Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[FSTO]

DDG 1000 and LCS (both variants) are a pair of costly failures for the USN. Once the USFREMM's come on line I can see the US selling all of the LCS to a couple of countries who need coastal patrol ships and can afford the cost of operating them. The cost of operating LCS will limit the customer list for sure and maybe the fate of the LCS will be the scrap yard.
The 3 versions DDG 1000 will likely never see operations and will be a test bed for many future conceptions.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The FREMM bid wouldn’t go through the bidding process because they didn’t want to do a full knowledge transfer. And the 30Bn from the FREMM just accounts for the building the ships and nothing else.

We would be beholden to France and Italy for all of the service. So it was a shitty deal for us. 

I like the FREMMs and am happy the Americans found something that fits their needs.

Also training and other things that we normally do in house. The $30B is actually about the same as what we have budgeted for the capital side of CSC to do it in Canada, so it would have cost more over the long run, to not have any IP rights,  training facilities, while not having any people employed building them.  It looked great though when you only compared the sticker price, and ignored that it was a clementine compared to a big apple.

 

[MTShaw]

Also training and other things that we normally do in house. The $30B is actually about the same as what we have budgeted for the capital side of CSC to do it in Canada, so it would have cost more over the long run, to not have any IP rights,  training facilities, while not having any people employed building them.  It looked great though when you only compared the sticker price, and ignored that it was a clementine compared to a big apple.

I would be a Canadian LCS it terms of service. Pulling in to friendly ports waiting for he Naval Group to make time to fix a problem that we should be able to fix ourselves.

 

[Spencer100]

My question the US orders 10 with 10 to be bid again they get the full data and IP package. Canada is going to order 15 and we can't. Is it "we are the US Navy" or is it an Irving thing?

 

[MilEME09]

My question the US orders 10 with 10 to be bid again they get the full data and IP package. Canada is going to order 15 and we can't. Is it "we are the US Navy" or is it an Irving thing?

Irving thing

 

[CBH99]

Irving thing

Could someone elaborate?  I know Irving isn't held in high regards by the Navy folks, but I don't know any details other than what I've read in various threads here. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think every one knows I am not an Irving fan. This said, the situation described by spencer100 has nothing to do with Irving.

The difference between the US purchase of FREMMs and Canada's planned purchase is that the US is only buying the hull and the power plant. The combat systems, weapons systems, navigation systems, consoles for the sensors, all sensors and, I believe, even the IMPS, are all provided to the manufacturer by the US Navy (Navsea to be exact) for fitting into the hull/power plant.

In Canada, we are buying the whole complete package.

That's a big difference because there is little IP in the hull and power plant. It mostly resides in what is provided by the US government. So for the French to have transferred full IP on these other systems would have been a major renunciation of IP rights, as compared with the ones they are relinquishing to the US, which are minor in comparison.

I don't think the French would have trusted anyone with such a transfer, not just Irving, so long as the Canadian deal had to be through the yard with the overall contract to build the CSC. They may have been amenable to providing it directly to the Government of Canada, with the said government assuming responsibility to the French government for safe keeping of the IP, but I think that option was confirmed as being off the table by the GoC.

 

[Underway]

I think every one knows I am not an Irving fan. This said, the situation described by spencer100 has nothing to do with Irving.

The difference between the US purchase of FREMMs and Canada's planned purchase is that the US is only buying the hull and the power plant. The combat systems, weapons systems, navigation systems, consoles for the sensors, all sensors and, I believe, even the IMPS, are all provided to the manufacturer by the US Navy (Navsea to be exact) for fitting into the hull/power plant.

In Canada, we are buying the whole complete package.

That's a big difference because there is little IP in the hull and power plant. It mostly resides in what is provided by the US government. So for the French to have transferred full IP on these other systems would have been a major renunciation of IP rights, as compared with the ones they are relinquishing to the US, which are minor in comparison.

I don't think the French would have trusted anyone with such a transfer, not just Irving, so long as the Canadian deal had to be through the yard with the overall contract to build the CSC. They may have been amenable to providing it directly to the Government of Canada, with the said government assuming responsibility to the French government for safe keeping of the IP, but I think that option was confirmed as being off the table by the GoC.

