Irving Shipbuilding Inc. has announced the awarding of two significant contracts to L3Harris.

These contracts pertain to the supply and installation of the Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS) and the Control & Instrumentation system for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), which is being built for the Royal Canadian Navy.

The CSC is a variant of the Type 26 Frigate being built for the Royal Navy.

As part of Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), Irving Shipbuilding is constructing 15 CSC ships. These ships will replace the existing Halifax-class frigates and are set to form the backbone of Canada’s naval combat capabilities.

Construction of the Production Test Module for these ships is scheduled to commence this summer, marking a milestone in what is described as the largest and most complex shipbuilding project in Canadian history.

L3Harris will design and deliver the IPMS, a sophisticated system that manages the ship’s propulsion, power generation, and auxiliary functions.

According to the press release, this system is expected to significantly enhance the performance, reliability, and safety of the new combat ships. Manuel Perez, Director of Maritime International Business Development at L3Harris, was quoted in the press release stating, “The integrated systems provided by L3Harris on the CSC are crucial for improving the safety and situational awareness of the CSC’s crew. The system provides navy vessels with real-time monitoring and reliable and effective communication capabilities, which in turn enhances safety, operational efficiency and mission success.”

The work under these contracts will be carried out at L3Harris’ Montreal facility, providing a range of skilled jobs in the region, including positions for systems engineers, project managers, technicians, quality assurance specialists, procurement, and customer support specialists.

Perez also emphasised the longstanding collaboration between L3Harris and Irving Shipbuilding, noting, “L3Harris has a long history of collaborating with Irving Shipbuilding to support the Royal Canadian Navy and serve Canada’s national security interests. We are proud to contribute to the CSC and help deliver the best capabilities and protection for the brave sailors of the Royal Canadian Navy.”

Lee Fromson, Vice President of Supply Chain and Quality at Irving Shipbuilding, remarked on the national impact of the shipbuilding industry, stating, “In ten short years, the NSS has rebuilt Canada’s shipbuilding industry and created supply chains which span nation-wide. We are focused on working with our partners and suppliers to advance the CSC and support our sailors charged with maintaining our security at home and overseas.”

We aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters at the UK Defence Journal. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!

To sign up for our newsletter, click here

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

47 COMMENTS

  1. “L3Harris will design and deliver the IPMS, a sophisticated system that manages the ship’s propulsion, power generation, and auxiliary functions.”

    Interesting so this won’t be a carbon copy of the UK T26 spec in this regard.

    See could be radar power related?

  2. Couple of questions.

    Who actually owns the type 26 base design is it BAE or the British government? As BAE designed it but the government has funded the R&D costs. If it is fully owned by BAE does the British government have a say in who they can sell it to.

    In regards to Irving Shipbuilding and the Canadian government how have they acquired the base design? Have they just paid a lump sum of cash to BAE for the design similar to how you can buy a software package and then taylor it to how you want? Or is it more a % deal so BAE get a % of every ship that is ordered?

    Have we seen a reduction in the price of our Type 26’s because the Canadian and Australian orders? Or because we ordered our long leed items that share commonality with with the two sub-variants long before they ordered there’s we won’t see much of a bulk price difference.

    • Excellent questions you have raised there. The contract for the Canadian version of the Type 26, was awarded to Lockheed Martin of Canada, the remit being to design a fleet of warships, based on the UK Type 26.

      I had thought that the UK paid the development costs, but as Australia and Canada want ‘versions’ of the Type 26, maybe they shared the development cost as well?

    • HM Government retains a golden share in Bae Systems from when British Aerospace was privatised. I believe that this gives the government the right to veto decisions by the board on the grounds of national security.

      • It most certainly does and it also owns a couple of others. Which is probably just as well as US venture capitalists would just buy them, asset strip and sell everything off.
        See Ultra / Cobham for details.
        The main reason for the “Golden Share” in BAe, RR and certain parts of Babcock is they all own key parts of the U.K nuclear defence industry.
        Weird as it sounds the paramount importance of maintaining that industry became obvious when the U.K. Government bought SFM in 2022.
        It provides key products that are nye on impossible to source elsewhere, had to be protected and needed a very expensive modernisation that couldn’t be privately funded.
        HMG bought it for £2.65 million and are busily pumping £400 million into it. It’s now directly owned by MOD and long term I suspect it may well return a profit, due to its export market.
        In his last speech as Defence Secretary BW joked about being a Tory Politician who Nationalised a private industrial firm.

