Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[Lumber]

@Lumber I did a tour on an AB as the A/EO along with the C.Eng and some of the Cert 2s and 3s; made the mistake of asking their EO a technical question, then ended up just talking to their techs. It was weird for us to figure out what that meant for them, and I think they found it weird that our NTOs were actual engineers that genuinely knew stuff so could have called them out.

It was kind of funny as I think both sides were glad that we each operated the way we do and not the other way around, so guess a lot of it is what you are used to. Some days would have loved to just be a divO though lol.

Things like that, and generally their focus on specialization at a certain job vice our more generalist approach though drives such a massive change in basic ship design and crew sizes though that the AEGIS system selection is really creating an issue.

If you go on teams, you can find the trip report for a visit that the OA team did aboard the USS Lassen...wait... Was that you? Anyways, it reiterated everything I generally knew about the crew structure aboard an AB. However, a few insights were especially enlightening. To wit, that while the operator/maintainers were very proud of the work they did it maintainers their kit, they 1. We're exhausted because in addition to standing watches, they also had to do first line maintenance in their off watches. This was especially true alongside, as they were the personnel doing both repairs and routine maintenance on their kit alongside. And 2. They didn't spend enough time on actual operator training because they had to spend so much time on maintenance activities, and so they felt they weren't all that good at their core job as radar operators or tactical Coordinators, etc.

 

[Nvlgzr]

Irving CEO is likely jacking off in the in the executive bathroom to the thought of landing a Golden Fleece USN contract...

He already has that with NSS. The gift that keeps giving. Fleecing the taxpayers since 2011. Build the 9 Hero’s. Get a bucket of money from N.S. to build new facilities. Build 6 AOPS over budget. Cry that they will lay off till CSC can be built. Given contract for 2 more AOPS for CCG. Demand more money. CCG AOPS cost more than RCN. Given contract for 3 CSC price keeps going up. Given additional federal money to ‘fix’ their facilities to enable delivery sooner. No guarantees. Skilled negotiators in the government, I must say.

 

[Czech_pivo]

He already has that with NSS. The gift that keeps giving. Fleecing the taxpayers since 2011. Build the 9 Hero’s. Get a bucket of money from N.S. to build new facilities. Build 6 AOPS over budget. Cry that they will lay off till CSC can be built. Given contract for 2 more AOPS for CCG. Demand more money. CCG AOPS cost more than RCN. Given contract for 3 CSC price keeps going up. Given additional federal money to ‘fix’ their facilities to enable delivery sooner. No guarantees. Skilled negotiators in the government, I must say.

We point fingers at the Americans and their pork barrel politics and laugh at them. You look at what the Irving family has managed to do over the last 15yrs with the NSS and the sheer amount of free money they've been given, its no real difference than the US. They talk in billions while we talk in hundred of millions but that's about it.

 

[Navy_Pete]

If you go on teams, you can find the trip report for a visit that the OA team did aboard the USS Lassen...wait... Was that you? Anyways, it reiterated everything I generally knew about the crew structure aboard an AB. However, a few insights were especially enlightening. To wit, that while the operator/maintainers were very proud of the work they did it maintainers their kit, they 1. We're exhausted because in addition to standing watches, they also had to do first line maintenance in their off watches. This was especially true alongside, as they were the personnel doing both repairs and routine maintenance on their kit alongside. And 2. They didn't spend enough time on actual operator training because they had to spend so much time on maintenance activities, and so they felt they weren't all that good at their core job as radar operators or tactical Coordinators, etc.

That wasn't me; we just popped by a ship in the TG about 15 years ago. I've mostly been matrixed into PMOs for the last 5 years for support, including combat recoverability review.

Lot of it people focus just on the ship, but from doing that for years now you really need to consider the actual design, people, their skill sets and SOPs. The RN concept is pretty solid, but their 'suitably qualified and experienced personnel' (SQEP) includes HTs at the PO1, PO2, MS and S1 levels as part of the section base backbone. Without SQEP all the assumptions in the design falls apart, and doesn't really matter what your SOPs are if you can't execute.

 

[DBNSG]

We point fingers at the Americans and their pork barrel politics and laugh at them. You look at what the Irving family has managed to do over the last 15yrs with the NSS and the sheer amount of free money they've been given, its no real difference than the US. They talk in billions while we talk in hundred of millions but that's about it.

The Irvings also recently purchased another Pulp and Paper Mill. In Georgia USA.

 

[DBNSG]

Trolling the US

https://twitter.com/x/status/1993445747933823463

Well Trump and company just bought a Canadian designed Ice Breaker .

 

[Lumber]

That wasn't me; we just popped by a ship in the TG about 15 years ago. I've mostly been matrixed into PMOs for the last 5 years for support, including combat recoverability review.

Lot of it people focus just on the ship, but from doing that for years now you really need to consider the actual design, people, their skill sets and SOPs. The RN concept is pretty solid, but their 'suitably qualified and experienced personnel' (SQEP) includes HTs at the PO1, PO2, MS and S1 levels as part of the section base backbone. Without SQEP all the assumptions in the design falls apart, and doesn't really matter what your SOPs are if you can't execute.

Part of the problem, at least from my admittedly uninformed view, is that the RCD PMO give almost no shits (if not entirely no shits) about the 2nd and third order consequences of their design decisions (hello, AEGIS). Their priority is delivering the widget, and that's all (the widget here being the RCD).

