The RAN Hobart class are "full Aegis" ships. The additional systems are for functionality not included in AEGIS, similar to use of AN/SQQ-89 by the USN.
Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5,959
- Points
- 1,090
AEGIS is supposed to be all domain CMS for all warfare systems. AFAIK, AN/SQQ-89 is supposed to be fully integrated into AEGIS as part of the ASW portion of the system. Like CMS 330, AEGIS covers ASW, AAW, ASuW, EW, ESM etc... and if it doesn't its not "full AEGIS" by my definition. Your definition may differ from mine as may your inside info on the system.
This is what I mean by a scale between CMS and AEGIS. What parts are done by what software/system.
Anyway you slice it though, Australia already has experience in combining 9LV with AEGIS. See details below from the Saab website.
9LV striking performance for the modern navy | Saab
MTShaw
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 197
- Points
- 580
I was looking today for what type and MW the electric motor for the type 26 rating had. The electric motor is rated at 3.4MW.
www.gepowerconversion.com
This got me to the MTU M53 20v 4000 on the Type 26’s wiki page.
en.wikipedia.org
It no longer exists on MTU’s site and has been replacement by M73 20v 4000 when the M53 20v 4000 is googled
GE: World Leader in Naval Electric Drive Power and Propulsion | Power Conversion
BUSAN, REPUBLIC OF KOREA - October 21, 2019 – GE’s gas turbine and electric drive power and propulsion systems are proven to meet the most demanding needs of world navies.
This got me to the MTU M53 20v 4000 on the Type 26’s wiki page.
Type 26 frigate - Wikipedia
It no longer exists on MTU’s site and has been replacement by M73 20v 4000 when the M53 20v 4000 is googled
I was looking today for what type and MW the electric motor for the type 26 rating had. The electric motor is rated at 3.4MW.
GE: World Leader in Naval Electric Drive Power and Propulsion | Power Conversion
BUSAN, REPUBLIC OF KOREA - October 21, 2019 – GE’s gas turbine and electric drive power and propulsion systems are proven to meet the most demanding needs of world navies.
This got me to the MTU M53 20v 4000 on the Type 26’s wiki page.
Type 26 frigate - Wikipedia
It no longer exists on MTU’s site and has been replacement by M73 20v 4000 when the M53 20v 4000 is googled
Interesting stuff @MTShaw. The increase in power, while good, would only affect the lower end of the speed envelope, presumably, as the DGs are used to drive the electric motors only. Top speed is still limited by the output of the MT30. Given the CSC and the Australian ship appear to be considerably heavier than their English cousin, that extra power might not actually translate into extra speed at all.
This is still the best description of the T26 power arrangement I have come across: Powering the stealthy submarine hunter – Type 26 frigate propulsion system in focus | Navy Lookout
- Reaction score
- 22,000
- Points
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 27,466
- Points
- 1,090
What is included, what is not, what is GFE... while I agree that the cost numbers are dramatically different, the basis for comparison has to be the same.
- Reaction score
- 17,027
- Points
- 1,010
Agreed. And our second batch prices may come in dramatically different, too.
- Reaction score
- 1,671
- Points
- 1,060
Be interesting if our learning curve can be quicker having the Brits and Aussies to follow as well as the builds continuing from the AOPS. Also maybe the final assembly inside right from the beginning? Will it benefit Irving is maybe the real question?
- Reaction score
- 4,163
- Points
- 1,120
The only curve that matters to Irving is their profit margin...expect the price to slide higher, while the quality remains marginal at best.
- Reaction score
- 6,276
- Points
- 1,040
IF you look at the PBO 2019 cost estimate report, it includes a sample learning curve. It's pretty significant, and tracking that way for AOPs.
There is a loss everytime you go to a new ship design (so the NC package is a nightmare) and a natural plateau, but the difference between the first ship and the 3rd or 4th ship of 30% less hours on production is common. It's a log curve though, so flattens out after a bit, and at a certain point improvements are negligible without equipment upgrades (which usually also involve process changes).
The improvements are all cumulative though, so the performance drop off between new classes is smoother the more established the yard is.
There is a lot of work and expertise that goes into it; if you want to read more would recommend the report below from FMI. They are also heavily involved in NSS and getting that set up to hopefully build in that same kind of natural improvement over time.
https://www.nsrp.org/wp-content/upl...al_Industrial_Benchmarking-mid-tier_yards.pdf
It's all heavily reliant on contract strucuture though; if we're stupid enough to go with cost+, instead of fixed price, there is a financial disincentive be more efficient.