    • All governments have the right to say who military tech & equipment can be sold to. Just ask Argentina – they have struggled to find quality military equipment that UK does not have some say over. Want to buy modern Swedish SAAB fighter jets? You need permission from Sweden, US, UK & possibly others.

    • Why? the Canadian type 26 will build a test part and there is no final design yet.or contract.

      From Ottawa Citizen

      Work is starting on Canada’s newest warship fleet even though government officials acknowledge they don’t have a final cost for the multi-billion dollar project or a final design.

      Defence Minister Bill Blair and Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee, the head of the Royal Canadian Navy, announced Friday that construction will begin for a test module for the first Canadian Surface Combatant or CSC. 

      The building of the test module, essentially a small section of a piece of the ship, allows for construction techniques to be further refined at Irving Shipbuilding on the east coast.

      But at a technical briefing Thursday, senior government officials acknowledged they have yet to figure out a final cost for the CSC project, considered the most expensive and complicated government program since the Second World War. In addition, the design of the ships is still evolving, they acknowledged.

      The project has already faced significant increases in cost from the original estimated price tag of $26 billion. Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux now estimates the cost of the ships to be around $84 billion.

      National Defence had maintained the cost will be between $56 billion and $60 billion. The government will have more insight on the actual cost when it signs a contract with the builders later this year or in early 2025.

      But a former procurement chief for National Defence said moving forward on such an expensive program without having a final design for the ship or actual cost is folly.

      • Very interesting insight. As for costs from what I see Canada tends to pay way more for just about anything Naval than other nations.
        As long as it supports the “Canada 1st” build strategy no one seems to care how much, how long the delays or what other countries pay for similar equipment.

        I had a look at interim support ship MV Asterix and the costs incurred, I nearly wet myself. The RFA bought all 4 Tide class Tankers OTS for way less than leasing and converting a container ship.

        As for the CSC adaption of the T26 I actually think that the spec and choice of equipment is very sensible. If it all works out I suspect that yes the USN will be looking at it with envy, it even looks way better than the Constellation class. Unlike Australia tray aren’t pushing the requirements too far outside of the original design, and what they are inserting are sensible substitutions or additions.
        The Australians also built test hull modules for the Hunter class before the design was finalised, it helps to get the production facilities and workforce settled and up to speed.

        • It should be noted however, just like in Australia, the length has increased (to the Australian length), while beam hasn’t changed. Both Canada & Australia have been fiddling with the design. Canada has also now classified them as destroyers (which seems a stretch). I wonder if BAE’s mission bay missile options showcased in Australia, may show up at some point.

          • I think Canada had a longer length first, I only just noticed the change in the Hunters length.

  5. Btw they are not frigates. From Canadian Government:

    The official NATO Ship Designator for the River-class warship will be DDGH – a destroyer (DD), guided (G) missile, helicopter (H) capable.

    • I have just looked at the names and I have to say I think Canada has absolutely nailed it.
      HMCS Fraser, Mackenzie and St Laurent are names last used in the 1950’s and 60’s on ASW ships.
      I just hope the irony of these choices isn’t lost to anyone, a combination of U.K, US and Canadian components all in a RCN ASW warship.

      In 1948 Canada set up its first warship design team and borrowed a British Naval Architect to steer the progress. That Gent is one of my Engineering Heroes, Sir Rowland Baker RCNC was quite simply a genius of a designer, with some unusual character traits. Post his stint in Canada he was put in charge of the project for the RN Polaris SSBN and he is something of a legend in the UK Nuclear Submarine industry.

      In Canada he deliberately went native and resolved to design a ship that broke the traditional RN clone mode and designed a uniquely identifiable Canadian design. The results were the legendary St Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie and Annapolis class ships. British designed steam propulsion, largely US weapons and sensors all encased in unique Canadian hull which had superb seakeeping.
      Many people point to the similarities in size and propulsion and assume the main differences between them and the RN Type 12 are just cosmetic.
      The truth is that they used a completely different hull shape than RN practice which provides a greater internal hull volume and reserves of stability but also has excellent Sea Keeping.

