• 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

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,065
Points
1,040
I was referring to the square thing, not the decoy thing.
I went over the ship and a lot of the EW stuff seems to be missing from the model. It's been stripped. Either because they are still working on it or because they don't really need it advertised.

The requirements for EW are very robust and likely performance-driven. Proving that performance may be difficult and I'm sure there is a big bun fight on what constitutes proof. This means they might not have settled on a product or the product LM wants to submit still need to jump through the performance hoops.

Not sure what the square thing is. Zooming in doesn't really help define it.
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
56
Points
430
I went over the ship and a lot of the EW stuff seems to be missing from the model. It's been stripped. Either because they are still working on it or because they don't really need it advertised.

The requirements for EW are very robust and likely performance-driven. Proving that performance may be difficult and I'm sure there is a big bun fight on what constitutes proof. This means they might not have settled on a product or the product LM wants to submit still need to jump through the performance hoops.

Not sure what the square thing is. Zooming in doesn't really help define it.
May
I went over the ship and a lot of the EW stuff seems to be missing from the model. It's been stripped. Either because they are still working on it or because they don't really need it advertised.

The requirements for EW are very robust and likely performance-driven. Proving that performance may be difficult and I'm sure there is a big bun fight on what constitutes proof. This means they might not have settled on a product or the product LM wants to submit still need to jump through the performance hoops.

Not sure what the square thing is. Zooming in doesn't really help define it.
Raven ECM?

 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
81
Points
380
It's like I knew this change was coming when I started talking about the missile change numbers.... lol

Yah, they are cramming everything into this warship. There are certainly margin costs, and one of those is VLS numbers. However don't forget that CAMM (Sea Ceptor) are 6 more VLS that hold 24 more missiles and are not listed on this fact sheet.

Also notice that they don't say who is providing the 30mm. That's still up for grabs from what I understand.
With regards to the Sea Cepter, it is listed on the fact sheet under CIADS (provided by MBDA). The listing is in the same column as the torpedo suite and 30mm units.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,065
Points
1,040
With regards to the Sea Cepter, it is listed on the fact sheet under CIADS (provided by MBDA). The listing is in the same column as the torpedo suite and 30mm units.
Yah but I wanted to point out the numbers more then anything. But you are correct, its there, just not the full capability limitation.


Of interesting note look at the ship numbers at the bottom of the factsheet. Posted here for ease of reading.

1646278069941.png

This is heavier then the Type 26 (~7000 ton) but lighter then the Hunter class (8800 ton or more). Its also 1.5m longer than the Type 26.

I have heard that the Hunter class is pushing 10000 tons full load is at risk of being to heavy and to slow. One wonders if thats due to design changes that they needed to do to fit in all of the equipment that they want. It makes me wonder what design changes or comprimises the Hunter needs to do to fit in 32 VLS.

I know Canada wanted to get the 32VLS, but somewhere they made a comprimise for other capabilities. What's the cost to the Hunter? Is it range, speed and weight (all related to each other) on the same engine? Did they have to lengthen the ship to fit in the VLS? Are they comprmising on their massive CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT radar?
 

Attachments

  • 1646278348273.png
    1646278348273.png
    6 KB · Views: 10

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,540
Points
1,090
Alan Williams is not letting this go.


Navy desperately needs new ships, but not at any price: Alan Williams

My proposal to limit the current process to the construction of three of these ships and conduct an open, fair and transparent competitive process to build the remaining 12 CSC is feasible and cost effective.

^^
He may be right in his proposal, he is supposedly an expert in this field.
But in what LSD induced universe is having 3 platforms of a certain type the right call? There are two coasts (soon to be three if predictions are correct) a continent apart so just having 3 platforms are close to useless.
We got rid of HMCS Huron as a cost saving exercise, not as a sober look at capability requirements.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,389
Points
1,360
Don’t subscribe to The Hill, but I look at anything Alan Williams says with a jaundiced eye. I fell he historically cherry picks after the fact, and paints his previous actions as ADM(Mat) from pragmatic to virtuous. I still don’t believe the ‘participation in the JSF Program never explicitly nor implicitly was tied to actually buying the F-35’ argument, while at the same time he expected Canadian aerospace industry to continue to receive preferential contracts…
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,695
Points
1,040
Alan Williams is not letting this go.


