# Canada faces fleet programme dilemmas



## 404SqnAVSTeach (2 May 2006)

Janes said:
			
		

> Canada faces fleet programme dilemmas
> 
> Sharon Hobson
> 
> ...


----------



## Navy_Blue (4 May 2006)

Already seeing cuts in FELEX looked at the PMO site and PG&D (Power Generation and distribution) replacement is no longer there.  Kind of disappointing.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 May 2006)

PG will be done through new technology - don't be surprised if you see about 5000 hamsters fall out for divisions, and a large ferris wheel looking contraption sitting in the hanger.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 May 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> PG will be done through new technology - don't be surprised if you see about 5000 hamsters fall out for divisions, and a large ferris wheel looking contraption sitting in the hanger.



My OS are gonna love it when I dist out that cleaning station for them. 

"OS Bloggins and AB Smith you clean up after the hamsters"

"Ah crap"


----------



## Rhibwolf (10 May 2006)

Will that be the OS looking to get out of cleaning stations chit, or the hamster chits to get off divisions?


----------



## BWCN (13 May 2006)

I hope and pray that something has been learned from the Maritime Helicopter Project. The FELEX project has already started, at least with a billion dollars worth of paper according to Jane’s. So to stop FELEX now wholesale in favour of SCSC would be dumb, but I wouldn’t put anything past DND. Don’t forget that the JSS and Ice-Breakers are also on the drawing board and possibly even LPD's as well. With all of this paper flying around I could see the frigates, destroyers and AOR’s sailing around without a refit until Poseidon himself intervenes. However it is safe to assume that FELEX will go forward at least in part for now. There are options as far as FELEX and SCSC as I see it though.

1.	Go forward with FELEX on part of the Halifax Class fleet first thing and stop waffling.
2.	Begin the Iroquois Class replacement in earnest after the FELEX group are refitted. Begin SCSC with vessels that are equipped to take over the destroyer role first and pay-off the Iroquois Class. 
3.	Take whatever goodies are reasonable and serviceable from the Iroquois Class and use them on the new Ice-Breakers.
4.	One thing I have read about but not heard NDHQ talk about is OPV’s. Use remaining unFELEXed Halifax Class as Offshore Patrol Vessels which should involve a far less costly refit and removal of some gear. 
5.	Continue the SCSC project with vessels equipped for the frigate role and eventually pay-off the Halifax Class.

Another thing that has been mused over is an expanded role for the Coast Guard. So why not see if the Coast Guard can make use of leftover unFELEXed vessels as well. I don’t think it is healthy to see all these naval projects as competing and I hope that NDHQ doesn’t either. With all the new vessels on the drawing board common elements of ship’s equipment should be purchased or developed together where ever possible. A little commonality and recycling would save money and get the some sorely needed ships off of paper and on the water. Here’s hoping.


----------



## McG (13 May 2006)

Here is one author's thoughts on a way ahead (written 2 - 3 years ago but still applicable in the big hand sense):


> Our present system of building a major class of new warships every 30 years is not working. It is inefficient and costly. Virtually nothing of the millions invested in industrial and regional benefits from the St. Laurent class ships exists today. When it was time to build the CPF vessels we had to start all over again to recruit and build the expertise to do the job. That we did such a good job is a credit to the ingenuity of Canadian shipyards, the marine community and the Navy. Today less than 10 years after the delivery of the last CPF, the lead yard in Saint John, New Brunswick is closed and the majority of the hard-earned expertise has gone elsewhere.
> 
> Smoothing the peaks and valleys requires a fundamental shift in the Navy and government thinking. Using the 12 CPF's and the four Tribals as an example, if we begin to construct one every two years the oldest would never exceed 32 years in age. If we throw the support ships, mine countermeasures vessels and Coast guard ships into the mix we could conceivably be building one to three ships a year indefinitely.


http://www.shipbuilding.ca/articles/article_crisis.shtml


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 May 2006)

MCG, that sounds far too logical....


Matthew.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Jun 2006)

MGC that is precisely how some other countries do business.  We are almost at the point of having no realistic ship building capabilities left in this country.  I can see SCSC winning out in the end.  Even the US is going to that way of thinking more or less.  They are planning to cut down the classes of ships required to 5.  Better than the hodge podge they have to deal with now and more cost effective too I would imagine.

We should keep our shipyards alive and could and should pump out a new ship every couple of years.  Would be good to have a constant steady supply of dependable equipment to work with for all agencies involved.  This feast and famine wheel is not good for the system.


----------



## chanman (20 Jul 2006)

This seems oddly similar to a story in the Vancouver Sun ages ago about West Coast shipyards and aluminium catamaran ships - nothing before the tiny Seabus ships (they could probably use one or two more) until the whole Pacificat fiasco (how many hundreds of millions again?).  After all those years and dollars spent on the shipyards to develop the ability to build the fast ferries, but now that they've been declared a failure and sold off, that investment looks like it may end up completely wasted.


----------



## tasop_999 (9 Aug 2006)

I hate to say this, but with the recent departure of much of the senior Navy Brass, we are really falling down on the totem pole in Ottawa.  Right now the priority seems to be with the Army with the mission in Afghanistan, but the policy wonks in Ottawa should remember that there are core competencies that need to be maintained.  For Canada to continue in its middle power role, a credible maritime force is necessary.  It does not, however, seem to me that the new equipment is going to have priority, especially the items promised in July.  With the unstable political situation in Ottawa, and the Navy as one of the most capital intensive branches of the CF, there is a good chance that the fleet is going to rust before replacement.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Aug 2006)

Hahaha, you said "going to rust".  Sadly we are already or nearly there.......... all kidding aside.


----------

