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

Replacing the Subs

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
862
Points
1,040
Some information regarding the hard choices that the RAN must make regarding the decision to nuclear. Eitherway, the Collins Class is expected to last sometime 2048, by which time hopefully their first nuclear submarine will arrive, with the infrastructure in place and sailors trained.

Despite the need for clear nuclear submarines for Canada, the Government will reject this option as they would consider the cost as too exorbitant. The Liberals, NDP, Green Party and the Bloc will automatically reject it out of hand because of nuclear power. They tend to equate nuclear with nuclear weapons, of which Canada doesn't have any.

Cheers
The smart strategy would be to push hard for nuclear power generation using small modular reactors as the only low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels which has the potential to both meet our future electricity needs and achieve our commitments to being carbon neutral. Once the greens and the woke are on board with the concept of nuclear electricity generation it's a much shorter leap to get acceptance of nuclear power for propulsion in place of that dirty, evil diesel.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,369
Points
1,110
Some information regarding the hard choices that the RAN must make regarding the decision to nuclear. Eitherway, the Collins Class is expected to last sometime 2048, by which time hopefully their first nuclear submarine will arrive, with the infrastructure in place and sailors trained.

Despite the need for clear nuclear submarines for Canada, the Government will reject this option as they would consider the cost as too exorbitant. The Liberals, NDP, Green Party and the Bloc will automatically reject it out of hand because of nuclear power. They tend to equate nuclear with nuclear weapons, of which Canada doesn't have any.

Cheers
I expect the global strategic picture will have morphed significantly in the next 27 years (2048)
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
182
Points
580
You mean “have nuclear weapons, anymore” (yeah, I know it is a quibble that the weapons were US owned…).

You're right. Bomarc missiles, Honest John Arty rockets and nuclear bombs that could be carried by the CF 104 Starfighters.

I should have said: "Canada doesn't have any more."
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,560
Points
1,140
Some information regarding the hard choices that the RAN must make regarding the decision to nuclear. Eitherway, the Collins Class is expected to last sometime 2048, by which time hopefully their first nuclear submarine will arrive, with the infrastructure in place and sailors trained.

Despite the need for clear nuclear submarines for Canada, the Government will reject this option as they would consider the cost as too exorbitant. The Liberals, NDP, Green Party and the Bloc will automatically reject it out of hand because of nuclear power. They tend to equate nuclear with nuclear weapons, of which Canada doesn't have any.

Cheers
I wonder how much the BQ would be against them if Davie got some of the work…
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,042
Points
1,090
That should come out of O&M not Acquisition.

While I don't think the US DoD is the shining example of efficiencies - the cost of the acquisition is the capital equipment itself - not the PM shops, the Requirement Staff, and when the items are fielded, they now become the owners responsiblity.
Now some contracts due have X years Parts and Maintenance on them, but that goes to the receiver O&M - not the project itself.

The staff is getting paid regardless of what project they work on.
The Field Force needs to maintain and operate the equipment it has - regardless of what equipment it is.

The way the CF looks at acquisitions, I am legitimately surprised that the Ferret scout car and M4 Sherman aren't still plodding around.
KevinB explained what I was getting at.

Our projects costs enormous amounts of money, the way they are presented to the public - which makes some things a harder sell than they should be.

The acquisition is one project. And we tend award a project for 20yrs or more of service support, usually to a Canadian company if at all possible.

When we publish the numbers, or do a press release, we tend to combine the costs of both projects into one.

Which I do understand on the one hand, as the taxpayer deserves to know what their tax dollars are being spent on. But on the other hand, it tends to be reported to the taxpayer in a way that doesn’t fully explain the picture.


It’s easy for something to sound overly expensive if we say “Canada Chooses X Platform, Will Cost $4.5 Billion!” (The way the media tends to report things, as it captures attention. The media then capitalizes on all of the unnecessary outrage that comes as a result of that.)


But it’s not unreasonable when it’s explained that…

“We are acquiring X number of platforms for roughly $3 billion. They are more 20% fuel efficient than our older ones, can deliver cargo much faster, are more reliable and much easier to maintain. The company awarded this contract isn’t Canadian, but they have to spend $3 billion in Canada as part of the deal…”

“The remaining $1.5 billion is for 15 years of maintenance & support, which we would have to pay roughly the same amount regardless of what platform we chose. Again, if it isn’t awarded to a Canadian company, that company is required to invest an equal amount back into Canada as part of the deal.”


I wasn’t suggesting not accounting for O&M funds. I’m saying that when we present such projects to Canadians, and their local MP’s - we have to perhaps change the way we communicate about certain things.

I feel like if we do that (my example above may not have been the greatest) we wouldn’t have to push so hard on certain projects.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,907
Points
1,010
😳 I feel like nuclear depth charges are a horrible idea for oh so many reasons?
The Sea King was wired for them. I am not sure how in the world the helicopter could have possibly gotten out of the blast radius in time…
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,369
Points
1,110
The Sea King was wired for them. I am not sure how in the world the helicopter could have possibly gotten out of the blast radius in time…
Just like the 104's. Launch,and then immediately do an inverted loop and run as fast as you could :p
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,657
Points
1,140
“The remaining $1.5 billion is for 15 years of maintenance & support, which we would have to pay roughly the same amount regardless of what platform we chose. Again, if it isn’t awarded to a Canadian company, that company is required to invest an equal amount back into Canada as part of the deal.”
While that can be a way to explain some of it -- I still don't think it really needs to be public info.