Agreed.  There is also the fact it was the Italian FREMM that was bid for the FFG(X) not the French FREMM (like in Canada).  The Italian CEO of Ficcantieri recently spoke at an interview and highlighted the growth margins, and power plant the ship provided. And yes there is no way the French would have signed over their military IP to anyone.  They want the return customer.

 

[Uzlu]

And yes there is no way the French would have signed over their military IP to anyone.  They want the return customer.

Did Naval Group just make Australia pay extra for access to their intellectual property?

Concerns over warranties and technology transfer are believed to be the main sticking points in the tough negotiations between the Australian Commonwealth and French-owned Naval Group.

https://sldinfo.com/2018/09/aussie-french-sub-deal-hits-turbulent-waters/

Australia’s ambitious project to jointly build 12 Attack-class submarines with the France is now estimated to cost nearly $90 billion, up by 12% (or $10 billion) in five months.

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26898/Australia_to_spend__90B_for_12_Attack_class_Submarines

 

[Underway]

Maybe.  Australia has a bit looser requirements it seems for holding IP (form the outside looking in).  Given how the French work I'm surprised that they seem surprised about this.  They must be too used to working with much more co-operative companies not tied to geopolitical goals (Sweeds, Spainish etc...).

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think every one knows I am not an Irving fan. This said, the situation described by spencer100 has nothing to do with Irving.

The difference between the US purchase of FREMMs and Canada's planned purchase is that the US is only buying the hull and the power plant. The combat systems, weapons systems, navigation systems, consoles for the sensors, all sensors and, I believe, even the IMPS, are all provided to the manufacturer by the US Navy (Navsea to be exact) for fitting into the hull/power plant.

In Canada, we are buying the whole complete package.

That's a big difference because there is little IP in the hull and power plant. It mostly resides in what is provided by the US government. So for the French to have transferred full IP on these other systems would have been a major renunciation of IP rights, as compared with the ones they are relinquishing to the US, which are minor in comparison.

I don't think the French would have trusted anyone with such a transfer, not just Irving, so long as the Canadian deal had to be through the yard with the overall contract to build the CSC. They may have been amenable to providing it directly to the Government of Canada, with the said government assuming responsibility to the French government for safe keeping of the IP, but I think that option was confirmed as being off the table by the GoC.

Having more users for a shared hull and powerplants is generally good for the navies though; I know the weapons kits are sexy but the majority of of the maintenance is on the hull, powerplant, hotel services etc, so the more people using the same pumps and whatnot the cheaper they are to maintain, and longer they will likely be maintained for. The IP for all those bits would be owned by the original companies anyway (not the builder/designer) so if they just use standard commercial terms it's probably pretty easy to get them to agree to transfer to the USN or other customers.  If they have specific terms and conditions beyond that, it's a bunch more complicated, but companies generally like having more widgets in operation that will need to have parts and support over a long term.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What Underway said. :nod:

FREMM for Canada would have been a Capital ship and huge commitment with Canada and its shipbuilding industry ‘all in.’

FREMM for the US is a halfway between the LCS experiment and true DDGs.  It’s the little brother to OHPs.

I think the US Frigate design is a couple of thousand tons heavier than our Halifax's

 

[Good2Golf]

I think the US Frigate design is a couple of thousand tons heavier than our Halifax's

Specs I see for CSC are 7,600 short tons.  Are you saying FFG(X) will be almost 10,000 short tons?  ???

 

[FJAG]

Specs I see for CSC are 7,600 short tons.  Are you saying FFG(X) will be almost 10,000 short tons?  ???

FFG(X) displacement is stated as 7,400 short tons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFG(X)

:cheers:

 

[Underway]

Specs I see for CSC are 7,600 short tons.  Are you saying FFG(X) will be almost 10,000 short tons?  ???

Type 26 tonnage quotes are all over the map.  The British Type 26 is listed as 6800 tons a few places with a max load of 7800.  The Canadian one is listed as 7600 and the Australian one is listed as 8800.  So I'm gonna go with somewhere closer to the Australian one, given the radar we are putting on this thing is going to substantially heavier than the UK one.  Not to mention then the power plant needs to be able to power it, etc... so who knows where it's going to end up.

