Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[John Fedup]

I remember you mentioning this before - we've got a very mixed view from the UK because losing those boats was a blow - they were regarded as being very capable and the sale price was very cheap, so it's odd reading from the Canadians as to how ferked over they felt.

Were the problems related to how they'd been stored (or dumped..) - and had they been picked over for parts? Their sensor suite was basically a Trafalgar scooped out and crammed into an SSK hull as I recall?

I guess I remember reading about how they were a very capable SSK at the time so it was a real surprise to see them struggle as much in service.

When RN was advised of an impending sale to Canada why would they want to continue to pour money on storage requirements if they were to be sold off, understandable really. What the RCN and RN didn't know was Chretien couldn't make up his mind to fund the purchase and in the interim the subs condition suffered. When the word was given to purchase, the RCN should have been aware of the condition of these boats. Whether the RCN knew or not, the failure to purchase would have meant the end of the RCN's submarine capability. Getting money to fix the Upholders was possible, convincing the politicos to restart a sub acquisition program with new boats would have been hopeless.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's a matter of perception - once the press got hold of the Astute, they'd list a pile of things like the grounding and the shooting as if they were design or manufacture defects.

They are quite extraordinary boats now - but there was some substantial grief to get them to that capability.

The UK is still paying the price for some bad decision making in earlier years.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I did wonder about that - I'm sure we'd have rubbed our hands in glee at the idea of selling them on with Spearfish bundled. Been quite a bit neater I'm sure.

RAN upgraded her Oberons to fire MK 48's and there would have been little resistance in assisting the Canadians if needed/wanted. In fact the RAN Oberons ended up carrying a bigger warload than other countries Oberons. So peripheral tech assistance would have been available - on top of which the US would have had a vested interest in helping out.

It would need qualification but my understanding was that even this upgrade became "difficult"

Sometimes you just have sheer bad luck

 

[harryriedl]

When RN was advised of an impending sale to Canada why would they want to continue to pour money on storage requirements if they were to be sold off, understandable really. What the RCN and RN didn't know was Chretien couldn't make up his mind to fund the purchase and in the interim the subs condition suffered. When the word was given to purchase, the RCN should have been aware of the condition of these boats. Whether the RCN knew or not, the failure to purchase would have meant the end of the RCN's submarine capability. Getting money to fix the Upholders was possible, convincing the politicos to restart a sub acquisition program with new boats would have been hopeless.

The Canada govt seems to take an extraordinary long time on procurement decisions. Which reminds me what is the current state of the Helo program which seems one long nightmare? Almost makes the Indians look good.

 

[RobWilliams]

The Canada govt seems to take an extraordinary long time on procurement decisions. Which reminds me what is the current state of the Helo program which seems one long nightmare? Almost makes the Indians look good.

The Single Class Surface Combatant being an example which doesn't show something good. A program unveiled as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy in 2010 with an aim to start building in 2016.

Any news? No news, actually.

 

[AegisFC]

I did wonder about that - I'm sure we'd have rubbed our hands in glee at the idea of selling them on with Spearfish bundled. Been quite a bit neater I'm sure.

Yes, but different pots of money.

RAN upgraded her Oberons to fire MK 48's and there would have been little resistance in assisting the Canadians if needed/wanted. In fact the RAN Oberons ended up carrying a bigger warload than other countries Oberons. So peripheral tech assistance would have been available - on top of which the US would have had a vested interest in helping out.

It would need qualification but my understanding was that even this upgrade became "difficult"

Sometimes you just have sheer bad luck

The Canadian Oberon's used Mk48 as well.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Canadian Oberon's used Mk48 as well.

I hadn't realised that - I knew that RAN was first to do the conversion and also do the harpoon conversion resulting in them becoming the only SSG Oberons

 

[htbrst]

The Canadian Oberon's used Mk48 as well.

And bits had to be salvaged from the Oberon's to install in the Upholders to make the Mk48 work from memory...While it was supposed to be significantly cheaper to do than purchasing spearfish it ending up quite a bit more expensive than buying Spearfish off-the-shelf.

 

[John Fedup]

The Canada govt seems to take an extraordinary long time on procurement decisions. Which reminds me what is the current state of the Helo program which seems one long nightmare? Almost makes the Indians look good.

Media reports suggest the CDN Gov's threat to cancel the Sikorsky was just optics. In any event DND has not accepted the units delivered so far and apparently negotiations are on going. The CH-148 (H-92) was a paper helio and should never have been selected by the Martin Gov. The Harper Gov should have cancelled this when Sikorsky failed to meet specs on time years ago. Just another procurement horror show by DND and both political parties.

 

[John Fedup]

The Single Class Surface Combatant being an example which doesn't show something good. A program unveiled as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy in 2010 with an aim to start building in 2016.

Any news? No news, actually.

If the Liberals win the next election the program will likely undergo a review resulting in a Liberal reset of the program with construction planned for the next decade. By then perhaps the Conservatives will be back in office and this pathetic process will again repeat itself. It is the CDN voters' apathy with regard to defence matters that allows this crap to go on.

 

[Volkodav]

Seems to be a fairly common disease in procurement over the last couple of decades, not just in Canada. I wonder if someone did a forensic investigation to the costs involved whether they would find it would have just been cheaper / better value for money to just buy / build something available at the time of the initial requirement rather than stuff around for two decades stretching out existing assets at great expense.

