Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[Black Jack Shellac]

More bad news for the CSC program. I can a 10 million dollar payment for Alion to piss off in order to get things moving.

Ottawa ordered to 'postpone' frigate design decision amid investigation | CBC News

I think this lawsuit was going to happen regardless of who won or who was in government. It is a fishing exercise by the lawyers. They might catch the $60B prize.

The type 26 appears to be the best option for Canada being the only ASW dedicated platform, and it is likely they do meet all the requirements in the specs or they would not have been selected.

Canada is proceeding with the negotiations anyway, they just can't sign the contract with LM until the lawsuit is settled.

Canada still negotiating with Lockheed Martin on warship deal despite ongoing legal action

 

[hauritz]

I think this lawsuit was going to happen regardless of who won or who was in government. It is a fishing exercise by the lawyers. They might catch the $60B prize.

The type 26 appears to be the best option for Canada being the only ASW dedicated platform, and it is likely they do meet all the requirements in the specs or they would not have been selected.

Canada is proceeding with the negotiations anyway, they just can't sign the contract with LM until it is settled.

Canada still negotiating with Lockheed Martin on warship deal despite ongoing legal action

I can't imagine Canada reversing its decision regardless of how the lawsuit turns out. At best Damen might get some sort of settlement payment.

 

[ngatimozart]

I can't imagine Canada reversing its decision regardless of how the lawsuit turns out. At best Damen might get some sort of settlement payment.

@hauritz this is Canada we are talking about. Not two upstanding countries like Australia or New Zealand where defence procurement is relatively straight forward and simple. This is but the opening stanza.

 

[hauritz]

@hauritz this is Canada we are talking about. Not two upstanding countries like Australia or New Zealand where defence procurement is relatively straight forward and simple. This is but the opening stanza.

I take your point ... as soon as I wrote that I remembered the 25 year long battle to replace the SeaKing and the on and off super hornet buy.

 

[John Fedup]

If junior wins the next election, even the Seaking replacement will appear to be brilliant compared to how he will fluster cuck the CSC and fast jet programs. Perhaps we should contract military procurement to India like we do with IT stuff, it won’t be better but it will cost less.

 

[ngatimozart]

If junior wins the next election, even the Seaking replacement will appear to be brilliant compared to how he will fluster cuck the CSC and fast jet programs. Perhaps we should contract military procurement to India like we do with IT stuff, it won’t be better but it will cost less.

Sorry John, it would be better in the long term because it would get done eventually.

 

[Calculus]

They do have a point in that the Liberal Government did specify that it wanted to go with a proven warship design. This once again confirms that they really have no idea what they actually want.

They could face the same problem with the fighter replacement program after the Liberals pronounced with equal certainty that they wouldn't buy the F-35 but would instead buy one of the many cheaper options that were available.

The plan for building new replenishment ships is already a mess and they sound even more clueless about what they will do when it comes to replacing the Victoria class submarines.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the decision making processes used by the Canadian Government ... at least in regards to defence.

I think there needs to be a little perspective around the CSC program requirement for a "proven design". It is important to step back a few years at which time the Canadian Government was looking at two options for CSC: 1) a bespoke Canadian design (as was the case with the current Halifax class), or 2) a Canadianised MOTS solution. They chose the second option to ostensibly save the 2+ year process required to design a brand new vessel. Given the two options, however, they could hardly disqualify the Type 26 because it was only a "design". This whole thing is a red herring, and was first introduced by a particular French consortia (as was the other red herring - IP) to set up a possible future legal challenge. (This is common practice in Canada as we have some of the most permissive procurement rules in the Western world, which are in place to protect the vendors, but also lead to all sorts of nuisance lawsuits. Defence procurement in particular is a target for these lawsuits, and virtually every major procurement in recent history has resulted in a lawsuit from one or more of the losing bidders. The tactic most employed is to pick on some aspect of the wording of the SOR to introduce "doubt" in the popular press about the fairness or clarity of the requirement.)

