New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Good2Golf]

The fight here is with the PS mandarins who have made their careers and fiefdoms out of these "processes" and will defend their fiefdoms to the end. And with a PS that I imagine is largely LPC leaning it will be a long slog.

Any sweeping changes to our procurement policy will require sweeping changes in personnel in the PS as well.

No sweeping changes needed at all. It is entirely working the way that successive governments have wanted it to work…to a tee!

When there is an extant need that aligns with political desire, the offspring is an acquisition, at time in record time. Record still held by the Liberals…<48 hours to buy $100M+ of business jets from Bombardier.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would not be surprised if they strip the engines coming out of the Lauier for the parts needed for this refit

Canadian Coast Guard Ship Griffon Vessel Life Extension Contract Awarded

new_item_en

www.canadiandefencereview.com

 

[Navy_Pete]

I point out these two problems to people who have never worked in Ottawa and don't understand how much personalities impact everything.

By virtue of a posting message and an unexpected release, I became the CAF "expert" in all things weather observing and meteorological equipment... Not to say I knew nothing before the posting, but I certainly wouldn't have considered myself the final word on any of it.

I routinely find myself suddenly designated as an expert for the random things in the giant list of misfit NSNs I've somehow accumulated during a longer than normal posting. This week was something for a hyperbaric chamber; I had to research it to figure out what the heck it even was.

 

[dapaterson]

I point out these two problems to people who have never worked in Ottawa and don't understand how much personalities impact everything.

By virtue of a posting message and an unexpected release, I became the CAF "expert" in all things weather observing and meteorological equipment... Not to say I knew nothing before the posting, but I certainly wouldn't have considered myself the final word on any of it.

Look, designating you as an expert in a domain where you have some experience was clearly an oversight.

 

[suffolkowner]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1765080019184074839

https://twitter.com/x/status/1766014481342091466

propulsion system designed and on the way

 

[Navy_Pete]

Can't post the article that was posted on the Ottawa Citizen yesterday by He-Who-Must-not-be-named, but there is a pretty spicy video showing the flooding of the anchor/line handling compartment on the AOPs, which is a known class issue.

Everytime we poke at something finding new and exciting defects. No worries though as it's LR approved!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Can't post the article that was posted on the Ottawa Citizen yesterday by He-Who-Must-not-be-named, but there is a pretty spicy video showing the flooding of the anchor/line handling compartment on the AOPs, which is a known class issue.

Everytime we poke at something finding new and exciting defects. No worries though as it's LR approved!

Looks like it coming up the hawse pipes and no way for it to drain off?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Looks like it coming up the hawse pipes and no way for it to drain off?

You can see how low the anchor is to the waterline in the photo here; the compartment that is flooding is where the various squares are to pass lines through. There are drains but way too small to keep up with the volume coming in at medium sea states.

It's a terrible design, but maybe it makes sense if you don't think anyone is stupid enough to build an icebreaker than sail it around open oceans. One of them is scheduled to do RIMPAC soon, so will see what all breaks on it (with hundreds of defects when they head out), and if the flooding is worse if they hit big sea states.

Every time we poke at something it is worse than we thought, so wish we had been a bit less blindly trusting of the class society when they are employed by the shipyard and not us, which means the shipyard can call back to their home office to get the local guys over ruled and stop us from asking questions directly to the class surveyors that signed off on the design(which are more technical and polite variations of WTF?).

So far my personal favourite is the FF local activation switches inside the protected compartment, which doesn't meet the actual project requirements or FSS code but is 'approved by class'.

Arctic and offshore patrol ships - Canada.ca

 

[Rifleman62]

Do we F__K Up everything CAF purchases - ships, helicopters, SAR aircraft, etc, etc?

 

[Kirkhill]

Do we F__K Up everything CAF purchases - ships, helicopters, SAR aircraft, etc, etc?

Or do we just end up trying to use equipment for jobs for which it wasn't designed?

It's a terrible design, but maybe it makes sense if you don't think anyone is stupid enough to build an icebreaker than sail it around open oceans.

 

[Navy_Pete]

(And noticed I used the wrong 'than'. Damnit.)

To be fair, a lot of this is because our technical people get over ruled by PSPC, RCN and other BGHs when they try and push back and do things like not accept delivery or point out obvious design flaws. We get a lot of this from the operators; especially if it would delay delivery.

