# Loss of the 280s



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Aug 2004)

Loss of the 280s and what it would mean for the navy and the CF in general. This is if the Liberal plan goes through.
1) Loss of the Iroquois class destroyers will mean we would never command a Task Force again such as TF151 in the Persian gulf. CPFs can do the job but they are no where near as capable as the destroyers.
2) Loss of naval air defence capability. You army types are seeing this now but imagine you are sitting in the hold of a JSS when an air raid comes in and you might have to rely on missiles with shorter ranges and less reaction time in case they miss or are successfully decoyed away. Sea Sparrow and ESSM are Point Defence and short range systems.
3) Loss of another C4I platform.
4) Loss of another surface platform that can carry ASW assets.
5) Further overtaxation of our 12 CPFs increasing crew and unit fatigue and equipment failure and causing the eventual loss of personnel.
6) Once we lose a capbility the goverment is loathe to get it back.
I am sure there are others and as I think of them I will add them please feel free to add your thoughts.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Aug 2004)

Granatstein's article also referred to losing 2 CPF's. Something has really gone off kilter with defence policy in the past few weeks if all of these changes take place. I think Douglas Bland's predictions are taking hold far more rapidly than expected. Assuming all of this actually comes to fruition, I give the blue water navy 10 years life expectancy, not much longer for the airforce. As for the JSS, it would be sheer lunacy to proceed with the project without the protection of MR AAD protection, unless they are actually, [stupidly] thinking of fitting the ship with protection beyond point defence. Perhaps troop and cargo carrying ought to remain contracted out in order to spare the Navy a disaster.      

As I said in an earlier post somewhere, the appointment of Mr. Elcock, the master of spin and disinformation, was as sure sign something controversial is about to occur.  Here we go ...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Aug 2004)

The loss of 2 CPFs plus the 3 280s would destroy us as a navy. We would not be worth squat to anyone and I have no doubt would not be asked again to escort USN CVBGs.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Aug 2004)

Well, IMO I think that is ultimately the point of the whole exercise ... the so-called whither on the vine and descend into irrelevancy theory. Its started 40 years ago, and may about to be rapidly accelerated. This is all very confusing and makes no sense. BMD supporters one day, pacifists "peacekeepers" the next - effectively disarmed for practical purposes. WTF?   I had lunch with 2 DOJ pers., they say that this gov't is more secretive than under JC's tenure, and is dangerously volatile in its policy decision making process ... no sh*t.   

Have three questions for those who are reading this thread. Serious, concise and if possible, referenced replies would be appreciated. 

How serious is this threat of platform deletion to Canada and her citizens at home and abroad, and the Canadian Forces deployed overseas?                i.e. Is there a probablity that the CF may not be able to defend citizens from attack. or rescue citizens overseas if the need arises? If deployed     operationally, are Canadian Forces members going to be exposed to additional risk or enhanced threat?

Will irreparable harm occur to the Canadian Forces, and will the CF be able to properly defend Canadian interests?
Can the roles of these platforms sufficiently be taken on by surviving systems such that the issues in question 1 can be sufficiently addressed?   

Could this decision have been taken any other way?
Self explanatory, but just in case ... should there have been consultation, with who and how extensive should the consultation have been? What factors ought the MND take into consideration in making this type of decision.

I have my own notes on these questions, just looking for a little supplementary assistance. Every little snippet will help. 

Thanks in advance ... W601. You can message me if you wish, rather than post.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Aug 2004)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> Well, IMO I think that is ultimately the point of the whole exercise ... the so-called whither on the vine and descend into irrelevancy theory. Its started 40 years ago, and may about to be rapidly accelerated. This is all very confusing and makes no sense. BMD supporters one day, pacifists "peacekeepers" the next - effectively disarmed for practical purposes. WTF?   I had lunch with 2 DOJ pers., they say that this gov't is more secretive than under JC's tenure, and is dangerously volatile in its policy decision making process ... no sh*t.
> 
> Have three questions for those who are reading this thread. Serious, concise and if possible, referenced replies would be appreciated.



Hopefully 10 years experience in the navy is enough but I will answer your questions.


> How serious is this threat of platform deletion to Canada and her citizens at home and abroad, and the Canadian Forces deployed overseas?                i.e. Is there a probablprobabilityhe CF may not be able to defend citizens from attack. or rescue citizens overseas if the need arises? If deployed     operationally, are Canadian Forces members going to be exposed to additional risk or enhanced threat?



OK Hypothetical situation. A Canadian TG consisting of a JSS and 2 CPF are deployed to the Republic of Godknowshere to carry out a UN operation to evacuate Canadian and foreign nationals from the rampaging hordes that are raping looting and murdering any of those caught. Godknowswhere Forces declare that any units violating their  territorial waters would be engaged by their newly obtained cruise missile equipped air force. Now instead of 90+ miles that an SM2 can engage targets you are down to about 20 if you have ESSM 7 if you are using normal Sea Sparrows. So instead of maybe being enable to knock down the platform carrying the cruise missiles you are at the mercy of said platform being able to get airborne volley fire its inventory, RTB and rearm and come back up for another mission. I don't think you would find any body in the navy comfortable with that type of scenario 


> Will irreparable harm occur to the Canadian Forces, and will the CF be able to properly defend Canadian interests?
> Can the roles of these platforms sufficiently be taken on by surviving systems such that the issues in question 1 can be sufficiently addressed?



In the above scenario there is the chance you could lose 3 ships, so the answer to that the remaining systems can't cover that role.    


> Could this decision have been taken any other way?
> Self explanatory, but just in case ... should there have been consultation, with who and how extensive should the consultation have been? What factors ought the MND take into consideration in making this type of decision.



