Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with you, the AOPS is definitely not what we need now, we need new destroyers and tankers and thats years away. The AOPS while nice to have, doesn't reverse the capability reduction as you mentioned we have now.

The capabilities the RCN needs are the ones the government of the day, not the RCN, decides. If the government of the day wants you to do e.g. Ops CARIBBE and NANOOK better, and for longer and for less money then the AOPS and MCDVs are what the RCN needs. If, on the other hand, the government wants more Ops like ARTEMIS and REASSURANCE then the RCN does, indeed, need more destroyer/frigate type vessels.

My sense of the politics of it all is that the Conservative government of the day likes using the RCN - it is perceived to be (relatively) cheap (we own the ships, we've hired the sailors, you were going to do some sailing, somewhere, anyway) and safe (but that would all change, radically, if someone hits a warship with a missile or even a suicide boat attack and we have a casualty list that dwarfs anything we've seen since 1953 (Hill 187, our worst casualty list in the Korean campaign). I think that this government would like an operational "holiday" from places like the Arabian and Black Seas, and would dearly love to do more, and, even more important, to be seen to be doing more, in the Arctic and Caribbean. Thus, I guess that this government would rather have the AOPS first.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The AOPS are what's ready to build, not the replacements for the destroyers/frigates.  They've dilly dallied so long that it will be some time before the replacements are ready to build.  Therefore, they've no choice as that is the path they set themselves down a long time ago.  They've painted industry and the RCN into a corner and now they'll have to live with it.  And if they can accelerate the builds of what's ready in time for the next election then the CPC will trumpet that to the skies in hopes of votes.

 

[ringo]

USNS Bridge and USNS Rainier may be available for lease until are Berlin class enter service.

 

[Navy_Pete]

So how many sailors would this leave floating without a job?

What is the RCN planning to do with the surplus?

Probably none; it's going to take a few years to get all the surveys done and get everything prepared for the demilitarization and deconstruction.  I'm sure there are enough holes to fill in the fleet now, and you still need some folks onboard for security and basic maintenance.

Based on the last few ships that got turned over for artificial reefs with the crazy bureaucracy, as well as the cost of stripping it down for a sinkex (roughly double a straight dismantling), probably neither of those will happen.  There are a few yards in Canada capable; but none of the west coast.  Closest is Brownsville, Tx, so may as well carry on up the coast and do it in country.

 

[Stoker]

The AOPS are what's ready to build, not the replacements for the destroyers/frigates.  They've dilly dallied so long that it will be some time before the replacements are ready to build.  Therefore, they've no choice as that is the path they set themselves down a long time ago.  They've painted industry and the RCN into a corner and now they'll have to live with it.  And if they can accelerate the builds of what's ready in time for the next election then the CPC will trumpet that to the skies in hopes of votes.

Unfortunately yes thats true, its just my opinion. If they listened to people actually doing the job we might be in better stead right now, just my opinion.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Unfortunately yes thats true, its just my opinion. If they listened to people actually doing the job we might be in better stead right now, just my opinion.

And what would make you stand out as deserving of that dubious honour, when no-one, Federal or Provincial, no matter the job, gets a say as the boots on the ground? Input from the peons is frowned upon, as the policy makers would be exposed as frauds.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Actually, they did ask our opinions, once.  We had a dream team from the puzzle palace sail with us for a week and watch what the tanker did at sea with the fleet.  The then gave a presentation to all three messes on what the then proposed tanker replacement was going to be.  The asked us what we liked in the design, what worked for us and what didn't.  Then, they said the intent was to build 4 and have them in the water for 2005 with 2 on each coast.  Then, 9/11 happened and it all went pear shaped and we got squat.  Guess they didn't like our input.  :nod:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

While this looks like a big hit to the RCN capability wise, at least on paper, the reality is that these ships were at the end of their service-life and need to be replaced.  We can go on about the ifs, ands or buts of why we don't have replacements yet but realistically none of that matters at this point.  The fact is, the present government has a plan to replace our ships, it also has a plan to develop a ship-building industry which will give us strategic capacity. 

I agree with Edward and I think this is a very good move by the government and the RCN.  I anxiously await seeing the first keel cut at both Seaspan and Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax.  The Navy will deal with some short term pain over the next couple of years and a decreased op tempo; however, I think long term the service will be well served by the NSPS.

 

[AlexanderM]

Is it a sign that they may soon announce the order for the new Destroyers, as in with details?

 

[Occam]

I'm afraid it'll be a while yet before you see anything about CSC.

 

[donaldk]

Probably none; it's going to take a few years to get all the surveys done and get everything prepared for the demilitarization and deconstruction.  I'm sure there are enough holes to fill in the fleet now, and you still need some folks onboard for security and basic maintenance.

Based on the last few ships that got turned over for artificial reefs with the crazy bureaucracy, as well as the cost of stripping it down for a sinkex (roughly double a straight dismantling), probably neither of those will happen.  There are a few yards in Canada capable; but none of the west coast.  Closest is Brownsville, Tx, so may as well carry on up the coast and do it in country.

