Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[MJP]

DRMIS is probably a good example, where it has now become a giant, user unfriendly tail wagging the dog and we continue to break our routine business to try and shoehorn in SAP workflows designed for totally different customers that do very different things.

We tried to replicate T&R and MIMs along with every other standalone material management practice into SAP/DRMIS rather than building things properly. We also implemented it piece meal with fin, MASIS and then big bang DRMIS (along with many other small modules along the way). Now we are slowly doing the same with S4 Hana as MISL and a few smaller modules use it as a baseline

In essence we tried to canadianize an ERP and in true fashion failed.

MASIS was only a small part of SAP, but from what I remember that was more of a pilot of the production management modules at the FMFs while the great big project was underway.

There are easier tools the shipyards use for production planning and management, but they also set up things like BoMs (bills of materials) on the equivalent to preventative maintenance, which we haven't done in DRMIS and no plans to do. I don't think anyone on the engineering side would have picked DRMIS after trying the SAP interface for about 10 minutes compared to other tools, as it's counter intuitive and not user friendly with an absolutely enormous learning curve. It's like using a scanning electron microscope; really powerful, but can be difficult to get it to do what you want without a lot of practice and constant use.

We end up with all the ass pain and miss a lot of the benefits. It's like using the min/max supply function, which is a lot of work to maintain, but disconnecting the background resupply function so it's all manual anyway (and we normally now order about 3 years worth of the 'annual' usage because of the HR limitations delaying the next buy).

And to make things fun, ships have independent deployed servers that don't show up in normal searches (except when portions sometimes do), so for material management there is another layer for the RCN.

I hate DRMIS, and all the processes that we know have in DRMIS that are so cumbersome we still manage things on spreadsheets and emails in addition to DRMIS, with things like project schedule milestones having zero connection to the actual work notifications and those schedules. Huge amount of garbage data.

Agreed, on the interface, it is not intuitive nor have we in 10+ years since the larger roll-out taught our people how things work. Half my day is walking people through simple navigation or where to find info.

The system is clogged with old demands, pending transactions and stuff not done because we implemented DRMIS. I am a believer in one ERP to rule them all but we truly bunged it up and the DSC lives and continues because people care and get stuff done despite the system not because of it.

I will quibble or at least say that min/maxs within the supply system work just fine, I set them or have had them set thousands of times over the years and they work. If you are referring to getting resupplied from industry then yes the buck stops at ADMMat. Once third line has a STO it can't fulfill it sends a Purchase Request to the Supply Manager who then has to work with the TA and PA to get more into the system. As you are more than aware of it just adds to their workload. Ironically TAPV has the best model for resupply as demands are sent direct to Textron when there is no stock at 3rd line. That said it is TAPV and no one cares nor do we even get parts despite that connection

I walked a buddy through the top 25 parts ordered for one of their veh fleets today and showed him that they issue pretty much 12 of a certain thing for evey work order. They also always need to order 12 every time from the depot once a work order is released because they never have stock on hand. They usually go through 24-36 a month so if he had max of 48 and min of 24 he would almost always have stock on hand rather than ordering it for each bespoke work order. Many parts were like that. Times that across all the vehicle fleets and it is just a massive time sink for everyone. No one has really given any good direction on min/maxes so most things are local initiatives; DSCO is starting some very limited work on quantifying min/max levels but we are far from having anything decent in terms of policy/national direction

Our bigger problem that stays along the same lines is we screwed up MRP by forcing SAP/DRMIS to create a STO at every level which in turns doesn't allow it to aggregate demands at every level. So instead of an order of 20 filters for a base from a BLOG/Depot that will be broken into 3-4 orders for a units on that base, we have 20 individual orders to the base and then 20 separate orders to a 1st line order. repeat rinse.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I will quibble or at least say that min/maxs within the supply system work just fine, I set them or have had them set thousands of times over the years and they work. If you are referring to getting resupplied from industry then yes the buck stops at ADMMat. Once third line has a STO it can't fulfill it sends a Purchase Request to the Supply Manager who then has to work with the TA and PA to get more into the system. As you are more than aware of it just adds to their workload.

