• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

The devil is always in the details. 

The Daring Class appears to be the poster child for 'new' designs that once constructed were found to have major design flaws which were not identified pre-build

That clean sheet risk (especially from BAE) makes me wary of the Type 26 baseline.

On the other hand it appears that all the other competitors are using proven hull-propulsion designs as a base which SHOULD improve the probability of solid reliability.

Ignoring the weapons-sensor fit, does anyone have any thoughts or experience with the other competitors hull-propulsion options?

Thank you in advance....
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
Ignoring the weapons-sensor fit, does anyone have any thoughts or experience with the other competitors hull-propulsion options?

Well, the Halifax-class frigate uses combined diesel or gas (CODOG).  I am assuming the Royal Canadian Navy likes the rapid acceleration that is possible with gas turbines.  Of the eight designs that might have had a chance of being used in a bid, only the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate does not use gas turbines.
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
The devil is always in the details. 

The Daring Class appears to be the poster child for 'new' designs that once constructed were found to have major design flaws which were not identified pre-build

That clean sheet risk (especially from BAE) makes me wary of the Type 26 baseline.

On the other hand it appears that all the other competitors are using proven hull-propulsion designs as a base which SHOULD improve the probability of solid reliability.

Ignoring the weapons-sensor fit, does anyone have any thoughts or experience with the other competitors hull-propulsion options?

Thank you in advance....

If Naval Group/Ficianteri are using the FREMM-ER as their bid it's basically a new design.  The change to allowing advanced designs to bid was just as much a benefit for them IMHO as it was for BAE.  Kinda like saying iPhone 10 is the same as iPhone 2.

Reference your second questions the only system I can speak to is the Type 26 is using essentially the same propulsion as the Type 23 has.  Which is to say an extremely reliable design that has been proven, and popular with the RN brass.

 
Karel Doorman said:
....

And Chris btw,yeah that's APAR2 on the crossover design.(well it looks like that)more the "form"/outer structure on what we have on the "Hollands"

BTW i wish we had some of these ships,but the design is untill now never used,a pity.(there are several variants)In "other"news it looks like we're getting a new/extra tanker(AOR)not known what it will look like.(i'm sure Damen knows.)

Can't help but wonder if the Damen Crossover - built on Sigma model which has been purchased by Morocco, Indonesia and Mexico - is any more developmental than the T26.

Damen at least has experience building all of the individual modules for inclusion in ships ranging from FPBs to FFGs and LPDs.

 
Chris Pook said:
Can't help but wonder if the Damen Crossover - built on Sigma model which has been purchased by Morocco, Indonesia and Mexico - is any more developmental than the T26.

Damen at least has experience building all of the individual modules for inclusion in ships ranging from FPBs to FFGs and LPDs.

Same thoughts for the FREMM-ER. 

In other news, big briefing Monday to public regarding the CSC program.  Supposed to involve senior officials from Procurement, DND, as well as staff from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Irving.  Bids are due on the 30th.  I expect a reveal of the bidders, the plan moving forward and some random terrible questions from the press regarding crap they don't understand.
 
That would definitely classify as a bad question as the entire point of the announcement is regarding the CSC project not the rental of an AOR project.  CSC is far more money and far more important.
 
AlexanderM said:
I like the De Zeven Provinciën but what about the range? Is it 4000nm?

"CODOG propulsion system and engines

The ship’s combined diesel or gas (CODOG) propulsion system has two independent propulsion lines. The two Rolls-Royce Spey SM1C gas turbine engines each provide 18.5MW. Two cruise diesel engines, Stork-Wartsila 16 V26, provide 8.4MW.

The two gearboxes are installed in a separate transmission room. The ship has two controllable-pitch propellers and two rudders with rudder roll stabilisation.

The maximum ship speed is 30kt and the cruise speed is 18kt. The range is 5,000 miles at 18kt."

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dezeven/

Hope this answers your question.
 
Underway said:
Same thoughts for the FREMM-ER. 

