Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[John Newman]

The deadline has passed and so far the only bidders I can confirm are Navantia, BAE and Damen.

Want to know what Navantia is offering? Here's a sneak peak (surprised this hasn't been posted already?), this is from the Navy Recognition website:

https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...s-its-proposal-for-csc-frigate-programme.html

I read a week or so ago (think it was on Defense-Aerospace?), that Navantia has teamed up with SAAB Australia (for 9LV CMS) and CEA (for CEAFAR2) to offer a 'variation' on their offering for RAN's SEA 5000 project. So here's a bit more detail (and a couple of graphics too).

Looking at the two graphics, top one is the RCN offering and also below is a graphic of the RAN offering.

A couple of interesting 'variations' between the two.

* Both have a 5" main gun, both appear to have the same 48 cell Mk41 VLS arrangement at the front of the ship (same basic configuration).

* The RCN design has two x RAM launchers, one on the hangar and one above the bridge (as opposed to the single Phalanx on the hangar of the RAN design).

* The RCN design has two Millenium guns (if you look at the graphic you can see one of them mounted just at the back of the 'mast' area, either side of the forward exhaust stack).

The RCN design has 2 x 4 RBS-15 Mk3 AShM located on top of the hangar (the RAN's 2 x 4 Harpoon are located behind the forward exhaust stack.


Couple of other interesting 'variations' too:

* The whole mast area (where CEAFAR2 is mounted), has been 're-profiled' into what appears to be a 'slimmer' design, less 'bulky' that the design for the mast on the RAN's version.

* One other interesting thing is the design of the forward exhaust stack, it is 'angled' at the top, more like what appeared on the first four Spanish F-100 ships, the RAN's design for the exhaust stack (flat at the top) appears to align with the Spanish F-105, AWD design (could this mean a different propulsion set up too??).


Couple of things of note, I do like the idea of two Millenium guns (could a similar path be chosen on the RAN design??).

I like the look of the re-profiled mast, looks better, visually at least (possibly another 'hint' as to what the final RAN offering might be??).

I also like the idea of two RAM launchers, one on the hangar and one above the bridge on the RCN design (again, a possible example of how the RAN version could have a similar set up, regardless of RAM or Phalanx, eg, one forward and one aft as opposed to proposed RAN design).


Anyway Guys, enjoy!!

(I'll also post this on the RAN forum page too, no doubt this might start some further debate in both the forums!!).


EDIT:

One thing I did leave out (and Milne Bay just spotted on my RAN posting of this, was some other obvious changes too between the RCN and RAN designs).

There also appears to be a shortened flight deck (and deeper hangar on the RCN version), also the 'space' between the back of the forward exhaust stack where Harpoon is normally located on the F-100, F105, AWD and RAN F-5000 designs).

It appears, from the top graphic, that the space has been 'closed' up, it's shorter, hence probably why the RCN version has it's AShM missiles mounted on the hangar rather than that space.

Cheers,

 

[John Newman]

At least one (un-named) of the bidders for the CSC has supposedly expressed concern that the conditions for handing over IP would allow the Canadian yard to use it to compete with the firms supplying that IP.

I can't find the article at the moment (will post if I do), but I remember a number of months ago reading in a Canadian news website, a number of the bidders (and at least three nations were mentioned, including Australia), were very concerned about the way Canada was running the bidding process for the CSC project.

It basically came down to the fact that in a 'normal' bidding process, that all of the information on the 'offered' design went straight to the particular Government for a possible decision, eg, business to Government or business/Government to Government.

The point of the article was, and why there were complaints, was that the tender documents (and all of the bid information, including sensitive IP information), was to be sent to a 'private' company charged with receiving the bids on behalf of the Canadian Government to review (the concern of course is that that private company could also be a future 'competitor', makes sense, obviously!!).

This is what I find strange, the Canadian Government has instead of receiving that information directly, has appointed a 'commercial third party' to receive, and evaluate, that information on it's behalf.

I don't blame the bidders one little bit, it would be like the US Government asking that all bids for a project be sent to Boeing or LM for evaluation, why would anyone be mad enough to do that??

Anyway, just an another example of how screwed up the Canadian defence procurement process is!!!

