# CPF's badly built?



## IN HOC SIGNO (2 Jun 2006)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> IN HOC ah screw the other thread.  I did read the article on the JSS and it made me mad, again.  I hate to think of Irving having the contract to build these ships.  We are still suffering from the refit we just went through with those people.  And years after the previous refit at that yard we were still coming across situations where work was done incorrectly or not at all.  Yes, yes I know, QA should take some of the blame for past mistakes, but dammit it was Irving who did the work to begin with.  Every ship coming out of there recently is having to overcome all sorts of problems stemming from the refit conducted there.
> 
> The Halifax is falling apart and has had more new steel put into her than you could shake a stick at.  She is not that old for Christ's sake.  There is no way IMHO that anything JSS built by them would last as long as we will be forced to try to make and mend with, as is happening now.  The folks from the Puzzle Palace came onboard in 99 and promised 4 not 3 ships in the water by 05.  Here it is 06 and these monkeys are now saying 3 by 13. UNSAT!!!!!  I am tired of getting screwed by the Feds et al.  And I am sure I am not alone in this.
> 
> :rage:



I was talking to the P1 on my French course today and he said the very same things you are saying. In that article it also said that Victoria and St John's was vying for the contracts.
It really does take stamina to be a sailor and listen to all this doesn't it?


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Jun 2006)

Our CPF's were poorly built, there is no way these things will last as long as the old steamers.  We should go with experience and quality, so I say build them overseas.   

The contract process is a waste of time.  Because we all know where this boats will be built, Halifax, because that is where the Navy is!  And that is all that matters!  Why would they build the ships out west in Victoria?  That is were the training sqn is, they should just close down ESQ and move all the assets out east.  And to keep on the topic of this thread, we should all wear cadpat for the trip around, that way we won't be easy targets in the Panama Canal!


----------



## FSTO (3 Jun 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> Our CPF's were poorly built, there is no way these things will last as long as the old steamers.  We should go with experience and quality, so I say build them overseas.
> 
> The contract process is a waste of time.  Because we all know where this boats will be built, Halifax, because that is where the Navy is!  And that is all that matters!  Why would they build the ships out west in Victoria?  That is were the training sqn is, they should just close down ESQ and move all the assets out east.  And to keep on the topic of this thread, we should all wear cadpat for the trip around, that way we won't be easy targets in the Panama Canal!


 :rage:
THIS IS WHY WEST COASTERS CANNOT STAND EAST COASTERS!!!
I really really hope that you have your tounge firmly in your cheek if not then.....Get your head out of your a** sub guy!

Training Squadron (4 Squadron) has not been around since we retired the steamers!
Which coast was first to integrate with a US Carrier battle group, certainly not MARLANT!!!!!!!

I have to go, but I will come back to this later.

We are not kidding when we say "Prepare to enter Halifax harbour. Turn your clocks back 200 years!"
Chripes you guys tick me off!!!!


----------



## navymich (3 Jun 2006)

Sub_guy, all I can say is WTF.  Your profile shows you being in Esquimalt, yet you're bashing it all to heck.  I am ashamed to know that you are part of the fleet out here and you treat it as such.

And not build ships in Victoria?  Why don't you open your flippin' eyes next time you walk through YOUR dockyard.


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Jun 2006)

Trust me that was all written with a tonne of sarcasm!  

I hate Halifax (yes I lived/sailed there), and in my post I was trying to capture the way your average east coast sailor thinks (most had no idea that the west has been patrolling the gulf since the first gulf war).  It bothers me that I have/had to educate my fellow SAILORS on what THE CANADIAN NAVY is doing, I mean come on here, it isn't a big navy!  Why is it that your last port visit antics make the headlines in Halifax, but any mention of the Tanker going to Timor back in 99 (confirmed in the press on saturday 18th, sailed on the 23rd Sept 99) Causes some people to scratch their heads (conversation on my QL5 course June 2000)?  Or when the Charlottetown sailed in the gulf, people out east were going on how it was the first ship to be fully intgrated into a battlegroup (Regina fully integrated with the Connie, year previous)  

-Operational navy -> East Coast
-More time at sea -> East Coast

The sea time is pretty much the same on both coasts, and we all know we have a busy navy (east and west).  Personally I don't think Victoria has a chance to build these ships but  I would LOVE to see the ships built here in MY HOUSE.  I can also produce some documentation to back up my statement taken from the PMO JSS site which discounts the Victoria shipyard, as they state that most qualified tradesmen are in short supply out here.

Navymich I hope that clears it up a bit!


----------



## FSTO (3 Jun 2006)

Thanks for the clarification Sub-Guy. Just about blew a gasket there.


----------



## navymich (3 Jun 2006)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification Sub-Guy. Just about blew a gasket there.



Ditto.  We need a sarcasm emoticon!


----------



## Torlyn (3 Jun 2006)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification Sub-Guy. Just about blew a gasket there.



lol...  "Just about"?   >


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jun 2006)

Ladies and Gentlemen, they always has been and always will be differences of opinion and net worth between the two coasts.  I have never had the pleasure of sailing with you out there on that coast, but I do hope it is better than base side.  I was there for my 3's and found it to be drowning in nit picky BS on the small stuff that is not to be found in the same quantity here on the East Coast IMHO.  I was thankfull when they changed the 5's for us to this coast and I did not have to return for the full term but just the HT/FF conversion course.  Love Vic though.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jun 2006)

Sub_Guy, if you want to kick someone in the knackers for not getting the word out on what the hell you guys are doing out there you just have to look to your local Navy PAFOs on who is dropping the ball.  Out people here are active and bang the drum, as they well should. 

