Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
- Thread starter Privateer
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 17,067
- Points
- 1,010
More Cyclones being bought will never happen. We own the entire world supply- 27. Sikorsky is not interested in making more: Canada is not interested in buying more. There is some commonality between Cyclone and an S92, but also significant differences.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,864
- Points
- 1,210
Jean Chretien's gift just keeps giving and giving and giving.
- Reaction score
- 2,082
- Points
- 1,160
. Brilliant move eh?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
Has Sikorsky said that they won't open the line publicly?
- Reaction score
- 6,283
- Points
- 1,040
I imagine there are probably some bits sitting around that would be needed to retool to make more parts at an exorbitant cost, but we were really stupid to buy a one off to our specs and not just require something with an existing fleet of x amount. Especially at less than 30 in total, that's nuts.
I'm a big believer of having imperfect equipment that is widely supportable rather than bespoke solutions, because we don't spend enough (consistently) to make bespoke worthwhile for any manufacturer. Something 'good enough' with hundreds of others in service would have been a much better idea as we're small potatoes and an insignificant customer in the big scheme.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
While I want to agree with you, I suspect that "training and micro fleet" argument will come up. We jumped onto the Cyclone bandwagon and likley it will make sense to stay on it if we play more airframes, not sure how much of the moving bits are common to the other Sikorsky products? i wonder how much in common with the VH-92?
- Reaction score
- 27,526
- Points
- 1,090
So... you're saying we should buy ships off someone else's line instead of our own bespoke solutions? 
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
Subs yes, Type 26's no
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,518
- Points
- 1,140
Wandering a bit off topic here. So there will be (hypothetically) 20-40 Type 26's built, give or take a few, amongst potentially five different countries. I have read that ours will likely be the most capable of the batch, based on the weapons systems that we put on them. I know that we will procure spares for a certain period of time. Is a global batch of 40 enough to ensure that long term cost-effective spares sustainment will be in place? If no, then why will the AOPS build of 6-8 be any different?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
In my experience I never been on one ship that is exactly like the next, even if built in the same yard, plus they each have there own quirky personality. I am not sure how much commonality there will be with the various fleets of Type 26's, perhaps someone can list that on the CSC thread?
- Reaction score
- 27,526
- Points
- 1,090
Certainly we can count on our OEM to provide support at moderate rates throughout the lifecycle.
(Well, moderate, extortionate, your choice...)
(Well, moderate, extortionate, your choice...)
- Reaction score
- 5,969
- Points
- 1,090
There are a number of things to unpack here. AOPS has largely off the shelf equipment with relatively common engineering systems. The military stuff is common across the world already (deck gun) or across our fleet (like radios are common). Spares and parts will be readily available for these for a long time to come. A deck crane or diesel generator is not specialized equipment.
As far as Type 26 one of the interesting things is the global supply chain will be robust as we and two other countries are building these vessels. As far as weapons systems, all the weapons systems that I have seen are not new or orphan children. The UK and NZ already use Sea Ceptor systems. The Mk41 VLS and associated missiles are in use with the entire US Navy and Japanese Navy to start (number one and number three largest navies in the world). The 127mm as either a BAE or Leonardo are in service with many world navies as well. We are upgrading and using the same torpedoes.
Will there be "one off's"? Yes. All ships have one-off parts. There is no warehouse holding a dozen spare gearboxes for warship gas turbines. They are made to order. But because of robust design, these sorts of things are usually good for the life of the ship, or with regular maintenance, you can predict when a replacement is needed and order ahead.
Where things get irritating is with specialized electronic components, which is why much of the electronic backbone of a ship's systems are software defined and use civilian electronics. For things that are special like a Travelling Wave Tube its amazing how fast parts can show up when you order them rush. Saab was quite happy to hand-deliver parts while I was on a NATO, including the staff to help us install it. I see no difference with any other equipment.
