# Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR



## jollyjacktar

According to CBC radio this morning there will be an announcement of the decomissioning of all three 280's, Athabaskan, Iroquois, Algonquin and the AOR Protecteur.  No surprise there.  I'm sure that Preserver won't be far behind.


----------



## Ostrozac

What is the impact on manning when a ship is taken out of service without an immediately available replacement? Now, I'm sure that all the individual sailors will be posted out to appropriate positions with other units, I'm more interested in how the overall structure would change. When these four UIC are deleted, are the approx 1000 affected positions assigned to some kind of a fleet manning pool? Or does the RCN establishment shrink by 1000 pers?


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit more from The Canadian Press:


> The Canadian navy is going to retire four veteran ships that have been in service for decades.
> 
> Sources tell The Canadian Press that HMCS Algonquin, Athabaskan, Iroquois and Protecteur will be decommissioned, with an announcement expected later today.
> 
> The move comes as no surprise for any of the ships.
> 
> Protecteur's days were thought to be numbered after a fire in the 45-year-old tanker's engine room left the ship adrift in the Pacific last February and it had to be towed back to Victoria from Hawaii.
> 
> Protecteur and sister ship HMCS Preserver were ordered replaced by the federal government a decade ago but their replacements aren't due to enter service until 2019 at the earliest.
> 
> The other three vessels, all Tribal class destroyers, were commissioned in the early 70s and have been Canada's largest fighting ships for decades.
> 
> The Tribals have been a mainstay of Canada's contribution to NATO and have been sent to various international troublespots. The fourth Tribal, HMCS Huron, was retired in 2000 and sunk as a target in 2007.
> 
> Athabaskan left Halifax on Saturday to join an ongoing multi-national patrol of the Caribbean to fight organized crime and drug trafficking. It wasn't clear how long she would be at sea.
> 
> The exact timeline for retiring and disposing of the ships is unclear ....


----------



## Halifax Tar

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canadian-navy-to-retire-four-cold-war-era-ships-sources-1.2771385

This is a huge operational hit to a small Navy like ours.  On the plus side it should amount to some cost savings.


----------



## MAJONES

It would appear that a special deputy aid to an associate deputy minister figured out that the Navy would be much cheaper to operate if it didn't have ships.  As a reward, the special deputy aid has been promoted to deputy aid and the associate deputy minister got assigned a parking space 62.5 feet closer to the building entrance.   :


----------



## cameron

While the AOR's and the Iroquois Class destroyers were certainly scheduled and in some cases overdue for retirement, the problem I have with this is that the replacements aren't even under construction yet.  Successsive governments knew the expiration of the service lives of these ships was imminent and did nothing.  So now Canada will have to depend on her allies for logistical support for her surface combatants until the new JSS's hit the water and even worse, the RCN has no area air defence capability and a replacement hasn't even been selected for the Iroquois.  I can't help but wonder if the SCSC's will even become a reality before I get grandchildren.  The Royal Australian Navy Hobart Class may be having its issues but at least Australia started building a replacement for their Perry Class Frigates before retiring them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'll skip the "should haves/could have/ought to's" on this one and simply say "thanks for your service" to these tired ol ladies and to all the sailors who crewed them over the many years.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'll skip the "should haves/could have/ought to's" on this one and simply say "thanks for your service" to these tired ol ladies and to all the sailors who crewed them over the many years.



 :goodpost:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MAJONES said:
			
		

> It would appear that a special deputy aid to an associate deputy minister figured out that the Navy would be much cheaper to operate if it didn't have ships.  As a reward, the special deputy aid has been promoted to deputy aid and the associate deputy minister got assigned a parking space 62.5 feet closer to the building entrance.   :



Not to mention it frees up money for 5 more Admirals and their staffs. I understand that the RCN in 2030 will be using Stone Frigates exclusively.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

cameron said:
			
		

> I can't help but wonder if the SCSC's will even become a reality before I get grandchildren.  The Royal Australian Navy Hobart Class may be having its issues but at least Australia started building a replacement for their Perry Class Frigates before retiring them.


SCSC is long dead. The CSC Project (Canadian Surface Combatant) which replaced it, is alive and well and went to Project Definition phase in Nov 2012. What the hell do you think that mother of all shipyard buildings going up on the Halifax waterfront is for? Yes, AOPS will come first but the design of the building is based on the latest design version for CSC...which is not for public disposition at this time.


----------



## The Bread Guy

More from the Info-machine on the RCN's "Transition to the Future Fleet":


> Preparing for the future fleet
> 
> (....)
> 
> *HMCS Iroquois* .... HMCS Iroquois will prepare for its official paying off ceremony in January 2015 in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
> 
> *HMCS Algonquin* .... Considering the relatively short service life remaining for HMCS Algonquin, which was scheduled to be retired in early 2019, and its current state of repair, the cost to re-instate this ship to full operational capability no longer represents a responsible use of public funds. As a result, HMCS Algonquin will begin preparations for pay off in the near future ....
> 
> *HMCS Protecteur* .... HMCS Protecteur will be officially retired after sustaining serious damage in a fire in February 2014. An extensive assessment of HMCS Protecteur has concluded that the ship was damaged beyond economical repair.  Considering the relatively short service life remaining for HMCS Protecteur, which was scheduled to be retired in 2017, and its current state of repair, the cost to re-instate the ship to full operational capability would not represent a responsible use of public funds. As a result, the ship will remain alongside and be prepared for disposal as early as is practically feasible ....
> 
> *HMCS Preserver* .... As a result of its current material state, and considering the relatively short service life remaining for HMCS Preserver, the cost to reinstate this ship to full operational capability does not represent a responsible use of public funds. HMCS Preserver will therefore cease its operational life, remain alongside and prepare for pay off in the near future ....


----------



## cavalryman

It would be nice if least a couple of the ships become artificial reefs.  Can‘t think of a better way to end a long and honourable service than to become part of the ocean and give divers decades of opportunity to visit them. Beats being sold for scrap. Of course as a diver I'm a tad biased


----------



## Colin Parkinson

After the pain that the ARSBC just went through with the HMCS Annapolis, not sure if the volunteers are up to another one for a couple of years. I wonder if any of our allies have some ships we can "borrow" Ones that are running now or hot layup to save costs. Borrow the ship and small crew to teach our guys how to run it.


----------



## MilEME09

Since this thread is already about provider



> *Navy sending four Cold War era ships into retirement*
> 
> The Canadian Press
> Published Friday, September 19, 2014 8:06AM EDT
> Last Updated Friday, September 19, 2014 5:49PM EDT
> 
> OTTAWA -- The navy's decision to retire four venerable warships will mean finding short-term stop-gaps until new vessels are built.
> 
> Two of the fleet's three destroyers, HMCS Iroquois and Algonquin, and both supply vessels, HMCS Preserver and HMCS Protecteur, have made their last voyages and will be decommissioned, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman said Friday.
> 
> Norman, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, said the retirements have been in the cards for some time, but other developments speeded up the plans.
> HMCS Iroquois Canadian warship
> 
> Ship stats: Details about Canadian warships being decommissioned
> 
> In addition to general wear and tear from four decades at sea, Algonquin and Protecteur both were involved in serious accidents recently. Given that they were slated for retirement shortly, there was no point in repairing them.
> 
> Algonquin was in a collision in 2013 and Protecteur suffered a major engine room fire last February and had to be towed home from Hawaii. Serious corrosion problems were found in Preserver in recent months.
> 
> Iroquois had been slated for retirement next year anyway.
> 
> "All of the ships are at or approaching the end of their effective and productive service lives and any further expenditure of time or money in these ships no longer makes sense," Norman said.
> 
> The navy is essentially left with a single destroyer, HMCS Athabaskan, 12 Halifax-class frigates and some smaller, coastal defence vessels. The frigates are going through a modernization process and some of them will be docked over the next few years.
> 
> Defence analyst Martin Shadwick said losing the four ships will mean less flexibility for the navy in what missions it can take on and how it uses the operational assets it has.
> 
> "Our ability to take on commitments both at home and overseas is going to be restrained at least until they get all 12 of the frigates back in service," he said from Toronto.
> 
> Norman said he's confident that the navy can meet its commitments.
> 
> The destroyers were Cold War sub killers launched in the 1970s. They were refitted in the 1990s as command-and-control ships and area air-defence vessels.
> 
> Norman said he expects the frigates can replace them, for the most part, although their anti-aircraft missiles aren't as far-reaching.
> 
> "In many respects, a modern, highly capable frigate like we're producing in the Halifax class through the modernization, is as capable in most respects if not more capable than what is now 20-year old technology in the legacy Iroquois class."
> 
> The navy is looking at ways to replace the supply ships, which were used to refuel and resupply ships at sea. Replacements aren't due until 2019 at the earliest.
> 
> "Options include potential enhancements, or additions, to existing agreements with key allies, as well as some made-in-Canada solutions," Norman said. He wouldn't go into details, but said other navies needing a temporary fix to such a shortage have borrowed vessels or refitted civilian tankers.
> 
> The crews of the four warships, about 1,400 sailors in all, will be reassigned. Some will spend months stripping their ships of gear that can be recycled and preparing them for disposal. Others will be retrained for jobs aboard the frigates.
> 
> The ultimate fate of the ships lies with Public Works. Norman said he doesn't know if they will be sold for scrap or sunk as artificial reefs.
> 
> HMCS Huron, a sister-ship in the destroyer class, was retired in 2000 and sunk as a target in 2007.
> 
> While none of the four retiring ships is to sail again, their disposal may take a year or 18 months. Iroquois, however, will be the first to go. She will be formally paid off in January.
> 
> NDP defence critic Jack Harris said the decision to decommission the vessels came because of government penny-pinching.
> 
> "These ships are being taken out of service because the government can't afford, the navy can't afford to operate them and still try and get their procurement budget going," he said.
> 
> "So this government really is putting the screws on, on the navy and the navy's ability to operate in its mandate, and this is the consequence."


