Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Underway]

I would say within a year we will have a new white paper and we'll see what the future the military and RCN is...

It will be blank.  Well maybe Gov't of Canada letterhead....

 

[Good2Golf]

SSNs...just like the '84 White Paper!

 

[jollyjacktar]

It's a tool in the toolbox and we need them all.  The program was managed in a piss poor fashion from the start, just like many of our other programs.  Last time I looked, many of our surface ships were in piss poor working order as well.

The entire defence portfolio needs to be carefully examined and rationalized.  Getting rid of submarines just because you "think" it would improve the short term fortunes of your surface fleet is a very stupid way of doing business.

It's how the Army now has no Anti-Armour, Air Defence, Mortars, Pioneers, B-Fleet, Bridge Laying a Equipment, etc...

And just what sort of deterrent does a vessel that spends more time in the air than in the water project?  Hard to fear the towing company that always seems to have a truck or two in for repairs.  You might be able to call yourself a towing company, but really, are you in name only?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Once they get rid of the subs, they also cut back the budget, so that money won't come to the fleet, next they start thinking we only need a constabulary navy and then they start looking at the Halifax class. Careful about wishing away resources. 

 

[Stoker]

Once they get rid of the subs, they also cut back the budget, so that money won't come to the fleet, next they start thinking we only need a constabulary navy and then they start looking at the Halifax class. Careful about wishing away resources.

Sigh, its not like they'll admit that the subs were a boondoggle from the get go after all that money was spent so I doubt if they'll be gone. I would say more likely if there is another major accident or the discovery of unknown corrosion or something like that they'll be fast tracked to the scrap heap. The way things are going we're one step away from a constabulary navy now anyways.

 

[PuckChaser]

Sigh, its not like they'll admit that the subs were a boondoggle from the get go

Not for the next 4 years, anyways: Liberals are the ones that bought them.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

CS, I am in agreement that the handling of the purchase was a dog's breakfast and cost us way to much in the long run. Sadly any lessons learned will be swept under the rug and carefully forgotten. My belief is we need both surface and sub fleet and we could actually afford them if our procurement system wasn't so borked. As it is now, we should be looking at the replacement of the Victoria class and tagging onto another nations purchase that most closely matches our need and have our boats built last. if that was the Aussie contract, I would estimate that would timeline would be around 10 years from now.

 

[Underway]

CS, I am in agreement that the handling of the purchase was a dog's breakfast and cost us way to much in the long run. Sadly any lessons learned will be swept under the rug and carefully forgotten. My belief is we need both surface and sub fleet and we could actually afford them if our procurement system wasn't so borked. As it is now, we should be looking at the replacement of the Victoria class and tagging onto another nations purchase that most closely matches our need and have our boats built last. if that was the Aussie contract, I would estimate that would timeline would be around 10 years from now.

Speaking of Aussie contract....jump on their procurement and make it cheaper for everyone.  Just a few (read massive number) mods for our torps and FCS.

 

[dimsum]

Speaking of Aussie contract....jump on their procurement and make it cheaper for everyone.  Just a few (read massive number) mods for our torps and FCS.

Would the requirements mesh well though (e.g. Aussies generally in warm-ish waters, us in cold-ish waters, etc.) ?

 

[MilEME09]

Subs are great, but until I went to FMF I did not have a real idea of how much of a money pit they can be.  I honestly can't say if their cost out weigh their utility or if the reverse is true.  That is above my comprehension, pay grade and need to know.

Well to give you a rough idea, I've read that in the late 80's under Mulroney, the RCN gave up a third wave of halifax's to get 4-6 nuclear subs, and well in the end we got neither. Even back then though the gov and navy saw the need for nuclear power in the arctic.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Well to give you a rough idea, I've read that in the late 80's under Mulroney, the RCN gave up a third wave of halifax's to get 4-6 nuclear subs, and well in the end we got neither. Even back then though the gov and navy saw the need for nuclear power in the arctic.

I'll counter that if it was such a hotshit idea, it would have happened.