      I just hope these new ships are as successful as their predecessors.

        • Best bit it’s all true. Baker was a very unusual person at a time when the Military and Civil service was a Bastion of Upper / Middle class privilege. He was the son of a Thames Barge Master and as a child that was the family home. He pronounced has own surname as Byker because he still spoke like one. No airs or graces which is probably why he was never DNC, but his designs were so good that features of many of them are still being used today.
          It’s always been an argument between US and UK as to who is the true father of modern Amphibious ships Niemeyer, Higgins or Baker.
          Fact is if it has a drop ramp at the front and its buoyancy is in the side hull then it goes back to Bakers early RN built LCT design.
          LCT, LST etc and just about every other one used by the allies goes back to the period of WW2 when he got sent to the USA as part of the Admiralty part of the Tizzard mission.
          The raider type infantry boats were definitely down to Higgins.

  6. The RN is going to need more than 8 of these excellent ships. I’d say 12 but would be happy to see a small boost upto 10.

      • I’d rather see T-32 be dropped in favor of just prolonging T-26 building to 12 units, especially if Norway chooses the class for their future fleet.

          • Also. Even if we get a more realistic cost of closer to 500mil for a T32, that’s not going to get you 4 more T26s

          • The 5 batch 2 T26s BAe contract was £4.2 billion plus GFE funded directly by MoD including 5″ main gun, EW/ESM etc., etc. will be approx. £100 million per ship, looking at roughly £940 million per ship whereas a T32 based on a T31 might possibly come in at around £500 million, so think two T32s for cost of one T26.

          • If it’s 2 T31/T32 for 1 T26 there’s a choice whether you want more numbers or extra specialised vessels. Maybe with some juggling you can have a bit of both? With the T32/T83 still a way away an interim increase with the T31/T26 and enhanced versions of both can be options. Why did they only order 5 T31s and not 8? How very useful would some of these be right now patrolling the Red Sea – Gulf areas.
            It’d also be nice to see some further details on the T32.

          • Presumably they only ordered 5 because the treasury was just replacing numbers 1 for 1, they don’t want to pay for more.

    • I don’t disagree but if Norway do order 5, I wouldn’t be quite bothered with just 8. We just go buy something else like a couple of SSN.

  7. Just out of curiosity has the Canadian Sikorsky Cyclone been adopted any other country besides Canada? I wonder how it compares with the Seahawk and Merlin? And if Norway goes for the T26 maybe there’s an opportunity for selling them the Merlin, CAMM/CAMM-MR, new UK torpedos, sonar and anything else. Hope the UK shipping industry and government goes for it!

    • It’s the other way round, Norway wants an OTS solution with minimal changes that is used by another country.
      So I hope the “Norwegian” Government go for it.

      The way Norway has pitched its requirement pretty well tells you that they haven’t exactly enjoyed owning 5 Small Spanish Frigates with a unique weapon and sensor fit.

      • If it’s an ots then there no excuses for the UK government. Keep your eyes open and don’t let this one get away! Good luck 🇬🇧!

  8. It pains me to say it, but Canadian military procurement is some of the worst in the world. There is no way that Canada will get 15 of these ships…

    • Aren’t they building billion dollar patrol boats.. err icebreakers? Seems like the pain/money tolerance is high.

      • I agree they are pricey, but with a displacement greater than a Type 31, they are definitely ships not boats. I sat across the harbour from several of the deWolfs in Halifax last year, and they do look substantial beasts. The cost is about £470m each, or CA$810.

        • The Harry DeWolfe class are multi mission OPVs for Arctic security/sovereignty for the Northwest Passage.

          They present power projection in the Arctic which will be needed as the ice is melting. Having a Cyclone onboard adds to this power projection.

          The Nansivik Naval station, on Baffin Island, is almost completed providing two refueling ports in the Arctic which will provide longer stays for these ships in Canada’s arctic territories

  9. 25 years for 15 vessels. Pathetic. Liberals demolished our military in the 60’s under another trudeau.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here