Cool thanks John. Maybe they should put a couple of millennium guns on it. I've got an image of one lying around some where.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
A millennium gun( or two)works for me. Once the the Halifax class is retired there would be 57 mm Bofors guns available which were upgraded.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The consequences of delays in Canada's naval procurement have forced the government to award contracts for light icebreakers to Davie. Davie has also delivered the conversion AOR Asterix and there is talk of supplying a second conversion. Asterix is leased. When the NSS was announced, Davie was bankrupt. A key consideration for the NSS was the recognition naval ship building could only support two yards.
Irving is asking the government for clarification about NSS. Not sure it is Irving that should be asking as they are building combat vessels only (granted the AOPS as a combat ship is dubious). It should be SeaSpan doing the asking as it is their future work at risk. Perhaps Irving fears Liberal MPs in Quebec will pressure junior to provide a share of CSC business at Irving's expense. If Davie continues to get work, the government will have to build more ships in order to support three yards. If SeaSpan fails, Liberal fortunes in BC are gone.
Halifax Shipyard seeks confirmation from the Federal Government regarding the National Shipbuilding Strategy
Irving is asking the government for clarification about NSS. Not sure it is Irving that should be asking as they are building combat vessels only (granted the AOPS as a combat ship is dubious). It should be SeaSpan doing the asking as it is their future work at risk. Perhaps Irving fears Liberal MPs in Quebec will pressure junior to provide a share of CSC business at Irving's expense. If Davie continues to get work, the government will have to build more ships in order to support three yards. If SeaSpan fails, Liberal fortunes in BC are gone.
Halifax Shipyard seeks confirmation from the Federal Government regarding the National Shipbuilding Strategy
@John Fedup this is an altered version of the image I had lying around. I added RCN markings, Ensign, Jack and two 35 mm millennium guns.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I like it much better now.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Apparently the government has decided firms will get a second chance to offer cure bids should their recent cure bids not meet RCN requirements according to this article. I can foresee a cluster forming on the CSC project, not surprising really given PWC and DND past performance. Look first for a decision delay and once a decision is made, months of litigation from the losers. This will likely mean no outcome until after next year's election unless the political pressure jeopardizes his re-election. The delay might just be worth it if it resulted in junior losing his second mandate.
Industry cries foul as Canadian government makes more changes to bid process for $60B warship program
Industry cries foul as Canadian government makes more changes to bid process for $60B warship program
More fake news. If ALL the bidders are being given a second chance to amend their proposals, how is this unfair? If anything, I think the GoC is being overly careful to ensure fairness.
Why is it fake news? The question is how much more is it costing the bidders in both time and pressure? Given the history of Canadian defence procurement one would think that foreign defence firms will soon tire of the delays and costs that they incur with no guarantee of an outcome at the end, except maybe of another delay. That's why I have said many times that Canadian defence procurement is about on par with Indian defence procurement, torturous and masochistic.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree, and partially explains why only three companies bothered to bid. I wonder when some of the fighter jet bidders will figure this out and decline to bid on our fighter replacement program.
Who cares how much more it is going to cost? It would be a fraction of the cost of the bid itself, and all 3 bidders have an equal opportunity to fine tune their submissions. This is a $60 Billion dollar prize, after all.... Also, in Canada that bid cost is a genuine business expense, and is tax deductible, as long as your subsidiary is a registered business in Canada, which is the case for all three bidders. Fake news.
But three companies did, John, and those three are top tier suppliers. If this was really a bogus competition (for whatever reason) no one would have bid. The facts are the Navy needs these ships, the Liberal Government has publicly supported this program, AND has fully funded it. If there is a perceived bias towards the T26, it is because to most observers this is the design most suitable to Canada, the Navy having expressed a preference for a common hull for the AAD and ASW variants. ASW is a key skill set, and something that Canada has always done very well. Unfortunately, this requirement does put the Alion and Navantia designs at a disadvantage, neither ship having been optimized for that role. That doesn't mean it is out of the realm of possibility that one design could be chosen to replace the destroyers, and another for the GP frigate, however. This is a batch build program, after all. In any case, other than the constant public whining of DCNS, who are still lobbying Ottawa for a back door into this competition, I have seen no evidence that any of the bidders are less than 100% committed to this competition.
The companies who submit care very much how much it COSTS THEM to keep updating bids or resubmitting bids for programs that essentially aren't reaching fruition. Money doesn't grow on trees. And $60 billion for what 12 frigates? Jeez are they gold plated & built of platinum or what. The Australians are building 12 submarines for $50 billion and that includes the cost of setting up the build infrastructure from scratch. Methinks that the poor Canadian tax payer is getting ripped off big time. To put CAN$60 billion in perspective, for a NZDF recapitalisation that would allow us to acquire twice the equipment that we actually need, which would be really nice. Finally it's not fake news, so don't come the raw prawn with that claim.
