• 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

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
59
Points
530
True to the first. Although if Wikipedia is to be believed we only have a total of two deep mechanical mine sweeping system and one remote mine hunting and disposal system amongst the fleet. Hopefully that's incorrect. On top of that the 40 mm Bofors they came with have been removed. That somewhat limits their utility. (Not to mention they're a tad slow)

đŸ»
No we divested the mechanical sweep systems some years ago. We operate route survey packages and mine hunting AUV's on both coasts. now. The 40mm was removed because it wasn't supported anymore and we just didn't have a use for it.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
6
Points
180
I agree, but now that mine hunting is being done by unmanned systems, it could be incorporated onto any given platform you choose.

The issue with using the AOPS in the way that you mentioned, I believe, is with the number of ships that will comprise the class. With only 6 hulls, doing OPV stuff, OP CARIBBE, Africa missions and arctic patrols, they are likely to be very busy already. (...) when the time came to replace the MCDV, the Navy could go looking for a class in between the AOPS and the frigate. Better armed than the former, but less expensive to operate given less displacement, hull form etc . Also cheaper to operate than a frigate, but more effective in a conflict than the AOPS.

I suggested the RIVER, but it doesn't have to be that exactly. (...)

Basically that's the idea behind Type 31 frigate for the Royal Navy. A cheap platform, both to build and operate, with space for unmanned vehicles ( either air, surface or underwater) and future upgrades. It fills the gap between OPVs and Type 26 (city class), lower the crew requirements down to 100-120 and is properly suited for low-intensity scenarios such as antipiracy or antidrug missions.

I'm pretty sure that at some point Canadian government (not this one but in a future) will follow the british path. It could be that they cancel a few of the last CSCs to order instead a number of (maybe 6?) light/medium frigates. Either at Irving or at Davie.

Some arguments or considerations on this are:
  • don't put all your eggs on the same basket
  • lower the construction and operation costs
  • need to increase the numbers of fleet combatants
  • need to timely replace the Halifax frigates

On the other hand, building the same ship model for years does not fully match the purpose of NSS. It would keep a lot of jobs (welders, plumbers, purchasing, project management, etc.) but would lose many of those jobs related to design, development, detailed engineering and the like, linked to the first stages of the project, including the know-how for testing and commissioning the first units.

The CSCs will be impressive in their capabilities, and at this moment, with so much work done, I don't see a good option moving to FREMM as an alternative: canadianizing it would deliver some ship similar to the CSC with further delays and no significant cost reduction.

I maybe naive, but my proposal would be something like...
  • build a first batch/flight of 3-4 CSCs.
  • build a second batch of another 3-4 CSCs including upgrades and lessons learnt.
  • build a third batch of 3-4 AAW CSCs, including ABM capability and increased number of VLS cells. Total number of CSCs: 9 to 12.

    In parallel to steps 2-3, a light/medium frigate programe should be started in order to start building the first one while the last CSC is still in progress in the dockyard. But the order might be also swaped and these frigates be delivered in between delivery of the CSCs (like the Royal Navy is doing). It will depend on when the Can. Gov. takes (if it does) the decission.
 
Last edited:

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
254
Points
880
There might be another way of making all 15 CSCs palatable.

Canada also has to commit to updating NORAD very shortly. That won’t be cheap, either.

What if we were to pledge a certain amount of CSCs always on station off the coast of North America, dedicated to the NORAD missi9n? With a SPY-7 radar and depending on how you load out the VLS with SM2/3/6 missiles, you have a pretty credible domain awareness tool that can also deal with nearly any air breathing or missile threat from sea level to low earth orbit.

If we were also to commit to buy the land-based version of SPY-7 to recapitalize the NWS, we would have 20-40 sets of that radar in Canada. With that kind of volume, think of the parts/training synergy. We could also tell LockMart that part of the deal is that we assemble and overhaul those radars in Canada. Jobs. Jobs! jobs!
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
350
Points
880
Oh Vey, the RCN version of the weather ships, the CCG had a hard time crewing them due to the boredom of cruising Ocean Station Papa. The land base would be more doable.
 

