• 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

I would ask has anyone been in charge?

Since the inception of the program has there been continuity of command?

Or has it been a hall with revolving doors with an endless supply of politicians, bureaucrats, sailors, salesmen and engineers?

Two years and your next posting.
 
Its interesting that there are a few companies that have issues with IP.  And there are a few who don't have any issues with IP.  I would bet that those companies that are nationalized are more worried about this.  Those that are not are much more sanguine about the process.  The risk is far greater for say a DCNS in losing employment for their national shipyard then say BAE who would just set up shop in Canada partnered with Irving should Irving want to sell ships to someone else.
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
So key question:. Has anyone been fired yet?
On the basis of what? A couple of overheated op-eds? The NSPS procurements, like the F35, are huge-money contracts tendered out into a zero-sum business environment: every dollar that goes to one bidder is a dollar that doesn't go to another. These defence consortia have learned that the cost of a PR campaign waged through apparently disinterested third parties is trifling in comparison to the benefit of derailing a tender that didn't go their way. Certainly that's the lesson that the F35 saga has communicated very clearly.

Without impugning the motives of Sturgeon and Cairns, a former ADM Mat and a retired admiral are exactly the sort of guys a PR agency would approach to gin up some arguments supportive of their client's desired outcome. Until the last ship has been delivered and the last dollar paid out, we're going to continue to be subjected to the "best opinions money can buy". That shifty business has already cost us a serving admiral; we need to be critical of what we read.
 
Monsoon said:
...Until the last ship has been delivered and the last dollar paid out, we're going to continue to be subjected to the "best opinions money can buy"...

Then transitions to "what we should have bought" for the decades to follow. :nod:

Regards
G2G
 
Monsoon said:
On the basis of what? A couple of overheated op-eds? The NSPS procurements, like the F35, are huge-money contracts tendered out into a zero-sum business environment: every dollar that goes to one bidder is a dollar that doesn't go to another. These defence consortia have learned that the cost of a PR campaign waged through apparently disinterested third parties is trifling in comparison to the benefit of derailing a tender that didn't go their way. Certainly that's the lesson that the F35 saga has communicated very clearly.

Without impugning the motives of Sturgeon and Cairns, a former ADM Mat and a retired admiral are exactly the sort of guys a PR agency would approach to gin up some arguments supportive of their client's desired outcome. Until the last ship has been delivered and the last dollar paid out, we're going to continue to be subjected to the "best opinions money can buy". That shifty business has already cost us a serving admiral; we need to be critical of what we read.

On the basis that the program is roughly 10 years behind its original timeline and the industry partners basically laughed at the original RFQ spec's which means our team leaders didn't know what they were doing?
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
On the basis that the program is roughly 10 years behind its original timeline and the industry partners basically laughed at the original RFQ spec's which means our team leaders didn't know what they were doing?
We fired the last government and the one before it. How's that working out for us?
 
US Army on IP rights....

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/11/1/army-eyes-ownership-of-technical-data-rights

Army Eyes Upfront Purchases of Technical Data Rights
11/1/2017
By Connie Lee

The Army is hoping to save money on repairs and upgrades to military systems by purchasing technical data rights up front. The concept is building momentum, the service’s top logistician said Nov. 1.

Having such rights will increase the efficiency and lower future sustainment costs by allowing the service to expand its options for developing or obtaining repair parts, Gen. ‘Gus’ Perna, commanding general of Army Materiel Command, said during a meeting with reporters in Washington D.C. His goal is to obtain technical data rights for equipment rather than “the entire intellectual property.”

Technical data rights refer to a category of intellectual property rights that includes "any recorded information of a scientific or technical nature," according to information provided by the Defense Information Systems Agency. That could include product design or computer databases, but exclude elements such as source and executable codes, design details or flow charts. 

“We want multiple access and availability and we want to maintain good competition and relative prices for the repair parts,” he said. “So intellectual property is very important. This is not something that we’ve been used to doing.”

Companies have been reluctant to give up their technical data rights because it may mean the loss of valuable maintenance contracts. Perna, however, said the Army would pay vendors extra for these rights. Obtaining the desired technical data will increase costs up front, he noted, but will save the Army money in the long run.

