# Shipyards to get $1.45-billion deal



## navymich (12 Jan 2007)

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=83108a3c-b4b1-4d95-b123-54aafd35adee&k=10764



> Shipyards to get $1.45-billion deal
> Contract to work on military subs 'unbelievable,' company says
> 
> Kim Westad
> ...


----------



## CrazyCanuck (12 Jan 2007)

So would this expertise, once acquired allow them to build submarines? Personally I doubt they would be able to design them, but would this allow for construction of other designs in Canada?


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jan 2007)

Boater said:
			
		

> So would this expertise, once acquired allow them to build submarines? Personally I doubt they would be able to design them, but would this allow for construction of other designs in Canada?



Its possible.  Building submarines is a complicated affair even for countries with long experience in this field so it wont happen overnight. As for the Victoria Class boats, i cant wait till all 4 are operational. Will give us ASW types a much needed training boost.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (13 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Will give us ASW types a much needed training boost.



Or a headache >

Though that's relative to how good they'll turn out to be


----------



## gaspasser (13 Jan 2007)

Hmm, sorry to be a devil's advocate here, but: how much would 3 or 4 new subs have cost versus the cost of purchase and maintaining of 4 old second hand subs?  That have already cost the life of one sailor.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jan 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Hmm, sorry to be a devil's advocate here, but: how much would 3 or 4 new subs have cost versus the cost of purchase and maintaining of 4 old second hand subs?  That have already cost the life of one sailor.



Prob 5-6 billion by the time everything got off the ground and we decided where we would bulid them, get the machinery and tools in placed, had the workers trained etc etc.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (13 Jan 2007)

To use an example I believe that for a new German U212 sub it would be $500 million USD each

edit: price correction (It seems to go up everynow and then)


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Prob 5-6 billion by the time everything got off the ground and we decided where we would bulid them, get the machinery and tools in placed, had the workers trained etc etc.



What if we had decided to have the Germans build us some canadianized 206s/209s/212s ? No need for shipyards to be set up.




			
				Boater said:
			
		

> Or a headache >
> 
> Though that's relative to how good they'll turn out to be



 :rofl:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jan 2007)

You know as well as I do the Goverment, whether Liberal or Conservative, would be roasted alive if they allowed any ship/submarine to be built offshore, however much it makes sense.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You know as well as I do the Goverment, whether Liberal or Conservative, would be roasted alive if they allowed any ship/submarine to be built offshore, however much it makes sense.



i know......i was dreaming in colour again.......I just want some canadian submarines to hunt damit !!!


----------



## CrazyCanuck (13 Jan 2007)

http://www.deagel.com/Attack-Submarines/U212A_a000455001.aspx
http://www.deagel.com/Attack-Submarines/U209_a000711001.aspx
http://www.deagel.com/Attack-Submarines/U206A_a000656001.aspx
http://www.deagel.com/Attack-Submarines/U214_a000454001.aspx

That has the price and information on the current German built subs, personally I believe that though cheaper the 209's and 206's may be too old a design for us.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2007)

Boater said:
			
		

> http://www.deagel.com/Attack-Submarines/U212A_a000455001.aspx
> http://www.deagel.com/Attack-Submarines/U209_a000711001.aspx
> http://www.deagel.com/Attack-Submarines/U206A_a000656001.aspx
> http://www.deagel.com/Attack-Submarines/U214_a000454001.aspx
> ...



Granted but how much older than our UPHOLDERS are they ....know what i mean.  regardless i was using those types to ilustrate my point that there are proven designs that can be built at lower cost overseas by builders who have strong reputations and extensive experience in submarine design and production.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (13 Jan 2007)

I agree with you completely, just if we wish to keep our navy up to a high standard it may be best to go with a more modern design


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2007)

Boater said:
			
		

> I agree with you completely, just if we wish to keep our navy up to a high standard it may be best to go with a more modern design



again you are missing my point.

But the best we can hope for , IMHO, is for the Victoria Class to get up to full speed.  it is a sorely needed capability for the Navy both as an instrument of naval power but as a home-grown training tool for surface/air ASW forces.


----------



## gaspasser (13 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> i know......i was dreaming in colour again.......I just want some canadian submarines to hunt damit !!!


