Replacing the Subs

[dimsum]

I'm sure the ORs would love the extra task of tracking who was and wasn't getting a taxable benefit, it's not like most are already understaffed and over worked...

Treasury Board said parking was a taxable benefit, the CAF chose the paid parking route across the CAF. Why would Halifax be given a special carve out?

From what I recall a while ago, it was basically “are there paid parking lots within X km of the DND location?”

If yes, match that. If no, it’s free.

 

[Furniture]

From what I recall a while ago, it was basically “are there paid parking lots within X km of the DND location?”

If yes, match that. If no, it’s free.

True, I had essentially pointed that out in a prior post so didn't repeat myself.

The point I was making is that it wasn't a navy/Topshee decision.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Ok crayon eater question:

Who actually commands the RCN? I know you have a CRCN but does some effing beancounter trail behind him to ensure he isn't going overbudget???

The thing is, CRCN doesn't actually dictate what projects are funded (and neither does head of the Army or Airforce). He can say whatever he wants, but doesn't mean we aren't suddenly $100M plus short on in service funding, and suddenly have more crews than platforms (vice about .6 or less). Reality sucks that way.

So when he says 'the MCDV replacements are going to do such and such', but no MCDV replacement project is even a twinkle in TBS eye, he's talking out his ass, and anything he says is basically a wish list to the VCDS and MND (and TBS and PSPC and ISED and...).

No one in the Navy actually wanted an icebreaker either, but GoC said we'll gain that capability, so here we are trying to make AOPs do things it wasn't actually delivered with the capability, while trying to make it meet basic civilian safety requirements.

In some ways, the BGHs are way more constrained than a lot of us are at the peon level, and also have way more smoke blown up their ass obscuring the real picture. I can talk out my ass but no one is going to write a story on it.

Follow me on unsocial media to hear more of my TED talk 'Why I will never be promoted again; Tales from the Punishment posting season'

 

[Kirkhill]

No one in the Navy actually wanted an icebreaker either, but GoC said we'll gain that capability,

See, right there, is my problem.

It isn't CRCN's Navy any more than it CCA's Army or CRCAF's Air Force or CCCG's Coast Guard.

I hear a lot of complaints about the Government not giving direction. And yet I can think of a number of instances when the Government was clear in its direction and the direction was not deemed acceptable by the people given the direction. It can be argued if the policy was the right policy. It can't be argued that it was the Government's right, its job, to deliver that direction.

Could that reluctance to deliver what is asked be at all related to not being funded?

 

[Halifax Tar]

From what I recall a while ago, it was basically “are there paid parking lots within X km of the DND location?”

If yes, match that. If no, it’s free.

Correct and its reviewed every couple of years.

And it wasn't the RCN or Topshee that levied this on the Halifax, it was just his job to implement it as BComd of CFB Halifax at the time.

 

[Navy_Pete]

See, right there, is my problem.

It isn't CRCN's Navy any more than it CCA's Army or CRCAF's Air Force or CCCG's Coast Guard.

I hear a lot of complaints about the Government not giving direction. And yet I can think of a number of instances when the Government was clear in its direction and the direction was not deemed acceptable by the people given the direction. It can be argued if the policy was the right policy. It can't be argued that it was the Government's right, its job, to deliver that direction.

Could that reluctance to deliver what is asked be at all related to not being funded?

No, once direction was given we got onboard, was just using it as an example of where CRCN doesn't dictate requirements; ultimately that's the GoC and why painful bureacratic things like various Defence white papers are critical.

 

[KevinB]

See, right there, is my problem.

It isn't CRCN's Navy any more than it CCA's Army or CRCAF's Air Force or CCCG's Coast Guard.

I hear a lot of complaints about the Government not giving direction. And yet I can think of a number of instances when the Government was clear in its direction and the direction was not deemed acceptable by the people given the direction. It can be argued if the policy was the right policy. It can't be argued that it was the Government's right, its job, to deliver that direction.

Could that reluctance to deliver what is asked be at all related to not being funded?

At the end of the day the Militaries of democratic countries are subservient to the elected officials.

However it behooves the government to listen to their military SME’s as to how best accomplish the tasks they are given to force construct etc.

I tend to like the unfunded priorities lost we have done here, that allows Congress to fill in additional funding.

WRT to the icebreaker aspect: the GoC should have told the CAF of the mission requirements and let the CAF find the proper force structure for that. But again we’ve seen countless examples of the GoC pushing a rock uphill for political gains as opposed to military capabilities.

 

[Kirkhill]

No, once direction was given we got onboard, was just using it as an example of where CRCN doesn't dictate requirements; ultimately that's the GoC and why painful bureacratic things like various Defence white papers are critical.

