Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Uzlu]

Out of pure curiosity what makes it more important or critical to build our own warships or at least large aspects of a warship than let’s say fighter aircraft, transport aircraft, main battle tanks or artillery?
If there are strategic military reasons they would apply across all systems would it not?
If it’s about jobs and dollars then is it driven more by political imperatives than strategic imperatives?
Do the answers matter?
Canada has really only deliberately, consistently and effectively maintained a completely indigenous small arms manufacturing capacity. Everything else has eroded significantly or disappeared and that has been accepted. Why not warship construction?
I think the answers to those questions is why skepticism about the ship building programs comes up consistently.

Forbes: Here's why we can't buy our warships from foreign companies

It is so simple, according to some: Just go out to your foreign new warship dealer and buy the warship of your dreams for billions less than you can build it is Canada. Take the savings and pay ex-shipyard workers Employment Insurance for 10 years.

This would, of course, close every shipyard capable of building large ships in Canada – all three of them. Why did nobody think of it before?

Well, they have, and for decades the idea has been rejected by every type of government. Because it is not just the shipyards that would lose business, but hundreds of small, medium and large businesses across the country. Businesses that not only provide such things as steel and copper, but that produce products ranging from anchors to the integration of combat systems. Does anyone remember the hundreds of businesses that suffered when the Avro Arrow was cancelled in 1959?

But the most important loss would be the loss of intellectual property (IP) that would go along with such an idea.

Intellectual property belongs to those who design the millions of things that go into a modern warship. This IP would belong to those offshore companies who designed the ship and it systems. We have already seen an inkling of this problem with the current attempt to buy offshore designs for the Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC). Several countries and their shipyards have balked at the requirement for Canada to have access to the IP of their proposed designs.

But why is this IP important? It is primarily because it limits the amount of maintenance and modification that Canada can carry out. Without the IP, you cannot fix anything, you cannot modify anything and you cannot sell your technology to other countries. It would mean that we would have to send the ships back to their parent shipyards for dockings and other essential work. It would mean that maintenance of any ship systems, from main engines to combat systems, could only be done by the holders of the IP. It would mean little or no work for Canadian workers on any of these systems.

But surely we could buy the IP from the selling shipyard? Well, that would also mean buying it from every IP holder who has equipment on the ship. And it would cost us billions, many of those billions we might also have to put toward payment of ex-employees. This is a sellers’ market and Canada would have very little leverage to acquire IP for minimal cost.

To those who argue the point: It is just not that simple to buy all our warships offshore.

Gordon Forbes, LCDR (ret’d), has been involved in the naval procurement business for the most part of 38 years, both in the Navy and in the defence industry. He lives in Orléans.

Forbes: Here's why we can't buy our warships from foreign companies

It is so simple, according to some: Just go out to your foreign new warship dealer and buy the warship of your dreams for billions less than you can build it is Can…

ottawacitizen.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barring missile launchers and the Aegis combat management system, U.S. firms have not grabbed a large slice of naval work in Europe, and no change is on the horizon, according to Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London.

“Warships are historically linked to national power, and if you stop building them you are no longer seen as a great power — you are at the bidding of others,” Roberts said.

“The Spanish, the British, the French — they haven’t given up shipbuilding, even if they were better off buying off the shelf, and we are unlikely to see a reduction of yards in Europe,” he added.

An ocean apart: Few naval vendors manage to pierce US and European protectionism

When it comes to shipbuilding, the two trans-Atlantic allies mostly keep to themselves.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Navy_Pete]

Out of pure curiosity what makes it more important or critical to build our own warships or at least large aspects of a warship than let’s say fighter aircraft, transport aircraft, main battle tanks or artillery?
If there are strategic military reasons they would apply across all systems would it not?
If it’s about jobs and dollars then is it driven more by political imperatives than strategic imperatives?
Do the answers matter?
Canada has really only deliberately, consistently and effectively maintained a completely indigenous small arms manufacturing capacity. Everything else has eroded significantly or disappeared and that has been accepted. Why not warship construction?
I think the answers to those questions is why skepticism about the ship building programs comes up consistently.

