Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Ananda said:
Actually they did enter bid for Indonesian program. However they come with FTI, while Italian that come with their FREMM version. Rumours from those inside Indonesian defense sales circles, NG quite piss off with Fincantieri cause their cut Frenchie FTI/Belharra with FREMM.

However this is mostly I suspect because NG got wrong perception on what Indonesian MinDef looking for. Perhaps they are thinking more on countering previous Damen SIGMA proposal, and not seeing as Indonesia already shown interest with larger Odense now Babcock design for sometime. While Fincantieri see that, which is why they come out with FREMM offer. Even if Indonesia now rumours going to change the order from FREMM to PPA, still it is in similar dimensions size.

As for the flexibility on offer, this is something that also perplexed me. NG shown big effort to customize their design for India, Brazil and now Indonesian Scorpene offer. More flexibility then what I heard the German wiling to go. However not from what I heard on Frigate.
Click to expand...
The SSK competitions haven't been nearly as competitive as the Frigates with Germany the only real western competitor to France for the last 40 years or so. That is changing with ROK, Spain and Sweden now pushing their Subs. It has never been as competitive, right across the board for all Naval vessels as it is right now, there are now 9-10 Western Frigate and 5-6 Submarine designers who have or are currently building vessels. Everything from 60m Corvettes to 170m Destroyers, there are multiple choices.
 
M

Meriv90

Active Member
NG quite piss off with Fincantieri cause their cut Frenchie FTI/Belharra with FREMM.
Click to expand...
As we are with them when they cut us off with the FTI in Greece even thought Fincantieri bought Greek shipyards to restructure them. French political weight outpowered us.

Redlands18 said:
Why was France nowhere to be seen on FFG(X), Sea 5000, CSC and the Indonesian Frigate program. The Italian FREMM design was on all 4 short lists, won the biggest, is in talks with Indonesia on 6 ships. France is very successful when they can totally dictate the terms and basically build a MOTS design, in competitions where the ships are being built in country to a heavily modified design, the Italians and Germans are running rings around them.
Click to expand...
On Sea5000 they were near to do the proposal but something must have stop them.

They even had a render of Australian FREMM if not wrong.

Possible reasons they pulled out:
-SEA1000 could have influenced and they were already doing damage control
-They saw stronger Italian involvement and pulled back.

Photo from MMI.

The only outlier is the FFG(X) but after 2 defeats I could understand them focusing on other tenders, after all tenders need a significant investment
 
M

Meriv90

Active Member
shadow99 said:
Sorry Meriv90, maybe there's a language barrier but I'm not exactly sure what your trying to say? Do you want to re-start the program now and change to a different ship?

If so I'm curious about your plan. Do you have any details to share with us? When would you start this? What are the actual cost savings. Have you figured a way to overcome the political hurdles? What is the impact to the navy? What exactly are we getting?
Click to expand...
I was just defending the Italian-French tender on the CSC. What was our true reason to not ,in contrast to all the other tenders of the time, bid.

Don't accuse us of low-balling when you are doing a tender process that breaks IP property. This is our POV.

So lets depart from here. You keep Irving, we keep our European shipbuilders. :) No sarcasm or passive aggressive.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If a customer sets up a tender process, and a supplier comes along and says “we don’t like that process, we want you to forget your process, and just buy our product, take it or leave it”, you shouldn’t be surprised when the customer leaves it; whatever the supplier’s reasons for that might be.
 
M

Meriv90

Active Member
I wasn't the one complaining about the tender. The one that started this was a member accusing us of lowballing it.

In your opinion is Irving receiving the IP from all contenders a conflict of interest?

Since you probably have way more experience than me, can you point to me another public naval tender where the recipient of the IP designs isn't a Public institution but a private company?
 
M

Meriv90

Active Member
And i will add this pearl


And it is CBC not David Pugliese ...

EDIT: Plus Irving (also Davie) has an amazing reputation. P.s. I can accept corruption to win a foreign(depending on the development of the country because that's how it works in some countries. ) competition but national? no thanks.


This article comes way before the competition so not sided with European shipbuilder in any way.

nationalpost.com

John Ivison: $26B shock — Canada's largest ever defence procurement handed off in sole-source contract

Accusations the government has non-competitively sole-sourced a contract even larger than the F35 fiasco may be more than just sour grapes
nationalpost.com nationalpost.com
 
Last edited:
S

shadow99

Member
Meriv90 said:
I wasn't the one complaining about the tender
Click to expand...
Take a look in the mirror.

Meriv90 said:
The one that started this was a member accusing us of lowballing it.
Click to expand...
I don't see anyone accusing you of lowballing it, except the quote you brought from another thread?

Meriv90 said:
P.s. I can accept corruption to win a foreign...
Click to expand...
Corruption is still corruption no matter how you justify it!

This is all water under the bridge from ages ago, time to move on or start a separate thread rehashing old news.

Meriv90 said:
Give a +5 years of flexibility(2035), China isn't going to do something drastic ...
And ships exist for the mission they have, Russians don't pose anymore a big threat...
Since you missed that one i would take it slowly and I would considering a solution like the F-16 leasing we had in Europe decades ago.
What about leasing Constellations Frigates from the USN... and you can take your time...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how any of these suggestions will help Canada replace the aging Halifax class ships before they retire and any delay increases the cost of the program through inflation and keeping the tired Halifax class running.

Am I missing something? Just trying to clarify things.
 
S

Sender

Active Member
Meriv90 said:
I wasn't the one complaining about the tender. The one that started this was a member accusing us of lowballing it.

In your opinion is Irving receiving the IP from all contenders a conflict of interest?