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/navy-sending-four-cold-war-era-ships-into-retirement-1.2014607

well there goes the navy


----------



## Edward Campbell

This decision makes good financial and engineering/maintenance sense for the Department of National Defence but it also makes good _political_ sense for the RCN: it highlights the newest round of military "rust out" (the last one was in the 1990s) and makes it _politically possible_, even attractive for the government to move ahead with the shipbuilding project ... ahead of the F35 and the Army's priorities.


----------



## Stoker

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This decision makes good financial and engineering/maintenance sense for the Department of National Defence but it also makes good _political_ sense for the RCN: it highlights the newest round of military "rust out" (the last one was in the 1990s) and makes it _politically possible_, even attractive for the government to move ahead with the shipbuilding project ... ahead of the F35 and the Army's priorities.



It does however there will be some sort of PM going on the 280's to strip and maintain parts for the Athabaskan which will be operated for the next several years. The Preserver could be operated as alongside fueling platform. Many personnel have already been reassigned to the fleet from those hulls.


----------



## Petard

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This decision makes good financial and engineering/maintenance sense for the Department of National Defence but it also makes good _political_ sense for the RCN: it highlights the newest round of military "rust out" (the last one was in the 1990s) and makes it _politically possible_, even attractive for the government to move ahead with the shipbuilding project ... ahead of the F35 and the Army's priorities.



That might be, but there's nothing in the message being delivered that explains how such a significant capability reduction, particularly in air defence, will be filled in the transition period to when those new AOPS and CSC ships reach IOC

I suspect this is more about keeping the ledger where the GoC wants it to be; they already had public support with the way they've framed the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy


----------



## Stoker

Petard said:
			
		

> That might be, but there's nothing in the message being delivered that explains how such a significant capability reduction, particularly in air defence, will be filled in the transition period to when those new AOPS and CSC ships reach IOC
> 
> I suspect this is more about keeping the ledger where the GoC wants it to be; they already had public support with the way they've framed the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy



I agree with you, the AOPS is definitely not what we need now, we need new destroyers and tankers and thats years away. The AOPS while nice to have, doesn't reverse the capability reduction as you mentioned we have now.


----------



## Occam

Might be worth editing the thread title to more accurately reflect that both AORs and all but one of the destroyers are to be paid off.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So how many sailors would this leave floating without a job?

What is the RCN planning to do with the surplus?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I agree with you, the AOPS is definitely not what we need now, we need new destroyers and tankers and thats years away. The AOPS while nice to have, doesn't reverse the capability reduction as you mentioned we have now.



The _capabilities_ the RCN needs are the ones the government of the day, not the RCN, decides. If the government of the day wants you to do e.g. Ops CARIBBE and NANOOK better, and for longer and for less money then the AOPS and MCDVs are what the RCN needs. If, on the other hand, the government wants more Ops like ARTEMIS and REASSURANCE then the RCN does, indeed, need more destroyer/frigate type vessels.

My _sense_ of the _politics_ of it all is that the Conservative government of the day likes using the RCN - it is perceived to be (relatively) cheap (we own the ships, we've hired the sailors, you were going to do some sailing, somewhere, anyway) and safe (but that would all change, radically, if someone hits a warship with a missile or even a suicide boat attack and we have a casualty list that dwarfs anything we've seen since 1953 (Hill 187, our worst casualty list in the Korean campaign). I _think_ that this government would like an operational "holiday" from places like the Arabian and Black Seas, and would dearly love to do more, and, even more important, to be seen to be doing more, in the Arctic and Caribbean. Thus, I _guess_ that this government would rather have the AOPS first.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The AOPS are what's ready to build, not the replacements for the destroyers/frigates.  They've dilly dallied so long that it will be some time before the replacements are ready to build.  Therefore, they've no choice as that is the path they set themselves down a long time ago.  They've painted industry and the RCN into a corner and now they'll have to live with it.  And if they can accelerate the builds of what's ready in time for the next election then the CPC will trumpet that to the skies in hopes of votes.


----------



## ringo

USNS Bridge and USNS Rainier may be available for lease until are Berlin class enter service.


----------



## Navy_Pete

recceguy said:
			
		

> So how many sailors would this leave floating without a job?
> 
> What is the RCN planning to do with the surplus?



Probably none; it's going to take a few years to get all the surveys done and get everything prepared for the demilitarization and deconstruction.  I'm sure there are enough holes to fill in the fleet now, and you still need some folks onboard for security and basic maintenance.

Based on the last few ships that got turned over for artificial reefs with the crazy bureaucracy, as well as the cost of stripping it down for a sinkex (roughly double a straight dismantling), probably neither of those will happen.  There are a few yards in Canada capable; but none of the west coast.  Closest is Brownsville, Tx, so may as well carry on up the coast and do it in country.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The AOPS are what's ready to build, not the replacements for the destroyers/frigates.  They've dilly dallied so long that it will be some time before the replacements are ready to build.  Therefore, they've no choice as that is the path they set themselves down a long time ago.  They've painted industry and the RCN into a corner and now they'll have to live with it.  And if they can accelerate the builds of what's ready in time for the next election then the CPC will trumpet that to the skies in hopes of votes.



Unfortunately yes thats true, its just my opinion. If they listened to people actually doing the job we might be in better stead right now, just my opinion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Unfortunately yes thats true, its just my opinion. If they listened to people actually doing the job we might be in better stead right now, just my opinion.




And what would make you stand out as deserving of that dubious honour, when no-one, Federal or Provincial, no matter the job, gets a say as the boots on the ground? Input from the peons is frowned upon, as the policy makers would be exposed as frauds.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Actually, they did ask our opinions, once.  We had a dream team from the puzzle palace sail with us for a week and watch what the tanker did at sea with the fleet.  The then gave a presentation to all three messes on what the then proposed tanker replacement was going to be.  The asked us what we liked in the design, what worked for us and what didn't.  Then, they said the intent was to build 4 and have them in the water for 2005 with 2 on each coast.  Then, 9/11 happened and it all went pear shaped and we got squat.  Guess they didn't like our input.   :nod:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

While this looks like a big hit to the RCN capability wise, at least on paper, the reality is that these ships were at the end of their service-life and need to be replaced.  We can go on about the ifs, ands or buts of why we don't have replacements yet but realistically none of that matters at this point.  The fact is, the present government has a plan to replace our ships, it also has a plan to develop a ship-building industry which will give us strategic capacity.  

I agree with Edward and I think this is a very good move by the government and the RCN.  I anxiously await seeing the first keel cut at both Seaspan and Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax.  The Navy will deal with some short term pain over the next couple of years and a decreased op tempo; however, I think long term the service will be well served by the NSPS.