Probably has to do with the level of manufacturing involved with each unit, and that there isn't an OEM. Nothing about building a ship is rocket surgery or proprietary, and there isn't any particular super specialty equipment that is required, but you can keep a couple thousand people working for a few years on every single ship, and the same skill set can transfer over to building non-military ships.

Not to say that it's easy, or doesn't require skills to do well, but every country on water already has shipyards of some sort, so it's probably a natural one to keep in house as it's not really a new capability. Big things like aircraft carriers or landing ships would be more specialized, and subs are a totally different beast, but when you look at the portion of any shipbuilding expense that goes towards labour, and than do some back of the napkin kinds of calculations, it's hard to argue against economic benefits of doing it in your own country. We already had the shipyard facilities, they were just modernized. The hardest part has been building the experience back up after not doing it so long. But if any of the waterfront shipyards had been sold for condos or whatever, it would probably be gone forever.

We do build LAVs here though, and the GoC has been supporting Bombardier, the automakers and other industries for generations, so why should we push shipbuilding offshore if we can do it here?

 

[MilEME09]

We do build LAVs here though, and the GoC has been supporting Bombardier, the automakers and other industries for generations, so why should we push shipbuilding offshore if we can do it here?

The key will be to sustain the industry long term which is a goal of the NSPS, while this first round of ships may be expensive, in theory as our industry gets more experienced, we can upgrade ships yards, build things faster, etc...

 

[Fabius]

It’s interesting to think about. I suspect the sheer dollar value and the lack of an actual OEM to a degree, answer the desire to build in Canada best.
In my opinion while all the other reasons are totally valid they apply equally to other Defense programs that we are perfectly content to buy offshore.

IP not a unique concern solely for ships.

Strategic manufacturing capability and broad economic impacts across sectors . 100% valid, but why did we let it lapse (twice I believe) if this is a true strategic concern vs political votes/ bureaucratic infighting issue and will this time be different? I hope so but as others have said we are 4 yrs into a 30 yr program.


Edited to add: I think it is a strategic concern or at least should be although I am not convinced that the Canadian Government and all political parties understand what that means and are willing to act accordingly. AKA not allowing another 15-20 year gap.

 

[childs56]

Forbes: Here's why we can't buy our warships from foreign companies

It is so simple, according to some: Just go out to your foreign new warship dealer and buy the warship of your dreams for billions less than you can build it is Canada. Take the savings and pay ex-shipyard workers Employment Insurance for 10 years.

This would, of course, close every shipyard capable of building large ships in Canada – all three of them. Why did nobody think of it before?

Its funny how those ship yards have been open for business for all these years. They open, they close its cyclic. As for going to foreign warship dealer, that's exactly what we have done. Except we are modifying the heck out of a current hull and adding so much stuff we minds well start from scratch and build a truly made and designed in Canada approach, kind of like we did with the Halifax class ships.

Well, they have, and for decades the idea has been rejected by every type of government. Because it is not just the shipyards that would lose business, but hundreds of small, medium and large businesses across the country. Businesses that not only provide such things as steel and copper, but that produce products ranging from anchors to the integration of combat systems. Does anyone remember the hundreds of businesses that suffered when the Avro Arrow was cancelled in 1959?

But the most important loss would be the loss of intellectual property (IP) that would go along with such an idea.

The only way to have IP is to design and build from the bottom up. Which we are not doing, again we are taking a current design, modifying it and trying to make it work.
Maybe we need to build a new Halifax class ship, modify it to fit what equipment we need and build it , sail it and be the envy of the worlds Navies with a high tech piece of equipment. Or we take a current foreign design, hack and slash it, then hope it works. We have had 20plus years to design and build a made in Canada ship again. We failed. With Forbes talking1 about IP loss, we already loss.

Intellectual property belongs to those who design the millions of things that go into a modern warship. This IP would belong to those offshore companies who designed the ship and it systems. We have already seen an inkling of this problem with the current attempt to buy offshore designs for the Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC). Several countries and their shipyards have balked at the requirement for Canada to have access to the IP of their proposed designs.