Why? Aren't the American ones easy enough prey?
Maybe some good Aus ones to keep you on your toes?

HeeHee ;D

We all know that our subhunters are the best....Dang, I forgot the competition name???
Help me out there, cdnaviator... :'(


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jan 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Why? Aren't the American ones easy enough prey?
> Maybe some good Aus ones to keep you on your toes?
> 
> HeeHee ;D
> ...



 Are you referring to Fincastle?


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Why? Aren't the American ones easy enough prey?
> Maybe some good Aus ones to keep you on your toes?
> 
> HeeHee ;D
> ...



FINCASTLE


----------



## cobbler (13 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> FINCASTLE



More info here:


http://www.primeimages.co.uk/Articles/2006/Fincastle%202006/Fincastle%20'06.htm


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jan 2007)

So if we have three subs in Halifax and one in Victoria, is there some navy/union/voting block logic that escapes me for setting up the maintenance shop in Victoria?


----------



## navymich (13 Jan 2007)

For you JM, here is the story from the East Coast's point of view: http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/9002247.html



> O’Connor in dark on contract
> Minister says he would have no reason to view sub bid criteria
> By STEVE BRUCE Staff Reporter
> 
> ...


----------



## Sub_Guy (13 Jan 2007)

When I read this news article I was completely surprised, especially since Irving had BAE on their side.  It is nice to see some major Navy contracts coming to the west coast.   I wonder if this will affect the decision on where to build the JSS, I am partial to the WMG bid.

Of course those out east aren't happy......  Irving has dropped the ball on the JSS, and now this..........  I guess they can still hold on to the FELEX program.....


----------



## geo (13 Jan 2007)

Hmmm... small question here..........
If the Chicoutimi is "on blocks" in Halifax and the shipyard that will fix and maintain the Victorias is in BC....... how are we going to get the beast from here to there?


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm... small question here..........
> If the Chicoutimi is "on blocks" in Halifax and the shipyard that will fix and maintain the Victorias is in BC....... how are we going to get the beast from here to there?



The same way we got her from Scottland to Halifax  ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jan 2007)

Hey as long as the shipyard does good work and is cost effective and does not try and stiff the government (like Irving) I don't care where the job gets done.


----------



## geo (13 Jan 2007)

Hmmm....
They tried to sail her from the UK to Halifax
then they had a fire
Then they towed her back to the UK and buldled her up on a floating drydock and shipped her to Halifax..... 
Which means that by the time we ship her to Victoria the boat will have traveled further out of the water than she ever has, in the water.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jan 2007)

Actually it was a heavy lift ship


----------



## Sub_Guy (13 Jan 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So if we have three subs in Halifax and one in Victoria, is there some navy/union/voting block logic that escapes me for setting up the maintenance shop in Victoria?



Original plan is/was to have 2/2 split on each coast.... 



			
				geo said:
			
		

> Which means that by the time we ship her to Victoria the boat will have traveled further out of the water than she ever has, in the water.



I seriously doubt it, it isn't like the Chi was sitting out of water then thrown in to sail across... There were some serious sea trials before she was cleared to make the voyage......It spent plenty of time at sea before the attempt to cross..  
I am glad Irving is not going to be touching our boats (for at least 15 years)


----------



## CrazyCanuck (13 Jan 2007)

If there's going to be two on each coast (eventually) then why is she complaining about the cost? Won't it be the same either way?


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2007)

Boater said:
			
		

> If there's going to be two on each coast (eventually) then *why is she complaining* about the cost? Won't it be the same either way?



Because she is the oposition and has no clue what she is talking about.........are you surprised ?


----------



## NCRCrow (13 Jan 2007)

Sub standard work...(like the play on words) LOL


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Jan 2007)

There's also the possibility of the east coast work being subcontracted to an east coast shipyard.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Jan 2007)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> There's also the possibility of the east coast work being subcontracted to an east coast shipyard.


"Possiblity." Is this based on something you've read/heard that hasn't been brought up here, or idle speculation? 

Edit: Just curiousity, not a slam.


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Jan 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "Possiblity." Is this based on something you've read/heard that hasn't been brought up here, or idle speculation?
> 
> Edit: Just curiousity, not a slam.



