• 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

So stuffing boxes are friction fit.  Right?

The packing wears down over time and has to be replaced or it is no longer water tight.

On the other hand new packing will be water tight but will generate more friction, robbing more power from the engines.

How many knots might be sacrificed to pack the stuffing boxes tighter?  Enough to make a difference on design acceptance?
 
Warship contract pause lifted

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is no longer asking the federal government to halt awarding a definition contract in its massive multibillion-dollar warship procurement, The Chronicle Herald has learned.

The tribunal, an independent quasi-judicial body dealing with matters of international trade, wrote a letter to Public Services and Procurement Canada late last month ordering the department to postpone the award of any contracts related to the Canadian Surface Combatant project while it investigated a complaint from competing bidder Alion.

A spokesperson from the CITT confirmed via phone on Tuesday morning that the original postponment of award of contract direction issued to the federal government has been rescinded
Speaking with media last week, Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan reiterated that a decision has not been made to award the CSC contract to Lockheed, but said conversations with the preferred bidder are ongoing.

When asked if the Type 26, which is currently also being constructed for the U.K. and Australian navies, meets the Royal Canadian Navy’s requirements, Sajjan did not provide a definitive answer.

“We made a commitment that we will go through a very rigorous process to making sure that any new procurement project meets the requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces,” he said.

“I have confidence in our departments to be able to come up and do the appropriate analysis and we look forward to announcing it once the process has taken its course.”
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/warship-contract-pause-lifted-267311/
 
Uzlu said:
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/warship-contract-pause-lifted-267311/

Well let's hope that this puts to bed anymore hold ups and the RCN can move forward in getting a signed contract in place before the spring and the CSC can get built ASAP.
 
I don't doubt there were meetings about the legal penalties and should the CITT rule that the RFP was changed to suit the T26. Speed of this program i guess took paramount to the potential cost award to Alion.

Shouldn't our two besties picking the same ship be a huge weighted category to the selection?
 
LoboCanada said:
Shouldn't our two besties picking the same ship be a huge weighted category to the selection?
No.  It should be the same weightings announced at the start of the competition.
The final weightings will be Technical 42%, Value Proposition 15%, Design Maturity 19%, Software 1%, and Financial 23%.
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/nouvelles-news/2017-11-27-eng.html
 
Pity BAE Systems can't take over Irving:

Australia finalises frigate contract with ASC Shipbuilding becoming a BAE Systems subsidiary

The Australian government has signed the head contract in support of the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN's) Sea 5000 programme to procure Hunter-class frigates from BAE Systems, it was announced on 14 December.

In announcing the deal, BAE Systems confirmed that ASC Shipbuilding, a division of state-owned ASC Pty Ltd, has become a company subsidiary. The transaction was a key part of the proposed deal to enable domestic capability development. BAE Systems was selected as preferred tenderer in the frigate programme, which is valued at AUD35 billion (USD26 billion), in June.

"BAE Systems Australia's new subsidiary, ASC Shipbuilding, has been awarded a contract by the Australian government that provides the framework for the design and build of nine Hunter-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy," said BAE Systems.

It added, "The Australian government and ASC Shipbuilding signed the contract after ASC Shipbuilding structurally separated from ASC Pty Ltd and was acquired today by BAE Systems."

BAE Systems said the head contract incorporates the detailed scope for the design and engineering work on the programme to allow prototyping to begin in 2020 and to ensure steel is cut on the first ship in Adelaide, South Australia, in 2022. The scopes for the build of the ships are to be agreed and added to the head contract in due course, it added.

Work on building the frigates - scheduled to begin in December 2020 - will start with building prototypes to demonstrate that the Hunter-class design, shipyard processes, and workforce are ready for full-scale production. With first steel expected to be cut in 2022, the delivery of the first-of-type vessel is anticipated in 2025-27 [emphasis added--about when CSCs actually starts? Gov't now says "construction beginning in the early 2020s" https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2018/10/government-of-canada-delivers-on-its-commitment-to-the-navy-by-announcing-next-steps-in-fleet-procurement.html].

