Replacing the Subs
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,877
- Points
- 1,260
I think we are quickly approaching the point of that decision.
we did that the day we signed the deal for the 4 subs in the first place rather than purchasing new. What should have happened and what didn't happen is history now it is time to correct that error and order what is needed for delivery soonest. In the meantime, it is essential to maintain the skills and provide for at least some level of sub-marine deterrence. imho
- Reaction score
- 5,407
- Points
- 1,040
lol, a proper audit; everything we do is audited multiple times with numerous levels of oversight and redundant verification. You think that is free and doesn't also cause delays which cost money?
No contractor is going to come in and tell the customer their processes are stupid; they repeatedly instead recommend MORE processes on top of existing processes to 'streamline' things.
Every single audit, program review, process overhaul has only ever resulted in things taking more effort and time.
- Reaction score
- 5,407
- Points
- 1,040
It's also the most basic form of a sole source procurement; they own the IP for the design.
3.5 million for spares is pretty common though, have a half dozen routine spare procurements on the go at that dollar value or higher. When it takes years to buy things, you buy large quantities, and when you are the only user and they need to retool, they won't even see small quantities either. Minimum order sizes can be a few hundred units easily.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,530
- Points
- 1,160
Everything for a sub is expensive. Just maintaining the outside acoustic tiles likley cost that much annually. Canadians love to complain. But if you don't maintain a older sub to a high standard, then you get events like what happened to the Argentinian sub. Submarines are akin to space ships and almost as expensive. As they stand now they are very capable DE subs fitted with very modern sensor and weapon systems. Likely we could get 2-3 in action if we were in a middle of a war and willing to take more risks. But for peace time, with a older fleet of 4 subs, we aren't doing badly. We have not lost a sub, had a very bad dockyard fire, had one sink in testing or had 6 of them tied to the dock due to a lack of spare parts like the German sub fleet. Start looking at the other small navy sub fleets and you realize that Canada is actually doing better than most given the age and that it is a "orphan" class of sub.
That is the issues. To many "YES MEN" not enough people doing what's right.
The whole point of QC (quality control) is to tell it like it is. That has to do not only with the actual building of the equipment but the process leading up to and after.
This happens in industry outside of government procurement every day. They pay men and women to make the tough calls even if it goes agaisnt the word of the day.
We have offices across the country full with yes men and women. Looking for their next promotion, next gig. Not enough willing to say STOP thats not going to work and this is why.
It really is sad.
It would save projects and bring them back on budget and timings if we just had the fortitude to do the right thing.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,530
- Points
- 1,160
One company thought they could save a million by buying fasteners from china while building new powerline towers. Halfway through the project a new tower collapsed, turns out the fasteners were not up to spec and needed replacing, millions of dollars later....
You rarely hear about major private f*ckups as don't like to talk about them. Public stuff is almost always public.
You rarely hear about major private f*ckups as don't like to talk about them. Public stuff is almost always public.
- Reaction score
- 5,407
- Points
- 1,040
None of what you see in small industries scale up to government. A better example would be a large multinational, where branches dictate requirements for other branches for reporting/processes.
The various requirements were imposed by TBS, Cabinet, PBO, Finance etc etc over the years, and usually based on.... audits and reviews done by 3rd parties.
Usually the GoC processes is even in the project risk registers as a big potential roadblock, but when it's coming down from PMO/Cabinet, TBS, complaining about it doesn't get projects approved and things moving. You raise it as a fact, then do what you have to do to try and deliver things despite the system. If PS and CAF members were as useless, undedicated and lazy as what you seem to think, absolutely nothing would ever happen. The rates of stress leave are abnormally high because people really do care, and the constant hurdles and delays with knowledge of what that actually means on the front lines breaks people with stress.
But sure, we're all yes men and no one has reported that all this creates delays, extra work, etc. Thanks for your insight.
- Reaction score
- 7,582
- Points
- 1,160
I've personally seen two companies driven to bankruptcy by buying equipment from Ali Baba. One bought a juice processing plant. One bought two large freezer plants. Both were substandard. I know of two others that survived. One was rescued with Canadian government contracts that allowed them to build a compliant plant and the other is hanging in by the skin of their teeth.
I call bs on this, lots of "small scale companies" who earn Billions of Dollars perform well above the Canadian Government procurement every day. If they did not they would not be in business, except Bombardier and Irving. Lots of smaller companies do the same. If they ran the way the government did they would shut the doors before they even opened.
Those audits often are done by internal and external "friends" of the kickback kind. Lots of papers have talked about the issues.
System is broken, and not going to be fixed, the PMO, TBD etc surround themselves with yes men. Usually to protect their jobs.
I never said any of that..........But you did so must be a feeling in the air. The CAF and some of the PS do the best they can with what they have.
