• 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

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
107
Points
680
Makes no difference we are too far into the design process to start over, it still will cost billions from the delay and it still has to be built in Canada. If it came down to it build a lesser number of type 26's than settling for the FREMM or type 31.
Unless we compromised and say dropped the CSC to 10 ships, and purchased a number of FREMMs off shore, they can be the official replacement for the Iroquois class, cite urgent national security requirements for a sole source off shore purchase.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
198
Points
680
Unless we compromised and say dropped the CSC to 10 ships, and purchased a number of FREMMs off shore, they can be the official replacement for the Iroquois class, cite urgent national security requirements for a sole source off shore purchase.
Managing multiple classes of ships has a big in-service cost increase for maintenance and training. I don't think we can afford/crew two classes of warships effectively, let alone have enough people to stand up a project for that. That's a massive contract and those take a lot of work.

It's a complex procurement for a complex ship on it's own, with a whole bunch of departmental fingers in the pie. If we aren't going to change any of that or look at the bureaucratic hydra that is DPS, starting additional projects isn't going to do anything.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
Thats what I am saying, Irving cried layoffs due to delays in the CSC program, government ordered more AOPS to keep the yard going. Now more delays mean the CSC won't hit water till the 2030s, while the last AOPS will be done by the mid 2020s. So is Irving going to cry layoffs again?
The first surface combatant is projected for completion in around 2030 or 2031. It will take about 7.5 years to build. That might mean first steel is cut in about 2023. So where is the work gap? If the government of Canada does something idiotic—it has been known to happen every now and then—and cancels the entire Canadian Surface Combatant program, then I believe Irving is going to cry layoffs again.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
79
Points
530
Makes no difference we are too far into the design process to start over, it still will cost billions from the delay and it still has to be built in Canada. If it came down to it build a lesser number of type 26's than settling for the FREMM or type 31.

Its never too far in to cancel a contract! Sea Kings anyone ?
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
23
Points
180
Here's my 2 cents as an ill-informed civilian - the CSC goes through with 15 ships but the work is split between Irving and Davie in a 2/3, 1/3 ratio with Davie starting work (say in 2024) on the first 5 prior to Irving starting the next 10. Davie has the physical capacity to work on these ships, while Irving has zero physical capacity to work on the CSC and the existing AOPS (both RCN and CCG) ships that they need to start/complete.

There really is no other way, unless the Fed's accept that we'll have less than 12 ships of the line in the water in the 2030's into the 2040's as the Halfiax's are retired one by one due to age/structural concerns in the next 13-17yrs. That will result in Canada being unable to fulfill its stated NATO responsibilities, along with expected NA security requirements/commitments to the Americans. They are getting long in the tooth now. Reducing the number of CSC from 15 to 12 doesn't do anything to move forward the start date of the first ship. The only way to address that is to either move the construction to a second site or choose another ship (design) and have the construction be done somewhere. Having the Type 26 built in the UK or Australia is not an option.

Talk of accepting the FREMM or the Type 31 as the preferred ship again doesn't address the start line being so far away due to Irving's limited physical capacity. Building the first few ships of the FREMM in France/Italy was taken off the table years earlier and unless the Fed's due a 180% turn on this, its not going to happen.

Davie has the capacity to build more ships that Irving and Seaspan put together, its a fact not a statement. We are attempting, pitifully, to rebuild the entire RCN and CCG at the sametime and yet we have made little effort today to address the constraints facing the 2 shipyards contracted to build over 30 ships over the upcoming years. Davie was not a viable factor 5+yrs ago but today it is and it must be brought into the fold and allocated ships (preferably some of the CSC) to be built if we are going to have any chance in the next 10-20yrs to address the challenges facing the RCN in the future.

Go ahead now, pick this all apart and say that I have no clue what I'm talking about - but hear me now, if the Canadian Armed Forces and its suppliers (the Irvings, Davie's, etc of the world) don't get their shit together very soon, people like me - who love, respect, value and see the need for a strong, viable Canadian Armed Forces are going to turn their backs and say, to hell with them let's pay the Americans 50-60% of the annual military budget for our 'protection' and be done with it.
 

