Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[FSTO]

65 Years??? In what cocaine fueled orgy did the PBO come up with 65 goddamn years? Are they starting from 1998 and counting all the wages and reams of paper being used from back then?

This is an attempt by the PBO to torpedo the entire project.

 

[FSTO]

Here is the report:

https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/747dfffc97de30adc19e38143f28b6e8334a0f7510c5c3a94c465a41c66cf504

CSC life cycle cost estimates, by phase ($ billions)
Cost Development 4.3
Acquisition 80.2
Operations and Sustainment 219.8
Disposal 1.7 Grand Total 306.0

Sources: Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Life cycle phases Development: all activities leading up to the purchase or construction of a given weapon system, such as options analysis, studies, and research and development.

Acquisition: all activities associated with the purchase or construction of the system and its integration into service and full operational capability.

Operations and Sustainment: all activities relating to the usage, support, and maintenance of the system, including mid-life upgrades (IMO we should not do this) and technology insertion. This is the red herring, it is money spent no matter what type of ship we buy.

Disposal: activities associated with the withdrawal of the system from service at the end of its useful life

 

[Furniture]

65 Years??? In what cocaine fueled orgy did the PBO come up with 65 goddamn years? Are they starting from 1998 and counting all the wages and reams of paper being used from back then?

This is an attempt by the PBO to torpedo the entire project.

My inner cynic says the PBO is doing exactly what it is intended to do, make large defence projects so politically toxic that no government is ever forced to do their core job and properly fund/equip the CAF.

If/when the CSCs get scrapped because they are "Cadillacs", there will be minimal public outrage because the public has been fed a line about how outrageously expensive they are.

 

[Good2Golf]

CSC's creeping up towards $6 billion each, PBO says:



Mark
Ottawa

For life-cycle costs/ships. That’s not unreasonable.

When you use total life-cycle costs, you get huge numbers.

Eg. CH-147F Chinook. 15 for $4.9B total life-cycle cost (which ironically does NOT include fuel and personnel costs over the helicopters’ lifetime). That makes $327 million PER helicopter….for 20 years. If we prorate that to 65 years, you would get a cost of $1.06B PER Chinook.

$6B per ship over almost half a century doesn’t seem unreasonable.

 

[KevinB]

Here is the report:

https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/747dfffc97de30adc19e38143f28b6e8334a0f7510c5c3a94c465a41c66cf504

CSC life cycle cost estimates, by phase ($ billions)
Cost Development 4.3
Acquisition 80.2

I would accept all the above - but

Operations and Sustainment 219.8

I prefer calling it O&M, but yeah that shouldn't be factored into the acquisition - as unless you are planning on disbanding the RCN those are sunk costs regardless of what ships are in the fleet.

Disposal 1.7 Grand Total 306.0

Most entities make money off disposal, as the scrap value of the materials is significant.
As well some of the systems will be able to be removed and used on other things.
I'm flabbergasted that anyone thinks 1.7B is reasonable for disposal.

Sources: Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Life cycle phases Development: all activities leading up to the purchase or construction of a given weapon system, such as options analysis, studies, and research and development.

Acquisition: all activities associated with the purchase or construction of the system and its integration into service and full operational capability.

Operations and Sustainment: all activities relating to the usage, support, and maintenance of the system, including mid-life upgrades (IMO we should not do this) and technology insertion. This is the red herring, it is money spent no matter what type of ship we buy.

Disposal: activities associated with the withdrawal of the system from service at the end of its useful life

Insanity...

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'm a really big fan of through life costing and real ownership costs, but we don't do it properly.

It's the only way to look at the quality of initial acquisition and if buying 'better' makes sense. For example, if you buy something that needs less maintenance, it usually costs more up front, but can save a whack of time/money in service, while needing less downtime. But sometimes you get needless additional quality/overspec that doesn't necessarily translate into being 'better' so it's a bit of a balance.

65 years is cracked though; that only makes sense if they mean from project start (a long time ago) to when the final ship is paid off. The individual ships will be 40 years AT BEST. The current RCN plan to run the CPFs to 50 is smoking dope (in a confined space, with some hash oil on a burner, and edibles already down range).

