# New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy



## GAP

B.C. shipbuilders seek share of $40 billion in federal funding
 By SCOTT SIMPSON, VANCOUVER SUNDecember 7, 2009
Article Link

West coast shipbuilders are vying to win British Columbia an equitable share of $40 billion promised by Ottawa to upgrade Canada’s marine fleet.

The federal Conservatives are expected to announce later this month how they intend to disperse funding for a massive upgrade of defence and security vessels — and put the nation’s marine industry on long-term, sustainable footing.

John Shaw, chair of the recently formed Pacific Coast Shipbuilders Association, said on Monday that “the west coast doesn’t want to be bypassed on the national shipbuilding policy.”

Last July, National Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced a fleet renewal plan to build more than 50 large vessels for the Department of National Defence and the Coast Guard, plus another 70 smaller vessels of less than 1,000 tonnes.
More on link


----------



## infantryian

About time if you ask me.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Wait until the shipyards get the contracts and the first keels laid down...


----------



## VIChris

infantryian said:
			
		

> About time if you ask me.



Amen! 

One of my welding instructors was called in as a subject matter expert on some talks here in Victoria recently, and he gave us some hope in terms of what he heard from the government representatives. If even a small fraction of the work is done out here, it will be a big help. It's not just the shipyards that are hurting, but many of the smaller fab shops that are subcontracted to make components for the big companies have been hit hard this year too.


----------



## blacktriangle

So are we ever getting any damn replacements for the 280's?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

popnfresh said:
			
		

> So are we ever getting any damn replacements for the 280's?



Discussed time and time again.


----------



## NavyShooter

Believe it when I see it happen.

Hey, at least it won't be HSL/Irving getting all the money....that'd be a waste....


----------



## MarkOttawa

It seems to me that this, completely politically motivated (and the Liberals would do nothing very different), can only guarantee greatly added costs and slower delivery--and as for number of ships (usual copyright disclaimer)?

Federal shipbuilding plan will pit East against West: officials
http://news.globaltv.com/canada/Federal+shipbuilding+plan+will+East+against+West+officials/3037281/story.html



> The Harper government is expected to release its long-term shipbuilding strategy in the coming weeks, creating two national centres to handle billions of dollars worth of contracts.
> 
> The strategy could spark a high-stakes game pitting West Coast firms against East Coast companies in a winner-take-all contest, industry officials say.
> 
> Washington Marine Group on the West Coast and J.D. Irving on the East Coast will be asked to submit proposals to become the "centre of excellence" for building combat ships such as the Arctic patrol vessels and the fleet of vessels that will eventually replace the navy's Halifax-class frigates.
> 
> Another centre for larger non-combat ships — including the navy's proposed new supply vessels, the Joint Support Ships, as well as the coast guard's polar icebreaker — will also be created, industry representatives say.
> 
> Davie Yards in Quebec is the prime contender for that, in part, because it is considered the only shipbuilder in the country big enough to handle such work.
> 
> Work on the national shipbuilding strategy started almost a year ago when federal officials met behind closed doors with industry representatives in Gatineau, Que.
> 
> The government is not talking publicly about the contents of the new policy, although Defence Minister Peter MacKay has said it will soon be released.
> 
> But some shipbuilding officials around the country as well as defence industry representatives in Ottawa have been briefed. A memo to cabinet was also produced on the policy, they said...
> 
> The government's rationale for directing most large contracts to a few shipyards is that it will keep those companies continually at work and able to develop a skilled workforce. In the past the industry has gone through peak periods of work building a number of warships, only to have that dwindle as contracts end. The result then is layoffs and expertise eventually being lost.
> 
> It is still unclear exactly when the strategy will be announced.
> 
> "I've got nothing to announce at this time," MacKay's spokesman Dan Dugas said in an e-mail.
> 
> The $2.1-billion JSS project was to buy three vessels capable of resupplying warships at sea. But it was derailed in 2008 when the government determined that various bids did not meet the requirements of the new fleet and were too expensive.



Will we at least consider foreign designs?

Dutch moving forward on their version of Joint Support Ship 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/dutch-moving-forward-on-their-version.html

More on new Dutch version of Joint Support Ship 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-on-new-dutch-version-of-joint.html

Joint Support Ship problems: No surprise  (note Aussie offshore approach near end)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/joint-support-ship-problems-no-surprise.html

Foreign designs for new Navy ships? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/foreign-designs-for-new-navy-ships.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If this is all that is in the "Strategy", then it is a dismal failure (and it took them a year to come up with that?).

It does not address the single most important factor in the current situation: The government!

The problem of the shipbuilding industry in canada constantly going from boom to bust is not that the shipyards can't retain their tradesmen and other specialist, it is that the government consistently orders in large batches, then let the fleet rust out before purchasing again. 

I said it in another post: No trucking company that needs fifty trucks with a life span of 10 years buys them all in a shot: they buy  five new ones every year. The same should apply to ship's acquisition by the Federal government. That is where the strategy must start. And you must ensure the strategy will stick long term through various governing parties.

When you work with contracts, there are no sufficient guarantees for the industry. Everyone will recall Mr. Chrétiens' "I'll take my pen and say zero helicopters" with all the associated costs and consequences. You cannot have a shipbuilding strategy subject to that, because it would then not work out.

So a first step is for the government to derive a "base" fleet level for the military and coast guard and science vessels together: This is your starting figure that you then spread over the average lifetime. This gives you annual new constructions. You finally put those you foresee as required for the next 10 years into a Maritime Appropriation Bill that is voted in Parliament and secures the constructions and funding for all those years. After that, every five years, you present a new Maritime Appropriation Bill to cover the next five years following the end of the current bill. As can be seen, the next appropriation is always beginning five years after the adoption in Parliament. This makes for sufficient certainty and foreseeability for the industry, sufficient control for adaptation to circumstances, and as they are bills, a much harder, public and difficult matter to  change every time political masters fall out of favour.

Moreover, resorting to such bill would mean a parliamentary debate over the Navy and Coast Guard needs every five years that would keep both of them and their importance to the nation in the public eyes in much more positive ways than the current "contract" system, which only emphasizes the expansive nature of shipbuilding and political dealings that accompany such large contracts, to the expanse of the positive aspects of having a Navy and Coast Guard. In fact, it would mean that every five years, the Admiral and the Head of the Coast Guard would appear in a public committee of parliament and explain what they have done with the fleet in the last few years and why the next ships will be required in five to ten years. This would go a long way towards securing the public support for the fleets and their understanding of the ongoing need for such ships - something the current system fails abysmally to provide.


----------



## Monsoon

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The problem of the shipbuilding industry in canada constantly going from boom to bust is not that the shipyards can't retain their tradesmen and other specialist, it is that the government consistently orders in large batches, then let the fleet rust out before purchasing again.


Without having seen the strategy, obviously all is speculation - but I have seen some aspects of recent announcements that suggest that the plan is to rectify exactly this problem. The first thing is the government's reference to a $40B naval shipbuilding budget over the next 20 years; the second one is mention of replacing the Halifax class frigates over the next 20 years. What this suggests to me is that, far from buying "all in one shot", the plan is to get replacement surface combattants rolling off the blocks once every 18 months to 2 years once they get started. Presumably as soon as you're done building the whole class, you're ready to send the first ones into mid-life refit, and by the time you've refitted them all you're ready to replace the first of the class in the same manner.

By creating so-called "centres of excellence", you avoid the modularized approach that sees every shipyard in the country build one part of a frigate for a couple of years every 40. Maybe two centres is too much for a fleet Canada's size (I think the US only has five comparable large construction yards), but it's a step in the right direction. Presumably a long introduction span means that the navy is going to put less of a premium on class identicalness, but so what? The alternative seems to work for just about every other fleet in the world.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I agree this is all speculations, which is why I started my post with "If". But the newspaper article quoted is completely mum on spreading construction evenly.

If  this spreading you mention is part of the strategy, then good on the government. However, government policy is just that: policy. It can be changed easily every time you change ruling party. I still think proceeding by appropriation bills makes it easier for the industry to plan and act - not to mention the public support aspect I mentioned.

Also, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper came to power on a platform of democratic reform, better governance and respect for the Parliamentary institutions, such as when he submitted Afghan deployment extension to a vote of Parliament. Can you think of a better case to live up to the "no taxation without representation" call that lead to representative government than voting on $B40 of public funds? I can't.


----------



## RhumRunner

Wow, OGBD. THis is exactly what I keep saying. Of course, you say it more eloquently than I ever could . I especially like the political insight.


----------



## Kat Stevens

The unions will kill the shipyards long before the government can.  The Brits used to be pretty good at shipbuilding, but by the mid 70's the unions had destroyed the entire industry.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I will applaude it when the first CPF and 280 replacement actually comes off the slips. See I am not holding my breath.


----------



## Infanteer

Oldgateboatdriver, you will be my Minister of the Navy when I am Ruler of Canada.


----------



## Nuggs

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Oldgateboatdriver, you will be my Minister of the Navy when I am Ruler of Canada.



The man who would be Queen?


----------



## je suis prest

News items indicate the new ship-building policy will be announced tomorrow at the CANSEC 2010 conference.


----------



## jollyjacktar

We have a ship building strategy ???? :rofl:


----------



## je suis prest

There's always a first time.


----------



## ettibebs

This is an article from radiocanada.ca, didn't found any topic related to this on the forum. I also coudn't find a similar article on cbc.ca.  

_Ottawa ferait une importante annonce liée à la construction navale. Le gouvernement Harper dévoilera sa stratégie navale dans le cadre du salon de l'armement à Ottawa. Des dizaines de milliards de dollars seraient investis dans l'achat de navires pour la marine et la garde côtière canadiennes.

Le ministre de la Défense Peter MacKay, la ministre des Pêches et des Océans Gail Shea ainsi que la ministre des Travaux publics Rona Ambrose participeront à l'événement.

Selon la Presse canadienne, le gouvernement fédéral commanderait 50 navires de grande dimension à différents fournisseurs. L'investissement est d'environ 40 milliards de dollars au cours des 30 prochaines années.

Trois grands chantiers navals du Québec, de la Nouvelle-Écosse et de la Colombie-Britannique se partageraient ces contrats. Des politiciens de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador s'attendent également à ce que leur province bénéficie des retombées de ces investissements.

Le dernier navire de guerre à prendre le large au Canada remonte à il y a 14 ans, selon le général Walter Natynczynk, chef d'état-major de la Défense.
_
Here translated with google

_Ottawa would make a major announcement related to shipbuilding. The Harper government will unveil its naval strategy in the arms fair in Ottawa. Tens of billions are invested in the purchase of ships for the Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard.

The Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Gail Shea, Minister of Public Works Rona Ambrose will attend the event.

According to Canadian Press, the federal government would order 50 large vessels at different suppliers. The investment is about 40 billion dollars over the next 30 years.

Three major shipyards of Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia will share these contracts. Politicians of Newfoundland and Labrador also expect that their province benefits from these investments.

The last warship to take off in Canada goes back 14 years ago, according to Gen. Walter Natynczynk, Chief of Staff of Defense._

Hope this will allow our navy to stay relevant for the coming years and the new challenges that are coming.  Is there anybody who as more info?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Well, here it is.  Shared with the usual disclaimers....

I'll believe it when I see it..

MacKay lays out $30B shipbuilding policy
Last Updated: Thursday, June 3, 2010 | 1:54 PM ET Comments15Recommend22CBC News 
Defence Minister Peter MacKay on Thursday laid out Ottawa's $30-billion plan to reinvigorate Canada's moribund shipbuilding industry.

HMCS Preserver, the navy's 40-year-old Halifax-based supply ship, rests at drydock at the Halifax shipyards on June 3. (Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press) 
MacKay said the government will establish a long-term relationship with two Canadian shipyards for the procurement of the large ships — one to build combat vessels, the other to build non-combat vessels.

"The plan is to select two Canadian shipyards in a fair and transparent process," he said at the CANSEC arms show in Ottawa. "We expect to have these contracts signed within two years."

The plan calls for building 28 new large ships over the next decade, for a cost of more than $30 billion.

Ottawa has been trying for the better part of a year to iron out a national policy that would get major shipbuilding companies to work together.

"This national shipbuilding procurement strategy will bring predictability and eliminate the cycles of boom and bust," said Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, also on hand at the event. "It is about using Canadian sources to fill Canadian needs."

Critics have long complained about Canada's disjointed naval policy.

The country's top military commander told the defence industry on Wednesday that new ships for the navy was his No. 1 procurement need, and noted it has been 14 years since the last major warship was launched in Canada.

He noted the 38-year-old, 5,100-tonne command-and-control destroyer HMCS Iroquois will soon be the oldest frontline warship in the western world.

"We need to cut steel on new ships," Gen. Walter Natynczyk, chief of defence staff, said Wednesday.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/06/03/mackay-shipbuilding-cansec.html#socialcomments#ixzz0poffmzlE


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That's it ???

I must be missing something here: 

First of all, it looks like the next two years are for writing and signing the contracts that appoint the two shipyards to be selected. I assume those contracts will spell out what the shipyards need to maintain as a knowledge base or financial structure or what have you to remain the selectee. So no new constructions for two years at least.

Secondly, how does calling for the construction of 28 unspecified "large" ships in the next decade (then not having your "plan" go further) differ from a boom-bust cycle? This is just the next boom if we do not come up with guaranteed further orders thereafter at an agreed constant rate.

And how will we guarantee that rate? In fact, how will the government guarantee that the 28 large ships will be ordered. Even if the "guaranteed" number of orders (without specifying type) was put in the "selection" contract, contracts can be broken (Chretien: "Zero helicopters") and the resulting damages usually cover penalties and lost profit, but it would not normally include the cost of maintaining a work force that can otherwise be laid off. So you are back to square one.

P.S. Can someone help me here: what makes a ship "large"? When I pass by a frigate with an Orca, I tend to look at it as large, but from an aircraft carrier, I usually find them puny.


----------



## MarkOttawa

(Note post changed significantly.) Oldgateboatdriver: 28 "Large" ships--I presume they mean JSS (3), A/OPS (6-8), Canadian Surface Combatant (destroyer/frigate replacemen--12?) for Navy: total 21-23; so remainder would presumably be new icebreakers (and other sizeable vessels) acquired for the Coast Guard:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/Ccg/fleet

Which might leave the CCG rather short if you count up their such vessels (some 13) and age.

But then the CSCs are not likely to be built in any large numbers by 2021:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4296901

So maybe most ships this decade will be for CCG.  Here's the status of their major vessel programs:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2010-2011/inst/dfo/st-ts07-eng.asp

Not sure exactly which qualify as "large".

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 57Chevy

OTTAWA — Canada's ship yards will be "humming like they haven't hummed since the Second World War" under a $35 billion, 30-year federal shipbuilding strategy announced Thursday, says Defence Minister Peter MacKay.


The government will select two Canadian shipyards — one to construct large combat vessels, the other for non-combat ships — within the next two years, and contracts for smaller ships would be open to bids by other Canadian shipyards. Competition would be national and overseen by a "fairness monitor."


The "national shipbuilding procurement strategy" was welcomed as "a big step" by Peter Cairns, a retired Canadian vice-admiral who heads the Shipbuilders Association of Canada. He said shipyards in Newfoundland, Halifax, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia would be eligible to compete for the major work and the industry will work together.


He also predicted highly-skilled workers from the East Coast will be lured home from the Alberta oilsands for the highly-skilled jobs.


"We've been pushing for something like this for quite some time," he said. "It's very important for the government to actually acknowledge that the shipbuilding industry is important to the country, is strategic to the country, for Maritime defence.


"For the longest time people looked at shipbuilding as an old industry, where the only tool you need is a sledgehammer, when in fact it's a very high-tech industry. Inside it's as sophisticated as a space shuttle or any airplane that's flying."


MacKay said the priority is the construction of joint supply ships for the Canadian navy, a project that has been delayed for two years since the government halted the procurement process due to bidders' non-compliance with requirements and costs.


The plan that MacKay and three other ministers announced at a military trade show got a thumbs up from Peter Stoffer, a Nova Scotia New Democrat MP who has lobbied for a federal policy to rejuvenate the shipbuilding industry for years, and was on hand for the announcement.


"I will give them credit," Stoffer said. "In 2003, John Manley . . . said shipbuilding was a sunset industry."


He was referring to former federal finance minister John Manley who repeatedly told MPs that the then Liberal government could not afford huge subsidies for shipbuilding.


Stoffer said he hoped the strategy would not lead to a wasteful duel among the handful of shipyards in Canada because there was enough work for everybody.


"You could have the West Coast and East Coast spending millions of dollars fighting each other over these competitive bids," he said. "If the government worked with the industry, and I'm hoping that they'll do that . . . that money could go to building ships instead of beating each other over the head in the competition."


Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said the plan would generate 75 million hours of work across the country over three decades.


"This strategy will be the framework through which the government invests $35 billion over the next thirty years to acquire twenty-eight large vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian navy, as well as more than a hundred smaller ships," MacKay said.


The shipyards would be expected to invest in training to prepare their workforce and the facilities would have to show regional balance in subcontracts.


"There's going to be enough work for all the shipyards," MacKay told reporters, enumerating a need to replace combat vessels, supply ships, icebreakers, coast guard vessels, and Arctic operations vessels.


"We're well on our way to an important process, an important strategy, that is going to see the shipyards across the country humming like they haven't hummed since the Second World War."

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service


Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Shipbuilding+strategy+will+leave+yards+humming+MacKay/3107934/story.html#ixzz0ppdjo9xh


----------



## donaldk

Basically to summarize the Minister of National Defence released a statement on the conservative's proposed new ship building strategy.

Summary: $35B proposed to create two national ship yards to build military and civilian government vessels over the next 30 years, with consideration to eliminate boom-bust cycles.

Linkage:
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/06/03/mackay-shipbuilding-cansec.html

What do you guys think?  I think it is a step in the right direction. Let the debate begin...  >


----------



## Antoine

From the point of view of an applicant for the NAVY (me), it is encouraging but , hey, I am still naive !


----------



## RC

The discussed level for cut off between "small" and "large" was 1000t.  The assessment of the requirements for the CCG and Navy fleets over the next 30 years, which other than a couple of exceptions is just replacement of existing assets, suggested that  to be a reasonably natural cut off point with relatively few ships falling into a grey area.

I find it alarming that they intend to take another 2 years to make a decision on the yards.  So they still don't intend to start construction on any ships for another 2 years?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note JSS is not/not considered "combat" vessel and will be built in civilian yard, 1,000 tonnes is cut-off for "large"--from DND:
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do;jsessionid=ac1b105430d891a768c0b48a471388a9bb629767dd3e.e34Rc3iMbx8Oai0Tbx0SaxiKbxz0?m=%2Findex&nid=537419



> ...
> Two shipyards will be selected to build the large vessels (1000 tonnes displacement or more)...
> 
> One shipyard will be selected to build combat vessels. This will enable the procurement of the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) [15 planned:
> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3778076 ]
> and Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) [6-8]. The surface combatant project will renew the Navy's surface fleet by replacing various warfare capabilities of the destroyers (Iroquois-class) and multi-role patrol frigate (Halifax-class) ships. The primary tasks of the Arctic ships will be to: conduct sea-borne surveillance operations in Canada's Economic Exclusion Zones (EEZs), including the Arctic; provide awareness of activities and events to various departments; and cooperate with other elements of the Canadian Forces and other federal government departments to assert and enforce Canadian sovereignty, whenever and wherever necessary.
> 
> *Another competitively selected shipyard will build non-combat vessels, such as the Joint Support Ships (JSS)* [emphasis added, 3 planned]. The capabilities required of these ships are crucial to the Canadian Forces. The Joint Support Ship increases the range and sustainment of a Naval Task Group, permitting it to remain at sea for significant periods of time without going alongside for replenishment. These vessels will also provide capacity for sealift and support to troops ashore...



Meanwhile the CCG has 28 ships of 1,000 tonnes (some just under) or more; 15 soon will be over 30 years old with the youngest 25 years:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0000459?todo=search&reg%3Bion_id=C&is_active=1

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

This is not about building ships.

It is about a majority in the next election, which, coincidentally, will happen within the next 2 years. And, Glory Be!!, there's promise in them thar regions that they don't have many seats...(see Atlantic Canada, Quebec and BC). 

They just pulled a Liberal....vague, grand promises with a far enough ahead date to change direction if necessary....


----------



## captloadie

So, we are going to create invest in two national shipyards to build ships. Great. But who is going to design the ships? Are we going to have agreements that allow foreign designs to be built in Canada? If not, this will greatly limit the ability for the ministries involved (DND, Fisheries, etc.) from getting the ships that meet their needs. "Buy Canadian" is a great theme, but is it really practical, or economical? The story was rather thin on details.


----------



## Monsoon

GAP said:
			
		

> It is about a majority in the next election, which, coincidentally, will happen within the next 2 years. And, Glory Be!!, there's promise in them thar regions that they don't have many seats...(see Atlantic Canada, Quebec and BC).



Not many seats? Let's see: in BC they have 22 out of 36 seats, in the Maritimes they have 9 out of 25, and the shipbuilding strategy seems to be geared towards dockyards in Esquimalt and Halifax to the exclusion of the Davie yard in Quebec. I guess they could try to build ships in Alberta and Manitoba...


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'll be dead and buried  before this comes to pass in full, if at all. :2c:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Trying to pull it all together at _The Torch_:

Government's "National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy": Numbers don't make sense, esp. for Coast Guard
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/06/governments-national-shipbuilding.html



> More sound and fury, smoke and mirrors, from the government--and our media bought it hook, line and sinker...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Is this going to be a "plus ça change, plus c'est pareil" situation? I do not know.

However, I would not sell Davies in Quebec city short for the large non-combat vessels: It still has the largest facility in Canada and the only one (unless they built a new one in BC recently) that can take ships the size of the "planned" JSS. Davies is also currently under ownership of a Danish shipyard and as a result has managers that know what they are doing.

I also agree with MarkOttawa on the probable breakdown of the 28 "large" ships. 

As for the JSS (and I will digress here), I am getting desperate: Other than the fact already well discussed in other threads that such type of ships do not exist and for technical reason are then extremely complex and expensive to build, can anybody make the Minister (and for that matter, the geniuses at HQ that came up with this) see the fundamental military reason for not building such ship. Someone please show them WWII footage of what happens to a tanker hit by a single bomb or torpedo. AOR's are floating bombs. That is fine when you are fully manned with seaman only who know what they are getting into and you stay more or less out of the most dangerous areas. If you are sunk, this creates a logistical nightmare for the ships you support, but that is  it. If, however, you then add a lot of army gear, some soldiers, the ground force logistical support and command staff, you have to stand closer to danger and your loss is mission critical. Since you are a "single shot" target, this means that there is no margin for any leakers whatsoever. A real amphibious ships have the resilience to take multiple hits before they become too disabled to operate.

So further to this digression, here is the topic relevant question: What is more important to the government's shipbuilding strategy, the overall monetary figure, or the number of hulls that keep the shipyards busy continually? If the later is the answer (and in my view, it should), then forgo the three JSS and build four AOR's and two amphibious ships (À la "French "Mistral" or, better yet, à la South-Korean " Dodko" style) for the same price.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Trying to pull it all together at _The Torch_:
> 
> Government's "National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy": Numbers don't make sense, esp. for Coast Guard
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/06/governments-national-shipbuilding.html
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Good job by the way on the blog. I would have preferred a bipartisan committee made up of all parties to determine the ship building strategy so there is buy in from whoever is in government. Having two major shipbuilders is better than one, so you can sort of keep them from getting to cocky. 

Semi off topic, shipyards here in N. Van are surviving by building component for Hydro power plants.


----------



## Rifleman62

Question. I believe US Navy replenishment ships (POL, Ammo, General, etc) are crewed with Department of Defence civilian employees with a small Navy augmentation. 

Is this an option for the JSS?


----------



## GAP

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Not many seats? Let's see: in BC they have 22 out of 36 seats, in the Maritimes they have 9 out of 25, and the shipbuilding strategy seems to be geared towards dockyards in Esquimalt and Halifax to the exclusion of the Davie yard in Quebec. I guess they could try to build ships in Alberta and Manitoba...



That may be, but do they have seats in the shipbuilding ridings and adjoining ones where the people are going to be drawn from? Even if they do, it never hurts to feather you own nest.   

I'm not saying they don't mean well, but things don't add up as far as what they're saying we're going to get and how, and reality. This is a political promise with no cost for at least 3-5 years.....they all do it...anyone remember the RED BOOK(S) and the removal of the GST?  The Liberals were masters of the big promise....


----------



## jollyjacktar

OGBD, I am, you could call me a "Tanker Wanker".  Yeah, they do have the potential to go "Bam".  But you get used to the thought of it and frankly it is a small comfort that the end might be very fast and final.  Would prefer that end to say the USS Indianappolis and crew.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You are correct R62.

In the US Navy today, more and more of the at sea logistics support ships are manned by  the Military Sealift Command personnel, which is made of merchant seaman, with small naval logistics cell embarked as necessary. It was not so only a decade ago. This was a (successful) experiment they learned from the British, where at sea support is carried out by the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, similarly crewed by merchant seaman. However, none of the US amphibious ships are so crewed.

To answer your question, If the JSS only transported army gear from one harbour to another and resupplied the ships at sea, the concept could work, and we already have the organization that could do it: the CFAV's (Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessels organization), which encompasses all the merchant mariners that crews the fleet of support vessels (tugs, ferries, research vessels, etc.) in our two harbours. They are extremely competent seaman and could easily take over then.

If, however, the JSS are expected to carry some form of expeditionary  personnel, landing command staff, helicopters for landed troops support, etc, then it would be unfair to expect merchant seaman to agree to go in harms way (and we might even then be in breach of Geneva Convention for operating what would then be considered a "combatant" with  non-combatant personnel).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Jollyjacktar, I have served my fair share on Protecteur also, but you make my point: We seaman know and sign up for that. I do not think the army does. And if we have to get them close to shore, we greatly increase the chances that an asset that is mission critical will be disposed of with a single lucky shot. It is just not what  AOR's are designed for, as opposed to Phibs.

I am also with you on the concept of having a quick end.


----------



## RC

captloadie said:
			
		

> So, we are going to create invest in two national shipyards to build ships. Great. But who is going to design the ships? Are we going to have agreements that allow foreign designs to be built in Canada? If not, this will greatly limit the ability for the ministries involved (DND, Fisheries, etc.) from getting the ships that meet their needs. "Buy Canadian" is a great theme, but is it really practical, or economical? The story was rather thin on details.



Canada has several internationally competitive naval architecture firms.  They can quite readily address the needs of the non-combatant ship designs, including AOPS (which technically is a non-combattant despite the work split described).  Aside from the frigates, there is currently more capability to design the ships in Canada than to build them.


----------



## Rifleman62

Thanks for the answer.

The last: 





> then it would be unfair to expect merchant seaman to agree to go in harms way (and we might even then be in breach of Geneva Convention for operating what would then be considered a "combatant" with  non-combatant personnel).


 I tend to disagree.

After WWII, the Merchant _Navy_ lobbied successfully for Veteran's benefits and service medals. Many merchant ships were armed for anti surface raiders/submarines and anti aircraft. The on-board naval gun crews were augmented by civilian gun numbers.

They did go in harms way. No question, and were paid a lot more than their military counterparts. A premium if on ships that would blow up quickly when hit. 

The Merchant Navy lobbied and were successful. The HK vets were not so lucky.


----------



## RC

GAP said:
			
		

> This is not about building ships.
> 
> It is about a majority in the next election, which, coincidentally, will happen within the next 2 years. And, Glory Be!!, there's promise in them thar regions that they don't have many seats...(see Atlantic Canada, Quebec and BC).
> 
> They just pulled a Liberal....vague, grand promises with a far enough ahead date to change direction if necessary....



This initiative is primarily driven by the civil servant lifers.  They have recognized that something has to be done, and quick, or we are not going to have the ships we need.  Yes, of course the politicians have to buy into it and will spin it whichever way they can to their political advantage, but this plan has some real legs to it and has been in the works for a long time.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> They did go in harms way. No question, and were paid a lot more than their military counterparts. A premium if on ships that would blow up quickly when hit.



Granted. However, they were doing their basic job only: driving cargo  or people from point A to point B. It just so happened that in "total war" they were the primary target of the opponent. This is different from actually  asking them to serve on a ship whose purpose is to actually go in a combat situation to participate actively in the fight. The difference would be the same as between soldiers and police officers. Police officers do get shot and can potentially get harmed in what they do, but they do not have an "unlimited liability" clause to their contract and no one has the authority to order them to do something that WILL result in their death (i.e. to sacrifice themselves for the mission).

Should we start another thread here?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Interesting RC. But can you expand on the lifers? 

Which ones would have realized that  we need ships? 

The DND ones, or the DOT's, or both (which would be extraordinary as in my experience, these two dept have a hard time talking to one another)?

Or could it have been the Dep. of Industry  and Commerce lifers, not realizing that we need ships but that they needed to save their friends in the shipbuilding industry?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Shipyards need new builds to recapitalize their equipment and upgrade to stay competitive. Our West Coast yards have a good rep in the Pacific for doing good and fast repairs on commercial ships. We can’t compete with the Asian market in new builds, hence the failed attempt to build fast cats. Shipyards that don’t get new builds will likely eventual fail as they will not have the capital to replace large equipment. The problem is that shipyards provide very good paying jobs, and create a lot of downstream economic effects supporting many small local businesses, providing, pumps, switches, wiring, valves, small machine works and small fabrications, etc. hence the reason regions fight hard to keep their slice of the pie. Sadly there is more shipyards than money for the pie. As Mark pointed out there is more hulls needed than budgeted for, so the need and capacity is there. The real questions are how much money do you have to spend and when can we start?


----------



## RC

The senior bureaucrats in DND, DFO / CCG, and Industry were all working together on this, seemingly in harmony.  I'm in the industry, not in the government, so naturally, I'm not seeing behind the scenes, but when you can get hundreds of senior civil servants from four departments and their four MPs all in the same room and they are all telling the same story, I think there is more than just smoke there.

Particularly when they subsequently put something out that is at least reasonably close to what they discussed and what was recommended to them by industry.

The goal is to eliminate the boom/bust cycle independent of changing politics.  Let's hope they get the mechanics right, but at least they are getting the ideology right so far.  My biggest beef with it so far is the timeline of another 2 years before they start an AOPS or a JSS.


----------



## Rifleman62

Why would Canada want to committ strategically to a long term ship building programme in Quebec?

Whatever Quebec gets, it is _never enough_. The hand is always out for more. Quebec is not happy in Canada, as evidenced by how it's citizens vote nationally. The CPC will not get any more votes in Quebec if the contract is let there. They may down home and in BC.

Let Davie build ships for Quebec's own navy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> So further to this digression, here is the topic relevant question: What is more important to the government's shipbuilding strategy, the overall monetary figure, or the number of hulls that keep the shipyards busy continually? If the later is the answer (and in my view, it should), then forgo the three JSS and build four AOR's and two amphibious ships (À la "French "Mistral" or, better yet, à la South-Korean " Dodko" style) for the same price.



You're reading my mind.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

R62, I was not advocating anything political. I merely point out that it would be foolhardy to rule out in advance a "win" by the largest facility in the country.

To correct you on CPC politics however, Davies is located at Quebec city, the area where the CPC have made their greatest breaktrough in Quebec. B$ of shipbuiding there would go a long towards creating a "stronghold " in the province of Quebec from which to make inroads into the rural ridings by completely bypassing the overly left leaning Montreal. So you see, one can always come up with a valid political reason to do something.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You're reading my mind.



I agree totally and speaking as a end user this is the way to go.  I will go further and say "screw waiting years for these ships.  Go offshore now and get the ships in a couple of years or less"  I saw a documentary where Hyundai for example can go from cutting steel to turnover in 10 months.

However, to play Devil's advocate, this (AORs and Phibs) would require more personnel in an already stressed and degrading numbers game, and of course this has to be a "Made in Canada" solution for the acquisition of the ships.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Ah! But that is not so my padiwan-learner!

The Mistral/Dodko are designed to operate with a crew of approx. 170 to 180, which is easier to man than AOR's. As for the AOR's, you could operate in rotation two of them (one per coast at any given time) and the new ones would certainly have a much smaller crew than the current ones (with diesel electric propulsion and since the AOR's that I have in mind -and I think Ex-D also - would be dedicated to no other type of mission, you could probably get by  with today's automation with  crew of about 120).

Moreover, if you have had the chance (or  bad luck  ) of following some of my past post, you will see that I advocate turning any "pure" AOR over to the CFAV's, just like the Brits, to aleviate manning problems.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Additional on my last: The 120 crew for new AOR's properly automated includes all the logistics people and air group. With automation, you can run an AOR the navy way with a "hard sea trade [which includes cooks]" crew of 45 and run a four watch rotation.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Although beyond the JSS/AOPs/SCSC no other naval ship type has been talked about, so I am think the 'big honking ship' dream of General Hillier might have been just that, a dream.


----------



## karl28

I am just wondering instead of having a multi-role ship like the JSS wouldn't it be cheaper to have one Fuel supply ship  and than one cargo ship ? Forgive me I do not know the proper terms for those ships .


----------



## blacktriangle

I will leave it to the naval experts to further answer your question, but having just one AOR (the fuel supply ship in your words) won't cut it. You have to factor in training, deployments, refits etc into the rotation of the fleet. If I'm not mistaken, a few posts back someone suggested having 3-4 AORs...that makes more sense to me. 

I can't believe they are still trying to do this JSS thing as opposed to getting some friggin AOR hulls in the water. And for the love of good, no amphibs...there are plenty of other priorities. 

Just my 2 cents from a non-navy guy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

karl28 said:
			
		

> I am just wondering instead of having a multi-role ship like the JSS wouldn't it be cheaper to have one Fuel supply ship  and than one cargo ship ? Forgive me I do not know the proper terms for those ships .



Hi Karl,
  The reason why we use AORs is because they can carry both cargo and fuel. If we had two different types as you indicate that would mean twice the assets we would have to crew and escort.


----------



## 57Chevy

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said the plan would generate 75 million hours of work across the country over three decades.



That's great news for the economy no matter how you look at it


----------



## gcclarke

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Although beyond the JSS/AOPs/SCSC no other naval ship type has been talked about, so I am think the 'big honking ship' dream of General Hillier might have been just that, a dream.



As for AOPs, I'll believe it when I see it, and even then, I'll be sure to double check my glasses prescription.


----------



## karl28

Ex-Dragoon 

               Thanks for that eplenation makes sense to me . 

Cheers Karl


----------



## RC

gcclarke said:
			
		

> As for AOPs, I'll believe it when I see it, and even then, I'll be sure to double check my glasses prescription.



AOPS is the only planned ship with a design that's evolved enough to start cutting steel within a couple of months of signing a contract.

Within the next two years though, I expect there will be at least three more types with designs ready including the CCG OOSV, FRV, and with any luck the JSS.  I'm crossing my fingers for the heavy ice breaker as well, but we'll see.


----------



## RC

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I agree totally and speaking as a end user this is the way to go.  I will go further and say "screw waiting years for these ships.  Go offshore now and get the ships in a couple of years or less"  I saw a documentary where Hyundai for example can go from cutting steel to turnover in 10 months.
> 
> However, to play Devil's advocate, this (AORs and Phibs) would require more personnel in an already stressed and degrading numbers game, and of course this has to be a "Made in Canada" solution for the acquisition of the ships.



Hyundai _can_ build a ship this size in 10 months, but their are a lot of conditions.  You have to accept that you can't make any changes to the original design (whatever it happens to be), you have no meaningful quality or safety oversight on construction, and you can forget about military standards like copper nickel piping systems.  It works great for commercial carriers who want to build series vessels for cheap with minimal to zero design changes from an existing design.  But good luck to you trying to build a prototype military vessel or get the Koreans to read a NATO RAS standard.  You'll be lucky to get it built in Hyundai at all, much less in 10 months.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

RC said:
			
		

> Hyundai _can_ build a ship this size in 10 months, but their are a lot of conditions.  You have to accept that you can't make any changes to the original design (whatever it happens to be), you have no meaningful quality or safety oversight on construction, and you can forget about military standards like copper nickel piping systems.  It works great for commercial carriers who want to build series vessels for cheap with minimal to zero design changes from an existing design.  But good luck to you trying to build a prototype military vessel or get the Koreans to read a NATO RAS standard.  You'll be lucky to get it built in Hyundai at all, much less in 10 months.


The RAN are pretty happy with HMAS Sirius - built at Hyundai Mipo Dockyard in South Korea and then modified by Tenix Defence in Fremantle.  Not a full AOR for sure but cheap and effective.


----------



## gcclarke

RC said:
			
		

> AOPS is the only planned ship with a design that's evolved enough to start cutting steel within a couple of months of signing a contract.
> 
> Within the next two years though, I expect there will be at least three more types with designs ready including the CCG OOSV, FRV, and with any luck the JSS.  I'm crossing my fingers for the heavy ice breaker as well, but we'll see.



My concerns with the AOPs are not from a procument point of view. Rather, I question exactly how we're expected to be able to man them. I guess we'll see what happens the day after the CMS is forced to ask the Defence Minister which frigates he'd like to mothball in order to allow us to crew the AOPs.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> The RAN are pretty happy with HMAS Sirius - built at Hyundai Mipo Dockyard in South Korea and then modified by Tenix Defence in Fremantle.  Not a full AOR for sure but cheap and effective.



With one RAS station from the photographs I have seen and no hangar I can't see a ship like that in our Navy. Not sure how effective it is, if you have to refuel and relenish from the same station.


----------



## Infanteer

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Although beyond the JSS/AOPs/SCSC no other naval ship type has been talked about, so I am think the 'big honking ship' dream of General Hillier might have been just that, a dream.



An interesting point - General Hillier's "BHS" was the centerpiece to his joint forces strategy.  All that died a quiet death when Afghanistan took center stage and demanded the lion's share of the CF's  time, attention and resources.

Will we revisit a Joint Amphibious Strategy when Afghanistan is drawn down?


----------



## RC

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> The RAN are pretty happy with HMAS Sirius - built at Hyundai Mipo Dockyard in South Korea and then modified by Tenix Defence in Fremantle.  Not a full AOR for sure but cheap and effective.



I'm glad to hear they are satisfied, but purchasing a conventional commercial tanker at 10 months build time and then converting it over 27 months is a 37 month build program, not a 10 month build program as was previously quoted.

Note that nearly 2/3rds of the construction time and I can guarantee that most of the construction cost occurred in Australia, performed by an Australian yard.


----------



## mikhar1

Help get one of Canada's new navy ships named HMCS Barrie

Now that the Government of Canada plans to triple the size of our Navy fleet this is a perfect time to have one of the new ships named after the great city of Barrie On.

With Barrie’s long proud heritage in supporting the Armed Forces and its location to Base Borden Canada’s largest training base the naming of one of these new ships with the cities name would bring great pride to it’s residents. 

Join the page on Facebook under " Help get one of Canada's new navy ships named HMCS Barrie " 

Also under discussions you will be able to discuss topics like what will the new ship be ( LCS like in the U.S.) or will Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics get a chance to bid.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Help-get-one-of-Canadas-new-navy-ships-named-HMCS-Barrie/122462914457951?v=app_2373072738&ref=ts#!/pages/Help-get-one-of-Canadas-new-navy-ships-named-HMCS-Barrie/122462914457951


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

: Lets wait till we actually get the ships before we worry what we are going to call them...


----------



## northernboy_24

mikhar1 said:
			
		

> Now that the Government of Canada plans to triple the size of our Navy fleet this is a perfect time to have one of the new ships named after the great city of Barrie On.
> 
> I am a little confused where the government of Canada has said it will triple our fleet size.  Perhaps it is my ignorance.


----------



## gcclarke

Apparently announcing that you're going to be building a whole boat-load of ships, pardon the pun, leads some people to assume that we're not going to be disposing of the ships that will be rusting out in the meantime.


----------



## blacktriangle

It's Orwellian in nature. 

Decreasing the fleet but saying it is being tripled! 

Double Plus Good!  ;D


----------



## mikhar1

I hear what you are saying but I did read somewhere ( of course now I can't find ) that with the money being put into this effort will basically triple the size of the current fleet when combined with large and small ships over a period of time.

As soon as I find the article I will post it here.   :nod:


----------



## ekpiper

WRT naming, I really think Canada needs better names.  There's no real lustre or power in the names, just a place.  It's not inventive, and it's not alluring.  I actually think that better  ship names might actually be good for recruiting, as it stirs up emotions in people, showing qualities that the navy has, daring, audacious, dauntless.  

Good Names:  HMCS Puncher, HMS Daring, HMS Invincible, HMS Audacity, HMS Atlantis, HMS Dauntless

My  :2c:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Don't forget the Flower class, HMS Pansy  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell

There was an old joke about German U Boat captains being terrified of the flower class corvettes - who would ever want to admit that he'd been defeated by the _Pansy_ or the _Periwinkle_?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Or even a Compass Rose?


----------



## Edward Campbell

If names really matter then there is a good list here. The hull numbers of the lost MTBs could be preserved on the hulls of the _Orca_ class vessels. I know, I know, there's some international naval regulation re: hull numbers: our admirals could act like real senior officers and turn a blind eye to regulations and orders with which they take issue.


----------



## MARS

ekpiper said:
			
		

> WRT naming, I really think Canada needs better names.  There's no real lustre or power in the names, just a place.  It's not inventive, and it's not alluring.  I actually think that better  ship names might actually be good for recruiting, as it stirs up emotions in people, showing qualities that the navy has, daring, audacious, dauntless.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There was an old joke about German U Boat captains being terrified of the flower class corvettes - who would ever want to admit that he'd been defeated by the _Pansy_ or the _Periwinkle_?




Good points.  I tend to agree myself.  Years ago I read an artile by a Lt j.g. in US Naval Proceedings about the semblance of obscurity that certain US Ship's names had.  He was proposing that a ship be named the USS John Wayne.  A fictional character, but one who inspires some, maybe even a lot, of US folks.  

However, I doubt the Ship's Company of  this ship feel any thing less than masters of their universe, regardless of the name of their ship.  I doubt their enemy will be laughing at the name either, not for very long, at least.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We named our hovercrafts with Natives name, the slang versions are See ya and the Sea Poo  :


I suggest we call the first AOR; HMCS Never built.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Whenever the naming happens, I just hope they do it right. No matter, we will learn to live with them. I was at sea with HMCS YUKON the summer of 1983 when the CO came on the main broadcast to make the announcement that the contract for new frigates had been signed. There would be 6 in the initial batch with 12 to follow on and potentially 12 more (like that was EVER gonna happen!)
Anyway, the first 3 of the new CITY class would be HALIFAX, VANCOUVER and VILLE DE QUEBEC with potential follow on names CHARLOTTETOWN, ST JOHNS and FREDERICTON. In a navy (at that time) of ships named almost exclusively for rivers, these names sounded indeed odd.

Also, regarding FLOWER class corvettes, the first 10 Canadian built (which were supposed to go to the RN), were Windflower, Trillium, Hepatica, Arrowhead, Snowberry, Eyebright, Mayflower, Spikenard, Fennel and Bittersweet. As Canadian corvettes started leaving their shipyards, it was quickly decided to name them after communities (Thank God!!) and the first group of seven launched from Canadian yards became HMC Ships Chambly, Orillia, Collingwood, Cobalt, Wetaskiwin, Albernie and Agassiz.

Also, the story behind the naming of HMCS Dunver is quite interesting. If I remember where I have it, I will put it on here.

All this said, I think the naming process may be a classic case of jumping the gun a little. My suspicions are communities will be namesakes but that is my opinion only. All this big news makes me wish however that I wasn't on the downward side of my career.


----------



## Neill McKay

ekpiper said:
			
		

> There's no real lustre or power in the names, just a place.  It's not inventive, and it's not alluring.



True enough, but it does open the door to some terrific opportunities to remind the public about the navy, especially those who live away from the coasts.  Ships can cultivate a good relationship with their namesake city to the benefit of the navy as a whole.


----------



## Mortar guy

Ship names for a new generation to relate to:

HMCS Xbox
HMCS Facebook
HMCS Porn Star
HMCS Canadian Idol

(OK, the second last one was for me  )

MG


----------



## mikhar1

Great post N. McKay I totally agree.  The naming of communities is inspiring!


----------



## Sailorwest

In Calgary at least, the connection between the ship and the city is quite impressive. The interest in the ship often goes beyond the local naval community into the community at large. That connection simply did not exist under the previous ship names of rivers and bays. I think it was brilliant to name the ships after cities and towns in bringing the navy closer to Canadians and it should continue into the future.


----------



## mikhar1

I think it's great when a city that is no where near an ocean can have a great interest in a ship that has it's name on it.  That's what I’m trying to do with the City of Barrie where I live, we have a long standing history with Base Borden not to far from here where a lot of Canada's Navy / Air force and Army personnel received their training.


----------



## GAP

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Ship names for a new generation to relate to:
> 
> HMCS Xbox 360
> HMCS Facebook
> HMCS Porn StarLina LoveLace
> HMCS Canadian Idol
> 
> (OK, the second last one was for me  )
> 
> MG



TFTFU


----------



## karl28

We could always go with corprate sponsored names 

                    HMCS  TIM Horton's  
                    HMCS Canadian Tire 

          Or how about in honour of mother in laws every where 

            HMCS Battle Axe


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

mikhar1 said:
			
		

> I think it's great when a city that is no where near an ocean can have a great interest in a ship that has it's name on it.  That's what I’m trying to do with the City of Barrie where I live, we have a long standing history with Base Borden not to far from here where a lot of Canada's Navy / Air force and Army personnel received their training.



There was a Flower class corvette named HMCS Barrie during World War 2.


----------



## 57Chevy

What about.....and lets not forget about our own Canadian Hockey Legends:

                         HMCS Maurice Richard

                         HMCS Bobby Orr

                         HMCS Guy Lafleur

                         Etc....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

57Chevy said:
			
		

> What about.....and lets not forget about our own Canadian Hockey Legends:
> 
> HMCS Maurice Richard
> 
> HMCS Bobby Orr
> 
> HMCS Guy Lafleur
> 
> Etc....



I think there are 147 more deserving names then the above.


----------



## 57Chevy

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I think there are 147 more deserving names then the above.


OK.........I take back one of them: :
Guy Lafleur didn't mean to lie, court told
 http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Lafleur+didn+mean+court+told/3137082/story.html#ixzz0qTrimfOK


----------



## mikhar1

Come on PEEP's! I need some support to name one of the future new ships HMCS Barrie.

If your on Facebook join the page!

Thanks in advance.  

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Help-get-one-of-Canadas-new-navy-ships-named-HMCS-Barrie/122462914457951


----------



## aesop081

mikhar1 said:
			
		

> Come on PEEP's! I need some support to name one of the future new ships HMCS Barrie.



What new ships ?

Where do you see new ships being built ?

The government saying they are going to build some doesnt make it so.........


----------



## GAP

mikhar1 said:
			
		

> Come on PEEP's! I need some support to name one of the future new ships HMCS Barrie.
> 
> If your on Facebook join the page!
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Help-get-one-of-Canadas-new-navy-ships-named-HMCS-Barrie/122462914457951



                                                                                                            crickets


----------



## NavyShooter

When they start cutting steel, I'll start getting interested.


----------



## Stoker

If they ever build the AOPS, i'd like to see the first of class called the HMCS Labrador.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Stoker said:
			
		

> If they ever build the AOPS, i'd like to see the first of class called the HMCS Labrador.



That would be a good choice.


----------



## mikhar1

Yeah that is a good name, now that I think of it maby HMCS Barrie would go good on a Coast Guard ship as well!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

mikhar1 said:
			
		

> Yeah that is a good name, now that I think of it maby HMCS Barrie would go good on a Coast Guard ship as well!



Ok we get it, you want a ship named after Barrie...enough already!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maybe if we all sent wooden name boards with ship names to the MND's office with a piece of paper behind it that said: "Peel and stick to ship hull" they might get the hint.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Here are my choices for the AOPS, Inuit community names:

HMCS Puvirnituq; HMCS Kuujjuaraapik; HMCS Inukjuak; HMCS Kangiqsujuaq; HMCS Umiujaq; HMCS Kangiqsualujjuak; and, HMCS Quaqtaq.

Look them up, they all are real community names. Ought to make it interesting talking to radio operators at Vancouver and Halifax Traffic


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here are my choices for the AOPS, Inuit community names:
> 
> HMCS Puvirnituq; HMCS Kuujjuaraapik; HMCS Inukjuak; HMCS Kangiqsujuaq; HMCS Umiujaq; HMCS Kangiqsualujjuak; and, HMCS Quaqtaq.
> 
> Look them up, they all are real community names. Ought to make it interesting talking to radio operators at Vancouver and Halifax Traffic



*snicker* We will have to take them on an exercise just to listen to the Greeks or Turks try and pronounce those names.  >


----------



## MarkOttawa

How the Aussies save money, increase capabilities--buy foreign designs (Spanish in these cases) and have some of the work done abroad.  Two pieces from _Defense Industry Daily_:

Aussie Anti-Air Umbrella: The Hobart Class Ships
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aussie-anti-air-umbrella-the-hobart-class-ships-03409/

Australia’s Canberra Class LHDs
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-canberra-class-lhds-03384/

We've finally done that for some new Coast Guard vessels (though all construction will be done in Canada),
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2009sep00032.html

now what about that Dutch JSS?
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/78466/post-888125#msg888125

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RC

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> How the Aussies save money, increase capabilities--buy foreign designs (Spanish in these cases) and have some of the work done abroad.  Two pieces from _Defense Industry Daily_:
> 
> Aussie Anti-Air Umbrella: The Hobart Class Ships
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aussie-anti-air-umbrella-the-hobart-class-ships-03409/
> 
> Australia’s Canberra Class LHDs
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-canberra-class-lhds-03384/
> 
> We've finally done that for some new Coast Guard vessels (though all construction will be done in Canada),
> http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2009sep00032.html
> 
> now what about that Dutch JSS?
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/78466/post-888125#msg888125
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa




I notice that to suit you're opinion, you've conveniently ignored that the Damen design for the mid shore patrol vessels doesn't meet half the government's requirements and the decision to accept only previously built designs will leave them with a ship that does not reflect Canadian needs.

You've also failed to mention the CG's FSV fiasco where blindly following the idea that foreign designs are somehow superior and there is no design capability in Canada, the government sole sourced a foreign design that cost the taxpayers 2 million dollars and proved to be useless to their needs.

Canadian designers have no problem with competing internationally as that's what they do on a regular basis and they are quite successful at it, but to suggest that the Canadian government should buy foreign designs because they are somehow better than Canadian designs is simply ignorant and disrespectful to the capability of the Canadian naval architecture and marine engineering community, which is well respected in the rest of the world.

I sincerely hope that you will educate yourself on the contributions of Canadian companies in this domain and cease to spread misleading information that is damaging to national interests.


----------



## mikhar1

I believe  that Canada should create their own designs and build on their own needs for once we should be doing what we can at home and be proud of what we are putting out.  Designed in Canada built in Canada for Canada.

I know the Americans have a lot more money but we can do just what they do and build on it like they did so that our ship building industry can one day become one of the best in the world, we don't have far to go.


----------



## Nemecek

Just before the mods get angry, you should tidy up your post a little!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

mikhar1 said:
			
		

> I believe  that Canada should create their own designs and build on their own needs for once we should be doing what we can at home and be proud of what we are putting out.  Designed in Canada built in Canada for Canada.
> 
> I know the Americans have a lot more money but we can do just what they do and build on it like they did so that our ship building industry can one day become one of the best in the world, we don't have far to go.



Please back up your claims.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Neill McKay

mikhar1 said:
			
		

> I believe  that Canada should create their own designs and build on their own needs for once we should be doing what we can at home and be proud of what we are putting out.  Designed in Canada built in Canada for Canada.



That's been the practice for most federal government ship procurements for quite a while.  All current naval vessels except the submarines were built in Canada, as were a good portion of Coast Guard vessels.  I think most of the current and former Marine Atlantic ferries were built in Canada as well, but I'm not certain of that.  (I know some were not.)



> I know the Americans have a lot more money but we can do just what they do and build on it like they did so that our ship building industry can one day become one of the best in the world, we don't have far to go.



The biggest problem with the Canadian shipbuilding industry is that there isn't the volume of work that it needs to keep itself in good shape.  The federal government tends to buy ships in large numbers, but not very often.  So, for example, when the Canadian Patrol Frigate programme was going on we had two shipyards geared up to build frigates.  After that there was very little work to keep them going.  A lot of the professionals and tradesmen in the industry left to find work elsewhere.  Then, when it comes time to order another dozen ships you have to rebuild the shipbuilding industry almost from scratch.

Another factor is that it's usually a lot cheaper to build ships overseas, so Canadian shipyards have a lot of trouble competing for work.  While the federal government makes a point of building its ships in Canada, nobody else does.  (BC Ferries had its biggest ships built in Germany a few years ago and the Province of New Brunswick has a ferry under construction in Florida.)


----------



## GK .Dundas

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Discussed time and time again.


 and still being discussed


----------



## mikhar1

This really is starting to pi$$ me off, Why Can't the government just put the money on the table for the right amount of ships and the right equipment to go with those ships.  To save a little moeny just buy the plans for artic ships from like Sweden they have really great light artic navy ships.  We could then just build them here in Canada.

COME ON!!!

Navy struggles to keep northern ships in budget 


Wed, Aug 25 - 4:53 AM
OTTAWA (CP) — Federal documents say National Defence has reserved the right to build fewer of the Conservative government’s vaunted Arctic offshore patrol ships — or further water down the capabilities of the warships — in order to stay within the project’s budget envelope.

Military planners have struggled, almost from the moment the government was elected in 2006, to fulfil Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s pledge to put armed "ice capable" ships in the far North to enforce Canada’s sovereignty.

The government plans to build six light icebreakers for $3.1 billion.

Minutes from a series of internal planning meetings running from 2007 to 200 paint a picture of frustration among officials who are charged with designing and building ships that critics have said are more suited for the coast guard.

At issue is the government’s demand for a Canadian-built warship, but insistence on strict budget discipline, something one official called "inappropriate on shipbuilding projects."

Others said there needed to be flexibility in the system so that officials could accept fewer ships — or the same number of ships, but with less capability.


----------



## aesop081

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> *snicker* We will have to take them on an exercise just to listen to the Greeks or Turks try and pronounce those names.  >



Meh.........its all JNAP anyways......


----------



## RC

mikhar1 said:
			
		

> To save a little moeny just buy the plans for artic ships from like Sweden they have really great light artic navy ships.  We could then just build them here in Canada.



Can you describe some of the characteristics of these Swedish light arctic ships?  I can't find any information on anything remotely close to an arctic capable ship out of Sweden.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

RC said:
			
		

> Can you describe some of the characteristics of these Swedish light arctic ships?  I can't find any information on anything remotely close to an arctic capable ship out of Sweden.



The Swedish Coast Guard does not even have ice breakers but judging by his posts he types before he thinks things through.


----------



## 57Chevy

I found a little something of interest.
Nordic Nations Eye Joint High North Patrols 

In terms of Arctic defense assets, Sweden and Norway bring the most to the table. Sweden's Berga-based 1st Marine Regiment includes a corvette squadron (two Göteborg class and support ship), a mine-countermeasures squadron (Landsort class and support ship), one submarine (Gotland class), and a forward naval support element. The Swedish Navy's Gotland and Södermanland-class submarines are customized for operations in Arctic waters.

Sweden's Arctic-capable naval assets also include newly built Visby-class stealth corvettes.

Norway has invested heavily since the late 1990s in the development of naval ships capable of operating in Arctic waters. Most of the five Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates ordered have been commissioned, with the last, the Helge Ingstad (F313), expected to enter service this autumn.

more on link...
           (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Shared with the usual caveats.  

This is about bloody time, shame it was not also for new AORs too.

First steel plate cut for new coast guard vessels

The Canadian Press

Date: Thursday Sep. 2, 2010 10:45 AM ET

HALIFAX — Federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea has cut the first steel plate for nine new patrol vessels to be built for the coast guard -- a year to the day the contract was announced.  Shea was joined today at the Halifax Shipyard by workers, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter.

A $194-million contract for the mid-shore patrol vessels was awarded last Sept. 2 to Irving Shipbuilding Inc.  The first vessel is expected to be ready for service next year, with all nine vessels scheduled for delivery by 2013.  They will replace vessels that are nearing the end of their life expectancies.  Irving Shipbuilding estimates up to 155 people will work on the project with suppliers across Canada benefiting from millions of dollars in purchases of goods and services.


----------



## The Bread Guy

".... This Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SQIQ) is the first step of a competitive process to select two Canadian shipyards to build large ships under long-term strategic sourcing arrangements with the Government of Canada. Every Interested Party that has demonstrated compliance with the terms stipulated in this SOIQ document will be short-listed and be invited to participate in the ensuing Request for Proposals (RFP) process ...."

More on SQIQ in attached bid document - more on the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) Work Packages here.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As Yoda would say: "To qualify for selection good is, to large ships build even better is".


----------



## RC

I hear rumours that there has been another delay in the process.  Any news?


----------



## MarkOttawa

What the gov't does not mention is that the CCG's MSPVs are a Dutch design (thank goodness, saves money):
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2009sep00032.html







http://www.damen.nl/index.aspx?mId=8572&rId=544

As for the shipbuilding strategy more generally, a post at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's _3Ds Blog_:

The Government’s Fun with Shipbuilding Money and Numbers
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=93

Here too a foreign angle could well help reduce costs for the CSC:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/99004/post-1017397.html#msg1017397

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RC

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> What the gov't does not mention is that the CCG's MSPVs are a Dutch design (thank goodness, saves money):



Sigh.

Here is my response to you spreading this misinformation from the last page:

I notice that to suit you're opinion, you've conveniently ignored that the Damen design for the mid shore patrol vessels doesn't meet half the government's requirements and the decision to accept only previously built designs will leave them with a ship that does not reflect Canadian needs.

You've also failed to mention the CG's FSV fiasco where blindly following the idea that foreign designs are somehow superior and there is no design capability in Canada, the government sole sourced a foreign design that cost the taxpayers 2 million dollars and proved to be useless to their needs.

Canadian designers have no problem with competing internationally as that's what they do on a regular basis and they are quite successful at it, but to suggest that the Canadian government should buy foreign designs because they are somehow better than Canadian designs is simply ignorant and disrespectful to the capability of the Canadian naval architecture and marine engineering community, which is well respected in the rest of the world.

I sincerely hope that you will educate yourself on the contributions of Canadian companies in this domain and cease to spread misleading information that is damaging to national interests.


----------



## Rifleman62

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/02/09/17216991.html

*Fallen Heroes to be honoured with namesake ships Thursday*

By BRYN WEESE, Parliamentary Bureau

OTTAWA — Is it any wonder they're called the Hero Class?

Canada's new fleet of nine mid-shore patrol vessels will get their new names Thursday, and will all honour fallen Canadians who died in the line of duty.

Ministers Peter MacKay, Gail Shea and Jean-Pierre Blackburn will announce the nine new ships' names Thursday at a ceremony at the National War Museum.

According to a government source, fallen heroes from the Coast Guard, Canadian Forces and RCMP will be honoured with ships in their name, and family members of the ships' namesakes will be in attendance for the ceremony.

Two of the vessels will be named for First World War heroes Cpl. Joseph Kaeble and Pte. James Robertson, both of whom were awarded the Victoria Cross for their bravery and sacrifice.

The Hero Class mid-shore patrol vessels, which are being built at the Halifax Shipyard, are expected to hit the seas for the Canadian Coast Guard in 2013.

The ships, which will be about 40 metres long, will have an effective patrol range of 220 km off shore and a maximum speed of 46 km/h.

The CCGS Corporal Kaeble and CCGS Private Robertson will be used in a joint maritime security program with the RCMP in the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence Seaway system.


----------



## Rifleman62

Another ship name:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/first-woman-to-fall-in-afghan-combat-earns-nautical-honour/article1901893/
*
First woman to fall in Afghan combat earns nautical honour*

The Harper government is honouring Nichola Goddard, the first Canadian female soldier to die in combat, by naming a new Coast Guard vessel after her.

Sources say Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Fisheries Minister Gail Shea and Veterans Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn will announce the move Thursday in Ottawa. The government will also name other vessels after fallen Canadian soldier

Army Captain Goddard, who died in May 2006, was the 16th Canadian soldier killed in the Afghanistan war.

As a forward observation officer, Capt. Goddard's job was to call artillery fire on enemy targets. It was a risky assignment, one of the most dangerous in the artillery, but she was known as a strong leader who inspired loyalty and courage among the soldiers of her unit.

The Harper government has commissioned new mid-shore Coast Guard patrol vessels and one of these will be named after the Calgary-based soldier.

Capt. Goddard, 26, was killed in an intense firefight with up to 200 Taliban insurgents near Panjwai, about 24 kilometres west of Kandahar city, where hundreds of Canadian soldiers were supporting Afghan security forces.


----------



## Redeye

Here's a link to the press release containing all the names:

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Harper-Government-Names-New-Coast-Guard-Vessels-in-Honour-of-Canadian-Heroes-1393899.htm

I heard from Cpl MacLaren's widow of this honour a couple of days ago.  He was a good friend, and I'm hoping to see the ship being built in Halifax.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

RC said:
			
		

> Sigh.
> 
> Here is my response to you spreading this misinformation from the last page:
> 
> I notice that to suit you're opinion, you've conveniently ignored that the Damen design for the mid shore patrol vessels doesn't meet half the government's requirements and the decision to accept only previously built designs will leave them with a ship that does not reflect Canadian needs.
> 
> You've also failed to mention the CG's FSV fiasco where blindly following the idea that foreign designs are somehow superior and there is no design capability in Canada, the government sole sourced a foreign design that cost the taxpayers 2 million dollars and proved to be useless to their needs.
> 
> Canadian designers have no problem with competing internationally as that's what they do on a regular basis and they are quite successful at it, but to suggest that the Canadian government should buy foreign designs because they are somehow better than Canadian designs is simply ignorant and disrespectful to the capability of the Canadian naval architecture and marine engineering community, which is well respected in the rest of the world.
> 
> I sincerely hope that you will educate yourself on the contributions of Canadian companies in this domain and cease to spread misleading information that is damaging to national interests.



I know Robbie Allan fairly well, the 500 class cutters did use a proven hull design, but thanks to The CG adding insane amount of requirements, the vessels weight and CG both crept up, to the point that the vessels needed 2 active and one passive measure to reduce roll. Several years later the CG had to run them through a serious weight loss program, it was also discovered that the ship yard had substituted materials that were heavier than specified in the design ( steel pipes for the mast monitors) 
Frankly the vessels could have easily been reduced by one deck, which would have made them a much better sea boat. The stern ramp IRIB launching system has some issues, but still far better than what we had previously on the old R class.
At around the same time the yards also built vessels for the navy to be used as torpedo recovery vessels, etc They to suffered stability issues but I am not acquainted with them, but even looking at them made you think “top heavy”. Two other vessels types that bear remembering are the Weather ships, range reduced by the addition of concrete to solve stability issues and the Fisheries vessels Sinclar, a POS that had to spend most of her time hiding from weather.
To balance that out, the 1100 class icebreaker/buoy tenders were an excellent design and good vessels to work and live on. I believe they were a completely domestic design. As for small vessels, regardless of design origins, the quality of shipyard work on our under 100’ fleet was appalling in the late 80’s and 90’s. to name a few
70’ Point class
First of the 41’ class (Rest built by matsumoto were excellent)    
Landing barges
RER response boats made in fiberglass 
First 2 vessels of the 47’ class, built in Kingston , Ontario. Rest built in BC met requirement.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Pte Robertson was the Uncle of a former Brother in Law of mine.  The RCL Branch where I grew up is named in his honour as well as he enlisted in that town too.  Good choices, all for the new CCG vessels.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I too salute Cpl Keable and Pte Robinson's, both VC's, inclusion in the "Hero" class of patrol boats.

However, I have greater difficulties with Capt. Goddard's inclusion. I mean no disrespect here and do not wish to diminish what she accomplished at all, but she has not accomplished anything in Afghanistan that was not also achieved by all the other "heroes" that lost their lives to date. Her sole distinction is in being the first woman to die in combat operations. When we decided to open all combat roles to woman, in full equality to men, we knew that such a day would come. But this very equality concept means that we should not make her death more heroic than anyone else's just because she is a woman.

Can you imagine the conversation in a few years if two of those patrol boats are in port together:

Grandchild: Who was Pte Robinson, Grandpa?
Grandfather: He was a soldier in WW1, and a hero.
GC: What did he do?
GF: He won the Victoria Cross, the highest honour for bravery in combat, because he .....
GC: And who was Capt. Goddard?
GF: She was the first Canadian woman killed in combat.
GC: Okay, but what did she do?
GF: Ah! ....

All who have laid their lives for us in Afghanistan are equally "heroes", and in that sense as deserving as she is. If the government wanted to celebrate "heroes" of the Afghanistan mission, shouldn't they have picked someone who has received a special honour for something done while in Afghanistan?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> All who have laid their lives for us in Afghanistan are equally "heroes", and in that sense as deserving as she is. If the government wanted to celebrate "heroes" of the Afghanistan mission, shouldn't they have picked someone who has received a special honour for something done while in Afghanistan?



Yes, I agree they are all hero's.  At least to me they are.  But, but, maybe the rub is that although there have been medals of valour awarded through the mission the problem is that they don't have a current VC to select from.  It is my opinion, and not to take away in any way shape or form from those who have been awarded the VC, some of our SMV recipients were worthy of a VC.

Capt Goddard gave all of her tomorrows for her comrades, as all or fallen have.  If that is not heroic, then where do you draw the line, at the VC?  They appeared to chose from a cross section of examples of selfless sacrifice.  I am sure we could spend from now to eternity Monday morning quarterbacking the choices and nominating our own, but in the end you won't please everyone.  No matter how you slice it,  not everyone deserving such recognition will get it however many ships are launched by the Federal Gov't.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I for one, am pleased that we are naming ships after our Fallen. It is about time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I got to serve on the George R. Pearkes. they had his picture hanging in the lounge

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/Fleet/Vessels?id=1004


----------



## chrisf

Most of the existing coast guard ships have already been named for historical and noteworthy Canadians... glad to see they're continuing this...


----------



## canuck101

found this online last night.  http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=696:2011mar00317&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=107

Fincantieri moves to acquire Davie 
Québec shipbuilder Davie Yards announced today that it has entered into an exclusivity agreement with Fincantieri  and DRS Technologies Canada ("DRS"), a Finmeccanica company, to negotiate the potential acquisition of the shipyard by an entity that will be majority-owned by Fincantieri. In order to continue this process, Davie has obtained an order from the Québec Superior Court (the "Court") extending the stay of proceedings ordered by the Court to May 19, 2011, the whole pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA").

"In Fincantieri and DRS, a Finmeccanica company, Davie has found the industrial investors it was looking for, combining both the financial strength and the technical expertise", said the President and CEO of Davie, Mr. Gustav Johan Nydal. He continued, "This is an important step in the right direction but there is still a lot of work to do in order to complete the transaction within a very short timeframe so the shipyard will be able to submit a valid bid for the federal contracts."

Fincantieri and DRS will immediately join Davie's efforts to respond to the request for proposal to become one of the two selected shipyards under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy ("NSPS").

Davie says it  has obtained confirmation that, subject to the approval of the required authorities, the Quebec Government will provide additional interim financing to meet the cash requirements for the duration of the extension.

March 31, 2011


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the Canadian Press:


> The Conservative government wants lobbyists to butt out of Canada's new shipbuilding industry.
> 
> Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose managed to raise more than a few eyebrows at a large defence industry trade show in Ottawa on Wednesday with that pronouncement.
> 
> She told a large gathering of defence industry insiders, military officials, business leaders — and lobbyists — that the government doesn't want lobbyists to play a role in Canada's new National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.
> 
> "Companies involved in the NSPS implementation process have been asked not to engage lobbyists. It was our intention at the outset to ensure that the NSPS competition would be run through a process that is completely arms length of politics," Ambrose told hundreds in her luncheon speech.
> 
> The government has already held consultations with industry association representatives and chief executives of large companies on the future of Canada's shipbuilding industry, she said.
> 
> "Our government's commitment to ensuring fairness and openness and transparency is clear. Whether shipyards are successful or not will depend 100 per cent on the merits of their proposals."
> 
> The remarks were the latest example of the Harper government's tough stand against lobbyists, the powerful backroom brokers who open doors for the various interests that want to do business with government ....


----------



## Strike

There was another article with a quote from one of the bidders basically comparing the request not to hire lobbyists akin to asking university students not to partake in carnal pleasure.

Reading that was a good way to start the day.   ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The game is afoot!

Upper Lakes purchase of Davies goes through and they are entering the bidding under the national shipbuilding strategy.

See article: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Davie+Yards+gets+lifeline+after+firm+pulls+takeover/5107146/story.html

It is a game changer: The largest facility in Canada, located in Québec, under Ontario management, in association with Daewoo of Korea (who builds a lot of the South Korean warships) and SNC Lavalin, one of the worlds largest engineering firm.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The game is afoot!
> 
> Upper Lakes purchase of Davies goes through and they are entering the bidding under the national shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> See article: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Davie+Yards+gets+lifeline+after+firm+pulls+takeover/5107146/story.html
> 
> It is a game changer: The largest facility in Canada, located in Québec, under Ontario management, in association with Daewoo of Korea (who builds a lot of the South Korean warships) and SNC Lavalin, one of the worlds largest engineering firm.


And according to the Canadian Press, a briefing on the Big Honkin' Shipbuilding Strategy appears to be under way right now.


