• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
712
Points
1,060
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?
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,810
Points
910
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?
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.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
712
Points
1,060
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.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,623
Points
1,160
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.
👍🏼

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...
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,810
Points
910
👍🏼

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...
And, I wonder, does it open the door for AEGIS Ashore to recapitalize the NWS as part of NORAD?
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
173
Points
630
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?
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. :D (but don't think that's what you were suggesting?)
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
712
Points
1,060
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. :D (but don't think that's what you were suggesting?)


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.
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
173
Points
630
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.
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 Legend
Reaction score
1,752
Points
940
I doubt it. We will inevitably have systems with US IP inside of them.

However, where ever we can avoid having to deal with the US State Department, we should.
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.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
793
Points
1,010
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?
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".
Could the CSC be completely non-ITAR?

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.
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
173
Points
630
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".
Very informative - thanks!
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
114
Points
430
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?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,752
Points
940
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.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
793
Points
1,010
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?

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.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,275
Points
890
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.

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.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
692
Points
990
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 :)
 
Top