Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[MilEME09]

woe woe woe woe, hold the phone did i just read SIX ships!??? may god have mercy on our navy

 

[Karel Doorman]

woe woe woe woe, hold the phone did i just read SIX ships!??? may god have mercy on our navy

I thought it was 15.If it's only 6 then oh my God that price(seems like they will get 6 Starships "Enterprise")  [Xp

Also upgrades,training,etc is not included,ludacrous pricing.

I'm sure it's possible to built 15 LCF's(the Zeven Provincien class)for less of half that price(scratch that a third is also possible).,Or maybe 8 LCF's and 7 of the new ASW frigate(vMFF),no name yet,not build yet.Just get on the phone with Damen and all will be solved,lol.

 

[MilEME09]

"61.82 billion in then-year dollars" for six ships in other words 10.25 billion give or take a few thousand for six ships. someone wanna explain to me how one of these damn CSC's cost as much a damn Ford class aircraft carrier?

 

[suffolkowner]

The Australian Hobarts are running over $3B each so add inflation a less capable shipbuilding industry etc..

 

[Kirkhill]

I thought it was 15.If it's only 6 then oh my God that price(seems like they will get 6 Starships "Enterprise")  [Xp

Also upgrades,training,etc is not included,ludacrous pricing.

I'm sure it's possible to built 15 LCF's(the Zeven Provincien class)for less of half that price(scratch that a third is also possible).,Or maybe 8 LCF's and 7 of the new ASW frigate(vMFF),no name yet,not build yet.Just get on the phone with Damen and all will be solved,lol.

Karel -  the difference is that you folks actually build ships.

Slainte.  :cheers:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You people are reading all this wrongly.

Here is the exact reference to 6 ships from the PBO report:

"PBO estimates that for the program to stay within the original budget of $26.2 billion (then-year dollars), the government could build only six ships"

It's important to understand the difference between "then year dollars" and "FY-2017 dollars", and remember that the original figure was derived in 2008.

Then year dollars means actual value of money year to year as it loses (or gains, but that's not happened in a long time) purchasing power, so it includes for instance both 100M$ used in 2017 and $100M$ used in 2030 as 100M$ even though, by 2030, that may only purchase what used to cost $25M$ in 2017. All the sentence means from the PBO is that, if we were to use the original amount of 26B$ forecasted and use it as we go along, it would end up purchasing only six ships.

More important and of greater value is the Average Ship Cost appearing in the table:

It lists the average cost for fifteen ships in FY2017 as 1.66B$ each. This means that if we were to acquire all fifteen ships in this fiscal year, that would be the average price. Considering the AAD version cost about 3B$ each and the ASW/GP version cost about 1.2 B$ each in today's market, the PBO is about right.

But more interesting, is the calculated average cost "in then years" for the whole fleet of 15, with construction spread from 2021 to 2041: It is 2.73B$ per ship. That's not so bad for ships 23 years from now. For comparison sake, the PBO shows that the "then-dollar" cost of the HALIFAX was 470 million dollars each. The Hal's were built over a period of only 9 years however.

For a better comparison, consider that the US Navy, which mass produces destroyers, went from a cost of 750M$ (Canadian dollars here for comparison) for the first Arleigh Burke in 1989, to $2.1B$ each for the latest ones.

So MilEME, the 61B$ figure is for 15 ships, and of that, only 41B$ is the actual cost of the ships. The rest is for facilities, spare parts, training, government "management" cost of the program, etc. etc., as all listed by the PBO.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In 15 years most of the welding, cutting and plate handling will be by robots, likely driving down costs. Even the cost of Robots will fall as they become more common and capable.

 

[MarkOttawa]

So Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! for robots not voters?  Unless Liberals can find way to extend the franchise...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Seyek]

The report mentions that there will only be one variant, I was under the impression we were still going with two, 3 AAW and 12 ASW, has that changed?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Why are they not delivering the last ship until 2041?

That seems incredibly slow....


M.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

What!!! And retire the last HAL before it has reached the appropriate age of 45 years of service?

That is so un-canadian, Blackshirt. Shame on you for even suggesting it.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Note PBO report on Canadian Surface Combatant costs mentions possible missile defence capability (pp.19-20 PDF):
http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf

More earlier on CSC and missile defence:

Technology and Politics – Canadian Ballistic Missile Defence
https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/technology-and-politics-canadian-ballistic-missile-defence/

Be interesting to see if the defence review dares deal with this aspect.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Karel Doorman]

GAN radar directed  at CSC:

Thales puts forward the APAR2 for the new Canadian Combatants;



Thales Nederland is showcasing its APAR Block 2 radar at CANSEC, having proposed the sensor for inclusion in the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) warship.

