Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Navy_Pete]

FWIW, we use GFM/GFE as terms

GFM: Government Furnished Materials
Usually used for consumables (munitions etc) that are either used up in qualifying or testing, or within the first year of use.

GFE: Government Furnished Equipment
Actual permanent items that stay with the item(s) being provided.

I think we officially use the same, but generally they get lumped together in practice as 'GSM' in conversation.

Our cost estimate for ship cost includes the consumable munitions as well (which makes sense, when you'll have a few hundred million in missiles for each ship loadout), as well as the actual hardware fitted on the ships and integration with the combat suite.

And then we add on the cost for the tech data, training, storage and contingency, plus spares.

They PBO/AG usually do some kind of adjustment to the budget cash phasing against a reference year (usually in the future) so it gets complicated very quickly. It makes sense from an accounting perspective, but makes it an almost impossible PR thing.

I honestly think that's deliberate to artificially limit spending on defence, as we're really the only department with projects on that scale and timeline.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Nobody wants that.

Literally everyone wants to obfuscate costs, so they can be the ones getting international sales…

Well then Canada should push it, as we have no worries there.

 

[KevinB]

I think we officially use the same, but generally they get lumped together in practice as 'GSM' in conversation.

Our cost estimate for ship cost includes the consumable munitions as well (which makes sense, when you'll have a few hundred million in missiles for each ship loadout), as well as the actual hardware fitted on the ships and integration with the combat suite.

The arguments could be made that regardless of platform you’d still need those items, but I understand the logic behind incorporating the initial load out.

And then we add on the cost for the tech data, training, storage and contingency, plus spares.

That’s where I find it hard to fathom the logic.

They PBO/AG usually do some kind of adjustment to the budget cash phasing against a reference year (usually in the future) so it gets complicated very quickly. It makes sense from an accounting perspective, but makes it an almost impossible PR thing.

Annual Operations and Maintenance Budgets would to me be more of an honest way of accounting that.

I honestly think that's deliberate to artificially limit spending on defence, as we're really the only department with projects on that scale and timeline.

That I 110% agree with.

 

[Underway]

FWIW, we use GFM/GFE as terms

GFM: Government Furnished Materials
Usually used for consumables (munitions etc) that are either used up in qualifying or testing, or within the first year of use.

GFE: Government Furnished Equipment
Actual permanent items that stay with the item(s) being provided.

And GFI: Government Furnished Information
Information that is required for the contractor to meet specific design specifications or trials.

All together in the PMO we called it GFX

I think we officially use the same, but generally they get lumped together in practice as 'GSM' in conversation.

GSM is the old term that still gets thrown around, basically means GFX.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Whats fun is someone in PMO designated a lot of common equipiment as GSM without telling us, and AOPs keeps drawing on in-service ships items for their initial provisioning. We had to turn the taps off for some items, but still don't have a list, forecast or schedule.

Can't give supply a new unit without a list of what they need and when. We don't have resources to do regular replenishment so maybe they'll put in HPRs so we can buy something.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nobody wants that.

Literally everyone wants to obfuscate costs, so they can be the ones getting international sales…

True that

But also true that it serves Governments to obfuscate their spending within NATO. Some countries like to make it seem as if they are spending more than they are while other countries prefer to make it seem they are spending less.

By the way, Canada has increased our contribution to Ukraine. We've increased our winter clothing contributions.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601199990419750914

 

[Kirkhill]

I think we officially use the same, but generally they get lumped together in practice as 'GSM' in conversation.

Our cost estimate for ship cost includes the consumable munitions as well (which makes sense, when you'll have a few hundred million in missiles for each ship loadout), as well as the actual hardware fitted on the ships and integration with the combat suite.

And then we add on the cost for the tech data, training, storage and contingency, plus spares.

They PBO/AG usually do some kind of adjustment to the budget cash phasing against a reference year (usually in the future) so it gets complicated very quickly. It makes sense from an accounting perspective, but makes it an almost impossible PR thing.

I honestly think that's deliberate to artificially limit spending on defence, as we're really the only department with projects on that scale and timeline.

But does every ship carry all missiles, or even full magazines, on every deployment? And are weapons only designated to single platforms?

There has to be an accounting mechanism that accounts for 5.56 and 7.62 across services, branches and platforms. Don't the same rules apply to Harpoons launched from frigates and F18s? Or ESSMs from frigates and NASAMS GBAD? Or AIM-120s launched from NASAMS and F-18s?

Are consumables project costs or ops and trg costs?

 

[dapaterson]

Initial outfitting and sparing is a project cost.

 

[Kirkhill]

Initial outfitting and sparing is a project cost.

How many years of spares? Or is it just the first set of spares? And is that gaskets and bearings that will be changed within the first year or is that gears that are purchased on the off chance they may break but may have service lives of 10 years?

Is that filling the magazines once? What if you only buy enough missiles to fill the magazines of two out of 15 ships?

Rhetorical questions.

I get that life is complex. I get the need for standardized definitions. But I also get that it can be a short step into the realm of "lies, damn lies and statistics" with words meaning whatever politicians want them to mean.

Platform Costs, Project Costs, Operating Costs, Life Cycle Costs, Capability Costs. If only there was greater clarity.

