Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Stoker]

Emphasis added.
In peacetime we pay large sums to maintain this capability. In wartime, we reap the dividends. Even in peacetime we can reap the dividends - our subs have deployed on Op Caribbe, and have contributed to stopping illegal narcotics.

We don't plan for peace, we plan for war. That's at the very core of what we (CAF) do. We would just prefer it that it all remains peaceful.

I really don't think six subs, with two in refit at all times is in my opinion a good way to spend limited defence dollars. Did you see the article, something like 90% of what it costs to operate our surface fleet to what it costs for six subs. How much operational time for our money? not much. It took over 10 years for Victoria to fire a torpedo.  Do people realize the dog and pony show that follows the Victoria Class to maintain them when they hit port$$  I do realize its a capability, but not a capability that we need right now given the state of the fleet in my opinion. As for the Op Caribbe, yes they did disrupt drugs but so did a 60 million MCDV.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Agreed.  I believe it's Cornerbrook that has actually spent more time on the lift (years) than she's ever spent in the water.  I fail to see the overall benefit of having the resource bleed as we've experienced.  CM, you fail to convince me otherwise as to their utility.  There are many platforms we'd all love to see on the inventory, Amphibs, Carriers, Subs, etc etc but it's a case of want vs need.  We need to be smarter than we have been in the past as we cannot continue to spend like drunken sailors. 

 

[Stoker]

Agreed.  I believe it's Cornerbrook that has actually spent more time on the lift (years) than she's ever spent in the water.  I fail to see the overall benefit of having the resource bleed as we've experienced.  CM, you fail to convince me otherwise as to their utility.  There are many platforms we'd all love to see on the inventory, Amphibs, Carriers, Subs, etc etc but it's a case of want vs need.  We need to be smarter than we have been in the past as we cannot continue to spend like drunken sailors.

I totally agree divest ourselves of the subs, build up the surface fleet, and get new subs then. Farm out our personnel to the Brits and Australians to maintain skills.

 

[Underway]

I totally agree divest ourselves of the subs, build up the surface fleet, and get new subs then. Farm out our personnel to the Brits and Australians to maintain skills.

Once the subs are gone we will never get them back.  it will be a lost capability like the Bonnie.  It's hard enough to convince the gov't to retain the capability as it currently stands.  And an inability to know what happens under our waters is the dumbest thing you can think of from a strategic perspective.  Submarines are arguably Canada's only operational strategic weapons system and are critical for a maritime nation on an island continent. 

What the navy really needs is a budgetary increase, and less crabbing about cutting capability.  There's a reason every other nation in the world is increasing their subs, and its because the strategic impact for the cost is much better than surface fleets.  How are we in Canada the only ones who seem to think that this is the opposite?

 

[PuckChaser]

What the navyCAF really needs is a budgetary increase, and less crabbing about cutting capability.

FTFY.

The RCN is not alone in budgetary struggles. The Army just parked 50% of its B Fleet because we can't afford to run them.

 

[Journeyman]

The Army just parked 50% of its B Fleet  trucks .....

/translation 

[it is  a Navy thread after all; if we're going to be guests, we should be considerate of Army-speak.    ]

 

[YZT580]

Perhaps the high cost of running the subs is more reflective of the old adage "Buyer beware" when buying something used.  If we had invested, sorry, if is a stupid argument because we didn't.  The same can be said regarding the foolishness of closing the st. Johns yard.  All studies have indicated that we require an underwater presence.  In addition, subs are the only reliable means of patrolling our northern flank.  Nuclear ones at that which is a really bad word.  So either we pay the price or we lower the flag.  The more we delay the more it will cost us.  The replacement project for the Sea Kings comes to mind when I say that.  What is needed more than anything is leadership that is willing to spell out our basic requirements regardless of the fact that it will be bad news.  Since Trudeau has said that he wishes to instate total freedom of speech I wait impatiently for the naval/air force leader who will take him at his word and tell Canada the exact state of our current inventory.

 

[suffolkowner]

What I gathered from the naval review article was that our fleet of 4 subs were costing 95% of the entire surface fleet. While comparatively the cost should be 30% per unit which should equal just over 1 Halifax class frigate. I'd take that any day of the week.  24x that costing would seem to be an issue that is difficult to justify so either
1. the 30% number is inaccurate
2. the Victoria class is inordinately expensive to run (or maybe just one of them)
3. or the RCN submarine management skills have atrophied over time

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Was that just operational costs, or the ops and upgrade costs rolled into one?