As far as cost-effective, well that's a matter of opinion. How cost-effective is it to pay for a bunch of parts you don't know if you will need and then store them? It's not, because that's where just in time manufacturing comes from. Parts that regularly wear our or need refurbishment will be identified and stored. Parts that can be manufactured by the RCN itself will also be identified. If it's not one of these parts, well then we go back to the OEM and buy a new one.
- Reaction score
- 2,082
- Points
- 1,160
Are the Aussies using the same Rolls Royce power plant as the RN/RCN? I think the RR plant in Peterborough Ontario will be producing engine components for the T26.
If another navy does not plan to use the SPY7 perhaps that might be reconsidered lest we have another orphan system. It’s already expensive enough.
If another navy does not plan to use the SPY7 perhaps that might be reconsidered lest we have another orphan system. It’s already expensive enough.
- Reaction score
- 2,082
- Points
- 1,160
Was also just reading LM is trying to have it adopted for the Ticonderoga life extension. That would be a huge ++++
I think this comparison is not fair. Can't compare helicopters, which are usually bought/manufactured/supplied by dozens to vessels, rarely ordered beyond ten units (only RCN Type 26, US Navy ships and a few more examples).So... you're saying we should buy ships off someone else's line instead of our own bespoke solutions?
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
With the currently announced purchases and intent to purchase, the Type 26 is already the most successful frigate design since the Leander's.
Supporting it for a reasonable amount of time should be no problem.
Supporting it for a reasonable amount of time should be no problem.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
Some countries do buy that way, like Israel, KSA because they don't have the industrial base for it or in Israel case the space for it.
- Reaction score
- 6,283
- Points
- 1,040
So... you're saying we should buy ships off someone else's line instead of our own bespoke solutions?
Lol, yeah, saw that coming.
We did actually buy someone else's ship and are just building it ourselves. Ships are a different kettle though; they don't have an OEM. Whether or not it's built in Canada is really immaterial from a long term supportability view as that is really dependent on equipment level selection, but doesn't really matter at the platform level (as that's basically steel bashing and paint).
For example, when we replaced the diesel generators on the Halifax class, the replacement had to have a certain number in operation in marine applications and also be supportable for the life of the associated ISSC (it was a package equipment+support RFP). So even though it may be on completely different types of ships doing totally different things it's easier to support because there is a big user base.
Similarly, with the type 26 if we use the same propulsion engines or whatever as the base design, even if we've changed some other things, we can exchange info with other navies that use it, and generally collaborate on upgrades. We already do that with a variety of systems. The other nice thing is that you can pull into another naval base and if their fleet uses that same piece of kit you can get second line support from them (even if it's just one tech suggesting things with your crew turning wrenches b/c there isn't an official MOU or something in place). Doesn't even need to be on a type 26 platform, as that doesn't really change anything on the equipment itself. Alternately, we could have bought an off the shelf design, then gotten a custom made widget for something that no one else uses/will use, and have a one off, bespoke piece of kit with long term supportability challenges.
Planes, helos and vehicles have their own OEM for the entire platform which is a totally different situation, especially IP wise. This is more like when the Royal Navy bought a one-off gas turbine for their Type 45s and are they are the only ones in the world operating them. They are totally reliant on the OEM for support, and probably pay a premium for any parts or service, as well as to maintain some kind of third line repair stream open. We ended up in that position for a lot of the systems on the 280s and it cost a fortune. Occasionally we would get informed that they were ceasing support and gave us the option for doing a lifetime parts buy. It really sucked.
For contrast, the LM2500 gas turbines in the Halifax class are widely used for marine, oil and gas and other applications. They are much easier to maintain (in terms of parts and support) and there are even OEM licensed third line repair facilities, so generally speaking we have a lot more options, and there is a really low chance we'll be the last ones left operating them.
If we're starting out as the only operators of Cyclones in the world, we're kind of hooped from the start. My $0.02, but the CAF is a bit player and can't afford to be the only user of planes/heloes/vehicle platforms, or bespoke equipment on ships.
