• 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

Infanteer said:
I used to play a Naval Sim game called Harpoon ...

Oldgateboatdriver said:
The reason you remember it from the board game Harpoon, Infanteer, is that the game itself was developed by retired US naval officers who used as its basis the simulations/command post scenarios in use by the US Navy to train its officers in advance of actual NATO exercises. Those scenarios were also heavily used with cadets at Annapolis.

You were playing a dumbed down version of CPX.  :nod:

An upgraded version of Harpoon is still used as an open source simulator for Defence research at many institutions, it's open source at this point and can be modified as needed to trial scenarios.  I read somewhere that the LCS concept came out of one of these sims (you know from a guy who knows a guy).

Also loved that game as a kid.  That's how I learned the words to the Soviet (now Russian) national anthem.  Played every time you won the game as the Soviets.
 
Underway said:
An upgraded version of Harpoon is still used as an open source simulator for Defence research at many institutions, it's open source at this point and can be modified as needed to trial scenarios.  I read somewhere that the LCS concept came out of one of these sims (you know from a guy who knows a guy).

Also loved that game as a kid.  That's how I learned the words to the Soviet (now Russian) national anthem.  Played every time you won the game as the Soviets.

I still play it.
 
IIRC - the counter to Swarming was a combination of Early Warning from the AWACS (Positioned as far forward as possible)  and maintaining a steady supply of 4-ship fighters in the air engaging the swarm at long range.  And don't hang around to get into gun range.

Get back on the ground, re-arm, and back in the air as quickly as possible.

In fact.....precisely the tactics that would result in an aircraft like the F-35.
 
So in one corner we've got Alion-Canada working with DAMEN to bring us the De Zeven Provincien largely unchanged. Then there is the F105 from Navantia teamed with SAAB Australia with again not many changes. Then the Type 26 with Lockheed Canada paired with BAE and the Canada A-Team, definitely involves the most risk for us. Lastly Naval Group/Fincantieri consortium apparently backing out of the bid and offering a fixed procurement offer of 15 built in Halifax with a full transfer of technology and access to their global supply chain at $30bn, thing is even fitted with 2x RAM launchers which surprised me but it also did not say if it had VLS?

The FREMM looks like a tasty deal... $32bn savings, holy smokes. Heck if they wanted to continue to put that into the military budget that is... That's a lot of capability (and fat checks). They could decide to do nothing with it, save money, and call it a day while still looking good for reelection. I bet $5 (lol) that BAE will be selected no matter what. The Type 26 does look really good, we will just be absorbing a ton of that risk by building 15 of them when steel was only cut this year for the Royal Navy.
 
Serger, the key to the puzzle lies here

Oldgateboatdriver said:
Let's get factual here:

These are the figures taken straight out of the PBO report on the CSC's cost. They are found at table 1 of the summary of findings, page 2 of the report - which is available on line (I am not posting the link because I wish to abide by Scott's new system for long documents but I haven't quite figured it out yet):

The PBO gives two figures for the program cost: One is in FY2017 dollars (i.e. this is what it would cost if we were executing the whole program in that FY and paid for it in current dollars of that year), then he gives the figures in "Then-years" (meaning the cost with inflation/dollar devalued along the way so that it is the actual price paid in each of the years a payment will be made in the future).

It Breaks down as such:

Total cost of program: $40B$ FY2017; 62B$ Then-yr.

Cost of development: $4.5B$ FY2017; 5B$ Then-yr.

Cost of the production (actual cost of ships): $28B$ FY2017; 45B$ Then-yr.

The rest*: 7.5B$ FY2017; 12B$ Then-yr.

*: The rest includes the following: Spares for the first two years and then spares for the rest of the in-service years (why the breakdown for the first two years, I have no idea); ammunition (this is for actual ammunition expenditure for training/forecasted ops during the lifetime, not for the original set of ammunition, which is included in the cost of production) facilities, documentation, training and Government program management.

As I have indicated at the time these figures came out, using the Australian Adelaide destroyers as baseline for the command/AAW ships, a FY2017 cost of about 4B$ each is in line with current costs. So, for three, you get the first 12B$ knocked out of the figure. The reminder of 16B$ for the 12 GP/ASW version means about 1.3B$ each, which is also in line with current price for such ships.

The "problem" lies in the procurement time line and the intention to keep yards open for decades to supply jobs.

If all the hulls required by the NSPS were to be procured in a 5 to 10 year time period then we would end up with a precisely costed fleet, with current capabilites and a solid basis for current operations and future planning.