In other news, big briefing Monday to public regarding the CSC program.  Supposed to involve senior officials from Procurement, DND, as well as staff from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Irving.  Bids are due on the 30th.  I expect a reveal of the bidders, the plan moving forward and some random terrible questions from the press regarding crap they don't understand.

OK so I got zero out of three.  There is there is no reveal, there is no plan, and I have no idea about questions.  At least I'm consistant.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1524257-feds-hope-to-fill-irvings-scheduling-gap-between-patrol-ships-warships
 
There is at least one nation that has a requirement for a larger offshore patrol vessel with an ice capability. New Zealand requires such a ship for its Southern Ocean patrols where ice is encountered in some fishing and scientific exploration areas near Antarctica. The Royal New Zealand Navy have contracted with Canadian companies for the refit of its two Anzac frigates with a new combat management system based on that installed in the Halifax Class modernization. So, there is a naval connection with Canadian industry and there could could be an opportunity for one more AOPS to be built beyond the 5 or 6 for the RCN.
 
Colin P said:
Did you expect anything less?

It's hard to expect less than zero....  ;D

suffolkowner said:
What possible incentive would Irving have to produce 6 ships for $3.5B instead of 5?

Believe it or not Irving is heavily incentivized to make 6 ships.  They make more money in the AOPS contract (3.5 billion like you said) if they make 6 within that budget then if they make 5 within that budget.  I actually expect them to try and make the six ships if possible even with this "gap" as it's in the company's best interest.

As for other countries buying the AOPS I expect it not to happen unless there is a significant price cut.  I suppose one could argue that the development costs have been sunk so a sale of the ship would be cheaper to another buyer.  But I would expect a much cheaper bid to come in from a shipbuilder that is not in Canada for anyone else out there who needs a half icebreaker half patrol ship.  Which is also probably no one.
 
Underway said:
It's hard to expect less than zero....  ;D

Believe it or not Irving is heavily incentivized to make 6 ships.  They make more money in the AOPS contract (3.5 billion like you said) if they make 6 within that budget then if they make 5 within that budget.  I actually expect them to try and make the six ships if possible even with this "gap" as it's in the company's best interest.

As for other countries buying the AOPS I expect it not to happen unless there is a significant price cut.  I suppose one could argue that the development costs have been sunk so a sale of the ship would be cheaper to another buyer.  But I would expect a much cheaper bid to come in from a shipbuilder that is not in Canada for anyone else out there who needs a half icebreaker half patrol ship.  Which is also probably no one.

Underway

I take it you mean they have actual incentives in the contract to pay out more money if they can produce 6 for $3.5B instead of 5 for $3.5B? Of course they wouldn't be doing it for $3.5B then. 

If they need a gap filler to the CSC the government should just contract for the 6th or 7th AOPS. As Mark says jobs,jobs,jobs
 
I really don't see a single nation buying any of Irvings ships let alone their AOPS. If it costs around half a billion to make 1 AOPS for Canada, I do not think it could be successfully pitched overseas. They say they are developing the skills necessary to be great builders, sure, but they can barely develop their bookkeeping skills and still don't know if they can deliver on the 6th vessel until next year? Good grief. As someone who has been learning about our procurement history only this year, this gives me a headache... Can anyone shed positive light on this situation that keeps getting delayed :(
 
Lockheed Martin, BAE submit warship bid

Days before the bid submission deadline for the Canadian Surface Combatant request for proposals, Lockheed Martin Canada has announced it has teamed up with the UK-based BAE Systems to submit a proposal for Canada’s new fleet of warships.

The combined request for proposals is for an off-the-shelf ship design and combat systems integrator, and experts say the Lockheed Canada and BAE duo will be a powerhouse contender.

For the ship design, BAE Systems is offering its Type 26 Global Combat Ship — long rumoured to be a favourite of Royal Canadian Navy officials and arguably the newest and most advanced vessel of its kind in the world — and the only possible contender that has yet to actually be built. The Royal Navy is building six of their own Type 26 vessels.

