Type 31 Frigate

Here's a rough breakdown of the anticipated cost breakdown of 15 frigates for Canada. Top procurement official outlines how Canadian Surface Combatant budget would be spent
  • Construction of the ships – 50 to 60 per cent of the budget
  • Integrated logistics support (includes spare parts, technical data package, training, ammunition) – 20-25 per cent of budget
  • Infrastructure (construction of jetties, upgrades to existing docks) – 5 per cent
  • Project office cost over the life of the program (salaries for staff, travel, etc.) – 5 per cent
  • Contingency fund – (fluctuations in exchange rates, other unforeseen issues) – 10 to 15 per cent

Fincatieri offered FREMM frigates to Canada at supposedly a bit over half the estimated project cost provided they could work outside of the competitive process. Their offer was rejected and they went off in a huff and are no longer in the running.

Note that in the above figures the cost of the ships is also somewhere just over half of the project cost. Fincatieri's numbers were met with more than a bit of scepticism as there was no information as to what they were actually proposing to provide.

Here is what the Canadian government's response to Fincatieri was. The following quote is well worth reading to gain an understanding of the problems of comparing numbers that were not compiled on the same basis.
Update on the Canadian Surface Combatant Request for Proposals - Canada.ca
With respect to suggestions that significant savings could be realized through this alternative process, this is far from evident. It is important to note that a warship project budget must cover more than just delivering the ships. It must also include the costs associated with design and definition work, infrastructure, spare parts, training, ammunition, contingencies and project management. Typically, the acquisition of the ships themselves only represents about 50-60% of the project’s overall budget. As well, any prices cited without the context of applicable terms and conditions as indicated in the RFP (such as scope of work, divisions of responsibilities, intellectual property rights, warranties, limitations of liability, indemnities, etc.) are effectively meaningless.
 
All of which is true in a way. But - and this is not intended to denigrate unnecessarily - it's not as if Canadian maritime procurement has a track record of knowing what it's actually doing is it? That answer actually reads like a canned process response from someone who's been on a MoD course (quite prevalent for the RCN) or framed by one of their (often British Ministry Trained) contractors....

Just a thought.
 
All of which is true in a way. But - and this is not intended to denigrate unnecessarily - it's not as if Canadian maritime procurement has a track record of knowing what it's actually doing is it? That answer actually reads like a canned process response from someone who's been on a MoD course (quite prevalent for the RCN) or framed by one of their (often British Ministry Trained) contractors....

Just a thought.
None the less, there wasn't much support for believing that Fincantieri could actually deliver equivalent frigates for just over half the cost of anybody else. They were believed to be not presenting the whole picture.

And this is the point I was trying to make. Unless you are comparing prices which include all the same factors and the same terms and conditions you can't really compare them in a meaningful fashion because there are so many different ways of presenting them.
 
All of which is true in a way. But - and this is not intended to denigrate unnecessarily - it's not as if Canadian maritime procurement has a track record of knowing what it's actually doing is it? That answer actually reads like a canned process response from someone who's been on a MoD course (quite prevalent for the RCN) or framed by one of their (often British Ministry Trained) contractors....

Just a thought.
Oh, and by the way, the Canadian government's advisor on the frigate project is this guy: Royal Navy Rear Admiral Steve Brunton
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/steve-brunton-cbe-60a68814

According to his profile he was involved in the acquisition projects for the Type 45, QE carriers, and Type 26 frigates for the UK. I myself don't know anything about him other than what I've read, so I won't try to say whether or not he did a good job on any of those.

His consulting fees could total as much as $1.8 million, so I assume his advice is considered to be valuable.
Brunton could be paid $1.8M as adviser to National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy

Given his position, I would not be surprised if his opinion was asked with respect to the Fincantieri proposal although of course I cannot say for sure.
 
Given his position, I would not be surprised if his opinion was asked with respect to the Fincantieri proposal although of course I cannot say for sure.
And here's the rub. Steve Brunton was DShips in the UK DE&S. Just how much exposure to anything beyond UK industry capabilities and processes he's had is - I suspect - minimal. So he could easily assess something beyond his UK experience as not credible. That does not necessarily make it true.

Not trying to denigrate him personally - or talk up whatever Fincantieri said. Point I'm trying to make is that of your experience is primarily in one country, that does not necessarily make you the authority on how well other countries do similar things.
 
More Wild Goose Chase.

We’re doing what we always do: wasting money trying to save money. The first answer is usually best for a reason.
Which is why we will probably either end up with something that's really not very good but has cost a fortune or nothing at all.
 