 

[John Fedup]

Seems to be a fairly common disease in procurement over the last couple of decades, not just in Canada. I wonder if someone did a forensic investigation to the costs involved whether they would find it would have just been cheaper / better value for money to just buy / build something available at the time of the initial requirement rather than stuff around for two decades stretching out existing assets at great expense.

A forensic audit would indeed confirm your observation. There is no point for a country like Canada screwing around awaiting the "second coming" of whatever defence need is up for replacement. Pick a proven design that fits the budget and get on with it!

 

[Volkodav]

I have been told that one of the issues is defence has a funny take on life cycle costs. The have a hump during the procurement phase that then drops as the equipment enters service achieves IOC and then full capability but then they flat line it as if it will never become more expensive to maintain and operate as it ages and you start encountering obsolescence, fatigue and corrosion issues more frequently and persistently.

I cant help but wonder if this gives the non technical numpties the false impression that it is cheaper to keep old gear and delay the procurement of new stuff.

 

[Raven22]

I have been told that one of the issues is defence has a funny take on life cycle costs. The have a hump during the procurement phase that then drops as the equipment enters service achieves IOC and then full capability but then they flat line it as if it will never become more expensive to maintain and operate as it ages and you start encountering obsolescence, fatigue and corrosion issues more frequently and persistently.

I cant help but wonder if this gives the non technical numpties the false impression that it is cheaper to keep old gear and delay the procurement of new stuff.

I don't think that's remotely true. The first thing they show in every single course, presentation, discussion, speech etc on procurement is the 'bathtub' of sustainment costs. There wouldn't be a single person working in procurement that doesn't know that sustainment costs rise as equipment reaches LOT.

 

[John Fedup]

Defence procurement decisions in Canada are likely the worst anywhere with the possible exception of India. The fault lies with DND and politicians. DND can not seem to stick with a set of specifications without allowing mission creep to inflate the overall cost (CH-147). The JSS ship concept originally proposed had no chance of getting funding. After years of delay the Navy has dumbed down their requirement to two Berlin class oilers. The surface combat ship and the arctic patrol ship programs are falling behind. Today, it is rumoured the CCV program will be cancelled. Politicians share much of the blame as well. By delaying numerous replacement projects way beyond due date they end uppaying more for maintenance. Worse still, large procurements are occurring simultaneously because of these delays which are based on political opportunism for the most part. Currently the Govt has a major naval ship and fighter program on going and let's not forget the disaster maritime helicopter replacement (30 years and no end in site).

 

[StobieWan]

I wonder if we can get them to climb back on board Type 26..go on, you know you want to

 

[Volkodav]

I don't think that's remotely true. The first thing they show in every single course, presentation, discussion, speech etc on procurement is the 'bathtub' of sustainment costs. There wouldn't be a single person working in procurement that doesn't know that sustainment costs rise as equipment reaches LOT.

Well it was a one star who told us this during a presentation on the progress of the Rizzo reforms. We were stunned as we had always assumed the ADF worked to the bath tub model. The way he explained it was they knew it was wrong but the systems they used would not let them account accordingly, it was more an inflexibility with the accounting systems and modeling than a lack of understanding among the capability managers. The example he brought up was the Seakings and of course the fat ships, when the people controlling the purse strings live in fantasy land determine your budget on such faulty thinking sustainment gets caned.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The example he brought up was the Seakings and of course the fat ships, when the people controlling the purse strings live in fantasy land determine your budget on such faulty thinking sustainment gets caned.

which is why a lot of the RPDE outcomes cause some grief..... rarely factor in sustainment because they don't have to - thats someone elses problem

and it comes out of someone elses bucket - which then aggravates a string of other players....

 

[harryriedl]

Defence procurement decisions in Canada are likely the worst anywhere with the possible exception of India. The fault lies with DND and politicians. DND can not seem to stick with a set of specifications without allowing mission creep to inflate the overall cost (CH-147). The JSS ship concept originally proposed had no chance of getting funding. After years of delay the Navy has dumbed down their requirement to two Berlin class oilers. The surface combat ship and the arctic patrol ship programs are falling behind. Today, it is rumoured the CCV program will be cancelled. Politicians share much of the blame as well. By delaying numerous replacement projects way beyond due date they end uppaying more for maintenance. Worse still, large procurements are occurring simultaneously because of these delays which are based on political opportunism for the most part. Currently the Govt has a major naval ship and fighter program on going and let's not forget the disaster maritime helicopter replacement (30 years and no end in site).

The Maritime Helo is frighting project in regards to political mismanagement. Especially as how old and well used those sea kings are now. It seems a Canadian tradition when looking at how long some the previous classes of Surface combatants ran.

 

[John Fedup]

The Maritime Helo is frighting project in regards to political mismanagement. Especially as how old and well used those sea kings are now. It seems a Canadian tradition when looking at how long some the previous classes of Surface combatants ran.

Our current naval supply ships can not enter many allied ports, being as old as they are, they do not come close the meeting environmental standards. The maritime helicopter project should be terminated and AW-101s ordered on a sole source basis.