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

AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

I'd have concerns if Davie's business model would be workable abroad considering the unique circumstances that Asterix has enjoyed. The RCN's fairly unique total lapse in capability made it that something had to be done, that's where a domestic proposal for an expensive leasing arrangement came to be. I'm not sure that a foreign partner would be willing to take on Asterix after we are done with her, considering the mileage put on a converted hull and the high figures charged for the sometimes limited agreements.
 
Canada really need a proper Royal Canadian Fleet Auxiliary, a more sustainable model than Fleet Services.

We already have that, It's called Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessels' service. And they used to operate ships that were bigger than the tugs and harbour ferries. They used to operate the research and hydrographic vessels (Quest, Endeavour, Sackville, etc.). The structure is still there and expanding it to take in the support ships would be fairly easy.

P.S.: If Canada had bought Asterix right up front and gone with that model for crewing, we probably would have broken even by now, or even be in positive cash flow.
 
And TB/GoC apathy will ensure that the RCN is never an employer of choice...

And it is apparently not just a Canadian problem.


Kids committing suicide.

Too many deployments, too much training, too much broken kit, too little family time.

This is particularly an Armor article, referencing the effort involved in trying to feed 4 deployments plus training with 11 Armored BCTs. And the Abrams and Bradleys are old.
 
Something to do with the civvy's free time being the civvy's free time perhaps?
I suspect that simple things like compensation for irregular/erratic schedules, and the ability to "opt out" of tasking/sails would help for RCN sailors.

The CAF loves to ask for more, while continuing to provide less. CFHD is the perfect example of this..
 
Is there a proposed model for “opting out”?

I mean during the Cold War, I remember lads on the steamers in Esquimalt saying the B.C. Ferry to the mainland was the only boat they would be boarding if there was a shooting war. That’s one form of “opt out”.

Perhaps a system of “opting in” is better? I don’t know.
 
We already have that, It's called Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessels' service. And they used to operate ships that were bigger than the tugs and harbour ferries. They used to operate the research and hydrographic vessels (Quest, Endeavour, Sackville, etc.). The structure is still there and expanding it to take in the support ships would be fairly easy.

P.S.: If Canada had bought Asterix right up front and gone with that model for crewing, we probably would have broken even by now, or even be in positive cash flow.
I knew we had those guys, I took care of the old Black Duck who came to our Museum in their colours and worked with them a number of times during my CCG career. But I didn't realize they had operated the larger vessels. The nice thing about expanding that service is you might catch some of the people who are leaving and retain some of the their skills, training and corporate knowledge.
 
I can very well see Asterix being sent on its way when JSS1 becomes operational. The lease for Asterix is costing the RCN a lot of money and we don't exactly have a lot of money right now.
Why wait for the first JSS? Just threw away the Hawks with zero to backfill......just go to the Americans.

PS I the love reasoning. The Hawks are over 20 years old......so we have to send the pilot trainees to the States to learn on the T-38. How old are the T-38's, asking for a friend?......
 
Why wait for the first JSS? Just threw away the Hawks with zero to backfill......just go to the Americans.

PS I the love reasoning. The Hawks are over 20 years old......so we have to send the pilot trainees to the States to learn on the T-38. How old are the T-38's, asking for a friend?......
The Hawks were never, ever RCAF aircraft. We did not “throw them away”. The contract was over: the contractor removed them from service.

Why is this so hard to understand?
 
The Hawks were never, ever RCAF aircraft. We did not “throw them away”. The contract was over: the contractor removed them from service.

Why is this so hard to understand?
I was using short hand. But as a business person I guaranty you the option to renew or extend was available. The contractor removed from service as they won't get paid for the work. This whole thing is just government messaging so they have some cover. It not like they have another customer beating down their door for them. They will go somewhere if true the contractor owns them. But is not easy transferring that type equipment. Dollars to donuts they go sit somewhere till parted out or scrapped.

PS I thought I read that the Hawk were on consignment (or bailment) to the contractor as at the time of the contract NATO flight school Bombardier could not own a "warplane" or something along those lines. But the planes were under beneficial ownership the GoC. The Havard's were able to be contractor owned.
 
Is there a proposed model for “opting out”?

I mean during the Cold War, I remember lads on the steamers in Esquimalt saying the B.C. Ferry to the mainland was the only boat they would be boarding if there was a shooting war. That’s one form of “opt out”.

Perhaps a system of “opting in” is better? I don’t know.
Out Out/Out In, doesn't particularly matter to me. Giving people some sense of control over their careers/life would go a long way toward alleviating some of the issues the CAF currently faces.

Obviously some people will need to do things they don't want to do, but right now the CAF has no carrots and only sticks. The problem with sticks is that they only work up to a point, and the CAF has reached that point. People are leaving, or going on MELs to avoid the undesirable work, and all the CAF can currently do is beat the next person in line until they leave or break.
 
But as a business person I guaranty you the option to renew or extend was available.

Guarantee? Are you willing to underwrite that statement?

The contractor removed from service as they won't get paid for the work.

Perhaps a re-read of the SACC Manual to review how contracts work with the GoC is in order?

Your statement seems to imply that the contractor would have kept supporting the activity were it not for the government no longer paying for the work. There are other Ts and Cs in the contract other than the Basis of Payment, and specifically the Period of Performance defined in the contract is what determines when the provision of the service has run its course.
 
Guarantee? Are you willing to underwrite that statement?



Perhaps a re-read of the SACC Manual to review how contracts work with the GoC is in order?

Your statement seems to imply that the contractor would have kept supporting the activity were it not for the government no longer paying for the work. There are other Ts and Cs in the contract other than the Basis of Payment, and specifically the Period of Performance defined in the contract is what determines when the provision of the service has run its course.
You and your pesky terms and conditions…
 
Why wait for the first JSS? Just threw away the Hawks with zero to backfill......just go to the Americans.

PS I the love reasoning. The Hawks are over 20 years old......so we have to send the pilot trainees to the States to learn on the T-38. How old are the T-38's, asking for a friend?......
The T38 is being replaced by the T-7.
 
The T38 is being replaced by the T-7.
Yes but it will be years. And the T38 was mentioned. Boeing not having a good time right now and the T-7 is one of the headaches. Fixed price and all.

Plus the problem I read was the ejection seat. They could not engineer it for the new requirement of small woman pilots and still make it work for 90 percentile men. This created a two year delay. And billions in cost.
 
Back
Top