LoboCanada

Member
Reaction score
2
Points
230
I agree with Pivo.
This project comes at a bad time, and is too important to federal political strategy to fail, and should have been broken down into 2 projects. Bad time as we have another huge fighter project to buy at the same time, plus with COVID.... I think i've said this before, but cancel 3 CSCs (the last 3 to be built) and create a new AAW project that would follow on from CSC.

This would reduce the expenses of having a jack-of-all-trades CSC with 12 direct Halifax Class replacements specializing in ASW.

The 4 Iroquois Class (new) would be AAWs with BMD. Yes, this is costly in the long-run, but as Canadians we do this with everything else (ie infrastructure, literally anything expensive). This would cut the cost of the CSC (saving it) but without the loss to RCN. When selecting the proven, in-service in NATO AAW ship, you'd probably get a new Type 26 variant anyways due to it already being Canadianized. At the very least, it reduces the sticker shock of this project and kicks the can down the road for the next gov't to deal with in 5/10 yrs (something we are world-class at doing).
 

YZT580

Sr. Member
Reaction score
57
Points
280
The cost of the Type 26's is written off over the next 40 years so why on earth is anyone fretting about cutting a couple off the end of the production run. The figures also include the costs of operating the fleet, depreciation, maintenance, salaries, munitions, oil and paper clips. The minimum fleet size has been determined as 15. Cutting that by even one hull will mean increased costs on the other 14 so other than crew salaries and a few extra gallons of paint I doubt that much savings will be realised. If this programme is continued, sometime around 2035 we will start the process of designing and building the replacement vessels so that the 16th vessel in succession will replace number 1. Its a good concept so lets not muck it up by fretting about the big number which really isn't so big when divided by 30.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
308
Points
980
The cost of the Type 26's is written off over the next 40 years so why on earth is anyone fretting about cutting a couple off the end of the production run. The figures also include the costs of operating the fleet, depreciation, maintenance, salaries, munitions, oil and paper clips. The minimum fleet size has been determined as 15. Cutting that by even one hull will mean increased costs on the other 14 so other than crew salaries and a few extra gallons of paint I doubt that much savings will be realised. If this programme is continued, sometime around 2035 we will start the process of designing and building the replacement vessels so that the 16th vessel in succession will replace number 1. Its a good concept so lets not muck it up by fretting about the big number which really isn't so big when divided by 30.
QFTT

CH-147F procurement cut fleet size from 16 to 15. Anyone want to take a guess at how much the ISS budget was reduced by? (Hint: Chretien used the same amount when describing how many EH-101s Canada would buy)

The funds were already identified and included within the Defence Investment Plan in Canada’s fiscal framework.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
198
Points
680
Here's my 2 cents as an ill-informed civilian - the CSC goes through with 15 ships but the work is split between Irving and Davie in a 2/3, 1/3 ratio with Davie starting work (say in 2024) on the first 5 prior to Irving starting the next 10. Davie has the physical capacity to work on these ships, while Irving has zero physical capacity to work on the CSC and the existing AOPS (both RCN and CCG) ships that they need to start/complete.

There really is no other way, unless the Fed's accept that we'll have less than 12 ships of the line in the water in the 2030's into the 2040's as the Halfiax's are retired one by one due to age/structural concerns in the next 13-17yrs. That will result in Canada being unable to fulfill its stated NATO responsibilities, along with expected NA security requirements/commitments to the Americans. They are getting long in the tooth now. Reducing the number of CSC from 15 to 12 doesn't do anything to move forward the start date of the first ship. The only way to address that is to either move the construction to a second site or choose another ship (design) and have the construction be done somewhere. Having the Type 26 built in the UK or Australia is not an option.

Talk of accepting the FREMM or the Type 31 as the preferred ship again doesn't address the start line being so far away due to Irving's limited physical capacity. Building the first few ships of the FREMM in France/Italy was taken off the table years earlier and unless the Fed's due a 180% turn on this, its not going to happen.

