Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Czech_pivo]

How does this pay compare to ours - Victoria class sub to a future Australian nuc boat? What about a US nuc boat? Seems like the Australians know how to dangle a carrot in order to drive recruitment numbers in the right direction.

Australian navy advertises nuclear submarine job with $120,000 salary and ‘no experience’ needed​

The Australian Navy is offering high school graduates “with no experience at all” up to $120,000 to become nuclear submarine officers who will eventually manage nuclear reactors and weapons systems.
The recruitment drive has been launched despite Defence not being expected to receive a Virginia-class submarine from the US as part of the Aukus deal until at least the early 2030s and amid warnings of cost blowouts and delays. - WOW, imagine being that pro-active in trying to drive up recruitment when you know that the need is not required for another 7-8yrs. Talk about foresight!
A Defence spokesperson said the hiring drive was part of a long-term strategy to ensure it had enough specialist staff to deploy the submarine once acquired.

Australian navy advertises nuclear submarine job with $120,000 salary and ‘no experience’ needed

Defence outlines long-term strategy to staff US-built Virginia-class submarines expected in 2030s as part of Aukus deal

www.theguardian.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Time to replace the Rum ration with the Beer ration

 

[suffolkowner]

How does this pay compare to ours - Victoria class sub to a future Australian nuc boat? What about a US nuc boat? Seems like the Australians know how to dangle a carrot in order to drive recruitment numbers in the right direction.

Australian navy advertises nuclear submarine job with $120,000 salary and ‘no experience’ needed​

The Australian Navy is offering high school graduates “with no experience at all” up to $120,000 to become nuclear submarine officers who will eventually manage nuclear reactors and weapons systems.
The recruitment drive has been launched despite Defence not being expected to receive a Virginia-class submarine from the US as part of the Aukus deal until at least the early 2030s and amid warnings of cost blowouts and delays. - WOW, imagine being that pro-active in trying to drive up recruitment when you know that the need is not required for another 7-8yrs. Talk about foresight!
A Defence spokesperson said the hiring drive was part of a long-term strategy to ensure it had enough specialist staff to deploy the submarine once acquired.

Australian navy advertises nuclear submarine job with $120,000 salary and ‘no experience’ needed

Defence outlines long-term strategy to staff US-built Virginia-class submarines expected in 2030s as part of Aukus deal

www.theguardian.com

how many of the jobs on a nuke sub are specific to a nuclear submarine and arent they short submariners already?

 

[Czech_pivo]

how many of the jobs on a nuke sub are specific to a nuclear submarine and arent they short submariners already?

No clue.
The point that I'm trying to make is that they realise that they have a problem in that they won't have the necessary sailors/skills 8yrs out from now and that they are pro-actively trying to address it with a plan.
We know that we have a problem in that we won't have the necessary sailors/skills 10yrs (20% further into the future) out from now when the first of the CSC will be available and what are we doing pro-actively to address it? I'm not talking about news articles saying that we have a plan and whoa is us. Factor in the future subs that we are going to get (thanks Donald Trump in being President for the next 4yrs) and what plan do we have in place?

Is there a plan for us to place our sailors on RN T26's over the next 3-5yrs when they start becoming available to the RN so that we can train sailors on T26's will be like a first cousin to our River class destroyers?

 

[suffolkowner]

No clue.
The point that I'm trying to make is that they realise that they have a problem in that they won't have the necessary sailors/skills 8yrs out from now and that they are pro-actively trying to address it with a plan.
We know that we have a problem in that we won't have the necessary sailors/skills 10yrs (20% further into the future) out from now when the first of the CSC will be available and what are we doing pro-actively to address it? I'm not talking about news articles saying that we have a plan and whoa is us. Factor in the future subs that we are going to get (thanks Donald Trump in being President for the next 4yrs) and what plan do we have in place?

Do we really have a problem attracting people though? Or do we have a problem attracting or keeping the right people? Was there not over 70000 applications to join the CAF?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Do we really have a problem attracting people though? Or do we have a problem attracting or keeping the right people? Was there not over 70000 applications to join the CAF?