The min/maxes work in that they generate an flag, they just don't actually do anything, and the system was never resourced to actually keep up with the workload and costs of that. It was supposed to manage things at sort of once a year top ups, but we've updated the min levels to 2-3 years worth now, and in some cases ignoring it entirely and buying much larger quantities. The underlying data for that is useless, if there are no movements because the bin has been empty for 5 years, and after a while people stop even demanding it.

SAP overall works, IF YOU HAVE THE BANDWIDTH AND RESOURCES TO SUPPORT IT, which we kneecapped on day 1. It's okay if you are doing the same basic tasks daily, but if you are in a job where you do a little of everything, it has a massive learning curve across the board, and for the things you only do quarterly tend to forget how to do it by the next time you need to. A lot of inputs into DRMIS are never actually used either, with a lot still happening outside of DRMIS, so it's a bit of a soup sandwhich.

We're running an SBCA (sustainment business case analysis; yet another process for procurements that didn't exists a decade ago) to essentially get an ISSC in place to basically do the TA/SM mechanical functions of going out and actually buying and contracting things, which might let us catch up to the massive backlog (that grows daily) but it's estimated in the billions. Most of that is just the cost of spare parts, which we pay anyway, plus markup, but when you have TAs and SMs covering off 3-4 positions (some SMs have more) all we're doing is sandbagging the leaks and hoping for the best.

Now we're basically in a hiring freeze, so if someone retires or moves on in the civilian positions they won't get replaced (unless we empty another billet). That's killer when corporate memory is huge and the jobs have 3-5 year learning curves, so as soon as something is gapped you lose decades of experience with no turnover.

One fun extra bit is we're being told to use contractor support to offset HR shortages. ALl our contracts have annual taskings for specific contractors through the prime, which DRMIS is using as their 'contract period'. So essentially we have to re-apply for their access every March, have it lapse, hope it comes through before June, and rinse repeat. We essential pay 1.5 -2 times the cost for an internal position for the priveledge of getting extra resources with significant limitations that DND locks out of DRMIS a few months every year because security and contract policy requirements don't align.

At the institutional level all the policies fight against each other, and actively contradict each other. It's tiring, and fingers crossed I'm getting posted out of ADMMat this summer (and away from the RCN in general) as I'm frustrated and exhausted from mopping up the bullshit waterfall of paperwork, when the GoC keeps swapping out the mop with harder to use versions and pumping up the flow rate.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Are we still talking about CSC's?

Signed "confused in Montreal"

 

[Maxman1]

New fighters, AAR, growth in AAR fleet, MPA are all current government.

Forgot about the other two, but with F-35s, remember that they canceled the buy in 2015 and vowed to never buy them, only to order them anyway seven years later.

 

[FSTO]

The min/maxes work in that they generate an flag, they just don't actually do anything, and the system was never resourced to actually keep up with the workload and costs of that. It was supposed to manage things at sort of once a year top ups, but we've updated the min levels to 2-3 years worth now, and in some cases ignoring it entirely and buying much larger quantities. The underlying data for that is useless, if there are no movements because the bin has been empty for 5 years, and after a while people stop even demanding it.

SAP overall works, IF YOU HAVE THE BANDWIDTH AND RESOURCES TO SUPPORT IT, which we kneecapped on day 1. It's okay if you are doing the same basic tasks daily, but if you are in a job where you do a little of everything, it has a massive learning curve across the board, and for the things you only do quarterly tend to forget how to do it by the next time you need to. A lot of inputs into DRMIS are never actually used either, with a lot still happening outside of DRMIS, so it's a bit of a soup sandwhich.

We're running an SBCA (sustainment business case analysis; yet another process for procurements that didn't exists a decade ago) to essentially get an ISSC in place to basically do the TA/SM mechanical functions of going out and actually buying and contracting things, which might let us catch up to the massive backlog (that grows daily) but it's estimated in the billions. Most of that is just the cost of spare parts, which we pay anyway, plus markup, but when you have TAs and SMs covering off 3-4 positions (some SMs have more) all we're doing is sandbagging the leaks and hoping for the best.