The 280s and tankers did it because we used to to baseline refits and replace a lot of piping etc from 15 years onwards in sections, so over a few refits at midlife you would replace whole systems. We have never done that and there is a lot of 30 year old mechanical systems running hard into a wall.

 

[KevinB]

I'm a really big fan of through life costing and real ownership costs, but we don't do it properly.

You can factor that in in a BV Contract without making it part of the contract though.
The issue I have with formatting it upfront into the contract is the GIANT number people see and get sticker shock.

It's the only way to look at the quality of initial acquisition and if buying 'better' makes sense. For example, if you buy something that needs less maintenance, it usually costs more up front, but can save a whack of time/money in service, while needing less downtime. But sometimes you get needless additional quality/overspec that doesn't necessarily translate into being 'better' so it's a bit of a balance.

Agreed, the responses to the RFP should have that in their submissions, in order to properly evaluate any offer.
*and distrust and verified by the .Gov

65 years is cracked though; that only makes sense if they mean from project start (a long time ago) to when the final ship is paid off. The individual ships will be 40 years AT BEST. The current RCN plan to run the CPFs to 50 is smoking dope (in a confined space, with some hash oil on a burner, and edibles already down range).

The 280s and tankers did it because we used to to baseline refits and replace a lot of piping etc from 15 years onwards in sections, so over a few refits at midlife you would replace whole systems. We have never done that and there is a lot of 30 year old mechanical systems running hard into a wall.

The Program Office, or LCCM whatever for the program should have that budgeted into the services annual budgets - things like that can be forecast years in advance so it isn't a shock, but I don't see how or why DND works their contracts the way they do.
To me it smacks of sloppy accounting, and the lazy way out, as opposed an itemized line item allocation done annually (with 5-10-15 year forecasts as well).

Admittedly more that I look into to how the CAF/DND does business, I am honestly shocked that the RCN isn't in a few Zodiak's rowing around the globe.

 

[Lumber]

65 Years??? In what cocaine fueled orgy did the PBO come up with 65 goddamn years? Are they starting from 1998 and counting all the wages and reams of paper being used from back then?

This is an attempt by the PBO to torpedo the entire project.

I especially loathe how they mentioned that the Ford-Class "only costs" $13B a piece, without at all mentioning their lifetime costs.

 

[TacticalTea]

I especially loathe how they mentioned that the Ford-Class "only costs" $13B a piece, without at all mentioning their lifetime costs.

And since they did not explain exactly what that number was, it's patently obvious that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Result of a wikipedia search probably.

 

[Navy_Pete]

You can factor that in in a BV Contract without making it part of the contract though.
The issue I have with formatting it upfront into the contract is the GIANT number people see and get sticker shock.

Agreed, the responses to the RFP should have that in their submissions, in order to properly evaluate any offer.
*and distrust and verified by the .Gov

The Program Office, or LCCM whatever for the program should have that budgeted into the services annual budgets - things like that can be forecast years in advance so it isn't a shock, but I don't see how or why DND works their contracts the way they do.
To me it smacks of sloppy accounting, and the lazy way out, as opposed an itemized line item allocation done annually (with 5-10-15 year forecasts as well).

The estimated support costs do go into DRMIS (there is one for AJISS 40 years out), with the initial procurement ILS info informing that, but unless it's part of the eval criteria the only cost is normally the material. Have done it though, just needed to explain to people the breakdown and why we were doing it (with all the credit going to the project managers, I was just along for the ride).

Worked out really well, and got us the CAT DGs on the CPFs with an ISSC. Was extra work but worth it in that case.

Admittedly more that I look into to how the CAF/DND does business, I am honestly shocked that the RCN isn't in a few Zodiak's rowing around the globe.

Sheer stubborness of PS and CAF members working in the system to deliver something despite the processes in place. Some days when hope and optimism have failed, spite keeps the paperwork flowing. Gets a bit darkside with star wars jokes, but is apt

 

[KevinB]

The estimated support costs do go into DRMIS (there is one for AJISS 40 years out), with the initial procurement ILS info informing that, but unless it's part of the eval criteria the only cost is normally the material. Have done it though, just needed to explain to people the breakdown and why we were doing it (with all the credit going to the project managers, I was just along for the ride).