It should be noted that the two other bids submitted for this competition are also "designs" in that they differ quite significantly from the vessels upon which they are based, due in part to the Canadianisation requirements, but also due to modernization changes. Therefore, they are not without risk either. Neither vessel was designed with ASW in mind, and would have required significant re-work to incorporate a towed-array "wet end". In addition, both vessels required hangar and flight deck rework to accommodate the new CH-148 Cyclone helicopters, which are considerably larger and heavier than a Romeo. Personally, I think we should have gone with option 1 and designed our own unique solution. However, failing that, the Type 26 "design" seems to meet most of the Canadianisation requirements without re-work (has a towed-array, flight deck can accommodate a Chinook, hangar sized for a Merlin, designed for operations in the North Atlantic, etc... ) so in that it has a similar risk profile in my opinion to the two other bidders, all things being equal, even if it is still a "paper" ship.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

...Defence procurement in particular is a target for these lawsuits, and virtually every major procurement in recent history has resulted in a lawsuit from one or more of the losing bidders. The tactic most employed is to pick on some aspect of the wording of the SOR to introduce "doubt" in the popular press about the fairness or clarity of the requirement.)...

I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to pay bidders to submit a bid on condition that:

a) the bid is compliant with the RFP
b) the bidder agrees not to sue if they lose

Just putting a bid together for a contract like this costs millions, so paying for the bid could ease the pain. Who knows, we might actually get better bids.

On another point, I think the whole "mature design" thing is being purposely misinterpreted. A mature design in my mind would be IFC design, not something that has already been built. Otherwise it would have said "existing proven platform" or some such.

 

[John Fedup]

@Black Jack Shellac ...paying losing vendors for a bid with your conditions may be a good idea considering the cost is a minimal amount compared to the project cost. I still see problems in deciding if a losing bid was compliant enough to warrant a loser payment.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

@Black Jack Shellac ...paying losing vendors for a bid with your conditions may be a good idea considering the cost is a minimal amount compared to the project cost. I still see problems in deciding if a losing bid was compliant enough to warrant a loser payment.

Point taken. But I don't think it would matter if they were compliant or not. The stipulation would be there just to ensure that they had put in an honest effort to bid and not just submitted a garbage proposal just to get the payment.

My thought is that the winning bidder would not receive the payment as they have won the contract, the losing bidders, that at least attempted to put in an honest bid, go away with the costs of their efforts covered.

Of course the real world (especially in Canada) does not work this way. Politics have a way of screwing up even the simplest of ideas.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Main differences are: SeaRAM (CSC) vice CIWS (Hunter), CMS330 (CSC) vice Saab 9LV Aegis (Hunter), EASR (CSC) vice CEAFAR2 (Hunter), Canadian developed Ultra Electronics towed array sonar (CSC) vice Thales 2087 (Hunter), enlarged hangar (CSC) vice standard size hangar (Hunter), to accommodate the larger CH148 helicopter, mk 46 torpedo (CSC) vice MU90 (Hunter), SeaSpider anti-torpedo system (CSC) vice ?? (Hunter), 40 cell mk41 VLS (CSC) vice 32 cell (Hunter) - Note: this may only apply to the first 3 ships, which are going to assume the AWD role previously undertaken by the Iroquois class destroyers. The model shown at CANSEC had 32 cells, and may be more representative of the GP frigates, which comprise the last 12 ships of this class. There are other differences when you look at the various models, but I think that sums up the most obvious ones.

I joined this forum as I was curious as to where you found most of the information you posted. You seemed well informed and I appreciate the effort you have made sorting out the proposal.

I have done quite a bit of digging since then and I think I can agree with most of what you have listed. I found the following models on line that seem to back you up. Models originally linked at army.ca and can be found at pic 1 and pic 2. The models appear to be made by J Lawson model makers.

The biggest issue I was having was confirming the SeaRAM, but it is quite evident on these models.

A couple of things I note is that the missile cells above the ops bay appear to be harpoon in this model but are square in the CGI models I have seen. The model also shows 32 VLS cells, but I think you are correct in the 40 cell assessment for the AAW version. I am not sure if the extra 8 cells would go at the bow or between the sat domes. There is some space there that could accommodate the shorter self defence cells of the MK41 or perhaps A35 Sylver with quad packed missiles if desired.

One other thing I was curios about was the assumption of the Raytheon EASR radar. You are probably correct, but I was thinking that Lockheed may have offered up their own version, something like this. Or a dumbed down version of it.

Do you have any info on the EASR other than what the radar looks like on the model? Just curious.

 

[Calculus]

I joined this forum as I was curious as to where you found most of the information you posted. You seemed well informed and I appreciate the effort you have made sorting out the proposal.

