Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

[The Armchair Soldier]

Firms To Compete for Canadian Ship Program

VICTORIA, British Columbia — European and US firms will compete to win a multibillion-dollar contract to design the Royal Canadian Navy's future combat ship and integrate its combat systems.

Canadian government officials have announced that, starting next month, work will begin on compiling a short list of qualified bidders for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC).

Companies will have until October to provide the necessary documentation to support their entry onto the short list, senior government officials said.

One firm will be selected in early 2017 to design the CSC, and another to integrate the onboard combat systems.

DCNS, Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems have already announced their intention to bid on aspects of the CSC project.

[...]

French firm DCNS intends to pursue the warship design contract and the combat systems integrator role, said Olivier Casenave-Péré of DCNS Technologies Canada.

"At this stage, DCNS hasn't any comment on the procurement process; we are waiting for further information about the way the procurement will be organized and the requirements defined," Olivier said.

However, the French government and DCNS have been marketing the French multimissions frigate in Canada since 2012 in preparation for the CSC project. The lead ship of the class, the French Navy's Aquitaine, visited Halifax in 2013 and was toured by Canadian politicians and military personnel.

Anne Healey, BAE's general manager for group business development for Canada, said BAE Systems will submit an offer based on the Type 26 global combat ship design. Construction of those vessels for the UK Royal Navy is scheduled for 2016.

"The ship will take full advantage of modular design and open systems architecture, ensuring it can accommodate specific systems and equipment required by the Royal Canadian Navy and can be easily upgraded as new technology develops," Healey said.

"We have a successful track record of contracting Canadian companies into our global supply chain. Over the past five years, we have worked with 270 Canadian companies and invested over a quarter billion dollars with local suppliers," she said.

Read More: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /70896816/

[shark bait]

Massive opportunity there ! The Canadians have a big chunk of budget set aside for the project too..

If bae fails to make this go through it proves privatised shipbuilding is crap

[jonas]

Massive opportunity there ! The Canadians have a big chunk of budget set aside for the project too..

If bae fails to make this go through it proves privatised shipbuilding is crap

The only problem as I see it, is that the recent history of Canadian defence procurement is if anything even worse than that of the UK's. Fixed wing aircraft,rotary, army equipment,ships, all have been ordered then cancelled time and again.
This is one contract that BAE will really have to be on the ball if they wish to stand a chance. DCNS are also in the game,with a vessel that is already in use and proven,and Canada has a powerfull French lobby.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada- ... 06039.html

[RetroSicotte]

Especially so as Canada have specifically asked for a "proven" vessel. That basically comes out to "we don't want to trust promises without something in the water."

BAE has to sell on capability/price if they want to nail this one, I would imagine. The requirements are the real driving factor though. Type 26 has (in theory) a lot more to offer than the competitors in modularity because of that Mk41. The fact that it's also got an AESA up top rather than a PESA helps a bunch too. Then of course, CAMM is just a wonderful little "proven" export already.

So here's hoping, but this must be cautious optimism.

[jonas]

Especially so as Canada have specifically asked for a "proven" vessel. That basically comes out to "we don't want to trust promises without something in the water."

BAE has to sell on capability/price if they want to nail this one, I would imagine. The requirements are the real driving factor though. Type 26 has (in theory) a lot more to offer than the competitors in modularity because of that Mk41. The fact that it's also got an AESA up top rather than a PESA helps a bunch too. Then of course, CAMM is just a wonderful little "proven" export already.

So here's hoping, but this must be cautious optimism.

If discussions get to a serious level, would the MOD think of letting a small detachment of the RCN work with BAE's design team, to let them see how T26 could be customized to their exact requirements. I would think that as they are pushing for exports with this project, it wouldn't be too difficult.
Anything that is of 'UK eyes only' would obviously be off the table. I could only think of things such as Comms/EW and the suchlike.

[marktigger]

we should get a commonwealth team in as part of the type 26 so it can be globally deployed with minimal changes.

[shark bait]

commonwealth team

I like the sound of that!

UK have sold to Canada before, and the type 26 would defiantly come under the Canadians budget.
However FREM is proven, but aren't the French a bit arsey over technology transfer?
I'm sure the MOD right would jump through hoops to get some extra value out of the program.

[RetroSicotte]

commonwealth team

I like the sound of that!

UK have sold to Canada before, and the type 26 would defiantly come under the Canadians budget.
However FREM is proven, but aren't the French a bit arsey over technology transfer?
I'm sure the MOD right would jump through hoops to get some extra value out of the program.

Right now the Type 26's price is a serious concern. We might save pennies because we can transfer so much from the T23's, but the Canadian's won't be able to.