 

[dapaterson]

Speaking of Aussie contract....jump on their procurement and make it cheaper for everyone.  Just a few (read massive number) mods for our torps and FCS.

Probably cheaper to shitcan our torps and FCS, and use the same systems.  Sustainment for the C130Js and C17s is remarkably simplified since we didn't Canadianize the hell out of them, but maintain a common platform with our allies.

 

[Good2Golf]

Is Vegas taking wagers yet?  I wouldn't be surprised, based in part on the factors recently exposéd in FrontLine magazine (that Irving isn't the 'Tier 1' ship-builder many people think) if Canada goes Aegis with some Flight-IV Arleigh Burkes license-built by Irving.  That would solve the interoperability issue and we could continue playing significant roles in Allied (read U.S.) naval task forces...

#wouldthatbesuchabadidea

Regards
G2G

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'll counter that if it was such a hotshit idea, it would have happened.

It came very close to happening, the problem from my reading is that they did not have well laid backup plan if the pitch did not work, and things unraveled quickly. Go look at the history of procurement in this country and we have a long history of going for the best and then jumping off the cliff at the moment of signing mainly due to politicians worried about getting re-elected, which is the driving force behind all our major defense procurement decisions. If someone convinced them that we needed rainbow unicorns for going into battle and it would means jobs and vote, they would go for it. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

Oh I know it came close to fruition, but it didn't in the end.  Just like it came close to fruition for getting into the Amphibs game about 10 years ago.  Close only really counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and sex.

 

[GR66]

What is the reason for the high operation costs for our subs.  Is it simply that modern subs are simply more expensive to operate than surface ships, because the Victoria Class are old and have an unsupported supply chain, because of the "Canadianization" done to them, or a combination of the above?

 

[jollyjacktar]

What is the reason for the high operation costs for our subs.  Is it simply that modern subs are simply more expensive to operate than surface ships, because the Victoria Class are old and have an unsupported supply chain, because of the "Canadianization" done to them, or a combination of the above?

Three kills, one torpedo. 

 

[GR66]

So...if an eventual replacement of the Victoria's was a tag-on order to an in production foreign design with very minimal "Canadianization" (i.e. weapons, sensors, fire control unchanged...maybe just key electrical standards, etc.) would the capability likely be affordable along side a credible surface fleet, or are subs simply too expensive to operate without a major increase in the CF budget?

 

[suffolkowner]

So...if an eventual replacement of the Victoria's was a tag-on order to an in production foreign design with very minimal "Canadianization" (i.e. weapons, sensors, fire control unchanged...maybe just key electrical standards, etc.) would the capability likely be affordable along side a credible surface fleet, or are subs simply too expensive to operate without a major increase in the CF budget?

the Canadian Naval Review article suggested that operating costs for modern subs should be 30% of say a Halifax class ship but I didn't see any supporting documentation

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

A good tag on would obviously be the Australian's Collin's class replacement.

The Australians currently use the Mk 48 as fish, as do we, and employ American Fire control system (the Raytheon CCS Mk2, which is a derivative of the AN/BYG-1 of the US Los Angeles class) as do we (even though ours is a modified  LockMart Librascope). By getting a sub built for these systems from the start, instead of a retrofit, the cost would be acceptable.

The Australian replacements are expected to be in the 1.2 to 1.4 b. US$, which is favourably comparable to a GP frigate. After that, the ops/life-cycle cost is about the same as a frigate, even though they carry a smaller crew. In my book however, a submarine - even a classic one - is a greater defence asset than a GP frigate, especially where applying pressure by threatening is concerned (same difference as a queen vs a bishop - and I mean in chess).

For instance, IMHO, Canada would have a stronger Naval posture if it operated 12 GP frigates and 8 SSKs than 12 GP Frigates, 3 AAD/command destroyers and no submarines. Yet building either fleet would likely cost about the same.

In any event, and even though all of the above is a very interesting topic, have we not strayed far from the thread's original purpose?