----------



## AlexanderM

Is it a sign that they may soon announce the order for the new Destroyers, as in with details?


----------



## Occam

I'm afraid it'll be a while yet before you see anything about CSC.


----------



## donaldk

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Probably none; it's going to take a few years to get all the surveys done and get everything prepared for the demilitarization and deconstruction.  I'm sure there are enough holes to fill in the fleet now, and you still need some folks onboard for security and basic maintenance.
> 
> Based on the last few ships that got turned over for artificial reefs with the crazy bureaucracy, as well as the cost of stripping it down for a sinkex (roughly double a straight dismantling), probably neither of those will happen.  There are a few yards in Canada capable; but none of the west coast.  Closest is Brownsville, Tx, so may as well carry on up the coast and do it in country.



Just waiting for the Op Stat transfer msg to hit...


----------



## FSTO

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> The fact is, the present government has a plan to replace our ships, it also has a plan to develop a ship-building industry which will give us strategic capacity.



I think that this will be the last time that we will rebuild our shipbuilding industry. If we let it die again then we better put a stake in it, our treasury cannot handle another rebuild.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> While this looks like a big hit to the RCN capability wise, at least on paper, the reality is that these ships were at the end of their service-life and need to be replaced.  We can go on about the ifs, ands or buts of why we don't have replacements yet but realistically none of that matters at this point.  The fact is, the present government has a plan to replace our ships, it also has a plan to develop a ship-building industry which will give us strategic capacity.
> 
> I agree with Edward and I think this is a very good move by the government and the RCN.  I anxiously await seeing the first keel cut at both Seaspan and Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax.  The Navy will deal with some short term pain over the next couple of years and a decreased op tempo; however, I think long term the service will be well served by the NSPS.



So what's the plan? Spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan, given by Canadian shipbuilders. Or buy offshore and have our equipment in two years?

Canadian shipbuilders have to be held to a performance contract. If you don't produce in the first two years, as specified, you go to half purchase price compounded for every year you're late. Within a few years they will be building for nothing.

This goes back to our AFV's and aircraft. If Canadian corporations can't meet quota and deadlines, we need to buy somewhere else.

I'm tired of Canadian industry holding us hostage for Canadian content rules.

If they don't like it, they'll get lean and mean, rather than holding our country for ransom, which we have to make clear, we will not pay anymore.


----------



## MilEME09

recceguy said:
			
		

> So what's the plan? Spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan, given by Canadian shipbuilders. Or buy offshore and have our equipment in two years?
> 
> Canadian shipbuilders have to be held to a performance contract. If you don't produce in the first two years, as specified, you go to half purchase price compounded for every year you're late. Within a few years they will be building for nothing.
> 
> This goes back to our AFV's and aircraft. If Canadian corporations can't meet quota and deadlines, we need to buy somewhere else.
> 
> I'm tired of Canadian industry holding us hostage for Canadian content rules.
> 
> If they don't like it, they'll get lean and mean, rather than holding our country for ransom, which we have to make clear, we will not pay anymore.



I agree, if you cant compete with say south korean yards or german yards then why should we invest when we wont see a return?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Because "Canada first" in respect to procurement is first and foremost nothing but vote buying.   To buy off shore, while logical would be political suicide.  I don't see that changing.


----------



## dimsum

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Because "Canada first" in respect to procurement is first and foremost nothing but vote buying.   To buy off shore, while logical would be political suicide.  I don't see that changing.



Yep, and the Aussies are catching flak for their decisions for their RAN vessels (esp the subs) at this time.


----------



## Edward Campbell

See my comments about "Buy America," "Canada First," and stupid political decisions driven by even more stupid voters here. And I mean it: the reason ministers and senior bureaucrats, generally smarter than average people, make dumb decisions is because the people, the almighty but incredibly stupid f'ing people, *demand* stupid decisions.

Tony Abbott may get away with some smart defence procurement in Australia, but if he does it is because Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have nearly destroyed the Labour Party, not because Australians are smart. He _might_, also, spend some of the dollars he saves by smarter defence procurement on visible job creation projects, remembering Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's quip about Canadians liking to see construction cranes because it means people are working.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

recceguy said:
			
		

> So what's the plan? Spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan, given by Canadian shipbuilders. Or buy offshore and have our equipment in two years?
> 
> Canadian shipbuilders have to be held to a performance contract. If you don't produce in the first two years, as specified, you go to half purchase price compounded for every year you're late. Within a few years they will be building for nothing.
> 
> This goes back to our AFV's and aircraft. If Canadian corporations can't meet quota and deadlines, we need to buy somewhere else.
> 
> I'm tired of Canadian industry holding us hostage for Canadian content rules.
> 
> If they don't like it, they'll get lean and mean, rather than holding our country for ransom, which we have to make clear, we will not pay anymore.



I'm not sure what you mean by "spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan" when the government has the NSPS and lays out in quite clear detail what it intends to do.  The NSPS is the plan and  calls for a phased re-building of the RCN along with the development of a local shipbuilding industry in order to support that re-building.  

Just because the timelines don't jive with expectations of certain members of the CF doesn't mean there is no plan.  Again, I've said it before but "Soldiers/Sailors are incapable of making policy decisions because they always think whatever they have isn't good enough, that they need more of it and that they aren't getting the support they need," we work for the government. not the other way around and they determine what we should be doing and what kit we are going to be using.

The present government is one of the most disciplined in recent times and they were dealt a bad deck of cards with regard to a military that has been rusting out for decades with little procurement of new equipment.  They've made the best of a bad situation and rather than rushing hastily from procurement battle to procurement battle, they have developed a long term plan which will set us up for long term success.

Will it be more expensive at first?  

Most definitely but Rome wasn't built in a day and it was always going to be more expensive when the previous industry was destroyed without so much as an after thought.

Is it all about Political Pork?

Of course it is but what decision the government of the day makes isn't?  It all goes back to Clausewitz's idea of _Politik_.  The CF is a tool of policy for the government and the NSPS is a clear reflection of that relationship.  

I view the NSPS in the same vein as any other infrastructure project the government undertakes i.e. oil and gas pipelines, highway construction, etc... it's all meant to increase our industrial capacity which is also a form of military power.  We will now have our own shipbuilding industry which builds our own ships and gives us _Strategic Capacity_.  I envision this industry branching off into other areas other than military shipbuilding with the biggest target being the oil and gas sector, particularly the off shore one.


----------



## jollyjacktar

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean by "spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan" when the government has the NSPS and lays out in quite clear detail what it intends to do.  The NSPS is the plan and  calls for a phased re-building of the RCN along with the development of a local shipbuilding industry in order to support that re-building.
> 
> Just because the timelines don't jive with expectations of certain members of the CF doesn't mean there is no plan.  Again, I've said it before but "Soldiers/Sailors are incapable of making policy decisions because they always think whatever they have isn't good enough, that they need more of it and that they aren't getting the support they need," we work for the government. not the other way around and they determine what we should be doing and what kit we are going to be using.
> 
> Yes, of course.  Silly me.  The AOR's and 280's, are top notch, cutting edge and they were good enough for a sailor of the 1960's, why not for those of today.  I suppose those of us who've struggled to keep them going in what must be their obviously best years of service don't have a f'n clue and are a bunch of f'n whiners.  Same for the soldiers who were saddled with rusting out MLVW or the FANTASTIC LSVW fleets...  :
> 
> The present government is one of the most disciplined in recent times and they were dealt a bad deck of cards with regard to a military that has been rusting out for decades with little procurement of new equipment.  They've made the best of a bad situation and rather than rushing hastily from procurement battle to procurement battle, they have developed a long term plan which will set us up for long term success.
> 
> Will it be more expensive at first?
> 
> Most definitely but Rome wasn't built in a day and it was always going to be more expensive when the previous industry was destroyed without so much as an after thought.
> 
> Is it all about Political Pork?
> 
> Of course it is but what decision the government of the day makes isn't?  It all goes back to Clausewitz's idea of _Politik_.  The CF is a tool of policy for the government and the NSPS is a clear reflection of that relationship.
> 
> I view the NSPS in the same vein as any other infrastructure project the government undertakes i.e. oil and gas pipelines, highway construction, etc... it's all meant to increase our industrial capacity which is also a form of military power.  We will now have our own shipbuilding industry which builds our own ships and gives us _Strategic Capacity_.  I envision this industry branching off into other areas other than military shipbuilding with the biggest target being the oil and gas sector, particularly the off shore one.
> 
> I don't. There wasn't a rush of orders to keep these yards on the east coast running when they finished the pervious naval builds.  If that were the case, then they wouldn't need to be rebuilt.  Buyers are going off shore where they get it cheaper, faster and without the BS.  Seaspan was in pretty good condition.  Irving and Davies in particular less so.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Stoker

