Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[Long range]

Back in the early days of the CSC program before there was a request for bids the plan was to have 2 separate competitions one for the ship design and one for the combat system the current government changed that and wanted both in the same bid that's when some of the bidders started to have issues with the process the reason for that is that LM was pretty much a shoe in to provide the combat system for the CSC.LM Canada has been providing a Canadian made cms for the RCN for a long time and nobody in the navy or government saw any reason to change that the second reason is that Norad has a maritime mission as well and it requires a high level of interoperability with the USN the easiest and most cost effective way to do this is to buy north american made combat ,weapon and communication systems so when LM paired up with BAE it was pretty much game over for all the other bidders there wasn't much of a issue over IP untill the fremm consortium brought it up after they filed a bid outside the proper channels and their bid was disqualified.Alion started a legal process over the decision that was based on the type 26 not meeting the stated requirements and it was thrown out in court but as far as I know none of the 3 groups who actually filed a proper bid had issues with IP.Did the GOC make mistakes in this process ? Yes they did they should have made LM the csi early in the process and had a competition for the best asw frigate but in the end I think they got the right ship and combat system they just wasted alot of people's time along the way

 

[ngatimozart]

And I thought ours was bad... we have nothing on Canadian defence procurement process... lol

Up until about 2014 ours was a complete shambles. It's had some real howlers in its day. However from 2014 / 15 it's been completely revamped and professionalised to the point that Treasury use it as an exemplar for other government departments to follow and the standard to attain to. Should of happened years ago, but it now provides the pollies with all the best quality info that they require. Treasury work with Defence on the acquisitions and once the business cases have been approved by the DEFMIN, he / she takes them straight to Cabinet. So if there are any stuff ups etc., the blame can be laid squarely at the pollies feet.

 

[OPSSG]

Back in the early days of the CSC program before there was a request for bids the plan was to have 2 separate competitions one for the ship design and one for the combat system the current government changed that and wanted both in the same bid that's when some of the bidders started to have issues with the process the reason for that is that LM was pretty much a shoe in to provide the combat system for the CSC.

LM Canada has been providing a Canadian made cms for the RCN for a long time and nobody in the navy or government saw any reason to change that the second reason is that Norad has a maritime mission as well and it requires a high level of interoperability with the USN the easiest and most cost effective way to do this is to buy north american made combat ,weapon and communication systems so when LM paired up with BAE it was pretty much game over for all the other bidders there wasn't much of a issue over IP untill the fremm consortium brought it up after they filed a bid outside the proper channels and their bid was disqualified.

Isn’t it ironic that on 30 April 2020, the US Navy announced that Fincantieri Marinette Marine using the FREMM design as a base had won the FFG(X) contract?

Alion started a legal process over the decision that was based on the type 26 not meeting the stated requirements and it was thrown out in court but as far as I know none of the 3 groups who actually filed a proper bid had issues with IP.

Did the GOC make mistakes in this process ?

Yes they did they should have made LM the csi early in the process and had a competition for the best asw frigate but in the end I think they got the right ship and combat system they just wasted alot of people's time along the way

Did you feel upset the mess made by the GOC at that time or are you just happy that there is an outcome in the end?

 

[OPSSG]

I would like to see a deal with naval group for 3 barracuda SSN for use in the Arctic and 6 scorpene subs to replace the 4 subs we have now but I can't see that happening

1. Canada has 4 diesel electric (DE) submarines that are powered by two problematic Paxman Valenta diesels. Some sources claim that these boats due to design flaws were found to have a range of 4,000 nautical miles (or 3475.9 miles), instead of its intended range. From what I see there is no current capability to conduct long patrols of the type undertaken by nuclear attack submarines.

Q1: Does your post have any substance or analytical reasoning to back up this need for nuclear power?​

2. The Victoria-class are similar in displacement to the batch 2 Dolphins*, which have a reported range of 8,000 miles and over 400 miles at an economical speed of 8kt dived.
* The AIP equipped batch 2 Dolphins are larger than the batch 1, Type 212A German submarines. In October 2017, Israel and Germany confirmed that they have finalised a MOU for the purchase of three more Dolphin-class submarines to be delivered starting in 2027. These boats will replace the first three of the class which by then will be about 30 years old.

