Loss of the 280s
- Thread starter Ex-Dragoon
- Start date
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,636
- Points
- 1,210
My lord have those morons learned nothing!
We are led by glorified municipal politicians who cannot see beyond their wards. Who get their knickers in a knot over a comment like small town cheap. It makes me want to puke.
The taxpayers of this country built (for the 3rd time) a major warship factory from scratch and we will watch them do it for a 5th (and more than likely 6th, 7th, etc.). Are our fellow citizens that blind? I guess so when the idea of same sex marriage dominates the debate.
Bah
We are led by glorified municipal politicians who cannot see beyond their wards. Who get their knickers in a knot over a comment like small town cheap. It makes me want to puke.
The taxpayers of this country built (for the 3rd time) a major warship factory from scratch and we will watch them do it for a 5th (and more than likely 6th, 7th, etc.). Are our fellow citizens that blind? I guess so when the idea of same sex marriage dominates the debate.
Bah
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I kinda cringe at the idea that Mil Davies is on the way to become the premier capital ship builder for the Canadian Navy, after all were not the 3 most problematic CPFs built by them?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
FSTO said:
Damn his head exploded now some poor OD will have a mess to clean up
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Ex-Dragoon said:
Three were sub-contracted out to Mil-Davie by SJ Ship Building:
HMCS VDQ, Regina and Calgary
Rumour has it that they are 0.5 metres longer than the rest of the fleet..... don't know how true that is though as I never had a long enough measuring tape with me!!
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Points
- 1,260
Saint John Shipbuilding was required, by contract, to sub-contract construction of three frigates and one refit of destroyer (TRUMP project) to MIL Davie. Back in those days (1975-1990, at least â “ that's the time frame for which I can offer personal recollections) 25% or more of the value of most major crown projects had to go to Québec â “ if the project sponsor wanted the budget approved.
Now and again, the CF-18 maintenance contract fiasco comes to mind, bidding rules were tossed aside after the fact in the name of a national industrial strategy or some such thing. These policies were supported, equally, by Liberals and Conservatives and were part of the received wisdom of the senior ranks of the public service. The Tories expanded the geo-political pork barrelling by adding Alberta to Québec â “ that's the main reason we built the army's (relatively) new radios here in Canada for $1.5 billion rather than buying them, five years sooner, for $350 million, or less.
Navy captains and army/air force colonels who were responsible for identifying and managing new/replacement equipment projects and big maintenance contracts had no room to manoeuvre; if their service chiefs realty wanted new ships, new radios, airplanes that flew, etc then project directors (as they were called) structured the project according to the rules and then, to add insult to injury, had to justify politically directed rubbish (political includes the senior military and bureaucratic management at 101 Colonel By Drive) to the Treasury Board Secretariat so that future audits would not be able to embarrass the government by accusing it of pork barrelling â “ â Å“it was a military decision,â ? the politicians c could say, just as Gagliano says, â Å“it was the bureaucrats,â ? today.
With specific regard to the TRUMPed up 280s, we, the long suffering taxpayers of Canada, paid an extra $135 million to keep MIL Davie in business ... see: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/9119ce.html - scroll down to Case 4.
At one stage the senior officer responsible (then Rear Admiral Ed Healy, if memory serves) went to Levis with DND and Justice lawyers in tow and threatened to tow Algonquin (I think) to Halifax to get the work done.
To add further insult to further injury, after the $135 million 'top-up' from the governments of Canada and Québec (a 90/10 split, I seem to recall) Davie went to the Industry Committee and crowed that it, unlike Saint John, etc, did not bill DND for cost overruns!
Now and again, the CF-18 maintenance contract fiasco comes to mind, bidding rules were tossed aside after the fact in the name of a national industrial strategy or some such thing. These policies were supported, equally, by Liberals and Conservatives and were part of the received wisdom of the senior ranks of the public service. The Tories expanded the geo-political pork barrelling by adding Alberta to Québec â “ that's the main reason we built the army's (relatively) new radios here in Canada for $1.5 billion rather than buying them, five years sooner, for $350 million, or less.
Navy captains and army/air force colonels who were responsible for identifying and managing new/replacement equipment projects and big maintenance contracts had no room to manoeuvre; if their service chiefs realty wanted new ships, new radios, airplanes that flew, etc then project directors (as they were called) structured the project according to the rules and then, to add insult to injury, had to justify politically directed rubbish (political includes the senior military and bureaucratic management at 101 Colonel By Drive) to the Treasury Board Secretariat so that future audits would not be able to embarrass the government by accusing it of pork barrelling â “ â Å“it was a military decision,â ? the politicians c could say, just as Gagliano says, â Å“it was the bureaucrats,â ? today.