100% true about the 70,000 applications vs actual recruits!
Maybe the Australians were in the exact same situation 1-3yrs ago - plenty of applicants but the inability to execute on making them an actual recruit. But it sounds like they have, or are in the process of having, addressed this issue.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

No clue.
The point that I'm trying to make is that they realise that they have a problem in that they won't have the necessary sailors/skills 8yrs out from now and that they are pro-actively trying to address it with a plan.
We know that we have a problem in that we won't have the necessary sailors/skills 10yrs (20% further into the future) out from now when the first of the CSC will be available and what are we doing pro-actively to address it? I'm not talking about news articles saying that we have a plan and whoa is us. Factor in the future subs that we are going to get (thanks Donald Trump in being President for the next 4yrs) and what plan do we have in place?

Is there a plan for us to place our sailors on RN T26's over the next 3-5yrs when they start becoming available to the RN so that we can train sailors on T26's will be like a first cousin to our River class destroyers?

We have various plans to get people AEGIS qualified, before the first River Class Destroyer arrives.

 

[Navy_Pete]

We have various plans to get people AEGIS qualified, before the first River Class Destroyer arrives.

Those trades are much healthier though; it's some of the core trades that are needed to sail any ship (Martech in paricular) that is in a death spiral.

I think we'll have a hard time getting people to go from AOPs and JSS to CSC, and the way we are running the CPFs into the ground is hurting retention of those trades.

 

[calculus]

A little bit of explanation here on why AN/SLQ-32(V)6 was selected over the bespoke EW system MDA was going to design.

Canada Looks to US Navy for Non-Developmental EW for CSC

www.jedonline.com

 

[Lumber]

We have various plans to get people AEGIS qualified, before the first River Class Destroyer arrives.

Various *concepts of plans.

 

[deepblue202]

Saw this looks interesting

 

[Czech_pivo]

Saw this looks interesting

54 down, 6,446 more to go for 2025.

 

[Underway]

54 down, 6,446 more to go for 2025.

We're still in 24/25 fiscal year. An PRes SIP does count to Reg F SIP. However for a PRes Unit that's really damn good. STAR's approved strength is around 250 pers...

 

[Rainbow1910]

Captain Drew Graham (Director of Naval Requirements) recently did a Speakers Event for the Naval Association of Canada and had some interesting information to put forward to the public regarding some developments on the ISTAR program and others relating to the Halifax/River class vessels going forward. All of the information and photos below are taken from his slideshow, that I will link at the bottom for anybody interested.

ISTAR Program

- Up to 12 aircraft being procured.

- 2 compliant bids received in December 2024, and are actively being evaluated with the hopes of a contract being awarded within the next couple of months.

- Will be attached to a specific ship for the duration of a tasking, the vessel receiving a pair of UAV's alongside their associated operational equipment.

- UAV's will receive some integration into CMS-330.

- Electro-optical and infrared camera plus synthetic aperture radar carried as standard.

- 8 hour endurance.

- Largely automated, "pilotless" operations.

- Starting to train UAV operators and UAV maintainers from RCN sailor stocks, working on getting airworthiness certification roles changed over from the RCAF to RCN for these aircraft eventually. Long term RCN UAV trade potentially being looked at.

- 2027 to 2031 introduction timeline.

River class UAV (RCU)

- Providing ISR alongside "defensive/offensive warfighting capability" to next generation combatants.

- Carried alongside marine helicopters.

- Concepts stage, implementation very far out.

- Currently unfunded, 2036 to 2040 introduction timeline.

 

[Kirkhill]

Good. We can partner up with Norway, and participate more in the JEF and Arctic.

Norway is looking for Frigates as well

Not sure what Norway's plan is here given that they seemingly want to grab ships that are currently being built off the shelf and operate them as is in cooperation with a partner. Given the fact much of NATO is undergoing rapid and long overdue rearmament, there is precious little excess that anybody would seemingly be willing to part with.

The Type 26 and Type 31 are desperately needed by the Royal Navy to replace their current vessels, parting with any of these vessels would be a major pain point. The Type 31 is rather empty and lacking in capability Norway likely wants while the radar fit of the Type 26 is likely not up to par for a nation currently operating SPY-1 and AEGIS.

Norway is in a position to wait as their current frigates are not that old.

....

