Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yes. FTI is 30% smaller than the FREMM, which is why for the ADD/command version it may not provide the same capability as a FREMM. And remember that the French themselves say that the FTI will only save you 20% on the cost of a FREMM. Considering how long we keep our warships in Canada, I would think that this 20% saving is not overwhelming, especially when you consider that, by definition, a 30% larger ship will give you that much more space for future weapons systems than a smaller one when mid-life upgrades come home to roost.

As of the Italian vs French version of FREMM, you have to keep in mind that they are proposing a design, which is the hull and machinery and general layout on the one hand, and the system integration on the other hand. This last aspect the combat systems integration may or may not be the one used on the French or Italian ships, but a different set altogether since we have Canadian requirements that are specific to ourselves. For instance, I think it very unlikely that Canada will want to switch the Aster family of anti-air missiles, which means that the most likely system will be a combination of standard missiles with Mk 41 launchers, rather than a combination of  Aster 15/30 with the Sylver system. Similarly, our communications suites will likely be different. But the integration of systems can still be evolved from the French/Italian underlying system.

Given that, I think (no specific knowledge here, just gut feeling) that given similarly priced bids, the RCN would prefer the Italian FREMM's CODLAG giving 29+ knots of speed to the French CODLOG giving only 27+, especially since the Italian propulsion system configuration gives an extra 700-750 NM greater range at economical speed (of 15 KTS in each case).

 

[Kirkhill]

Personally I would be in favour of the bigger hull across all variants.

But I am also in favour of saving costs by just leaving some of that space empty - against future requirements and flexibility.

As has been often stated previously.  The hull is the minor cost.  The major capital cost is in weapons, sensors, comms and connectors.  The major operating cost is crew.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I would be somewhat cautious of the Italian designs, just because they build with the Med in mind.

The North Atlantic/North Pacific are altogether another kettle of fish when it comes to sea keeping. I would want to see the sea trial data before committing to them.

 

[tabernac]

Corngradulations to both of you, Lumber and OGBD.
Cynicism needs a counter.

You're not a cynic, you're a realist! 

Given that, I think (no specific knowledge here, just gut feeling) that given similarly priced bids, the RCN would prefer the Italian FREMM's CODLAG giving 29+ knots of speed to the French CODLOG giving only 27+, especially since the Italian propulsion system configuration gives an extra 700-750 NM greater range at economical speed (of 15 KTS in each case).

The last time I operated with a French FREMM they had very weird engineering restrictions when compared to the RCN. When going from their diesel to their GT, they had to slow down to (IIRC) obscenely slow speed to effect a drive mode changeover. If we end up with the FREMM, I hope it's with a more robust, more flexible engineering configuration.
Knowing that they have (had?) that restriction, I'm very happy with our SSS clutches, for what they allow.

 

[MarkOttawa]

How smoothly will process go?

RFP Finally Issued for RCN Canadian Surface Combatant: “eye-watering” Details Wanted
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/28/mark-collins-rfp-finally-issued-for-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-eye-watering-details-wanted/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Process ripples, BMD mentioned (last para at quote):

Public works clarifies gag order as experts warn of chill in warship debate
Officials say restriction on communication meant to insure bidding not influenced by 'other information'

The Public Works Department has attempted to smooth the waters with the defence industry and issued a clarification on its demand that bidders, vying to design the navy's new warships, refrain from talking about the program in public and attacking each other in the media.

The Liberal government faced a backlash last week from contractors and business publications over the requirement, which officials insist was meant to ensure an orderly bidding process...

Normally cut-throat contenders, their subcontractors and employees are not allowed to make "any public comment, respond to questions in a public forum or carry out any activities to either criticize another bidder or any bid — or publicly advertise their qualifications," according to the leaked draft, dated Oct. 9, 2016.

The behind-the-scenes response was swift and prompted public works officials to issue a clarification late Friday that the industry is "free to communicate as it sees fit."

Debate chill

Danny Lam, an analyst in environmental engineering and defence issues, says regardless of the government's "backtracking" the restriction imposes a far-reaching chill over one of the most important military projects in a generation...

"The chilling effect of this clause effectively means there will be no informed debate in Canada especially on the Canadian specific issues," said Lam, who cited the politically-sensitive issue of whether the new warships should come equipped with ballistic missile defence against rogue nations such as North Korea...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-replacement-gag-order-1.3830144

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I get two points from that article:

First, it is ridiculous to claim that "you are free to communicate as you see fit" is a clarification of a gag order that clearly stated you "are not allowed to make "any public comment, respond to questions in a public forum or carry out any activities to either criticize another bidder or any bid — or publicly advertise their qualifications".