But why is this IP important? It is primarily because it limits the amount of maintenance and modification that Canada can carry out. Without the IP, you cannot fix anything, you cannot modify anything and you cannot sell your technology to other countries. It would mean that we would have to send the ships back to their parent shipyards for dockings and other essential work. It would mean that maintenance of any ship systems, from main engines to combat systems, could only be done by the holders of the IP. It would mean little or no work for Canadian workers on any of these systems.

But surely we could buy the IP from the selling shipyard? Well, that would also mean buying it from every IP holder who has equipment on the ship. And it would cost us billions, many of those billions we might also have to put toward payment of ex-employees. This is a sellers’ market and Canada would have very little leverage to acquire IP for minimal cost.

To those who argue the point: It is just not that simple to buy all our warships offshore.

Gordon Forbes, LCDR (ret’d), has been involved in the naval procurement business for the most part of 38 years, both in the Navy and in the defence industry. He lives in Orléans.

Forbes: Here's why we can't buy our warships from foreign companies

It is so simple, according to some: Just go out to your foreign new warship dealer and buy the warship of your dreams for billions less than you can build it is Can…

ottawacitizen.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barring missile launchers and the Aegis combat management system, U.S. firms have not grabbed a large slice of naval work in Europe, and no change is on the horizon, according to Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London.

“Warships are historically linked to national power, and if you stop building them you are no longer seen as a great power — you are at the bidding of others,” Roberts said.

“The Spanish, the British, the French — they haven’t given up shipbuilding, even if they were better off buying off the shelf, and we are unlikely to see a reduction of yards in Europe,” he added.

An ocean apart: Few naval vendors manage to pierce US and European protectionism

When it comes to shipbuilding, the two trans-Atlantic allies mostly keep to themselves.

www.defensenews.com

 

[blacktriangle]

Honestly have thought about getting into politics and taking a run at being an MP just to call out the various factions within the GoC that keep throwing up barriers based on BS assumptions and a total lack of understanding of shipbuilding who know better than DND, CCG and numerous international third parties.

From your posts, you seem too decent to get into politics. I'm sure LM has something for you...

 

[Halifax Tar]

The fact we keep going back to yards like Irving and expecting a quality product is the problem. And its what causes the howls from people like me to buy off shore.

I don't give a crap about an industry and jobs that produce for me equipment that cost too much with shoddy workmanship and quality. If we had an industry that had a value beyond vote generating I could buy into this.

 

[Uzlu]

Its funny how those ship yards have been open for business for all these years. They open, they close its cyclic.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy was established to eliminate the boom-and-bust cycles.

As for going to foreign warship dealer, that's exactly what we have done. Except we are modifying the heck out of a current hull and adding so much stuff we minds well start from scratch and build a truly made and designed in Canada approach, kind of like we did with the Halifax class ships.

We could. Except it would take more time and be a lot more expensive. And there have been individuals complaining about the delays and price—individuals like you.

Maybe we need to build a new Halifax class ship, modify it to fit what equipment we need and build it , sail it and be the envy of the worlds Navies with a high tech piece of equipment. Or we take a current foreign design, hack and slash it, then hope it works.

The Halifax-class frigate is an old design—way too old to try to update and derive a new design from. We are already taking a current foreign design—the Type 26 frigate—and using that as a basis for a new design.

 

[CBH99]

Probably has to do with the level of manufacturing involved with each unit, and that there isn't an OEM. Nothing about building a ship is rocket surgery or proprietary, and there isn't any particular super specialty equipment that is required, but you can keep a couple thousand people working for a few years on every single ship, and the same skill set can transfer over to building non-military ships.

Not to say that it's easy, or doesn't require skills to do well, but every country on water already has shipyards of some sort, so it's probably a natural one to keep in house as it's not really a new capability. Big things like aircraft carriers or landing ships would be more specialized, and subs are a totally different beast, but when you look at the portion of any shipbuilding expense that goes towards labour, and than do some back of the napkin kinds of calculations, it's hard to argue against economic benefits of doing it in your own country. We already had the shipyard facilities, they were just modernized. The hardest part has been building the experience back up after not doing it so long. But if any of the waterfront shipyards had been sold for condos or whatever, it would probably be gone forever.