I have done quite a bit of digging since then and I think I can agree with most of what you have listed. I found the following models on line that seem to back you up.

The biggest issue I was having was confirming the SeaRAM, but it is quite evident on these models.

A couple of things I note is that the missile cells above the ops bay appear to be harpoon in this model but are square in the CGI models I have seen. The model also shows 32 VLS cells, but I think you are correct in the 40 cell assessment for the AAW version. I am not sure if the extra 8 cells would go at the bow or between the sat domes. There is some space there that could accommodate the shorter self defence cells of the MK41 or perhaps A35 Sylver with quad packed missiles if desired.

One other thing I was curios about was the assumption of the Raytheon EASR radar. You are probably correct, but I was thinking that Lockheed may have offered up their own version, something like this. Or a dumbed down version of it.

Do you have any info on the EASR other than what the radar looks like on the model? Just curious.

@Black Jack Shellac

Welcome to the forum.

There appear to be at least three different iterations of that model floating around online, and each one is slightly different, as you have noted. This is most apparent in the different radar configurations as well as the different anti-surface warfare missiles, which in the models above appear to be Harpoon, but in the rendering below seem to be something else (perhaps NSM).

With regards to the radar, this is a lot less clear. EASR (or AMDR) is really more of an informed guess, based on the models, which seem to consistently show a "square" panel, as well as a comment from a senior RCN officer at CANSEC that they were "looking at a US radar". In addition, there is a drawing in Leadmark 2050 that shows a concept of CSC with what appears to be a SPY-type of radar, which, interestingly, does look a lot like the LM radar you linked to above. Also in Leadmark are numerous references to interoperability with the U.S., which does not necessarily require a common radar, but all these little clues taken together seem to point to that conclusion. Given there are only a few U.S. options, it would seem EASR and AMDR are the likely candidates. However, this is the aspect of the Type 26 submission that is least obvious.

 

[John Fedup]

Has there been any info on the secondary mentioned in the graphic with post #1372?

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Has there been any info on the secondary mentioned in the graphic with post #1372?

My best guess is it is the 30mm DS30M Mark 2 with the 30mm Mk44 Bushmaster II, same as the RN version. Or something likethis

 

[ngatimozart]

My best guess is it is the 30mm DS30M Mark 2 with the 30mm Mk44 Bushmaster II, same as the RN version. Or something likethis

G'day @Black Jack Shellac welcome to the forum. We look forward to your contributions to the many ongoing discussions. Please take the time to read the rules. Can you please post sources for items that you post such as the two photos above. It protects both you and us from accusations of plagiarism.

 

[Calculus]

The model also shows 32 VLS cells, but I think you are correct in the 40 cell assessment for the AAW version. I am not sure if the extra 8 cells would go at the bow or between the sat domes.

Hi Jack, I think it would be the forward position. Reason I say this is at CANSEC 2017, I pointed at the model on display, which had 32 cells, and asked the BAE rep if more cells could be accommodated up front. His response: "The Type 26 was designed for future growth." He left it pretty much at that, despite my repeated attempts to wheedle more information out of him, but the clear inference was there was room for more than 32 cells.

This is an interesting description of the UK Type 26 capabilities: Type 26 Global Combat Ship (GCS) - Capabilities - Think Defence

 

[Calculus]

My best guess is it is the 30mm DS30M Mark 2 with the 30mm Mk44 Bushmaster II, same as the RN version. Or something likethis

Or perhaps this: Naval drone defence [CANSEC17D2] | Jane's 360

Jack, same gun can be seen in the first picture you posted in 1371, in the background.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

G'day @Black Jack Shellac welcome to the forum. We look forward to your contributions to the many ongoing discussions. Please take the time to read the rules. Can you please post sources for items that you post such as the two photos above. It protects both you and us from accusations of plagiarism.

Sure, I thought the links would be available, but I guess not. I found the pics on Army.

However they were originally from JLawson Model Makers. I have gone back and added the links to the original post.

 

[John Fedup]

I still wish the Rheinmetall 35 mm Millennium gun with AHEAD ammunition is still under consideration. Would have been a better choice for the AOPS as well.

 

[ngatimozart]

I still wish the Rheinmetall 35 mm Millennium gun with AHEAD ammunition is still under consideration. Would have been a better choice for the AOPS as well.

Agree. It's one of the best systems out there.