> Senior officials from National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy Secretariat briefing reporters now in Ottawa.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> A $40-million package from the Province will support Seaspan's bid for a portion of the federal government's multi-billion dollar National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS), and support marine industry jobs in B.C., announced Pat Bell, Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.
> 
> "As promised, our government is helping Seaspan submit the strongest possible bid and this investment focuses on job-creation," said Bell. "We are investing in our human capital by supporting the creation of marine industry jobs for years to come."
> 
> If Seaspan's bid is successful, the Province proposes to offer enhanced training or other labour tax credits for eligible marine industry employers in B.C. The proposed tax support would provide up to an estimated $35 million in benefits to Seaspan over the 30-year life of the shipbuilding program.
> 
> As well, the Province will invest $5 million to support the productivity and long-term viability of the broader marine sector should Seaspan win a federal contract ....


Source:  Government of BC news release, 25 Jul 11


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don't envy the people that have to wade through all the bids and audit them...


_Vancouver Shipyards spent in excess of $1-million to prepare the bid submitted last Tuesday. The documents filled *30,000 pages in 125 binders*, shipped to the federal government in 22 boxes. The bid sets out how the company would upgrade equipment and facilities at the company’s Vancouver and Victoria shipyards, new processes to improve productivity and where the company would find enough people for production and management of the massive projects, Mr. Shaw said._

rest of article at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/warship-contract-would-bring-sea-change-in-industry-builder-says/article2108333/


----------



## The Bread Guy

Davie's in....


> The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy Secretariat today announced that it had accepted the application for a change of bidder received from 7731299 Canada Inc. (Davie Canada) on July 21, 2011.
> 
> The application and all supporting documentation were received before bids closed on July 21, 2011. The application met all the legal and experience qualification criteria and contained all other attestations required in the original Solicitation of Interest and Qualification issued in September 2010.
> 
> Three bidders have submitted proposals in connection with the Request for Proposals (RFP) to build large vessels for Canada.
> 
> One shipyard will be selected to build combat vessels and another to build non-combat vessels. The two shipyards selected will be those that represent best value to Canada.
> 
> Canada will not respond to public enquiries until the evaluation process is complete and the results are announced.


Source:  PWGSC news release, 27 Jul 11 - more from the _Montreal Gazette_ here.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I wish we could do this soon....like tomorrow.
I move over to "the other side" in September and may utilize my Chiefly charms when I get there!!


----------



## BadEnoughDudeRescueRonny

I would literally cry tears of joy if something along the lines of a modern-day Canadian equivalent of an Iowa-class battleship was built. A modern, capable and distinctly Canadian large warship is quite suitable for the return of the RCN namesake. Something that shows the pride and history of the RCN while also being big and highly effective in combat would be such a feather in this nation's cap.


----------



## cupper

I predict that they will be looking for an amphibious carrier assault ship like this. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_%28LHA-6%29

Then they will restructure the entire Canadian Forces so that all of our soldiers, sailors and air-people can be stationed in one convenient location, ready to move at a moment's notice to any part of the world.

And where, you ask, is that convenient location? Why Cambridge Bay Nunavut. This way we also address arctic sovereignty  issues as well.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

How about we build something we truly need like new AORs and replacements for the 280s.  What good would a battleship be? They are crew and maintenance intensive. Something the RCN cannot afford. We need our ships at sea!


----------



## mad dog 2020

I watched a documentary about the American battleship USS Jersey,  each had a compliment of say 5-6000. I was amazed they were commissioned for WW2 and sailed for a couple of years. When the war entered they were stored, manpower issues. They were used for Korean war and mothballed again. Used for Viet Nam and moth balled again, used for Desert Storm and retired.  So I did a rough estimate and the 50 yr old ships sailed maybe 15. Talk about money pits.
That ship you featured has a compliment of over a thousand sailors, for ONE ship on one coast.  Just imagine what to do with the sailed when it goes into a refit or refurbish.  
And lastly sadly to mention if it was engaged and went down the loss of life is massive. Remember Pearl Harbour.
We need AOR or something similar. And at least 3, as it seems we are doing more disaster relief and for Haiti we sure could have used something.  Tsunami, Katrina etc etc.
I hope you were kidding about a central location as response time is important and Canada is huge.....
That USS New York looks real cool.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> How about we build something we truly need like new AORs and replacements for the 280s.  What good would a battleship be? They are crew and maintenance intensive. Something the RCN cannot afford. We need our ships at sea!



Bingo!  And the sooner the better.


----------



## cupper

Since when has the government made smart decisions?

I agree that AOR's are sorely needed. But there has been talk in the past about a multi-role vessel that could serve as an AOR, troop and equipment transport, and mission support.

What are the chances that they try and go the multi role route rather than the single purpose AOR.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

cupper said:
			
		

> Since when has the government made smart decisions?
> 
> I agree that AOR's are sorely needed. But there has been talk in the past about a multi-role vessel that could serve as an AOR, troop and equipment transport, and mission support.
> 
> What are the chances that they try and go the multi role route rather than the single purpose AOR.



Ummmm thats why they have been pushing the JSS for so long...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

cupper said:
			
		

> I predict that they will be looking for an amphibious carrier assault ship like this.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_%28LHA-6%29
> 
> Then they will restructure the entire Canadian Forces so that all of our soldiers, sailors and air-people can be stationed in one convenient location, ready to move at a moment's notice to any part of the world.
> 
> And where, you ask, is that convenient location? Why Cambridge Bay Nunavut. This way we also address arctic sovereignty  issues as well.



Useless for the RCN as a battleship would be...start where we need to replace the ship types and maybe if we are looking at an amphib capability get an LPD as an LHA/LHD would be far too expensive four the Navy to use efficiently.


----------



## cupper

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Useless for the RCN as a battleship would be...start where we need to replace the ship types and maybe if we are looking at an amphib capability get an LPD as an LHA/LHD would be far too expensive four the Navy to use efficiently.



Damn! I keep forgetting to put in the tongue in cheek HTML coding. ;D


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

Just speculating ... but are there any possible synergies with the "honken huge" ships that are needed for the Central Baffin Project (Iron Mine in Central Baffin) for ore haulage .. Could there be a common design for at least some elements ?


----------



## FSTO

With a decision coming this week who do you think are the shipyards that should win and will win the contracts?


----------



## cupper

Irving in Halifax and Saint John should win, but the Quebec yards will will based on the results of the election, and the sudden pandering by Harper about adding seats for Quebec.

So essentially the same thing that has always happened.


----------



## Stoker

Whoever wins means alot of pers are going to get out and go to work for the shipyards.


----------



## PuckChaser

cupper said:
			
		

> Irving in Halifax and Saint John should win, but the Quebec yards will will based on the results of the election, and the sudden pandering by Harper about adding seats for Quebec.



I know this isn't a politics thread, but Harper hasn't pandered to Quebec yet, why would he start now?

Whoever wins, hopefully the Navy can start building the new ships that are desperately needed.


----------



## gcclarke

Based upon what I've seen from (and heard about) the shipyards in question, it is my hope that Seaspan wins the primary contract, and Davies gets the 2ndary one.


----------



## Bass ackwards

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Whoever wins means alot of pers are going to get out and go to work for the shipyards.



Please forgive what may seem like a stupid question, but I've seen a couple of comments now to the effect that the RCN is going to hemorrhage a lot of people if and when the building actually starts. 

Why is this ?


----------



## Stoker

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Please forgive what may seem like a stupid question, but I've seen a couple of comments now to the effect that the RCN is going to hemorrhage a lot of people if and when the building actually starts.
> 
> Why is this ?



Its because the new shipbuilding contracts will guarantee many years of work and they'll need to expand their workforce. What better to hire than navy personnel who have dealt with the shipyards from time to time. Simply put many guys would rather work on the civi side.
Many are hanging on to see where the contracts are being awarded, we will lose people. Just like when the CPF's were being built.


----------



## jollyjacktar

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Based upon what I've seen from (and heard about) the shipyards in question, it is my hope that Seaspan wins the primary contract, and Davies gets the 2ndary one.



Davies are not without a checkered past performance wise and have shit the bed on many's an occasion.  I hear good things about the West coast and Nfld contenders.  Irving?  Despise them as a whole.  Still all in all, I'll believe new ships when I see new ships.  We have been lead down the garden path too many times up to now.

Bass, that's because the short timers will step across and take their considerable skills and knowledge to the builders.  There will be generous offers of employment for some.  Who could blame them for looking after their futures over the next decade or so they would be working in the workforce.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Bass, that's because the short timers will step across and take their considerable skills and knowledge to the builders.  There will be generous offers of employment for some.  Who could blame them for looking after their futures over the next decade or so they would be working in the workforce.



We'll lose a lot of the guys with over 20 years in where they can draw a pension and work full time in the yard as well.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> We'll lose a lot of the guys with over 20 years in where they can draw a pension and work full time in the yard as well.



If you mean FMF, you're right.  But with the cutbacks to the civil service that source is getting more dry.  From what I have been told from my former co-workers who came to FMF from Irving, I would not jump over to them without some serious contemplation.  Don't trust them with what I have heard on how they can treat employees.


----------



## Bass ackwards

Chief, I can understand a guy (or gal for that matter) who already has their pension locked in, but -just going on what I've gleaned from this site over the last few years- will there be enough years of employment to make it worthwhile for someone with _less_ than 20 years to change horses like that ?

My impression was that what we do here (in Canada) is wait until the keels are literally rusting off the ships, then we give 'er for a few years to build new ones and then padlock the shipyards for another 20 years or so. 

As you and jollyjacktar point out: guys with knowledge, experience and skills will step across, but will that matter to a unionized shipyard ? I've no doubt that to the employer, a hull tech or marine electrician or any other tech would be a jewell to hire, but will that ring the same bell with the union -who will invariably give precedence to the lazy, pot-head arsehole who blows shifts on a routine basis and does as little as possible when he _does_ show up but who was lucky enough to get hired a day _earlier_ than the ex-RCN guy ? 

Please gents, I'm not arguing your point. I'm genuinely curious. I've been working in unionized industrial shops now for the last 14 years.
The first one (softwood lumber) got shot out from under me after I put 10 years in. So I started over again at age 43 (in mining this time) and all the work ethic, attendance records, experience or anything else didn't mean a damned thing. Return to square one. 
Oh the money's nice. I'm not hurting at all. I don't have to work very hard if I don't feel like it. 
But how long does this gig last ?

I'd be curious to know how the guys who left for the CPF project made out. What are they doing now ?


----------



## Navalsnpr

I would imagine that all three shipyard (BC, NS & QC) will get a piece of the pie.


----------



## Stoker

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Chief, I can understand a guy (or gal for that matter) who already has their pension locked in, but -just going on what I've gleaned from this site over the last few years- will there be enough years of employment to make it worthwhile for someone with _less_ than 20 years to change horses like that ?
> 
> My impression was that what we do here (in Canada) is wait until the keels are literally rusting off the ships, then we give 'er for a few years to build new ones and then padlock the shipyards for another 20 years or so.
> 
> The ship building will last over twenty years supposedly.
> 
> As you and jollyjacktar point out: guys with knowledge, experience and skills will step across, but will that matter to a unionized shipyard ? I've no doubt that to the employer, a hull tech or marine electrician or any other tech would be a jewell to hire, but will that ring the same bell with the union -who will invariably give precedence to the lazy, pot-head arsehole who blows shifts on a routine basis and does as little as possible when he _does_ show up but who was lucky enough to get hired a day _earlier_ than the ex-RCN guy ?
> 
> Even with all the call backs, they will have to hire hundreds of workers off the street.
> 
> Please gents, I'm not arguing your point. I'm genuinely curious. I've been working in unionized industrial shops now for the last 14 years.
> The first one (softwood lumber) got shot out from under me after I put 10 years in. So I started over again at age 43 (in mining this time) and all the work ethic, attendance records, experience or anything else didn't mean a damned thing. Return to square one.
> Oh the money's nice. I'm not hurting at all. I don't have to work very hard if I don't feel like it.
> But how long does this gig last ?
> 
> I'd be curious to know how the guys who left for the CPF project made out. What are they doing now ?
> 
> I suspect a lot of guys went on to other things as the project only lasted for a short number of years.


----------



## Bass ackwards

20+ years of shipbuilding in this country sounds like a good thing.

I guess all we can do is wish the old salts well and hope the new ships attract new people. 

Thanks for the replies.


----------



## cupper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I know this isn't a politics thread, but Harper hasn't pandered to Quebec yet, why would he start now?



Call me cynical, but since they lost Quebec seats in the last election, he'll try and rebuild by dumping money and attention on Quebec. I watched growing up in the 70's and 80's. And the quality of work coming out of Quebec has always been suspect at best. Remember when they had to tow the Algonquin away in the middle of the night and bring her back to Halifax to finish the job?

And Bombardier did a bang up job on the MLVW and the Iltis.


----------



## PuckChaser

He didn't dump money and attention to Quebec when he had a minority, and got a majority government without a lot of Quebec seats. Methinks Quebec's time of pushing around federal politics is over.


----------



## cupper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He didn't dump money and attention to Quebec when he had a minority, and got a majority government without a lot of Quebec seats. Methinks Quebec's time of pushing around federal politics is over.



Here's hoping, but I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## MightyIndustry

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Chief, I can understand a guy (or gal for that matter) who already has their pension locked in, but -just going on what I've gleaned from this site over the last few years- will there be enough years of employment to make it worthwhile for someone with _less_ than 20 years to change horses like that ?
> 
> My impression was that what we do here (in Canada) is wait until the keels are literally rusting off the ships, then we give 'er for a few years to build new ones and then padlock the shipyards for another 20 years or so.
> 
> As you and jollyjacktar point out: guys with knowledge, experience and skills will step across, but will that matter to a unionized shipyard ? I've no doubt that to the employer, a hull tech or marine electrician or any other tech would be a jewell to hire, but will that ring the same bell with the union -who will invariably give precedence to the lazy, pot-head arsehole who blows shifts on a routine basis and does as little as possible when he _does_ show up but who was lucky enough to get hired a day _earlier_ than the ex-RCN guy ?
> 
> Please gents, I'm not arguing your point. I'm genuinely curious. I've been working in unionized industrial shops now for the last 14 years.
> The first one (softwood lumber) got shot out from under me after I put 10 years in. So I started over again at age 43 (in mining this time) and all the work ethic, attendance records, experience or anything else didn't mean a damned thing. Return to square one.
> Oh the money's nice. I'm not hurting at all. I don't have to work very hard if I don't feel like it.
> But how long does this gig last ?
> 
> I'd be curious to know how the guys who left for the CPF project made out. What are they doing now ?



Somebody please enlighten me. My understanding of the trades qualifications that you get in the CF is that they don't count for much towards a civvy trades ticket. If you're a specialist (I'm talking "subject matter expert" qualifications), you have some leverege, but if you're a hull tech or an electrician (for example) you still have to start out as an apprentice when you get out of the forces. And now, with Electricians, NETs, and weapons techs being all the same trade, the discrepancy between what working life on the "inside is" compared to what its like "outside" is going to...make it difficult for people getting out.


----------



## MightyIndustry

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If you mean FMF, you're right.  But with the cutbacks to the civil service that source is getting more dry.  From what I have been told from my former co-workers who came to FMF from Irving, I would not jump over to them without some serious contemplation.  Don't trust them with what I have heard on how they can treat employees.



BTW
From what I understand (and I'm probably the only guy here that didn't already know this-so ecuse my ignorance) there is no more double dipping. There is one federal pension, and only one federal pension.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

cupper said:
			
		

> Irving in Halifax and Saint John should win, but the Quebec yards will will based on the results of the election, and the sudden pandering by Harper about adding seats for Quebec.
> 
> So essentially the same thing that has always happened.



Here we go again with the "this is my opinion, so I must be right and you have to accept it as fact".

Show us the money!!  Show us the seats for Quebec, show us the overwhelming need to console the Quebec shipyards (or legislature) and above all, show us PM Harper's 'pandering' to Quebec. Because, since he's recieved a majority, without Quebec, parliment no longer needs to have that Quebec trump card, and he's been governing fine without it.

Once the redisribution and addition of seats takes place, Quebec will become about as relevant as that heated floor you have in the rear of your minivan.


----------



## cupper

recceguy said:
			
		

> Here we go again with the "this is my opinion, so I must be right and you have to accept it as fact".
> 
> Show us the money!!  Show us the seats for Quebec, show us the overwhelming need to console the Quebec shipyards (or legislature) and above all, show us PM Harper's 'pandering' to Quebec. Because, since he's recieved a majority, without Quebec, parliment no longer needs to have that Quebec trump card, and he's been governing fine without it.
> 
> Once the redisribution and addition of seats takes place, Quebec will become about as relevant as that heated floor you have in the rear of your minivan.



:boring: Your tirades about my posts are getting very tiring. :facepalm:

First: you are correct in one point for which I must give you credit. I did express an opinion. Did I say it had to be right? No. Show me where in these posts that I claim to be right and everyone else's opinion is wrong and doesn't matter. If you can find it, fine, otherwise, blow it out your shorts.

Second: how am I supposed to show that something I said may possibly happen happened when it hasn't happened yet? I did not say that Harped had dumped money into Quebec, but that based on recent statements by "The Harper Government" all indications were that we are heading back into another cycle of "Lets be Nice to Quebec"

Third: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/14/pol-harper-new-seats.html

Fourth: I've watched Government after Government for the past 40+ years pander to Quebec. Plus ca change, c'est plus la meme chose.

Finally: There you go again making another assumption based on some non-existant statement. I don't drive a mininvan.  ;D


----------



## observor 69

According to my newspaper Harper has delayed a Parliamentary seat redistribution as it would add seats to western Canada but give no additional ones to Quebec. 
Also, while obviously required, the much delayed money for the replacement for the Champlain bridge was recently announced. 
So any attempt to predict whether best versus political decision will direct the ship contract is hard to call.

IMHO of course.


----------



## jollyjacktar

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> BTW
> From what I understand (and I'm probably the only guy here that didn't already know this-so ecuse my ignorance) there is no more double dipping. There is one federal pension, and only one federal pension.



If you retire with your contract complete, or 24 year + a day, you are eligible for an immediate annuity.  That cannot be taken from you.


----------



## Edward Campbell

How much of a _strategy_ is it gong to be?

What is the AIM of our shipbuilding policy? Near term AIM? Medium term AIM? Long term AIM?

*Because I really don't know:* what share of the Canadian shipbuilding industry is from the Gov't of Canada (Navy, Coast Guard, Fisheries & Oceans, Crown Corporations, etc)?

Where do provinces - e.g. BC which has a big _public_ ferry fleet - fit into the strategy?

How do we do on private and off-shore sales? Are the oil rigs, that we build, for example exported?

What about design? Are we a nation with a capable naval architecture infrastructure - one that can design for export?

----------

Personally, I would like a truly _national_ plan: one that says "we (Ottawa and St John's and Halifax and Fredricton and Quebec City and Toronto and Victoria) plan to build _about_ _x_ warships, _y_ coast guard and fisheries research vessels, etc and _z_ ferries over the next 20 years. We expect to keep _n_ yards on the Pacific Coast, in the Great Lakes, in the St Lawrence and on the Atlantic Coast busy with a total of about __number__ permanent jobs."

From a regional industrial/employment perspective, _n_ jobs with a 20 year + "lifespan" is better than _3n_ jobs that only last for six or seven years.


----------



## PuckChaser

cupper said:
			
		

> Third: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/14/pol-harper-new-seats.html



Did you even read the article? It was hinted that because there is going to be a large increase of seats to other provinces, Quebec's representation in the House would fall below the representation it has for the Canadian population and it would have to have some seats added so it is equal. That's the whole point of adding new seats, giving all the provinces proper seat distribution based on their representative populations. No one is pandering Quebec, to me it sounds like he'll give Quebec a pittance so they have no excuse if they try to whine about not getting more than a handful of seats because at least they'll get some.

Mods, maybe a thread split is in order?


----------



## Stoker

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> BTW
> From what I understand (and I'm probably the only guy here that didn't already know this-so ecuse my ignorance) there is no more double dipping. There is one federal pension, and only one federal pension.



Double dipping is alive and well i'm afraid.


----------



## Stoker

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> Somebody please enlighten me. My understanding of the trades qualifications that you get in the CF is that they don't count for much towards a civvy trades ticket. If you're a specialist (I'm talking "subject matter expert" qualifications), you have some leverege, but if you're a hull tech or an electrician (for example) you still have to start out as an apprentice when you get out of the forces. And now, with Electricians, NETs, and weapons techs being all the same trade, the discrepancy between what working life on the "inside is" compared to what its like "outside" is going to...make it difficult for people getting out.



Actually many of the trades have civilian equivalencies such as Mar Eng tech, NET and weapons tech. When they finish they have a civilian qual as well.


----------



## Occam

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Actually many of the trades have civilian equivalencies and many trades go to civilian universities such as Mar Eng tech, NET and weapons tech. When they finish they have a civilian qual as well.



That may be the case for those who were trained under the previous syllabus, but I can guarantee you that anyone trained under the new W Eng Tech program will not be given a civilian equivalency, once it is evaluated for accreditation.  The previous syllabus would make someone QL5 trained eligible for certification as a "Certified Electronics Technician", but the new program is not going to have anywhere near enough training hours to satisfy CTAB.  I can't speak to the electrical/engineering/hull trades as I don't know how much change they've undergone in the past decade.

Personally, I don't see an exodus of CF members going to work for the winning shipyard(s) as they generally wouldn't have the experience required for the position(s).



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Double dipping is alive and well i'm afraid.



Can you define "double dipping" for me, please?

I just retired from the CF, eligible for an immediate annuity.  I also started immediate employment with the Public Service.  I chose not to transfer my pension from the CFSA to the PSSA, and to draw an annuity immediately.  Drawing my CFSA annuity and earning a salary in another position (Public Service or otherwise) is not double dipping.  I earned my pension, thanks.  I understand many people colloquially refer to it as "double dipping", but when you qualify it with "I'm afraid", it suggests there's something not right about it.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Actually many of the trades have civilian equivalencies such as Mar Eng tech, NET and weapons tech. When they finish they have a civilian qual as well.



As a HT, I would have to start as an apprentice.  No Red Seal for us.


----------



## Stoker

Occam said:
			
		

> That may be the case for those who were trained under the previous syllabus, but I can guarantee you that anyone trained under the new W Eng Tech program will not be given a civilian equivalency, once it is evaluated for accreditation.  The previous syllabus would make someone QL5 trained eligible for certification as a "Certified Electronics Technician", but the new program is not going to have anywhere near enough training hours to satisfy CTAB.  I can't speak to the electrical/engineering/hull trades as I don't know how much change they've undergone in the past decade.
> 
> Didn't know that but it makes sense, there are still a lot of people out there that have the civilian equivalency however.
> 
> Personally, I don't see an exodus of CF members going to work for the winning shipyard(s) as they generally wouldn't have the experience required for the position(s).
> 
> Time will tell but I just came back from a personnel meeting where we were briefed that this is being looked at and being factored into personnel numbers.
> 
> Can you define "double dipping" for me, please?
> 
> I just retired from the CF, eligible for an immediate annuity.  I also started immediate employment with the Public Service.  I chose not to transfer my pension from the CFSA to the PSSA, and to draw an annuity immediately.  Drawing my CFSA annuity and earning a salary in another position (Public Service or otherwise) is not double dipping.  I earned my pension, thanks.  I understand many people colloquially refer to it as "double dipping", but when you qualify it with "I'm afraid", it suggests there's something not right about it.
> 
> Just to clarify the only aspect of double dipping I don't agree with is regular force mbr's getting out and joining the reserves. These regular force mbr's then take jobs away from qualified reserves and kick up a stink when its time for them to leave. That is in my little corner and its a headache to back fill these guys when its time for them to take their 35 day break.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As a HT, I would have to start as an apprentice.  No Red Seal for us.



Could you in your spare time at a shore unit upgrade yourself to get close to your red seal say in welding?

Just curious.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I suppose anything is possible.  However, unless you are in the business of welding on a regular basis, it would not be worth the effort as you would not be able to keep your certification up.  Not to mention your skills.  The only place you would have a ghost of a chance would be at FMF.  In my time there, there were no military personnel engaged in the welding shop.  The only fellows I know of that have a Red Seal, were already journeymen before they entered the CF.


----------



## Haletown

I'll predict the navy contract will go East coast and the coast guard  contract will go West to BC.

Quebec won't get either but will do very well in the end, as will all shipbuilding capacity  in Canada.

Quebec will whine on and the media will drone on about Quebec blah, blah, blah . . .but the reality is Davie yards is a bankrupt political hell hole that would be a money sucker and political headache for the life of the contracts.

Harper is smart enough to know not to pull a boneheaded move like Mulroney did when he stole the CF18 contract from Manitoba and gave it to Quebec to buy their votes.

At least he better be smart enough.  If he isn't, he's toast in the West.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

What everyone needs to remember is that welding steel for a hull in a shipyard is not where the money in ship building contract  really is- I recall seeing a number that only about 30% of the total contract cost goes to steel and assembly.  The real money is in the electronics, sensors, and weapons.  Guess which two high populous Canadian Provinces have the bulk of the companies that deal in that  sort of thing?

In other words, no matter who wins the shipbuilding contracts, Ontario and Quebec based companies will do very, very well out of this process.


----------



## MSEng314

A lot of those contracts for that type of equipment will go to foreign companies as well, since not a lot of that type of equipment is made in Canada. That includes companies like Thales, Saab, Raytheon, BAE Systems, and Rheinmetall, which are already providing a lot of equipment for HCM/FELEX.


----------



## MightyIndustry

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If you retire with your contract complete, or 24 year + a day, you are eligible for an immediate annuity.  That cannot be taken from you.


Is that CF or FMF?


----------



## MightyIndustry

Haletown said:
			
		

> I'll predict the navy contract will go East coast and the coast guard  contract will go West to BC.
> 
> Quebec won't get either but will do very well in the end, as will all shipbuilding capacity  in Canada.
> 
> Quebec will whine on and the media will drone on about Quebec blah, blah, blah . . .but the reality is Davie yards is a bankrupt political hell hole that would be a money sucker and political headache for the life of the contracts.
> 
> Harper is smart enough to know not to pull a boneheaded move like Mulroney did when he stole the CF18 contract from Manitoba and gave it to Quebec to buy their votes.
> 
> At least he better be smart enough.  If he isn't, he's toast in the West.



I think that Quebec will get a piece of the pie because of the new ownership at Davie Shipyard. 
Daewoo, to put it mildly, knows how to build ships and SNC Lavalin knows how to do business with the federal Government (not to mention Quebec) AND employs canadians all over Canada and the world. All of those factors make good political hay.
Getting Davie Ship viable will be a huge challenge, and depending on who you talk to it may or may not be worth it. 
Having to choose between Seaspan and Irving is like choosing between the proverbial rock and the proverbial hard place. 
I would LOVE to see Irvings and Seaspan try to outperform Daewoo. SNC Lavalin, I think, is there to take care of the "wrangling" that Seaspan and Irving are so good at.
I forsee this being a motivating factor in propping up Davie.


----------



## jollyjacktar

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> Is that CF or FMF?



I'm in the CF.  I'll also clarify further.  I am at present short of 24 years + a day, however, I have completed over 20 years service.  I have earned and am entitled to an immediate annuity should I release from the CF.  I would be subject to a stringent penalty if I do so before I reach the 24 year + milestone as I am on an IPS (indefinite period of service) contract which will allow me to serve until the age of 55 years if I so choose.  As I am CF not Public Service I cannot give you chapter and verse on their pension rules.


----------



## Occam

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm in the CF.  I'll also clarify further.  I am at present short of 24 years + a day, however, I have completed over 20 years service.  I have earned and am entitled to an immediate annuity should I release from the CF.  I would be subject to a stringent penalty if I do so before I reach the 24 year + milestone as I am on an IPS (indefinite period of service) contract which will allow me to serve until the age of 55 years if I so choose.  As I am CF not Public Service I cannot give you chapter and verse on their pension rules.



The penalty is not as much as you make it sound.  The reduction is 5% for every full year of service short of 25 years, so if you had 23 years and one day, it would only be a 5% reduction.  The reduction cannot take you below the protected minimum (2% x 20 yrs) pension.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Occam said:
			
		

> The penalty is not as much as you make it sound.  The reduction is 5% for every full year of service short of 25 years, so if you had 23 years and one day, it would only be a 5% reduction.  The reduction cannot take you below the protected minimum (2% x 20 yrs) pension.



What the girls from the release center told us it was as ff:  leave with a 20 year pension.  At the rank level you were at 20 years.  Forfeit any pension contributions between 20 years and release date.  That sounded pretty damn grim to me.


----------



## dapaterson

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> BTW
> From what I understand (and I'm probably the only guy here that didn't already know this-so ecuse my ignorance) there is no more double dipping. There is one federal pension, and only one federal pension.



[pension digression]

Further clarification:

You can only accumulate 35 years of pensionable service with the Federal government.  That is:

If you get out of the CF after 25 years and jump to the public service, you can only accumulate 10 years of pensionable service i nthe public service; at that point you'll make only a small (1%?) pension contribution.  You could combine, or keep your CF pension seperate and draw it from your release date - so you'd get 50% of your best five in the military, plus 20% of your best five in the public service.

However, you can draw your CF annuity while working in the public service.  You may also transfer it over to the PS superannuation act if you choose; that may be beneficial if you anticipate a much higher final salary in the public service.

[/pension digression]

My prediction on shipbuilding: Regardless of the decision, there will be irate folks somewhere in Canada who will complain vociferously.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Trying to get back on topic here, I'll advance the following facts - and opinions, which you can easily separate from the context (just for everyone's enlightenment):

What is this constant bashing of Davies shipbuilding? Yes, they have had some past problems with the IRO refits, but consider that Quebec yards built 9 of the 20 steamers - more than any other province - and no one complained about those ships. Similarly, Davies originally built ALL the IROQUOIS Class and no one ever complained about them in their original configuration.

Has Davies run into financial problems? Yes, which yards hasn't. Why were Davies more severe: Simply put (for those who do not know that) it is THE largest shipyard in Canada. Bigger than any west coast ones and completely dwarfing Irving's yards. You want frigates? Davies has enough slips and docks to build you a dozen at a time. That is why when orders are not there they get into financial trouble faster: so big it burns through money too fast. But give them guaranteed work for a predictable future and watch them get back to their proper level of work, especially now that they are under Ontario management.

P.S.: Also for those who still mention Saint-John in the same breath as Irving: The yard (that was built from almost scratch at taxpayer's expense) that built the HALIFAX'es is closed down with a deal never to reopen struck with the Government. So if Irving gets anything in this round, it has to be possible to build it in Halifax. I, for one, am not convinced the yard is big enough to handle SCSC's at a rate of one every eighteen months, but that is a personal opinion.

Ultimately, only one thing matters, however: Getting new hulls in the water.


----------



## Occam

I think the bashing of Davie is due to much more recent issues than the ones you mentioned - the CPFs which were built there.  You can pretty much sum up the reasons with a little song (with apologies to Sesame Street):

"Three of these things are not like the others..."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You mean, the ones for which they were, allegedly mind you, not given the same plans? http://forums.army.ca/forums/Smileys/Armyca/grin.gif


----------



## Occam

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You mean, the ones for which they were, allegedly mind you, not given the same plans? http://forums.army.ca/forums/Smileys/Armyca/grin.gif



Them's the ones.   ;D

The ones with the incredible shrinking Towed Array Equipment Rooms.


----------



## STONEY

Maybe Arctic patrol vessels , tankers and some CG vessels will get built fairly soon but any new Frigates will be lucky to be built in under 15-20 years  from now so there's no reason to rush to release centre. Remember JSS & FWSAR  were no1 priorities 10 years ago and I don't see very many of those around.      Cheers


----------



## Occam

The comments are largely supportive (gasp!) of the Conservatives.  I think it's a great article, and sums everything up nicely.  Shared with the usual caveats.



ANALYSIS | Politics of shipbuilding mean rough seas for Harper
Original Link

The Harper government is sailing into a potential political hurricane over $35 billion of naval shipbuilding contracts, the largest military procurement in modern Canadian history.

Later this week, the government is expected to announce two winning bidders for most of the work, one to build $25 billion of naval warships; another to construct $8 billion of supply vessels and other non-combat craft.

The Titanic-sized political problem for the Conservatives is there are three shipyards — in Halifax, Quebec City and Vancouver — competing for just two mega-deals and the thousands of regional jobs that come with them.

That means either the Maritimes, Quebec or the West is about to get one huge, painful and likely lasting kick in the shipyard.

Recent interviews with industry and government insiders suggest that Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax is the odds-on favourite to win the grand prize, the massive contract to build up to 15 warships at a cost of $25 billion over the next several decades.

That would leave Quebec and the West at broadsides for the $8-billion contract for the non-combat vessels.

Vancouver Shipyards is in a strong position to win that deal.

But so is a Canadian-Korean consortium that recently acquired the previously insolvent Quebec-based Davie shipyards. The group is betting everything on the non-combat project, and didn't even bid on the much larger deal for the warships.

The likelihood of a political storm from whatever region gets shut out of the naval contracts helps to explain why a Conservative political machine ordinarily fuelled by photo-ops has become all but invisible in the lead-up to such a huge and important military procurement.

Ministers not out front

Senior Conservative sources say this week's expected contract awards are causing so much political trepidation inside the Harper government that there is a good chance the prime minister, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and most other members of cabinet will be nowhere in sight for the official announcement.

If anyone isn't hiding under the cabinet table, it will be Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose.

She may lend her face and considerable communications skills to the event as the minister responsible for federal contracting, and to press the claim that $35 billion of taxpayers' money is being awarded entirely free of partisan and regional politics.

One senior official told CBC News that most ministers won't even know which companies have won the bids until the last minute.

Instead, the final selection and official announcement are being handled entirely by a special group of senior bureaucrats who have been managing the bid process for the past 16 months.

The official says the whole $35 billion worth of contracts were reviewed and approved by the Treasury Board in the past few weeks, but even those documents did not include the names of the two winning companies.

At no time will the full federal cabinet have any role in approving or otherwise reviewing the winning bids.

"The whole bidding process has been unprecedented," said the senior government official. "Everything has been done to ensure there is a fair result."

Consultants provided oversight

In addition to public servants trying to keep the process out of the hands of the politicians, teams of outside consultants were hired to oversee the bureaucrats.

For instance, a large British naval consulting firm, First Marine International, was hired to review all the Canadian shipyards in the running to ensure they were capable of undertaking such massive projects.

The accounting and business management firm KPMG was hired to ensure the bid selection process was set up to be fair and reasonable — that is, not slanted by the military to favour one shipyard over another.

Finally, the government hired a number of outside firms to act as "fairness monitors," essentially independent consultants overseeing the other consultants overseeing the bureaucrats managing the process.

There was certainly no shortage of material to oversee.

According to one report, Vancouver Shipyards alone spent more than $1 million just to prepare its bid — 30,000 pages of documents in 125 binders, shipped to the federal government in 22 boxes.

One of the more unusual moves by the Harper government was a warning to all the bidders this past summer that last-minute lobbying would not be welcome.

Perhaps the government had simply heard enough.

In the past two years, for instance, Irving Shipbuilding and its hired arm-twisters registered more than 100 formal meetings with Conservative cabinet ministers, senior political staffers and high-ranking bureaucrats in various departments.

Vancouver Shipyards and its lobbyists also logged dozens of equally high-level encounters.

Davie shipyards wasn't nearly as active as the others in the federal lobbying register, perhaps in part because it spent most of the past two years looking for a buyer to save the company from bankruptcy.

'Not about' one region over another

With only days to go until the final announcement of the winning bids, the Harper government is clearly scrambling for ways to try to soften the blow on the losing region.

For instance, one Conservative official close to the process tried to frame this week's expected announcement as "not about one region winning over another — this program is all a big win for Canada."

No matter where the ships are built, she said, the benefits of subcontracts will be felt across the country.

The government will point out that almost half the cost of the warships, for instance, will go into engines, high-tech components and other parts from subcontractors, many of them in Ontario and Quebec.

The government is also promising to hand the losing shipyard much of the leftover $2 billion in miscellaneous naval contracts included in the $35 billion, but not part of the two main deals being announced this week.

No matter how the government tries to spin this week's announcement, however, the Conservatives know the politics of it all guarantees rough seas ahead.

In 1986, Brian Mulroney's government took away a fighter jet maintenance contract won by Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg, and gave it to Bombardier of Quebec.

The resulting outrage in the West drove the popularity of Mulroney's government into the basement of public opinion, and helped spawn the Reform Party.

This time, the Harper government has gone overboard to prove there was no political interference.

Voters in one part of the country, at least, will be demanding to know why.


----------



## Journeyman

The most funny, and sadly telling, line in the whole article:





			
				Occam said:
			
		

> "The whole bidding process has been unprecedented," said the senior government official. "Everything has been done to ensure there is a fair result."


----------



## RC

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> How much of a _strategy_ is it gong to be?
> 
> What is the AIM of our shipbuilding policy? Near term AIM? Medium term AIM? Long term AIM?
> 
> *Because I really don't know:* what share of the Canadian shipbuilding industry is from the Gov't of Canada (Navy, Coast Guard, Fisheries & Oceans, Crown Corporations, etc)?
> 
> Where do provinces - e.g. BC which has a big _public_ ferry fleet - fit into the strategy?
> 
> How do we do on private and off-shore sales? Are the oil rigs, that we build, for example exported?
> 
> What about design? Are we a nation with a capable naval architecture infrastructure - one that can design for export?
> 
> ----------
> 
> Personally, I would like a truly _national_ plan: one that says "we (Ottawa and St John's and Halifax and Fredricton and Quebec City and Toronto and Victoria) plan to build _about_ _x_ warships, _y_ coast guard and fisheries research vessels, etc and _z_ ferries over the next 20 years. We expect to keep _n_ yards on the Pacific Coast, in the Great Lakes, in the St Lawrence and on the Atlantic Coast busy with a total of about __number__ permanent jobs."
> 
> From a regional industrial/employment perspective, _n_ jobs with a 20 year + "lifespan" is better than _3n_ jobs that only last for six or seven years.



I participated in the original NSPS industry consultations.  It will be a strategy for 25 years.  The near term aim is to get the ships that are desperately needed built and to get the industry back on its feet.  The medium term aim is to sustain the industry with government work supplemented by repair/private newbuilds.  The longterm aim is to build a competitive industry that will be capable of providing government ships as needed and when needed without having to reinvest and retrain each time.

At the moment, I think government work makes up about half of the contracts in Irving and Seaspan, with a large part of the rest being repairs, and the occasional private newbuild.  That percentage will be substantially higher for the winners, at least in the short term, and will bring the winners back to a reasonable capacity.

Provinces are not currently included in the strategy (and BCFS new construction is privately directed now anyway).  However, most small and medium ferries are built locally.  There are a few exceptions with large ferries, but most of those have been built locally as well.  The NSPS should result in all ferries being built in country as the main concern has been lack of capacity to handle the large ones.

We have few offshore sales at present.  We are currently somewhere around half as productive as a good European yard and don't have too much to offer in way of references.

We have capable design firms that compete internationally (and have done so as a primary activity for several decades due to lack of national activity).  We have one of the world's top design firms of offshore patrol vessels, also quite capable in other large and midsize vessels, and one of the world's top design firms (probably the top firm) in tugboat design, who are reasonably capable in midsize ships.  We have a couple of good production engineering firms as well.  We do not have the existing capacity to properly design CSCs, which I realize is what most interests people here, but the rest is well covered.  I believe we should purchase and modify a foreign frigate design.

The plan was established with about the strategy you outlined.  It was determined that the government work was sufficient to keep two large yards occupied at a suitable level for 25 years, and several smaller yards occupied with the smaller ships.  I can't tell you the number of ships or number of manhours off the top of my head, but the projections were reasonable.

The big question is how will the strategy improve productivity?  I assume that a large part of the bid analysis will focus on what the yards have proposed to bring themselves to a level that is competitive on the international stage, but I'm not sure it will work.  It's a long road from 200 hours/tonne to 90 h/T.

Anyway, the NSPS, in my opinion is a huge step in the right direction.  I think Irving will win the combatant contract and Seaspan will win the non-combatants.  I think that Seaspan should win the combatants, but I don't see it happening.  I think Davie was kept in the running to provide a third horse in the race.  It's hard to have a legitimate competition for two spots with only two contenders.  Irving and Seaspan were working hard on their plans while Davie was going through bankruptcy proceedings.  Daewoo is a red herring.  They don't add much value in this type of work, so I can't see them adding much to the bid.  Korean productivity measures simply won't work at Davie for this type of contract, so they won't add much there either.

I could go on for a long long time on this subject, but I've probaby lost most readers by now anyway, so I'll stop there...


----------



## MARS

Shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act from today's Globe and Mail

Article Link



> Harper’s team keeps hands off $35-billion shipbuilding hot potato
> jane taber
> OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
> Posted on Monday, October 17, 2011 1:38PM EDT
> 
> It’s the $35-billion contract that no politician wants to own.
> 
> A bureaucrat, not a federal politician, is expected to make the announcement about which two Canadian shipyards will win the mammoth contract to build warships and non-combat vessels this week.
> 
> The reason for the hands-off political approach is pretty simple: Three shipyards are in the bidding – one in Atlantic Canada, one in British Columbia and one in Quebec. Only two will win.
> 
> So, in effect, whoever makes the announcement will be announcing the loser. And the loser could very well be from Quebec.
> 
> No federal politician wants to be part of that.
> 
> “There is no upside, which is why the federal government has been falling all over itself to run away from the decision,” a source close to the process told The Globe.
> 
> Memories are still fresh, even though it happened back in the 1980s, of the repercussions that resulted from Brian Mulroney and his Progressive Conservative government awarding the CF-18 maintenance contract to Quebec instead of Winnipeg.
> 
> Stephen Harper’s Tories don’t need a repeat of that.
> 
> For the current bid there are three shipyards – Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax, the Seaspan shipyards in Vancouver and the Davie yard in the Quebec City area, which has been plagued by financial troubles – in contention.
> 
> One will receive a $25-billion contract to build combat vessels; the other is to receive about $8-billion to build ice breakers and a naval supply ship. There will be about $2-billion for smaller vessels, which could go to the losing shipyard or the other yards that bid.
> 
> What is equally interesting about this process is the secrecy around it. In leaky political Ottawa, even insiders and politicians including Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who is from Nova Scotia and B.C.’s Heritage Minister James Moore say they don’t know who’s going to win.
> 
> Even the Prime Minister reportedly doesn’t know.
> 
> Only one hour before the announcement is to be made will Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose – who is the lead minister on the file – be informed.
> 
> To guard against any whiff of regional favouritism or political influence, the Conservative government has tightly structured the process.
> 
> A committee of deputy ministers is making the decision. A company from Britain is evaluating the technical merit of the bids, according to two insiders close to the bid process.
> 
> The insiders believe only two people in the entire city know what the decision is – and even then, only one would know where the combat piece of the contract is going and the other would know where the non-combat portion is going.
> 
> The much-anticipated decision could be made public as early as Wednesday.


----------



## Infanteer

Wow, a decision being made without political interference.  Could such a thing be true?!?   :dunno:


----------



## cupper

Let's back-up for a second.

Unfortunately I haven't followed the run up to this as closely as I should have, but perhaps someone could shed some light on this.

If I understand it correctly, there are 2 contracts to be bid for, one for new combat vessels, one for icebreakers and a support ship, and possibly a third for smaller vessels. Now, the three shipyards (or lead groups) are bidding each contract separately, knowing that they will get one of the two big contracts, or possibly the smaller third contract as a consolation prize, with the other main contract automatically going to the other winning lead group.

Now here is an interesting scenario according to the previous article: is it possible that since only two people in the country may know which group will win on each given contract, and neither knows the result of the other that it could result in one lead group "winning" both? Wouldn't it then come down to the "winner" being given the choice of which contract they would rather have?


----------



## QORvanweert

cupper said:
			
		

> Now here is an interesting scenario according to the previous article: is it possible that since only two people in the country may know which group will win on each given contract, and neither knows the result of the other that it could result in one lead group "winning" both? Wouldn't it then come down to the "winner" being given the choice of which contract they would rather have?



That is a very interesting scenario! Presumably they would just take the larger of the two. Davey Yards in Quebec isn't even submitting a proposal for the combat ships which means at least one of our coasts is about to get a huge boost financially. My prediction is that Halifax will get the 35b. contract and Vancouver will get the 5b. Coast Guard contract and the Quebec yard will be back into insolvency.


----------



## RC

cupper said:
			
		

> Now here is an interesting scenario according to the previous article: is it possible that since only two people in the country may know which group will win on each given contract, and neither knows the result of the other that it could result in one lead group "winning" both? Wouldn't it then come down to the "winner" being given the choice of which contract they would rather have?



According to the article there is a British consultant evaluating the bids.  The consultant must know who they have recommended to win each bid and would not recommend both be awarded to one group.  So while it may be true that only two people in Ottawa know, that is only because the results are coordinated externally.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Local lad having some fun with the "ships start here" campaign of Dexter.  http://starshipsstarthere.ca/


----------



## Haletown

interesting . . .   just read in the morning paper that only two bidders are in the game for the big $25B naval shipbuilding contract - Halifax and Vancouver.

Three bidders, Halifax , Vancouver and Davie  have bid on the $8b coast guard contract and there is $2b for other work that all three have bid on.


----------



## Haletown

online version of the story . . .

"The three bidders are Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax, Seaspan Marine Corp. of B.C. and the Davie Shipyard in Quebec.
*
Only Irving and Seaspan are competing for the most lucrative part of the contract — $25 billion to construct military vessels over several decades.*

All three are bidders for $8 billion in non-military vessels, including a coast guard science ship and an Arctic icebreaker.

The loser will take the relative crumbs — $2 billion for the construction of smaller government ships.

Four senior bureaucrats have been in charge of evaluating the bids, but they are assessing the information on a "blind" basis.

In other words, the documents state that the proposals are coming from "Company A, Company B or Company C," an official said.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Federal+government+braces+blowback+shipbuilding+contract/5564082/story.html#ixzz1b8p6HPKj
"


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

IIRC, the split is not between warships and all other departments ships: It is between "combatants" and "non combatants" - so for instance, the AOR's would be part of the smaller prize, as would the AOPS.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> IIRC, the split is not between warships and all other departments ships: It is between "combatants" and "non combatants" - so for instance, the AOR's would be part of the smaller prize, as would the AOPS.



That's how I understand it too.  At least Irving won't be building the new Tankers.  Thank god...


----------



## RC

If I' m not mistaken, AOPS is part of the combattant package (despite not technically being combattants).  I think this will be a mistake as it means both groups will need to have the ability to form/cut/weld heavy ice resistant plating.


----------



## northernboy_24

From a recent briefing I was at, I can say according to VA Maddison that the AOPS will be the first combatants build and the Destroyer/frigate replacements after that.  The AOPS are in the Combatant grouping.

The tankers will be in the non-combatant grouping and will be the first made at the other shipyard.

At least that was the situation about 3 weeks ago.  Things can and do change but i don't think they will be changing due to rough costing estimates.

cheers


----------



## RC

Decision day!
Anyone know what time and how they are making the announcement?


----------



## The Bread Guy

RC said:
			
		

> Decision day!
> Anyone know what time and how they are making the announcement?


According to QMI/Sun Media.....


> Shipbuilders across the country will find out Wednesday who will share $35 billion to revitalize the navy and coast guard over the next 30 years .... *The announcement is expected Wednesday at 4 p.m. ET.*....


----------



## GAP

$35B Tory ship project hits snag
Article Link
John Ivison, National Post · Oct. 19, 2011
 
OTTAWA . A $2.6-billion project to design and build two new naval support ships has been thrown into disarray, on the eve of the Harper government's announcement of the winning bidders for $35-billion worth of naval shipbuilding contracts.

The Conservatives are set to reveal the winning shipyards that will build the $35-billion worth of contracts Wednesday. The competing yards are Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax, Seaspan Marine Corporation of Vancouver and MIL-Davie of Quebec City. The expectation is that one yard will win the $25-billion contract to build naval warships, while another will win an $8-billion contract to build non-combat ships. Sources suggest that all three yards may yet come out as winners, if the government decides to split the combat work between Vancouver and Halifax, and awards Quebec City the non-combat work.

However, the news of the troubled joint supply ship (JSS) project is sure to raise questions about whether the government is able to bring any of its procurement projects in on time or on budget.

Defence sources said it is in trouble because two companies competing to design the new ships - ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems of Germany and Navantia S.A. of Spain - are backing away from the bidding process. It is understood that the government is not prepared to pay their asking price and is likely to turn to a domestic Canadian design being prepared by engineering support contractor BMT Fleet Technology of Kanata, Ont. None of the competing companies responded to requests for comment Tuesday.

A spokeswoman for National Defence said the government is continuing contract negotiations with the two European companies but if neither design delivers the best equipment at the best price, the Canadian design will be used.

The BMT design would have the benefit of being made to order. But naval analysts suggest it would be an unproven technology, compared to the two European designs that fit NATO guidelines and are already in service. Canada has a checkered history when it comes to ordering custommade military hardware. In 2004, the government ordered 28 Sikorsky Cyclones, a custom-built helicopter, for a price tag of $3.1-billion. The Auditor-General last year lambasted National Defence for under-estimating the complexity of a project that soared in cost to $5.7-billion and has faced serious delays.

One Defence insider said the JSS problems reflect a lack of experienced procurement staff. "This is so depressingly Canadian - you go out to bidders, you indicate an interest in designs, you load on extras and then say 'no, thank you'. It could set us back another five years," he said. The new supply ships were due to be in service by 2017 but sources say that deadline is unlikely to be met now.
More on link

_- mod edit to change link to one that works -_


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, here's a suggestion: Get two "Cantabria" style AORs and two "Largs Bay" type auxiliary landing ships: I would be willing to bet that you would get all your supply and combat support needs met, with four ships instead of only two and at a fraction of the projected cost. To be real cute, you could fit the two landing ships with a single fuelling derrick so that they can sub-in whenever that coast's AOR is in refit or unavailable.

But what the hell do I know, I'm just a stupid boat driver- not  a Nav. Arc.


----------



## RC

This may cause some offence to someone out there somewhere, but from what I've seen, I don't think there are any Nav Archs working on that project.  At least none that have designed a ship that's actually been built.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The projected cost *is* for 2 Cantabrias or Berlins, and they're still having trouble getting it done.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not quite Drunksubmrnr.

The cost is for two Cantabria/Berlin modified to include the army logistical support and troop carrying requirement of the CF.

RC, I know that the military Naval Architects have not worked on this: Nav Arcs are called Nav Arcs whether they are civilians or not. Its one of those few profession that has the same name in and out of the service. The ones I had in mind are the ones that work on the conceptualization of the ship and its requirements to draft the tender.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Wow...why would they leave that in? It was a token capability in the first place. They'll still need commercial ro-ro's to carry most of a deployment even with those capabilities in the AOR's.

Didn't the auditor-general warn of this in a bunch of projects lately?


----------



## RC

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The ones I had in mind are the ones that work on the conceptualization of the ship and its requirements to draft the tender.



Same here... 

I have a real chip on my shoulder about what they've done on this project and about the fact that rather than being drawn and quartered for it, they were given further contracts.  I think it's an international embarassment to the industry in Canada that otherwise has a pretty good reputation.


----------



## canuck101

They should just go with two Cantabria/Berlin class AOR's and get a used Harpers Ferry Class LSD or get the plans too build one from US but that would be too simple


----------



## Privateer

Irving (Halifax) gets combat.  Vancouver gets non-combat.  Davie is out.


----------



## Haletown

Good news all around . . .  of that $25b for Halifax, how much will end up in the Ottawa-Montreal-Toronto high tech sector?


----------



## Scott

Wow, this is going to be very positive for a lot of folks I know.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm thinking I better stay clear of any doorways lest I be stampeded by the 10/30 club as they head for the exits.  Promises aside, I still say I'll believe new ships when I see new ships.


----------



## The Bread Guy

From the official announcement:


> The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) Secretariat today announced the results of a Request for Proposals to build large ships for Canada.
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> The combat package includes the Royal Canadian Navy’s Arctic Offshore Patrol ships and the Canadian Surface Combatants ships.  The non-combat package includes the Navy’s joint support ships, the Canadian Coast Guard’s off-shore science vessels and the new polar icebreaker. Small ship construction (116 vessels), an estimated value of $2 billion, will be set aside for competitive procurement amongst Canadian shipyards other than the yards selected to build large vessels. Regular maintenance and repair, valued at $500 million annually, will be open to all shipyards through normal procurement processes.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding Inc. has been selected to build the combat vessel work package (21 vessels), and Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. has been selected to build the non-combat vessel work package (7 vessels). The total value of both packages is $33 billion and will span 20 to 30 years.
> 
> The NSPS’s selection of the two shipyards represents the largest procurement sourcing arrangement in Canadian history.
> 
> (....)
> 
> As with all major defence and security procurements, the Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) Policy, will apply to the follow-on shipbuilding contracts. The selected shipyards will be required to identify business activities in Canada valued at 100 per cent of the contract value, ensuring a dollar-for-dollar investment into the Canadian economy.
> 
> The next step in the implementation of the NSPS is the finalization of a strategic sourcing arrangement, called an umbrella agreement (UA), with each of the selected shipyards.  Once the UAs are signed, individual ship construction contracts will be negotiated with the respective shipyards. First in line will be the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships in the combat package and the Science Vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard in the non-combat package ....


----------



## Sub_Guy

Just where do the new supply vessels fit in?

Do we need to wait for the AOPS program to be completed before we see a new supply ship?

While the AOPS was an election priority, I would wager that the RCN would prefer to see a new supply vessel...


----------



## jollyjacktar

IIRC, the AOPS are being built by Irving.   So that leaves the AOR to be built by Vancouver.   They have the designs more or less already for the AOPS, the JSS are back to the drawing boards.  Of course contracts need to be hammered out for both and that will take some time.


----------



## RC

I think we cut our teeth on the OOSV and possibly the FRVs before moving up to the AORs.  Hopefully they will have figured out a workable design by then.


----------



## jollyjacktar

RC said:
			
		

> I think we cut our teeth on the OOSV and possibly the FRVs before moving up to the AORs.  Hopefully they will have figured out a workable design by then.



Being a Tanker Wanker, I was present when the delegation from Ottawa sailed with us in 99/00.  The gave a presentation to all three messes on ALSCE (Alice).  They had designs, drawings etc.  Pretty close to what was to evolve into the JSS idea.  It was to our minds pretty good, if somewhat idealistic, and we were thrilled to hear that there was to be 4 in the water for 05.  How time flies.  I think they must already have an idea of WTF they want, it should be pretty cut and dried.  If they had not dithered previously so damn long the ships could have been started while the price of materials was reasonable and we would have something long before now.  Dithering.  That's what puts a monkey wrench in the gearbox time and again.


----------



## cupper

Anybody know if Irving can (or intends to) split the work between Halifax and Saint John?


----------



## jollyjacktar

They dismantled the St John operations after the contract was completed for the CPF, IIRC.  So in a nutshell, no.


----------



## Haletown

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Just where do the new supply vessels fit in?
> 
> Do we need to wait for the AOPS program to be completed before we see a new supply ship?
> 
> While the AOPS was an election priority, I would wager that the RCN would prefer to see a new supply vessel...



The JSS x 2 is in the Vancouver Proposal.


----------



## Privateer

"First in line will be the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships in the combat package and the Science Vessel*s* for the Canadian Coast Guard in the non-combat package."

The JSS-type ships are in the non-combat package.


----------



## Haletown

Surprised they aren't building the ice breaker first so those AOPS can actually do "A".

Maybe they are counting on Glowball Warming to melt all that ice so the AOPS can cruise around without denting its hull.  ;D


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Good for the economy no matter how you look at it.  


East, West coasts win shipbuilding contracts, Quebec frozen out
Lee Berthiaume, Robert Hiltz and Marianne White, Postmedia News 19 Oct

http://www.canada.com/news/East+West+coasts+shipbuilding+contracts+Quebec+frozen/5574607/story.html#ixzz1bHFiYm73

OTTAWA — A cross-country political dogfight over shipbuilding contracts ended in a win for both coasts Wednesday, as the federal government awarded $33 billion in contracts to drydocks in Halifax and Vancouver and froze out Quebec.

Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax will receive a $25-billion naval vessel building contract, while Seaspan Marine in Vancouver will receive an $8 billion contract for building coast guard and other non-navy ships.

A third shipyard, Davie Shipyard in Levis, Que., was not chosen by the arm's-length body tasked with awarding the contracts.

The reaction from Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter and B.C. Premier Christy Clark was immediate and ecstatic.

"What an amazing, historic day for NS," wrote Dexter over Twitter.

"It means young people can have a career staying here in Nova Scotia," Dexter later told reporters.

"Eight billion dollars is huge. At a time like this, when the world is experiencing all this economic uncertainty, it is going to big," Clark told reporters, moments after the result was made public.

"What this means is we will see thousands of jobs come to British Columbia as a result of this federal money — thousands of high-paid jobs, people who are going to be able to support their kids, solid middle-class jobs and I think it's so important. I'm absolutely delighted."

The reaction from Quebec City, meanwhile, was frosty. Quebec Economic Development Minister Sam Hamad said Wednesday his government is "extremely disappointed" with the decision — but he stopped short of criticizing the selection process.

"It's the outcome that matters. Quebec was not selected . . . Now we want to know why," Hamad told reporters in Quebec City, adding Davie had a "very strong bid."

"It's bad news not only for Quebec but also for Ontario because it didn't get it's share of the contract," he added.

lots more at link...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Merged both Big Honkin' Ship threads, and adding the latest from the Defence Minister:


> Today, the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) Secretariat announced their decision for two significant shipbuilding contracts for Canada.
> 
> “The top priority of our Government is creating jobs and growth. We made a commitment to Canadians to build new ships in Canada, and the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy will result in the creation of thousands of new jobs and billions in economic growth in cities and communities across Canada.
> 
> “Industry analysts have estimated that our Government’s ship projects will contribute both indirectly and directly 10,000 jobs and over $2 billion in annual economic benefit over the long-term.
> 
> “The process for selecting the two shipyards was open, fair, and competitive.  It was based on merit and run at arms-length by independent public servants through the National Shipbuilding Procurement Secretariat. The federal Cabinet was not involved in the decision.
> 
> “We congratulate Irving Shipbuilding Inc. on a successful bid. Our Government will respect the decision made by the Secretariat.”


----------



## MightyIndustry

Haletown said:
			
		

> Surprised they aren't building the ice breaker first so those AOPS can actually do "A".
> 
> Maybe they are counting on Glowball Warming to melt all that ice so the AOPS can cruise around without denting its hull.  ;D



Its funny, the Americans aren't interested in breaking ice anymore. They have one ice breaker left, in an extended refit (Polar Star) -Polar Sea is to be decomissioned. They have Ice Capable ships, but it doesn't look like they want to break ice anymore.


----------



## Haletown

the USN operates under ice these days . . .  much easiie than breaking it.


----------



## Monsoon

Haletown said:
			
		

> the USN operates under ice these days . . .  much easiie than breaking it.


...unless you're primarily interested in what's happening on the surface and in the air.


----------



## jollyjacktar

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> ...unless you're primarily interested in what's happening on the surface and in the air.



That's what satellites are for.


----------



## Monsoon

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That's what satellites are for.


Not at the poles - coverage by satellite is spotty at best. A friend of mine is involved in staffing a Treasury Board submission for the Space Agency for a project to put two satellites in polar orbits, which will allow each one to pass over twice a day to provide non-real-time radar imagery. I can promise you that the AOPS looks like a real bar-gooooon by comparison.


----------



## cupper

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That's what satellites are for.



And for some strange reason, they can't project sovereignty. 

But they will give you really nice pictures of the US and Russian vessels challenging it. ;D

Gotta love the potential for global warming.  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Not at the poles - coverage by satellite is spotty at best. A friend of mine is involved in staffing a Treasury Board submission for the Space Agency for a project to put two satellites in polar orbits, which will allow each one to pass over twice a day to provide non-real-time radar imagery. I can promise you that the AOPS looks like a real bar-gooooon by comparison.




Agreed, if you want 24/7 real time or even very near real time (say, no 'spot' unseen for more than 15 minutes) then you need a _constellation_ of satellites in non-geostationary orbit.*  The number of satellites that *might* be required is somewhere between *about* 10 and 50 ~ the costs are similar, almost certainly higher numbers, in billions of dollars. Your friendly, neighbourhood space services sales-rep - and there are several in capitals like Ottawa and Canberra - will tell you how it all works.

It, a (partially) space based surveillance and warning system ought to be part of Canada's national security plan, but a quick look at the _Canada First Defence Strategy_ will tell you that there is no money for any such thing for another quarter century or more.


----------
* Geostationary orbit is that which is 35,000+/- km above the earth and in which a satellite appears to be stationary above a point on the ground because it's orbital speed is the same as the speed at which the earth rotates. Simple geometry demonstrates satellites in geostationary cannot "see" the polar regions.







Non-geostationary orbit refers to all the other satellites - in low earth orbit, highly elliptical orbit, etc.


----------



## GAP

Ottawa can take over defaulting shipyards, $33-billion deal states
steven chase  Globe and Mail Thursday, Oct. 20, 2011
Article Link

The Canadian government will have the right to take over Halifax or Vancouver shipyards to complete vessels if a builder defaults on contractual obligations, according to the draft umbrella agreement that will govern a massive $33-billion in marine construction.

This provision is rarely included in procurement deals, federal officials say, and is an effort to keep a tight rein on decades of public shipbuilding that Ottawa set in motion on Wednesday.

While the deal must be finalized, federal officials say that yards consented to the draft’s language when they filed their bids. Builders submitted bid certificates that committed them to the wording and agreed the language would change only with mutual consent, Ottawa says.

Federal officials insist Ottawa will not remove the “step-in” rights from the deal. Section 5.2 of Part 3 of the umbrella agreement obliges the builders to hand over a “deed of license” to the federal government that spells out these rights.

The deed would allow Ottawa, after a default on material obligations, “to use, occupy, enjoy and possess those lands and any and all chattels of the company necessary or useful in the construction of ships.”

This week’s big shipbuilding awards for Halifax and Vancouver constituted a political victory for Stephen Harper; it enabled Ottawa to pick winners for massive procurement contracts without triggering serious charges of regional favouritism. That’s because the Conservative government left the decision to a cadre of civil servants who firewalled their decision-making from political interference.

But whether the National Shipbuilding Strategy is a procurement success remains to be seen because Ottawa must still negotiate contracts for up to 31 vessels and find a way to avoid the twin demons of big-ticket government purchases: missed deadlines and cost overruns.

Negotiations on the umbrella agreement for the combat and non-combat construction packages will start soon, and Ottawa hopes to have them completed by year’s end. Irving’s Halifax yard has won the right to build $25-billion worth of combat ships, and Seaspan Marine’s Vancouver yard has secured $8-billion worth of work for non-combat vessels.

Both companies will also have to grant Ottawa unhindered access to all of their books and records of account, so government officials can ensure yards aren’t charging exorbitant rates or making excessive profit. This provision is often included in contracts that are sole-sourced without competition.
More on link


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Is there a government website (or link) which lays out the details of the program in more detail than the news releases (.pdf)?


Thanks in advance, M.


----------



## Haletown

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Is there a government website (or link) which lays out the details of the program in more detail than the news releases (.pdf)?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance, M.



start here 

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/snacn-nsps-eng.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's going to be awhile before any steel gets cut, I suspect both yards will need to invest in some major equipment upgrades, hopefully they both have done some forward planning. I can see the whining coming from the people that just bough expensive condo's at the old Burrard drydocks site when the work gets underway in earnest.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's going to be awhile before any steel gets cut, I suspect both yards will need to invest in some major equipment upgrades, hopefully they both have done some forward planning. I can see the whining coming from the people that just bough expensive condo's at the old Burrard drydocks site when the work gets underway in earnest.



Don't buy a house next to a hog farm and expect no smell or flies  ;D


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Keep in mind two things here:
1. Contrary to 'wording' in news reports, NO CONTRACTS have been signed; and
2. Both major Yards waited the 'respectable' 24 hours before submitting legal papers redressing some 'potential' aspects of 'potential' contract points.
Steel is to be cut for AOPS in 2013....time will tell.....


----------



## RC

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> Its funny, the Americans aren't interested in breaking ice anymore. They have one ice breaker left, in an extended refit (Polar Star) -Polar Sea is to be decomissioned. They have Ice Capable ships, but it doesn't look like they want to break ice anymore.



I was at a recent lecture by USCG procurement director who said that they plan to follow the Canadian heavy ice breaker program closely and possibly to buy the design.  He said their intention was to build two for a cost of roughly 1bn each.


----------



## RC

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Steel is to be cut for AOPS in 2013....time will tell.....



Really?  Still over a year?  The design is already done and could be class approved by Christmas, steel cutting in early january.  They really need a year before starting for contract negotiations and upgrades?

I was under the impression that Seaspan would be starting the oosv in early spring 2012.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

RC said:
			
		

> Really?  Still over a year?  The design is already done and could be class approved by Christmas, steel cutting in early january.  They really need a year before starting for contract negotiations and upgrades?
> 
> I was under the impression that Seaspan would be starting the oosv in early spring 2012.


I could be wrong


----------



## jollyjacktar

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> I could be wrong



Don't think you are.


----------



## cupper

Most of the news reports I've read say 2013 before steel starts getting cut.


----------



## mad dog 2020

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vREFipmBqNA


----------



## The Bread Guy

Some word coming from the PM tomorrow (with him logging big Air Miles in between coast-to-coast announcements)?


> .... Public events for Prime Minister Stephen Harper for Thursday, January 12th are:
> 
> Halifax, Nova Scotia
> 
> 9:00 a.m. – Prime Minister Stephen Harper will participate in a photo opportunity.
> 
> *Irving Shipbuilding Port*
> 3099 Barrington Street
> Halifax, NS
> 
> *Photo opportunity only (cameras and photographers only)
> 
> NOTES:
> 
> Media are required to present proper identification for accreditation.
> Media should arrive at the North Gate of Halifax Shipyard, accessed off North Marginal Road.
> Media should arrive no later than 8:30 a.m.
> 
> Halifax, Nova Scotia
> 
> 9:15 a.m. – Prime Minister Stephen Harper will make an announcement.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding Port
> 3099 Barrington Street
> Halifax, NS
> 
> *Open to media
> 
> NOTES:
> 
> Media are required to present proper identification for accreditation.
> Media should arrive at the North Gate of Halifax Shipyard, accessed off North Marginal Road.
> Media should arrive no later than 8:30 a.m.
> 
> North Vancouver, British Columbia
> 
> 3:15 p.m. – Prime Minister Stephen Harper will participate in a photo opportunity.
> 
> *Seaspan Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd.*
> 50 Pemberton Avenue
> North Vancouver, BC V7P 2R1
> 
> *Photo opportunity only (cameras and photographers only)
> 
> NOTES:
> 
> Media are required to present proper identification for accreditation.
> Media should arrive no later than 2:30 p.m.
> 
> North Vancouver, British Columbia
> 
> 3:30 p.m. – Prime Minister Stephen Harper will make an announcement.
> 
> Seaspan Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd.
> 50 Pemberton Avenue
> North Vancouver, BC V7P 2R1
> 
> *Open to media
> 
> NOTES:
> 
> Media are required to present proper identification for accreditation.
> Media should arrive no later than 2:30 p.m ....


----------



## Richard.Donafeld

Im excited ;D the first keel will be getting laid 2013 and they will be building the icebreakers first, similar size to the CPF's. Once those are complete they will begin on the tankers that are so desperately needed.