I did however notice on Divvies out your way when I was there in 99, that you could usually spot the East Coasters vice the West Coasters.  The difference was in the amount of been there gongs between the two camps.  The East lads at that time had it all over the West lads from what I could see.  So, going on that visual clue alone could lead one to assume a lighter sailing schedule out West.

As for your ongoing tours of the Gulf, I personally would be happy to see our coast start doing trips there again.  I missed all the excitement whilst on my Tech course as I started it on 10/9 only to see my ship depart one month later. Always a bridesmaid never a bride.


----------



## Sub_Guy (6 Jun 2006)

99 Divies for sure you would see more medals on the east coasters with the NATO's (missions that the nato fleets took on like former yugo) and such, there are no medals given for wesploys and unitas trips...  More medals doesn't mean a heavier sailing schedule.

Sure I may sound like a typical west coast sailor, but both myself and wife (over 10 years out east) have done both coasts and the difference in my eyes between the two coasts is that the submariners have a very established division out there, as opposed to here where we are the new kids on the block.  The navy out east seems old, resists change, and intoxicated.

Also doing your 3's and getting picked up for little crap, thats nothing, you are on your 3's we have gotten too soft, and brand new OS's are coming out of basic looking good only to look like crap 3 weeks later, you need discipline on 3's courses.

Our trips to the gulf started well before some crazy dick flew a plane into a building, they started with the Huron back in 91 and they have been going on ever since.   

It really doesn't matter, but with a little research and looking around you can find out who sails the most (it really doesn't matter, and there won't be a glaring difference between the two)  but the attitude out east probably will never change, and the attitude out west never will either.

We are younger, more adapt to change, and sober...............


Oh and I have been contact with my PAFO


----------



## FSTO (6 Jun 2006)

I remember all the hoopla (CBC style) when Charlottetown was "integrated" with a US Carrier Battlegroup. We had to laugh out here because: (standby for long article)

SMALL NAVIES AND NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE
Is There a Role?

Paul T. Mitchell

Naval War College Review, Spring 2003, Vol. LVI, No. 2

CANADIAN SHIPS IN AMERICAN CVBGS

One can get a sense of the challenges facing coalition naval network-centric warfare by examining the integration of Canadian warships into U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups. In some respects, this case represents the crucible, for any difficulties faced by Canadians are likely to be considerably more intense for navies outside the bonds of trust that have traditionally connected the Canadian and American navies.

FIGURE 2
MARPAC Ships
1995, HMCS Calgary 	50 days as independent ship in MIF
1997, HMCS Regina 	Surface action group
1998, HMCS Ottawa 	Abraham Lincoln BG, fully integrated
1999, HMCS Regina 	Constellation BG, replaced U.S. ship
2000, HMCS Calgary 	Surface action group, PacMEF
2001, HMCS Winnipeg
	Constellation BG, on-scene commander 17–24 July 02, TACON of all BG units
2001, HMCS Vancouver 	John C. Stennis BG

MARLANT Ships
2001, HMCS Charlottetown 	LANTMEF, joined Harry S. Truman BG in Med.

MIF    Maritime Interdiction Force BG    battle group PacMEF    Pacific Marine Expeditionary Force TACON    tactical control LANTMEF    Atlantic Marine Expeditionary Force

The Canadian navy began arranging to insert its ships into carrier battle groups in the late 1990s in an effort to improve interoperability with the U.S. Navy (see figure 2). Initially, only West Coast ships, operating out of Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, in British Columbia, were involved. The West Coast fleet had fewer recurring operational commitments (such as the NATO Standing Naval Force Atlantic) than the East Coast command in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Further, the West Coast fleet had a long tradition of operating with the U.S. Navy and were therefore more doctrinally compatible with it than the Halifax squadrons, which had been primarily influenced by their long history of NATO operations.

Since their introduction, the integration of Canadian ships into CVBGs has been an evolutionary process. Canadian ships began as members of the Maritime Interdiction Force in the Persian Gulf, later gradually moving into actual battle groups as mutual familiarity improved. What started first as an operational initiative eventually gained an explicit strategic stature (in the Canadian context), when it became Department of National Defence policy to improve interoperability with its allies, particularly the United States. The department now seeks to develop and maintain “tactically self-sufficient units,” capable of substantial military contributions while asserting their Canadian identity. (A ground-forces equivalent would be the role Canadian Coyote LAV IIIs, armored reconnaissance vehicles, played in Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan.) Commodore Dan McNeil, Director for Force Planning and Programme Co-ordination, has recently remarked, “We will never be able to field strategic level forces. . . . We’re not ever going to be in that game. We’re going to be fielding tactical units. [However,] if you properly use tactical units, you can achieve strategic effect. That is what we are trying to do.”53

A revolutionary aspect of these carrier battlegroup operations has been the fact that individual Canadian ships have often replaced American ones. This arrangement has been of mutual benefit; the United States has been able to address its shortages of frigates and destroyers, and Canada has been afforded professional opportunities that it could not hope to obtain on its own. These opportunities include not only extended operations in groups larger than those the Canadian navy typically sends to sea but also exposure to assets not in the Canadian order of battle—carriers, cruisers, and nuclear submarines.

Canada has thus become a member of a select club, enjoying special access to the command and control concepts developed by the U.S. Navy as it travels down the road of network-centric warfare, as well as to military support not normally offered to allies. Finally, CVBG operations enable the Canadian navy to develop professional skills in the areas of littoral and interdiction operations, for which there is no opportunity in North American waters.

