• 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

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
27
Points
430
Cdn Blackshirt said:
I was just looking for literature on the Bofors and Leonardo 40mm CIWS and found an article indicating the British have are arming each Type 31 with (1) 57mm and (2) 40mm guns per hull.  I was unaware they had made those decisions.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/10/bae-secures-bofors-naval-guns-order-for-uk-type-31-frigate-program/

Yoga pants sailor action figure sold separately.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/world-naval-forces/west-european-navies-vessels-ships-equipment/royal-navy-vessels-ships-equipment/systems/621-bofors-40-mk4-naval-gun-system-bae-systems-40mm-datasheet-pictures-photos-video-specifications.html
 

Attachments

  • D218625B-9D8F-4F58-89AC-81683D11AA97.jpeg
    D218625B-9D8F-4F58-89AC-81683D11AA97.jpeg
    361.4 KB · Views: 117

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
16
Points
430
Uzlu said:
https://www.cgai.ca/launching_the_canadian_surface_combatant_project

Near end: "Whether one is struggling to deliver a warship, a maritime helicopter or a tactical armoured vehicle, such complex weapons systems platform projects..." For most countries tactical armoured vehicles (TAPV, took seven years for first delivery 1) https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/87547/post-854775.html#msg854775 2) https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/87547/post-1449503.html#msg1449503 ) are NOT #complex weapons sytems platform projects".
https://www.cgai.ca/launching_the_canadian_surface_combatant_project#So

Mark
Ottawa
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
27
Points
430
"It is also important to recognize that by the time the 15th CSC would be in play around the mid-2030s and some 20 years since the SOR was set for the 2016 RFP, it is likely that a modified SoR would have been generated to address the many emergent changes in technology and threats."

The first ship will almost certainly not be the same as the last given the fact that when the last ship is built the program will be nigh on 30 years since the program was begun.  That would be like building Annapolis class in the late 90's without any changes.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
107
Points
680
CloudCover said:
"It is also important to recognize that by the time the 15th CSC would be in play around the mid-2030s and some 20 years since the SOR was set for the 2016 RFP, it is likely that a modified SoR would have been generated to address the many emergent changes in technology and threats."

The first ship will almost certainly not be the same as the last given the fact that when the last ship is built the program will be nigh on 30 years since the program was begun.  That would be like building Annapolis class in the late 90's without any changes.

Given the long stretch out could we see the CSC emerge as two separate classes? The main first flight and then a sub class as a second flight?
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
MilEME09 said:
Given the long stretch out could we see the CSC emerge as two separate classes? The main first flight and then a sub class as a second flight?
It is probably going to be batches.  My guess would be five batches of three.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
120
Points
680
Uzlu said:
It is probably going to be batches.  My guess would be five batches of three.

For sure there will be batches, in particular for contracting and the money people.  It's not like we're gonna hand over 60 billion up front.  And as things progress there will be engineering changes that need to be accounted for.  The RCN will have to decide whether it's better to integrate them after delivery or do it up front.  There might be issues that are critical (or simple fixes) that can/need to be addressed in Ship 2 or things that might be better pushed down the line to the second batch as that's where engineering/design money is available.

 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
198
Points
680
Underway said:
For sure there will be batches, in particular for contracting and the money people.  It's not like we're gonna hand over 60 billion up front.  And as things progress there will be engineering changes that need to be accounted for.  The RCN will have to decide whether it's better to integrate them after delivery or do it up front.  There might be issues that are critical (or simple fixes) that can/need to be addressed in Ship 2 or things that might be better pushed down the line to the second batch as that's where engineering/design money is available.

It will always be better to integrate them upfront, and that's specifically why they build things in flights. But it's also going to take long enough to build that things (ie electronics) on ship 1 will be obsolete by the time they hit ship 8+, so some of it will likely be a lot of that.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
320
Points
880
MarkOttawa said:
Near end: "Whether one is struggling to deliver a warship, a maritime helicopter or a tactical armoured vehicle, such complex weapons systems platform projects..." For most countries tactical armoured vehicles (TAPV, took seven years for first delivery 1) https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/87547/post-854775.html#msg854775 2) https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/87547/post-1449503.html#msg1449503 ) are NOT #complex weapons sytems platform projects".
https://www.cgai.ca/launching_the_canadian_surface_combatant_project#So

Mark
Ottawa

Well we did manage to muck up a pistol replacement contract, because apparently that to is a "complex weapon system"
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
120
Points
680
Navy_Pete said:
It will always be better to integrate them upfront, and that's specifically why they build things in flights. But it's also going to take long enough to build that things (ie electronics) on ship 1 will be obsolete by the time they hit ship 8+, so some of it will likely be a lot of that.