----------



## RangerRay

I'm sure Premier Clark will be there claiming credit for the Vancouver contract...  :

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2011/10/21/christy-clarks-claim-that-she-delivered-the-8-billion-seaspan-celebration-a-tempest-in-a-d-cup/



> *Christy Clark’s Claim that She Delivered the $8 Billion Seaspan Celebration: A Tempest In a D-Cup
> *
> 
> It’s amazing isn’t it?
> 
> Yet another photo-op for an entirely unqualified Premier. Yet another example of Christy Clark taking credit for something she had NOTHING to do with.
> 
> Yes, she jumped aboard the Washington Marine Group’s wagon, albeit late–for a previous photo-op, heralding the kind of shipbuilding magnificence they are capable of (she has a keen grasp of the obvious). But was it her efforts that sealed the deal?
> 
> Let’s have a look.
> 
> Seaspan is a solid company with very good credentials and great employees. Think what you want of Kyle Washington and his billionaire upbringing. He could have spent the rest of his life sitting in Gstaad or Aspen in the winters and on his own island in the South Pacific the rest of the year.
> 
> But he didn’t. Instead, he’s taken his father’s immense generosity and turned it into an equally immense success story. The Premier, far from having anything to do with Seaspan’s success, was last to sign on. In fact, during previous provincial shipbuilding tenders, when Ms. Clark was still Deputy Premier, she opted to support sending our business to Germany rather than here with Mr. Washington’s crew. She even went so far as to misrepresent his contracts as “cost-plus” (which he expertly explained to the media, in response).
> 
> Now, Ms. Clark would like us to believe, at least this is what she’s telling anyone who will listen, how it was she that delivered $8 billion dollars in shipbuilding contracts and it was her intervention that sealed the deal.
> 
> Well, it most certainly was not.
> 
> In addition to the fact that she is HATED in Ottawa with a white-hot passion, the nuts and bolts, the mechanics of the deal, the process, tell the story all too well.
> 
> The port in Levis, Quebec, one of three considered, might as well be in receivership and was not suited to do this deal. Their infrastructure is dated and unworthy. They would have had issues delivering either of the $25 billion or $8 billion package. The Irving port in Nova Scotia was the obvious choice for the larger more complicated battleships so they were a lock for the bigger deal. Seaspan had never approached doing anything of the sort before and it required a greater expertise than they could provide–at this point.
> 
> It follows to reason, then, that if not by Mr. Washington’s savvy in surrounding himself with capable corporate developers (he has an uncanny ability at picking perfect executives for his companies) perhaps by process of elimination, the smaller contract would come here. There were no other options.
> 
> An interesting footnote, is that Ms. Clark’s brother Bruce and his very close friend Patrick Kinsella were somehow allegedly involved in this transaction as lobbyists.
> 
> I don’t know about Pat–as I suspect his footsie with the Liberals and close relationship with Ms. Clark preclude any real ties to the Harper government, but you can bank that Bruce Clark, a long-time, smash-mouth federal Liberal, with a perpetual hate-on for anything Conservative, had nothing to do with this contract landing at Seaspan’s door. This, notwithstanding his previous relationship as a lobbyist for Washington Marine (the parent company of Seaspan), during the sale of BC Rail. He’s despised by Conservatives, he would do nothing but hurt efforts to secure anything for anyone that would be forthcoming from Ottawa. Besides, the process was strictly non-political–a huge accomplishment for the Tories.
> 
> Remarkably, none of the Clark siblings or Pat Kinsella had anything to do with this, because as BC Conservative leader John Cummins quite astutely put it, “Seaspan won this on their own.”
> 
> And I heartily agree. My own contacts in the federal bureaucracy confirmed the contracts two days in advance, but I was sworn to secrecy. The only people I revealed anything to were two trusted friends: A senior local reporter with a major news venue that asked for my opinion and a reporter with another major station, who has been badgering me (just kidding pal!) for the information. “Everyone gets something,” I wrote. “The smaller package likely to Washington with the larger definitely to Nova Scotia–as it should be.”
> 
> Premier Clark’s straddling the Helijet straight to Seaspan’s offices to high-five workers, post-announcement–with cameras in tow, wasn’t simply another shameless photo-op of her dwindling hold on the office she has forever craved. It wasn’t another inappropriately attired opportunity to sell only herself, instead of her government. Team solidarity be damned–AGAIN.
> 
> It was Christy Clark, once more, demonstrating that she will stop at absolutely nothing to lie her way though the public consciousness; that she’s the doer of deeds rather than the sower of dissent. After a week of being pummeled by respected members of her caucus (and mercilessly hammered by a progressively awakening media), she needed a break, but for the fact that she knows, in places she’ll never reveal, that she is a monstrous failure as leader of this province and incapable of bringing home anything substantive.
> 
> Far from being an opportunity to celebrate a major accomplishment which the Premier herself initiated or delivered, it was yet another tempest in a D-Cup.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that the Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. have successfully reached an agreement in principle that paves the way for the construction of Canada’s combat fleet under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS).
> 
> “We are moving quickly to put in place the contracts required to build the ships that our country needs to defend its waters and do its share on the international stage,” said Prime Minister Harper.  “The agreement in principle reached today with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. is a milestone of our Government’s National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy – a strategy that will mean jobs and economic growth for the country, stability for the industry, and vital equipment for our men and women in uniform.”
> 
> The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy – the largest procurement sourcing arrangement in Canadian history – is expected to create thousands of high-value jobs in shipbuilding and related industries across the country.  The Strategy is about undertaking major ship procurements in a smarter, more effective way – a way that sustains Canadian jobs, strengthens the marine sector and provides the best value for Canadian taxpayers.
> 
> For more information on the NSPS, please visit http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/snacn-nsps-eng.html


PMO news release, 12 Jan 12


----------



## Journeyman

RangerRay said:
			
		

> A Tempest In a D-Cup


I wonder how long he's been waiting to use that line?   :not-again:




Edit: typo


----------



## RangerRay

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I wonder how long he's been waiting to use that line?   :not-again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: typo



Yeah, a little over the top.  But he is right about our unqualified premier trying to claim credit for something she could not possibly had a hand in influencing.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

WEng said:
			
		

> Im excited ;D the first keel will be getting laid 2013 and they will be building the icebreakers first, *similar size to the CPF's*. Once those are complete they will begin on the tankers that are so desperately needed.



Close, but not quite


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that the Government of Canada and Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. have successfully reached an agreement in principle that paves the way for the construction of Canada’s non-combat fleet under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS).
> 
> “Our Government is committed to supporting the Canadian marine industry, to revitalize Canadian shipyards and to build ships for the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard here in Canada,” said Prime Minister Harper.  “The agreement in principle reached today with Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. is a milestone of our Government’s National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy – a strategy that will mean jobs and economic growth for the country and stability for the industry.” ....


PM news release, 12 Jan 12


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

WEng said:
			
		

> Im excited ;D the first keel will be getting laid 2013 and they will be building the icebreakers first, similar size to the CPF's. Once those are complete they will begin on the tankers that are so desperately needed.





			
				Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Close, but not quite



If Cdr Sproule is to be believed (and he should since he is the Project Director), the AOPS, at 5730 tonnes, will have a displacement 1000 tonnes greater than the Halifax's. Ref: His October 2011 presentation to Dalhousie University Centre for Foreign Policy Study. His briefing also stressed the need for lots of redundancy and self sufficiency in all systems in view of the lack of maritime support infrastructure in the North.

This leads to interesting questions since the AOPS were touted as replacements for the MCDV's and, it is suggested in many circles, still "reserve" operated. In my days (I don't know if still current) the Minor Warship Command Cerificate qualified you to command "a warship smaller than a frigate other than a submarine". The AOPS - being bigger - do not qualify. I suppose you could redefine the Minor Warship based on the level and type of weapons they carry/offensive weapons capability , but then the AOR's could become minor warships! Similarly, the "self-sufficiency" WRT systems means Eng. Techs and Artificers, not MESO's. In any event, that would be a different debate that belongs somewhere else.

PS: Mods: If you feel this should be put in the AOPS thread, feel free to move.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Perhaps time to think about a "Naval Auxiliary" People who are nominally navy but under a contract that is more geared to civy street, sort of like the RN model? This might be a way to address technical qualification needs, also to retain some of the people with the skill sets needed.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If Cdr Sproule is to be believed (and he should since he is the Project Director), the AOPS, at 5730 tonnes, will have a displacement 1000 tonnes greater than the Halifax's. Ref: His October 2011 presentation to Dalhousie University Centre for Foreign Policy Study. His briefing also stressed the need for lots of redundancy and self sufficiency in all systems in view of the lack of maritime support infrastructure in the North.
> 
> This leads to interesting questions since the AOPS were touted as replacements for the MCDV's and, it is suggested in many circles, still "reserve" operated. In my days (I don't know if still current) the Minor Warship Command Cerificate qualified you to command "a warship smaller than a frigate other than a submarine". The AOPS - being bigger - do not qualify. I suppose you could redefine the Minor Warship based on the level and type of weapons they carry/offensive weapons capability , but then the AOR's could become minor warships! Similarly, the "self-sufficiency" WRT systems means Eng. Techs and Artificers, not MESO's. In any event, that would be a different debate that belongs somewhere else.
> 
> PS: Mods: If you feel this should be put in the AOPS thread, feel free to move.



The AOPS are not a replacement for the MCDV's and will not have any reserve billets as briefed by DMAR PERS last week. It is unclear that under the blended, one navy construct there will be reserves on them. That being said we are now starting to train MESO's towards their AMOC's so eventually there probably will be some and most of the other trades are across the board the same training as the regular force.

As briefed by the Vice-Admiral Maddison in a interview last week the Kingston class are expected to be around until the 2020's and longer.
Thats what we are working towards now.

Here is part of the interview

Reporter:  Can you tell me about the fate of the MCDV.  What is going to happen to them once the AOPs are made available?

Comd RCN :  In terms of the Kingston-class, we should run them as long as we can.  They were designed and built to commercial specification, they are relatively an unsophisticated platform in terms of combat and marine systems and they are very capable in terms of providing the navy the flexibility to support other government departments to participate in presence and sovereignty patrols to deploy to all three coasts and to train to some degree in mine hunting missions.  So I see no reason why we need to plan for an end date for this class.  I think we can continue to run them well into the 2020s if not the 2030s.  In terms of the AOPs, this is a very exciting new capability in terms of quantity and quality coming into the naval order of battle to give us that persistent presence and surveillance sovereignty patrol capability in the high Arctic. 

Reporter:  There seems to be some debate as to what to do with the Kingston-class.  Should they be retired, whether you have enough personnel to crew them.  Do you believe you will have enough people?  

Comd RCN :  Regardless of how the capability was initially generated, that was 20 years ago, the capability has been a real value to Canada and it has certainly been an extremely valuable opportunity for our naval reservists on full-time employment to crew these ships and to really build a professional base as a sea-going naval reserve.  In terms of crewing the AOPs, I do not necessarily see a link between the Kingston-class and the introduction of the AOPs.  What I will tell you is that certainly in the growth of the CF over the past 5 or 6 years, the growth was not in the navy.  In fact, we stalled on the attraction front, which was a real concern for us.  And we have corrected that problem.  The CDS and the Commander of Canadian Forces Recruiting Group have made attracting sailors their number one priority as we met the aims of ensuring the army and the CF had the right men and women with the right skill sets in Afghanistan to take the battle against the Taliban and be as effective as they were.  But in this entire process, I have seen and articulated the desire to see the establishment of the navy to grow in order to be in the right position to man the JSS, AOPs the CSC and modernize the Halifax-class, as we go through that transition, and to keep running the Kinston-class.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Colin P said:
			
		

> Perhaps time to think about a "Naval Auxiliary" People who are nominally navy but under a contract that is more geared to civy street, sort of like the RN model? This might be a way to address technical qualification needs, also to retain some of the people with the skill sets needed.



Would that not be like the Coast Guard?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Coast guard is merchant marine with no connection.

This explains it better than I can
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Royal-Fleet-Auxiliary


bit more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Colin P said:
			
		

> Coast guard is merchant marine with no connection.
> 
> This explains it better than I can
> http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Royal-Fleet-Auxiliary
> 
> 
> bit more
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary



I am familiar with the RFA. My point was do we need to form a quasi naval gendarme type of force like our CG that may balk at being armed like our CG.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The RCFA   would be hired to support the Navy and the requirements that are unique to that situation would be clear. It might mean that supply ships are run by the RCFA and therefore the navy can concentrate the sailors it has onto the warships.

Getting the CCG to move from it's current role to a more war like one would actually be more difficult than starting a new organization with that role in mind. It helps that there is a working model to use.

The reality is that the navy is suffering manpower issues and need to think outside of our old boxes.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Colin P said:
			
		

> The RCFA   would be hired to support the Navy and the requirements that are unique to that situation would be clear. It might mean that supply ships are run by the RCFA and therefore the navy can concentrate the sailors it has onto the warships.
> 
> Getting the CCG to move from it's current role to a more war like one would actually be more difficult than starting a new organization with that role in mind. It helps that there is a working model to use.
> 
> The reality is that the navy is suffering manpower issues and need to think outside of our old boxes.



Would not finding new personnel for the "RCFA" also cut into the pool of mariners and prospective mariners that both the RCN and the CCG use to man ships? So instead of two agencies there would be three....


----------



## jollyjacktar

I don't know.  We already have an axillary.  Look at the Glen Tugs and Quest.  They would fall into that category that the RFA works under.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Would not finding new personnel for the "RCFA" also cut into the pool of mariners and prospective mariners that both the RCN and the CCG use to man ships? So instead of two agencies there would be three....



Not really the RCFA would provide a tool for Canadian mariners to get much needed seatime for ON1 & 2 tickets as well as Master mariners, plus the engineering side as well. Canadian merchant marine officers are well regarded around the world for professionalism and training. Also the RCFA would provide an opening for more deep sea time for deck crew as well. The Coast Guard is never short of people that want to work for them, at least on the West Coast. The RCFA would also be a place for people to move to who wish to keep their hand in, but are tired of the long deployments. The downside is that it would be harder for the navy to attract people to man the warships and some friction from different pay, benefits and the RCFA getting shorter deployments.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Personally I like knowing that the sailors on the Preserver get the same pay I do, have the same heartaches I do, share the same experiences I do. While I have worked with the RFA, I can't relate to them beyond general sailor stuff. I think it would breed more friction then we need. Same risks, same pay no perceived favouritism.



> I don't know.  We already have an axillary.  Look at the Glen Tugs and Quest.  They would fall into that category that the RFA works under.


Not sure too many of them would be keen on being on an AOR in the middle of the GoO.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I like knowing that the sailors on the Preserver get the same pay I do, have the same heartaches I do, share the same experiences I do. While I have worked with the RFA, I can't relate to them beyond general sailor stuff. I think it would breed more friction then we need. Same risks, same pay no perceived favouritism.
> Not sure too many of them would be keen on being on an AOR in the middle of the GoO.



And I, being a Tanker Wanker at heart, still pine for the AOR lifestyle.  My point was that we already have civilian sailors working for DND, so it's not too far of a stretch to think it could happen.  Big picture wise.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The AOPS are not a replacement for the MCDV's and will not have any reserve billets as briefed by DMAR PERS last week. It is unclear that under the blended, one navy construct there will be reserves on them. That being said we are now starting to train MESO's towards their AMOC's so eventually there probably will be some and most of the other trades are across the board the same training as the regular force.
> 
> As briefed by the Vice-Admiral Maddison in a interview last week the Kingston class are expected to be around until the 2020's and longer.
> Thats what we are working towards now.



Sorry I took so long to follow up Chief - been ill for a week but feeling much better now.

I am glad the AOPS are to be RegF manned. Arctic operations require more than training - they require experience - for the senior seamen in most MOCs. A reservist would have a very hard time acquiring and maintaining this level of experience. 

I am also glad they intend to keep the MCDV's around, but it then raises the matter of their Mid-life" again. The advertised logic for canning the mid-life's presented to the public originally was that (1) they were not good "patrol" vessels for Canada's offshore oceanic areas of operation - too slow and underarmed, and (2) they were to be replaced by the AOPS. (in fact, in the concluding passages of the 100th anniversary book commissioned by the Navy "Citizen Sailors", such replacement and devolution to the reserve of the AOPS is seriously hinted at).

I know that as the MCDV's get their mains re-bedded, a lot of work is done on the engineering side and that some updates and additions have been made to their communications and sensor suites, but a major upgrading of those last two items is required soon if they are to be able to continue into the 2030's so as to keep them able to communicate with the rest of the fleet, of partaking in the common operations picture and of significantly contributing to it. For instance, the main search radar could be replaced by the same Smart-S put in the FELEX (those radars are specifically designed for patrol boats and up) together with the most current links in a full new communication suite and the gun replaced by something akin to the Raphael Typhoon gun, which would provide an Electro-optical Surveillance system. Just a personal suggestion, this for instance.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Sorry I took so long to follow up Chief - been ill for a week but feeling much better now.
> 
> I am glad the AOPS are to be RegF manned. Arctic operations require more than training - they require experience - for the senior seamen in most MOCs. A reservist would have a very hard time acquiring and maintaining this level of experience.
> 
> I am also glad they intend to keep the MCDV's around, but it then raises the matter of their Mid-life" again. The advertised logic for canning the mid-life's presented to the public originally was that (1) they were not good "patrol" vessels for Canada's offshore oceanic areas of operation - too slow and underarmed, and (2) they were to be replaced by the AOPS. (in fact, in the concluding passages of the 100th anniversary book commissioned by the Navy "Citizen Sailors", such replacement and devolution to the reserve of the AOPS is seriously hinted at).
> 
> I know that as the MCDV's get their mains re-bedded, a lot of work is done on the engineering side and that some updates and additions have been made to their communications and sensor suites, but a major upgrading of those last two items is required soon if they are to be able to continue into the 2030's so as to keep them able to communicate with the rest of the fleet, of partaking in the common operations picture and of significantly contributing to it. For instance, the main search radar could be replaced by the same Smart-S put in the FELEX (those radars are specifically designed for patrol boats and up) together with the most current links in a full new communication suite and the gun replaced by something akin to the Raphael Typhoon gun, which would provide an Electro-optical Surveillance system. Just a personal suggestion, this for instance.



Glad to hear you are feeling better. Yes the billets on a AOPS will be regular force, however no one has precisely explained where the crews will actually come from especially when they want to have at least 2 crews available for them at all times.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be some reserves on them, perhaps not primarily crewed but augmented under blended crewing model.

MCDV's seem to have found a niche in OP Caribbe operations it seems. Last year the MCT and SUM were very effective in operating around some of the more troubled Caribbean island nations. It was mentioned that the addition of a low light surveillance system would increase their effectiveness in those types of operations and it just makes sense to add such a system. If they will add such a system time will tell.

There are a number of EC's being implemented into the KINGSTON Class and I expect as time and money allows will continue to do so. The new OPS room upgrade has been completed along with new radars, however not too sure about any links.

I believe there is a plan to have the CCR/CER finally upgraded in the near future as it is quickly being outdated.

This year at least on the east coast, four MCDV's have a very busy sailing schedule with not much downtime.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> ...
> This year at least on the east coast, four MCDV's have a very busy sailing schedule with not much downtime.




Which appears, to me anyway, to make good economic sense: they are cheap and, for some missions, quite capable.


----------



## Kirkhill

> "If we do this right, there will be enough work, not just for 30 years, but for 40 or 50 years," said Stoffer



I culled the above quote from an Ottawa Citizen  article.....Now, about your delivery times  >


----------



## a_majoor

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Now, about your delivery times  >





> 40 or 50 years



I'm pretty sure your answer is right there...


----------



## Haletown

Speaking of new  . . . some ship porn 


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9051694/HMS-Dauntless-a-guide-to-the-Royal-Navys-most-powerful-warship.html


----------



## jim7966

There was (maybe still is) a video tour of HMS Dauntless on the RN website.

The crew (even the junior rates) get cabins. 4-6 per cabin.

If I had a cabin instead of a mess deck with 40 other hairy apes with nothing but a buggery box between you and your neighbour I might still be in.


----------



## ekpiper

Haletown said:
			
		

> Speaking of new  . . . some ship porn
> 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9051694/HMS-Dauntless-a-guide-to-the-Royal-Navys-most-powerful-warship.html



I was fortunate enough to see Dauntless just before she was commissioned while in Portsmouth on vacation.  Absolutely breathtaking ship.  She looks extremely impressive, and hugely more modern than the Ticonderoga near her at the time.  My camera didn't stop .


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, they are beautiful.  We had a visitor along the same lines a couple of years ago.   She looked so sleek and modern when set against our fleet.  Maybe when they do come up with a new design for the next generation they'll look and be just as good.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, they are beautiful.  We had a visitor along the same lines a couple of years ago.   She looked so sleek and modern when set against our fleet.  Maybe when they do come up with a new design for the next generation they'll look and be just as good.



I am not at liberty to provide more but start at: http://maritime.mil.ca/english/dgmfd/dmrs/Sections/dmrs_07/intro.asp (Note, this is DIN-DND intrAnet). There are some images floating around from a preliminary concept design fropm last fall.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> I am not at liberty to provide more but start at: http://maritime.mil.ca/english/dgmfd/dmrs/Sections/dmrs_07/intro.asp (Note, this is DIN-DND intrAnet). There are some images floating around from a preliminary concept design fropm last fall.



I had seen some conceptual-ish pictures before.  They do seem however to change their minds and directions as the wind blows, which is why I say that maybe by the time they make up their minds we might have something more modern in looks etc.  My time is growing short and I personally will never set foot on any of these future craft AOPS, AOR, CSC etc.  As I said in other threads, I heard promises of new AORs in 99/00 and 12 years later we are no further ahead.


----------



## RC

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As I said in other threads, I heard promises of new AORs in 99/00 and 12 years later we are no further ahead.



My understanding is that there will be a race between the JSS and the Polar icebreaker to see which will be slotted for build first.  If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the icebreaker.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

My understanding of the apportionment of work under the Strategy was that the "combat" vessels went to Irving in Halifax and the "non-combat" ones would be built in Vancouver. Is that not still so?

If so, then the "Diefenbaker" (God! That sounds like a RCMP wolf-dog  ) would be built in Van and the AOPS in Hal, so why would it be a race between the two?

Fishing for info here.

And by-the-way, as regards ship porn: The issue is not how good they look, but how well they are armed. One of the best looking ship out there are the French La Fayette class Frigates but they are lightly armed and slow as combatants go. In the same vein, while better looking than a Tico or an Arleigh Burke, the Dauntless' don't even carry half as many missiles. I'll take an extra 48-64 Standard Missiles over good looks any time.

On the other hand - I think we are at the point where the Dantless' living standards are getting to be a must for retention of junior seaman and IMHO there is no reason for not delivering on that in the next class, especially considering the crew size reduction and corresponding increased technical knowledge requirements that will arise from greater automation


----------



## jollyjacktar

Because the West is mostly ready to go, whereas ISI need to do prep work to be ready to cut steel.


----------



## RC

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> My understanding of the apportionment of work under the Strategy was that the "combat" vessels went to Irving in Halifax and the "non-combat" ones would be built in Vancouver. Is that not still so?
> 
> If so, then the "Diefenbaker" (God! That sounds like a RCMP wolf-dog  ) would be built in Van and the AOPS in Hal, so why would it be a race between the two?
> 
> Fishing for info here.



JSS and the Polar will both be built in Vancouver.  Irving will build the AOPS first and then the CSC.  Seaspan will build OOSV, OFSV, and then either JSS or Polar, whichever is ready first (unless there is a political decision to delay one to favour the other).  There will probably be some tough decisions to be made since both the Navy and CCG are itching for their big ships, however, I have my doubts that JSS will have a design before Polar does.  The process that has taken 6 to 7 years and is still not complete for JSS will be 6 to 7 months on Polar in my estimation.


----------



## jollyjacktar

RC said:
			
		

> JSS and the Polar will both be built in Vancouver.  Irving will build the AOPS first and then the CSC.  Seaspan will build OOSV, OFSV, and then either JSS or Polar, whichever is ready first (unless there is a political decision to delay one to favour the other).  There will probably be some tough decisions to be made since both the Navy and CCG are itching for their big ships, however, I have my doubts that JSS will have a design before Polar does.  The process that has taken 6 to 7 years and is still not complete for JSS will be 6 to 7 months on Polar in my estimation.


My mistake.  When I think "polar" I forget about the CCG, I automatically thought of AOPS.  As for the JSS final plans, they do seem to keep changing direction with the breeze.  I almost wonder if they ever will make up their minds.  I was shown plans for it's predecessor the ALSC in 99/00.   :not-again:


----------



## chrisf

If it makes you feel any better, the Polar 8 started in 1985 and was cancelled in 1990...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_8_Project


----------



## RC

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> If it makes you feel any better, the Polar 8 started in 1985 and was cancelled in 1990...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_8_Project



And now, 22 years later, they are officially back in the race:

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2012/hq-ac05-eng.htm


----------



## cupper

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If so, then the "Diefenbaker" (God! That sounds like a RCMP wolf-dog  )



Just as long as they aren't deaf. ;D

I was always impressed with the German vessels when ever STANAVFORLANT made port visits to Halifax. They had a way of cramming as much weaponry into as small a ship as possible. Must be hellish for the crews, lacking in the comfort department.


----------



## ekpiper

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> My understanding of the apportionment of work under the Strategy was that the "combat" vessels went to Irving in Halifax and the "non-combat" ones would be built in Vancouver. Is that not still so?
> 
> If so, then the "Diefenbaker" (God! That sounds like a RCMP wolf-dog  ) would be built in Van and the AOPS in Hal, so why would it be a race between the two?
> 
> Fishing for info here.
> 
> And by-the-way, as regards ship porn: The issue is not how good they look, but how well they are armed. One of the best looking ship out there are the French La Fayette class Frigates but they are lightly armed and slow as combatants go. In the same vein, while better looking than a Tico or an Arleigh Burke, the Dauntless' don't even carry half as many missiles. I'll take an extra 48-64 Standard Missiles over good looks any time.
> 
> On the other hand - I think we are at the point where the Dantless' living standards are getting to be a must for retention of junior seaman and IMHO there is no reason for not delivering on that in the next class, especially considering the crew size reduction and corresponding increased technical knowledge requirements that will arise from greater automation



Indeed, but when I look at women, I don't wonder how well their ovaries are working! 

I don't have remotely enough knowledge to comment on specific advantages/disadvantages to their armament, but I am a firm believer, as I expect all people working with this equipment would be, of function over form.  But if it happens that a ship look good as a result of designs for stealth and other requirements, I won't complain.  From my understanding, a Tico is much more versatile in which missiles and how many it holds.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

cupper said:
			
		

> Just as long as they aren't deaf. ;D
> 
> I was always impressed with the German vessels when ever STANAVFORLANT made port visits to Halifax. They had a way of cramming as much weaponry into as small a ship as possible. Must be hellish for the crews, lacking in the comfort department.



The German ships don't lack for crew comforts....trust me.


----------



## Haletown

updates . . .

Navantia off JSS list
FrontLine has learned that Spanish shipbuilder Navantia is out of the running for Canadian Navy's Joint Support Ships, leaving a choice between the German Berlin-class and a home-grown Canadian design. Whatever the choice, two and possibly three Joint Support Ships will be built at the Seaspan shipyards in Vancouver under a contract estimated at about $3 billion.

http://www.frontline-canada.com/Defence/


----------



## The Bread Guy

Haletown said:
			
		

> updates . . .
> 
> Navantia off JSS list
> FrontLine has learned that Spanish shipbuilder Navantia is out of the running for Canadian Navy's Joint Support Ships, leaving a choice between the German Berlin-class and a home-grown Canadian design. Whatever the choice, two and possibly three Joint Support Ships will be built at the Seaspan shipyards in Vancouver under a contract estimated at about $3 billion.
> 
> http://www.frontline-canada.com/Defence/



Also....


> ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) a leading European systems house providing submarines and naval surface ships and Canada's procurement agency, PWGSC, have signed a contract in Hamburg for a multiphase design study for the Canadian Navy's next generation Joint Support Ship (JSS).
> 
> As part of a major fleet renewal program, Canada plans to replace its two Auxiliary Oil Replenishment (AOR) vessels with two or three Joint Support Ships. One possible design for the new JSS is a version of the German Navy's latest Berlin Class Task Group Supply Vessel (EGV) specifically modified to meet Canadian requirements. The agreement between PWGSC and TKMSC includes the provisions for a licensing agreement for the use of the EGV design for the construction in and deployment of the ships by Canada should the EGV design be selected.
> 
> The modified design, to be developed by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada (TKMSC) in close cooperation with Blohm + Voss Naval (BVN), a strongly positioned professional naval systems engineering house, will be considered alongside an in-house design, being developed by the Department of National Defence (DND), the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), and BMT Fleet Technology in Canada.
> 
> Should the TKMS modified Berlin Class EGV design be chosen, the award of a contract for the functional design is planned, which would be used for the construction of the ships by a Canadian shipyard.


naval-technology.com, 8 Feb 12


----------



## AlexanderM

Are there any early concepts of what the new Frigates and Destroyers might look like??  I don't have time to go through the entire thread so please forgive me if it's already there.


----------



## Edward Campbell

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Are there any early concepts of what the new Frigates and Destroyers might look like??  I don't have time to go through the entire thread so please forgive me if it's already there.




So you expect one of us to go through it for you and direct you the right page?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, and the answer to your question is:
Yes


----------



## GAP

.


----------



## AlexanderM

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So you expect one of us to go through it for you and direct you the right page?
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> Oh, and the answer to your question is:
> Yes


Actually, I thought someone might have some information at their fingertips.


----------



## Edward Campbell

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Actually, I thought someone might have some information at their fingertips.




"Someone" probably does, but a warship project ~ defining requirements, budgeting, designing, building and bringing into service ~ is a hideously complex business, well above my pay and skill levels (when I still had a pay grade). "Somoeone" may have some inside information, but until the Chief of the Naval Staff himself (eventually herself) joins _Navy.ca_ we are likely to find out the "real" information when most other Canadians do.

Until then here is "someone's" idea:


----------



## AlexanderM

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> "Someone" probably does, but a warship project ~ defining requirements, budgeting, designing, building and bringing into service ~ is a hideously complex business, well above my pay and skill levels (when I still had a pay grade). "Somoeone" may have some inside information, but until the Chief of the Naval Staff himself (eventually herself) joins _Navy.ca_ we are likely to find out the "real" information when most other Canadians do.
> 
> Until then here is "someone's" idea:


Yes, I do understand this, was hoping to get lucky with some information, and yes it is a bit early to say the least, as the designs take time.  I am constantly searching the net looking for any hint of the designs, I did find one link but it was not something I could access.  It will be interesting to see if we come up with our own design or license one of the existing designs.  The one posted above is the Halifax Class with the extended hull, and thank you very much for posting the design.

I love the streamlined look of the FREMM but the systems are all wrong, then I also very much like the De Zeven Provincien which has the systems we will likely use.  If we do our own design, I hope that it doesn't turn out to be overly expensive, as I understand the desire to show that we can still produce our own ship, but for the next 20 years or so, cheaper is going to be better as countries aren't going to have money for expensive warships, they are going to want quality at a very good price.  So, if we produce something that is very costly, thinking it will allow us to compete globally in the warship building market, it will likely just end up costing us alot of money. As other countries just aren't going to be interested, given the current financial conditions that will likely be around for a long time.  So I'm hoping that we just build ourselves some good ships and not worry too much about other considerations.


----------



## Edward Campbell

My, very limited, experience in all this involved working for the former Captain of the (now defunct) Naval Drawing Office) and former Project Manager CPF when he moved on to bigger things. He had four concerns in warship design, in no particular order:

1. Sea keeping ~ how well does it sail?

2. Habitability ~ are the sailors "fit to fight" when needed?

3. Armour and armament ~ can it survive and win a fight?

4. Cost ~ can we afford it?

I can guarantee that he agonized over those four criteria; to him a "beautiful" ship was one that could stay at sea, in the wild North Atlantic, and win a fight there - at a price that we could afford without denying the Army and Air Force the kit they need, too. Ugly equalled unaffordable.


----------



## ironduke57

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) a leading European systems house providing submarines and naval surface ships and Canada's procurement agency, PWGSC, have signed a contract in Hamburg for a multiphase design study for the Canadian Navy's next generation Joint Support Ship (JSS).
> 
> As part of a major fleet renewal program, Canada plans to replace its two Auxiliary Oil Replenishment (AOR) vessels with two or three Joint Support Ships. One possible design for the new JSS is a version of the German Navy's latest Berlin Class Task Group Supply Vessel (EGV) specifically modified to meet Canadian requirements. The agreement between PWGSC and TKMSC includes the provisions for a licensing agreement for the use of the EGV design for the construction in and deployment of the ships by Canada should the EGV design be selected.
> 
> The modified design, to be developed by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada (TKMSC) in close cooperation with Blohm + Voss Naval (BVN), a strongly positioned professional naval systems engineering house, will be considered alongside an in-house design, being developed by the Department of National Defence (DND), the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), and BMT Fleet Technology in Canada.
> 
> Should the TKMS modified Berlin Class EGV design be chosen, the award of a contract for the functional design is planned, which would be used for the construction of the ships by a Canadian shipyard.
> 
> 
> 
> Also....naval-technology.com, 8 Feb 12
Click to expand...

As a side note: 

On the 17.4. our third AOR BONN (A1413) was christened. 

Pix:









(Guard of honour of the city of Bonn.)

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Colin Parkinson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My, very limited, experience in all this involved working for the former Captain of the (now defunct) Naval Drawing Office) and former Project Manager CPF when he moved on to bigger things. He had four concerns in warship design, in no particular order:
> 
> 1. Sea keeping ~ how well does it sail?
> 
> 2. Habitability ~ are the sailors "fit to fight" when needed?
> 
> 3. Armour and armament ~ can it survive and win a fight?
> 
> 4. Cost ~ can we afford it?
> 
> I can guarantee that he agonized over those four criteria; to him a "beautiful" ship was one that could stay at sea, in the wild North Atlantic, and win a fight there - at a price that we could afford without denying the Army and Air Force the kit they need, too. Ugly equalled unaffordable.



Funny thing about ships, generally if it does not look "right" it generally is not. I remember showing my girlfriend the (then) recently launched 500 Class Cutters for the CCG. She took one look and said "Aren't they top heavy?" She was bang on and could not tell a dingy from a Cruise ship.


----------



## GAP

Navy destroyers will be retired before replacements arrive, documents reveal
 By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News June 20, 2012
Article Link

OTTAWA — Canada's navy will have to do more with less in a few years as internal documents and Defence Department insiders have confirmed the country's aging fleet of destroyers will be retired before replacements are ready.

The revelation highlights the pressure the Conservative government and Canadian Forces are under as they race against the clock to start cutting steel on new vessels through their promised $35 billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy.

"It just kind of echoes the same worries that we've had," said Andrew Warden, head of maritime affairs at the Navy League of Canada. "These projects keep being delayed and delayed, and the ships just keep getting older and older."

The navy's Iroquois-class destroyers were built in the early 1970s and underwent a major upgrade in the 1990s so they could provide anti-submarine warfare, anti-aircraft defence as well as command-and-control capabilities for Canadian and allied naval task forces.

Over the decades, the destroyers have participated in missions off Canada's shores and around the world, including in the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Desert Storm, the Indian Ocean after 9/11 and in Haiti following the January 2010 earthquake.

Briefing notes prepared for Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino in May 2011 and obtained by Postmedia News state the destroyers "will reach the end of their planned service life beginning in 2017, at which point they will be over 43 years old."

Yet the notes also say the Iroquois-class "will not be replaced before it is retired," an assessment that was confirmed Wednesday by a senior official within National Defence.

The navy is putting in place plans to ensure the loss of the destroyers won't negatively impact the maritime force's capabilities, and Warden said Canada's 12 Halifax-class frigates can take on many of the tasks currently assigned to the destroyers.

However, the loss of the Iroquois-class "will definitely limit some of our options" in terms of what type of operations the navy can undertake during that period, Warden said, while the key question is exactly how long the gap will last.

Treasury Board, which holds the federal purse strings, reportedly agreed on Tuesday to release several hundred million dollars so the Defence Department could move ahead and begin designing the vessels that will replace the destroyers and frigates.

This is considered a significant step and the hope is that negotiations with Irving Shipyard in Halifax and associated contractors responsible for building the next generation of naval surface combatants will be finished by 2016, with the first ship delivered in the early 2020s.

But Fantino's briefing notes warned that the "critical" $26.6-billion Canadian-surface-combatant (CSC) project to replace the destroyers as well as the frigates would need to enter the design phase in 2011 to ensure the rest of the process — including contract negotiations with industry — moved ahead smoothly.

On top of that, senior naval officers noted at a recent conference there were more than 400 people working directly on the Halifax-class frigate program in the 1980s and another 1,000 contributing in other ways.

In contrast, there are about 30 currently assigned to the project that will replace the frigates and Iroquois-class destroyers, with that number expected to peak at only a couple hundred in the coming years.

"There needs to be an understanding across this community about the relative fragility of the staff capacity that we are seeing," deputy naval commander Rear-Admiral Mark Norman said at the time. "This is not anyone's fault. It's just a reality."
More on link


----------



## Virtuoso

Colin P said:
			
		

> Funny thing about ships, generally if it does not look "right" it generally is not. I remember showing my girlfriend the (then) recently launched 500 Class Cutters for the CCG. She took one look and said "Aren't they top heavy?" She was bang on and could not tell a dingy from a Cruise ship.



Well, not really. The island on the INS Vikramaditya is huge and yet it is simply because it was formerly a cruiser. If they get upgrades every two years then you know something is wrong.


----------



## GAP

Well, if things don't go rapidly enough we could always do what the Aussie's are doing......

The Spanish Test Drive
Article Link
July 16, 2012 

 Desperate to cut costs, and already facing fewer days at sea, the Spanish Navy is leasing one of its supply ships (the 19,500 ton Cantabria) to Australia for ten months next year. The Spanish Navy will continue to pay the crew (180 sailors), but Australia will pick up all other expenses, including the costs of Cantabria steaming from Spain to Australia and back.

Cantabria is a two year old ship of modern design. It carries fuel (diesel and aviation), fresh water other supplies for supported ships as well as a ten bed medical and dental clinic. Called an AOR, these ships are basically tankers that also carry other supplies (food, water, spare parts) needed to keep ships at sea for long periods.  

Cantabria is being sent south because the Spanish Navy has to cut costs (because of shrinking government budgets and a major recession) and Australia needs another supply ship for naval exercises next year. Australia is also seeking to buy a new supply ship and the Cantabria class is one of the contenders. This gives Australia an opportunity to check out the Spanish ship under realistic conditions.

Neither country would reveal what the deal would save Spain, and cost Australia, but operating a ship like this costs at least $500,000 a month (not counting crew pay.) So it's going to cost Australia over $5 million, and save the Spanish somewhat less (as Cantabria was only scheduled to be at sea 40 days next year if it stayed in Spain). Australia plans to work Cantabria much harder. 
end


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's actually a great idea, you get to test drive the ship and see what they are really like.


----------



## mad dog 2020

Canadian shipbuilders fear navy will buy German vessels
CBC News
Last Updated: Aug 31, 2012 10:20 ET

German industry has made a pitch to the Canadian government to supply designs for frigates, destroyers and new submarines CBC

Some Canadian shipbuilders are concerned a German design could be the leading contender to replace the navy's aging sea support ships.

Replenishment ships, like the Preserver and the Protecteur, help the Canadian navy stay at sea for long periods of time, but at 40 years old, they'll soon need replacements.

Sources have told the CBC that a German-designed ship called the Berlin class could win the $3-billion contract.

Since the Second World War, Canada has designed and built its own warships. However, in recent years, the German industry has lobbied the Canadian government to supply designs for frigates, destroyers and new submarines.

Peter Cairns, president of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, said buying an existing foreign design means the Canadian industry loses out.

"You can get vessels off the shelf cheaper," he said.

"[There's] no Canadian input with the exception of the odd piece of pipe."

Cairns said he's concerned the sea support ship contract could signal the demise of a decades-old Canadian design industry.

"This Berlin class is going to come with German radars, German engines, German this, German that, and German the rest of it."

The federal government has promised to build new arctic patrol vessels and navy combat ships in Halifax over the next 30 years.


----------



## AlexanderM

Look, I am all for giving the military good equipment, however, licensing existing designs is the way to go. Other countries can build very capable new destroyers for around 1 billion dollars, but our military wants to spend double that or more, simply to preserve our design role. I hope that this is what our top General resigned over recently, and the new guy will have been brought in the use licensed designs.

Canada has been a partner in the APAR system for some time now, and we will be using the Smart-L/APAR radar. After that it's just off the shelf weapons systems, the VLS launchers, the bofors or other main gun, the point defence systems, we don't have to redesign the wheel here, it will only cost a huge amount of money.


----------



## Infanteer

The 'top general' retired.


----------



## GAP

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The 'top general' retired.



Yeah, but that wouldn't fit the rant now would it.....


----------



## The Bread Guy

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Look, I am all for giving the military good equipment, however, licensing existing designs is the way to go. Other countries can build very capable new destroyers for around 1 billion dollars, but our military the shipbuilding industry in Canada wants to spend double that or more, simply to preserve our design and as much of the construction role as possible ....


A bit of an oversimplification, given politicians also want regional industrial benefits, but fixed that for you - I don't think the military _generally_ wants to spend more at any given time on hardware than they have to.


----------



## AlexanderM

The designs would be licensed and then built in Canada, so the construction would be done here, that has not been an issue.  However, the navy has been talking something in the range of 2.5 billion per destroyer, which is ridiculous.  That's more expensive than a Burke.


----------



## aesop081

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> but our military wants to spend double that or more, simply to preserve our design role.



The military does not make the decisions on where things are built, by whom or who designs it.



> I hope that this is what our top General resigned over recently,



You should watch the news a bunch more.



> and the new guy will have been brought in the use licensed designs.



It will not be the new guy's decision either.


----------



## Maxadia

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Look, I am all for giving the military good equipment, however, licensing existing designs is the way to go. Other countries can build very capable new destroyers for around 1 billion dollars, but our military wants to spend double that or more, simply to preserve our design role. I hope that this is what our top General resigned over recently, and the new guy will have been brought in the use licensed designs.
> 
> Canada has been a partner in the APAR system for some time now, and we will be using the Smart-L/APAR radar. After that it's just off the shelf weapons systems, the VLS launchers, the bofors or other main gun, the point defence systems, we don't have to redesign the wheel here, it will only cost a huge amount of money.



So what's your experience in the above, or are you just trolling out of your ass?


----------



## AlexanderM

My experience is, as a taxpayer, remembering how much we spent for the Halifax Class, which was much higher than the going rate for ships of that class at the time. I remember the day they announced they were giving up on making the stealth technology work, which contributed to the cost.  I had a close friend, who was an LT. on one of the Halifax ships, and we had a tour when almost no one was on the ship. We saw everything, and they are good ships, but were very expensive.

There have already been published reports of estimates of the cost of the new destroyers being above 2 billion each, and upwards of 2.5 billion.  And, I have had a private discussions with someone who is currently working on the program and he confirmed the cost. I have had this discussion with him and I have a pretty good idea what they are thinking.

I also graduated Cornwallis many, many moons ago, and no I am not trolling out of my ****.   I have some fundamental disagreements with what is being said in that article.  Mainly regarding the need to have our own designs, given the cost.


----------



## aesop081

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> and no I am not trolling out of my ****.



Your previous post suggest different.

 :


----------



## Monsoon

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> There have already been published reports of estimates of the cost of the new destroyers being above 2 billion each, and upwards of 2.5 billion.  And, I have had a private discussions with someone who is currently working on the program and he confirmed the cost. I have had this discussion with him and I have a pretty good idea what they are thinking.


As we learned during the F-35 kerfluffle, there are costs and then there are "costs". $2.5B is the per-unit accounting cost, including through-life (usually 20 years) expenses for things like crewing, training, maintenance, operating, running a dockyard to house the ships, etc, etc, etc. The crew costs alone for a surface combatant account for a good quarter-bil. The costs quoted for the ship designed by the German consortium or for an AB are construction costs alone - by far the smallest component.

The German shipyard operators know the difference, but crucially they know that the Canadian public (even a greeeeeat many service members and veterans - like you) don't, which is why they've helpfully tipped off the media that they're making this approach to the government to stir up public angst.

How does it feel to be used?


----------



## Maxadia

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I also graduated Cornwallis many, many moons ago, and no I am not trolling out of my ****.




That's funny.  You have vast experience and friends "in the know", but you thought Gen. Natynczyk resigned because of the cost of these ships? 

Your friend must be very high up.



> I have some fundamental disagreements with what is being said in that article.  Mainly regarding the need to have our own designs, given the cost.



Not a Canadian shipbuilder trying to support a family, are you?


----------



## AlexanderM

RDJP said:
			
		

> That's funny.  You have vast experience and friends "in the know", but you thought Gen. Natynczyk resigned because of the cost of these ships?
> 
> Your friend must be very high up.
> 
> Not a Canadian shipbuilder trying to support a family, are you?


Saying that I thought that was the reason is completely inaccurate, I didn't even look into the matter, I simply knew that there had been a change.  I was venting because I'm ticked off that we always have to pay so much for the ships we build, as compared with other nations.  I also think that the article is completely off base regarding the importance of having our own designs.  What is important, and the only thing that is important, is having capable ships, and we can easily license them and build them in Canada.

Also, in the story they had on the news about the change at the top, they mentioned that the new guys #1 priority was the new Destroyers and Frigates.


----------



## aesop081

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> we can easily license them and build them in Canada.



Thus increasing the cost as well. Canadian shipyards will require a huge amount of work in order to hire capable workers and equipment necessary to build any warship here at home. Licensing a foreign design and building it here is still not the cheapest option.


----------



## AlexanderM

The problem is, when we design them here, we tend to design them so they are expensive to build.  If one looks at the Spanish F100 Class, or the De Zeven Provincien, which were both built at a very reasonable cost? The question is then, how much more should they cost to build them here?  If it's double, or more, then we should all be shaking our heads.


----------



## Good2Golf

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> What is important, and the only thing that is important, is having capable ships, and we can easily license them and build them in Canada.



....only thing that is important....?

How much have you read on Canada's priorities regarding capability acquisition in major crown projects in general, and the national shipbuilding strategy in particular?

Might I suggest that your statement regarding importance "only" in having capable ships is both naive and inaccurate.

If you put aside what your influential friends are telling you for just a moment, and take a quick look at what Industry Canada says about the ships, you will find that the taxpayers' money that goes into a complex capital programme does far more than 'provide capability'.  Your priority highlighted in teal, the 'other stuff' which is rather important to the Government of Canada in orange.

Ref: Industry Canada's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy 



> The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) is an unprecedented long-term, multi-billion dollar commitment to renewing Canada's federal fleet. The NSPS will accomplish this by establishing strategic partnerships with two shipyards, with one building combat vessels and the other non-combat vessels. This strategy will help build and maintain an effective federal fleet for maritime security and services while maximizing economic benefits across the country.
> 
> Of the funds identified within fleet renewal plans of the Navy and Coast Guard, only a portion of this amount would go to the two winning shipyards. The rest would flow to the broader marine industry, including the project management design and combat sectors. This approach will create significant opportunity for suppliers across Canada and will facilitate the development of advanced technologies and sustained innovation.
> 
> Canada's marine industry is a key economic driver and the lifeblood of many communities across the country. The federal government believes in the strategic importance of this industry and is committed to making its fleet renewal a key contributor to the industry's long-term well-being.
> 
> The NSPS will provide a framework to promote continuous improvement in the industry, while enabling significant cost savings from a long-term, steady work flow. The Strategy will help the industry avoid the boom and bust cycle that has characterized industry activity in the past. Communities across the country will benefit because this strategy creates and sustains highly skilled jobs for Canadian companies, including small and medium-sized enterprises.



As you can now see, there is a LOT more to a programme than simply the "most capable" ship.




			
				AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Also, in the story they had on the news about the change at the top, they mentioned that the new guys #1 priority was the new Destroyers and Frigates.



Ahhhh...you mean the reporter said the "new guy's #1 priority" was the new Destroyers and Frigates.  Have you actually heard Gen Lawson say, "My #1 priority for the CF is procuring the Navy's new ships?"


Short of any of the forum members here actually working in the Directorate of Maritime Requirements, the majority of others inform themselves through a balance of academic, journalistic and official government sources on the issue as well as studying what other options and vessel designs are available that would meet not only the operational requirements, but also achieve the other goals the Government of Canada has stated formally as being important elements of the overall procurement plan.

Regards
G2G


----------



## AlexanderM

It is my arguement that pretty much everything you have just said and quoted is a complete fallicy, and here is why.

When it comes to warships, we have the Americans and then Europe. On one side, we have the Aegis system and it's compatible vls systems and missles. On the other side, we have the Smart-L/APAR combination, which is likely what Canada will use, as they are compatible with American missles. Then, we have the American and EU missles, of which we will use the American. Beyond this, we have the choices for the main guns and then the point defence systems. Then, we pick our ASW systems and our helicopters.  

All of the state of the art systems are essentially available, off the shelf, at this point.  So, we don't need to re-invent the wheel, we just pick our systems, and make certain that the ship designs are built to be upgraded, and can carry some mission modules.  Then, we should be picking future programs to invest in, making us a partner with the other developing nations, like we have done with APAR.  I take it that you're aware of this program.  This is exactly what we should be doing.

Now, at a time when pretty much every nation on earth is in financial trouble, the idea that building grossly overexpensive warships is going to make us more competitive is where the fallicy comes in.  It doesn't make us more competitive.  Other nations will look at the cost of what we've done and say, good luck with that.  When it comes to shipbuilding, we can't compete with Korea or other nations who can build what we build for half the cost.  the idea that one can put a fancy arguement on paper that really shows us that it's OK, doesn't help.


----------



## Good2Golf

You're not arguing with me, you're arguing against what the Government of Canada says its own priorities are.  Have fun with that....odds are you won't convince the Government to change its mind, but by all means enjoy trying.

G2G


----------



## AlexanderM

Yes! Agreed!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When it comes to building frigate-destroyer sized naval vessels, Canada actually has a decent track record , despite the stop and start nature of the programs. If Canada can come up with a winning design that is adaptable to US and other tech, then our design teams have a marketable skill regardless of the cost of building them here.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This is an interesting development, I think: RFA Fort Victoria is in drydock in Dubai. Are there no shipyards with capacity in UK? Do UK workers not need jobs? Is money _that_ tight?






Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ugborough_exile/8108182439/ 
This photo was taken on October 21, 2012 in Al Mina, Dubai, Dubai, AE.

My questions are serious; I thought shipbuilding/repair, especially of warships, is (was?) always done domestically.


----------



## GAP

lowest bid?


----------



## Edward Campbell

GAP said:
			
		

> lowest bid?




That certainly addresses my third question (tight budgets).

I guess it's good for the Philippines since, I think, most 'workers' in the Gulf states are foreigners, often Pakistanis and Bangladeshis for lower skill jobs and Filipinos for higher skill ones.


----------



## jollyjacktar

It might depend upon the circumstance of the work being done.  We've had foreign yards to work on our ships when overseas and needs must.  From what I've heard they are fast, low cost and efficient.  Something Irving has no idea of...


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It might depend upon the circumstance of the work being done.  We've had foreign yards to work on our ships when overseas and needs must.  From what I've heard they are fast, low cost and efficient.  Something Irving has no idea of...




So this might be urgent repairs rather than any sort of refit?


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So this might be urgent repairs rather than any sort of refit?


Yes, that's very possible.  I know of for instance major equipment changeouts being done overseas when things have died.  Diesel generators, gas turbines etc, IIRC.  There was with a CPF in Japan such a job that was done in a matter of days vs weeks as back home.  The person who told me about it was in awe of the process, (again IIRC).

Things can and do happen when you're deployed and vessels like the RFA oilers can stay on station for extended periods of time as the mission requires.  While I was in Puerto Rico some years ago on the Tanker we had to have a backyard mechanic fabricate a fix for us so we could make it home, it was about $15K and was quite creative and MacGyver-ish too.


----------



## Occam

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So this might be urgent repairs rather than any sort of refit?



I would venture it's a scheduled refit, judging by the fact that all of her antennas and mast have been removed, and most of the superstructure is covered in scaffolding - see more photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ugborough_exile/with/8108182407/#photo_8108182407


----------



## Colin Parkinson

RFA, they might be at sea when a Quadrennial inspection comes due, so to continue to sail they might need to pull shafts or something.


----------



## Kirkhill

Also, isn't the RFA a civilian organization?

It is managed by the RN and/or the MOD but is a separate entity.   I seem to recall reading/hearing that many of the RFA crew were foreign nationals.

I don't think the same rules apply to them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Some real on the ground effects, they have been in contact with our office for approvals to construct the new facilities 


Seaspan kicked off a $200-million upgrade to its North Vancouver shipyard Friday, saying that the redevelopment will launch the rebirth of the West Coast shipbuilding industry.

The shipyard infrastructure investment marks the first major expenditure in B.C. related to the federal National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy. Seaspan landed the $8-billion federal procurement contract a year ago Friday.

Seaspan will build seven vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Navy under the contract.

Seaspan president Jonathan Whitworth said the construction project alone will require 150 workers. Seaspan expects the actual shipbuilding project to swell the employment ranks at the North Vancouver site from 200 to 1,200 by 2016, providing stable work over the next decade for shipbuilders on the North Shore.

At a groundbreaking ceremony at the shipyard, called Vancouver Shipyard, Whitworth described the contract as "a true game-changer for the shipbuilding industry."

The redeveloped shipyard, he said, "will once again build large complex vessels for the federal government," as well as other future non-government shipbuilding projects. Future BC Ferries could be built at the shipyard, he said - the federal shipbuilding strategy means B.C. will have the capacity to do it.

"I do believe there is going to be capacity either at Vancouver Shipyards, Victoria Shipyards or one of our competitors that can actually build the future BC Ferries vessels."

Naomi Yamamoto, North Vancouver-Lonsdale MLA and B.C. minister of state for small business, said the issue of building more ferries now is hypothetical, but if the industry can prove it is competitive, "we may see BC Ferries built in British Columbia."

Seaspan intends to build four new buildings and install an 85-metre tall gantry at Vancouver Shipyard. Construction begins right away and is expected to be completed by 2015. It will require a million kilograms of steel and 1,000 truckloads of concrete, Whitworth said. About $20 million of the investment is in new state-of-the art tools for workers, he noted.

Although construction of the largest vessels under the federal contract will not begin until 2016, Whitworth said construction on two smaller vessels can begin in the second half of 2013. Seaspan is to build three offshore fisheries science vessels, one offshore oceanographic science vessel, one polar icebreaker, and two joint support ships.

The $8-billion Seaspan contract is part of a $33-billion, 20-year federal shipbuilding program. The largest contract, for $25 billion, went to Irving Shipbuilding of Nova Scotia.

Rona Ambrose, federal minister of public works and government services, said the federal procurement program was designed to ensure long-term development of the shipbuilding industry in Canada.

"Seaspan's $200-million investment in Vancouver Shipyards to make it a world-class shipbuilding centre of excellence is proof that the shipbuilding industry is back to stay in Canada," Ambrose said.

Whitworth said Seaspan is confident it can find enough skilled workers for the reconstruction job and for the shipbuilding program without looking outside the country. However, they are advertising outside of Canada for some of the highly skilled jobs.

"When you don't build large, complex vessels in British Columbia for 30 years, a lot of that professional skilled labour has either passed on, retired, or no longer lives here. So for positions like engineers, project managers, naval architects, those jobs are currently unfilled here because we don't have Canadians capable of filling them." But for the trades, he said, Seaspan is getting feedback from people working in the Alberta oilsands or other isolated mega-projects who want to come to Vancouver.

Percy Darbyson, president of local 506 of the Allied Shipbuilders Union, said the union is also hearing from trades-people who left the province to work elsewhere.

"Today is a great day to get the infrastructure started. Now we are looking forward to the build," he said. "Shipbuilding would have been gone without the program. They were going to close down this facility. The 200 guys who are here would have been gone."

ghamilton@vancouversun.com



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Seaspan+launches+million+shipyard+upgrade/7421454/story.html#ixzz2A8ZL5iES


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bump with an update from MERX on one of the Big Honkin' Ship projects.....


> .... The purpose of this Letter of Interest (LOI) is to invite private sector firms and industry associations interested in the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Project to:
> 
> a.    attend the CSC Industry Engagement Kick-Off Session on Nov. 15, 2012; and/or
> 
> b.    submit written responses to Canada's questions soliciting industry recommendations on the procurement approach which will lead to an implementation contract or contracts for combat ships.
> 
> This LOI is neither a call for Tenders nor a Request for Proposal (RFP). No agreement or contract will be entered into, with any person or entity, based on this LOI. The issuance of this LOI is not to be considered in any way a commitment by the Government of Canada or as authority to potential participants to undertake any work, which could be charged to Canada. This LOI is not to be considered as a commitment to issue an RFP or award contract(s) for this Project.
> 
> (....)
> 
> 2.    BACKGROUND
> 
> The Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) states the requirement "to replace Canada's destroyers and frigates to ensure that the Canadian Forces can continue to monitor and defend Canadian waters and make significant contributions to international naval operations." The Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Project has been created to deliver the combat ships to meet this requirement.
> 
> Canada's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) is the program through which Canada is rebuilding the fleets of the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> Our intent is that the ships which comprise the CSC will consist of two variants - the first of these being the Area Air Defence and Task Group Command and Control variant and the second being the General Purpose variant.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding Inc. is the NSPS selected shipyard. Information on the NSPS can be found at:
> http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/snacn-nsps-eng.html
> 
> A project web site has been created to provide information to industry regarding the CSC PROJECT.
> 
> The address of this web site is:
> http://www.materiel.forces.gc.ca/en/cscp.page



A little more detail in the MERX package (7 page PDF) here.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

BHS is actually a specific platform first mentioned by then-CDS General Hiller and is still on the books. It is sort of intended as a RO-RO/AOR/Everything vessel. This is actually the 'official' announcement of a project already on the books originally under the CADRE (Canadian Air Defence...???), then SCSC (Single Class Surface Combatant), then DR (Destroyer Replacement) monickers. I don't believe any of those made it as far as the CSC program is now.  Good to see actually. It is what I spent my 20-month 'sentence' in Ottawa working on until the end of July!!!
There is not much yet on the website but for those on the DIN, I think the PMO has quite a bit as well as DMRS 7.


----------



## AlexanderM

I can't wait to see some designs! How many vls cells for the destroyers, how many for the frigates?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I can't wait to see some designs! How many vls cells for the destroyers, how many for the frigates?



Considering no designs have been picked yet then the question becomes premature...


----------



## AlexanderM

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> There is not much yet on the website but for those on the DIN, I think the PMO has quite a bit as well as DMRS 7.


I'm under the impression that there are some initial designs here, but most of us can't see them, don't have access.


----------



## ArmyRick

Down boy, settle!  :tsktsk: If there are designs at this stage, YOU WILL know without a doubt if you are authorized or not to see said designs.


----------



## FutureSailor

donaldk said:
			
		

> Basically to summarize the Minister of National Defence released a statement on the conservative's proposed new ship building strategy.
> 
> Summary: $35B proposed to create two national ship yards to build military and civilian government vessels over the next 30 years, with consideration to eliminate boom-bust cycles.
> 
> Linkage:
> http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/06/03/mackay-shipbuilding-cansec.html
> 
> What do you guys think?  I think it is a step in the right direction. Let the debate begin...  >



I also think it is a wonderful idea. Although building offshore is more cost-effective, it stimulates OUR economy in a direct way (something the shipyards, especially in Halifax, need and have been waiting for). 

It's about time we receive some new ships and this is a step in the right direction. But, we'll see..


----------



## The Bread Guy

..... on Canadian Surface Combatant "industry engagement", via the PWGSC Info-machine:


> The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, is pleased to announce an industry engagement session for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Project. The CSC is one of the projects of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) and is intended to provide Canada with modern replacements for the Royal Canadian Navy’s existing fleet of destroyers and frigates.
> 
> Posted on MERX, the Government of Canada’s electronic tendering service, from October 26 to November 7, the Letter of Interest invited industry to participate in initial discussions that will ultimately lead to decisions on the procurement strategy which will result in the delivery of CSC ships.
> 
> “Engaging industry at the early stages of complex procurement such as the Canadian surface combatant is part of our smart procurement approach and the new way forward,” said Minister Ambrose. “In working closely with industry, we ensure best value for Canadian taxpayers while providing the Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment and capability that they need to do the work we ask of them.”
> 
> “Our Government is committed to working closely with the Canadian marine industry as we build a new fleet of Canadian Coast Guard vessels and a new fleet of ships for the Royal Canadian Navy,” said the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence. “Our Government’s investment will create over 10 000 jobs in our communities and will stimulate the regional economy for decades to come.”
> 
> “Our Government is taking a measured approach to setting the course for the Canadian Surface Combatants, and consulting industry early on is a way of ensuring that we set the course correctly,” said the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Associate Minister of National Defence, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie). “These ships will ensure that, into the future, our Canadian Armed Forces can keep effectively defending Canada and North America, contributing to international peace and security, and continuing Canada’s proud tradition of defending our interests as a maritime nation.” ....


----------



## Navy_Pete

CSC is still probably almost a decade from hitting the water.

They are still developing the requirements for the ships, which eventually becomes the basis for the design.  In theory though in modern warship design you design the hull, powerplant etc and leave room for whatever type of weapons/sensors you are looking at outfitting them with, then once you start cutting steel you actually pick what you want, as the modern systems are designed to be plug and play.

So as long as you have a rough idea of size, weight, power requirements etc, if you leave the actual decision on picking the gear until as late as you can, you'll end up with an actual modern warship, as opposed to one with new obsolete gear that's a decade behind when it gets turned on.

Brits and Americans both learned that the hard way, and is why they build ships in batches, so they refine the design after they get a few built and learn what works well and what doesn't, then fix it before they build the next batch.  Kind of like automakers, where they tweak the cars every year and once a decade do a full redesign.

In general though, there currently is no warship building industry in Canada, as they all got poached after the frigates were done, so industry needs to redevelop that first, so it is going  to take a while to get this up and running.  AOPs should be first through the gates, followed by JSS, then eventually CSC, with various other CG ships etc interspersed in there as well.  Hopefully though we end up with a good desing that they can in turn license to other countries; the more ships out there with the same basic design the better off we are for long term support of the unsexy things like valves, motors, etc that are critical to get from point A-B and not always easy to replace with a similar fit-form-funciton part.


----------



## AlexanderM

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> They are still developing the requirements for the ships, which eventually becomes the basis for the design.  In theory though in modern warship design you design the hull, powerplant etc and leave room for whatever type of weapons/sensors you are looking at outfitting them with, then once you start cutting steel you actually pick what you want, *as the modern systems are designed to be plug and play*.


Exactly!  No need to re-invent the wheel, just pick the best available systems, as close to installation as possible.  Design the ships so they are very upgrabable and it's all good.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One of the common issues I have heard from ship designers and users is reduntant cable retention. Many of the older designs had problems from to much cable left over from old equipment because it was to difficult to remove it. I have seen some staggering weight figures. Not to mention fire and water ingress issues associated with semi-forgotten cable runs.


----------



## AlexanderM

Your talking about upgrades??  I expect our new ships will be loaded with fibre optics, but I'm not certain.

To my knowledge, the Dutch are currently working on some major upgrades for the Smart-L/APAR systems.  I've read that Smart-L will have ballistic missle detection at up to 2000km, and APAR will have a range of 500km, but it is hard to find information.  Also, in recent exercises, it seems that the Smart-L detected F22 Raptors at 80-90km range, and this is before upgrade.  From what I've read most of the upgrades to these systems is software.  

Now, Canada is already a partner in APAR, so if we become a partner in Smart-L, we just upgrade the systems as they become available, just go with the flow.  I expect that our people are keeping a close eye on the Dutch, and if the upgrades work we will be happily using those systems, which is what I expect.   I doubt we would need to upgrade the vls systems, as they already can accomodate the SM3, which gives ballistic missle defence.  So, it's just a matter of buying better missles as they become available.

I hope they build in room for AIP systems below decks, which I doubt they will, and room on the mast for installation of laser systems, which can't be that far off.  Power the lasers with the AIP, just leave room for it all now, no need to install anything.

Main future threats will be super-sonic antiship missles, which will likely eventually be stealthy and supercavitation torpedoes.  Missles will be dealth with through upgrades to radar and defensive missle systems, also eventually perhaps lasers.  The supercavitation torpedoes, as they develop greater range, could be a problem.


OK, here it says 1000km for Smart-L, but I have also read double this.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_85153.htm


Here is another one.  I expect our Destroyers to have this system.

http://thalesalerts.com/2012/Edition%201/Thales%20to%20upgrade%20SMART-L%20radar%20for%20BMD.doc/


I know this is Wiki, but if you look under "Modernizing" you will see comments attributed to the Dutch minister, regarding the range of the systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Zeven_Provinci%C3%ABn_class_frigate


This article comments on the fact that Canada and the Netherlands have been working together on these systems, so what is currently being prepared for their ships may also be preparation for ours.

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/57/Articles/12-18.pdf


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> To my knowledge, the Dutch are currently working on some major upgrades for the Smart-L/APAR systems.



If only they would work on "gear that works".


----------



## jollyjacktar

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> If only they would work on "gear that works".


No shit.


----------



## AlexanderM

Our people are so close to it that they'll know if it works or not.  I am aware of some glitches, like cooling problems with the APAR, which I believe have been solved.  There are always bugs to work out of new systems, just look at the F35.

I remember when they came out with the M1A1 Tank, there were articles that said it was a disaster, yet it changed the battlefield for tank crews.  When I went through Cornwallis the life expentancy of a tank crew was something like 17 minutes, the the M1 made the battlefield survivable.  Yet I remember reading it was crap, go figure.


----------



## Kirkhill

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> I hope they build in room for AIP systems below decks, which I doubt they will, and room on the mast for installation of laser systems, which can't be that far off.  Power the lasers with the AIP, just leave room for it all now, no need to install anything....



Leave that space tween decks but above the waterline and you can roll-on / roll-off your new AIP-APU  and in the mean time you can offer lifts to itinerant infanteers.


----------



## AlexanderM

OK!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I am more than a little unclear as to why anyone thinks we need Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) on a surface ship?  Air is free.  And if you want lots of electricity quickly and for (relatively) little weight, gas turbines are the answer.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am more than a little unclear as to why anyone thinks we need Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) on a surface ship?  Air is free.  And if you want lots of electricity quickly and for (relatively) little weight, gas turbines are the answer.



Interesting point SKT.


----------



## AlexanderM

It has nothing to do with air, absoluteluy no need to get hung up on air.  The Zumwalt destroyers were going to have a type of rail gun, but they couldn't make them work and switched to the 155mm naval gun with the extended range shell.  However, since then, they made the rail gun work using high energy capacitors, and I am thinking that this might be what we will eventually see with lasers systems one day.  So, at this point we wouldn't know the power requirements and I am speculating that one could simply use an AIP system to charge the capacitors.  It would make it an entirely independant system.  It is pure speculation on my part.


----------



## Occam

AIP is a subset of propulsion technologies, not electrical generation.  A surface vessel wouldn't need to use AIP, since, well...you have air readily available.  If a surface ship wants to generate electricity, they flash up diesel generator sets that suck air - and are certainly not air-independent.


----------



## AlexanderM

AIP is simply a power source, such as a fuel cell, that feeds power to the electric engine of a submarine.  The power source can have other applications. I was thinking air independant power rather than propulsion, which is my mistake.  It is simply a matter of having a power source to charge supercapacitor banks and standard ships systems may or may not be the way to go.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

And, as mentioned above, a bank of relatively compact gas turbines at roughly 40K HP each will suffice-No need to reinvent the wheel. And don't say you are not reinventing. If AIP for propulsion/generating was so 'simple', it would be on EVERY non-nuclear submarine vice a select few.


----------



## AlexanderM

Yes, OK.  Here is an article that talks about the power problems for rail guns on a ship, might not be such a problem for lasers.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2007/November/Pages/ElectricGuns2452.aspx


----------



## jollyjacktar

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Yes, OK.  Here is an article that talks about the power problems for rail guns on a ship, might not be such a problem for lasers.
> 
> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2007/November/Pages/ElectricGuns2452.aspx


Lazers?  The stuff we have now is not always reliable.


----------



## AlexanderM

I am entirely thinking about what will be available in 10-20 years, not today.  In the article above it states that ships systems would have to charge super capacitor banks over time, meaning they would be charged 24/7.  It is my opinion that keeping super capacitors permanently charged is a really bad idea.


----------



## jollyjacktar

And I'm thinking, the cost of these "Star Wars" systems, IF they come into practical use will be beyond our means money wise.  That sort of R&D is for the big kids in the sandbox who have rich Daddys.  We don't.


----------



## AlexanderM

Hardly.  Battlefield lasers are already on the horizon, and ships will be carrying these at some point.  I'm simply saying, leave room for the tech, and think about power requirements.  Just google "battlefield lasers".

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/military-laser/


----------



## AlexanderM

This is really cool.  Imagine a more powerful version replacing a point defence system on a ship.  Then imagine an even more powerful system being able to take out incoming missles and aircraft at range.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45465025/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/new-vehicle-laser-blows-everything/


From the article.

Some of the first battlefield lasers may appear as hybrid systems that marry laser power with old-fashioned projectile weapons, such as the U.S. Navy's interest in a defensive ship weapon that combines a laser with a machine gun.


----------



## AlexanderM

I expect by the time our ships hit the water these systems will be standard.


----------



## Haletown

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am more than a little unclear as to why anyone thinks we need Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) on a surface ship?  Air is free.  And if you want lots of electricity quickly and for (relatively) little weight, gas turbines are the answer.



Even the Navy must now pay homage to Gaia . . .   if the USAF can afford to pay  $25/gallon for green JP, the Navy can get in the eco greenie game with an expensive and non required AIP system.


sarc off/


----------



## Navy_Pete

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> AIP is simply a power source, such as a fuel cell, that feeds power to the electric engine of a submarine.  The power source can have other applications. I was thinking air independant power rather than propulsion, which is my mistake.  It is simply a matter of having a power source to charge supercapacitor banks and standard ships systems may or may not be the way to go.



AIP is generally only used for submarines, as an alternative to nuclear.  Fuel cells are an option, put the more common one is some kind of chemical reaction that produces oxygen that feeds into a diesel generator, so the subs don't have to snorkel to recharge their batteries.

Not really a practical technology for generating power on a surface ship, as they are only really needed when you don't have an atmosphere (underwater or in space).

A lot of the new ship designs are some kind of diesel electric propulsion with gas turbines for the power for the weapon systems.  Something like rail gun that need a huge amount of power at short notice GTs would be a practical solution (LM2500 ++ maybe?) and because they don't weigh much (relatively) you can put them higher up then diesels (also reduces noise from that much air volume flowing through trunking).

Still though, probably at least a full generation of ships away from that.  More realistic is something like the guided shells (can't remember the specfici term), which they've already tested out and can retrofit existing ships.

Having said that, a rail gun would be bad a$$... ;D


----------



## AlexanderM

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Something like rail gun that need a_ *huge amount of power at short notice *_ GTs would be a practical solution (LM2500 ++ maybe?) and because they don't weigh much (relatively) you can put them higher up then diesels (also reduces noise from that much air volume flowing through trunking).
> 
> Having said that, a rail gun would be bad a$$... ;D


The huge amount of power at short notice is the problem and gas turbines are not the answer.  The article linked to above states that using tubines the system would have to be charged slowly, over time, and kept charged at all times.  Then, if one runs out of power mid-battle, there is no quick way to recharge the system.  I was looking for an alternate power supply but agree fuel cells are not the answer.  So, you are right, even though they can make them work, they are still a ways away because of the power problem.

I don't anticipate the same problem with the lasers though, so they likely can be powered by the turbines, which would charge super capacitors, but not as much power required, so it would be practical.  If they can power the mobile laser linked to above, they can certainly power one on a ship.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

It would probably be cheaper to just build new ships when the new technologies come online and are debugged.


----------



## AlexanderM

The laser technology will be ready, or close to it, by the time our ships hit the water.  Either have it on the ships or have it in the design, as in leave room for the systems, but install at a later date.

This design is mounted on a mobile unit and is working.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45465025/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/new-vehicle-laser-blows-everything/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Which is why I don't see traditional guns and missiles going away anytime soon. However self defense Lasers will be a welcome assest in prolonged and distant engagement, where the supply of missiles will be quickly depleted.