At the same time, such deployments stress the mutual dependencies and vulnerabilities that are central to every good coalition operation. For the Canadian navy, given the relative scarcity of Canadian ships (Canada has only twelve Halifax-class frigates), each unit deployed has value out of proportion to its ultimate contribution to a carrier battle group. Obviously, sending such ships into the Persian and Arabian Gulfs, as is typical, is far more dangerous than assigning them to the standard fisheries patrols in Canadian waters they would most likely be conducting otherwise. Similarly, by replacing an American ship with a Canadian one, rather than simply augmenting the group, the U.S. Navy is placing considerable trust in the professionalism and competence of Canadian crews; as one battle group commander has declared, “We need to be ready to go on game day—and when we play, every game is game day.”54 Accepting a Canadian ship into a battle group also constitutes a commitment to look after that ship.

To ensure that they are not liabilities for their new battle groups, Canadian ships participate in the same exercises and workups that all American ships do. Similarly, they carry the latest revisions of the Global Command and Control System–Maritime (GCCS-M) and conduct training to ensure that they can share and use the information and imagery distributed on that system. The Canadian navy has been increasingly challenged by such upgrades, however, due to the legacy systems on board its ships. The CCS330 system that controls the ship displays in the operations rooms of the Halifax frigates and Iroquois-class destroyers is a closed-architecture system based on a unique operating system and military-specific software and hardware. State of the art ten years ago, it is becoming increasingly a maintenance problem and, even more seriously, has a very limited capacity for integration with new systems. New capabilities, like GCCS-M, must be added to Canadian ships on a stand-alone basis. Canadian display terminals, as a result, cannot send or receive operational messages; tactical networking requires separate consoles; and the information provided by systems like GCCS-M and the Canadian equivalent of the SIPRNET, known as MCOIN III, become effectively “stovepiped.” The result is a cluttered operations room where decision makers must consult a number of systems in order to gather all the information necessary to perform their jobs—obviously not the most efficient arrangement in the heat of battle.55

Interestingly, the Canadian navy’s effort to remain abreast of the fast-moving electronics revolution in command and control technologies is not being driven by American requirements. The United States is pleased that Canada strives to prevent gaps in capabilities. However, Canadian naval officers stress, it is the long history of naval cooperation and overall familiarity between the navies that has facilitated these exchanges, not the technical “kit” installed aboard Canadian ships.56 The difficulties Canadian ships typically encounter in integrating themselves into American battle groups largely arise from the issue of accessibility.


----------



## M Feetham (6 Jun 2006)

I sailed in 1 Squadron in the early 90's as a PAT. I was waiting for my QL3. I remember walking on the bulkhead during a storm and I remember getting real real drunk in San Diego. Funny thing is I can remember doing the same things on the east coast. The only difference is that I sailed east for 13 years while I was only west for a year. People out east just love to ping off of the west coasters for two big reasons. They have beautifull weather most of the year, and you move up the chain of command faster(promotions). You sail thru a storm, you sail thru a storm, it sucks no matter what coast. Especially sea state 6 or higher. Personnally I didn't like Vicoria all that much, but then I am a maritimer and my family is all in NB/NS. That is just me though. I did have some fun while I was there so it wasn't all bad.
Well that was my spiel. 
Thanks, Marc


----------



## Sub_Guy (6 Jun 2006)

gravyboat said:
			
		

> FSTO
> Just to clarify; I was on Charlottetown in 2000, when we first joined the HSTBG, we deployed in 01/2001 as a member of said CVNBG with other USN units.  We remained with HST until her departure and Connie arrived to take up the duties.



Agreed, but there was much hoopla made about your trip in the media as being the first to do so.  That wasn't the case.  I was out east and heard it all.  Yes it was the Charlottetown correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you guys sail for the Gulf Jan 01 - Jun 01, then right back at it after 9/11 sometime late Sept 01....

http://www.nosi.org/archivejuly2000  (search for HMCS)

Check out the December 27 news release.  How come the Americans can get it right but our own are completely lost

Canadian Navy HMCS Charlottetown will join the Truman battle group for its 6 month deployment, the 3rd time a Canadian vessel has served as an integrated member of a US battle group


----------



## Melbatoast (6 Jun 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> ...and you move up the chain of command faster(promotions).



This is now, at least, quantifiably incorrect, if we go by the sonar world.  You have to be a real, real shitstorm not to pick up your 3 year killicks in Halifax, whereas the number of advances over the past year on the West Coast number two to my memory, and they were by a whole four months.  The merit list number two sonar killick in Halifax finished his QL3 in 2004(!!!).  I hate getting personal but man, there is no conceiveable reason for that to have happened.  They are also jumping the QL5 queue in a big way, and it really shows once they get on course.  Something that should be a consolidation of skills and knowledge learned post QL4 OJT turns into a really painful grind.

And, I have so many more sea miles, so many more ports, so much more _live_ in contact time, compared to probably any of my direct peers in Halifax it makes me a little embarrassed.

But a friend and I went over it a little while back and came to the conclusion that I, as a west coaster, will not be a Master before 9 years in no matter what.  Almost makes me wish I went east (NOTE FOR CAREER SHOP - I'M JUST KIDDING).

As for the ships, yes, the Halifax-based CPFs seem to be in awfully rough shape.  I suspect it has something to do with winter.


