Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Dale Denton]

Prescient, however, I think you're wrong on the rest.

I think the CSC is going to die on the vine completely - especially if we end up with another Liberal Government next year.

My (terribly pessimistic) prediction is:
-CSC will cease progress - project will be cancelled.
-AOPS will become the defacto Frigate Replacement.  Production of AOPS will go from 6 to 15.  The last 9 will be modified to include a slightly improved operations suite - maybe move to a 40mm gun vs 25mm, add CIWS on hangar top, and shift the 2D RADAR from the Halifax Class to the AOPS to give it some 'coverage'

Our role will shift from supportive power projection to constabulary and humanitarian aid.  The ability of the AOPS to carry TEUs will be key to that role.

While there are plenty of good reasons to be this pessimistic, I must point out that I doubt it'll get that far.

The tempo (from my point of view) seems to remain quite high. It seems as though the RCN is doing the near maximum (without a drastic reorganization) it can in terms of training of Operations.
+ Attachments and other options


I feel this would be a more realistic variation of your prediction:
- CSC will proceed, the lawsuit will not affect delivery times, but production will still slow for some other reason, creating a small gap. More AOPS will be built.
- By the time the CSC's are on the water, halfway through the program, the frigate fleet will start to come apart from overuse and age - proving that we went too slow to replace them
- We will lose a frigate or two from collisions at sea, with no justification for repairs as CSC's are "close" to the water - a huge loss of capability for 2+ years (much like AOR situation last yrs), cancellation of training Ex and NATO training will be, impacting our excuse not to increase to 2% of GDP (as we are so 'active')
- AOPS prove to be a huge benefit to Op Caribbe, but the arctic learning curve and limited ice-classifications prove it to be less useful
  for actual Arctic operations
- Some incident in the arctic closer to winter season will showcase how limited our at-sea capabilities even with AOPS
- Diefenbaker will be cancelled

 

[Dale Denton]

Our role won't change officially, it will simply become true from lack of capability.

We already turned into a constabulary navy with a little opportunity to assist in NATO duties/Exs, when we lost both AORs. Nobody made an announcement that we'd reduce our global footprint, it simply happened and overnight we became one without much public notice. We will lose a frigate or two from accidents, the fleet will be strained, and we will become a smaller and smaller blue-ocean navy - again - by accident.

Think how effective we will be in 2027 when the first CSC is commissioned... a navy whose workhorses are 30+ yrs old, with 1 iAOR and another almost on the way.

 

[Stoker]

While there are plenty of good reasons to be this pessimistic, I must point out that I doubt it'll get that far.

The tempo (from my point of view) seems to remain quite high. It seems as though the RCN is doing the near maximum (without a drastic reorganization) it can in terms of training of Operations.
+ Attachments and other options


I feel this would be a more realistic variation of your prediction:
- CSC will proceed, the lawsuit will not affect delivery times, but production will still slow for some other reason, creating a small gap. More AOPS will be built.
- By the time the CSC's are on the water, halfway through the program, the frigate fleet will start to come apart from overuse and age - proving that we went too slow to replace them
- We will lose a frigate or two from collisions at sea, with no justification for repairs as CSC's are "close" to the water - a huge loss of capability for 2+ years (much like AOR situation last yrs), cancellation of training Ex and NATO training will be, impacting our excuse not to increase to 2% of GDP (as we are so 'active')
- AOPS prove to be a huge benefit to Op Caribbe, but the arctic learning curve and limited ice-classifications prove it to be less useful
  for actual Arctic operations
- Some incident in the arctic closer to winter season will showcase how limited our at-sea capabilities even with AOPS
- Diefenbaker will be cancelled

My take

CSC gets build as advertised, no delays from the lawsuit. 6 AOPS gets built and prove to be very useful wherever they are used, especially the arctic as we have been preparing for years to operate there. Kingston Class continue as usual for the next 10 years at least and gets back to their mine warfare roots in a bigger way. CPF's continue as usual until the CSC comes online, no collisions, no loss at sea. IAOR continues and JSS are built replacing it.

 

[Underway]

Our role won't change officially, it will simply become true from lack of capability.

We already turned into a constabulary navy with a little opportunity to assist in NATO duties/Exs, when we lost both AORs. Nobody made an announcement that we'd reduce our global footprint, it simply happened and overnight we became one without much public notice.

You are completely wrong.  The current operational pace and missions show exactly the opposite.  The west coast is more engaged in global military training than ever (OP PROJECTION) including a number of firsts (Subsurface and surface participation within a Japanese run EX).  Four frigates, two MCDV's were just on hard operations off Norway.  Losing the AOR on the East coast means more gas and go's and refueling from our allies but doesn't make us "constabulary".  Not even close.

My take

CSC gets build as advertised, no delays from the lawsuit. 6 AOPS gets built and prove to be very useful wherever they are used, especially the arctic as we have been preparing for years to operate there. Kingston Class continue as usual for the next 10 years at least and gets back to their mine warfare roots in a bigger way. CPF's continue as usual until the CSC comes online, no collisions, no loss at sea. IAOR continues and JSS are built replacing it.

