# Supply Ships Running Up the Tab: from the 13 nov 2008 Chronicle Herald



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Nov 2008)

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1089985.html

Supply ships running up bills 


Thu. Nov 13 - 4:47 AM
TORONTO (CP) — The Canadian navy has spent millions of dollars over the past three years to keep old supply ships afloat.

Documents obtained by Le Journal de Montreal show one ship, Halifax-based HMCS Preserver, required $17.4 million in repairs since 2005.

The documents, obtained under the Access to Information Act, list 49 pages of repairs to antennas, valves, air-conditioning systems and radars.

HMCS Preserver and the Esquimalt, B.C.-based HMCS Protector are about 40 years old and Canada’s sole tanker supply ships.

In an August briefing note, the defence department noted it is more difficult to maintain these ships because parts are no longer available and qualified people to maintain the different systems are becoming scarce.

The situation was exacerbated this summer when a $2.9-billion project to replace the ships was placed on the backburner.

*Ok Peter you're back in office, how about doing something sooner rather then later about this before its too late.*


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (13 Nov 2008)

It should cost the government around $75 million /year to borrow the $3 billion required to replace the AOR's. It looks like it's currently costing about $12 million/year to keep them running instead of replacing them.

I'm sure there are great arguments for replacing the AOR's. This isn't one of them.


----------



## Monsoon (13 Nov 2008)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> It should cost the government around $75 million /year to borrow the $3 billion required to replace the AOR's. It looks like it's currently costing about $12 million/year to keep them running instead of replacing them.
> 
> I'm sure there are great arguments for replacing the AOR's. This isn't one of them.


Yeah. I'd like to meet the person who thinks $6M a year is too expensive to keep a huge warship afloat.


----------



## Snakedoc (13 Nov 2008)

new military purchases are gonna be a tough sell in a looming global recession..but maybe its what we need to keep the canadian economy afloat.


----------



## NavyShooter (14 Nov 2008)

Unfortunately, with none of the Canadian Shipyards producing a successful bid, it's either a matter of going back to the drawing board for a less capable ship (likely) spending more money (less likely) or buying off-shore and getting sooner without the "Canadian spin" on requirements.

If we do buy off-shore, we'll be spending the money away from home (no positive effect on our economy) 

If we buy here at home, it'll take too long to get things re-started to really help with the current down-turn in the economy (delayed/minimal effect on the economy)

The facts are plain, we need a new AOR/Tanker option, and with the age and single-hull, our ships desperately need replacement.  

With an ongoing war in A-stan, the Navy is still on the bottom of the procurement ladder, even though the lead-time for our projects are much longer than those for the Army.

All that said, the positive side of a downturn in the economy has traditionally been an upturn in recruiting.  I'm actually looking forward to seeing some fresh meat  I mean new trainees in the system.

NavyShooter


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Nov 2008)

We need to build domestically.  Globally we're in a position where efficiency and technology have now resulted in a situation where we can produce more than we can consume.  In such a circumstance ANY government spending must be directed to pay domestic workers.

I should add that with the tremendous fall in steel prices, we should be seeing a significant fall-off in hull construction costs as in particular the demand for steel for ships has fallen as in the last two weeks there have been numerous cancellations of very large bulk carriers and oil tankers from the South Korean builders.


Matthew. 

P.S.  I still don't understand why we continue to "one-off" our naval projects rather than creating the long-term strategic assembly line approach we've discussed here on so many occassions.  Adding infrastructure for one project is definitely onerous....but create a 20-year megaproject and that up-front technology, training and infrastructure investment immediately becomes small by comparison.


----------



## DevoBab (15 Nov 2008)

I was reading an issue of the Canadian Defence Review last week and in it there was an interview with a high ranking Naval officer (I forget his name/rank). In the interview he touched on Canada's procurement process and the way the country handles ship building. As I recall he did say that the country is going to be looking at long term, constant building of ships rather than trying to build a lot at once then nothing for an extended period of time. I hope it wasn't all talk and things are finally getting turned around.


----------