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean by "spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan" when the government has the NSPS and lays out in quite clear detail what it intends to do.  The NSPS is the plan and  calls for a phased re-building of the RCN along with the development of a local shipbuilding industry in order to support that re-building.
> 
> Just because the timelines don't jive with expectations of certain members of the CF doesn't mean there is no plan.  Again, I've said it before but "Soldiers/Sailors are incapable of making policy decisions because they always think whatever they have isn't good enough, that they need more of it and that they aren't getting the support they need," we work for the government. not the other way around and they determine what we should be doing and what kit we are going to be using.
> 
> The present government is one of the most disciplined in recent times and they were dealt a bad deck of cards with regard to a military that has been rusting out for decades with little procurement of new equipment.  They've made the best of a bad situation and rather than rushing hastily from procurement battle to procurement battle, they have developed a long term plan which will set us up for long term success.
> 
> Will it be more expensive at first?
> 
> Most definitely but Rome wasn't built in a day and it was always going to be more expensive when the previous industry was destroyed without so much as an after thought.
> 
> Is it all about Political Pork?
> 
> Of course it is but what decision the government of the day makes isn't?  It all goes back to Clausewitz's idea of _Politik_.  The CF is a tool of policy for the government and the NSPS is a clear reflection of that relationship.
> 
> I view the NSPS in the same vein as any other infrastructure project the government undertakes i.e. oil and gas pipelines, highway construction, etc... it's all meant to increase our industrial capacity which is also a form of military power.  We will now have our own shipbuilding industry which builds our own ships and gives us _Strategic Capacity_.  I envision this industry branching off into other areas other than military shipbuilding with the biggest target being the oil and gas sector, particularly the off shore one.



If the government and previous governments had stuck with its plans for new support ships and haven't kept extending the paying off of the 280's and the tankers we would be in better stread right now. Yes the NSPS is a great idea but 10 years too late, we are facing significant capability shortfall and to me and many members of the RCN thats unacceptable. It may be silly to have high expectations, but tell that to someone sailing on a 40 yr old ship a 1000 miles from land in a storm. Many of my peers have seen this coming and yes many of us think that its not good enough. I may be naive, but I expect better of my government.


----------



## GR66

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> See my comments about "Buy America," "Canada First," and stupid political decisions driven by even more stupid voters here. And I mean it: the reason ministers and senior bureaucrats, generally smarter than average people, make dumb decisions is because the people, the almighty but incredibly stupid f'ing people, *demand* stupid decisions.
> 
> Tony Abbott may get away with some smart defence procurement in Australia, but if he does it is because Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have nearly destroyed the Labour Party, not because Australians are smart. He _might_, also, spend some of the dollars he saves by smarter defence procurement on visible job creation projects, remembering Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's quip about Canadians liking to see construction cranes because it means people are working.



Agree totally but what particularly bothers me about the NSPS is that for the most part we're planning to design and build ships that nobody else will ever buy.  There are a pretty limited number of countries that are in the market for a high-end multi-purpose frigate and most of these countries have their own domestic programs and will never politically be able to choose to buy Canadian.  

If you're going to spend pork on shipbuilders then in my opinion you need to both KEEP them busy with ongoing orders and have them build something for which there is an international market.  The CSC is at the top end of what the major world navies have in their fleets.  The US, Brits, French, Italians, Spanish, Japanese, Danes, etc. are not going to give orders for their premier warships to Canada over their own shipyards.  It's just not going to happen.  The rest of the world DO buy warships offshore because they don't have their own industries to protect, but they simply can't afford ships like the CSC.  

In my humble opinion Canada would be better served both militarily and industrially by once again becoming primarily a "Corvette Navy".  We have the longest coastline in the world which means we should have a fairly large number of ships and aircraft to patrol and protect that water.  We're also blessed with an excellent strategic location in that our populated areas are physically far from other naval powers and we sit on top of the US with it's dominant navy.  No other country has the blue-water power to steam into North American waters with their fleet and hope to survive.  

Submarines, mines and asymmetrical attacks however would be a serious potential and realistic threat.  I think in many ways having a larger number of ASW corvettes instead of a smaller number of multi-purpose and AAW Frigates would not only provide better protection for our own waters but would be as much of an advantage for our allies as well.  The USN has lost much of it's ASW capability and experience at the same time that diesel subs are becoming more central to the navies of many potential enemies.  Canadian expertise in this area would probably be very welcome.

A ship design similar to DCNS's GoWind class (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gowind_corvettes/) that are around 2000t with a crew of less than 100, have a helicopter hanger and stern ramps that can be used for RHIBs for boarding parties or mine hunting UUVs and 3-week endurance might be able to fulfill this role.  The RCN could perhaps have a standing order for one new ship every two years which could give us a 30-ship fleet that is constantly renewing itself as technology advances and give our shipyards an affordable hullform that can be modified into a number of ship configurations that would be affordable for international customers.  

If there's a real need for a handful of more capable AAW or Command-capable Frigates/Destroyers then buy a couple of those off the shelf from the US/Brits/French/etc. to save time and cost rather than designing and building our own (because we'll never sell them to anyone else anyway).


----------



## MARS

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Again, I've said it before but "Soldiers/Sailors are incapable of making policy decisions because they always think whatever they have isn't good enough, that they need more of it and that they aren't getting the support they need," we work for the government. not the other way around and they determine what we should be doing and what kit we are going to be using.



I agree.  Your quote makes me think of Billy Connelly and the tail end of his "women's demands" stand-up comedy routine.

Here is the Youtube of it, I think - hopefully just the end bit (I can't access Youtube from my current location to check the clip)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga3BQWoNPq0

Here is the text version in case the link is duff:

"We want this! And that. We demand a share in that, and most of that, some of this and fucking all of that. Less of that, more of this and fucking plenty of this. And another thing we want it now. I want it yesterday and I want fucking more tomorrow. And the demands will all be checked then so fucking stay awake."


----------



## YZT580

Just as a thought, could they have deliberately set out to make a big thing out of the decommissioning to make a strategic off-shore buy to cover the gap until our own constructs come on line in much the same manner as they bought the CH47s?  Look, our ships are rusted out we have a plan but buying these few ? will bridge the gap and give our industry time to come on line.


----------



## Old Sweat

Announcing an off shore buy instead of contracting to build and buy in Canada would, it seems to me, be a political misstep of gargantuan proportions. Can you imagine the furor as the opposition, the unions, the media, the academics and the create-a-job crowd attack it for being anti-whatever group you can think of that knows enough to jump in front of a camera and speak in short, vivid sentences that air well on the evening news? (Sorry for the run on sentence.)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> If the government and previous governments had stuck with its plans for new support ships and haven't kept extending the paying off of the 280's and the tankers we would be in better stread right now. Yes the NSPS is a great idea but 10 years too late, we are facing significant capability shortfall and to me and many members of the RCN thats unacceptable. It may be silly to have high expectations, but tell that to someone sailing on a 40 yr old ship a 1000 miles from land in a storm. Many of my peers have seen this coming and yes many of us think that its not good enough. I may be naive, but I expect better of my government.



Chief, I come from the light infantry so I know exactly what it's like to get the shaft not just from the government but from your own organization who doesn't really give a damn about what you do.  

Expectations need to be managed, we had a 10 year war that we had too pay for, certain things during that time were put on the back burner while we fought said war, the Navy took the brunt of it during that timeframe.  While the government's present plan isn't the be all end all, at least it has a plan.  The next few years are going to be difficult for all the services, we all have our own issues that we are trying to work out but I am confident everything will turn out for the best in the coming years.  

What the services desperately need is to start working together on issues facing the CF and stop being so closed minded, we have a tendency to focus on ourselves and forget that we are part of a bigger machine that is the CF.