Second: Is it just me, or does the last part of the article almost reads like an admission by the Liberals that they used misinformed opinions instead of facts to screw the Conservative's government choice of the F-35 (and they are now regretting it, as their "factual" review of what is available and at what cost is probably showing the F-35 to be the best choice  [). 

 

[Kirkhill]

OGBD

It isn't just you - on either call.

The difference between winning a popularity contest (promoting) and governing (restricting).  The problem with the revolution is how do you avoid Robespierre?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Lots of interesting points raised in piece linked to here:

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

 

[Karel Doorman]

This could be the new radar system for the surface combatantsdon't know whether it's been posted before)


APAR in a technical new look
July 04, 2016

Thales Netherlands presented in late May at the CANSEC exhibition in Ottawa APAR Block 2. Representatives of the most important shipyards in the world were very interested. The reason for this interest: the demands of the Canadian government for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program.

There is nothing fixed, but as the Royal Navy(Dutch) proceeds to replace the M-class frigates, the industry has already done the work. Thus Thales Netherlands also took the first steps to make technology available for these ships. Like the M-class frigates, the new ships will be multifunctional, but specializing in anti-submarine warfare. The threat levels as we knew it remained unchanged in many aspects of the Cold War. Threats have been added, are mostly located in the unpredictable spectrum. Threats such as shells fired from land, guided bombs fired by aircraft, small boats firing missiles, et cetera. With APAR in a technical new look all these threats can be addressed efficiently. APAR is capable in particular, to detect many, small, and fast clutter objects in a difficult-rich environment.

The interest in APAR block 2 is great, now that the Canadian government published its requirements for the CSC program: they are looking for a system like APAR. And of such a multi-function radar system that can track targets simultaneously and can control guns there is only one in the world: the APAR.The CSC programme involves 15 Area Air Defence vessels. These ships can not only defend itself but also other ships in the area. CSC is an important program, the largest acquisition of Naval surface ships currently worldwide. Canada would like a copy of an excisting ship(class) at this time. Large shipyards are interested in talking with Thales to be able to offer that together with the Thales APAR.

Thales Netherlands has been since the 60s the preferred supplier of various sensors on board Canada's ships. Canada participated in various development projects, from which Canadian industry benefited.From the start APAR also included  Canadian industry, but Canada has never bought APAR for themselves.Canadian industry is again involved in the development of APAR block 2. The coming months are used to approach potential strategic partners. There is already a partnership with Sanmina-SCI. The joining of forces should provide for the worldwide export of these systems, but focuses on a solid Canadian base system. Thales hopes for delivery to the Canadian Surface Combatant project (CSC).

Multi-function radar

The new aspect of APAR block 2 is that it is entirely digital, we use high-power gallium nitride (GaN) transmit / receive modules and the amount of space required is reduced considerably below deck. However, most important is that APAR Block 2 is able to detect all the potential threats, from very small to very large, and from slow to very fast. Under difficult atmospheric conditions.


Source(in Dutch): https://connect.thalesgroup.com/en/news/apar-in-een-technisch-nieuw-jasje

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Good lord, Karel! I hope you ran that article through Google-translate to obtain such a horrible translation. I think we get the gist, but many sentences make no sense at all.

Anyway, Happy New year and all the best for  2017, my friend.

And yes, APAR Mk2 is a very nice radar system and would certainly fit the bill for the surface combatants. BTW, the reason the original APAR was not selected for the Halifax modernization program is that we would have had to build an extra mast for it and the combination mast/radar for it and the accompanying SMART-L would have added too much top-weight. So we had to settle for SMART-S / upgraded sea giraffe combination.

 

[Karel Doorman]

Good lord, Karel! I hope you ran that article through Google-translate to obtain such a horrible translation. I think we get the gist, but many sentences make no sense at all.

Anyway, Happy New year and all the best for  2017, my friend.

And yes, APAR Mk2 is a very nice radar system and would certainly fit the bill for the surface combatants. BTW, the reason the original APAR was not selected for the Halifax modernization program is that we would have had to build an extra mast for it and the combination mast/radar for it and the accompanying SMART-L would have added too much top-weight. So we had to settle for SMART-S / upgraded sea giraffe combination.

Sorry,my friend i did(use Google) ;D

And for all of you a happy new year.

 

[NavyShooter]

Does look like the results of a google-translate service.

Interesting to see the focus on the APAR, and the mention that the RFP seems to specify a RADAR system that can simultaneously track targets and control guns.  That's setting ourselves up for a sole-source via writing every other system out of the specs. 

Similar to writing the glock out of the specs of the GSP contracting by one of the clauses.