----------



## navymich (6 Jun 2006)

gravyboat said:
			
		

> Alright this thread is sliding down the slippery slope.  Each coast send one rep to whip it out and get measured, that should settle the argument.   :dontpanic:



Since I'm not on the CPF's, can I be an impartial judge and measure?  > (says the sailor as she smiles sweet and innocently   )


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Jun 2006)

Career movement is faster out east in the 0299 world too, they are practically going through their entire merit list (LS to MS)  But anyone who has their shit together should be wearing a leaf before the 10 year mark.   I know there are exceptions, like bad timings when it comes to postings, but there are only so many excuses

I'd like to volunteer for the whip out, but it always seems like I am sporting the "its cold" look


----------



## M Feetham (15 Jun 2006)

I'm only talking from what I know. That is the NCIOP world. From personnal experience, two of the guys who were on my QL5 course in '95 received their "leaf" less than six months after finishing the course. One of them was a P2 less than 2 years later and has been a P1 for about five years now. You don't even get your file sent for merit listing until after you have a full year in rank. A couple of my buddies went West because they were not getting promoted fast enough out east. One guy went from killick to P2 in less than 5 years. Another buddy of mine just left the recruit school and expects to pick up his P2's in less than a year. Most of the guys that picked up their leafs around the same time I did, still do not have their 6A's yet while guys that were on their 5's have been P1's for years. From what I've seen, West coasters in the NCI world definitley move up faster. Sorry but I really can't speak for the other trades. That's my spiel, I eagerly await comments. I respecfully decline the whip it out contest, as I too suffer from the It's cold syndrome. Have a good one everyone.
Cheers Marc


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Jul 2006)

Sub Guy, I agree there is a distinct lack of discipline amongst the newer members.  But this has been going on for over ten years now.  I noticed the change around 91/92 with the new kids who were coming in from Battle School following St-Jean/Cornwallis.  Back then I was in the Security Branch and was in a position to have lots of contact with the new kids when they screwed up.

Yes, yes there should be discipline on the career courses.  And there is, on both coasts from my personal experience.  I am talking about outside of the school, there was more BS and petty minded nit pickers to my memory.  But then maybe I am just a slack bastard eh?

I agree there are those who wish to hit the barley too hard at times too.  Thankfully they are a minority.  I personally don't drink at sea as I want to keep my head on straight if the shit hits the fan.  We have had however our friends from your coast with us for the past three sails and well they were not all staying away from the bar either.  I am sure you have your chronics on that coast.

Lastly, I would love you guys to stop hogging all the trips to the Gulf.  I want some of the action too.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2006)

I have seen US TV shows that mentioned that the Canadian ships were the only one allowed to fully integrate with the US navy battle groups. 

Regarding construction issues, my friend and I were on course in Kingston and wandered through the waterfront to find some parts of the 47’ lifeboats lying around, spoke to the yard manger, apparently they had been sub-contracted by SNC-Lavlin to build self-righting lifeboats for us following the US 47’ design, the contractor had never built a boat before and was using improper tools and contaminated areas for welding. After they built 2 boats, the contract was cancelled and the remaining 7 were built at Nanaimo Shipyards. The 2 boats had to be extensively re-welded.

The same thing happened back in the 80’s when we were getting our 70’ Point class built, the first two vessel also required extensive re-welding and the remaining vessels were cancelled.

Our two 500 class cutters suffered from serious top hamper issues and needed significant modification, partly the fault of the shipyard using the wrong materials and partly the fault of the Coast Guard trying to build a Uber-palace on a small hull.

The legacy of the fast cats out here is that we have an excellent aluminum small boat industry. The yards out here also have an excellent rep for doing repairs, but will need some new builds so they can re-invest in Capital upgrades.


----------



## tasop_999 (31 Aug 2006)

Let me interject a bit on the integration of Canadian ships into US CVBGs.  I sailed with HMCS Calgary in 2000 during the PACMEF in the Persian Gulf.  Let me just say this for the record that we did every bit as much as the Americans did.  Without going into specifics, I know that Calgary took on missions that were very novel for the time and for this the ship was recognized.  It was partly because of our training and partly because of our inebriated spirit that we were recognized by RAdm. Buck for a job well done.  He personally flew down with a briefcase full of CPSMs for the ship's company and he presented them to us in New Zealand prior to Armistice Day.  Long story short, we worked well with the Americans and maintained a good working rapport until we separated and headed for home after the Cole bombing.  

CPFs are truly a multi-role ship and I will put them up against a steamer any day for capability and reliability.  Those things needed to go because they were getting old.  The oldest CPF is now approaching the 15 year mark, and FELEX will hopefully take it the rest of the way.  Canada needed and still needs new ships, but they are just so capital intensive now that the politicians can take their time while the Navy rusts away.  I did my last sail on Algonquin, whose sister ship Huron was just recently decommissioned, those things are now old and should go the way of Huron.  I hope that the current trend of replacing the broken junk holds so that Canada can continue to have a truly world class navy and continue to operate with our elephantine southern neighbour.


----------



## Sub_Guy (31 Aug 2006)

With the Halifax 18 years old already, I certainly hope they are looking further into the future.  Felex will be good, but I think that the way the navy works now is bad.   We build ships and sit around for 30 years, then expect our shipyards to be sitting and waiting for our next purchase......

What we need is a constant shipbuilding program, and it could work if done correctly.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Sep 2006)

> I have seen US TV shows that mentioned that the Canadian ships were the only one allowed to fully integrate with the US navy battle groups.



I believe we have since lost that distinction with the new Spanish Bazan class frigates being intergrated as well into CVBG btw the designation CVBG is no longer used. The new term in vogue is CSG (Carrier Strike Group).