----------



## Stoker

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Chief, I come from the light infantry so I know exactly what it's like to get the shaft not just from the government but from your own organization who doesn't really give a damn about what you do.
> 
> Expectations need to be managed, we had a 10 year war that we had too pay for, certain things during that time were put on the back burner while we fought said war, the Navy took the brunt of it during that timeframe.  While the government's present plan isn't the be all end all, at least it has a plan.  The next few years are going to be difficult for all the services, we all have our own issues that we are trying to work out but I am confident everything will turn out for the best in the coming years.
> 
> What the services desperately need is to start working together on issues facing the CF and stop being so closed minded, we have a tendency to focus on ourselves and forget that we are part of a bigger machine that is the CF.



Sir, honestly where I work I don't often think about the other services and the hard times they are surely facing. What I do often think about is the morale issues we face operating a navy that is slowly but surely rusting away and the flood of personnel leaving. Perhaps its the idea that in short order and for a significant period of time we will have more crews that we have hulls for and we cannot meet our committements. I am glad that there is some kind of plan in place to provide us new platforms, however like I mentioned before its the priority I don't like and I am entitled to my own opinion. I accept it and support it but I don't have to like it. From my many years of experience at sea hoping everything is going to turn out for the best is foolish, you may as well plan for and expect the worse.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If there is a surplus of sailors, lease a couple of icebreakers, paint them grey, put light armament on them and let them train and work in the arctic. Start now and everything should be ready for next season.

Also look at some small vessel stuff, including small patrol boats and landing craft, anything that can be leased. It would be challenging and give Junior Officers more chances of command and broaden the experience base in the navy.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Okay Colin. There you go using common sence and logic again!

To compound this, we DO NOT have a surplus of sailors because we are retasking to platforms with NO (RegF) BILLETS (ORCA and KIN class).

I don't know what the answer is but that Norwegian frigate outside my window sure looks like it may fit the bill for some of our strategic deficencies....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sounds like a armed boarding party is in order, cutting out a frigate is part of the tradition! Of course it will have to be cleansed of Lutefisk afterwards!


----------



## suffolkowner

ringo said:
			
		

> USNS Bridge and USNS Rainier may be available for lease until are Berlin class enter service.



This would be a good idea in my opinion. The gap in capabilities both within the RCN and NATO is growing too large. There will without a doubt be further slippage in the schedule. It might be time to look at upgrading some Halifax class frigates further as well maybe Smart-L instead of Smart-S. The Irving yard is probably more susceptible to delay than Seaspan. Can the Halifax replacements really be expected before 2030?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SMART-L was looked at and deemed unfeasible as it would require cutting and stretching the Halifax's to accommodate the extra top weight, and such a radical redesign was simply more expensive than getting new ships from scratch.

On the other hand, I agree that we should look at leasing support capability until the new AOR's (I won't call them JSS) come on line.

Also, GR66, the other nations that do buy offshore do buy ships as sophisticated as the CSC's: Australia's purchases of Spanish AAW destroyers and amphibious ships, or MEKO and American frigates before is a good example.

Finally, no one should think that we are about to magically inherit a large number of unemployed seaman just because four ships will soon decommission. As the trickle of releases from these four ships occur over time, the released personnel will simply be absorbed in an otherwise undermanned fleet, with perhaps enough of an overage that some people will finally be able to attend long career courses that have been postponed to service the fleet - thus finally being able to enjoy promotions that were overdue. In due time, it may even permit the Navy to put together the first crew of the AOPS right from the beginning of their construction, thus letting them learn and get ready during construction and be able to observe said construction from the start: This is invaluable preparation, especially for the engineering trades who can learn the "nuts and bolts" of their new ship before even going at sea in her.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For you special deal

http://www.shipworldbrokerage.com/Pages/PatrolFrig.aspx

http://www.shipworldbrokerage.com/Pages/TankerVessels.aspx

http://www.shipworldbrokerage.com/Pages/Tugs.aspx 

http://www.tampers.eu/Military-Landing-craft-for-Sale-2-pct.html

http://commercial.apolloduck.ca/listings.phtml?cid=27 - Since we are reviving old ranks, we can revive another honourable tradition, the armed Merchant cruiser! Perfect for luring in pirates and likes. Downside is Admirals and staff officers might find the quarters comfy and spend to much time aboard.


----------



## suffolkowner

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> SMART-L was looked at and deemed unfeasible as it would require cutting and stretching the Halifax's to accommodate the extra top weight, and such a radical redesign was simply more expensive than getting new ships from scratch.
> 
> On the other hand, I agree that we should look at leasing support capability until the new AOR's (I won't call them JSS) come on line.
> 
> Also, GR66, the other nations that do buy offshore do buy ships as sophisticated as the CSC's: Australia's purchases of Spanish AAW destroyers and amphibious ships, or MEKO and American frigates before is a good example.
> 
> Finally, no one should think that we are about to magically inherit a large number of unemployed seaman just because four ships will soon decommission. As the trickle of releases from these four ships occur over time, the released personnel will simply be absorbed in an otherwise undermanned fleet, with perhaps enough of an overage that some people will finally be able to attend long career courses that have been postponed to service the fleet - thus finally being able to enjoy promotions that were overdue. In due time, it may even permit the Navy to put together the first crew of the AOPS right from the beginning of their construction, thus letting them learn and get ready during construction and be able to observe said construction from the start: This is invaluable preparation, especially for the engineering trades who can learn the "nuts and bolts" of their new ship before even going at sea in her.



Is an enhanced AD capability something the RCN should have in the next 15 years? 
Is there some other way of incorporating it in either the Halifax class or other platforms?
The Smart-L weighs 8 tonnes(?) how much does the smart-s weigh? 
Would removing the hanger/helicopter help alleviate the weight issue?
How about another system like AN/SPY-1K?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Colin P said:
			
		

> If there is a surplus of sailors, lease a couple of icebreakers, paint them grey, put light armament on them and let them train and work in the arctic. Start now and everything should be ready for next season.
> 
> Also look at some small vessel stuff, including small patrol boats and landing craft, anything that can be leased. It would be challenging and give Junior Officers more chances of command and broaden the experience base in the navy.



It's all Harper's double-secret plan to buy both the Russian Mistrals.


Matthew. ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Is an enhanced AD capability something the RCN should have in the next 15 years?



Should have had it 15 years ago, but I doubt it will materialize in the next 15 years.


----------



## MilEME09

http://youtu.be/hha91X0cojI?t=4m15s

ahem, some things dont change we are back to here


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> It's all Harper's double-secret plan to buy both the Russian Mistrals.
> 
> 
> Matthew. ;D



I was giving it a thought. A Mistral Class appears to have a complement of 160 personal, the Iroquois Class is suppose to be 280 (both from Wiki) So from a manning perspective it's doable to run one of these ships. That does not include running an Air arm or the Hospital function. However if we did order one of these(not the Russian ones), we could offer the bare hull and crew to various operations where other countries provide the other elements. This could buy us quite a bit of political favour with minimal operational risks. Wiki claims the cost is $600million USD. With the loss of the current ships and the the amount of money the DND has given back, 2 of the issues can be dealt with. Plus ordering it from overseas means no impact on our current semi-mythical Ship building program. Once you have the ship you can push for a Air arm and tailor other units to support it.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Is an enhanced AD capability something the RCN should have in the next 15 years?



In the long term absolutely ( as should all maritime nations )...but for now i think you are fairly well covered by the USN and the rest of NATO,  so i agree that you should prioritize ASW capability and AOPS/OPV.



> Is there some other way of incorporating it in either the Halifax class or other platforms?


Most certainly, perhaps with something like an enlarged CEAFAR installation. But top tier AAW systems is ridiculously expensive and the question is if it is worth the investment on vessels that have, at best , 15-20 years left in service. 



> The Smart-L weighs 8 tonnes(?) how much does the smart-s weigh?


~1,5 tonnes , give or take.



> How about another system like AN/SPY-1K?


 A much heavier system that in addition requires a lot of space for installation , either on  the superstructure or on a very heavy mast. Besides SPY-1K is yesterdays technology and has very little upgrade potential left. By today's standards it doesn't have particular impressive performance either and there are plenty of smaller, cheaper and more capable radars on the market.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin, I think the actual figures are more like Mistral = 182, IRO = 245, without the senior command element.