And here's the rub. Steve Brunton was DShips in the UK DE&S. Just how much exposure to anything beyond UK industry capabilities and processes he's had is - I suspect - minimal. So he could easily assess something beyond his UK experience as not credible. That does not necessarily make it true.

Not trying to denigrate him personally - or talk up whatever Fincantieri said. Point I'm trying to make is that of your experience is primarily in one country, that does not necessarily make you the authority on how well other countries do similar things.
I don't want to divert this thread off onto a topic which already has its own thread, but the point was that the Fincantieri offer involved circumventing the formal bidding process which the other vendors were using so they could avoid providing a bid in a form which could be compared directly to the offerings from competitors.

The point of having a bidding process is to ensure that there is a level playing field and that the various bidders will make offers that you can actually compare to one another.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Which is why we will probably either end up with something that's really not very good but has cost a fortune or nothing at all.
We should learn but we won't.

We sit down, we draw up a requirement and we ask, 'What do we need to do the job?' We tend not to over-gild, so what we come up with should be regarded as a/the minimum, not something to immediately start chiselling away at. Default response seems to be, 'That's too expensive'.
 
And here's the rub. Steve Brunton was DShips in the UK DE&S. Just how much exposure to anything beyond UK industry capabilities and processes he's had is - I suspect - minimal. So he could easily assess something beyond his UK experience as not credible. That does not necessarily make it true.

Not trying to denigrate him personally - or talk up whatever Fincantieri said. Point I'm trying to make is that of your experience is primarily in one country, that does not necessarily make you the authority on how well other countries do similar things.
To be fair DE&S has some experience with Foreign yards. Not sure if you could consider it a success however.
 
I think that could be expressed as "one team in DE&S has one experience of a single foreign yard" and it is probably fair to say that the experience has been good and bad on both sides.. That project is a success in that the RFA got four large ships significantly cheaper (so much so that it made the project viable) and quicker than had they contracted in the UK, but that expectations on quality have not been universally met. Some of that is undeniably shipyard and designer fault, some a mix of MoD fault and probably expectation mgmt.
 
I think that could be expressed as "one team in DE&S has one experience of a single foreign yard" and it is probably fair to say that the experience has been good and bad on both sides.. That project is a success in that the RFA got four large ships significantly cheaper (so much so that it made the project viable) and quicker than had they contracted in the UK, but that expectations on quality have not been universally met. Some of that is undeniably shipyard and designer fault, some a mix of MoD fault and probably expectation mgmt.
What short memories we all have. What about Poland, did they not provide the rear sections for Albion and Bulwark?
 
Not if memory serves, no. Barrow was busily stuffing up the steel all by itself.

There is also a significant difference between a shipyard sub-contracting out limited numbers of small steel units - as happened with LSD(A) for the bulbs (Royal Schelde did them if memory serves) and MoD building an entire ship in an overseas yard.

But the interweb doesn't tell you that.
 
I'm not an ASW expert but I work amongst some of the best and they certainly regard the modernised RU Submarine force a real threat. The SSN, SSBN and SSGN platforms they have modernised and the new ones they are building are credible and capable. Sure they've had widely open source reported build problems but look at T45 and thats an exceptionally capable platform.

At the end of the day, like it or not, accept it or otherwise, the technological lead the West enjoyed for years has been erroded. They've caught up and they have mass. Will that entire mass be fully modernised? I suspect thats unlikely but they will still have an incredibly potent force mix and more numbers than we alone will have. Luckily it's a team game and we have a lot of allies.



Odd, given his recent comments upon the modernisation of the RU fleet and the threat it poses.

Russia could cut off internet to NATO countries, British military chief warns
[/QUOTE]

To undoubtedly mis-quote someone..."quantity has a quality all of it's own".

Numbers, do, when it comes down to it, matter.

Look at the air war down south. Losses of 10-1, 20-1, 30-1, with the loss of all harriers, would likely have given the Argies the win.
 
Not if memory serves, no. Barrow was busily stuffing up the steel all by itself.

There is also a significant difference between a shipyard sub-contracting out limited numbers of small steel units - as happened with LSD(A) for the bulbs (Royal Schelde did them if memory serves) and MoD building an entire ship in an overseas yard.

But the interweb doesn't tell you that.
It twas in the local North Western Evening Mail - as was - reported the rear ends were fabricated in Poland.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
To undoubtedly mis-quote someone..."quantity has a quality all of it's own".

Numbers, do, when it comes down to it, matter.

Look at the air war down south. Losses of 10-1, 20-1, 30-1, with the loss of all harriers, would likely have given the Argies the win.
I don't think I said otherwise. My final line says it all.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top