 

[Stoker]

The subs are incredibly expensive to operate and maintain that's a matter of public knowledge. They sat in the water for years rotting away while the government at the time dithered. They were expensive to reactivate not to mention all the problems they had with them, IE the tragic fire and the grounding. There is also the certification program they go through to ensure they are operational. Spare parts are very expensive. When  the RCN bought them they had the choice of something like five warehouses of parts, the RCN only had so much money and at the time picked what they though they needed. The rest of the parts went to BAE, when they need parts for them we pay through the nose, not to mention many parts to be re-certified has to be sent to the UK.
Again I want to be clear, while the subs are a necessary strategic asset like others have alluded to I worry about having a robust surface fleet including the proper support to look after our domestic and international commitments. IF the budget for the RCN is increased then by all means have subs but not at expense of what little we have now.

 

[MarkOttawa]

CSC: FrontLine Defence takes on Irving:

Editor's Corner
Govt Tackles Procurement Challenge
BY CHRIS MACLEAN
...
Canada’s experience/expertise in warship design, combat system development or integration dissipated decades ago. Undeniable logic dictates that a project of this complexity should be undertaken by an experienced warship integrator (that includes WD, plus CSI, plus Platform System Integrator) to avoid disaster in the form of delays and cost...

Canada has taken a shipbuilder with limited experience with the complexities of modern warships, and placed it in a position of authority to determine which companies it prefers to work with. This is completely backward to the normal build process of any large and complex project. It’s like putting the construction foreman in charge of choosing which cyber security engineers he/she would prefer to work with when building the new CSIS facility.

Will the Liberal government push back from the bullying tactics that have been displayed, and reconsider if the best option for Canada wouldn’t be to change to the most capable design procurement strategy? It’s not too late to turn this ship around...
http://defence.frontline.online/article/2015/6/3703

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tabernac]

YTZ and Underway have hit the nail on the head.

Subs are a capability that is required for our own northern surveillance. The north is slowly, but very surely opening up. We need a multi-pronged, multi-dimensional approach to maritime security. Subs are a key component of that.

The proliferation of 'inexpensive" diesel subs around the world - specifically into the hands of non-NATO/FVEYs countries - is on the rise. To meet this threat, we need the capability.
For as long as Canada borders the oceans, we need to be able to operate under, on, and in the sky above. We need to do this not only in the interest of our own security, but with our vested interest operating as a piece within the global maritime security construct.

To argue that it's purely a matter of dollars and cents is myopic. At the very least we must retain the sub capability such that it can be expanded in times of budgetary feast, and put into a maintenance posture (not cut entirely) in times of famine.

More than just hulls, people, dollars, and capability, what we need is a definitive naval strategy within the larger Canadian defence strategy. We certainly don't have that.
And we need senior leadership who are willing to address the elephant in the room head on.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

One submarine pretty much cost Argentina the entire Falklands War.  The British Navy was able to operate with impunity following the attack on Belgrano.

Getting rid of the submarine program would be a very shortsighted decision. 

 

[Stoker]

Subs have deployed north twice to the Arctic that's it. We are building a system of underwater surveillance in the Northwest passage to detect subs and ships. That being said I doubt we will get rid of our subs despite the hopes of many of us who sail out the harbour while watching subs sit alongside taking up 80% of what it takes the fleet to operate however anything is possible with our new government. These subs that we have cannot be laid up to save money, they have to be continuously maintained at operational levels or we'll have a repeat of when we got the things. With all the new ships coming I hope there will extra funds to support the fleet as at current levels we won't be able to do it.  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, no doubt lots of peacekeeping, unicorns and rainbows.

 

[Kirkhill]

Impunity indeed.

Saturday 1st May

HMS Alacrity - slightly damaged by bomb near misses

HMS Arrow - slightly damaged by cannon fire

HMS Glamorgan - slightly damaged by bomb near misses, all off Stanley by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6.

Tuesday 4th May

HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged south east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and sank in tow on Monday 10th May.

Wednesday 12th May

HMS Glasgow - moderately damaged off Stanley by unexploded bomb (1) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5. Bomb passed through hull but damage took some days to repair and she shortly returned to UK.

Friday 21st May

HMS Antrim - seriously damaged in Falkland Sound outside San Carlos Water by unexploded bomb (2) dropped by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6. UXB removed but damage took some days to repair.