Personally I am hoping(read praying) its DNDs way of telling the govermentgovernmentup and put the required funding into DND


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Aug 2004)

the hypothetical is excellent. Noted. thx. 

Next?


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (23 Aug 2004)

Maybe i am Naive but i cant see the government getting rid of more and more equipment, IE:Ships, Jets etc.. just to come up with the money for 5000 more troops.
I can see the Government either comming up with more funding to do this or simply just not follow through on their campain promise's

The simple fact is, the GOV is going to have to start putting some major money back into the CF's or we wont have a CF's in 20 years.

With equipment starting to become Obsolite, Major changes and funding is needed now more then ever, not to mention the CF's are very under staffed.

But like all other Liberal governments in recent years, things dont look good


----------



## Garbageman (23 Aug 2004)

By no means am I a sea power expert, so I'm wondering, if the 280s are gone, could there be some kind of expanded role given to the Victoria classes coming online?  I know they have radically different roles, but is there any overlap in terms of force protection (certainly not air defence, but what about surface & subsurface threats)?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Aug 2004)

The 280s provide Command and Control (flagship). medium range air defence(with SM2 Standards), limited ASuW(with the 76mm and SM2), and ASW (using the 2 CH124 (although only 1 is usually embarked). Beyond the ASuW and ASW that the Victorias can provide it does not overlap or come close in making up for the gap that getting rid of the 280s would cause. We would lose those capabilities until the next generation of surface combantant comes online.

Look at the capabilities the navy has loss in the past few years. This is off the top of my head.
1) Carrier aviation
2) Naval gunfire support (NGS)--57mm and 76mm are not powerful enough to support troops ashore.
3) Sea lift (maybe fixed by the JSS)
4) Mine warfare (yes I know we have the Kingston class MCDVs but with only X number of minesweeping modules do we actually have that capability?)
5) Submarines (look at the problems we are having wuth the Victoria class- we haven't really gained it back).


----------



## DJL (24 Aug 2004)

> How serious is this threat of platform deletion to Canada and her citizens at home and abroad, and the Canadian Forces deployed overseas?           i.e. Is there a probablity that the CF may not be able to defend citizens from attack. or rescue citizens overseas if the need arises? If deployed   operationally, are Canadian Forces members going to be exposed to additional risk or enhanced threat?



IMHO (and I'm sure a number of others share this), the current ability for the CF to "defend citizens from attack. or rescue citizens overseas" is negligible, and if this was further decreased, I'd hazard a guess that some could find the Liberals in a state of mens rea.



> Will irreparable harm occur to the Canadian Forces, and will the CF be able to properly defend Canadian interests?
> Can the roles of these platforms sufficiently be taken on by surviving systems such that the issues in question 1 can be sufficiently addressed?



At no fault of their own, the CF is currently hard pressed to defend Canadian intrests, subtracting form the CF's current capabilities will only make mater's worse.



> Could this decision have been taken any other way?
> Self explanatory, but just in case ... should there have been consultation, with who and how extensive should the consultation have been? What factors ought the MND take into consideration in making this type of decision.



PM PM shouldn't have committed to anything during his election campagain without full consultations with DND. If he needed to throw out a "bone", perhaps he should have been more vague in the capabilities that he intended to bring forth and more specific on the "planned increased funding". (ie. level of) 



> Maybe i am Naive but i cant see the government getting rid of more and more equipment, IE:Ships, Jets etc.. just to come up with the money for 5000 more troops.
> I can see the Government either comming up with more funding to do this or simply just not follow through on their campain promises



What will PM PM's "Peacekeeping Brigade" cost? What will CADRE and twenty hypothetical Joint Strike Fighters cost?

IMV, if the Navy loses the 280s and the Air Force loses a tactical fighter squadron now, why would we need to purchase new destroyers and fighters in the future?


----------



## condor888000 (25 Aug 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> 2) Naval gunfire support (NGS)--57mm and 76mm are not powerful enough to support troops ashore.



Out of curosity, does any navy have any large deck-mounted guns?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Aug 2004)

Only what I just stated above 57mm &76 mm..plus the 40mm on the MCDVs but these are medium caliber weapons.


----------



## Green Lid (26 Aug 2004)

Kirkhill 

You asked for my thoughts, bear in mind I am not an expert in amphibious ops.
If Canada is considering the establishment of such a force,   then I think that it demonstrates a significant shift in thinking at the top. 
After all setting up such a force from scratch is not something you do on a whim!!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Aug 2004)

What I really think we need to do is to work at retaining the capabilities we have, work at improving them and then start to add more. We can't afford to give up any more.


----------



## DJL (2 Oct 2004)

Instead of starting a new thread, I thought I'd bring this one back from the grave.......


Does anybody know the current status/life expectancy of the 280s, and what the status of CADRE is?

Or (in both cases) is this something that nothing will be known about untill the defence review is completed?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Oct 2004)

Looks like the 280s will be extended to about the 2012-15 time frame. The replacements for the 280s will come any time after that in the common surface warfare combatant which is the replacement for the 280s and the CPFs. The first 4 will most likely be flagship and area air defence ships. Of course things may change....


----------



## DJL (3 Oct 2004)

Has there been any serious studies into this "new common surface warfare combatant" (ie size, hull form, capabilities etc)?

Also, what would the chances be that we could be part of joint program with other nations that share the same need? Just off hand, I'd think that the Dutch, Germans, Spanish and Australians could make suitable partners for developing a next generation surface combatant.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Oct 2004)

Sorry what I have said is about all I can really say on the project.


----------



## DJL (3 Oct 2004)

No problem.