With specific regard to the TRUMPed up 280s, we, the long suffering taxpayers of Canada, paid an extra $135 million to keep MIL Davie in business ... see: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/9119ce.html - scroll down to Case 4.
At one stage the senior officer responsible (then Rear Admiral Ed Healy, if memory serves) went to Levis with DND and Justice lawyers in tow and threatened to tow Algonquin (I think) to Halifax to get the work done.
To add further insult to further injury, after the $135 million 'top-up' from the governments of Canada and Québec (a 90/10 split, I seem to recall) Davie went to the Industry Committee and crowed that it, unlike Saint John, etc, did not bill DND for cost overruns!
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,160
ROJ:
I am going to have to stop reading you in the morning and save you until later in the day. Like a good meal you require a good bottle to wash you down and I prefer to wait until the sun goes down before doing any serious drinking.
Can you point to any studies that have taken a hard, across the board look at the POLITICALLY driven costs that the CF has had to bear over the last 10-20 years? Pork-barrelling, industrial development, bases etc.... the whole nine yards. I know the Auditors-General have looked at various projects but have they looked at the CF in its entirety? Has anybody else?
Cheers.
I am going to have to stop reading you in the morning and save you until later in the day. Like a good meal you require a good bottle to wash you down and I prefer to wait until the sun goes down before doing any serious drinking.
Can you point to any studies that have taken a hard, across the board look at the POLITICALLY driven costs that the CF has had to bear over the last 10-20 years? Pork-barrelling, industrial development, bases etc.... the whole nine yards. I know the Auditors-General have looked at various projects but have they looked at the CF in its entirety? Has anybody else?
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Points
- 1,260
Kirkhill said:
I will ask a few friends/colleagues ... I believe there have been some (only one?) non-partisan/academic studies; I know that various and sundry partisan reports - pro and con defence - have been published but all, including the ones from our in house lobby group the Conference of Defence Associations http://www.cda-cdai.ca/ and related ones like the Defence Industries Association http://www.cdia.ca/ must be treated with suspicion because they are, almost always, self serving.
- Reaction score
- 10,134
- Points
- 1,260
Reading this makes me sick.
We always complain about the shortfalls in the Military Budget but I think it is safe to echo "PPCLI Guy"'s claim that we are not getting 12-billion dollars worth out of our military like we should.
We always complain about the shortfalls in the Military Budget but I think it is safe to echo "PPCLI Guy"'s claim that we are not getting 12-billion dollars worth out of our military like we should.
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,160
Amen said the choir again...
ROJ:
I know that the Dutch government commissioned a study on their use of "industrial offsets" - the apparently Canadian pioneered practice of demanding that when buying military kit from off-shore suppliers that the supplier or its government spend money in the customer's country - and concluded that it was not a cost effective strategy. It delayed procurement decisions and inflated prices as suppliers built in commissions and contingencies so as to leave themselves a profit.
I also seem to recall that the Auditor-General has done a limited review of two or three projects like the CPF solely with a view to compliance with the rules. I don't know of any cost/benefit analyses done by anybody with the stature of the Auditor-General, with respect to the rules themselves.
Perhaps that is something we should be suggesting to the Opposition as I believe the Auditor-General can only act on a request from MPs to conduct such an investigation.
Any thoughts?
ROJ:
I know that the Dutch government commissioned a study on their use of "industrial offsets" - the apparently Canadian pioneered practice of demanding that when buying military kit from off-shore suppliers that the supplier or its government spend money in the customer's country - and concluded that it was not a cost effective strategy. It delayed procurement decisions and inflated prices as suppliers built in commissions and contingencies so as to leave themselves a profit.
I also seem to recall that the Auditor-General has done a limited review of two or three projects like the CPF solely with a view to compliance with the rules. I don't know of any cost/benefit analyses done by anybody with the stature of the Auditor-General, with respect to the rules themselves.
Perhaps that is something we should be suggesting to the Opposition as I believe the Auditor-General can only act on a request from MPs to conduct such an investigation.
Any thoughts?