Davie has the capacity to build more ships that Irving and Seaspan put together, its a fact not a statement. We are attempting, pitifully, to rebuild the entire RCN and CCG at the sametime and yet we have made little effort today to address the constraints facing the 2 shipyards contracted to build over 30 ships over the upcoming years. Davie was not a viable factor 5+yrs ago but today it is and it must be brought into the fold and allocated ships (preferably some of the CSC) to be built if we are going to have any chance in the next 10-20yrs to address the challenges facing the RCN in the future.

Go ahead now, pick this all apart and say that I have no clue what I'm talking about - but hear me now, if the Canadian Armed Forces and its suppliers (the Irvings, Davie's, etc of the world) don't get their shit together very soon, people like me - who love, respect, value and see the need for a strong, viable Canadian Armed Forces are going to turn their backs and say, to hell with them let's pay the Americans 50-60% of the annual military budget for our 'protection' and be done with it.
Sure, all we would have to do would be to secure all the IP and security requirements (which includes a bunch of ITAR and NATO security clearances) for a second yard and company, get Irving to agree to a massive contract change, get Davie to upgrade their facility to support the combat ship build requirements, redo all the production engineering and stand up a second QAR cell (all while translating everything). All while Davie still has yet to actually build a ship from scratch for Canada.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
320
Points
880
Here's my 2 cents as an ill-informed civilian - the CSC goes through with 15 ships but the work is split between Irving and Davie in a 2/3, 1/3 ratio with Davie starting work (say in 2024) on the first 5 prior to Irving starting the next 10. Davie has the physical capacity to work on these ships, while Irving has zero physical capacity to work on the CSC and the existing AOPS (both RCN and CCG) ships that they need to start/complete.

There really is no other way, unless the Fed's accept that we'll have less than 12 ships of the line in the water in the 2030's into the 2040's as the Halfiax's are retired one by one due to age/structural concerns in the next 13-17yrs. That will result in Canada being unable to fulfill its stated NATO responsibilities, along with expected NA security requirements/commitments to the Americans. They are getting long in the tooth now. Reducing the number of CSC from 15 to 12 doesn't do anything to move forward the start date of the first ship. The only way to address that is to either move the construction to a second site or choose another ship (design) and have the construction be done somewhere. Having the Type 26 built in the UK or Australia is not an option.

Talk of accepting the FREMM or the Type 31 as the preferred ship again doesn't address the start line being so far away due to Irving's limited physical capacity. Building the first few ships of the FREMM in France/Italy was taken off the table years earlier and unless the Fed's due a 180% turn on this, its not going to happen.

Davie has the capacity to build more ships that Irving and Seaspan put together, its a fact not a statement. We are attempting, pitifully, to rebuild the entire RCN and CCG at the sametime and yet we have made little effort today to address the constraints facing the 2 shipyards contracted to build over 30 ships over the upcoming years. Davie was not a viable factor 5+yrs ago but today it is and it must be brought into the fold and allocated ships (preferably some of the CSC) to be built if we are going to have any chance in the next 10-20yrs to address the challenges facing the RCN in the future.

