Replacing the Subs

[Navy_Pete]

View attachment 88025
Dockyard Annex is also ripe for a refresh. Only thing over there now is the Hammerhead park, CSE training building and a whole lotta buildings that need to be flattened.

That land is massively contaminated. When they built a SCIF for DRDC, it was cheaper to build it on stilts above the existing building and have some kind of lunatic airlock system than do the clean up.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Frig you are a nervous nellie fretting about if we have enough space.....First of all we do not know how the new ships will be distributed. Crew shortages and personnel shortages in general are forcing a revaluation of fleet distribution and current fleet holdings. Changes are probably coming soon.

I can't speak for the WC but highly likely that submarines will be docked currently where they are now due to the proximity of the sub shed, synrolift, Sea Training submarines and the administrative and technical support of the current submarine fleet. There needs to be improvements to current infrastructure for sure and I would imagine that is included in the project.

If we end up needing more space we have options in Halifax.

We don't have enough space for the current fleet plan, especially if they actually replace the MCDVs with bigger corvettes. Jetty services are already lacking for the current fleet, and the FMF isn't big enough for the maintenance load either. Stacking ships outboard of each other is pretty shit, and each class we are talking about are all bigger than what is being replaced by a lot.

Not thinking about infrastructure, training, crewing, 2nd/3rd line support etc during fleet recapitalization is shortsighted, to be kind about it. We already do 'fleet jenga' to try and accomodate SWP requirements, that would be brutal. I hate TBS, but forcing us to include sparing, infra, training, IP and similar considerations in major capitol project costings at least ensures it doesn't get cut and pushed to an 'in service' problem from the get go. We still miss a lot of that, but better than some NP projects, where the delivery budget gets slashed to the point where your tech pub is a glossy flier, you sparing plan is 'future problem' and training is 'OJT' supplemented by youtube videos (that you can't access on the DWAN).

 

[Underway]

That land is massively contaminated. When they built a SCIF for DRDC, it was cheaper to build it on stilts above the existing building and have some kind of lunatic airlock system than do the clean up.

I live near Hamilton. Trust me, if its to expensive to cart away you just cap it, pave it and you can put anything you want on it! Lol

 

[Stoker]

We don't have enough space for the current fleet plan, especially if they actually replace the MCDVs with bigger corvettes. Jetty services are already lacking for the current fleet, and the FMF isn't big enough for the maintenance load either. Stacking ships outboard of each other is pretty shit, and each class we are talking about are all bigger than what is being replaced by a lot.

Not thinking about infrastructure, training, crewing, 2nd/3rd line support etc during fleet recapitalization is shortsighted, to be kind about it. We already do 'fleet jenga' to try and accomodate SWP requirements, that would be brutal. I hate TBS, but forcing us to include sparing, infra, training, IP and similar considerations in major capitol project costings at least ensures it doesn't get cut and pushed to an 'in service' problem from the get go. We still miss a lot of that, but better than some NP projects, where the delivery budget gets slashed to the point where your tech pub is a glossy flier, you sparing plan is 'future problem' and training is 'OJT' supplemented by youtube videos (that you can't access on the DWAN).

Honestly I'm not convinced if we'll ever get 12 submarines or even the Corvettes, at least in the numbers we want. I would assume that jetty services would be improved to facilitate serving of our fleet over the next coming decades. Nesting ships while not ideal is a way of life for us and I suspect will aways be that way. We don't even know the coastal distribution of our new fleet. There are lots of unknowns here, you very well may see two JSS on the EC for a while and the last AOPS as well. We'll make do regardless.

 

[YZT580]

look at the glass half full side. Wouldn't it be a wonderful problem to have 7 subs in the water and tied up at the same wharf along with a carrier?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The picture is deceiving because of the size of Bonnie: She is at old jetty 4, while the submarines (only two of which are Canadian) are berthed at old jetty 5. The white yacht in the camber is the Admiral's barge, if anyone wondered. Also, on the opposite side of the jetty from the furthest submarines are two of the old Bird Class patrol vessels.


But it's still a nice problem to have.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Lol, not a nervous nellie, I just do project planning (for the most part) for a living for the banks/insurance/high-end money managers (think Onex) and I get paid to look at every possible aspect of a project - from 'Black Swan' events to everyday run of the mill issues. Its been this attention to detail that has enable me to survive and thrive over the last 19yrs of working independently and hiring my services out to the highest bidder.

I can clearly see that there are many examples being posted on here of a lack of attention to planning for 'one off's' occurring and, as a result, bad publicity for the CAF being presented to the CDN public - further degrading the confidence that the CDN public has in the CAF in properly managing the money/resources being allocated to them.

Its was a very fair question. And on the east coast our jetties are not in great shape with failing shore services.