On the other hand we wouldn't be guaranteeing jobs in perpetuity.

When accountants and politicians talk about "then year" dollars they are playing a game of fancy.  Nobody knows how much things will cost 20 to 40 years down the line, what will be needed and how much money will be available. 

If governments were at all serious about the situation then they would be adopting something like this:

A rapid replacement programme to renew the existing fleet by any and all means in the near term.

A long range plan for maintaining the refurbished fleet based on keeping all the yards open with a steady trickle of work.

This plays into the Davie/Federal school but also allows for the purchase of hulls from offshore because the initial volume of work would overwhelm the Canadian yards.

It would also permit the immediate acquisition of second hand hulls that are only anticipated to be in service for 5 to 10 years prior to being replaced by locally built vessels.

 
What are the chances the government of the day will select a ship that is known to the world and will always be known as the 'Global Combat Ship".
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-12-03 at 12.52.20 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-12-03 at 12.52.20 PM.png
    652.5 KB · Views: 267
And now this at Irving, note timeline at end for A/OPS:

Unionized Halifax Shipyard workers to vote on strike mandate
Collective agreement between Unifor Marine Workers Local 1 and the Halifax Shipyard expires Dec. 31

Unionized employees of the Halifax Shipyard are voting Sunday afternoon on whether to give their negotiating team a strike mandate.

The current collective agreement between Unifor Marine Workers Local 1 and the Halifax Shipyard expires at the end of the month. About 800 of the union's members, ranging from electricians to metal fabricators, work at the shipyard.

Irving employees are in the middle of constructing Arctic and offshore patrol vessels. A large centre section of the first one, HMCS Harry DeWolf, is now visible outside the massive assembly hall on the Halifax waterfront.

Formal bargaining started a month ago and the two sides say they've spent four days at the table so far.

Sean Lewis, Irving Shipbuilding's director of communications, said the two sides are still working on scheduling talks with a conciliator. The province appointed one after the company's Nov. 23 request, he said...

There have been delays with construction and Irving is now planning to build five or six patrol vessels. The shipyard is supposed to finish the first ship in 2018. The last one is expected to be complete in 2022 [emphasis added].
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-shipyard-unifor-local-1-contract-negotiations-1.4430271

Mark
Ottawa
 
And thus the construction gap is managed......  :rofl:
 
serger989 said:
So in one corner we've got Alion-Canada working with DAMEN to bring us the De Zeven Provincien largely unchanged. Then there is the F105 from Navantia teamed with SAAB Australia with again not many changes. Then the Type 26 with Lockheed Canada paired with BAE and the Canada A-Team, definitely involves the most risk for us. Lastly Naval Group/Fincantieri consortium apparently backing out of the bid and offering a fixed procurement offer of 15 built in Halifax with a full transfer of technology and access to their global supply chain at $30bn, thing is even fitted with 2x RAM launchers which surprised me but it also did not say if it had VLS?

The FREMM looks like a tasty deal... $32bn savings, holy smokes. Heck if they wanted to continue to put that into the military budget that is... That's a lot of capability (and fat checks). They could decide to do nothing with it, save money, and call it a day while still looking good for reelection. I bet $5 (lol) that BAE will be selected no matter what. The Type 26 does look really good, we will just be absorbing a ton of that risk by building 15 of them when steel was only cut this year for the Royal Navy.

There is risk inherent in all of the projects in different ways.  The FREMM, F-105 and DZP all require changes to operate a Cyclone (really big helo).  This is a big deal for the F-105 and the FREMM.  The FREMM needs more VLS, needs to operate a the Mk-46 torp to meet the minimum requirement, the F-105 is installing a new radar system mast, the FREMM is probably doing the same (SEAFIRE 500 is rumoured).  DZP is looking to install the APAR 2 instead of the APAR is the oldest design with the least proven foreign build credentials of all the companies and the second least flexibility of the ships.  It could be argued from a "get exactly what we need" perspective the Type 26 is the least risk as it's right in the money spot where changes can easily be introduced to the design at this point.

I think I'll do an analysis post later of the general bids and technical specs of the ships with potential pros/cons.  Could do a mini analysis of the bids for fun.

Tangent:
Can someone help me identify the potential radar/sensors is the Type 26 bid coming in with?  The pics show what I can only interpret as a non-rotating phased array with two parts, a large panel probably S-Band area search and a small panel probably X-Band FC type system.  But try as I might I can't find a system Lockheed or MDA use that matches that setup.  Perhaps they are going outside their group to grab Thales stuff??