----------



## Inch (3 Oct 2004)

I heard they're going to be replaced with this bad boy. Eat lead Osama!  ;D


----------



## painswessex (4 Oct 2004)

Read this article on the 280 replacement project  
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-navcadre.htm
cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Oct 2004)

That article has not really been applicable for well over a year. The navy got some good ideas from the CADRE program and are incorporating what they learned from it into the common surface combatant project.


----------



## DJL (11 Dec 2004)

Sorry for bringing this topic up again  :-\

Just wondering, would it be feasible (if money was there and the Americans were willing) to hammer out some sort of lease with the Americans for three (of the five) non-VLS equipped Ticos (which they are starting to decomission)? Then put them through the USN's Cruiser Conversion program and add VLS to them?

I see the potentail advantages to this idea of allowing us to retire the 280s once this conversion took place (near the end of this decade perhaps for three Ticos) and affording us the insurance that there won't be a "air defence gap" (not to mention a loss of hull numbers) between the potential retirement of the 280s and the interduction of the new surface combantent.

Also this would allow us an introduction to AEGIS (I'd assume an upgraded version as opposed to the current version within the first flight Ticos), cruise missiles (if strike length mk 41 could be installed in the upgraded Ticos) and a (limited) refresher in naval gunfire support with the Ticos 5 inchers.

The negatives that I can see (aside from money and political will), is the increase in operating costs, larger crews and the fact that these ships are only about a decade younger than the 280s.......


Thoughts?


----------



## FSTO (12 Dec 2004)

DJL said:
			
		

> Sorry for bringing this topic up again  :-\
> 
> Just wondering, would it be feasible (if money was there and the Americans were willing) to hammer out some sort of lease with the Americans for three (of the five) non-VLS equipped Ticos (which they are starting to decomission)? Then put them through the USN's Cruiser Conversion program and add VLS to them?
> 
> ...




In a word, NO!

1. They are decommissioning Spruance Class destroyers not the Ticos
2. All the Ticos have VLS and Aegis
3. canada would be much better off to buy 4 Arleigh Burkes right out of the yards (if we got a share of the 5,000 extra pers that Martin has promised). If the Burkes are too big then there are several smaller types that could suit our needs


----------



## DJL (12 Dec 2004)

> 1. They are decommissioning Spruance Class destroyers not the Ticos



They are decommissioning the Spruances, but they are also decommissioning the first five Ticos......Two, possably three have already been decommissioned, Ticonderoga and Yorktown I know for sure and I believe Vally Forge has been or is about to be deactivated. IIRC Vincennes and Thomas S. Gates are suppose to go sometime next year.



> 2. All the Ticos have VLS and Aegis



Yes, they all have AEGIS (granted different versions) but the first five (the ones being decommissioned) where equipped with the mk 26 launchers.



> 3. canada would be much better off to buy 4 Arleigh Burkes right out of the yards (if we got a share of the 5,000 extra pers that Martin has promised). If the Burkes are too big then there are several smaller types that could suit our needs



I agree (about the Burkes that is), but I highly doubt without a change in government we will see any chance off that. Thats why I purposed upgraded flight one Ticos as an *interim* solution until the "common surface warfare combatant" emerges. 

Perhaps an upgrade in software that would give the Flight one Ticos (like whats going on the VLS Ticos) a TBMD capability could be added and with that we would have a potentail platform that could be intergrated into NMD (when needed). A savvy politician could hinge our involvement in NMD on a favorable lease and upgrade of these three Ticos.........


----------



## DJL (12 Dec 2004)

And to prevent any confusion:

Thomas Gates:

http://www.gates.navy.mil/images/photos/rr/DSC_0986 copy.jpg

Note the MK 26 just aft of the 5 inch and the second launcher aft of the flight deck.

The status of the:

Ticonderoga

http://navysite.de/cg/cg47.html



> USS TICONDEROGA is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2004.



Yorktown

http://navysite.de/cg/cg48.html



> The cruiser was last homeported in Pascagoula, Miss., and is now berthed at the Naval Inactive Ships Maintenance Facility, Philadelphia, Penn.



Valley Forge

http://navysite.de/cg/cg50.html



> USS VALLEY FORGE was last homeported in San Diego, Calif. The ship is currently held in reserve at Pearl Harbor, Hi.


----------



## FSTO (12 Dec 2004)

DJL said:
			
		

> Yes, they all have AEGIS (granted different versions) but the first five (the ones being decommissioned) where equipped with the mk 26 launchers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



good points.
Do you recall when the US were trying to offload the Kidd class (Spruances that were built for the Iranians?) They would have been a great addition to our fleet while we were waiting for the CPFs. 
As for upgrading the Ticonderogas, after the Upholder buy, I don't think that any government will buy used equipment ever again. (no matter how good or proven the equipment is)


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2004)

FSTO said:
			
		

> As for upgrading the Ticonderogas, after the Upholder buy, I don't think that any government will buy used equipment ever again. (no matter how good or proven the equipment is)



Real good point here.  Considering that politics is the motive force behind Defence acquisition (unfortunately), I doubt we'll be going to the flee market anytime soon.


----------



## DJL (12 Dec 2004)

> Do you recall when the US were trying to offload the Kidd class (Spruances that were built for the Iranians?) They would have been a great addition to our fleet while we were waiting for the CPFs.
> As for upgrading the Ticonderogas, after the Upholder buy, I don't think that any government will buy used equipment ever again. (no matter how good or proven the equipment is)





> Real good point here.  Considering that politics is the motive force behind Defence acquisition (unfortunately), I doubt we'll be going to the flee market anytime soon.



That is a good point, but I don't know that it would really mater. First off, what would be more embarrassing to the government, operating the 280s past 2015, in which time frame they will be nearing their 50th birthdays or operating more modern (and capable) cruisers that will be in their early 30s?