Go ahead now, pick this all apart and say that I have no clue what I'm talking about - but hear me now, if the Canadian Armed Forces and its suppliers (the Irvings, Davie's, etc of the world) don't get their shit together very soon, people like me - who love, respect, value and see the need for a strong, viable Canadian Armed Forces are going to turn their backs and say, to hell with them let's pay the Americans 50-60% of the annual military budget for our 'protection' and be done with it.
and then we are faced with over capacity once the CSC is finished, the other option is that Davie gets contracted to build certain blocks of the ships and then they are moved to Irving. I have no love for Irving, but switching horses or asking Davie to rejig completely is going to cause major delays yet again. Having them do specific blocks, helps remove a political issue and allows Irving to focus on the major blocks. Expect Irving to fight even that tooth and nail.
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
23
Points
180
Sure, all we would have to do would be to secure all the IP and security requirements (which includes a bunch of ITAR and NATO security clearances) for a second yard and company, get Irving to agree to a massive contract change, get Davie to upgrade their facility to support the combat ship build requirements, redo all the production engineering and stand up a second QAR cell (all while translating everything). All while Davie still has yet to actually build a ship from scratch for Canada.
None of that seems to be very difficult to be honest - translating into French - don't use that as a reason not to use Davie, this country and its Armed Forces, are a bi-lingual country. As for the security clearances, I've got no clue on the process or the procedures to do this - but if its already been done for Irving, then a process has already been identified, defined and implemented, so its merely a question of taking what's already been done and applying it to Davie and its employees - nothing needs to be rewritten or redefined, the heavy lifting has been done.
Concerning Irving, as someone else has stated earlier, you tell them its a matter of National Security, that these ships MUST be commissioned by date X and that's it - if they can't make date X, then we use a second shipyard.
As for the last statement, does that really matter? Davie hasn't even been awarded a contract yet to build from the keel up a single ship yet. Irving hadn't built a military ship in over 20+yrs but here they are, building, slowly, the AOPS.
So what's the alternative - seriously? The RCN doesn't get a CSC in the water for another what, 10-12yrs? Irving hasn't cut steel on the 5th AOPS yet, the 4th one had its keel laid in May of 2019. When you do think they will be in a position to cut steel on the first CSC when they still have 4(!) more AOPS to begin work on, let alone deliver to the RCN and CCG.
Given the existing timelines on the first 4 AOPS, it doesn't look like any synergy has been gained in reducing timelines. Using these timelines, they'll cut steel on the 5th AOPS in the next 2-4 months (April-June 2021), then the next one 18-22 months after that, so let's say Oct 2022 - Feb 2023. That will be the 6th and final AOPS for the Navy. The 2 AOPS for the CCG won't start until what, June 2024 and then Nov 2025 for the final one. So the first CSC will start somewhere in 2026 and be delivered in 2031-32 to the RCN?
HMCS Halifax was commissioned on 1992, that would make her basically 39yrs old when she's paid off.....unreal. HMCS Huron has scrapped well before that timeline and the others lasted only a few years longer. With so many of the Halifax class commissioned in a much tighter timeline - all 12 commissioned within 4yrs - how the hell do we expect to launch 15 CSC 1 per year or 1 per every 2yrs when the Halifax's will be a minimum of 39yrs old when you launch (at the current timelines) the first CSC and have 15 to launch? Why does no one address the fact - the fact - that the RCN will shrink in the size and capability during this current approach, the Halifax's will NEVER make it until the 12th CSC is built, let alone the 15th.
In order to maintain, just maintain, 12 ships of the line, a second facility will need to be included in this process. Why does no one talk about this? Under the above timelines, the RCN will commission the 4th CSC right around the time they pay off the last of the Halifax's - unless we will be be sailing 'ships of the line' over the 50yrs mark - may God protect those serving on them in the North Atlantic during the winter months.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
52
Points
530
None of that seems to be very difficult to be honest - translating into French - don't use that as a reason not to use Davie, this country and its Armed Forces, are a bi-lingual country. As for the security clearances, I've got no clue on the process or the procedures to do this - but if its already been done for Irving, then a process has already been identified, defined and implemented, so its merely a question of taking what's already been done and applying it to Davie and its employees - nothing needs to be rewritten or redefined, the heavy lifting has been done.
Concerning Irving, as someone else has stated earlier, you tell them its a matter of National Security, that these ships MUST be commissioned by date X and that's it - if they can't make date X, then we use a second shipyard.
As for the last statement, does that really matter? Davie hasn't even been awarded a contract yet to build from the keel up a single ship yet. Irving hadn't built a military ship in over 20+yrs but here they are, building, slowly, the AOPS.
So what's the alternative - seriously? The RCN doesn't get a CSC in the water for another what, 10-12yrs? Irving hasn't cut steel on the 5th AOPS yet, the 4th one had its keel laid in May of 2019. When you do think they will be in a position to cut steel on the first CSC when they still have 4(!) more AOPS to begin work on, let alone deliver to the RCN and CCG.
Given the existing timelines on the first 4 AOPS, it doesn't look like any synergy has been gained in reducing timelines. Using these timelines, they'll cut steel on the 5th AOPS in the next 2-4 months (April-June 2021), then the next one 18-22 months after that, so let's say Oct 2022 - Feb 2023. That will be the 6th and final AOPS for the Navy. The 2 AOPS for the CCG won't start until what, June 2024 and then Nov 2025 for the final one. So the first CSC will start somewhere in 2026 and be delivered in 2031-32 to the RCN?
HMCS Halifax was commissioned on 1992, that would make her basically 39yrs old when she's paid off.....unreal. HMCS Huron has scrapped well before that timeline and the others lasted only a few years longer. With so many of the Halifax class commissioned in a much tighter timeline - all 12 commissioned within 4yrs - how the hell do we expect to launch 15 CSC 1 per year or 1 per every 2yrs when the Halifax's will be a minimum of 39yrs old when you launch (at the current timelines) the first CSC and have 15 to launch? Why does no one address the fact - the fact - that the RCN will shrink in the size and capability during this current approach, the Halifax's will NEVER make it until the 12th CSC is built, let alone the 15th.
In order to maintain, just maintain, 12 ships of the line, a second facility will need to be included in this process. Why does no one talk about this? Under the above timelines, the RCN will commission the 4th CSC right around the time they pay off the last of the Halifax's - unless we will be be sailing 'ships of the line' over the 50yrs mark - may God protect those serving on them in the North Atlantic during the winter months.
You are over simplifying what it would take to to switch yards to build a warship. Steel can be cut for the CSC years before its even built just like the UK has done. More than likely 12 ships won't be maintained, I expect some of the worse condition hulls to be paid off and used for parts to support the others in the fleet. The RCN has already acknowledged that the Halifax Class will be maintained longer than expected due to the delays. We won't be sailing the Halifax class over 50 years and stop being melodramatic, we won't be putting our sailors at risk. Davie will be too busy with the CCG guard ships to be in a position to build anything although I expect any day some publicity from Davie stating they they want to help or some sort of unsolicited offer that they're famous for.
 