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,636
- Points
- 1,210
I'm all for that idea, I am sure that the way Canada procures major equipment has to be the most inefficient way possible. As for buying offshore, I would think that if there was a study it would state that the amount of money and jobs made by subcontractors on other arms would more than offset the money wasted with the present system. Imagine a procurement strategy that focused on the needs of the end user and not on the pork advantages of the party in power.
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,160
I am pretty sure that the Victoria Shipyards can handle a vessel up to the sizes discussed for the JSS (25,000 tonne). I seem to remember somebody posting that on one of the JSS threads some months ago.
Not sure about Vancouver but they have built some good size ferries in the past. Don't know how up to date their facilities are.
Not sure about Vancouver but they have built some good size ferries in the past. Don't know how up to date their facilities are.
Well after reading through this thread i thought i'd add my 2 cents.
1. In reference to swapping crews on forward deployed ships rather than changing ships, i believe the U.S. Navy didn't find it very sucessfull simply because the ships were going 24/7 and they quickly fell seriously behind on the maintenance curve and started having defects effecting operations. When the ships did return it took a lot of effort to get them up to scratch. Anyone who has served on a few ships knows that even if they appear identical and are from the same class , to the crew they are all different and it takes time to get used to all the little quirks in thousands of individual pieces of equipment and in a operational setting could prove fatal. This is the reason ships crews spend months working and training through various phases till they know their ship/shipmates inside and outand are declared operational.
2. Burke class ships are very good platforms but have major problems as far as Canada is concerned. They are very expensive to buy and they are very expensive to run. They are large ships , twice the size of the 280's and require a large crew . Now we can only keep 3 of our 280's operational because of shortage of crew for the 4th. The Burke's are powered by 4 - LM2500 gas turbines which would be more expensive to run than 4 CPF's since they have diesels for cruise speeds. As for the Tico's they would be totaly impractical as by the time we aquired them, Canadianized them , trained the crews they would be older than the 280's not to mention they also require large crews and are all gas turbine powered & hence very expensive to run. The U.S. Navy with $$$ & personnel is one of the only Navys that can afford to operate them.
3. When we do decide to build ships we are looking at problems galore. The learning curve will once again be at zero . Saint John Shipbuilding went to a llot of effort with the assistance of Bath Iron Works (builder of both Burke's & Tico's) learned to construct warships by the latest modular construction methods and by the end of the CPF program had become very efficient.
The time to construct the first CPF to the time to build the last one fell dramatically . They had a facility that rivalled any in the world, but it in now a empty lot. Any shipyard now will now have to begin again from scratch as warship building is vastly different than commercial shipbuilding. Here we go again with the massive delays in time and overbudget spending that will horrify the public. I don't know why the Government can't get, that it is far better to keep a shipyard busy at a slow steady pace than to replace the whole navy every 35 years.
Well enough of my ranting . Cheers
1. In reference to swapping crews on forward deployed ships rather than changing ships, i believe the U.S. Navy didn't find it very sucessfull simply because the ships were going 24/7 and they quickly fell seriously behind on the maintenance curve and started having defects effecting operations. When the ships did return it took a lot of effort to get them up to scratch. Anyone who has served on a few ships knows that even if they appear identical and are from the same class , to the crew they are all different and it takes time to get used to all the little quirks in thousands of individual pieces of equipment and in a operational setting could prove fatal. This is the reason ships crews spend months working and training through various phases till they know their ship/shipmates inside and outand are declared operational.
2. Burke class ships are very good platforms but have major problems as far as Canada is concerned. They are very expensive to buy and they are very expensive to run. They are large ships , twice the size of the 280's and require a large crew . Now we can only keep 3 of our 280's operational because of shortage of crew for the 4th. The Burke's are powered by 4 - LM2500 gas turbines which would be more expensive to run than 4 CPF's since they have diesels for cruise speeds. As for the Tico's they would be totaly impractical as by the time we aquired them, Canadianized them , trained the crews they would be older than the 280's not to mention they also require large crews and are all gas turbine powered & hence very expensive to run. The U.S. Navy with $$$ & personnel is one of the only Navys that can afford to operate them.
3. When we do decide to build ships we are looking at problems galore. The learning curve will once again be at zero . Saint John Shipbuilding went to a llot of effort with the assistance of Bath Iron Works (builder of both Burke's & Tico's) learned to construct warships by the latest modular construction methods and by the end of the CPF program had become very efficient.