Norway, and Europe, doesn't mind getting their ships built in "foreign" yards. In Europe's case that means low wage new entrant countries like Spain, Poland and Romania.

As to the Type 31. It is not only used by the RN but also by the Danes, the originators of the design in both its AAW and CS/ASW variants just across the Skagerrak, and by the Poles at the other end of the Baltic. The Danes are also responsible for the Greenland side of the GIUK gap.

It may not be the ideal platform but apparently it is considered a workable platform.

....

And in keeping with that ...

Norway in talks to buy British helicopters to combat Russian subs

Oslo considering purchase as it grapples with Moscow’s increasingly assertive navy

www.telegraph.co.uk

Norway has discussed acquiring a fleet of British-made helicopters as the Scandinavian country seeks to bolster its defences against Russian submarines.

Oslo has held talks in recent months with the UK Ministry of Defence and manufacturer Leonardo about a potential deal to acquire several AW101 aircraft, The Telegraph understands.

The helicopters, a later version of the Merlins used by the Royal Navy, are considered to be among the best submarine-hunters in the world and are made at Leonardo’s factory in Yeovil, Somerset.

That, no doubt is part of this.

UK and Norway start Arctic defense pact talks to combat Putin

As Russian threat grows, London and Oslo look to “boost our security in the High North.”

www.politico.eu

....

The Merlin is operated by the Danes as a SAR and Tactical Transport.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Those trades are much healthier though; it's some of the core trades that are needed to sail any ship (Martech in paricular) that is in a death spiral.

I think we'll have a hard time getting people to go from AOPs and JSS to CSC, and the way we are running the CPFs into the ground is hurting retention of those trades.

If I made you Emperor, what would you do to turn the Martech trade around?

 

[Grimey]

If I made you Emperor, what would you do to turn the Martech trade around?

Navy Pete’s view may vary, but seeing I was one ( or rather a Mar Eng Artificer), I’ll opine:

1. Move back to the operator/maintainer model that blends academics with hand skills, with focus on the latter.
2. Partner with local community colleges for academics. Credits to be completely transferable/recognized.
3. Bring back proper certification levels with certificates being recognized by industry or other agencies.
4. Invest in quality shore-based trainers that reflect at-sea systems.

 

[quadrapiper]

Navy Pete’s view may vary, but seeing I was one ( or rather a Mar Eng Artificer), I’ll opine:

4. Invest in quality shore-based trainers that reflect at-sea systems.

4a. Once the needs of the regular force and the schools are seen to, start building those trainers within day-training range of every NRD in the country. Maybe MCR sims in every NRD, for whatever class makes the most sense?

 

[Navy_Pete]

If I made you Emperor, what would you do to turn the Martech trade around?

@Grimey covered a lot of it, but I think the trade is a casualty of systemic issues in the RCN, that kick the whole marine systems (and log) side of things hard, because that's honestly who eats it when the ships are rusting out and need a lot of work to just do the float/move.

Starting back up the previous program we had to run training through Munn (the super stokers), aligning with commercial certificates, and some other things would make sense, but fundamentally we need to stop grinding people into the ground, then being surprised that they end up hating something they loved doing and leave. Recruiting for Martechs can only go up because it's terrible, but a brand new sailor does not replace a 20 year PO1, so we can't keep accepting the levels we see of people leaving. In industry it's okay, because you can recruit a senior lead hand with the same qualifications and relevant experience to replace them; the RCN (and other militaries generally) has to create and grow that person internally, so there is a 10 year lag to replace someone with 10 years experience.

Big picture I think I would;