YZT580

Sr. Member
Reaction score
57
Points
280
And there are lots of small yards excluding Davies that could sub-contract modules just as Seaspan has demonstrated with Heddle. The difficulty is not with Irving cutting steel, the problem seems to lie in the Canadianized design plus complicating factors (unspecified) that have caused both the Brits and Aussies to go with the longer time line. From the info available, Irving will start cutting steel on schedule it is the completion date that is being pushed back. Please correct me if I am wrong
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
198
Points
680
For context to meet the NSS shipyard standards Davie would need about a year or more to do yard infrastructure upgrades, plus multiple ships built to get up to speed on the processes. Both Seaspan and Irving hired experienced experts from a variety of international shipyard to build up that internal capability and are still improving, so it's not trivial.

You are also massively underestimating the security issue and a lot of the other contractual implications though; those kind of things take years to sort out., and we would also be in breach of the original RFP contract to take CSC anywhere other than Irving, so good luck with that.

We're about 4 years of actual buildng into a 20-30 year plan, maybe we should hold the line a bit before panicking? Also all the shipyard support in the world won't speed up our internal f*&kery, so I don't think we should assume that the delays are all Irving.

Sure this can be frustrating from the outside, and not any better on the inside, but there are so many moving pieces involved here really can't judge what is going on from a few headlines (particularly when the journalists really don't have a clue to start with).
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
Hoping I can ask a question....

How much of the main hull of the original Type 26 did Canada vary versus the British (and Australian version)?

The key thought being that if they had kept a common hull and propulsion from the original Type 26, Canada and Australia could have piggy backed on top of the British Virtual Prototyping. And where satisfied with that Virtual Prototyping you could conceivably lay keels and start construction of the hull sections while finalizing the final details on the nation-specific superstructures.

