, likely near 3000 tons more.

Use the Cyclone helicopter at the stern for scale. A Cyclone is probably around 15 feet high. That makes the height of the flight deck about 12 feet above the waterline, which is  more than ample enough.

Moreover, you will note that the overall shape of the ship is not the more frequent parallel, or "square side and width", that is more commonly used, but somethings described as "flared hull", That is the hull flares out from the water line going up to become wider and the sides also expand out from the ship's mid-length point. As a result, the flight deck is quite protected from seas and provides a much wider landing surface for the embarked helicopter.

This type of hull form also provides very good seakeeping characteristics without sacrificing speed.

On top of that, its a good looking lady.  [

P.s.: I like the 5 inch gun.

yep looks like a 127 mm to me,nice.

and to be honest(i'm dutch,so biast)but have to say i like her a lot.  ;D

but now it will come down to what the others have to offer and offcourse the price.(Type-26 is an ASW frigate first) and tbh not cheap.

Then hopefully for you lot,i mean Canada,a decision can be made shortly so you can start building asap.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just a quick thank you to JollyJacktar and OGB.

One of the reasons this site is so great.

Thank you gents. 

 

[jmt18325]

That's a good looking ship.  I hope the other contenders are as impressive.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Look what Aussies will be doing with new RAN frigates (design bidders overlap with RCN's)--will our gov't note?

Australia to fit warships with anti-missile defense systems

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said on Tuesday nine war ships set for construction in 2020 will be fitted with long-range ­anti-missile defense systems to counter the threat of rogue nations.

Australia’s proposed frigates will use Aegis combat systems, produced by Lockheed Martin, in conjunction with SAAB Australia technology, Turnbull said.

Tensions in the region have spiked considerably in recent months as North Korea conducted a series of tests of its medium- and long-range ballistic missiles, some of which flew over Japan, as well as its sixth nuclear test on Sept. 3...

“Recent events in our region have proven that Australia’s future frigates must be equipped to defend Australia from the threat of medium- and long-range missile attacks,” Turnbull said in a speech in Sydney.

Work on the frigates is set to begin in 2020, with BAE Systems, Navantia and Fincantieri all competing for the A$35 billion ($27.39 billion) contract.

Turnbull said the decision to award the missile defense system contract allows the three bidders enough time to incorporate Aegis technology into their bids.

Australia is expected to announce the winner of the frigate contract in early 2018 [emphasis added]...

The decision to use the Aegis ballistic missile defense systems brings Australia in line with U.S., Japanese and Korean vessels, allowing international cooperation [emphasis added], Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, Australia’s navy chief, told reporters in Sydney...

The frigates will be the next major component of Australia’s plan to increase defense spending by A$30 billion to be worth A$195 billion, or 2 percent of GDP [emphasis added], by 2021-2022 as Canberra seeks to protect its strategic and trade interests in the Asia-Pacific...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-defence/australia-to-fit-warships-with-anti-missile-defense-systems-idUSKCN1C72YM

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Karel Doorman]

Look what Aussies will be doing with new RAN frigates (design bidders overlap with RCN's)--will our gov't note?

Mark
Ottawa

Well Mark tbh,if for example the proposed Type-26 for Canada should win,and when ,as i think it will,it will be outfitted with APAR 2 and the Smart-MMN(SMART-L mk2)they will be BMD capable.

Our ships(DZP)are allready BMD capable,and they have the SMART-L mk 1 and can allready do that,they will get the SMART-MMN(Milti Mission Naval)shortly and this radarset will be able to "look" at least 2000 kms,so i'm sure whatever ship will be selected wich will have these radars is BMD capable.

Only thing we can't do is shoot them down ourselves since we lack the right rocket(SM-3)

I hope these will bought shortly(SM-3 and SM-6)but we'll see.

 

[AlexanderM]

Well Mark tbh,if for example the proposed Type-26 for Canada should win,and when ,as i think it will,it will be outfitted with APAR 2 and the Smart-MMN(SMART-L mk2)they will be BMD capable.