For the combat systems, which is best described as the brain and nervous systems of the ship’s intelligence and combat operations, Lockheed Canada is offering its Canadian-designed CMS 330. This is a newer version of the combat management system Lockheed designed for the Royal Canadian Navy’s original Halifax-class ships and is present on Canada’s modernized frigates.

Both firms were identified among bidders prequalified to participate in the process, alongside other international industry giants like ThyssenKrupp, Navantia and DCNS.

Also part of the consortium participating in the Lockheed/BAE bid are CAE, L3 Technologies, MDA and Dartmouth-based marine tech firm Ultra Electronics.

Speaking with The Chronicle Herald on Monday, Gary Fudge, VP of Canadian naval systems programs with Lockheed, said an independent study completed by Lockheed Canada revealed the Type 26 as the best design in the running, and prompted their interest in teaming with BAE for preliminary work several years before Canada announced that it would be combining the ship design and combat systems integrator into a single bid.

He said BAE’s modern design and modern toolsets — for example their use of advanced digital blueprints that will make it easier to modify and modernize the design in the future — made the Type 26 the key contender for them.

“Given that Irving has just built the most modern shipyard, we wanted the designer to have toolsets and data that can migrate easily into Irving’s toolsets,” said Fudge.

Irving is the prime contractor for the combat portion of the government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy and will build a fleet of 15 Canadian Surface Combatants (CSCs) at its Halifax shipyard, with a budget of $56billion to $60 billion, starting in the 2020s. It will also have a say, alongside the federal government, in selecting the winning bidder.

Rosemary Chapdelaine, vice president and general manager with Lockheed Martin Canada Rotary and Mission Systems, on Monday touted job creation in Canada, including Nova Scotia, as a key component to their bid.

For example, Lockheed Canada’s combat systems and integration technology is built at a facility in Ottawa and tested at the the company’s Maritime Advanced Testing and Training Site in Dartmouth.

Chapdelaine said Lockheed Canada’s approach to the bid is to be seen as the Canadian team, even if it takes points from other parts of their bid.

“We want to provide the Canadian content, do the direct work in Canada using Canadian industry,” she said.

David Perry, a senior analyst with Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said Lockheed Canada’s long history with the Royal Canadian Navy via the Halifax-class frigates and the advantages of the Type 26 over other potential designs puts the consortium in a good spot in the competition.

“An advantage of the Type 26 would be that where the requirements for it overlap with CSC, the technology would be very new, without modifying the design at all. The other ships in the competition would be older technology, so they'd need to modify it to introduce more current technology,” he said.

But that doesn’t make it a shoo-in — in an RFP with thousands of different parts, Perry said the winning design will have to tick a lot of boxes.

Speed and accommodations for example, while adequate in the Type 26, Perry said are not necessarily the cream of the crop compared to other options out there.

Retired navy commander and defence analyst Ken Hansen agreed that Lockheed Canada’s extensive experience working with the Canadian Navy, as well as their edge on Canadian content, gives them an advantage over some parts of the competition.

But, he said, while extremely advanced technology, the Type 26 might not be the ship Canada needs due to its high price and extreme complexity.

“The (Type 26) is inordinately complex and it had a lot of teething pains — the ship has been described in the U.K. press as overpriced and a technical nightmare,” he said. “I have not gotten that warm feeling where the reassurances from the British design authorities say ‘Oh it’s solved and we’re back on track.’”

It is not known how many groups will submit bids for the CSC competition. At least one other has gone public — Alion Canada announced its bid with Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command frigate as its design last week.

The federal government says it expects to be able to select a winning bidder at the earliest in the spring of 2018, dependent on the number and quality of bids it receives.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1524306-lockheed-martin-bae-submit-warship-bid
 
I take issue with two parts of that article.  The first is the UK will be building eight Type 26.  Not six.  Secondly Cdr (Ret). Hansen stated that the Type 26 has teething pains.  It has none as it hasn't even been born yet!  So while it may still have teething pains that remains to be seen.