YZT580

Sr. Member
Reaction score
62
Points
280
off the coast of Labrador in January for a two week patrol. Do you really hate the navy that much. A fixed base in Goose with the same weapons system loadout is more palatable and easier to maintain. Clearing ice off a radar mast at 10 below in a force 5 gale isn't my idea of fun
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
254
Points
880
off the coast of Labrador in January for a two week patrol. Do you really hate the navy that much. A fixed base in Goose with the same weapons system loadout is more palatable and easier to maintain. Clearing ice off a radar mast at 10 below in a force 5 gale isn't my idea of fun
You don’t have to manually clear ice from a SPY-7. No moving parts. Just heat it.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
16
Points
180
The Reserve recruiting issue is one that can be fixed pretty easily. Stop treating them like cannon fodder and give them something to be proud of. Give them a couple surface ships and tell them to crew them. Once they crew them give them a missions. Don's take it away from them and downgrade them to smaller ship.

As for ship building, give South Korea a call, get a contract under license to build one of their current designs and get the parts ordered and start building. Get rid of our procurement process.
Since 2008 we have been working on a ship replacement and we still do not know what we are fully building. Costs have ballooned to the point of absurdity, people are justifying this by saying we are building a industry. Yet those industry's have not done much to help themselves other then to our pocketbooks through the political system.
Fix the procurement issue and we can have ships being built.
Using Davies ship yards as an example, they took a container ship and modified it to work for our replenishment needs in short time.
Do the same with a current model war ship design. Buy the ship add our comms, weapons etc and build the darn thing. I know its not that simple. But so far we are over a billion dollars into a program and still do not have a finalized build program.

Or just build new Halifax class ships I am sure the plans are sitting around full of dust. As for ordering certain critical parts. Find out what is available and make the order.
If the East coast cant build it, and the west coast cant build it. Then set up shop in Fort MacMurray and move the components overland to the river down south and out to the ocean to Vancouver and final assembly. barge the component down the river. Sounds far fetched but feasible.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
59
Points
530
The Reserve recruiting issue is one that can be fixed pretty easily. Stop treating them like cannon fodder and give them something to be proud of. Give them a couple surface ships and tell them to crew them. Once they crew them give them a missions. Don's take it away from them and downgrade them to smaller ship.
Cannon Fodder what are you talking about? They were given ships and missions however to the point of burnout and it wasn't sustainable.
As for ship building, give South Korea a call, get a contract under license to build one of their current designs and get the parts ordered and start building. Get rid of our procurement process.
South Korea is great for for tankers, not so much for warships. Its not as easy as you say it is.
Since 2008 we have been working on a ship replacement and we still do not know what we are fully building. Costs have ballooned to the point of absurdity, people are justifying this by saying we are building a industry. Yet those industry's have not done much to help themselves other then to our pocketbooks through the political system.
Sure we do, the design will soon be finalized. Costs have went up because of the delays and the way the ships have been costed out. Yes we are building an industry and more importantly a strategic capability. When you say industry, you mean the dockyard workers, supply chain, services, manufactures etc and the tax gone back into the government coffers?
Fix the procurement issue and we can have ships being built.
Yes I agree procurement needs to be improved.
Using Davies ship yards as an example, they took a container ship and modified it to work for our replenishment needs in short time.
They did and a major part of it was build overseas
Do the same with a current model war ship design. Buy the ship add our comms, weapons etc and build the darn thing. I know its not that simple. But so far we are over a billion dollars into a program and still do not have a finalized build program.
Your right its not that simple. We want warships but we want warships that meet our requirements, not someone elses.
Or just build new Halifax class ships I am sure the plans are sitting around full of dust. As for ordering certain critical parts. Find out what is available and make the order.
Outdated design
If the East coast cant build it, and the west coast cant build it. Then set up shop in Fort MacMurray and move the components overland to the river down south and out to the ocean to Vancouver and final assembly. barge the component down the river. Sounds far fetched but feasible.
Your right it is farfetched and would cause costs to increase even more.
 

Gorgo

Full Member
Reaction score
8
Points
230
Or just build new Halifax class ships I am sure the plans are sitting around full of dust. As for ordering certain critical parts. Find out what is available and make the order.
If the East coast cant build it, and the west coast cant build it. Then set up shop in Fort MacMurray and move the components overland to the river down south and out to the ocean to Vancouver and final assembly. barge the component down the river. Sounds far fetched but feasible.