NS

 

[Karel Doorman]

Does look like the results of a google-translate service.

Interesting to see the focus on the APAR, and the mention that the RFP seems to specify a RADAR system that can simultaneously track targets and control guns.  That's setting ourselves up for a sole-source via writing every other system out of the specs. 

Similar to writing the glock out of the specs of the GSP contracting by one of the clauses.

NS

Ok all, i tried to enhance the translation.So it should be readable now.  ;D  (see above)

gr,Karel.

 

[Underway]

Ok all, i tried to enhance the translation.So it should be readable now.  ;D  (see above)

gr,Karel.

Here's Jane's report on the same situation.  All in original english... [

Repeated here for the link challenged.

With the planned Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) programme firmly in its sights, Thales Nederland is looking to bring Canadian suppliers on board for the development of a second-generation version of its APAR X-band multifunction radar.

Known as APAR Block 2, the new baseline would build on the existing APAR reference platform, but further improve performance through selected technology insertions in both the antenna ‘front end’ and system processing.

APAR (an acronym of active phased array radar) is currently in service on the Royal Netherlands Navy’s four De Zeven Provinciën class air defence and command frigates, the German Navy’s three F 124 Sachsen class air defence frigates, and the Royal Danish Navy’s three Iver Huitfeldt class frigates. In all three cases, APAR forms part of a Thales-supplied anti-air warfare system that also comprises the SMART-L D-band volume search radar and a fire control cluster.

Originally developed as part of the Trilateral Frigate Cooperation programme – which included the participation of Canada as a funding partner – APAR performs horizon search and air target tracking as well as back-up volume search. In addition, APAR provides interrupted continuous wave illumination guidance for the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile and SM-2 missile families.

While Canada did not procure the first-generation APAR, Canadian companies have remained a key part of the supply chain, For example, Sanmina has supplied gallium arsenide transmit/receive modules (TRMs) through the life of the programme.

According to Albert Wildenberg, Thales Nederland’s business development manager, APAR Block 2 would build on this successful heritage.

“As new and more demanding threats emerge, we have developed a technology insertion roadmap that upgrades APAR performance and sustainability, and reduces weight and space demands below deck,” he told the CANSEC Show Daily. “In parallel, this insertion will lead to overall costs reduction, which of course is a further benefit for the Canadian customer.

“So that means moving to a fully digital radar architecture, developing a new front end based on high-power gallium nitride TRMs, and substantially rationalising below-decks cabinets by moving to all COTS-based processing.”

With Thales Nederland ramping up its CSC pursuit, the company is looking to extend the participation of Canadian industry into its supply chain. “CSC is a 15-ship programme,” Wildenberg said.

“We want to use the in-country engineering, development and manufacture base, and grow local content and work-share, with the intent to make this a true Canadian system.”

Last year, Thales Nederland and Sanmina signed a memorandum of understanding for the development and manufacturing of subsystems for candidate CSC radar systems. “The participation of Sanmina in APAR Block 2 could be an extension of this agreement,” said Wildenberg.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Will CSCs get Raytheon SM-6, with missile defence role for at least some ships (NORAD and NATO would surely like)?

SM-6 Cleared for International Sale; Australia, Japan, Korea Could Be Early Customers

An artist’s concept of the planned Japanese 27DD guided missile destroyer. Image via Navy Recognition

Raytheon’s Standard Missile 6 has been cleared by the Pentagon for international sales and a trio of potential Pacific nations are likely the first customers.

SM-6 — currently in limited initial production – is a key weapon in the both the Navy’s emerging distributed lethality concept and the service’s Naval Integrated Fire Control Counter-Air (NIFC-CA) for its ability to strike air, surface and limited ballistic missile targets.

Of the five international Aegis combat system operators, three are in the process to have the upgraded combat system to field the SM-6 – Australia, Japan and South Korea.

All three countries to have guided missile combatants upgraded to Aegis Baseline 9. Baseline 9 replaces the Aegis combat system older military specific computers with commercial-off-the-shelf servers to handle the data the ships absorb through its radar and adds a multi-signal processor. The modifications allow an Aegis ship to take targeting information from a third party to interdict air and sea warfare threats using the SM-6.

Concerns with both North Korean and Chinese military expansion have driven countries in the region to likewise expand their military capability — particularly at sea.

“These are international Aegis shipbuilding program that are under construction today or new construction,” Thad Smith with Raytheon told reporters on Tuesday [Jan. 10]...