Everything you claim here is just supposition so far. Until the contract has been signed and the steel has been cut for the first ship, anything claimed regarding the winner of the contract etc., is moose dung. This statement that you claim "If there is a perceived bias towards the T26, it is because to most observers this is the design most suitable to Canada" how about providing some reputable verifiable sources to back that up. Us Mods do love verifiable reputable sources.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
A few observations, first it isn’t other bidders trying a backdoor approach, it is the other two bidders because they perceive BAE is favoured. Other companies could have bid but chose not to. DCNS didn’t follow the guidelines and their 30 billion dollar bid was not credible not to mention the requirement the first ships would be built in Europe. The 55-60 billion for 15 ships is the program cost. The actual ship costs are supposed to be about 60% of the program costs. Personally I hope the T26 is selected and it probably will be after dithering by junior and litigation. The delay will add cost estimated at 3 billion per year of delay. Rather than budgeting money for delay costs, expect ship numbers to slip from 15.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Even if the ship costs are "only" 60% of the total programme cost, that still is a very high cost, since that works out to a low-end cost estimate of CAN$2.2 bil. per ship. The RAN's Hobart-class DDG's entered into that price range after the gov't of the day opted to reduce funding and trigger a work slowdown so they can show a reduced upfront cost, while hoping no one would pay attention to a back-end cost blowout.
Personally, I suspect that the actual ship costs will be less than 60% of the programme cost, and that more of the non-ship costs will go into establishing the supply chains needed to actually build the CSC, establish the needed workforce and infrastructure, etc.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Not to deviate from the current conversation but I was doing a little reading recently and thought I would provide some info related to the Asterix discussion.
Protecteur and Preserver were both single screw vessels same as Asterix.
The new PRO class based on the German Bonn class are designed to civilian standards not military warship standards.
As to the current slow down in the acquisition process it is the Canadian way. Hurry up and wait.
Let’s just hope that in 2018 we get confirmation of a design.
I too anticipate a T26. RN traditions still run deep.
Protecteur and Preserver were both single screw vessels same as Asterix.
The new PRO class based on the German Bonn class are designed to civilian standards not military warship standards.
As to the current slow down in the acquisition process it is the Canadian way. Hurry up and wait.
Let’s just hope that in 2018 we get confirmation of a design.
I too anticipate a T26. RN traditions still run deep.
What does that even mean "don't come the raw prawn"? If you had followed this thread you would know the T26 has been mentioned numerous times as the "perceived" best option for this particular contract, because it ticks off most of the RCN's requirements (of which ASW is principal) with minimal modification. And finally, everything anyone writes in this forum (including you Mozart) is "just supposition" at this point, so it rankles a bit getting lectured by someone who doesn't even seem to know the details of this competition, such as it's $60 Billion for the WHOLE program, of which 50-60% is for the ships themselves, and it's 15 hulls, not 12. All of this has been mentioned many many many times in this thread, and is publicly available in media and on several GoC websites.
Top procurement official outlines how Canadian Surface Combatant budget would be spent
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/nati...k-time-for-canadian-surface-combatant-bidders
I am not swayed by your attack, and still maintain this latest development is fair to everyone equally (or, by your argument, unfair to everyone equally), and the cost of amending a bid at this point is minor compared to the years of work that have gone into this already. Pat Finn, who is mentioned in the above links, and is running this program, has reiterated in public that the decision will come this year, with contract award in early 2019. Even politically this makes sense, as the Trudeau government do not want this becoming an election issue when campaigning starts up again in the fall of 2019.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
A 2019 decision must assume a real quick and once only second cure bid and no pi$$ed off vendor deciding on litigation upon losing. Although I agree Junior would be running a risk from any delay, this second cure bid might be the path that causes a delay into the election cycle. I should point out we don't know which company(s) need to refine their bids, it might be BAE for all we know.
Just to be clear:
- It is not an attack on you. If it was you'd know about it because I don't take prisoners.
- The term "do not come the raw prawn" is an Australian colloquialism which means get off your high horse or similar. Kiwis and Australians have a similar vernacular slang.
- Just to make things clear, blue tags are verified defence professionals.
- I have been closely following the RCN thread for probably 6 to 8 years, more so since I have been a Moderator.
- My criticisms of Canadian defence procurement are just that, well founded criticisms not attacks, and if you perceive them as such, then that is your problem not mine.
- You will find that if you look back through the various threads that I have a for a strong dislike of pollies (politicians).
- I am aware what program budgets generally include. I say generally because each nation has different criteria for what it includes. The FVEY nations are no exceptions.
- I haven't put my Moderators hat on yet, so don't force me to do so. If you take the Queens shilling then you should be able to handle criticism.
Don't worry, in NZ we've had some real acquisition howlers in the past usually due to the pollies and Treasury going for the cheapest outcome possible, but over the last 5 years NZ defence procurement has undergone major reform and is now highly professional, using best practice and is used by Treasury as an exemplar for NZ govt procurement practices. That's a very good turn around from 6 years ago when Treasury said that it was one of the worst performing procurement systems in the govt. Treasury has come to understand that defence acquisitions are different to civilian acquisitions and that cheap is not best. Now that is most definitely a win. Defence and Treasury have worked closely over the last 5 years and they do now with each acquisition project, so when that defence put the business case to Cabinet, all the data and information that cabinet is available, which helps make the case stronger. There is still the political context to consider, but that is out of defences hands.
That's not being clear, it's a contradiction. Telling someone to get off their high horse is a personal attack and cannot be construed as anything else.
Last edited:
If you have a problem with a Moderator, you take it up in a personal message with that Moderator or with another Moderator, not on the open forum.