No, I haven't heard anything to indicate that this will happen in this case.  But in large contracts for services it's not unusual for a consortium of companies to bid on the project.  Having XYZ Shipyard as the name on the letterhead doesn't necessarily mean that all of the work will be done in XYZ Shipyard's own facilities.  XYZ Shipyard could simply be the lead in a team of companies (including shipyards, project management companies, financing companies, etc.) bidding on the project collectively.


----------



## geo (14 Jan 2007)

Ayup,
When Irving had the frigate program, some work went to Davie Shipyards & I think some ontario / great lake shipyard


----------



## Journeyman (14 Jan 2007)

Ack. Thanks.


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Jan 2007)

Weren't the first batch of 6 ships split between Irving and Davie, when the second contract for an additional 6 went out it was awarded to Irving?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jan 2007)

9 of the frigates were built in St John the other 3 were built in Quebec.


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Jan 2007)

True, I was just looking for confirmation as to how the contracts were worked out. 
I had thought there was a contract for 6 (3 Saint John, Irving  3 Quebec)  Then an additional contract for another 6 was awarded to Irving.

Off to google I go...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jan 2007)

When the CCG contracted one of the big East Coast shipyards to build our new 47’ SAR Cutters, they sub-contracted it to a small yard in Kingston, Ontario. They had never built a aluminum vessel before or anything of similar size, they totally botched it and the CCG had to yank the contract and give the remaining vessels to a west coast yard that builds aluminum vessels. A similar event happened with our 41' cutters and 70' cutters back in the earlier 80's.


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Jan 2007)

Found the info on the CPF contracts I was looking for.     Now to get back on track.   Sorry to get off topic

The Project involved two phases: the first, approved by TB in
1983, authorized the construction of six Frigates to replace the St. Laurent class of
destroyer - for a project cost of $5.435B - with the last ship to be delivered in 1992; the
second, approved in December 1987, authorized the construction of six more Frigates and
additional funding of $4.982B. The last ship was contracted to be delivered in 1996.

The contract to build six new Frigates was awarded to the prime contractor in
July l983. The design and integration of the Frigates’ combat and control systems was
subcontracted to a new Canadian firm. In addition, a subcontract was awarded to build
three of the first six Frigates. The CPF contract was subsequently amended in 1987
to include the construction of an additional six Frigates - all built by the prime contractor
- for a total of 12.


----------



## geo (15 Jan 2007)

While the command and control system was given to a new Canadian firm, it was in actual fact going to an old American firm that had set up a cdn operation in order to benefit from the contract.

Sperry / Litton come to mind


----------



## Navy_Blue (17 Jan 2007)

To get this back to Subs.

I was thinking again. I know I should stop doing that    

It seems that the undersea threat level in the Atlantic is going down while the threat level is increasing in the pacific from China and North Korea.  I say this after reading the article in the Mil current affairs forum talking about the Chinese building a new sub under the noses of US intelligences.  It also talked of China getting more Kilos from Russia.  Could we see a change in coasts of our sub community? Start with maintenance then "oh well we have you here now, might as well stay."  To bad they built the nice new trainer in Halifax.


----------



## FredDaHead (17 Jan 2007)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> To get this back to Subs.
> 
> I was thinking again. I know I should stop doing that
> 
> It seems that the undersea threat level in the Atlantic is going down while the threat level is increasing in the pacific from China and North Korea.  I say this after reading the article in the Mil current affairs forum talking about the Chinese building a new sub under the noses of US intelligences.  It also talked of China getting more Kilos from Russia.  Could we see a change in coasts of our sub community? Start with maintenance then "oh well we have you here now, might as well stay."  To bad they build the nice new trainer in Halifax.



About Chinese buying subs from Russia, I read an article in Jane's (one of the December editions) about the Russians building new kinds of ships (both surface and subs) and the Chinese, among a few others, buying the new designs, which includes a new type of SSBN. It didn't give any details about the subs' capabilities, but it's safe to assume even new diesel boats would be better than the Kilos.

I do think we need to move our own subs to the Pacific side of things--the Americans are already in the process of doing that, so it's a good sign something's up.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jan 2007)

I believe China is working on 14 new attack subs, with a plan to have a effective blue water navy in 10 years.


----------

