• 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

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Any thoughts on who will be shortlisted for warship designer and combat systems integrator, or when we can expect to find out who was shortlisted, and with which baseline product?  Looking at the list of companies attending, it looks like pretty much any western company with a recent warship design is interested (TKMS, OMT, DCNS, G+C, LM, BAE, Thales, Navantia, Fincatieri, General Dynamics, etc). 

 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,577
Points
1,160
jmt18325 said:
Any thoughts on who will be shortlisted for warship designer and combat systems integrator, or when we can expect to find out who was shortlisted, and with which baseline product?  Looking at the list of companies attending, it looks like pretty much any western company with a recent warship design is interested (TKMS, OMT, DCNS, G+C, LM, BAE, Thales, Navantia, Fincatieri, General Dynamics, etc).

Something tells some of us that you should be the one telling us...we're not as well suited to floating trial balloons are perhaps you might be?  You listed companies that some (many?) of us have never heard of.  I know of LM, BAE, Thales and GD...don't know the others.

G2G
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Good2Golf said:
Something tells some of us that you should be the one telling us...we're not as well suited to floating trial balloons are perhaps you might be?  You listed companies that some (many?) of us have never heard of.  I know of LM, BAE, Thales and GD...don't know the others.

G2G

I live in a rural town in Manitoba and this is just an interest to me (I like the navy and ships - always have).  I have a screen cap on my iPad from this:

http://www.atlanticalliance.ca/userfiles/file/EN%2010%20Feb%202015%20%20PIE%20Presentation.pdf

That's where I got the names from.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,577
Points
1,160
You have more names than most of us then, and I don't think that anyone involved inside the project would comment on the specifics of the project.  The online/media acquisition pundits will probably give the most feedback on the projects status, certainly until after the election.

Regards
G2G
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
703
Points
1,060
G2G

TKMS, Thyssen Krupp Marine of Germany (The Queenston/Berlins)

OMT, Odense Marine of Denmark (Absalon, Huitfeldt, AOPS and allied with Irving)

DCNS, (Can never remember what they stand for but it is the French company responsible for FREMM and the Sevastopol)

G+C, (No clue)

LM, BAE, Thales,

Navantia, (Spanish version of DCNS - responsible for the Aussi LHDs and the F100?)

Fincantieri, (Italian Company - both military and civil - Owner of Vard which used to be Kvaerner and Aker and STX (Kjell Inge Rokke's Company)  in Vancouver and was responsible for ice breaker technology and Double Acting Hulls - Vard currently associated with SeaSpan)

General Dynamics,

They are all legitimate contenders - Surprised not to see Damen but perhaps Thales is fronting them?

G+C is apparently Gibbs and Cox http://www.gibbscox.com/  (LCS-1,3,5 etc)
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
781
Points
1,010
Canada has determined that it will utilize a single prime contractor to best manage
this procurement over three decades of design and ship construction
– Irving Shipbuilding Inc., as the Combat Package NSPS shipyard, has been selected as Canada’s
prime contractor for the design and build phases of CSC

Ok no surprises here.... we already knew this....

Canada will competitively select the Combat System Integrator (CSI) and Warship
Designer (WD)
– The selected CSI and WD will be key sub-contractors to the NSPS shipyard

So we actually get a say?  From everything I read the sub-contractors were picked by Irving, the keys handed over so to speak.  If this happens the way I hope then its good news.

Canada, with the participation of ISI, will develop the RFP for selection of the CSI
and WD. It will include:
– The model sub-contracts, statement of work, pricing information required, and ITB VP
contractual obligations
– Canada’s prime contractor will award the sub-contracts to the CSI and WD, and monitor the
commitments made in the winning proposal

See this is where I get confused.  If Irving is awarding the sub-contracts how does the Gov't get a say in who the subcontractors are or the equipment.  Is it because the RCN gets a say in the RFP development?  I need a bit more explanation....#confused

If Irving picks the subcontrators then Lockheed and General Dynamics are the leads for CSI.  If the gov't gets to pick then its wide open.  As for WD it could be anyone.  France is pushing hard for DCNS, BAE is in the process of building new frigates for the RN, and TKMS have a lot of great ships on the market.  I truly think it will be OMT as well, but in an open competition who knows?

For me the top WD's are OMT, BAE, DCNS and TKMS not necessarily in that order.

For CSI its Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Thales, BAE again not in that order.  I really hope for Thales but doubtfull....
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Kirkhill said:
G+C is apparently Gibbs and Cox http://www.gibbscox.com/  (LCS-1,3,5 etc)

Arleigh Burke as well.