 

[t68]

I can't find the article at the moment (will post if I do), but I remember a number of months ago reading in a Canadian news website, a number of the bidders (and at least three nations were mentioned, including Australia), were very concerned about the way Canada was running the bidding process for the CSC project.

It basically came down to the fact that in a 'normal' bidding process, that all of the information on the 'offered' design went straight to the particular Government for a possible decision, eg, business to Government or business/Government to Government.

The point of the article was, and why there were complaints, was that the tender documents (and all of the bid information, including sensitive IP information), was to be sent to a 'private' company charged with receiving the bids on behalf of the Canadian Government to review (the concern of course is that that private company could also be a future 'competitor', makes sense, obviously!!).

This is what I find strange, the Canadian Government has instead of receiving that information directly, has appointed a 'commercial third party' to receive, and evaluate, that information on it's behalf.

I don't blame the bidders one little bit, it would be like the US Government asking that all bids for a project be sent to Boeing or LM for evaluation, why would anyone be mad enough to do that??

Anyway, just an another example of how screwed up the Canadian defence procurement process is!!!

agree, I remember reading something along those lines as well. its a wonder anyone actually bided

 

[John Fedup]

I guess most vendors figured Irving could never export anything based on their IP info at a competive price. The AOPS seems to confirm this.

 

[swerve]

Oops ... I meant the Iver Huitfeldt ... I always get those ships mixed up for some reason.

Iver Huitfeldt is Danish.

 

[spoz]

I can't find the article at the moment (will post if I do), but I remember a number of months ago reading in a Canadian news website, a number of the bidders (and at least three nations were mentioned, including Australia), were very concerned about the way Canada was running the bidding process for the CSC project.

It basically came down to the fact that in a 'normal' bidding process, that all of the information on the 'offered' design went straight to the particular Government for a possible decision, eg, business to Government or business/Government to Government.

The point of the article was, and why there were complaints, was that the tender documents (and all of the bid information, including sensitive IP information), was to be sent to a 'private' company charged with receiving the bids on behalf of the Canadian Government to review (the concern of course is that that private company could also be a future 'competitor', makes sense, obviously!!).

This is what I find strange, the Canadian Government has instead of receiving that information directly, has appointed a 'commercial third party' to receive, and evaluate, that information on it's behalf.

I don't blame the bidders one little bit, it would be like the US Government asking that all bids for a project be sent to Boeing or LM for evaluation, why would anyone be mad enough to do that??

Anyway, just an another example of how screwed up the Canadian defence procurement process is!!!

Well, that was more or less what happened in Phase 2 of the Australian AWD Program, which was the phase which decided on the successful design. Data on the two competing designs ("existing" and "evolved") was delivered to a team made up of industry (primarily ASC and Raytheon, but including some others) and government members. There were certainly IP issues which had to be addressed at the time (and some of which, indeed, continued into the build phase), but none ever looked like being a show stopper. If you had to provide details of your design to a organisation which had the capability of developing a competing design then that would be a major issue. Not nearly so much of a problem when all you are doing is providing your design to an effectively neutral yard who are just going to build it.

 

[hauritz]

This is what I find strange, the Canadian Government has instead of receiving that information directly, has appointed a 'commercial third party' to receive, and evaluate, that information on it's behalf.

I don't blame the bidders one little bit, it would be like the US Government asking that all bids for a project be sent to Boeing or LM for evaluation, why would anyone be mad enough to do that??

Excellent point. I wonder if we could see BAE, Navantia or Damen withdraw their bids once they understand the full ramifications of what is being asked of them.
Could be an interesting 12 months ahead.

 

[John Fedup]

The other bidders submitted to Irving as per the tender instructions and they certainly understood the conditions beforehand. Team Fremm didn't accept the terms which is why they did what they did. BAE is desperate for an export success so I doubt any condition would have been unacceptable. As I said before, I seriously doubt Irving could ever be a threat to any of these layers. I recall reading something about Irving being potentially sold to GD down the road. That could be problematic for the other vendors and for the Canadian government so I don't see that happening.

 

[hauritz]

If true then this could be interesting ...