Not sure why they are gung ho about getting kit that doesn't meet the requirements they made up, but after a certain point it's karma for their negligence. Just wish the ones making those decisions were the ones that had to actually try and sail things when major systems just don't work, instead of just posting shiny pictures on twitter for likes and shares. Can't get promoted without social media followers!

 

[Kirkhill]

(And noticed I used the wrong 'than'. Damnit.)

To be fair, a lot of this is because our technical people get over ruled by PSPC, RCN and other BGHs when they try and push back and do things like not accept delivery or point out obvious design flaws. We get a lot of this from the operators; especially if it would delay delivery.

Not sure why they are gung ho about getting kit that doesn't meet the requirements they made up, but after a certain point it's karma for their negligence. Just wish the ones making those decisions were the ones that had to actually try and sail things when major systems just don't work, instead of just posting shiny pictures on twitter for likes and shares. Can't get promoted without social media followers!

Comes the time though when the piece of kit in your hand can only do what it will do, even if that is only 70% of what you wanted it to do, or even contracted for it to do. At that point you pretty much have to live with what you have got and accept that you can't do the things you wanted to do. The next step is to figure out how to bridge the gap.

Sometimes it is faster just to accept the gap and find the fix.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Comes the time though when the piece of kit in your hand can only do what it will do, even if that is only 70% of what you wanted it to do, or even contracted for it to do. At that point you pretty much have to live with what you have got and accept that you can't do the things you wanted to do. The next step is to figure out how to bridge the gap.

Sometimes it is faster just to accept the gap and find the fix.

I get that there can be a gap, what I don't get is the contract says it must meet 'X' requirement, it's delivered not meeting that requirement, and we accept it anyway.

Some of this isn't even military requirements, it's that it doesn't meet SOLAS code. which is basic safety stuff. Or the actual design may technically meet code, as long as you ignore the bit where it doesn't actually work (and generally the codes require a basic requirement that it actually functions within the intended use).

The original design we started with didn't have some of these problems; they were ISI detailed design issues that we don't have the balls to call their bullshit and tell them no, we're not accepting it.

Totally get adding capabilities later, but I don't think it's too much to ask that things like fire fighting fitted systems work in a fire.

 

[Kirkhill]

I get that there can be a gap, what I don't get is the contract says it must meet 'X' requirement, it's delivered not meeting that requirement, and we accept it anyway.

Some of this isn't even military requirements, it's that it doesn't meet SOLAS code. which is basic safety stuff. Or the actual design may technically meet code, as long as you ignore the bit where it doesn't actually work (and generally the codes require a basic requirement that it actually functions within the intended use).

The original design we started with didn't have some of these problems; they were ISI detailed design issues that we don't have the balls to call their bullshit and tell them no, we're not accepting it.

Totally get adding capabilities later, but I don't think it's too much to ask that things like fire fighting fitted systems work in a fire.

Point taken on the contract. But having spent years on some warranty debates sometimes the only realistic course of action has been to get what I can out of what has been delivered and fund the gap out of my own pocket to get the problem solved now. Then I get to have the pleasure of beating up the vendor (or, if I was the vendor, being beaten up) and trying to get my money back, or my solution paid for or a deal on the next contract.

Life sucks. Right?

I have a large arse now. The only reason it isn't larger is because of all the chunks that have been taken out of it over the years. I have spent at least as much time selling up to management as selling down to clients.

 

[YZT580]

Looks like it coming up the hawse pipes and no way for it to drain off?

couldn't you fother the whole area when at sea? Good seamanship and all (sarcasm)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Meanwhile on the AOP's

 

[Stoker]

Both designs seem to have the anchor pocket doors at the same position in relation to the waterline.

 

[quadrapiper]

Both designs seem to have the anchor pocket doors at the same position in relation to the waterline.
View attachment 83624View attachment 83625

Looks to be further aft on Svalbard, though.

 

[Stoker]

Looks to be further aft on Svalbard, though.

Perhaps that was the issue. I do know that the video taken that was in the media was before they took measures to mitigate the water and this has been an ongoing issue since HDW came out. I also know they tried some metal covers that helped a bit. I was told now that they have inflatable bags that they jam down the hawse pipe to reduce the water ingress and larger drains to get the water out. It appears a more permanent solution is forthcoming during their first major refit. The trick now is to keep up on PM and corrosion in that area. We have MB leaving early next week on her transfer to the WC and I reached out to see how much the mitigations are going to help.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Anybody remembers "anchor pocket doors" ???