Since you probably have way more experience than me, can you point to me another public naval tender where the recipient of the IP designs isn't a Public institution but a private company?
Click to expand...
This was addressed in post 2417. Irving is licensing the ship design for Canada. As apart of that, they are paying the designer (in this case BAE) for any IP required to support these ships in the long term. Had the FREMM won, the same process would have occurred. It is correct to say that the GoC asked for access to the IP, it is not correct to state it was for free. I wish you would stop spreading this misinformation.
 
M

Meriv90

Active Member
The 2417 post
There are several posters who persist in propagating the myth that the associated IP for NSS ships go to the shipbuilder (Irving or Seaspan). This has been addressed before in this thread, by myself and others, but I will say it again: NO IP goes to either Irving or Seaspan. The IP will owned by the Government of Canada. The government will pay for the rights to "use and maintain" the IP for the "lifetime of the equipment". Exactly the same as any other country would. For CSC, Irving will licence the design of the ship ("hull and machinery"), but that's a licence agreement, not a transfer of IP. If Irving was to build a T26 for another customer other that the GoC, it would have to pay BAE to do so under the terms set out in the licensing agreement. It's also important to remember that the CSC program has two elements: The ship construction (Irving), and the systems integration (LM). For the systems (CMS, sensors, weapons, electronics, etc...), also known as the "fighty bits", the GoC will be buying those items directly from the vendors, and LM will be integrating them into the ship. Irving has no involvement in the purchase of the systems or weapons, or even any involvement in the integration of those systems or weapons. Therefore, this is a red herring.
Click to expand...

So how does Irving help choose the candidate without accessing the IP? Did they paid the Spanish-Swedish team to access their IP to evaluate its candidate? Remember it is Irving that put out the request for bids.

We didn't complain of Irving acquiring an export license, like in the case for example of when we sold to the Turkish the IP of the A129 and now they are selling it. It is an easy concept to understand, no need to explain that the Canadian government will acquire the license for the IP in order to build the ships, that is obvious.

We complained on Irving access to sensitive information during the selection process and its bias towards BAE. All confirmed by the article where Irving mentions creating a separate working team to reduce the conflict of interest and go trough the selection process. It was Irving middleman role that was problematic. Not its shipbuilding role, not the license to build and together with LM arm it, but its role in the selection process.

I'm putting sources, so please don't call it misinformation.


Again no problem if you pay for the IP or the IP is managed by a public entity like in the US bid where the Pentagon is the one asking for the IP to evaluate the ships. But Irving is a competitor. A private competitor.

P.s. All of this during a period when Davies was investigated for the leaks and globally some months before (if i remember correctly) the Indian submarine leak of french data just happened.
 
Last edited:
S

Sender

Active Member
Meriv90 said:
The 2417 post

So how does Irving help choose the candidate without accessing the IP? Did they paid the Spanish-Swedish team to access their IP to evaluate its candidate? Remember it is Irving that put out the request for bids.

We didn't complain of Irving acquiring an export license, like in the case for example of when we sold to the Turkish the IP of the A129 and now they are selling it. It is an easy concept to understand, no need to explain that the Canadian government will acquire the license for the IP in order to build the ships, that is obvious.

We complained on Irving access to sensitive information during the selection process and its bias towards BAE. All confirmed by the article where Irving mentions creating a separate working team to reduce the conflict of interest and go trough the selection process. It was Irving middleman role that was problematic. Not its shipbuilding role, not the license to build and together with LM arm it, but its role in the selection process.

I'm putting sources, so please don't call it misinformation.


Again no problem if you pay for the IP or the IP is managed by a public entity like in the US bid where the Pentagon is the one asking for the IP to evaluate the ships. But Irving is a competitor. A private competitor.

P.s. All of this during a period when Davies was investigated for the leaks and globally some months before (if i remember correctly) the Indian submarine leak of french data just happened.
Click to expand...
Yet many others on this forum have told you that the issue of IP was incorrectly reported in the press. This myth was made worse by the fact that the FREMM consortium chose to propagate it in an attempt to bypass the competitive process. I don't understand why you continue to flog this horse. It's bordering on troll-like behaviour, frankly.
 
S

shadow99

Member
Looks like the RCN would like to address the personnel shortages.
Some staggering numbers to be filled, and it's a problem for many navies just not many answers.

 
D

Delta204

Active Member
John Fedup said:
@Delta204, as per your comment in the RN thread, I wonder if there will be a rethink on 24 cells for the CSC? 32 minimum at least IMHO.
Click to expand...
I can only hope, there does seem to be some sort of design review taking place at the moment, but I won't hold my breath.

The Houthi's appear to be able to regularly launch waves of attacks in the Red Sea that use a combination of missiles and drones. I wish someone would go in front of a Parliamentary House Committee and explain to MP's that if the RCN had a CSC (as currently spec'd) deployed that it would be forced to sail back to Victoria or Halifax in only a few hours after defending against just one of these attacks. Our multi billion dollar warship would be forced to retreat after facing off against maybe $1million dollars worth of Iranian supplied missiles and drones (not sure what these Houthi weapons cost but I doubt its much more than that).

I've argued on here for several years that the minimum cell count for a warship this size / cost / sensor suit should be 48 cells minimum. Some have countered that soft kill measures are just as important or even more than missiles but there seems to be a lack of evidence of this being the case in the Red Sea.

I guess we will see what lessons RCN & DND have learned from the last few years; the future of naval power sure looks a lot different than it did when the CSC program got underway.
 
Last edited:
S

shadow99

Member
HaroldBloggins said:
Any further changes are now frozen and they in the functional review of the design currently The first flight of CSC (3 ships) will have 24 VLS.
Click to expand...
Do you know of any new time frame when CSC starts production or prototype blocks? The last official statements indicated 2024 as start of construction?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top