----------



## jollyjacktar

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The laser technology will be ready, or close to it, by the time our ships hit the water.  Either have it on the ships or have it in the design, as in leave room for the systems, but install at a later date.
> 
> This design is mounted on a mobile unit and is working.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45465025/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/new-vehicle-laser-blows-everything/



I'll pass on the thanks for the great laughing fit your ascertation that lazers and rail guns will be available for us to use in the near future gave our P1 WEng guy.  He roared with laughter and nearly shat himself with glee.  

I guess he doesn't share your optimism on the future prospects for us.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> The laser technology will be ready, or close to it, by the time our ships hit the water.  Either have it on the ships or have it in the design, as in leave room for the systems, but install at a later date.



That's far too late in the design stage. They would need to be working and relatively debugged by the time the detailed design work is started.

Leaving room for experimental systems to be installed later doesn't work, as the RN found out with CVF.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The big issue with rail guns at the moment is the excessive wear. As for lasers, they have already equipped aircraft with them and had a succesful shoot down test as I recall. So the Tech is there now for them. I suspect people laughed hard when the monitor came out of the bay as well.


----------



## AlexanderM

I find it funny that someone is laughing while the Germans have a moblie system that's vaporizing mortar shells out of the sky.  lol


----------



## AlexanderM

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> They would need to be working and relatively debugged by the time the detailed design work is started.


Well, they are working right now, see the link.  The Germans expect to have a system 10x more powerful in 3-5 years.  It would just replace a goalkeeper unit on a ship.  All we would have to do is be able to plug it in.

Laser technology is set to progress in leaps and bounds right now.


----------



## AlexanderM

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'll pass on the thanks for the great laughing fit your ascertation that lazers and rail guns will be available for us to use in the near future gave our P1 WEng guy.  He roared with laughter and nearly shat himself with glee.
> 
> I guess he doesn't share your optimism on the future prospects for us.


Not saying rail guns will be ready, my posts were actually calling attention to the power problems.  It's the laser that are already working.


----------



## jollyjacktar

To be fair, I did mention lazers specifically.  They may be ready now, for others, his reaction was at the thought that we might get them in the near or reasonable near future.  He said we've just caught up to the 80's, or maybe the 90's.

Maybe we will get all Buck Rodgers someday, but I expect it won't be for a long long time and I doubt that I'll be air side to see it happen.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The German laser system is interesting, but not really usable shipboard yet. They may get it there in time to be included in a CSC design, they may not. They've had at least one major failure with integrating land systems on a ship lately, and that was with mature technology.


----------



## Kirkhill

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> The German laser system is interesting, but not really usable shipboard yet. They may get it there in time to be included in a CSC design, they may not. They've had at least one major failure with integrating land systems on a ship lately, and that was with mature technology.



To be fair lasers don't have quite the recoil of a 70 cal 155.  The structural issues will be different in kind to that of the MONARC system.  Instead of managing recoil Alex needs to support a massive battery pack, an extraordinary capacitor bank,  a hazmat procedure for a few tonnes of caustic chemicals and/or a power generation system that uses sea water as part of the equation.

Lasers don't eat bullets.  They eat Joules.  The same stuff the ship eats.  They just eat them faster than the ship.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> To be fair lasers don't have quite the recoil of a 70 cal 155.  The structural issues will be different in kind to that of the MONARC system.  Instead of managing recoil Alex needs to support a massive battery pack, an extraordinary capacitor bank,  a hazmat procedure for a few tonnes of caustic chemicals and/or a power generation system that uses sea water as part of the equation.
> 
> Lasers don't eat bullets.  They eat Joules.  The same stuff the ship eats.  They just eat them faster than the ship.


Yes, 100% agree.  To me, the difference is that the rail guns require so much power that they aren't practical, that's why I was trying to come up with an alternate power source, and was dead wrong to think of fuel cells.  

However, I suspect that the lasers won't require anywhere near the power of the rail guns.  And, if the Germans can power that laser system on a mobile unit smaller than a tank, then the power requirements can't be that bad.  

So, I'm thinking we need a number of gas turbine generators, and two or three banks of supercapacitors per laser, so that while one bank is firing the other banks can be charging.  I expect these would charge much faster than the ones required for the rail guns.  This equipment wouldn't necessarily be physically huge, but it would likely require one good sized power room, to power lasers fore and aft.


----------



## AlexanderM

Might be more information available here if someone chooses to download and read.  I expect it would contain some information on power requirements.

http://spieeurope.com/x648.html?product_id=977780


----------



## Kirkhill

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> .... to power lasers fore and aft.



Sorry Alex.  I know you are dead serious and all,  and you're not far off the development curve,  but that one phrase hits me with the same impact as "photon torpedoes" and "Dropships".

How did I get so old so fast?


----------



## AlexanderM

You're probably not that much older than I am, but I don't want to admit my age anymore than I suspect you do.  lol

I too think it's pretty crazy that we are talking about lasers on a Canadian warship and that it could possibly happen before too long.  I also think that the next arms race is going to be scary as crap, as we are going to see some very scary weapons emerge over the next 20 years or so.  We're going to see lasers on ships and battlefields.  Anti-ship missles that travel at ridiculous speeds, more development of supercavitation torpedoes and perhaps submarines as well, and warplanes that are remote controlled and can maneuver at ridiculous g forces.  

Hopefully we don't see someone come up with a superweapon and order eveyone else to surrender.  I do think that it could get pretty crazy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and yet you will still need a ship to deal with RPG and AK armed pirates and land forces to deal with the same sort landbased and T-55's for at least another generation.


----------



## Kirkhill

If Blackbeard got alongside you with grenadoes and cutlasses you would still have a problem today.  Some things never go out of fashion.


----------



## Occam

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Anti-ship missles that travel at ridiculous speeds



I won't get terribly worried until they reach ludicrous speed.







I have to admit it's funny seeing all this talk about warships and lasers, while I'm still trying to keep a supply of Pentium 3 computers and IDE hard drives on the shelves for replacement parts.


----------



## AlexanderM

Yes, ludicrous speed would be right over the top.  lol


----------



## Good2Golf

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Yes, 100% agree.  To me, the difference is that the rail guns require so much power that they aren't practical, that's why I was trying to come up with an alternate power source, and was dead wrong to think of fuel cells.
> 
> However, I suspect that the lasers won't require anywhere near the power of the rail guns.  And, if the Germans can power that laser system on a mobile unit smaller than a tank, then the power requirements can't be that bad.
> 
> So, I'm thinking we need a number of gas turbine generators, and two or three banks of supercapacitors per laser, so that while one bank is firing the other banks can be charging.  I expect these would charge much faster than the ones required for the rail guns.  This equipment wouldn't necessarily be physically huge, but it would likely require one good sized power room, to power lasers fore and aft.



Have you actually run the numbers or are you taking generic quotes out of articles, and damning turbines (or other power sources) with generalities?

Let's dust off our electrical engineering textbooks and do that (address specifics) for a moment.


Current rail gun max energies: depending on the builder, 35-50 MJ (megajoules) or about one tenth the average power of a lightening strike (500 MJ).

Current power output of a GE LM2500+G4 gas turbine: 35 MW (megawatts) or about 48,000 shp.


Power is the rate at which work energy is created/expended: P = w / t (power = work / time).  In SI Units the P=w/t formula is represented as: 1 Watt = 1 Joule per second ( 1 W = 1 J/s).  Conversely, work energy equals power output times duration of the output - again in SI units, 1 Joule = 1 Watt•second)

Using rail gun energy and power source output, we will solve for time to determine how long the power source would have to work to charge up whatever storage system (capacitor/compensating alternator) the rail gun was using.

Power (of the LM2500)  35 MW = Energy required of the rail gun (let's use) 50 MJ ÷ time, t (sec)

35 x 106 W = 50 x 106 J ÷ t

t =  50 x 106 J (or W•s) ÷ 35 x 106 W 

(Watts on the right side cancel out leaving just seconds)

t = 50/35 = 1.43s

So, specifics of the electrical storage medium notwithstanding, it would take just 1.43 seconds of an LM2500+G4's output to produce enough electrical energy to supply a 50 MJ rail gun.  All other parts of the system appropriately designed, that means an LM2500 could be used to power a rail gun system with a cyclic rate of fire of 42 rounds per minute (60 sec/min ÷ 1.43 sec/rd).

The article you quoted used a lot of generalizations.  Yes, power generation is a notable part of the system, but more so is its storage and other aspects of the weapon system.  The real challenge will be in developing the storage system that can then expend huge amounts of potential electromechanical power AND do so while withstanding the huge forces (megaNewtons) during firing and rails not being ablated after just a few firings.

The whole issue comes down to: operationalization of the energy production/expenditure system in a reliable form factor that is smaller/more manageable than the current chemical/physical system whilst producing enhanced operationally employable lethality.

I would make that case that physical energy production (from say an LM2500 gas turbine) into the such a system is not the long pole in the tent.


Regards
G2G


----------



## AlexanderM

I expect they would use superconductive materials throughout the system, in the super-capacitors, conduits, and rails themselves, which would greatly reduce or eliminate heat generation, as most heat comes from resistance in the system.  Then, simply suspend the projectile in a magnetic field, so there is no actual contact with the rails.  They can suspend a train on an magnetic field, a projectile should be no problem.  If the generators can provide the power, all the other technology already exists, just a matter of putting it together in one system, which of course, represents a substantail amount of design work.


----------



## Good2Golf

You do know that the projectile forms the circuit between the positive and negative rail, and thus MUST be in contact with both rails, right?


----------



## AlexanderM

Contact with the shell itself is never required.  It is always an armature that completes the circuit. One can use plasma as the armature, in which case absolutely no contact with the shell is required, and it could, in theory, be suspended, however there is still tremendous heat from the plasma.  There is a lot of testing currently being conducted looking for a system that works.  I'm still thinking that lasers are much closer.


----------



## Good2Golf

The armature sabot still contacts the rails.  The starting current required to initiate plasma generation would put orders of magnitude great strain on the current carrying components of the rail assembly.  Whether single stage rail propulsion or two-stage, the first being a light-gas (low molecular number) system to 'kick-start' the projectile/armature assembly into the rail structure, currently developing RGs are still using contact initiated current flow.  If you have examples of a pure-plasma rail gun prototype, I (and others) would be quite interested to see how the rail ablation elimination solution is going.

Regards 
G2G


----------



## AlexanderM

Well, there probably isn't any, I'm saying, in theory, it should be possible to suspend the shell in magnetic fields, this isn't new, in terms of general technology.  The plasma is generated by a solid armature which is instantly vaporized by the current.  It would be engineered not to require orders of strain that could be harmful to the system.  If there is a wear problem at that point, then a small sleeve would have to be engineered to be easily replaced.  

Here is a guy, with very low tech, that made it work vaporizing aluminum.  Point being, if this guy can make it work, it isn't that difficult to create the plasma.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5etWUFz8UnI


----------



## Kirkhill

So G2G, at 50 MJ, and with diesel having an energy density of some 36 MJ per liter, I take it that that means about 1.3 l of diesel per shot.

Or putting it another way, a one minute bombardment of 42 rounds (each one equivalent to a Tomahawk   if I read Wikipedia right?)  would use about as much fuel as fills my Jeeps tank?

So fuel isn't a limiting factor.  Generation isn't a limiting factor. Energy storage doesn't appear to be a limiting factor.  Nor does the speed of discharge (based on the fact that prototype guns have functioned).

I take it from this discussion that the limiting factor currently is "barrel" wear.

Questions:

How many shots can they get out of one barrel?
How much does a barrel weigh?
How much does a barrel cost?
How long does it take to change a barrel?
How about a Gatling or even a Mitrailleuse solution?

Can barrel wear's effects on accuracy be counteracted by a "smart" projectile?

How long to answer those questions to the satisfaction of an accountant?   ;D


----------



## AlexanderM

Yes, barrel wear seems to be the issue.  

Engineer the armature so that it is easily vaporized, so little strain on the system.  Attach the armature to the bottom of the shell, it's just going to be vaporized anyway.

Suspend the shell between magnetic fields to reduce barrel wear.

If the strain on the system is still too great, turn down the power, reduce the amount of material to generate the plasma, to reduce pressure.  

And, consider some venting if needed.

One would just have to play around with it until one finds the right power level, right amount of plasma material, right amount of venting, if needed.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill, diesel and other similar lower-pressure "propellants" that are not able to produce high specific impulses (fast burn rate) pressures would limit the muzzle velocity attainable, but yes, in term of physical energy content, that's about right (from a pure state of energy point of view). The challenge is in containing the muzzle pressures required to create acceleration on the order of 2500-3500 m/s. To attain a 3000 m/s muzzle velocity requires about 100 G's of average acceleration.  My background is electrical, vice mech or chem eng, so won't get out of my lane regarding peak pressures in indirect fire systems, but a rail gun is going to be much closer to an average acceleration, since Lorentzan force isn't affected by Boyle and Charles (PV=nRT, etc...)  The muzzle velocities generally attainable by chemical/expansive force do not appear capable of achieving projectile ranges close to rail guns...seems like rail guns have something like a anticipated practical advantage of three to five times that of conventional gun systems.

AlexandreM, if you vaporize the armature into a plasma you will lose the physical force of the B-field on the actual projectile, an the plasma arc will itself be expelled from the rail structure and the E and B fields collapse. From the video, I'm not convinced the effect was a projectile being accelerated by a plasma "armature" as much as pressure within the rail structure. The projectile for a true rail would be significantly faster than for a coil gun.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> AlexandreM, if you vaporize the armature into a plasma you will lose the physical force of the B-field on the actual projectile, an the plasma arc will itself be expelled from the rail structure and the E and B fields collapse...


I'm feeling that having relied upon Corbett and Mahan for Naval insights has left me a _tiny_ bit unprepared for this discussion.    :stars:


----------



## AlexanderM

You do know that the plasma continues to carry the current, right?


----------



## Good2Golf

Yup, pushed right out the rail by the B-field. 

Thing is, the rails are not meant to contain physical compressive pressure internally, just to keep the rails in longitudinal alignment to maintain physical contact with the armature.  Your believing that the projectile would somehow stay ahead of an atomized armature is not really acknowledging how quickly a 10T mag field will push the ex-armatures plasma past the projectile itself.

Localized arcing and plasma generation is one thing, losing the physical force of an armature to accelerate the projectile is another...

Regards
G2G

(Mods: I'll stop here, but even so, it may be worthy of a prune to a separate thread.)


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Kirkhill, diesel and other similar lower-pressure "propellants" that are not able to produce high specific impulses (fast burn rate) pressures would limit the muzzle velocity attainable, but yes, in term of physical energy content, that's about right (from a pure state of energy point of view). The challenge is in containing the muzzle pressures required to create acceleration on the order of 2500-3500 m/s. To attain a 3000 m/s muzzle velocity requires about 100 G's of average acceleration.  My background is electrical, vice mech or chem eng, so won't get out of my lane regarding peak pressures in indirect fire systems, but a rail gun is going to be much closer to an average acceleration, since Lorentzan force isn't affected by Boyle and Charles (PV=nRT, etc...)  The muzzle velocities generally attainable by chemical/expansive force do not appear capable of achieving projectile ranges close to rail guns...seems like rail guns have something like a anticipated practical advantage of three to five times that of conventional gun systems....



I got that bit about not being able to channel the energy chemically.  I was just looking at the energy cost of charging that capacitor bank for a shot/volley.     

It doesn't appear that the energy demand on a 6000 tonne vessel with fuel for 8 to 12,000 km of "steaming" would be particularly high in comparison to the energy necessary to shove the hull through the water.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm feeling that having relied upon Corbett and Mahan for Naval insights has left me a _tiny_ bit unprepared for this discussion.    :stars:


Journeyman:
30 years in the Navy and I feel the same way...and I am an engineer!


----------



## AlexanderM

There are ideas out there for a solid armatures made of carbon/copper composite, which are designed not to break down during firing, therefore minimizing both plasma formation and damage to the weapon.  

http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun.htm


----------



## AlexanderM

This may or may not be helpful, but if one could use a superconductor doped carbon material for both the rails and the armature, one might just end up with a system that could withstand the firing of the weapon without much damage.  

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2174&context=engpapers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoping%2520carbon%2520alloys%2520with%2520superconductor%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D5%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CEkQFjAE%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fro.uow.edu.au%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2174%2526context%253Dengpapers%26ei%3DGT6-UKaGBczFiwK4iYCwBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNHJvVygJi9DX9sHVGX1DDRAiLI83g%26sig2%3DoEmzi1EKpKmUUUx3ffGDZg#search=%22doping%20carbon%20alloys%20superconductor%22


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bigger picture stuff - seems Canada's now seeking MORE outside help ....


> .... The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to request that interested companies provide feedback and recommendations by way of written response to the questions posed in the RFI document ....  The questions posed are regarding a potential solicitation for the provision of Independent Third Party expertise and support to Canada's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) project offices.
> 
> Over the coming years, Canada will need to negotiate and manage several contracts under NSPS: ancillary contracts for understanding the ship design, engineering contracts for maturing the ship design, and build contracts for building and delivering the ships. In anticipation of these contracts, Canada has identified key areas where the support of an Independent Third Party Expert would help ensure that Canada achieves the most equitable, effective, and robust contracts possible, which contain acceptable levels of risk and provide value for money. Key areas identified include benchmarking of industry norms, shipbuilding expertise, and complex negotiation support. The knowledge and expertise provided by PWGSC and the Independent Third Party Expert would not overlap. Rather, the Third Party's contributions would supplement PWGSC's knowledge
> and expertise in these areas ....


A bit more detail in the RFI document (8 page PDF at Google Docs) here.


----------



## The Bread Guy

From the PWGSC Info-machine....


> The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, and the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), are pleased to announce the second round of industry engagement sessions for the Canadian Surface Combatant Project. This is part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS), which will create jobs and economic growth across Canada.
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> The Harper Government will seek industry input on a number of technical subjects related to the design of combat ships. The initial technical engagement session will be held in March. Additional sessions will be scheduled over the coming months as further industry input is required.
> 
> Under the NSPS, the principles of extensive industry consultations, along with the establishment of a strong governance structure and the involvement of independent third parties, were applied in a comprehensive and innovative way and contributed to the success of the strategy. These elements now serve as the pillars of smart procurement and will be applied to Canada’s major procurements going forward.
> 
> Posted on MERX, the Government of Canada’s electronic tendering service, from February 19 to August 28, 2013, the Letter of Interest invites industry to participate in discussions to inform Canada’s decisions on the technical elements of the requirements.
> 
> For more information about the Canadian Surface Combatant Project and the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, please visit http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/snacn-nsps-eng.html.



A few more details in the attached MERX document.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _Twitterverse_ says Minister Ambrose will have an announcement about shipbuilding tomorrow. How many ways are there to say "we really want to talk about jobs, Jobs, JOBS, but we're a little short on money right now"?


----------



## GAP

Irving may benefit from coast guard refit cash
February 21, 2013  By PAUL McLEOD Ottawa Bureau 
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/746417-irving-may-benefit-from-coast-guard-refit-cash

OTTAWA — The federal government announced hundreds of millions of dollars in new coast guard refits Thursday, and Irving Shipbuilding will be in the running.

Fisheries and Oceans Minister Keith Ashfield announced in Newfoundland and Labrador that the government will refit and repair 16 large ships and two hovercrafts. That adds up to $360-million worth of work over the next 10 years.

All the work will go to Canadian shipyards. Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax and Seaspan Marine in British Columbia will not be excluded from bidding on the work.

When Irving won $25 billion in work and Seaspan won $8billion under the national shipbuilding procurement strategy, the companies were excluded from $2 billion in smaller contracts.

Though Thursday’s announcement is tied to the shipbuilding strategy, a government spokeswoman confirmed the two companies will not be prevented from bidding on the work.

Irving Shipbuilding spokeswoman Mary Keith confirmed the company will bid for work on vessels over 1,000 tonnes.

Included in the retrofit plans are three ships based out of Dartmouth. The CCGS Edward Cornwallis and CCGS Sir William Alexander are high-endurance multi-tasked vessels, while the CCGS Earl Grey is a medium-endurance multi-tasked vessel.

The money comes from the 11-year, $5.2-billion “Renewing the Canadian Coast Guard Fleet” plan announced in last year’s federal budget.

Some of it has already begun, with the CCGS Amundsen undergoing work in St. Catharines, Ont. The St. Catharines shipyard, run by Seaway Marine and Industrial Inc., was a losing bidder in the national shipbuilding procurement strategy.

More shipbuilding work could be announced soon. This afternoon, Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose is scheduled to make “an important announcement about shipbuilding” in North Vancouver.


----------



## RC

GAP said:
			
		

> More shipbuilding work could be announced soon. This afternoon, Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose is scheduled to make “an important announcement about shipbuilding” in North Vancouver.



The OFSV functional/detailed design contract starts a week on Monday.  The announcement wasn't widely reported and was kind of confusing, but that's what is happening.  

Several ancillary contracts for JSS and Polar were contracted at the same time, which slightly confused the issue.


----------



## The Bread Guy

1)   Parliamentary Budget Officer (69 page PDF)


> …. DND estimates that replacing the Protecteur will cost about $2.53 billion, and the budget set aside is about $2.60 billion. The PBO’s model suggests that these amounts will be insufficient. It estimates that replacing the Protecteur will cost about $3.28 billion, but that, given the stage of the program and uncertainty surrounding its characteristics, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) best practice recommends budgeting no less than $4.13 billion ….


2)  From the Info-machine


> .... The NSPS is now in its fourth phase, with the designs for the first ships to be built being finalized. A “design-then-build” approach is being followed to ensure that the design work is completed before proceeding with construction. This lower-risk approach will improve the efficiency of the shipbuilding process. These two phases (design and construction) will be repeated throughout the duration of the Strategy ....


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A “design-then-build” approach is being followed to ensure that the design work is completed before proceeding with construction.


OK, just so there's no misunderstanding, I have never designed or built a ship before.

Isn't it normal to have a design before you start constructing?  What's the opposite process -- "start welding shit together and hope the blueprints are close"?

      ???


----------



## GnyHwy

> A “design-then-build” approach is being followed to ensure that the design work is completed before proceeding with construction.



Perhaps that is their indirect way of saying we can make no guarantees for work or how long it will last for.  Each ship will be approved one at a time, and components or sub components for future ships will not be built concurrently, therefore allowing PWGSC keep their thumb firmly on the money, and opt out anytime money gets tight.

The nonconcurrent approach will certainly cost more, but that won't be noticed for several years, and if gets noticed earlier, all they would have to do is axe the last ship or two, because the designs haven't been approved yet.


----------



## Kirkhill

Perhaps they are making an indirect reference to the method by which the Dane's built their ships?

As I understand it the ship proper (hulls, mechanicals, nav systems and hotel) were purchased under one budget and built for something like 300,000,000 CAD for a 6000 tonne vessel.

The weapon systems were supplied under a separate budget as they are variously in-stock items held by the Danish Navy or are considered transferrable from ship to ship to modify the ship according to the role it might be required to perform.

The closest analogy I can think of might be the way the RCAF manages its weapons, at least in employment.  The same aircraft may carry guns or missiles or bombs or torpedoes or carry survival kits.

The Danish ships may carry 20mm, 30mm, 35mm, 57mm, 76mm or 127mm guns: ESSM and Harpoons; torpedoes and/or depth charges; towed sonars or hydrographic gear - or may be used as unarmed/lightly armed utility vessels.

Design Build can mean Design Build a ship or it can mean Design Build a fully functional fighting system.  

At least that would be my guess.

What level of completion and certainty do they wish to achieve before they sign off on the contract?  The more certainty required, the longer and more costly the design phase. 

(And in my opinion the greater the likelihood that the final product will be the perfect answer to the wrong question).

I am a big fan of the Danish Flex system.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> .... Design Build can mean Design Build a ship or it can mean Design Build a fully functional fighting system ....


Or buildings for that matter, where one price covers both design & build.


----------



## FSTO

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> 1)   Parliamentary Budget Officer (69 page PDF)2)  From the Info-machine



4 Billion? Really? They must be accounting for the wages of every worker at Washington Marine Group for these types of numbers!

All we want is a gas station and convienince store. Its only weapon system will be CIWS and MASS decoy system.  I have no idea what SOR the PBO is looking at.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO:

They do reference the US GAO with respect to budget management.  Given the USN's track record in getting ships in the water the GAO has reason to be gun-shy of budget predictions.

Can the RCN, working with a neophyte industry do better?   ???


----------



## FSTO

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> FSTO:
> 
> They do reference the US GAO with respect to budget management.  Given the USN's track record in getting ships in the water the GAO has reason to be gun-shy of budget predictions.
> 
> Can the RCN, working with a neophyte industry do better?   ???



Not sure, but the design of an AOR is pretty generic. It's not like we are building a radical new ship like the original JSS was going to be. 
But then again this is Canada and if we can find away to make this tougher than needed we usually succed.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> Not sure, but the design of an AOR is pretty generic. It's not like we are building a radical new ship like the original JSS was going to be.
> But then again this is Canada and if we can find away to make this tougher than needed we usually succed.



Agreed:

I know all the arguments about life-cycle budgeting, project budgeting, ops and maintenance separate from capital.  But as the F35 saga demonstrates most of those costs are unknowable estimates that will in fact vary very little according to the platform.  (The Navy has a big advantage over the Air Force as it numbers the operational crew per platform in the hundreds instead of singletons and so can consider spreading 225 sailors over 5 hulls).

Ultimately, in my considered opinion the only real, solid basis of comparison is the cost of the platform itself.  Everything else is an estimate.

To wit the Dutch Joint Logistic Support Ship Karel Doorman (pretty much following the spec for the original JSS):



> Royal Netherlands Navy orders new Hr.Ms.Karel Doorman	Dec 24, '09 5:22 AM
> for everyone
> After more than 30 years that Hr.Ms Karel Doorman the Aircraftcarrier was sold to Argentina the Royal Netherlands Navy gets his famous name back in to the fleet.
> 
> Mid 2014 the Damen Schelde shipyards will deliver a new JLS ( Join Logistic Support) vessel.
> 
> This ship 205mtrs long and 30mtrs wide is such a big ship that it may have the name of Karel Doorman. The new Karel Doorman will have the ambition to operate worldwide, for humanitarian as well warconflicts.
> 
> Total costs € 384 million. The ship can harbour 180 personnel and 120 marines of the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps.
> 
> 2 big Chinook helicopters can land at the same time on deck. A hangar offers at the same time space for another 6 helicopters. Except fot over 400 tons of ammunition there will be room for 9000 kubicmtrs of fuel.
> 
> It can operate as a self supporting village in the middle of the Ocean , load and unloading all kinds of miltairy equpment as trucks, jeeps, tanks. The new Hr.Ms Karel Doorman will get all kinds of the newest advanced weaponsystems which will be controled from the central command room..
> 
> The new warship will replace in 4 years the Hr.Ms.Zuiderkruis.



link


----------



## The Bread Guy

> .... Total costs € 384 million ....


FYI, that's about CDN $517 million


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> FYI, that's about CDN $517 million



And here's the Aviation Week pricing for the Danish Ivar Huitfeldts with APAR, SMART-L and Standard SM-2s



> Production of Most Powerful Danish Frigate Ever Starts -- in Lithuania
> Posted by Joris Janssen Lok 6:55 AM on Feb 27, 2008
> 
> Production of the first of three new frigates for the Royal Danish Navy has started yesterday -- in Lithuania. The Baltija Shipyard at Klaipeda, Lithuania, is one of two companies in the Baltic Republics that have won a role as subcontractor to supply building block sections for the 138-meter (450-ft.)-long ships (see www.navalhistory.dk).
> 
> The other subcontractor is Loksa Shipyard in Estonia. The first building blocks are scheduled to arrive at the main shipbuilder, Odense Steel Shipyard in Lindo, Denmark, during May, and a formal keel laying ceremony is planned for early June.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Image: Defense Acquisition and Logistics Organization (FMT), Denmark
> 
> Denmark is now officially calling its new surface combatants "frigates" -- previously, they had to be called "patrol ships" for political reasons. The name change appears to be justified: the new ships are described by senior program officials as the "largest, most powerful warships ever" for Denmark's navy, which marks its 500th anniversay in August 2010.
> 
> The first-of-class of these new ships is hoped to be officially presented during the celebrations for this event.
> 
> The three ships, reportedly to be called the Ivar Huitfeldt-class as this would be the name for the lead ship, have a more or less common hull to the two Absalon-class combat support ships built in recent years, which are now entering operational service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Image: Defense Acquisition and Logistics Organization (FMT), Denmark
> 
> 
> The frigate program has an overall projected cost of 4.7 billion Danish kronor ($936 million, so $312 million per ship -- compare this to the staggering cost of U.S. Navy surface warships, even relatively small ones such as the Littoral Combat Ship...)
> 
> This provides three area air defense-capable ships to enter service between 2012-14. They are to replace three Olfert Fischer-class missile corvettes and ten Willemoes-class fast attack craft (the latter have already been decommissioned).
> 
> So far, the following contracts have been awarded associated with this program:
> 
> - the shipbuilding contract with Odense Steel Shipyard (which is part of the Maersk shipping group and routinely builds large merchant ships for Maersk while it has also built the two Absalon-class ships for the navy);
> 
> - the anti-air warfare system contract with Thales Nederland. This includes the Smart-L long-range 3D volume search radar and the APAR medium-range multifunction radar, plus the associated command & fire control systems. Thanks to the 400-km-range Smart-L radar, when positioned in the center of the Danish archipelago, a single frigate of this class can monitor the airspace over the whole of Denmark proper;
> 
> - the Mk 41 vertical launching system contract with Lockheed Martin;
> 
> - the contract for Ceros 200 radar/electro-optic fire control directors from Saab Systems of Sweden (these are to provide fire control for the various guns on the ship);
> 
> - the bow-mounted sonar contract with Atlas Elektronik;
> 
> - the contract for ballistic protection panels with Ten Cate/Roshield of Denmark
> 
> - the contract with Saab Danmark for the internal/external communications suite.
> 
> Yet to be awarded are contracts for the missiles (planned are Raytheon Standard Missile SM-2 Block IIIA, Raytheon Tomahawk, Raytheon ESSM); the main gun (planned to be of 127-mm. caliber), and the 35-mm. close-in weapon systems (planned to be Millennium guns from Rheinmetall/Oerlikon Contraves).
> 
> Tags: ar99 Denmark Lithuania Estonia frigate



The Dollars referenced are USD.

As an aside - and probably more relevant to the DND-PWGSC debate - it is informative that the purchase of these ships is the responsibility of a military Defense Acquisition and Logistics Organisation.

Policies Here


----------



## dapaterson

PBO has a not-to-scale illustration of how costs increase: 

CF Operational Requirements -> Design/modify designs -> Build in Canada.

Use an off the shelf design & tell the Navy to adapt, or buy somewhere other than Canada, and prices will go down.  As we're unwilling to use someone else's design, and unwilling to shop around for a better price offshore, we're stuck.

(And the PBO report was reviewed by overseas experts - bullet-resistant, if not bullet-proof).


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> PBO has a not-to-scale illustration of how costs increase:
> 
> CF Operational Requirements -> Design/modify designs -> Build in Canada.
> 
> Use an off the shelf design & tell the Navy to adapt, or buy somewhere other than Canada, and prices will go down.  As we're unwilling to use someone else's design, and unwilling to shop around for a better price offshore, we're stuck.
> 
> (And the PBO report was reviewed by overseas experts - bullet-resistant, if not bullet-proof).



Great, just **** great. Lets have another couple of years of BS "debate" while we pay more and more to keep the old hulks afloat. Get on with it already.


----------



## Kirkhill

PBO's assumptions:  (Page 7)



> 1. Weight
> 2. Manufacturing complexity for structure
> 3. Percent of new structure
> 4. Percent of design repeat for structure
> 5. Engineering complexity
> 
> 
> As indicated, the inputs for the point estimate were:
> 
> 1. Weight of 18,469,520 lbs
> (i.e. Protecteur’s weight)
> 
> 2. MCPLXS of 3.78
> (i.e. Protecteur’s MCPLXS)
> 
> 3. Percent of new design of 85%
> (reflecting the significant redesign work that would be necessary to adapt any design to Canadian operating requirements and make it possible to be built in a Canadian shipyard)
> 
> 4. Design repeat for structure of 40% (reflecting the fact that there will be some, but not complete, symmetry in the design of the ship)
> 
> 5. Engineering complexity of 1.1
> (i.e. a new design based on existing technology, designed and executed by a team with mixed experience and some product familiarity,
> thus reflecting Seaspan’s current state)
> 
> For these values, the model returned a point estimate of approximately $3.28 billion.



Apparently all the assumptions are the PBO's own, assisted by external advisers, and the estimate is generated by a "crystal ball" programme.

I don't see any reference to an actual dollar associated estimate of activities.

But that could just be me.


----------



## FSTO

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> PBO's assumptions:  (Page 7)
> 
> Apparently all the assumptions are the PBO's own, assisted by external advisers, and the estimate is generated by a "crystal ball" programme.
> 
> I don't see any reference to an actual dollar associated estimate of activities.
> 
> But that could just be me.



Who are the external advisors? Crystal ball program, WTF is that?


----------



## dapaterson

External Advisors are listed on page 2 of the document, and include folks from the US GAO and CBO, the Naval Post-grad institute, and the Danish Navy.


The PBO made assumptions based on available information, and extrapolated.  They express confidence levels in the data as well - based on their assessment, the's less than a 5% chance that the JSS can be delivered within the current funding envelope.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And here's the Aviation Week pricing for the Danish Ivar Huitfeldts with APAR, SMART-L and Standard SM-2s
> 
> The Dollars referenced are USD.
> 
> As an aside - and probably more relevant to the DND-PWGSC debate - it is informative that the purchase of these ships is the responsibility of a military Defense Acquisition and Logistics Organisation.
> 
> Policies Here


So, $312 million per ship.  Would be real interesting to see how much it would cost us to build the same ship.  I don't like only 32 vls cells per ship, would like at least 48.  If we could build for 4x the cost, 1.248 billion per ship, times 15 hulls, is less than 20 billion total, fits right within budget.

I also very much like the De Zeven Provinciën-class and FREMM-class frigate designs.


----------



## MarkOttawa

NSPS subcontracting: "Shipyard suppliers chosen for familiarity, not via competition"
http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2013/03/05/shipyard-suppliers-chosen-for-familiarity-not-via-competition/43403

Plus CSC:

"Harper Government Continues to Engage Industry on the Canadian Surface Combatant Project

GATINEAU, QUEBEC--(Marketwire - March 8, 2013) - The Harper Government is holding the first in a series of technical consultation sessions for the Canadian surface combatant project today. This is part of the second phase of industry engagement for this project.

"The Harper Government is following through on our commitment to build ships in Canada," said the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women. "Our national shipbuilding strategy will result in long-term jobs and economic growth for Canadians, stability for the industry, and vital equipment for our men and women in the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard."

Through this series of technical consultation sessions, the Government is seeking industry input on a number of subjects related to the design of combat ships. The _topic of the first of these discussions will be the feasibility of a common hull for both the destroyers and frigates_ [emphasis added]. Additional sessions will be scheduled over the coming months, as further industry input is required... 

For more information about the Canadian surface combatant project and the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, please visit www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/snacn-nsps-eng.html..."

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/harper-government-continues-engage-industry-on-canadian-surface-combatant-project-1766007.htm

From September 2010

"New fleet in sight – Canadian navy builds for tomorrow

It might not be smooth sailing just yet for the Canadian navy, but this summer saw progress toward the renewal of its fleet. In June, the government announced the procurement strategy for acquiring more than 20 new ships over the next 30 years. In August, Vanguard spoke with Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Ian Mack, National Defence’s Director General for Major Project Delivery (Land and Sea) about the navy’s shipbuilding program.

The Ships
...
Canadian Surface Combatant
The most anticipated vessel in the new wave of shipbuilding is the Canadian Surface Combatant, the 15 ships that will replace the current mix of destroyers and frigates. With acquisition costs of about $26 billion and in-service support estimated at almost $15 billion over twenty years, these ships will be Canada’s military presence on the world’s oceans..."
http://vanguardcanada.com/new-fleet-in-sight-canadian-navy-builds-for-tomorrow/ 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## mad dog 2020

ANALYSIS
Brian Stewart: How not to rebuild Canada's navy
By Brian Stewart, special to, CBC News
Last Updated: Mar 21, 2013 5:07 ET

Brian Stewart
Canada and abroad
If you thought it hard having to deal with the bizarre budgetary twists and turns of the F-35 fighter jet procurement, with its stratospheric cost overruns, brace yourself for even wilder turbulence over the navy's massive construction program.

Not what anyone wants to hear, I know. After all, for years now the Harper government has been promising that this $33 billion plan to rebuild our navy's aging fleets would be a model of how to handle big, complex procurement programs.


Was it just a year ago? Prime Minister Stephen tells workers at Halifax Shipyard in January 2012 that the government has agreed in principle to a $25 billion revitalization program for Canada's navy, which they will undertake. Reuters


The 40-year-old supply ship HMCS Preserver sits in dry dock at the Halifax Shipyard in July 2010, when Defence Minister Peter MacKay first announced the replacement JSS program. Reuters


Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, flanked by business executive Tom Jenkins, after releasing a report outlining new policies for military procurement, in February 2013. Reuters

It was going to be the largest peacetime defence contract in our history, and would create a jobs bonanza on the East and West coasts, the political value in votes from such largesse need hardly be stressed.

Rather than buying cheaper vessels offshore, Ottawa was gambling that in turning to our own industries — despite their inexperience in naval work in recent decades — we would jump-start a vast new Canadian shipbuilding capacity.

So, $25 billion would go to building 23 surface warships, including eight new Arctic patrol craft, on the East coast, while $8 billion would go to a B.C. firm to see the launch of new non-combat support ships.

But brace yourselves, for the first cold shocks of reality have started to rock the program even as the future hulls are still only on the drawing boards.

As with the turbulent F-35 cost figures, there's evidence that the government has been playing with quite illusionary numbers here as well.

In what looks to be huge oversight, according at least to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, the government has underestimated these future naval costs by failing to take into account that the inflation rate for military construction runs between 7 and 11 per cent annually, rather than the civilian rate of around 2.7 per cent.

Ships are particularly hard hit by inflation as they're built in much smaller numbers than planes, tanks or trucks. They are also built for unique purposes, and require highly sophisticated weapons, sensors, communications equipment and operating systems built to withstand exacting ocean wear over decades.

A highly specialized work force and frequent construction delays inevitably drive up costs.

So a failure to factor in defence-specific inflation likely means that any naval program will cost far more than originally promised if it's to meet the original standards.

That means that, if Page is right, and he's not the only one saying this, Canada is faced with two harsh options: A much more expensive fleet, or a much smaller one.

The navy's future

Within the military, the debate has already started over two of the most important future ships, the large Joint Support Ships (JSS) said to be "integral" to future naval operations.

Part re-supply ships, part floating command headquarters for overseas operations, part helicopter platform, and part humanitarian emergency vessel, these JSS are strategic vessels capable of giving Canada more options and influence at sea.

Military supply ships $1.5 billion over budget, Page says
Defence buys should focus on building industry, report
The ships are also beyond desperately needed to replace the two decrepit supply vessels, HMCS Preserver and Protecteur, whose keels were laid down at the time of Expo '67, almost 46 years ago.

After years of delay, the federal government set aside $2.6 billion in 2010 to see these new JSS built in Vancouver's Seaspan yards by 2018 and 2019 respectively.

But that simply can't be achieved at today's dollars, according to the parliamentary budget officer. Using independent analysis of the program from the Conference of Defence Associations Institute in Ottawa, Page slapped a new price tag of $3.28 billion on the two ships.

In fact, just to be safe, he urges the government to set aside 60 per cent more than planned — $4.13 billion.

Back at the drawing board

In the brouhaha that followed, Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose immediately denounced Page's projections and stood by her department's forecasts.

"If adjustments need to be made, they will be done in partnership with the shipyards, the navy and the coast guard," she said.

Well, maybe. But after the F-35 debacle such statements don't carry as much weight as concerned taxpayers have a right to expect. 

There seem to be several basic problems with naval procurement in Canada, one of the main ones being that our lack of national expertise means the learning curve inevitably imposes delay after costly delay.

But as governments don't want to be seen raising the ceiling on projects like the Joint Support Ship program, naval architects are left struggling to reshape these vessels according to ever-tightening limitations.

They get tasked with having to drop capability, size and function, which inevitably leads to more delay, higher costs, and then a new round of squeezing and so on.

At this rate, the NDP's procurement critic Matthew Kellway jokes, all that will come out of the naval budget in the end will be "nothing but two tugboats painted grey."

Working backwards

The parliamentary budget director says Ottawa works back to front when it comes to military procurement on this scale.

It doesn't start with a core design, but with a simple budget number "as opposed to the folks in the military saying, 'Let's build a bottom-up set of requirements and let's put numbers against those requirements.'"

The budget office is now looking into the far bigger program in Halifax, the one to build 15 warships along with Arctic patrol craft. But already stories that the current East coast program is seriously underfunded are rampant in defence circles.

Writing in the Canadian Naval Review, veteran defence writer Sharon Hobson says the word among her naval sources is that the East Coast construction will be closer to $30 to $40 billion all in, as opposed to the $25 billion budgeted.

That's a big jump for taxpayers to swallow, especially if austerity is being called for elsewhere.

David ********, one of the country's best informed defence journalists, writes that bureaucrats are already reducing the capability of future navy vessels, and sources warn the number of surface warships may be cut from 15 "to 12 or even 10."

What's more, this kind of speculation was making the rounds well before the recent leaks pertaining to tomorrow's federal budget, which is expected to continue three successive years of cutting defence spending.

The central question that always surrounded the Conservative's boldly named National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy was whether realistic funding would eventually support all the ballyhoo, or whether drift and delay would undercut it.

The current gloom suggests that unless the government can seriously reassure the navy that ship numbers and capability will not be sacrificed, the ballyhoo will soon be swept away by the bitter recriminations our defence debates are so prone to.
About the author
One of this country's most experienced journalists and foreign correspondents, Brian Stewart is currently a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Munk School for Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. He also sits on the advisory board of Human Rights Watch Canada. In almost four decades of reporting, he has covered many of the world's conflicts and reported from 10 war zones, from El Salvador to Beirut and Afghanistan.


----------



## GAP

Let's see....the CBC has managed to completely dismiss any ships being built, unless they fit a bath tub, bring up the F35 cost overruns at least 4-5 times, denounce the Conservatives.......yup, it's a CBC story alright..... :


----------



## jollyjacktar

GAP said:
			
		

> Let's see....the CBC has managed to completely dismiss any ships being built, unless they fit a bath tub, bring up the F35 cost overruns at least 4-5 times, denounce the Conservatives.......yup, it's a CBC story alright..... :


That being said, there's a lot I agree with what he's saying.  We won't get as much as we were promised, we never do.  And what we get will be watered down and less capable than originally proposed too.  He's spot on that were we to go offshore it would cost much less and be faster too boot.  Of course that's not politically viable, which is a shame.  My  :2c:


----------



## observor 69

Brian Stewart is one of the few old school journalists still providing reports to CBC.  When he turns up on my TV I pay attention. He has some great sources and is obviously "in the know." Perhaps this is due to his position at the U of T Munk centre.


----------



## AlexanderM

If this goes the way it looks to be going, I'd much rather buy the ships for a good price elsewhere.  We're just going to end up paying through the nose for ships, and won't be at all competitive at shipbuilding when it's all over.  Why not dangle the order in front of the EU and get back a full scale free trade deal, plus a pile of business for Canadian companies?  The idea that a Berlin Class costs 2 billion means we've already reached ludicrous speed.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> If this goes the way it looks to be going, I'd much rather buy the ships for a good price elsewhere.  We're just going to end up paying through the nose for ships, and won't be at all competitive at shipbuilding when it's all over.  Why not dangle the order in front of the EU and get back a full scale free trade deal, plus a pile of business for Canadian companies?  The idea that a Berlin Class costs 2 billion means we've reached ludicrous speed.



Too late. The contracts have been signed, sealed and delivered. I do agree with you that we could have gotten cheaper deals from foreign shipbuilders, but can you imagine the uproar from all the opposition parties, unions, special interest groups, etc, about how the Conservatives were betraying Canada and were in the pocket of foreign corporations, etc.


----------



## FSTO

I really really hope that this entire project signals the last time we rebuild a warship building industry from scratch. Because if this one falls apart then I doubt that the general public, the government and the Navy will have the appitite to do this for the 6th time (WWII, Cold War, the Tribals and AOR's (granted there was a residual industry when they were built), CPF's and now the NSP) within 100 years. I also hope that we build the hulls nice and solid but the innards (machinery and electronics) can be easily upgraded without TB's sticky fingers getting involved.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> I also hope that we build the hulls nice and solid but the innards (machinery and electronics) can be easily upgraded without TB's sticky fingers getting involved.



I think it would be a lot more effective if they built the hulls to wear out at the same time as the combat fit, and just built more ships.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I will see if I can find it when I am back at work tomorrow but I remember a quote I stumbled upon when I was in Ottawa working on the CSC Project. It was from an American Admiral involved in the PD side of the AB class back in the late 90s. It was something along the lines of 'We go to great strides and expend countless resources determining a hull's ELE (estimated life expectancy) but then end up retiring ships long before the platform itself is worn out because it is not financial feasible to upgrade the combat/weapons suites and/or control systems"
I had done a BN on other Navy's ships of a similar class and the RCN was the exception (of developed nations) keeping ships beyond 25 years. Surprisingly, the longest I found was a USN ship. You may have heard of her: USS Lexington (CV 16) at 48 years! If you think about it, the first of the Halifax class would be getting decommissioned and scrapped/sold in many other Navies.


----------



## Baz

Not quite the same type of ship but USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was in Commission 1962-2012 (plus her defuelling has been delayed by Sequestration, so her engineering systems are still manned).

I agree with the point, however; and would take it one step further.  Everyone knows that each ship is different, so accept it.  Make each one slightly better, and build them at a low rate.  Say one every 18 months, and keep them 18 years, would give a fleet size of 12 ships.  For the AOR and "Amphib," say one every four years or so...  Build 'em, ride em hard, and retire them!  You could keep them available more becuase you wouldn't need to worry about them lasting so long.  And no major upgrades either.

This would give the advantage of actually keeping the Canadian Shipbuilding industry relevant (it is important by the way, maybe even more important than if we have the "best" ship).  It would also mean each ship is slightly better than the last.  And never do two major system upgrades in one ship.  Change the hull in one, then maybe the combat system a couple down stream, and then maybe propulsion a couple after that... keep each change managable.

You could even keep the last cycle in Reserve for 10-20 years, to give us a surge capability... or maybe sell 'em off while they're still relevant (and you can get some money for them).

I also think we should do the same with aircraft.  The benefits of fleet commonality are way overated in my opinion.  Air Canada doesn't try to service every route with a triple 7 or a Dash-8, and don't seem to have problems with small buys... why can't we.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I wonder if anyone has seriously done the math on your theory, Baz?

You raise an interesting point about the real costs of keeping ships for 40 years...


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Baz said:
			
		

> I agree with the point, however; and would take it one step further.  Everyone knows that each ship is different, so accept it.  Make each one slightly better, and build them at a low rate.  Say one every 18 months, and keep them 18 years, would give a fleet size of 12 ships.  For the AOR and "Amphib," say one every four years or so...  Build 'em, ride em hard, and retire them!  You could keep them available more becuase you wouldn't need to worry about them lasting so long.  And no major upgrades either.



The problem as I see it is that then you would have 12 different ships with different weapon systems/capabilities. Trying to train crew for these ships would be be pretty difficult.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Never seen 2 ships in a class that were exactly the same anyways.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Colin P said:
			
		

> Never seen 2 ships in a class that were exactly the same anyways.



No, but I see the point being made. This is the impetus behind the plan to have the two CSC versions having common equipment (propulsion, deck gear, DC etc). With the exception of HAL herself, most Halifax class are pretty close but some do get/(retain) mission fits. 

I recall though the initial confusion in engineering systems (more the location of specific equipment/valves) between what I will call the sub-classes of the St Laurents (STL, RES, IRE, ANN). Somebody on board GAT blew up a Reserve Feed Tank in 1987 because the Boiler Room Feed pump discharge valve on board GAT was in the same place as the Reserve filling valve on board NIP. 715 psi water discharge pressure through a 6" line doesn't take long to fill an 8.5 ton water tank!!


----------



## AlexanderM

I'd go with 15 ships, all the same hull, built at a faster pace.  Use the Ivar Huitfeldt-class design, as they are flexible, with the midship missle bay being able to have different configurations.  Build the Destroyers to carry more missles for air defence, have the command and control capabilities, 150-155mm guns with the extended range shells, etc, etc.  Then build the Frigates to carry less missles and more mission modules, better ASW capabilities, better multi-mission capabilities.

The Danish built the hulls for just over $300 million each, if we can't build them for a reasonable price then we could have the hulls built in Korea for all I care.  I think it is ridiculous that it costs us two or three times what it costs other countries to build the same ships.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I'd go with 15 ships, all the same hull, built at a faster pace.  Use the Ivar Huitfeldt-class design, as they are flexible, with the midship missle bay being able to have different configurations.  Build the Destroyers to carry more missles for air defence, have the command and control capabilities, 150-155mm guns with the extended range shells, etc, etc.  Then build the Frigates to carry less missles and more mission modules, better ASW capabilities, better multi-mission capabilities.
> 
> The Danish built the hulls for just over $300 million each, if we can't build them for a reasonable price then we could have the hulls built in Korea for all I care.  I think it is ridiculous that it costs us two or three times what it costs other countries to build the same ships.



Believe me, I understand what you are saying and am not alone I am sure in sharing frustrations. Keep in mind, this whole program indirectly falls under the government's EAP so you are employing people rather than paying them social assistance but much more so, we are 'building' a shipbuilding industry-this can be seen as an investment in the future.  By your way of 'black and white' thinking, nothing would ever be 'home-made' because you can always buy it cheaper-whether it be strawberry jam or warships.

Essentially what you are saying in para 1 is exactly the intent...right now...except that the hull will more than likely be "Made in Canada".


----------



## AlexanderM

Pat, I understand the, "we are building a shipbuilding industry" reasoning, but this to me is the part that fails the most, because we aren't going to end up with an industry that will be in any way competitive.  The industry we build will be an overpriced industry that can only cater to overpriced government orders, like the warships.  That industry will not compete with Korea, or any of the other shipbuilding nations who can build these ships for one thrid of our price.  This is why I see it as being money that will be flushed right down the drain, so our tax dollars are wasted.

Perhaps someone could point out with whom our new shipbuilding industry will be able to compete, given that anything built will be much more expensive than the competition.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Pat, I understand the, "we are building a shipbuilding industry" reasoning, but this to me is the part that fails the most, because we aren't going to end up with an industry that will be in any way competitive.  The industry we build will be an overpriced industry that can only cater to overpriced government orders, like the warships.  That industry will not compete with Korea, or any of the other shipbuilding nations who can build these ships for one thrid of our price.  This is why I see it as being money that will be flushed right down the drain, so our tax dollars are wasted.
> 
> Perhaps someone could point out with whom our new shipbuilding industry will be able to compete, given that anything built will be much more expensive than the competition.



How exactly do you know that?

Are you privy to the shipyard technology investments begin made at each location?


Matthew.


----------



## AlexanderM

Well, we've just paid out $288 million dollars just for design work on the AOPS, which is more than double the cost of similar ships that are already in operation.  We've seen quotes of up to $2 billion dollars a piece for the tankers, when the Berlin Class didn't cost anywhere near that to build.  I've seen quotes of $2.5 billion per Destroyer, which is 3 to 4 times the cost of the ships already built by the Dutch, the Danes, and the Spanish.  They said on the news the other day that the cost of the 15 warships and 6-8 AOPS could be closer to $30-40 billion, rather than the $26 billion budgeted.  Anyone who's paying attention would know all of this.


----------



## Halifax Tar

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Well, we've just paid out $288 million dollars just for design work on the AOPS, which is more than double the cost of similar ships that are already in operation.  We've seen quotes of up to $2 billion dollars a piece for the tankers, when the Berlin Class didn't cost anywhere near that to build.  I've seen quotes of $2.5 billion per Destroyer, which is 3 to 4 times the cost of the ships already built by the Dutch, the Danes, and the Spanish.  They said on the news the other day that the cost of the 15 warships and 6-8 AOPS could be closer to $30-40 billion, rather than the $26 billion budgeted.  Anyone who's paying attention would know all of this.



Perhaps its time someone explained the public that the reason for the CF's exististance is not to employ people.  Meaning if country X has a platform that meets the needs that we are looking for then we should aquire that platform, especially if it is cost effective and reguardless of the effect on the "Canadian Ship Building Industry".  

I want the best bang of the buck not the best bang to employ people...


----------



## AlexanderM

I'm with you 100% Tar, we could probably purchase 15 of the De Zeven Provincien Class, with HSLA 80 or 100 steel, all in for under $1.2 Billion each or get the Danish design built where ever for the same price and we'd have outstanding ships, right on budget, even a little under.  And, that would be with the new Smart-l with extended range and full anti-ballistic capabilities.  The Danish design is so flexible it would be perfect for our needs.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Perhaps its time someone explained the public that the reason for the CF's exististance is not to employ people.  Meaning if country X has a platform that meets the needs that we are looking for then we should aquire that platform, especially if it is cost effective and reguardless of the effect on the "Canadian Ship Building Industry".
> 
> I want the best bang of the buck not the best bang to employ people...




Except that's not how many (I'm guessing most) politicians and most (I'm certain of that) Canadians see it: they see billions of dollars and they want that money spent in Canada, "buying Canadian,' even if it does "waste" some oh the money.  And this is nothing new: it has been this way, in America, Britain and Canada, for centuries. It is part of the political *reality*.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Except that's not how many (I'm guessing most) politicians and most (I'm certain of that) Canadians see it: they see billions of dollars and they want that money spent in Canada, "buying Canadian,' even if it does "waste" some oh the money.  And this is nothing new: it has been this way, in America, Britain and Canada, for centuries. It is part of the political *reality*.



You are right of course.  I was living in that purple sky place again...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I could be wrong here, but merely wonder if some (a lot?) of the price difference between home built and foreign built ships has anything to do with our accounting methods (à la F-35) whereby the full cost of parts, maintenance, upgrades and new support facilities is included in the price of home built ships but on the other hand we only see the actual unit cost in other countries. Just speculating here - any one out there with the answer?

Also, it is important to remember that for anything short of a nuclear war, a country with a serious navy (and we are one of those) that feels it has a role to play on the world scene needs to be able to provide its own ships and their upgrade and upkeep. It is a strategic necessity. Should there be increased tensions or open warfare requiring a building program, other similarly minded nations with shipyards may not be willing to accommodate our needs until theirs have been filed - and then it may be too late. Weapons systems and C4I systems are easier and faster to acquire than the lead time required for the hulls and machinery to be put together.

I wholeheartedly agree, however, with two concepts described above: (1) The N.C.S.S. must not be another failure, which means that it must get the industry on a self perpetuating track. And (2) the best way to achieve this is to continually build, by deciding the fleet levels we wish to maintain together with a reasonable expected service life calculation, then add a small  "ships-in-reserve" factor (say for instance expected service life: 25 years; expected "in-reserve" life: 10 years; fleet requirements of 25 ships, with 10 to 12 more in reserve at all time = one new built commissioned every year in perpetuity).

There is, by the way, a happy medium between the "constant improvement" from ship to ship proposed above and the "all-similar" single class. It is the (real) batch system: four to six ships built to the same standard until the next iteration of the "same class" but upgraded next batch comes up or the next design comes on line after a "class' is altogether due for replacement. After all, while combat systems and weapons change quite fast, hulls and machinery do not evolve as fast. It combines most of the advantages of "single-class" for training, maintenance and retention of knowledge while permitting a constant mix of older/newer combat systems/weapons to face any threat. In a "perpetual plan" like the one I described above, this would mean that, at any given time, the fleet may consist of one or two class of ships (which would happen in any transition between classes) made of two or three different batches, the more recent ones being updated versions of the older batches.


----------



## Kirkhill

I think your on to something about the "continuous build" strategy.

Some of the European yards have been in business since they were hiring carvers for Dragons on the long boats.  They have continually improved and upgraded as they responded to, and created, new technologies.

Canada has no such tradition.

I still would prefer that that cost of building the industry were borne by the HRDC and Industry Canada and not DND.


----------



## Lineman

As a civilian of this country I will endeavor to "stay in my lane" regarding the ships themselves. However I do have a vested interest in how and where our government spends the dollars I hand over. 
I'll make this clear to begin with; I am a supporter of our military and want nothing but the best for the defense of our country and to enable our men and women, when asked, to overwhelmingly destroy our enemies with as little as loss of life and limbs as possible. Procuring the means to do this however must not be at the expense of becoming reliant on foreign manufacturers and most importantly not when we can have the means to build them ourselves. Our military has a duty to defend this country, our government has a duty to defend it's economy, those duties must find a balance. 
Yes, I know it will cost 4 or 5 times more than a foreign procurement, but having workers on each coast employed and spending their money here as opposed to Danes or Dutch spending Canadian dollars "over there" is a no-brainer. I also realize not all the money spent building these ships in Canada will stay here but it's better than none of it.
That being said, I am in agreement and concerned that this whole process is seemingly slowing to a crawl (yet again). I understand the need to budget but shouldn't  appropriate inflationary influences have been built into it?

I'll now retreat back to my position as observer


----------



## AlexanderM

Lineman said:
			
		

> As a civilian of this country I will endeavor to "stay in my lane" regarding the ships themselves. However I do have a vested interest in how and where our government spends the dollars I hand over.
> I'll make this clear to begin with; I am a supporter of our military and want nothing but the best for the defense of our country and to enable our men and women, when asked, to overwhelmingly destroy our enemies with as little as loss of life and limbs as possible. Procuring the means to do this however must not be at the expense of becoming reliant on foreign manufacturers and most importantly not when we can have the means to build them ourselves. Our military has a duty to defend this country, our government has a duty to defend it's economy, those duties must find a balance.
> Yes, I know it will cost 4 or 5 times more than a foreign procurement, but having workers on each coast employed and spending their money here as opposed to Danes or Dutch spending Canadian dollars "over there" is a no-brainer. I also realize not all the money spent building these ships in Canada will stay here but it's better than none of it.
> That being said, I am in agreement and concerned that this whole process is seemingly slowing to a crawl (yet again). I understand the need to budget but shouldn't  appropriate inflationary influences have been built into it?
> 
> I'll now retreat back to my position as observer


On this overall shipbuilding program we could overspend by as much as $10 billion dollars.  So, if we did buy from other countries we could use the order to get a full free trade deal with the EU, and get value added contracts back, much like we do with the US, all of which would employ Canadians.  Then, take that $10 billion we save and put it into much needed infrastructure programs right across the country, or into other much needed programs that will generate employment.  My guess is, all that combined will employ as many or more Canadians than what we will see out of the planned program.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The IRB's would be spread pretty thin in that situation, and we'd have the same block obsolesence problem we have today.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To defend the shipyards, in particular the Westcoast yards, as I know nothing about the east coast yards. They are quite good at doing repairs and such for the commercial world and have a good rep for doing decent work, quickly. However they need new builds to help recapitalize and renew their infrastructure. This issue goes beyond naval vessels and includes vessels such as ferries, Coast Guard, etc. Otherwise the yards will slowly decay and there will be no domestic yards capable of repairing and maintaining the large naval and Coast Guard ships planned.


----------



## Kirkhill

There has to be a better balance between what the Canadian taxpayer is expected to stump up for vessel and the lifestyle to which the yards, in particular the East Coasters, seem to wish to become accustomed.

A very large hull, complete with mechanicals, navigation aids and communications, and capable of sailing any seas in the world, can be built for $200,000,000.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-daewoo-order-idUSTRE71H0N820110218

That becomes my bottom line.

If all I want is a floating platform from which I can fly a Canadian flag, stow some gear and land a helicopter or two, then my budget is $200,000,000 per platform.

If it is determined that some folks out there don't like the Canadian flag then it is appropriate to buy some useful defensive weapons, under a separate budget, and park them on the platform.

Finally, to deal with those recalcitrants that still don't get the message, it is appropriate to dedicate some hulls to the sole task of carrying weapons.  In those cases the hulls will still cost $200,000,000 - or even significantly less - but the weapons packages will push costs upwards and dwarf the actual cost of the hull.

Patrol Vessels and Transport vessels don't fall into the latter category.   Anti-Air Warfare vessels certainly do, as do submarines.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> There has to be a better balance between what the Canadian taxpayer is expected to stump up for vessel and the lifestyle to which the yards, in particular the East Coasters, seem to wish to become accustomed.
> 
> A very large hull, complete with mechanicals, navigation aids and communications, and capable of sailing any seas in the world, can be built for $200,000,000.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-daewoo-order-idUSTRE71H0N820110218
> 
> That becomes my bottom line.
> 
> If all I want is a floating platform from which I can fly a Canadian flag, stow some gear and land a helicopter or two, then my budget is $200,000,000 per platform.
> 
> If it is determined that some folks out there don't like the Canadian flag then it is appropriate to buy some useful defensive weapons, under a separate budget, and park them on the platform.
> 
> Finally, to deal with those recalcitrants that still don't get the message, it is appropriate to dedicate some hulls to the sole task of carrying weapons.  In those cases the hulls will still cost $200,000,000 - or even significantly less - but the weapons packages will push costs upwards and dwarf the actual cost of the hull.
> 
> Patrol Vessels and Transport vessels don't fall into the latter category.   Anti-Air Warfare vessels certainly do, as do submarines.


Kirkhill, if this was the case, I'd be very pleased.  I'd even be happy if the hull cost $600 million, becuase we could add $600 million in weapon systems and still be within budget.  This is the part that confuses me, to no end.  When we look at the cost of other warships built by the Dutch and Danes, the cost of the weapon systems are pretty much fixed, and we will pay about the same as they did.  So the only increase in price is the hull.  So if I see a quote for a Canadian destroyer at $2.5 billion, I know the weapons systems are going to cost maybe $600 million, and that's being generous, so where is the balance of the money going?  Are they suggesting that the hull is costing $1.9 billion?  It certainly seems that way.  Same thing with the supply ships.  We've seen an estimate of $2 billion per, so what the heck are we building?  A Berlin Class at $2 billion per is ridiculous.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> There has to be a better balance between what the Canadian taxpayer is expected to stump up for vessel and the lifestyle to which the yards, in particular the East Coasters, seem to wish to become accustomed.
> 
> A very large hull, complete with mechanicals, navigation aids and communications, and capable of sailing any seas in the world, can be built for $200,000,000.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-daewoo-order-idUSTRE71H0N820110218
> 
> That becomes my bottom line.



That's built to commercial standards, and I'm not aware of a "really big container ship" requirement.



> If all I want is a floating platform from which I can fly a Canadian flag, stow some gear and land a helicopter or two, then my budget is $200,000,000 per platform.



No, that's your "buying a really big container ship in volume numbers" bottom line. Adding helo gear and military transport would mean a completely different hull and price. Even buying just one container ship would mean a completely different price.



> If it is determined that some folks out there don't like the Canadian flag then it is appropriate to buy some useful defensive weapons, under a separate budget, and park them on the platform.



Umm...right. What could possibly go wrong with that plan?  :



> Finally, to deal with those recalcitrants that still don't get the message, it is appropriate to dedicate some hulls to the sole task of carrying weapons.  In those cases the hulls will still cost $200,000,000 - or even significantly less - but the weapons packages will push costs upwards and dwarf the actual cost of the hull.



It would better to give the money to the Air Force. We'd be much more likely to get something useful out of it at the end. 

Honestly, this is just a really bad idea.


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm going to pour fuel on the fire by noting that the crewing requirement for a "really big hull" (standards bedammed  ;D), operating 24/7, year in and year out, is 19, reducible to 13.

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/1106dp_the_worlds_largest_ship_maersk_triple_e/



> Triple-E Spec:
> Vessel: Triple-E
> Owner: Maersk Line
> Manufacturer: Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering
> Scheduled for delivery: 2013
> Cost: $190 million per vessel
> Length: 437.44 yards (400 meters)
> Beam (width): 193.57 feet (59 meters)
> Height: 79.83 yards (73 meters)
> Draught: 47.57 feet (14.5 meters)
> Deadweight: 165,000 metric tons
> Reefer container capacity: 600
> Top speed: 23 knots
> Crew: Normal operation 19 (possible to operate with 13)
> 
> Read more: http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/1106dp_the_worlds_largest_ship_maersk_triple_e/#ixzz2Of7O9vW5



Now I know that the Navy's requirements are not those of the Civvy world.  But equally it is really obvious that the RCN is doing a pispoor job of explaining and justifying its requirements and the shipyards are doing an equally poor job of explaining why their numbers are so far out of sync with those of the rest of the civilized world (USN and US yards excluded).

 By the way, how many ADCAPs or Harpoons do you reckon it would take to put a Triple E on the bottom?  How long would it take 19 crew to make it to the lifeboats?


----------



## Monsoon

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> So if I see a quote for a Canadian destroyer at $2.5 billion, I know the weapons systems are going to cost maybe $600 million, and that's being generous, so where is the balance of the money going?  Are they suggesting that the hull is costing $1.9 billion?  It certainly seems that way.  Same thing with the supply ships.  We've seen an estimate of $2 billion per, so what the heck are we building?  A Berlin Class at $2 billion per is ridiculous.


 :brickwall:
Have we learned nothing from the F-35 saga? When the Canadian government buys things, it applies _lifecycle costing_. If you see a quote for a Canadian destroyer at $2.5B, that's a price that includes every conceivable cost associated with the project: crewing, operating, maintaining (including upgrading and sustaining maintenance facilities), etc over the whole life (25-35 years) of the ship. The crew costs alone would be over $500M. I know I'm not the first person to say this in this very thread: the costs you see on the web for ships at various shipyards are simply not comparable to the project cost for ships we use in the Canadian government.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Now I know that the Navy's requirements are not those of the Civvy world.  But equally it is really obvious that the RCN is doing a pispoor job of explaining and justifying its requirements and the shipyards are doing an equally poor job of explaining why their numbers are so far out of sync with those of the rest of the civilized world (USN and US yards excluded).


See above.



> By the way, how many ADCAPs or Harpoons do you reckon it would take to put a Triple E on the bottom?  How long would it take 19 crew to make it to the lifeboats?


You'd definitely want to know the answer to that question, because it would certainly be the biggest target on the water. But my guess is that one Mk 48 would take it down surprisingly quickly.


----------



## AlexanderM

The current $35 billion over 30 year shipbuilding program is purchase cost only.  It is the budget for 'the shipbuilding program,' nothing more.  Show me documentation specific to the program that states otherwise.


----------



## Edward Campbell

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> :brickwall:
> Have we learned nothing from the F-35 saga? When the Canadian government buys things, it applies _lifecycle costing_. If you see a quote for a Canadian destroyer at $2.5B, that's a price that includes every conceivable cost associated with the project: crewing, operating, maintaining (including upgrading and sustaining maintenance facilities), etc over the whole life (25-35 years) of the ship. The crew costs alone would be over $500M. I know I'm not the first person to say this in this very thread: the costs you see on the web for ships at various shipyards are simply not comparable to the project cost for ships we use in the Canadian government.
> See above.
> You'd definitely want to know the answer to that question, because it would certainly be the biggest target on the water. But my guess is that one Mk 48 would take it down surprisingly quickly.




ff topic: follows

But do we, I wonder, understand what _lifecycle costing_ means? It appears to me, after the F-35 saga, that we - meaning the CF, the cabinet, TB, the Librarian of Parliament (the Parliamentary Budget Officer's boss) and the Auditor  General do not, at the very least, agree on what the term means.

It would be helpful if the AG, in a _negotiating_ mode, would tell cabinet that "I intend to apply these lifecycle cost factors to all projects with a value of over $_nnn_ Million and a projected in service life of more than _nn_ months." Cabinet, through the Treasury Board, could respond and, eventually, everyone might at least have a consistent set of rules. That still might not address the problems of _understanding_ the rules and/or _obeying_ them, nor would it address ignorant sensationalism by the media, but it would be a step in the right direction.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> By the way, how many ADCAPs or Harpoons do you reckon it would take to put a Triple E on the bottom?  How long would it take 19 crew to make it to the lifeboats?



Depends on what it's loaded with and how. That's a pretty big ship, if it only has one keel a Mk 48 would snap it in half.

OTOH, both halves may float for a long time, no lifeboats needed.


----------



## Monsoon

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The current $35 billion over 30 year shipbuilding program is purchase cost only.  It is the budget for 'the shipbuilding program,' nothing more.  Show me documentation specific to the program that states otherwise.


Actually, I think the onus is on you to supply some evidence to back up what you've just asserted. I'd certainly be very surprised if that's the case, but if you're right I'd also appreciate being corrected on it. But I'm not just going to take your word for it. Are you an "industry insider"?

And if you're going by the name of the NSPS ("Shipbuilding Procurement") alone, I wouldn't put much faith in that: the cost of the F-35 "procurement" is very much driven by the lifecycle operations and maintenance costs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> There has to be a better balance between what the Canadian taxpayer is expected to stump up for vessel and the lifestyle to which the yards, in particular the East Coasters, seem to wish to become accustomed.
> 
> A very large hull, complete with mechanicals, navigation aids and communications, and capable of sailing any seas in the world, can be built for $200,000,000.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-daewoo-order-idUSTRE71H0N820110218
> 
> That becomes my bottom line.
> 
> If all I want is a floating platform from which I can fly a Canadian flag, stow some gear and land a helicopter or two, then my budget is $200,000,000 per platform.
> 
> If it is determined that some folks out there don't like the Canadian flag then it is appropriate to buy some useful defensive weapons, under a separate budget, and park them on the platform.
> 
> Finally, to deal with those recalcitrants that still don't get the message, it is appropriate to dedicate some hulls to the sole task of carrying weapons.  In those cases the hulls will still cost $200,000,000 - or even significantly less - but the weapons packages will push costs upwards and dwarf the actual cost of the hull.
> 
> Patrol Vessels and Transport vessels don't fall into the latter category.   Anti-Air Warfare vessels certainly do, as do submarines.