We do build LAVs here though, and the GoC has been supporting Bombardier, the automakers and other industries for generations, so why should we push shipbuilding offshore if we can do it here?

This last part was actually the subject of a different thread, way back yonder. Or at least it seems like it was.

You bring up a good point, and one that I don’t know the details of. (Every province, and the federal government, have some kind of assistance to businesses in that province.)

When we look at GD and the LAV’s, Bell Textron, Bombardier, etc - all of these businesses produce quality products. And yet all of them - with the exception of Bell - rely on government bailouts or government orders. (I’m thinking of these in the Canadian context, even though GD & Bell are obviously international.)

Despite them all producing quality products, they still don’t seem to “stand out” on the world stage in terms of competitiveness. Why is this?

Is it poor leadership at the corporate level? Government kneecapping, like what JT did to Bell with the Philippines helicopter purchase? Other countries having access to their own GD, Bell, etc etc factories?

(sorry for thread derail. I’ll try to dig up the old thread and continue it there)

 

[Navy_Pete]

This last part was actually the subject of a different thread, way back yonder. Or at least it seems like it was.

You bring up a good point, and one that I don’t know the details of. (Every province, and the federal government, have some kind of assistance to businesses in that province.)

When we look at GD and the LAV’s, Bell Textron, Bombardier, etc - all of these businesses produce quality products. And yet all of them - with the exception of Bell - rely on government bailouts or government orders. (I’m thinking of these in the Canadian context, even though GD & Bell are obviously international.)

Despite them all producing quality products, they still don’t seem to “stand out” on the world stage in terms of competitiveness. Why is this?

Is it poor leadership at the corporate level? Government kneecapping, like what JT did to Bell with the Philippines helicopter purchase? Other countries having access to their own GD, Bell, etc etc factories?

(sorry for thread derail. I’ll try to dig up the old thread and continue it there)

I think a lot of it is that a lot of countries also want to support domestic production for their own equipment, and a lot of the ones that don't overlap with our restricted weapons dealing list, so the list for possible foreign buyers is pretty small (in real terms).

Not sure about LAVs, helos etc but at least with ships you have a decent chance to export the design to recoup some of that investment;. Best case is that licensed designs use the same equipment, which is great for having a bigger user pool for finding/troubleshooting problems, but presumably supports the supply chain. Even if that doesn't directly benefit manufacturing or suppliers in your country there are a lot of in service benefits. for supportability.

Kind of a weird point made in the article above about IP; the IP agreements to license everything is a big effort, but we're not 'generating' any IP that we'll own free and clear that we could resell. I don't think it's necessarily much faster to license a design, but customizing it with different equipment definitely needs a much smaller team compared to a 'from scratch' design. At least this one is a current design so we're not having to make major changes to meet updates to SOLAS.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think a lot of it is that a lot of countries also want to support domestic production for their own equipment, and a lot of the ones that don't overlap with our restricted weapons dealing list, so the list for possible foreign buyers is pretty small (in real terms).

Not sure about LAVs, helos etc but at least with ships you have a decent chance to export the design to recoup some of that investment;. Best case is that licensed designs use the same equipment, which is great for having a bigger user pool for finding/troubleshooting problems, but presumably supports the supply chain. Even if that doesn't directly benefit manufacturing or suppliers in your country there are a lot of in service benefits. for supportability.

Kind of a weird point made in the article above about IP; the IP agreements to license everything is a big effort, but we're not 'generating' any IP that we'll own free and clear that we could resell. I don't think it's necessarily much faster to license a design, but customizing it with different equipment definitely needs a much smaller team compared to a 'from scratch' design. At least this one is a current design so we're not having to make major changes to meet updates to SOLAS.

We continually use this as support for our shipbuilding and never in the history of Canadian ship building has another country looked at our finished Naval product and bought the design.

LAVs I do believe have been copied and used by a few countries.