Just waiting for the Op Stat transfer msg to hit...

 

[FSTO]

The fact is, the present government has a plan to replace our ships, it also has a plan to develop a ship-building industry which will give us strategic capacity. 

I think that this will be the last time that we will rebuild our shipbuilding industry. If we let it die again then we better put a stake in it, our treasury cannot handle another rebuild.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

While this looks like a big hit to the RCN capability wise, at least on paper, the reality is that these ships were at the end of their service-life and need to be replaced.  We can go on about the ifs, ands or buts of why we don't have replacements yet but realistically none of that matters at this point.  The fact is, the present government has a plan to replace our ships, it also has a plan to develop a ship-building industry which will give us strategic capacity. 

I agree with Edward and I think this is a very good move by the government and the RCN.  I anxiously await seeing the first keel cut at both Seaspan and Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax.  The Navy will deal with some short term pain over the next couple of years and a decreased op tempo; however, I think long term the service will be well served by the NSPS.

So what's the plan? Spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan, given by Canadian shipbuilders. Or buy offshore and have our equipment in two years?

Canadian shipbuilders have to be held to a performance contract. If you don't produce in the first two years, as specified, you go to half purchase price compounded for every year you're late. Within a few years they will be building for nothing.

This goes back to our AFV's and aircraft. If Canadian corporations can't meet quota and deadlines, we need to buy somewhere else.

I'm tired of Canadian industry holding us hostage for Canadian content rules.

If they don't like it, they'll get lean and mean, rather than holding our country for ransom, which we have to make clear, we will not pay anymore.

 

[MilEME09]

So what's the plan? Spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan, given by Canadian shipbuilders. Or buy offshore and have our equipment in two years?

Canadian shipbuilders have to be held to a performance contract. If you don't produce in the first two years, as specified, you go to half purchase price compounded for every year you're late. Within a few years they will be building for nothing.

This goes back to our AFV's and aircraft. If Canadian corporations can't meet quota and deadlines, we need to buy somewhere else.

I'm tired of Canadian industry holding us hostage for Canadian content rules.

If they don't like it, they'll get lean and mean, rather than holding our country for ransom, which we have to make clear, we will not pay anymore.

I agree, if you cant compete with say south korean yards or german yards then why should we invest when we wont see a return?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Because "Canada first" in respect to procurement is first and foremost nothing but vote buying.  To buy off shore, while logical would be political suicide.  I don't see that changing.

 

[dimsum]

Because "Canada first" in respect to procurement is first and foremost nothing but vote buying.  To buy off shore, while logical would be political suicide.  I don't see that changing.

Yep, and the Aussies are catching flak for their decisions for their RAN vessels (esp the subs) at this time. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

See my comments about "Buy America," "Canada First," and stupid political decisions driven by even more stupid voters here. And I mean it: the reason ministers and senior bureaucrats, generally smarter than average people, make dumb decisions is because the people, the almighty but incredibly stupid f'ing people, demand stupid decisions.

Tony Abbott may get away with some smart defence procurement in Australia, but if he does it is because Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have nearly destroyed the Labour Party, not because Australians are smart. He might, also, spend some of the dollars he saves by smarter defence procurement on visible job creation projects, remembering Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's quip about Canadians liking to see construction cranes because it means people are working.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

So what's the plan? Spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan, given by Canadian shipbuilders. Or buy offshore and have our equipment in two years?

Canadian shipbuilders have to be held to a performance contract. If you don't produce in the first two years, as specified, you go to half purchase price compounded for every year you're late. Within a few years they will be building for nothing.

This goes back to our AFV's and aircraft. If Canadian corporations can't meet quota and deadlines, we need to buy somewhere else.

I'm tired of Canadian industry holding us hostage for Canadian content rules.

If they don't like it, they'll get lean and mean, rather than holding our country for ransom, which we have to make clear, we will not pay anymore.

I'm not sure what you mean by "spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan" when the government has the NSPS and lays out in quite clear detail what it intends to do.  The NSPS is the plan and  calls for a phased re-building of the RCN along with the development of a local shipbuilding industry in order to support that re-building. 

Just because the timelines don't jive with expectations of certain members of the CF doesn't mean there is no plan.  Again, I've said it before but "Soldiers/Sailors are incapable of making policy decisions because they always think whatever they have isn't good enough, that they need more of it and that they aren't getting the support they need," we work for the government. not the other way around and they determine what we should be doing and what kit we are going to be using.

The present government is one of the most disciplined in recent times and they were dealt a bad deck of cards with regard to a military that has been rusting out for decades with little procurement of new equipment.  They've made the best of a bad situation and rather than rushing hastily from procurement battle to procurement battle, they have developed a long term plan which will set us up for long term success.

Will it be more expensive at first? 

Most definitely but Rome wasn't built in a day and it was always going to be more expensive when the previous industry was destroyed without so much as an after thought.

Is it all about Political Pork?