Anyone know?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
320
Points
880
They don't build so much from the keel up, but in blocks and it's the piping, conduits, bulkheads, stiffeners and hatches that have to be in specific places. You can start on some pieces using the knowledge gained by the Brits and you can beat discussion are underway to determine what they can start on and others they have to wait as designs and decisions on equipment come in.
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
23
Points
180
Any sense on when we'll hear about any updates on the next phase of the CSC programme. Things have been very quiet as of late, no news for months now.

They are still nailing down the design approvals and specifications (definition phase). If it isn't completed already, it will be soon. As soon as that's done I expect there will be a wave of public affairs and Lockheed/BAE released information on the ship and its specifications.

I asked the above question in Feb 2020 and Underway provided information on my question. So, 12 months later, what has been achieved?

EDIT: This is the latest info posted on the Gov't of Canada website on the status of the project - last updated 2(!)yrs ago - "February 8, 2019: Design and design team for Canada’s future surface combatant have been determined and the contracts for this work awarded. The design phase has now started"
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
198
Points
680
Hoping I can ask a question....

How much of the main hull of the original Type 26 did Canada vary versus the British (and Australian version)?

The key thought being that if they had kept a common hull and propulsion from the original Type 26, Canada and Australia could have piggy backed on top of the British Virtual Prototyping. And where satisfied with that Virtual Prototyping you could conceivably lay keels and start construction of the hull sections while finalizing the final details on the nation-specific superstructures.

Anyone know?
Not sure on the answer, but probably going to change pretty much nothing about the external bits, with some possible changes around specific pieces of equipment if they select something different.

They probably still have to do a lot of production design regardless; the whole point of modular building is that you fire tune everything for max efficiency of your facility and processes, which is something you do once you set up the detailed design. I'm sure once they get AOPs winding up they can look at starting to build modules at risk if the full design isn't done (like they already did with JSS), but that's still a useful test build to be able to the database on things like the metal defomartion during assembly with the thinner plate.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
16
Points
180
I think PIVO brings forward some really excellent points. Waiting until the 2030's to start replacing the Halifax class ships is to long. We should be getting hulls in the water within 3-4 years max. There are way to many contractual agreements that are one sided to make this anything more then a dismal failure. Davie ship yards produced a modified Tanker ship to full fil our needs in excellent time. They could have supplied us with another shortly after. But due to politics nothing else they were stood down. Canada is lacking in the ship building combat ship design ability as they were back in the 1990s when the Halifax class was built. At the time they were looking for ways to keep that from happening again. Well here we are and we are dealing with the same issues.

As for not being able to run two different ship classes I say that's just hog wash. Old school mentality of if its not my idea I don't like it. I think between the new Patrol ships, and the new frigates we could split the frigates into two groups, ASW and Surface warfare. Or a mix between the two. We could add a few hulls. That way they could cycle hulls and keep the maintenance cycle better.

Staffing would not be such a issue if they actually recruited properly. You might even want to run 2 ships each coast as Reserve ships and hire more reservists to staff them. Of course someone is going to say that's impossible, they don't have the skills or the ability to do that. They do and they can if they are giving the tasking to do it.

One can hide behind security requirements all they want. But Davie ship yards does/did maintenance on the CPFs they also built one or two of them if memory is correct, they also built the Tribal class along with doing the modernization of those ships. They have a history of building Navy ships as much as Irving does, their hardships are partly to blame on the government because of the lack of overall program structuring of maintaining a modern fleet and being forward thinkers.

But the liberal government is experts at making deal that is so costly that it can not go through with out a lot of rework. To only pay more in cancelation costs then the actual project would have been.

We have the means and the ability's to get hulls into the water in the next 3-4 years maybe sooner if we worked on it bit more effectively. All the smes on here can chime in and say you don't know what your talking about. Probably the same ones who said griffons couldn't and would not fly or be deployed to Afghanistan.
Canadian Industry can literally move a mountain in a day if it needs to be done. They just need the requirement to do it. Heck Alberta could build a fleet of ships and a canal before this project will get off the ground,.
 
Top