 

[dapaterson]

All of your questions are documented and part of the DND capability / procurement process. And assumptions are documented in the project charter and other supporting documents.

That you, personally, don't have access to them and haven't read them doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Kirkhill]

All of your questions are documented and part of the DND capability / procurement process. And assumptions are documented in the project charter and other supporting documents.

That you, personally, don't have access to them and haven't read them doesn't mean they don't exist.

DAP - no argument.

My continuing point is that in the public debate the detail gets lost. And it isn't even an issue of fake news so much as the employment of alternate facts. Obfuscation works to win arguments and elections.

 

[KevinB]

All of your questions are documented and part of the DND capability / procurement process. And assumptions are documented in the project charter and other supporting documents.

That you, personally, don't have access to them and haven't read them doesn't mean they don't exist.

The question is never that they don’t exist - the question in my mind is that the correct or honest manner of doing it?

Spares to me seem to be rather an arbitrary thing to put into project costs, as they can’t dramatically change depending on Operations, and Operational Needs.
Hence why many Militaries have O&M to deal with that, and those funds are plussed up as required by the Government to support their directed operations.

I find the CAF accounting methods for the larger programs to be rather a lazy excuse for making giant numbers.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Fire no guns (because they're unserviceable)

Shed no tears (because you've cried yourself dry due to all the shoddy workmanship)

I'm a broken ship stuck to a Halifax Pier.....

You know the rest...

The last of Irving's stooges who licked a Liberal rear?


Edit: I don't even blame Irving, they are a business who wants to make money, it's us who enable them.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The question is never that they don’t exist - the question in my mind is that the correct or honest manner of doing it?

Spares to me seem to be rather an arbitrary thing to put into project costs, as they can’t dramatically change depending on Operations, and Operational Needs.
Hence why many Militaries have O&M to deal with that, and those funds are plussed up as required by the Government to support their directed operations.

I find the CAF accounting methods for the larger programs to be rather a lazy excuse for making giant numbers.

It's not all spares; just initial spares to get the ships up and running, as well as some of the large initial purchases.

It can take a few years to go through trials and get to full operational capability (FOC) and you need things to do maintenance.

And from a shearly practical purpose it's a lot easier when you are buying parts to fit on the ships to also buy stuff at the same time for some spares.

There will probably be 15-20k parts that come with a new ship, and cataloguing them and buying spares takes time and HR. If the projects didn't buy spares when they supply ship they'd get tied up pretty quickly when we can't fix things or maintain them. Even with an ISSC, takes them a while to get spooled up, so they are still building in service spares for AOPs now that we're 3 ships in.

After that it's under the normal O&M budget.

It's not actually the CAF reporting the numbers though because they want to do it like that, it's our treasury board rules that want all that included (and also includes things like project staff salaries, office costs etc).

The inclusion of contingency blows my mind though; until an actual cost comes up it's just part of the budget cap, not a forecasted cost.

 

[MilEME09]

Yes, hi Irving, why should we let you build anything again? Like Jesus this is a basic thing

Drinking water deemed unsafe aboard new Arctic patrol ships

The Royal Canadian Navy is providing sailors aboard Canada's new arctic patrol ships with bottled water to drink after tests showed increased levels of lead in the ships’ water systems.

atlantic.ctvnews.ca

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes, hi Irving, why should we let you build anything again? Like Jesus this is a basic thing

Drinking water deemed unsafe aboard new Arctic patrol ships

The Royal Canadian Navy is providing sailors aboard Canada's new arctic patrol ships with bottled water to drink after tests showed increased levels of lead in the ships’ water systems.

atlantic.ctvnews.ca

Because it buys votes in NS.

Side note every time I see Ken Hansen's name in an article I get mad. He's either on the Irving payroll or wants to be.

 

[KevinB]

What an asshat.

Halifax-based independent security and defence analyst Ken Hansen doesn't want to downplay the issue but says the task of bringing Canada's shipbuilding program back to life is a huge one, and issues are bound to come up -- especially when many processes and parts are involved.

"Apart from the personal health issue, I don't see it as a threatening or dangerous issue in any way," said Hansen, who spent 33 years with the Royal Canadian Navy.


Other than that Mrs. Kennedy how was Dallas…

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What a crock of shit "More complex than a spaceship" They are also apparently not a warship either, according to the RCN. So I can see why your pissed about him.

 

[dapaterson]

What an asshat.

Halifax-based independent security and defence analyst Ken Hansen doesn't want to downplay the issue but says the task of bringing Canada's shipbuilding program back to life is a huge one, and issues are bound to come up -- especially when many processes and parts are involved.

"Apart from the personal health issue, I don't see it as a threatening or dangerous issue in any way," said Hansen, who spent 33 years with the Royal Canadian Navy.


Other than that Mrs. Kennedy how was Dallas…

Peak MARS officer, there: Sure the lower decks who stay onboard longer in their careers than officers may well die of lead poisoning, but that's a risk to them I'm willing to take.

And naturally, spent a decade at CFC as an instructor.

https://ca.linkedin.com/in/ken-hansen-b354661a

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It boggles my mind how you can have this happen in this day and age, where anything with lead in it is tightly controlled in the workplace.