Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Agree, this info should have been sent out way earlier. Wouldn’t be surprised if the only reason they did this is because of pending results that will be coming out of Australia shortly.

As for cynicism, completely justified in view of our procurement record!:eek:
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
If they wanted to extract themselves from the bid and make a point, I think rather than making an unsolicited bid, a declaration declining to bid due to concerns (IP or otherwise) well before the tender close date would have been more effective in getting their point across.
Really? Totally disagree. They might have got their point across, but then they would have been totally out of the game. This way, by making it seem like they are the cheapest "solution", they still have an outside shot at getting in through the political back door, where facts don't matter so much as appearances. Never mind they are the worst option, and that the ships they offered are not at all what the RCN needs. Military necessity never stopped a politician before. I still think they have a shot with this approach. They will sit back and wait for the results of the current phase of the competition, and then will once again and step in with this same "offer". This is not over yet.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
So far the Canadian taxpayer has paid $93m! just to evaluate the bids and as far as The Fincantieri Group are concerned, the process, as set up, will fail.

It keeps going round and round in my head, they are willing to build at Irving, they will give Irving/Canada the IP to build further ships for export, they will outfit the ship with Canadian systems and they can begin construction immediately and.....the government will have $30b to spend on other defence acquisitions which they would not be able to do if they stay their present course.
DND needs an extra $54M — just to evaluate bids to build it a new fleet of warships
Hello ASSAIL

The offer at $30Billion was for unmodified, off-the-shelf vessels. I'm sure they would be quite willing to outfit the ships with Canadian systems and such, but that would require design work, and likely major structural modifications, and those items are NOT included in the $30Billion. There is no evidence this approach would be any cheaper than any of the other designs.

Here is an interesting read, that gives a bit of detail on the current approach being taken to evaluate and select a design: Speaking notes for National Shipbuilding Strategy technical briefing on Canadian Surface Combatant request for proposal – National Shipbuilding Strategy – Sea – Defence Procurement – Buying and Selling – PSPC

Here is the official response to the FREMM offer: Update on the Canadian Surface Combatant Request for Proposals - Canada.ca
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
We didn’t exactly need more info that the NSPS isn’t working with respect to continual builds thus preventing the boom and bust cycle. Same people different name.

Don’t see any other option than to add another AOPS. Although another temporary AOR ship is needed, politically it is impossible to award this to Irving without a tender which they might lose. There is an option for additional AOPS so if the gap needs to be closed this is the easiest route.

Government worries about 18-month gap between construction of navy ships, considers more work for Irving shipyard
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
@Calculus..I made an earlier post with a link describing the government’s cost for the CSC.. the often quoted $60 billion is currently $55-60 estimated for the total program. The actual ship cost is 50-60% of program cost, thus around $30 billion give or take which is in the same range as the Fincantieri offer. Barring a total rejection of the three bids by the GoC, Fincantieri is DOA.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
@Calculus..I made an earlier post with a link describing the government’s cost for the CSC.. the often quoted $60 billion is currently $55-60 estimated for the total program. The actual ship cost is 50-60% of program cost, thus around $30 billion give or take which is in the same range as the Fincantieri offer. Barring a total rejection of the three bids by the GoC, Fincantieri is DOA.
Agree. And that would be presumably for a ship that meets most if not all of the RCN's requirements, which FREMM as offered does not.
 

Meriv90

Active Member
Calculus could you please link a source where we can read that the FREMM was unmodified off the shelf model?

Last time i read it was already a modified version, combination of Italian ship and French electronics (after all Thales Canada give jobs to 2k people), and by some sources it was going to have SM.

Plus to prove this point, at FFG(X) we are offering the FREMM with USN kits at 800$, that for 15 ships should be 15-16bln CAD 50% of the 50% we offered total, perfectly in line with Jonh Fedup post. So I see no problem offering the same package with different combat system than european one.

Plus a FREMM cost 1/3 of maintenance than a Maestrale (3000t ship from 80s) and the PPAs will cost 1/3 of the FREMM. This can easily explain why the rest of the costs are so low.

PPA Bridge

 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
@Meriv90 ....l would imagine there are significant equipment differences between what is being proposed for the USN FREMM version versus what was in the unsolicited CSC proposal. The latter was 2 billion CDN per ship and $800 million translates to just over 1 billion CDN for the USN frigate. In any event I don’t know what is required in either bid.
 

Meriv90

Active Member
I agree, we don't know either bid nor requirements, I just wanted to discuss the point of "a modified version would go over cost" by showing how a modified version for the USN cost (rumor) 800$ ( 650€) and that the 30bln CAD offer was thus logic.