Otherwise it was good.

My god though,  Lockheed, BAE, CAE, Ultra, L-3 and Macdonald Dettwiler?  That's like the Canadian Olympic hockey team of bids.  Might not win the gold but are going to make the others earn their wins.

Interesting design though, Lockheed will be offering CMS 330 as their command control system.  That's the same system currently fitted on the CPF and will be fitted on the AOPS.  I expect that means ESSM and SM2 vice CAAMS etc... as the missile load, which of course informs the radar system they are going to chose.  But I don't see a "radar" expert on that list of companies so their probably going to outsource a radar type.

CBC article on the same announcement.

British design first to be submitted in Canadian navy's warship contest
By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Nov 28, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 28, 2017 5:00 AM ET

Companies vying to design and help build the navy's new frigates began submitting their bids on Monday, as federal officials acknowledged there could be a production gap at the shipyard doing the construction.

British warship manufacturer BAE Systems — which is partnered with Lockheed Martin Canada, CAE, L-3 Technologies, Macdonald Dettwiler and Associates Ltd., and Ultra Electronics — pitched their Type 26 warship design.

They were first out of the gate on Monday, three days ahead of the revised deadline established by Public Services and Procurement Canada.

At least one other company among the 12 pre-qualified bidders is thought to have submitted its proposal for the program, which is estimated to be worth $60 billion over the next few decades.

"We're really excited," said Rosemary Chapdelaine, president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Canada, in an interview with CBC News.

Her company's pitch is the culmination of five years work and preparation.

More hurdles ahead

Senior public works and defence officials said the bids will pass through a series of hurdles over the next few months, but it will now be "later in 2018" before the federal cabinet has the chance to approve a winner.

The fuzzy timeline means the program is months behind schedule.

The design competition was launched over a year ago with the Liberal government saying the plan to select a foreign, off-the-shelf design would be cheaper and faster than building a warship from scratch.

The delay raises the spectre that there will be a gap between construction of the navy's Arctic offshore patrol ships and the frigate replacements, which are expected to begin construction in the early 2020s.

Such a pause between major projects would have a huge impact on the roughly 2,700 workers at Irving Shipyards Inc. in Halifax, and also flies in the face of the intention of the federal government's national shipbuilding strategy, which was to eliminate the "boom and bust" cycle in the industry.

Lisa Campbell, the assistant deputy minister of defence and marine procurement, said at the moment the start date for "cutting steel" on the surface combat ships is "highly speculative."

Kevin McCoy, the president of Irving Shipbuilding, said the company is exploring options to fill the gap by constructing more arctic ships, possibly for other nations.

"We're out there looking at what other interest is out there for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships," he said. "We've had some other countries come to the shipyard over the last two years. So, I would say: Yes it's an issue. It's an issue that most nations that build ships go through."

McCoy said it is "way too early" to speculate on whether there will be layoffs.

It is a matter of not "losing the experience of a highly talented workforce," he said Monday during a technical briefing in Ottawa. "The good news is we're looking at this many years in advance."

Type 26 frigate

The federal government, in laying down the markers for the program, said it was interested in an existing warship design, something with a proven track record.

The Type 26 only began production in Britain earlier this year.

Gary Fudge, the vice president of Canadian Naval Systems Programs at Lockheed Martin Canada, said the exact wording of the government's request for proposals was that it wanted a "mature design."

He said his company conducted two studies before partnering with BAE to submit the bid — and the fact that it was a brand-new design brought a lot of benefits.

"That is the best ship for Canada," Fudge said. "Some of these other warship designs were built 10 years ago and you will not be able to buy one part for those ships today."

Having to produce specific parts in small quantities will, according to Fudge, make some of the other, older designs more expensive.

The federal government will not confirm how many bids it receives between now and the time the decision is made, Campbell said.

 

Attachments

  • CdnType26.png
    CdnType26.png
    84.4 KB · Views: 360
Back
Top