How do you know this John? I work in the public service in Ottawa, and I find none of what you mention above to be true. There are indeed Indians, and they are all smart hard working individuals. There are indeed Quebecois (also smart and hard working) but they are not represented in any greater numbers than anglophones.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
So, if I follow your logic, BAE, Navantia, and Alion are complete idiots for bidding, and the French are the only ones who have seen through the evil Canadian game. So, what exactly did they offer for their $30 Billion? I'll tell you what: 15 off-the-shelf ships, without any Canadian modifications, therefore unable to operate in our unique environments and with our closest ally. Imagine that. A fleet of useless warships, all for the great deal of $2 Billion a ship. So, FREMM, please go away now, and let the adults finish their work.I'm sorry for the tone of the post but it has been a bad day
From our POV, no offense intended, but it was a total mess.
The program budget skyrocketed.
First it was 15 ships, after it was just 3 ships and "we are going to decide what to do after".
The fact that the Canadian government gave Irving so much power, are we supposed to give them full tech data so after the first 3 ships they are going to build them themselves? There wasn't even a No-Compete Clause on international markets!
The ad hoc change to the program to let BAE in, plus they already had contracts with the program manager (Irving), that is already a big conflict of interest to not say it smell fishy!
Think about it, if the French that have a way stronger marketing game than us Italians , the same ones that are able sell without any problems to Saudis and Indians, decide to not even enter the contest it means there is something really wrong.
Plus we learnt the lesson with our C27, you have a FWSAR plane (C-295) flying over the artic without APU, that takes ten more hours to rescue (LOL!) after having won the program with a proposal 50% over budget!
Or the AW-101! How is going with your Cyclones? You can fool us once twice but not a third time.
This is not a rhetoric question but a serious one to learn. The last big program acquisition from Uk were the Victoria class, how it went? What plans do you have for the future for your subs?
ASSAIL, what was offered were unmodified FREMM, without the required Canadian mods and systems to operate in our environment and with our principal ally, the US. Also without the weapons that Canada requires, which are basically all Mk.41 launched. Would this be acceptable to Australia? The simple fact is there is no vessel currently in production that exactly matches RCN specifications, and FREMM is the one that least matches those requirements, which is why they chose not to bid.
If you are all in fact Defence Professionals, you should stop talking about this as if it was a viable option.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Clearly it wasn’t over blown because Fincantieri made an unsolicited bid that effectively removed them from contention.
Because by all appearances the IP is going to a Canadian shipbuilder, not just the Canadian govt. I would be very wary of that too if it was my IP.
Just because some posters are defence professionals, do not presume to tell them what or what not they should think. It will not get you very far on this fora.
I'm no expert in the sector but when i see a company that is cutting 10% of its workforce (350 jobs over the 3500 they have in maritime), take 10 years to build a type 26 to decrease the costs I call that crisis and desperate to sell something. I could be wrong and Bae Maritime is in perfect state.
Same for Navantia, it was in crisis until now, few days ago they come out " we arent going to produce in loss anymore". During the crisis they lost 50% of their backlog, their employees have an average age of 54 and 29% are over 60 this for a shipbuilder in the defense sector?
I could be completely wrong and they could be ultra healthy.
And about your ally? If you saw my posts in the Australian topic you would have seen that of the FFG(X) 5 contenders, we have 2, and of that 5 contenders, one is a lighter Burke so why not buying a Burke directly? The two LCS design ,of which we own the lucky one, have already shown their limitations . It boils down to FREMM and HII. So i wouldnt use the US argument IMHO.
Please (no sarcasm here)explain me how the other contenders have more experience than us in the artic region. Because the last time i checked your new Ice Breakers were designed by us as will probably be the new US ones.
Really i wrote you 2-3 examples (just with us without bringing out F-35 et similia), if you cant see the trajectory your defense procurement has then there is no need to discuss further no? Keep flying without APU and enjoy your Cyclones while paying delivering fines. [If mods consider this sentence offensive i will remove it asap]
Same for Navantia, it was in crisis until now, few days ago they come out " we arent going to produce in loss anymore". During the crisis they lost 50% of their backlog, their employees have an average age of 54 and 29% are over 60 this for a shipbuilder in the defense sector?