Second, unlike the upgrades for the four Upholders, the USN's cruiser conversion program (if we included three extra hulls) would be an upgrade for well over two dozen ships. Not too mention, unlike the Upholders, spare parts for the Ticos are much cheaper to acquire because of the sheer numbers of the design (and the possibility of cannibalizing Sprunace destroyers). And I hate to be judgmental, but I can't help but to have more faith in a American venture than a Canadian one.... :-\

In the end though, my idea is brought on by the same reason that brought on the Upholders (as opposed to a new design) and why we will still be operating the Sea Things until near the end of the decade.....


----------



## GaiusMarius (28 Dec 2004)

Beaurachracy is a wonderfull tool for flushing out the <*&^> ,


Gaius Marius


----------



## DeckMonkey (9 Jan 2005)

As long as politics is the driving force behind new acquisitions, we not only would not buy from non-Canadian shipyards, but certainly not from the US (however close we are with the US on a military level)
   I personally would love an Arleigh Burke destoyer or two to play in (esp. as a NES Op) but I'm not holding my breath. I'd say we have a better chance holding Bake Sales and Raffles for the next decade to pay for it. We need new AAD capable flagships, but it'll be homegrown when it comes, and I'll be a P2 by then!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jan 2005)

> I personally would love an Arleigh Burke destoyer or two to play in (esp. as a NES Op) but I'm not holding my breath.



With only two (one for each coast) they would be constantly on the go and you would end up haing morale issues. The current plan for the first 4 ships of the proposed Common Surface Combatant that has been touted at several briefs to be command and area defence ships seems to be more practical.


----------



## Marty (1 Feb 2005)

1) Loss of the Iroquois class destroyers will mean we would never command a Task Force again such as TF151 in the Persian gulf. CPFs can do the job but they are no where near as capable as the destroyers.

I was just wondering , as far as command goes , what are the main differences between the two ships?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Feb 2005)

> With only two (one for each coast) they would be constantly on the go and you would end up haing morale issues. The current plan for the first 4 ships of the proposed Common Surface Combatant that has been touted at several briefs to be command and area defence ships seems to be more practical.



Ex Dragoon, I won't take issue with the need for more than 2 Air Defence Assets.  I agree with you.

However your comment about being on the go all the time being bad for morale and relating that to the number of vessels interests me.  In another thread I proposed that the Army consider "over-manning" some of its high-value assets (Like LAVs/MGSs/EWLAVs etc).  I have been aware for a long while that, in contrast to traditional navy practice where the Ship and her Crew belong to the Captain - one ship, one crew - the RN and I believe the USN employ 2 or 3 crews for their Ballistic Missile subs and maybe for their attack subs as well.  I don't know about that for sure.  But anyway, what would happen to readiness and morale if the Navy were to invest more in personnel and relatively less in platforms.  For example how would you make out with 18 crews for 9 CPFs or maybe even 12 crews for 9 CPFs.  As opposed to 12 CPFs with 12 crews.  I prefer the 2:1 watch system myself because it still results in "pride of ownership" resulting from the same bunch of sailors being responsible for the same kit.

Just a question.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Ex Dragoon, I won't take issue with the need for more than 2 Air Defence Assets.   I agree with you.
> 
> However your comment about being on the go all the time being bad for morale and relating that to the number of vessels interests me.   In another thread I proposed that the Army consider "over-manning" some of its high-value assets (Like LAVs/MGSs/EWLAVs etc).   I have been aware for a long while that, in contrast to traditional navy practice where the Ship and her Crew belong to the Captain - one ship, one crew - the RN and I believe the USN employ 2 or 3 crews for their Ballistic Missile subs and maybe for their attack subs as well.   I don't know about that for sure.   But anyway, what would happen to readiness and morale if the Navy were to invest more in personnel and relatively less in platforms.   For example how would you make out with 18 crews for 9 CPFs or maybe even 12 crews for 9 CPFs.   As opposed to 12 CPFs with 12 crews.   I prefer the 2:1 watch system myself because it still results in "pride of ownership" resulting from the same bunch of sailors being responsible for the same kit.
> 
> Just a question.



The USN does indeed use 2 crews ( at least in the SSBN comunity), they are refered to as "GOLD" and "BLUE" crews, that take turn manning the boats, this is not true however of their surface fleet from what i understand.  We could use the same system for our surface ships if we could recruit sufficient personel.  I do not think though that we should do this at the expense of reducing the fleet.  When you factor in refits and training...we need no less that what we have now.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Feb 2005)

Fair enough Aesop.  Thanks.


----------



## FSTO (1 Feb 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> The USN does indeed use 2 crews ( at least in the SSBN comunity), they are refered to as "GOLD" and "BLUE" crews, that take turn manning the boats, this is not true however of their surface fleet from what i understand.   We could use the same system for our surface ships if we could recruit sufficient personel.   I do not think though that we should do this at the expense of reducing the fleet.   When you factor in refits and training...we need no less that what we have now.



The USN has also done some study at conducting "hot" turnovers with some of their surface ships. Basically the USS WIDGET would deploy to a theatre of operations for the standard 6 month tour. At month 5 the crew of USS DIDGET would fly to the AOP and do a hot turnover with the crew of USS WIDGET and assume control of her. The crew of USS WIDGET goes home and takes over USS DIDGET. At the end of the deployment USS WIDGET comes home and the two crews switch. The advantage is that the ship stays in theatre for 1 year and they have 1 ship doing 2 transits in one year vice 2 ships doing 4 transits in 1 year. We tried that in a limited sense when the crew of PROTECTEUR did a hot crew change with PRESERVER. Maybe we can try that again


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Feb 2005)

FSTO said:
			
		

> We tried that in a limited sense when the crew of PROTECTEUR did a hot crew change with PRESERVER. Maybe we can try that again



I understood that little exercise was a bit of a flop when all was said and done, but the crews worked together and dealt with it like they always do. I'm sure the lessons learned could make a better go of it next time around. Problem [made worse with the delayed start to FELEX], is how long can an aging ship deploy without putting in for repairs and P.M. cycles?  Perhaps one option [read: dream] would be to establish an agreement with a foreign power for a tri-service base overseas in order to cut down on transit and deployment time. 