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18207


----------



## tasop_999 (3 Sep 2006)

Ex-Dragoon, I believe that you are right.  Though I must reiterate that Canada is one of the few nations, including the UK and Australia, to fully integrate on a regular basis into US-led operations.  The major distinction is that we train with the US more often, therefore we also have more credibility to bring to the table during operations.  This is the true benefit of geography that we enjoy over the other nations I mentioned.  

The only time I have worked with the Spanish was in 2002 during Op Apollo.  The Americans still preferred Canadian ships to work with in the SAGs that were operating in support of Enduring Freedom, simply because our ROE and procedures seemed to mesh-up better with their own.  Europeans had a harder time taking on some of the more hazardous boardings simply because they were not issued with such a robust ROE.  It was for this reason that Canadians took on some of the more difficult opposed boardings and we executed them successfully, as noted by the Maple Leaf.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (3 Sep 2006)

Our Boarding Party training definetaly rocks!


----------



## tasop_999 (5 Sep 2006)

Since much of the discussion in this forum had revolved around what the Canadian Navy has done and how great we already know we are, I thought I would switch gears for a minute.  Procurement for the forces has been an issue now for about thirty years.  It takes the CF more time to work a project through the myriad of bureaucracy in Ottawa every time something new is needed.  Except in the case of the G-Wagon, where a man, tragically had to die in order for the government of the time to pay attention.  The CPFs were in their design phase during the 1970s in the lead-up to the last major American re-armament of the Cold War.  Now DND is finally talking about replacements for these ships, but it really makes me wonder.  Everyone who wears a uniform knows that new kit is needed, but it seems like the politicians and bureaucrats just can't make anything move through that morass out in Ottawa.  

This fact is not lost on senior commanders, and I know that it eats at them daily.  They field questions in open forums like, "Sir, when are we going to retire the Algonquin?"  The answer is, "2012...maybe...sorry, I don't have a firm answer for you on that one."  There are a few wise people here who have spoken out about the need for better planning and timed, cycled replacement similar to the US.  This is very true and it does need to happen.  Before this can happen, there needs to be a political sill within the voters of Canada to give a government a strong enough mandate to rebuild the forces.


----------



## Go Navy (29 Sep 2006)

Gents,

No denying that FSTO has some points about the timings, but the harsh naval reality was that during that same time period the East Coast had NATO commitments.  Full time operational taskings that ate up at least three ships during any four month period, as one was operating, one was ramping up and one was being torn apart after she came home to make other domestically employed units operational.  The OPs tempo on the east coast has been brutal forever.  The west coast only came on line with full time commitments with 911.  I have always considered the BG integration a feather in the west coast's collective cap, not so much because they were first, but because they were available.   

Bottom line, is that the Frigates will last, because they have to.  No issues there.  The reality about Irving, and there is really no difference with any other company either, is that they are there to milk a cash cow (the Feds), and they have a work force that is more interested in their time off and rights on the job than the job itself.  We've seen refit production stop due to petty snits between union members, and between unions as well.  The only time they ever work well together is when one union is on strike.  The end result of that strife is that work takes forever, is done inefficiently, and is supervised even less so.  We get the same level of support from the FMFs at times too.  I really boils down to the commitment of the worker.  More commitment, and understanding of what his work will involve over the life time of the ship, will lead to better ships.  Sadly the survival instincts of the individuals trump the greater good of the Navy as they look to long term job security (the ships come home for refits...) instead of a job well done.

How did that union adage go: "Doing the job right the first time means getting the job done.  Doing the job wrong 15 times gives you job security!" 

I also look to this as a national problem on all levels, as any professional that is not capable of doing the job, and moving on to new ways of doing things will necessarily become obsolete.  This applies to every one of our industries, as we become comfortable with our lead, and let it get taken over.  Change isn't always good, but it is often necessary.  In this case, the west coast had an opportunity to leverage many years of east coast (and yes some west coast too) NATO interoperability experience and foster a closer bi-lateral experience, that in turn came back to serve the east and west coasts better when we sailed to the Gulf.  So who really cares who was first and why, but recognize the work done and commit to not letting that hard won experience fade away so that we have have to re-learn the job.  

Cheers


----------



## Sub_Guy (29 Sep 2006)

Go Navy said:
			
		

> The west coast only came on line with full time commitments with 911.



The west coast has been online with full time commitments long before 9/11..... They have been sending ships to the gulf since 91, plus numerous other deployments.  

The east coast may appear to have a higher tempo, but they also have more ships.   

If you look back at past op scheds you will see that both coasts are busy, but to sit there and think the west came online after 9/11 is foolish.


----------



## rmacqueen (8 Oct 2006)

To get away from the east/west testorone competition and back to the idea of ship building I am going to inject my 2 cents worth here.  

The reality is that it doesn't matter which coast they are built on because Canada lost its expertise in shipbuilding decades ago.  Whether Esquimalt or Halifax dockyard has facilities is immaterial because this will be a commercially produced product and the only way that we could get the best product would be to go out of country to an existing shipbuilding facility.  Building new ships domestically would require a skill set that we currently don't have, not to mention not having the facilities for actual ship building.  When you look at the history of the CPF's, the largest delay in their construction was the acquisition of workers and the building of facilities to accommodate the construction of them.  Even then, there were huge delays due to sub-standard construction and unforeseen engineering challenges that had more to do with lack of experience than incompetence.  The CPF's are, even now, plagued with problems that are due to lack of skill.

Basically, it comes down to what we want.  As much as I don't like to say it, if we want an excellent product than we will have to go outside the country, if we want a domestic product then expect problems.  We no longer, as a country, are capable of providing both.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Oct 2006)

Agreed.....something I have been advicating for a long time is to build offshore. From my experience European shipbuilders want to build ships unlike the ones here.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Oct 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Agreed.....something I have been advicating for a long time is to build offshore. From my experience European shipbuilders want to build ships unlike the ones here.



