The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans

[Lumber]

So break that down into requirements.  What must AAD do?  How many times must it do it? Under what conditions?  Within what constraints?

Your list of products will not make it to PWGSC.  You must describe performance.

Challenge Accepted.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So break that down into requirements.  What must AAD do?  How many times must it do it? Under what conditions?  Within what constraints?

Your list of products will not make it to PWGSC.  You must describe performance.

Is there an existing NATO standard for any of those requirements?

 

[Lumber]

Is there an existing NATO standard for any of those requirements?

It's frustrating but I get what MCG is saying. You can't just go to the government and say "The SM-6 is the best AAD weapon available. The Astair 30 is close, but buying the SM-6 from the US would make logisitics easier."

They would want to know first what our definition of AAD is, and specifically what we want it do be able to do. I.e. Engage this many missiles simultaneous, at this range, going this speed, with the aspect, with this percentage likelihood of sucess, etc. It doesn't matter that there really aren't a lot of options out there, they'd need the list of requirements, then release and SOR and see who can fill it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

NATO could do all it's members a favour by agreeing on minimum standards for various definitions and equipment requirements perhaps by classes

example:
Close in naval AD weapon Class 1
- Must be able to engage 3 incoming targets in quick succession using it's own guidance out to 4nm.

so when writing a spec you can reference the existing standard, rather than creating a new one everytime.


 

 

[Lumber]

NATO could do all it's members a favour by agreeing on minimum standards for various definitions and equipment requirements perhaps by classes

I.e.

Destroyer Requirements:
AAW: Class 1A
ASuW: Class 2
ASW: Class 1
CnC: Class 2L
etc.

I guess the next part would be proving to PWGSC as to WHY we need those classes.

 

[Baz]

It's frustrating but I get what MCG is saying. You can't just go to the government and say "The SM-6 is the best AAD weapon available. The Astair 30 is close, but buying the SM-6 from the US would make logisitics easier."

They would want to know first what our definition of AAD is, and specifically what we want it do be able to do. I.e. Engage this many missiles simultaneous, at this range, going this speed, with the aspect, with this percentage likelihood of sucess, etc. It doesn't matter that there really aren't a lot of options out there, they'd need the list of requirements, then release and SOR and see who can fill it.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple either.

If it's something the government wants and understands, it can be as simple as a couple of pages.  The C-17 SOR was pretty simple, from what I understand.

If they don't understand it that it can get complex.  The MHP SOR is complex, but still doesn't convey how we intend to use it to support government defence roles (well, it does, but it's so complex it goes back to them not understanding it).

It boils down to what ERC says, procurement should be and is driven by government, to get results they find acceptable.  It doesn't matter what we want or how we think we should get it.  Our job is solely to advise what we think is required to meet the stated defence goals, and the risk associated with employment beyond our capabilities.

The government has also plenty of experience of the military talking out of both sides of it's mouth, empire building, presenting only those facts we think gets us what we want, etc, etc.  Why would they trust us blindly?

Bottom line, there are a lot of people not convinced we need these "toys," and telling them they don't understand isn't going to convince them.  If they are right and buy them anyway, we waste a of of money.  If they are wrong and we don't have them, we have other problems.

 

[McG]

NATO could do all it's members a favour by agreeing on minimum standards for various definitions and equipment requirements ...

There are STANAGs that do this.  However, when it comes time to buy, sometimes they are ignored for convenience (either by the government or by the CAF) or necessity.  If the military believes in the STANAG, it still has to convince government of the requirement.

 

[Eaglelord17]

One thing they also didn't pick up on (fortunately for the RCN) is how we barely have the crews for the 5-7ish (haven't looked up the total numbers, and that doesn't differentiate between those ships that have completed refit and trials) ships that can sail at the moment. It is nice to say we should have 'x' amount of ships of 'x' type, but as our Navy has shown we aren't maintaining the numbers required to sail what few ships we have, we are losing it slowly.

 

[jollyjacktar]

That was exactly a counter point put out by my LCdr in a chat at the office yesterday with respect to things such as the "Mistrals" etc.  We can't even do with what we have to man already, never mind getting new platforms above and beyond what we're already expecting (new AOPS/AOR) etc.

 

[PuckChaser]

Is the manning issue one out of cuts, but can be mitigated by having new ships that can be run with smaller crews due to technology efficiencies?

 

[Ostrozac]

Agreed that the J1 stuff (manning, retention, career paths, pay, allowances) is the elephant in the room that no on in the Navy really wants to talk about, probably because so many of the solutions are held outside the Navy at CMP and Treasury Board. What will the effect on the Navy be of Arctic patrols? If they do go ahead with Coast Guard style crew swaps for the 430 class, as has been hinted at by the CMS, that means in effect two crews per ship, exacerbating manning needs. And the RCN having only the two main bases means a potentially huge vulnerable point should a PLD review ever be especially harsh on Halifax or Esquimalt. The Army can always move some units out of Edmonton if they ever have to in the future -- same thing with the Air Force and Cold Lake -- but moving one of the fleets is pretty much impossible.

Frankly, does the Navy even understand as an institution why it currently has a manning problem? If it doesn't know what the problem is, then finding a solution is going to be difficult.

