Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[Delta204]

The 76mm guns from the Iroquois-class were put up for sale, but does anyone know if the SM-2 stocks were retained? Although buying new SM-2MR Block IIIC closer to when the CSC actually arrive might be more efficient than having to safely store old SM-2 for years and having to upgrade them to Block IIIC. Similarly, since the SM-6 is undergoing a major update to move from a 13.5" rocket motor to a 21" rocket motor, it'd be best to wait for SM-6 Block IB to be operational before buying.

SM2 missiles removed from HMCS Athabaskan – Navy looking at keeping launchers for possible use on Canadian Surface Combatant

In late September I had an article about the Royal Canadian Navy examining whether to strip down its Iroquois-class ships for systems that could be used in the futu…

ottawacitizen.com

Doesn't sound like the SM-2's were retained, but there's not a lot of info out there.

Good info from the job posting... it's been a bit frustrating waiting to hear on what type and how many missiles these frigates will have so we rely on these little breadcrumbs to get by as we wait!

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

You have to ask the question of whether or not the continual insistence upon buying domestically is providing Value for Money (VfM) for the taxpayer when equivalent or superior quality items can be acquired offshore for cheaper prices. Secondly, has the dogma of buying Canadian made only, lead to price gouging by the private sector contractors because they don't have foreign competitors?

Yes we are ...... Dun dun dun.

Don't know how this contract came to be, but normally what happens is, the government will put out a contract to industry for RIGID Zodiac RHIBs and await bids, with a winner announced. That is not to say a foreign company could not bid on the contract (and may have). By all means they can, but normally the Canadian government would buy nationally (policy), if possible ($$). If a Canadian company could not come up with the specifications required by the RCN, then an international search would then ensue. There are several Zodiac companies within Canada, and it would appear that Zodiac Hurricane Technologies Inc. in Delta B.C. had the "right stuff" and were eventually chosen for this project. Foreign companies can be just as expensive if not more. You rarely see "cheaper" military prices inside or outside of Canada. If this company seemed to be "price gouging", the government would not be buying it. Since there are several companies in Canada that could bid on this project, IMO, I believe the correct company was chosen, perhaps not the cheapest, but with the best specifications for the most cost effective price.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

Once again it all comes down to the accounting method and what is and isn't included in the contract. That said the ADF by comparison is spending $55 million on 41 boats built in Finland. These boats can vary widely in capabilities and protection levels so don't assume it overpriced but rather ask if others are going for the cheapest option and by extension least effective and safe.

Totally agree vonnoobie. It would appear the ADF is spending 55M AUD for boats built in Finland. Were they the best option at the best price? Maybe. This decision certainly would not give Australians much needed jobs I would presume. But they have made their decision, as has Canada.

 

[Todjaeger]

You have to ask the question of whether or not the continual insistence upon buying domestically is providing Value for Money (VfM) for the taxpayer when equivalent or superior quality items can be acquired offshore for cheaper prices. Secondly, has the dogma of buying Canadian made only, lead to price gouging by the private sector contractors because they don't have foreign competitors?

There is another important consideration when placing purchases and making the decision to buy domestically or internationally, especially for certain types of comparatively minor kit that will likely see fairly long service. That consideration is who (which company/suppliers) can actually produce the desired kit, in the needed quantities, by the required delivery dates.

IMO it would be unlikely that the smallcraft orders from most navies would be of sufficient volume to be able to solely sustain a local/domestic business which produces smallcraft and/or RHIB's. This in turn means that either the business closes up shop once a gov't/naval order is completed, or it seeks out and accepts civilian/commercial orders for it's products. Depending on the business's success in seeking out customers, the order book might be quite full if/when gov't were to want to place an order. This could then lead to either the business wanting to expand it's production facilities and workforce (which costs money and there is a danger that either/both could become redundant once an order is completed) or requiring new and potential new customers to wait for production slots to become available. I have little doubt that in Australia/NZ, there are companies which likely could have produced what the RAN was looking for, but it might have been at a greater cost than purchasing from Finland. Or it might have provided a lower quality product, or required deliver be later than wanted/needed. Or a combination thereof.