I don't get why they can justify buying aircraft in the states and Europe but they can't accept building ships somewhere else. 
The C-17s will be built in Long Beach Ca. That is where the assembly line and the expertise is...they've built that up over the years that they have been building them.
Why can't we go to shipyards where they have expertise and order there? If there is unique technology to put on board that is developed here or is capable of being developed here then add it after we get the hull up here.

The other option is build a long term plan to sustain an industry here with plans to keep building after the initial order is completed with the next generation of ships....and market our products overseas. Someone (like Irving) would have to have very deep pockets to get such an industry going me thinks.


----------



## Torlyn (8 Oct 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I don't get why they can justify buying aircraft in the states and Europe but they can't accept building ships somewhere else.



I was talking to some MARE's that are / were involved in the procurement process for the new JSS for the last 8-12 years, and the answer when asked was always "It's always been a political decision".  It's unfortunate, but that's what we have to deal with.  As the procurement process for a new vessel can span decades (and several governments) it becomes difficult to streamline the process at all.  RUMINT has it that some of the specs for the JSS have already changed since the Conservatives took power, and will most likely change again once we have another election.  Part and parcel of being in the CF, I guess.  

T


----------



## Reven (9 Oct 2006)

Defense spending is a not insignificant percentage of a country's production.  Canada has a very low percentage relative to other nations, but it's still up in the 1.5 percent range of our entire GNP.  Already a lot of that ends up leaving the country.  That's a huge chunk of money to be flowing out of the country.  Naval purchases tend to be, well, larger ticket items at one shot.  I hope to have as much vested interest as anyone in the quality of ships we obtain, but I think we need to realize that dumping that much cash in one purchase overseas has a lot of spillover effect on the economy and the entire country's cash flow.

Foreign purchases require the transfer of hard currency reserves.  There is very little way around it.  Domestic purchases by the government can be financed with many combinations of hard currency transfers, money supply manipulations, and tax breaks/guarantees lowering the overall impact on the economy.

It's easy to say that the government is selling out for political reasons.  Especially when there are announcements of multi-billion-dollar budget surpluses.  But domestic budget surplusses do not equal hard currency that can be transferred to a foreign country at the push of a button.  The money supply just doesn't work that way.

In short, I would *much* rather have the JSS project continue as a project able to be financed if it is domestically performed than a project that remains vapourware... languishing because the someone insists on foreign construction to get the "best".

The government has a lot more to consider than simply how much cash it has in its back pocket when they make these decisions.  Let's cut them just a little slack.


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Oct 2006)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> RUMINT has it that some of the specs for the JSS have already changed since the Conservatives took power, and will most likely change again once we have another election.  Part and parcel of being in the CF, I guess.



My understanding is that some of the changes are a direct result of the experiences being gained in the north water operations, and also drawing some lessons learned from the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. [a shore based SSM missile strike on loaded JSS would be catastrophic].


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Oct 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> My understanding is that some of the changes are a direct result of the experiences being gained in the north water operations, and also drawing some lessons learned from the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. [a shore based SSM missile strike on loaded JSS would be catastrophic].



Thats why we make sure decent and capable escorts are available.


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Oct 2006)

Yes of course, but given the manner in which the Israeli escort was beaten it seems a well trained crew and their military spec'd fire and damage control saved the vessel. We only have so many escorts ...

The JSS is designed to operate at some points in a cleansed littoral environment, but loaded with fuel, supplies, vehicles and ammunition, it would be an enticing target for a brazen attack and it requires an enhanced damage control system far beyond commericial standards [obvioulsy] and it will have DC systems far superior to those of the current AOR's.  

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Oct 2006)

I think part of the IDFs problem was they underestimated Hezbollah and the sophistication they might have been able to obtain. I dare say they will never make that mistake again.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Oct 2006)

Reven said:
			
		

> Defense spending is a not insignificant percentage of a country's production.  Canada has a very low percentage relative to other nations, but it's still up in the 1.5 percent range of our entire GNP.  Already a lot of that ends up leaving the country.  That's a huge chunk of money to be flowing out of the country.  Naval purchases tend to be, well, larger ticket items at one shot.  I hope to have as much vested interest as anyone in the quality of ships we obtain, but I think we need to realize that dumping that much cash in one purchase overseas has a lot of spillover effect on the economy and the entire country's cash flow.
> 
> Foreign purchases require the transfer of hard currency reserves.  There is very little way around it.  Domestic purchases by the government can be financed with many combinations of hard currency transfers, money supply manipulations, and tax breaks/guarantees lowering the overall impact on the economy.
> 
> ...



I agree with what you are saying and slack has been cut for years IMHO. the thing is they need to have a long term plan to set up an industry here so that we don't have to keep re-inventing the wheel every time we go to build ships. they knew they needed replacements for the 280s and the AORs when the last project was finished...that's when we should have started building the next generation of these vessals and now with the BHS on the horizon there would have been even more business.


----------



## Reven (9 Oct 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I agree with what you are saying and slack has been cut for years IMHO. the thing is they need to have a long term plan to set up an industry here so that we don't have to keep re-inventing the wheel every time we go to build ships. they knew they needed replacements for the 280s and the AORs when the last project was finished...that's when we should have started building the next generation of these vessals and now with the BHS on the horizon there would have been even more business.



