Sorry for the one liner but PSPC recent history suggests that decision making is not a strong point. They may be hindered by the Government decision making but their handling of the frigate replacement RFT is tortuous.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Certainly PSPC's track record is pretty bad but DND and the pollies contribute to the numerous C-Fs mightily. For the sake of the RCN, hopefully is process doesn't fall off the rails. The selection of any one of the three known bids would be a success. Steel needs to be cut as soon as possible after the AOPS build is completed.
It seems that Canada has always marched to its own drum in procurement . For example Military pattern trucks, they did not procure a truck that was in use in other allied army's that would be expected or favored to win . They picked instead one out of left field but had the most benefit to Canadian industry I guess.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
IIRC trucks were ordered from Mack Defence and they are almost a year late and deliveries are to start in April, that's almost like lightspeed for a Canadian military acquisition (assuming deliveries actually begin in April)! As for Canadian content, other users, and actual capabilities, don't know.
OT however the Canadian MPT's where a long term plan with British support from the 1930's. It isnt a program to be scoffed at or statements of Canada going it alone as they didnt, It started from a British design with British support, It bought together several auto manufacturers to produce the same vehicle (true economies of scale there) and as a result over 500,000 of them where made and used by nations through out the entire Commonwealth. Its the sort of program one should hope to emulate.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Don’t understand why Canada would bother with this study. Given our geography, the solution is obvious IMHO. Buy some P-8s while we still can!
Canada and Poland Join Six NATO Allies in Developing Next-Generation Maritime Multi Mission Aircraft
Canada and Poland Join Six NATO Allies in Developing Next-Generation Maritime Multi Mission Aircraft
I believe that Airbus bought a 50.01% majority stake in the Bombardier C Series. Perhaps it could be a candidate for the airframe of any new Maritime Multi Mission Aircraft. In any case they could reasonably expect some offset work.
Mostly though I expect the real reason is that Canada wants to completely cut its ties with Boeing.
J_Can
Member
That would very interesting to see a C-series in the MPA, I never really thought it would be that commercial viable due to the competition with the P-8 and to a lesser extent the P-1. However it seems there is a distinct need for a guess green/ blue water capable MPA. An air-frame that will mostly operate close to shore loiter for a long time, but also have the ability to go out into the deep ocean. I think Saab tried to get that market going with the Swordfish MPA idea however I think to many forces believed it did not have the necessary endurance either fuel/coolant, sensors, or weapon load out.
Perhaps with the idea of NATO nations have strong defence ties and mutual security concerns, this green/ blue water MPA could be shown to be wanted by say the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, and maybe even Sweden. I believe it is possible but unlikely however considering how most pan-nato things work out, extremely over budget and extremely late in deliver.
On a side note I always wonder why the federal government has such angst with supporting a stand-alone MPA platform for C-series they could have partnered with say Lockheed or Saab. It has been obvious for years that federal government wanted to support the C-series financial so why not use the excuse of national defence to do it. It is the perfect win for any federal government either liberal or conservative. Support the troops, support high-tech industry, pander to Quebec, and support "middle-class Canadian families."; just my whole two cents on the matter.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
While this is the RCN thread and not an aircraft thread, I do feel it pertinent to reply here. Further discussion on MPA or other aircraft should likely be done in a relevant aircraft thread.
When discussing the introduction of a new MPA design, there are plenty of airframe platforms available to serve as the base, so the platform is really not an issue. Where the problems usually occur is in the fitting and integration of the avionics and weapon systems. Typically the larger and more capable the desired fitout, the more complex and therefore more difficult, costly, and risky the design and integration will be.
While a 'green' C-series airframe could serve as the base of an MPA, if the desired end goal is to have a sensor and weapons performance comparable to that of the P-8A Poseidon, then such an aircraft is going to require some significant design work and cost, and the mission systems themselves are going to have to be advanced and correspondingly expensive.
From my perspective, while it could possibly be done, from an economic standpoint the idea could well be a failure since any such design is essentially 're-inventing' the wheel to compete with the P-8A Poseidon, or the P-1. Given the difficulties Airbus Military is still having with the A400M programme, I cannot imagine the company wishing to attempt something as complicated as an advanced MPA fitout without obtaining guarantees from future customers first. After all, Airbus had proposed an MPA-version of their A319 as a competitor to Boeing's P-8 Poseidon to replace the P-3 Orion, and as a replacement for Atlantique 2 MPA, but AFAIK the proposal never really took off. By the same token, given the A400M difficulties, I doubt potential launch customers would be all that comfortable placing themselves into a position where they are paying to develop a new aircraft which might not meet desired specs when they are needed, if ever.
it may be "interesting" to see a C series MPA but these aircraft don't just appear out of fantasy land. They may all be based on commercial airliners but their development is a long and complex process requiring many years of design, airframe changes, integration, testing etc ad nauseum.
