Canada and Aegis

[RedFive]

I've been saying this for ages. The Aegis system refers to multiple things. The combat management system, the detect to engage software, the radars, the weapon systems...

From the article posted by @calculus


As far as I understand the International Aegis Fire Control Loop (IAFCL) will be integrated into CMS330 along with the CEC. Spy 7 is also considered an Aegis radar. How and where CMS330 ends and Aegis begins I have no idea (and I'm sure LMC doesn't either quite yet).

I know the program to build the CSC is a long one, and the actual hulls hitting the water are far away. Is it normal to buy a handful or a major component at a time? It seems to me that leaves us open to purchasing the latest versions of components as the program proceeds, but at the same time can increase costs to purchase and we could end up with different blocks of vessels with different capabilities.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I know the program to build the CSC is a long one, and the actual hulls hitting the water are far away. Is it normal to buy a handful or a major component at a time? It seems to me that leaves us open to purchasing the latest versions of components as the program proceeds, but at the same time can increase costs to purchase and we could end up with different blocks of vessels with different capabilities.

I would say that buying in (say) chunks of 3-4 is a good way of going.

I know other programs where all the mission kit was bought, in advance. It sat on shelves for years before being installed. In some case it went obsolete before being used and/or the OEM went out of business, leaving no parts support.

Doing it this way is much safer from a future proofing strategy.

 

[Underway]

I know the program to build the CSC is a long one, and the actual hulls hitting the water are far away. Is it normal to buy a handful or a major component at a time? It seems to me that leaves us open to purchasing the latest versions of components as the program proceeds, but at the same time can increase costs to purchase and we could end up with different blocks of vessels with different capabilities.

It's not normally advertized but the CSC is actually a batch build by nature of the contract. The Gov't isn't signing a build contract for all 15 ships upfront, they will likely do three (hence the 4 Aegis systems, 3 for the ship + 1 for land-based training/testing). Sometime in the middle of the build they will look at the second batch of ships. It will look like this:

3 ships, 4 ships, 4 ships, 4 ships.

This is fair to both the taxpayer and ISI. The ships will be built over 25 years or so. The batch model primarily allows for more appropriate pricing info based on the relevant economy with no crazy forecasting required. It also provides structure to modify the design and contract for any number of good reasons, like a subcontractor going belly up or tech changes.

This is really the way most of these long-term shipbuilding projects go.

I know other programs where all the mission kit was bought, in advance. It sat on shelves for years before being installed. In some case it went obsolete before being used and/or the OEM went out of business, leaving no parts support.

Doing it this way is much safer from a future proofing strategy.

This is very true from a ship design program. When the various organizations stick their noses into the PMO's to say "Oh that isn't the way we do it now." they are often told, "You should have said something 5 years ago when the requirements were written, or 3 years ago when the design was being developed or 1 year ago when the design was approved. Equipment has been bought, the build has started. Too late now".

 

[Kirkhill]

The F-35 is a hugely important program for me. We’re still in the early stages. I’ve only had 21 delivered so far of my 48 original order, we’ll be up at 33 next year and 48 in the years after that. I’m very conscious that the reason we bought the F-35Bs was to pair them up with our two carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. [The carriers] are going to be in service until the late 2060s, at least. And so I need a fleet of aircraft that is going to last into that sort of time frame. So I’m taking a very steady view to how I bSuild a fleet up because I need these aircraft to last for that amount of time.
We are committing to growing the fleet and we’re going to continue to grow the fleet. And in that regard, nothing has changed. We’ve had discussions with the F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin this year, and decisions are to be made next year about the next batch of aircraft that we will buy. We have now established two squadrons: a training unit and a front-line squadron. I’m looking to establish a third squadron, and I think I need at least three, probably four squadrons worth of F-35Bs to work off the carriers.
But as I say, this is still a force that we’re growing. And we are going to be operating these platforms for potentially 50 years. So I’m not in any hurry to get to any final figure in the short term. And we will just make sure that we’ve got a force that is sustainable through the life of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

I think the same rationale goes into missiles, radars and engines. And it applies to any Canadian buy of F35s. If the F35s are going to be in service for 40 years should they all be bought at once? Or should they be staged over time?

 

[Underway]

I think the same rationale goes into missiles, radars and engines. And it applies to any Canadian buy of F35s. If the F35s are going to be in service for 40 years should they all be bought at once? Or should they be staged over time?

I suspect that there are different considerations for fleet management when you have 80 of something "cheap" vs 15 of something "expensive" (relatively speaking).

I wouldn't surprise me if the RCAF integrated 20 new fighters a year over 5 years however.