Also, and that is the beauty, Mistral don't have an "air arm". As amphibious ships, you cut your cloth as required by the mission you are embarking on: You wish to carry out ground forces landing, you bring medium/large troop transport army helicopters with some gunships to escort them; you want to be the centrepiece of an ASW group: you load up with MH's; going in the Arctic for general duties? Load up with some utility helicopters, etc.

The added air element does not have to be accounted for as it is provided by the army or air force as required by the mission. In fact, since the four retired ships (2 AOR and 2 DDH) are all MH carrying ships, pressure on the resources of the Maritime Air Group for the provision of Sea kings has been reduced accordingly, meaning some would be available for a Mistral just by getting back to pre-decommissioning tempo.

Also, we don't count the medical personnel as "ship assigned" when the AORs carried medical/dental personnel, they were usually added personnel from the CF medical service onboard for deployment.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect also the Mistrals would lend themselves to the "deep maintenance" required to keep those Sea Kings flying till the Cyclones arrive. Speaking of which, what is the heaviest helicopter the Mistrals can handle? I suspect *if* they could take the weight of a F35B you woulds still need to protect the deck from the thrust as well.


----------



## Privateer

From CBC:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-navy-looks-to-fill-fleet-gap-with-purchase-from-u-s-1.2775533



> The Royal Canadian Navy may purchase a soon-to-be retired ship from the U.S. to replace its two supply vessels forced into retirement since a government ship-building program has been delayed by several years, CBC News has learned.
> 
> ...
> 
> Canadian navy officers have turned to the U.S. navy to fill the gap, sources told CBC News.
> 
> The U.S. navy has two supply ships heading toward early retirement: the USNS Bridge and the USNS Rainier. The U.S. navy is retiring these two ships, built in the 1990s, to cut costs, it announced this summer.
> 
> Leasing the Rainier or Bridge would be a good idea, naval expert Ken Hansen said, because it would provide more capability at a lesser cost.
> 
> In addition to purchasing or leasing one of these two ships from the U.S., the Canadian navy may also buy or lease foreign-built civilian ships and convert them to meet its needs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> Sounds like a armed boarding party is in order, cutting out a frigate is part of the tradition! Of course it will have to be cleansed of Lutefisk afterwards!



Off topic, but seeing as they are going willy nilly on the historical side, that would be the perfect opportunity to get my letter of marque and a cape!  Also, a pretty funny charge sheet.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

The Wikipedia entries for the  USNS Bridge and the  USNS Rainier. 

I note that the ships were originally fitted with the following weapon systems, which were removed when they were de-commissioned.

- NATO Sea Sparrow Missile Launching System
- Close-In-Weapons-System (CIWS)
- 25mm guns (x2)
- .50 Caliber Machine Guns (x4)
- Countermeasures Set - AN/SLQ-32(V)3
- Decoy Launchers (x4)
- Torpedo Countermeasures Transmitting Set (NIXIE).

So, the question is, *IF* Canada buys them, would it it be feasible/practical to re-fit them with these weapons systems or something similiar??


----------



## GR66

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The Wikipedia entries for the  USNS Bridge and the  USNS Rainier.
> 
> I note that the ships were originally fitted with the following weapon systems, which were removed when they were de-commissioned.
> 
> - NATO Sea Sparrow Missile Launching System
> - Close-In-Weapons-System (CIWS)
> - 25mm guns (x2)
> - .50 Caliber Machine Guns (x4)
> - Countermeasures Set - AN/SLQ-32(V)3
> - Decoy Launchers (x4)
> - Torpedo Countermeasures Transmitting Set (NIXIE).
> 
> So, the question is, *IF* Canada buys them, would it it be feasible/practical to re-fit them with these weapons systems or something similiar??



Would it be worthwhile to fit them with weapons?  Do we normally deploy our AORs where they are in harms way without other support?


----------



## dapaterson

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> So, the question is, *IF* Canada buys them, would it it be feasible/practical to re-fit them with these weapons systems or something similiar??



Depends on how we try to acquire the systems.  The US has many, many, many rules on the use of weapons systems it has developed; purchase through a foreign military sales agreement could take a long time.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Depends on how we try to acquire the systems.  The US has many, many, many rules on the use of weapons systems it has developed; purchase through a foreign military sales agreement could take a long time.



That said though, with a drop for 3 to 2 AOR's given current budget projections for our replacement project, purchasing these two ships would not only be a stop gap, but increase the fleet to four ships total once the new ones hit the water (that is if we keep them in the long run, I mean they are only 20 some odd years old, our average life span is 50, they got another 30 years on em!) and be a politcally acceptable way for the public to accept getting more ships for less money.


----------



## suffolkowner

Thanks MikeKiloPapa for your responses

The acquisition of the 2 fast supply ships might allow the Polar Icebreaker to jump ahead of the AOR's and help fill another void


----------



## FSTO

I don't think we can afford the pers bill for one these ships let alone two.
From Wikipedia

40 Officers, 36 Chief Petty Officer's and 591 Rates.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

USN and USCCG seems to over staff their vessels and quarters are generally tighter.


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> USN and USCCG seems to over staff their vessels and quarters are generally tighter.



I wondered about that. It would likely come down to the stoker and bosn requirements.  Also we could reduce the number stations (fueling and heavy line transfers) being manned at one time.


----------



## suffolkowner

When I looked up the staffing numbers I have between 206-235 after they were disarmed(?) prior to that over 700. Obviously something that would be looked into


----------



## Stoker

Usually the US navy have many pers doing a lot of small tasks, whereas Canada has a few trades doing much more.  If we do get these ships I would imagine the crewing similar to the Preserver. The ships are gas turbines as well and will be fairly expensive to operate, tanker personnel would have to be trained in from steam to gas turbines and are the same type we have. I also noticed they carry much more JP5 than F76, I would imagine that is because they supply Carriers, shouldn't be a problem to reduce the amout of JP5 they carry and increase F76. They also operate the Sea Knight so should be able to handle the Sea King or replacement nicely.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Speaking from experience with RASing with USN and American built platforms such as OHP's etc, another reason they need more manpower is that they would need bodies to haul in ropes etc as they didn't have the winches that we had for span wires etc.  Speaking for my trade, HT, as I understand there are at least 5 USN trades that cover what we do.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Overstaffing with hyper specialized personnel is also my experience with the Americans. I once day-sailed on one of their minesweeper where they had 23 engineers of four different trade designations at a time when we operated the equivalent PB's with 11 of two designations.

I don't think manning these two ships would require more than our current AOR crew. After they were transferred from the USN to the USNS (civilians), their manning went down to about 210-235 (depending on the size of the USN contingent carried). I suspect this means that they did install (if not already there) the various winches and other handling systems designed to reduce manpower requirements. We would not need more manpower just because we would transfer the PRO class current  defensive armament to these two ships after "acquisition". Such transfer of armament we already own after acquisition would also remove any impediment based on US regulations of trade in armament.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I thought the leasing option was going to be 'with crew' with some RCN staff for support/cross training.  Also, I thought in this particular case, they are retiring them as part of the budget cuts, so we should get a deal on them as they want an excuse to keep them going.  Anyone know any different?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect it would be a small core of key people, mostly on the Engineering side and scattering of deck officers and Cargo specialists supervisors. The ship could come to us hot, with say a 1/2 crew running our guys through a month of alongside training, followed by some light resupply practices close to home, followed by a slightly longer mission to do full resupply at sea with just the small core of US sailors onboard to assist and advise as required. Each ship has it quirks and allowing the crews to work together for a bit reduces the learning time to get a handle on the quirks. Knowing things like "At 12.5kts you always get a bit a vibration in the stern and it's been that way since she was launched" saves a shitload of money investigating a supposed issue that has never hampered the ship beforehand. Not to mention they might have sent oodles of money trying to fix already.


----------



## Rifleman62

The USN sailors might also enjoy a drink after work while at sea.


----------



## Journeyman

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The USN sailors might also enjoy a dink after work while at sea.


Interesting typo......


----------



## PMedMoe

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Interesting typo......



 :rofl:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Your only gay if on the bottom and USN..... 8)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The USN sailors might also enjoy a dink after work while at sea.


Double income no kids?


----------



## Rifleman62

Corrected my typo. My mind was somewhere else, or should I leave well enough alone ......