You do realize that the commercial container ship is much simpler then a navy supply ship that carries fuel, food, ammunition etc to supply a task group?  As soon as you add in the equipment to resupply other ships, apply the navy's damage control reqs, include self defence items for when it goes in harms way and all the other normal stuff navies do that containers hips don't, the costs increase significantly.  Using commercial ships as a benchmark isn't a great idea as they are simply not built to the same standards.  As soon as anything has to be shock/blast resistant, it will cost more.

Canada is part of the nato countries developing the Naval Ship code, an equivalent to the various class societies for warships.  To give you an idea though, for a lot of areas, the minimum threshold starts at or above class society/international regulation (ie SOLAS) requirements and then goes from there.  It's like going from a Ford Ranger with a tow hitch to big dualie when you look at the parts and structure.  Steel is thicker, there is more strucutre, more watertight compartments etc and all that comes with an associated cost.

For the actual warships, costs don't take long to add up when you include ammunition costs with the ship (missiles are millions each, so a 48 or 96 cell launcher system costs a lot to fill).  The launchers themselves costs a lot, then you add in fire control radars, some kind of combat suite, all the other sensors etc warships can easily cost a few billion depending on accounting.

Don't think anyone will be able to know the cost of JSS or AOPs until the design is solidified, then you can do real cost estimates based on the equipment onboard.  Don't doubt the PBO did their homework, but the project could easily cost a lot more or a lot less depedning on the design.  Also, if they include taxes in the costs, it artificially inflates costs to taxpayers as all of that is going right back to the government.  You have to take all these comparisons with a grain of salt as you can't compare costs directly unless you know all the details of what was and wasn't included.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to Mr. Campbell's point - we don't know the numbers.

In all the press releases that I have seen on the JSS, AOPS and CSC projects the reference was to the capital cost of procurement, a murky enough proposition compared to our allies who simply quote the unit price of a vessel, and the cost of supplying In Service Support for a defined period.  That period is usually on the order of 10 to 20 years.  Any projection beyond that would previously have been laughed out of the water.

The F35 horror show has changed that.  It took the projections out far beyond any known business norm and included the cost of pilots and coffee.
None of the numbers supplied on the ships, to my knowledge include the price of hiring and training the crews or of fish fries on the fantail.

That is why, in my modest proposal, I was at pains to set a limit of 1/3 of the project budgets for capital expenditure and then leave 2/3 for ISS and the CFF (Canadian Fudge Factor).

That proposal did not include the cost of hiring crews but it did undertake to supply as many hulls as possible within the manning limits and capital budgets available.

I don't know what is possible with the dollars and crews available but I do know that the publicly available information from our allies doesn't support the types of expenditures projected by Canadian yards and the RCN.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> You do realize that the commercial container ship is much simpler then a navy supply ship that carries fuel, food, ammunition etc to supply a task group?  As soon as you add in the equipment to resupply other ships, apply the navy's damage control reqs, include self defence items for when it goes in harms way and all the other normal stuff navies do that containers hips don't, the costs increase significantly.  Using commercial ships as a benchmark isn't a great idea as they are simply not built to the same standards.  As soon as anything has to be shock/blast resistant, it will cost more.
> 
> Canada is part of the nato countries developing the Naval Ship code, an equivalent to the various class societies for warships.  To give you an idea though, for a lot of areas, the minimum threshold starts at or above class society/international regulation (ie SOLAS) requirements and then goes from there.  It's like going from a Ford Ranger with a tow hitch to big dualie when you look at the parts and structure.  Steel is thicker, there is more strucutre, more watertight compartments etc and all that comes with an associated cost.
> 
> For the actual warships, costs don't take long to add up when you include ammunition costs with the ship (missiles are millions each, so a 48 or 96 cell launcher system costs a lot to fill).  The launchers themselves costs a lot, then you add in fire control radars, some kind of combat suite, all the other sensors etc warships can easily cost a few billion depending on accounting.
> 
> Don't think anyone will be able to know the cost of JSS or AOPs until the design is solidified, then you can do real cost estimates based on the equipment onboard.  Don't doubt the PBO did their homework, but the project could easily cost a lot more or a lot less depedning on the design.  Also, if they include taxes in the costs, it artificially inflates costs to taxpayers as all of that is going right back to the government.  You have to take all these comparisons with a grain of salt as you can't compare costs directly unless you know all the details of what was and wasn't included.



Yes I do realize that adding bulkheads adds cost.  I do realize that adding pumps adds cost.  I have no problem with adding costs to the project to add capabilities to a hull.  I cited the simple cost of building a ruddy great barge that can drive itself through the water at 25 knots with a crew of 13.  A barge big enough that it requires a pretty big wave to make it rock and the supplies a lot of free deck between a helicopter and the edge of the deck.  I don't see RAST gear on Invincible and she's only a tenth the size of these monsters.

I am not suggesting that we buy monsters (although that would make for an interesting strategy) but I am suggesting that $200,000,000 for a Triple E, or $300,000,000 for a Huitfeldt, or $70,000,000 for a Svalbard, or $400,000,000 for a Doorman does start to suggest an order of magnitude  cost for a simple vessel.  And 1 Billion dollars ain't it.

Yes weapons cost millions.  But the ships don't.  The missiles that we will be using on the CSCs, and possibly even the Mk41 launchers, are in all likelihood the same ones we are using on the Halifaxes and the Iroquois.     The radar and sonar suites will in all likelihood be new but look at the Fridtjofs, the F100s and the 7 Provincien to get a sense of that cost.  Take $200,000,000 for the hull off of the 7 Provinces and that still keeps the weapons and sensor suite at $500,000,000.  In the Fridtjof's case the same suite seems to be under $200,000,000.

I would note, with respect to ship size, that bigger ships are more survivable and that one of the rationales for a skinny crew in Euro ships, according to a US Coast Guard article that I attached in the Modest Proposal thread, was that even 6000 tonne ships were essentially one hit wonders and it wasn't worth planning to handle two strikes simultaneously.

Consequently, my view, Canada is better off putting a large number of relatively large, relatively simple platforms in the water with relatively small crews.


----------



## AlexanderM

I have found nothing that states the shipbuilding budget includes operational costs over time.  If anyone can find references for this please post them.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'm going to pour fuel on the fire by noting that the crewing requirement for a "really big hull" (standards bedammed  ;D), operating 24/7, year in and year out, is 19, reducible to 13.
> 
> Now I know that the Navy's requirements are not those of the Civvy world.  But equally it is really obvious that the RCN is doing a pispoor job of explaining and justifying its requirements and the shipyards are doing an equally poor job of explaining why their numbers are so far out of sync with those of the rest of the civilized world (USN and US yards excluded).



Sure, it's fine to have a crew of 13.  Until something major breaks at sea or you have an engineering emergency (fire/flood) or you go into action.  You've also neglected to account for daily maintenance of the vessel and it's components.  The various systems (weapons, engineering, logistics) have their requirements in manpower to make it go.  

I'll agree that the IPMS systems being integrated into the HCM refits will (in theory) allow for a reduction in watch personnel to oversee the engineering needs in the MCR and is a reflection of technology marching forwards into the sunny 21st Century.  It *is* possible that one person could run the whole show from one location, in theory.  I don't know if they could effectively monitor all the systems and pages with one pair of eyes once all the bugs were worked out of the system and she could run as imagined/designed.  I know I damn well couldn't keep up with the necessary pages if all the different bells and whistles started going off at once.

I'm sorry but from my experience and POV, I just don't see the engineering side of the house being covered adequately by what would be a couple of guys full time.  Even if it was 1/3 of the compliment to be the whole engineering department (4.29 sailors) there's no way you'll have all the watches covered 24/7 and do the necessary maintenance (both corrective and planned) and mount an effective damage control team etc etc etc.

I'm sure that others from the different trades here both MSE, Combat and Logistics will be able to give additional input into this conversation.  From a Hull standpoint, I'm not convinced or comfortable with what you're proposing.


----------



## Bass ackwards

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Consequently, my view, Canada is better off putting a large number of relatively large, relatively simple platforms in the water with relatively small crews.



Just out of curiosity, are you advocating something along the lines of a modern-day auxiliary cruiser (aka: armed merchant cruiser) ?


----------



## RC

It is worth noting that the $2B price tag for the JSS did not come from the shipyard and there were... inconsistencies in the PBO's approach to pricing a ship.  I price ships for a living and I would be very surprised if the JSS cost this much.

That said, I will make no such comment with respect to the East Coast and the AOPS/CSC.  They have not indicated prices for any of the ships yet either, but my impression is that they will be a black hole into which we will shovel money without ever really knowing when the pain will end.

The plan to renew shipbuilding could be a success on the West Coast.  There is a potential market for local ferries, ice classed vessels, high value added vessels to support Arctic resource extraction that they could tap into to fill the gaps in government contracts.  It's not an easy road, but it's possible.  Keep in mind that Seaspan is a marine operator with many of their own vessels to build and support as well.  

Unfortunately, i don't think Halifax has any intention at all of following that business model.  Hopefully, ill be proven wrong on that point (who knows, maybe they'll come back with a price of $120m per ship for the AOPS...), but I suspect I'm right.  It will be unfortunate if Seaspan's shot at success is ruined as a result.


----------



## Monsoon

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I have found nothing that states the shipbuilding budget includes operational costs over time.  If anyone can find references for this please post them.


Here ya go: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/opepubs/tbm_162/gptbs-gppct-eng.pdf - you can start at page 54.

This is the only way that federal government procurement projects are costed, since about the early 2000s.


----------



## Kirkhill

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, are you advocating something along the lines of a modern-day auxiliary cruiser (aka: armed merchant cruiser) ?



Not really.  

I not even proposing buying container ships.  My point goes more to the cost of building a vessel to commercial standards that can perform military duties.  Currently that model of procurement includes, in addition to container ships converted to Maritime Prepositioning Vessels:  the entire Dutch and Spanish fleets of AORs and LP(H)(A)(D); the RFA's and RAN's Oilers and LSD(A)s;  the RNZNs MPV Canterbury;  virtually every modern Armed Patrol Vessel operating in the Eastern Atlantic (and around the Falklands); and the Danish Navy's Absalon and Huitfeldt frigates.

These ships are the antithesis of the RN/USN model of procurement.

Bath Ironworks and BAE and Lockheed Martin will produce ships that conform to the pricing assumptions that the PBO identified.  Why wouldn't they?  They built the ships that he used as his sample set.

They're the ones that took a $50,000,000 (HSV-1) car ferry and turned into a $500,000,000 car ferry (LCS2).  They're the ones that build Billion dollar LSDs when the Dutch and Spanish are building functionally equivalent ships for a quarter to half of that price.

If you want to spend money like the USN and DOD then the RCN will end up with 2 Air Defence Frigates and enough spare cash for a dinghy.

Alternately you can choose to spend money like the Dutch.....


----------



## Bass ackwards

K, thanks for the clarification.
What you're saying makes perfect sense to me but I'm way out of my depth (no pun intended) on the subject.


----------



## AlexanderM

RC said:
			
		

> It is worth noting that the $2B price tag for the JSS did not come from the shipyard and there were... inconsistencies in the PBO's approach to pricing a ship.  I price ships for a living and I would be very surprised if the JSS cost this much.
> 
> That said, I will make no such comment with respect to the East Coast and the AOPS/CSC.  They have not indicated prices for any of the ships yet either, but my impression is that they will be a black hole into which we will shovel money without ever really knowing when the pain will end.
> 
> The plan to renew shipbuilding could be a success on the West Coast.  There is a potential market for local ferries, ice classed vessels, high value added vessels to support Arctic resource extraction that they could tap into to fill the gaps in government contracts.  It's not an easy road, but it's possible.  Keep in mind that Seaspan is a marine operator with many of their own vessels to build and support as well.
> 
> Unfortunately, i don't think Halifax has any intention at all of following that business model.  Hopefully, ill be proven wrong on that point (who knows, maybe they'll come back with a price of $120m per ship for the AOPS...), but I suspect I'm right.  It will be unfortunate if Seaspan's shot at success is ruined as a result.


Seaspan is US owned and looking to build an expanding business on a good reputation, but I'm concerned that Irving is just going to suck money out of Canadian taxpayers.  So, I agree.


----------



## Monsoon

So effectively what this thread has turned into is two employees of maritime industry companies that didn't win big in the NSPS, complaining loudly about what crooks and scoundrels the main winner of the NSPS is, do I have that about right? So riddle me this, gentlemen: if the Irving bid was so over-the-top, why couldn't the consortiums your companies were in under-bid them to win the competition?

To lay my own cards on the table here, my only interest is as someone who's in the RCN who'd like not to see industry lobbying and psyops do to the NSPS what happened to the F-35. So that's my agenda, AlexandreM: what's yours?


----------



## AlexanderM

My only agenda is seeing our troops get good equipment without taxpayers paying through the nose.  And, the concerns are legit, Irving just got a $288 mllion dollar design contract which is more than double the cost of similar, existing AOP ships. It's ridiculous to pay that kind of money for design.  I graduated Cornwallis many, many years ago, course 8109.


----------



## Kirkhill

I share Alexander's concerns. I want to see you and the RCN get at least the vessels the government promised you, the operator, and me, the defended taxpayer. 

I design food processing plants and am not involved, currently, in any of the marine industries. 

I used to supply food processing plants to the Northwest so I got to know the fishing companies up there and spent some time at sea on their vessels.  I also spent some time around the Vancouver, Victoria and Seattle dockyards installing processing plant on those vessels.

I have also conducted business around the Maritimes.

Cards on the table.

PS - And like you, hamiltongs, I don't want to see this take the flak the F-35 has taken, nor do I want to see the programmes disappear into oblivion like the earlier JSS and FWSAR and MSPS-SMP projects.  Or be downsized like the Hero class coastguard programme.


----------



## Monsoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I share Alexander's concerns. I want to see you and the RCN get at least the vessels the government promised you, the operator, and me, the defended taxpayer.


Kirkhill - my mini-rant wasn't directed at you in any way; you're a long-time Milnet.ca contributor on many forums here, and God knows there's plenty to criticize in the way the government does procurement.

One of the industry advocates (RC) has identified himself as such. Good. However, AlexandreM has yet again dodged making a clear statement that he doesn't work for a competitor of Irving's NSPS consortium. He joined Milnet.ca a handful of months ago and in the intervening time has posted _only_ on forums relating to military procurement; the overwhelming majority of these have been NSPS-related. If he is an industry representative, that doesn't make his beliefs or the facts that he's able to back them up with any less legitimate, but it does allow the reader to contextualize what are quite often unsupported opinions. It would be a shame if Milnet.ca were used by the defence industry to try to stir up a debate on a respected CF discussion forum that a passing journalist might mistake for _military members themselves_ complaining about the NSPS, as opposed to what it is: sour grapes.

So again: AlexandreM: do you work for a company that competes with Irving's consortium in the maritime/defence industry?


----------



## AlexanderM

No, I do not work for any such company.


----------



## Monsoon

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> No, I do not work for any such company.


Good enough (though I note the many ways in which someone with something to hide could weasel-word their way around my specific question). That being the case I'd just like to point out, before the conversation drifts that way, that we need to choose our words carefully when making accusations against people and companies, lest we be accused of defamation (my concern isn't with you, it's with the person who would get the lawyer's letter - our host here).


----------



## Ostrozac

I am a complete outsider to the navy -- so my opinion is what it is. But I am a firm believer that quality products sell themselves, and that we should get value for the money we spend. Value, to me, means that we spend taxpayer's money and get equivalent firepower in return. If your factory, shipyard, boot company or rucksack sewing consortium makes a quality product, then it sells itself. If you make a substandard product, then it doesn't matter where we make it, or how many jobs it creates, it's still a substandard product.

Danes and Brits are walking around in harm's way right now with rifles made in Kitchener. Saudis are driving around in vehicles made in London. So I have no fundamental objections if the next generation of RCN warships is made in, for example, Wisconsin.

If Canadian shipyards are building high quality warships (AOPS, JSS and SCSC) then great. And we should also be selling them worldwide. I notice that nobody else in the world bought a Halifax class. I wonder why no one extended the production line after 1996? Canada alone is a pretty small market, and if made in Canada vessels are not going to be marketable in the world market, maybe we should just be buying off the shelf?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Quality has little to do with it, most countries with active navies also have a ship building industry and politicians and they balk just as loudly at billions going overseas that could garner jobs and votes back at home.


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Sure, it's fine to have a crew of 13.  Until something major breaks at sea or you have an engineering emergency (fire/flood) or you go into action.  You've also neglected to account for daily maintenance of the vessel and it's components.  The various systems (weapons, engineering, logistics) have their requirements in manpower to make it go.
> 
> I'll agree that the IPMS systems being integrated into the HCM refits will (in theory) allow for a reduction in watch personnel to oversee the engineering needs in the MCR and is a reflection of technology marching forwards into the sunny 21st Century.  It *is* possible that one person could run the whole show from one location, in theory.  I don't know if they could effectively monitor all the systems and pages with one pair of eyes once all the bugs were worked out of the system and she could run as imagined/designed.  I know I damn well couldn't keep up with the necessary pages if all the different bells and whistles started going off at once.
> 
> I'm sorry but from my experience and POV, I just don't see the engineering side of the house being covered adequately by what would be a couple of guys full time.  Even if it was 1/3 of the compliment to be the whole engineering department (4.29 sailors) there's no way you'll have all the watches covered 24/7 and do the necessary maintenance (both corrective and planned) and mount an effective damage control team etc etc etc.
> 
> I'm sure that others from the different trades here both MSE, Combat and Logistics will be able to give additional input into this conversation.  From a Hull standpoint, I'm not convinced or comfortable with what you're proposing.



JJT:

I wanted to take my time getting back to you because I don't feel comfortable challenging those that have the T-shirts.  I respect and appreciate the answers that those of that ilk supply.  

On the other hand I continue to try to understand the difference between the operating conditions of the Navy vice my limited knowledge and experience of the Civilian world.

I can understand the need for hands when things go pear-shaped, and trained hands at that.  It makes sense to me that a Combat vessel will require more bodies than a "ruddy great barge".   Equally it makes sense to me that sonar, radar, comms and weapons systems will all require spares, repairs and maintenance, as well as operators.   Those also will drive manning upwards.

What I am wondering though resolves itself into two questions:

What is the minimum number of personnel necessary to operate a vessel?
What number or personnel are necessary to supply redundancy over and above that minimum?

My intent is to discover, for my own interest, if it is possible and desirable to design and operate large ships with small crews safely.  The civilian world seems to supply examples of success in that regard.  

The Maersk ships operate with crews of 13 to 19 while at sea for 270 days out of the year and only in port while trans-shipping loads.  Those ships have a design life of 25 to 30 years.  

At the other end of the spectrum are factory trawlers displacing 5000 to 10000 tonnes, recovering 150 tonne bags of fish over the stern 2 to 3 times a day and dumping them into wet holds (fish tanks).  That is done in some pretty high seas 24/7 for weeks, if not months, at a time. The wheelhouse, engine room and deck crews in total number on the order of 20 to 30 people.  Everybody else is down below cutting up fish.  Those ships are very gear intensive: from the nav and comms systems, to the fish finding sonar that can see a halibut on a sand bottom, to the cameras that can see the nets, to the trawl winches that allow the fish master to fly a net as wide as a 747 a mile or so behind him and control the location and shape of its mouth.  And I haven't addressed my part of ship:  all the conveyors and pumps and fish filleting machines; the fish meal and oil plants and the surimi (japanese fish paste) systems; the RO water systems.  Those systems keep another 70 or so "passengers" employed 24/7, again for weeks and months at a time.

The desire for the small crew comes from: my sense that recruiting sailors, especially engineers, is a challenge; that those that are available are a valuable commodity; that small crews permit the available personnel to be spread across a larger fleet that can be in more places simultaneously and be performing more tasks;  and finally, that small crews reduce the number of lives that are put at risk on any one platform.

Corollaries to the last are that small crews can be evacuated more easily, are less likely to suffer casualties when distributed around a large volume than compressed into a small volume and additional vessels means that rescue is more likely to be close at hand.

At least so it seems to me.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The question you've posed Kirkhill is more akin to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".  Each class of vessel will have it's own unique requirements for manpower and equipment as per it's mission statement and design.

With future ships I have no doubt that the requirements for manpower if it came down to brass tacks will have to reduce as you will be able to do more with less.  The civilian ships you're compairing with are; however, built to civilian specifications for civilian uses and requirements.  I suppose for me it's a trust issue.  I don't "trust" present systems to the point where I would trust my life to their flawless operation.

Things fail, break and default on a regular basis.  But then, ships are like new cars.  They all work just fine when new, but as they get older they nickle and dime you to death and the friggin things have major breakdowns when you least need and expect it.  Murphy is a bitch.

From my experience as I've experienced it we are continually doing mostly corrective maintenance, rarely get a chance to do planned maintenance as scheduled on top of all the other hoops we need to jump through on a daily basis.  Perhaps your merchantmen are more basic in design and loadout and thus don't have the requirements our present fleet have in minders.  I also suspect that many of your civilian crews are also geared towards just sailing to the next port and don't have a great deal of concurrent activity until it's time to unload cargo and take on new stores/cargo.  It is also entirely possible that we are even so in some departments heavier than we need to be if you really push it.  I cannot and won't speak for the other departments, but for mine it seems as if there's never enough to go around to do all we need to do.  Lastly, we do have the built in (to the system) requirement for redundancy more often than not.

But at the end of the day, I'm just at the coal face so to speak.  The big picture is not part of my viewplane and the decisions of future fleet requirements are far above my pay grade and for every one you ask you'll no doubt get a different answer.  Or, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  Your question is nevertheless a good one and I'm sure someone, somewhere, is giving it serious consideration.


----------



## Kirkhill

I thought I would add some detail to the factory trawlers I was familiar with.

These were designed by Guido Perla for Norwegian clients operating out of Seattle:

Northern Hawk
Northern Jaeger
Northern Eagle
Alaska Ocean

Here is the Ulstein Group's information on the Hawk, Eagle and Ocean as well as another vessel I know, American Dynasty

Alaska Ocean
Northern Hawk
Northern Eagle
American Dynasty

A similar vessel, the American Monarch, was built in the late 90s at a fully outfitted cost of $68,000,000


----------



## RC

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Good enough (though I note the many ways in which someone with something to hide could weasel-word their way around my specific question). That being the case I'd just like to point out, before the conversation drifts that way, that we need to choose our words carefully when making accusations against people and companies, lest we be accused of defamation (my concern isn't with you, it's with the person who would get the lawyer's letter - our host here).



Hopefully my comments did not come off as anything more than idle speculation as that's all that they are.  I find it presumptuous of you to assume that they are in any way sour grapes.  I do have an interest in AOPS, but it is finished now and my comments derive from the fact that I would really like to see the program be successful, not because I compete with Irving in any way; i don't.  Quite frankly, i take offense to your insinuation that I'm taking cheap shots at them to advance my own interests.  I'm giving my opinion on a topic that interests me and that 
I know something about, nothing more.

Is this not a thread for discussing NSPS?  My interest, as it seems is others, is to see good ships get built.  I'll add that I certainly do want to see them built in Canada provided it makes sense to do so.  The theory behind NSPS was to make it make sense to do so, but in opinion, Irving is not marching to that beat and does not seem interested in doing so.  I don't want to lobby against them, I don't want to see them fail.  Quite the opposite.  I want to see them be wildly successful and build eight AOPS, followed by a successful CSC program and build a successful maritime industry, but I fear that this will not be the case given the current direction.

Ok, rant over.  I see what you are saying about psyops/lobbying wreaking havoc on a program and that is not my intent by posting my opinion on an anonymous message board.  Sorry if it came off that way.


----------



## RC

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I can understand the need for hands when things go pear-shaped, and trained hands at that.  It makes sense to me that a Combat vessel will require more bodies than a "ruddy great barge".   Equally it makes sense to me that sonar, radar, comms and weapons systems will all require spares, repairs and maintenance, as well as operators.   Those also will drive manning upwards.
> 
> What I am wondering though resolves itself into two questions:
> 
> What is the minimum number of personnel necessary to operate a vessel?
> What number or personnel are necessary to supply redundancy over and above that minimum?
> 
> My intent is to discover, for my own interest, if it is possible and desirable to design and operate large ships with small crews safely.  The civilian world seems to supply examples of success in that regard.



Kirkhill, i'm no expert in military manning either, but my understanding of the difference is that the navy has two fundamental requirements that civvy ships don't have: 

One is that everything works as intended all the time.  On a merchant ship you do failure mode analysis and build redundancy into systems and crewing to make sure that you keep running, but at any one time, you might have a number of things that are broken.  That's fine as long as the broken bits friends are still up and running.  On a Navy ship, that's not an option.  You need to constantly have the redundancy available.  So if something breaks it needs to be fixed right away to ensure that if its partner subsequently breaks the ship isn't placed in danger.  In short, on a civilian ship, redundancy is there to be used, but on a navy ship it is there as life insurance and must always be available.  A civilian ship will fly in a tech from shore to fix things after a week, but a navy must do it themselves and do it right now.

Two, I think you touched on, but if things go bad on a civilian ship (severe fire, flood), you abandon the ship, no question about it.  The opposite is true on a navy ship.  Thus, the crew numbers must be there to ensure that if things go bad and in some cases, really, really bad, they keep on fighting to save the ship until they just can't anymore.

I'm not quite clear if you are trying to rationalize the crewing requirements of a large civilian ship, or the cost differential of the hull for large civilian ships vs. naval ships, but in either case, the two differences above account for most of the delta as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, I had an interesting discussion with one of the designers of the FREMM about why they had gone with a more civilian style hull on those ships.  His argument was that weapons have developed to the point that the hull has little role in protecting the ship.  If you get hit you are finished.  Thus, it makes sense to save money on the hull and invest it in other defensive measures that prevent you from being hit in the first place.  His opinion seems to be that naval hull design is outmoded by weapons technology, so you may be on to something if he is right.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Coincidentally enough, there is a thread on another forum I frequent which is touching on many common points regarding the Queen Elizabeth class carriers being built for the RN. They are moreso toward the end of the thread.
http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4334


----------



## Kirkhill

RC said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> I'm not quite clear if you are trying to rationalize the crewing requirements of a large civilian ship, or the cost differential of the hull for large civilian ships vs. naval ships, but in either case, the two differences above account for most of the delta as far as I can tell.
> 
> .....



I think I am just trying to understand the future requirement for a naval vessel, both with respect to the nature of a suitable platform for specific roles as well as the size of the crew necessary.   My understanding is that two of the limiting factors in fleet design are available manpower and the associated costs as well as the classification of the builds.   As I looked for information I saw what I perceived as a significant delta growing between the USN and its practices and the Europeans and their practices in the time frame since Canada built the CPFs.  The RN seems to be straddling the divide but even it is moving towards the Europeans and away from the USN.  The Aussies and the Kiwis?  They always do things differently anyways - I think it comes from standing on their heads.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for the link Pat.

51 pages will take a bit of going through.

It is interesting to note that the opening comment makes reference to the need for 12,000 PYs to man the RNs two CVFs on the grounds that that is how the USN mans their CVNs.  CVN-77 apparently has a ships crew of about 3200 and an air wing of an additional 2400 or so, depending on source.

The RNs CVFs will have total accommodation for about 1600 to 1800 with a ships crew of 600 or so.  The rest are for the air wing and for C2 staff.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

RC said:
			
		

> Kirkhill, i'm no expert in military manning either, but my understanding of the difference is that the navy has two fundamental requirements that civvy ships don't have:
> 
> One is that everything works as intended all the time.  On a merchant ship you do failure mode analysis and build redundancy into systems and crewing to make sure that you keep running, but at any one time, you might have a number of things that are broken.  That's fine as long as the broken bits friends are still up and running.  On a Navy ship, that's not an option.  You need to constantly have the redundancy available.  So if something breaks it needs to be fixed right away to ensure that if its partner subsequently breaks the ship isn't placed in danger.  In short, on a civilian ship, redundancy is there to be used, but on a navy ship it is there as life insurance and must always be available.  A civilian ship will fly in a tech from shore to fix things after a week, but a navy must do it themselves and do it right now.
> 
> Two, I think you touched on, but if things go bad on a civilian ship (severe fire, flood), you abandon the ship, no question about it.  The opposite is true on a navy ship.  Thus, the crew numbers must be there to ensure that if things go bad and in some cases, really, really bad, they keep on fighting to save the ship until they just can't anymore.
> 
> I'm not quite clear if you are trying to rationalize the crewing requirements of a large civilian ship, or the cost differential of the hull for large civilian ships vs. naval ships, but in either case, the two differences above account for most of the delta as far as I can tell.
> 
> On the other hand, I had an interesting discussion with one of the designers of the FREMM about why they had gone with a more civilian style hull on those ships.  His argument was that weapons have developed to the point that the hull has little role in protecting the ship.  If you get hit you are finished.  Thus, it makes sense to save money on the hull and invest it in other defensive measures that prevent you from being hit in the first place.  His opinion seems to be that naval hull design is outmoded by weapons technology, so you may be on to something if he is right.



As I recall many of our naval ships suffered complete failures of their main gun armament, include HMCS Restigouche 3"/70 turret being jammed while arresting the drug boat. I have to wonder at the limited amount of armament on our ships compared to what you would see on a similar Soviet ship. As for the hull not counting for much, I guess that depends on what hits you, a torpedo under the keel will ruin most ships days, but lesser munitions can be contained by compartmentalization and good damage control systems. I often wondered how a Tiger class cruiser would have fared against Exocet's in the Falklands


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm not sure but I believe that the best form of compartmentalization is a separate hull.

250 sailors in one hull with one gun or three hulls and guns with 50 sailors each, sailing in company, and use the savings in hull costs and PYs to finance to the cost of automation.

With respect to the maturity of automation and can it be trusted?

You can trust it with your mother-in-law and Las Vegas gamblers.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/04/02/watch-someones-mother-in-law-get-a-fit-of-nervous-giggles-in-googles-driverless-car/
http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/05/08/google-gets-first-self-driven-car-licence-in-nevada/

Can you trust it to close doors and valves and turn on pumps?

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/gseas/TSSE/docs/projects/1996/automation_for_reduced_manning.pdf

and thanks to Thucydides for the last link -  I note that the presentation was based on 1996 automation (17 years ago).


----------



## Navy_Pete

Automation can result in minor crew savings on the engineer side, but you have to realize that there is a huge difference between how commercial ships operate and what a navy ship does.

For example, your typical container ship has one purpose; to go from point A to point B.  They have a few people to pilot it, a few pople to monitor to plant, and a few support staff and other misc folks.

Something like a frigate is manned based on some kind of worse case scenario for what kinds of roles it plays.  For example, you may need 25 folks (random number) to drive the boat, man the mostly automated combat systems, and watch the plant.  So to operate that in three shifts to cover 24 hours (I know it's not that actual watch rotation) that's 75 people for your basic crew.

Then you look at a scenario where you are doing that, plus adding in a security risk, so you have armed sentires and extra lookouts 24/7.  So say for argument sakes that adds 24 people.  Then while doing that you want to do things like send a boarding party onto another ship, so add another 30.  Then you want to add a helocopter, so between the air crew, a back up air crew, some maintainers, and your flight deck crew (firefighters etc) add another 20.  Now you have all this combat equipment, fancy radars, comms gear etc, so add another 20 for maintainers.  Somewhere along the way you are probably also taking on fuel at sea and doing a few other things as well.

All these crew numbers were pretty arbitrary, and actually lower then a real crew, but I think you get the point.  You can automate monitoring/operating of equipment (which it is) but that is only a fraction of what we do; the hull is basically to get sailors and their gear somewhere so they can get a mission done.

That's the big difference.  Everytime you add anything more then going from point A to point B, you add in crew to operate and maintain it.  That's why a navy ship can go from drug interdictions and maritime surveillance ops, to a search and resuce of a stranded vessel, then head on out to do some humanitarian assistance without ever changing crew or equipment.

Incidentally, for damage control, don't know any sailors that have had to deal with a missile hit, but most folks have a story or two of some kind of small fire or minor flood that happens just with normal sailing around and some are unfortunate to have seen a major event.  That also drives crew sizes due to our SOPs for doing DC.

Could we reduce crew sizes?  Absolutely!  Would that limit what the ships could do?  Absolutely.  It's all a bit of a balancing act, and driven by what the government wants the ships to be capable of.


----------



## Navy_Pete

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Here ya go: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/opepubs/tbm_162/gptbs-gppct-eng.pdf - you can start at page 54.
> 
> This is the only way that federal government procurement projects are costed, since about the early 2000s.



These things get really complicated very quickly; pretty sure costs are for the delivery of the sihps with all the gear, ammunition etc onboard, plus spares for so many years, plus all the tech manuals, trainers, initial training etc plus any associated infrastrucutre.  So basically the ships in turn key condition, with all the spare parts and a crew of sailors trained to use it.

Including things like crew costs, fuel, food etc over the lifetime of the ships would be a much higher number, a WAG, and kind of meaningless.  Try doing it with a car sometime;  look at the sticker price, then add in fuel, maintenance, parts, insurance and give yourself an arbitrary salary for all the time you spend driving it.  Even ignoring inflation and increasing fuel costs, probably easily taking a $25k car into the six figure range.


----------



## AlexanderM

Lasers on US ships is already happening, just Google it.  And here's an article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223193/U-S-Navy-just-years-away-arming-warships-laser-weapons-capable-destroying-incoming-missiles-aircraft.html

By the time our ships hit the water I want a laser defence system that'l pick a quarter off the moon.  lol

And let's not forget this puppy.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45465025/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/new-vehicle-laser-blows-everything/


----------



## Halifax Tar

donaldk said:
			
		

> Basically to summarize the Minister of National Defence released a statement on the conservative's proposed new ship building strategy.
> 
> Summary: $35B proposed to create two national ship yards to build military and civilian government vessels over the next 30 years, with consideration to eliminate boom-bust cycles.
> 
> Linkage:
> http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/06/03/mackay-shipbuilding-cansec.html
> 
> What do you guys think?  I think it is a step in the right direction. Let the debate begin...  >



We need to stop believing everything the CF uses must be Canadian manufactured.  I will say it again we are not here to be an employment strategy.  If country X has platform Y that meets our requirements within our budget it should be a no brain-er to acquire that platform.  

Why do we need to reinvent the wheel everytime we buy things, from raincoats to ships. 

Admittedly that stance will not win you votes in Levis, Halifax or Vancouver.


----------



## YZT580

Use someone else's design by all means.  As you say, there is no need to re-invent the wheel but there is a lot to be said for building them here.  When you pay to build them elsewhere, you are actually paying twice: once for the article and again in unemployment benefits for the canadian who hasn't got the job building your article.  Such an approach is not however a license for Canadian corporations to steal: prices must be realistic which, if we weren't always designing one offs  probably would be.


----------



## Navy_Pete

To buy ships from another country would mean a change in govt policy as well; currently Canada officially shall not build ships outside Canada.  For the NSPS, aside from DND, the Coast Guard and PWGSC, Industry Canada is also involved.

To me, would make the most financial sense to buy an existing design off an ally, have the hull/power plant built somewhere else if it made financial sense, then sail them back to Canada and outfit them with the combat suite, which is now pretty much plug and play.

USN ships don't really fit with how we operate as a navy (huge manning requirements), but most of the european ships would.

The majority of the money is spent on operating and maintaining ships, but no one has the political balls to try and sell that.

I'm a huge supporter of the concept of keeping industrial capability in Canada; my issue with this is that there isn't the same strategic attention being paid to our ability to manufacture the raw materials (steel plating, piping, valves etc).  We no longer have the industrial base to make the components, so while they are running around screaming about building ships, most of the parts are made outside of Canada.  Drive through Hamilton, Welland, Oshawa etc any time and take a look at how many of the smaller producers are left and not replaced by McMansion developments for retired boomers (same thing for farmland, but that's completely off topic).


----------



## mad dog 2020

Courtesy of CBC 20 April 2013


NEW
French pitch new warships for next Canadian navy vessels
The Canadian Press
Last Updated: Apr 20, 2013 18:17 ET

The French Navy FREMM Class frigate Aquitaine rests at berth in Halifax on Saturday, April 20, 2013. The Paris-based naval contractor DCNS wants Canada to consider the frigates for the Canadian Surface Combatant program. Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press

France showcased its latest warship to the federal defence minister Saturday in Halifax, as the Royal Canadian Navy considers options for designs of its next generation of combat vessels.

Peter MacKay toured the 142-metre Fremm-class vessel Aquitaine, viewing the command-and-control systems on the bridge, as well as its engine rooms and missile systems.

MacKay said he came away impressed with the way the ship had centralized consoles for communications, sonar detection and navigation in the bridge area.

"I have never seen… such an impressive vessel," he said.

The vessel built by French-based DCNS was launched last fall and is being tested with a crew of 94 — less than half the complement of the French navy's previous generation of destroyers.

'I have never seen… such an impressive vessel' — Defence Minister Peter MacKay
The publicly owned firm is pitching the vessel as a cheaper design due to a higher level of automation, reducing the need for crew during missions and allowing space for more comfortable living and working quarters than prior French ships.

Capt. Benoit Rouviere, the warship's commander, said the ship costs less to operate and has a crew that performs at a higher level due to the design changes.

"We put a bit more money into buying the ship, but over the life cycle we are trying to save a lot of money," he said in an interview.

MacKay said he's viewing the latest in foreign vessels as Ottawa decides what designs it will use for Canada's next combat vessels.

"The… reason we are taking the time to tour ships such as the Aquitaine is to look at the capabilities of partners, serious navies like the French, to determine the best fit for Canada," he said.

The federal government has chosen Irving Shipyard in Halifax and Seaspan Marine in British Columbia to build vessels for its 20-year, $35-billion National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.

Representatives for DCNS told reporters that the publicly owned firm is interested in bidding on designs and components of Canada's new combat vessels once the federal government provides details on what it is looking for.

Olivier Casenave-Pere, Canadian director for DCNS, said an adapted, off-the-shelf design may save Canadian taxpayers money.

"You will benefit from ships for which studies and developments have already been paid by the French government," he said.

However, he said it's difficult to estimate what the potential cost savings would be without knowing the Canadian navy's design specifications.
© The Canadian Press 2013


----------



## AlexanderM

I do really like the look of the FREMM, but then it's an entirely different set of missles.

Anyone care to comment on the Aster missle system vs the American missle's, ESSM, SM-2, etc?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I do really like the look of the FREMM, but then it's an entirely different set of missles.
> 
> Anyone care to comment on the Aster missle system vs the American missle's, ESSM, SM-2, etc?



Not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that there are two primary differences:
Aster Series = Active Homing and Kinetic Kill
ESSM/SM2 = Semi-Active Homing (that's why you see Fire Control Directors like Ceros on ESSM/SM-2 ships but not on ships like FREMM) and they have large explosive warheads

The arguments I've read as to which is superior so far appears to be mostly hypotheticals as I think most people who know real capabilities are paid to keep their mouth shut.  

The arguments for/against each type I thought were interesting though:
For the Aster Series - The argument is you can pop a bunch of missiles up quickly, and get them released in the direction of the target(s) much faster than missiles requiring radar directors for terminal lock.
For the ESSM/SM - The argument is that the power you can generate on a ship and the energy you can therefore push through a radar director is orders of magnitude greater than what you could ever hope to generate from a battery on an active homing missile.  Additionally, whether a real or false concerns, with semi-active homing the use of Fire Control Directors like Ceros is supposed to be safer for your escorting naval aviation (helicopters).  With active homing, if you pop up a missile and release it too quickly it could pick-up your ASW helicopter and you could have a real problem. With ESSM/SM and Fire Control Directors, if it's not painted, it's not a target.  Not a problem.

That's all I've got going from memory....if anyone else can elaborate, have at it.  I haven't read a lot on testing against supersonic targets which is probably the most relevant data at this point.


Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## The Bread Guy

And we have a winner in the "who's going to take a second look at NSPS?" sweepstakes!


> The Government of Canada today announced the selection of KPMG, from Toronto, Ontario, to provide support as a third-party expert for upcoming National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) projects. This contract is part of the Government of Canada’s commitment to apply smart procurement’s guiding principles during the NSPS process.
> 
> This task-based, three-year contract, with an option to extend for up to ten years, was awarded with an initial estimated value of $500,000. The total contract value will be adjusted over time as new work packages are identified and approved. The contract will enable assistance with the NSPS projects, including:
> 
> support to Canada’s contract negotiations, which may include providing advice and/or opinions regarding industry trends, norms and standard practices;
> assessment of cost proposals related to project implementation; and
> provision of advice on procurement and project management activities.
> 
> ( .... )


----------



## Acer Syrup

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And we have a winner in the "who's going to take a second look at NSPS?" sweepstakes!



So the middleman (PWGSC) just hired a middleman for half a million? Isn't that why PWGSC has 10,000 employees and a budget of 4 billion dollars annually?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes but being civil Servants, they can't be trusted to provide the correct messaging.

I see Seaspan is hoping to have capacity to bid on the newly announced ferry replacement program for BC ferries. the problem for Seaspan is they can't know what capacity they have until the government tells them exactly what they want and which class comes first.

Once the ship building gets into full swing, it's going to make it much harder for pipeline companies to find good welders. I suspect many will take slightly less pay for secure shift work in an urban area, rather than laying in a frozen pipe somewhere North of Nowhere.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yes but being civil Servants, they can't be trusted to provide the correct messaging.
> 
> I see Seaspan is hoping to have capacity to bid on the newly announced ferry replacement program for BC ferries. the problem for Seaspan is they can't know what capacity they have until the government tells them exactly what they want and which class comes first.
> 
> Once the ship building gets into full swing, it's going to make it much harder for pipeline companies to find good welders. I suspect many will take slightly less pay for secure shift work in an urban area, rather than laying in a frozen pipe somewhere North of Nowhere.



It is already hard to find good welders.  Stainless steel welders are very difficult to find.  I have seen black iron fab shops offering jobs to farm kids that learned how to weld in their Dad's barn.


----------



## AlexanderM

I am really starting to like this Iver Huitfeldt design.  The missile bay looks very flexible.  There are a load of pictures on this site.

http://forsvaret.dk/FMT/Materiel/Skibe/Fregatter/Foto/Pages/default.aspx


----------



## jollyjacktar

Very sexy.


----------



## Good2Golf

As an entirely un-Navy guy, I like its looks more than a Type 45.  Do they have the same/similar search radars?


----------



## AlexanderM

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As an entirely un-Navy guy, I like its looks more than a Type 45.  Do they have the same/similar search radars?


Type 45 has Sampson system, plus Smart-L, whereas the Iver has APAR and Smart-L.  APAR is a good system, we don't need to have Sampson.  Also, there are a number of navies out there using the APAR/Smart-L combo, including Germany.  Everyone seems to be happy as far as I know.


----------



## Good2Golf

It was SMART-L I was seeing as the same...aft LR volume search.  

Interesting debate between BAE and Thales regarding the SAMSON is/isn't better than APAR....I'm not convinced that BAE's "SAMSON sees every part of the sky at least once a second" argument holds as much water against APAR...perhaps the light weight and higher up the mast for greater range is somewhat valid, but APAR is pretty high up the mast already and as folks know, an AESA radar can be looking continuously at any sector of the sky if it has overlapping antennas.  APAR has more graceful degradation than SAMSON IMO....all it takes is one antenna rotation motor to fail and SAMSON is a two array vice four array system, with some blind sidelobes depending on where the motor failed.

Regards
G2G


----------



## AlexanderM

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It was SMART-L I was seeing as the same...aft LR volume search.
> 
> Interesting debate between BAE and Thales regarding the SAMSON is/isn't better than APAR....I'm not convinced that BAE's "SAMSON sees every part of the sky at least once a second" argument holds as much water against APAR...perhaps the light weight and higher up the mast for greater range is somewhat valid, but APAR is pretty high up the mast already and as folks know, an AESA radar can be looking continuously at any sector of the sky if it has overlapping antennas.  APAR has more graceful degradation than SAMSON IMO....all it takes is one antenna rotation motor to fail and SAMSON is a two array vice four array system, with some blind sidelobes depending on where the motor failed.
> 
> Regards
> G2G


I saw a program on the Type 45 a couple years ago, when the ship was participating in a war games excercise of some kind.  They picked up targets on Sampson but couldn't identify if they were friend of foe.  So there they were, the officers on the bridge, outside looking through binoculars trying to identify the aircraft.  I thought, what's the good of the air search system if they can't identify the aircraft?  The ship was pretty new so perhaps they have sorted out the target recognition issues but if not then yikes.  You have this highly advanced air search radar that should be sold with binoculars???


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Whether APAR or SAMPSON, the situation you described as arising during the EX would likely have occurred. At long range you will pick up civilian planes that either don't get painted sufficiently to trigger the transponder response or smaller private planes not required to carry transponder. Even with transponder, ID at long range is not always easy: Talk to the crew of USS Vincennes. This uncertainty is something we have to live with. In case of open war with a defined area of combat, this will go away as anyone would enter the airspace at their own risk - and civilian airliners usually don't take those risks. In training, well, we can't close airspace around exercises all the time, now can we.

BTW, my favourite part of those pics of the IVER HUITFELDT you posted is different than everyone else, I think: I like the picture of the quad-cabin. The use of light tone wood for the bunks, furniture and bookshelves gives the place a more homely look , as opposed to our "utilitarian" use of metal. To me its just something I would enjoy and it would make me feel like the ship was designed and built by people that understand they are manned by humans that go away from home for long periods of time - not by automatons that are just another part of the machine.


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Whether APAR or SAMPSON, the situation you described as arising during the EX would likely have occurred...



Concur, for all the reasons you note, OGBD.  In real life, ROE would supplement the e-PID capabilities.  Valid point about AEGIS (Vincennes), but I can't help but think there were a number of factors contributing to that event.

Generically, will SSC have  a dual MFR/ASR configuration?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, in the Vincennes incident there were human factors (what a surprise), but as long as we have humans involved in the decision to fire/not fire at a target (and in my mind, we should), human factors will come into play.

As for the configuration on the SCSC, I have been out of the loop for a while, so anyone else feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding was that the powers that be were looking at the SMART L / APAR suite [they would have loved to be able to put on the FELEXed Halifax's], which would mean surveillance, tracking and directing from the APAR.

However, with the current "stretched" timeline before we see a hull in the water, something even better could come along - you never know.


----------



## Underway

Currently that's the plan from everything that I have heard.  How it will be mounted, with what missiles guns and other armament is up in the air.  The last most up to date thing I read/saw on the CSC was as follows.

APAR
SMART-L
Standard Nav radars
there was discussion on still mounting 2x FC radar similar to what the frigates use now, not sure why when you have APAR but there are probably some advantages that the APAR doesn't have (power?)
2x Millennial Gun (port and stbd)
1x 127mm ( now with GPS guided munitions!)
32 VLS
SM2 in the VLS (prob SM-6 now)
2x Phalanx block B CIWS (fore and aft)
Mk 46 torp tubes
6000-7000 tonnes


If the RCN wants to use the Aster 15/30 it works well with a rotating radar like SAMPSON / EMPAR,  while semi active SM2/ESSM requires a constant illumination of the target which APAR /SPY provides.  I don't know if the active radar of an Aster would work with APAR or not but it stands to reason that it probably would while the SM2 and ESSM require some sort of fire control from the ship.  SM-6 uses active and semi active sensors so might work with all radar types. 

I suppose your choice of weapons has quite a but to do with your choice of sensors.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Underway said:
			
		

> Currently that's the plan from everything that I have heard.  How it will be mounted, with what missiles guns and other armament is up in the air.  The last most up to date thing I read/saw on the CSC was as follows.
> 
> APAR
> SMART-L
> Standard Nav radars
> there was discussion on still mounting 2x FC radar similar to what the frigates use now, not sure why when you have APAR but there are probably some advantages that the APAR doesn't have (power?)
> 2x Millennial Gun (port and stbd)
> 1x 127mm ( now with GPS guided munitions!)
> 32 VLS
> SM2 in the VLS (prob SM-6 now)
> 2x Phalanx block B CIWS (fore and aft)
> Mk 46 torp tubes
> 6000-7000 tonnes
> 
> 
> If the RCN wants to use the Aster 15/30 it works well with a rotating radar like SAMPSON / EMPAR,  while semi active SM2/ESSM requires a constant illumination of the target which APAR /SPY provides.  I don't know if the active radar of an Aster would work with APAR or not but it stands to reason that it probably would while the SM2 and ESSM require some sort of fire control from the ship.  SM-6 uses active and semi active sensors so might work with all radar types.
> 
> I suppose your choice of weapons has quite a but to do with your choice of sensors.



Just curious of what source you read for this configuration?


----------



## AlexanderM

Keep in mind that with the IVER HUITFELDT you get the 32 vls cells, plus another 48 ESSM, which makes it a pretty nice package.  I was hoping for at least 48 vls cells but with the extra ESSM launchers it looks OK.  Plus all the flexibility of that missle deck.  Very sexy indeed!  I love the look of that ship!

Oh, and lasers, don't forget the lasers.  Not on the design but needs to be added, already on some US ships.  By the time our ships hit the water the ship defense lasers should be ready.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45465025/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/new-vehicle-laser-blows-everything/


Lasers on US warships.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23379-dronewrecking-laser-gun-to-sail-on-us-warship.html

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/04/08/future-is-now-navy-to-deploys-lasers-on-ships-in-2014/

These systems are mainly for taking out drones and boats, but once we see the 100 kilowatt systems and above they'll be able to hunt bigger game, such as incoming missiles I suspect.  I would still keep the point defence weapons, as in guns, but have both.


----------



## Kirkhill

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Oh, and lasers, don't forget the lasers.


  

Some people just can't resist picking at scabs......     

And by the way - given the time lines and their definitive nature you might want to start planning for the safe storage of photon torpedoes.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Some people just can't resist picking at scabs......
> 
> And by the way - given the time lines and their definitive nature you might want to start planning for the safe storage of photon torpedoes.


Did I mention that the missile deck is flexible?   ;D


----------



## Underway

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Just curious of what source you read for this configuration?



Ppt presentation on SCSC that I saw a couple years back.  Remember it pretty well as the millennial gun and FCR caught my eye as unique.  VLS and radar types are no big surprise as the navy has made no secret about wanting these, even considered the APAR for the FELEX.  However this info was before it morphed into CSC.  A lot of this info was also in the SCSC report.  Things like the 127mm were in there as support to forces ashore was a big deal in that report.

That being said the CSC project is a closed book.  I think the RCN is just running as fast as they can dealing with AORs, AOPS, HCM and the subs.  

What might be interesting is the design of the general purpose CSC.  We all know what a tribal replacement would probably look like, but what would a same hull GP ship look like.  Same radar perhaps, less VLS but with ESSM and Harpoons in them?  More ASW inboard?


----------



## Underway

Looked through the thread but didn't see a link to this interesting report from the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute:  NSPS Update

This in particular caught my eye:


> Backing away from NSPS contracts to pursue reportedly cheaper foreign options will also be difficult for
> the same legal and political reasons. To do so for reasons of saving money is particularly suspect despite the
> claims. Recently one author has asserted that the offshore ‘off the shelf’ option for ships would be “far and away
> the cheapest (and fastest) approach.”  Another has claimed that a made-in-Canada ship involves a 20% cost
> premium.  Neither critic accompanies these claims with evidence. Neither do they mention the detailed studies
> done on the topic—likely because the one conducted by DND’s audit arm concluded that the built-in-Canada
> Canadian Patrol Frigate ultimately cost only 7% more (roughly $28 million per ship) on average than seven
> other similarly sized foreign warships.  That 7% “at home” premium also created over 7,000 person-years of
> Canadian employment and established at least 12 Canadian companies that are still in business and exporting
> complex marine systems to such demanding customers as the United States, Israeli and Royal Navy today.  That
> same audit also considered the Canadian frigate the combat superior of every one of the foreign frigates studied
> save the one that it was ‘only‘ the combat equal to.  It also quoted Forecast International, a US publication
> which conducts an annual assessment of warship capability, which concluded:
> 
> After a very shaky start, mainly due to the long gap in Canadian warship construction, the Halifax
> class frigates have matured into fine warships. The lead ship of the class has been the subject of
> unstinting praise from the US Navy, following visits to American naval bases. HMCS Halifax is also
> regarded as being a very satisfactory and a well-conceived design by the British Royal Navy Directorate
> of Navy Construction.
> 
> More recently, a study commissioned by Industry Canada questioned similar doubtful claims of cheaper foreign
> shipyards and estimated that their products normally resulted in a 25% increase in in-service support costs after
> they were delivered.  These costs, by the way, are not insignificant and can easily equal 60% or more of the
> purchase cost. In addition, foreign firms have also been front and center recently in their readiness to demand
> more than was budgeted during both the earlier and current JSS projects while also disputing elements of our
> procurement processes



I find it completely fascinating that when you start actually doing audits and research the previous frigate program was not a horrible money pit.  Granted one needs to consider that the new shipbuilding may become that but it can be done effectively and properly.  It is also interesting to note that in service support cost increase with foreign buys of ships.  Of course the Halifax was built in a different time and there wasn't a global economy the same way as there is now.


----------



## Inquisitor

Underway said:
			
		

> This in particular caught my eye:
> I find it completely fascinating that when you start actually doing audits and research the previous frigate program was not a horrible money pit.



Depends on how one defines "Horrible money pit".  This may be a bit of topic but I recall an instance when Japan when evaluating snowplows rejected a one driver Caterpiller solution as non starter compared to their two operator, one to drive, one for the blade,  home grown solution since everyone knows that "Japanese snow is different". 

To get get back on track, the reason that most countries design a homegrown military *****  widget for example is they hope 1. that it will help their forces, 2. subordinate is t6hat they can recoup some of the development cost by offering it for export.

Since 2. does not seem to be on the table.  Instead of reinventing the wheel, I mean Surface combatant. Evaluate the options and chose the one that best meets your needs. 

For those that disagree, the Army stopped designing AFV' s with the BobCat. The RCAF with the Arrow.


----------



## Inquisitor

Should have included that both the Tribals and Halifax class were well over budget.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest suggestion, from a former Chief of Staff for PM Harper:  you get more, overall, buying international than you get going "buy Canadian" for big honkin' ships ....


> .... Given Canada’s integration into the global economy, it is time to reconsider how defence procurement serves economic policy. One way to do that is to link defence procurement to Canada’s international trade and investment efforts.
> 
> Since 2006, the Harper government launched and restarted free trade negotiations with many key trading partners. But few of those efforts have borne fruit. Perhaps the resupply ship procurement could serve as an experiment to try to conclude some of those negotiations. The Harper government could, for example, announce it will take bids from any shipyard in a country that has a free trade agreement with Canada as of April 1, 2014. American and Norwegian shipyards would immediately be eligible to bid, and both the EU and South Korea might find it valuable to ensure their shipyards were also eligible.
> 
> The economic benefits to Canada of concluding the Canada-EU and Canada-Korea trade two agreements are much larger than the benefits of building the ships in Canada. The federal government projects the entire NSPS — which involves more than just the resupply ships — will create about $2-billion in economic benefits per year. But similar projections predict the Canada-EU trade deal would benefit Canada to the tune of $12-billion per year. and the Canada-Korea agreeement, a further $1.6-billion per year ....


Although freer trade is a Conservative value, it would take mighty big political cojones to go this route - especially as an election creeps up.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> Should have included that both the Tribals and Halifax class were well over budget.



Does anyone have any data for this?

Anecdotally I was told that the last few Hfx ships were ahead of schedule and under budget, and that the overall project was under the total budget, even thought the first few ships were more expensive.

That made sense, as the first ship was the most expensive, and the rest got faster and cheaper as they learned how to do the modular build.

No idea about the Tribals, although odds are generally good the projected costs were underestimated for TRUMP.


----------



## AlexanderM

My memory is that the Halifax class was very expensive.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any data for this?
> 
> Anecdotally I was told that the last few Hfx ships were ahead of schedule and under budget, and that the overall project was under the total budget, even thought the first few ships were more expensive.
> 
> That made sense, as the first ship was the most expensive, and the rest got faster and cheaper as they learned how to do the modular build.
> 
> No idea about the Tribals, although odds are generally good the projected costs were underestimated for TRUMP.


As I posted above the Halifax were right in the ball park for frigate programs at the time.  They were not significantly over budget.  However the way the govt does accounting now is significantly different.


----------



## AlexanderM

I remember thinking, when they were built, about how expensive they were, wish we could find the actual numbers somewhere.


----------



## Halifax Tar

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/26/petrolekas-and-perry-buy-this-ship/

Very interesting...


----------



## Kirkhill

Maybe the Dutch could load it up with the 44 CV90s they want to get rid of as well as the additional 63 they bought but apparently didn't take delivery on.  (107 CV90s for those counting).


----------



## The Bread Guy

Stand by for an announcement Monday morning Vancouver time:


> The Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, will make an important announcement about shipbuilding.
> Date: 	Monday, October 7, 2013
> Time: 	9:00 a.m.
> Location:
> 
> Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards
> 50 Pemberton Avenue
> North Vancouver, British Columbia
> 
> Also participating are:
> 
> the Honourable Kellie Leitch, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women;
> the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Industry; and
> John Weston, Member of Parliament for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast–Sea to Sky Country ....



Don't know if it's related, but 2 hours later, reporters get to read some documents in Ottawa about "a new Defence initiative" and get to talk to people they're not allowed to identify.


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Stand by for an announcement Monday morning Vancouver time


And here it is ....


> The Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, joined by the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Industry and Regional Minister for British Columbia, today announced that Vancouver Shipyards will be building up to 10 additional large non-combat ships for the Canadian Coast Guard fleet at an estimated cost of $3.3 billion.
> 
> Minister Finley made the announcement during a visit to Vancouver Shipyards, which was selected to build the non-combat package of vessels through the Government’s National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS).
> 
> “The decision supports the long-term benefits of the Government’s National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy in creating a sustainable shipbuilding industry once again here in Canada,” said Minister Finley.
> 
> “The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy is a key priority of the Harper Government as we create jobs and generate significant economic benefits in shipbuilding and other industries all across Canada,” added Minister Finley. “Today’s announcement illustrates our commitment to eliminating boom and bust cycles, while providing best value for taxpayers, and ensuring affordable and timely delivery of ships.”
> 
> This significant investment will enable the Coast Guard to acquire up to five Medium Endurance Multi-Tasked Vessels and up to five Offshore Patrol Vessels ....





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Don't know if it's related, but 2 hours later, reporters get to read some documents in Ottawa about "a new Defence initiative" and get to talk to people they're not allowed to identify.


Still have to wait and see....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So is that before or after they figure out the support ship or icebreaker issue?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> So is that before or after they figure out the support ship or icebreaker issue?


I wonder if the CF/DND technical briefing is all about that side of the shipbuilding coin?


----------



## Privateer

Announced:  Joint Support Ships to be built before Polar Icebreaker:  http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=780089&crtr.tp1D=1



> GATINEAU, Quebec, October 11, 2013 – The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) Secretariat today announced that Vancouver Shipyards will commence construction on the Joint Support Ships, followed by the Polar Icebreaker, under the NSPS non-combat package. It is expected that construction will begin in late 2016.
> 
> ...
> 
> As a result of this decision, the Canadian Coast Guard is taking the necessary measures to keep the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent in service until the Polar Icebreaker is delivered.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I bet the CCG is feverishly planning how to reduce the usage of the Louie to preserve it for Northern ops and reduce usage below the 60°. They could lease a another smaller icebreaker to use in the southern climes on the east coast.


----------



## yoman

> *Shipbuilding scheduling conflict means taxpayers on the hook for an extra $55-million*
> Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News
> 
> OTTAWA — Canadian taxpayers will be forced to shell out an extra $55-million due to a scheduling conflict in the federal government’s national shipbuilding strategy, senior officials have confirmed.
> 
> At the same time, Canada’s navy will be forced to rely on its allies for up to two years to provide it with “essential” resupply capabilities, during which time its ability to conduct independent maritime operations will be dramatically reduced.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard have been in fits in recent months as each has major shipbuilding projects scheduled to be ready for construction at the same time in the coming years.
> 
> But the Vancouver shipyard slated to build them can only handle one project at a time, meaning work on either the navy’s new resupply ships or the coast guard’s new heavy icebreaker will have to be delayed.
> 
> On Friday, the government announced the resupply ships will be built first, and that construction of the icebreaker will be pushed back several years.
> 
> As a result, the government will have to spend an additional $55-million to keep the coast guard’s existing heavy icebreaker, the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, in the water until its replacement is in the water in 2022.
> 
> The 44-year-old St-Laurent was due to be retired in 2017.
> 
> “We’re going to have to do some work on her pretty well every year to keep her operational through the summer seasons in the Arctic and the winter seasons during our icebreaking season in the south,” an official said of the St-Laurent during a technical briefing.
> 
> *Despite going with the new resupply ships first, officials also confirmed that the navy’s existing resupply vessels, HMCS Protecteur and Preserver, will be retired around 2017 — two years before their replacements are ready.*
> 
> That will leave a gap of 18 to 24 months during which the navy will be forced to rely on its allies when it comes to carrying extra fuel, spare parts and even extra helicopters on overseas missions.
> 
> That will essentially eliminate the navy’s ability to conduct extended naval operations on its own.
> 
> Exacerbating the problem is another delay — described by one official as “a bit of a slip” — that will push back construction of the resupply ships from 2015 to late 2016, at the earliest.
> 
> The officials, who cannot be named because of Conservative government rules, said they knew several years ago there might be a scheduling conflict between the new resupply vessels and icebreaker.
> 
> However, they sought to avoid responsibility for any mismanagement, though they did not say what led to the scheduling conflict in the first place.
> 
> “We did everything possible to eliminate any conflict,” one said. “It was a known risk. As it became a fact, we started to work on it.”
> 
> Plans to acquire new resupply ships were initially announced in 2004, with an expectation that a contract for three ships would be awarded in 2008 and the first delivered in 2012.
> 
> However, the plan was scrapped in 2009 after industry reported the $2.1-billion budget set aside by the Conservative government was insufficient.
> 
> The budget is now $2.6-billion, and officials say they only expect to be able to purchase two new vessels.
> 
> The new icebreaker, which has been christened the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, is expected to cost $720-million. Officials said they are confident that budget will be sufficient despite the delay in construction.
> 
> The Conservative government has held up the $38-billion national shipbuilding plan as a glowing success story that will re-energize Canada’s Navy and Coast Guard, while simultaneously creating thousands of jobs on both coasts and transforming Canada into a world-class shipbuilding nation.
> 
> However, an auditor general’s report to be released this fall on the federal government’s vaunted national shipbuilding plan is expected to raise concerns about the way the overall budget was set, and argue the money is not nearly enough to do what the government has promised.
> 
> That will again put the Conservative government’s reputation for being strong fiscal managers and champions of Canada’s military under the gun — though this time with thousands of jobs in Vancouver and Halifax on the line.


http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/11/shipbuilding-scheduling-conflict-means-taxpayers-on-the-hook-for-an-extra-55-million/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sheesh it's been public knowledge for quite some time that both needed to be replaced asap and that only 1 could be started first, it's not a big secret and it's the end result of many governments mismanaging the fleets in a irresponsible manner.  I not sure anyone could have done a better job on such a hot potato issue such as this.


----------



## MilEME09

Just out of Curiosity, Can they only build one at a time due to space? or lack of workers?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile a private Canadian shipping company can get an icebreaker from Japan in about a year:
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1599

Go figure.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Monsoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Meanwhile a private Canadian shipping company can get an icebreaker from Japan in about a year:
> http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1599
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Yeah, it's a real mystery why the NSPS Secretariat, _whose explicit purpose is to develop Canada' maritime industrial infrastructure by providing a stream of steady work over the course of decades_, wouldn't have recommended the government go with the buy-in-Japan option.  :


----------



## MarkOttawa

The secretariat has no say in the matter.  Build-in-Canada is the policy of this--and any other gov't--regardless of how ridiculously expensive and perishgly slow it be.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

Now i'm not an expert but it sounds like our industries just aren't built up to be able to deliver these kind of ships in a timely manner


----------



## MarkOttawa

> Meanwhile a private Canadian shipping company can get an icebreaker from Japan in about a year...
> http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1599
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1262825.html#msg1262825



A private Canadian company can get an icebreaker in one year.  In 2008 PM Harper announced the CCG would have the CCGS Diefenbaker in  service in 2017:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/new-arctic-icebreaker-to-be-named-after-diefenbaker-1.772716

That's nine years.  And now the ship is--supposedly--to enter service in 2022:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/10/20131011-154316.html

That is 14 flipping years.  To get one ship.  Not naval spec.  About the length of time Canada was in the two World Wars plus Korea.  Does that make any rational sense?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

By the way the JSS project was announced by the Liberal gov't in 2004:



> In 2004, the Government of Canada announced that it would replace the Royal Canadian Navy’s
> Protecteur-class Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) ships. Three Joint Support Ships (JSS) were proposed,
> with a contract to be awarded in 2008, the first ship delivered in 2012, and the project completed in
> 2016. The Government allocated $2.1 billion todesign, develop, and acquire the three ships...
> http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/files/files/JSS_EN.pdf



And now the first JSS (and only two is a dead cert) is supposed to be operational in, er, 2019 (a German, sort of off-the-shelf, Berlin class):
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/10/20131011-154316.html

That is 15 years from official announcement.  Some things are very wrong with the pols, with DND, and with the CF.  Sorry.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Now i'm not an expert but it sounds like our industries just aren't built up to be able to deliver these kind of ships in a timely manner



I rather think that is the purpose of the exercise - to create an industry that can meet those needs in a timely fashion.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Timely?  See:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1262868.html#msg1262868
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1262881.html#msg1262881

Timely was, has been, and is irrelevant.  All politics, politics, politics--and jobs, jobs, jobs.  And absolutely no reality.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Timely?  See:
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1262868.html#msg1262868
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1262881.html#msg1262881
> 
> Timely was, has been, and is irrelevant.  All politics, politics, politics--and jobs, jobs, jobs.  And absolutely no reality.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



For a change Mark.... No argument from this quarter.  

But I live in hope.


----------



## MilEME09

Well we can get ready for news stories coming from every where on this issue, with the Auditor General expected to release a report on the NSBS. heres a little bit from an Ottawa citizen article



> An auditor general’s report to be released this fall on the federal government’s vaunted national shipbuilding plan is expected to blow last year’s F-35 stealth fighter controversy out of the water.
> 
> The Conservative government has held up the $35-billion plan as a glowing success story that will re-energize Canada’s Navy and Coast Guard, while simultaneously creating thousands of jobs on both coasts and transforming Canada into a world-class shipbuilding nation.
> 
> Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s report will put that narrative to the test. It will raise concerns about the way the overall budget was set, and argue the money is not nearly enough to do what the government has promised.
> 
> That will again put the Conservative government’s reputation for being strong fiscal managers and champions of Canada’s military under the gun — though this time with thousands of jobs in Vancouver and Halifax on the line.
> 
> Here are some other issues that will emerge on defence and foreign affairs when Parliament resumes on Oct. 16:




Full article

*As National Defence looks to cut costs, it faces tough decisions on the future of the Canadian Forces*
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/National+Defence+looks+costs+faces+tough+decisions+future+Canadian/9012387/story.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

From Kirkhill:



> For a change Mark.... No argument from this quarter.
> 
> But I live in hope.



I have abandoned mine--but good to agree this time .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## NavyShooter

I'm in the Navy.

I've pretty much given up hope of actually seeing new ships anytime this decade.

Looking at how busy ISI is with the FELEX upgrade, and seeing how (in my opinion) they seem to be over their heads on it...well...I'm in no rush to see whatever unmitigated disaster it will be that they pull out of their hat when they actually build a major surface combatant vessel from the keel up.

JUST MY OPINION.

I don't think I'll sail on one in my career.

NS


----------



## Edward Campbell

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I'm in the Navy.
> 
> I've pretty much given up hope of actually seeing new ships anytime this decade.
> 
> Looking at how busy ISI is with the FELEX upgrade, and seeing how (in my opinion) they seem to be over their heads on it...well...I'm in no rush to see whatever unmitigated disaster it will be that they pull out of their hat when they actually build a major surface combatant vessel from the keel up.
> 
> JUST MY OPINION.
> 
> I don't think I'll sail on one in my career.
> 
> NS




I agree with you, I'm not sure that the government is really committed to our national defence ... I am sure that it is fully committed to a balanced budget in 2015 and that involves starving DND.

That's why I'm so concerned with the fate of the MCDVs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

yoman said:
			
		

> http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/11/shipbuilding-scheduling-conflict-means-taxpayers-on-the-hook-for-an-extra-55-million/
> ....
> Despite going with the new resupply ships first, officials also confirmed that the navy’s existing resupply vessels, HMCS Protecteur and Preserver, will be retired around 2017 — two years before their replacements are ready.
> ...



Both ships are due for refits around that time in any case, so they would be taken out of service for almost two years each anyway in 2015/2016.

That's assuming they don't retire themselves first; we've now exhausted ebay for parts.


----------



## jollyjacktar

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I'm in the Navy.
> 
> I've pretty much given up hope of actually seeing new ships anytime this decade.
> 
> Looking at how busy ISI is with the FELEX upgrade, and seeing how (in my opinion) they seem to be over their heads on it...well...I'm in no rush to see whatever unmitigated disaster it will be that they pull out of their hat when they actually build a major surface combatant vessel from the keel up.
> 
> JUST MY OPINION.
> 
> I don't think I'll sail on one in my career.
> 
> NS



 :ditto:

Quite frankly, I'm not too keen to sail on any new ships they might build at any rate.  Their work is second rate at best.


----------



## Kirkhill

JJT:

You may have an alternative after all - Davie is making an effort to rise from the dead.



