Junior's government has announced a new delay for the CSC because some bidders are pissed that BAE is allowed to bid an uncompleted design, the Type 26 and the government is not satisfied with the Canadian content..
I read the story in the link & like all things reported in the press, articles are based on 'the opinions' of the writer.
Sometimes the context of an article draws on some facts, but doesn't quote others, meaning the whole story isn't laid out for the reader.
I'm not by any manner of means saying that the facts in the article are untrue, but some of the sub-plot is missing.
For instance, taken from your source article, Michael Fallon is quoted "
Michael Fallon said last month he won’t sign a contract for the ship until he is persuaded it’s in the best interests of UK taxpayers and will provide value for money."
Yet, here's another quote from Micheal Fallon"
Effective from April 2016, the 15-month contract extends the current demonstration phase ensuring continued momentum to further mature the detailed design of the Type 26 ships and to manufacture key equipment for the first three ships.
Speaking at the time that the contract was announced, UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said: “These highly advanced ships will help keep Britain safe and support our shipbuilding industry. Investing in them is part of our plan to increase defence spending so our armed forces have the most modern equipment they need.”"
Ministry of Defence progresses Type 26 programme
But getting back to my point - To help the context, issues relating to UK PLC's available budget, the changes that the UK MoD have put on the programme, meaning moving cut steel dates, etc. It's understandable that 'the design' isn't complete.
With all that said, there's another factor that needs to be mentioned. When a design is offered to a 'new' customer, such as possibly the Canadian / Australian / Indian / Brazilian navy/Govt, that Govt / Navy will attempt to 'influence' the design by changing certain aspects so that the design is 'tailored' to the respective countries wants & needs.
Type 26 & the GCS are 'the latest' design put onto the global stage. To do that means that although the ship design is on 'paper' (
or rather designed as part of a Computer based CAD programme), it's a whole lot more than an idea, especially seeing as the UK Govt have invested a whole pile of cash on the design & wants to put it into production.
The question that needs to be put down is this..
Would the Canadian Navy prefer a 10 / 20 / 30 year old design, that is 'proven', or would they like to modernise to a state of the art / cutting edge design ?
I think by allowing the BAE design in, they are clearly defining the fact that they want cutting edge, not old hat.
SA