AMC has been taking three steps to reach this goal, Perna said. These include engaging with industry; ensuring partnership with the office of the Army acquisition executive; and working with lawyers and contractors on the change. The general emphasized the importance of “breaking the paradigm” and removing attorneys and contractors “off the hamster wheel” of agreements that have not included owning intellectual property.

“It’s not [an] all or none. It’s a ‘let’s understand the cost, schedule and performance.’ Let’s make the operational risk assessment and then let the chief make the decisions,” Perna said. “We’re not on autopilot.”

However, Perna clarified that the strategy would only apply to future agreements rather than existing contracts. “Once it’s out of the barn door, it’s out of the barn door,” he said.

But obtaining technical data rights isn’t necessary for every single system, Perna said.

“Sometimes we don’t need it,” he said. “In my words . . . sometimes there’s equipment that won’t be forward on the battlefield and we can count on industry to maintain it and sustain it. And so is it worth paying all that money for the data rights? No. But if the equipment is going to be forward . . . and I need to reproduce it and control the supply chain, then it’s worth it to go after the tech data rights.”

Personally I think it is ludicrous to be planning to purchase kit for 40 years in the future when technology follows Moore's Law.

Buy now. Use it till it dies. Replace with what is available.  Then rely on the users to get the best out of what is available.  Might have trouble getting that past you Dogma Doctrine folks though.

Is there room for Howes and Rottenbergs in the modern force?

800px-Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2011.svg.png

 
If Alion Science and Technology decides to submit a bid, what do you think it will be?  Based on the KDX-IIA?  Based on something else?
 
Uzlu said:
If Alion Science and Technology decides to submit a bid, what do you think it will be?  Based on the KDX-IIA?  Based on something else?

I thought they did already? CDR mentioned when they visited CANSEC that they had a booth that went pretty unnoticed and what they are offering is a variant of the De Zeven Provincien from DAMEN. I hope I am thinking of Alion here...

Edit: I guess showcasing at a booth would be different than submitting a bid. But I guess it would be safe to assume that it would still be the De Zeven?
 
Is pressure building for a modular approach to ship construction?
 
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/quebecs-national-assembly-calls-on-canadian-prime-minister-to-reform-the-national-shipbuilding-strategy-656128313.html.

I would like to see all qualified Canadian shipyards get a piece of the action—not just Irving and Seaspan.  Final assembly, construction of some of the modules, and designation as prime contractor can still be with Irving and Seaspan.  If the Liberals keep insisting that Irving builds all fifteen surface combatants, there are going to be many unhappy Quebec voters in the next federal election.
 
Here's what the "neighbours"want,

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a27258/navy-looking-for-a-new-frigate-replace-littoral-combat-ship/


Look at the "dark horses",lol.

"A number of foreign designs could end up being dark horse candidates in the FFG(X) competition as well. The Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates are well-rounded, well-regarded ships, as well as the Danish Absalon-class support ships (really, frigate-class ships). Likewise, the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates are held in high esteem. Norway's Fritjof Nansen-class frigates manage to pack in the Aegis Combat System, complete with a version of the same phased array radar that equips the U.S. Navy's existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyers."

Btw,i heared/read something else:  "CDR mentioned when they visited CANSEC that they had a booth that went pretty unnoticed and what they are offering is a variant of the De Zeven Provincien from DAMEN."

it seems like Alion is offering this.(not sure)
 
Uzlu said:
Is pressure building for a modular approach to ship construction?
 
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/quebecs-national-assembly-calls-on-canadian-prime-minister-to-reform-the-national-shipbuilding-strategy-656128313.html.

I would like to see all qualified Canadian shipyards get a piece of the action—not just Irving and Seaspan.  Final assembly, construction of some of the modules, and designation as prime contractor can still be with Irving and Seaspan.  If the Liberals keep insisting that Irving builds all fifteen surface combatants, there are going to be many unhappy Quebec voters in the next federal election.

I don't think that Quebec voters actually have clued at all on the shipbuilding strategy, so not much risk there IMHO.

On the other hand, if you wonder after reading the article what those two ships mentioned are (Excellence and Pride), here is a short Davie video made during their construction. They were built in the last three years, are 4200 tons, complex sea bed construction vessels that are, the largest vessels built in Canada in more than ten years (until the first AOPS hits the water) and the most complex vessels built in Canada since the last HAL hit the water (and that won't be beat by the AOPS, but only by the CSC's when they hit the water).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvfqhblMErQ
 
Just circling back to timeline, it looks like bids are all still due on November 17, 2017 (after third extension), but the official project website is still showing approval as June 2017. 