 

[Kirkhill]

Well Trump and company just bought a Canadian designed Ice Breaker .

And 80 BUSD worth of reactors to be fed with Saskatchewan uranium


Apparently some outfit name of Brookfield is making a buck as well....

AI info


U.S. President Donald Trump has not bought Canadian nuclear reactors. Instead, the U.S. government entered into a strategic partnership with the Canadian owners of Westinghouse Electric to build new nuclear power plants in the United States, utilizing Canadian uranium resources and expertise.

Details of the Deal

Partnership, not purchase: The U.S. government signed a binding term sheet with Canada-based companies Cameco Corp. and Brookfield Asset Management, the co-owners of the U.S. reactor vendor Westinghouse Electric.

$80 Billion Investment: The agreement aims to facilitate the construction of at least $80 billion worth of new Westinghouse nuclear reactors across the United States.
U.S.-Based Construction: These new reactors are intended to be built on U.S. soil, not purchased from Canada as pre-built units. The goal is to meet rising U.S. electricity demand, partly driven by the growth of AI data centers.

Government Role: The U.S. government's role includes arranging financing and helping to secure the necessary permits and approvals for the projects.

Profit Sharing: The deal includes profit-sharing mechanisms and potential for a U.S. government equity stake in Westinghouse once certain financial thresholds are met.

Canadian Benefit: The deal benefits Canadian companies primarily through increased demand for Canadian uranium (Cameco is a major producer) and the financial and strategic value created within Westinghouse.

Scott Moe

Today’s $80 billion nuclear reactor deal between Cameco, Brookfield and the US is a transformational partnership that will benefit Saskatchewan, Canada and the US by building North American nuclear...

www.facebook.com

 

[FSTO]

@Lumber I did a tour on an AB as the A/EO along with the C.Eng and some of the Cert 2s and 3s; made the mistake of asking their EO a technical question, then ended up just talking to their techs. It was weird for us to figure out what that meant for them, and I think they found it weird that our NTOs were actual engineers that genuinely knew stuff so could have called them out.

It was kind of funny as I think both sides were glad that we each operated the way we do and not the other way around, so guess a lot of it is what you are used to. Some days would have loved to just be a divO though lol.

Things like that, and generally their focus on specialization at a certain job vice our more generalist approach though drives such a massive change in basic ship design and crew sizes though that the AEGIS system selection is really creating an issue.

@FSTO Are they finally going to get moving on the new HT specialization? The entire combat survivability crewing aspect is reliant on having the skillset that comes with HTs, especially with the absolutely anemic size of the engineering department onboard and what that means for section base numbers, particularly with some of the design choices and damage scenarios. A DCPO without a lot more stability expertise is going to be a liability.

I overheard the Occupation Advisor Stokers chatting about that very topic. As far as I can tell they will produce and deliver HT training before they stand up the specialization. If that is understandable.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Part of the problem, at least from my admittedly uninformed view, is that the RCD PMO give almost no shits (if not entirely no shits) about the 2nd and third order consequences of their design decisions (hello, AEGIS). Their priority is delivering the widget, and that's all (the widget here being the RCD).

The weird thing with the AEGIS selection as well as the giant radar is that it has had such a massive impact on the design itself it means we've had to completely re-engineer a lot of things, do a tonne of work on the crew, add in more design changes for the reduced non-ops room type, and likely completely change the ops and CSE trades to fit the AEGIS structure, so it's probably added major delays to the overall widget (and the RAN is going through the same). We also selected an ASW frigate and turned it into an AAW destroyer, with changes/tradeoffs there, so we might have been better off going with a bespoke design from the start.

Again, glad to be matrixed in only; it's nice to drop in for a bit, work through things, give recommendations and point out gaps then pop smoke again. The downside of doing that is people tag you for future postings, but really not interested in getting stuck in the design loop and would only be interested the the build QC and acceptance testing part. That's way more high tempo work, but a lot more up my alley for what I like to do and also get a real, concrete result at the end.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I overheard the Occupation Advisor Stokers chatting about that very topic. As far as I can tell they will produce and deliver HT training before they stand up the specialization. If that is understandable.

Thanks, that does make sense, although that's been the position for a few years, and we're probably behind the 8 ball on actually generating people (plus running out of legacy HTs to do all that). I'm sure the old OJPRs and training lectures are all archived at CFNES, so dusting off the old OHP slides and starting from there may be a better starting point now then spending years developing the ideal training package. Will take about a decade to start generating HT trained DCPOs again so not great if you want your initial crew doing training in 2033 or whatever for the 2035 IOC (which means you need to start building SOPs for things like DC in 2030/2031 that actually are tailored to your crew).

At the moment we're using the RN timber shoring, which is stronger and more flexible but also more complicated. Pitched to get different metal shoring that gives similar flexibility but is better suited for smaller crews and also needs less expertise to set up the basics, and some other DC gear for reduced crewing but still no joy. Keep prodding on occasion though so who knows.

 

[NavyShooter]

I might have been contacted last year for the old copies of the NET(A) Lesson Plans I rescued from the W ENG rollover....

I left copies with 3 other guys in the fleet - only one of which is still in now.

Good luck RCN....you've got a steep hill to climb on the training front after the Technical Trades were...Knippled.