Yes, our second batch prices will come in dramatically different. Much higher. Just look to the AOPS, the second batch will be hulls 7 & 8 for the Coast Guard. They are expected to billed for about $200 million more per hull, despite not including a CMS, milcomms or weapons. The Irving contracts and financial statements are closed to the public by design. The government stupidly signs non competitive contracts and then seems to minimize oversight of the project.
Our only saving grace for now is that Irving / Lockmart are contracted to build 3 CSC’s, not 15.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Back to the RN. Does His Majesty's Government get a rebate or royalty from BAE for the foreign sales of the T26 design? The British taxpayers paid for the design. Or did they forego any IP royalty to help British industry? And there will British content on both RCN and RAN ships even will some substitutions of equipment.
Would that account for some of the lower cost on the second Batch?
OT...I had read that one of the selling points of the Cyclone was that Canada would get royalties from Sikorsky if it received other orders. Canada paid the full freight of the fly by wire system etc. At the time it was short listed for Germany.
Would that account for some of the lower cost on the second Batch?
OT...I had read that one of the selling points of the Cyclone was that Canada would get royalties from Sikorsky if it received other orders. Canada paid the full freight of the fly by wire system etc. At the time it was short listed for Germany.
- Reaction score
- 6,276
- Points
- 1,040
BAE remains heavily involved in the design, gets royalties etc so lot of direct tax returns from people working.
Some other countries might look at having them actually built in the UK, or even just building it to the UK design and use the same kit, so obvious benefits there during build, and also makes it cheaper to support for everyone as there is a bigger user base, and you can share lessons learned, repairs, upgrades etc.
But status quo of not licensing the T26 at all means they get absolutely nothing, so pretty much any returns (even indirect ones are gravy). It also keeps the designers in the UK busy and still at BAE, which is huge as well for long term sustainabilty (Case in point, CPFs; we invested a lot, got good ships, the project team learned a lot about modular building... then we shuttered the project, and a lot of them got hired on to BAE).
We are working with the RN on a bunch of stuff anyway, so lot of intangible gains from the boffins talking at this point.
- Reaction score
- 5,959
- Points
- 1,090
There are also parts of the UK and Aussie ships that are build in Canada. Rolls Royce Canada is building the mission bay handling system and its a beast so I'm told. Ultra Electronics is building the sonars for all the ships and some parts for those are made in Dartmouth, as is some of the electronic sonar decoys for all the ships.
It's going to make for an interesting situation. I'm looking forward to the day where an RCN ship sailing in company with a RN or RAN ship can MATREQ parts and vice versa.
It's going to make for an interesting situation. I'm looking forward to the day where an RCN ship sailing in company with a RN or RAN ship can MATREQ parts and vice versa.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Yes all that understand all of that. I was just wondering if BAE is paying back the British Government itself or did they say we BAE need to be competitive and cant return money to the taxpayer and win the foreign contracts too. And the British government just be happy with all the side benefits you list.
- Reaction score
- 6,276
- Points
- 1,040
I think the UK government (particularly with the type 31 design) is actively encouraging export. I'm sure they'd prefer it built in UK yards, but are realistic enough that they understand a lot of other countries have their own national shipbuilding programs (the UK also has an NSS).
They have their own internal build programs to keep their yards busy, but even if they just export the design it's a great way to keep the engineering team busy and up to speed. The bulk of the work for them comes at the initial design stages, but the input for them drops way down after that, so it lets them load level the design/engineers over the long term.
I'm sure that some of the countries will use a lot of UK equipment though, and whatever the build costs are you will pay 3-4 times the cost on maintenance and operations so still huge opportunites for UK companies over the long term if foreign built ships use their kit.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Yes. Yes. The question is still is BAE paying back the British taxpayer for the IP. The British gov paid BAE for the IP. BAE sold that IP plus some of their own to Irving/Lockheed and Canada is paying for it. That is my question. They may not be paying back the British treasury for all the reason you list. But I thought maybe that is reason for some of cost down for the batch two ships.
In the USA FMS sales put some of the money goes to the US government to pay back some of the R&D money the US spent developing the weapon system etc. This is on top of the cost of system from the manufacturer. Example is M1777 purchased by Canada. Another famous example was the waving by the US government of R&D costs of the CF18 when Canada purchased the aircraft. We got a great deal!