I could be completely wrong and they could be ultra healthy.
And about your ally? If you saw my posts in the Australian topic you would have seen that of the FFG(X) 5 contenders, we have 2, and of that 5 contenders, one is a lighter Burke so why not buying a Burke directly? The two LCS design ,of which we own the lucky one, have already shown their limitations . It boils down to FREMM and HII. So i wouldnt use the US argument IMHO.
Please (no sarcasm here)explain me how the other contenders have more experience than us in the artic region. Because the last time i checked your new Ice Breakers were designed by us as will probably be the new US ones.
Really i wrote you 2-3 examples (just with us without bringing out F-35 et similia), if you cant see the trajectory your defense procurement has then there is no need to discuss further no? Keep flying without APU and enjoy your Cyclones while paying delivering fines. [If mods consider this sentence offensive i will remove it asap]
I think the IP problem was the scapegoat they were able to leverage to extract themselves from the competition. If they had any confidence of winning they must have known that IP would be handed over to the shipbuilder at some point - either directly or via government. It's not like they haven't designed and built ships before.
The offer they made to the Canadian government was out of the box FREMM with Sylver VLS, Euro weapons etc. It put the government in the position of having to accept a completely different technical specification and operational paradigm from the one set out in their mission statements and requirements.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
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.
Fincantieri and Naval Group are stil defacto members of the bid and unofficially they are remaining in contact through Minister Foote.
The IP issue was not insignificant as some have mentioned, it was the subject of a diplomatic exchange and the FREMM bidders demanded direct negotiation with the government to resolve it.
As far as the FREMM not being fitted with MK41 VLS, the original announcement by Minister Foote re the process demanded a MOTS (mature design, in water) , to be modified for Canadian systems and weapons, another reason why many were agrieved by the inclusion of T26, and combined with the IP issues, why three bidders dropped out of the process.
This saga has a long way to go.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Companies bidding on the CSC can hardly be surprised by challenges dealing with the Canadian military procurement establishment. The EH101 cancellation, the Cyclone purchase, the 15 year quest for a FWSAR plane, the cancelled CCV program, and the on going fighter replacement program illustrates this.
When has a MOTS really mattered to Canada? The Cyclone is a classic example. The Type 26 is leaps and bounds ahead of the Cyclone in its development compared to what Canada purchased in 2005 from Sikorsky. Hell, the ink wasn't even dry on their paper design.
When has a MOTS really mattered to Canada? The Cyclone is a classic example. The Type 26 is leaps and bounds ahead of the Cyclone in its development compared to what Canada purchased in 2005 from Sikorsky. Hell, the ink wasn't even dry on their paper design.
I have to say I'd be completely and utterly surprised if this was the case. I'm not convinced any party can escape the procurement process and do a deal on the side - which seems to be the implication. I thought the government statement on the unsolicited proposal by Naval Group and Fincantieri was pretty conclusive. In any case, the procurement process continues and if there's just one left standing at the end, that will be it for FREMM.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Never say never when it comes to procurement here. It is entirely possible no company can meet the tender requirements 100%. If this were to happen, a new tender may have to be issued to prevent all sorts of legal actions. Hope this is not the case but you never know. Just look at the history of the JSS.
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
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
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Sometimes I wonder if we might be better off seeing the CSC just die. When one reads about all the developments in hypersonic missile technology, how survivable is a 2 billion plus frigate, designed to operate for more than thirty years, going to be ten years from now? Will laser technology progress enough to defeat maneuverable hypersonic missiles? Maybe we should be building a decent submarine fleet first and see how anti-missile technology progresses before spending 30-60 billion on a new surface fleet?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Hypersonics might be an issue, OTOH they also might be completely overstated as a threat against shipping. AFAIK there have been hypersonic developments so that a missile (or rocket perhaps) can get up to that speed. However guidance and telemetry has been a problem and IIRC some of the test platforms have been 'lost' as in telemetry was lost so where the hypersonic landed/crashed was unknown.
