Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Apparently DND needs 54 million dollars on top of the 39 million they already have to evaluate the CSC bids. Seems like a $hitload of money to evaluate in all likelihood only 3 bids.

DND needs an extra $54M — just to evaluate bids to build it a new fleet of warships

Some more on Admiral Norman which illustrates the hypocrisy of junior.

No investigation into Mali mission leak – a double standard for the Mark Norman case?

Well something for you to smile about John, you don't hear too many good news stories about RCN submarine fleet

Submarine celebrates achievements in the Asia-Pacific region – The Maple Leaf

It has taken a lot extra money and effort to get to this point. There has been zero indication of any renewal of the RCN's submarine fleet by the government in any of its defence policy papers. All this expertise has been created but what happens to it in 10-15 years from now?

John Fedup said:

It has taken a lot extra money and effort to get to this point. There has been zero indication of any renewal of the RCN's submarine fleet by the government in any of its defence policy papers. All this expertise has been created but what happens to it in 10-15 years from now?

Click to expand...

Right about then the RAN will be looking to increase its stock of experienced submariners.

Thanks Canucks!

oldsig

oldsig127 said:

Right about then the RAN will be looking to increase its stock of experienced submariners.

Thanks Canucks!

oldsig

Click to expand...

There might be a bunch of RCAF pilots looking for F-35 work too. Junior is turning out to be your best recruiter.

51 years old and have never seen an advertisement on national television for a defence company. Davie / Federal fleet ad promoting MV Asterix on time and on budget. Nice video.

Novascotiaboy, as you know I am not a fan of Davie. For sure the Asterix was a badly needed AOR solution for the RCN and I am glad to have it despite losing one of our most capable admirals. However let's put this in perspective, taking an existing ship and replacing the superstructure (which was built in Finland) along with some conversion work hardly qualifies Davie as Canada's premier naval ship builder.

I understand your concerns about Davie. All I was saying was that I have never seen anything Canadian military related other than DND recruitment videos and historical documentaries on national television. Maybe this is only being shown here in Atlantic Canada as a snub to Irving, i dont know. FYI the Asterix was at the magazine wharf yesterday. Must be preparing for a deployment.

I haven’t seen the ad in Toronto or Vancouver although that doesn’t mean much as I channel hop when ads appear. As for defence contractor ads on Canadian TV, can’t say I have ever seen one either. Maybe contractors should make Canadians more aware about what they can do for the Canadian Forces. Mind you, junior would probably pass a law banning military contractor ads on TV.

This link discusses the three choices for the CSC from a CMS point of view. We don't know what exactly what is called for in the proposal so it is difficult to say what Navantia actually offered. The Saab/Aegis integration for BMD should be a cost effective minimal risk solution should this be an immediate requirement (should be IMHO).

Careful consideration: Positioning the next Canadian Frigates for the Fights of the Future | CDA Institute

John Fedup said:

This link discusses the three choices for the CSC from a CMS point of view. We don't know what exactly what is called for in the proposal so it is difficult to say what Navantia actually offered. The Saab/Aegis integration for BMD should be a cost effective minimal risk solution should this be an immediate requirement (should be IMHO).

Careful consideration: Positioning the next Canadian Frigates for the Fights of the Future | CDA Institute

Click to expand...

I am not entirely sure why Canada hasn't already specified the AEGIS combat management system. I would have thought that adopting the American CMS over a European system would have been a bit of a no brainer.

hauritz said:

I am not entirely sure why Canada hasn't already specified the AEGIS combat management system. I would have thought that adopting the American CMS over a European system would have been a bit of a no brainer.

Click to expand...

This is the Canadian defence procurement system that we are talking about. Logic doesn't enter into it at all.

hauritz said:

I am not entirely sure why Canada hasn't already specified the AEGIS combat management system. I would have thought that adopting the American CMS over a European system would have been a bit of a no brainer.

Click to expand...

