Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Cloud Cover]

Many years ago the CF was allowed, maybe even encouraged, to talk about their requirements in public and the Navy, at least actually published a shiny paper (does Leadmark ring a bell with anyone?) - sure, maybe it looked a bit like the Sears Christmas Wish Book, but my memory says that it made pretty cogent case for a fleet of 10 to 15 major surface combatants - destroyers/frigates - and as many minor combatants - corvettes? - and some submarines and oilers and training vessels and so on.

I think the authors were pretty level headed and many of their conclusions still seem, to me, to stand up 30 years after the fact.

RCN and Canadian government never hit a single milestone of Leadmark 2020 despite it being written in 1999. In fact they still haven’t done so.

 

[GK .Dundas]

RCN and Canadian government never hit a single milestone of Leadmark 2020 despite it being written in 1999. In fact they still haven’t done so.

But according to the many press releases....any day now....

 

[Kirkhill]

But according to the many press releases....any day now....

 

[Halifax Tar]

Other navies have much bigger support groups; when I was an LCMM the RN had about 12 people doing the same scope of work. That was probably an outlier, but we could easily have many more LCMMs and supply managers for the existing fleet and the ones coming down the pipe. Every time you add another class there can be a step increase in work, and small batches of separate classes are a nightmare.

Even if they look similar, the systems will all be different enough that it's a lot to learn. That's the same for coastal support and repairs, where things will be slightly different, and they'll just need more people across the board. When you get down to detailed planning, and component level support those changes really make a difference.

Could be a tentacle of unification ? What if the RCN was funded to provide its own material support ?

Right now we have to fly an FLS member to a 3rd country in Europe to pick up a part that we (the ship) are buying over the phone, because the LCMM "has no budget". Disgusting. Shakes head an furious logistician

Why are we paying the salaries of people we wont resource to do their jobs ? Dissolve those positions and give those funds (salaries) to the units and be done with a façade they 1st line units are not funded to supply their own spares. Fund me and I will do it myself, that seems to be the CoA now anyways.

 

[Pelorus]

Could be a tentacle of unification ? What if the RCN was funded to provide its own material support ?

Right now we have to fly an FLS member to a 3rd country in Europe to pick up a part that we (the ship) are buying over the phone, because the LCMM "has no budget". Disgusting. Shakes head an furious logistician

Why are we paying the salaries of people we wont resource to do their jobs ? Dissolve those positions and give those funds (salaries) to the units and be done with a façade they 1st line units are not funded to supply their own spares. Fund me and I will do it myself, that seems to be the CoA now anyways.

Have you captured this issue in a Briefing Note, specifically focusing on a cost comparison between what you've described above (i.e., staff hours to source the part, cost of the part itself, TD costs for your FLS to travel to a 3rd location to procure, etc.) vs what it would have cost for the part to have been dispatched to you under normal HPR processes if the part was in stock within the CAF supply system?

Unlikely that this results in a near-term solution for you, but it would likely be worthwhile data for ADM(Mat) or whomever when they make a broader pitch for additional funding from DND or TB. Arguments relating to operational impacts often don't land outside of CAF operational lines, but being able to provide concrete data to say that "HMCS X buying this part on short notice as an Urgent Operational Requirement was X% more costly than if it had been available within the CAF supply system" could possibly register with the right people.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Have you captured this issue in a Briefing Note, specifically focusing on a cost comparison between what you've described above (i.e., staff hours to source the part, cost of the part itself, TD costs for your FLS to travel to a 3rd location to procure, etc.) vs what it would have cost for the part to have been dispatched to you under normal HPR processes if the part was in stock within the CAF supply system?

I have not, and it never crossed my mind! But now you have given me the idea. Honestly the CDS is visiting soon, it was going to be a question I was going to pose to her.

Unlikely that this results in a near-term solution for you, but it would likely be worthwhile data for ADM(Mat) or whomever when they make a broader pitch for additional funding from DND or TB. Arguments relating to operational impacts often don't land outside of CAF operational lines, but being able to provide concrete data to say that "HMCS X buying this part on short notice as an Urgent Operational Requirement was X% more costly than if it had been available within the CAF supply system" could possibly register with the right people.

Very valid.