The Hunter-class frigates are a derivative of BAE Systems' Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigate, which the company is supplying the UK Royal Navy.
https://www.janes.com/article/85248/australia-finalises-frigate-contract-with-asc-shipbuilding-becoming-a-bae-systems-subsidiary?from_rss=1

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
Pity BAE Systems can't take over Irving:

Mark
Ottawa

BAE have been looking for a North American shipbuilder to buy for a long time.  I expect them to buy Irving at some point in the next 10 years.  Especially if the Type 26 are being built there.
 
Why is that ^?

A lot of CSC articles mention BAE and Irving being closely linked but I don't get the connection.
 
LoboCanada said:
Why is that ^?

A lot of CSC articles mention BAE and Irving being closely linked but I don't get the connection.

It's a business thing and has nothing really to do with the CSC bid. BAE hasn't exactly made it a secret that they want a North American shipbuilder.  It would round out their portfolio.
 
Irving Shipbuilding, feds ask tribunal to dismiss challenge to $60B navy shipbuilding contract

The federal government and Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding are asking a trade tribunal to throw out a challenge to their handling of a high-stakes competition to design the navy’s new $60-billion fleet of warships.

In separate submissions to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the federal procurement department and Irving say the challenge filed by Alion Science and Technology of Virginia does not meet the requirements for a tribunal hearing.

Alion was one of three companies, along with U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin and Spanish firm Navantia, vying to design the new warships, which are to be built by Irving and serve as the navy’s backbone for most of this century.

While Lockheed was selected as the preferred bidder and is negotiating a final design contract with the government and Irving, Alion alleges the company’s design did not meet the navy’s requirements and should have been disqualified.

Two of those requirements related to the ship’s speed, Alion alleged, while the third related to the number of crew berths. Alion has asked both the trade tribunal and the Federal Court to stop any deal with Lockheed.

But the government and Irving say the contract is exempt from normal trade laws, which the tribunal is charged with enforcing, because of a special “national security exception,” meaning there is “no jurisdiction for the tribunal to conduct an inquiry.”

Another reason the challenge should be quashed, they argue, is that Alion is not a Canadian company, which is a requirement for being able to ask the tribunal to consider a complaint.

Alion’s challenge has been formally filed by its Canadian subsidiary, but the government and Irving say that subsidiary was never actually qualified to be a bidder in the competition – only its American parent.

The responses from the government and Irving are the latest twist in the largest military purchase in Canadian history, which will see 15 new warships built to replace the navy’s 12 aging Halifax-class frigates and three already-retired Iroquois-class destroyers.

The trade tribunal ordered the government last month not to award a final contract to Lockheed until it had investigated Alion’s complaint, but rescinded the order after a senior procurement official warned that the deal was “urgent.”

The procurement department has not explained why the deal is urgent.

Lockheed’s bid was contentious from the moment the design competition was launched in October 2016.

The federal government had originally said it wanted a “mature design” for its new warship fleet, which was widely interpreted as meaning a vessel that has already been built and used by another navy.

But the first Type 26 frigates, upon which Lockheed’s proposal was based, are only now being built by the British government and the design has not yet been tested in full operation.

There were also complaints from industry that the deck was stacked in the Type 26’s favour because of Irving’s connections with British shipbuilder BAE, which originally designed the Type 26 and partnered with Lockheed to offer the ship to Canada.

Irving, which worked with the federal government to pick the top design, also partnered with BAE in 2016 on an ultimately unsuccessful bid to maintain the navy’s new Arctic patrol vessels and supply ships.

That 35-year contract ended up going to another company.

Irving and the federal government have repeatedly rejected such complaints, saying they conducted numerous consultations with industry and used a variety of firewalls and safeguards to ensure the choice was completely fair.

But industry insiders had long warned that Lockheed’s selection as the top bidder, combined with numerous changes to the requirements and competition terms after it was launched – including a number of deadline extensions – would spark lawsuits.

Government officials acknowledged last month the threat of legal action, which has become a favourite tactic for companies that lose defence contracts, but expressed confidence that they would be able to defend against such an attack.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4794059/irving-shipbuilding-challenge/
 
Alion Canada files another court challenge

Another day, and another court challenge has been filed involving Ottawa’s plans to buy $60 billion worth of new warships for the Royal Canadian Navy.