> Babcock International and Chantier Davie Canada Inc Enter Teaming Agreement
> 
> 
> (Source: Babcock International; issued Oct. 16, 2013)
> 
> 
> 
> Babcock Canada Inc, part of Babcock International Group, has signed a five year teaming agreement with Chantier Davie Canada Inc.
> 
> The teaming agreement will see the two companies working together on future maritime support activities within Canada, exploiting the formidable joint skills of the two companies.
> 
> Davie, the largest and highest capacity shipyard in Canada, will contribute shipbuilding and repair facilities and related expertise, while Babcock will provide its marine engineering expertise and experience in managing federal government contracts as well as its group expertise as one of the world’s leading naval solutions providers. The team will initially concentrate on opportunities for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> Babcock Canada President Mark Dixon stated: “This is a significant milestone in Babcock’s strategy for expanding its programmes within Canada and we look forward to working with Davie to develop that goal and to demonstrate our collective capabilities to the wider stakeholder community.”
> 
> Alan Bowen, CEO of Davie, added: “We have spent significant time with Babcock over the past six months developing a strategy which will culminate in a series of value propositions for the Federal government.”
> 
> 
> • Babcock: Babcock is the UK’s leading engineering support services organisation with revenue of over £3.2bn in 2013 and an order book of circa £12bn. Defence, energy, telecommunications, transport and education are all sectors where Babcock can be found working diligently behind the scenes, delivering critical support.
> 
> • Chantier Davie Canada Inc. provides a wide range of products and services to a number of different industries where it leverages on its high-capacity fabrications capabilities for complex, engineered solutions. The capability to provide end-to-end turnkey solutions and its strategic location makes Davie an ideal partner for a range of industries from oil and gas to defence.
> 
> -ends-



So what do you reckon is the long game?

Support vessels 





> ...to create a world-class tanker safety system in Canada.


  or Submarines........


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, they're headhunting locally as of late.  Not too sure how many guys want to move to Quebec City.  They're hoping to take advantage of Irving just having conducted a long term lay off of many trades as they re-tool.  (hah! I thought they already had the tool bit down pat already...)

I understand they're hoping to also get into the off shore oil business fabrication in addition to whatever sub-contracting might come of the Gov't orders.  So one of my shipmates from the city is telling me that the yard is hoping to shake off the union troubles that seemed to plague them in the past.  Mostly by hiring new blood.  Good luck to them.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well here is the first result.

And speaking of unions, look at what the article says about labour costs compared to Europe.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Davie+shipyards+christens+first+large+boat+decades/9084519/story.html

I said it before, and I'll say it again here: Davie runs into financial trouble faster than the other yards when the yard is idle because of its sheer size (as big, by itself as all the other yards in Canada - it can work on 15 to 20 ships at a time and is the only graving dock big enough for a carrier). It burns through money that much faster as a result. If under European management it can get steady specialized work from Europe because of its cost advantage in labour, it has a good shot at maintaining itself. At Seaspan, you have to decide if Navy or Coastguard goes first. At Davie, you could build all three AOR's AND the Arctic Icebreaker simultaneously.


----------



## AlexanderM

So is there a chance we might see the contract switched from Irving to Davie??  I'm not so concerned about Seaspan.

Just read the article.  I wish these guys had gotten it together sooner, would much rather see them have the Destroyer/Frigate contract as opposed to Irving.  These guys seem more competitive, whereas to me Irving is more about entitlement.


----------



## mad dog 2020

In the article it is mentioned that 60% is material and they have no control over that and 40% Labour.
Just to be environmentally responsible, could we not use recycled steel. There are plenty of steel foundries. Dofasco, USSteel or Stelco, Algoma..... Sorry old names........ The 3 Rs, reduce, recycle, reuse!
If I am not mistaken the USS NewYork has steel from the girders in the World Trade Towers 9-11!


----------



## mad dog 2020

After the Cyclone and F35 scandals. Irving better be stellar or there is a hungry, experienced, Huge competitor in the on deck circle, warming up. The article states that wage and cost wise it beats out European ship yards, but will the workers screw themselves over. It is a time for Irving to shine......


----------



## NavyShooter

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> It is a time for Irving to shine......


 
 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: 

 :irony: 

 :trainwreck:


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well here is the first result.
> 
> And speaking of unions, look at what the article says about labour costs compared to Europe.
> 
> http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Davie+shipyards+christens+first+large+boat+decades/9084519/story.html
> 
> I said it before, and I'll say it again here: Davie runs into financial trouble faster than the other yards when the yard is idle because of its sheer size (as big, by itself as all the other yards in Canada - it can work on 15 to 20 ships at a time and is the only graving dock big enough for a carrier). It burns through money that much faster as a result. If under European management it can get steady specialized work from Europe because of its cost advantage in labour, it has a good shot at maintaining itself. At Seaspan, you have to decide if Navy or Coastguard goes first. At Davie, you could build all three AOR's AND the Arctic Icebreaker simultaneously.



Davie was also a small part of a larger organization.  All their profits were funneled around to keep other divisions going, and eventually they had it running on too few fumes for it to be sustainable when the work stopped coming in.

They easily have the best facilities in the country.  I think the best option for Canada would have been a GOCO yard there to build ships, with the two coastal yards sticking to ship repair (more profit).  I think the biggest challenge for getting Davie going will be getting the people back; once the industrial base was gone I'm sure most of the skilled labour moved on to somewhere else.


----------



## jollyjacktar

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
> 
> :irony:
> 
> :trainwreck:



I wasn't going to hit such an obvious target, but seeing as you've opened the door...


----------



## YZT580

On this day in 1971 in Ottawa Ontario, the Canadian Government mothballed the experimental hydrofoil antisubmarine vessel: HMCS Bras d'Or for at least five years due to high costs. The programme was never resurrected.

The 200 tonne FHE-400 “Bras d'Or,” was 46.5 metres long and had a foil span of 20 metres. Construction of the prototype started in 1964, and sea trails began in 1968. It was by far the most advanced and sophisticated hydrofoil of its time. In 1969 the ship exceeded 63 knots (117 km/h; 72 mph), making her the fastest unarmed warship in the world.

Instead of leading the world in maritime technology we are now sucking hind tit.  It would be nice if our new strategy were to lead to greater things but I fear that our leaders our to hidebound and timid to ever take a chance


----------



## Kirkhill

It's funny that one of the arguments against Canada adopting hydrofoil technology was it was incompatible with Canada's icy waters.

The government then went on to buy conventional hulls that were equally incompatible with the ice.

Currently the government wants to buy ships capable of operating in the ice but there appears to be a large subset of the RCN that doesn't relish the thought of operating in the ice.

The Bras d'Or's hydrofoils gave her, and the De Havilland patrol ships that made it to the drawing board, not only high speeds but also stability in high sea states both when the vessel was underway and when she was shut down and drifting.


In fact,  IIRC,  the prescribed method of operation was "drift and sprint" in ASW mode.  The vessel would shut down and go completely quiet while listening.  It would relocate to a different listening position at a high rate of knots aided by gas turbine engines that could come on line rapidly from a cold start.

And they only used crews of 20 to 50 personnel.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hydrofoils were tried out here on the west coast running passenger runs. the woody debris defeated them, strikes causing cracking in the fins and hull. Even the sidewall hovercraft suffered as I recall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_929


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin P said:
			
		

> Hydrofoils were tried out here on the west coast running passenger runs. the woody debris defeated them, strikes causing cracking in the fins and hull. Even the sidewall hovercraft suffered as I recall.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_929



HMCS Bras d'Or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Bras_d'Or_(FHE_400)


----------



## Kirkhill

Link
 De Havilland Engineer's Statement

When I was a Sea Cadet the Bras d'Or was the next big thing.  She was what all us 14 year olds wanted to sail.


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> Hydrofoils were tried out here on the west coast running passenger runs. the woody debris defeated them, strikes causing cracking in the fins and hull. Even the sidewall hovercraft suffered as I recall.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_929



They were catamarans not hydrofoils.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think you are confusing two different vessels.

BC Ferries ordered three "high-speed" ferries that were catamaran, and I don't know what happened to them as they were disposed of: never lived up to expectations and way way way overprice at seaspan, which built them.

meanwhile, in the early 1980's, Boeing ran two of its "Jetfoils" hydrofoils as ferries between Seattle and Victoria.  It made the run in a little less than 2 hours - if they didn't hit anything. It went away after that.

here's a picture of what they looked like: 
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4509497850462602&pid=1.9&m=&w=300&h=300&p=0


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and even a sidewall hovercraft was tried. To rough and to much large woody debris. Last I heard the fast cats were sold to a company in the ME, Qatar I think. Speaking to people the build quality was actually pretty good, the problem was that the engines were to big for the space available leading to ambient heat issues. The craft were at the size where a turbine might have been a better idea.
Part of the problem was tying the NDP political agenda to the program. From day 1 it was a gamble, we knew we could not compete with the large shipyards in Asia, so we tried to corner a niche market. When numnuts tied his political future to the vessels, I knew both the program and his career were in trouble. Most of the fastcat programs have suffered significant issues, some even required welders onboard to keep up with the cracking!
Another first for the Fastcats was attempting to tie them into an existing RO/RO terminal setup. Most fastcats require a significant time to unload and load. Ours were designed to keep the loading times close to a standard ferry. Frankly the routes were to short to make good use of the Cats speed and the wake issue forced them to give up much of that advantage. However the handling of the program from a political level was a disgrace and we promptly shot ourselves in the foot by making them "ship non gratis". In Europe fastcats are often used to supplement  existing runs at peak times and the vessels might be shifted to different markets at different seasons.
One good thing that came out of all of the above is a significant small aluminum vessel industry, building some very top-notch vessels (granted some sucky ones as well) Not to mention a bloom of aluminum fabricators. 

edit: Marine Group announced on July 28, 2009 that they had sold the three ships for an undisclosed amount to Abu Dhabi MAR, a luxury yacht builder.[24]


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm drifting _waaaay_ out of my lanes, but, in Hong Kong, in waters full of junk and debris, these vessels go back and forth to/from Macau at very high speeds, day and night.


----------



## Cyrius007

These "wings" boat are the next big thing in the naval architecture industry. I'm pretty sure we'll see them in military marine quite soon. Fast, manoeuverable, less exposed to underwater threat... but I think they can carry less weight.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Nice pics ERC.

The one in the middle is one of those Boeing "jetfoils" that made the Seattle-Victoria run.

The danger is not junk and debris generally, which is now found everywhere in the world, but something quite particular to the West coast of Canada inside Vancouver Island: Deadheads and logs.

Basically, on the West coast, the logging industry works this way: They cut the trees on the slopes of the coast and float them by attaching them together to form huge rafts pulled by tugs to the sawmills. These tugs (famous for their high speeds of two knots  ) are out in all sort of weather and many logs fall off along the route and drift all over the place. Ever heard of the "Beachcomber"? It was a show based on a real job out West. People in small boat comb the beaches and waters to find some of those lost logs and bring them in the sawmills for good money. These logs, over time, become water logged and float just under the surface or, worse, tip so that they become vertical and only show a little bit of their tip at the surface (deadheads). They can be from 2 to 5-6 feet in diameter and 50 to 60 feet long, weighing tons, especially when water logged. Merchant ships don't mind them, but anything smaller, including thin hulled warships, must always be on the look out for them because they can severely damage your hull, even sink you. The YAGS and old sweepers, with their wooden hulls, were particularly at risk and we often came very close to disaster.

Those are the "things" that the Jetfoils hit a few times on the coast and it shredded their foils while at speed. Not a pretty sight.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Cyrius007 said:
			
		

> These "wings" boat are the next big thing in the naval architecture industry. I'm pretty sure we'll see them in military marine quite soon. Fast, manoeuverable, less exposed to underwater threat... but I think they can carry less weight.



Nah!

They have been around for a while and never made their mark as military vessels.

The American had the Pegasus class, and they  ended up doing drug interdiction in the Gulf of Mexico - nothing else. Never found an effective use for them, not even special forces.

The Italians probably have the largest force of them, the Sparviero's, and they use them as defensive fast attack crafts, but they only carry two missiles each and one 76mm gun with very limited ammunition (basically what fits in the ready use racks, that's it).

Besides, contrary to what has been mentioned above on the reason for not developing HMCS BRAS D'OR further, lack of capability in ice was one of the minor reason. The most important one was fuel consumption combined with the arrival of an alternative.

BRAS D'OR was conceived in the late 50's as one of the potential answers to the high underwater speeds of nuclear submarines, that could easily outperform surface ships of the time. As the Allies searched for answers, these hydrofoils were one of the potential avenues. Their advantage over current ships: speed and stealth. Their disadvantages: much shorter legs and near impossibility to refuel at sea and even more important, to resupply in torpedoes once the six in tubes were gone. In the end, the first oil crisis pushing price of fuel way up and the arrival of a new kid on the block killed the project. The new kid: Shipborne, nearly all weather heavy AS helicopter (the sea King). Again, though, it was  a Canadian inovation.


----------



## cphansen

Cyrius007 said:
			
		

> These "wings" boat are the next big thing in the naval architecture industry. I'm pretty sure we'll see them in military marine quite soon. Fast, manoeuverable, less exposed to underwater threat... but I think they can carry less weight.



When you're talking about Winged boats, are you talking about hydrofoils or GEV / WIG vessels like the proposed Boeing Pelician or thr Russian Kaspian Monster?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm drifting _waaaay_ out of my lanes, but, in Hong Kong, in waters full of junk and debris, these vessels go back and forth to/from Macau at very high speeds, day and night.



Not an uncommon view, when we say the debris is 2' most people think it's that long, we say no it's that wide, at least....

A picture of the Fraser river debris trap meant to reduce a bit of the debris.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Wow!    Yes, that makes the debris floating in the Zhujiang River Estuary look pretty tame.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

People try to flag the worse ones











Publicworks used to run snag boats on the river


----------



## mad dog 2020

Just saw this and recall earlier the size and capacity of the Davie Shipbuilding.
Maybe we should built some of theses for India.


> Indian Navy would have 200 warships in another 10 years, with three aircraft carriers in each of the three naval commands, for which orders have already been given to various docks in the country, a senior official said on board the INS Satpura today.
> 
> "Right now, we have 136 ships and we are targeting 200 in the next 10 years. All our docks in our country are full of orders," Rear Admiral Atul Kumar Jain, Flag Officer Commanding in Chief, Eastern Naval Command told reporters.
> 
> The Navy was looking at making destroyers and frigates, he said. "Right now, we have only one Landing Platform Dock (LPD) INS Jalashwa. We are going for four more LPDs." ....


NDTV, 13 Nov 13

*Mod edit to change source in accordance with Milnet.ca policy.*


----------



## MilEME09

*Government’s $38-billion shipbuilding plan doesn’t have enough money, auditor general to report*

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/2013-budget/Government+billion+shipbuilding+plan+doesn+have+enough/9177011/story.html



> OTTAWA — Canada’s auditor general has found that the billions of dollars set aside for the federal government’s shipbuilding plan won’t be enough to get the navy the vessels it was promised, or needs.
> 
> Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s report on the national shipbuilding procurement strategy won’t be released until Nov. 26, but several sources who have seen versions of the report have told Postmedia News that it shows the current plan is untenable.
> 
> The report has the potential to put the Conservative government in a significant bind and undermine the government’s boast that the $38-billion shipbuilding plan is an unmitigated success story.
> 
> In particular, the government will be warned that it must either increase the amount of money it is willing to spend on the new ships, or scale the projects back — which in some cases would render them pale imitations of what was originally envisaged.
> 
> Some will point to the auditor general’s report as further proof of incompetence within the Department of National Defence, especially after the controversy that has swirled around the F-35 stealth fighter project in recent years.
> 
> In fact, some military officials have indicated concern that the auditor general’s report could cause a reaction on a par with Ferguson’s April 2012 report on the F-35, which became a political lightning rod for the government and severely damaged the defence department’s reputation.
> 
> But the auditor general is expected to finger a flawed procurement process and politics as the main issues this time around.
> 
> The report will note the government took what were supposed to be initial estimates for new frigates, destroyers and resupply ships and locked them in as the actual project budgets.
> 
> This was before any real design work had started, and before the government rolled the projects all into one industrial plan aimed at turning Canada into a world-class shipbuilder, all of which has rendered those initial estimates obsolete.
> 
> The auditor general’s findings will come as no surprise to many analysts and experts who have studied or otherwise been following the shipbuilding plan over the years, and have been warning of just such a problem.
> 
> But the government has until this point shown little if any flexibility, and instead told officials to make do with what they’ve been given.
> 
> Defence officials already admitted in February that they have reduced how fast the navy’s yet-to-be-built armed Arctic vessels can sail to keep the project within its $3.1-billion budget, and warned about other potential “trade-offs.”
> 
> Exactly how the government will respond to the auditor general’s report is unclear, but the shipbuilding strategy’s success or failure has wide implications.
> 
> It is vital for the navy and the coast guard, both of which operate fleets of destroyers, icebreakers, frigates and other vessels that are nearing the end of their lifespans and must be replaced.
> 
> It is huge for Halifax and Vancouver, which were selected in October 2011 as the main production centres and are expecting to see hundreds of jobs created.
> 
> And it is important to the Conservative government’s reputation as both strong fiscal managers and supporters of Canada’s military.
> 
> That reputation has taken a knock in recent years following problems with the F-35 stealth fighter, search-and-rescue aircraft and other military procurement projects.
> 
> While it will likely face criticism from some corners for doing so, the possibility that the government will invest more money into the shipbuilding strategy can’t be ruled out.
> 
> Last week, the coast guard revealed that its new icebreaker will cost $1.3 billion to build — nearly double the $720 million originally estimated when the project was first announced in 2007.
> 
> A coast guard spokeswoman said the original figure was based on old estimates and the budget was revised upward following a more comprehensive assessment, and to ensure the icebreaker Diefenbaker was able to perform the tasks required of it when it comes hits the water.
> 
> (Ferguson’s report only examines the Royal Canadian Navy projects that fall within the $38-billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy and does not address the coast guard part, though the findings will likely have relevance there as well.)
> 
> National Defence also said that while it expects to spend about $26.2 billion on 15 new frigates and destroyers over the next decade, the project “is in the very early days” and the number is a “preliminary acquisition cost estimate, for planning purposes.”
> 
> While he hasn’t seen the report, defence analyst David Perry of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute said the issues raised by the auditor general are serious and need to change, not just in shipbuilding but all procurement projects.
> 
> “The process we have now forces people to come up with preliminary estimates to get a project moving, which is understandable because you don’t want to cut a blank cheque and say ‘Go buy a navy,’” he said. “But at the same time those things get locked in before you can get any kind of detail and there’s no recourse.”


----------



## Kirkhill

AG's Tame Yanks say that the government can't build good ships for the type of money they are putting on the table.  ie Lockmart and GD WILL NOT see their market value undercut.

Meanwhile Independent 3rd Party Monitor IMC sez the government is overpaying for the ships (AOPS) it is contracting.

......


I have a new hitlist - Accountants, Lawyers, Politicians..... :


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here's the tradeoff:

     





> The auditor general’s findings will come as no surprise to many analysts and experts who have studied or otherwise been following the shipbuilding plan over the years, and have been warning of just such a problem.
> 
> But the government has until this point shown little if any flexibility, and instead told officials to make do with what they’ve been given.
> 
> Defence officials already admitted in February that they have reduced how fast the navy’s yet-to-be-built armed Arctic vessels can sail to keep the project within its $3.1-billion budget, and warned about other potential “trade-offs.”
> 
> Exactly how the government will respond to the auditor general’s report is unclear, but the shipbuilding strategy’s success or failure has wide implications.
> 
> It is vital for the navy and the coast guard, both of which operate fleets of destroyers, icebreakers, frigates and other vessels that are nearing the end of their lifespans and must be replaced.
> 
> It is huge for Halifax and Vancouver, which were selected in October 2011 as the main production centres and are expecting to see hundreds of jobs created.
> 
> And it is important to the Conservative government’s reputation as both strong fiscal managers and supporters of Canada’s military.
> 
> That reputation has taken a knock in recent years following problems with the F-35 stealth fighter, search-and-rescue aircraft and other military procurement projects.
> 
> While it will likely face criticism from some corners for doing so, the possibility that the government will invest more money into the shipbuilding strategy can’t be ruled out.




This government, more than its Liberal predecessors, is caught on the horns of a dilemma of its own making. It talked (and talked and talked) a lot about its support for the military but it, equally, put forth a a fairly detailed plan, which, on closer examination, is wholly inadequate. Now, in any other circumstances, the government of the day would have the option of increasing funding to keep its very public promises but the world is still trapped in the _great recession_ and fiscal prudence is the Conservatives' primary campaign plank.

Of course there are ways to save money and give the CF what the government, itself, needs: buy offshore, for example. The political calculus asks: how many seats - currently held and potentially winnable - will this cost?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Just had a quick chat with a program manger from Seaspan, he said the Polar team really has it's act together and are great to deal with, but the fate of the Polar 8 hangs over their head when they think about the possibility of their vessel being built. He also said the Fisheries vessel team is not well organized and is behind, which is a problem as they wanted to start on a smaller vessel to work the bugs out.


----------



## AlexanderM

I expect that Seaspan is going to do a good job, but I wish we could replace Irving with Davie.


----------



## Kirkhill

Personally I would have given the AOPS to Seaspan along with the Fisheries boats,  and the JSS (and perhaps the Polar)  to Davie - if Davie had had its act together at the time of the competition.

Davie has the large hull yards and somewhat more current experience.

Irving.... just not sure.  CSC?  Likewise.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Too bad we couldn't do like Paul Martin and Canada Steamship Lines, buying all our ships overseas.


----------



## dapaterson

And remember to use foreign crews to save more money.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

.......and register offshore in weird little countries ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

RNN or RLN (Royal Nigerian Navy or Royal Latvian Navy)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Well, look what Fedvav does:



> Look How Fast One Can Get an Icebreaker…
> http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1599



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

But Mark .... that ship is built to Civilian standards  >

And STX bought Aker who had bought Kvaerner who build icebreakers.  Including Canadian and Norwegian ones. Including the Svalbard which was the model for the AOPS.....being built by Irving.

In fact STX Marine designed the AOPS

http://www.stxmarine.net/ship_ice.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

Summary from the OAG report just out - not atrocious remarks on the NSPS, but may have to adjust the # of ships - highlights mine:


> .... What we found
> 
> *The competitive process for selecting two shipyards resulted in a successful and efficient process independent of political influence, consistent with government regulations and policies, and carried out in an open and transparent manner. The selection process included extensive and ongoing consultation with industry and bidders, monitoring by independent third parties, and using subject matter experts who provided valuable advice and added credibility to the process.* The resulting arrangements should help sustain Canada’s shipbuilding capacity over the next 25 years in one shipyard, and for 7 years in the other.
> 
> Following the selection, the shipyards negotiated changes to the terms of the draft agreement that was included in the request for proposals (RFP) to ensure they would be compensated for their capital investments should a project be cancelled, delayed, or reduced in scope. As a result, the agreements that were signed with the shipyards differ significantly from the draft agreements that had been included in the RFP, as these did not include such backstop provisions. It was not clear from the wording of the RFP that the negotiation of backstop provisions was anticipated. Consequently, based on lessons learned from the RFP issued under the NSPS and the negotiations that came after the winning bidders were selected, *Public Works and Government Services Canada should consider how the terms of future RFPs could be made clearer and more explicit as to the extent of negotiations of post-bid changes with successful contractors.*
> 
> National Defence and Public Works and Government Services Canada, in consultation with Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, are working to acquire federal ships in a timely and affordable manner consistent with the NSPS. *For the three military ship projects we examined, departments have identified and are managing key project risks.* These risks include the lack of competition in the shipbuilding industry, schedule delays, unaffordable costs, and technical risks. As it is still early in the 30-year Strategy, not all performance measures are in place. To ensure that Canada acquires ships in an affordable manner, Public Works and Government Services Canada, supported by Industry Canada, National Defence, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, needs to regularly monitor the productivity of shipyards in terms of competitiveness, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency, including measuring progress against the target state.
> 
> National Defence established budgets early in the planning process, based on rough estimates and historic information. These have not been revised for the changes in the cost of materials and labour since the projects were first approved. *The Department has had to reduce the expected number of military ships or their capabilities to remain within budget.* National Defence and Public Works and Government Services Canada need to continue to monitor cost/capability trade-offs and make revisions to project budgets, if necessary, to ensure that Canada gets the ships and capabilities it needs to protect national interests and sovereignty.
> 
> (....)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Kirkhill:



> But Mark .... that ship is built to Civilian standards  >
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1270573.html#msg1270573



I had the Diefenbreaker more in mind.   Also STX Marine-designed:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2012/hq-ac05-eng.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think the basic project approval gates where your ROM order of magnitude guess at the budget gets set as the overall budget years ahead of time before you even know what you are trying to get is a big part of the problem; until they rationalize the TBS process into something that makes sense this will continue to happen.

The whole system is pretty much FUBARd and set up in a way that no rational person would agree was terribly efficient.


----------



## AlexanderM

If we were buying from other countries the budget would be enough.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It may or may not change everything.

What is required in reality is more transparent figures, and by that I mean more easily comprehensible accounting concepts and figure for the public at large.

Its quite normal for the Department of defense to want to know and understand life cycle cost of new equipment and its effect on annual budgets from year to year throughout its expected lifetime in order to make decisions. For instance, it's normal to want to know things like: If I buy this ship that reduces my crewing requirements by 30 seaman and thus saves me their salary every year for the next 30 years, will the cost of extra automation and its maintenance, upgrade and repair outweigh the crew reduction over the lifetime?

What is unacceptable IMHO is to use these calculations of overall lifetime costs as the figure that is presented to the public as the program cost as if it was the actual incremental cost to the nation. We must present it right: here is what  each of these ship/plane/tank will cost me from the manufacturer and, here is how much more/less funding I will need in my annual budget to operate it in the next "n" years.

While DND needs to try and gaze in their crystal ball to divine the answers to question like the one above (Bones: "I think he means that he has more trust in your guesses than other people's facts". Spock: So, it is a compliment. I shall endeavour to make the best guess possible"), I think all Canadians want is little bit of honesty on the way we present it to them so they get what it really means in term of budgeting.

I remember from my accounting classes in university, the professors explaining to us that accounting evolved from the need for business to have complete, organised and easy to understand factual basis from which, to make informed decisions. In my view DND/Ottawa's public accounting, in the public's eye, is anything but useful in making anything but "cloaked-in-darkness" decisions.


----------



## Monsoon

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> If we were buying from other countries the budget would be enough.


If we weren't buying ships at all it would also be enough. Remember: the NSPS has several goals and equipping the RCN and CCG is only one of them.

Prediction: no discussion of this in government until after it gets its budgetary surplus in 2015 and a new electoral mandate. Then cabinet quietly approves whatever additional funds are required to complete the procurement based on the fact that the original estimates are dated. Is there a reason we're trying to make it hard for them to do this?


----------



## Kirkhill

:goodpost:


----------



## Navy_Pete

You have to appreciate that there are numerous sets of numbers floating around within DND.  Some are from the project, some are from ADM(FIN CS) and others are the estimates relating to the ISSC.  They are also trying to look at the AORs historical data and extrapolate forward for operating costs, which in my opinion, isn't comparing apples.

PBOs expectations, TBS expectations, and internal DND reporting requirements aren't aligned, so it's a bit of a mess.  Also, they can't give a final estimate of the cost until the ship requirements are finalized and the design is set, at which point they can give a ROM build cost and add in some wiggle room for inflation, delays, arisings etc.

IF you want a widget that does xyz, and want it for a certain budget, and need it by a certain timeline, and also want to modify it to do new stuff... something has to give.  Then you add in IRBs and politics and other silliness, you can't really blame anyone on the project for this kind of bs.

(No, I don't work on the project)


----------



## mad dog 2020

Too bad Canadian Companies couldn't sponsor Canada? courtesy the Bay Observer Hamilton. 

Algoma Central Corporation to name new ship after City of Sault Ste. Marie
Posted by: Bay Observer Staff  October 18, 2013	 in Business Leave a comment

Great lakes fleet renewal continues The lifting of the duty on foreign built ships continues to result in reneal of the Great Lakes ship fleet. The latest launch is Algoma Central Corporation’s new environmentally-advanced Equinox Class vessel named after the City of Sault Ste. Marie. Algoma Central, which is now headquartered in St. Catharines, has evolved into the largest Canadian- flag shipowner in the Great Lakes with 32 Canadian flag vessels. The Algoma Sault is expected to arrive to trade in the Great Lakes-Seaway region for the beginning of the 2015 navigation season. Algoma Central, and its customer the Canadian Wheat Board, have invested close to $500 million in 10 new vessels. Two of these ships are already trading in the Great Lakes and eight Equinox Class ships are under construction in China. The first Equinox Class vessel, the Algoma Equinox, is expected to arrive in the Great Lakes in November 2013. Algoma Central says the vessels, which will carry grain, iron ore, coal, construction materials and salt, will carry more cargo, at higher speeds using less fuel; resulting in a 45% reduction in greenhouse gases. Algoma will also be installing exhaust gas scrubbing systems for the eight new Equinox Class vessels that will virtually eliminate sulfur oxide emissions.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> You have to appreciate that there are numerous sets of numbers floating around within DND.  Some are from the project, some are from ADM(FIN CS) and others are the estimates relating to the ISSC.  They are also trying to look at the AORs historical data and extrapolate forward for operating costs, which in my opinion, isn't comparing apples.
> 
> PBOs expectations, TBS expectations, and internal DND reporting requirements aren't aligned, so it's a bit of a mess.  Also, they can't give a final estimate of the cost until the ship requirements are finalized and the design is set, at which point they can give a ROM build cost and add in some wiggle room for inflation, delays, arisings etc.
> 
> IF you want a widget that does xyz, and want it for a certain budget, and need it by a certain timeline, and also want to modify it to do new stuff... something has to give.  Then you add in IRBs and politics and other silliness, you can't really blame anyone on the project for this kind of bs.
> 
> (No, I don't work on the project)




I agree ... at the risk of oversimplifying, the _Canada First Defence Strategy_ (which, I understand is being revised) does not provide anywhere near enough money to meet the CF's minimal _operational_ requirements ~ at least in so far as those requirements are set by *military* experts within DND.

It's important to remember that *military experts* don't get the final say; arguably they don't even get the semi-final say. The "semi-final" say rests with other, civilian experts in the Privy Council Office who balance all _national_ requirements, including military ones, against their view of the resources which will might be available in the future.

The final say rests, of course, with cabinet and the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board get a bigger say about the defence budget than does the Minister of National Defence.

(And that's as it should be. Our, English, version of a liberal, parliamentary democracy is based on the notion that the best way to serve the best interests of the nation is to _contain_ the monarch and the best way to do that is to control public (crown) spending, especially on the military. We have about 1,000 years of precedence for this, going back to the medieval _witenagemots_ which had some power over the king's right to tax (and, therefore, to spend).)


----------



## CougarKing

An update for this thread:



> from: CBC News
> *Shipbuilding memo shows more delays, cost overruns*
> 
> With Canada's only Pacific supply ship laid up in Hawaii, help doesn't appear to be close
> 
> By Terry Milewski, CBC News
> 
> An internal government memo obtained by CBC News shows that all four parts of the government's huge shipbuilding program are either over budget, behind schedule, or both.
> 
> Written Oct. 7 last year by the deputy minister of national defence, Richard Fadden, the memo shows that three of those four programs also face "major challenges" of a technical nature, as well as difficulties lining up skilled manpower to get the ships built at all.
> 
> The memo, released to the CBC following an Access to Information request, leaves little doubt that Canada's crippled supply ship, HMCS Protecteur, won't be replaced before the year 2020.
> 
> The spectacle of the 46-year-old Protecteur, Canada's only supply ship in the Pacific, being towed into Honolulu after an engine-room fire has thrown the lack of a replacement into sharp focus.* Although there's a plan to build two new supply ships, there's no sign the work will even begin until late 2016*. That means a new one won't enter service until the end of the decade.
> 
> The Fadden memo was intended to assure Defence Minister Rob Nicholson that there are "many success stories" in the procurement saga that has dogged the government for years.
> 
> But the attached details show no major program without problems.
> 
> A chart summarizing the state of the shipbuilding effort uses green and yellow squares to indicate where those problems are — the green meaning, on track, and yellow meaning, trouble — and there's a lot of yellow.
> 
> *For the Joint Support Ships — that's the pair of supply ships — the chart shows trouble with both the schedule and the price.* The memo explains that this means the program is up to 20 per cent behind schedule and up to 10 per cent over budget.
> 
> *For the Arctic Patrol Ships, the chart shows yellow for three measures: the cost, "HR" — meaning Human Resources, or skilled workers — and technical issues. *The memo describes these as "major challenges in finding solutions; significant scope changes may be required." That suggests the ships may need to be redesigned in order to fix the technical problems.
> 
> All of those same issues —* cost, manpower and technical — also dog the plan to upgrade Canada's Halifax-class frigates*.
> 
> *But for the biggest program of all — the $38-billion project to build 15 new warships known as "Surface Combatants" — there is trouble cited on four measures: the schedule, the technical and manpower issues and the procurement strategy itself.* It doesn't say how any of those can be fixed, but it does say they are fixable.
> 
> (...EDITED)- more at link


----------



## Edward Campbell

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> An update for this thread:



Here is a useful DND _infographic_ from that CBC report:


----------



## Navy_Pete

Don't forget to squint and imagine a huge cloud of dope when looking at MCP info; that's how you get into the project staff POV! 

 ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not sure what the "HR" or "manpower" , referring to skill workers, refers to: The Navy personnel or the shipyard personnel.

If the shipyard (as I suspect), it is interesting to note that the yard with problems is our good friend Irving Shipyard and that there are no issues with the one in B.-C. building the JSS or (I suppose) the icebreakers.


----------



## Good2Golf

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is a useful DND _infographic_ from that CBC report:



I wonder how a procurement process is good if there are otherwise problems with: money, capability and people?  ???


----------



## mad dog 2020

going out on a limb here!
Maybe we should look at how people do things, in real life:
a.  when the cost of repairs to our old clunker car is consistently exceeding the price of  a car payment for a new or gently used one.  and 
b.  as a novice or semi-skilled handyman it is easier to work overtime and pay a professional over the hours of mistakes and aggravation to get a job done. Not to mention the waiting and unanticipated expenses.

So we need to save some cash and either buy used (there were plenty of good deals recently and still are available) or buy something off the rack over a sub-standard unproven Canadian Made option. You may never convince the providers to adopt a value long term commitment.  We don't need to buy a shoddy Canadian suit!
Like the land vehicles urban legend states the US was running a batch of HUMMERS and asked: Do you want use to extend the run for you?" 
Canadians are buying KIA and Hyundai over Ford and GM so maybe we need one quick purchase of ships to fill the gap rather than waiting for the clowns to stumble through. In Irving. Maybe send a contingent to South Korea to see how it can be done without gouging the citizens of Canada.


----------



## Tibbson

Why does it seem we are the only nation that can't get it's collective crap together when it comes to military procurement?  Do others have similar problems?  

Whats the root cause(s)?

- buy Canadian policies?
- insistence on regional development?
- lack of sufficient skilled workers in industries we really can't support?
- too many fingers in the pie?
- public service meddling?
- the inability of the military to plan for such acquisitions?
- any or all of the above?
- none of the above?


----------



## Kirkhill

The bottom line problem is:  nobody can agree on when a Canadian soldier can open fire and who the target might be.  Neither the politicians nor the CF itself seems to be able to answer that question.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> Why does it seem we are the only nation that can't get it's collective crap together when it comes to military procurement?  Do others have similar problems?
> 
> Whats the root cause(s)?
> 
> - buy Canadian policies?
> - insistence on regional development?
> - lack of sufficient skilled workers in industries we really can't support?
> - too many fingers in the pie?
> - public service meddling?
> - the inability of the military to plan for such acquisitions?
> - any or all of the above?
> - none of the above?



I'd say all of the above, though maybe a little less on the ability of military planners.  The difference between what we are doing and the Brits is that they have given up on the idea of making ships at home and simply want the best price for what they want, ergo South Korea is building them 4 supply ships for have the price we are building two.  Our NSBP is very much a economic/regional development program as it is a ship manufacturing issue.  Which is why we have lack of skilled workers and "technical issues" delaying the program.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> going out on a limb here!
> Maybe we should look at how people do things, in real life:
> a.  when the cost of repairs to our old clunker car is consistently exceeding the price of  a car payment for a new or gently used one.  and
> b.  as a novice or semi-skilled handyman it is easier to work overtime and pay a professional over the hours of mistakes and aggravation to get a job done. Not to mention the waiting and unanticipated expenses.
> 
> So we need to save some cash and either buy used (there were plenty of good deals recently and still are available) or buy something off the rack over a sub-standard unproven Canadian Made option. You may never convince the providers to adopt a value long term commitment.  We don't need to buy a shoddy Canadian suit!
> Like the land vehicles urban legend states the US was running a batch of HUMMERS and asked: Do you want use to extend the run for you?"
> Canadians are buying KIA and Hyundai over Ford and GM so maybe we need one quick purchase of ships to fill the gap rather than waiting for the clowns to stumble through. In Irving. Maybe send a contingent to South Korea to see how it can be done without gouging the citizens of Canada.



You forgot the third option here as did many. I think you need to understand the purpose of this (hopefully) inaugural stage of NSPS. Your last option would be to take an auto mechanics course because you want to compete on the local market for business. It's the old, give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. We are 'starting up' an industry that quite frankly, has been unsustainable in the past. Should we have a history as a shipbuilding nation already: (in my opinion) you are damn right we should.  Will NSPS work; give us ships, employ a skilled workforce, develop infrastructure to feed a mighty industry, gain respect from the major players in the industry? Let me just say that if some of the people commenting here were on any of the Board(s) of Directors or working in Directorates responsible for these projects; NO! It is easy for us to sit in our recliners in our living rooms with a hot mug of something staring at the fireplace pondering everything that is wrong with the NSPS. I don't know if it will work but what I do know is that if it does, 10 years from now someone in another developed country will be saying something like "Why is our government spending all that R&D money when the RCN has a proven design for $ XX?"
My Sunday morning rant,

Pat


----------



## AirDet

Pat, I believe that is the intent. I certainly hope it works because it would be fantastic for our country.

However, like any other industry, if you can't get your costs under control your product will not be financially feasible. The current trend on our various ship programs show this is a major challenge for industry. If the costs and timelines could be reigned in the NSBS would have a chance of establishing us as a real alternative to German and Korean ship yards.

As someone who has spent years onboard ships designed and built in Canada, I can tell you we have the ability to build world-class warships.


----------



## Edward Campbell

In the late 1980/early 90s, when the _Halifax_ class patrol frigates were brand spanking new and as modern and as good, maybe better, than anything else in the world we sent two of them off long international cruises ~ very, very thinly disguised sales missions: lots of exotic ports in warm countries that don't build their own ships, lots of cocktail parties on the hanger deck - naval officers know all about these - and lots of tours by local military and political brass.

How many Canadian built frigates do you see in service in other countries?

Our _goodwill cruises_ were followed, very shortly by similar visits by our good friends and allies from Britain, France, Germany and the USA, amongst others. They came with less capable ships, with far inferior machinery and communication control systems but with much, much bigger, _better_ 'offers' (read bribes, sometimes) and more political 'clout' (just foreign policy _pressure_ in other cases) and they sold ships. They always came with fewer _conditions_ and _restrictions_.


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In the late 1980/early 90s, when the _Halifax_ class patrol frigates were brand spanking new and as modern and as good, maybe better, than anything else in the world we sent two of them off long international cruises ~ very, very thinly disguised sales missions: lots of exotic ports in warm countries that don't build their own ships, lots of cocktail parties on the hanger deck - naval officers know all about these - and lots of tours by local military and political brass.
> 
> How many Canadian built frigates do you see in service in other countries?
> 
> Our _goodwill cruises_ were followed, very shortly by similar visits by our good friends and allies from Britain, France, Germany and the USA, amongst others. They came with less capable ships, with far inferior machinery and communication control systems but with much, much bigger, _better_ 'offers' (read bribes, sometimes) and more political 'clout' (just foreign policy _pressure_ in other cases) and they sold ships. They always came with fewer _conditions_ and _restrictions_.



Bang on again.  They do desire to get other work, but as with the new helicopters, we'll be the only country using these new ships.  Paul Hellyer also thought the world would be beating down our door after unification for info on how to follow suit.  Same result.  Lots of money wasted for the end product quality/overall satisfaction.  My  :2c:


----------



## Navy_Pete

Don't forget the team that built the frigates went on to build the type 45s for the RN.  They took the modular build one step further and built it at four different yards, then assembled them in the main yard in Glasgow (where they built one of the modules).

I'm wondering if building an entirely new batch of frigates would have been cheaper then FELEX?  That would have avoided all the legacy issues with old cabling etc and we wouldn't be left with a brand new combat suite on a 25 year old hull structure.

280s hulls are on their last legs, and they are built with thicker steel and 1960 standards for overengineering everything.  CPFs are built in the finitie element analysis era where they model the failure point, add a safety factor, and that's all you get.  Guessing there will be major cracking seen on the primary hull in the next 5-10 years.


----------



## Tibbson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Bang on again.  They do desire to get other work, but as with the new helicopters, we'll be the only country using these new ships.  Paul Hellyer also thought the world would be beating down our door after unification for info on how to follow suit.  Same result.  Lots of money wasted for the end product quality/overall satisfaction.  My  :2c:



Hellyer should know.  He had insider info from the aliens after all.


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Don't forget the team that built the frigates went on to build the type 45s for the RN.  They took the modular build one step further and built it at four different yards, then assembled them in the main yard in Glasgow (where they built one of the modules).
> 
> *I'm wondering if building an entirely new batch of frigates would have been cheaper then FELEX? * That would have avoided all the legacy issues with old cabling etc and we wouldn't be left with a brand new combat suite on a 25 year old hull structure.
> 
> 280s hulls are on their last legs, and they are built with thicker steel and 1960 standards for overengineering everything.  CPFs are built in the finitie element analysis era where they model the failure point, add a safety factor, and that's all you get.  Guessing there will be major cracking seen on the primary hull in the next 5-10 years.



I am a firm believer in this idea. Use them for 25 years and at 20 start building new ones. I do not think it is cost effective to do a mid life refit anymore.


----------



## AirDet

FSTO said:
			
		

> I am a firm believer in this idea. Use them for 25 years and at 20 start building new ones. I do not think it is cost effective to do a mid life refit anymore.


Not only that but we also lose the ability to build new ones... just like the boat we're n now.


----------



## Halifax Tar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Bang on again.  They do desire to get other work, but as with the new helicopters, we'll be the only country using these new ships.  Paul Hellyer also thought the world would be beating down our door after unification for info on how to follow suit.  Same result.  Lots of money wasted for the end product quality/overall satisfaction.  My  :2c:



I can't believe you would say such things about unification on this forum!  It's a success just ask its avid defenders on this forum!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

http://www.nsnews.com/news/heavy-lift-at-north-vancouver-s-seaspan-shipyard-1.942372 (picture on link)

Look up. Look way, way up.

There's a blue behemoth on the North Vancouver waterfront - Seaspan's massive new gantry crane, which this week became the most visible part of the shipyard's $200 million modernization project.

"There were a lot of high fives around here today," said Brian Carter, president of Vancouver Shipyards on Wednesday. "It represents a significant milestone."

The crane, which can lift 300 tonnes, was shipped from China in three pieces and erected on the east side of the Vancouver Shipyards site this week.

The rectangular-shaped crane stands 80 metres tall and runs on rails within the shipyard site.

While the final structural piece of the crane - the main horizontal girder - was lifted into place over several hours on Wednesday, it will still take several more months to install the cables, hydraulics and other systems to get the crane ready for work.

The crane will do the heavy lifting when the shipyard starts building vessels under the federal government's $8 billion National Shipbuilding Program this fall. Ships will be built in separate pieces before the parts are moved into place by the crane for final assembly.

Once it is operational, the gantry crane will be the largest of its type in Canada, said Brian Carter, president of Vancouver Shipyards. The total cost of the crane, installed, is between $15 million and $20 million.

Carter said there has been plenty of interest in the crane as it went up this week.

"You can see this thing from a long way," he said. "People understand what it represents, which is economic interest on the North Shore."

Seaspan will officially name the new crane later this spring when it chooses a winner from among 228 entries submitted by North Shore students from grades 4 to 7. In order to erect the gantry crane, an even taller, stronger crane had to be brought to the Vancouver Shipyards site to lift the pieces into place.

That crane - a large crawler crane with a 115- metre long boom and capacity to lift 1,350 tonnes - was shipped from Russia by the company contracted to get the gantry crane up and running. The crawler crane itself was put together from 80 truckloads of parts, said Carter.

At a height about 35 stories, it's been attracting quite a lot of attention on the North Vancouver waterfront, he said. "It's the tallest thing on the North Shore."

That crane will be taken down when its work is finished.

Work on the shipyard's modernization project is about 75 per cent complete, said Carter, and is on track to be finished by the end of October this year. It includes construction of four new buildings on the site.

Seaspan will begin working on the federal shipbuilding program this fall, with construction of an offshore fisheries science vessel.

That project is scheduled to start in October and take about 18 months. Seaspan will build three fisheries science ships and an oceanographic vessel before starting work on the two joint support ships for the navy and polar icebreaker sometime between late 2016 and 2017. Those ships will be the biggest ships ever built in western Canada.

The workforce at Seaspan is expected to grow to about 1,000 at that time, said Carter.

Last fall, the federal government also announced plans to build an additional 10 Coast Guard vessels at Seaspan, worth over $3 billion.

© North Shore News
- See more at: http://www.nsnews.com/news/heavy-lift-at-north-vancouver-s-seaspan-shipyard-1.942372#sthash.skDLq5dp.dpuf


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Was just discussing with a Malaysian Captain how long would it take to build a LNG tanker )Seri "A" - Class, 5 ships (417,388 DWT) )

He replied approx. 18 months......

I said: "I don't think we could write the Briefing note in that time period."  :'(


----------



## MarkOttawa

And then how many years for the Memorandum to Cabinet ?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The girl who got to name the crane is a classmate of my oldest daughter, they all got to the name ceremony. My daughter thought the whole thing very cool! Wish I could have gone!






S_easpan's massive new addition to the North Vancouver waterfront got some heavy lifting this week from a Boundary elementary school student.

Ella Tinto, 9, christened the newly assembled gantry crane "Hiyí Skwáyel" - pronounced hee-yay sk-why-el and meaning "Big Blue" in the Squamish language - at a ceremony attended by her Grade 3/4 class on Wednesday at the North Vancouver shipyard.

Ella's name was chosen from more than 200 submissions from North Vancouver elementary school students in grades 4 to 7 who took up the challenge of coming up with a suitable name for the North Shore's most notable new landmark.

Suggestions ranged from potentially copyrightchallenging "Captain Hook" to the more prosaic "Kevin," as well as "Ichabod Crane," "Seaspan Goliath," "The Megalodon" (after a prehistoric shark) and even "Sha-Crane-O'Neal."

Over half a dozen students suggested the name "Big Blue," said Jeff Taylor, spokesman for Seaspan, but Ella was the only one who suggested the Squamish language translation.

The final selection was made through a vote of Seaspan's employees.

On Wednesday, Ella got to see her suggestion written large on the side of the crane, as well as ride up to near the top of the crane in a scissor lift with her dad - Seaspan employee Tony Tinto - and company officials.

The new gantry crane can lift 300 tonnes and stands 80 metres tall. Once it's operational - later this summer - the gantry crane will be the largest of its type in Canada.

The crane will do the heavy lifting when the shipyard starts building vessels under the federal government's $8 billion National Shipbuilding Program this fall.

"It really is the centrepiece of all the improvements we've been doing over the past two years," said Taylor.

As part of Wednesday's events, Seaspan presented a cheque for $5,000 to the North Vancouver School District. Ella Tinto also won an iPad air for her winning suggestion.

© North Shore News
- See more at: http://www.nsnews.com/news/north-vancouver-gantry-crane-named-1.1072366#sthash.Hxrw0AdM.dpuf _


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile, the sausage machine behind the scenes grinds on ....


> .... *The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to request that interested companies provide feedback and recommendations by way of written response to the questions posed within.  The questions posed are regarding a potential solicitation for the provision of independent shipbuilding and ship-design review and advisory services to Canada's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS).*
> 
> Canada has identified the need for independent shipbuilding and ship-design review and advisory services in support of the ongoing management of the NSPS, in the form of in-depth knowledge of the industry, its drivers, its techniques, and its strategies.  Canada envisions the need for specialized and varied engineering, naval architecture, and technical inspection services (the latter for inspection and acceptance work during ship construction) ....



From the attached RFI document:


> .... This RFI is neither a call for tender nor a Request for Proposal (RFP) ....


----------



## Edward Campbell

I remain worried about our (Canada's) so called _strategies_: the RCN has a _strategy_, and I applaud the admirals for enunciating it; the Government of Canada has a _strategy_, too - the _Canada First Defence Strategy_ which is, we are told, under revision; and we have a _shipbuilding strategy_. My worry is almost all financial. I am convinced that the money available in the current _Canada First Defence Strategy_ makes the RCN's _strategy_, its plans and requirements, irrelevant by making it unaffordable. I am concerned that the _shipbuilding strategy_ is, in fact, a jobs plan focused on spending a fixed amount of money in selected regions without really worrying about what goes into the water.

My _suspicion_ is that the admirals wrote their _strategy_ in fiscally rosy times, when it appeared that the Government of Canada had launched itself on a long-term plan to rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces: Sep 2008 changed everything ... at least as much as 9/11 2001 did. The admirals' (and generals') thinking needs to have changed with it ... I'm guessing it is changing, now, but I think it's a bit late.

I also _suspect_ that factions in the Conservative Party and in the Public Service of Canada who oppose (much?, most?) _discretionary_ spending, including defence spending, on a mix of sound economic and/or ideological grounds, have gained control of the government agenda.


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't have a problem with multiple incompatible strategies and budgets.

I do have a problem with the manner in which the gaps are addressed.  

The process for resolving the inconsistencies is well defined.  It involves going back, taking another look with the new information, deciding on a course of action and then acting.  Pace Col Boyd.

In the NSPS case Boyd's OODA loop is clearly evident in a well defined Pugh's wheel which run's the AOPS through 6 contracted OODA loops to achieve an end state.

Boyd and Pugh knew what they were on about.  The same logic they applied to problem solving is applicable to the discussion of CFDS, NSPS, and Naval Strategy.

We should not expect to hit the target with the first shot.  We should expect to miss, adjust, fire, repeat.

My concern with our process is two-fold.

It seems as if we expect perfection on every attempt.  That can't happen.

It also seems, perhaps as a result of expecting perfection, we are unprepared to make adjustments in a timely fashion.

We have got to speed up the rate at which we conduct the unavoidable iterations necessary to achieve our targets.

And we have got to get used to spending smaller amounts of planning dollars more frequently rather than a single massive expenditure once in a blue moon.

FWIW

Edit to add graphic attachments.


----------



## AlexanderM

This article indicates that the Iver Class could be in our future, which in my opinion would be a good choice.  I realize the article is from last year but I like the ship.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2013/11/13/the_future_of_canadas_navy_106956.html


----------



## YZT580

Those two Mistrals just became available: one for immediate delivery.  France has temporarily suspended the contract.


----------



## CougarKing

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Those two Mistrals just became available: one for immediate delivery.  France has temporarily suspended the contract.



As stated in both the other two threads that mentioned the Mistrals, it's only a temporary halting of the delivery of the first ship, _Vladivostok_, till November. The 2nd one, _Sevastopol_, will still be delivered next year.


----------



## MilEME09

http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news.php/news/1564



> Irving Installs Final Steel Frame on NSPS Facility
> 
> On September 3, 2014, the Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding marked the installation of the final piece of steel frame for the Assembly and Ultra Hall Production facility that will produce the Navy’s newest combat fleet starting in September 2015. The Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Honourable Peter MacKay, Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Canada and Minister Responsible for Nova Scotia joined Irving Shipbuilding’s executive team and provincial and municipal leaders to celebrate this important National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) milestone.
> 
> “The Government of Canada congratulates Irving Shipbuilding on the important progress being made on this facility. Through our Government's commitment to providing state of the art equipment for our men and women in uniform, we are providing jobs and economic opportunities for families across the province,” said Peter MacKay, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister Responsible for Nova Scotia. “As Nova Scotians, we can be proud of the pivotal role our province is playing in our country's National Shipbuilding Strategy.”
> 
> “We’re extremely pleased with the progress on our facilities and are confident we’ll be ready to start building in September of next year,” said Kevin McCoy, President, Irving Shipbuilding. “We expect our buildings to be weather tight by the end of this year, when we’ll shift our focus to the interior and the incredible amount of work left to make them production-ready. The men and women of Irving Shipbuilding certainly can’t wait to get started.”
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding has committed more than $310M in Canada to date in contracts, procurement, goods and services related to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS), including both the Yard Modernization program and the work underway on the AOPS Definition Contract. A full 47%, or $146M, of that commitment has been made in Nova Scotia, engaging companies owned or operating in the province in our supply chain. This commitment has created more than 1,500 full time equivalent (FTE) positions in Nova Scotia with the company, with suppliers and with their direct suppliers and $75M in employment income. In addition, it has generated $21M in local, provincial and federal taxes paid, as well as $56M in consumer spending over a two-year period (see Note).
> 
> Across Canada, the NSPS commitment to date has boosted Canadian gross domestic product (GDP) by $255M, created more than 3,000 full time equivalent (FTE) positions across Canada (direct and indirect) and generated $187M worth of employment income in the country over a two-year period. It has also generated more than $139M worth of consumer spending and approximately $63M worth of taxes for federal, provincial and local governments.
> 
> Note - From the economic impact assessment prepared by Jupia Consultants Inc. using the following methodology: Direct and indirect full time equivalent employment, employment income, gross domestic product (GDP) and other indirect taxes are derived using Statistics Canada I/O tables for Nova Scotia and for the national economy. Consumer spending and taxes generated estimates are derived using Statistics Canada's Survey of Household Spending for 2011 (CANSIM Table 203-002) and other sources.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> As stated in both the other two threads that mentioned the Mistrals, it's only a temporary halting of the delivery of the first ship, _Vladivostok_, till November. The 2nd one, _Sevastopol_, will still be delivered next year.



I suspect Putin is happy with the delay, I suspect cash flow is an issue right now and the penalty incurred by France reduces the costs of the ships to Russia.


----------



## Kirkhill

Musing time ---

I have been hard on Irving for the high price of their initial design contract, especially when compared to the price the Danes paid for their frigates.

Suppose, just suppose, that some of that price is going to sort out stuff that the Danes had already figured out on their other ships, specifically all the systems they were going to put into the hull.

Weapons were already determined, and how they would integrate, through the Danish Stanflex module system.
Did the Danes have current, modern,standards for a common bridge, engine room and CIC with existing simulators?
How about standards for radars and sonars?
Engines?

If all of those questions were answered ahead of the Huitfeldt contract then the design work and the associated costs would be significantly reduced.

Is it possible that one of the reasons for the Irving delay and cost is to get answers to some/all of those questions for both the AOPS and the CSC to ensure maximum commonality between the classes and reduced construction, operation and maintenance costs in the long run?

Or am I being overly optimistic?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Some of the changes relate directly to the changes in the various standards in the last ten years, and others are from us adapting the basic design to our requirements.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Musing time --- .....especially when compared to the price the Danes paid for their frigates.



You cant really use the danish price as a guideline for what a modern frigate should cost,  because it is little more than a smoke and mirrors number. The official project cost  is just the price that was thought to be acceptable to the public/ taxpayers. 

The ~330 million dollar per ship often quoted is a result of several different factors: Use of VERY creative accounting, employing cheap baltic labour, building the ships at an efficient and modern civilian yard, heavy reuse of existing weapons/equipment/items (worth $70 million per ship alone), a lot of "fitted for, not with" kit + not including a lot of the weapons and ammunition costs. 

http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/International/Documents/U.S.-Denmark%20Defense%20Industry%20Seminar/Danish%20frigate%20program%20visit%20USN%20May%202014.pdf

Then there is the fact that they were basically half a gift from the (now late) owner of the Lindø yard (OSS) , Mr Mærsk McKinney Møller , who happened to be very patriotic AND fond of the navy. OSS actually lost money building the Support ships and frigates, so without Mr. Møller they would not have been built in Odense. He alone kept the Yard alive  and made sure they got the order. When he stepped down as chairman/head of the board at OSS, the decision was immediately made to close the yard as soon as the frigate order was completed.     

In short...the real price for a fully armed and equipped Iver Huitfeldt in RDN service is going to be in the vicinity of $400-450 million...and for anybody else probably at least 500-550 million, in todays dollars possibly somewhat more.



.


> Did the Danes have current, modern,standards for a common bridge, engine room and CIC with existing simulators?


Yes ...most derived from work on the Absalon class, some on earlier StanFlex vessels.

How about standards for radars and sonars?
That decision was actually made pretty late in the design process , after overall size,  hull form and superstructure design was settled on. There were design drafts showing both AEGIS/SPY-1 and another version with SAMPSON/ CEA-MOUNT and SMART-S Mk2 . Both systems was in the running against SMART-L/APAR but ultimately lost out and the contract with Thales Netherlands was signed in December 2006.



> If all of those questions were answered ahead of the Huitfeldt contract then the design work and the associated costs would be significantly reduced.


 Well , using the Absalon design as a basis for the frigates, undoubtedly saved a lot of time and money.
However, they are not as similar as outward appearances would suggest and quite a lot of redesign changes was necessary on the Huitfeldts.



> Is it possible that one of the reasons for the Irving delay and cost is to get answers to some/all of those questions for both the AOPS and the CSC to ensure maximum commonality between the classes and reduced construction, operation and maintenance costs in the long run?
> Or am I being overly optimistic?


No, i think it's very sensible explanation. Having in mind all the recent and ongoing military procurement scandals , both in Canada and elsewhere ,and with everything at stake, you cant blame Irving for wanting to do there "homework" properly.


----------



## Kirkhill

Really enlightening MKP and thanks again.

Having said all of that though, it still strikes me that at MUSD 500-600 the Huitfeldts still represent a cost effective solution when compared to some of the other offerings on the market.


----------



## AlexanderM

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> In short...the real price for a fully armed and equipped Iver Huitfeldt in RDN service is going to be in the vicinity of $400-450 million...and for anybody else probably at least 500-550 million, in todays dollars possibly somewhat more.


Hi Mike,

I think the design is a great choice for Canada, however there is no way we will get the ships for even under $600 million each.  I will be shocked, and pleased, if Irving can deliver the ships for $1 billion each, and this is more realistic.  Again, if it is less I will be pleased, but it won't happen.  I understand the budget for the 15 ships was $26 billion, so that would be just over $1.7 billion each, so how does one make an Iver cost $1.7 billion, which is what Irving will be thinking?  Now, if the budget numbers come down, then great, but when does that ever happen?

I also hope we go with anti-ballistic quality steel, and am wondering if they can increase the number of MK41 cells from 32 to at least 48, while keeping the extra ESSM lauchers, so increase the length slighty, al least on the Destroyers.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Hi Mike,
> 
> I think the design is a great choice for Canada, however there is no way we will get the ships for even under $600 million each.



I know and i agree....the ~$600 million figure was my estimate of the IH's being built in Denmark(and Estonia/Lithuania) for a foreign navy



> I will be shocked, and pleased, if Irving can deliver the ships for $1 billion each, and this is realistic.



There is of course a lot of unknowns involved, even when choosing an existing design. A lot depends on the level of "Canadiazation " being applied to the selected design.
 If you where to choose the IH for instance, i would expect you to want a different CMS (SAAB 9LV/LM Canada instead of Terma's C-Flex ) ,  a  locally produced Platform/Machinery Management system in place of Logimatics IPMS,  Decoy  and self protection systems (MASS instead of SKWS), and possibly changes to the propulsion and power generating systems( perhaps going to CODAG or CODLAG setup)etc etc

Integrating all these new systems is going to add to the project cost, but if Irving cant build the ships for less than a Billion Can$, then they are doing something wrong. 




> I also hope we go with ballistic quality metal and am wondering if they can increase the number of MK41 cells from 32 to at least 48, while keeping the extra ESSM lauchers, so increase the length slighty, al least on the Destroyers.



Actually lengthening of the hull is not required to increase the VLS complement.  Since Canada has little use for the Stanflex positions these *slots *could instead be used for additional MK41's( they have the size and structural strength to accommodate the larger launchers) . I'd suggest ditching the MK48 ESSM VLS and Harpoon launchers, and go to a MK41 only solution.  That would give you a total of 64 VLS for SM2/ SM3/ SM6 , ESSM , LRASM, ASROC and possibly TAC-TOM's.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

> Having said all of that though, it still strikes me that at MUSD 500-600 the Huitfeldts still represent a cost effective solution when compared to some of the other offerings on the market



Yes , one should think so, but despite that,  Naval Team Denmark ( http://www.navalteam.dk/) has found it difficult ( read: damn near impossible ) to successfully market their ship designs. 

The truth is....they simply cant compete with the much larger Dutch, German, French, Italian and Spanish yards, who all receive massive backing and support, political as well as financial, from their respective governments. So despite initially gaining a lot of foreign interest and positive feedback, orders have gone to the big established builders, who have offered favorable deals involving huge off-sets , tech transfers, industrial cooperation etc etc  . Something NTD unfortunately haven't been able to match.


----------



## AlexanderM

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Integrating all these new systems is going to add to the project cost, but if Irving cant build the ships for less than a Billion Can$, then they are doing something wrong.



The optics of this would be interesting, as in how could Irving charge a ridiculous price for ships that were so affordable.  This may actually swing things in favour of getting a reasonable price, however once a price is set, 26 billion for 15 ships, it is very trickly to go back, especially in Canada.  The justification would end up being right over the top.




			
				MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Actually lengthening of the hull is not required to increase the VLS complement.  Since Canada has little use for the Stanflex positions these *slots *could instead be used for additional MK41's( they have the size and structural strength to accommodate the larger launchers) . I'd suggest ditching the MK48 ESSM VLS and Harpoon launchers, and go to a MK41 only solution.  That would give you a total of 64 VLS for SM2/ SM3/ SM6 , ESSM , LRASM, ASROC and possibly TAC-TOM's.


If I'm not mistaken, the navy wants room for mission modules (containers), at least they did, and the Ivers have the room.  So they can pick and choose what they want in the Frigates vs the Destroyers.  Great to know they can go up to 64 vls, this is the kind of flexibility that makes the design so ideal for our needs.

Thank you for all the great information!


----------



## Kirkhill

This is what has been happening on the West Coast.  It seems it takes a day or two to build a modern shipyard.

http://www.seaspan.com/shipyard-modernization-project/

And the East Coast has been making progress as well.

http://www.irvingshipbuilding.com/irving-shipbuilding-news.aspx

Reminder on Schedule - 

Vancouver 

3x Fisheries Vessels - steel cut late 2014 (now) with first vessel delivered 2016 (2 years)
1x Oceanographic Vessel steel cut - steel cut 2016 with delivery 2017 (3 years)

2x JSS - steel cut 2016 with deliveries in 2019 and 2020 (5 years)

1x Polar Icebreaker - steel cut 2018 to be delivered in 2021 (7 years)

5x 65m Multi Task Vessels

5x 75m Offshore Patrol Vessels

Halifax

6-8x AOPS - steel cut 2015 with first vessel delivered in 2018 (4 years)

12-16 CSC - steel cut 2020 with first vessel delivered in 2025 (11 years)

That schedule means that Canadian industry has been able to plan with a 20 to 30 year horizon with some confidence that they will get their investments back and the government will have supplied an industry that when the planned vessels reach 25 years of age there will still be an industry around to build new ships.

Admittedly the RCN and the Coast Guard could do with more vessels faster.

I wonder though, if, once the government gets the programme up and running, and ships start being built, and unions and management become convinced the programme is here to stay, (perhaps it will require re-election of the government failing an unlikely all-party agreement on military expenditures) if the government couldn't be convinced to buy some additional vessels either from offshore or even from other Canadian yards.  Davie's docks are available produce additional ships.  And there are other yards available to produce vessels of under 1000 tonnes.

Just wondering....


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The optics of this would be interesting, as in how could Irving charge a ridiculous price for ships that were so affordable.


 Maybe they are going for a bigger more capable design , than the "eurofrigates" that have been proposed so far ? Perhaps something more along the line of a Type 45 or an evolved Arleigh Burke design ?

That , at least , would go a ways to explain the sticker price 



> This may actually swing things in favour of getting a reasonable price, however once a price is set, *26 billion for 15 ships*


  Does that figure include the cost of the Halifax Shipyard Modernization project ? 





> Thank you for all the great information!


 you are most welcome   :bowing:

Since i'm going to occasionally be working with the RCN in the arctic  , i take great interest in your navy and your very ambitious shipbuilding program(of which i am slightly envious , i must admit ) 
Though the Royal Canadian Navy is much larger than ours , i nonetheless think we have a lot in common and face a lot of the same challenges in the future ( stupid shortsighted politicians, lack of funds* and increased activity in the arctic etc etc) 

*An active foreign policy coupled with an unwillingness to allocate the required resources , necessitated by said policy, has brought the RDN close to breaking point both in terms of manpower and equipment.


----------



## Navy_Pete

One thing to keep in mind is the actual contractual framework the ships are being built around; under NSPS, each yard has separate contracts for design and build only.  ISSC for AOPS/JSS (aka AJISS) is completely separate from the two independent build contracts.  The CSC design/build will also be a different contract, then yet another contract for the ISSC.

Short of specifying specific equipment in the requirements (which our contracting authority won't let us do), it's very difficult to get common equipment.  It makes all the sense in the world to build two platforms at the same time, and have them use common equipment (same platform management system for example), or even better use similar equipment to what is on the post-FELEX Halifax Class ships.  It's a huge challenge to do though with how our procurement system and performance based statement of requirements are.

The one thing that may help is that the AJISS contract may be awarded prior to the JSS build starting, so the prime for that may be able to offer input to VSL on the choice of equipment; but AOPS will already be too far down the path, particularily on long lead items.

One other interesting part is because the build and ISSC contracts are separate, Canada will be buying all initial spares from the builder, but the preferred sparing arrangement for ISSCs is for the contractor to own all the spares, so will they buy them off us?  Then there is trying to account for contractor owned spares in DRMIS (our particularized SAP program), which is required under the 'total asset visibility' policy!

 :stars:


----------



## AlexanderM

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Does that figure include the cost of the Halifax Shipyard Modernization project ?


I beleive the said program was $300 million and is now complete.


----------



## CougarKing

For those thinking of the CSC:



> *Navantia positions itself for the Canadian Surface Combatant program*
> FRIDAY OCTOBER 3, 2014 12:09
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navantia is currently participating in the Canadian Surface Combatant program (CSC) in collaboration with the American Lockheed Martin and using the experience embodied in the F-100 frigates for the Spanish Navy, the F -310 Norwegian and Australian AWD destroyers. The CSC will replace the Halifax-class frigates and Iroquois class destroyers, so the possibility of two types of vessels using the same hull and include advanced air defense capabilities is proposed, which would benefit Navantia for having the Lockheed Martin Aegis system installed on all three ships.(JNG)
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> 
> *Defensa.com (original article in Spanish)*


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You don’t have to go far to see the most visible sign of Seaspan’s $155 million two-year overhaul of Vancouver Shipyards. Just look up — way, way up.

Since the spring, a massive new gantry crane — the largest in Canada — has stood 80 metres tall on the shipyards site at the foot of Pemberton Avenue.

Its presence on the North Vancouver waterfront sends a message: that the shipyards are back as an economic engine, on a scale not seen since massive federally-supported contracts halted 30 years ago.

This time around, Ottawa is again fuelling the resurgence of the West Coast shipyard industry, with its national shipbuilding program.

In 2011, Seaspan won the right to negotiate contracts to build seven federal non-combat ships, worth an estimated $8 billion.

Those ships include two massive navy joint support ships and a polar icebreaker.

But to ready itself to do that work, the shipyard had to reinvent itself. It had to “go big.”

The $18 million gantry crane is indicative of that new scale. It was shipped in three pieces from China in a heavy lift ship.

To put it up, the company contracted by Seaspan to provide it had to first take apart a second 1,600-tonne 110-metre-tall crawler crane in Russia, put it on a ship, then offload it at Lynnterm Terminal. “It took 82 trucks to get it from Lynn Terminal to our property,” said Tony Matergio, vice-president and general manger of Vancouver Shipyards. “It’s just a monster.”

The crawler crane is long gone now, but the permanent gantry crane, dubbed “Big Blue”, will do the heavy lifting when building for the first national shipbuilding contract gets underway next year.

Its job will be to move massive pieces of ship, weighing anywhere from 80 to 300 tonnes, into place for final assembly.

That approach to building ships would be foreign to those who worked at places like Burrard Dry Dock and Versatile Pacific — North Vancouver’s iconic shipyards of the past.

“If you wind the clock back quite a number of decades, ships were built one piece of wood or one piece of steel at a time and erected on the berth,” said Matergio. “Pipefitters and electricians would show up when the ship was floating.”

Those days are gone, he said. Today, large shipyards operate more like manufacturing plants, building modular pieces on what is essentially an assembly line.

Vancouver Shipyards has gone from a yard that mainly built and repaired barges and small vessels to one designed for large ship construction — a very different facility.

To help with the design of the new system, Seaspan brought over experts from STX Korea — a huge modern shipyard — for advice early in the process.

“For shipyard design, part of it is how much land you have to deal with. Part of it is the particular type of ships (you will be building),” said Matergio. “Shipyards are designed to build the particular product they’re good at.”

In the new shipyard, steel plates that arrive on a flatbed truck come first to the sub-assembly building, where they are cut by two new state-of-the-art computer-controlled cutters, including a plasma cutter.

Steel is brought to the shipyard as it’s needed. “Years ago we’d buy all the steel for the ship the same day and it would show up and we’d store it,” said Matergio. “We don’t do that anymore. We just have it delivered as required.”