LAV III - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Underway]

Quick question. And I apologize if it’s been asked upthread. Hoping someone here in the know can help answer this.

What Canadian “modifications” are going into our CSC, compared to the British version and the Australian version? And why does it require a redesign that seems to be a pretty heavy undertaking?

I’m not asking in a critical way. Genuinely curious.

One of the reasons I thought we were only looking at ships in service with another country was specifically so we could get a design & start building when their slot came up. (I understand that they will be ready to build when their slot comes up after the AOPS)

But what is it about “our” version of the Type 26 that requires all this design work? Or is this normal, and the Aussies had to do something similar?

A lot more than you might think.

Outfitting and furnishing - different suppliers of beds, lockers, phones, desks, lights, safes, ammo lockers, light switches, coat hangers, chairs, tables etc... all require different layouts and organization within a space. Each room has everything planned and placed exactly.

Communications - this is massive. Every computer, radio, phone (sound-powered, regular phone line, external phone lines), internet port/hub/switch/server, crypto, PA system (different supplier), ship to shore connections, wi-fi.
-the other big thing here is EMCON and EMSEC which is very very critical and because the equipment is different will require testing and certification to US/Canadian standards,
-as the equipment is different the footprint in the spaces and power requirements are likely different, EMSEC and EMCON may require rerouting of cable or even physical changes to the ship design for security zones (can't be having wi-fi in a security zone, or any leaky signals)

Integrated Topside design - uptakes and down takes for ventilation/engines, satcom, HF UHF VHF -antennas/receivers, radars (multiple navigation, surveillance, fire control, helicopter control), ECM, EO/IR, fire arcs, weapons placement, boats, safety attachments, new mast design. All these things need to be placed for optimal coverage to do their job with minimal blind spots and no interference from each other electromagnetically. There are tradeoffs as not everything can be mounted on the prime spots on the very top of the mast. They spend 3 years designing the masts on the Halifax class and still got it wrong (if there ever was a right answer).
-add to this all of this equipment will be different (aside from the uptakes/downtakes) than the UK because of different suppliers and different requirements

Weapons - more VLS than any other version of this ship, the 127mm might be an Italian vice BAE, using different torp launchers/type than either other version which means a different handling system, magazine racking design/placement, launcher

Helicopter - RCAF flight deck management system, flight safety equipment, furnishing and equipment to service the aircraft - there is a lot of stuff here that is specific to our aircraft

Bridge and navigation - different suppliers so the entire bridge will be redesigned to match our navigation systems/consoles, positions on the bridge, equipment stored on the bridge (lockers etc...), communication devices, chairs, life-saving equipment, binoculars

Fire fighting/damage control - all different Canadian standard equipment for all the "non-fitted systems", different suppliers of pumps, and perhaps other equipment

So many more things (haven't even touched on galley, crew spaces, ballistic protection, ship weight changes, etc...).

TL/DR: a giant crapload of stuff because of different suppliers and critical equipment/regulation requirements

 

[Rifleman62]

I am going by memory here. Many years ago, read a book about Canada's war in the Atlantic. It stated that the Brits were pulling their Corvettes out of service for modifications such as the "wet" forecastle, but MacKenzie King refused to do so. Apparently the Cdn built radar didn't work, froze solid in weather , and other mods needed. King wanted to play politics with a large Navy contribution.
King lied to the Cdn people re the Quebec Conference. He was not a member, but insured he was in the photo op with Churchill/Roosevelt by driving around and around the Chateau Laurier hotel until the conference was over. Typical Liberal.

 

[CBH99]

I am going by memory here. Many years ago, read a book about Canada's war in the Atlantic. It stated that the Brits were pulling their Corvettes out of service for modifications such as the "wet" forecastle, but MacKenzie King refused to do so. Apparently the Cdn built radar didn't work, froze solid in weather , and other mods needed. King wanted to play politics with a large Navy contribution.
King lied to the Cdn people re the Quebec Conference. He was not a member, but insured he was in the photo op with Churchill/Roosevelt by driving around and around the Chateau Laurier hotel until the conference was over. Typical Liberal.