There's also the Port Weller Dry Dock in Saint Catharines that's available.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
78
Points
530
The problem with diversifying the fleet platforms and adding a mix of T26 and T31 is the training system costs. The idea of a 'cheaper' platform is nice, but there's a whole set of second and third order costs associated.

Training is a part.

Logistics is another - spare parts for the T31 will be (obviously) different from the T26.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
119
Points
680
The problem with diversifying the fleet platforms and adding a mix of T26 and T31 is the training system costs. The idea of a 'cheaper' platform is nice, but there's a whole set of second and third order costs associated.

Training is a part.

Logistics is another - spare parts for the T31 will be (obviously) different from the T26.
People tend to forget logistics, our supply system has been publicly called a colossal mess in recent reports, adding additional supply chains won't help. Our system of supporting our operations needs to be rebuilt, our fleet needs rebuilding, frankly at this point what isn't broken?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
206
Points
680
People tend to forget logistics, our supply system has been publicly called a colossal mess in recent reports, adding additional supply chains won't help. Our system of supporting our operations needs to be rebuilt, our fleet needs rebuilding, frankly at this point what isn't broken?
Our ability to add working groups, oversight and invite additional 'key stakeholders' to stick their finger in the defense procurement pie is second to none.

The whole Defence Procurement Strategy is world beating in terms of adding overhead, delays and reporting requirements. Hurray for us?
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
6
Points
180
The problem with diversifying the fleet platforms and adding a mix of T26 and T31 is the training system costs. The idea of a 'cheaper' platform is nice, but there's a whole set of second and third order costs associated.

Training is a part.

Logistics is another - spare parts for the T31 will be (obviously) different from the T26.

You are certainly right, however training costs may be offset by far by the reduced costs due to reduced crewing requirements.

Looking to other navies around, most have (or point towards) two or three surface combatants: UK (3), France (3), Italy (3), Denmark (2), Holland (2), Spain (2), Australia (2),... Should not be a big issue for the RCN to deal with two classes of combatants (3 if we include the AOPS).

Edited: as pointed out by MilEME09 & Navy_Pete, if there is a failed defense procurement system, then that's the problem to solve, not the number of ship classes.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
Just going out on a limb here....but is one of the contributing factors to the glacial pace of our procurement that there are too many people.at NDHQ (and the other associated government bureaucracies) that need to stretch out projects to keep themselves busy enough to justify their salaries? Do things effeciently and effectively and their reward is being identified as redundant and becoming subject to reassignment, with the all the disruption to families that then occurs?

Side question: Are staff at NDHQ and the associated procurement bureaucracies part of the big union that I've been told makes all things in Ottawa so difficult?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
206
Points
680
Just going out on a limb here....but is one of the contributing factors to the glacial pace of our procurement that there are too many people.at NDHQ (and the other associated government bureaucracies) that need to stretch out projects to keep themselves busy enough to justify their salaries? Do things effeciently and effectively and their reward is being identified as redundant and becoming subject to reassignment, with the all the disruption to families that then occurs?

Side question: Are staff at NDHQ and the associated procurement bureaucracies part of the big union that I've been told makes all things in Ottawa so difficult?
Nope; the project teams in NDHQ is pretty lean. There may be a few that just feed the bureaucracy beast, but that's a necessary evil.

There is a duplication of effort in having multiple departments involved at the executive level(ie PSPC, DND, ISED etc) but everytime there is a news story, it creates churn to feed things up to Ministers. Everytime you get Finance, TBS etc taking potshots at you it creates more churn. And once in a while PCO or someone else chimes in.

Generally speaking DND is the one driving the schedule pretty hard, but with that many DGs, ADMs and Ministers involved, with no one boss, things can stall when you are trying to get things done.

If you are curious here is a brief description of the DPS, but it leaves out a lot of the 'interested parties' that are also involved.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/samd-dps/index-eng.html
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
350
Points
880
In regards to the other departments, there are layers and layers of people who see their only job as "feeding the beast" which is Ministers/Cabinet/Parliament. Often request, approvals, briefing notes slow to a snails pace as each layer tries to pee a bit on each document to justify their existence.
 