A leased base some where in Asia might be an option, 3 FFG's, 1 DDH and a JSS + air assets + RDF army formation of some sort. Duration of posting to be 3 years ... move the families and everything.  Ships in need of refit are replaced on a 1 for 1 by the "Home Fleet".


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Feb 2005)

Doesn't sound bad to me whiskey.

Singapore? Sydney? Trincomalee or Colombo? Madras or Chittagong?

But get rid of that JSS thing.  Buy yourselves a nice AOR or two and let the Government buy a couple of Enforcer LSD(A)s and maybe 2 or 3 of the MRVs the Kiwis have just bought for 86 MCAD each.  As noted they carry a combat team and/or a staff and are ice-strengthened.  You could probably use the same machinery, bridge, navigation and comms gear on both the LSD(A)s and the AORs.

Couple that with half-a-dozen C-17s and we're away to the races. Or maybe even the BC-17X.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/patino/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/bay_class/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/
http://www.defence.govt.nz/Industry/project-protector-image.shtml
http://www.defence.govt.nz/Industry/project-protector.shtml

Can't find the rest of the MRV references now but IIRC the crew was 59, there was a mixed det of Aircrew, Police and Civil Servants as well as a security force totalling about another 40 and room for a Combat Team of 285 with LAVs and Stores for a transit.  Not included for patrol.


http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0408/S00134.htm


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Feb 2005)

The latest rumour around here (Ottawa) is that new large ships *will* be built, sooner rather than later, at Industries Davie (formerly MIL) in Levis ... the priority is: jobs, Jobs, JOBS! in Levis which, it is hoped, will translate into Liberal seats in the House of Commons.   Since Davie wants to expand and build big ships then big ships it is.

Davie also wants to build up to six new major combatants â â€œ to replace the 280s and, maybe, lead in to the replacement of the frigates in 2020 and beyond.   (And no, neither I nor any of my old chums in the Navy have any idea about where we find the sailors ... don't even ask ... the aim is to elect Liberals, not build a Navy.)

Industries Davie will not have the capacity to build new big ships and refit *all* the Halifax class frigates within a reasonable time frame (say four to (even) six years) ... some, maybe even all the work will have to go to Halifax Shipyard (owned by the Irvings and builders of the Kingston class minesweepers).

Kingston class mid-life refits (after 2010) including, perhaps, lengthening can also be done in Halifax.

A much discussed new _corvette_ (rumour only, maybe no better than faint hope)   could be built on the West coast if there is some hope that such a programme will elect a Liberal or two.

The interesting thing is that Saint John Shipbuilding, which built frigates and could build large ships (up to _Panamax_ size) is nowhere on anyone's list ... the Irvings signed a formal undertaking with the federal government, agreeing *â Å“not to construct, refit or renovate ships of any kind for a minimum of 20 years at the Saint John site.â ?* The aim of this agreement was to clear out the biggest roadblock to Davie's future success ... Industries Davie could not and did not build either as well or as cheaply as Saint John and there was no reason to expect that they would improve their productivity.   Since they could not compete on cost and performance they decided to cash in their political cards: all five aces.

Edited to correct () in first para


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Feb 2005)

Thanks for that ROJ.   

You have succeeded in making me smile hopefully, laugh cynically and cry morosely simultaneously.

Need to see about some medication.

Cheers.


----------



## FSTO (2 Feb 2005)

My lord have those morons learned nothing!

We are led by glorified municipal politicians who cannot see beyond their wards. Who get their knickers in a knot over a comment like small town cheap. It makes me want to puke.

The taxpayers of this country built (for the 3rd time) a major warship factory from scratch and we will watch them do it for a 5th (and more than likely 6th, 7th, etc.). Are our fellow citizens that blind? I guess so when the idea of same sex marriage dominates the debate.

Bah


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Feb 2005)

I kinda cringe at the idea that Mil Davies is on the way to become the premier capital ship builder for the Canadian Navy, after all were not the 3 most problematic CPFs built by them?


----------



## FSTO (2 Feb 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I kinda cringe at the idea that Mil Davies is on the way to become the premier capital ship builder for the Canadian Navy, after all were not the 3 most problematic CPFs built by them?



You got that right.

Blood pressure going............................. up must go away.............. arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Feb 2005)

FSTO said:
			
		

> You got that right.
> 
> Blood pressure going............................. up must go away.............. arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



Damn his head exploded now some poor OD will have a mess to clean up


----------



## Navalsnpr (3 Feb 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I kinda cringe at the idea that Mil Davies is on the way to become the premier capital ship builder for the Canadian Navy, after all were not the 3 most problematic CPFs built by them?



Three were sub-contracted out to Mil-Davie by SJ Ship Building:
   HMCS VDQ, Regina and Calgary

Rumour has it that they are 0.5 metres longer than the rest of the fleet..... don't know how true that is though as I never had a long enough measuring tape with me!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2005)

Saint John Shipbuilding was required, by contract, to sub-contract construction of three frigates and one refit of destroyer (TRUMP project) to MIL Davie.   Back in those days (1975-1990, at least â â€œ that's the time frame for which I can offer personal recollections) 25% or more of the value of most major crown projects had to go to Québec â â€œ if the project sponsor wanted the budget approved.