Rifleman, usually I read your posts and they make perfect sense. I'm lost on this one?

 

[Rifleman62]

North Atlantic Run: The Royal Canadian Navy and the Battle for the Convoys - By Marc Milner (1985)​

Milner focuses primarily on the series of bitter and tragic battles fought by the RCN in the mid-Atlantic during the latter half of 1942. Events of those six months constituted the crisis of Canada's naval war. The fall-out from this crisis, its impact on the operational deployment of the fleet, and the violent upheaval it caused it Ottawa are key parts of the story. The drama at sea was played out against a backgroup of bitter controversy at home, as the navy struggled to balance its operational commitments with the urgent need to confront and defeat a deadly enemy.

 

[Rifleman62]

My point was even during a major war, the Liberals were playing politics with our war effort and procurement for the military was one of the victims. Quebec Conference was just another example of Liberalease.

 

[Weinie]

North Atlantic Run: The Royal Canadian Navy and the Battle for the Convoys - By Marc Milner (1985)​

Milner focuses primarily on the series of bitter and tragic battles fought by the RCN in the mid-Atlantic during the latter half of 1942. Events of those six months constituted the crisis of Canada's naval war. The fall-out from this crisis, its impact on the operational deployment of the fleet, and the violent upheaval it caused it Ottawa are key parts of the story. The drama at sea was played out against a backgroup of bitter controversy at home, as the navy struggled to balance its operational commitments with the urgent need to confront and defeat a deadly enemy.

Is he the guy that MilNet is named after?

 

[childs56]

The National Shipbuilding Strategy was established to eliminate the boom-and-bust cycles.

Back when the Halifax ships were built we had a ship building strategy. It failed.

We could. Except it would take more time and be a lot more expensive. And there have been individuals complaining about the delays and price—individuals like you.

The Halifax-class frigate is an old design—way too old to try to update and derive a new design from. We are already taking a current foreign design—the Type 26 frigate—and using that as a basis for a new design.

The Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer is just as old as our Halifax class ships. They are still going strong, mods have been done and they are building new ones. Part of a ship building strategy is to build a ship that you can modify and build, then use it to build the next class off, the Halifax class was built with lots of spare room to modify and add in the future. Yet here we are again 30 years later modifying a perfectly fine ship that we do not have any experience with so we can "Canadianize" it. It has nothing to share with the Halifax class ships we currently owned, designed and built. In my opinion we should build a light frigate such as the Halifax class and we should build a heavy Frigate/ Destroyer such as the Type 26/ Arleigh burke. Two classes of ships that we can run side by side that compliment each other.

 

[childs56]

LAVs I do believe have been copied and used by a few countries.

LAV III - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We continually use this as support for our shipbuilding and never in the history of Canadian ship building has another country looked at our finished Naval product and bought the design.

LAVs I do believe have been copied and used by a few countries.

LAV III - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

During WW2 other countries used our Corvette design. In Modern times our ships are to specific for others to buy them. If we cant offer a alternative to Canadian Opsec equipment installed then why would another country buy the ship. Then the costs and the long delivery times have another effect. Canada amazed many countries with our Halifax class ships, of the overall capability of the ship. Yet we failed to gain any sales of the ship because most Navies run a ASW platform, a separate AAW ship. We built a all in one ship with little alternatives and we would not budge off the design for others. Then we through in Opsec and that turned other countries off. Not to mention we wanted them to build them here.
Our ship yards couldn't produce ships fast enough or cheap enough to compete with the major ship builders around the world. Now South Korea has the second largest ship yard in the world. Add to this they now build Naval ships of various classes. It makes for a hard market to break into for outside sales. We were behind 8 ball already.

Look at the APOS, we didn't design a new class of ship. All we did was modify a current style and Canadianize it at a cost. Spooled up a ship yard that may shut down in a couple years when this build is finished. We do not have a big enough market to keep things going. Nor do countries want to buy a over priced ship they can get an equivalent of for a lower cost.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The Flower Class Corvette was not our design. It was British which we took and built as well.

Flower-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org