Dave Dunlop
New Member
I believe IMO that if Australia decided to go with the F100/Navantia, the it would make Canada's decision to go with the LM/BAE Type 26 Frigate a much easier one.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Dave Dunlop
New Member
Some interesting thoughts, but the "cure" process for Canada was always going to be there no matter which design the Australians decided upon. One of the most important things the Canadian government has always wanted in it's CSC is an Aegis style system and some sort of Phased Array Radar to facilitate it's shore bombardment and BMD requirements for the CSC. That's where the Locheed Martin Consortium with BAE comes into the picture. The new LM CCM 330 software already on board the Halifax Class Frigates will dove-tail well with any Aegis Platform.
Seriously ..... What? What is your basis for this spurious comment. How can a decision by Australia to build the F-5000 provide and advantage to the T-26 in the unrelated CSC process. There are some advantages to a common product in logistics but both the CSC and Sea5000 are looking at a reasonable number of hulls and long build cycle so this is to critical.
At the end of the day it will be the requirments and industry package that will drive the selection.
Having read you posts it appears you enjoy making spurious and unsupported comments in order to get a rise from others.
Dave Dunlop
New Member
Don't forget about the "Political" factors at the end of the day, during the selection process. My comments are....my opinions. As long as they promote healthy discussions, I can handle that.
As far as radar, the Canadians may favour APAR Block 2, what with it having Canadian heritage & Canadian suppliers.
If you want to create discusssion the explain extactly how the Sea5000 section going to the to the F-5000 would make the adoption of the the T-26 under the CSC project easier. You quote ‘political factors’ .... what are they?
If you are looking at ‘phased array’ then the F-5000 has that in spades and has worked with the US on the design of the F-100 so I don’t see how there is logic this offers the T-26 an advantage simply because LM are in the frame.
If you cannot provide this information or back up you comments the you are simply being vexatious. If there is evidence to support your comment then it would be interesting, however, if you cannot explain it and is is just to get a rise from others then you don’t belong here.
So please provide some support for your observation.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
As per my comment on the RCN thread, the cure bids are due July 21 and a decision is supposed to happen by years end. Not holding my breath on that.
That makes sense but then again we are talking about Canadian procurement! In any event, I am sure junior wants this dragged out. If Navantia is selected for both the Australian and American programs prior to the CSC decision, a political influence could well occur in Navantia's favour.
Yes, that is correct.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The Lockheed Martin Canada CMS 330 is a combat management system, as is Aegis. AFAIK, warships do not have two distinct CMS installed, for much the same reason computer systems would not have two operating systems installed and running at the same time which would mean a vessel would have either the CMS 330, or Aegis CMS, not both. Incidentally, a phased radar array aboard a warship tends to be more used for air search/defence roles and not to facilitate shore bombardment as mentioned above.
At this point, it does almost seem like commentary is just being tossed out to see what the reactions are, and such behavior does not promote healthy discussion, which in turn means the moderators frown on such activity.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Makes sense which is why I don't understand the Saab 9LV tactical interface to Aegis. Is this not redundant?
Another point of important difference is that the Canadian ships will be built by Irving who is the Prime. This adds all sorts of complications to the bidding process.
In contrast the Australian ships will be built in an Australian government owned shipyard, leased to the bidder who is the Prime contractor, this certainly simplifies many issues for the bidding companies.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I think the above is something people have been reading into/assuming. The actual text of a statement about the SEA 5000 CMS taken from the Australian Department of Defence here.
People seem to keep assuming that the tactical interface is the Saab 9LV, when the above information suggests to me that the Saab's division in Australia developed something either completely different from the 9LV, or a 9LV subsystem which can be installed and integrated independently. If one looks at the link provided to Saab's 9LV page, it seems that specific portions of the 9LV like fire control can be installed and integrated into other combat management systems.
Given that Australia will be using CEA FAR phased array radar, and I suspect CEA MOUNT as an illuminator, then it is distinctly possible that Saab Australia could have developed software and hardware bundles to process and control those systems.
While I don't know the situation wrt Sea 5000, the DDGs also have an Australian Tactical Interface to Aegis, developed by Kongsberg. It is there because
a. A number of parts of the combat have been sourced from non US suppliers;
b. These systems had not previously been not integrated into Aegis, and the USN would have no interest in so integrating them;
c. For Australia to manage the integration into Aegis, even assuming the USN gave approval to do so, would have been prohibitively expensive;
d. So the obvious solution was development of an ATI which requires only one (relatively simple) interface to Aegis to be developed.
a. A number of parts of the combat have been sourced from non US suppliers;
b. These systems had not previously been not integrated into Aegis, and the USN would have no interest in so integrating them;
c. For Australia to manage the integration into Aegis, even assuming the USN gave approval to do so, would have been prohibitively expensive;
d. So the obvious solution was development of an ATI which requires only one (relatively simple) interface to Aegis to be developed.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I thought Saab developed the tactical interface?
Dave Dunlop
New Member
Good discussions
We all may agree to disagree, but....., good discussions by all!! I have done my job. Have A Great NAVY Day!!!!.
Not for the Hobart class, it’s Kongsberg. They did a similar job for the Norwegian Aegis ships. There have been suggestions that whatever SAAB ends up developing for Sea 5000 might be backfitted for commonality, but that’s about all it is currently, a suggestion.
Last edited:
This is of course your opinion, based on nothing more than speculation. What complications exactly are added by having Irving as the Prime? There are a lot of myths being propagated by members of this forum about Irving owning the intellectual property, but that is not and never has been the case. The Government of Canada will own the intellectual property. End story. Also, I see no advantage to the Australian scheme of having a government owned yard (even if it is leased to the Prime) build its frigates, over having a privately run yard like Irving build the Canadian vessels.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Out of curiosity, has the GoC negotiated a contract with Irving with respect to what it will cost to build the selected CSC design? Perhaps something along the lines of a cost+ contract?
Without something like than already in place, I could easily see how having a private yard involved could make the bidding more complicated, as the contenders would then need to determine (or negotiate) what the costs would be for Irving to build their respective designs.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Good question. I don't know, would there be any significant differences in build costs between any of these similar sized designs, none of Irving has any experience with.
Dave Dunlop
New Member
The bidding process and decision by the Canadian Government will determine which bidder will win the contract to have Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax build the 15 CSC ships. Irving shipyard was the winner of a competition of several Canadian shipyard contenders. The negotiations with each CSC contender by the government will determine how much % wise of intellectual property the Canadian Government will own (not Irving). The Canadian Government has already allocated $61.82B CAD (2018 dollars) for Irving to build these 15 ships (not including weapons, ammunition or training). Over the next few dozen years, the acquisition/build could go as high as $130-150B CAD. A huge investment!!