Anyone know what the updated approval target date is?


Cheers, Matthew. 
 
Uzlu said:
Is pressure building for a modular approach to ship construction?
 
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/quebecs-national-assembly-calls-on-canadian-prime-minister-to-reform-the-national-shipbuilding-strategy-656128313.html.

I would like to see all qualified Canadian shipyards get a piece of the action—not just Irving and Seaspan.  Final assembly, construction of some of the modules, and designation as prime contractor can still be with Irving and Seaspan.  If the Liberals keep insisting that Irving builds all fifteen surface combatants, there are going to be many unhappy Quebec voters in the next federal election.

Modular builds were how the Spirit Class ferries were built out here. Seaspan effectively has 2 yards in Vancouver and one in Victoria. Currently they don't need to farm work out as they have the 3 OFSV underway at 1 yard right now. They could sub-contract out the superstructure of the JSS similar to what Davie did, but it would likely be in one of the smaller yards here. That being said with the expertise that Davie gained, it's possible that Davie is subcontracted to build both JSS Superstructures and then ship them out here.
 
Hi there... new here!  Just an ordinary civilian interested in warships since childhood!  I've been reading this forum for quite a while, following the CSC program very closely as well as the AOR program as well.

I have a theory, and I'm far from being an expert... I think Canada might try to get a deal for type 26 or 31 and Typhoons at the same time?  Since that Boeing lawsuit, and now even more since Airbus bought the C Serie, it could be a good partnership between the 2 countries...

Bombardier have a factory in UK that might be affected by Boeing Lawsuit.  BAE Systems are involved in the Typhoons and the Type 26/31 as well...

I was looking at the Babcock Arrowhead 120 project...seems very interesting and modular as well, could be a good option for Canada as well I think!

Again, I'm no expert, just want to share my opinion on this!  Most people I know are not much interested in this..

Thanks!

Pat

 
I am becoming more convinced the central political plan is to build as few ships as possible, as far off in the distance as possible, while keeping the expenditure in line for the projected cost. That means, I fear, a the CSC will be a light frigate (by today's design standards) because even  the current specifications and requirements are beyond the boat loads of cash the taxpayers are already being asked to deliver to Irving.

Tying a warship design  contract in with an aircraft purchase isn't something that has crossed this thread before. It would upset too many rice bowls, no?
 
Cloud Cover said:
I am becoming more convinced the central political plan is to build as few ships as possible, as far off in the distance as possible, while keeping the expenditure in line for the projected cost. That means, I fear, a the CSC will be a light frigate (by today's design standards) because even  the current specifications and requirements are beyond the boat loads of cash the taxpayers are already being asked to deliver to Irving.

Tying a warship design  contract in with an aircraft purchase isn't something that has crossed this thread before. It would upset too many rice bowls, no?

To me, it would depend on what was on offer and what the terms of the deal were.
 
Cloud Cover said:
I am becoming more convinced the central political plan is to build as few ships as possible, as far off in the distance as possible, while keeping the expenditure in line for the projected cost. That means, I fear, a the CSC will be a light frigate (by today's design standards) because even  the current specifications and requirements are beyond the boat loads of cash the taxpayers are already being asked to deliver to Irving.

Tying a warship design  contract in with an aircraft purchase isn't something that has crossed this thread before. It would upset too many rice bowls, no?

A "light frigate" by today's standard would be similar tonnage to a Halifax class.  Most modern frigate designs are in the 5000+ ton category with many over 6000 tons.  If you are referring to a light frigate in capability that's a different matter.  I wouldn't be worried about capability.  More likely numbers are what will be cut.
 
I thought I had read they bumped the bid submission date again to Nov 30, 2017 and was checking in on updates.

Anyone? 
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
I thought I had read they bumped the bid submission date again to Nov 30, 2017 and was checking in on updates.

Anyone?

The date has been moved and is in the news, if you search for it. Due to the weekend and Remembrance Day, the news cycle has not allowed for independent confirmation to be published on this site.  :remembrance:
 
Back
Top