Lockheed does make the SPY-1 radar so we could be looking at a SPY-1F or F(V), with a different illuminator type then the old standby Fire Control Directors (as none are shown on the ship pic).  I don't expect a SPY-1D would look that small.  Then again its a picture and video for promotional purposes so it might not be perfectly accurate.
 
Underway said:
Tangent:
Can someone help me identify the potential radar/sensors is the Type 26 bid coming in with?  The pics show what I can only interpret as a non-rotating phased array with two parts, a large panel probably S-Band area search and a small panel probably X-Band FC type system.  But try as I might I can't find a system Lockheed or MDA use that matches that setup.  Perhaps they are going outside their group to grab Thales stuff??

Possibly the CEA radar suite that's a required fitment for the RAN future frigate program.  The RANs ANZAC frigates are being fitted with a variant of if, with the upcoming removal of SPS-49 and its replacement with the phased array long range search radar. 
 
I thought that as well but CEA are integral to the Navinata bid.  Not that it stops the various companies from selling parts to other bids.  An office of Lockheed is in on the Navinata bid.  CMS-330 has parts of Saab's command control system in it.  Thales will have a radar on the FREMM and the DZP bids.

Normally though the CEA emitters are placed in a diamond shape, not square to the waterline.... curiouser and curiouser.
 
So, straw poll from the naval officers here on what they think the best option is?
 
How about all Naval Pers, I sure want to hear opinions from people like Chief Stoker too!

Well for various aspects:

ASW - FREMM and Type 26 are tops, hands down.  Both have very quiet engines with the option for Diesel Electric propulsion and were designed initially to be ASW frigates.  Type 26 wins though because it's able to easily take the Cyclone and Mk 46 Torps with no modification.  Also Ultra Electronics sonar systems are impressive.

ASuW - They are all pretty much the same really.  With the attachment of Harpoons, Exocets and all have to have a 127mm manditory it doesn't really matter.  I suppose one could give the edge to the Type 26 and the F-105 as they are designed to be fitted with these guns.

AAW - The DZP wins easy.  It's the only ship that is originally designed for this mission.  It also carries 40 VLS vice the 32 (or 29 OGBD) required.  APAR 2 is the best sensor out there for AAW that we know about.  Even if the Type 26 has a similar radar its just not going to have as much firepower.  The CEA radars on the F-105 are really good as well but are currently designed with self defence in mind.  FREMM Aster missile system is new to the navy but are very good.  I keep going around in circles for the last three here.

Modifications and risk:  Type 26 is probably the highest risk from a certain perspective right now.  However from when it's being built to when we are going to get ours on the water the British will have three of them floating before we even start cutting steel.  It only needs less then 10% of it modified to meet requirements.  Flex deck is a nice addition and its definately future proof.

FREMM probably needs the most modifications, the hangar and flight deck are not big enough, depending on the mod it doesn't carry enough missiles, and its equipment needs the most changes to meet Canadian requirements.  Not much room to future proof the ship.

DZP is essentially off the shelf but my concern is its ASW capability.  AAW variant it will be fine but using an APAR 2 and SMART-L for a GP frigate is overkill and expensive.  It's not designed for ASW and will not be as effective in that role.

F-105 is again an AAW based design and won't be as effective in ASW.  It's radar however is perfect for a GP frigate design, and leading edge without being over the top.  Some Cyclone modifications are required.

Winner:  F-105.  Really its radar is top of the line, it's ASW is good enough considering our best ASW asset is the Cyclone.  There's a large family of F-105 variants out there in the world to look at for supply and engineering solutions.  I want the Type 26 to win, it's new and cool,  but I can't give it the medal without more sensor information and more information on technology risk.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
In my early days in the Navy - mid 1970's - our big concern was what was known as Badger Regimental Attacks: Soviet Badgers and Backfires rushing down from the North over Greenland to sweep in and lose 100-150 anti ship missiles at once at trans-Atlantic convoys to saturate their air defences.

We coped with it through layers of defence, and we still do that.

You can't look at a single ship in isolation having to fight the whole world and service anymore than you can look at individual an soldier to win the war by himself.

No real valuable voice in this one, but just wanted to add - Red Storm Rising.  Decent book at playing out how that Battle of the Atlantic might look during Rounds 1, 2, 3 etc.

Good discussion, I am learning stuff.
 
Underway said:
How about all Naval Pers, I sure want to hear opinions from people like Chief Stoker too!

