Looks like we are going sole source with Boeing and the P-8A Poseidon to replace the Aurora fleet. Makes sense, the P-8 is a 737 and in service with a lot of our allies around the world. No sense getting this all muddied up with Bombardier and others trying to adapt an existing frame for a new mission.
Good, no reason to delay just to please Bombardier and give them a chance of coming up with an offer that may not even work.
Too bad we couldn't put the General Dynamics Mission Systems into the P-8. That's the only real downside here I think, as it sounds like it's better than what the P-8 will come with.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to BlackArcher101 For This Useful Post:
Lets be honest this is typical Bombardier. They didn't even really have a plane, just a concept. opening this up would have probably meant a 20 year replacement cycle. The P-8 works, it works with our allies, its heavily adopted.
This is as sole sourced as it comes. I'll give the DM his flowers on this.
Besides Bombardier can't even built a LRT car that has doors that work, and every project is over cost and over time and a money pit.
Besides they got enough money out of our military with the major Iltis screw job.
Now the problem is, with the shortages of personal, do we have people to fly operate and maintain them?
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Yeah buying the P8 is fine, it's really the only option available. I do wish Airbus was a more serious contender in that market, but they're not. And Bombardier's complaint was a joke since all they could come to the table with was a vague idea.
I hate Boeing but this was the right move
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
Three days worth of ammunition in our stock pile. Our armed forces is become non mission capable. Its more a constabulary then a military now.
I mean I was in during the bad old days of the late 80's when you could push a screwdriver through the rusted armor on a APC, and you were issued two 30 round mags of blanks for a 5 day exercise and if you ran out, you had to yell bang loudly (You think I'm joking, but I'm not).
I talked a bunch of years ago here about the CAF reaching a point of rust out, where it would be impossible to save without a massive major re-investment.
Even with the F-35's they won't be mission available for another decade, so I doubt that we'll have a capable airforce to fly and support them with the way things are going with recruiting.
We're about 16000 personal behind on recruiting, and the numbers I saw show we're shrinking year to year. Lets face it nobody is going to sign up to a military that's not only not mission capable, but a government, and yeah the Cons F'd this up to, that doesn't give a #### if they're putting peoples lives in jeopardy if we need them. The new naval ships are at least a decade away and there are major problems with that program.
This is a patient that's on serious life support, and the money isn't ever going to be there to bring us back up to even a half way capable state. We have too many incompetent generals, a procurement program that's completely insane and a steady string of incompetent, dishonest and at times incredibly stupid Minister's of Defense.
Canada used to pride itself on peacekeeping, we're not capable and are not doing that. We are a bad NATO and NORAD partner.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Yeah buying the P8 is fine, it's really the only option available. I do wish Airbus was a more serious contender in that market, but they're not. And Bombardier's complaint was a joke since all they could come to the table with was a vague idea.
I hate Boeing but this was the right move
Yeah a good reconnaissance aircraft is fine and dandy but it's only as good as the military that's backing it up, maybe we can outfit the P-8's with a 1000 armed drones
National Defence has brought in a new and unprecedented shroud of secrecy around a controversial warship project now estimated to cost taxpayers more than $80 billion.
After withholding documents for almost three years, the Department of National Defence has released nearly 1,700 pages of records that were supposed to outline specific costs and work done so far on the Canadian Surface Combatant program.
Quote:
But all the details of what taxpayers have so far spent and what type of work has been done by Irving Shipbuilding for that money have been censored from the records.
“I pretty much got nearly 1,700 blank pages,” Ken Rubin said of the access to information request he filed to National Defence in April 2021 about the warship program. “I have never seen this level of secrecy or lack of accountability over a project that is costing so much.”
Rubin, an investigative researcher who has used the access law to obtain federal documents for decades, said there was not a single cost figure contained in any of the 1,700 pages. One page noted that Irving was required to perform 19 specific tasks, but all details were censored. Others pages listed numerous amendments made to the CSC program, but all details were blacked out. Information about the annual profit Irving has made so far on the CSC project is censored.
Somebody will have to explain to me how what is basically a frigate that we're building 15 of will come with a per ship cost of 5.6 billion +.
The british managed to build 2 of the most advanced conventionally fueled aircraft carriers for a total of 7.6 billion pounds.