I am a big fan of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as far as O&M goes. O&M is the day to day running of any entity.
Now unexpected Operations - like a Combat deployment will bleed it like a sieve - and usually Governments add money to the Military budgets to cover what they have asked of their Forces.

The problem with upfront cost loading of O&M for a platform is, it's utter bullshit.
No one knows what the lifespan is of a platform in the CF - until one has done it.
You can have a rough idea - but any company that signs a FFP contract for that you know has highballed it to hell, and has several clauses to bail if you take it to war etc.

Sure you need a rough idea to factor into your O&M at whatever level accounts for it - but to think it is a fixed cost over X years is a fallacy.

I'm not sure how Canada counts O&M for certain fleets - y'all don't have a TACOM type entity AFAIK for ground vehicles - probably because the O&M was rolled up into the Project cost.

But for example what happens in Canada if a LAV 6.0 is destroyed
a) Combat operations
b) training use
c) arson

How does the replacement get costed, and is it different for the different scenarios @Infanteer @McG @dapaterson I know at least one of you will have that answer.
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
182
Points
580
The smart strategy would be to push hard for nuclear power generation using small modular reactors as the only low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels which has the potential to both meet our future electricity needs and achieve our commitments to being carbon neutral. Once the greens and the woke are on board with the concept of nuclear electricity generation it's a much shorter leap to get acceptance of nuclear power for propulsion in place of that dirty, evil diesel.
Speaking of which the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is planning to do that as well as New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Despite this more green alternative people are still afraid of Nuclear Power Plants because of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

Cheers
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,916
Points
1,360
…because most people don’t know the difference between a deuterium-moderated heavy water reactor and a graphite-moderated boiling light water reactor. But I’m sure a few hours on the Internet makes them an equivalent of a nuclear physicist.

Heck, most people these days couldn’t change the tire on their car, even though they’ve informed themselves how it’s done from the Internet…
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
74
Points
380
Truth be told I’ve been in and out of hospital all week, and by Monday I am looking at the potential loss of approximately 65% of my leg. I’ll know by Friday - I will either be totally fine, or finally have a good excuse to skip leg day for a while.

I distinctly remember writing a post about an article, and I am now almost convinced it must have been a dream. Because I can’t even Google the situation the article was about.

I may go into reading mode soon also. I feel like you only have energy for about 20 minutes at a time and it’s back to resting.
My thoughts are with you, my friend. Best of luck!
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,742
Points
1,160
How does the replacement get costed, and is it different for the different scenarios
It definitely varies depending on what is being bought, and if it is replacing something that did basically the same job. We have a tendency to magic-away the detailed analysis of O&M for systems that replace similar older systems ... and this applies to dollar costs and PYs. So, for example, an APC with an RWS replaces an APC with a pintle mount, but our estimates don't consider the extra EO Tech and dollar costs that RWS will impose on the system.

I would like to imagine that the navy and air force are better at this, but I don't really know.
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
182
Points
580
I used to work on the AVGP (Grizzly, Bison, Husky) Project in the early 2000s. This project was looking at the modernization of this fleets which brought the new variants of the BISON ambs and so forth. When I worked on the project the Army was well aware of the cost and made decisions that directly impacted it. The Project Management Teams works to deliver the Army's stated requirements

There is a detailed analysis of the logistical impact of each potential variant upon the user, which in our case was the Canadian Army. Since I was working in the Integrated Logistics Systems side there were plans and schedules. Here were just a few of them :

  • training plans for vehicle, weapons, material, EO techs to work on the new components. There was an training impact analysis done by the RCEME school
  • requirement for specialized tools and training for its use
  • revised maintenance schedules - directly confirms requirement for additional trained manpower
  • training plans for driving and operating variant. These were given to the Armour Branch for analysis and incorporated into then operator courses
  • spare parts scaling at all levels. How much more space is required in the workshop and on the truck
  • comprehensive technical drawings and development of technical publications

There is a costing for operating the vehicle but it dependent on various assumptions based on usage and so forth.

Many of the issues with maintenance within the Army be attributed to the following: lack of trained technicians, lack of proper driver maintenance and reporting of faults, and related to lack of trained technicians - tasking of manpower to perform other tasks.

You have to report O&M as part of the project cost because many our weapons platforms uses sophisicated weapons systems that must be maintained by the contractor. We just don't have the expertise or can't retain the skilled technicians. This is the same for most Western countries around the world. The CAF needs to know this for budgetary planning purposes. The CAF is expensive to operate because the Navy, Army and Air Force wants the latest technology. In general : high tech = high operational / logistical cost.

I am that Air Force and Navy project teams are like this since we are gpverned by the same regulations.

Cheers
 
Top