• Displacement: 2,050 tons surfaced, 2,400 tons submerged
  • Length: 68.8m
  • Beam: 6.8 m (22 ft)
  • Draught: 6.2 m (20 ft)
  • 3 MTU V-16 396 SE 84 diesel engines with three Siemens 750 kW alternators, and a Siemens sustained-power motor of about 3 MW output power
  • Speed: 25 kts submerged
  • Complement: 35 + 15 passengers
  • Armament: Six 21" (533mm) torpedo tubes and four 26" (650mm) torpedo tubes.

3. IIRC the Australian submarines (and their planned replacement, which are to be powered by 3x MTU 12V4000U83) have a requirement for long range 70+ day patrols, with long transits. It would be interesting to see Canadian requirements, if they can be shared. It seems what Canada needs is a longer endurance DE submarine.

Q2: What is the current Victoria-class CONOPS for these 2,455 ton DE boats?​

​

Q3: Why a mixed fleet of nuclear and DE submarines?​

4. Both fleets will have non-trivia engineering support costs plus the fact that Canadian navy lacks the crews to keep such a large proposed fleet of 9 submarines manned. The cost of going nuclear is very significant and there must be some realistic analysis of military off-the-shelf DE submarines as alternatives, by looking at the Korean, Japanese, Italian, German or Swedish boat builders (for some analysis of DE alternatives, please see: RSN capabilities). In addition, I note that the JMSDF on 5 Mar 2020 welcomed into service its first submarine using lithium-ion batteries with the commissioning of JS OURYU as the 11th Soryu-class boat. The first 10 Soryu class boats used traditional heavy duty acid batteries with an AIP module. The 12th Soryu-class and final boat, will be built by Kawasaki Heavy Industries (the other 6 having been built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries) without an AIP module. This boat was launched 6 Nov 2019 will serve as test-bed for the next generation 29SS submarines, which are also powered by lithium-ion batteries with a dramatically smaller sail.

the three options I have seen mentioned in Canadian defence journals are Soryu (with solid-state batteries for extended submerged patrolling), A26 Oceanic ER (with Sterling engines and LI batteries for extended submerged patrolling), and Type 216 (with enhanced fuel cell for extended submerged patrolling). Note: The status of the Type 216 is a bit unclear as it no longer seems it is being actively marketed.

The RCN desires a conventional sub capable of patrolling under the arctic ice sheet, and that means both long submerged range but also the ability to surface in an emergency through the ice, which means sail and hull reinforcement. It's not clear if any of these subs have that capability, however. They all have significantly greater endurance than the Victorias, however, at 80 days.

5. Siemens started on the R&D of large-scale Siemens Permasyn propulsion motor in 6 MW class for the Australians; and they also plan to cover the product range of 1.5 MW to 8 MW, with the FLEX PM solution — a product range that is well suited to meeting the future requirements of the 3,000 ton KSS-III and Australia’s 4,500 ton Attack class submarines.

Directed at no one person in particular, but I'd pay close attention to Forum Rule #19 which includes a prohibition on discussing 'fantasy' topics. Given that the Liberal's 2017 defense policy envisioned replacing the current subs in 2040 and that there doesn't seem to be any current plan to replace them, or fit them into any sort of national shipbuilding program, then discussion on indigenously developing and designing first a suitable compact nuclear power plant for a sub, then the sub itself, and then arranging everything to be built in Canada really does get into fantasyland. Especially since Canada has history spending defense dollars, only to see things get cancelled following a change in power, when Defence isn't exactly flush with cash in the first place.
-Preceptor

6. Time and again, we see advocacy for nuclear propulsion for Canadian or Australian submarines. But these advocates never explain why the slow poke nuclear reactor is better. And more importantly, how will going nuclear be better at Canada’s set tasking and CONOPS (when compared to the Victoria class submarines, which are short ranged conventional submarines).

Q4: Can Long range explain the likely CONOPS, needed for each class, as he proposed, to drive such a huge increase in the submarine fleet (from the current 4 to a fleet of 9)?​

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.

7. Thanks for this useful link on the Victoria-class to bring us back to reality.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Up until about 2014 ours was a complete shambles.

I can't argue that... lol ... It is a hell of a lot better than it was. Yes it was a complete shambles with no common goals or targets for the NZDF in general and in house fighting over funds etc... However there is probably room for more improvement in some areas.

But that is a discussion for another time and place/forum since this is the "Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates" ;-) lol

 

[Meriv90]

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.

So you really believe that the engineers from Irving that would have gone trough foreign designs just to evaluate them will never steal/adopt the same solutions saw on competitors designs in the future?