I know that Irving is getting rich and getting the government to pay for things that they aren't suppossed to, but this is blindingly mismanaged and now the govt is hiding it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Maybe it's a do over of the Arrow project. We will end up with Seaquest DSV, scuttle it after a week, and send the only copy of the construction plans to the CIA.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
I will never understand why we won't just work with the Brits and what they're building, and go 'hey, add another dozen to that order for us'
I had exactly the same thought the other day as you, CaptainCrunch. For what we're spending we should end up with a few carriers. Yet we won't even be close. Embarrassing
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
I think the issues with the British Type 26 as is are:
1) It's specialized into sub-warfare as it can work with the Type 45 destroyers. Canada wants a general purpose destroyer (albeit under-armed) with powerful radars capable of long range anti-air warfare.
2) The British shipbuilding industry isn't what it used to be; the Type 26 are already delayed and looking at 8-9 years from being laid down to commissioned and the shipyard can't work on more than two at a time. They probably can't build many (if any) ships for Canada within the timeframe that they are needed.
Last edited by accord1999; 01-25-2024 at 02:14 AM.
I will never understand why we won't just work with the Brits and what they're building, and go 'hey, add another dozen to that order for us'
I had exactly the same thought the other day as you, CaptainCrunch. For what we're spending we should end up with a few carriers. Yet we won't even be close. Embarrassing
Can you really trust the Brits.
Didn't they dump leaky subs on us
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
The Royal Canadian Navy is trying to fix a series of problems on its new Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships including anchors that aren’t effective, a refueling system that’s too heavy to use, and areas on the vessels that are leaking.
In addition, the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) can’t perform emergency towing as was required in the original contract and some cranes on the vessels are inoperable, National Defence confirmed to this newspaper.
Article content
Article content
Structural issues are also hindering the operation of Cyclone helicopters from the ships and the supplier of satellite communications systems on the vessels no longer has the security clearance to provide the navy with parts.
The problems are on top of previous issues with mechanical breakdowns and safety concerns about drinking water on the ships because of lead.
Quote:
Taxpayers are spending almost $5 billion on the six ships for the Royal Canadian Navy. The vessels are being constructed by Irving Shipbuilding and a number have already been delivered.
The ships only come with a one-year warranty, National Defence confirmed. That means taxpayers will be on the hook to repair a number of the deficiencies.
Quote:
Irving Shipbuilding noted in a statement to this newspaper that, “through the process of designing, constructing, commissioning, and operating new ships, stakeholders work together to identify and resolve a range of issues. This is a normal but essential element of shipbuilding.”
National Defence provided this newspaper with a list of issues but noted that not all of the problems on the AOPS were outlined.
Among those listed are issues with internal and external drainage systems on the ships not working properly, resulting in flooding of interior compartments, according to the department. “The flooding of interior compartments could lead to mould build-up, equipment damage and electrical concerns,” it added. Work is underway to fix the problems.
Then there are issues with the design of the anchors on AOPS. Those allow for the vessels to be anchored in sheltered conditions.
But the navy wants an anchor to work in open ocean as well as in situations where the ships are close to shore. “To date, (HMCS Harry DeWolf) and (HMCS Margaret Brooke) experienced difficulties holding position while at anchor in conditions at or above the design specifications,” National Defence noted. More tests on the anchors will be conducted in the spring.
Article content
National Defence also pointed out that trials on whether Cyclone helicopters could operate from the ships “identified a significant number of deficiencies and modifications that will require consideration to achieve full operational capability.”
Such modifications will be brought in over the next few years but the department did not provide a date when the ships will be fully capable of using the helicopters.
National Defence also noted the cranes on the ships have “experienced defects and deficiencies since delivery.”
Quote:
The AOPS are also outfitted with equipment to allow for refueling at sea. But the equipment is too heavy for the crew to use without some kind of mechanical assistance. “Work is ongoing to establish safe standard operating procedure to erect the (refueling) post,” National Defence confirmed.
Article content
Other problems, such as contaminated fuel, and issues with systems to launch lifeboats, are also being examined or fixed.
The AOPS have already faced a series of ongoing problems.
This newspaper reported in 2022 that the first AOPS, HMCS Harry DeWolf, had been taken out of service for several months because of ongoing mechanical problems, including issues with diesel generators. Concerns have also been raised about the safety of drinking water on the vessels.
An investigation revealed that some fittings and valves in the potable water system were manufactured from alloys that exceeded the allowable amount of lead, National Defence confirmed. Irving Shipbuilding installed the fittings and valves on four of the AOPS.
In addition, HMCS Max Bernays was accepted from Irving even though a system that allows the vessel to manoeuvre wasn’t functioning properly. There were also problems with the fire suppression system on HMCS Harry DeWolf.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
How do you screw up so many elements of the design so badly? It's not even fancy new integrated technology. These issues scream Irving cutting every cost cutting corner they possibly could. Can we please get an audit on this?
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
The Following User Says Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
