• 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

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,622
Points
1,140
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.
That is what the contractor wants you to think...
Trust me I am a Defense Contractor and here to help ;)
(but seriously I have been on this side of the aisle since 2009 -and it doesn't do the Services any favors)
I can pretty much guarantee over half of the Contractors team are prior service folks - making more now - and the contractor making even more.
This is the same model used in the US - and basically everyone I run into on a base working for one of the OEM's is prior service - Senior Officers/GOFO for sales and BD - and NCO tech trades for the actual work.

Part of this is due to Service related manning caps (PY's) and the fact that no Western Army has an acceptable number of support personnel to do the work.
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
Part of the problem with those FFP, or Cost Plus Support Contracts is they generally stick you into the Manufacturers upgrade schedule - as you CANNOT do certain things to the platform without approval - so you can add XYZ part to the system - even if it is a better fit for your needs.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,558
Points
1,140
An interesting read -

Why Is Canada Missing From the Indo-Pacific?​

It’s time to bring Canada more fully and formally into the joint Indo-Pacific security fold.


"Due to its deeply incised geography and over 40,000 islands of varying sizes, the actual length of Canada’s Pacific coast is over 25,000 km, compared to Australia’s Pacific coastline of about 33,000 km."

"Canada is .... overwhelmingly dependent on Pacific-based maritime trade, freedom of navigation, and maintenance of the rules-based order of ocean governance, security, and safety of shipping."

"The incursion of a four-ship Chinese task force into the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska in late August should send a clear signal to Canada also" - I didn't read/hear about this in any Canadian news outlet, did anyone on here? - I found it only in US news sources, here it is out of Alaska - note the timing, very close to when HdW would be crossing through the area. - Coast Guard encountered Chinese warships in the Aleutians in August

"Canada: Punching Below Its Weight?"

"
a population of nearly 40 million, compared to Australia’s circa 25 million; and a GDP of over US$1.7 trillion, compared to Australia’s US$1.4 trillion." -
hmmm, to be only 300m$ USD ahead of the Ozzie's and having 13ish million more people is not a good thing

"For 2020 the total Canadian defense budget was US$22.8 billion, only 1.4 percent of GDP, while for 2021-2022 Australia’s consolidated defense budget is AU$44.6 billion (around US$32.4 billion), $10 billion more than Canada in real terms and just over 2 percent of GDP."

"perhaps the most startling difference is that Australia is extremely active in forming and participating in, and indeed driving, defense and security alliances, partnerships, and cooperative arrangements in the Indo-Pacific region."

"despite being a Pacific nation.....Canada is notably “missing in action” in terms of international development aid, with only $11.86 million spent in the Pacific Islands in 2019 compared to Australia’s $865 million, New Zealand’s $253 million, and China’s $169 million that year." - Don't forget that of the 11.86$m, just over 2$m of it was spent in Communist China

"Canada does participate, with relatively small numbers of personnel (tens to hundreds), in Pacific-based multilateral exercises......However, Canada does not undertake these activities under any formal treaty or alliance agreements. Canada’s participation is operational and largely ad-hoc, based on “customary practice” and technical engagement."

"For various reasons such calls have not gained traction. This is due in part to the concentration of Canada’s population, industry, and government in the Atlantic-focused east, and a general lack of recognition among Canadians of their status, opportunities, and vulnerabilities as a Pacific nation. The generally low priority placed on defense investment by successive Canadian governments and an over-reliance on the U.S. umbrella have not helped,"
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
182
Points
580
That is what the contractor wants you to think...
Trust me I am a Defense Contractor and here to help ;)
(but seriously I have been on this side of the aisle since 2009 -and it doesn't do the Services any favors)
I can pretty much guarantee over half of the Contractors team are prior service folks - making more now - and the contractor making even more.
This is the same model used in the US - and basically everyone I run into on a base working for one of the OEM's is prior service - Senior Officers/GOFO for sales and BD - and NCO tech trades for the actual work.

Part of this is due to Service related manning caps (PY's) and the fact that no Western Army has an acceptable number of support personnel to do the work.

Part of the problem with those FFP, or Cost Plus Support Contracts is they generally stick you into the Manufacturers upgrade schedule - as you CANNOT do certain things to the platform without approval - so you can add XYZ part to the system - even if it is a better fit for your needs.
Cheers
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
100
Points
530
A good article from the Naval Association of Canada--A Canadian Patrol Submarine: What are the Options? The author of the article lists the following as the contenders:
  • Blekinge class
  • Taigei class
  • Type 216
  • Shortfin Barracuda
  • S-80 Plus class
  • Dosan Ahn Changho class
The author of the article, however, does not list the Type 212CD as a contender. Yes, it might be the smallest of these seven classes. But it might also be the only class of these seven classes to serve in a minimum of two NATO navies.

The author of the article does say that “given the long association between Canada and the Netherlands, and the mutual commonality in requirements, the submarine design the Dutch select for the replacement of their four Walrus-class submarines should be of particular interest to Canada.”

The Dutch will choose from the Blekinge class, Shortfin Barracuda, or Type 212CD. They rejected the S-80 Plus.
 