A computer program with instructions on how to cut each piece of steel is transmitted to the robotic cutter remotely from the shipyard’s technical office.

The machine is extremely accurate — down to millimetres, said William Clewes, Vancouver Shipyards’ director of operations.

When it comes out, each piece of cut steel is automatically etched with a number indicating which project it is for and how it fits together with other components. Then it gets collected with other pieces needed for the next step in assembly and put together in a kit.

Once the shipbuilding program is fully up and running, there’ll be pieces of steel continuously moving on to the next station. Most parts of the shipyard will operate 16 hours a day, five days a week.

Everything in the sub-assembly building is new, said Clewes. “Including the building.”

About two-thirds of the $155 million spent modernizing Vancouver Shipyards and about $15 million spent on Seaspan’s Victoria Shipyards — where final sea trials and testing of vessels will take place — was spent on new buildings and facilities. One-third was spent on equipment, which came from countries around the world.

A new 1,000-tonne Nieldand cold forming press in the forming shop next door, for instance, came from Holland. It’s technology used throughout the world that allows shaping of steel into three-dimensional pieces without heating it — even the two-inch thick steel that will eventually be used for the polar icebreaker.

Another centrepiece of the modernized shipyard is the “panel line” — where large flat pieces of steel are welded together and reinforced with angle bars.

A robotic single-sided welder at one end of this assembly line can weld two 18-millimetre thick plates together in one pass — and take a fraction of the time it would have before — 20 minutes as opposed to several hours.

As the large steel panels move down the conveyer, hydraulic arms press angle bars into place on the panel, where they are automatically “tack welded” into place before moving down to a final station where a robotic welder with six welding heads can weld three bars at a time.

There are fewer people doing this work than there would have been on the task in the past. Each machine generally has one welder and one crane operator.

But neither Clewes nor George MacPherson, president of the B.C. Shipyard General Workers Federation — which represents many of the trades at the shipyard — are concerned about that.

Work is simply concentrated in other areas of shipbuilding, farther along in the process, said Clewes.

“Stuff that’s left requires higher skill,” said MacPherson. “There’s still a lot of manual labour.”

There are about 200 people working in trades at the shipyards today, but that is expected to dramatically increase to about 1,000 people within the next three years.

The company, which currently has 17 apprentices working in Vancouver Shipyards, expects to hire more apprentices by next year and re-train those who are already qualified with transferable skills from other industries.

Not surprisingly, there has been a lot of interest.

“It’s a well-paid job and it looks like it’ll be a well-paid job,” said MacPherson, citing an average rate of pay of about $38 an hour, plus benefits.

Unlike many existing jobs that fit that description, a job at the shipyards lets local workers stay home and see their families, says MacPherson, “as opposed to going to Fort McMurray.”

Jacob Burnikell, a 35-year-old welding foreman who’s been working on and off in shipyards for the past seven years, understands that. “This is huge for North Vancouver,” he said. “The opportunity to have that many jobs accessible potentially for a long period of time is huge for any community.”

Of the 35 people who report to him now “probably eight or 10 of those could be in Alberta or up north, but they’re here,” he said.

“I’ve got some good young people coming back now. They’re ready to work at the shipyard.”

It’s a definite improvement over downturns in the past where he’s had to lay people off. “You build a team then you lose that team,” he said. “Hopefully (now) the crew I have will see the start of the vessel and the end of the vessel.”

In the block assembly shop, telescoping pins — or pin jigs — support pieces of shaped steel while they are manually welded into larger pieces.

At the end of the shop are two large chunks of what will eventually be the new cable ferry — one piece upside down. At this stage, pieces are often built upside down and turned over, said Clewes. “It’s easier for a welder to weld down than to weld above him.”

Under the new system, workers who arrive at a dedicated workstation will start the day with a work order detailing their tasks. “All the material will be there, all the tools will be there,” said Clewes.

Welding torches hang from cranes inside the shop, fed by 500 lb spools of welding wire. “Guys don’t have to carry stuff into the work area,” said Clewes. “They just drop it from the crane.”

From here, bigger assembled pieces might go into a new paint shop — where state-of-the-art ventilation and dust recovery systems have been installed. Or they may head into one of several “pre-outfit” bays, where the mechanical parts of the ship including engines, pipes, cables and electrical systems will be installed before the large modular blocks are put together — a radical departure from shipbuilding of the past.

The systems going into the large ships will come from around the world. Seaspan already has partnership agreements with the Canadian subsidiaries of a number of multinational companies —ImTech Marine Canada, Thales Canada, Computer Sciences Corporation and Alion Canada — specializing in marine technology and defence contracts.

Two new self-propelled modular transport systems — up to 32 rolling axles that can lift 1,000 tonnes and are operated by remote-control chest backs — will then take the massive blocks of the ship to the pre-erection area of the yard to be put together under huge multi-storey shelters.

When the blocks are 150 or 200 tonnes, the gantry crane will lift them on to the berth. “That’s when they form a ship, when they put them together,” said Clewes. “Those blocks will be put together like large Lego blocks.”

When the ship is built, it will move on to a load-out pier, be put on a floating dry dock, taken to deep water and floated off. The last five per cent of the build, including final testing, will be completed at Seaspan’s Victoria Shipyards — near to the Canadian navy base at Esquimalt.

The joint support ships won’t be the first ships built at the modernized yard, but they are certainly the biggest ships that are part of the contract and ones that have attracted the most attention.

Both the parliamentary budget officer and the auditor general have questioned whether $2.6 billion set aside by Ottawa will be enough to build two ships, noting the government hasn’t adjusted that figure in a number of years, despite delays in deciding to build the ships.

The political ante in getting the ships built was also recently upped when Ottawa announced it will decommission two of its existing support ships earlier than expected over concerns about their structural integrity.

When finished, the 173-metre ships will be the biggest vessels ever built in western Canada.

But depending on when contracts get signed with Ottawa, Seaspan isn’t expected to start building those ships until late 2016 or early 2017.

To start off, Seaspan will ramp up its production with three fisheries science vessels. The contract for the first of those — a 55-metre research vessel — and production on it is expected to start in earnest in the spring.

Six months after the first ship is begun, the second vessel will be started and eight months after that, work on a third will begin. A 78-metre oceanographic vessel will follow.

In fact, two of the large modular blocks currently being built at the shipyard alongside the new cable ferry will eventually form part of the hull of the first fisheries vessel. Building the two blocks — which will each measure 12 by 12 by 10 metres — allows the company to test its equipment and procedures before production pressure mounts.

Not that anyone’s complaining.

To date, Ottawa has signed an “umbrella agreement” with Seaspan, indicating its intention to go ahead with the first seven vessels. A further 10 ships worth about another $3 billion have also been announced.

In rough terms, that’s about 15 years of work, say shipyard bosses. And they are confident there will be more to follow.

That’s good news for people like Burnikell, who got his start in shipyards years ago when a friend told him about an outfit looking for someone to wash the bottom of the boats. “I rolled out the pressure washer and a foreman came over and said, ‘You don’t want to wash boats. I need some help fitting this plate.’”

He hasn’t looked back since. “Everybody’s who’s in the shipbuilding industry, they have a big sense of pride of workmanship,” he said.

The modernization project represents a spectacular turnaround for an industry that struggled to stay afloat in the decades since large federal contracts dried up at the end of the 1980s and B.C. Ferries — once a mainstay of the business — opted to build its large new ferries in European shipyards.

At the end of this two-year upgrade however, Matergio has no hesitation saying, “We are Canada’s most technologically advanced shipyard.”

In the short term, “Our order book is full,” he said.

But in the long term, he sees the federal contract as the beginning, not the end, of the future for the shipyard industry.

Burnikell is looking forward to working on the big ships. “There’s something extremely special about building a vessel and launching a vessel,” he said. “Knowing that vessel is going to be around for a long time. At the end of the job you know it’s going to have some adventures behind it and it’s going to be because of you.”

He likes talking about the heydays of the shipyards with some of the old-timers. They tell him about the best days, he said, “‘When we were building ships. When everyone was going.’”

“All of them say, ‘It’s coming. It’s coming again.’”
- See more at: http://www.nsnews.com/news/heavy-metal-seaspan-s-155-million-upgrade-fueling-renewal-of-the-industry-1.1664728#sthash.BLgQmp2T.dpuf


----------



## Navy_Pete

They seem to have some pretty good bang for their buck in what they are building up in North Van; nice to see them investing in the underlying infrastructure and workforce so that they will be competitive in the future.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Been a long time since they had a government new build so they had to survive in the real world.


----------



## MilEME09

https://jdirving.com/jd-irving-careers-current-openings-irving-shipbuilding.aspx

Well it looks like Irving is rolling into it's hiring spree particularly for "future position" Welders and Iron workers


----------



## jollyjacktar

They are also putting out feelers for 6B HT's as well.  I'm sure they're looking at other trades too.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They are also putting out feelers for 6B HT's as well.  I'm sure they're looking at other trades too.




The trades are going to be hurting when this gets going. I was told East Coast is forecasting over 800 releases this year.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yup.  Things like screwing around with Spec pay for the Stokers is going to come back and bite the penny pinching SOB's who are behind it very, very, hard.  All trades are angry at the moment if I am correct in what I hear amongst the fleet members.  Other initiatives of late, (cough, cough, Whitehorse..) won't add to the happiness factor.


----------



## NavyShooter

The trades are hurting right now...and this is with multiple ships in the refit cycle, so we're not even looking for a fleet of full crews. 

Things are going to be 'interesting' over the next few years methinks.

Once we get all the ships out of ISI, there's going to be a lot of robbing peter to pay paul in terms of personnel management.  I've just brought a ship through the process and we're about to  start WUPs, so I know that of which I speak.  The burn-out factor based on the re-activation pace is pretty high.  

NS


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The trades are hurting right now...and this is with multiple ships in the refit cycle, so we're not even looking for a fleet of full crews.
> 
> Things are going to be 'interesting' over the next few years methinks.
> 
> Once we get all the ships out of ISI, there's going to be a lot of robbing peter to pay paul in terms of personnel management.  I've just brought a ship through the process and we're about to  start WUPs, so I know that of which I speak.  The burn-out factor based on the re-activation pace is pretty high.
> 
> NS



Yes the MESO's were just offered a really attractive CT over to MAR ENG, only a few took it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not directly related, but I thought it was very telling that Davie could not get this contract

http://www.wellandtribune.ca/2015/01/14/study-shows-billion-being-spent-by-seaway-partners

It also amounts to the biggest renewal of system fleets in three decades, with $4.1 billion being spent.

Among the big players is St. Catharines-based Algoma Central Corp., which is pouring about $500 million into 10 new ships for its fleet in an investment that will last up to 40 years.

Its findings were officially released on Wednesday.

"At Algoma we're confident about the future of Great Lakes shipping," said company CEO and president Greg Wight. "It's encouraging to see the infrastructure renewal that's going on in the Welland Canal.

"It's a big part of what our trade is, moving goods from the inland to the St. Lawrence," he said.

A key reason for the new private investment is the Canadian government’s removal of a *25% foreign vessel import duty* in 2010.

"It allowed us to sign orders for vessels outside of Canada (in China), *because there was no place to build them in Canada*," he said. "So there was a lot of pent-up demand and need for new vessels."

Since 2009, Algoma has had 10 vessels on order — six have been delivered with four more to come.

Six of those are state-of-the-art, highly fuel efficient ships of the Equinox variety. The other four are two new product tankers and two coastal vessels.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not directly related, but I thought it was very telling that Davie could not get this contract



I know people like Davie bashing, but here, you have no point. First of all you provide no evidence (and the article does not contain any such reference) to the effect that Davie even bid on the contracts.

Davie didn't get the contract, and neither did ANY other Canadian or American shipyard: They are being built in China, which is probably the only country that can built for such a cheap price ($50 million each) what are essentially overgrown barges with a small diesel engine at the back.

Davie's new European owners have clearly stated (and are backing up their word with deeds) that they would use the shipyard to build specialty vessels (each one of a kind) that are complex because the ships are an industrial tool in themselves (such as deep dive support vessels, high end shipboard processing plants, self contained dredges and bottom clearing ships, etc.) which they use to build in their own European yards, but are cheaper and faster to build at Davie in view of the European union-driven high salaries and time off requirements.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I know people like Davie bashing, but here, you have no point. First of all you provide no evidence (and the article does not contain any such reference) to the effect that Davie even bid on the contracts.



I save my bashing for Irving.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I know people like Davie bashing, but here, you have no point. First of all you provide no evidence (and the article does not contain any such reference) to the effect that Davie even bid on the contracts.
> 
> Davie didn't get the contract, and neither did ANY other Canadian or American shipyard: They are being built in China, which is probably the only country that can built for such a cheap price ($50 million each) what are essentially overgrown barges with a small diesel engine at the back.
> 
> Davie's new European owners have clearly stated (and are backing up their word with deeds) that they would use the shipyard to build specialty vessels (each one of a kind) that are complex because the ships are an industrial tool in themselves (such as deep dive support vessels, high end shipboard processing plants, self contained dredges and bottom clearing ships, etc.) which they use to build in their own European yards, but are cheaper and faster to build at Davie in view of the European union-driven high salaries and time off requirements.



Was not Davies complaining they had not been properly considered for the national ship building program? If they could not have offered a bid on these or at least aggressively tried to compete, plus they could have argued publicly that lifting the foreign Vessel tax hindered their chance of competing for such a bid. The article stated: " _because there was no place to build them in Canada," he said. "So there was a lot of pent-up demand and need for new vessels."  _
Considering this is almost Davies backyard and they aren't even considered shows they would be incapable of meeting the National project, but that did not stop them from publicly saying they were not fairly considered. To be fair we are using the wording in the article which could be totally wrong. Davies might have approached them and been shown the door, because the company knew they could get a better price in China and played up to the CPC to relent on the foreign vessel duty.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

First of all, Colin, what you say can apply equally to every Canadian shipyard, and is pure speculation on your part on what might have, could have been. You could substitute the name of any one of the Canadian shipyard in your statements and they would mean just as much, or as little. Why not mention the actual yards on the great lakes? They use to build these lakers and ought to have bid, ought they not?

Also, look at the timeline, Algoma let the contract out to get its first ship in 2009. That is well before the National Strategy was announced, in 2011. You may recall that Davie was still in receivership until the European purchase and that purchase was a last minute thing only a few months before the Strategy was announced. Thus they were not even on the market in 2009.

I'll say it again, there are no yards, in North America or in Europe, that can build these hyper simple cargo ships that are nothing but a big box with a small diesel at the back for anywhere near as cheap as the Asian yards - who don't pay their employees and could not care less about their safety.


----------



## YZT580

There is a dry dock right in Algoma's home town of St. Catharines that originally was slated for construction of a number of hulls that eventually went to China.  They just couldn't compete and that was with tax breaks and union cooperation.  That yard went belly-up.  Algoma is using it now to do winter maintenance on one of their hulls but there are no long term guarantees and certainly no contracts pending that have been announced.  It isn't possible to compete with labour cost differences so great.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> First of all, Colin, what you say can apply equally to every Canadian shipyard, and is pure speculation on your part on what might have, could have been. You could substitute the name of any one of the Canadian shipyard in your statements and they would mean just as much, or as little. Why not mention the actual yards on the great lakes? They use to build these lakers and ought to have bid, ought they not?
> 
> Also, look at the timeline, Algoma let the contract out to get its first ship in 2009. That is well before the National Strategy was announced, in 2011. You may recall that Davie was still in receivership until the European purchase and that purchase was a last minute thing only a few months before the Strategy was announced. Thus they were not even on the market in 2009.
> 
> I'll say it again, there are no yards, in North America or in Europe, that can build these hyper simple cargo ships that are nothing but a big box with a small diesel at the back for anywhere near as cheap as the Asian yards - who don't pay their employees and could not care less about their safety.



Actually, the South Koreans pay their workers pretty well; their workers are highly skilled so they value them.  The differences in pay is only a small part of it; they design the ships specifically around their factory production lines so they never have anything sitting idle.  The quality is as good as North American, and it's far cheaper, and it's delivered on time.  The investments the two yards are making should do wonders to bring their production methods closer in line to what the Asian builders do, with the smaller modules being assembled into larger ones, then super modules and finally big honking ships.

None of those yard would build warships though, without a huge premium.  It throws off their production, and has a lot of new peculiarities commercial ships aren't concerned about that complicates things a lot.  So you end up paying for the retooling, additional oversight/management/QA, and lost production on normal work.

Good spot to get a lightly modified COTS design though for stuff like supply or transport ships; those they can pump out as per normal and add a few extras as required.

No experience with the west coast, but have seen enough Irving shenanigans I'm deeply suspicious of what the first few AOPs will be like.  Have been off the coast for a few years though, and have heard the new management team is slowly making positive changes, so will try and stay positive.  I think a lot of the AOPS design challenges have as much to do with the crazy contracting process, crap SOR and the silly number of sub contractors along with the silly IP and other contracting clauses as Irving being Irving.  Pretty funny to see some of the system design choices that 'meet the statement of requirement'


----------



## Kirkhill

Pete

Are the AOPS still hewing to commercial standards, as was originally laid down under the STX regime or has the entire vessel been "navalized"?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Pete
> 
> Are the AOPS still hewing to commercial standards, as was originally laid down under the STX regime or has the entire vessel been "navalized"?



From what I've seen it's a mixed bag.  Seems to be a mix of commercial marine, some various NATO/ Canadian standards, and some north american standards   Some of the Lloyds standards are good, some are extremely broad and if you meet the bare minimum you can get a really bad design.  In a few cases, the TAs are enforcing our own standards for that reason.  Some just make sense though, like using NATO standard shore power cable connectors.

Not sure about the specific on the STX designs, as we've only seen the initial designs out of the AOPs group, but they seem to be customizing/redesigning a lot.  A small part was probably due to changing regulations (IMO, MARPOL, etc), but hard to say.  I've only been working on the power and propulsion side though, so maybe a lot of the rest is stock, but skeptical.  Doesn't necessarily mean it was right the first time; they picked up some of the same issues in the initial design that were the same problems that came with the MCDVs 20 years ago.

I think it will all come together, just think the first few will take a while to get up and running properly.  Also further complicated by the ISSC for the platform, which won't be in place in time to help look at all the supportability issues, QA on the tech data package, and other critical deliverables from the builder that we don't have the manpower to go through properly with the other MCPs and the actual fleet to support.

Cautiously optimistic; the east coast ships coming out of ISS post FELEX seem to be in better shape then previous.  Although the first few were bad, and PRE was criminal, so the bar is low. :2c:


----------



## Kirkhill

The decisions that are being made: Are they suitable for porting to the CSC project as standard solutions?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Some will be; we've spent a lot of time starting about three years ago going through our old standards, reviewing them for CTAT, and updating the tech standards with CSC in mind.  We are also currently doing a mock design based on the CSC SOR to flush out weaknesses and look at cost/performance tradeoffs.

There are some pretty fundamental shifts going on in the background on how the RCN manages the safety of the ships.  Other NATO countries are doing the same thing, and there is a 'Naval Ship Code' (http://www.navalshipcode.org/) that is being developed to help improve designs of warships, and also management of safety when in service with 'safety area certificates'.  There are currently eight safety areas, for things like propulsion, fire safety, evac & rescue, etc, which all tie back to certification and performance requirements for specific systems.

All that to say is we're looking at high level comparison to the current fleet, comparing NSC to the current AOPs/JSS designs, then planning on applying it to CSC.  Some of it will get reviewed periodically (similar to what we do now for the hull certification every five years following a docking), others will be done upfront, and just validated/monitored thru life via the normal test and trials program, and then reassessed whenever there is major changes.  But you have to get it right at design, otherwise it's kind of pointless.

It's kind of interesting, and if we do the work required up front it'll result in a pretty solid design for all the safety related items and a good platform for the grey box weenies to fit their whiz bangs onto, and will be better able to recover from battle damage much quicker then our current ships.

We are also looking at all our damage control tactics at the same time, and looking at how we can improve the ship design to reduce the risk for fighting fires at the design level.  Things like entry route for attack teams into machinery spaces, layers of fitted systems, new systems etc are all being evaluated.  That part is great for the real engineering work that goes into it and because it has a cost to make any design changes, there is actually real science behind it, vice someone's good idea.

I'm kind of an unrepentant nerd about things like that though, so I like working on things like how AFFF works, thermal stratification during fires, etc.

We're also getting a lot of really good data from the upgraded EHM installed on our new platform system during the FELEX program, so that's giving us a lot of great data to go back and validate a lot of the assumptions in how we actually operate our ships (speed, power consumption, etc).

Basically there is a lot of work on the go now to make CSC as good a ship as possible.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Well, on the DC front, it is not like we don't have a wealth of recent world experience (OTT, CHI, PRO) to draw upon...


----------



## Navy_Pete

That's part of it, but our DC tactics are based around the fitted systems available, and how the ship is laid out.

We are trying to improve the ship layout/systems so that it's easier/safer/more effective to fight fires when they do happen.

One of the interesting things out of PRO is the navy is looking at bringing back a diesel trainer at the DC schools for realism; they burn hotter and are more like the real thing.  So you would do all your training on the normal natural gas trainers, then do a final confirmation with a real fire.  Other navies that have similar trainers as us have found that is one thing that comes up with a real fire; people aren't used to the heat.


----------



## donaldk

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> That's part of it, but our DC tactics are based around the fitted systems available, and how the ship is laid out.
> 
> We are trying to improve the ship layout/systems so that it's easier/safer/more effective to fight fires when they do happen.
> 
> One of the interesting things out of PRO is the navy is looking at bringing back a diesel trainer at the DC schools for realism; they burn hotter and are more like the real thing.  So you would do all your training on the normal natural gas trainers, then do a final confirmation with a real fire.  Other navies that have similar trainers as us have found that is one thing that comes up with a real fire; people aren't used to the heat.



I miss the old diesel pit and the engine room mock up at DC Div.  You couldn't mess around in there with being on air as the smoke was real, and the off switch for the engine fire was AFFF hoses.  Improper door procedure? Back draft blowing up in your face fixed that problem for the next run


----------



## SeaKingTacco

My first run at DC school was in The old diesel fired trainer. The down hatch drill into the engine room was just plain terrifying. You were in real, actual danger of getting hurt if messed up.

In the propane trainer, I have never felt that I was anyplace other than Disneyland- no fear at all.

I heard from a lot of the PRO guy that the ATL course needs to be toughened, substantially.


----------



## donaldk

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> My first run at DC school was in The old diesel fired trainer. The down hatch drill into the engine room was just plain terrifying. You were in real, actual danger of getting hurt if messed up.
> 
> In the propane trainer, I have never felt that I was anyplace other than Disneyland- no fear at all.
> 
> I heard from a lot of the PRO guy that the ATL course needs to be toughened, substantially.



Not sure how CFSSE DC does the ATL course out west, but I do know CFNES DC has failed pers for not meeting the standard.  Something to bring up to the CFNES DC Div DCTO at the next mess function...


----------



## Navy_Pete

donaldk said:
			
		

> Not sure how CFSSE DC does the ATL course out west, but I do know CFNES DC has failed pers for not meeting the standard.  Something to bring up to the CFNES DC Div DCTO at the next mess function...



Standards don't really have much to do with it; the propane trainers don't behave like a real ship fire.  They don't get hot enough, they don't have the same smoke/thermal layering, and they don't go out if you do things properly.

Part of it is familiarity of what with how hot diesel fires actually get; people get understandably scared when they encounter that kind of heat for the first time on a real ship board fire.  Also the temperature differences can be several hundred degrees between the smoke layer and below it, so it teaches you pretty quick that you need to get low.

I think the propane trainers are great, but once everyone has the basics down, we need something closer to a real fire.  You can build a safe trainer that uses diesel pools and some other typical scenarios to train with, that would be great for the final confirmation.  Hopefully that's one of the positive things that will come out of PRO.

A few other navies that also went to full propane/nat gas trainers have found the same thing, so it's not just us.  There are some environmental and PR issues with getting diesel fire trainers going, but I think people get that it's not just for giggles.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Standards don't really have much to do with it; the propane trainers don't behave like a real ship fire.  They don't get hot enough, they don't have the same smoke/thermal layering, and they don't go out if you do things properly.
> 
> Part of it is familiarity of what with how hot diesel fires actually get; people get understandably scared when they encounter that kind of heat for the first time on a real ship board fire.  Also the temperature differences can be several hundred degrees between the smoke layer and below it, so it teaches you pretty quick that you need to get low.
> 
> I think the propane trainers are great, but once everyone has the basics down, we need something closer to a real fire.  You can build a safe trainer that uses diesel pools and some other typical scenarios to train with, that would be great for the final confirmation.  Hopefully that's one of the positive things that will come out of PRO.
> 
> A few other navies that also went to full propane/nat gas trainers have found the same thing, so it's not just us.  There are some environmental and PR issues with getting diesel fire trainers going, but I think people get that it's not just for giggles.



There will be changes implemented in the current fleet and whats being built from lessons learned from the PRO fire. Same as when the HMCS Kootenay caught fire. Things such as during training we teach not to put the inductor in the AFFF can, when we have a real fire guess what pers do.The attack team leaders course out here is very tough, but a diesel fire aspect of it would add realism but would come with significant risk to personnel.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Training is a good start, but also a good chance to re evalute the 'how'.  

I agree there is a risk to personnel, but I would compare this to the army doing live fire exercises or maybe live agent exercises.  You make it as safe as possible, but our job is inherently risky, so better to be going through it for the first time in a controlled environment rather then out in the middle of the ocean, and it also builds confidence that the gear will do the job.  The propane trainers are great for getting used to tactics and the equipment, but not good if people are scared when they meet the real thing.

There are a number of industrial FF schools that already have it setup like that, so not like we'd be breaking new ground.  There are a lot of ways to set it up to so that you could very quickly blanket it with foam and vent all the hot gases if something went wrong.  Also, it'd give the old sailors a chance to go on about how the old diesel trainers were more realistic in their day and how soft us kids are.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

There are indeed pro's and con's with the present DCTF and propane fires.  It is convenient in instructing to bring the fires up or knock them off at the word of command as compared to the old trainer with live fire.  It is, however, as pointed out not good for showing the students what a real "I want to, and will kill you if you fuck up" live fire is like. I remember the experience of my OSQAB training and going into the engine room fire for the first time.  It was alarming to say the very least to see or more aptly not see anything due to the black smoke and as you creeped towards the seat of the fire to begin to see a angry orange glow as if the entrance to hell was coming for you, and the heat...  If you didn't do things right, it would flash over your heads and come around you from the sides.  Nothing like the real deal to teach you properly.  With the propane being force fed it is hard to show how the new techniques disrupt the thermal layers, knock down the flames and provide effective gas cooling.

They are talking about some live fire capability with wood as the fuel source similar to what is being used at Waverley so I am told.  I have not seen what they have there so cannot speak with any authority as to what exactly they are doing there.  It is a step in the right direction at any rate.

We have heard things from the PRO incident but have had no concrete briefings or after action reports.  If what we have heard is correct, things do need to change to prepare for the next time.  And there will be a next time one day.  Yes, it needs to be as realistic as can be.  I know from personal experience that if you train like it's real, when it's real, it feels like training.


----------



## Navy_Pete

As far as I know, the BOI findings for PRO are still making the rounds.  The actual fire investigation etc is done; there might be an unclass version of the presentation at the next tech seminar in March.

Not sure where PRO BOI is in the approval process, but did hear that the ALG BOI findings only recently got the final stamp, although I've yet to personally put eyes on it.

There were some design reviews right after the PRO fire though for AOPs and JSS, so the SMEs looked at it.  CSC is still early enough on that there is no design, but we are actively working on a number of things to include in the SOR wrt MMS fires, and possibly some improvements to the FDSAC system on the frigates that have been sitting at EC part 1s for a while.


----------



## Navy_Blue

The RN uses propane and pans with vegetable oil to add the heat and black smoke conditions you would want in a fire.  if your crash stops could drop lids on big pans of vegi oil the system would still be safe and you might use the same trainer.  Just thought.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.



> *Irving named prime contractor for Canadian surface combatant warships*
> Owner of shipyard building new combat vessels will oversee project, hire subcontractors
> 
> By James Cudmore, CBC News Posted: Jan 20, 2015 4:29 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 20, 2015 4:34 PM ET
> 
> The Irving Shipyard in Halifax will build Canada's next generation of combat ships for the Royal Canadian Navy, and will also serve as prime contractor for the job worth nearly $26-billion.
> 
> A major decision in the federal government's nearly $26-billion program to build new combatant ships for the navy has been made behind closed doors and announced only quietly today at a meeting of defence industry insiders.
> 
> The government announced Tuesday that Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax will be the prime contractor on the 15-ship Canadian surface combatant program.
> 
> That program is seen to be the crown jewel in the government's $35-billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy to rebuild the capital fleet. Irving was long ago selected to build all the military's combat ships, but Tuesday's announcement also puts Irving in charge of almost the entire project.
> 
> That status theoretically affords the privately held company the opportunity to take profit as both shipbuilder and prime contractor. It would also give Irving significant power or sway in decisions about which subcontractors are invited to participate in the program, and at what price.
> 
> The government has not said how much the contract is worth, but the value of the prime contractor position is significant enough to have attracted the interest of large defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, DCNS, Thales and others. Some of those companies will likely also bid on other key parts of the ship program and had their own stakes in being named prime contractor.
> 
> Prime contractor does the hiring
> 
> The position is best explained as akin to the general contractor in home building or renovation. The general contractor oversees the project but also hires all the subordinate trades, including roofers, plumbers, carpenters, drywallers, electricians and others.
> 
> The government in effect has decided to make Irving both carpenter and general contractor. It's done this after soliciting the defence industry for feedback about the way ahead.
> 
> As part of the shipbuilding procurement program, the government has been consulting with industry.
> 
> There were at least five options under consideration, all but one of which included competition as a key part of the process. The fifth, a "shipyard-led process," appears to leave much of the decision-making up to Irving, making the builder responsible "for demonstrating that each of the selections satisfies Canada's operational and contractual requirements," according to public contract documents.
> 
> It's not clear to what extent these processes have evolved since they were first made public in 2013.
> 
> Alan Williams, the Defence Department's former head of procurement, said the strategy is guaranteed to be confusing.
> 
> "No one really understands what's going on, and I think [the government] prefers to keep it that way," he told CBC News.
> 
> Williams said the government should have held a competition to determine who would be prime contractor on the multibillion-dollar project.
> 
> "A prime [contractor] determined by the government is a problem in the sense that it has determined who is going to be accountable for the product, and where it is going to be built."
> 
> Under such a system, teams of contractors would group together and compete with other teams to win the government's business. The only restriction in this context is that Irving would always remain the builder. In this case, that process is skewed, Williams said.
> 
> "In other words, $26 billion or so will go to Irving and they will decide who will get to help build these ships, under what terms and conditions.
> 
> "Of course, their primary interest and responsibility isn't to the Canadian taxpayer, isn't to the government, isn't to the navy, but it's to their shareholders."
> Competitive process more cost-effective?
> 
> Much of that would also be true if another company were made prime contractor, but Williams said a fight between rivals to win the government's work would encourage better outcomes at lower costs.
> 
> "It would be much more cost-effective through a competitive process."
> 
> The decision to make a builder the prime contractor was always an option under the shipbuilding program, but the decision to award it to Irving surprised some defence insiders.
> 
> A source familiar with the government plan suggests the decision is smart, because it makes Irving accountable to the government for the entire project.
> 
> Typically, large projects of this sort have one team in charge of project definition and design and another in charge of the build and the complicated combat systems integration process. The transition between teams sometimes becomes difficult and hard to manage, as one group is forced to implement another contractor's plan.
> 
> In this case, the source says, the government has reduced that risk by having one company run both sides of the effort.



 Article Link


----------



## Navy_Pete

This actually makes sense; they can design the build around their facilities and production line, kind of like figuring out how to build a cabinet with what tools you have at home.  Most of the other systems come as a modular package that can be 'plugged in', and individual systems would have their own SMEs regardless.

Hopefully they unfox the IP setup though, that's nuts.


----------



## CougarKing

Scaling back...

Reuters



> *Canada set to scale back big plan for navy ships, go over budget*
> 
> By David Ljunggren
> 
> OTTAWA (Reuters) - *Canadian officials said on Friday a C$26.2 billion ($21.5 billion) program to build 15 naval ships could end up below target and over budget*, the latest challenge to Canada's troubled military procurement process.
> 
> In 2010, the Conservative government announced the program to replace three destroyers and 12 frigates with 15 modern warships.
> 
> *But officials told a briefing that the plan was now to build "up to 15 vessels" and the exact number would not be known for another few years.* Construction is set to start early in the next decade and end in 2040.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## MilEME09

By the time the last ship is built it will already be obsolete


----------



## Stoker

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> By the time the last ship is built it will already be obsolete



So what do you base this on?


----------



## cupper

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Scaling back...
> 
> Reuters



And this is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## MilEME09

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So what do you base this on?





> Construction is set to start early in the next decade and end in 2040.



that's 20 years to build all the ships that means the first ships will have about 10 years left in their life span before replacement programs should be going


----------



## Stoker

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> that's 20 years to build all the ships that means the first ships will have about 10 years left in their life span before replacement programs should be going



When the CSC start being built the latest technology will be used and as successive ships are completed they will have the latest equipment. I would hardly call that obsolete. HMCS Halifax was laid down in 1987, and last of class HMCS Ottawa came out in 1996, are they obsolete? Unless we build the CSC in two yards like the Halifax Class, that's the time it will take.


----------



## MilEME09

Honestly we should be using more then what yard, should something like this not be a national effort, not which ever company profits the most from it?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> When the CSC start being built the latest technology will be used and as successive ships are completed they will have the latest equipment. I would hardly call that obsolete. HMCS Halifax was laid down in 1987, and last of class HMCS Ottawa came out in 1996, are they obsolete? Unless we build the CSC in two yards like the Halifax Class, that's the time it will take.



Well that depends upon what sort of gauge you're using to quantify that question.  I am, at present, on my 6B's.  I won't speak for the CSE world or the Grimy side either, but, on my end of the stick.  The terms that were used to describe HAL is that she (as a CPF) was designed for a 25 year lifespan, at point which she is nearly at.  Therefore, she is nearing her end of life usefulness at a rapid pace.  IF, the CSC does start to make her appearance around 2025 as hoped for, that will make HAL in the 35 year mark (if not more).  10 years isn't a long time and I doubt she honestly has that long left, from a HT standpoint.  Her sisters won't be far behind at that point either.


----------



## Monsoon

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well that depends upon what sort of gauge you're using to quantify that question.  I am, at present, on my 6B's.  I won't speak for the CSE world or the Grimy side either, but, on my end of the stick.  The terms that were used to describe HAL is that she (as a CPF) was designed for a 25 year lifespan, at point which she is nearly at.  Therefore, she is nearing her end of life usefulness at a rapid pace.  IF, the CSC does start to make her appearance around 2025 as hoped for, that will make HAL in the 35 year mark (if not more).  10 years isn't a long time and I doubt she honestly has that long left, from a HT standpoint.  Her sisters won't be far behind at that point either.


The purpose of FELEX has been specifically to upgrade the systems to extend the useful lifespan of the ships to 40+ years. A refitted ship will never be "new" as one designed and built from scratch (and there are limits to how much life you can squeeze out of an old hull with successive refits), but at the same time refitted ships don't have to go through the same kind of teething pains as all-new classes do when they're first introduced. When you change out all the weapons, sensors and combat systems on a ship while substantially overhauling the engineering systems, at some point you're just talking about the hull itself being old (though, to be fair to your 6B instructor, that's exactly what a Hull Tech would be concerned with).


----------



## jollyjacktar

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> The purpose of FELEX has been specifically to upgrade the systems to extend the useful lifespan of the ships to 40+ years. A refitted ship will never be "new" as one designed and built from scratch (and there are limits to how much life you can squeeze out of an old hull with successive refits), but at the same time refitted ships don't have to go through the same kind of teething pains as all-new classes do when they're first introduced. When you change out all the weapons, sensors and combat systems on a ship while substantially overhauling the engineering systems, at some point you're just talking about the hull itself being old (though, to be fair to your 6B instructor, that's exactly what a Hull Tech would be concerned with).



And poor old HAL, when she was young had the crap run out of her.  There's no way they'll be able to or at the very least should try to make the hull last 40 years.  They may "want" to extend the life that long, but the design wasn't intended to go that long.  And I don't believe they will.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And poor old HAL, when she was young had the crap run out of her.  There's no way they'll be able to or at the very least should try to make the hull last 40 years.  They may "want" to extend the life that long, but the design wasn't intended to go that long.  And I don't believe they will.



For Canadian warships, the hull will always be the deciding factor as the hull thickness decreases overtime and being prone to cracking with the stresses of being at sea. As we seen with Iroquois, the hull just wore out.


----------



## jollyjacktar

As always.  Their minds, eyes and senses may be sharpened with the nice new IMPS/BDCS and combat suites, but their bodies are frail.


----------



## Good2Golf

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And poor old HAL, when she was young had the crap run out of her.  There's no way they'll be able to or at the very least should try to make the hull last 40 years.  They may "want" to extend the life that long, but the design wasn't intended to go that long.  *And I don't believe they will*.



There are some pragmatists around town who use the term "self-divest"...   :nod:

Regards 
G2G


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Historically, this is not 100% true. Many of the STL (and follow on classes) were in fairly good shape mechanically as well as structurally. It was not cost effective however to rebuild from scratch and new combat system. I read an article a couple years ago by the current head honcho at Irving when he was still in the USN that went something along the lines of "We spend so much time during design determining ELE (Estimated Life Expectancy) yet it is generally the combat suite that determines the life of a combat vessel." The fact that we ran a ship until literally, it began to crack up, speaks volumes. Before you are tempted to throw the cracks on FRA and NIP, they were from hangar mounting and were not structural to the hull.

Pat


----------



## jollyjacktar

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> There are some pragmatists around town who use the term "self-divest"...   :nod:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Hmmmm, that leads me to envision unplanned/unwanted mass swim-ex/survival station drills...


----------



## dapaterson

CBC article on Canadian shipbuilding at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-vast-shipbuilding-plan-still-at-starting-line-1.3058147



> At the core of the matter is a question. How much of a premium do Canadians want to pay to get a made-in-Canada Navy? What's it worth to keep the work at home, rather than going to the world's established shipbuilding nations?
> 
> Even traditional maritime giants often decide to send the work offshore in order to save a ton of money. The British Navy may have a history of 350 years and Rule, Britannia may be a nice song, but Britain hardly rules the waves anymore. So it's building four new naval supply ships at the Daewoo shipyard in South Korea, for roughly $1.1 billion (Canadian). That's for all four.
> 
> By contrast, Canada plans to build just two supply ships in Vancouver for $2.6 billion. That's right: our ships will be will be roughly five times more costly than the British ones. The difference is … theirs are nearly twice as big.


----------



## Lumber

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CBC article on Canadian shipbuilding at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-vast-shipbuilding-plan-still-at-starting-line-1.3058147



I bet if we submitted a request to Daewoo, we'd end up paying munch more than the RN, such is our procurement process.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The solution is to order some hulls from overseas for the stuff we need now, ie the supply ships.


----------



## Kirkhill

Lumber said:
			
		

> I bet if we submitted a request to Daewoo, we'd end up paying munch more than the RN, such is our procurement process.



Assuming that Daewoo were interested in quoting - They may decide they want money up front to even be bothered.  

I wonder if industry-at-large isn't getting to the point that they will sell us what they have coming off an open production line but won't play when we start issuing (unrealistic) specifications.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Assuming that Daewoo were interested in quoting - They may decide they want money up front to even be bothered.
> 
> I wonder if industry-at-large isn't getting to the point that they will sell us what they have coming off an open production line but won't play when we start issuing (unrealistic) specifications.



I as a tax paying Canadian have no issues with your last line.  Best equipment for the best price Canadian made or not.  We should not conintue to prop up companies becuase they employ Canadians.


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I as a tax paying Canadian have no issues with your last line.  Best equipment for the best price Canadian made or not.  We should not conintue to prop up companies becuase they employ Canadians.



I agree and disagree, building of equipment should always be done for the best price, anywhere in Canada or not. Long term maintenance should be done by Canadians in Canada.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I agree and disagree, building of equipment should always be done for the best price, anywhere in Canada or not. Long term maintenance should be done by Canadians in Canada.



I assume you mean from a 3rd line basis and further back ?  On that I would say as long as the cost and production are both of value. 

1st and 2nd line repairs/maint of course will have to be done in Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill

2017 for a designer with a proven design ......

That would appear to rule out the Type 26 and the Damen XO but would allow -

FREMM - F100 - Sachsen - Nansen - Absolon-Huitfeldt - Zeven Provincien.

I would suggest, based on the OMT-Irving association that Absolon-Huitfeldt may have the inside track.  BUT Damen also built the Zeven Provincien and perhaps that could be parlayed into a Zeven Provincien base XO offer.   The other ships are more traditional and less flexible in their designs.



> Canada Plans to Select Warship Designer By 2017
> (Source: Forecast International; issued May 5, 2015)
> OTTAWA --- The Canadian government plans to select a company by 2017 to design a new warship to replace the Royal Canadian Navy's Halifax class frigates and Iroquois destroyers. A proven warship design will likely be selected to reduce risk and the potential for cost growth. The design will be modified as needed to meet the Navy's requirements.
> 
> The Navy has a requirement for 15 ships under the Canadian Surface Combatant program, representing a one-for-one replacement of 12 frigates and three destroyers. The acquisition effort has a budget of CAD26.2 billion, though a November 2013 report from Canada's auditor general suggested that the initial budget figures are more placeholders than estimates of actual program costs.
> 
> The audit also chastised the government for not revising the program budget in recent years despite changes in labor and material costs, and questioned how many ships the Navy will actually be able to afford with static budgets. Total acquisition costs may therefore be higher than current estimates suggest unless the Navy reduces the number of ships it plans to buy.
> 
> As it is, the program is already running a decade behind schedule. At one point, the program called for delivery of a new ship as early as 2014/2015. Currently, the first ship is not expected to enter service until the 2020s. Government briefings have suggested it could take 10 years to design the ships, and another 20 years to build them.
> 
> Canada's Defense Acquisition Guide calls for the acquisition of two CSC variants: an area air defense and task group command and control variant, and a general-purpose variant. The air defense variant would replace the long-range missile defense and command and control capabilities provided by the Iroquois destroyers, while the general-purpose variant would serve as the successor to the Halifax class. The air defense variant will be procured first, as Canada will have lost its destroyer presence by that time.
> 
> Two Iroquois class destroyers were removed from service in 2014, leaving the Navy with only one operational destroyer. HMCS Algonquin sustained significant damage in a collision with HMCS Protecteur in 2013, and HMCS Iroquois was originally slated for retirement in 2015 anyway. Due to budget shortfalls, the Navy simply decided to retire both ships early. HMCS Athabaskan is the only remaining destroyer.
> 
> The Canadian government announced in January 2015 that Irving Shipbuilding will serve as prime contractor on the Canadian Surface Combatant program. Irving was already set to build the ships under Canada's national shipbuilding procurement strategy, but the company's selection as prime contractor puts it in charge of managing all contracts associated with the project.



Link

If the vessels are built on Stanflex principles then I think all the Parliamentary Budget Office assumptions (and Lockmart profits) go out the window.  All the vessels can be built for-not-with and dispatched with available weapons or even UOR weapons acquired out of Operational funds.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> FREMM - F100 - Sachsen - Nansen - Absolon-Huitfeldt - Zeven Provincien.
> 
> BUT Damen also built the Zeven Provincien and perhaps that could be parlayed into a Zeven Provincien base XO offer.



The De Zeven Provinciën and Sachsen classes might be proven warships, but perhaps also a little bit too proven, considering their designs will be nearly 20 years old by 2017, and almost 30 years old when a derivative could be in RCN service. The F100 and Nansen classes are only a couple of years younger and so have the same problem. Even the FREMMs and Huitfeldts, a decade newer still, will be "old" ships by the time the first CSC is supposed to be in commission in the mid to late 20's. 

The timeframe involved in the CSC project makes me think that you shouldnt rule out the T26 and other newer designs such as Thyssen-Krupps F125 class, MEKO 600 or Damens Crossover XO137.
Maybe even US designs(Gibbs & Cox) could be in the running, probably through Lockheed Martin Canada. 

Have there even been any official information regarding the requirements and specifications of the CSC ? How about the size of the vessel?... The ships you mention are all in the 5-6000 tonnes class, but modern frigate designs are getting much bigger, with displacement approaching 7-8000 tonnes, and with LOA figures of ~150 m and beam of +20m.


----------



## Kirkhill

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> The De Zeven Provinciën and Sachsen classes might be proven warships, but perhaps also a little bit too proven, considering their designs will be nearly 20 years old by 2017, and almost 30 years old when a derivative could be in RCN service. The F100 and Nansen classes are only a couple of years younger and so have the same problem. Even the FREMMs and Huitfeldts, a decade newer still, will be "old" ships by the time the first CSC is supposed to be in commission in the mid to late 20's.
> 
> The timeframe involved in the CSC project makes me think that you shouldnt rule out the T26 and other newer designs such as Thyssen-Krupps F125 class, MEKO 600 or Damens Crossover XO137.
> Maybe even US designs(Gibbs & Cox) could be in the running, probably through Lockheed Martin Canada.
> 
> Have there even been any official information regarding the requirements and specifications of the CSC ? How about the size of the vessel?... The ships you mention are all in the 5-6000 tonnes class, but modern frigate designs are getting much bigger, with displacement approaching 7-8000 tonnes, and with LOA figures of ~150 m and beam of +20m.



Good points "Mike".

That growth in the vessels also might suggest that the T45 hull form might not be a ridiculous starting point.

And the growth of the hull leads to questions about budgeting these projects.

Apparently early estimates are often done on the basis of displacement.  That supposedly works well for the civilian market where ships are more often than not just large holes in the water that can be filled with a variety of stuff.

I understand it is less reliable when working with naval vessels where the "stuff" is expensive.  In the past the tendency with warships was to make sure every spare space on board was accounted for resulting in a very "dense" fit.  That density estimate is one of the key factors in deciding vessel costs.

But, the recent tendency to "flex decks" suggests that warships are becoming less "dense" and that in turn would suggest that the cost of an 8000 tonne deep load ship with 2000 tonnes of deadweight after all naval systems have been fitted is actually going to be cheaper than the traditional cost estimate process would suggest.

That situation would seem to become even more true if the systems were separated from the hull using the Stanflex "fitted-for-not-with" philosophy.

The vessel has value as a floating island with minimal systems.  The more systems that are added the more valuable the ship becomes.  But the ship becomes more valuable in exactly the same way that adding an armoured regiment to a light infantry brigade makes the brigade more valuable.  In other words it is possible to build a specified number of hulls (at a low cost) for a given budget and then add systems, under separate budgets over time.  That not only keeps budgeted costs down initially (Irving would get something like 300,000,000 apiece for 15 CSCs and 100,000,000 for each of 8 AOPS for a total of 5.3 BCAD).  The ships would be the Absolons and Svalbards initially.  But with the other 20 BCAD in the budget the RCN could separately purchase varying numbers or modular mission masts, VLS tubs, guns, torpedoes, sonars, Landing Craft and UUVs and shift capabilities to suit missions.

The ship, at its inception, is nothing more than the Transport Platoon for all of the other elements on board that turn her into a Fighting Unit.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just to add to that line of thinking, if you look at the Flight III Arleigh Burke's, they're being tweaked to be able to generate massive amounts of electricity over previous designs in order power both their new radars, and planning ahead to the installation of directed energy weapons.

As planners, it would be negligent to not ensure that the CSC had that capability going forward especially with the acceptance that 'swarm attacks' with missiles or small UAV's may become a new and dangerous threat (the takeaway being that having 48 ESSM's when being attacked by 100 smaller missiles is math that does not work in our favour).


Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill

Nudder good point Matt.

Electricity.

On the Swarm Front you might be interested in this type of article: a potential stratagem for defeating GPS counter measures.  The Swarm is self referencing. It only requires two in the swarm to know their "exact" position ie one on the target and the other at home, and everybody else takes range and bearing from them - a variant of the old compass rose charts popular before Mercator.







As to communications:  line of sight laser is progressing.  Communications using Laser Range Finder and Laser Warning Receivers is not an impossibility.

Fielding of Battlefield Laser Comms - 2013

Fielding of Laser/MMW Combo as civilian cell tower alternative.

None of this directly relates to the NCSS except in the sense it demonstrates how quickly things might change and how any new design needs to be able to incorporate not only "the known knowns and the known unknowns but also the unknown unknowns"  and that is another argument for separating the platform from its capabilities.

Edit - Just realized I failed to include the link to the Swarm Navigation article: 

http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/190825/files/dtn_navigation-si-web.pdf
http://www.swarmanoid.org/upload/pdf/DucDicGam08.pdf


----------



## Kirkhill

What a coinkydink.  Look at what I found in today's Defense-Aerospace press releases....  Link

Many of the same memes - max flex, fitted for not with, hulls, electricity (and water), civil-military duality.  (Oh, and relatively cheap 5.8 BEuro for 7 hulls including a Logistic Support Ship).



> Fincantieri and Finmeccanica Will Renew the Italian Navy Fleet
> 
> (Source: joint Fincantieri/Finmeccanica release; issued May 7, 2015)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artist’s impression of a Pattugliatore Polivalente d’Altura, a hybrid design combining the attributes of an Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) with those of a multipurpose frigate into the same vessel. (Fincantieri image)
> 
> 
> TRIESTE / ROME --- Fincantieri, one of the world’s largest shipbuilding groups and reference player in the naval shipbuilding industry, and Finmeccanica, Italy’s leading manufacturer in the high technology sector, will build and equip the units set out in the renewal plan of the Italian Navy’s fleet.
> 
> In the framework of this plan, OCCAR (Organisation Conjointe de Cooperation sur l’Armement, the international organization for cooperation on arms) has signed the order of the contractual performance for the construction of six patrol vessels (PPA, or Multipurpose Offshore Patrol Ship), with four more in option, and for one logistic support unit (LSS or Logistic Support Ship) with the consortium (Raggruppamento Temporaneo di Impresa - RTI) consisting of Fincantieri, agent, and Finmeccanica, through its subsidiary Selex ES, principal.
> 
> The value of the contracts for the seven units is approx. 3.5 billion euros, of which Fincantieri’s share amounts to approx. 2.3 billion euros and the one of Finmeccanica to about 1.2 billion euros.
> 
> The contracts provide different activation phases.
> 
> Today OCCAR has started Phase 1 for the construction of the first PPA and the logistic support unit for a total value of 372 million euros, of which Fincantieri’s share amounts to 220 million euros and Finmeccanica’s to 152 million euros. The activation of the next phases concerning the other units is expected to take place in the upcoming months.
> 
> The delivery of the logistic support unit is scheduled for 2019, while the first patrol vessel is expected to be delivered in 2021. The delivery of the following patrol vessels is planned for 2022, 2023, 2024 (two units) and 2025.
> 
> In general, this multi-year program for the renewal of the Navy’s fleet (known as the "Defence Act") will employ a total funding of 5.4 billion euros and foresees the construction, in addition to the aforementioned units, of one transport and landing unit (LHD) through a public contract with the Italian Ministry of Defence currently being finalized.
> 
> In particular:
> • one logistic support unit (LSS or Logistic Support Ship)
> • six patrol vessels (PPA, or Multipurpose Offshore Patrol Ship) and four more in option
> • one transport and landing unit (LHD or Landing Helicopter Dock)
> 
> The fundamental characteristic common to all three classes of ships is their high level of innovation providing them with a considerable degree of efficiency and flexibility in serving different mission profiles. In particular, these are dual-use vessels, meaning that they may be used for both standard military purposes and for civil protection and rescue at sea operations, and they also have a low environmental impact thanks to a state-of-the-art auxiliary propulsion system generating a low level of pollution emissions (electric engines) and biological waste control system.
> 
> The consortium (RTI) was established according to the cooperation agreement in the field of naval vessels construction signed last October between Fincantieri and Finmeccanica. Pursuant to the agreement, Fincantieri acts as a sole interface to the client, while allowing to enhance Finmeccanica’s products range in the naval field.
> 
> In addition to building the vessels at its shipyards, Fincantieri will provide support over the lifecycle of the vessels in the first ten years, through the supply of logistic services (training courses, spare parts, technical documentation) during the construction of the vessels and of ISS or In Service Support (maintenance services), carried out during post-delivery operations, as well as components and naval machinery produced by the Marine Systems and Components Unit, such as shaft lines, wheelhouse, maneuvering propellers, fin stabilizers and other handling systems, the automation system and a part of the special supplies for PPAs delivered by the subsidiary Seastema S.p.A.
> 
> Finmeccanica, through Selex ES, will act as prime contractor for all of the new naval units' combat systems. Selex ES will provide sensors, such as the new multi-functional radar, and will also take on responsibility for all subsystems, included those provided by OTO Melara, WASS, MBDA and Elettronica.
> 
> In addition, Selex ES and Fincantieri will develop together the innovative “Cockpit” system. This system will, for the first time ever, allow for the integrated management of sailing and combat system operations, using augmented reality to allow both functions to be effectively managed with fewer operators.
> 
> Fincantieri’s Chief Executive Officer, Giuseppe Bono, commented: "This program has a deep industrial value, in addition to the significant geo-political implications with the relaunch of Italy's role in the Mediterranean. Indeed, it makes it possible to raise the levels of employment and development of technological research not only for our group, but for all the subcontractors.
> 
> “I would like to mention that, as demonstrated in a study made by the Censis Institute, the shipbuilding industry is able to generate an economic impact in the subcontractor network up to almost four times the original investment, with an impact on employment equal to nine times the direct employees of Fincantieri. In addition, our Marine System and Components Unit will be revitalized too through the development of new high-tech products”.
> 
> Bono concluded: "As always, Fincantieri is committed to provide our Navy with high quality products, developed using the latest technology, on time and on budget”.
> 
> Finmeccanica’s Chief Executive Officer and General Manager, Mauro Moretti, stated: “This important programme provides the opportunity to build on Finmeccanica's technological heritage in the naval sector. Through the development of products for the Italian Navy's new ships, Finmeccanica is able to further expand its capabilities in new high-technology naval combat systems, and in particular in key strategic areas such as sensors, multifunctional radar, and multi-sensor integration. These developments ensure that the Italian Navy's ships are at the cutting-edge of new technology, and at the forefront of the international market, where Finmeccanica has an established presence and is recognised by the customer.”
> 
> Moretti concluded: "the commitment to this new programme confirms the intention of the company to further strengthen and invest in the high-technology naval sector”.
> 
> VESSEL CHARACTERISTICS
> 
> LSS – Logistic Support Ship
> The LSS is a vessel that provides logistics support to the fleet, endowed with hospital and healthcare capabilities thanks to the presence of a fully equipped hospital, complete with operating rooms, radiology and analysis rooms, a dentist’s office and hospital rooms capable of hosting up to 12 seriously injured patients.
> 
> The ship is capable of combining capacity to transport and transfer to other transport vessels used for liquids (diesel fuel, jet fuel, fresh water) and solids (emergency spare parts, food and ammunitions) and to perform at sea repairs and maintenance work for other vessels. The defense systems are limited to the capacity of command and control in tactical scenarios, communications and dissuasive, non-lethal defense systems.
> 
> The vessel is also capable of embarking more complex defence systems and becoming an intelligence and electronic war platform.
> 
> • 165 meters long
> • speed of 20 knots
> • 200 persons including crew and specialists
> • 4 replenishment station abeam and 1 astern
> • Capacity to supply drinking water to land
> • Capacity to provide electricity to land with 2500 kw of power
> • Possibility of embarking up to 8 residential and healthcare modules
> • Capacity to perform rescues at sea, through recovery and seabed operations (the ship is equipped with an 30 tons offshore stabilized crane)
> • base for rescue operations through helicopters and special vessels
> Delivery is scheduled in 2019.
> 
> PPA – Multipurpose Offshore Patrol Ship
> The multipurpose offshore patrol ship is a highly flexible ship with capacity to serve multiple functions ranging from patrol with sea rescue capacity to Civil Protection operations, and in its most highly equipped version, first line fighting vessel. There will be indeed different configurations of combat system: a “soft” one for the patrol task integrated for self-defence ability, and a “full” one, equipped for a complete defence capability.
> 
> The vessel is also capable of operating high-speed vessels such as RIB (Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat) up to 11 meters long through lateral cranes or a hauling ramp located at the far stern.
> 
> • 129 meters long
> • Speed of over 31 knots
> • 171 persons of the crew
> • Equipped with a combined diesel and gas turbine plant (CODAG)
> • Capacity to supply drinking water to land
> • Capacity to provide electricity to land with 2000 kw of power
> • Possibility of embarking modular residential and healthcare zones
> • 2 modular zones at the stern and at the center of the ship that allow the embarking of various types of containerized operating/logistic/healthcare modules (in particular, the stern area may receive and handle within a covered area up to 5 modules in ISO 20” containers, while the central zone may receive and handle up to 8 ISO 20” containers)
> 
> The PPAs will be built at the Integrated Shipyard of Riva Trigoso and Muggiano, with delivery expected, for the first vessel of the class, in 2021, while the following deliveries of the vessels will take place in 2022, 2023, 2024 (two units), and 2025.
> 
> 
> Fincantieri is one of the world's largest shipbuilding groups and number one by diversification and presence in all high value-added market sectors, having built more than 7,000 vessels in over 230 years of its maritime history. Headquartered in Trieste (Italy), the Group has approximately 21,700 employees, of whom around 7,700 in Italy, and 21 shipyards in 4 continents.
> 
> Finmeccanica is Italy’s leading manufacturer in the high technology sector and ranks among the top ten global players in Aerospace, Defence and Security. In 2014, Finmeccanica generated revenues of about 14 billion Euro. With 273 locations and production facilities in 20 countries, Finmeccanica is a multinational and multicultural group which boasts a significant presence in four domestic markets: Italy, the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Poland.
> 
> (ends)
> 
> 
> 
> Two New Ship Programmes Integrated Into OCCAR
> (Source: OCCAR; issued May 7, 2015)
> The Multipurpose Combat Ship Programme PPA (Pattugliatori Polivalenti d’Altura) and the Logistic Support Ship Programme LSS (Logistic Support Ship) have been formally integrated into OCCAR on 4 May 2015 with the confirmation of the PPA and LSS Programme Decisions and the respective contracts by the Italian authorities.
> 
> Both programmes are currently managed on behalf of Italy as the Programme Participating State.
> 
> The successful integration into OCCAR of these two modern ship programmes means a major expansion of the OCCAR Programme portfolio. OCCAR now manages 11 European Armament Programmes in various capability and technology areas, including also the Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MMCM) Programme which was integrated in March 2015.
> 
> The two classes of ships have been conceived, since the beginning, with enhanced “dual use” features, fit for traditional military tasks and also able to intervene during peace time, supporting Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Assistance Operations (i.e. modular hospital, electrical power/drinkable water ashore and containers). In other words, the ships are able to provide maritime security in war and in peacetime, 365 days per year.
> 
> The Pattugliatori Polivalenti d’Altura - PPA vessels represent the best example of a “one-size-fits-all warship” designed to perform a wide spectrum of missions, thanks to their remarkable capabilities in terms of modularity and flexibility.
> 
> The ships will replace patrol ships, corvettes and frigates and will initially be delivered in a full and a light configuration.
> 
> The Programme includes Development and Production of six ships (five in light and one in full configuration; with an option for another four ships) and the In Service Support for ten years.
> 
> The delivery of the First of Class is planned in 2020 for the light configuration (FOC L) and 2023 for the full configuration (FOC F).
> 
> The OCCAR-EA PPA Programme Division is located in Rome, Italy.
> 
> The Logistic Support Ship - LSS will be capable of supporting a naval Joint Task Force, to support disaster relief operations, to provide medical support (NATO Role 2 LM) and to transport naval and aviation fuel, fresh water, ammunitions, lubricating oil, food, spare parts and 20 ft ISO containers.
> 
> The LSS Programme includes Development and Production of one ship and the In Service Support for ten years.
> The delivery of the LSS is planned for 2019.
> 
> The OCCAR-EA LSS Programme Division is located in La Spezia, Italy.


----------



## Underway

It makes me a little sad to see the "proven design" comment, as that most likely means the Halifax is the last true Canadian Warship.  However in our international world it really makes no sense fiscal or otherwise to reinvent the wheel.  But the Canadian standards issue means that we are probably going to take a basic hull design and modify the crap out of it, like we always do with canadianization, hopefully in the process getting an effective ship (hope springs eternal) as we cannot afford to miss with this.  Unlike  a lot of army procurement where we can miss and still operate to a certain extent, with billion dollar warships that take years to build that is not an option.

So what are we looking at for a basic ship.  Way back when the SCSC project was started they looked at a pile of technological options and evolving technologies.  The SCSC report looked at the tasks required of in those days a TSSU (tactically self sufficient unit) and ideal fleet mix.

The ideal fleet mix hasn't changed and neither has the requirements.  We still need to do all the things we were doing and currently can do.  SCSC concluded that to do all the things we want and provide room for changing technology the ship should be 6500+ tonnes. I'm going to say 7000ish in today's understanding of what sizes are effective from the NATO experiences of our partners.  This is right in the F125, Italian FREMM, Horizon Class, range.  The stock T26 is to light for what we want to do, mostly because of the requirement for the AAW space and the Cyclone storage.  A scaled down T45 might work as well.

Some of the challenges that could change who gets chosen are an ability to operate a Cyclone (very large by NATO standard ASW helo) in high sea states with a hauldown system.  This may eliminate some versions of ships that can't properly accommodate our helo's, not just land.  Of all the Canadian ways of doing things big ASW helos are perhaps the most obvious as I think almost all other navies work with small helo's on "escorts".  No other ship design out there I can think of has this as a integral part of its design.

The upcoming new NATO standard for damage control run through Loyds of London for insurance, or at least the lessons learned from PRO, OTTAWA, etc..  Someone earlier in this thread (or another on here, can't remember where) I believe posted info on this, how ship design is now looking more at how you attack a fire, routes, fitted systems working with attack teams and ensuring there is a larger standard for insurance purposes and so on.  None of the current ship designs have this taken into account as the standard hasn't been promulgated yet.  New ships will have to be built with an eye to these requirements, and old designs may need to be reworked completely internally to deal with this.

Gateway C4ISR is a goal of the RCN.  I'm not sure if we have that capability in the FELEX but it certainly would be an excellent addition and was talked about as far back as Leadmark 2020.  That's a kit issue though not a shipbuilding issue as far as I'm understand.  Rejigging the comms antennae is important but not critical to the entire build of the ship.  

The main sensor system will have a large influence on the design for sure.  A SMART L combined with an APAR system is most likely, I certainly don't see a SAMPSON radar like the T45.  Its a proven combination, mature enough tech and in use with a number of NATO allies and not limited by ITAR issues.  What designs already have or can easily be modified for this combination? The missile loadout is also very dependant on the sensor system.  APAR, SMART-L is proven to work with SM2, ESSM combo.  The combat system is not new.  Asters work with the Sea Viper system, also mature but not with as many navies.  The choice of sensors will inform much of the rest of the design.

Most likely there will be a 127mm or equivalent on the GP version,  I don't see the AAW version having a Naval Fire support gun.  Any design needs to flexible enough to change out for a heavier gun on the GP version.  The 57mm was chosen for the frigate mainly because of its AA capabilities.  At the time of design of Halifax it was felt that this was an extremely important capability to have and added an excellent and effective layer to the AAW suite of a Canadian Task Group.  I'm not sure what the RCN opinion is in this new tech environment, I know the gun is extremely important due to its flexibility but generally the larger the gun the less effective it is in AA warfare (usually from rate of fire, though smaller guns also have less range).  But with RAM's, CIWS, Goalkeepers, etc... could you not layer on a heavier gun?  And with quad packed ESSM's you have literally quadrupled your missile capacity for short - mid range interception since the 57 was considered necessary.  With a APAR able to track and prosecute many targets has the "light" gun had its day?  Its an interesting question. Perhaps both a 57mm and a 127?  It doesn't seem very RCN to over gun though.  

Open architeture is going to be very important.  Even SCSC wrote about the possibility of directed energy weapons, and by the time the CSC steel is being cut they might be coming online for real, instead of trials and one offs.  Having the ability to switch the design between build blocks is extremely important for the overall fleet relevance.  Any chosen design needs that flexability and thats one of the reason they want a bigger ship.

As for propulsion its going to be an electric motor driven ship.  Those are fairly standard now and the tech is very mature.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am torn to a degree, Canada spends to much building the ships here, but without a certain number of new builds, the shipyards can not renew themselves and compete on the repair front. If we want domestic repair capacity, we need to give them a certain number of new hulls to ensure the equipment they use is new enough. I know the Westcoast yards have a good international rep for repairing on time and on budget, it would be nice to keep that ability here. 
We need to get cutting steel now though as the shipyards are losing other contracts in order to keep the ways clears. I would like to see a stiff duty to prevent to many domestic coasting trade hulls being built overseas, but there must be realistic space and capacity before that.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Italians going for versatility, note also JSS-type vessel:



> Italian Ship Production Deal Signed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Italian state shipyard Fincantieri and Italian defense group Finmeccanica have signed a long-awaited contract to start work on a flotilla of new ships for the Italian Navy.
> 
> In a €3.5 billion (US $3.9 billion) deal, the two firms signed up to build six multipurpose offshore patrol ships, known by their Italian acronym PPA, and one logistic support ship. The deal, which was handled through European armaments office OCCAR, envisages four more options for PPA vessels...
> 
> The logistic vessel is to be delivered in 2019, while the PPA vessels will be delivered in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 (two units) and 2025...
> 
> Ship characteristics, as described by Finmeccanica and Fincantieri:
> 
> PPA – Multipurpose Offshore Patrol Ship
> 
> The multipurpose offshore patrol ship is a highly flexible ship with capacity to serve multiple functions ranging from patrol with sea rescue capacity to civil protection operations, and in its most highly equipped version, first line fighting vessel. There will be different configurations of combat system: a "soft" one for the patrol task integrated for self-defense ability, and a "full" one, equipped for a complete defense ability...
> 
> The ship is 129 meters long, has a 171-person crew and can reach a speed of more than 31 knots. It is equipped with a combined diesel and gas turbine plant, can supply drinking water to land and provide 2,000 kilowatts of power...
> http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/05/07/italy-ships-navy-fincantieri-finmeccanica-selex-multipurpose-offshore-patrol-logistic-support/70937388/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am torn to a degree, Canada spends to much building the ships here, but without a certain number of new builds, the shipyards can not renew themselves and compete on the repair front. If we want domestic repair capacity, we need to give them a certain number of new hulls to ensure the equipment they use is new enough. I know the Westcoast yards have a good international rep for repairing on time and on budget, it would be nice to keep that ability here.
> We need to get cutting steel now though as the shipyards are losing other contracts in order to keep the ways clears. I would like to see a stiff duty to prevent to many domestic coasting trade hulls being built overseas, but there must be realistic space and capacity before that.


Sometimes a simple analogy makes things clear and a conversation at the NTO Mess Dinner the other night in Halifax made it clear to many within earshot. You can pay the garage down the road $45 every time you want your oil changed in your car OR you can spend a couple hundred dollars on a hydraulic jack, some good tools and a way to PROPERLY dispose of used oil and do oil changes yourself for the rest of your life for the cost of oil and filter alone. You may even want to branch out after 10 years and open a Mr Lube-type business after gaining all that experience and corporate knowledge and make your fortune eventually. You need to spend money to make money and I see NSPS as a long term investment. Canada SHOULD have a world class Shipbuilding industry and provided successive governments keep this or some semblance of this Program alive over the next 15, 20,25....years, we will have it. For those naysayers (like the CBC) who ask why no steel even been cut in the 4 years since the Program's inception; you obviously know absolutely nothing about long term, high end(meaning LOTS of $$$) procurement. 
If I am buying a new car, I do a few months (or less) homework determining costs to operate, practicality, that kind of thing and three months down the road, I have my 2015 (insert 'off-the-shelf' car name here) in my driveway. If I want to buy a very unique car, a car tailored very specifically to my needs and wants, one that I will be able to maintain within reason, one I will have 20 years from now, one I feel will be cutting edge for quite some time, I may spend YEARS looking around but trust me, there will be a (turn key) 1963 split window black Corvette Stingray in my driveway!  


Pat


----------



## GR66

I personally think it would be preferable for Canada to build (at least most of) our own warships and maintain that industrial capability, as long as it can be _reasonably _competitive and high quality.  However, I don't see how we can do that with the small number of hulls we order and the many, many years between new orders.  

I think some of the other shipbuilders are on to the right idea with their flexible families of corvette to frigate-sized vessels (Damen XO, DCNS's Gowind, Blohm + Voss' MEKO, the Absalon/Iver Huitfeldt, etc.).  Possibly having our own version of such a ship family could generate enough foreign sales to keep the shipyards going between RCN orders, but does it make sense to try to compete in that market with established ship builders?

I imagine, given the size of our maritime borders and the probable expeditionary nature of many of our missions that there are a number of design features that are highly important to have in a Canadian warship that might not be as important for other nations.  I'm thinking probably range, endurance, a heavier helicopter capability, etc. are things that we may find missing in some of these foreign designs that really would be quite important for our ships.  Would there be enough of a foreign demand for a flexible design that incorporates these features that we'd want in our own warships as standard?  We wouldn't then have to compete directly with some of these smaller families, but could rather provide a larger, but still flexible, larger design to supplement those ships in another navy.   Something that would give some extra capability without being as expensive as a more dedicated design like a FREMM or Type 26?

Perhaps we could even partner with one of these other shipyards to build a "big brother" version of one of their corvette/frigate families that would share some commonality in design and equipment.  That would allow each shipyard to specialize a bit but provide potential customers with a broader range of prospective ship designs within a common family.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> Some of the challenges that could change who gets chosen are an ability to operate a Cyclone (very large by NATO standard ASW helo) in high sea states with a hauldown system.  This may eliminate some versions of ships that can't properly accommodate our helo's, not just land.  Of all the Canadian ways of doing things big ASW helos are perhaps the most obvious as I think almost all other navies work with small helo's on "escorts".  No other ship design out there I can think of has this as a integral part of its design.
> 
> ......