The time to construct the first CPF to the time to build the last one fell dramatically . They had a facility that rivalled any in the world, but it in now a empty lot. Any shipyard now will now have to begin again from scratch as warship building is vastly different than commercial shipbuilding. Here we go again with the massive delays in time and overbudget spending that will horrify the public. I don't know why the Government can't get, that it is far better to keep a shipyard busy at a slow steady pace than to replace the whole navy every 35 years.
Well enough of my ranting . Cheers
- Reaction score
- 10,134
- Points
- 1,260
Good stuff Stoney.
Of all the things you said, this struck me the most:
This is truly a shame. It seems we invested in something and when the investment matured, we simply threw it in the garbage for the sake of political expediency.
Of all the things you said, this struck me the most:
STONEY said:
This is truly a shame. It seems we invested in something and when the investment matured, we simply threw it in the garbage for the sake of political expediency.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
Off the shelf........... We should look at purchasing more off the shelf items, and stop wasting money on R & D for big capital projects. If we were to purchase heavy lift helos or transport aircraft those wouldn't be built in Canada. So then why do we insist on building ships in Canada? I am sure that there are shipyards around the world that could come up with a JSS design that would meet our needs.
I look at the Aussie military, and I am envious on how their capital procurement program has turned their military into a respectable force. They buy off the shelf for almost all their capital spending.
I think Ottawa needs to wake up and stop wasting money.
I look at the Aussie military, and I am envious on how their capital procurement program has turned their military into a respectable force. They buy off the shelf for almost all their capital spending.
I think Ottawa needs to wake up and stop wasting money.
Sub_Guy said:
www.sfu.ca/casr/id-shipbuild1.htm
Perhaps that article is of significance. Sending jobs overseas is shortsighted IMO, and as the article mentions, imported ships require a 25% import duty to be paid, as with the B.C. ferry contract with Germany. So we not only send the jobs overseas, and lose the tax revenue and expertise, but we have to pay duty.
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,160
daniel h.
Daniel, how can you justify taking 700 million dollars out of the Defence Departments budget to build a vessel that could be bought offshore for 200-300 million dollars and can be delivered 5 years earlier?
I don't necessarily disagree with you on the need for Government Support of a shipbuilding industry - a rational case can be made for that - many other countries that we might compete with do.
But that should come out of the Department of Industry or whoever it is that ponies up to support Bombardier. Not DND!!!!
The CF and the Government have neither the budget nor the luxury of time to hang around waiting for Canadian industry to get their thumb out of their bum, decide how much money they can extort from the Government, carve it up amongst themselves, build a new yard (anybody in Canada know how to do that?), hire engineers and skilled trades (short of both in ALL fields) and then learn On The Job. The resultant first, practice, vessel then has to be sailed in difficult conditions with a lot of very valuable individuals on board.
By all means build up a Canadian Shipbuilding industry.
But not now and not with the CF's budget!
I apologize right now if my forcefulness on this issue is offensive to you but I feel very strongly about the issue. This in no way is intended as a personal sleight to yourself.
Cheers.
Daniel, how can you justify taking 700 million dollars out of the Defence Departments budget to build a vessel that could be bought offshore for 200-300 million dollars and can be delivered 5 years earlier?
I don't necessarily disagree with you on the need for Government Support of a shipbuilding industry - a rational case can be made for that - many other countries that we might compete with do.
But that should come out of the Department of Industry or whoever it is that ponies up to support Bombardier. Not DND!!!!
The CF and the Government have neither the budget nor the luxury of time to hang around waiting for Canadian industry to get their thumb out of their bum, decide how much money they can extort from the Government, carve it up amongst themselves, build a new yard (anybody in Canada know how to do that?), hire engineers and skilled trades (short of both in ALL fields) and then learn On The Job. The resultant first, practice, vessel then has to be sailed in difficult conditions with a lot of very valuable individuals on board.
By all means build up a Canadian Shipbuilding industry.
But not now and not with the CF's budget!
I apologize right now if my forcefulness on this issue is offensive to you but I feel very strongly about the issue. This in no way is intended as a personal sleight to yourself.
Cheers.
Kirkhill said:
No offence taken. I agree with you, despite my lack of experience, I understand what you mean when you say that a new production line costs money to develop. I assume this would require long-term, strategic planning of our industries, as the Americans and Europeans do. If we need things immediately then I can't think of any way to disagree with you.
Long-term thinking has never been an attribute of our leaders IMO.
There was a good article a few months back in Maclean's about Canada's "Boom bust", "Build or scrap" mentality regarding its navy. Sorry but I think the link is gone.Similar threads