I agree on the White Papers - I would prefer if they came out on an annual basis and regularly reflected reality.

I guess where I come adrift is when I look back at the number of times governments made proposals to meet their perception of priorities and discovered that they couldn't implement them in a meaningful timeframe. They were outlasted by the institutions. Unification. Uniforms. European focus. Ice Breakers. Submarines. Reducing the Command structure. Regular - Reserve Integration....

Specifically on the AOPS - the government wanted more Canadian flags in the arctic. The Coast Guard was the natural go to. But the Coast Guard said - Guns ain't us. You want the Navy. The Navy said the Arctic ain't us you want the Coast Guard. The Government decided the navy was going to the Arctic. The Navy grumbled. It got ships it didn't want for a mission it didn't want.

It has now sent its new ships to the Arctic once, I believe? It seems to have spent more time with its "ice breakers" in the Caribbean.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have very little sympathy for the Navy on this one. The Arctic Ocean and coastline is part of Canada and one of growing importance. They were able to dodge this bullet as long as no one cared about the Arctic (including government). It may not be as sexy as ASW/BMD, visiting Ports around the world. But it is an important role now.

For the Subs, we need to buy a very off the shelf sub with only the manuals and plugs for personal electronic changed. Currently I favour the KS-III both from a technical POV and a belief that the SK's can deliver. I would order one sub for now, that stays in SK and is maintained there, while 2 crews are trained to operate it. Also use this time to train the maintenance team in Esquimalt to maintain and start bring equipment and standards up to snuff. Once the training is underway, start construction of the next sub. Have perhaps ever 2-3rd hull a Canadian sub up to a minimum of 6 with max of 8. At the same time start shrinking the operations of the Victoria Class. Perhaps even offer them as a stopgap sub to the Aussie to run with their Collin's.

I believe getting new and powerful subs will help the recruiting and retention of Submariners.

 

[Stoker]

I agree on the White Papers - I would prefer if they came out on an annual basis and regularly reflected reality.

I guess where I come adrift is when I look back at the number of times governments made proposals to meet their perception of priorities and discovered that they couldn't implement them in a meaningful timeframe. They were outlasted by the institutions. Unification. Uniforms. European focus. Ice Breakers. Submarines. Reducing the Command structure. Regular - Reserve Integration....

Specifically on the AOPS - the government wanted more Canadian flags in the arctic. The Coast Guard was the natural go to. But the Coast Guard said - Guns ain't us. You want the Navy. The Navy said the Arctic ain't us you want the Coast Guard. The Government decided the navy was going to the Arctic. The Navy grumbled. It got ships it didn't want for a mission it didn't want.

It has now sent its new ships to the Arctic once, I believe? It seems to have spent more time with its "ice breakers" in the Caribbean.

Yes but we sent RCN ships to the Arctic many years, the majority Kingston Class. These ships simply follow what we've been doing for many years and before we actually had a CG. These ships can actually go in ice that the Kingston Class can't. I see no issues with this considering we for 6M of the year don't go the Arctic deploy to areas where we send ships regularly. AOPS have been to the Arctic more than once.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes but we sent RCN ships to the Arctic many years, the majority Kingston Class. These ships simply follow what we've been doing for many years and before we actually had a CG. These ships can actually go in ice that the Kingston Class can't. I see no issues with this considering we for 6M of the year don't go the Arctic deploy to areas where we send ships regularly. AOPS have been to the Arctic more than once.

I'll stand corrected on the AOPS but based on a long time observing the commentary on this site I can't say that I have detected an abundance of enthusiasm for operations in the Arctic.

 

[suffolkowner]

Exactly. Who is going to crew them?
How many crew and support staff does one boat need? Genuine question.

I'd book on 50 crew based on our Victoria's and the Dutch Walrus/Australian Collins and our favourite SK KSS3

I have very little sympathy for the Navy on this one. The Arctic Ocean and coastline is part of Canada and one of growing importance. They were able to dodge this bullet as long as no one cared about the Arctic (including government). It may not be as sexy as ASW/BMD, visiting Ports around the world. But it is an important role now.

For the Subs, we need to buy a very off the shelf sub with only the manuals and plugs for personal electronic changed. Currently I favour the KS-III both from a technical POV and a belief that the SK's can deliver. I would order one sub for now, that stays in SK and is maintained there, while 2 crews are trained to operate it. Also use this time to train the maintenance team in Esquimalt to maintain and start bring equipment and standards up to snuff. Once the training is underway, start construction of the next sub. Have perhaps ever 2-3rd hull a Canadian sub up to a minimum of 6 with max of 8. At the same time start shrinking the operations of the Victoria Class. Perhaps even offer them as a stopgap sub to the Aussie to run with their Collin's.