That I can definitely agree with.  I read a piece done by Simon Fraser University that essentially advocated the same thing.  I found the article quite persuasive, but I don't yet know enough about the domestic shipbuilding industry to know if keeping it perpetually afloat (ahem) with military construction is really possible.  Whether it is or not, I would love to at lease see some sort of consistant plan in place for keeping the fleet modernized.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Oct 2006)

Until our government realizes you cannot built a fleet from scratch every 30 years we will continue on this trend.


----------



## Torlyn (9 Oct 2006)

Very true.  They are already starting the process to replace the 280's and the CPF's with a SSC, they know they'll be replacing them in around 15 years or so...  It's too bad that they can't churn out one a year to keep the infrastructure active, but for now I guess we just have to live with it.


----------



## Go Navy (12 Oct 2006)

Why does everone keep focusing on military production with this shipbuilding issue.  The entire open water economy of Canada depends on ships, and that includes major offshore support assets (tugs and rigs), navigational support vessels (buoy tenders, survey vessels and Ice Breakers), and transportation elements (ferries).  This production and refit requirement would augment (or likely dwarf) any military production requirements, and when one considers our needs as a maritime nation, compared to the likes of the Europeans and the Asians, then it is reasonable to develop this industry.

The issue then comes to the attitude of the people of Canada and the government.  Do we foster a culture of dependence on regional development and vote buying, with successive governments stabbing the other parties in the back by ripping apart hard won nationally important procurement projects, or do we develop a culture of long term 50 year plans with attainable, sustainable objectives.  Can we produce warships and other vessels of importance to our economy and security, in batches, continually upgrading a hull design, maintaining the expertise, and the jobs while we are at it?  Absolutely.  The economic spinoffs for the C&C and weapon/sensor suites, not to mention the main machinery infrastructure are enormous.  What we need to do is stop our dependence on the federal teat.

We can't really call ourselves a maritime nation if we don't actually build the things that sail in our waters!


----------



## Neill McKay (12 Oct 2006)

Part of the problem with shipbuilding is that it's usually quite a bit cheaper to build overseas, where labour is cheaper (amont other things).  Even with a steep import duty on ships (25 to 35 per cent -- I don't remember the exact figure) it's still hard for Canadian yards to compete on price.


----------



## Reven (13 Oct 2006)

Labour prices are one thing - the other is that the whole global market for shipbuilding has been in a glut for decades.  Every seafaring nation wants to build at home, and most subsidize if not overtly then with... dum dum da dum... naval contracts.  And here we go in a circle again.

And while the "entire open water economy of Canada" does depend on ships, most of that shipping is either provided by foreign-owned vessels or aren't the types of vessels you can use to sustain a viable industry.  Mentioned are buoy tenders, survey vessels, and ice breakers.  Well, that's pretty much the purview of the coast guard - all their ships are between 20 and 40 years old.  Besides, Coast Guard is the same case as the Navy - anything done there to prop up shipbuilding is more dependence on the "federal teat".  Not to mention that we don't have a coast guard fleet large enough to support anything, unless you want to start building disposable hulls.  As for tugs and ferries, there is no way there are enough of them bought in a year to self-support much local shipbuilding, and if there were, the expertise gained from building them wouldn't do a whit of good when it came to military hulls anyway.

So, really, when you are talking retaining enough ongoing shipbuilding expertise to make domestic military hulls possible with existing infrastructure - well, to make that viable you need to be building large, trans-oceanic vessels, and those are almost universally foreign-owned.  Little blip-on-the-map nations like Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (of GTS Katie fame) make foreign registration and ownership of vessels a snap.

So yes, it would be great to have a lucrative home market for shipbuilding.  But first we need a lucrative business in shipping to pay for it.  Then we need to jump-start the failed international shipbuilding agreement to address global over-production of hulls.  It failed in 1994, and I think I read that two or three years of recent talks were suspended last year after no agreement could be made.

Sure, I love the sound of "attainable, sustainable", yada yada, but really, there is no magic wand to wave to give us this.  The best idea I can think of is to have a regular replacement plan for military *and* civil-service (coast guard) fleets.  With more commitment to regular hull modernization and replacement, and (hopefully) a little expansion in overall fleet size, maybe... just maybe... we could subsidize a modest self-sustaining local shipbuilding industry.


----------



## Go Navy (15 Oct 2006)

Aye, I hear you loud and clear on the no magic wand.  

As for the small domestic needs, perhaps looking 5 to 50 years into our globally warmed future is in order.  We are going to need more vessels for the north, and that will necessarily mean more supply type vessels for the CG, and pre-positioned SAR assets as well.  If that passage is to open, and I am certain it will, so too will our need to deploy there.  We will need endurance of the type an aircraft can not provide.  This endurance will require support, whether refueled from AORs or CG vessels it will not matter, in order to make a difference and mean something.  That means hulls, with small overworked crews in some of the toughest seas on the planet.  We should build them now - they are coming.  The ferries we have could use with a periodic replacement too, with their subsequent sale to some other region.  Perhaps build new ones with a secondary cargo role for moving military hardware might also be considered.

What we really need is the long term vision so that this develops over 20-50 years.  Will my kids see this?  Not likely, but I sure as hell hope they still fight for it - and if there is some teat to be milked, get their fair share too - they will have my bills to pay.  Politics and nationalism/regionalism will always play a part in this.  Ontario's voters - mostly ignorant that everything they buy comes in a container - they only see the trucks on the 400 series highways - will always call for a low price offshore buy.  Why not?  Looks good on a balance sheet, and yes we can refit these to our standards later - unless you look at our history in that area also.

What we need to do is get the Canadian populace thinking of national procurement in terms of 50 year windows, not just the next federal election campaign, or when one of our pilots dies or ships breaks down...  

