John Fedup
The Bunker Group
i read on another site that OMT hadn't been able to partner with a CMS supplier. If true, this would have made any bid impossible.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Navantias product is likely too expensive for the USN as it was supposed to be limited to a billion dollars. But I do agree with you that if Junior can delay to try and tag on with the USN order he will.
The Type 26 is an impressive design and if we are able to Canadianize it without going overboard it should provide flexibility to commanders and government. What gets me though about the planned fleet is the physical size of the vessels compared to previous fleets. I have read this on other threads but not specifically about the RCN. The St. Laurants and the associated variants were 2000 to 3000 ton vessels. The Tribals and City's are in the 4000 to 4700 ton range. At upwards of 7000 tons the Type 26s will be monsters. Does this not present an opportunity for smaller vessels for lower risk operations but still with speed and armament unlike the Dewolfes? I think the Dutch have it right with the Hollands as they are slightly bigger than the St. Laurants but with a fraction of the crew.
Its unlikely that we will see any other platforms in the mix so its not worth the discussion so we will have to wait to see what comes of CSC in the coming months.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The RCN seems fixed on single high end class. I sort of understand why a high and low frigate mix would be unacceptable to the RCN, it would provide a pathway for the pollies to lower capability by favouring more lowend ships. Hopefully we will know the outcome this year!
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
HMCS Halifax has been in the water for thirty years and been a commissioned vessel for 26 years and like the rest of her class have completed a mid life refit via the FELEX so they will be functional vessels for years to come. Since the Tribals are all gone and the first new vessels are supposed to replace their capability we may actually see a time when the RCN fleet has more combat vessels in service at any one time since the 1950's.
Besides the large vessels of the fleet there are small vessel replacements in the offing as well with new tugs for both coasts to support the larger vessels. Decisions on these vessels should be forthcoming as well before too long.
Good times coming for the RCN.
Can I ask what you base the assessment that the Navantia offering is likely to be too expensive for the USN .... and compared to what? We have no visibility of the per unit cost in so far as the USN offer is concerned. We cannot rely upon the Australian AWD costing as this covered sustainment and the establishment of a built yard. The some other vessels in the race (noting this includes the T26 and the FREMM) are unlikely to be significantly cheaper and I suspect the T26 will cost more.
However if you do have an insight in the pricing of the bids that show the Navantia pitch is going to be over the USN budget I would certainly be interested in it.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There seem to be a number of assumptions made.
Something to keep in mind with respect to defence contracts, is that unless one knows the details within the contract, predicting the cost is very difficult, even if two nations are purchasing the same number of the same piece of kit. Also the more complicated the kit is, the more difficult it becomes for outsiders to predict.
One of the other considerations with naval shipbuilding programmes (and often aircraft too) is that small orders or build runs tend to have high per unit costs while prolonged tend to cause the overall per unit cost to drop. The initial units are still likely to be expensive, but later units (it depends on what and how many) tend to have unit costs significantly less than earlier examples.
Also, while I am certain that the US would be happy to build & export warships to Canada, unless there is some sort of offset or an unbeatable price point, I do not see an advantage to doing so absent a decision by Canada to end any future domestic naval shipbuilding. Part of why prolonged runs tend to have reducing costs is that the one-time costs of establishing supply chains and any frames, forms or molds for fabrication are done as part of the initial build, regardless of what the chosen design is. Should Canada choose the same design as one selected by the USN, but option for domestic production, those same one-time costs will be incurred, but would be spread out over the Canada production run which is unlikely to be as high as the expected 20 unit initial FFG(X) order, never mind whatever the final unit total turns out to be.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I think we can safely assume that Canada will always insist on domestic naval builds as all parties here want to bribe the regions involved with pork for votes no matter how overpriced the ships end up being. The Liberal solution on cost containment will be to eventually lower the build number. The CSC will proceed at some point but I seriously doubt 15 ships will be built, especially if junior were to win a third mandate. Barring some self-inflicted disaster he will certainly win re-election in 2019.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Open source quoted cost for the Navantia F105 is US$1.1 billion built in a European yard with cheaper labour costs than available in the US.
A very strong contender for the USN frigate design is a variant of the existing USCG National Security Cutter. Current version in USCG service is built to military standards for damage control. Weapons systems are integrated and the crew requirements are modest compared to Burkes. The F105 is an almost Burke so why would the USN want that same capability.
At around US$700 million now any upgrades in systems and weapons should be able to be accomplished for less than the US$1 billion preferred budget.
What open sources! I assume you mean wikipedia as that is the only source I have seen for this figure and it does not delineate what the ‘apparent’ cost includes.
Other ‘sources’ quote $600 million ..... so which is right?
https://newwars.wordpress.com/warship-costs/
To give you a comparison the new Australian AOR vessel costs (for two) is 600 million AUD. The project cost is 1.5 billion including some sustainment and support facilities. So unless you can quantify the cost basis you are not comparing apples with apples.
While that may be true as regards the NSC, it is also true of the F100 - the Hobarts have a ship’s company of 186 versus what, a bit under 300 for a Burke; and that’s with SPY and Aegis, it might well be less with the systems proposed. Plus they have PDEs rather than a COGAG arrangement, so they’ll be cheaper that way, and if the acquisition cost is less than half that of a Burke (and no public source currently knows that) for a good proportion of the capability - why not.