Even on a subconscious level if you see an innovative solution from a design you are telling me they will magically forget it when they are going to go back on the drawing table?

One thing is propriety of the IP another is who goes through the designs.

 

[John Fedup]

@OPSSG I would have to say the only realistic CONOPS for the RCN submarine force is to retain submariner skills and submarine ISS until, hopefully, a decent batch of subs can be obtained. At best, 1-2 are available to patrol and for the time being the capability for the important Arctic region is minimal.

 

[OPSSG]

CONOPS for the RCN submarine force is to retain submariner skills....

1. Thanks for your reply, the gist of which I understand.

2. I am writing to clarify that you are misunderstanding what is CONOPS. It is a common military term with a specific meaning that Canadian service members would know— it means the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) within a certain operational context for the Canadian military.

I'm noticing a trend here a few Canadian members have a discussion then posters from other threads come into this thread tell us we are wrong then the thread gets suspended or a Canadian gets punished I guess that's explains why there's not a lot of Canadian members on this forum

3. @Long range, your views (and those of the two banned members, you referred to), are often made without sourcing or research. But I do read them. Not sure about you but ASSAIL (at post #2198) and StingrayOz (at post #2199) certainly clarified concepts on life-time cost calculation concepts, to help inform the discussion. The Australian defence community In DT has depth of bench and have spent years learning about costings.

Moved a large number of posts there to keep the Canadians happy. But do note that it is no longer about a real plan.

Please note that if further work by the Mod Team is required, we will start with long bans of certain people. No more baby sitting. Tolerance mode-off.

4. To cater to a Canadian request, the Mod Team even created a new thread on Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems (as Canadian members were posting in other threads without reading them). Not sure what more I or other members of DT can do to keep you and your fellow Canadians happy or informed — while trying to build an international community of interest that understands the real issues beyond just looking at sales brochures.

5. If someone claims to be from the Canadian Navy, writes posts in DT to speculate about replacements on Canadian submarines without showing an awareness of current Canadian submarine CONOPS, he is either deliberately wasting our time or a fake. That is part of the reason why a specific member was banned for a period. All this person wanted to do was ignore guidance and professional queries to raise his game — while he was resorting to personal and unwarranted demand for respect (without demonstrating substance).

6. If a person claims service history, he is expected to provide basic guidance on why someone posting (with a vested interest), is wrong in his post, instead of condoning it because he is a fellow Canadian. Speak the truth, instead of misleading the members here.

Something that I've been thinking about is whether the Mk45 is the best idea. The Mk 45 ammo is two parts. Powder bags and round are separately loaded. If the RCN got the 127/64 Otto LW, VULCANO SYSTEM then you could have all up rounds instead. There are a number of advantages to that. Faster firing rate. Heat removal due to brass. Auto-loading. Also, 64 caliber allows for higher muzzle velocities.

The propellant for Mk 45 is contained in a brass cartridge case which is mated with the shell in the ring during the loading process; it is what is known as "semi fixed" ammunition. Bagged propellant hasn't been used in guns as small as 5 inch for a very long time. If you have a look at the photo on the BAE website about the gun here Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun System you will see ejected cartridge cases lying on the deck.

One advantage of this approach is that because shells and cartridge cases are smaller individually than a fixed round, ie one where cartridge case and shell are permanently combined as is the practice in small arms and indeed in smaller calibres of naval weapons, it is more efficient in the use of magazine space; and each is (just) liftable by a human being if that becomes necessary which a fixed round would not be for most people.

The difference between the 62 calibre of a mod 4 version of a Mark 45 and 64 calibres of the Otto gun is insignificant.

7. Above is a sample of a professional reply correctly given by spoz to steer a discussion. DT is able to attract and retain members in the know because we don’t cater to falsehoods, trolls, or the insane. The focus is simple, let real people with interest in defence socialise and talk and we manage those ignore guidance gently given. In this managed process everyone learns more — where threads contain information, rather than misinformation. If someone can’t follow the Forum rules, he or she will be soon gone.

You may be right spoz, but I think the main reasons for choosing the MK45 was it's longer effective range for Naval Gunfire Support, a practice the RCN used to do during the cold war days, and also to be able to convert to "Smart munitions" where needed. Anyway you look at it, it is what it is, and for better or worse, we will have to live with the choices we have made. Cheers!

SPOZ IS ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY RECENTLY RETIRED. HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. HE DOESN'T NEED TO BE INSULTED BY A CONDESCENDING POSTER. 1 WARNING POINT FOR 1 MONTH FOR DISRESPECTING SPOZ'S OBVIOUS EXPERTISE.

