CANADA

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: CANADA

Post by xav »

Alion Submitted Final Proposal For Canadian Surface Combatant Program
Image
Alion Canada, a wholly owned subsidiary of Alion Science and Technology, headquartered in McLean, Va., is pleased to announce that they have submitted their final bid and compliance forms to the Canadian government for the Canadian Surface Combatant Program. This is a major milestone in the Canadian Surface Combatant procurement.procurement.
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... ogram.html

Navantia-Saab Team Submits CSC Program Bid
Image
The Navantia-Saab Team are very pleased to announce the submission of its proposal to Irving Shipbuilding for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Program. Through this significant opportunity, Navantia and Saab look forward to working with Irving Shipbuilding, the Canadian Government and the Royal Canadian Navy to providea state of the art, proven operational warship, a version of which is already in service with the Royal Australian Navy.
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... m-bid.html

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: CANADA

Post by inch »

Thanks thought it had gone silent for a bit there ,hopefully they make decision before not too long and put us all out of guessing game

chinook88
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 15 Jan 2017, 06:31
Chile

Re: CANADA

Post by chinook88 »

A doubt. The type 26 offered for the CSC program, which CMS will integrate?

I say this thinking that if they want to integrate a TASS/VDS system like the 2087/Captas-4 in their local CMS {Lockheed Martin CMS-330} ... they would have a lot of the work done, since it was part of the requirements of the Chilean Navy in its Type 23 frigates.

Regards

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: CANADA

Post by R686 »


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

It took a couple of days for it to become clear why the NAFTA 2.0 is called, not NAFTA, but US-M-CA:

"Article 32.10 requires any USMCA nation to notify the other two members three months before launching free trade talks with a non-market economy. The other countries can review any deal before it’s signed and, once a new pact between a USMCA member and a non-market economy takes effect, the other two members can terminate the trilateral North American agreement and strike a bilateral one.
“They can basically pull the chute and kick you out by virtue of what they feel violates that clause,” said Peter MacKay, who served as foreign minister under Trudeau’s predecessor and is now a partner at law firm Baker & McKenzie LLP. “The government doesn’t seem to be very forthcoming as to why they would want to become supplicant to the United States in a trade war with China.”
Others argue the change is more symbolic. “While I understand why people see this provision as a bit of an infringement on Canadian sovereignty, that’s not typical of an FTA"
...going on to say that at practical level it only has any significance IF there is a trade war. Writing options includes the possibility that the other party could exercise the "call" embedded in it. Especially with American-style options: "An American option on the other hand may be exercised at any time" says Wiki.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

No surprises there
"Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Saab, Dassault and Airbus were all named Thursday to Canada’s official fighter jet supplier list, which allows them to receive information about plans to buy 88 jets and ultimately bid on the program."
if you don't count Boeing being there as such
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

What platform would Airbus be putting forward? Are they partnered with another manufacturer?

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Aethulwulf »


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Looking for updates did not return much... except this :D from the best fighter for canada -website
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

Since when did the Eurofighter consortium become Airbus. Was it done on the QT because I cannot remember hearing anything about it.

chinook88
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 15 Jan 2017, 06:31
Chile

Re: CANADA

Post by chinook88 »

Type 26 Frigate wins Canadian frigate competition
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-26 ... mpetition/

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: CANADA

Post by SKB »



Government of Canada delivers on its commitment to the Navy by announcing next steps in fleet procurement
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service ... ement.html

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

Just shows that if you design/build it right they will come. Does help that the T-26 is the only platform of its generations that is ASW focused though.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: CANADA

Post by Dahedd »

So these will replace the Halifax frigates? They don't operate any air defence oriented ships ? (Destroyers)

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: CANADA

Post by Pseudo »

Dahedd wrote:So these will replace the Halifax frigates? They don't operate any air defence oriented ships ? (Destroyers)
Last I checked they're supposed to replace the Halifax's and Iroquois' with a single surface combatant.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

I thought the Iroquois had already gone or soon to be. At least one had been used as a target.

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: CANADA

Post by Halidon »

The IROQUOIS and her sisters are all gone, the RCN retired them without replacement. A portion of the single-class combatant buy is/was going to have an AAW focus to restore the lost capability.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Caribbean »

Halidon wrote:A portion of the single-class combatant buy is/was going to have an AAW focus to restore the lost capability.
Interesting - that feeds into the thought that the T45 replacement will be on a T26-based hull.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: CANADA

Post by Pseudo »

Lord Jim wrote:I thought the Iroquois had already gone or soon to be. At least one had been used as a target.
That's the magic of Canadian defence procurement for you.:P

With that in mind, I'd be surprised if they end up with more than ten T26's.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

Halidon wrote:The IROQUOIS and her sisters are all gone, the RCN retired them without replacement. A portion of the single-class combatant buy is/was going to have an AAW focus to restore the lost capability.
Does that mean a few will have SM-2s in some of their MK41s but retain the same electronics , radar and so on as their sisters, or will a few have different systems, becoming a sub-class within the single class?

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: CANADA

Post by Halidon »

Lord Jim wrote:
Halidon wrote:The IROQUOIS and her sisters are all gone, the RCN retired them without replacement. A portion of the single-class combatant buy is/was going to have an AAW focus to restore the lost capability.
Does that mean a few will have SM-2s in some of their MK41s but retain the same electronics , radar and so on as their sisters, or will a few have different systems, becoming a sub-class within the single class?
I'm treading carefully because I don't know how much has changed/is changing as they progress toward a final contract, but as laid out in this Jane's piece the plan was for a small number of fully AAW-equipped hulls, potentially futher hulls with the same senors as the AAW hulls but not as fully equipped for that mission, and the bulk of the class finished as multi-role/GP combatants.

EDIT: I was rushing out the door this morning and so had typos as well as mishmashed thoughts. Hope its a litttle more clear now.

chinook88
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 15 Jan 2017, 06:31
Chile

Re: CANADA

Post by chinook88 »

Perhaps in the near future they can integrate SM-2 Block IIIC {of active seeker} into this variant of t26.

https://www.janes.com/article/76274/nav ... grade-plan

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

If done right the AAW standard vessels could control the SM-2s launched form other vessels when operating together as well as those of allies forces, whilst the latter concentrate on controlling their shorter ranges weapon systems.

chinook88
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 15 Jan 2017, 06:31
Chile

Re: CANADA

Post by chinook88 »

Does that mean "third party targeting" like the ESSM block 2 or CAMM?

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: CANADA

Post by Mercator »

ESSM and SM-6 are easy enough to organise, even for the basic variants. Just a question of silo space. The basic radar package should be able to handle both of those weapons. With CEC, as per the Australian version, it becomes even more potent.

That said, I suspect semiactive guidance for ESSM and SM-2 can be done from the same FC very easily as well. If it isn't already standard practice. I think in time though, SM-6 will be more popular.

Post Reply