The prime advantage we have is whatever missiles they want to go with (such as LRASM, JSM) we can accomodate. T26 having that Mk41 is the biggest advantage we have over the FREMM for exports. The Sylver is very restricted right now.

Generally the French are pretty open about TT. They've gone to all sorts of lengths to get exports lately.

[shark bait]

Right now the Type 26's price is a serious concern. We might save pennies because we can transfer so much from the T23's, but the Canadian's won't be able to.

The prime advantage we have is whatever missiles they want to go with (such as LRASM, JSM) we can accomodate. T26 having that Mk41 is the biggest advantage we have over the FREMM for exports. The Sylver is very restricted right now.

Generally the French are pretty open about TT. They've gone to all sorts of lengths to get exports lately.

The French have been doing well lately, but didn't the government help out because its all going to be built in frane? I'm pretty sure the Canadians will want to build themselves.

That is a good point on the coatings. Steel is cheap its the systems that cost us and no doubt transfering will save us billions.

I am quietly confident that the hull price is going to be reasonable. I am hoping these delays are the government changing specs in order to get the price down. I'm hoping for once mod procurement has taken their time, and made sure we have a good value contract that doesn't make the tax payer BAE's bitch.

This is just hoping. Usually I would expect the contract to be rushed and signed before the election, however here we might have seen the correct approach. Or perhaps boths sides are too incompetent to rush the contract through! I suppose we will find out soon!

[Halidon]

If discussions get to a serious level, would the MOD think of letting a small detachment of the RCN work with BAE's design team, to let them see how T26 could be customized to their exact requirements. I would think that as they are pushing for exports with this project, it wouldn't be too difficult.
Anything that is of 'UK eyes only' would obviously be off the table. I could only think of things such as Comms/EW and the suchlike.

I don't have specific insight into UK MOD's workings but if they're serious about exporting the T26, be it entire ships or just design licenses, they will have to let BAE have fairly intimate conversations with customers.

[xav]

Geez, looks like LRASM is the favorite here, hands down

The French have been doing well lately, but didn't the government help out because its all going to be built in frane? I'm pretty sure the Canadians will want to build themselves.

Not in the case of the future RMN Gowind "Frigates"/LCS. All 6 will be built in Malaysia. And they are getting NSM btw.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=2698

[Sam]

With the on going rumblings of Tory back benchers threatening to revolt over future defence cuts, and the current instability of parts of the world, with a dash of optimism here, say the government commits to 2% GDP in the coming months/SDSR. Would that be enough extra money to secure the 13, or maybe even 1 or 2 more ?

[WhitestElephant]

With the on going rumblings of Tory back benchers threatening to revolt over future defence cuts, and the current instability of parts of the world, with a dash of optimism here, say the government commits to 2% GDP in the coming months/SDSR. Would that be enough extra money to secure the 13, or maybe even 1 or 2 more ?

We could secure 13 without 2%, we only need the promised 1% above in inflation for the equipment budget.

See my post here regarding a very positive piece by Malcolm Chalmers over at RUSI recently. He seams to think it reasonable we will see a 1% rise above inflation for the entire MoD budget from now on, amoung other things.

[shark bait]

With the on going rumblings of Tory back benchers threatening to revolt over future defence cuts, and the current instability of parts of the world, with a dash of optimism here, say the government commits to 2% GDP in the coming months/SDSR. Would that be enough extra money to secure the 13, or maybe even 1 or 2 more ?

I think 13 should already be secure. We already operate 13, and the new ones should be cheaper to operate. Procurement costs should also be low and spread out over 10+ years so shouldn't be a big issue. What should be happening is a push for 1 or 2 more with full ASW kit.

It is kind of hard to speculate though, I have seen many unit costs thrown about, varying wildly from £250M to £600M. Any one know what the current working assumption is?

[Tinman]

We will not be selling the T26 to the Canadians purely on the basis that they will not buy off us. Which is a shame due to the interoperability of our forces.

I put this down to a certain batch of subs we sold them, Upholder class I think. Where they gutted the fire control suite and put in there requirements as needed to fire the Mk46 torpedo.

The rest makes our nimrod debacle look like a well thought out procurement project.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I put it down to the obsession of having the ships built in Canada. As BAE is already a N American company (more than British), what is there to stop them from buying a nice little shipyard somewhere on the Pacific coast of Canada, say, in Victoria. They are doing work not just on the Canadian frigates but on two from New Zealand.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Dear Shark-bait

>I think 13 should already be secure. We already operate 13, and the new ones should be cheaper to operate.

I cannot agree.

In addition to all the equipments you have in a T23, you have 24-cell Mk.41 VLS with TLAM control electronics, 2x 20mm CIWS, a large utility space with cranes, and many doors in every openings for stealth. All these systems require maintenance, no matter it is done at sea or in the port.

