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

CPF's badly built?

Let me interject a bit on the integration of Canadian ships into US CVBGs.  I sailed with HMCS Calgary in 2000 during the PACMEF in the Persian Gulf.  Let me just say this for the record that we did every bit as much as the Americans did.  Without going into specifics, I know that Calgary took on missions that were very novel for the time and for this the ship was recognized.  It was partly because of our training and partly because of our inebriated spirit that we were recognized by RAdm. Buck for a job well done.  He personally flew down with a briefcase full of CPSMs for the ship's company and he presented them to us in New Zealand prior to Armistice Day.  Long story short, we worked well with the Americans and maintained a good working rapport until we separated and headed for home after the Cole bombing. 

CPFs are truly a multi-role ship and I will put them up against a steamer any day for capability and reliability.  Those things needed to go because they were getting old.  The oldest CPF is now approaching the 15 year mark, and FELEX will hopefully take it the rest of the way.  Canada needed and still needs new ships, but they are just so capital intensive now that the politicians can take their time while the Navy rusts away.  I did my last sail on Algonquin, whose sister ship Huron was just recently decommissioned, those things are now old and should go the way of Huron.  I hope that the current trend of replacing the broken junk holds so that Canada can continue to have a truly world class navy and continue to operate with our elephantine southern neighbour.
 
With the Halifax 18 years old already, I certainly hope they are looking further into the future.  Felex will be good, but I think that the way the navy works now is bad.  We build ships and sit around for 30 years, then expect our shipyards to be sitting and waiting for our next purchase......

What we need is a constant shipbuilding program, and it could work if done correctly.
 
I have seen US TV shows that mentioned that the Canadian ships were the only one allowed to fully integrate with the US navy battle groups.

I believe we have since lost that distinction with the new Spanish Bazan class frigates being intergrated as well into CVBG btw the designation CVBG is no longer used. The new term in vogue is CSG (Carrier Strike Group).

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18207

 
Ex-Dragoon, I believe that you are right.  Though I must reiterate that Canada is one of the few nations, including the UK and Australia, to fully integrate on a regular basis into US-led operations.  The major distinction is that we train with the US more often, therefore we also have more credibility to bring to the table during operations.  This is the true benefit of geography that we enjoy over the other nations I mentioned. 

The only time I have worked with the Spanish was in 2002 during Op Apollo.  The Americans still preferred Canadian ships to work with in the SAGs that were operating in support of Enduring Freedom, simply because our ROE and procedures seemed to mesh-up better with their own.  Europeans had a harder time taking on some of the more hazardous boardings simply because they were not issued with such a robust ROE.  It was for this reason that Canadians took on some of the more difficult opposed boardings and we executed them successfully, as noted by the Maple Leaf.
 
Since much of the discussion in this forum had revolved around what the Canadian Navy has done and how great we already know we are, I thought I would switch gears for a minute.  Procurement for the forces has been an issue now for about thirty years.  It takes the CF more time to work a project through the myriad of bureaucracy in Ottawa every time something new is needed.  Except in the case of the G-Wagon, where a man, tragically had to die in order for the government of the time to pay attention.  The CPFs were in their design phase during the 1970s in the lead-up to the last major American re-armament of the Cold War.  Now DND is finally talking about replacements for these ships, but it really makes me wonder.  Everyone who wears a uniform knows that new kit is needed, but it seems like the politicians and bureaucrats just can't make anything move through that morass out in Ottawa. 

This fact is not lost on senior commanders, and I know that it eats at them daily.  They field questions in open forums like, "Sir, when are we going to retire the Algonquin?"  The answer is, "2012...maybe...sorry, I don't have a firm answer for you on that one."  There are a few wise people here who have spoken out about the need for better planning and timed, cycled replacement similar to the US.  This is very true and it does need to happen.  Before this can happen, there needs to be a political sill within the voters of Canada to give a government a strong enough mandate to rebuild the forces.
 
Gents,

No denying that FSTO has some points about the timings, but the harsh naval reality was that during that same time period the East Coast had NATO commitments.  Full time operational taskings that ate up at least three ships during any four month period, as one was operating, one was ramping up and one was being torn apart after she came home to make other domestically employed units operational.  The OPs tempo on the east coast has been brutal forever.  The west coast only came on line with full time commitments with 911.  I have always considered the BG integration a feather in the west coast's collective cap, not so much because they were first, but because they were available. 