Pretty much.  Arctic operations are getting better every year.  The knowledge base is growing and there are plenty in the fleet interested/excited in the new ships to see what they can do.  I expect people saying AOPV's are going to be garbage operationally are going to have to eat some crow.  Including the slushbreaker crowd who have no idea about arctic navigation or the ships design.

 

[Stoker]

Pretty much.  Arctic operations are getting better every year.  The knowledge base is growing and there are plenty in the fleet interested/excited in the new ships to see what they can do.  I expect people saying AOPV's are going to be garbage operationally are going to have to eat some crow.  Including the slushbreaker crowd who have no idea about arctic navigation or the ships design.

I agree.

 

[Baz]

My take

CSC gets build as advertised, no delays from the lawsuit. 6 AOPS gets built and prove to be very useful wherever they are used, especially the arctic as we have been preparing for years to operate there. Kingston Class continue as usual for the next 10 years at least and gets back to their mine warfare roots in a bigger way. CPF's continue as usual until the CSC comes online, no collisions, no loss at sea. IAOR continues and JSS are built replacing it.

I think it is fearmongering to say we'll lose a couple of frigates.  And although I also have ample reason to be pessimistic (I spent a 26 year career waiting on new helicopters and trying to make the best of the old one), I don't think CSC will be cancelled outright.  I would put high odds on there not being 15.  The stated need for MH was 35 and we bought 15...

I do not think it is true that we are meeting our international ambition.  Published RCN doctrine call for a high readiness task group always available as the minimum to meet our needs, with an AOR and a Command ship; it has been a long time since we had that capability, and regaining it is a long way out if ever.

Whether the RCN's deifinition of minimum capability is correct is a matter of public debate.  Some feel it should be more, some less; I have stated my feelings on these forums that it lacks a raison d'etre, which in my view would be best filled by a robust "from the sea" capability.  Which I know I'll never see.

I felt that Canadian MH had a creeping readiness and manning problem which carries a high risk of sneaking up on you and making bad things happen.  From my view point, certainly not from the inside but still in the sphere, the same afflictions are affecting the RCN.  Putting a bunch of ships on exercise could be seen as maximizing training opportunities; it may equally indicate overstretch.

I fear the RCN is not looking at the high profile incidents that have happened to other's and asking whether the same enabling conditions are extant in their organization as well and heeding the warning, but instead believe that "we are better than that" and carrying on as normal.

 

[CBH99]

I think it is fearmongering to say we'll lose a couple of frigates.  And although I also have ample reason to be pessimistic (I spent a 26 year career waiting on new helicopters and trying to make the best of the old one), I don't think CSC will be cancelled outright.  I would put high odds on there not being 15.  The stated need for MH was 35 and we bought 15...


Didn't we buy 28? 

 

[Baz]

I think it is fearmongering to say we'll lose a couple of frigates.  And although I also have ample reason to be pessimistic (I spent a 26 year career waiting on new helicopters and trying to make the best of the old one), I don't think CSC will be cancelled outright.  I would put high odds on there not being 15.  The stated need for MH was 35 and we bought 15...


Didn't we buy 28?

Oops... brain not working.  Yes, we bought 28.  At one point it was for 35 MH and 15 SAR EH-101s.  Which was brought down to 15 and 28  befor the election of Chretien, and then cancelled.

 

[Cloud Cover]

-Diefenbaker will be canceled.

More likely it will be downscoped, cost 5 times as much, be renamed for our 15th  Prime Minister, complete with overblown reputation and legacy corrupted systems, and burden future generations with nonsense.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Oops... brain not working.  Yes, we bought 28.  At one point it was for 35 MH and 15 SAR EH-101s.  Which was brought down to 15 and 28  befor the election of Chretien, and then cancelled.

Very likely we will have at least one collision sometime in the future and likley one major fire, effectively being the same effect operational.

 

[Stoker]

Frigate design decision faces another delay after latest challenge

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-lockheed-delay-citt-alion-1.4923364?fbclid=IwAR3MKJaoR5-bgK1eoigKw-R4zQQ43DHAIrt4BPzssRhYaO2Y1ozuCcC5HWc

The federal government's plan to award a group of companies led by Lockheed Martin Canada the contract to design and support the construction of the navy's new frigates was dealt another setback late Tuesday by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, CBC News has learned.

The agency said it intends to investigate a complaint by one of the other bidders, Alion Science and Technology Corp., and its subsidiary Alion Canada.

The tribunal ordered the Liberal government to suspend negotiations with Lockheed Martin, which was selected last month by Public Services and Procurement Canada as the preferred bidder on the $60 billion program.

"You are hereby ordered to postpone the award of any contract in connection with the above-mentioned procurement until the Canadian International Trade Tribunal determines the validity of the complaint," said a copy of the letter that was obtained late Tuesday by CBC News.