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
294
Points
930
"a population of nearly 40 million, compared to Australia’s circa 25 million; and a GDP of over US$1.7 trillion, compared to Australia’s US$1.4 trillion." - hmmm, to be only 300m$ USD ahead of the Ozzie's and having 13ish million more people is not a good thing

Give Canadian realtors a break, there's only so many houses to sell.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
49
Points
380
The author of the article, however, does not list the Type 212CD as a contender. Yes, it might be the smallest of these seven classes. But it might also be the only class of these seven classes to serve in a minimum of two NATO navies.
Thanks for the input.
As long as the germans are there, the name doesn't matter so much. Name it 216 (new, unproven design) name it 212CD variant for Canada (departing from an on-going project). Let's the germans make their best offer according to (yet to be set) Canadian requirements. ;-)

This is not the case as with the french Barracuda vs. Scorpene, clearly two different designs. I believe Type 216 is mostly an upsized Type 212.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
100
Points
530
As long as the germans are there, the name doesn't matter so much. Name it 216 (new, unproven design) name it 212CD variant for Canada (departing from an on-going project). Let's the germans make their best offer according to (yet to be set) Canadian requirements. ;-)

This is not the case as with the french Barracuda vs. Scorpene, clearly two different designs. I believe Type 216 is mostly an upsized Type 212.
The Walrus-class submarine is larger than the Victoria-class submarine. But ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems offered the Dutch the Type 212CD and not the Type 216. Do you not find this at least a bit unusual? I agree, however, that Canada should just release the requirements and let ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems make their offer—Type 216, Type 212CD, or any other design.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
128
Points
710
The Walrus-class submarine is larger than the Victoria-class submarine. But ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems offered the Dutch the Type 212CD and not the Type 216. Do you not find this at least a bit unusual? I agree, however, that Canada should just release the requirements and let ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems make their offer—Type 216, Type 212CD, or any other design.
Reading between the lines of the excellent analysis I find it hard to believe replacement subs will ever be procured in light of Canadian political realities, costs of CSsC and new fighters, and increasing domestic focus for CAF. And, as the article notes, there is that visibility problem. Plus no way they can be built in Canada, no great jobs! jobs! jobs!

Mark
Ottawa
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
182
Points
580
You are correct that the possibility of a submarine replacement for the Victoria Class looks quite sparse indeed. There are fiscal pressure brought on because of the pandemic and funding pressures due to the modernization of the RCAF (fighters, Griffon helicopter replacement, Long range patrol aircraft replacement) and RCN (CSC, submarine, Kingston class replacement).

If DND/CAF can craft a well written letter not just focusing on the enhance capabilities that a submarine can bring but also on the economic aspects as well. True Canada cannot build a submarine (no shipyard, no skilled workforce, lack of industrial base and so forth) but it can build the components necessary for the submarine such as the complex command management systems and so forth. There is also the maintenance required after commissioning, the mid-life upgrades and so forth that could be done in Canada.

Of course what DND/CAF needs is a comprehensive major project spending plan, linked to the defence policy, and equally as important the direct and indirect effect such a spending plan will have on the economy - jobs, jobs, jobs.

Perhaps I'm being too optimistic.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
670
Points
1,060
The Dutch aren't helping us out too much as they drag their decision out for another year

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,372
Points
1,060
Maybe they are, we just spent whacks of money upgrading ours, so perhaps by the time they are almost completed their run, we can add ours onto it. the timing might be better if they start in a few years.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
670
Points
1,060
Maybe they are, we just spent whacks of money upgrading ours, so perhaps by the time they are almost completed their run, we can add ours onto it. the timing might be better if they start in a few years.
Maybe, I doubt we're making a decision quicker than they are anyway.

On the 212CD it's 73m long with a 10m beam so that is already bigger than the Walrus at 67.8m long and a 8.4m beam so the 216 derivative might not be that different spatially, throw in a 10m or 15m plug
 

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
294
Points
930
In other news, a few days ago a walrus climbed aboard a Walrus class submarine.
walrus-marine-sub-560x373.jpeg
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,372
Points
1,060
Problem with putting a "plug" into a sub is they have a very delicate centre of buoyancy and getting that right takes a lot of calculation and design work. Ships are more forgiving and can often benefit by putting a addition to the hull, but subs can be a different story.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,828
Points
1,010
You are correct that the possibility of a submarine replacement for the Victoria Class looks quite sparse indeed. There are fiscal pressure brought on because of the pandemic and funding pressures due to the modernization of the RCAF (fighters, Griffon helicopter replacement, Long range patrol aircraft replacement) and RCN (CSC, submarine, Kingston class replacement).

If DND/CAF can craft a well written letter not just focusing on the enhance capabilities that a submarine can bring but also on the economic aspects as well. True Canada cannot build a submarine (no shipyard, no skilled workforce, lack of industrial base and so forth) but it can build the components necessary for the submarine such as the complex command management systems and so forth. There is also the maintenance required after commissioning, the mid-life upgrades and so forth that could be done in Canada.

Of course what DND/CAF needs is a comprehensive major project spending plan, linked to the defence policy, and equally as important the direct and indirect effect such a spending plan will have on the economy - jobs, jobs, jobs.

Perhaps I'm being too optimistic.
Even Canadian shipyards reject the idea of building a submarine in Canada. A committee hearing a few years ago asked the head of Davie (before they lobbied themselves into the NSS) if Canada should build submarines. He laughed and said, "absolutely not due to the specialist yards that would be required".
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
128
Points
710

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,372
Points
1,060
Even Canadian shipyards reject the idea of building a submarine in Canada. A committee hearing a few years ago asked the head of Davie (before they lobbied themselves into the NSS) if Canada should build submarines. He laughed and said, "absolutely not due to the specialist yards that would be required".
I am actually happy about that response, it clears the decks of the possibility of a "Made in Canada" sub. So they can focus on a design and builder overseas. No doubt so politician will bring it up again later and force everyone to stop and educate them.
 
Top