 

[Stoker]

Agreed that the J1 stuff (manning, retention, career paths, pay, allowances) is the elephant in the room that no on in the Navy really wants to talk about, probably because so many of the solutions are held outside the Navy at CMP and Treasury Board. What will the effect on the Navy be of Arctic patrols? If they do go ahead with Coast Guard style crew swaps for the 430 class, as has been hinted at by the CMS, that means in effect two crews per ship, exacerbating manning needs. And the RCN having only the two main bases means a potentially huge vulnerable point should a PLD review ever be especially harsh on Halifax or Esquimalt. The Army can always move some units out of Edmonton if they ever have to in the future -- same thing with the Air Force and Cold Lake -- but moving one of the fleets is pretty much impossible.

Frankly, does the Navy even understand as an institution why it currently has a manning problem? If it doesn't know what the problem is, then finding a solution is going to be difficult.

MCDV's trialed the crew swap in the Arctic a few years ago to see if it would work for AOPS, so I would imagine it is being looked into a possible option. Sending a crew to the Arctic for months on end would be detrimental to manning. Should there be allowance for Arctic operations?

 

[McG]

... the RCN having only the two main bases means a potentially huge vulnerable point should a PLD review ever be especially harsh on Halifax or Esquimalt. The Army can always move some units out of Edmonton if they ever have to in the future -- same thing with the Air Force and Cold Lake -- but moving one of the fleets is pretty much impossible.

Let's not be silly.  Nobody is going to have the option of moving a unit because they think the PLD climate is more favorable to members' pockets at another base.

 

[Ostrozac]

Let's not be silly.  Nobody is going to have the option of moving a unit because they think the PLD climate is more favorable to members' pockets at another base.

I respectfully disagree. I have seen some proposals from (what was then) LFWA HQ that talk about exactly that, as a proposed long-term solution should Edmonton continue to be an endless pit of attrition. "Rebalancing the brigade's units" I think was the term used. Strictly in the good idea fairy world right now, but if the troops continue to vote with their feet, who knows?

 

[PuckChaser]

MCDV's trialed the crew swap in the Arctic a few years ago to see if it would work for AOPS, so I would imagine it is being looked into a possible option. Sending a crew to the Arctic for months on end would be detrimental to manning. Should there be allowance for Arctic operations?

Pretty sure it's called sea pay. Army isn't looking for extra for Op NANOOK.

 

[McG]

I respectfully disagree. I have seen some proposals from (what was then) LFWA HQ that talk about exactly that, as a proposed long-term solution should Edmonton continue to be an endless pit of attrition. "Rebalancing the brigade's units" I think was the term used. Strictly in the good idea fairy world right now, but if the troops continue to vote with their feet, who knows?

It would be great if we could shut down a base and move for operational reasons.  But, it is political reasons that decide when bases close or stay.  Members don't like the PLD rate?  That will never fly as a case to close a base.  Maybe if the government does not like the cost of PLD it will move pers to lower rate areas, but that is for the federal budget not the members.

 

[MilEME09]

In regards to the manning issue in the navy. Is it just a case of not enough intake as compared to attrition? or is it deeper then that?

 

[FSTO]

In regards to the manning issue in the navy. Is it just a case of not enough intake as compared to attrition? or is it deeper then that?

I don't know about the rest of the nation, but here in Saskatchewan, CFRG is broken. We have lots of interest but the recruiting bottleneck has turned off a majority of the candidates.
For a generation used to instant responses, the archaic way we get people into the pipeline is a self-fufilling prophecy on why our numbers are going down.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile what has happened to the crews of the Protecteur-class and the destroyers--and the frigates that are refitting?  Any surplus numbers there?  RCN’s REGULUS program surely not a full solution:

It’s said that a ship is only as strong as its crew: skills, experience and proficiency are critical for all ranks and sea trades and for the operational excellence of a navy as a whole. When the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) was anticipating limited at-sea experience for some sailors as the Halifax-class Modernization (HCM) program was kicking into gear, they looked to the REGULUS program.

“REGULUS is about getting young men and women of the RCN to sea during a period of reduced sailing opportunities,” said Lieutenant (Navy) Arthur Halpenny, REGULUS Personnel Coordinator. Through personnel exchanges with friendly navies around the world, Canadian sailors hone their skills and gain valuable international experience while working on board foreign vessels, strengthening the RCN’s core competencies.

Since the REGULUS’ inception in 2010, more than 150 RCN personnel have been sent abroad to countries such as the United States, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Chile. “The exchanges are mutually beneficial. If possible, we’ll place our sailors in billets that the partner navy may have trouble filling. Partner navies, in turn, often seek RCN training once they witness the talent and professionalism of our sailors.”..
http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=regulus-program-keeps-sailors-skills-sharp/i3yaqqud

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MilEME09]

I don't know about the rest of the nation, but here in Saskatchewan, CFRG is broken. We have lots of interest but the recruiting bottleneck has turned off a majority of the candidates.
For a generation used to instant responses, the archaic way we get people into the pipeline is a self-fufilling prophecy on why our numbers are going down.

CFRG is broken nation wide, last time i talked with people in the know we were looking at averages of over 10 months to get people in the door. If i told you I had will hire you in 10 months you would go somewhere else for work. In the case of officers they will pick a university before RMC can even get back to them. Thats a different debate though for a different thread.