The ship will have a max design margin so whatever happens one needs to stay within it.  I expect it's pretty high, given the beam and length of the ship.

 

[Good2Golf]

Specs I see for CSC are 7,600 short tons.  Are you saying FFG(X) will be almost 10,000 short tons?  ???

Oops. Misread CSC for Halifax. 

My comment related to the fact that while both CSC Type 26 and FFG(X) FREMM are approximately the same displacement (mid-7000 tons), for Canada, CSC is the biggest combat ship we’ll have, whereas USN FREMM is a relatively very small ship compared to their CVNs, CGs and DDGs ‘status wise.’

 

[Uzlu]

The ship will have a max design margin so whatever happens one needs to stay within it.

Will it have a very large growth margin  similar to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers?  There was a huge increase in displacement from Flight I to Flight III. 

 

[Underway]

Will it have a very large growth margin  similar to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers?  There was a huge increase in displacement from Flight I to Flight III.

Sort of.  The different Flights I and II are the same hull.  Flight IIA and Flight III of the Burkes are different.  They get physically larger (in length) as you go down the line.  The first 28 Burke's didn't have hangars etc... which was corrected on Flight IIA.  But Flight IIA are a meter longer.  The Flight III, I understand have reached the maximum design margin for that particular ship design.

Actually now that I think about it the Arleigh Burke is a good comparison ship for the Type 26 design margins.  The Burke is 154m long and has a 20m beam.  Type 26 is 150m long and 20.8m beam.

What I meant by that comment is that there is a maximum tonnage that a ship can have.  If the Aussies have an 8800 ton ship and we want a 7800-ton ship then there are at least 1000 tons we can grow into, with a growth margin of about 13% on the same hull. A Burke Flight II is about 8400 tons so the numbers are comparable (yes the Burke is 5m longer but that extra 0.8 beam on the Type 26 is has more influence then its meagre number might indicate).

But tons are not as important as they used to be.  I had an excellent conversation before all the social distancing hit with my offices Nav Arch.  He explained to me how things have changed over the years on important numbers for ships. 
At first, it was number of guns you could mount.  Basically the weight of shot.  That was the critical design feature of warships.  More guns equaled better warships.

As time went on it changed to tonnage.  How big you could make the ship allows you to pile on armour, big guns, and powerplant to move it. More tons equaled better warship.

Now its about topside space.  How many sensors, comms and EW can you cram on the ship that don't interfere with each other.  Every system is fighting each other for the prime real estate on the mast. Do you have the space to place all the missiles, land a helo, launch boats?  More space equals better warship.  This is one of the reasons that current warship design has gone with internal walkways instead of the old school railings and open upper deck (stealth is the other reason).

It's all related of course... more space is directly related to dimensions, but tons are not all created equal.  More tons up high need to be calculated for to ensure stability (ie: a 4 ton wieght 4 decks above the waterline could equate to approx 60 tons of lead ballast, which is wasted design margin).

 

[MilEME09]

If true Underway that we have roughly 1000 tons to work with, it sounds like that gives us a lot of flexibility down the road in regards to upgrades, since if the NSP works as intended by the time the last CSC rolls out the first one would be ready for a refit. Really if the NSP goes well I hope we see yards expanded to allow concurrent building of more ships, combined with a national recruitment program to encourage people into trades schools (which regardless of the trade is really needed)

 

[Navy_Pete]

If true Underway that we have roughly 1000 tons to work with, it sounds like that gives us a lot of flexibility down the road in regards to upgrades, since if the NSP works as intended by the time the last CSC rolls out the first one would be ready for a refit. Really if the NSP goes well I hope we see yards expanded to allow concurrent building of more ships, combined with a national recruitment program to encourage people into trades schools (which regardless of the trade is really needed)

Generally they build ships with a design margin to allow for growth on tonnage, cooling, electrical generation and distribution and other things that would let you do future upgrades. PG&D is one of the trickier ones, as something with a bigger power draw will also need bigger breakers, cables etc all the way back to the generator, so it's a huge amount of work to do if it's not built in, but if you overdo it at the start it's inefficient and eats a bunch of your weight/stability margins.