Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[AlexanderM]

But still no official gov't figure for the CSCs.  One wonders why.  Perhaps the money won't really be there for 6 A/OPSs and 15 CSCs as the latter have been envisaged--remember that $26 billion figure from an admiral who should know.

Mark
Ottawa

OK, but they just paid out $288 million for the design of the AOP's, so I doubt they're planning on cancelling them.  Also, that would leave us with one new icebreaker, and we do need more ships that can operate in the north, even though the AOP's are limited, can't operate in thick ice, they still will give us a needed presence.

 

[MarkOttawa]

AlexanderM: "Perhaps the money won't really be there for 6 A/OPSs and 15 CSCs as the latter have been envisaged..."--I was not referring to the A/OPSs, rather the "latter", the CSCs.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[AlexanderM]

Well, this is the point that some of us have been trying to make, that the budget should be sufficient, $20 billion should be enough for the 15 CSC's.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

That's only $1.3 billion each, in current dollars. That's not very much even if we do full copies of foreign designs with no system integration required.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's only $1.3 billion each, in current dollars. That's not very much ....

Yes it is.

 

[AlexanderM]

That's only $1.3 billion each, in current dollars. That's not very much even if we do full copies of foreign designs with no system integration required.

It's easily double what it has cost other countries to build their ships.  Even if some of those building programs have been subsidized, it would have to be as much as $500 to $600 million per ship.  This would be in comparison with the cost of the Dutch, Dannish, Spanish or Norwegian ships.  The Dutch and Spanish came in at $600 to $800 million, the Dannish and Norwegians even less.  So we are essentially looking at subsidizing by about $500 to $600 million per ship, over 15 hulls, so total subsidy of $7.5 to $9.0 billion dollars, for the CSC portion of the program.

As a taxpayer, if it can't be done for that, then I say build the hulls in Korea, and install the weapon systems here.  Then take the money we save and create jobs somewhere else in our economy.

And please keep in mind, that whatever one says we have to do, that makes the ships expensive, these other countries also had to do, and it's done.  So, in theory, anything they can do, we can do also, and the cost should not be more than double.

 

[AlexanderM]

Yes it is.

Agreed! It should be plenty.

 

[Navy_Pete]

A better comparison may be the RN type 45s; they cost 6.5 billion pounds for 6.  The exchange rate varied over the years (between 1.5 to over 2 CAD per pound), but still probably somewhere around $1.6 billion each CAD.  And that was started a decade ago.  Add in inflation and another 10 years before they start and equivalent costs go up more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer#Background

$1.3 billion per is a lot of money, but could quite easily cost a lot more then what is currently budgeted.  Keep in mind the RN has the similar policy for 'regional benefits' so even though they had a better developed industry, building the modules was spread around a few yards all over the UK, then brought together for final assembly on the Clyde.

Sure, they are the cadillac of modern warships, but as they operate on roughly similar requirements as the CSC, and the RN has very similar crewing and operating philosophies as that's where we got ours from (some officer training is still provided in the UK) so it's a better benchmark then the Danish, Dutch, Spanish or Norwegian ships as their navies operate completely differently then ours (ie we aren't unionized).

My guess is the 15 ships at that budget was a WAG and unless they increase the budget, will probably realistically end up with somewhere around 10.

 

[Kirkhill]

Type 45 is too rich for the RN.  They reduced their buy of 8 to 6 due to cost.
The Crew of the Type 45 is 190 (smaller than the 7 Provinces) and carries an additional 60 berths.

The Type 26 is the likely CSC competitor/contender.
The Crew's a bit bigger than the 100 or so of the Euros at 130 - but it also sails with berths for 36 OGDs.
130 is still approximately half of the number of crew in Halifax or Iroquois.

Type 26 frigate design

The basic GCS frigate has a flexible design to allow it to adapt to a range of weaponry and sensors. It will allow new technology upgrades and execute different strategic landscape shifts.

The frigate is designed for modularity and flexibility. It has clean angular lines for operating stealth. The stern has a mission bay.
A ramp at the bay allows deployment of rigid-hulled inflatable boats, unmanned surface vehicles or a towed array sonar. The flight deck of the frigate allows landing of a heavy lift helicopter such as a Chinook.

The design details of the ship were slightly pared to the initial specifications revealed in 2009, to cut down its building costs. The new design in 2011 shows the Type 26 to have a displacement of 5,400t, length of 148m and maximum beam of 19m.
The GCS will have a crew of 130 and berths to accommodate 36 embarked troops.

Proposed variation models under the Global Combat Ship programme

The Type 26 programme is planned to develop three variants - anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-aircraft warfare (AAW) and general purpose (GP) vessels.

Type 26 Link

I think it highly unlikely that the RCN would even contemplate buying 15 Type 45s.

And the RN isn't unionized either (although they have always been a bit Bolshie).

 

[Good2Golf]

Type 45 is too rich for the RN.  They reduced their buy of 8 to 6 due to cost.
The Crew of the Type 45 is 190 (smaller than the 7 Provinces) and carries an additional 60 berths.

The Type 26 is the likely CSC competitor/contender.
The Crew's a bit bigger than the 100 or so of the Euros at 130 - but it also sails with berths for 36 OGDs.
130 is still approximately half of the number of crew in Halifax or Iroquois.