Not always. Sometimes it's better to install after acceptance, with design margins left for that equipment. The design cycle is such that equipment can be overtaken by events.  A company can go out of business or stop supporting items.  Or the entire fleet is moving to a solution and the new ship doesn't have that solution. 

And sometimes is such a pain in the *** to have the contractor install/integrate something that it's just easier for everyone to have FMF do it after the fact.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
241
Points
680
And sometimes is such a pain in the *** to have the contractor install/integrate something that it's just easier for everyone to have FMF do it after the fact

You are new to the Navy, I see... ;)
 

LoboCanada

Member
Reaction score
2
Points
230
Underway said:
Not always. Sometimes it's better to install after acceptance, with design margins left for that equipment. The design cycle is such that equipment can be overtaken by events.  A company can go out of business or stop supporting items.  Or the entire fleet is moving to a solution and the new ship doesn't have that solution. 

And sometimes is such a pain in the *** to have the contractor install/integrate something that it's just easier for everyone to have FMF do it after the fact.

Is it prudent to buy more than 8 or so of each system? Won't many of these systems be outdated by the time the hull is ready for them to be installed (even though we are buying cutting edge)? It'd be like buying 2020 tech for a 2040 ship - or in simpler terms - 1970s tech on the 1996/last Halifax.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
64
Points
530
And....new to procurement too...


I have in front of me right now one of the original MWM-Deutz Diesel Driven Fire Pump motors - now being maintained by another company because they bought out Deutz.  The engine is 30 years old - they aren't made anymore.  We're down to recycling the ones we have left into the repair/overhaul stream until they're beyond overhaul.


If we're buying 15 ship sets worth of stuff, we'll likely buy 15 - have all 15 delivered, and install them one at a time over the span of the construction period.  The 15th will have been sitting in storage for probably a decade by the time we install it.


I recall getting the SHINNADS system installed on CHA in 1999 or 2000 - it was brand new, I was the first person to open the NAVO Laptop box - and the 4 year warranty had expired a couple of months prior.  They were purchased, but there was no money to install them, so they sat in a warehouse until there was.


The logistics chain is limited by what the contracts say.  Example - on the FELEX project, the thin client computer solution for the OPS room was superseded in service - but the contract specified installation of the original hardware, so they had to install all of the old computers as part of the refit, then when the ships were handed over, we had to do upgrades to that part of the system.  They were installing 8 year old (or more) computers, knowing that they had to be replaced immediately after installation.


I highly doubt that the contracts will be written with such flexibility to allow mid-stream changes to hardware.


That would indicate that they 'learned lessons' from the FELEX project...


NS

 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
120
Points
680
SeaKingTacco said:
You are new to the Navy, I see... ;)

NavyShooter said:
And....new to procurement too...

:cheers:

Trust me.  With a new build sometimes it's better to not spend the $300,000 in engineering redesign/meetings/consults to fix a $100 part.  It's easier to have FMF fix it.  Which says quite a bit about the relative difficulty working with shipbuilders vs the EC process. (not even discussing the separate piles of money arguments either...).

NavyShooter said:
  Example - on the FELEX project, the thin client computer solution for the OPS room was superseded in service - but the contract specified installation of the original hardware, so they had to install all of the old computers as part of the refit, then when the ships were handed over, we had to do upgrades to that part of the system.  They were installing 8 year old (or more) computers, knowing that they had to be replaced immediately after installation.

This is exactly too what I was referring. Its easier to get FMF to replace the parts with new then it is to implement change with the contractor. 
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
NavyShooter said:
If we're buying 15 ship sets worth of stuff, we'll likely buy 15 - have all 15 delivered, and install them one at a time over the span of the construction period.  The 15th will have been sitting in storage for probably a decade by the time we install it.
It is not going to be for all fifteen at once.  It is going to be for batch one.  Then it is going to be for batch two.  Then it is going to be for batch three.  Etc.  There will probably be little change to the propulsion machinery and hull—well, maybe a stretched version is possible.  But the weapons, sensors, electronics, computers, software, etc. will be changing from batch to batch—similar to the St. Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie, and Annapolis-class ships. 
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
198
Points
680
NavyShooter said:
And....new to procurement too...


I have in front of me right now one of the original MWM-Deutz Diesel Driven Fire Pump motors - now being maintained by another company because they bought out Deutz.  The engine is 30 years old - they aren't made anymore.  We're down to recycling the ones we have left into the repair/overhaul stream until they're beyond overhaul.


If we're buying 15 ship sets worth of stuff, we'll likely buy 15 - have all 15 delivered, and install them one at a time over the span of the construction period.  The 15th will have been sitting in storage for probably a decade by the time we install it.