Well for various aspects:

ASW - FREMM and Type 26 are tops, hands down.  Both have very quiet engines with the option for Diesel Electric propulsion and were designed initially to be ASW frigates.  Type 26 wins though because it's able to easily take the Cyclone and Mk 46 Torps with no modification.  Also Ultra Electronics sonar systems are impressive.

ASuW - They are all pretty much the same really.  With the attachment of Harpoons, Exocets and all have to have a 127mm manditory it doesn't really matter.  I suppose one could give the edge to the Type 26 and the F-105 as they are designed to be fitted with these guns.

AAW - The DZP wins easy.  It's the only ship that is originally designed for this mission.  It also carries 40 VLS vice the 32 (or 29 OGBD) required.  APAR 2 is the best sensor out there for AAW that we know about.  Even if the Type 26 has a similar radar its just not going to have as much firepower.  The CEA radars on the F-105 are really good as well but are currently designed with self defence in mind.  FREMM Aster missile system is new to the navy but are very good.  I keep going around in circles for the last three here.

Modifications and risk:  Type 26 is probably the highest risk from a certain perspective right now.  However from when it's being built to when we are going to get ours on the water the British will have three of them floating before we even start cutting steel.  It only needs less then 10% of it modified to meet requirements.  Flex deck is a nice addition and its definately future proof.

FREMM probably needs the most modifications, the hangar and flight deck are not big enough, depending on the mod it doesn't carry enough missiles, and its equipment needs the most changes to meet Canadian requirements.  Not much room to future proof the ship.

DZP is essentially off the shelf but my concern is its ASW capability.  AAW variant it will be fine but using an APAR 2 and SMART-L for a GP frigate is overkill and expensive.  It's not designed for ASW and will not be as effective in that role.

F-105 is again an AAW based design and won't be as effective in ASW.  It's radar however is perfect for a GP frigate design, and leading edge without being over the top.  Some Cyclone modifications are required.

Winner:  F-105.  Really its radar is top of the line, it's ASW is good enough considering our best ASW asset is the Cyclone.  There's a large family of F-105 variants out there in the world to look at for supply and engineering solutions.  I want the Type 26 to win, it's new and cool,  but I can't give it the medal without more sensor information and more information on technology risk.

Not a Navy man myself,i think there's another option,if i may call it that.  ;D

For the AAW version stick to APAR2 and the Smart-L MMN combo(BMD capable,as shown in exercises)and for the GP/ASW version get the I-500 integrated mast,like we are going to get on our replacements for the M-class.(idea?)

I also like the City class,but it's going to cost Canada,but primarily designed as an ASW ship.(as are our new to be build ships)

BTW OGBD you were right(i checked)it seems to be 40 missiles total.I will try and keep you'll updated.(new class of ships)
 
For those of you who read french.  The FREMM bid.

https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/fregates-canadiennes-naval-group-et-fincantieri-devoilent-leur-offre-commune

For those of you who don't a bad google translate!

Posted on 04/12/2017 by Vincent Groizeleau

As we wrote last September, Naval Group and Fincantieri have chosen to stand together for the call for bids on future Canadian frigates. Outgoing officially timber, the two companies unveiled the 1 stDecember the proposed design in Ottawa. This is a mix of multi-mission frigates built by France and Italy, responding to Canadian needs. This design is based on the Italian platform of the FREMM, the electronics being French, however, especially the combat system (Naval Group) and the radar faces Sea Fire plane (Thales). Armament side, we observe on the presented visual a turret of 127mm, two systems surface-air RAM and light artillery. To this will be added a vertical missile for surface-to-air missiles, probably Aster, which would be preferred by many Canadian servicemen given their performance, but the American missile option would still be possible. Like its French and Italian cousins, the Canadian FREMM would have first-class air defenses, but also equally robust capabilities in the fields of anti-ship and especially anti-submarine warfare, with hull sonar and towed sonar (Captas). To this will be added the action towards the earth.

This decision by Naval Group (formerly DCNS) and Fincantieri to join forces in this market enables French and Italian manufacturers, on a project where competition is fierce, to reduce competition and maximize their chances of success. "The Canadian government has announced its intention to acquire a NATO standard combat vessel, based on an existing and proven design that can be modified to meet the requirements of the Canadian Navy. Naval Group and Fincantieri, with the full support of the French and Italian governments, will combine their know-how to present to the Canadian government an off-the-shelf solution already proven at sea based on the design of the FREMM frigate, for the supply of 15 surface combatants in the Canadian Navy. In the event that this offer is accepted, future frigates would be built in Canada at the Irving Shipbuilding shipyard in a very short time frame, ensuring maximum participation of Canadian industry and local job creation through technology transfer complete and dedicated. Canadian suppliers would also be integrated into the global supply chain of both companies, "explain Naval Group and Fincantieri.