Type 26 Link

Hmmmm...."The flight deck of the Type 26 GCS can allow landing of a Chinook."  Giddy up! :nod:


http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme3.html

 

[dimsum]

Hmmmm...."The flight deck of the Type 26 GCS can allow landing of a Chinook."  Giddy up! :nod:


http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme3.html

The landing, yes.  It's the "taking off again" portion that I wonder about

 

[AlexanderM]

A better comparison may be the RN type 45s; they cost 6.5 billion pounds for 6.  The exchange rate varied over the years (between 1.5 to over 2 CAD per pound), but still probably somewhere around $1.6 billion each CAD.  And that was started a decade ago.  Add in inflation and another 10 years before they start and equivalent costs go up more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer#Background

$1.3 billion per is a lot of money, but could quite easily cost a lot more then what is currently budgeted.  Keep in mind the RN has the similar policy for 'regional benefits' so even though they had a better developed industry, building the modules was spread around a few yards all over the UK, then brought together for final assembly on the Clyde.

Sure, they are the cadillac of modern warships, but as they operate on roughly similar requirements as the CSC, and the RN has very similar crewing and operating philosophies as that's where we got ours from (some officer training is still provided in the UK) so it's a better benchmark then the Danish, Dutch, Spanish or Norwegian ships as their navies operate completely differently then ours (ie we aren't unionized).

My guess is the 15 ships at that budget was a WAG and unless they increase the budget, will probably realistically end up with somewhere around 10.

We don't need Type 45 Destroyers.  The De Zeven Provincien would be just fine, as would the Danish design, both much less expensive than the Type 45.

 

[NavyShooter]

Back to the AOPS...does anyone want to start a betting pool on what day they actually start cutting steel?

I'll put my name down for 15 Mar 2016.

 

[MarkOttawa]

AlexanderM: This from 2011 looks fairly official for 26 billion for CSC acquisition:

...
Briefing notes prepared for Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino in May 2011 and obtained by Postmedia News...

...Fantino's briefing notes warned that the "critical" $26.6-billion Canadian-surface-combatant (CSC) project to replace the destroyers...

http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=6814616

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Pat in Halifax]

Thank you for that Mark. I knew that was the figure but having worked on the Project when in Ottawa, I wasn't sure if I had gotten in from a press release or some of the classified documentation associated with the Project. This weekend FS Aquitaine is in town on a CSC sales pitch...but back to AOPS, I am going to say late 14-early 15

 

[AlexanderM]

Well, if that's the case, there has been no change of plans announced from the $25 billion contract awarded to Irvings for the CSC's and the AOP's.  Second, if that is indeed the budget, then we had better see some kick butt ships at that price, no excuses at all, as that's $1.73 billion per.  I would not have a problem with that budget, not sure about the rest of the public, but if they (Irving) start saying it's still not enough, then we hang them up by their toenails.

 

[Good2Golf]

Simply dividing total budget by number of vessels does not accurately reflect how Vote 5 acquisition budgets are actually apportioned.  Although I do not know the specifics of the CSC apportionment, I would not be surprised only a half to two thirds of the allocated funds would actually be assigned specifically to hulls.

Regards
G2G

 

[MarkOttawa]

AlexanderM:  One cannot square 26 billion for the CSCs alone with $25 billion for both the CSC and A/OPS.  The likely result is that less of the $33 billion NSPS total will be for non-combat ships, affecting mainly the Canadian Coast Guard rather than the RCN's JSS.  Instead of needed new CCG vessels for a very aging fleet--see "Table 4: Age of Vessels, 2009-2010"  here,
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0015223

the government is just going to "extend" the life of most of those ships and only one new icebreaker will be built:

"Harper Government to Extend the Life of the Canadian Coast Guard Fleet"
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2013/hq-ac02-eng.htm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Frankly, 20 to 26 BCAD at this stage of the game amounts to the limits of an estimation.  That equals 22 BCAD +20% and -10%.  That is a relatively tight estimate.

You are trying to sort fly do-do from pepper at this point in time.

G2G:

Even at 20 and only half apportioned to the hulls, those Chinook-capable Type 26s are targeted for a delivery cost of 250 to 350 MUKP for a mixed fleet of GPs, ASWs ans AAWs.

At current exchange rates that's about 400 to 500 MCADs apiece.

Assume that the high end is for the AAW version and the low end is for the GP version with the ASW version somewhere in between 10 BCAD should buy something like 20 AAWs or 25 GPs.  Allow for a 50% escalator and you are looking at least at 13 to 17 hulls while leaving 10 BCAD in the pot.

Costs can be adjusted using the Stanflex model of fitting ships "for not with" and varying the ratios of AAW:ASW:GP

I'd like to think that we can get hulls in the water at something approximating what the rest of the world is paying.  400 to 500 MCAD is on par with Huitfeldt, Absalon, FREMM, Nansen and Bazan.

 

[AlexanderM]

I'd like to think that we can get hulls in the water at something approximating what the rest of the world is paying.  400 to 500 MCAD is on par with Huitfeldt, Absalon, FREMM, Nansen and Bazan.

We are already right off the map in approximating what the rest of the world is paying.