Alion asked the CITT last week to investigate the procurement deal, saying the preferred warship design will need substantial changes and that it doesn't meet the navy's requirements as spelled out in the government tender.

Last week, the company asked the Federal Court in a separate filing for a judicial review of the long-awaited decision.

Three companies were in the running to design the next generation of warships to replace the navy's aging Halifax-class frigates. Navantia, a Spanish-based company, was the other bidder in the competition.

Alion proposed its De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command (LCF) frigate, a Dutch-designed warship, for the Canadian competition. The ship is already in service in other countries.

No one from the trade tribunal, nor the federal government was immediately available for comment late Tuesday.

Experts had warned the trade challenge and the court case might delay the program, which is already behind schedule.

The design competition stretched for almost two years as public services officials and executives at the federal government's go-to shipyard for combat vessel construction, Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax, worked with bidders to ensure a fair competition and to avoid post-decision court fights.

Public Services and Procurement Canada declined comment when the court challenge was launched last week. But a senior federal official, speaking on background at the time, said the federal government has up to 20 days to respond in Federal Court.

The official — who was not authorized to speak on the record because of the sensitivity of the file — said there is flexibility built into the timeline and the government is optimistic it can meet its goal of an early 2019 contract signing.

The substance of the Alion complaint is that the Lockheed Martin Canada-led bid should have been disqualified from the outset because it allegedly doesn't meet the navy's criteria in terms of speed and crew space.

The Liberal government said it wanted to go with a proven warship design, rather than starting from scratch, because it would be faster and cheaper.

 

[FSTO]

Frigate design decision faces another delay after latest challenge

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-lockheed-delay-citt-alion-1.4923364?fbclid=IwAR3MKJaoR5-bgK1eoigKw-R4zQQ43DHAIrt4BPzssRhYaO2Y1ozuCcC5HWc
The design competition stretched for almost two years as public services officials and executives at the federal government's go-to shipyard for combat vessel construction, Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax, worked with bidders to ensure a fair competition and to avoid post-decision court fights.

Well that COA didn't work so well eh?
I really hope that this challenge can be dealt with quickly.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Well that COA didn't work so well eh?
I really hope that this challenge can be dealt with quickly.

Knew that delay was coming. We really do suffer from tall poppy syndrome here in Canada.

 

[Uzlu]

In responding to the CITT, the government (which allowed 88 amendments to the RFP) will have to prove that the rules weren’t stretched, and the requirements for validating performance and design claims weren't watered down to the point where the Type 26 could qualify.

https://defence.frontline.online/in-the-news/10800/Surface-Combatant-contract-on-hold

 

[Kirkhill]

https://defence.frontline.online/in-the-news/10800/Surface-Combatant-contract-on-hold

How many amendments were in response to each of the vendors concerns?

And what redesign was going to be required by Allion to comply with the need to create a Boat Deck/Flex Deck within the confines of their DZP design?

 

[Dale Denton]

What about Navantia? Anything from them? Why not join in on Alion's lawsuit?

What was wrong with the Hobart/105 design anyways? Hobart seems like quite the package. 3-5 Canadian-Hobarts with the rest as cheaper/GP/ASW versions? Could ship over a Canadian shipbuilding team to learn from the Hobarts being built already.

 

[Uzlu]

What about Navantia? Anything from them? Why not join in on Alion's lawsuit?

What was wrong with the Hobart/105 design anyways? Hobart seems like quite the package. 3-5 Canadian-Hobarts with the rest as cheaper/GP/ASW versions?

Navantia has decided, for now, to not say anything.  If Alion is successful in the lawsuit, Navantia might benefit without having to spend money on legal fees.  Since Alion has repeatedly requested an explanation of why their bid fell short and did not receive a reply, I am assuming the government of Canada will not give Navantia an explanation of why their bid failed.  Apparently there will only be general-purpose versions that will be capable of air-defence or anti-submarine deployments.

 

[JMCanada]

As for a fair and transparent process, it would be nice National Procurement publishing the scores of each of the three bids, if not item by item, partial ones, such as technical,  value-proposal, madurity, etc.

"All the Stage 3 scores will be weighted and added together to get the bidder’s Total score. The final weightings will be
Technical 42%,
Value Proposition 15%,
Design Maturity 19%,
Software 1%, and
Financial 23%."

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/nouvelles-news/2017-11-27-eng.html

Should the lawsuit go ahead, we might see Navantia-Saab finally selected if BAE-LM is disqualified and Alion "punished" by the government because of making the process derail. Couldn't this happen?

 

[Good2Golf]

Perhaps, but as part of such a lawsuit, they themselves might have to prove compliance with the part of the spec that says stuffing boxes can’t leak badly during multiple compartment flooding? ???

 

[Underway]

Perhaps, but as part of such a lawsuit, they themselves might have to prove compliance with the part of the spec that says stuffing boxes can’t leak badly during multiple compartment flooding? ???

Harsh but fair.  It will certainly prompt other navies to take a look at their own stuffing boxes/seals.  Like an airplane crash I expect different design/DC procedures to grow out of the incident.