While the three countries all could field the SM-6 its unclear if each country will be allowed to use all three modes of the missile – anti-air warfare, anti-surface and a limited ballistic missile defense capability [ https://news.usni.org/2016/12/15/mda-conducts-successful-ballistic-missile-intercept-ship-launched-sm-6 ].

While the missiles will all have the inherent capability for all three missions, the U.S. government will determine which of those features will be activated for international sales, Smith said...
https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/sm-6-cleared-international-sale-australia-japan-korea-early-customers

From a 2015 post at the Defence Muse blog:

...the RCN is in the design stages of the program that will see the construction of new Air Defence/Command and Control Destroyers. Work on those new ships will raise the questions of Ballistic Missile Defence once again. Should the ships be made capable of participating in the Anti-Ballistic Missile battle?

The real question should be “Can we responsibly prevent the ships from being capable in an ABM role?”

In examining radar, combat management and weapons capabilities of the equipment most likely to form the backbone of Canada’s new CSC Air Defence/Command and Control destroyers we notice an interesting pattern. They all have either a demonstrated ABM capability, or are developing one.

The US Navy’s AEGIS system is the best known capability, having demonstrated that ability during numerous tests. On February 20, 2008, the satellite US 193 was destroyed in low Earth orbit by the AEGIS-equipped USS Lake Erie. This demonstrated the systems ability to hit a target at an altitude of 133 miles. AEGIS is combined with the SM-3/SM-6 missile for its ABM capability. AEGIS will even see service on land as AEGIS ASHORE. This will see components of the AEGIS system built into structures on land, mimicking the shipboard installations...
https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/technology-and-politics-canadian-ballistic-missile-defence/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Underway]

I honestly don't have a clue.  If the ship goes the VLS route for an ASW missile (which is coming soon) then the large version of the VLS's will be required.  Then really its going to be just a software+missile issue as all the ships in competition (except perhaps the Type 26) have BMD capability inbuilt in their missile defence systems.

What I really want to know is what are the "must haves" or design constraints (for those engineers in the building) for the CSC bidders.  We can probably extrapolate from some of the obvious ones and the ones that have been stated publicly:

Constraints:
-127-millimetre gun
-Crew accommodations from 165 to 200
-Capacity to carry Cyclone helicopters
-Medium-range radar (up to 200 nm)

The vague constraints:
-Anti-surface warfare capability, much like the RCN has in the frigates
-Long-range air defence capability, much like what is in the Iroquois-class (for the first 3-4 of the class)
-Anti-submarine warfare capabilities
-Passive and active decoy systems (what kinds?  are there specifics?)

Things we don't know:
-ASW system/requirements - must use CANTASS?? Use current torp family or switch to the MU90?
-ASuW missile type - is this a hard and fast requirement or something the designer can submit? Assume Harpoon, Exocet or LRASM (we've expressed interest in it, this means the strike Mk 41 boxes for launching thus leaving door open for AAW destroyer to have SM-6 capability).
-Radar specifications.  Does the navy want the two radar combo or something else.  This really depends on the AAW missile defence system.
-Damage control requirements.  We're usually pretty specific on these for the ships as they must usually match across the fleet.
-Navigation requirements.  Easy fix for nav systems.
-Speed - minimum?  Engineering setup? (CODLAG, CODOG, etc..??)
-Tonnage - bigger is generally better and most of the bidders run between 5400 to 7200 tonnes.
-Extra mission capability - multimission space (boarding party boats, SOF, humanitarian, UUV's etc...)
-RAS - probably a very specific equipment setup for the ships as there is a "Canadian way" to do this.  Not sure if the navy is flexible enough on this, perhaps we are...
-Chinook capability
-signature management
-comms
-C4ISR - cooperative engagement capability, Flag ship abilities

I realise that with a limited amount design constraints you give the engineers a large amount of flexibility to come forward with creative and competitive designs to cover off many different things.  Perhaps that's the point.  We have a tradition in Canadian procurement to over specify.  Also its going to be basically two different ships (AAW and GP) you might find that the radars for example are different or the amount of flight deck/multimission space is changed between the types.  I'd really love to see the SOR and compare them to each other.

 

[Kirkhill]

In addition, could you ask for a Foreign Policy and a statement of how the Canadian Forces are expected to support it? 

(In case Dimsum is listening in, I'm still in the market for beachfront property)  >

Sorry for the interruption, Underway.

 

[Journeyman]

.... the "must haves" or design constraints (for those engineers in the building) ....

It's also a term in higher HQ's guidance (for the military planners in the building) 

constraint = must do
restraint = must not

/tangent

 

[Good2Golf]

It's also a term in higher HQ's guidance (for the military planners in the building) 

constraint = how it must be done
restraint = must not

/tangent

[/pedant]