Alion Canada, the applicant in both an ongoing federal court case and a Canadian International Trade Tribunal complaint, has filed yet another challenge in federal court.

In late November, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, an independent quasi-judicial body dealing with matters of international trade, wrote a letter to Public Services and Procurement Canada ordering the department to postpone the award of any contracts related to the Canadian Surface Combatant project while it investigated a complaint from competing bidder Alion Canada.

Then, in a letter to PSPC dated Dec. 10, the CITT rescinded its postponement order after receiving a letter from PSPC saying that the procurement is urgent and “a delay in awarding the contract would be contrary to the public interest.”

Though the CITT is is no longer asking the federal government to postpone awarding a contract, Alion’s complaint to the CITT is still active and under investigation. Alion’s most recent filing, from Dec. 31, asks the Federal Court to overturn CITT’s decision to not order a postponement.

The original federal court case, which was filed by Alion in mid-November, as well as the company’s CITT complaint centre on what Alion’s lawyers say was an erroneous decision by Public Services and Procurement Canada and Irving Shipbuilding, the prime contractor, to select Lockheed Martin Canada as the preferred bidder for the design phase of the warship project, the largest military procurement in Canadian history.

In October, a bid from Lockheed Martin Canada was identified by the federal government as the preferred design for Canada’s new fleet of warships after a lengthy and sensitive competition. The project will see 15 warships built at Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax for between $56 billion and $60 billion.

Lockheed Martin’s bid beat out offerings from two other competing consortiums: Alion, which offered up Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Class air defence and command frigate, and Navantia/SAAB’s design based on the F-105 anti-submarine frigate design for the Spanish navy.

In submissions to the CITT and federal court, Alion alleges that the BAE Systems Type 26 Global Combat Ship design offered by Lockheed is incapable of meeting three critical and mandatory requirements of the request for proposals that the firms crafted their bids around: two requirements concern the vessels’ speed, and one deals with the number of crew berths.

Alion argues that the request for proposals required PSPC and Irving to reject Lockheed’s bid because of its non-compliance. Instead, the federal government and Irving Shipbuilding announced Lockheed as the preferred bidder and has entered into the conditions precedent period. This is the step immediately prior to awarding the definition subcontract between Irving, the prime contractor and shipbuilder, and Lockheed, the warship designer.

Alion’s most recent federal court filing focuses on CITT and the federal government’s December decision to not postpone the award of that contract in the name of public interest.

In their submissions, Alion points out the CITT was essentially obligated to agree with PSPC’s directive to rescind their previous decision to delay the contract award.

Alion disagrees with PSPC’s assertion that delaying such a long-term project by just a few months would make a difference. The procurement, Alion says, has been ongoing for almost a decade, while the maximum amount of time the CITT could take to render its decision on the complaint is 135 days.

Moreover, Alion alleges that the federal government has not provided adequate reasoning to interfere with CITT’s earlier decision, violating its “duty of fairness.”

“PSPC has provided no justification for its conclusion that the procurement is urgent or the short delay herein is contrary to the public interest,” the submission reads. “No reasons, facts or materials have been provided in support of its decision. Thus, the decision-making process was anything but transparent and intelligible.”

On top of asking the federal court to overturn the CITT/PSPC decision to go ahead with the contract award despite Alion’s challenges, Alion is also asking to recoup its court fees, and for the federal government to file all documents associated with its directive to CITT.

Both PSPC and Irving have written submissions to the CITT asking the tribunal to throw out the complaint.

PSPC has opted not to comment on the proceedings while they are before the courts.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/alion-canada-files-another-court-challenge-273220/
 
Alion disagrees with PSPC’s assertion that delaying such a long-term project by just a few months would make a difference. The procurement, Alion says, has been ongoing for almost a decade, while the maximum amount of time the CITT could take to render its decision on the complaint is 135 days.

Alion and Journeyman appear to be of a single mind.  ;D
 
Well its urgent now because the gov't doesn't want to shell out for more AOPV's.
 