Our ships(DZP)are allready BMD capable,and they have the SMART-L mk 1 and can allready do that,they will get the SMART-MMN(Milti Mission Naval)shortly and this radarset will be able to "look" at least 2000 kms,so i'm sure whatever ship will be selected wich will have these radars is BMD capable.

Only thing we can't do is shoot them down ourselves since we lack the right rocket(SM-3)

I hope these will bought shortly(SM-3 and SM-6)but we'll see.

If this occurs I will be pleased, although I read something that made me think some of the brass in our navy don't like the idea of having a rotating dish, which I don't get, given the amazing range of the system and the fact that the APAR is solid state. I would also like to see more than the 32 vls cells but that's just me.

 

[Karel Doorman]

If this occurs I will be pleased, although I read something that made me think some of the brass in our navy don't like the idea of having a rotating dish, which I don't get, given the amazing range of the system and the fact that the APAR is solid state. I would also like to see more than the 32 vls cells but that's just me.

Well to go back to our ships,as an example,these have the possibility for 40 cells,only 32 are used right now but the provisions are there allready.

As to the not liking rotating radar part i can only say that the SMART-MMN(Multi Mission Naval)is the furthest "looking" system on the market right now(well actually i think it's not yet on the market but will be shortly,but i could be wrong),even the USA has nothing like it,so logically i would buy,if i was minister,the best possible/capable one on the market,but that's me.  :nod:

As said before the USA acknowledged the fact that Thales Netherlands is at least 6 six years ahead of them.(radar systems)

 

[AlexanderM]

Well to go back to our ships,as an example,these have the possibility for 40 cells,only 32 are used right now but the provisions are there allready.

As to the not liking rotating radar part i can only say that the SMART-MMN(Multi Mission Naval)is the furthest "looking" system on the market right now(well actually i think it's not yet on the market but will be shortly,but i could be wrong),even the USA has nothing like it,so logically i would buy,if i was minister,the best possible/capable one on the market,but that's me.  :nod:

As said before the USA acknowledged the fact that Thales Netherlands is at least 6 six years ahead of them.(radar systems)

I think if you double check you'll find you have 48 cells but only use 40. I think if we don't equip the ships, at least the destroyers, with the Smart-MMN it will be a huge mistake, but that's just me.

 

[Karel Doorman]

I think if you double check you'll find you have 48 cells but only use 40. I think if we don't equip the ships, at least the destroyers, with the Smart-MMN it will be a huge mistake, but that's just me.

Yep,Alexander you've got me,in the number of cells,i was too quick in answering,my bad. 

For the rest i totally agree.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Looking at the "Canadian" version of the type 26 again, I can't say I am excited by the way they set up the Harpoon missiles launchers.

I mean why have them facing the way they do instead of 180 degrees from it (so that the port launcher shoots to starboard and the starboard launcher shoots to port, as usual and as on the HALs)? As set up right now, you will be flooding your deck with heat and toxic exhaust fumes every time you fire. By putting them back in the usual  configuration (port shoots to starboard and vice versa) you would have the heat and most of the fumes dissipated over the water instead of on the ship.

And, KD, I suspect the sea ceptors have been removed because as a usual loading, eight of the 32 Mk41 cells will be filed with quad ESSMs for that same purpose.

That would make the normal missile load as follows: 32 ESSM, 24 combination of Standards (SM-2ER, SM-3 or SM-6), 8 Harpoons (or the nextgen surface strike missile), and 22 SeaRAM rolling airframe missiles. Remember this is likely the GP version we are seeing here.

The AAD version could have two supplementary eight cells Mk41 launchers. One back of the smokestack, which would likely require sacrificing the flex deck below, for 32 self-defence ESSM, and a total of 40 cells forward instead of 32 for the various Standard missiles, and possibly land attack missiles.