The full list:

DCNS
TKMS
Fincantieri
MDA
Gibbs & Cox
Thales
Raytheon
BAE Systems
Navantia
Saab
Lockheed Martin
Atlas Elektronik
Selex ES
General Dynamics
OMT
Alion Science & Technology
Irving Shipbuilding Inc.

I have no idea what MDA is doing there.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
781
Points
1,010
Kirkhill said:
Schmoozing?

Haha maybe....

MDA would be there to compete only for the Combat Systems Integration portion.  They are world experts in comms, remote sensing and a bunch of space stuff but they also do maritime security bits.  What they would likely do is gain the CSI and then subcontract out the shooting parts but do the comms/RMP stuff themselves.  It's not like each one of those companies are going to provide the entire combat, comms and sensor suit without working with other companies.  It might be a Thales radar with a SM-6 from Lockheed and a GD comms system....
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
703
Points
1,060
http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/nsps/Lerhe%20-%20CSC%20SOR.pdf

Things have gone quiet round here lately.  Time to stir the pot a little  >:D

The link above is to a June 2014 Dalhousie presentation by Eric Lerhe on the CSC Statement of Requirements.

My take-away from the presentation, and being as disputatious as possible, is:

The RCN intends to continue as a Blue Water Auxilliary to the USN providing ASW services to US Fleets.
Its AAW capabilities will be integrated into the USNs Cooperative Engagement Capability
The RCN will protect the size of the service by not reducing crewing levels below the current levels.

Cargo carrying capability, Naval Gunfire / Land Attack Missile support, and crew reduction are all secondary targets.

This does not seem to present a platform that the Army can operate from (or even the Special Forces) and there is nothing on the books to suggest that there will be a dedicated Army Support platform.

In other words the RCN sails on serenely in splendid isolation (as does the Army).
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
781
Points
1,010
Kirkhill said:
http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/nsps/Lerhe%20-%20CSC%20SOR.pdf

Things have gone quiet round here lately.  Time to stir the pot a little  >:D

The link above is to a June 2014 Dalhousie presentation by Eric Lerhe on the CSC Statement of Requirements.

My take-away from the presentation, and being as disputatious as possible, is:

The RCN intends to continue as a Blue Water Auxilliary to the USN providing ASW services to US Fleets.
Its AAW capabilities will be integrated into the USNs Cooperative Engagement Capability
The RCN will protect the size of the service by not reducing crewing levels below the current levels.

Cargo carrying capability, Naval Gunfire / Land Attack Missile support, and crew reduction are all secondary targets.

This does not seem to present a platform that the Army can operate from (or even the Special Forces) and there is nothing on the books to suggest that there will be a dedicated Army Support platform.

In other words the RCN sails on serenely in splendid isolation (as does the Army).

I think that most of what you have said is correct, however with a few differences. 

Support to forces ashore with Naval Gunfire is very much on the navies radar, especially after Libya, where ships could have prosecuted targets better than airpower in a couple of circumstances.  Now the issue is does both versions of the CSC have this capability or only the GP version.

But the focus back on ASW is extremely interesting from my perspective.  There are so many new developments in that area which need to be taken into account.  The maturation of ultra low freq sonar is a big one.  The processing power of modern computers are making that possibility of torpedo hard kill systems a possibility as well, and linked ASW systems are going to be amazing when they get working.  Its a whole new world of ASW going on out there...

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
703
Points
1,060
So, would that put the Oto Melara Vulcano on the agenda? Giving you a 100 km stand-off capability and 32 rounds per minute?

squared_medium_VULCANO_127mm_MG_1545_s.jpg


Also -  On the ASW front - especially with the new gear - does all of the kit have to be carried all of the time?  Or are some of the capabilities compatible with Mission Bay installations (temporary).

PS - And I appreciate that you understood my tone and supplied a civil response.  Thanks.  :)
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
381
Points
930
All I hope is that we sail far far away from the LCS concept. It has been a disaster from the start. (if you believe the critics)

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2015/08/lcs-and-miw-you-knew-this-was-coming.html
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,745
Points
940
This is a case where I believe the critics. You want fast attack littoral craft, then expect them to be disposable. Basically they want a MGB, frigate, corvette, minesweeper, ASW cutter all in one platform and that crap only works in Sci-fi.

 
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
703
Points
1,060
I don't think the LCS is a suitable solution for much of anything (I don't like the Yanks for innovation - never their strong suit - too slow and too pricey).

But I do think that any design adopted should take  on board (pun intended) two key design elements from Denmark.

1) Modularized Weapons and Sensors to permit easy mission conversions and systems upgrades
2) A large, accessible, empty space that can be used for carrying stuff.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
334
Points
1,010
Curious as an uninformed observer.  Are the complaints about the LCS more about the systems or about the physical design of the ship? 