IIRC, there is no reason why LM Canada couldn't integrate Aegis into their system as Saab plans to do for Navantia with the RAN bid. We don't know if BMD is a current or future planned requirement for the CSC. I assume the RCN made a case for this to the GoC as a result of recent developments with N Korea. I am guessing budgetary constraints will likely make BMD a future need.

hauritz said:

I am not entirely sure why Canada hasn't already specified the AEGIS combat management system. I would have thought that adopting the American CMS over a European system would have been a bit of a no brainer.

Click to expand...

Canada have recently developed their own CMS by Lockheed Martin Canada - CMS 330 - so there's no need necessarily to look abroad for this. This is seen to be a fairly proficient system and has export sales already with Chile and NZ. There isn't any mandated CMS for CSC either as CMS 330 is only being proposed by one of the bidding designs. I haven't seen any BMD requirement nor any discussion on this by Canadian government or military, so I assume this isn't a factor.

If you want to operate in the Pacific, along side forces like the US, I can't see how you could ignore some level of BMD capability. Either for sensor integration or as a launch capable platform for at least terminal defense (SM-2 latest or SM-6 capability). While BMD may not be required, threats are now operating in that kind of space.

StingrayOZ said:

If you want to operate in the Pacific, along side forces like the US, I can't see how you could ignore some level of BMD capability. Either for sensor integration or as a launch capable platform for at least terminal defense (SM-2 latest or SM-6 capability). While BMD may not be required, threats are now operating in that kind of space.

Click to expand...

You have a point there, but given Canada's budgetary constraints, perhaps RCN could choose to do something really well such as to contribute to ASMD and anti-subs ops.

My guess is that Canada is likely to go with CMS 330 just like how RAN is now heavily invested into 9LV CMS.and its subsystems, including the Australian tactical interface.

John Fedup said:

IIRC, there is no reason why LM Canada couldn't integrate Aegis into their system as Saab plans to do for Navantia with the RAN bid. We don't know if BMD is a current or future planned requirement for the CSC. I assume the RCN made a case for this to the GoC as a result of recent developments with N Korea. I am guessing budgetary constraints will likely make BMD a future need.

Click to expand...

It seems that the CMS being offered with the Navantia CSC bid is the Saab 9LV CMS that is in use on the Oz Anzac frigates - and other warships globally.

http://www.navantia.es/noticia.php?id_noti=453

matt00773 said:

It seems that the CMS being offered with the Navantia CSC bid is the Saab 9LV CMS that is in use on the Oz Anzac frigates - and other warships globally.

http://www.navantia.es/noticia.php?id_noti=453

Click to expand...

Yes, the Saab 9LV CMS is being offered by Navantia but if there is no specification for BMD in the CSC tender then Navantia would not include Aegis integration in order to keep the bid price down. Normally the LM CMS 330 would be considered the favourite because of its Canadian content but as BAE partnered with LM Canada, the risk posed by the Type 26 as compared to the other two contenders lowers its chances (maybe?).

This is the first news article I have come across regarding to status of the CSC tender, not very encouraging. The article claims bidders all failed on certain unspecified specifications and will have one opportunity to address the issues. Failure to do so means disqualification. This could be due to unrealistic Canadian specifications. Unrealistic Canadian specifications is what destroyed the Canadian designed JSS project and continues today with design changes requested for the Berlin design the government selected for our AORs.

It is not impossible that none of the bidders will be 100% complaint resulting in either a degrading of the specifications likely resulting in litigation, delay, and worse, a new tender. Thus the fluster cuck procurement continues to rule the day.

The article also confirms only three bids were received. Assuming technical issues are resolved, an winner won't be decided upon until later this year and financial details still need to be agreed to. I guess Nov-Dec if things are resolved. Realistically, wait for the announcement of a new tender, junior has spent all our money. Team FREMM will be back in the game, perhaps others as well, and the 15 ships will become 10 or less. Then again, maybe bidders will say "screw this".

New Canadian warship project off to rocky start as bidders fail to meet some requirements