Stress leave across Government services is abnormally higher then private industry. That's tells a story in itself. Which more then likely explains the issues with procurement and services provided. Morale injuries seem to be on the rise.
Never said your all "yes men" I said TO MANY are yes men, often those are the ones in more positions of influence.
They obviously had no QC inspections, which concerns me that a company who builds power lines either ignored QC procedures, don't have QC procedures or said Screw it we don't care. More then likely a public Contractor who paid a kickback for the inspector to turn a blind eye.
I hear about private company screwups all the time. Often when they cost millions of dollar's so does the public. The smart ones figure out the problem, fix the problem and carry on.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,530
- Points
- 1,160
I used to be a regulator on major projects, the amount of waste and spending could be eye watering.
I watched a company throw $28,000,000 down the drain when they were told it would not work. They followed the bad advice of their "expert" who turned out was way in over his head, but had a speech that would inspire jt to vote for PP.
Another company I worked for threw $100,000,000 at a project that cost them another $400,000,000 because their "QC" and their project lead did not want to follow common sense. Instead they fought with the Front line staff who strongly suggested not to do what they were going to do. That their "Audit" was so full of holes it looked like a government procurement project. Yes men are everywhere, those who speak up are often chastised and passed over. In the end it worked out but not after costing 4 times what it should have and loosing some great people in the process.
Once the right people are in place, and making the proper decisions things start to roll. Until that happens things go so far until the money runs out and reality hits you in the face. Unless it is government contracts, where often money really is no object. Many times they do not want the project on time or on budget. How else do you funnel kickbacks and bonuses to your close friends.
I have a few friends and family who have worked as project manager/leads on various federal, provincial and municipal projects who have all said the same thing waste waste waste and often could not see where the actual excess money went. When questioned were told mind their own business or loose their job and or company loose their contract. A few of them no longer will bid on or work for government contracts. Which limits a few of them and where they can work.
Happy Guy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 587
- Points
- 810
This is an excellent video about the challenges that Australia has (will have) when it embarks on its journey towards the purchase of a nuclear powered submarine. This video also provides a good idea of what obstacles Canada will also face if it ever decides to buy nuclear powered submarines to replace the Victoria Class. Probably the two major differences are that: (1) unlike Australia, Canada already has substantial nuclear power expertise; and (2) Canada will most likely not build nuclear powered submarines.
On the big hand, the Australian plan is as follows:
Phase 1. Training with US and UK submariners
Phase 2. Receiving Virginia Class submarines in the 2030s
Phase 3. First AUKUS designed submarine will delivered in the 2050s.
Challenges:
1. Building up the number of the submariners to accommodate the nuclear submarines. Need 3,000 trained pers.
2. Infrastructure for the new fleet
3. Cost. $368B or $32M/per for 30 yrs will mean the other Services (Army, Air Force, surface Navy) will suffer cuts. Degradation of overall defence capability and capacity to react?
4. Build up of technical expertise, especially trained engineers, for this program.
5. Significant risk in acceptance and building of a newly designed nuclear powered submarine
6. Significant risk of the Collins Class submarines aging out before 2030s plus the need for $6B to maintain them up to the 2030s.
In brief: Unlike Canada, Australia has big balls to do this despite the challenges and risks.
On the big hand, the Australian plan is as follows:
Phase 1. Training with US and UK submariners
Phase 2. Receiving Virginia Class submarines in the 2030s
Phase 3. First AUKUS designed submarine will delivered in the 2050s.
Challenges:
1. Building up the number of the submariners to accommodate the nuclear submarines. Need 3,000 trained pers.
2. Infrastructure for the new fleet
3. Cost. $368B or $32M/per for 30 yrs will mean the other Services (Army, Air Force, surface Navy) will suffer cuts. Degradation of overall defence capability and capacity to react?
4. Build up of technical expertise, especially trained engineers, for this program.
5. Significant risk in acceptance and building of a newly designed nuclear powered submarine
6. Significant risk of the Collins Class submarines aging out before 2030s plus the need for $6B to maintain them up to the 2030s.
In brief: Unlike Canada, Australia has big balls to do this despite the challenges and risks.
- Reaction score
- 1,094
- Points
- 1,060
They might need to buy half a dozen diesel subs as well even with the Collins Class life extension
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,530
- Points
- 1,160
We can make major brownie points by buying the KS-III now, then handing over our Victoria Class to the Aussies to help them maintain a sub fleet till their first nukes arrive.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,480
- Points
- 1,160
I think you're forgetting which end of the transaction Canada takes in the pawning off of old, end-of-life crap "deals".
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,530
- Points
- 1,160
Well for once it would be nice. Plus we can contract to help keep them going. Out of the ten subs they should get 3 going...
Similar threads