Austal is promoting a "Multi-Mission Combatant" which is I'm guessing more or less an LCS with a more traditional weapons fit?  (http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/dd47585d-170b-4e43-a80c-2d849e065b2d/mm-brochure-horiz2011.pdf).  They of course pump up the claimed advantages of their trimaran design over a traditonal hull.  Is there any validity to their claims?  Would a trimaran hull make sense in a Canadian context?

The impression I get is that the CSC concept doesn't really seek to make the "multi-mission" aspect the top priority, so could a portion of this proposed space be used to give the vessel greater range and endurance (which I'm guessing would be a benefit for a Canadian ship)?  Could extending the superstructure (and reducing the flight deck area to only allow operation of a single helicopter instead of two simultaneously) permit the addition of additional AAW missles for the Area Air Defence version of the CSC?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
703
Points
1,060
GR66 said:
Curious as an uninformed observer.  Are the complaints about the LCS more about the systems or about the physical design of the ship? 

Austal is promoting a "Multi-Mission Combatant" which is I'm guessing more or less an LCS with a more traditional weapons fit?  (http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/dd47585d-170b-4e43-a80c-2d849e065b2d/mm-brochure-horiz2011.pdf).  They of course pump up the claimed advantages of their trimaran design over a traditonal hull.  Is there any validity to their claims?  Would a trimaran hull make sense in a Canadian context?

The impression I get is that the CSC concept doesn't really seek to make the "multi-mission" aspect the top priority, so could a portion of this proposed space be used to give the vessel greater range and endurance (which I'm guessing would be a benefit for a Canadian ship)?  Could extending the superstructure (and reducing the flight deck area to only allow operation of a single helicopter instead of two simultaneously) permit the addition of additional AAW missles for the Area Air Defence version of the CSC?

My take on the issue is that the LCS was oversold, under-delivered and deliberately sabotaged.

The LCS concept was based on the success of the Western Express catamaran and the JHSV project.  Relatively cheap, flexible hulls were to be fitted for a variety of missions.  Marry Western Express with Stan Flex and you should have had a useful concept.

But then the USN got its hands on it and it became a fight between Brown Water reformists (Austal - Freedom) and Blue Water, Single Hull traditionalists (Lockheed Martin Independence).  Lockheed and the traditionalists kept driving the design basis away from Austal's capabilities and towards their own comfort zone with the collusion of the Blue Water navy and their congressional supporters. 

The net effect was that the project grew like Topsy and ballooned away from the original objectives.  In my opinion, the irony is that the Blue Water types have shot themselves in the foot.  The project is now so big it cannot be allowed to fail.  More money is being spent on the LCS programme than was ever intended, money that could have be spent on real, modern, frigates (employing the Stanflex concept at a different fleet level and sharing weapons modules with the LCS) and the navy will end up with hulls that are neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat.

And like every Yankee project the product is overly complex and ridiculously expensive.  Lockmart and GD should never be given project lead on any Canadian project.  They have many useful capabilities that need to be integrated and they can do that but they should never be given Carte Blanche.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,745
Points
940
I suspect part of the problem is the LCS program was vastly oversold and then hugely overbudget without any real gain in capability. They want a littoral combat ship that can easily and quickly self deploy across significant blue water distances.

I suspect the Tri-hull design after some hard usage, will show structural problems over the years to come, sidelining a significant chunk of the fleet. As a experimental design program working as addition to the regular fleet they may have their uses, but I think the USN thought they could replace many of the more specialized vessels with one type. I have never been a huge fan of multi-tasking as it rarely works as well as the bean counters envision.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
703
Points
1,060
Colin P said:
I suspect part of the problem is the LCS program was vastly oversold and then hugely overbudget without any real gain in capability. They want a littoral combat ship that can easily and quickly self deploy across significant blue water distances.

I suspect the Tri-hull design after some hard usage, will show structural problems over the years to come, sidelining a significant chunk of the fleet. As a experimental design program working as addition to the regular fleet they may have their uses, but I think the USN thought they could replace many of the more specialized vessels with one type. I have never been a huge fan of multi-tasking as it rarely works as well as the bean counters envision.

Coming from a very different background, where I have never had the luxury of the money I needed nor the equipment I wanted I have learned that you can get a long ways towards your goals by exploiting that which is available.  Flexibility is a precondition to success in my world.  By the time I delivered the perfect solution the client's market would have moved on, in which case I would be using the perfect solution sub-optimally in another application.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,745
Points
940
Ships generally have significant penalties when you give it to many tasks. it should be designed purposely for it's main task with a little flexibility to conduct others. Trying to make a ship do everything equally well, generally makes it a complete dog in all aspects. 
 
Top