Bottom line, is that the Frigates will last, because they have to.  No issues there.  The reality about Irving, and there is really no difference with any other company either, is that they are there to milk a cash cow (the Feds), and they have a work force that is more interested in their time off and rights on the job than the job itself.  We've seen refit production stop due to petty snits between union members, and between unions as well.  The only time they ever work well together is when one union is on strike.  The end result of that strife is that work takes forever, is done inefficiently, and is supervised even less so.  We get the same level of support from the FMFs at times too.  I really boils down to the commitment of the worker.  More commitment, and understanding of what his work will involve over the life time of the ship, will lead to better ships.  Sadly the survival instincts of the individuals trump the greater good of the Navy as they look to long term job security (the ships come home for refits...) instead of a job well done.

How did that union adage go: "Doing the job right the first time means getting the job done.  Doing the job wrong 15 times gives you job security!"

I also look to this as a national problem on all levels, as any professional that is not capable of doing the job, and moving on to new ways of doing things will necessarily become obsolete.  This applies to every one of our industries, as we become comfortable with our lead, and let it get taken over.  Change isn't always good, but it is often necessary.  In this case, the west coast had an opportunity to leverage many years of east coast (and yes some west coast too) NATO interoperability experience and foster a closer bi-lateral experience, that in turn came back to serve the east and west coasts better when we sailed to the Gulf.  So who really cares who was first and why, but recognize the work done and commit to not letting that hard won experience fade away so that we have have to re-learn the job. 

Cheers
 
Go Navy said:
The west coast only came on line with full time commitments with 911.

The west coast has been online with full time commitments long before 9/11..... They have been sending ships to the gulf since 91, plus numerous other deployments. 

The east coast may appear to have a higher tempo, but they also have more ships. 

If you look back at past op scheds you will see that both coasts are busy, but to sit there and think the west came online after 9/11 is foolish.
 
To get away from the east/west testorone competition and back to the idea of ship building I am going to inject my 2 cents worth here. 

The reality is that it doesn't matter which coast they are built on because Canada lost its expertise in shipbuilding decades ago.  Whether Esquimalt or Halifax dockyard has facilities is immaterial because this will be a commercially produced product and the only way that we could get the best product would be to go out of country to an existing shipbuilding facility.  Building new ships domestically would require a skill set that we currently don't have, not to mention not having the facilities for actual ship building.  When you look at the history of the CPF's, the largest delay in their construction was the acquisition of workers and the building of facilities to accommodate the construction of them.  Even then, there were huge delays due to sub-standard construction and unforeseen engineering challenges that had more to do with lack of experience than incompetence.  The CPF's are, even now, plagued with problems that are due to lack of skill.

Basically, it comes down to what we want.  As much as I don't like to say it, if we want an excellent product than we will have to go outside the country, if we want a domestic product then expect problems.  We no longer, as a country, are capable of providing both.
 
Agreed.....something I have been advicating for a long time is to build offshore. From my experience European shipbuilders want to build ships unlike the ones here.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Agreed.....something I have been advicating for a long time is to build offshore. From my experience European shipbuilders want to build ships unlike the ones here.

I don't get why they can justify buying aircraft in the states and Europe but they can't accept building ships somewhere else.
The C-17s will be built in Long Beach Ca. That is where the assembly line and the expertise is...they've built that up over the years that they have been building them.
Why can't we go to shipyards where they have expertise and order there? If there is unique technology to put on board that is developed here or is capable of being developed here then add it after we get the hull up here.

The other option is build a long term plan to sustain an industry here with plans to keep building after the initial order is completed with the next generation of ships....and market our products overseas. Someone (like Irving) would have to have very deep pockets to get such an industry going me thinks.
 
IN HOC SIGNO said:
I don't get why they can justify buying aircraft in the states and Europe but they can't accept building ships somewhere else.

I was talking to some MARE's that are / were involved in the procurement process for the new JSS for the last 8-12 years, and the answer when asked was always "It's always been a political decision".  It's unfortunate, but that's what we have to deal with.  As the procurement process for a new vessel can span decades (and several governments) it becomes difficult to streamline the process at all.  RUMINT has it that some of the specs for the JSS have already changed since the Conservatives took power, and will most likely change again once we have another election.  Part and parcel of being in the CF, I guess.  :(

T
 
Defense spending is a not insignificant percentage of a country's production.  Canada has a very low percentage relative to other nations, but it's still up in the 1.5 percent range of our entire GNP.  Already a lot of that ends up leaving the country.  That's a huge chunk of money to be flowing out of the country.  Naval purchases tend to be, well, larger ticket items at one shot.  I hope to have as much vested interest as anyone in the quality of ships we obtain, but I think we need to realize that dumping that much cash in one purchase overseas has a lot of spillover effect on the economy and the entire country's cash flow.