HMS Broadsword - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by cannon fire from Daggers of Grupo 6.

HMS Argonaut - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by rockets and cannon fire from Aermacchi MB.339A of CANA 1 Esc, and then seriously damaged by two unexploded bombs (3/4) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5. Removing the UXB's and carrying out repairs took a number of days and although declared operational, she soon sailed for the UK.

HMS Brilliant - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by cannon fire from Daggers of Grupo 6. (Different attack from "Broadsword")

HMS ARDENT - badly damaged in Grantham Sound by bombs - hits, UXB's (5+) and near misses - dropped by Daggers of Grupo 6, then mortally damaged by bombs from A-4Q Skyhawks of CANA 3 Esc off North West Island. Sank the following evening.

Sunday 23rd May

HMS ANTELOPE - damaged in San Carlos Water by two unexploded bombs (6/7) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5. One of the bombs exploded that evening while being defused and she caught fire and sank next day.

Monday 24th May

RFA Sir Galahad - damaged by unexploded bomb (8) and out of action for some days,

RFA Sir Lancelot - damaged by unexploded bomb (9) and not fully operational for almost three weeks,

RFA Sir Bedivere - slightly damaged by glancing bomb, all in San Carlos Water probably by A-4C Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4. 

Tuesday 25th May

HMS Broadsword - damaged north of Pebble Island by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5 bouncing up through her stern and out again to land in the sea.

HMS COVENTRY - sunk north of Pebble Island in same attack by three bombs.

ATLANTIC CONVEYOR - mortally damaged north east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and later sank in tow.

Saturday 29th May

British Wye - hit north of South Georgia by bomb dropped by C-130 Hercules of FAA Grupo 1 which bounced into the sea without exploding

Tuesday 8th June

HMS Plymouth - damaged in Falkland Sound off San Carlos Water by four unexploded bombs (10-13) from Daggers of FAA Grupo 6.

RFA SIR GALAHAD - mortally damaged off Fitzroy by bombs from A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5 and burnt out. Later in June towed out to sea and sunk as a war grave.

RFA Sir Tristram - badly damaged off Fitzroy in same attack and abandoned, but later returned to UK and repaired.

LCU F4, HMS Fearless - sunk in Choiseul Sound by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5.

Saturday 12th June

HMS Glamorgan - damaged off Stanley by land-based Exocet missile.

http://www.naval-history.net/F62-Falklands-British_ships_lost.htm

 

[Stoker]

One submarine pretty much cost Argentina the entire Falklands War.  The British Navy was able to operate with impunity following the attack on Belgrano.

Getting rid of the submarine program would be a very shortsighted decision.

Sure but we need to be able to actually fire a torpedo in anger, it took over 10 years for the Victoria Class to be able to. It took a lot of skill to torpedo a WW2 era cruiser filled with cadets.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Impunity indeed.

http://www.naval-history.net/F62-Falklands-British_ships_lost.htm

I'll elaborate.  The sinking of the the Belgrano forced the Argentinian Navy in to port, along with its aircraft carrier, Veinticino de Mayo. The Argentinian Navy spent the rest of the war in port which cost the Junta massive political points and also forced them to launch their air attacks from the mainland, at the very limit of their operational range.

The Brits lost a few ships but the war was, at the strategic level, pretty much won at this point.  One submarine used 3 torpedoes to sink a battle cruiser in 20 min and killed 323 Argentinian sailors (half their casualties in the entire conflict).  It also caused an entire Navy to run back home with their tails between their legs.  A perfect example of why the Submarine program should go nowhere anytime soon.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Sure but we need to be able to actually fire a torpedo in anger, it took over 10 years for the Victoria Class to be able to. It took a lot of skill to torpedo a WW2 era cruiser filled with cadets.

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...

 

[Stoker]

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.

Of course it is I don't dispute that, but when your tool doesn't work you either get rid of it or get something new. Part of the reason the surface fleet is in piss poor shape as you said is because of the costs supporting the subs. Imagine if all that money saved was put into the assets that actually sail.

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.

Your opinion but the increased money to the surface fleet would improve moral immeasurably and provide us with badly needed personnel.

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

No commenting about what the army does or doesn't do, not in my arcs of fire

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile back at Irving, via a friend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD8EtvWW8nw

Mark
Ottawa