• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
350
Points
880
Not sure how eager the CCG are for the AOP's, they aren't really setup for buoy tending, science work or serious icebreaking. They can do each, but not as well as purpose designed CCG ships can.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
85
Points
530
Not sure how eager the CCG are for the AOP's, they aren't really setup for buoy tending, science work or serious icebreaking. They can do each, but not as well as purpose designed CCG ships can.

I had the joy of sitting with some dude from the CCG a couple of years ago on a flight to Ottawa. His constant drone on about how shitty the AOPs will be and lament that the CCG will be getting them leads me to believe they are not "excited" in that good way.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
126
Points
680
I had the joy of sitting with some dude from the CCG a couple of years ago on a flight to Ottawa. His constant drone on about how shitty the AOPs will be and lament that the CCG will be getting them leads me to believe they are not "excited" in that good way.

AOPS have a negative rap before they even sailed.

Word was the AOPS don't handle well in high seas. My buddy is sailing on it right now and with the stabilizers SS6, he said it wasn't that bad (with stabilizers), much better than the MCDV's if more energetic than the frigates. Reality over supposition.

The CCG version is being modified (read simplified) for their requirements. I'm not sure what their plan is for the ships, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of jobs one can do with them that the CCG will be happy to have them for.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
350
Points
880
I don`t think they are going to be a bad ship, but unless they mod them a fair bit, they won`t be a great fit. 9 ton buoys and anchor gear take up a lot of space. So expect a smaller helicopter hanger, flight deck. Problem of course is a lot of design changes drives up costs. One option is to keep them as is, then sell them to another navy as new CCG purpose built ships come online.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
340
Points
980
Doesn’t the resupply ship format of the ‘new’ breakers lend itself to buoy tending, etc?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
126
Points
680
Good lord. A Type 31 is worse than the current CPF in capability. Worse radar, worse FC, and significantly worse ASW. It would be moving backwords.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
16
Points
180
Good lord. A Type 31 is worse than the current CPF in capability. Worse radar, worse FC, and significantly worse ASW. It would be moving backwords.
But we could modify it and Canadianize it, you know for a few billion here and there.........😅😂🤣😂🤣
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
105
Points
630
Unless I missed it, he now says it will cost yet another $17 Billion... but doesn't say why it will cost another $17 billion.

$17 billion is A LOT OF MONEY. A LOOOOOTTTTTTTT of money. That's almost our entire annual budget. Yet he won't specify on what exactly is going to cost that much extra money?

Even if they used $70B as their baseline number, an extra $7B is a lot.


These guys still haven't figured out that a country that is mostly unemployed, won't be paying income taxes/GST anytime soon. And once the Covid nonsense is over with, a lot of people won't have jobs to go back to. Combine that with their efforts to deliberately cripple any mass employment opportunities we had (Tekk, LNG pipelines in Ontario & Quebec, etc etc) -- I would take his estimate with a grain of salt.

0.02
 

MTShaw

Jr. Member
Reaction score
3
Points
130
That’s exactly why the government will not shutdown public projects.

$17 billion over 20 years is not that much. Now, instead of $3 gigadollars per year, we will spend $3.85 Giga Loonies. Not chump change, but real a big deal either.
 

Gorgo

Full Member
Reaction score
8
Points
230
Honestly, governments should get into the habit of breaking down the annual cost of things.

$17B over twenty years is $850M a year. Have then say, "We're going to be spending approximately 850 million dollars a year for the next twenty years employing X number of people to prepare fifteen warships for the RCN."

That might work.
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
23
Points
180
Just imagine that your 30yrs old and start house hunting and every single house that you looked at had the total price of ownership for 40yrs included in the list price (2 sets of furnaces, 2 sets of a/c, 3 new roofs, 3 sets of fences, 2 new driveways, landscaping, 1 addition, 2 remodeling's multiple sets of furniture, appliances, etc, etc, etc) . Add to the above scenario that the bank will use that 'all-in' price when calculating how much of a mortgage you qualify for.
How many houses do you think would get sold or built in the above scenario?
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
128
Points
680
Just imagine that your 30yrs old and start house hunting and every single house that you looked at had the total price of ownership for 40yrs included in the list price (2 sets of furnaces, 2 sets of a/c, 3 new roofs, 3 sets of fences, 2 new driveways, landscaping, 1 addition, 2 remodeling's multiple sets of furniture, appliances, etc, etc, etc) . Add to the above scenario that the bank will use that 'all-in' price when calculating how much of a mortgage you qualify for.
How many houses do you think would get sold or built in the above scenario?

Just imagine that you're 30 years old and start house hunting but you have no money, no job and frankly no ambition to change your financial situation. But you do have a family that are willing to co-sign a mortgage so that you can have a place to live but one of the conditions with accepting responsibility for another's debt is that any other debts that the 30 year old incurs with that particular lender will automatically fall under the same responsibility. Now the family likes this 30 year old relative (or they did before he started drawing from that line of credit the bank automatically gave him) but before the family co-signs they want some idea of what will be the total housing expenses of this wastrel for the next 30 years (at which time one of the parties will be dead - the 30 y.o. probably by the family's hand) with the expectation that the 30 y.o. won't exceed that budgeted amount. The family isn't making that total amount available to the 30 y.o. up front, but every year when the family gathers at Thanksgiving and complains about the lazy SOB, they know roughly how much each will have to chip in so that they don't have to see him until next year. That's project budgeting.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
63
Points
530
Personally, I'd be quite happy to follow the UK path ... as long as we follow it all the way:

Three Type 26 and twelve Type 31 !

Fine, but I also then want the proportional 3 Type 45 AAW destroyers, one Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier (with attendant 40 F-35B's), one Bulwark class amphibious assault ship, six Sandown class and three Hunt class mine hunters and six Astute class SSN (because we don't want SSBN's) and of course, seven various fleet oilers, AOR's and amphibious support ships.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
As much as this is a cost issue, in my opinion this is monumental "effective communicate failure" issue.

DND/Government should present pricing for all military programs in a format citizens can relate to and intuitively understand.

1. What's the "sticker price" (to walk out of the store or showroom with the item)?
2. What's the anticipated "parts for maintenance and service" cost per annum?
3. What's the "crew costs" per annum?

Full life cycle budgeting is absolutely appropriate for some things like assessing RFQ submissions. But for communication to the public? It's akin to the CRA posting a news release: "Average Federal Income Tax is going up to $2 million per person!", with the fine print then explaining that's actually for the average total over their working lives. Although factually accurate, the information is in a context that most people can't relate to easily, and therefore ends up being extremely misleading....which does a disservice to everyone.
 
Top