MiloMorai Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-replacement-competition-1.3812705 The Trudeau government is now ready to solicit bids from defence contractors interested in designing and equipping Canada's next generation of combat ships. And it is demanding an extraordinary amount of detail and data from those companies, some of which have waited years for the program to get underway. Even before the ink is dry on the proposal request, there are concerns among some bidders about how much Canadian content will end up in the new surface combat ships. The federal cabinet has given the green light to release a long-anticipated request for proposals for an off-the-shelf warship design and combat systems. Pre-qualified defence companies are expected to receive their packages on Thursday and the government is anticipated to follow up with a technical briefing to explain the details to the public. The bidders have until April 27 to submit their plans to Irving Shipbuilding Inc., which was selected in 2015 as the prime contractor. The Halifax-based company is the federal government's go-to yard for combat ships under the National Shipbuilding Strategy. CBC News has obtained partial extracts of the draft request for proposal, which has been the subject of intense backroom debate among potential bidders. The document — dated Oct. 9, 2016 — asks for an exceptional amount of detail and clearly displays the amount of control Irving is exercising over the bidders and potential subcontractors.
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 May as well throw in their lot with the Type 26 im thinking.
Halidon Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) T26 (or rather a derivative) will no doubt be an option, but so will others. Navantia, DCNS, Hyundai, and the US firms are all likely to take a run at it of some sort. Will be interesting to watch. Edited October 29, 2016 by Halidon
Chris Werb Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 It depends what they want to do for it. The T26 has "global" bits added to it to make it relevant in the scenarios that we thought would predominate in the future. The Canadians traditionally have purchased ASW escorts and we seem to be returning to an environment where capable ASW escorts will be increasingly relevant.
Colin Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 Has to be "off-the shelf", fitted with 127mm gun, missiles and keep up with the US fleet, have a flex deck and be built here, so Type 26 is off the table. In fact there i no real "off the shelf" design that will do all that, everyone will need to be modified, mainly to meet the speed requirement.
Cdn Blackshirt Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 Are there any sources/blogs that describe the likely contender designs (or at least base ships prior to Canadianization)?
DB Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 Aside from the "bulit here" part, which of those listed requirements does the Type 26 not have?
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 Besides, we can be pretty flexible about the 'built here' bit. Look how many different variants there were on the Leander design built worldwide.
DougRichards Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 The Admiral Gorshkov looks like it could be in the ball park (ah, hockey rink) Just substitute a few western weapons and license build.....
DougRichards Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 Then again the ANZAC class may meet most specs, with some modification for the North Atlantic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac-class_frigate
Chris Werb Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 Besides, we can be pretty flexible about the 'built here' bit. Look how many different variants there were on the Leander design built worldwide. Holland and India built their own. Who else did?
DougRichards Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 Besides, we can be pretty flexible about the 'built here' bit. Look how many different variants there were on the Leander design built worldwide. Holland and India built their own. Who else did? Well the Land Down Under sort of did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_destroyer_escort Do you come from the land downunder! Vegemite sandwich!
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 Besides, we can be pretty flexible about the 'built here' bit. Look how many different variants there were on the Leander design built worldwide. Holland and India built their own. Who else did? Hmm, probably just them looking at it, I thought it was more than that. OTOH, the ones we supplied elsewhere out of RN stocks seemed amazingly adaptable. And its a trend that continues, I think there is even a Type 22 being used by Romania with some of their own locally sourced weapons. BAE really should get me working in their sales department.
Chris Werb Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 Type 22 Batch 1s (4) All went to Brazil, two are still in service, one laid up and one scrapped. Type 22 Batch 2s (6) Three still in active service, one in Chile and two in Romania - others scrapped or sunk as targets. Type 22 Batch 3s (4) All scrapped.
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 Im surprised they scrapped the Batch 3's, no takers? All the batch ones seem to have had sound isolation problems that affected ASW capablity.
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 Besides, we can be pretty flexible about the 'built here' bit. Look how many different variants there were on the Leander design built worldwide. Holland and India built their own. Who else did? Well the Land Down Under sort of did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_destroyer_escort Do you come from the land downunder! Vegemite sandwich! Dont get me started.
Colin Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 Aside from the "bulit here" part, which of those listed requirements does the Type 26 not have?As I understand it, the Type 26 suffers a speed gap with the USN, does not have a Flex deck and is not in the water.
Halidon Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 The last of those is possibly the most critical. The RCN is already facing alot of pretty daunting challenges and they really dont seem to be in the mood to sign onto a program or hull which isn't "proven."
Colin Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 (edited) Plus there is a lingering aftertaste from the Sub deal. Peoples forget the role Canada played in dickering for a decade, leading to many of the problems we had. If a Brit ship is looked at it will be all about the "Brits screwing us again". Politically toxic here. Edited November 4, 2016 by Colin
Colin Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 sigh, lets add a decade or two to the process http://www.defensenews.com/articles/canada-widens-the-aperture-in-search-of-new-warships?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB+11.3.16&utm_term=Editorial+-+Early+Bird+Brief
DB Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 Not sure what you mean by flex deck, but t26 is to have a mission deck which sounds like it might be similar? The UK government would, I am sure look very favourably on such a deal.
Halidon Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 sigh, lets add a decade or two to the process http://www.defensenews.com/articles/canada-widens-the-aperture-in-search-of-new-warships?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB+11.3.16&utm_term=Editorial+-+Early+Bird+BriefThere was bound to be pressure for this move, from home and abroad. Opens up a lot of interesting possibilities like the F110, the brand new FTI France just announced, and T26. But I still think the Brits have larger hurdles to get over than people may think. Navantia and DCNS both have a lot more work recently in this sort of program. Im a bit amused by the comment below the article which claims the US Navy is deficient in Damage Control practices compared to the Royal Navy. I don't mean that as a slight against the RN, just disagree that it's ahead in this area.
Ivanhoe Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 How many hulls? While Canada's economy is good, for the moment, it sounds like the leadership is heading towards a project which will birth (not to mention berth) at most one in the class*. HIgh cruise speed, long range, big gun, missile loadout sufficient for engaging blue-water navies, big flat deck for humanitarian ops, 200 crew, etc. Might as well see if Bath will blow the dust off the drawings for the Ti class... * Augustine's Law Number XVI.
T19 Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 Don't bet on any imports. When we built our current frigates there was lots of interest But domestic politics killed off any sales
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now