YZT580

Sr. Member
Reaction score
62
Points
280
There is no fear in OW of losing one's position. It is really, really hard to be fired from a bureaucratic sinecure. The fear is of making a wrong decision and having it show on one's record. That stops advancement. Make the wrong choice, apply for another position and the discussion over the table will be all about the screw-up and a thanks but no thanks response. So decisions are made by committee only and then it is only after several studies, discussions and with expert advice in writing to support the choice. Eventually, if you are lucky, and if their isn't a change in minister or government, a competition will be let out. And if your project is really lucky you will be able to sign a contract without appeal and things will progress.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
340
Points
980
Just going out on a limb here....but is one of the contributing factors to the glacial pace of our procurement that there are too many people.at NDHQ (and the other associated government bureaucracies) that need to stretch out projects to keep themselves busy enough to justify their salaries? Do things effeciently and effectively and their reward is being identified as redundant and becoming subject to reassignment, with the all the disruption to families that then occurs?

Side question: Are staff at NDHQ and the associated procurement bureaucracies part of the big union that I've been told makes all things in Ottawa so difficult?
That is reading significantly more into procurement difficulties than exists, particularly a desire by project staff to not progress substantively less they be cast aside and have to fend for their families elsewhere. The biggest issue IMO is the process. Throughout the government (not just DND), true stewardship and appropriate resource governance is lacking, in their place is process that senior mandarins and politicians alike pat themselves on the back for implementing, believing that they are treating ‘with great care and accountability’ that which is the taxpayers’ treasure...DPS ‘briefs well’ in the Four Corners, but doesn’t materially improve expenditure effectiveness and efficiency. Everyone has experienced things differently (an ongoing theme, and certainly one popular with today’s federal government), but I have seen deliberate throttling of effort and resource, controlled by the GoC’s central agencies, that place actual establishment of (Defence and I have to assume similarly other Departments) capability pretty far down the list of things to achieve with taxpayer monies. Processes and briefing decks and meetings in the whole and minutes from such said meetings can’t ever replace progress supported by leaders who hold themselves accountable first and foremost, as opposed to bureaucrats working the system as the have been inculcated to do, where process is not analogous to progress. While they have their issues and inefficiencies, the Departments get on with things as best as they are allowed to by the system that takes its orders quite often from those around those elected to do so. ‘Yes, Minister’ wasn’t just a reality show about British government, but was/is still pretty applicable to how many first world countries’ governments work.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
16
Points
180
Cannon Fodder what are you talking about? They were given ships and missions however to the point of burnout and it wasn't sustainable.
The Regular Force is burned out also. Op tempos need to be sustainable. with your man power. You increase man power by offering more then a dribble of the process. Hey Reserves were going to give you these small ships, were going to give you a mission of Coastal security,/ mine clearance. Only provide you with one or two mine systems between twelve ships Then we are going to mount a 40mm on the front and have you sail over to Africa and provide support to a coastal mission over there. But the cool jobs were going to keep for the Full time sailors.
South Korea is great for for tankers, not so much for warships. Its not as easy as you say it is.
Thats laughable, I assume Korea's build of HDD-10000 Aegis Destroyer,HDD-5000 Stealth Destroyer, HDS-1800AIP Submarine,HDF-4000 Multi-Purpose Frigate,HDF-3000 Multi-Purpose Frigate,HDF-2500 Multi-Purpose Frigate,HDL-7000 Landing Ship, Tank,HDM-4000 Mine Laying Ship,HDT-5500 Training Vessel,HDA-23000 Logistics Support Vessel,HDA-23000 Logistics Support Vessel and they are working on a light carrier.


Sure we do, the design will soon be finalized. Costs have went up because of the delays and the way the ships have been costed out. Yes we are building an industry and more importantly a strategic capability. When you say industry, you mean the dockyard workers, supply chain, services, manufactures etc and the tax gone back into the government coffers?
We already have a ship building industry. They failed to provide a level of service to provide up to date service.
Yes I agree procurement needs to be improved.

They did and a major part of it was build overseas

Your right its not that simple. We want warships but we want warships that meet our requirements, not someone elses.
By the time they modify the type 26 to fit Canadian requirements, they minds well of built a ship from the keel up. It pretty much will be a whole different design.
Outdated design

Your right it is farfetched and would cause costs to increase even more.
 
Top