Now we're basically in a hiring freeze, so if someone retires or moves on in the civilian positions they won't get replaced (unless we empty another billet). That's killer when corporate memory is huge and the jobs have 3-5 year learning curves, so as soon as something is gapped you lose decades of experience with no turnover.

One fun extra bit is we're being told to use contractor support to offset HR shortages. ALl our contracts have annual taskings for specific contractors through the prime, which DRMIS is using as their 'contract period'. So essentially we have to re-apply for their access every March, have it lapse, hope it comes through before June, and rinse repeat. We essential pay 1.5 -2 times the cost for an internal position for the priveledge of getting extra resources with significant limitations that DND locks out of DRMIS a few months every year because security and contract policy requirements don't align.

At the institutional level all the policies fight against each other, and actively contradict each other. It's tiring, and fingers crossed I'm getting posted out of ADMMat this summer (and away from the RCN in general) as I'm frustrated and exhausted from mopping up the bullshit waterfall of paperwork, when the GoC keeps swapping out the mop with harder to use versions and pumping up the flow rate.

Holy crap what a depressing post.

 

[dapaterson]

Forgot about the other two, but with F-35s, remember that they canceled the buy in 2015 and vowed to never buy them, only to order them anyway seven years later.

There was no cancellation in 2015. Because there was no contract in or before 2015.

 

[Rifleman62]

Holy crap what a depressing post.

And it's peacetime.

 

[Maxman1]

There was no cancellation in 2015. Because there was no contract in or before 2015.

Just because there wasn't a contact in place doesn't mean the program wasn't canceled after the election.

 

[KevinB]

There was no cancellation in 2015. Because there was no contract in or before 2015.

Correct, He ran on a platform of never buying them. Kind of like the ‘Cadillac’ Helicopter thing with JC.

 

[Good2Golf]

Correct, He ran on a platform of never buying them. Kind of like the ‘Cadillac’ Helicopter thing with JC.

Except that JC actually followed through with his election promised and cancelled the EH-101 contract already awarded. I give Chretien credit for following through with at least a few of the major promises he made.

 

[dapaterson]

Just because there wasn't a contact in place doesn't mean the program wasn't canceled after the election.

The fighter replacement project was not cancelled.

 

[KevinB]

The fighter replacement project was not cancelled.

So he lied.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Are we still talking about CSC's?

Signed "confused in Montreal"

Well said.

Ok, with the CSC having 30mm guns instead of CIWS, I’ve wondered if this modification to the 30 mm is helpful or a hindrance.
Watching Ukraine shove drone boats full of explosives into Russian ships, would the gun/missile combination be helpful or another maintenance headache.

Apparently it has been trialled successfully already by the RN.

MSI-DS SEAHAWK SIGMA - MSI Defence Systems

Based upon the proven SEAHAWK mounting, the SIGMA upgrade offers a unique enhancement to our family of 30mm weapon systems. SEAHAWK SIGMA integrates the Thales Lightweight Multi-role Missile (LMM) onto the mount, providing capability to defeat air and surface targets up to approximately 6km...

www.msi-dsl.com

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Isn't that the system they are planning on having on each sides of the helicopter hangar (based on the most recent specs in the public domain)?

BTW, I think I read somewhere that the French have developed a high speed all weather EO system that revolves at fairly high speed for all around observation and is set to automatically detect low observable close in threats (air and surface) then automatically alert the watch personnel (probably using some form of low level AI, I suppose). Anybody else knows more about that system and how/if it could be slaved to a system like the Seahawk SIGMA above?

 

[Stoker]

Isn't that the system they are planning on having on each sides of the helicopter hangar (based on the most recent specs in the public domain)?

BTW, I think I read somewhere that the French have developed a high speed all weather EO system that revolves at fairly high speed for all around observation and is set to automatically detect low observable close in threats (air and surface) then automatically alert the watch personnel (probably using some form of low level AI, I suppose). Anybody else knows more about that system and how/if it could be slaved to a system like the Seahawk SIGMA above?

We're getting the Marlin 30 I thought.

https://electronics.leonardo.com/documents/16277707/18421316/MARLIN+30_new.pdf?t=1618842731728

 

[Cloud Cover]

Is that a change or what? I guess a lot of people (like me) assumed it would be the same mount as the Type 26. But now I see the RN and RAN have 2 x DSM30 MK2 and 2 Phalanx, and for the RN also Sea Ceptor - all for close in defence.