To give you some idea, the USN began the process of replacing the P3 in the 1980s and after several companies proposals they chose Boeing and awarded them a development contract in 2004.
There is a difference between a fully capable MPA and a reworked airliner which some banana republic chucks in a radar and a few sonar buoys and calls it one. This is not what Canada needs, she needs a fully integrated, networked solution that fits in seemlessly with her allies, which contributes fully to the tasks given and is capable of being supported by, not only the RCAF but also by her close allies in every theatre
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
The USN thread has an update on the contenders for the USN frigate program. NO TYPE 26 at this stage.
Both LCS designs, F100, FREMM and NSC variants.
Should be an interesting competition.
Both LCS designs, F100, FREMM and NSC variants.
Should be an interesting competition.
Could be tough for the T26 as it is not an ‘in service design’ at this stage. I can imagine there is a lot to like with the F100 derivative as there is a lot of US DNA in the design and they can leverage off the work done on the Hobart Class DDG.
It will be interesting.
Like Tods post MPA is very borderline off topic naval wise, thus I also apoligise.
I might be wearing my skeptic hat here but there just seems to be a strong degree of political petulance about this. I have developed quite a jaundice about the ability of the european based aviation industry and their defence sector in particular, to deliver the goods on time, on budget, and on capability promises. What will happen is that poor old Canada will miss the P-8A (which is the sensible solution), blow 100's of millions for a while on this Euro-Ego trip, a non Junior government will pull the pin and then Canada end up with the Kawasaki P-1 or do it themselves whilst working with a large US specialist defence sector firm that know what they are doing.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Mr. C, I fear your prediction is spot on. It might even be worse, no MPA at all as junior is leading our economy towards a massive train wreck.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
MrC you are correct but I might add that many US programs over the years have suffered the same namely Zumwalt and its rail gun, and LCS on the navy side, ARH and F35 (please don not crucify me but its been 20 years in development and still not fully functional), USMC EFV. All these programs received billions of dollars in development and no operational end result as expected.
Political interference, corruption, ego, technology impact those projects that have failed. That combined with slick sales pitches that this or that product can do all kinds of things at less cost so countries buy less expecting more capability. When has that ever worked?
As to the likely outcome of MPA / ISR aircraft for Canada and Europe I will take this to the RCAF thread.
Political interference, corruption, ego, technology impact those projects that have failed. That combined with slick sales pitches that this or that product can do all kinds of things at less cost so countries buy less expecting more capability. When has that ever worked?
As to the likely outcome of MPA / ISR aircraft for Canada and Europe I will take this to the RCAF thread.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The flipside of the examples listed is the following question. How many of these systems were marketed and/or sold to foreign nations as in-service or MOTS systems, as opposed to clearly advising customers or potential customers that the kit is still in development and that there is little to no real-world data to support statements about capability, availability, support and through-life costs, etc.
Something else which goes along with that, is that many of the US weapons programmes which have at times been problematic and/or significantly reduced or cancelled are development programmes that are attempting to push the envelope with the USG paying for the R&D. That in turn means two things, the first is that customers (apart from the US) are not paying to develop the kit, as that has already been done. The second is that even if or when these development programmes do not result in fielding new or replacement kit, the associated tech can be used elsewhere in current and future developments.
Another darkhorse could be Saab's Swordfish which will be based on the Bombardier Global 6000 business jet or the Bombardier’s Q400 turboprop. Somewhat smaller than the P-8a but the Swedes do seem to be able to cram a lot of capability into their small airframes.
The fact that they are cheaper and based Bombardier airframes has got to be a big selling point.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The CH-148 Cyclone is an example of why Canada should have taken advantage of something that was already developed (Merlin comes to mind). The H-92 military version derivative of the S-92 was a paper design that the US had no interest in. The CH-148/H-92 would never have happened without the inept Liberal Party of Canada ordering it in order to save political face. The RCN and Canadian taxpayers are paying the price. Even if works out, I can't see any other country buying Cyclones.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Currently SeaSpan is finishing off 3 research vessels and starting a 4th. Meanwhile this news explains new legal action with a subcontractor. One has to wonder what will happen when they began construction on the larger and more complicated projects (Berlin AORs and the heavy icebreaker).
Vancouver Shipyards launches lawsuit against federal vessel subcontractor
Vancouver Shipyards launches lawsuit against federal vessel subcontractor
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
This link outlines the sonar problem with block 1 cyclones. All block 1 cyclones will be upgraded to the block 2 configuration which has the sonar unit inside the fuselage. Hopefully FOC should occur well before the first CSC does ( should be a certainty but......)
Attempt to improve Cyclone helicopter caused problems related to sonar equipment
Attempt to improve Cyclone helicopter caused problems related to sonar equipment