I'm all for keeping a hull for 30 years.  The first 3 are spent beating it into shape, the next 10 are spent working every penny out of it, two years are spent upgrading it, and the next 10 are paying for the refit, and after that it should be allowed to go gracefully.  At it's mid life, it's replacement should have been having her keel laid.  The reality is that we could do with that, if we were allowed to plan for thirty years without the politicians of the day grabbing at this 'set aside' pot of money all the time.  Short term gain for our politicos is always going to cause long term harm for the military.  What every report I've ever seen on the issue endorses is the smaller more frequent purchase plan.  That still requires long term planning from the political part, but has been done around the world before too.  

I am confident that upwards of three major yards can be sustained for domestic purposes if we work them as a national team, perhaps bite that regional bullet and declare one as our national naval yard, and another for the CG and ferries, and necessarily in partnership with international consortia.  Unfortunately, the reason no one wants our work is that our labour costs are insane when coupled with our worker dedication and their product.  We also need to get PWGSC to start working as part of the team and stop offering contracts to bidders that win on trash bids with no expertise.  World leadership in sustainable shipbuilding can be attained if we take a national approach to it.  Some things are better when controlled from the center.  The cash we use to buy these vessels offshore is lost to our economy otherwise - another point to educate our populace about.

I agree - no magic wand.  I just think we need to think ahead and keep our options open.  We need to recognize that which can be fixed and work slowly to change those things that change slowly.  Starting today.


----------



## STONEY (19 Oct 2006)

A few points for everyone to ponder.

Where did you get tthe idea that workers oversea's labour is cheaper. With the exception of Korea & Japan that have huge production lines of ships being built in quantity (hence keeping prices down)  shipbuilding yards oversea's are having the same problems as in Canada and prices are also very high. Most European yards and shipbuilders are in disasterious shape and in the last decade more yards have closed than in Canada. Even in the U.S. many yards have closed in the last decade and many of those still open are turning out shoddy work.  I.E.
The new San Antonio class was years late and hundreds of millions  way over budget  had had many ,many defects. 

This problem has been discussed for over fifty years and we are no closer to an answer today than we were then. We already build all our government vessels in Canada. With the exception of Subs and Carriers all Navy vessels since about 1944 have been built in Canada. All ships in the Coast Guard have been built in Canada. Many of our Tugs,Supply vessels, research vessels, fishing vessels ,oil rigs, offshore oil platforms& ferrys have been built in Canada but still we have a shipbuilding overcapicity that connot be filled by domestic orders.

Don't think that the grass is always greener overseas because its not, shipyards everywhere are hurting for orders and the product they turn out have just as many defects & teething problems if not more than Canadian Yards. If you think the CPF's have problems well i can tell you of several NATO navy's have destroyers & frigates that have problems that are many times worse than anything we have experienced in our worst nightmares.

CHEERS


----------



## tasop_999 (19 Oct 2006)

Good point Stoney,

For example, the Lafeyette Class that France has exported to countries like Taiwan and Saudi Arabia are well known to have major engineering problems.  Ships today are being engineered to the fullest extent of technology and often this means that there are sometimes unproven technologies incorporated into the design.  A good example of this is the decision to use a non-metal gun housing on the CPFs.  Well, I don't know if anyone else has seen it, but I know of at least one storm that saw us in heavy seas and cracked the outside of the gun housing.  

As for the massive production lines you speak of, those are mainly for the civilian sector of shipbuilding.  There are, and always will be, special design requirements needed in naval shipbuilding.  The Russians are very good at this and have maintained a strong shipbuilding industry for years, albeit on the back of supplying arms to lovely countries such as India, China, and North Korea.  

Canadian shipyards could easily retool themselves and build a military order if the demand was there.  We have seen this through history in WWII and even when the CPFs were being built.  The decision just has to be made to build whatever new ships are coming in Canada so that the various yards have ample time to re-tool and be ready.  The old laws of supply and demand dictate the domestic willingness to build ships at home.  When we don't build a new ship for 15 years and there is no demand, the shipyards move on to something else or they close.  When there is a demand created, there will be someone there to supply a product.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Oct 2006)

tasop_999 said:
			
		

> Good point Stoney,
> 
> .  A good example of this is the decision to use a non-metal gun housing on the CPFs.  Well, I don't know if anyone else has seen it, but I know of at least one storm that saw us in heavy seas and cracked the outside of the gun housing.
> 
> .



I take you are talking about the Mount?  or a shield? I guess fiberglass is what they used. I have seen steel and aluminum stoved in by heavy seas.


----------



## STONEY (20 Oct 2006)

The gun on the CPF'S is supplied by Bofor's now BAE,  only came with one shield so the point is moot.  We didn't have a choice, not that we would haven't made the same one anyway. The steel used in the CPF's' as specified by the designer's and bid for by Canadian steel makers and initally supplied to Irving Shipbuilding was not up to the standards as laid down ,and the yard condemmed it, as unsatisfactory . Was this Irvings fault . The vessels main gear box was built in Holland ,and shipped to Irving by ship and while unloading was dropped and had to be shipped back to Holland for recertification. Was this Irvings fault. Many of the systems installed in the CPF's were from overseas suppliers and installed by subcontractors in Canada that had little or no experience in these systems. Was this Irvings fault. The learning curve from first of class HMCS Halifax, to the last Frigate built was steep, as building times improved dramatically and first of class ships have historically speaking have been lemons compared to the rest of class. The problem is, as stated previously  that we are always reinventing the wheel and this will not change under the  present procurement processes of feast or famine.

Cheers


----------