8. People who claim service history are held to a standard and professional replies are expected. Especially if someone else from another country, with service history gives a technical reply to correct an misperception (or asks him questions). The banned member does not get to say a post “may be right”, when it is “absolutely correct and on point.” DAVID DUNLOP’s reaction shows a lack of basic weapons knowledge expected from a person of his rank and he should not try to evade the fact that he does not know.

 

[Todjaeger]

So you really believe that the engineers from Irving that would have gone trough foreign designs just to evaluate them will never steal/adopt the same solutions saw on competitors designs in the future?

Even on a subconscious level if you see an innovative solution from a design you are telling me they will magically forget it when they are going to go back on the drawing table?

One thing is propriety of the IP another is who goes through the designs.

I will be honest in stating that I believe the concerns were either overblown, or specious. If there truly was the likelihood of IP theft (consciously or subconsciously) then why did the other contenders not seem to have the same issues/concerns about the potential theft of IP? Similarly, why did other companies competing for the contracts not also raise issues before submitting materials for the various Canadian requests?

One of the three companies which stuck with the processes set forth by the RCN and CANGov did end up filing a legal challenge after they lost the competition, but they did not attempt to short-circuit those processes before making their submissions. That suggests, rather strongly IMO, that the three competitors who did follow the processes set for did not find the rules for the competition fundamentally unfair since I also cannot recall significant complaints being made at different stages of the competition.

The CANGov and RCN seem to have some specific outcomes desired with the CSC programme, beyond 'just' replacing their major surface escort vessels. One desired outcome being a domestic Canadian naval shipbuilding capability. My reading of the end result of the programme winnowing potential candidates down to just two competitors is that other potential competitors who had either been eliminated or opted not to submit entries were the result of either not having a warship design which would meet Canadian requirements, and/or having issues meeting other elements of the programme's requirements apart from the design. From my POV, not just the CANGov/RCN would be making such eliminations, but the potential companies themselves could have looked at the Canadian programme requirements and processes and opted not to participate, or it could even have been a simpler matter of some companies having a number of vessels projects already underway and/or nothing suitable for submission.

 

[John Fedup]

I believe the unsolicited FREMM proposal specified having the first three ships built in Europe. Surely with all hype surrounding the Nation Shipbuiding strategy by the GoC, why would team FREMM think that building the first three vessels in Europe would get a nanosecond of consideration?

 

[Todjaeger]

I believe the unsolicited FREMM proposal specified having the first three ships built in Europe. Surely with all hype surrounding the Nation Shipbuiding strategy by the GoC, why would team FREMM think that building the first three vessels in Europe would get a nanosecond of consideration?

If that is correct, then I could easily see the CANGov rejecting the proposal for failing to meet programme requirements. Between that and Euro-sourced sensors and CMS, I could also see Canada having a concern about either integrating existing RCN kit and ordnance, or needing to replace much of the current Canadian warstocks with a whole new line of ordnance which does not include domestic production or components.

 

[Meriv90]

I wouldn't consider the first three vessels, as Government the only answer possible is rejecting any G2G offer while the tender was up.

Changing the tender was the only "FREMM's friendly" decision possible. The G2G offer was a stunt as other said (I never contradicted this). Changing the tender would also be a nightmare considering the delays so yes it was a lose/lose situation (P.s. considering the amount of changes to apply even to a "proven" design as FREMM choosing a 10 years younger design, the T26, is the right choice).

Going back on the CSC dont take it as gatekeeping but you are comparing a 4 ship class to a 5(8) ship class to a 20 ship class with a really good chance for the FFG(X) bringing it other 10 ships for sure and probably more to come. Obviously the IP have different value. Plus comparing to Navantia to Fincantieri and the French we have the monopoly of the cruise ship industry that allows us to keep the workload. 30bilions for us Italians and if I remember correctly other 20bilions for the French. Thus making us less "desesperate" to sell.

Exactly how we sold our Aw129 IP to the Turks because our export chances were almost non existent but it would be crazy to do the same with the M346 for example.

On the ability of shipbuilding. Considering how we were able to participate at the SEA5000 even promising to include them in the cruise supply line. Considering the French presence with Thales in Canada for example or that Marine Marinette is in Wisconsin I sincerely dont see any obstacle to help the Canadian shipbuilding industry on the contrary if you negotiated you could have got even civil workloads as we promised the Australians.