Canada invested in the development of the original APAR (active phased array radar), and while it was not adopted in Canada, the system was sold to the navies of Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. APAR Block 2 is a new, ship-agnostic system that could be applied to a number of CSC design proposals.

Thales (Booth 1701) has developed APAR Block 2 with development funding from the Royal Netherlands Navy. However, there is considerable Canadian involvement in the form of the transmit/receive modules (TRMs) provided by Sanmina. In the new APAR iteration, those modules employ gallium nitride (GaN) semiconductor technology in place of the gallium arsenide (GaAs) TRMs used in APAR Block 1.

GaN permits greater mode flexibility and greater power transmission, and the radar no longer requires waveguides.

APAR Block 2 is an X-band radar offering rapid detection and tracking of small-RCS (radar cross-section) targets at low elevations, with an ability to see out to the horizon and beyond.

Unlike other radars, which require separate illumination systems, APAR Block 2 has the ability to provide guidance for missiles such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and Standard Missile 2.

In a warship installation, APAR Block 2 would be part of a dual-band radar system, partnered by a Thales SeaMaster 400 S-band array offering a range of 450‑500km.

This was developed as a non-rotating radar for the Royal Netherlands Navy’s Holland class offshore patrol vessels. Both radars have four fixed arrays in a mast (along with surface search sensors) to provide 360° coverage, and they share a common processor.

Automated radar task scheduling optimises the employment of both antenna sets.

The Canadian DND has outlined a number of extreme threat environments in which the CSC’s defensive systems must operate, and Thales is confident that its system, with APAR Block 2, can meet the challenges associated with them.



http://www.janes.com/article/71025/gan-radar-directed-at-csc-cansec17d2#.WTEHf-irhgw.twitter

 

[MarkOttawa]

Irving and Canadian gov't to be trusted with CSC IP?  Plus USN:

Analysis
Intellectual property could be key as Canada and U.S. compete for frigate-building bids
Bidders might choose to participate in 'one, but not both' shipbuilding projects, analyst says

The U.S. navy is in the market for up to 20 patrol frigates in a multibillion-dollar program that one defence expert says could cut into Canada's plans for its own, more modest project.

Not only is the American program more lucrative, but Canada's intellectual property demands could put it at a further disadvantage in the fight for international bidders, says defence analyst Danny Lam.

The Pentagon issued a request for information to the defence industry on July 10 for its new warship program. It proposes to open up competition to foreign designs in a manner similar to the Liberal government.

Lam says both programs have very similar requirements, but the Americans are moving more aggressively and want to begin construction on the first frigate in 2020.

The Canadian program, on the other hand, remains on schedule for the "early 2020s," according to Public Works and Procurement Services Canada.

    Bidder urges overhaul of design tender in $60B navy frigate program
    Backroom battle underway over new frigate design data

Perhaps more importantly, Lam said, is the backroom dispute over intellectual property rights that's been raging for over a year between ship designers and the Liberal government.

Ship designers from France, Britain, Italy and the U.S., among others, are part of the Canadian competition.

Some of the 12 bidders, particularly those with designs dependant on electronics developed in conjunction with their home governments, have balked at the amount of technical data being requested by the Canadian government.

Defence and procurement officials have insisted the information is necessary to maintain the new fleet in the decades to come.

Part of the issue, Lam said, is the fact the nearly $60-billion Canadian program is being managed by an outside company, Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.

He said companies are concerned their data could be appropriated and used by Irving, or others in the industry, to come up with an entirely new warship design.

Irving officials, speaking on background in the past, have dismissed that concern.

Lam also predicted that once the project's database is established, the Canadian program will become a top target for Chinese, Russian and North Korean hackers, who would try to steal the information.

As such, the U.S. government would likely have significant security concerns about those companies participating in the Canadian program, Lam said.

"They can participate in one or the other, but not both programs."

Government wants intellectual property...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/us-frigate-program-1.4216582

Earlier:

RCN Canadian Surface Combatant, Irving, Intellectual Property…and Espionage (plus fighters and Trump)
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/mark-collins-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-irving-intellectual-property-and-espionage-plus-fighters-and-trump/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Can't the IP be held by the government and used by government as required, Irving only getting enough access to build the ship?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Article by Danny Lam that spurred Murray Brewster CBC piece above:

Can USN sink Canada’s IP Piracy policy?

The U.S. Navy has decided it needs some new ships. Canada has been toying with the idea of a new Surface Combatant for years now, with very little progress. Will the IP requirements of one project impact the other? Let's compare.

With the goal of keeping costs down by using common equipment, the U.S. Navy’s new FFG(X) program (Guided Missile Frigate Replacement) is requesting information from both domestic and foreign shipbuilders for derivatives of an existing design for a class of 20 guided-missile ships that can be delivered starting in 2024.