It does seem in the case of Canada that the order requirements all fit within a domestic build.

Yes we are ...... Dun dun dun.

When in doubt, assume a Mod like watching, I certainly do.

 

[John Fedup]

The Delta operation in BC has been successful in obtaining RIB orders from a variety of clients so I imagine the actual RIB/engine package along with basic accessories would be competitive. My original post was wrt to why a nine meter RIB requires over a million dollars per boat. There may be good reasons why but it does seem these extras add in $800-900k assuming the basic boat and engines account for $200k. I have seen pictures of OB and either IB or jet configurations which I assume would be diesels. The latter configurations would likely add an additional $150k at least to the basic boat cost. The million plus unit cost starts the look a little more reasonable if this is the case.

 

[spoz]

RAN boats, at least, come with a range of sensor, nav and comms equipments which push the prices up. Then there is the fact that buys for the DoD aren’t like somebody walking in off the street and saying “I’ll have one of those, please”. There’s a complete support package involved as well.

Actually, the RAN is in the middle of a review of its support craft; there was an RFI out last year if I remember correctly.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Typically in Canada, the price has to be the full life cycle cost for budget purposes. So this cost my be inflated once you add in all the manpower, maintenance, parts, fuel, weapons, sensors etc etc etc for the full life of the boat.

As for buying domestically, for smaller items, there is not much advantage over buying foreign (in my opinion) so this was likely the best bid regardless of location.

Where buying domestically matters most is when intellectual property and maintaining domestic capability is of critical importance. I think all nations have realized that domestic production of critical items needs to be maintained for times of crisis and outsourcing things such as weapons, medical supplies, even mineral and metal production can come back to haunt you (the current crisis is a good example). So for large ship building, it is best if this is always done at home regardless of the cost, I don't think it would be good to depend on a foreign country to fix your kit during a conflict. That is one of the main reasons we rejected the FREMM.

 

[Underway]

@Black Jack Shellac is correct. Canadian military procurement use "full life" costs including spares, replacement parts, maintenance, warranty, outfitting. What is the through-life cost of your car? Add up the insurance, maintenance, snow tires, licensing fees, parts... it's going to be a bit surprising. Of course add on the mandatory 8% profit and any markup from subcontractors (say 7-8% as well) and you have the boats priced as they are.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

@Black Jack Shellac is correct. Canadian military procurement use "full life" costs including spares, replacement parts, maintenance, warranty, outfitting. What is the through-life cost of your car? Add up the insurance, maintenance, snow tires, licensing fees, parts... it's going to be a bit surprising. Of course add on the mandatory 8% profit and any markup from subcontractors (say 7-8% as well) and you have the boats priced as they are.

BJS & Underway are absolutely right on track. The price tag for the whole contract for these RHIBs really does not seem "out-of-sight", if you consider all the inputs throughout the life cycle of these boats. Yes, Zodiac Hurricane Technologies will make money on this contract, but not really out-of line with other companies when you consider everything. As BJS has said, if we had decided to buy the FREMM, we probably would have had to buy the French RHIB as well, and that would cause more problems than it was worth. Probably not the ship we wanted anyway.

 

[John Fedup]

Typically in Canada, the price has to be the full life cycle cost for budget purposes. So this cost my be inflated once you add in all the manpower, maintenance, parts, fuel, weapons, sensors etc etc etc for the full life of the boat.

As for buying domestically, for smaller items, there is not much advantage over buying foreign (in my opinion) so this was likely the best bid regardless of location.

Where buying domestically matters most is when intellectual property and maintaining domestic capability is of critical importance. I think all nations have realized that domestic production of critical items needs to be maintained for times of crisis and outsourcing things such as weapons, medical supplies, even mineral and metal production can come back to haunt you (the current crisis is a good example). So for large ship building, it is best if this is always done at home regardless of the cost, I don't think it would be good to depend on a foreign country to fix your kit during a conflict. That is one of the main reasons we rejected the FREMM.

It would interesting, at some point, to see what portion this award is actual capital cost and what the life cycle cost is. Guessing that will be at least one election cycle away.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

It would interesting, at some point, to see what portion this award is actual capital cost and what the life cycle cost is. Guessing that will be at least one election cycle away.