Foreign purchases require the transfer of hard currency reserves.  There is very little way around it.  Domestic purchases by the government can be financed with many combinations of hard currency transfers, money supply manipulations, and tax breaks/guarantees lowering the overall impact on the economy.

It's easy to say that the government is selling out for political reasons.  Especially when there are announcements of multi-billion-dollar budget surpluses.  But domestic budget surplusses do not equal hard currency that can be transferred to a foreign country at the push of a button.  The money supply just doesn't work that way.

In short, I would much rather have the JSS project continue as a project able to be financed if it is domestically performed than a project that remains vapourware... languishing because the someone insists on foreign construction to get the "best".

The government has a lot more to consider than simply how much cash it has in its back pocket when they make these decisions.  Let's cut them just a little slack.
 
Torlyn said:
RUMINT has it that some of the specs for the JSS have already changed since the Conservatives took power, and will most likely change again once we have another election.  Part and parcel of being in the CF, I guess.  :(

My understanding is that some of the changes are a direct result of the experiences being gained in the north water operations, and also drawing some lessons learned from the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. [a shore based SSM missile strike on loaded JSS would be catastrophic]. 
 
whiskey601 said:
My understanding is that some of the changes are a direct result of the experiences being gained in the north water operations, and also drawing some lessons learned from the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. [a shore based SSM missile strike on loaded JSS would be catastrophic]. 

Thats why we make sure decent and capable escorts are available.
 
Yes of course, but given the manner in which the Israeli escort was beaten it seems a well trained crew and their military spec'd fire and damage control saved the vessel. We only have so many escorts ...

The JSS is designed to operate at some points in a cleansed littoral environment, but loaded with fuel, supplies, vehicles and ammunition, it would be an enticing target for a brazen attack and it requires an enhanced damage control system far beyond commericial standards [obvioulsy] and it will have DC systems far superior to those of the current AOR's. 

Cheers


 
I think part of the IDFs problem was they underestimated Hezbollah and the sophistication they might have been able to obtain. I dare say they will never make that mistake again.
 
Reven said:
Defense spending is a not insignificant percentage of a country's production.  Canada has a very low percentage relative to other nations, but it's still up in the 1.5 percent range of our entire GNP.  Already a lot of that ends up leaving the country.  That's a huge chunk of money to be flowing out of the country.  Naval purchases tend to be, well, larger ticket items at one shot.  I hope to have as much vested interest as anyone in the quality of ships we obtain, but I think we need to realize that dumping that much cash in one purchase overseas has a lot of spillover effect on the economy and the entire country's cash flow.

Foreign purchases require the transfer of hard currency reserves.  There is very little way around it.  Domestic purchases by the government can be financed with many combinations of hard currency transfers, money supply manipulations, and tax breaks/guarantees lowering the overall impact on the economy.

It's easy to say that the government is selling out for political reasons.  Especially when there are announcements of multi-billion-dollar budget surpluses.  But domestic budget surplusses do not equal hard currency that can be transferred to a foreign country at the push of a button.  The money supply just doesn't work that way.

In short, I would much rather have the JSS project continue as a project able to be financed if it is domestically performed than a project that remains vapourware... languishing because the someone insists on foreign construction to get the "best".

The government has a lot more to consider than simply how much cash it has in its back pocket when they make these decisions.  Let's cut them just a little slack.

I agree with what you are saying and slack has been cut for years IMHO. the thing is they need to have a long term plan to set up an industry here so that we don't have to keep re-inventing the wheel every time we go to build ships. they knew they needed replacements for the 280s and the AORs when the last project was finished...that's when we should have started building the next generation of these vessals and now with the BHS on the horizon there would have been even more business.
 
IN HOC SIGNO said:
I agree with what you are saying and slack has been cut for years IMHO. the thing is they need to have a long term plan to set up an industry here so that we don't have to keep re-inventing the wheel every time we go to build ships. they knew they needed replacements for the 280s and the AORs when the last project was finished...that's when we should have started building the next generation of these vessals and now with the BHS on the horizon there would have been even more business.

That I can definitely agree with.  I read a piece done by Simon Fraser University that essentially advocated the same thing.  I found the article quite persuasive, but I don't yet know enough about the domestic shipbuilding industry to know if keeping it perpetually afloat (ahem) with military construction is really possible.  Whether it is or not, I would love to at lease see some sort of consistant plan in place for keeping the fleet modernized.
 
Until our government realizes you cannot built a fleet from scratch every 30 years we will continue on this trend.
 
Back
Top