The day after Boeing filed its trade complaint, Australia offered Canada its used fighter jets - Politics - CBC News

It appears that it might have actually been Australia that approached Canada as far back as April to push the sale of secondhand fighters to Canada.

The day after the trade complaint with Boeing blew up there was the Australian Defence attache offering 18 preloved hornets as an alternative to the superhornet.

Given that these jets were probably destined to end up as landfill this was a great coup for the Australians.

 

[vonnoobie]

Well we couldnt get them buying new gear (Enquired about joint Collins class buy but ignored) so tried the second hand stuff, Seems to work better.

Got some nice looked after Collins class boats, Anzac class frigates, Orions etc that we can start to part with over the next two decades.. Will give you a good deal.

 

[hauritz]

Well we couldnt get them buying new gear (Enquired about joint Collins class buy but ignored) so tried the second hand stuff, Seems to work better.

Got some nice looked after Collins class boats, Anzac class frigates, Orions etc that we can start to part with over the next two decades.. Will give you a good deal.

Oops I meant to post this in the Canadian airforce section ... but yes it does open up other possibilities.

It wouldn't surprise me if Canada wasn't offered the P3-C at some point. I can't see Canada buying the P-8A anytime soon.

 

[old faithful]

Think we got some old carbious we could sell back to them too

When the used Hornets came up, I thought it might have been a tactic to have the F18F,s manufactured by Bombardier.....or some work share.....it turns out, that the Canadian Govt just dont care about maintaining a modern air force capability.

 

[t68]

there is a side benefit as well, it keeps the Canadian replacement budget topped up from 6.5B down to 500M

 

[OpinionNoted]

deleted.

Mod edit: Failure to heed Mod direction in RCN thread, both deleting/retracting offensive content AND an apology were required. 3 month Ban issued.
-Preceptor

 

[ngatimozart]

Deleted. Record of problem context retained by Mod team.
-Preceptor

This is totally uncalled for and unacceptable. Withdraw the remarks and apologise or you'll be on a holiday from here for a while. You have until 1200 UTC - GMT 17 December 2017 to comply.

 

[John Fedup]

Think we got some old carbious we could sell back to them too

When the used Hornets came up, I thought it might have been a tactic to have the F18F,s manufactured by Bombardier.....or some work share.....it turns out, that the Canadian Govt just dont care about maintaining a modern air force capability.

That’s the real issue, junior is hoping to get the RCAF out of the fast jet business. The only thing that can prevent this a big push back by the electorate. Unfortunately I don’t see this happening.

 

[t68]

That’s the real issue, junior is hoping to get the RCAF out of the fast jet business. The only thing that can prevent this a big push back by the electorate. Unfortunately I don’t see this happening.

I think the more worrying aspect is what will the Americans do, whilst it is not so much aircraft numbers it more to do with airspace control that has implications for the Americans. next would be bring those jobs back south of the CAN-US border

 

[alexsa]

That’s the real issue, junior is hoping to get the RCAF out of the fast jet business. The only thing that can prevent this a big push back by the electorate. Unfortunately I don’t see this happening.

Taking the optimistic view .... it could also be a face saver to allow a full review prior to the next election after which it could be claimed that:
1. They saved the Canadian content in the F35 programme
2. They saved money on avoiding the LRIP aircraft and got the mature system.

I am not saying this is true but it avoids admitting they have to break an election undertaking. I see the F-18A/B buy as buying time to maintain the capability noting there will be a number of years before IOC on any other option (be it F35 or Eurocannard). I could be wrong but if the idea is to get out of fast jets why bother with the additional F-18 when you could just run down the stock you have.

This said, I think we need to return to discussions on the RCN

 

[John Fedup]

I think he may claim it is necessary to sacrifice the RCAF to save the RCN. Once accomplished, he will screw the RCN out of a few frigates later.

 

[John Fedup]

This link is a rebuttal to UBC’s Byers regarding the NSS. While I agree with most of this rebuttal, SeaSpan’s progress to date sucks IMO, especially if it results in additional work going to Davie in Quebec. As for Byers, he is in tune with Bacon, Sprey, Wheeler, Koop, etc.

National Shipbuilding Strategy has accomplishments worth highlighting – opinion piece