While I rather like the NSC too, unless you can get inside the space where the trades are being done it is impossible to know what is being judged most important, and therefore which is likely to win.
While I take wiki as a grain of salt the cost differences are easily explained. The $600m USD (Not AUD) on your link was for the 5 Norwegian ships which are smaller and less capable however that being said that was the contract price from 2000, No mention if that price allowed for inflation. That price also went through a dispute with Navantia wanting to add $103m USD in costs to the first ship and apperantly more for the later vessels, No idea what happened there.
While the $1.1b USD was for a heavily modified single acquisition ship. Under such scenario's those ships always cost more no two ways about it not bothering to count the factor of inflation.
For the US the F-100/F-105 or any variant there of will become under $1 billion. They wont be needing the SPY-1 radar's and will be able to settle for a cheaper but capable alternative (CEAFAR) while also not necessarily needing the full 48 VLS being able to settle for 32 or even 24. They wont need the large high capability systems in the F-100/F-105 because those systems are already in there Burkes, Pointless for them to double up so they will be able to save money in what is fitted. They will also save money due to the fact it will be a 20 ship production run creating efficiencies of scale that the F-105 did not see.
On topic of the NSC, Not sure if read here or else where but was mentioned the steel grade (I think, Not 100% sure) was different between the Navy and CG and would have to be changed which would add costs, However that being neither here nor there I'm not sure on its chances considering the high price of them just in CG format.
--------------------------------
Now can we shift back to talk of the Canadian Navy? Apologies Admins.
--------------------------------
Now can we shift back to talk of the Canadian Navy? Apologies Admins.
Since no one knows what exactly was in the hundreds of pages of the RFI . No one also knows what exactly what is in the various bids except what they can discern looking at computer generated pictures . Number and types of missles, launch system, number and types of radar propulsion options and range are mysteries. The successful bidder will probably be the one least expected to win.
Cheers.
Err no. The 600 mil was for the F100 Álvaro de Bazán , The Norwegian Ships are the F.310 (Nassen) which was quoted as 557m in that list.
F100 Bazan (Spain)-$600 million
The F105 (Colon) was reported as much more at 934m which is odd as it is a modified version of the F-100. This may reflect the fact that the order was for two fo the F-105 vessels and the second one (Juan de Austria) was cancelled and the redesign cost had to be absorbed by a single unit ..... or the reporting could be plain wrong. This reflects the point I am making in that you have to understand how the costs are arrived at in order to compare
The $600m AUD quoted related to the AOR hulls (it is actually $640m AUD to be exact) noting this is budgeted in AUD.
And I agree it is time to go back to Canada and I would note if the F105 derivate gets up in Australia, the US and Canada it will be s significant class of ships. The same goes for the other contenders so I suspect the pencils have been sharpened.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would be willing to bet Canada sits on its CSC decision until Australia decides on its frigate and perhaps even the US. If both countries were to select the same design ahead of Canada, it would interesting to sit in the room and hear what the procurement people in Ottawa think about such an outcome.
Australia will be the first cab off the rank when it selects its future Frigate. I wonder how much its decision will influence Canada and the US.
Of course the FREMM isn't being considered for Canada but they might still be interested if either the Type 26 or F-5000 end up winning selection.
I imagine the US and Canada will both be looking at how Australia jumps with its future frigate. An Aegis equipped FREMM, Type26 or F-5000 would certainly be very appealing to the US.
Of course the FREMM isn't being considered for Canada but they might still be interested if either the Type 26 or F-5000 end up winning selection.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
There is of course one other known bidder, Alion Canada which is partnered with Damen. They are offering the De Zeven Provincien frigate used by the RNLN. It's main advantages are proven design, known cost (sans CDN mods), and should have less risk compared to the other bidders. As the most mature design, it may lack certain desirable features, e.g. Multi-mission bay.
If their pricing is aggressive enough, Alion could pull off a surprise win. Even more surprising could be a OMT bid we don't know about but that does appear to be unlikely as per earlier posts.
I guess there is always the depressing possibility the CSC could get punted into a second tender go around although I think even junior realizes this could cause him serious problems in 2019.
If their pricing is aggressive enough, Alion could pull off a surprise win. Even more surprising could be a OMT bid we don't know about but that does appear to be unlikely as per earlier posts.
I guess there is always the depressing possibility the CSC could get punted into a second tender go around although I think even junior realizes this could cause him serious problems in 2019.
Last edited:
Why would they care John? This isn't exactly an evaluated criteria. I don't think anyone in PSPC could care less who wins the Australian competition, and probably not the American one either. The RCN might be mildly interested in who wins the US, but ultimately they just want the ship that best matches the SOR. Logisticians and LCMs would probably welcome a common design with either Australia or the US, if for no reason other than the opportunity for economies of scale on parts and maintenance, but again, that would not be an evaluated criteria. How could it be? The bids have already been submitted. I just don't see the outcomes of either the US or Australian competition being a factor in the selection of a design for Canada.
t68
Well-Known Member
I agree I don't think they will have a direct impact on the program but it will make for a comparison of capability as a guide on integration of capabilities and any possible risk mitigation and implementation and any possible economy of scale price reductions for all concerned
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
PSPC would not be concerned about foreign outcomes, they hopefully would make a decision based on how well the bids addressed the RFQ. Politicians on the other hand, they might prefer to see which way the wind is blowing. It is up to to the government when they release the outcome.