Another issue is that, the full load displacement of T26 is about 8000 t, nearly twice compared to 4200 t of T23 "as built". "Steel and space is cheap", yes, but the spaces are fitted with fire-fighting systems (including pumps, pipes and valves as well as many sensors), communicating systems and air conditioning systems, all in military standard. What is more, how about the fuel efficiency? Do you think it is the same? I don't think so.

All these costs shall be compensated by its lean crewing. I stress again that the numbers of systems requiring maintenance are surely "increasing", not decreasing. Sadly I also need to mention the defense equipment "cost inflation rate" was high these days. Thus, I suppose the operation cost will be higher than T23, or the same at its best. Of course, here the utility space is assumed to be completely empty.

[shark bait]

Dear Shark-bait

All these costs shall be compensated by its lean crewing. I stress again that the numbers of systems requiring maintenance are surely "increasing", not decreasing. Sadly I also need to mention the defense equipment "cost inflation rate" was high these days. Thus, I suppose the operation cost will be higher than T23, or the same at its best. Of course, here the utility space is assumed to be completely empty.

I agree with your points, but crew savings will be significant, new engines will be more efficient but probably offset by larger tonnage, and hopefully they are following modern design protocol and making everything modular with maintainability in mind. Modern equipment should also be more robust

The point I was trying to make is 13 is defnatly affordable. The books are already set up to accommodate 13 frigates , so they should have no problem doing so in the future.

[WhitestElephant]

Agreed. Especially if we see the 1% above inflation for the equipment budget as promised in the Tory manifesto, then getting 13 between now and the early 2030s should be a non issue.

I mean think about it, between 2014 and 2024 £163 billion will be spent on the equipment budget. Extend that to 2034 and we will easily be spending over £300 billion in today's money during that period.

So what is a mere £5 billion (current est. allocated for 13 T26) in the grand scheme of things?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Dear shark-bait, and WhitestElephant

Thanks for your response. I agree to your point that the total program cost of GBP 5B of T26 spread over 20 years from now is not so large in view of total equipment budget. BUT, similarly, your QE carriers' total budget is GBP 6.2B, which means T26 is NOT negligible so you need to carefully review its budget. It generally increases by 20-30% in due course (historically, e.g. T45). In T45 case, I understand it lead to "halfing" the hull number, because initial/design cost shares significant share in the total cost.

I like RN escorts (its beautiful), so I really hope the cost will not rise and the hull number be secured, although I AM a bit pessimistic...

# In Japan, "maintenance cost" is significantly increasing these 10 years. Note that oils and salaries are NOT included here. At least official says that it is related to the hi-tech nature of the new equipments. I imagine that, we CANNOT maintain them in front-line, and just sending it back to the factory, and they cost us a lot. (Considering the system's complicity, it is not overcharging, I suppose...)

[Gabriele]

A good part of the final growth of unitary cost in any military product is actually a consequence of cuts to planned numbers, not a cause of them. Development and other fixed costs in fact end up being divided on fewer produced units, which so turn out having a huge nominal pricetag, even though not all of it is "real" production cost for the ship itself.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Gabriel

You are partly right. But I understand the reason they start decreasing the hull number is the cost over-run, in many cases, and not budget cutting, to my knowledge.

But here I need to clarify.

At least in the case of T45, the total budget of BGP 6.45B is accused to be 1.5B over running than the original 5B budget.
I do not think this "original 5B" budget is for 12 hulls, but 6 hulls. However, in early days of T45, I remember each vessel was said to cost only GBP 0.35B, excluding development costs, because of "the innovative approach of ship design".

Even if the "original" GBP 5B budget is made of only 6 hulls, if the estimation was correct, the "additional" 1.5B should have made another 4 hulls. I do not think the only "2 hulls of shrink" caused the budget overrun.

Am I correct? (I could not find the old "dreamy" documents for T45, I should have been down loaded them more than 10 years ago)...

[birrell715]

Bae now keeping both Clyde yards open

[jonas]

Bae now keeping both Clyde yards open

Further to your post here with link:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-32828517

Am I being too cynical, because it looks to me like BAE have just cut their investment on Clydeside by £100m

[WhitestElephant]

Bae now keeping both Clyde yards open

Further to your post here with link:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-32828517

Am I being too cynical, because it looks to me like BAE have just cut their investment on Clydeside by £100m

I think it is a rather optimistic development. The £200m 'frigate factory' was a consolidation move, and generally, consolidation in the naval ship building industry has been the result of reduced expectations of orders.

Keeping both yards open becomes more expensive very quickly than the extra £100m capital investment into just one yard. Could this perhaps be because the MoD is giving them the right signals about T26 orders? Or do they expect export builds?