----------



## jollyjacktar

It's OK, Rifleman.  We had several USN sailors attached to us while we were on OP CARIBBE.  One of them probably would have enjoyed a little, after his shift.  And at any rate, your unintended typo has given me the best laugh of the day. Especially as it was true in his case...


----------



## cameron

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> SCSC is long dead. The CSC Project (Canadian Surface Combatant) which replaced it, is alive and well and went to Project Definition phase in Nov 2012. What the hell do you think that mother of all shipyard buildings going up on the Halifax waterfront is for? Yes, AOPS will come first but the design of the building is based on the latest design version for CSC...which is not for public disposition at this time.



OK I must admit that I'm just learning that SCSC has now been replaced by CSC but whatever the latest acronym is for the future surface combatants, they are still taking too bloody long to come off of the drawing board.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's OK, Rifleman.  We had several USN sailors attached to us while we were on OP CARIBBE.  One of them probably would have enjoyed a little, after his shift.  And at any rate, your unintended typo has given me the best laugh of the day. Especially as it was true in his case...



If the CSC already includes upgrades to ESSM, why is the government spending $600m for more? They say it won't be for the new warships projects (which would mean awarding a contract without proper bidding) but if that's the case... Why are they even approaching Raytheon-Lockheed-Martin?


----------



## MilEME09

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> If the CSC already includes upgrades to ESSM, why is the government spending $600m for more? They say it won't be for the new warships projects (which would mean awarding a contract without proper bidding) but if that's the case... Why are they even approaching Raytheon-Lockheed-Martin?



Canada has a long tradition of scrapping recently upgraded ships


----------



## Navy_Pete

cameron said:
			
		

> OK I must admit that I'm just learning that SCSC has now been replaced by CSC but whatever the latest acronym is for the future surface combatants, they are still taking too bloody long to come off of the drawing board.



CSC won't start being built until AOPs is done, so it's ten years until they start cutting steel.  No point rushing it off the drawring board when the technologies change rapidly, and they will also be able to take a lot of the lessons learned from using the upgraded combat suite on the frigates into coming up with their solution.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Canada has a long tradition of scrapping recently upgraded ships



....and buildings, bases, comms equipment, weapons and vehicles.

Then selling it, except weapons, for a dollar.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Canada has a long tradition of scrapping recently upgraded ships



I actually got it confused with the FELEX project. FELEX has the ESSM included in the refits, but the government is approaching Raytheon to buy more.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest - the scrapping process begins with a "who's interested/qualified?" ....


> This Invitation to Qualify (ITQ) is neither a Request for Proposal (RFP) nor a solicitation of bids or tenders and is intended only to pre-qualify suppliers.  Together this ITQ and the subsequent bid solicitation are the two parts of the solicitation process.  No contract will result from this ITQ.  The objective of this prequalification phase is evaluate the capability of a company to perform the work required for the disposal of EX-PROTECTEUR and EX-ALGONQUIN ....
> 
> CANADA has a requirement for the safe disposal of two ships that have reached the end of their operational lives. The ships are Her Majesty's Canadian Ships (HMCS) Protecteur; a Protecteur-class auxiliary oil replenishment (AOR) ship, and HMCS Algonquin, an Iroquois-class guided missile destroyer (DDG). Both vessels are based in Esquimalt, British Columbia.
> 
> The resulting contract will require that the contractor prepare each ship for transfer, transfer it to the Approved Site, demilitarize the Controlled Goods, return any museum material, and subsequently dismantle (dispose/recycle) the vessel in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner that conforms to Canadian laws and the terms of the contract. All structural components above the main deck, from the main deck to the keel and all equipment, machinery and other components installed on or contained in the structure must be cleaned, removed, recycled, reused and/or disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. The contractor may also be required to return fitted items left onboard to the Canadian Forces Supply System (CFSS). EX-PROTECTEUR will be available to the contractor at contract award and EX-ALGONQUIN will be made available to the contractor Spring of 2016. Dates will be confirmed in the resulting bid solicitation ....


More technical detail (like rating scheme for interested companies) attached.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Annapolis issue has soured them on artificial reefs for awhile I think.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Annapolis issue has soured them on artificial reefs for awhile I think.



Also the Fraser, one of the o-boats, the other steamer that was scrapped with the Fraser, and soon potentially the Ex-cormorant!

I would say with all the new environmental and controlled goods restrictions, Canada will probably never go the route of museum/artificial reef again.  Even the sinkex is incredibly expensive to prepare for.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Sell this ships to _*A*_ who will, after a decent interval, resell them to _*B*_, who, after another wait, will resell them to _*C*_ and so on until _*X*_ resells them to a ship breaker in Bangladesh where incredibly poor people will rip them apart, despite the chemical and physical risks to life and limb.


----------



## Navy_Pete

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Sell this ships to _*A*_ who will, after a decent interval, resell them to _*B*_, who, after another wait, will resell them to _*C*_ and so on until _*X*_ resells them to a ship breaker in Bangladesh where incredibly poor people will rip them apart, despite the chemical and physical risks to life and limb.



We aren't actually selling the ships; we will be paying someone to scrap them, but the contractor will get to keep the metal to offset (a small portion of) the costs of the contract.  The 'approved site' will effectively have to be in Canada to meet the environmental laws (particularly PCB export restrictions) plus CG requirements.  There are a few possible sites (most not on the west coast), but it's good to finally have this out on the street; been in the works for a long time.


----------



## Spencer100

Paid off May 01 for the 280's

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1280787-navy-destroyers-hmcs-iroquois-and-hmcs-algonquin-retire-in-may

Interesting note about the crews.


----------



## Stoker

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Paid off May 01 for the 280's
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1280787-navy-destroyers-hmcs-iroquois-and-hmcs-algonquin-retire-in-may
> 
> Interesting note about the crews.



This is not really news, the 60/40 split has already been in effect for sometime. There are a few people gone tothe enchanced boarding party, however not too many. The bulk of the crews are gone to the rest of the fleet to fill shortages. Its interesting to note that even through the destroyers will be decomissioned, there will be a limited amount of personnel still working there and the billets are still not gone away.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Careful of the title you used: "Paid off May 01 for the 280s"a
ATHABASKAN is alive and well and the plan is to keep her in service as a NR platform as per the original divestment plan.

Also, for anyone attending this event, a great way to kick off the day would be to attend the CFL Pancake breakfast in the MOG5 galley 0730-0930 in support of Canada's National Naval Memorial HMCS Sackville.

Pat


----------



## Spencer100

Questions about navel weakness?

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/as-hmcs-protecteur-is-retired-questions-raised-about-naval-weakness-1.1936477


----------



## Spencer100

More

http://www.cheknews.ca/crowd-bids-farewell-to-fire-damaged-hmcs-protecteur-at-cfb-esquimalt-93789


----------



## Spencer100

And

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1369631/crippled-supply-ship-gets-ceremonial-farewell/


----------



## jollyjacktar

For those of us who are Tanker Wankers, this comes as little surprise.

Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.