1. Shine some heat and light on the RCN risk acceptance, as it's out of control, and accepting risk rather than do anything shouldn't be the preffered COA. Sailors deserve a safe workplace and we are failing that, and COs, Fleet Commanders, and CRCN don't actually know what the risk is before they accept it. If we we subject to commercial regs, some of the ships we deployed to theatre wouldn't leave the wall. There should not be serious consideration of not doing basic things like having enough life rafts (and RCN regs are lower than SOLAS requirements) the week before a ship leaves for 7 months with requests for a waiver. It was a couple hour fix once thumbs were pulled out when someone finally said they weren't supporting that.
2. Pump the breaks and drastically slow down the RCN ops tempo. Putting ships out the door with skeleton crews, and not getting things fixed that would bring the ship up to SOLAS minimums (let alone combatant standards) is negligent, but also means that time at sea is always playing catch up, and the work periods are way shorter than they need to be, way underesourced and a lot of scrambling by the crew and what limited 2nd line help is avaialble to fix the biggest crazy things. Some of the CPFs would be scrapped due to their condition, and probably would need to get rid of a sub or 2. A lot of this results in situations in point 1, where the only option to meet the ops tempo is to not fix things because we don't have time.
3. Figure out what a sustainable ops tempo is with the people we have and resources available, and aim for that. Would mean gaps in NATO support, etc but we bled out the fleet (people and ships) so time to amputate to save the patient. But also prioritize fun port visits like participation of fleet week, visits to the carribean, Pacific rim, Mediterranean etc where you do 4 or 5 day port visits so there is enough time to do a bit of work and for everyone to actually do things. That might help both retention and recruitment, but also realize that we've probably screwed it up enough that a lot of people are marking time until they hit their pension and it's too little/too late, so we need to prepare for the impending pension bomb when all the people on the 25 year plan (that joined on the 20 year plan) hit that in the next few years.
4. Do something substantial to fix the support arm. It would take a while, but would smash most of the mutli department efforts a single entity, eliminate a lot of the project and procurement bureaucracy by simply jacking the dollar value thresholds way up before different things kick in (and have some of the big project ones apply by exception, not by default, with a requirement to argue out of it, like some of the IRB/VP portions). Plus resource it properly so that there are enough people on the 2nd line to do the planning, repairs and support, and enough people on the 3rd line, with funding to actually do what they need to do. So either give them more money, or cut the scope so it's acheivable. Telling someone to figure out how to do a $500M+ DWP for $300M and not have safey issues is insane. That just gives back the RCN a still broken ship that they have to figure out how to get operations of for 5-8 years until the next DWP, and it's a contributes to the first two points, with point 3 being a huge limiting factor.
5. Improve how NP funding works; Cinderella money that expires 31 March with no way to push it into April or beyond is ridiculous, as schedules change, contractors get delayed, parts are held up in shipping etc. If I put in an order for something that costs $100k, I shouldn't have to scramble for the money again if it shows up April 2nd. We waste a massive amount of staff time on money shell games across the entire government, so some kind of NP money that works like capitol funding once committed to a purchase makes way more sense. Frankly managing big NP projects is a nightmare, so whoever in DND decided only capitol project management expereince counts for PMCD cert is an idiot.
6. Hold TBS accountable for approval timelines on large projects; right now they have no skin in the game so there is no risk to them to say no, come back later, even when a 1-2 year delay increases costs by billions just from inflation. They think they are awesome, but I think they are ivory tower assholes so maybe getting them out to sea for a week in a ship trying to reactivate after DWP with intermittent water (hot or cold) toilets, power, heating and propulsion would maybe help give them insight into the real impact of being pricks (I admit to a bias).
7. Devolve power from the PMO back to the actual ministers; being a Cabinet minister should be a big deal, they have a lot of real authority in legislation, they need both the spine and real authority to do that. No point having an MND and assistant MND watching procurement then having their office undercut by kids in short pants. Give them authority and resources, and then you can hold them accountable for getting results.
8. For CAF specifically, walk back a lot of the 'MBAization' of the operations. Logistics that work for Walmart or Ford is efficient but not resilient or flexible (and they don't have to deal with GoC procurement rules or things like international trade agreements). Accept we need to stockpile stuff, have redundancies built in, and keep facilities available but minimally used so we can do things like have surge to equip and train a lot of people in a short period of time if needed, as well as respond to emergencies. Not needing to use the stockpiles or surge to WW2 army levels is a good thing, and if they want to find efficiencies lots of triple audits, redundant approvals, and extra layers of bullshit in what people jump through daily to do their jobs that would save money without impacting the stuff that gives the CAF margins to surge when things hit the fans.

Probably a few other things, but I think if you fix some of the systematic things that have been worsening the last 20 years in particular, that would allow the RCN (and other elements) actual breathing space to actually implement things that would actually address the low level root causes but they can't really because they are flat out putting out the fire of the day (quite literally at least once a month).