By the way if you want to visit the FREMM ASW you are going to have a chance

By Eagle Spotter post on other forum

Italian frigate F593 Alpino (FREMM-ASW) departed today from Taranto Naval Base, for two months North America deployment:

 

Meriv90

Active Member
I think that is the only possible option, I don't know a lot of CAD politics. Quebec is a democrat/liberal stronghold no?
If we win in Australia the timing of the visit would be perfect, we could leverage on the francophone politic power to get Davies back in the race and with it the FREMM.

Is Irving shipyard decision written in stone and politic proof?
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Building naval ships in a province that is threatening to separate from Canada is a non-starter for me. No political party will move construction to Quebec, not even the Liberals. It is remotely possible all bids might not meet specifications entirely but to re-tender would be a major problem for junior with an election due in Oct 2019. IMO, one of the bidders will get a contract for the CSC.
 

Meriv90

Active Member
Is Quebec city conservative? They could be aiming simply at the biggest opposition city in the atlantic coast.

 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Quebec City is the province’s capital. Voting in Quebec has been traditionally Liberal or the the separatist Block Québécois. Recently the NDP (socialists) and Conservatives enjoyed electoral success but the province is Liberal now as are the Maritime provinces. Halifax has a larger population than Quebec City. The political party that wins is the one that promises the most and/or lies best.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hello ASSAIL

The offer at $30Billion was for unmodified, off-the-shelf vessels. I'm sure they would be quite willing to outfit the ships with Canadian systems and such, but that would require design work, and likely major structural modifications, and those items are NOT included in the $30Billion. There is no evidence this approach would be any cheaper than any of the other designs.

Here is an interesting read, that gives a bit of detail on the current approach being taken to evaluate and select a design: Speaking notes for National Shipbuilding Strategy technical briefing on Canadian Surface Combatant request for proposal – National Shipbuilding Strategy – Sea – Defence Procurement – Buying and Selling – PSPC

Here is the official response to the FREMM offer: Update on the Canadian Surface Combatant Request for Proposals - Canada.ca
I have carefully read both docs and my impression is that a more complex process could not have been designed.
The good things first, it seems Canada is committed to 15 hulls and that steel will be cut in the early 2020's. Second the process will select an existing design and design team and to a large extent, the original systems and equipment that have been designed into the ship (as proposed by Fincantieri by the way)

However it then gets murky and convoluted IMHO.
There is a positive statement which says that"to be clear no proven off the shelf design will satisfy Canadian requirements without modifications". I'm struggling to understand what makes Canadian requirements so unique when their stated CONOPS is ASW operation in the N. Atlantic - similar to other NATO navies.

Irving seems to have gained some God like position with the Defence Department and from the article it's almost as if Irving have the final say on which design is chosen, I find this extroordinary. Where does the RCN get to decide what capability is needed? It's Irving and the government holding extensive industry engagements, bids are submitted to Irving for evaluation and it's Irving who decides "value proposition" whatever that's got to do with capability of a warship.
What I find difficult is that the designer and builder of many of the bidders is not given the prime contract, we learned this in Australia. By all means build at Irving and subcontract most of the work but the Prime should be the designer.

The government has appointed a "Fairness Monitor" really, are they scared that the losing team will sue? Creating civil service jobs seems to be a priority.

The process is so entangled that its no wonder three bidders pulled out and one of the largest shipbuilders in the world with 20 yards world wide, Fincantieri, chose not to partake. The compliance costs for the bidders must be enormous and therefore that will artificially flow through to the taxpayer.

Surely there could have been a more logical and straightforward way.
I'm not an expert in defence procurement and I have no experience in build contracts so all the above is a view from a curious observer.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Agree, the process used explains why so many procurements fall off the rails here. Defence procurement isn't for defence, it is for political influence over various regions in the country via job creation. Industry favourites will get benefits and the pollies expect support in return. The civil service and pollies are both to blame but the pollies really drive this, both federally and provincially. It isn't only defence. Read up on the BS about building pipelines, especially the twinning of an already existing pipeline. If we had the same clowns in charge 40 years ago, there would be no Candu nuclear reactors in Canada or 60 years no St Lawrence Seaway( though America would have built it anyway without Canada).
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
This amusing article suggests the RCN may be first navy to float a Type 26 due to delays out to 2027 for the RN. I doubt Canada will make an award and build date that will produce a ship prior to 2027. In any event, should Australia select the Type 26 I suspect the RAN will be first in the water.

Type 26 frigate – contender for Canadian warship program – won’t be operational until 2027

We should have cut steel one one five years ago I think.

It's not helping the sales campaign.
 
Top