Now and again, the CF-18 maintenance contract fiasco comes to mind, bidding rules were tossed aside after the fact in the name of a _national industrial strategy_ or some such thing.   These _*policies*_ were supported, equally, by Liberals and Conservatives and were part of the _received wisdom_ of the senior ranks of the public service.   The Tories expanded the _geo-political *pork barrelling*_ by adding Alberta to Québec â â€œ that's the main reason we built the army's (relatively) new radios here in Canada for $1.5 billion rather than buying them, five years sooner, for $350 million, or less.

Navy captains and army/air force colonels who were responsible for identifying and managing new/replacement equipment projects and big maintenance contracts had no room to manoeuvre; if their service chiefs realty wanted new ships, new radios, airplanes that flew, etc then _project directors_ (as they were called) structured the project according to the _*rules*_ and then, to add insult to injury, had to _justify_ politically directed rubbish (political includes the senior military and bureaucratic _management_ at 101 Colonel By Drive) to the Treasury Board Secretariat so that future audits would not be able to _embarrass_ the government by accusing it of pork barrelling â â€œ â Å“it was a military decision,â ? the politicians c could say, just as Gagliano says, â Å“it was the bureaucrats,â ?  today.

With specific regard to the _TRUMPed up_ 280s, we, the long suffering taxpayers of Canada, paid an extra $135 million to keep MIL Davie in business ...   see:   http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/9119ce.html - scroll down to Case 4.

At one stage the senior officer responsible (then Rear Admiral Ed Healy, if memory serves) went to Levis with DND and Justice lawyers in tow and threatened to tow Algonquin (I think) to Halifax to get the work done.

To add further insult to further injury, after the $135 million 'top-up' from the governments of Canada and Québec (a 90/10 split, I seem to recall) Davie went to the Industry Committee and crowed that it, unlike Saint John, etc, did not bill DND for cost overruns!


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Feb 2005)

ROJ:

I am going to have to stop reading you in the morning and save you until later in the day.  Like a good meal you require a good bottle to wash you down and I prefer to wait until the sun goes down before doing any serious drinking.

Can you point to any studies that have taken a hard, across the board look at the POLITICALLY driven costs that the CF has had to bear over the last 10-20 years?  Pork-barrelling, industrial development, bases etc.... the whole nine yards.  I know the Auditors-General have looked at various projects but have they looked at the CF in its entirety?  Has anybody else?

Cheers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ROJ:
> 
> I am going to have to stop reading you in the morning and save you until later in the day.   Like a good meal you require a good bottle to wash you down and I prefer to wait until the sun goes down before doing any serious drinking.
> 
> ...



I will ask a few friends/colleagues ... I believe there have been _some_ (only one?) *non-partisan/academic* studies; I know that various and sundry partisan reports - pro and con defence - have been published but all, including the ones from our _in house_ *lobby* group the Conference of Defence Associations http://www.cda-cdai.ca/ and related ones like the Defence Industries Association http://www.cdia.ca/ must be treated with suspicion because they are, almost always, self serving.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2005)

Reading this makes me sick.

We always complain about the shortfalls in the Military Budget but I think it is safe to echo "PPCLI Guy"'s claim that we are not getting 12-billion dollars worth out of our military like we should.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Feb 2005)

Amen said the choir again...

ROJ:

I know that the Dutch government commissioned a study on their use of "industrial offsets" -   the apparently Canadian pioneered practice of demanding that when buying military kit from off-shore suppliers that the supplier or its government spend money in the customer's country - and concluded that it was not a cost effective strategy.   It delayed procurement decisions and inflated prices as suppliers built in commissions and contingencies so as to leave themselves a profit.

I also seem to recall that the Auditor-General has done a limited review of two or three projects like the CPF solely with a view to compliance with the rules.   I don't know of any cost/benefit analyses done by anybody with the stature of the Auditor-General, with respect to the rules themselves.

Perhaps that is something we should be suggesting to the Opposition as I believe the Auditor-General can only act on a request from MPs to conduct such an investigation.

Any thoughts?


----------



## FSTO (3 Feb 2005)

I'm all for that idea, I am sure that the way Canada procures major equipment has to be the most inefficient way possible. As for buying offshore, I would think that if there was a study it would state that the amount of money and jobs made by subcontractors on other arms would more than offset the money wasted with the present system. Imagine a procurement strategy that focused on the needs of the end user and not on the pork advantages of the party in power.


----------



## Navalsnpr (5 Feb 2005)

Are there any Shipyards out on the Canadian West Coast that would be suited to build AOR's or Destroyers for the Navy?


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Feb 2005)

I am pretty sure that the Victoria Shipyards can handle a vessel up to the sizes discussed for the JSS (25,000 tonne). I seem to remember somebody posting that on one of the JSS threads some months ago.

Not sure about Vancouver but they have built some good size ferries in the past.  Don't know how up to date their facilities are.


----------



## STONEY (5 Feb 2005)

Well after reading through this thread i thought i'd add my 2 cents.

1.  In reference to swapping crews on forward deployed ships rather than changing ships, i believe the U.S. Navy didn't find it very sucessfull simply because the ships were going 24/7 and they quickly fell seriously behind on the maintenance curve and started having defects effecting operations. When the ships did return it took a lot of effort to get them up to scratch. Anyone who has served on a few ships knows that even if they appear identical and are from the same class , to the crew they are all different and it takes time to get used to all the little quirks in thousands of individual pieces of equipment and in a operational setting could prove fatal. This is the reason ships crews spend months working and training through various phases till they know their ship/shipmates inside and outand  are declared operational.