I recall getting the SHINNADS system installed on CHA in 1999 or 2000 - it was brand new, I was the first person to open the NAVO Laptop box - and the 4 year warranty had expired a couple of months prior.  They were purchased, but there was no money to install them, so they sat in a warehouse until there was.


The logistics chain is limited by what the contracts say.  Example - on the FELEX project, the thin client computer solution for the OPS room was superseded in service - but the contract specified installation of the original hardware, so they had to install all of the old computers as part of the refit, then when the ships were handed over, we had to do upgrades to that part of the system.  They were installing 8 year old (or more) computers, knowing that they had to be replaced immediately after installation.


I highly doubt that the contracts will be written with such flexibility to allow mid-stream changes to hardware.


That would indicate that they 'learned lessons' from the FELEX project...


NS

Part of the issue as well is the initial batch tends to get used as spares for the fleet when you have that long of an initial activation, so you end up not being able to do the final installs with the original equipment unless you update the design. We've seen this in multiple systems, and happens because the supportable life cycle for a lot of the electronics is measured in a few years, and the replacement won't be fit/form equivalent.

And yeah, it still makes sense to pay for a redesign upfront, otherwise you are still paying for an install, removal, new install plus a redesign anyway. With an eventual drumbeat of a CSC/year, with around 18-20 years for overall delivery off all of them, it's really stupid to do otherwise. CSC 1 will be at midlife by the time CSC 15 is delivered, so not expecting to be evergreening the design during build is dumb.

Long lead mechanical systems will be fine, but we should plan for updating electronics during the build. Most of the time it's an update to the internal mounting arrangement, so really doesn't affect anything external to the cabinet. That's a really minor change which will have negligible/no impact to the general ship build. Worse case you would have some kind of power interface change, but the LOE to do that during the build is far smaller then once the ship is delivered (by a factor of 3-4 times less person hours required). There is really no excuse to pass that on to an in service project.
 

LoboCanada

Member
Reaction score
2
Points
230
This project is in the news more than ever, all shedding this in a bad light, all avoidable.

Should've started 2 warship projects, both very different.

First project should've been for 3 or 4 AAW/DDGs to replace the Tribals ASAP. Should have built them first before the AOPS. All design, shipyard refit, and teething would've been sorted in this project. Pre-select an 'in the water' design in use in NATO, a proven and mature design that is almost old like the Horizon or Type 45. Rush this project and use the lessons on the next ASW/General frigate project. Use many of the same systems in both projects. Run a DDG refit project halfway through the frigate project to keep the technology fresh. The high-tech DDG could balance the cost of the cheaper/general version of the 2-variant frigate project. Yes, its more expensive to run 3 different warship types, but operations costs never make the news, project budgets do.

This 15 ship project has to compete with a similarly priced Fighter project at the same time, it makes both easy targets to balance a budget. Shift priorities and timelines based on avoiding competing projects, since many things need replacing at the same time.
:2c:
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
LoboCanada said:
Should've started 2 warship projects, both very different.

First project should've been for 3 or 4 AAW/DDGs to replace the Tribals ASAP. Should have built them first before the AOPS. All design, shipyard refit, and teething would've been sorted in this project. Pre-select an 'in the water' design in use in NATO, a proven and mature design that is almost old like the Horizon or Type 45. Rush this project and use the lessons on the next ASW/General frigate project.
I thought the decision to build the Harry DeWolfs first before building destroyers or frigates was to give Irving some experience in building large ships before they start on something as complex as destroyers or frigates.  The last frigate built in Canada was in 1996.  What you propose, therefore, would have been very risky.  I do not think there were any easy solutions available.  What the governments of Canada should have done was, starting with the Iroquois-class destroyers, order a new destroyer or frigate to be built in Canada about every twelve to eighteen months.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
64
Points
530
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I foresee the Canadian Government cancelling the CSC Project, and buy an extra dozen AOPS instead.


The AOPS project will be 'adjusted' to enable the Navy to up-gun and up-radar the 12 additional ships, using whatever they can rip off the Halifax Class to re-use.
- CIWS
- 57mm (no through deck penetration though - have to hand-load through the back door of the turret)
- 3D Radar (if there's space)
- Link 16
- slightly improved OPS room-ish sort of thing


Then we have a single fleet of similar ships, we'll save money, time on planning, the general public won't know the difference...ISI gets to build more ships...perfection!


NS
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
27
Points
430
Was something published that’s bringing this on?  It seems to me the Government, MND and the RCN have been clear recently: there will be 15 CSC built, no less than that. There will not be more than 1 variant and they will all perform the same role and functions.

I don’t trust the politicians either ( any of them) but the messaging has been remarkably consistent and clear this year.  :dunno:
 
Top