Roger thanks for the info.
Based on my own fairly limited experiences, the amount of effort and experience that goes into to a proper RFP with exceptionally detailed evaluation criteria is a win-win for Industry and the government, as well as the importance of engaging with industry on Draft RFP's prior to release of the actual RFP.
Companies can make a realistic assessment of their PWin, and not waste the .GOV time in submitting a non competitive bid, and the Government gets better submissions.

Worked out really well, and got us the CAT DGs on the CPFs with an ISSC. Was extra work but worth it in that case.



Sheer stubborness of PS and CAF members working in the system to deliver something despite the processes in place. Some days when hope and optimism have failed, spite keeps the paperwork flowing. Gets a bit darkside with star wars jokes, but is apt

As much as I like to Dog on the CAF/DND, the DoD down here does stuff you really can't fathom either at times.
Some source selection committees probably should be waterboarded repeatedly for no other reason that their sheer incompetence/corruption.

 

[Lumber]

Roger thanks for the info.
Based on my own fairly limited experiences, the amount of effort and experience that goes into to a proper RFP with exceptionally detailed evaluation criteria is a win-win for Industry and the government, as well as the importance of engaging with industry on Draft RFP's prior to release of the actual RFP.
Companies can make a realistic assessment of their PWin, and not waste the .GOV time in submitting a non competitive bid, and the Government gets better submissions.

Here's my question/thought experiment:

What if you just completely ignored the entire Needs Analysis/SOR/RFP/Bid/Tender process and instead simply said "we're buying Arleigh-Burkes [or some other major surface combatant], sight-unseen" from the Americans/whoever (but built in Canada)".

I've worked with and studied the capabilities of just about every other class of major warship in NATO, and I can tell you that ANY one of them could perform literally every task/mission that I've ever performed or known a CPF and their crew to have ever performed. Sure, it might not exactly fit the statement of requirements, but consider how much quicker we could get the platforms in the water, and how much time and effort you would save within DND and PWGSC by not going through the massive rigmarole of the Needs Analysis/SOR/RFP/Bid/Tender process.

I know this is wholey unrealistic, but I just know that if one day an FREMM or Hobart or DZP showed up in Halifax and someone dropped the keys and said "it's yours", we would get a platform with which we could do 95% of the things that are being asked of it (once they change all the signs to english).

Sure, we would have to modify our training systems and maintenance systems to support such a new platform, but guess what? We're already going to have to do that with the CSC, and in my unrealistic recommendation in paragraph 1, we would still have all the years it would take to build the ships to get all the supporting infrastructure in order.

Let's make COTS actual COTS.

 

[MTShaw]

My inner cynic says the PBO is doing exactly what it is intended to do, make large defence projects so politically toxic that no government is ever forced to do their core job and properly fund/equip the CAF.

If/when the CSCs get scrapped because they are "Cadillacs", there will be minimal public outrage because the public has been fed a line about how outrageously expensive they are.

…
The F35 as an example for the CSC

The reason that we got the F35s was not entirely our choice. ANy of the choices offered to serve Canada’s needs for an interceptor for Russia (and soon to be Chinese) bombers.

The reason we (and German) got F35s in spite of other options was because the Americans insisted.
…
The Americans will insist the we have a 21st century shipping interdiction platform. We had the choice of a FREMM or Type 26. The FREMM choice to self select themselves out of the running.

OUr choice only seems that it is a choice. Unless we intend to F@@k the Americans, we really only have one choice.

We have one job, and that is to keep th shipping lanes open. That is our job for NATO and the AMericans.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Here's my question/thought experiment:

What if you just completely ignored the entire Needs Analysis/SOR/RFP/Bid/Tender process and instead simply said "we're buying Arleigh-Burkes [or some other major surface combatant], sight-unseen" from the Americans/whoever (but built in Canada)".

I've worked with and studied the capabilities of just about every other class of major warship in NATO, and I can tell you that ANY one of them could perform literally every task/mission that I've ever performed or known a CPF and their crew to have ever performed. Sure, it might not exactly fit the statement of requirements, but consider how much quicker we could get the platforms in the water, and how much time and effort you would save within DND and PWGSC by not going through the massive rigmarole of the Needs Analysis/SOR/RFP/Bid/Tender process.