Canada can afford new fighters or new frigates — but not both at once: report

U of Calgary paper says Ottawa may have to abandon the idea of a multi-purpose military

The Trudeau government can't afford to buy ultra-modern warships and advanced warplanes at the same time, given the limits of federal finances, a new research paper argues.

The study, written for the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, says that — contrary to the assurances offered in the government's defence policy — Ottawa will soon be forced into a series of tough, far-reaching choices about the structure and capabilities of the Canadian military.

Using the government's own figures, researcher Alex McColl concluded that the Liberals either will have to pour more money into their defence budget in the mid-2020s or scale back their ambitions by buying a less expensive fighter jet.

The reason, according to McColl, is that the bills for both new frigates and new fighters will come due at the same time.

"Not only will the CF-18 replacement program have to fight for funding against the general austerity and easy riding nature of Canadians, but it will also be running concurrently with the largest military procurement in Canadian history: the National Shipbuilding Strategy," he wrote.

During the 2015 election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged Canada would not buy the F-35 stealth jet — that it would go with something cheaper and pour the savings into rebuilding the navy.

The way the defence policy figures roll out, McColl wrote, suggests the government is on track to do just that.

"Absent the political will to provide considerably more than 1.15 per cent of GDP in defence spending," he wrote, "the Canadian Forces can no longer afford to be a modern multipurpose force and should instead move to a Navy centric force structure."

The Liberal defence policy, released just over 18 months ago, forecasts that by 2025, annual defence spending will rise to $32.7 billion, or about 1.4 per cent of GDP.

However, the projections in the defence policy do not go past the fiscal year 2024-25 — something the Parliamentary Budget Office flagged in a report in November 2017.

That PBO report also raised concerns about whether the Liberals would even meet their procurement targets and predicted the numbers would fall off a cliff before the 20-year defence spending policy reaches its halfway mark.

"Measured as a share of the economy, the new spending plan will raise the defence budget by over 17 per cent to about 1.1 percentage points of GDP by 2024," the PBO analysis said. "Following this, spending will decline by 38 per cent to 0.69 percentage points of GDP by 2035."

McColl said Canada may be left with no choice but to buy a cheaper fighter.

"The best value solution to the CF-18 replacement is the least expensive jet in the competition: the Saab Gripen," he wrote in his report.

In an interview CBC News, McColl said he chose the Gripen because it is "the dramatically least expensive option," although the Super Hornet is also a cheaper alternative.

"I wouldn't say we would be forced (to buy them)," he said. "What I would say is that buying an inexpensive fighter that meets the minimum requirements of what we use the CF-18 for today would be the optimal policy."

National Defence announced last week it had concluded a deal with Australia to buy 18 used F-18 fighters to bolster the current CF-18 fleet until a brand-new replacement is selected.

That competition to replace the CF-18s with new aircraft is slated to kick off this spring, when the federal government puts a tender on the street. A contract award is not expected until 2022.

The first new fighters won't arrive until 2025 — and it will be another year after that before they are operational.

Dave Perry, a procurement expert at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said that new accounting rules — which allow National Defence to spread the cost of weapons system over their lifetime, instead of accounting for them all at once — give the Liberal government a bit of flexibility.

But he also pointed out that, by trying to rebuild the navy and the air force at the same time, the Liberals are trying to do something rarely accomplished outside of a wartime setting.

"Between new fighters and surface combatants [frigates], those are by far the two biggest projects that have gotten underway in this country in a long time, and doing them at the same time is not something we've done in peacetime before," said Perry. "Previously, we've done these things in sequential order."

The question of whether the federal government is organizationally and fiscally prepared to start paying big defence bills is open to debate, he added.

Almost four years ago, Perry co-wrote a seminal report that noted the number of staff dedicated to defence procurement at National Defence had never recovered from the budget cuts of the mid-1990s — dropping to 4,300 positions from 9,000.

In the time since his report was released, Perry said, there's been progress at the Department of National Defence in hiring procurement specialists and getting systems in place, but he's not certain the rest of the federal government is prepared.