For the record, the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program aims to replace, over the next decade, the 12 City frigates, commissioned between 1992 and 1996, as well as the three tribal destroyers, now all retired. They will succeed a new fleet of up to 15 buildings for an estimated budget of 26 billion Canadian dollars, or nearly 18 billion euros. The construction of the seed must be launched in the early 2020s in a site imposed by the Canadian government and with which international groups competing for design and combat system will collaborate. This is Halifax Shipyards, a subsidiary of the Irwing Group, designated in 2011 to carry out CHCs as part of the national shipbuilding strategy,

The selection process initially put in place by Canada, with a double call for tenders, one for the platform and the other for the combat system, proved to be very complex, the interested industry believing that presented too high risks and different problems, including intellectual property issues. After being alerted by several major players in the sector that they might not submit an offer in these conditions, the Canadian government has overhauled and simplified the procedure last year. Finally, 12 companies were shortlisted in the summer of 2017 to continue the competition and submit an offer.

Apart from Naval Group and Fincantieri, were selected (in alphabetical order) the American engineering company Alion Science and Technology, the German Atlas Elektronik, the British BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin Canada, the Navantia Spaniard, the Danish Odense Maritime Technology, Saab Australia, Italian Leonardo, Thales Nederland and German TKMS.

These different manufacturers came together to submit joint offers on November 30th. Among them, there is the solution, considered by many observers as a favorite starter, of an adaptation of the future British frigate type 26, with a consortium of Lockheed Martin Canada, BAE Systems, CAE, L3 Technologies, MDA and Ultra Electronics. Alion Canada, for its part, presents an offer based on the design of the Dutch frigates of the LCF type, while Navantia, allied notably with Saab, submits a variant of the F100 model, built for the Spanish and Australian navies. Odense shares an evolution of the Danish Iver Huitfeldt and TKMS probably on a declination of the new German frigates type F125

So the big Italian FREMM as a baseline.  Can't lie, it's a pretty ship.



 

Attachments

  • FREMM.PNG
    FREMM.PNG
    756.1 KB · Views: 629
Chris Pook said:
IIRC - the counter to Swarming was a combination of Early Warning from the AWACS (Positioned as far forward as possible)  and maintaining a steady supply of 4-ship fighters in the air engaging the swarm at long range.  And don't hang around to get into gun range.

Get back on the ground, re-arm, and back in the air as quickly as possible.

In fact.....precisely the tactics that would result in an aircraft like the F-35.

Don't forget that the F-14 was specifically designed to carry the AIM-54 Phoenix, which was itself specifically designed for the long range air intercept mission to protect the Carrier Battle Groups.
 
Underway said:
For those of you who read french.  The FREMM bid.

https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/fregates-canadiennes-naval-group-et-fincantieri-devoilent-leur-offre-commune

For those of you who don't a bad google translate!

So the big Italian FREMM as a baseline.  Can't lie, it's a pretty ship.

Thanks for the link, what does the RCN consider to be more important?  ASW or AAW?  I know historically it's been ASW but is there a cultural change?

I've heard certain circles in the RCN want to get in to the land attack business?  I was intrigued with the recent test of the Block II Harpoon Missile test against a land target.  This capability would have been very useful in Libya.



 
Humphrey Bogart said:
Thanks for the link, what does the RCN consider to be more important?  ASW or AAW?  I know historically it's been ASW but is there a cultural change?

I've heard certain circles in the RCN want to get in to the land attack business?  I was intrigued with the recent test of the Block II Harpoon Missile test against a land target.  This capability would have been very useful in Libya.

Not Canadian,but from what i understand it will be a combination of both.
So a number of AAW/Command frigates and ASW/GP orientated frigates.(Same as here in the Netherlands and offcourse many others)

That means for example that a number of ships will get the APAR2 and Smart-L MMN combo(AAW/Command),or something like that and the other will get an I-mast(ASW/GP),for example(cheaper radar sets,not so extensive but nevertheless very good ones.)
That's how i understand it.(could be wrong) :whistle:

BTW that Fremm looks like it's got APAR2 on it which is completely possible since Thales is French.(the Radar factory is in the Netherlands though,for APAR,Smart-L,I-masts,etc wich used to be HSA )
 
Back
Top