I believe getting new and powerful subs will help the recruiting and retention of Submariners.

I put the KSS3 first too might have been different if the U212CD had won the Dutch contract. I think that SK can deliver on a better schedule as well which could or should be an issue

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'll stand corrected on the AOPS but based on a long time observing the commentary on this site I can't say that I have detected an abundance of enthusiasm for operations in the Arctic.

The Artic support base was massively scaled back, so sort of undercuts the ability to do sustained operations in the area. It's more of a logistics issue than desire, but the folks that did the Norploy all had a blast with really cool experiences.

Hard to complain if your year includes stops in Resolute and Bermuda.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I have very little sympathy for the Navy on this one. The Arctic Ocean and coastline is part of Canada and one of growing importance. They were able to dodge this bullet as long as no one cared about the Arctic (including government). It may not be as sexy as ASW/BMD, visiting Ports around the world. But it is an important role now.

For the Subs, we need to buy a very off the shelf sub with only the manuals and plugs for personal electronic changed. Currently I favour the KS-III both from a technical POV and a belief that the SK's can deliver. I would order one sub for now, that stays in SK and is maintained there, while 2 crews are trained to operate it. Also use this time to train the maintenance team in Esquimalt to maintain and start bring equipment and standards up to snuff. Once the training is underway, start construction of the next sub. Have perhaps ever 2-3rd hull a Canadian sub up to a minimum of 6 with max of 8. At the same time start shrinking the operations of the Victoria Class. Perhaps even offer them as a stopgap sub to the Aussie to run with their Collin's.

I believe getting new and powerful subs will help the recruiting and retention of Submariners.

I'll preface by saying, I want new subs, with under ice capability to patrol our sovereignty in the NWP. (Nuclear)

I'll also fall back to my previous question. People. Where do we get them?

If you take a couple of crews away for training, plus logistics and maintenance people, how many is that? A ballpark will do.

Have we got the people to do this, without jeopardizing our current operational capabilities or overloading those to the point of burnout?

I would also hope it would help with recruitment and retention, but we still need to determine a start point for personnel, then provide a comprehensive plan to keep that pipeline flowing.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'll preface by saying, I want new subs, with under ice capability to patrol our sovereignty in the NWP. (Nuclear)

I'll also fall back to my previous question. People. Where do we get them?

If you take a couple of crews away for training, plus logistics and maintenance people, how many is that? A ballpark will do.

Have we got the people to do this, without jeopardizing our current operational capabilities or overloading those to the point of burnout?

I would also hope it would help with recruitment and retention, but we still need to determine a start point for personnel, then provide a comprehensive plan to keep that pipeline flowing.

SSK 4 x 50 = 200
AOPS 6 x 65 = 390
Halifax 12 x 225 = 2700
Kingston 12 x 47 = 564
JSS 2 x 239 = 478

shipboard personnel = 4332 + support personnel ???

 

[GR66]

SSK 4 x 50 = 200
AOPS 6 x 65 = 390
Halifax 12 x 225 = 2700
Kingston 12 x 47 = 564
JSS 2 x 239 = 478

shipboard personnel = 4332 + support personnel ???

To be able to fully man the fleet you need much more than just the stated complement of the ships as many personnel will be in training, teaching, staff positions, on leave, unable to deploy, etc.

 

[suffolkowner]

To be able to fully man the fleet you need much more than just the stated complement of the ships as many personnel will be in training, teaching, staff positions, on leave, unable to deploy, etc.

yeah thats why the ???

Whats the numbers now?

8000 Regular
4000 Reserve
4000 DND

shorthanded right? Its going to be an issue with RCAF modernization too, never mind the Army

 

[Stoker]

I'll stand corrected on the AOPS but based on a long time observing the commentary on this site I can't say that I have detected an abundance of enthusiasm for operations in the Arctic.

I guess it all depends who you talk to. My current job takes me on all our AOPS multiple times a year and by and far sailors like sailing them. Its a nice , clean, comfortable ship that deploys. It has a great gym and WiFi, what else can you ask for?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I guess it all depends who you talk to. My current job takes me on all our AOPS multiple times a year and by and far sailors like sailing them. Its a nice , clean, comfortable ship that deploys. It has a great gym and WiFi, what else can you ask for?

Armament?

 

[KevinB]

I guess it all depends who you talk to. My current job takes me on all our AOPS multiple times a year and by and far sailors like sailing them. Its a nice , clean, comfortable ship that deploys. It has a great gym and WiFi, what else can you ask for?

Combat capability…