Of course it is but what decision the government of the day makes isn't?  It all goes back to Clausewitz's idea of Politik.  The CF is a tool of policy for the government and the NSPS is a clear reflection of that relationship. 

I view the NSPS in the same vein as any other infrastructure project the government undertakes i.e. oil and gas pipelines, highway construction, etc... it's all meant to increase our industrial capacity which is also a form of military power.  We will now have our own shipbuilding industry which builds our own ships and gives us Strategic Capacity.  I envision this industry branching off into other areas other than military shipbuilding with the biggest target being the oil and gas sector, particularly the off shore one. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm not sure what you mean by "spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan" when the government has the NSPS and lays out in quite clear detail what it intends to do.  The NSPS is the plan and  calls for a phased re-building of the RCN along with the development of a local shipbuilding industry in order to support that re-building. 

Just because the timelines don't jive with expectations of certain members of the CF doesn't mean there is no plan.  Again, I've said it before but "Soldiers/Sailors are incapable of making policy decisions because they always think whatever they have isn't good enough, that they need more of it and that they aren't getting the support they need," we work for the government. not the other way around and they determine what we should be doing and what kit we are going to be using.

Yes, of course.  Silly me.  The AOR's and 280's, are top notch, cutting edge and they were good enough for a sailor of the 1960's, why not for those of today.  I suppose those of us who've struggled to keep them going in what must be their obviously best years of service don't have a f'n clue and are a bunch of f'n whiners.  Same for the soldiers who were saddled with rusting out MLVW or the FANTASTIC LSVW fleets...  :

The present government is one of the most disciplined in recent times and they were dealt a bad deck of cards with regard to a military that has been rusting out for decades with little procurement of new equipment.  They've made the best of a bad situation and rather than rushing hastily from procurement battle to procurement battle, they have developed a long term plan which will set us up for long term success.

Will it be more expensive at first? 

Most definitely but Rome wasn't built in a day and it was always going to be more expensive when the previous industry was destroyed without so much as an after thought.

Is it all about Political Pork?

Of course it is but what decision the government of the day makes isn't?  It all goes back to Clausewitz's idea of Politik.  The CF is a tool of policy for the government and the NSPS is a clear reflection of that relationship. 

I view the NSPS in the same vein as any other infrastructure project the government undertakes i.e. oil and gas pipelines, highway construction, etc... it's all meant to increase our industrial capacity which is also a form of military power.  We will now have our own shipbuilding industry which builds our own ships and gives us Strategic Capacity.  I envision this industry branching off into other areas other than military shipbuilding with the biggest target being the oil and gas sector, particularly the off shore one. 

I don't. There wasn't a rush of orders to keep these yards on the east coast running when they finished the pervious naval builds.  If that were the case, then they wouldn't need to be rebuilt.  Buyers are going off shore where they get it cheaper, faster and without the BS.  Seaspan was in pretty good condition.  Irving and Davies in particular less so.  Good luck with that.

 

[Stoker]

I'm not sure what you mean by "spend the next ten years deficient of a concrete plan" when the government has the NSPS and lays out in quite clear detail what it intends to do.  The NSPS is the plan and  calls for a phased re-building of the RCN along with the development of a local shipbuilding industry in order to support that re-building. 

Just because the timelines don't jive with expectations of certain members of the CF doesn't mean there is no plan.  Again, I've said it before but "Soldiers/Sailors are incapable of making policy decisions because they always think whatever they have isn't good enough, that they need more of it and that they aren't getting the support they need," we work for the government. not the other way around and they determine what we should be doing and what kit we are going to be using.

The present government is one of the most disciplined in recent times and they were dealt a bad deck of cards with regard to a military that has been rusting out for decades with little procurement of new equipment.  They've made the best of a bad situation and rather than rushing hastily from procurement battle to procurement battle, they have developed a long term plan which will set us up for long term success.

Will it be more expensive at first? 

Most definitely but Rome wasn't built in a day and it was always going to be more expensive when the previous industry was destroyed without so much as an after thought.

Is it all about Political Pork?

Of course it is but what decision the government of the day makes isn't?  It all goes back to Clausewitz's idea of Politik.  The CF is a tool of policy for the government and the NSPS is a clear reflection of that relationship. 

I view the NSPS in the same vein as any other infrastructure project the government undertakes i.e. oil and gas pipelines, highway construction, etc... it's all meant to increase our industrial capacity which is also a form of military power.  We will now have our own shipbuilding industry which builds our own ships and gives us Strategic Capacity.  I envision this industry branching off into other areas other than military shipbuilding with the biggest target being the oil and gas sector, particularly the off shore one.

If the government and previous governments had stuck with its plans for new support ships and haven't kept extending the paying off of the 280's and the tankers we would be in better stread right now. Yes the NSPS is a great idea but 10 years too late, we are facing significant capability shortfall and to me and many members of the RCN thats unacceptable. It may be silly to have high expectations, but tell that to someone sailing on a 40 yr old ship a 1000 miles from land in a storm. Many of my peers have seen this coming and yes many of us think that its not good enough. I may be naive, but I expect better of my government.