2. Burke class ships are very good platforms but have major problems as far as Canada is concerned. They are very expensive to buy and they are very expensive to run.  They are large ships , twice the size of the 280's and require a large crew . Now we can only keep 3 of our 280's operational because of shortage of crew for the 4th.  The Burke's are powered by 4 - LM2500 gas turbines  which would be more expensive to run than 4 CPF's since they have diesels for cruise speeds. As for the Tico's they would be totaly impractical as by the time we aquired them, Canadianized them , trained the crews they would be older than the 280's not to mention they also require large crews and are all gas turbine powered & hence very expensive to run. The U.S. Navy with $$$ & personnel  is one of the only Navys that can afford to operate them.

3. When we do decide to build ships we are looking at problems galore. The learning curve will once again be at zero . Saint John Shipbuilding went to a llot of effort with the assistance of Bath Iron Works (builder of both Burke's & Tico's) learned to construct warships by the latest modular construction methods and by the end of the CPF program had become very efficient.
The time to construct the first CPF to the time to build the last one fell dramatically . They had a facility that rivalled any in the world, but it in now a empty lot. Any shipyard now will now have to begin again from scratch as warship building is vastly different than commercial shipbuilding. Here we go again with the massive delays in time and overbudget spending that will horrify the public. I don't know why the Government can't get, that it is far better to keep a shipyard busy at a slow steady pace than to replace the whole navy every 35 years.

Well enough of my ranting .  Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (5 Feb 2005)

Good stuff Stoney.

Of all the things you said, this struck me the most:



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> The time to construct the first CPF to the time to build the last one fell dramatically . They had a facility that rivalled any in the world, but it in now a empty lot. Any shipyard now will now have to begin again from scratch as warship building is vastly different than commercial shipbuilding. Here we go again with the massive delays in time and overbudget spending that will horrify the public. I don't know why the Government can't get, that it is far better to keep a shipyard busy at a slow steady pace than to replace the whole navy every 35 years.



This is truly a shame.  It seems we invested in something and when the investment matured, we simply threw it in the garbage for the sake of political expediency.


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Feb 2005)

Off the shelf........... We should look at purchasing more off the shelf items, and stop wasting money on R & D for big capital projects.  If we were to purchase heavy lift helos or transport aircraft those wouldn't be built in Canada.  So then why do we insist on building ships in Canada?  I am sure that there are shipyards around the world that could come up with a JSS design that would meet our needs.

I look at the Aussie military, and I am envious on how their capital procurement program has turned their military into a respectable force.  They buy off the shelf for almost all their capital spending.

I think Ottawa needs to wake up and stop wasting money.


----------



## daniel h. (15 Feb 2005)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> Off the shelf........... We should look at purchasing more off the shelf items, and stop wasting money on R & D for big capital projects.   If we were to purchase heavy lift helos or transport aircraft those wouldn't be built in Canada.   So then why do we insist on building ships in Canada?   I am sure that there are shipyards around the world that could come up with a JSS design that would meet our needs.
> 
> I look at the Aussie military, and I am envious on how their capital procurement program has turned their military into a respectable force.   They buy off the shelf for almost all their capital spending.
> 
> I think Ottawa needs to wake up and stop wasting money.




www.sfu.ca/casr/id-shipbuild1.htm

Perhaps that article is of significance. Sending jobs overseas is shortsighted IMO, and as the article mentions, imported ships require a 25% import duty to be paid, as with the B.C. ferry contract with Germany. So we not only send the jobs overseas, and lose the tax revenue and expertise, but we have to pay duty.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Feb 2005)

daniel h.

Daniel, how can you justify taking 700 million dollars out of the Defence Departments budget to build a vessel that could be bought offshore for 200-300 million dollars and can be delivered 5 years earlier?

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the need for Government Support of a shipbuilding industry - a rational case can be made for that - many other countries that we might compete with do.

But that should come out of the Department of Industry or whoever it is that ponies up to support Bombardier.  Not DND!!!!

The CF and the Government have neither the budget nor the luxury of time to hang around waiting for Canadian industry to get their thumb out of their bum, decide how much money they can extort from the Government, carve it up amongst themselves, build a new yard (anybody in Canada know how to do that?), hire engineers and skilled trades (short of both in ALL fields) and then learn On The Job.  The resultant first, practice, vessel then has to be sailed in difficult conditions with a lot of very valuable individuals on board.

By all means build up a Canadian Shipbuilding industry.

But not now and not with the CF's budget!

I apologize right now if my forcefulness on this issue is offensive to you but I feel very strongly about the issue.  This in no way is intended as a personal sleight to yourself.

Cheers.


----------



## daniel h. (15 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> daniel h.
> 
> Daniel, how can you justify taking 700 million dollars out of the Defence Departments budget to build a vessel that could be bought offshore for 200-300 million dollars and can be delivered 5 years earlier?
> 
> ...




No offence taken. I agree with you, despite my lack of experience, I understand what you mean when you say that a new production line costs money to develop. I assume this would require long-term, strategic planning of our industries, as the Americans and Europeans do. If we need things immediately then I can't think of any way to disagree with you.

Long-term thinking has never been an attribute of our leaders IMO.  There was a good article a few months back in Maclean's about Canada's "Boom bust", "Build or scrap" mentality regarding its navy. Sorry but I think the link is gone.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2005)

The last I heard was that Canada's last major shipbuilding company had closed.   Irving Shipbuilding in St John packed it in a couple of years ago because they could not compete with the US companies.

GW


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill,

Perhaps I'm the only one, but I think Canada needs to be more strategic with its military investment and copy the Swedish model to a certain extent.  Specific to this case, based on having a 25+ ship navy, we should be able to keep one shipyard running at all times.  The problem is not with demand, it's that our planning and procurement vision has been so brutally short-sighted as to have been embarrassing which has literally strangled the infrastructure into non-existence.