At first, the USN had considered upgrading and enlarging its Littoral Combat Ship, but realized the time constraints would not permit such an extensive redesign. In theory, the requirements can be met with an upgraded Coast Guard National Security Cutter or a refreshed Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate, but the turnaround will be faster and price tag cheaper if chosen from an existing design. From that field, the ARGE F125, Fincantieri FREMM, Naval Group FREMM or its new Belharra, Navantia F-105, BAE Type 26 GCS, and Odense Iver Huitfeldt, are known to be in the running of foreign designs. The deadline for a response to the U.S. RFI (Request for Information) on the FFG(X) is 24 August 2017.

Canada is presently in the midst of a major procurement for the over 7000 ton displacement Surface Combatant vessels. Not surprisingly, most if not all of the qualified bidders for the Canadian program are also candidates for America's newest frigate replacement program, the 4000-7000 ton FFG(X).

Other than size, the biggest difference is that Canada is looking to select both a platform design and a combat system, whereas the U.S. RFI is for a platform design only, however, the FFG(X) will be equipped with many sophisticated systems, weapons and unmanned technologies.

A quick comparison of the two schedules, however, is astounding. The CSC procurement process for up to 15 vessels is twice as long as for the 20 completed FFG(X) ships – 16 years for 20 U.S. ships vs 38 years for Canada's 15 ships.

    CSC: Industry Day (late 2012); Design contract (2018); Build contract (2021); First delivery (2026 or later); Final delivery (2050).
    FFG(X): Industry Day (mid-2017); Design and build contract (2020-21); First delivery (2024); Final delivery (2033).

Another key difference is that the U.S. Navy's procurement department has a full time staff of knowledgeable experts to evaluate and make decisions on the FFG(X) design, whereas in Canada, the Navy is not in the lead. Instead, the evaluation team of the privately-owned Irving Shipbuilding Inc (ISI) is a key decision-maker for the Government of Canada.

According to a spokesperson for ISI, "the Government of Canada has set the requirements for the CSC design RFP. Short-listed bidders will submit their RFP response to Irving Shipbuilding. Using the Government of Canada approved Evaluation Plan and Criteria, Irving Shipbuilding and the Government of Canada will assess the submitted proposals. The Government of Canada will make the final decision on selection of a design. All stages will be monitored by Canada’s Fairness Monitor."

Canada's Department of National Defence budgets the CSC platform and combat system at $26.2 billion, while the Parliamentary Budget Officer says a more realistic number is $61.8 billion. Experienced European shipbuilders are baffled by this figure, saying the vessels can be built for much less, which leads us to ask: who is accountable? As for the FFG(X), no budget has yet been determined.

How do these two programs relate? In fact, there is a direct security risk based on the procurement process alone. Let's look at the global picture first.

The security of commercial and military intellectual property is always a major issue, as Canada's spy agency, CSIS, openly warned less than a year ago. Western defence contractors – from major primes to small subcontractors – are all being targeted by Chinese, Russian, Iranian, North Korean, and other spies and agents who are eager to acquire commercially and militarily sensitive information. Thus, program security is a major concern.

What are the ramifications of these security and corporate espionage issues, and how will Canada's Surface Combatant procurement process impact the U.S. and its FFG(X) program?..
http://defence.frontline.online/blogs/3896-Dr.-Danny-Lam/7750-Can-USN-sink-Canada%E2%80%99s-IP-Piracy-policy%3F

Read on.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Good grief:

Deadline for warship designs missing in action

The plan to replace the navy's warship fleet is officially sailing uncharted waters, as an important deadline for the $60-billion project has all but disappeared.

The federal government launched a competition last fall asking some of the world's largest defence and shipbuilding firms to design a potential replacement for the navy's frigates and destroyers.

Companies were given until the end of April to submit their designs, after which one would be selected and constructed by Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.

But after the federal government announced it was extending a second time in May, companies still don't know when their designs are now due.

The government says it continues to work with industry to deliver the warships the navy needs, and that a deadline for the designs to be submitted will be set soon.

But the development has left some defence experts and industry representatives puzzled and worried about the fate of what is the single largest military procurement in Canadian history.

The Canadian Press
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/07/25/deadline-for-warship-designs-missing-in-action-3/#.WXd3wemQzwo

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJKMji2688M

 

[Karel Doorman]

Good grief:

Mark
Ottawa

Yeah Canada will get new ships(Surface combatants)when is unknown. [Xp

But what is known is which 1,in my opinion,i mean they keep on pushing the "deadline",and now the Type-26 comes in play.(Although i seem to remember that the new ships would be build of an existing design)

 

[MarkOttawa]

Karel Doorman: see relating to Type 26 maybe:

Irving Working with BAE Systems: Implications for RCN Canadian Surface Combatant?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/mark-collins-irving-working-with-bae-systems-implications-for-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant/

Mark
Ottawa