• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAP
  • Start date Start date
Initial provisioning is the responsibility of the project, not of NP.

But on occasion projects manage to escape their responsibilities...
And yet, the RCN is getting butthurt because LCMMs are saying no to providing initial provisioning on AOPs 5 and 6 because they can't get both funding and procurement time to replace the items, so they need that for in service use. It's already been offloaded to AJISS.

edit: holy typos batman!
 
And yet, the RCN is getting butthurt because LCMMs are saying no to providing initial provisioning on AOPs 5 and 6 because they can't get both funding and procurement time to replace the items, so they need that for in service use. It's already been offloaded to AJISS.

edit: holy typos batman!

I wrote a BN to CRCN about this. Will see how far it gets. I don't expect it to do much but we have to swing the bat.

Side note, GO YANKEES!
 
I wrote a BN to CRCN about this. Will see how far it gets. I don't expect it to do much but we have to swing the bat.

Side note, GO YANKEES!
If it makes you feel less alone, have been raising this issue on the LCMM side since AOPS ship 2, and also pointed it out while at the NSS when looking at PMO JSS provisioning strategy. The shipyards don't care, they'll buy us whatever we want as long as they get their markup (which we pay AJISS as well, just means we'll get it sooner).

But given that it was discussed with PMOs when we drafted the AJISS RFP to not offload initial provisioning onto AJISS and happened anyway, not hopeful. At least PMO AOPs transferred a chunk of cash, just unfortunate it's probably only a fraction of the actual costs they'll absorb.

Feel free to drop me a PM or send an email on the DWAN if you need more ammo, have been picking at this one for almost a decade now.
 

Canada, Finland and the US signed a joint Memorandum of Understanding to establish the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort (ICE Pact) today.
 
Where's the beef? I want details on what the pact says, because right now it feels like good intentions and no substance.
The election is a ways off so they are piecemealing the announcements out and likley won't announce real funding/commitments till closer to the election date.
 

Canadian Frigate Destroys Target in Joint U.S.-Navy Littoral Missile Shoot​




Interesting piece about Regina firing successfully at Harpoon II missile but also the part I've snipped out below about crewing numbers -

Regina’s crew averages 167 but nearly maxed out its berthing with 236 for the missile exercise. The crew routinely trains for missions involving humanitarian aid, disaster relief and search and rescue, said Chief Petty Officer First Class Timothy King, the senior enlisted sailor and equivalent to a command master chief.

Seems that the CPF are out there with alot less crew members than the 215-225 that they are typically allocated. That's less than 3X the crew on an AOPS.

Also, the bit below about ASW work.

“Harpoon, we don’t fire often,” King said. “We’re more of a support role and a first-line defense against submarines… That’s the bread and butter.”

Lt. Cmdr. George “Scott” Dyson, Regina executive officer, said the frigate is optimized for anti-submarine warfare.

“If you add us to an American task group, you get a ship that’s not so super awesome at shooting down aircraft,” Dyson said, “but we’re good at hunting and fighting submarines.”

King noted that Canadian patrol frigates routinely are invited to the Navy submarine commander’s course in Hawaii to give submarine commanders practice evading detection.

“We’re a more frustrating opponent. I mean, they still kill us all the time,” said Dyson. Los Angeles or Virginia-class U.S. submarines they encounter during training are “formidable opponents. They make us put the ship through the full envelope of its capabilities.”

 
Seems that the CPF are out there with alot less crew members than the 215-225 that they are typically allocated. That's less than 3X the crew on an AOPS.
All the time. Minimum crewing and full crewing are completely different numbers. Crew numbers vary depending on the readiness state and mission. There is also coursing and leave to consider.

Also a lot of the time the frigate doesn't sail with aircrew and that's about 20-30 more people.
 
All the time. Minimum crewing and full crewing are completely different numbers. Crew numbers vary depending on the readiness state and mission. There is also coursing and leave to consider.

Also a lot of the time the frigate doesn't sail with aircrew and that's about 20-30 more people.
19, to be precise. (Occasionally 20, if sailing with an AOO.)
 
Good to hear the CPF’s are still in demand as a sub hunting platform. I often wondered how effective the still are, given their age and when they were designed.
 
The midlife refit focused on combat capabilities over structural soundness.
Or piping, mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and uh, anything else unsexy. The DG replacement got snuck in to the arse end of FELEX but was more because we couldn't fix the old ones anymore as we were running the last 52 engines in existence. The PDE is similar just get better support from the OEM.
 
Or piping, mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and uh, anything else unsexy. The DG replacement got snuck in to the arse end of FELEX but was more because we couldn't fix the old ones anymore as we were running the last 52 engines in existence. The PDE is similar just get better support from the OEM.
Are they currently doing any part of this during DWP’s or is it just being let to go?
 
Are they currently doing any part of this during DWP’s or is it just being let to go?
Well, they had asked for big funding increases to actually fix things in DWP. We received cuts instead to NP.

They will do what they can, and just let the rest ride.

For context, the last 280 refit on the 40+year old ATH clocked in at around 350k hours of work at the end, which include some major arisings on steel, pipe, mech and electrical, plus some nice to haves.

The CPFs are starting at 1M+ hours of known work, and usually there is a 25% or more in arising as you start taking things apart.

So anyone saying they have 10-20 more years left is delusional.
 
Well, they had asked for big funding increases to actually fix things in DWP. We received cuts instead to NP.

They will do what they can, and just let the rest ride.

For context, the last 280 refit on the 40+year old ATH clocked in at around 350k hours of work at the end, which include some major arisings on steel, pipe, mech and electrical, plus some nice to haves.

The CPFs are starting at 1M+ hours of known work, and usually there is a 25% or more in arising as you start taking things apart.

So anyone saying they have 10-20 more years left is delusional.
Of that 20 more years at least 15 will be in the ditch.
 
Back
Top