My recollection is tax dollars were actually paid Irving to close Irving at a time when any rational person looking at the military could've said: "You know, we should be building some new AOR's in sequence right now, and by 2007 we should shift to the 280-replacements and in 2008 we open a second drydock to do a sequential run of Frigate Upgrades.  Then we do a midlife upgrade on the Victorias...etc., etc., etc."

Bottom Line:  Our shipyards are uncompetitive because there are no economies of scale because they are forced to run one-off jobs.  You give them a 20-year production run guarantee so that the company could make the requisite investment in high technology and there is no reason we could not produce at that same efficiency as the Finns.  I would add that once the company has made that investment in the high technology and trained its people, due to the guaranteed revenues you are providing, you now have a world-class company that can compete for other industrial projects.  And any additional sales into this new market (in which Canada otherwise would not be competing) provide 100% ROI in terms of the income/corporate taxes collected and EI premiums saved. 

JMHO,



Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2005)

Blackshirt, you are not the only one.

I am a great admirer of the Swedish industrial model.  I worked for a Swedish company for 17 years.  And I agree entirely that they have got their act together and do a great job of keeping their forces supplied with top of the line kit within a reasonable budget.  

But that capability has literally been built up over centuries and is carefully nurtured so that they don't lose it.

Long term it is a great model.

But as some chap name of Keynes apparently said "In the long term everyone is dead".

We don't have the luxury of waiting for the long term on this one.  Given the nature of the Canadian public and Canadian politics this is very much a case of striking while the iron is hot.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2005)

By the way one of the things I especially liked about Swedish defence planning was that in addition to the Combat Forces (tanks and combat boats and such) and the Homeguard (Dad with an LMG down at the local power station or harbour) the Swedes also had provision, in the event of an imminent invasion, to provisionally enrole EVERY adult (as far as I could tell) in the Forces - secretaries, managers and factory workers, and issue them with a personal sidearm.  Everybody gets a Glock ;D.


----------



## Grimey (16 Feb 2005)

My rant will cover a few points previously discussed, and my opinions are based on spending 17yrs in Esquimalt, 6 yrs on 280's

Lets face it, naval shipbuilding in Canada is dead.  Sure, some of the smaller yards can churn out MCDVS (Halifax shipbuilding) or torpedo recovery boats (Victoria Shipbuilding) but anything over 3000 tons displacement is going to have to be built/purchased offshore if the navy expects it within 10 years.

Look at the CPF's.  Initial design studies started in '77 and the last one (Ottawa) was delivered 20 years later.  The first of class is now 15 years old and IMHO these ships will not last 30 without a massive investment in dollars and manhours.  I've sat in on several meetings wrt the FELEX program for the CPF's. and the work package gets smaller and less ambitious in scope every time.  Here in Esquimalt, most of the yard's rescourses are being spent on the Victoriia, with little else keeping the remainder of the fleet runing on a shoe string.  Plans prior to the Chicoutimi incident was to have 2 based out west.  I don't see how we can manage it.

There are only 3 280's left, with one usually in reft. Huron (the 4th) is a glorified hulk.  Her cruise engines where sold back to the manufacturer.  The two main engines where kept to provide spares for the other three hulls.  Huron will be paid off to crown assets for disposal some time this summer.  Skeleton crew on now will be absorbed by Algonquin (engineers, NWT's, NET's) and the rest farmed out to other units.

A shame.  I had a lot of good times on that boat.

I agree wrt comments on the Ticos.  Ones the USN are paying off are only 10 yrs younger than the 280's.  We couldn't man them anyway.  Four CPF's with Command and Control fit and VLS is more probable.  There's talk of stretching four of em.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Feb 2005)

On this coast the talk of stretching the 4 CPFs has been pretty much ruled out so ikt makes you wonder who you can believe these days.


----------



## daniel h. (16 Feb 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The last I heard was that Canada's last major shipbuilding company had closed.   Irving Shipbuilding in St John packed it in a couple of years ago because they could not compete with the US companies.
> 
> GW



The U.S. shipyards have guaranteed orders from their own navy and merchant fleet. It is illegal for U.S. companies to purchase ships from a foreign country. I'm not disputing they are good but they are well protected.l


----------



## FSTO (16 Feb 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Kirkhill,
> 
> 
> My recollection is tax dollars were actually paid Irving to close Irving at a time when any rational person looking at the military could've said: "You know, we should be building some new AOR's in sequence right now, and by 2007 we should shift to the 280-replacements and in 2008 we open a second drydock to do a sequential run of Frigate Upgrades.   Then we do a midlife upgrade on the Victorias...etc., etc., etc."
> ...



I seem to recall Alan Rock (who was making a mess of the Dept of Industry after messing up Health, Justice and everything else he touched) stating that shipbuilding was "Old Technology" and that Canada was into new technology. To bad he never went to the shipyards building cruise liners, tankers, warships etc. There is more new technology in these ships than ever. 

There is enough work for a Canadian shipyard to build, refit and maintain the Navy, Coast Guard/DFO forever if we only had a government who had a clue as to what kind of foreign and defense policy we should have.


----------



## air533 (18 Mar 2005)

.


----------



## FSTO (18 Mar 2005)

As of the 31st of March, the HURON will be paid off and disposed of. What an utter waste of money! Due to our idiotic lack of a shipbuilding policy, (or any other policy (foreign, infrastructure, etc.) save the one that gets the Liberals re-elected) we are losing another asset.


----------



## T.S.Rea (20 Mar 2005)

Question for Inch?


----------



## Inch (20 Mar 2005)

T.S.Rea said:
			
		

> Question for Inch?



I drive ASW helicopters, not ASW Frigates.


----------