> .
> Navy techs scour eBay for parts to keep 1970s vintage supply ships running
> The Canadian PressBy Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – 4 hours ago.
> 
> OTTAWA - Newly released government records show that navy mechanics in Halifax had to scour the Internet and use eBay to find parts for one of its two supply ships.
> 
> But the briefing notes obtained by The Canadian Press, prepared for navy commander Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, show the technicians were fighting a losing battle to keep HMCS Preserver on duty.
> 
> The documents show many of the parts on the 45-year-old ship were "beyond acceptable limits" because corrosion issues had begun to compromise the vessel's structural integrity.
> 
> National Defence said last year that both Preserver and its sister ship HMCS Protecteur — gutted by a dangerous at-sea fire — would be retired before replacement ships arrived.
> 
> "It will be very difficult to continue to confidently operate her at sea until her planned divestment date in 18 months," said the May 9, 2014 briefing note, which was also copied to the head of military procurement.
> 
> The navy had planned to replace both ships, but the Conservative government pulled the plug in August 2008 because industry proposals were proving too costly. The new program is still up to eight years way from delivering new ships.
> 
> It's long been known that the ships were in precarious shape and getting worse, but the briefing said it "was no longer viable to expend limited resources" to keep them going.
> 
> The notes make evident the department's frustration that the ships were not retired on schedule. Technicians would fix one broken part and "once this is fixed, the next question is which equipment or system will be the next to fail."
> 
> Protecteur was recently decomissioned, while a formal ceremony for Preserver has to be announced.
> 
> Since the original manufacturers long ago stopped making spare parts, a "disproportionate amount of time" was being used to source replacements, "some of which have been procured via eBay," the documents found.
> 
> A separate set of briefing notes, obtained by the federal Liberals, shows the impending retirement of the navy's Iroquois-class destroyers will leave an air defence gap for Canadian task forces at sea.
> 
> Liberal MP Marc Garneau, a former naval officer and astronaut, said the fleet is in a shambles, even with the multibillion-dollar upgrade to the Halifax-class frigates, which are the backbone of the navy.
> 
> Lauren Armstrong, a spokeswoman for Defence Minister Jason Kenney, said the navy will be able to carry out operations ordered by the government, both at home and abroad.
> 
> She added the Liberals are in no position to be lecturing on military procurement.
> 
> "As the minister said at committee, between 1992 and 2005, the previous Liberal government did not procure or even attempt to procure, with the exception of the failed maritime helicopter procurement, a single major piece of military equipment," said Armstrong in an email.
> 
> While the Liberals cut the defence budget deeply, under their watch the military did receive new LAV III armoured vehicles, M-777 artillery, CH-149 Cormorant helicopters, coastal defence vessels and the oft-maligned Victoria-class submarines.
> 
> Garneau said the absence of supply ships means Canadian warships will have to operate individually; they cannot form task forces of their own, and must rely on other nations for replenishment.
> 
> Armstrong responded by saying construction of the first replacement for the supply ships is expected to begin in 2017, and the government is also studying plans for an interim capability.
> 
> Without air defence destroyers, Canadian frigates will have to seek protection from long-range threats under the umbrella of U.S. combat vessels, said Garneau.
> 
> He said the Conservatives played politics with the navy by cancelling new supply ships on the eve of the 2008 election, and forced the military to accept Arctic patrol ships ahead of new destroyers.
> 
> "Mr. Harper decided he wanted to be known from a legacy point of view as big on the Arctic and has gone up every year for that photo-op," Garneau said.
> 
> "That's all driven by politics."
> 
> Follow @Murray_Brewster on Twitter


----------



## FSTO

2002, PRO, San Diego.

Stokers had to go to some old machine shop near the Mexican border to get a pipe fitting made. Turns out the guy there used to work at the Navy Yard and was the only one who knew how to manufacture that part!

I will say again, Canada had a fully functioning shipyard with a fully trained and capable workforce who would have been able to build 4 AOR's that we KNEW that needed to be replaced. And we pissed it away. The navy, government bureaucrats, politicians and the Canadian public are all to blame for letting that place fall apart.


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> 2002, PRO, San Diego.
> 
> Stokers had to go to some old machine shop near the Mexican border to get a pipe fitting made. Turns out the guy there used to work at the Navy Yard and was the only one who knew how to manufacture that part!
> 
> I will say again, Canada had a fully functioning shipyard with a fully trained and capable workforce who would have been able to build 4 AOR's that we KNEW that needed to be replaced. And we pissed it away. The navy, government bureaucrats, politicians and the Canadian public are all to blame for letting that place fall apart.



Around the same time frame with PRE, we had to go to a backyard mechanic/welder in PR to jury rig some things for the boilers at a cost of $15K cash so we could get home.  A sad sad state of affairs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

In case anyone is curious, this ebay part of the story is completely true, took a lot to get approved, but sadly, actually happened.  Someone was clearing out a warehouse of old stuff cheap, that was probably stocked 50 years ago when it was all the rage.


----------



## jmt18325

In fairness, I do buy fire equipment off of eBay too.


----------



## Underway

I don't see this as an issue.  If the part can't be found elsewhere or is cheaper off ebay why wouldn't you get it there?  I wonder if their is a whole AOR on ebay we could get...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For you special deal  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

ATH is euchered.  She shouldn't in my personal opinion go out to sea again for many reasons, some of which are shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act in story below.



> New
> HMCS Athabaskan sent back to Halifax for major engine repairs
> 
> Crew 'not able to control the engines' of flagship of Royal Canadian Navy's East Coast fleet
> 
> CBC News Posted: Jul 20, 2015 6:24 PM AT| Last Updated: Jul 20, 2015 6:24 PM AT
> 
> The flagship vessel in the Royal Canadian Navy's East Coast fleet has been called back to Halifax from deployment because of serious engine problems.
> 
> HMCS Athabaskan — the navy's last destroyer — has been in service for 43 years and is starting to show its age. It needs major repairs to the propulsion system and there are other engine issues, the navy said Monday.
> 
> "We're not able to control the engines and they were using secondary means to run the engines," said Rear Admiral John Newton.
> 
> There are also questions about the ship's weapons systems.
> 
> "I don't think it's a surprise to anyone, based on the age of the ship, that some of her primary warfare systems — we would not rely on them in this modern era," Newton said.
> 
> "It's not like we're being denied fleet size or fleet capability. We have lots in our account right now and our job is to employ it effectively."
> 
> Ken Hansen, a military expert, disagrees.
> 
> "I think it is highly probable the Athabaskan will never sail again," said Hansen, a research fellow at Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies.
> 
> "The problem is that you couldn't send Athabaskan anywhere and reliably expect her to get there or to get home again. She's going to break down. You've got to be able to move to fight," he said.
> 
> "If the navy thinks … that sending Athabaskan sends a strong signal to the Russians — it's the wrong kind of signal. It's a signal that says Canada's navy has crapped out and they don't have to be worried."
> 
> HMCS Athabaskan is scheduled to take part in a large military exercise in October, as part of NATO. Hansen called that plan a "bad diplomatic move," given the state of the vessel
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/hmcs-athabaskan-sent-back-to-halifax-for-major-engine-repairs-1.3160864


----------



## donaldk

Curious went went wrong with the engines if the crew was able to control them manually.  From the press release it looks more like an IMCS/RTU/PLA issue - most likely all hard to fix because no parts in system and unsupported by CFSS (same exact nonsense when I was on IRO). As usual, the media is vague and often wrong.


----------



## Stoker

donaldk said:
			
		

> Curious went went wrong with the engines if the crew was able to control them manually.  From the press release it looks more like an IMCS/RTU/PLA issue - most likely all hard to fix because no parts in system and unsupported by CFSS (same exact nonsense when I was on IRO). As usual, the media is vague and often wrong.



Well they have two ships alongside for parts, repair the ship and get her back to sea.


----------



## PanaEng

Will she or will she not sail again?  or should she?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/hmcs-athabaskan-sent-back-to-halifax-for-major-engine-repairs-1.3160864



> Ken Hansen, a military expert.
> 
> "I think it is highly probable the Athabaskan will never sail again," said Hansen, a research fellow at Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies.
> 
> "The problem is that you couldn't send Athabaskan anywhere and reliably expect her to get there or to get home again. She's going to break down. You've got to be able to move to fight," he said.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Russians will be impressed if she sails and returns. Their own fleet is of the same vintage and is often accompanied by tugs.


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Russians will be impressed if she sails and returns. Their own fleet is of the same vintage and is often accompanied by tugs.



Most of the current Russian surface fleet was built between 1982 (Moskva) and 1993 (Admiral Ushakov). There are a even few even newer platforms (Udaloy-II and corvettes/frigates). So they have a little bit of a better starting point than us (and I'm not even looking at their Sub fleet).

"If the current situation [with shipbuilding] remains unchanged, we will face a grand-scale removal of ocean-going warships from service with the Russian Navy by 2015 and, as a result, a sharp decrease in its combat capabilities," Adm. Vyacheslav Popov (2009)


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from The Canadian Press:


> After a storied career spanning half a century, a former Royal Canadian Navy workhorse is winding up its final seven-week journey, sailing toward its own dismantling on Nova Scotia’s south shore.
> 
> The former HMCS Protecteur carried more than 10,000 sailors over 800,000 nautical miles in its time, including service in the 1991 Gulf war.
> 
> Now de-commissioned, it left its home base in Esquimalt, B.C., on Feb. 24 and was towed south through the Panama canal before beginning its final leg north to Liverpool, N.S., expected to arrive this week.
> 
> The 172-metre long supply ship will meet its end, coincidentally, in the hometown of a family closely connected to the ship, including the high ranking officer who once commanded her as head of Canada’s Pacific Naval Fleet ...


----------

