- Reaction score
- 22,785
- Points
- 1,360
Not with the SPY-7 radar it sure won’t be.
Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,462
- Points
- 1,160
Seen. On the other hand even minimizing the ITAR load, so as to make a full non-ITAR product more easily produceable, might make for some interesting marketing opportunities - to, say, countries like India? Swap the SPY-7 for a SMART-L / APAR suite?
- Reaction score
- 17,705
- Points
- 1,010
I think we looked at both and concluded that the SPY-7 best fit for what we were trying to achieve, sensorwise. Notwithstanding the ITAR penalty.
- Reaction score
- 8,462
- Points
- 1,160
Gotcha SKT. I don't know enough to argue the toss either way.
I am just pondering whether, for another customer, we could do something different - something that would set us apart from the Brits and the Aussies and keep our yards open. Although the Brits will also be producing Types 31, 32 and 83 from their yards.
I am just pondering whether, for another customer, we could do something different - something that would set us apart from the Brits and the Aussies and keep our yards open. Although the Brits will also be producing Types 31, 32 and 83 from their yards.
- Reaction score
- 22,785
- Points
- 1,360
SPY-7 (based on my knowledge of its precursor and leveraged systems) is an excellent capability. It’s BMD capabilities alone, are an excellent ticket to admission to the THAD world...
- Reaction score
- 17,705
- Points
- 1,010
And, I wonder, does it open the door for AEGIS Ashore to recapitalize the NWS as part of NORAD?
SPY-7 (based on my knowledge of its precursor and leveraged systems) is an excellent capability. It’s BMD capabilities alone, are an excellent ticket to admission to the THAD world...
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
Perhaps a naval engineer can weigh in - but once you start changing the radar fit, one would think there might be additional design changes needed to account for weight differences & power requirements? I suppose as long as it's lighter and less power hungry system it should be less of a challenge?
LMC already does system integratation work for foreign navies (Chile comes to mind), so I'm sure they could lend expertise elsewhere around the globe. I doubt India will be building at Irving, though.
(but don't think that's what you were suggesting?)
- Reaction score
- 8,462
- Points
- 1,160
Perhaps a naval engineer can weigh in - but once you start changing the radar fit, one would think there might be additional design changes needed to account for weight differences & power requirements? I suppose as long as it's lighter and less power hungry system it should be less of a challenge?
LMC already does system integratation work for foreign navies (Chile comes to mind), so I'm sure they could lend expertise elsewhere around the globe. I doubt India will be building at Irving, though.
Irving might get another 4 or 5 hulls out of the deal before "licencing" additional hulls to India. It could also poach on Arab and Indonesian purchases.
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
After re-reading your other post, I see you did indeed mean building in Canada.
My gut says that other nations would prefer to buy from more established shipbuilders, or build locally with some outside help in terms of design/systems integration. The Canadian government also does it's best to alienate current & future customers.
I think Canada should focus on leveraging eventual (I hope) success of CSC into other domains i.e. NWS as SKT suggested, GBAD etc. CAF has a long shopping list it needs to remain viable going forward.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,386
- Points
- 1,160
Told the State Department that I felt so much safer that they restricted the Chinese and AQ from getting their hands onto grip screws for a Sig pistol and that the Chinese thank them for removing the US from the market. ITAR got utterly stupid there for awhile. They dialed back a bit but still...
I get it for radars and the like, but not for small arms.
- Reaction score
- 6,312
- Points
- 1,090
As soon as you change any equipment you change the connected equipment. Changing a radar changes the emissions, which can change the entire integrated topside design (where to you try to stop interference between all your transmitters and recievers). It changes the weight up high (1 ton added up high could mean 4 tons of ballast which is wasted tonnage), the power requirements, cooling requirements (weight changes up high again), CMS requirements, different equipment in rooms which changes HVAC, and how pipes/electrical move around or through that space. It could also change your physical/electronic security requirements which change how your doors/hatches/bulkheads are built.
Change costs money. Lots of money. And sometimes it's better to eat the "good enough" so you don't waste time and money on the "perfect".
No. All the cryptographic units are ITAR therefore anything that uses them will be subject to it. So that's LINK, IFF, and other communication devices. Essentially there probably isn't a NATO ship that exists that doesn't have ITAR on it somewhere due to LINK and IFF.
I'm confident that the CSC is looking at performance-based equipment selection. If it's not ITAR then that's a bonus. We'll deal with ITAR when we have to. Canada has lots of experience doing that.
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
Very informative - thanks!
- Reaction score
- 1,771
- Points
- 1,060
It seems to me as a casual observer that ease of system integration has been a strong driver of equipment choice. Lockheed Martin's involvement may bias the selection as well.
So you have LM Spy-7 over Thales APAR or Raytheon
Ultra over Thales or General Dynamic Mission Systems
or even abandoning DRS Technologies SHINCOM?
So you have LM Spy-7 over Thales APAR or Raytheon
Ultra over Thales or General Dynamic Mission Systems
or even abandoning DRS Technologies SHINCOM?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,386
- Points
- 1,160
Once Canada has built at least one CSC, we could work out design alterations for selected alternative equipment for Radar and weapon systems, that we could offer to other nations. They get a short list of design options that would work. That might be marketable and competitive.
- Reaction score
- 6,312
- Points
- 1,090
Well APAR, Thales, and SHINCOM were all in on the Alion bid. Which lost the competition.
So any time you hear complaints about that then you can just insert who lost and who won and decide for yourself whether there are sour grapes or an attempt to get some of that sweet CSC cash as a motivator.
- Reaction score
- 28,537
- Points
- 1,090
System integration is costly, with no promise of return on investment. Should the prime contractor desire to do so, let them do it at their own expense.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,866
- Points
- 1,210
HMS Glasgow: First Look At Type 26's Complete Scale
The front and rear blocks have been joined to show off the full size of the ship, for the first time.
Meanwhile the first Type 26 in the UK HMS Glasgow has had its two hull sections merged.
I totally agree as a general principle 
I am glad they are building theirs first, and Irving has a team of folks monitoring the build to observe efficiencies, possible problems, etc etc so they learn from the experience of the Brits first.
Just looking at that hull, these ships are going to be cool looking
I am glad they are building theirs first, and Irving has a team of folks monitoring the build to observe efficiencies, possible problems, etc etc so they learn from the experience of the Brits first.
Just looking at that hull, these ships are going to be cool looking