Having an AShM come screaming in at Mach 6+ is of course a problem, but if that same AShM is effectively blind due to the effects of going that fast through an atmosphere, then guiding the AShM at a moving/maneuvering ship in the water would be a problem.
Also, while the KE of a super or hypersonic missile might render CIWS useless, and even VSHRAAD of little use, the longer-ranged area air defence missiles could still be effective if the target can be engaged far enough out. If something like an SM-6 was used to engage a hypersonic while it was 130 n miles out, assuming there was a successful intercept, then the launching vessel should be 'safe'. The problems of course are going to be sufficient early warning that a hypersonic is inbound, and then being able to actually hit it or have it pass through a debris field from an exploded SAM.
Additional aerial surveillance assets could help with the early detection (assuming the ionization can be dealt with). If an asset can detect an inbound Mach 6 hypersonic when it is ~ 350 n miles from a vessel, and then cue a response from the vessel, that could permit an SM-6 launch which could intercept the hypersonic while it is still 130 n miles/~2 minutes away from the vessel. As a side note detecting such a missile at 350 n miles should provide ~5 minutes warning of an inbound.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The other concern is quantity of missiles. A 2 billion dollar ship is an attractive target which adversaries can justify firing off 50-100 missiles. How many high quality missiles can be bought for 10% of the cost of a new frigate? Based on all the major surface ship projects pending or underway, naval planners seem to feel confident in surface ship defence.
I have mild concerns now and if hypersonic developments prove to be workable.....and then the other concern, submarine proliferation, enthusiasm for new frigates decreases for me. Subs first then frigates seems like a safer path but I guess I am alone in this.
I have mild concerns now and if hypersonic developments prove to be workable.....and then the other concern, submarine proliferation, enthusiasm for new frigates decreases for me. Subs first then frigates seems like a safer path but I guess I am alone in this.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One also needs to remember what the role of frigates and destroyers are, namely escort ships. If one scraps the escort vessels in the fleet, then naval and merchant marine shipping would be completely unprotected in threatened marine environments, never mind an actual wartime situation.
Yes, the thought of losing a CAN$2 bil. frigate or destroyer to USD$100 mil. + in AShM of one type or another (supersonic, hypersonic, etc.) is unpalatable. However, that (IMO at least) is not quite as unpalatable a complete closure of major Canadian ports due to just the potential threat to shipping a hostile sub or MPA/maritime strike aircraft, or a surface vessel could pose. The same goes for any Canadian deployment overseas where shipping in being used to bring in supplies and reinforcements.
Yes, a sub force might be able to counter and provide an escort effective vs. hostile subs and/or shipping, but would provide no aid defence cover, either vs. hostile aircraft or land-based AShM launchers.
As a side note, while the cost of 100 such AShM might be lower than the cost of a frigate or destroyer (some unknowns remain about the cost of hypersonics) one also has to remember that there is a whole pile of other costs associated with the various systems needed to make such weapons useful. AShM's need some sort of sensing system to cue the launch platform on where to launch the missiles at. That sensing system also needs to be in a position to know where the target vessel(s) are, and then datalinks need to be in place to relay the targeting information. Disrupt any of these and a hypothetical AShM strike becomes drastically more difficult, if not an outright failure.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Here is an estimated breakdown on the CSC cost. The article mentions the build cost will be 50-60% of the $55-60 billion budget. This seems to be the same cost as the Fincantieri bid that was unsolicited. Other costs are outlined in the article.
Top procurement official outlines how Canadian Surface Combatant budget would be spent
Top procurement official outlines how Canadian Surface Combatant budget would be spent
That breakdown clears the air and all my previous cynicism is not justified, however it might have been helpful to release those details a little earlier to defray the criticism.
For Canada's sake I hope the are able to stay within cost.