You may be right there John Fedup. Do we know what the actual capital costs and life cycle costs of the CSC Frigate program are now? I suspect not. COVID-19 is also a factor playing in here, as well as the next election cycle. Cheers!

 

[spoz]

@Black Jack Shellac is correct. Canadian military procurement use "full life" costs including spares, replacement parts, maintenance, warranty, outfitting. What is the through-life cost of your car? Add up the insurance, maintenance, snow tires, licensing fees, parts... it's going to be a bit surprising. Of course add on the mandatory 8% profit and any markup from subcontractors (say 7-8% as well) and you have the boats priced as they are.

As do Australian ones; but the context in which those costs are calculated and expressed will make like for like comparisons very difficult. That said, the two countries’ costs are in the same ballpark.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Doesn't sound like the SM-2's were retained, but there's not a lot of info out there.

Curious, SM-2 have gone through a number of upgrades over their life and are still a useful missile particularly in the later blocks, and missiles can be upgraded to later block standards.

Ancile

www.deagel.com

 

[Underway]

^I would suspect those missiles would have been divested a long time ago as only the Iroquois class carried them. And there was no replacement on the horizon.

I like the SM-2 Block IIIC better anyways...

 

[John Fedup]

As there is no CCG thread I am placing this link here on the RCN thread. The article link describes a collaboration between Heddle and SeaSpan for a heavy icebreaker if SeaSpan wins a bid to build. I was under the impression the AORs would prevent SeaSpan from getting the work and Davie would likely get the job. I really don’t see how building modules in Ontario would work unless the plan is to assemble the ship in Ontario. Shipping modules from the Great Lakes to Vancouver has to be pretty costly and then there is the seaway winter closure to consider. There are political advantages for Ontario getting a share of this project.

Seaspan, Heddle Shipyards join forces in bid to build polar icebreaker for Canadian Coast Guard

Seaspan Shipyards and Heddle Shipyards have entered into an exclusive teaming agreement for the Canadian Coast Guard's future polar icebreaker, bringing Heddle and Ontario shipyards into the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS).

www.navaltoday.com

 

[Calculus]

Hopefully this will put to rest some of the misconceptions around the capabilities and usefulness of the Victoria Class submarines: Sense, Send and Strike - Armada International

In addition to the the projects detailed in the article, which are part of the Victoria Class Modernization (VCM), there is also a submarine Lifex planned for around 2025, which will extend the life of these subs into the "mid 30s" time frame. Details of the Lifex are hard to come by, as it is still in project definition stage.

 

[John Fedup]

It would appear the Victoria class will offer a decent capability out to 2030. The question is was this purchase value for money when the fleet downtime, cost to get them shipshape, and upgrades are all summed up compared to just ordering new boats? More importantly, what’s the plan for replacement in the early 2030s?

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

It would appear the Victoria class will offer a decent capability out to 2030. The question is was this purchase value for money when the fleet downtime, cost to get them shipshape, and upgrades are all summed up compared to just ordering new boats? More importantly, what’s the plan for replacement in the early 2030s?

Finally, a decent upgrade for our Victoria class, although a planned lifespan to the mid 2030's means these boats will be in the water since being built by the RN for well over 45 years! I have been asking the question of submarine replacements for years now. Why are submarines not part of our NSS plan? If follow-on boats are acquired, how many, and will they have a more extensive under-ice capability? Cheers!

 

[vonnoobie]

Can't rush these things, first the extension, then around 2030 a program, 2040 build work starts... 2050ish you may have your new boats... You can keep Victoria class that long yeah?

 

[Redlands18]

[

Can't rush these things, first the extension, then around 2030 a program, 2040 build work starts... 2050ish you may have your new boats... You can keep Victoria class that long yeah?

Compare it to where Australia is at, we are refitting ours and building their replacements at the same time. Requirements have similarities in that there is probably no Sub design suitable, and want to build locally but will need to build up the facilities and Workforce. Canada is about where Australia was 6-7 years ago but with no intention of building new Subs in the short to med term. and the RAN are not getting the first new boat before about 32-33.