"I think the biggest shortcoming is whether the Government of Canada writ large has the capacity, across government, not just in defence, to manage files this size with that level of complexity," he said.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jets-frigates-procurement-calgary-1.4969031
 
Uzlu said:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jets-frigates-procurement-calgary-1.4969031


"Absent the political will to provide considerably more than 1.15 per cent of GDP in defence spending," he wrote, "the Canadian Forces can no longer afford to be a modern multipurpose force and should instead move to a Navy centric force structure."

I know that the above quote would be severely disputed by many, but what if we had a real debate on our defence needs?

Do we need combat capable ships (subs, frigates, AOR's) on both coasts?
Do we need 2 fighter squadrons? Air lift? MPA's? Rotary Maritime Air? Rotary Tactical Air?
Do we need 3 regiments each of infantry, armour, arty?

Can we get away with less fighters and more MPA's?
Can we have 1 reg force regiment of infantry, armour and artillery and support the rest through the militia?
Or do we get rid of the blue water navy and be coastal only and pour money into the Air Force?
Or do we increase our budget to 2% GDP and just be a true G7 nation?

I'm a navalist so I'm very biased to the maritime world with a Navy, FAA and Marines. But wouldn't it be nice if our nation could have a true non-partisan debate about our military needs and capabilities and the funding to support those ambitions?

Yes I know, we have a better chance of finding rainbow farting unicorns!   
 
FSTO said:
I know that the above quote would be severely disputed by many, but what if we had a real debate on our defence needs?

Do we need combat capable ships (subs, frigates, AOR's) on both coasts?
Do we need 2 fighter squadrons? Air lift? MPA's? Rotary Maritime Air? Rotary Tactical Air?
Do we need 3 regiments each of infantry, armour, arty?

Can we get away with less fighters and more MPA's?
Can we have 1 reg force regiment of infantry, armour and artillery and support the rest through the militia?
Or do we get rid of the blue water navy and be coastal only and pour money into the Air Force?
Or do we increase our budget to 2% GDP and just be a true G7 nation?

I'm a navalist so I'm very biased to the maritime world with a Navy, FAA and Marines. But wouldn't it be nice if our nation could have a true non-partisan debate about our military needs and capabilities and the funding to support those ambitions?

Yes I know, we have a better chance of finding rainbow farting unicorns! 

Simple: we need to decide if we want to be isolationist or... the opposite of isolationist (ok that's not so simple). If we want to be isolationist, we need a strong militia, submarines, and an airforce to defend our coasts only. If we want the latter, we should focus on a strong Navy, because while it looks sexy deploying troops and aircraft around the world in Mali, Iraq, and Romania, we all know the real key to international power and influence is Sea Power.
 
Lumber said:
If we want the latter, we should focus on a strong Navy, because while deploying troops and aircraft around the world in Mali, Iraq, and Romania, we all know the real key to international power and influence is Sea Power.

Yeah, it'd be awesome if we could use our Navy to deploy/support (Naval gunfire+cruise missiles) our troops, instead of chartering container ships/aircraft or relying on allies to haul us around the globe.
 
FSTO said:
I know that the above quote would be severely disputed by many, but what if we had a real debate on our defence needs?

Do we need combat capable ships (subs, frigates, AOR's) on both coasts?
Do we need 2 fighter squadrons? Air lift? MPA's? Rotary Maritime Air? Rotary Tactical Air?
Do we need 3 regiments each of infantry, armour, arty?

Can we get away with less fighters and more MPA's?
Can we have 1 reg force regiment of infantry, armour and artillery and support the rest through the militia?
Or do we get rid of the blue water navy and be coastal only and pour money into the Air Force?
Or do we increase our budget to 2% GDP and just be a true G7 nation?

I'm a navalist so I'm very biased to the maritime world with a Navy, FAA and Marines. But wouldn't it be nice if our nation could have a true non-partisan debate about our military needs and capabilities and the funding to support those ambitions?

Yes I know, we have a better chance of finding rainbow farting unicorns! 

If you looked at those figures on paper, comparative to the rest of the world, we are already more of a Defence-Force (albeit with more capability for outside the country than protecting it internally).

Also, it seems gov't likes to appear to be (and once in a while involve itself) internationally involved, just not pay for it or be ready for it.
 
Back
Top