I know this is wholey unrealistic, but I just know that if one day an FREMM or Hobart or DZP showed up in Halifax and someone dropped the keys and said "it's yours", we would get a platform with which we could do 95% of the things that are being asked of it (once they change all the signs to english).

Sure, we would have to modify our training systems and maintenance systems to support such a new platform, but guess what? We're already going to have to do that with the CSC, and in my unrealistic recommendation in paragraph 1, we would still have all the years it would take to build the ships to get all the supporting infrastructure in order.

Let's make COTS actual COTS.

Only about half the costs is for getting a ship keys in hand; spares, ammo, training, infrastructure, TDP etc are all things that get added in as well.

The downside with a european built ship using European built parts is that there may be no actual suppliers in Canada, so in service can be a big challenge. That costs a few times more than build so isn't insubstatial.

 

[dapaterson]

Only about half the costs is for getting a ship keys in hand; spares, ammo, training, infrastructure, TDP etc are all things that get added in as well.

The downside with a european built ship using European built parts is that there may be no actual suppliers in Canada, so in service can be a big challenge. That costs a few times more than build so isn't insubstatial.

Only a problem if you're planning to maintain the ship to continue meeting SOLAS.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Only a problem if you're planning to maintain the ship to continue meeting SOLAS.

The beauty of a warship is a lot exceeds SOLAS, so more stuff can break before you aren't meeting the same standard as a fishing ship. That protects the worst habits of the RCN to run things hard and put it away salt encrusted.

 

[KevinB]

Here's my question/thought experiment:

What if you just completely ignored the entire Needs Analysis/SOR/RFP/Bid/Tender process and instead simply said "we're buying Arleigh-Burkes [or some other major surface combatant], sight-unseen" from the Americans/whoever (but built in Canada)".

I've worked with and studied the capabilities of just about every other class of major warship in NATO, and I can tell you that ANY one of them could perform literally every task/mission that I've ever performed or known a CPF and their crew to have ever performed. Sure, it might not exactly fit the statement of requirements, but consider how much quicker we could get the platforms in the water, and how much time and effort you would save within DND and PWGSC by not going through the massive rigmarole of the Needs Analysis/SOR/RFP/Bid/Tender process.

I know this is wholey unrealistic, but I just know that if one day an FREMM or Hobart or DZP showed up in Halifax and someone dropped the keys and said "it's yours", we would get a platform with which we could do 95% of the things that are being asked of it (once they change all the signs to english).

Sure, we would have to modify our training systems and maintenance systems to support such a new platform, but guess what? We're already going to have to do that with the CSC, and in my unrealistic recommendation in paragraph 1, we would still have all the years it would take to build the ships to get all the supporting infrastructure in order.

Let's make COTS actual COTS.

It's not COTS - but MOTS (Military Off the Shelf).
I'm not sure that a SSJNA would work for something life an AB, but I'd love to see the creative writing for it

 

[Navy_Pete]

It's not COTS - but MOTS (Military Off the Shelf).
I'm not sure that a SSJNA would work for something life an AB, but I'd love to see the creative writing for it

Each ship actually has it's own NSN, and there is hilariously an NSN for a 'human brain' which is some kind of training aid or something.

Have put in supply demands for both that have been denied due to no spares in stock.

 

[dimsum]

Each ship actually has it's own NSN, and there is hilariously an NSN for a 'human brain' which is some kind of training aid or something.

Have put in supply demands for both that have been denied due to no spares in stock.

 

[MJP]

Each ship actually has it's own NSN, and there is hilariously an NSN for a 'human brain' which is some kind of training aid or something.

Have put in supply demands for both that have been denied due to no spares in stock.

Nerd tangent - All capital assets (as do non capital) have NSNs to track financials and other weird things but I am sure you knew that, mostly for other folks.

As for ordering human brain...it isn't that there isn't stock in the system, it is just a 4L item so you probably didn't give the proper fin coding so your LPO section could buy it for you

Canadian Government Cataloguing System has been cleaned up in recent years but there was essentially no control before so lots of dodgy (and funny stuff made it on there (Light saber anyone?)