The CSC will just have 2 30mm auto cannon and fitted for a 6 cell quad Sea Ceptor. That seems like a very thin close in defence. What is the RCN and Government thinking here? I’m genuinely curious because every indication is that modern and future ships need more, much more, close in defence. And the government has opted the RCN OUT of the laser weapon program?

 

[Stoker]

Is that a change or what? I guess a lot of people (like me) assumed it would be the same mount as the Type 26. But now I see the RN and RAN have 2 x DSM30 MK2 and 2 Phalanx, and for the RN also Sea Ceptor - all for close in defence.

The CSC will just have 2 30mm auto cannon and fitted for a 6 cell quad Sea Ceptor. That seems like a very thin close in defence. What is the RCN and Government thinking here? I’m genuinely curious because every indication is that modern and future ships need more, much more, close in defence. And the government has opted the RCN OUT of the laser weapon program?

The presentation I saw just before Christmas in Halifax said that there are no more changes to the design for the first flight of ships. Perhaps that will change but I saw no other additional weapon systems mentioned. Certainly no dragonfire.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The presentation I saw just before Christmas in Halifax said that there are no more changes to the design for the first flight of ships. Perhaps that will change but I saw no other additional weapon systems mentioned. Certainly no dragonfire.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Well said.

Ok, with the CSC having 30mm guns instead of CIWS, I’ve wondered if this modification to the 30 mm is helpful or a hindrance.
Watching Ukraine shove drone boats full of explosives into Russian ships, would the gun/missile combination be helpful or another maintenance headache.

Apparently it has been trialled successfully already by the RN.

MSI-DS SEAHAWK SIGMA - MSI Defence Systems

Based upon the proven SEAHAWK mounting, the SIGMA upgrade offers a unique enhancement to our family of 30mm weapon systems. SEAHAWK SIGMA integrates the Thales Lightweight Multi-role Missile (LMM) onto the mount, providing capability to defeat air and surface targets up to approximately 6km...

www.msi-dsl.com

The 30mm point defence cannons are not a replacement for CIWS, they are for point defence against small boats, drones, aviation, etc. They aren't designed for missile defence roles. If you look elsewhere abroad, having a pair of autocannons on modern western combatants is very commonplace. I would not mistake the Russians experience for western systems, considering their point defence guns are entirely inadequate to take on drone threats unlike western systems.

They did trial Martlet missiles twinned to 30mm cannon mounts but it has not moved past such a point, I have heard due to back blast but I unsure of specifics.

Is that a change or what? I guess a lot of people (like me) assumed it would be the same mount as the Type 26. But now I see the RN and RAN have 2 x DSM30 MK2 and 2 Phalanx, and for the RN also Sea Ceptor - all for close in defence.

The CSC will just have 2 30mm auto cannon and fitted for a 6 cell quad Sea Ceptor. That seems like a very thin close in defence. What is the RCN and Government thinking here? I’m genuinely curious because every indication is that modern and future ships need more, much more, close in defence. And the government has opted the RCN OUT of the laser weapon program?

It would seem to me that when the RCN swapped out the BAE 5" Mark 45 gun to the Leonardo 5" LW gun, they also switched out the 30mm autocannons to Leonardo's offering. I would point out that the RCN has seemingly not utilized the space on each side where the Phalanx mounts used to be placed, so they are something that could be put back aboard if weight and capability line up.

CSC really isn't thin for close in defence between the 30mm autocannons, 5" gun, 24 CAMM and whatever ESSM is fitted aboard. Many nations are moving away from Phalanx as it is a dated system which has dubious effectiveness against even nonpeer anti-ship missile threats. This is what CAMM is suited for. Do not confuse Armchair Admirals seeing drones and crying for heaps upon heaps of additional guns and missiles aboard ships as being a proper indication of what is required going forward.

I have not heard any news regarding the RCN being opted in or out of any kind of ship based laser program. We can purchase such a system in the future if power demands can be met.

 

[WestIsle]

(Deleted)