Author Topic: Kingston Class 40MM replacement?  (Read 56199 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 142
Re: Kingston Class 40MM replacement?
« Reply #100 on: June 22, 2018, 13:23:07 »
Frankly I think you are giving them to much credit in the planning department, more like fumbling in the dark and stubbing their toes on things, then reacting.

⬆️ This seems likelier...

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 242
Re: Kingston Class 40MM replacement?
« Reply #101 on: June 22, 2018, 13:57:31 »
Here's an article discussing this.

https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2017/06/4964


Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 142
Re: Kingston Class 40MM replacement?
« Reply #102 on: June 22, 2018, 15:12:14 »
Here's an article discussing this.

https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2017/06/4964

Yessir, that’s exactly the article I was referring to. It’s really baffling why this just evaporated. I had even chatted briefly with Adm John Newton about it and was left with the opinion that this project was a done deal. It looked like a rare procurement success story, one that was quiet, useful, relatively inexpensive, logical and without any kind of political intrigue. But, of course, here we are now...

Thanks for finding that link, Czech.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 885
Re: Kingston Class 40MM replacement?
« Reply #103 on: June 22, 2018, 15:47:27 »
Quote
Looking ahead, the Naval Nanuk’s eight-month Maritime Technical Evaluation on HMCS Goose Bay, which includes Operation CARRIBE and Operation NANOOK, will be used to optimise the RCWS’s performance, and will potentially pave the way for future RCWS installs on all Kingston class vessels.

It's right in the article (quoted above).  It was a trial.  Trials don't always end up in a contract.  It might have informed the frigate RWS procurement, or technical training/employment of RWS going forward. Remember MCDV's were the first to use UAV's, and trialed the Scaneagle and Puma first.  But the frigates in 2011 (and going forward currently) are the one's who did and are going to benefit most from that trial usage.  It's not uncommon for the smaller ships to sail with equipment bound for the larger ships eventually just to see how things go.

It might have not met the technical specifications fully.  It might not have increased the MCDV capabilities enough related to they systems cost.  Or maybe the most effective thing was the optics system and they decided that an optics system by itself is better.  Or perhaps a full contract is in the works, and we just don't know about it.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 142
Re: Kingston Class 40MM replacement?
« Reply #104 on: June 22, 2018, 16:43:12 »
It's right in the article (quoted above).  It was a trial.  Trials don't always end up in a contract.  It might have informed the frigate RWS procurement, or technical training/employment of RWS going forward. Remember MCDV's were the first to use UAV's, and trialed the Scaneagle and Puma first.  But the frigates in 2011 (and going forward currently) are the one's who did and are going to benefit most from that trial usage.  It's not uncommon for the smaller ships to sail with equipment bound for the larger ships eventually just to see how things go.

It might have not met the technical specifications fully.  It might not have increased the MCDV capabilities enough related to they systems cost.  Or maybe the most effective thing was the optics system and they decided that an optics system by itself is better.  Or perhaps a full contract is in the works, and we just don't know about it.

The timeline doesn’t work out re: the RWS for the CPF’s. The order for 58 units had already been placed with Raytheon prior to the MCDV trial with the NANUK. Maybe they were thinking about ASTERIX?

As far as the usefulness goes, I’d be hard pressed to think that anyone wouldn’t find a weapon handy that could be fired from the protection of the bridge, targeted accurately in any weather or light condition and also included the ability for better surveillance/visual reference under those same varying conditions. Even at that, why not leave the EO-IR onboard for it’s obvious benefits?

And, it was reusing idle stock to accomplish it.

I could be way off, but it just screams that the plan was to carry this forward across the MM fleet, but something caused a hard left.

I do get that the MCDV has been and remains an excellent platform to trial equipment, but it seems like this one was bound to be for them. Otherwise, it’s throwing R&D money at a question that no one asked and as such didn’t need answering.

Offline IN ARDUA NITOR

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 144
Re: Kingston Class 40MM replacement?
« Reply #105 on: June 23, 2018, 09:47:54 »
The RCWS and NANUK were always different projects. RCWS has a place within FFH modernization and JSS.

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1745

I think if you delve into the SSE defence policy you might find (rather not find) the reason why the funding for KIN Class NANUK evaporated.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 142
Re: Kingston Class 40MM replacement?
« Reply #106 on: June 23, 2018, 11:34:21 »
The RCWS and NANUK were always different projects. RCWS has a place within FFH modernization and JSS.

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1745

I think if you delve into the SSE defence policy you might find (rather not find) the reason why the funding for KIN Class NANUK evaporated.

If I read your post right, I’m guessing you don’t figure there’s a place for the MCDV in the fleet for too much longer. Or, are you saying that they’re putting out so much $ on other projects, that they cut this one? Or, maybe both? I think I’m picking up what you’re laying down, but it could be a couple different things, if I’m reading between the lines.

Offline IN ARDUA NITOR

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 144
Re: Kingston Class 40MM replacement?
« Reply #107 on: June 23, 2018, 19:02:44 »
If I read your post right, I’m guessing you don’t figure there’s a place for the MCDV in the fleet for too much longer. Or, are you saying that they’re putting out so much $ on other projects, that they cut this one? Or, maybe both? I think I’m picking up what you’re laying down, but it could be a couple different things, if I’m reading between the lines.

I didnt intend to speculate as to the long term future of the Class just this one project. I believe that MEPM and the RCN are probably doing some work to asccertain what a life extension looks like financially

The NANUK project does not meet any of the SSE objectives - ergo, it is likely not a financial priority any longer. It certainly wouldnt compete favourably with other projects vying for limited Vote 5 bucks (in my opnion)

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 142
Re: Kingston Class 40MM replacement?
« Reply #108 on: June 23, 2018, 20:56:50 »
I didnt intend to speculate as to the long term future of the Class just this one project. I believe that MEPM and the RCN are probably doing some work to asccertain what a life extension looks like financially

The NANUK project does not meet any of the SSE objectives - ergo, it is likely not a financial priority any longer. It certainly wouldnt compete favourably with other projects vying for limited Vote 5 bucks (in my opnion)

It would appear that they plan to spend SOME money on the MCDV fleet, at least. Interesting bit re: dynamic positioning/bow thrusters project. And, a satellite comms upgrade to boot. That’s all good news, too.