I wish the tender would have been written better. To offset the T26 design novelty probably you could have negotiated not only a good price, consider that Egypt is bringing home 2 FREMM GP ready to use just commisioned at just 600mln each, but also a civil workload because surviving on just military shipbuilding is hard and expensive.

Regards from Venice.
We have been building ships since a looooooong time

"At the peak of its efficiency in the early 16th century, the Arsenal employed some 16,000 people who apparently were able to produce nearly one ship each day, and could fit out, arm, and provision a newly built galley with standardized parts on a production-line basis not seen again until the Industrial Revolution. "

Venetian Arsenal - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[KiwiRob]

Plus comparing to Navantia to Fincantieri and the French we have the monopoly of the cruise ship industry that allows us to keep the workload. 30bilions for us Italians and if I remember correctly other 20bilions for the French. Thus making us less "desesperate" to sell.

You don't have anywhere near a monopoly on cruise ship building, or are you purposely forgetting the Finnish and German yards, with Meyer Verft arguably being the most prestigious of all the cruise ship builders.

 

[John Fedup]

It appears that SeaSpan is finally getting into gear with this recent CCGS build. Hopefully this translates into an efficient JSS build, fingers crossed.

CCGS John Cabot begins sea trials in record time since launch

The future Coast Guard vessel the CCGS John Cabot cruised out of English Bay in Vancouver to begin sea trials on August 18th.

www.navaltoday.com

 

[Barnold]

It seems like Lockheed Martin Canada has revealed what the Canadian Surface Combatant's electronic countermeasures system will be. (The groups of four hemispheric objects on either side of the lower part of the mast?) I honestly don't know anything about it that I haven't read online, so I'll let those better informed than me judge it's merits for themselves.

Lockheed Martin Canada’s RAVEN Electronic Countermeasures (ECM)

RAVEN factsheet

(Image Source: Canadian Surface Combatant) Modified by me

 

[tigerstripes]

With regards to the Victoria class Subs I think a lot of parallels can be drawn with Australia's Collins class with respects to sustainment and support (both financially and politically).
In the early days the Collins were yelled down as expensive, unreliable and unnecessary but behind the scenes the right people were plugging away and eventually their value was recognised and sustainment was, shock horror actually provided for, this has paid of massively with high availability and a very capable platform.
Now if the Canadian government get serious (I can sense John Fedups's eye roll from Australia lol) they could also have a very capable system which will then lead them into being able to justify a future replacement.

 

[tigerstripes]

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.

Just read the Armada article, very good.

 

[ngatimozart]

With regards to the Victoria class Subs I think a lot of parallels can be drawn with Australia's Collins class with respects to sustainment and support (both financially and politically).
In the early days the Collins were yelled down as expensive, unreliable and unnecessary but behind the scenes the right people were plugging away and eventually their value was recognised and sustainment was, shock horror actually provided for, this has paid of massively with high availability and a very capable platform.
Now if the Canadian government get serious (I can sense John Fedups's eye roll from Australia lol) they could also have a very capable system which will then lead them into being able to justify a future replacement.

Just read the Armada article, very good.

Big difference between the RCN Victoria Class and the RAN Collins class. The Collins class are new builds, specifically designed for the RAN CONOPS. The Victoria Class are RN hand me downs that were used by the RN, left alongside to gather rust and barnacles and not built for RCN CONOPS.

 

[John Fedup]

With regards to the Victoria class Subs I think a lot of parallels can be drawn with Australia's Collins class with respects to sustainment and support (both financially and politically).
In the early days the Collins were yelled down as expensive, unreliable and unnecessary but behind the scenes the right people were plugging away and eventually their value was recognised and sustainment was, shock horror actually provided for, this has paid of massively with high availability and a very capable platform.
Now if the Canadian government get serious (I can sense John Fedups's eye roll from Australia lol) they could also have a very capable system which will then lead them into being able to justify a future replacement.

Actually my eyes are rolling from Toronto, Canada not Australia. As for serious government in the future from either of the major parties, about as likely as a smooth Victoria class replacement procurement 10-15 years from now.

 

[Calculus]

Interesting news bit. This is the first time I have seen reference to a new build submarine program for the RCN: OSI to Provide its Submarine Navigation System to the RCN - Canadian Defence Review | Canadian Defence Review

It's encouraging and timely, given a decision would have to be made contractually around 2025 in order to have a replacement available in the 2035 timeframe.