Navy desperately needs new ships, but not at any price: Alan Williams

My proposal to limit the current process to the construction of three of these ships and conduct an open, fair and transparent competitive process to build the remaining 12 CSC is feasible and cost effective.

^^
He may be right in his proposal, he is supposedly an expert in this field.
But in what LSD induced universe is having 3 platforms of a certain type the right call? There are two coasts (soon to be three if predictions are correct) a continent apart so just having 3 platforms are close to useless.
We got rid of HMCS Huron as a cost saving exercise, not as a sober look at capability requirements.
Alan "I'm not a paid consulatant at all and this is just my professional opinion" Williams is getting old.

I'm sure if the bidder he worked for had won he'd be defending it as a fair and transparent process that got the right winner.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,607
Points
1,010
Don’t subscribe to The Hill, but I look at anything Alan Williams says with a jaundiced eye. I fell he historically cherry picks after the fact, and paints his previous actions as ADM(Mat) from pragmatic to virtuous. I still don’t believe the ‘participation in the JSF Program never explicitly nor implicitly was tied to actually buying the F-35’ argument, while at the same time he expected Canadian aerospace industry to continue to receive preferential contracts…
He just needs to let this go. He was wrong; he lost.
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
186
Points
580
ADM(MAT) only buys equipment for the Environments but it doesn't decide the requirements. The user (RCN/CA/RCAF/Joint decides on what it needs and when. Besided on the information given by the user and in consulation with the user, ADM(MAT) decides and implements the procurement strategy. As far as I know Mr. Williams never served in the navy, has not received any Naval warfare/strategy education and is thus not a qualified expert to help decide what the RCN needs.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,389
Points
1,360
Yup. Current ADM(Mat), Troy Crosby, absolutely gets the ‘the Sponsor (operators) set the validated requirements and assign their portion of capital funding envelope to the project’ while ‘ADM(Mat) Group supports the programmatics of the acquisition project in concert with other GoC Central Agencies (PCO, TB(S), Finance, DoJ and GAC).

Agree that Williams need to pipe down, he’s yesterdays man…
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,065
Points
1,040
Maybe? I could see them starting to cut steel. A lot of the structural design is done, but they are a long way from Final Design Review. I think the goal is to have that done in about two to three years.

They also have to build the shore testing facility.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,540
Points
1,090
Are there certain sections, the bow maybe, that can be done by an outside yard? Similar to what was done for JSS? Just to get the ball rolling and show some/any progress?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,065
Points
1,040
Are there certain sections, the bow maybe, that can be done by an outside yard? Similar to what was done for JSS? Just to get the ball rolling and show some/any progress?
The bow for the AOPS is done in a different yard and then brought across the harbour as well. I'm sure that CSC will do the same. The thing that will take all the time isn't the hull, its the cabling, electrical, the combat suite and the internal/external coms.
 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
285
Points
730
The bow for the AOPS is done in a different yard and then brought across the harbour as well. I'm sure that CSC will do the same. The thing that will take all the time isn't the hull, its the cabling, electrical, the combat suite and the internal/external coms.

Would the cabling and plumbing be installed in each module then coupled when the module is welded together or installed after and run straight through the ship?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,065
Points
1,040
Would the cabling and plumbing be installed in each module then coupled when the module is welded together or installed after and run straight through the ship?
Cable pulling is done after the ship is together. Plumbing (if I understand the process correctly) is a bit of a combination where some is done before the blocks are together or as the blocks are assembled and others are done after its all finished. For example, a sink install is done later in the build.
 
Top