I took a look at the vessels under discussion here and I am not convinced that we are alone in operating large helicopters on "small" ships anymore.

First of all ships in the 6000 tonne range are not small ships.  The first helicopter Assiniboine (DDH234) apparently only displaced half of that, deep.

All of the vessels under discussion are in that range:

Absolon - 6300
Huitfeldt - 5800
Damen XO 137 - 5600
Type 26 - 6000
FREMM - 6000
Sachsen - 5800
7 Provincien - 6050
F100 - 6391
Nansen - 5290

The Type 45 apparently displaces 8000 tonnes

Secondly, wrt the helicopters, the following vessels are given as being able to land and launch CH-(1)47 Chinooks:

Absolon
Huitfeldt
Damen XO
Type 26.

The design standard helicopters embarked on board and carried in the hangars are:

EH/AW-101 Merlin - 14.6 T AUW - Absolon, Huitfeldt, Type 45, Type 26.

NH-90 - 10.6 T AUW - FREMM, Sachsen, 7 Provincien, Nansen.

The F100 carries a single SH-60.

Our CH-148 is intended to have an All Up Weight of 12 Tonnes according to Sikorsky.

The existing CH-124 Sea King weighs in at 9.3 Tonnes AUW.  

To my eye, any of the above designs could accomodate the CH-148 Cyclone.

Our CSC specification should probably include a CH-147/MV22 compatible flight deck. The ability to move between the flex deck and the flight deck by elevator, even for something like the CH-146 would be nice as well.


----------



## Underway

Ah right I completely forgot that the Merlin was a EH 101.  I stand corrected.   However there is a difference between being able to land and accommodate.  By accommodate I mean first line maintainance, hanger storage and everything needed for a six month tour.  The current frigate design was to accommodate Merlins, not seakings so I imagine it's roomier than originally intended in the hanger.

If all those types can do that with minimal mods then great, more options.  I'm fairly confident that CH-147 capability would be a like to have not a must have.  If it gets in the way it's gonna be cut.   Can the Berlins land a Chinook?

As for possible designs I think that the Damen XO and T26 are long shots, depending on the bids as they are not proven designs.  For some reason I don't like FREMM, I can't put my finger on why I just don't.  I really think it's going to come down to a competition between the Dutch, German and Danish ships.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

My other big area of prioirtization would be that the CSC should be designed with a capacity to concurrently deploy multiple UUV's as part of its ASW suite.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Why would that be Cdn Blackshirt?

We already used those: They are called torpedoes!

Seriously, there are currently no useful UUV for ASW. It may come but not yet. But even if it did, the question remains would it give us any prosecution advantage over our current "tails - helicopter" ASW combination. if it does not, then there is no point.

Also, what is this fascination in these pages with being able to land a Chinook on our ships ???

It is an army asset that has no naval purpose. If we had phibs, it would be fine for them, but otherwise, they make no sense on a frigate/destroyer/AOR. If we need to do surface surveillance, gunship support or boarding team insertions from the CSC's the Sea Kings, and I am sure the Cyclone will, have proven themselves up to the task.

Also, what is a proven design? 

Absalon, Huitfeldt, Damen XO, Type 26, FREMM, Sachsen, Zeven Provincien, F100, or Nansen: None of these are proven designs because we have not had a war where any of their alleged capacities have been tested. How they would work is all speculation as the last time modern destroyers/frigates design were tested was the Falkland war.

The mere fact that a design team from Europe, with recent construction successes, will be selected to come up with a CSC design does not in any way mean that they would reuse what they did in the past. Any Canadian requirement inputed in the picture means it will be a new design altogether (this is not like buying trucks [something the Cdn military seems bad at also] where you say I want to buy dump trucks but first I decide if I want an International, a Mack or a Peterbilt).

At best, having a specific European team will mean that  certain design philosophies will be found in the final product, as was the case for the British Type 45 destroyers, for instance, where the work done with the Horizon Frigate team of continental Europe before they got out of the project influenced the design philosophy and the UK ended up with a ship radically different in design than its usual predecessor all conceived in England only.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:goodpost:

Nicely put.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Underway said:
			
		

> This is right in the F125, Italian FREMM, Horizon Class, range.  T*he stock T26 is to light *for what we want to do


 The T26 has seen some quite substantial changes to its structural design since the 6000 tonnes figure was put on BAE's website, and displacement as high as 8000 tonnes full load has been hinted at by some RN insiders.




> The upcoming new NATO standard for damage control run through Loyds of London for insurance, or at least the lessons learned from PRO, OTTAWA, etc..  Someone earlier in this thread (or another on here, can't remember where) I believe posted info on this, how ship design is now looking more at how you attack a fire, routes, fitted systems working with attack teams and ensuring there is a larger standard for insurance purposes and so on.  *None of the current ship designs have this taken into account* as the standard hasn't been promulgated yet. .



Im actually fairly certain they have , at least to some extent. The idea is hardly new , and while i can only speak for the Absalon/ Iver Huitfeldt classes , i know that the high degree of automation on these vessels and their relatively small crewsize, meant that their designers had to think about and incorporate the features you mention into their construction. And i think the same thing goes for pretty much all modern combat vessels that are designed to operate with much reduced crews , compared to older ships.





> The main sensor system will have a large influence on the design for sure.  A SMART L combined with an APAR system is most likely, I certainly don't see a SAMPSON radar like the T45.  Its a proven combination, mature enough tech and in use with a number of NATO allies and not limited by ITAR issues.  What designs already have or can easily be modified for this combination? The missile loadout is also very dependant on the sensor system.  APAR, SMART-L is proven to work with SM2, ESSM combo.



Agreed, APAR/SMART-L is a no-brainer, especially in their latest versions. With SMART-L EWC and a future APAR Mk2 taking advantage of the new GaN based T/R modules, you're getting 90% of the capability of AMDR but at 1/3 the cost. 




> Open architeture is going to be very important.  Even SCSC wrote about the *possibility of directed energy weapons*, and by the time the CSC steel is being cut they might be coming online for real, instead of trials and one offs



Good point......For this reason i also think that high voltage 4-6 KV power generation systems, like the Zumwalts IPS (Integrated Power System) are going to be the future, to allow enough power for increasingly powerfull sensors and weapons like lasers and railguns.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> All of the vessels under discussion are in that range:
> Absolon - 6300..
> Huitfeldt - 5800



Minor corrections,.....Absalon is now classified as being 6645 tonnes FL, while the Huitfeldts is 6649 tonnes FL (5850 t is light ship displacement.) But even without their full complement of weapons and missiles they are already more than 6000 tonnes standard, so an increase in their nominal FL displacement is likely in the near future.



> Type 26 - 6000



As mentioned earlier, the T26 has experienced significant growth and is almost certainly going to be a +7000 tonnes warship.


----------



## Kirkhill

Most interesting All.

OGBD - My personal fascination with adding the Chinook to the capabilities is in the interest of Jointery.  

If the new vessels are going to have a Flex Deck (and that would be the primary driver, in my layman's view, of a heavier vessel) then that Flex Deck might as well serve the needs of the Army as well as Health Services, CJOC and CanSOFCOM.  The Air Force already have their own chunk of the ship.  The Chinook is in the Air Force's inventory and has twice the lifting capacity and twice the range of CH-148/124.

The addition the ability to land, refuel and launch a Chinook would allow for any of the following:

Domestically 

The vessels can become mobile FRPs that extend the radius of action of the Chinooks

Internationally

The Chinooks, after they are flown into theater by the CC-177s to a staging ground like Cyprus, for example, could then be used to move heavier weapons/supplies/systems from Canada, via Cyprus, directly to vessels patrolling. The navy would now be served by flying 10 tonne trucks instead of flying 4 tonne trucks And those trucks would have twice the radius of the CH-148.  You could now see a more significant capability to modify the loadout of your ships in a more timely fashion to respond to a change in your threat picture.  

It would also permit the timely dispatch of DART and CanSOFCOM assets to a wider area more rapidly while giving them a secure base at sea from which to operate.

It would also permit lightly equipped troops to be supported by heavier weaponry than could be supported by the CH-148 alone.  That has significant implications for the Artillery - both in Fire Support and Air Defence - which in turn is important to the navy because the sooner those assets are ashore the sooner the navy can retire from the shore line to blue water.

Finally it would mean that larger numbers of light troops could be staged forward at a time closer to H-Hour meaning that they do not have to live with you all the way from Halifax to the Form Up Point.  They can leave you in peace until you get to the FUP, fly onboard and concentrate their numbers for a couple of days in multiple lifts to multiple ships, marry up with their gear and then assault forward using all available and appropriate lift assets in the area (to include CH-147s, CH-148s and LCVPs).  This allows Canada to deploy "cheap" light infantry by helicopter rather than "expensive" paratroopers.

And the real value for both sides in this dispute (the army and the navy) is that they only have to put up with each other for a week or so rather than a couple of months.

Hence my fascination with the Chinook capability -  a fascination that I believe that I share with the RN, the Danes and the Dutch all of whom have written the Chinook into their specs.

Note, I am not suggesting building hangars for the Chinooks, merely restressing the deck to handle 20 tonnes (the Chinook) landing on 4 wheels rather than 12 tonnes (the CH-148) landing on 3 wheels.  And if (as is the case with the AOPS) the planning were to incorporate the accomodation of the Cormorant then the requirement would be for 15 tonnes landing on 3 wheels.  I believe the point loading for the Cormorant and the Chinook would be similar.

In addition, the increased use of UAVs is also driving the provision of larger flight decks to permit concurrent manned and unmanned vehicle use.  So you might as well plan to be able to land a Chinook as well as being able to operate a CH-148 and a ScanEagle at the same time from the same deck.

The Chinook would also allow you to beef up your crews, when and as necessary, by adding specialist elements like your standing Enhanced Naval Boarding Parties or, perhaps, a shore raiding capability.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Oh! Kirkhill, Kirkhill, Kirkhill.

I don't even know where to start!

Here goes (I'll try).



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Most interesting All.
> 
> OGBD - My personal fascination with adding the Chinook to the capabilities is in the interest of Jointery.
> 
> That confirms my view of "joint" in Canada, which IMO has become a code word for the Army to tell the other two elements to support it (not the other way around however). Nonetheless, as I look at the "scenarios" you list below, I don't even find in there a single one that the Army would remotely like to implement.
> 
> If the new vessels are going to have a Flex Deck (and that would be the primary driver, in my layman's view, of a heavier vessel) then that Flex Deck might as well serve the needs of the Army as well as Health Services, CJOC and CanSOFCOM.  The Air Force already have their own chunk of the ship.  The Chinook is in the Air Force's inventory and has twice the lifting capacity and twice the range of CH-148/124.
> 
> They are not going to have a Flex deck, and the primary driver for heavier vessels is a combination of the fact that we now lob missiles at one another and they are voluminous - thus to carry more you need volume. This is combined with the fact that in a modern warship, building larger ships with its attendant stability, improved living standards, survivability and comfort of ride is cheap. The CSCs are not there to serve the needs of the Army (which other than phibs, has no need of ships). Finally, the "Air Force" does not own "chunks" of the ships. The Air Force, as a result of unification, took over the operation of the NAVAL assets that are shipborne helicopters from the Navy and is running them FOR THE NAVY. They remain NAVAL assets and the Air Force personnel that run them ARE part of the ship.
> 
> The addition the ability to land, refuel and launch a Chinook would allow for any of the following:
> 
> Domestically
> 
> The vessels can become mobile FRPs that extend the radius of action of the Chinooks
> 
> So, you are proposing that Chinooks employed domestically in Canada fly out from continental Canada over the Atlantic or the Pacific to then fly back into Canada? How does that extend their range? If it is the Arctic you have in mind, the CSCs are not intended to operate there - the AOPS are and they can support landing a Chinook.
> 
> Internationally
> 
> The Chinooks, after they are flown into theater by the CC-177s to a staging ground like Cyprus, for example, could then be used to move heavier weapons/supplies/systems from Canada, via Cyprus, directly to vessels patrolling. The navy would now be served by flying 10 tonne trucks instead of flying 4 tonne trucks And those trucks would have twice the radius of the CH-148.  You could now see a more significant capability to modify the loadout of your ships in a more timely fashion to respond to a change in your threat picture.
> 
> I can't see any of that happening. First of all, the shipborne helicopters are NOT trucks - don't ever insult them like that if you want to live  , they are an integral weapon system of the ship. Second, ships already carry ALL their weapons systems with themselves, they don't need extra guns or missile launchers or torpedo tubes flown in. As for their supplies being delivered directly to vessels patrolling, we already do that: It's called an AOR and it is damn more efficient at it than a mere "10 tonnes" truck. Finally, we cannot "modify our loadout" at sea. Ship's don't do that save in harbour. I remember discussing the handling equipment required for torpedoes in these forums earlier, and an Army CWO saying that for a 700 pound torpedoes he would merely use about ten of his men and handle it by hand, why not do the same. I had to explain that the difference is doing it on a deck pitching and rolling 10-15 degrees each way, going through tight compartments and turns that cannot accommodate the ten people at the time and so forth. He understood.
> 
> It would also permit the timely dispatch of DART and CanSOFCOM assets to a wider area more rapidly while giving them a secure base at sea from which to operate.
> 
> DART has a hard time getting itself somewhere using C-17's. What makes you think they would want to get themselves to an intermediate point, then split into tiny little pieces to be "staged out" a few dozen at a time and with one or two piece of gear at the time, to be then re-staged out from the same ship? If it could be done at all: Where would we put their equipment on a combatant vessel? It's not like they are cargo ships. Besides, DART is not a combat unit going into a war zone: they go into countries that have had a disaster and asks for them - so they just fly in country directly. As for CanSOFCOM, they have their own flying equipment and, last I checked, they did not include Chinooks.
> 
> It would also permit lightly equipped troops to be supported by heavier weaponry than could be supported by the CH-148 alone.  That has significant implications for the Artillery - both in Fire Support and Air Defence - which in turn is important to the navy because the sooner those assets are ashore the sooner the navy can retire from the shore line to blue water.
> 
> You are looking for phibs again. There is, and will not be, room onboard the CSC's for heavy weapons of the Army. Therefore, we will not need to disembark them, thus it is of no importance to the Navy. I would like to remind everyone here again that the "SC" in CSC stands for Surface Combatant. They are not support, not amphibious, not patrol, nor aircraft carriers. They are for destroyer/frigates style of operation.
> 
> Finally it would mean that larger numbers of light troops could be staged forward at a time closer to H-Hour meaning that they do not have to live with you all the way from Halifax to the Form Up Point.  They can leave you in peace until you get to the FUP, fly onboard and concentrate their numbers for a couple of days in multiple lifts to multiple ships, marry up with their gear and then assault forward using all available and appropriate lift assets in the area (to include CH-147s, CH-148s and LCVPs).  This allows Canada to deploy "cheap" light infantry by helicopter rather than "expensive" paratroopers.
> 
> No it does not allow that. You are still looking for a phib. Would you like to "land" these light infantry one load of thirty at a time and see them massacred waiting for the next group? Phibs and other large deck carriers can operate and launch multiple helicopters and landing crafts simultaneously for mass effect. CSC's can't. You can only have ONE air frame on deck either landing, taking off, or being resupplied/readied for flight. What you propose is that, over say 24 hours, you would build up your force onboard a CSC (say to 180 soldiers -even though where you you would accommodate them is beyond me) while at the FUP (which I assume means Form Up Point -  not a naval term) and then a few days later, at your destination, similarly send them out one helicopter load at the time and one Rhib boatload at a time. WHY would you want such an insignificant capability?
> 
> And the real value for both sides in this dispute (the army and the navy) is that they only have to put up with each other for a week or so rather than a couple of months.
> 
> We have nothing against the Army. They are welcome onboard anytime they want.
> 
> Hence my fascination with the Chinook capability -  a fascination that I believe that I share with the RN, the Danes and the Dutch all of whom have written the Chinook into their specs.
> 
> I don't believe the Danes have Chinooks into their "specs", even though the Absalon class can handle one landing there if need be. As for the other two nations you mention: their combat vessels (destroyers/frigates) are capable of supporting the landing of  Chinooks, for emergency landing purposes, as result of the fact that they both have amphibious forces that operate such helicopters. We don't, so we don't need to.
> 
> Note, I am not suggesting building hangars for the Chinooks, merely restressing the deck to handle 20 tonnes (the Chinook) landing on 4 wheels rather than 12 tonnes (the CH-148) landing on 3 wheels.  And if (as is the case with the AOPS) the planning were to incorporate the accomodation of the Cormorant then the requirement would be for 15 tonnes landing on 3 wheels.  I believe the point loading for the Cormorant and the Chinook would be similar.
> 
> In addition, the increased use of UAVs is also driving the provision of larger flight decks to permit concurrent manned and unmanned vehicle use.  So you might as well plan to be able to land a Chinook as well as being able to operate a CH-148 and a ScanEagle at the same time from the same deck.
> 
> I don't even know where you see nations increasing size of their flight decks on their destroyers/frigates other than for those who now want to operate larger helicopters like Merlins or NH90's where they used small helicopters before. There is no race to make decks on frigates/destroyers larger for the purpose of operating multiple air assets at the same time. In fact, on such combatant ships, the rule is and remains that you operate ONE and only ONE air asset on the flight deck at a time. You can carry more than one, but you only have one on deck at a time.
> 
> The Chinook would also allow you to beef up your crews, when and as necessary, by adding specialist elements like your standing Enhanced Naval Boarding Parties or, perhaps, a shore raiding capability.
> 
> I can already do that, for the very limited number of extra crew I may want from time to time, with my own air assets. Besides, my understanding is that the combat radius of a Chinook is somewhere around 500 Km. Would you want me to build a whole class of ships with Chinook capability on the extremely remote chance that wherever I happen to be operating on the world's ocean, or even way off along Canada's coasts, I miraculously would happen to be within range of one of Canada's 15 Chinooks to deliver these people to me? I would rather rely on my making into a friendly port nearby or cycling these extra seamen through a nearby US Carrier group. Finally, we have been shore raiding in the Navy since the days of the Phoenicians - we don't need beefing up to do it  .


----------



## Kirkhill

Luvverly OGBD  

We get to disagree on virtually every point.

Can I summarize?

We don't want no stinking pongos in our ships!  Despite your invitation to come aboard there seems to be a distinct lack of bunks and tables in the mess.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You misunderstand me:

We love pongos, just not on a combat ships.

If we get phibs, you guys will be the first we invite onboard. You can have all the bunks and tables you want then - just not cheap booze anymore … sadly.


----------



## Kirkhill

OGBD -

All I am asking is that you build more hulls, of the same shape, size and style as your "combat" ships, and supply them with the same 14 man crew that is the minimum for the Absalons and leave enough space to plug in whatever "combat" systems you wish to add at a later date - or according to mission.

Helicopter drivers are truck drivers.  You are ferry drivers.  Both of you, your first mission is to carry as primary cargo the Canadian Flag wherever your government demands it .  Your second mission is to carry whatever power your government sees fit to project - and that can be bullets, torpedoes, missiles or soldiers.  

Every capital ship currently under consideration is leaving some space for accomodating at least a platoon of passengers and mission bay (if you don't like flex deck) to handle everything from trucks to LCVPs to ROVs and Heavy Torpedoes.

As to my 14 man crew claim....


See below


----------



## Kirkhill

My error the actual quote is: 



> An important cost driver is crew, inspired by Maersk. For example, an ultralarge
> containership can be operated by 14 crew members. The Danish frigates can be operated by
> 20 crew members.



This link http://forsvaret.dk/MST/eng/International/SNMG/PublishingImages/SNMG-1%20press%20ABSL.pdf describes that actual crew breakdown as follows:

- Operations division:
 6 officers, 4 PO, 21 ratings

- Logistics division:
 2 officers, 4 PO, 24 ratings

- Weapons- and Electronics
division:
2 officers, 3 PO, 12 ratings

- Technical Division:
 4 officers, 1 PO, 13 ratings

Presumably the minimum crew is the Technical Division plus a CO and either an XO or Bosun from the Operations Division.


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My error the actual quote is:
> 
> This link http://forsvaret.dk/MST/eng/International/SNMG/PublishingImages/SNMG-1%20press%20ABSL.pdf describes that actual crew breakdown as follows:
> 
> - Operations division:
> 6 officers, 4 PO, 21 ratings
> 
> - Logistics division:
> 2 officers, 4 PO, 24 ratings
> 
> - Weapons- and Electronics
> division:
> 2 officers, 3 PO, 12 ratings
> 
> - Technical Division:
> 4 officers, 1 PO, 13 ratings
> 
> Presumably the minimum crew is the Technical Division plus a CO and either an XO or Bosun from the Operations Division.



One other point I would make is the ongoing US interest in generating platforms of all sizes from which helicopters can operate.

In addition to the traditional ones they are adding HSVs, LCSs and making their Cargo Fleet more useful by adding the MLPs.

As well they have added the Cragside - a converted RoRo - for special operations support.

I wonder if they couldn't apply the flexible concept to the JSS ships as well and leave the outside the same but gut the innards and fill it full of parking space.


----------



## FSTO

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> One other point I would make is the ongoing US interest in generating platforms of all sizes from which helicopters can operate.
> 
> In addition to the traditional ones they are adding HSVs, LCSs and making their Cargo Fleet more useful by adding the MLPs.
> 
> As well they have added the Cragside - a converted RoRo - for special operations support.
> 
> *I wonder if they couldn't apply the flexible concept to the JSS ships as well and leave the outside the same but gut the innards and fill it full of parking space.*



We wasted 10 bloody years chasing that STUPID ALSC idea and we still don't have a replacement for our AOR's. If we would have just built an AOR back in 2002 we maybe could have been in a better position to take the Mistrals if they are actually up for sale. Instead we are still wallowing about the halls of Ottawa scrapping the money to build a ship we really really need. 
There are days that I curse the former CDS who opened a door to an idea (the big honking ship) that nobody else in the world was contemplating. The RCN walked right through that door and then got pole axed by the real world waiting on the other side.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> OGBD -
> 
> All I am asking is that you build more hulls, of the same shape, size and style as your "combat" ships, and supply them with the same 14 man crew that is the minimum for the Absalons and leave enough space to plug in whatever "combat" systems you wish to add at a later date - or according to mission.
> 
> Helicopter drivers are truck drivers.  You are ferry drivers.  Both of you, your first mission is to carry as primary cargo the Canadian Flag wherever your government demands it .  Your second mission is to carry whatever power your government sees fit to project - and that can be bullets, torpedoes, missiles or soldiers.
> 
> Every capital ship currently under consideration is leaving some space for accomodating at least a platoon of passengers and mission bay (if you don't like flex deck) to handle everything from trucks to LCVPs to ROVs and Heavy Torpedoes.
> 
> As to my 14 man crew claim....
> 
> 
> See below



So, as I stated, you agree that you are talking about"phibs", which is what the Absalon are in miniature, and that you want them as supplementary to the CSC. That' is fine, but don't call them CSC's and don't reduce the number of CSC's to accommodate that purchase. BTW, the fact that the Danes decided for their own purpose to use a ship that is close to the Iver Huitfled as "command and support ships", but are in fact mini-phibs, does not mean that we in Canada would have any advantage in going the same route: It all depends what you want to do with the ships that would be "command and support". 

BTW, them's fighting words to call me a ferry driver.

I think this is where we seem to have a big disconnect in this forum between seamen and the other element(s?). You seem to think that ships are purchased the same way Air or Army equipment is: Look at the "market" and buy here a C-17, there a M777, here again a Leopard II, etc.

Ships, even of a same class and using modern modular methods, remain fundamentally single build items: You build them one by one from a set of plans and even then there are discrepancies from ship to ship in the same class. But more than that: there is no "assembly line" going on producing them so you get them as you order. You speak of the Damen XO: It does not exist. It's a glossy magazine from a shipyard trying to attract business so they can THEN and only THEN develop the plans and build one for whoever may have wanted it. That is fine for countries (and there are many - especially in South America, Asia and the Arab world) that actually don't know anything and in particular don't know what they need, and do buy on presentations like that.

In Canada, we know exactly what we want our ship's to be able to do and so, we spec it out precisely. As a result, anything that is proposed/presented for consideration is by necessity a product that does not exist yet and is a different ship than anyone else's.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FSTO said:
			
		

> We wasted 10 bloody years chasing that STUPID ALSC idea and we still don't have a replacement for our AOR's. If we would have just built an AOR back in 2002 we maybe could have been in a better position to take the Mistrals if they are actually up for sale. Instead we are still wallowing about the halls of Ottawa scrapping the money to build a ship we really really need.
> There are days that I curse the former CDS who opened a door to an idea (the big honking ship) that nobody else in the world was contemplating. The RCN walked right through that door and then got pole axed by the real world waiting on the other side.



 :goodpost: +1


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> We wasted 10 bloody years chasing that STUPID ALSC idea and we still don't have a replacement for our AOR's. If we would have just built an AOR back in 2002 we maybe could have been in a better position to take the Mistrals if they are actually up for sale. Instead we are still wallowing about the halls of Ottawa scrapping the money to build a ship we really really need.
> There are days that I curse the former CDS who opened a door to an idea (the big honking ship) that nobody else in the world was contemplating. The RCN walked right through that door and then got pole axed by the real world waiting on the other side.



No arguments...

But the government does benefit from being able to deploy soldiers (and medics) broadly in a timely fashion.  That is why I have become disenchanted with the Big Honking Ship plan and am liking what I see in the Absolon / Huitfeldt , Damen XO, Black Swan / Global Corvette / Type 26 /Type 45 solutions.  All of them are predicated on flexibility (and have given up on trying to outrun torpedoes and missiles - countering them is left up to the Weapons Division).

Even the LCS/HSV are in keeping with the MaxFlex notion - even if the LCS may have been a step too far in the wrong direction.

The Little Ships are everywhere.  The Big Honking Ships are never where they are needed.

One point in OGBD's post I would like to respond to:

In Domestic service, as you move north up the east coast you start to run out of useful refuelling points.  A CSC on patrol just at the 12 mile limit could allow the Chinook to leapfrog further north to an AOPS or jump a thousand kilometers inland to another refuelling point or operate on an extended period, as in the case of a disaster, at a point up to 500 km away.

I admit that on the West Coast no such capability is likely required.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If we use the about 600 km range for "transit", you can jump from St. Johns to Goose Bay, from there to Kuujjuaq (same distance, and then up to Iqaluit if that's your destination. For transit east from Kuujjuaq, you can go either through Quaktak or Ivujivik and there on to Coral Harbour or Cape Dorset and points west. 

A frigate would have little likelihood of finding itself points north of St. Johns, and even less for finding itself north of Goose Bay.  Getting out there from around Halifax with a frigate to accommodate the transit of a helicopter would take a couple of days, at the least, operating at near full speed in Iceberg infested waters. Thus you cannot count on frigates/CSC's being there.

You cannot plan capabilities into vessels or military systems (any of them) on the near zero possibility that this capability might be found usefull once in a hundred years.


----------



## Ostrozac

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> In Domestic service, as you move north up the east coast you start to run out of useful refuelling points.  A CSC on patrol just at the 12 mile limit could allow the Chinook to leapfrog further north to an AOPS or jump a thousand kilometers inland to another refuelling point or operate on an extended period, as in the case of a disaster, at a point up to 500 km away.
> 
> I admit that on the West Coast no such capability is likely required.



Why would you want to self-deploy Chinooks to the Eastern Arctic? I'm not tracking. If you need rotary wing aircraft up there for an operation, why aren't you just flying them in by C-17 or C-130, like we already do when we deploy Griffons to Ellesmere Island?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I don't. Kirkhill seems to think we should want to.

Ostrozac: That was a pretty shrewd observation from a "truck driver". Signed: OGBD, a ferry driver.  ;D


----------



## Baz

FSTO said:
			
		

> We wasted 10 bloody years chasing that STUPID ALSC idea and we still don't have a replacement for our AOR's. If we would have just built an AOR back in 2002 we maybe could have been in a better position to take the Mistrals if they are actually up for sale. Instead we are still wallowing about the halls of Ottawa scrapping the money to build a ship we really really need.


The ALSC idea was stupid... it was trying to make a combined AOR and joint operations ship, all for the cost of an AOR... wasn't going to happen; same with JSS.  We finally selected an AOR to support the Canadian Task Group concept...

which is also stupid; and I'm still convinced in large part driven by the need of the RCN to feel like their a first world navy, on a 2.5 world budget.  And the best way to do that is have a blue water fleet to go do blue water stuff just like we did in the cold war, and a little bit of anti-piracy their; no matter that some of their core warfare skills (like ASW) are withering.  Oh, and make sure we get lots of major combatant (which every other Navy seems to realize are actually minor combatant, commands to create little Admirals with.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> There are days that I curse the former CDS who opened a door to an idea (the big honking ship) that nobody else in the world was contemplating. The RCN walked right through that door and then got pole axed by the real world waiting on the other side.



Nobody else, except (leaving the USN out because it is a core part of what they do):
- RN (to the point they realize that they need to be able to use the QEs as outer littoral amphibs since Ocean will be gone
- French
- Dutch
- Spanish
- Italians
- Russians
- Indians
- Indonesians
- Singaporeans
- Australians
- Kiwis
and that's just a partial list I pulled out of my butt.  The RCN did not walk through that door, they reached in with both arms to see if there was any cash laying around on the other side; and got caught in the vortex of a history of failed Jointness in Canada.  It's ironic that we have a unified military but refuse to be joint, with the RCN closely following the RCAF's lead in that department.

But hey, gives them more time to work on their individual identities, new ranks anyone?

Edited to add: if you're ever wondering why the Canadian public on the whole doesn't understand what you, its because the arguments that are made for a blue water maneuver force don't make a whole lot of sense to them; nor can they see the impact way out there in the ocean.

Don't get me wrong, I understand more than most while we need a latent capability to operate with our Allies in that environment, the Navy doesn't bring a lot to bear on a lot of our current problem sets; it is excellent at showing Canadian resolve with little risk, but that BHS you deride so much would be even better.

As I've said elsewhere, do you think anyone at NORTHCOM gave a hoot about where our Frigates and Destroyers where for Katrina?  They did care where the Coast Guard was fixing nav buoys, and would have cared where a BHS loaded up with supplies and helos were.

Same in Haiti; I remember seeing an article explaining how important we were there... the ironic part was one of the accompanying picture was of the 280 taking fuel from an American amphib that had at least four 53s lined up just starboard aft.  Yep, a Sea King is delivering some irreplaceable effect there all right ;-)


----------



## Kirkhill

To all the ferry and truck drivers out there - brave and skilled as you are - how do you think it feels to be one of Her Majesty's Odd Job men and lumped in along with all the other ammunition....   ;D

On the subject of capabilities - it is dead easy to prove you don't need a capability you have never had.  On the other hand if you have a capability I am equally sure somebody will find a use for it.

As to the issue of operating frigates in the Eastern Arctic







HMCS Montreal, Jones Sound, Nunavut.

Now, in the event of a MajAid event, wouldn't it be nice for 450 to get its Hooks up there and know there was a gas station in the area?

Jus' sayin'.  

It could be an AOPS or it could be a staging point on the way to Eureka or Alert.  It is a matter of increasing the options available to HMG.


----------



## FSTO

Baz said:
			
		

> The ALSC idea was stupid... it was trying to make a combined AOR and joint operations ship, all for the cost of an AOR... wasn't going to happen; same with JSS.  We finally selected an AOR to support the Canadian Task Group concept...
> 
> which is also stupid; and I'm still convinced in large part driven by the need of the RCN to feel like their a first world navy, on a 2.5 world budget.  And the best way to do that is have a blue water fleet to go do blue water stuff just like we did in the cold war, and a little bit of anti-piracy their; no matter that some of their core warfare skills (like ASW) are withering.  Oh, and make sure we get lots of major combatant (which every other Navy seems to realize are actually minor combatant, commands to create little Admirals with.
> 
> Nobody else, except (leaving the USN out because it is a core part of what they do):
> - RN (to the point they realize that they need to be able to use the QEs as outer littoral amphibs since Ocean will be gone
> - French
> - Dutch
> - Spanish
> - Italians
> - Russians
> - Indians
> - Indonesians
> - Singaporeans
> - Australians
> - Kiwis
> and that's just a partial list I pulled out of my butt.  The RCN did not walk through that door, they reached in with both arms to see if there was any cash laying around on the other side; and got caught in the vortex of a history of failed Jointness in Canada.  It's ironic that we have a unified military but refuse to be joint, with the RCN closely following the RCAF's lead in that department.
> 
> But hey, gives them more time to work on their individual identities, new ranks anyone?
> 
> Edited to add: if you're ever wondering why the Canadian public on the whole doesn't understand what you, its because the arguments that are made for a blue water maneuver force don't make a whole lot of sense to them; nor can they see the impact way out there in the ocean.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I understand more than most while we need a latent capability to operate with our Allies in that environment, the Navy doesn't bring a lot to bear on a lot of our current problem sets; it is excellent at showing Canadian resolve with little risk, but that BHS you deride so much would be even better.
> 
> As I've said elsewhere, do you think anyone at NORTHCOM gave a hoot about where our Frigates and Destroyers where for Katrina?  They did care where the Coast Guard was fixing nav buoys, and would have cared where a BHS loaded up with supplies and helos were.
> 
> Same in Haiti; I remember seeing an article explaining how important we were there... the ironic part was one of the accompanying picture was of the 280 taking fuel from an American amphib that had at least four 53s lined up just starboard aft.  Yep, a Sea King is delivering some irreplaceable effect there all right ;-)



I should have said ALSC instead of BHS. If (a second coming of Christ is more plausible) we were in position to take the Mistrals off the French Governments hands I would be four square for it. That type of capability is something I would be willing to sacrifice ALL of the AOPS for.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The  ALSC wasn't total garbage.  There were things about it that was OK.  If they'd at least kept the promise made when they briefed us on PRE in 99/00 they would have been in service for some years now and all would be well, or at least better than they are today.


----------



## Kirkhill

A further thought about Jointery/Jarmy....

In what way can the Army assist the Navy so as to increase the Navy's capabilities? What do you need from the Army? Or even from those Extra-Speshul Army types in Tan hats.


----------



## Pelorus

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As to the issue of operating frigates in the Eastern Arctic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HMCS Montreal, Jones Sound, Nunavut.



One photo op does not constitute a capability.  Our frigates have very thin hulls.  Just because you can sneak something up far enough north to find an iceberg for a photo in the middle of summer at 3kts does not mean that it's something that make sense to do, or should be considered an ability of the platform.  Any time a standard warship is in an ice environment you're really just one big submerged chunk of ice away from a major damage control event.

Ice capable ship design involves a whole lot more than just thickening a hull.  And to add those elements to a standard warship involves making design decisions that are going to make it perform poorer in almost all of its other primary tasks.

The North is huge.  And even purpose-built icebreakers go slow once they find thick enough ice, which lasts all year around in a large area of the Arctic Archipelago.  In any sort of emergency disaster relief scenario it's more than likely going to be too late before even a dedicated icebreaker gets anywhere close.  The army is good at landing in the middle of nowhere and setting up shop, let them continue to do that.


----------



## Good2Golf

So long as a CSC HELAIRDET is CH-147f HIFR-qualified, I'd say that's about as far as I would 'specialize' anything on CSC to accept Hooks. Sea Basing aviation (Army/non-dedicated SOF assets) is not something I'd spend much time on. Since Alert is literally a single fuel stop in Iqaluit and 12 hours away from Petawawa, looking for a tin-foil hulled slowly-puttering capital ship during two, possibly three months of the year isn't something I'd count on to 'help' me get where I want to go up North.  Don't get me wrong, Kirkhill, if the occasion arose where someone thought dropping off, or picking up 10t of stuff from a ship made sense, fine.  Perhaps strengthening the deck to take a 27t (54k #) helo would be enough...but to be honest, I don't foresee CSC having that much steel aft.

Cheers
G2G

P.s. SM2/ESSM/Harpoon-equipped ferries would be pretty nasty things to run into if one was an evil-doer...


----------



## Kirkhill

I yield G2G.

 :cheers:

I would be happy enough with the capability being available even if it was an extraordinary occurrence.  I don't want to degrade the performance of any platform unnecessarily but if capabilities can be added at minimal cost then I would like the platforms to be as flexible/useful as possible.

And I agree - a ferry packed with VLS cells would certainly be an interesting addition to the fleet.  ;D


----------



## Underway

Support to forces ashore has been a goal of the RCN since before Leadmark 2020 was released in 2001.  You can find it all over documents everywhere as the missions that Canada has been sending the Navy on would have benefited greatly from having that capability.  The GTS Katie, Somalia, East Timor, Haiti, Haiti, Haiti, some hurricane relief in the US, Red Sea anti piracy (SOF basing), Libya (a naval fire to shore would have extremely useful tool here), every single arctic operation involving the army (remember the pics of sailors carrying Van Doo's ashore so their boots don't get wet).

To say that the navy doesn't want this capability and blame it on the Hillier is incorrect to say the least.  The Navy's internal evaluation of how we can be most effective came to that obvious conclusion all on their own, if you're gonna blame someone then look in the direction of Adm Buck who was point for a lot of this stuff.
I know Horizon 2050 hasn't been publicly published but I guarantee that support to forces ashore is in there.

BUT, the conditions for logistics deployment in the CF have changed.  When all this big honkin ship stuff was being worked on we had exactly 0 C-17's.  With the addition of the C-17 fleet we have a much greater domestic and foreign deployment capability.  The new chinooks also change this equation as they can in some situations self deploy (I don't know if they have air refueling capability, I know its possible on a chinook but no idea on our birds if that's something that we do), especially domestically.

As for Arctic deployability, look at the AOPS design.  Its essentially a constabulary support to forces ashore ship.  The large crane, the storage space for arctic vehicles, the container systems which can add equipment, people, etc... and the ability to deal with Griffins or CH-148`s if needed.  Its a ship designed to crush up into ice,  pull the snowmobiles out of the garage and tell the rangers to have a nice trip back to Resolute or whatever.  It`s an icecapable minivan with fold down seats.  Essentially the flex deck that Kirkhill is so infatuated by...  .  So with that in mind the navy can now conveniently check off their support for forces ashore for arctic box and walk away from that as a problem.  The rest of support to forces ashore is going to come from a 5 inch gun.

The priority is AAW and C4 functions and replentishment at sea.  Without these we drop from a level 3 navy to level 5-6 by our own classification system (see quote below).  Adding in extra`s that go outside of these core functions is not something that the RCN cares about.  We also don`t do flex like the Danes.  There`s a reason the Danish did flex, and a reason that no other navy does it the same way.



> *Rank 1: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Complete)—* This is a navy capable of carrying out all the military roles of naval forces on a global scale. It possesses
> the full range of carrier and amphibious capabilities, sea control forces, and nuclear attack and ballistic missile submarines, and all in sufficient numbers to undertake major operations independently. E.g., United States.
> 
> *Rank 2: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Partial) —* These are navies that possess most if not all of the force projection capabilities of a “complete” global navy, but only in sufficient numbers to undertake one major “out of area” operation. E.g., Britain, France.
> 
> *Rank 3: Medium Global Force Projection Navy —* These are navies that may not possess the full range of capabilities, but have a credible capacity in certain of
> them and consistently demonstrate a determination to exercise them at some distance from home waters, in cooperation with other Force Projection Navies. E.g., Canada, Netherlands, Australia.
> 
> *Rank 4: Medium Regional Force Projection Navy —* These are navies possessing the ability to project force into the adjoining ocean basin. While they mayhave the capacity to exercise these further afield, for whatever reason, they do not do so on a regular basis.
> 
> *Rank 5: Adjacent Force Projection Navies — * These are navies that have some ability to project force well offshore, but are not capable of carrying out highlevel naval operations over oceanic distances.
> 
> *Rank 6: Offshore Territorial Defence Navies —* These are navies that have relatively high levels of capability in defensive (and constabulary) operations up to about 200 miles from their shores, having the sustainability offered by frigate or large corvette vessels and (or) a capable submarine force.
> 
> *Rank 7: Inshore Territorial Defence Navies —* These are navies that have primarily inshore territorial defence capabilities, making them capable of coastal combat rather than constabulary duties alone. This implies a force comprising missile-armed fast-attack craft, short-range aviation and a limited submarine force.
> 
> *Rank 8: Constabulary Navies —* These are significant fleets that are not intended
> to fight, but to act purely in a constabulary role.
> 
> *Rank 9: Token Navies —* These are navies that have some minimal capability, but this often consists of little more than a formal organizational structure and a few coastal craft. These states, the world's smallest and weakest, cannot aspire to anything but the most limited constabulary functions.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for that Underway...

Much appreciated.

I guess where I have been coming from is not so much requesting/requiring that the RCN/HMCG adopt the Danish solution to support for forces ashore as simply offering that solution as an alternative to having no capability.

I am not a big fan of people saying they can't afford to do things "properly" and use that as justification for doing nothing at all.  I continue to offer the Danish solution as an example of what can be done on a skinny budget..

Equally, I am quite enamoured of the Dutch solutions, which move up the cost ladder but somehow are found affordable on a skinny budget.  Some of that is a result of the accounting rules in effect.  Some of that is a result of some design compromises that perhaps the RCN isn't comfortable with.  That is up to you lot.  

But please, from a concerned and interested citizen, please do try and get some sort of capability in place regardless of the budget and political constraints.

There is always another way to skin a cat. I am agnostic on the method so long as the cat doesn't squeal.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Thanks for that Underway...
> 
> Much appreciated.
> 
> I guess where I have been coming from is not so much requesting/requiring that the RCN/HMCG adopt the Danish solution to support for forces ashore as simply offering that solution as an alternative to having no capability.
> 
> I am not a big fan of people saying they can't afford to do things "properly" and use that as justification for doing nothing at all.  I continue to offer the Danish solution as an example of what can be done on a skinny budget..
> 
> Equally, I am quite enamoured of the Dutch solutions, which move up the cost ladder but somehow are found affordable on a skinny budget.  Some of that is a result of the accounting rules in effect.  Some of that is a result of some design compromises that perhaps the RCN isn't comfortable with.  That is up to you lot.
> 
> But please, from a concerned and interested citizen, please do try and get some sort of capability in place regardless of the budget and political constraints.
> 
> There is always another way to skin a cat. I am agnostic on the method so long as the cat doesn't squeal.



@Kirkhill: I wasn't trying to be snarky (hence the winky face) and upon a re-read it looks a bit like a shot at you.  It was more intended as a friendly tease as I really enjoy your posts, though for the longest time I thought you were a plant for the Danish shipbuilding industry, lol!  I agree entirely with the Dutch type solution.  I quite like a lot of what they've done, and how they've done it, their equipment loadouts, their choices of radars, and their fleet mix.  We are going to have a larger force by nature of our budget and country size but we can't be to far wrong if we build ships like theirs.

On an interesting side note I've come across a fairly relevent article on the  Australian 
situation that seems to match what we are discussing here.

In particular this quote:



> That’s starting to sound to me like a ‘two tier Navy’ which that has serious combat power to provide in an alliance framework, while operating a lighter force closer to home. I have a mission statement for it:
> 
> _The mission of the Royal Australian Navy is to raise, train and sustain combat-ready naval forces capable of helping our allies to win wars, deter aggression and maintain freedom of the seas, while maintaining the independent capability to locally maintain order and support other ADF force elements._



If we had a white paper or something other than this shopping  list we might not be arguing in a vacuum.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> @Kirkhill: I wasn't trying to be snarky (hence the winky face) and upon a re-read it looks a bit like a shot at you.  It was more intended as a friendly tease as I really enjoy your posts, though for the longest time I thought you were a plant for the Danish shipbuilding industry, lol!  I agree entirely with the Dutch type solution.  I quite like a lot of what they've done, and how they've done it, their equipment loadouts, their choices of radars, and their fleet mix.  We are going to have a larger force by nature of our budget and country size but we can't be to far wrong if we build ships like theirs.
> 
> .....



No offense taken (this time)  :cheers:

PS - The Aussie Mission Statement works for me - but there again they too, like the Dutch, are one of my preferred role models.

And I agree with you on the CFDS.


----------



## Underway

As I'm on a document bender right now here is an Australian perspective on their frigate replacement project.  They narrow down the same group of ships (FREMM, T26, F125 and family) that we have identified here without the Dutch ships.  At least for MOTS versions.



> Sea State: future frigate contenders
> 16 Mar 2015|Amelia Long
> 
> As ASPI’s Future Surface Fleet conference draws closer, we take a look at the three design options, some of the international design contenders and the debate around the build location for Australia’s future frigate under project SEA 5000. Defence is planning to seek first pass approval to conduct a tender process around 2019–2020. With the eight Anzac-class frigates scheduled for decommissioning in the mid-2020s, debates about the future frigate’s design and build location are rife.
> 
> It’s likely that the future frigates will be larger than the Anzacs, and will be designed ‘with a strong emphasis on submarine detection and response operations’. As ASW platforms they’ll be equipped with an integrated sonar suite with long-range active towed-array sonar, a maritime-based land-attack cruise missile capability, and be capable of embarking both naval combat helicopters and maritime UAVs.
> 
> But what of the design options? In its Keeping Major Naval Ship Acquisitions on Course study, RAND has determined that there are three routes the Government could take to replace the Anzac-class frigates.
> 
> The first is the pure military off-the-shelf (MOTS) option—the procurement of an existing foreign design, built either offshore or domestically. The second is the new design option, building a new class of ships designed specifically for SEA 5000. The third option is evolved MOTS, whereby an existing frigate design would be appropriated by the Royal Australian Navy, and then built mostly or entirely in Australia.
> 
> The pure MOTS and evolved MOTS options have been previously utilized by RAN: in the procurement and later upgrade processes for Oberon-class submarines, which originally came from the UK, and the Anzacs themselves, which were based on the German Meko-class. For SEA 5000 the first international option is the British Type 26 Global Combat Ship. The Type 26 was designed by BAE systems with the goal of undertaking the Royal British Navy’s three core roles for their workhorse frigate fleet: ‘warfighting, maritime security and international engagement—on the world stage’. This frigate is currently being developed by BAE and the UK Ministry of Defence, and has been designed to be able to accommodate systems specific to prospective international partners of the UK. With the first of these vessels beginning service in 2021, the development timeline of the Type 26 fits nicely with RAN’s needs.
> 
> The second is the FREMM European Multi-Mission Frigate, which is currently under construction for the French and Italian navies. Designed by France’s DCNS and Italy’s Fincantieri, these vessels are scheduled for delivery from 2013 through 2021. By including a ‘silent mode’ that enables the frigates to engage in anti-submarine warfare operations, the FREMM frigates address one of the key concerns of the 2012 Defence Capability Guide.
> 
> The third and fourth options on the table are both designed by German firm ThyssenKrupp and built by Blohm+Voss; the Meko 600-class Escort Frigate, and the Class 125 Frigate. The Meko 600 is described as being ‘particularly suited for blue water escort of high value assets and the defence of national offshore key points.’ There’d be some continuity benefits, with the new frigates sharing some design philosophy with the Anzacs. The Class 125 is currently under construction for the German military, and it’s claimed that the vessels can be deployed for up to two years before needing to return to the home base. They’ll be delivered to the German Navy between 2016 and 2018.
> 
> For the Australian polity though, there’s also the question of where the future frigates will be built. While the pure- and evolved MOTS options have the potential to be less costly and more time efficient for RAN, there’s always the chance that by taking one of these, they won’t be built in Australia for reasons of efficiency. The new design route offers more opportunity to grow and sustain Australian ship design and construction resources.
> 
> In a June 2014 announcement detailing the timeline for the future frigate fleet, then-Minister for Defence David Johnston commented that building in Australia was merely an ‘option’—despite the widespread assumption that the vessels would be built locally, as ASPI’s Mark Thomson discusses here. However, as ASPI’s Andrew Davies points out, although RAN and Australian shipbuilding companies may push for an Australian build, the decision to build domestically would ‘amount to a long-term bet on the enduring demand for particular platform types’. Thus, as Thomson commented, it’s important that the government maintains an ‘open, orderly and transparent competition’ for the SEA 5000 project.
> 
> For a deeper look at these issues and more, be sure to register here for ASPI’s Future Surface Fleet conference, to be held at the Hyatt Hotel Canberra from 30 March to 1 April. The conference will feature a stellar line-up of international and Australian speakers. Last year’s conference on submarines was a sell-out, so make sure you don’t miss this year’s.
> 
> Amelia Long is an intern at ASPI. Image courtesy of Flickr user Horatio J. Kookaburra.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway - 

One of your finds needs to highlighted.  It was seemingly misfiled 

The Future of The German Navy

The key note element is the F125 Stabilization Frigate - Lots of Little Flex Decks - not as useful (IMHO) as one big Flex Deck (or Boat Deck) if you want a more traditional name.

Also I note that the German Navy future may also include a BHS......

Thanks.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

To OGBD,

It is my belief that we are in the absolute infancy of UUV technology.  That within 10-15 years we'll see the introduction of capable UUV's tethered to surface vessels for power, that will push both active and passive sonar to positions advancing the ship, as opposed to VDS or towed arrays which trail.  Further that it will be determined that arrays of five or six of these tethered UUV's will be better than just one.  Ergo, it makes sense to try to build the capacity to launch and retrieve significant numbers of these UUV's from a bay of some sort, seem quite wise as opposed to ignoring the technology and then trying to retrofit that capacity later.


Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I wouldn't say that UUV are in quite in their infancy, but barely out of it.

I won't discuss here any matters of the efficiency/lack of efficiency etc of tails, for security reasons.

On the UUV working ahead of the ship with sonars, however, you should know that those exists, whether tethered ones or radio controlled by way of an above water extending antenna. We use those for mine hunting. But the constant problems the same: If by way of tether, you must go slow because any speed puts too much stress on the tether and snaps it, and if by radio with a surface antenna, then you have  a  limited depth you can achieve. It all has to do with the fact that radio signals don't travel well in water (you can only use extreme low frequencies at shallow depths) so that neither control orders, communication of information gathered back to "mama", nor situational info such as GPS signal can be transmitted to the UUV and that the alternative - sound - has a very, very limited bandwidth.

Underwater arrays, wether tails or lines of sonobuoys, remain and will remain the best option until someone figures a way to break the bandwidth barrier. Somehow, I can't see that happening in the foreseeable future, but we can hope, and if it happens, I hope it will be for our side.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I supported the SFU Underwater Research Lab on that very issue OGBD. Hence the reason I like the idea of tethered "Mother" ROV's supporting small AUV's that can transmit directly to "Mom" who is normally within the same density/temperature layer.

I can see smaller flying UAV's with dipping sonars working off a ship. The challenge will be the recovery process in a sea state. However these same small UAV's might make good coastal search and suppression of subs in the littoral areas near important harbours and waterways. They could operate from mobile units on trucks and work in conjunction to passive arrays and manned assets.


----------



## Underway

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> It is my belief that we are in the absolute infancy of UUV technology.  That within 10-15 years we'll see the introduction of capable UUV's tethered to surface vessels for power, that will push both active and passive sonar to positions advancing the ship, as opposed to VDS or towed arrays which trail.  Further that it will be determined that arrays of five or six of these tethered UUV's will be better than just one.  Ergo, it makes sense to try to build the capacity to launch and retrieve significant numbers of these UUV's from a bay of some sort, seem quite wise as opposed to ignoring the technology and then trying to retrofit that capacity later.



Isn't this a bit cart before the horse?  Since we have no idea what a future UUV launch/revcovery system would look like the UUV developers might work within the constraints that the ship already has.  Launch via davit or perhaps the torpedo tubes.  Perhaps VLS launched UAV's etc...  or a small enough launch/recovery system that can fit onboard the ships existing space.  A launch recovery system that can be set up or taken down quickly off of the flight deck.  There are so many options that don't require a ship to be redesigned.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The key note element is the F125 Stabilization Frigate - Lots of Little Flex Decks - not as useful (IMHO) as one big Flex Deck (or Boat Deck) if you want a more traditional name.



Excellent find Kirkhill.  Interesting to see that they use TEU's for the FLEX deck concept.  AOPS uses the same option just don't call it a FLEX deck for some reason.  I guess we aren't selling it to anyone.

Of particular interest is slide 2 where it refers to the size constraints of even a 5600 ton ship.  Then slide 13 goes into the sales pitch referencing specifically the CSC.


----------



## Kirkhill

And more on the German Front - apparently this MKS-180 - which started life as a Korvette - is now supposed to be lower cost version of the F125 to supplement the F125 numbers.

Apparently the Korvette now displaces 5000 tons and is ice strengthened while maintaining 18 knot cruise (26 knot flank).  Also intended for 2 years on station with 4 month crew rotations.









> An indepth early requirements outline for MRCS180 can be found here
> 
> I'll recap it below for those who don't read German.
> 
> 
> 
> MKS180 will have:
> 
> a modular mission deck (375 m², 80t payload) (see below)
> a heavy focus on MIO (see below)
> hangar and aviation facilities for one large helicopter (13t) and two VTOL drones, both with organic support
> weapons - comparable to K130:
> standard self-defense package (two RAM Block 2, two or more 27mm guns, two to four MASS)
> medium-calibre (76mm) main gun - larger calibre (127mm) for NGFS in discussion
> ffbnw four heavy anti-ship/anti-surface missiles
> MIO support as listed below
> electronics - inbetween K130 and F125:
> 3D air surveillance radar and 2D surface radar
> 2-3 separate radar fire control systems (no illuminators though)
> 1-2 long-range IR/EO surveillance systems
> EO/IR fire control systems on guns
> ESM/EW systems
> deployment, endurance and speed profile comparable to F125
> ice capability (!!)
> accomodations for 70 crew plus 70 additional (air crew + 50 troops)
> MIO support:
> 
> same troop capacity as F125 (50 men)
> two large RHIB/LCVP on davits
> through deck on the upper deck for free movement of the protection detail on the ship to all sides
> weapon stands for maritime protection detail for 360-degree protection, all semi-protected (armour) and NVG-capable:
> multiple positions (360-degree) for .50cal HMGs and 40mm AGLs
> multiple positions for ATGM, MANPADS and snipers, stabilized (!)
> multiple positions for observers and commanders, overviewing deck and sea
> armoured ready room for reinforcement troops
> Module options stated so far include:
> 
> ASW - low-frequency towed array sonar plus ASW module for helicopter (dipping sonar, torpedoes)
> MCM - mine detection sonar, possible minehunting drones
> Mobile Command Support (forward naval HQ for joint operations)
> Unlike LCS though MKS180 will not include procurement of modules, i.e. we're not buying a certain number of ASW ships and a certain number of MCM ships.
> 
> 
> 
> Planned timetable for introduction is:
> 
> 2011 - Initial design phase
> 
> 2012 - Design selection, detail design phase
> 
> 2013 to 2015 - Specification (platform and system)
> 
> 2016 - building contract
> 
> 2019 to 2020 - commissioning of first unit
> 
> Budget is a bit hazy/conflicting, as a whole it seems to be a roughly two billion Euro project for six ships.



Link



> Preliminary MKS180 design:
> max 5000 tons displacement
> crew: 140 standard + 70 additional accomodation
> Operational: speed: 26 knots flank, 18 knots cruise at sea state 4; range: 4000 nm at 18 knots ; endurance 21 days without external support ; 2 years mission endurance (identical to F125)
> Environment: All seas, i.e. including ice capability
> Subsystems: one medium/large helo w/ AShM (max 15t), two UAVs, two RHIBs
> Armament: 2 RAM Block 2, 2 MLG 27mm, 1 OTO 76mm, 2 MASS, ffbnw medium AShM
> Sensors: Close-range 360-degree IR/radar, laser and radar detectors, EW (0.5 to 40 GHz), NBC detector suite
> Mission modules:
> EW/SIGINT
> ASW w/ towed VDS (and ASW weaponry?)
> MCM
> diver support
> MIO functionality:
> armoured MG/AGL, ATGM, MANPADS, sniper, command posts (against .50cal)
> armoured ready room (against .50cal)
> armoured magazines (against .50cal)
> restricted access to ship from all outside doors (PIN or card needed)



Link


----------



## Underway

Interesting article in Frontline Defence magazine.  Its a bit awkward to post as its a virtual magazine but pg 17 is where the warship design article starts.  The previous few pages are about fleet capability with RAdm Newton.

Of interest to the discussion here is the reference to the "Most Qualified Team (MQT)" vice the "Most Capable Design (MCD)" approach.  I find that particular bit of info very interesting.  First where does the article author get this idea from (references pls...)?  And doesn't this hamstring us again with a potential "made in Canada" design vice a MOTS solution?

I suppose the argument could be made that if you select the MQT they should have also previously designed a ship that would be in the competition for a MCD, so any ship that is built for Canada would have the bones or at least be an evolutionary variation of a MCD.  There is a risk here as well though.  As the article states:



> Warship integration within a budget means solving the problem of global optimization between competing and sometimes contradictory performance.  Any complex system designer knows that a global optimum under constraints is rarely the addition of single-view optima.
> 
> _The above quote was typed out and copied from the article referenced above.  Any differences between it and the printed content are my errors alone._



This shows why the MQT process might be a better one.  Its doubtful (read no chance) that Canadian electronic and weapons requirements will be exactly the same as another countries.  The RCN wanting to maximize performance will want a build that properly deals with the competing electronic/electromagnetic compatibility issues (one of the main advantage of a fixed build over the FLEX concept).  So sure use the base hull design of a F125 but the entire superstructure might be different to account for RCN fire control, comms etc...  Thus an MCD (MOTS) might not necessarily be the best, but a 50% MOTS combined with MQT concept might be.

MQT might also be more important on the build side vs the design side, as described in the article the complexity of modular construction on a military vessel really needs a team that can take the drawings/plans and instruct/teach green warship builders.  With a MQT the integration process of all the systems might be better served in the Canadian context of the shipbuilding industry rebuild.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I like the following quote at the beginning of this article:

     _"A modern warship is one of the most complex human-engineered systems on Earth, far more complex than any other single air or land vehicle. A warship is much more than a collection of systems, and a warship provider is anything but an equipment retailer."_

(my underlining)

As I keep trying to explain, there is no such thing as a MOTS warship, because there are no shelves. Not even for the set of plans.

Imagine that you would want CSC to be a Type 124 frigate. Just the mods to make the electrical system compatible with Canadian standards means you have to generate a complete new set of different plans (unlike a house where the electrician comes in after the structure is up and then decides where to put his stuff, on a warship, every wire's location is carefully planned in advance and evaluated for interference with everything else.). Same thing for planning the "plumbing" and DC/FF systems so they are adapted to the type of equipment we use and method of attack we have developed.

Add to that the fact that, we like to carry systems for C4I that make us fully compatible to seamlessly integrate into our own, a NATO or an American battle group, plus whatever "joint" electronics we will have to incorporate for the future (i.e. electronics that let us integrate with the Army's C4I systems) and again you have to change everything and how to integrate it for maximum effect.

Then you have to adapt to your most likely local weather in how you design the ship itself. For example, the Type 125's double large enclosed antennas for "aegis" type radars make for a tremendous superstructure surface to accrue icing in winter in Canadian waters. You have to take these things into consideration - just as the waves and thus spray, you will get on the Grand Banks and off Haida Gwaii.

IMO, in the end, CSC will be a purely Canadian design even if it borrows from the better practices of European designers.


----------



## Spencer100

Something interesting in the national post.  Davie trying to get in on the act.

http://www.canada.com/shipbuilding+program+headed+trouble/11057727/story.html


----------



## Kirkhill

Once a ship has been launched and in commission for 10 yrs or so - and the world has changed in terms of capabilities available and capabilities required - aren't the designers now constrained in their compromises by the ship as it actually is?

Don't they then have to make sacrifices in crew comfort, maintainability, loss of some previous capability, inability to fully exploit the new capability?

How long does the perfect solution stay perfect?

Alternately - should we be looking at our local environment or should be we looking at our most likely operational environment?  We are regularly informed there is a low threat level in Northern Waters and therefore we don't need constabulary patrols locally.  Conversely, all of our operational deployments appear to be in places where air-conditioning and liquid-cooled flight suits are of greater concern than de-icing.  If the AOPS and MCDVs (backed by SSKs, CP-140s and CF-18s) are all that are required for local sea control then should we be planning the CSC as a dedicated expeditionary platform with the expectation that it will likely be employed in warm waters?


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Once a ship has been launched and in commission for 10 yrs or so - and the world has changed in terms of capabilities available and capabilities required - aren't the designers now constrained in their compromises by the ship as it actually is?
> 
> Don't they then have to make sacrifices in crew comfort, maintainability, loss of some previous capability, inability to fully exploit the new capability?
> 
> How long does the perfect solution stay perfect?





Well there is no perfect solution and never will be, but many of the concerns you speak of are extrinsic to the ship design itself and more of a concern regarding the battlespace.  What you want is the ship as it is to be the best it can be.  Someone once told me a ship is out of date the moment it is launched, which I took to mean that somewhere out there someone else has already come up with a better design using the lessons of the one you're building right now.  However if you design ships with some future proofing then perhaps you can negate that to some extent.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Alternately - should we be looking at our local environment or should be we looking at our most likely operational environment?  We are regularly informed there is a low threat level in Northern Waters and therefore we don't need constabulary patrols locally.  Conversely, all of our operational deployments appear to be in places where air-conditioning and liquid-cooled flight suits are of greater concern than de-icing.  If the AOPS and MCDVs (backed by SSKs, CP-140s and CF-18s) are all that are required for local sea control then should we be planning the CSC as a dedicated expeditionary platform with the expectation that it will likely be employed in warm waters?



Most of our sailing is in local environments.  It's one of those things where if we can operate locally we can operate anywhere.  We are a bit blessed that way.  I had an Aussie onboard during a RAS that was in complete shock that we were doing it in fog and a high sea state.  She stated that they would never do an evolution like that in Australia because of the risk (I might be exagerating a bit but you get the picture).  I told her that if we waited till the weather was nice we would never do a RAS at all!

@Spencer100:  I suspect the resitance to this plan from DND is because they (we) are worried that we won't get the Berlins at all if we do a interim replacement.  Stopgaps becoming the actual solutions is a bit of a Canadian tradition (Cougars anyone??).  As described it would work fairly but I doubt that this is going to be the actual case.  Also there's the deployment of said resource as Davie wants to crew it as well.  So many questions on that.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Underway said:
			
		

> Isn't this a bit cart before the horse?  Since we have no idea what a future UUV launch/revcovery system would look like the UUV developers might work within the constraints that the ship already has.  Launch via davit or perhaps the torpedo tubes.  Perhaps VLS launched UAV's etc...  or a small enough launch/recovery system that can fit onboard the ships existing space.  A launch recovery system that can be set up or taken down quickly off of the flight deck.  There are so many options that don't require a ship to be redesigned.



I would say it makes more sense to anticipate the direction.  If they build without having thought through, everything will be jerry-rigged solutions.  

To my specific vision of designing a system of 5-6 tethered UUV's with their propulsion being fed from ship systems:
1.  That's a big electrical draw - Is there going to be an ability to add that electricity after the propulsion system is designed and installed?
2.  If you haven't figured out the deployment mechanism to get all of them out and back again, do you really think that's something you're going to be able to add with such limited deck space.

Bottom Line is these guys have one chance to build in the flexibility to make some of these retrofits later - they better do it right.  


Matthew.


----------



## jollyjacktar

We had a very through brief from a member of the FELEX QA Det today, on what has gone on with the East Coast project.  The more I hear of some of the antics of the Irving yard the angrier I get.  I wish we could clone SeaSpan and have them in both coasts.


----------



## Eland2

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I like the following quote at the beginning of this article:
> 
> _"A modern warship is one of the most complex human-engineered systems on Earth, far more complex than any other single air or land vehicle. A warship is much more than a collection of systems, and a warship provider is anything but an equipment retailer."_
> 
> (my underlining)
> 
> As I keep trying to explain, there is no such thing as a MOTS warship, because there are no shelves. Not even for the set of plans.
> 
> Imagine that you would want CSC to be a Type 124 frigate. Just the mods to make the electrical system compatible with Canadian standards means you have to generate a complete new set of different plans (unlike a house where the electrician comes in after the structure is up and then decides where to put his stuff, on a warship, every wire's location is carefully planned in advance and evaluated for interference with everything else.). Same thing for planning the "plumbing" and DC/FF systems so they are adapted to the type of equipment we use and method of attack we have developed.
> 
> Add to that the fact that, we like to carry systems for C4I that make us fully compatible to seamlessly integrate into our own, a NATO or an American battle group, plus whatever "joint" electronics we will have to incorporate for the future (i.e. electronics that let us integrate with the Army's C4I systems) and again you have to change everything and how to integrate it for maximum effect.
> 
> Then you have to adapt to your most likely local weather in how you design the ship itself. For example, the Type 125's double large enclosed antennas for "aegis" type radars make for a tremendous superstructure surface to accrue icing in winter in Canadian waters. You have to take these things into consideration - just as the waves and thus spray, you will get on the Grand Banks and off Haida Gwaii.
> 
> IMO, in the end, CSC will be a purely Canadian design even if it borrows from the better practices of European designers.



For what it's worth - and I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but I recently saw a Youtube video about the new Australian frigates that are expected to come online in the next five years or so. They're based on a Spanish frigate design. 

But what I found really interesting is that these ships will have a red kangaroo painted on the sides of the Aegis-style radomes the ships will have (our City class frigates have a red maple leaf painted on the exhaust funnel), and the Harpoon launchers are arranged in exactly the same way they are on our City class frigates. Forward of the bridge on the Australian ships there is a VLS array for Standard-2 and Sea Sparrow missiles, not unlike the old Tribal class destroyers. The new Australian ships even look a bit reminiscent of the City class ships when seen from a distance. 

So it appears that our Australian cousins have 'Australianized' their new frigates to suit Australian maritime and operational conditions and borrowed a few features from our ships. 

So yes, building a new class of ships involves customizing the basic design to fit national requirements, while other bits and pieces of useful features are borrowed from other ship designs and other countries' navies, and I would expect the upcoming CSC ships to be no different in this regard.


----------



## Monsoon

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> We had a very through brief from a member of the FELEX QA Det today, on what has gone on with the East Coast project.  The more I hear of some of the antics of the Irving yard the angrier I get.  I wish we could clone SeaSpan and have them in both coasts.


To be fair to Irving, SeaSpan has never delivered projects of the complexity we're asking of Irving with CSC. And I'm guessing the QA guy you talked to had mostly only worked with Irving. The job of QA is to spot faults; that tends to dim their view of whoever they work with.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

A fairer comparison would be to see what the QA differences are between Irving and Victoria Shipyards Ltd.

That would be genuinely interesting.


----------



## FSTO

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> To be fair to Irving, SeaSpan has never delivered projects of the complexity we're asking of Irving with CSC. And I'm guessing the QA guy you talked to had mostly only worked with Irving. The job of QA is to spot faults; that tends to dim their view of whoever they work with.


The HCM Upgrade is the same type of work for both shipyards. Irving's product for refits and upgrades have been A poor second to Seaspan for years.
Their (IRVING) history does not give me the warm and fuzzy when it comes to CSC.

(edit to clarify last sentence)


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> The HCM Upgrade is the same type of work for both shipyards. Irving's product for refits and upgrades have been A poor second to Seaspan for years.
> Their (IRVING) history does give me the warm and fuzzy when it comes to CSC.



Exactly and bang on comment.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> To be fair to Irving, SeaSpan has never delivered projects of the complexity we're asking of Irving with CSC. And I'm guessing the QA guy you talked to had mostly only worked with Irving. The job of QA is to spot faults; that tends to dim their view of whoever they work with.



Fair to Irving my ass.  The FELEX/HCM staff on both coasts speak to each other.  There's nothing complex about using the wrong materials to braze pipe and fittings together, then trying to cover their tracks when caught and causing even more headaches for down the road, just as one example.  SeaSpan actually tries to and delivers better quality workmanship without all the effing games played by the other yard.  

Now to be fair to Irving (even though it hurts me to do so), not all of their product is shyte.  Just far too much more than I, as an end user and taxpayer want to be willing to put up with.


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Something interesting in the national post.  Davie trying to get in on the act.
> 
> http://www.canada.com/shipbuilding+program+headed+trouble/11057727/story.html



Spencer100, given I'm a green flying guy with not much knowledge of grey stuff, how does this possibility (Davie) compare with, say, leasing or buying or whatever, one of those US Navy surplus AORs?  I look at the spec on those and while they seem like they would consume a lot of fuel aren't they a proven capability that could cover the gap between our decommissioned AORs and the JSS?  Couldn't we get one fairly quickly (not sure of the actual mechanism?) if the US Navy already has them in storage?

Regards
G2G


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Now to be fair to Irving (even though it hurts me to do so), not all of their product is shyte.  Just far too much more than I, as an end user and taxpayer want to be willing to put up with.



Having seen some of their work on CN Marine ferries, I have little faith in Irving products.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Agreed, George.  We don't either.  I have yet to come across anyone in the fleet who does.  Alas, we have to put up with it because it's out of our hands and we gets what we get...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Spencer100, given I'm a green flying guy with not much knowledge of grey stuff, how does this possibility (Davie) compare with, say, leasing or buying or whatever, one of those US Navy surplus AORs?  I look at the spec on those and while they seem like they would consume a lot of fuel aren't they a proven capability that could cover the gap between our decommissioned AORs and the JSS?  Couldn't we get one fairly quickly (not sure of the actual mechanism?) if the US Navy already has them in storage?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



We'll be better off with contracting an ally to RAS us at sea as needed.  We're flat ass broke and having trouble putting certain trades at sea with enough bums in seats as it is right now.  If the wait was far longer than it "should" be for the first of the Berlin's maybe going the extra distance might be worth the effort.  I just don't think it's a viable option right now.


----------



## Good2Golf

JJT, thanks. From a frugality/pragmatic viewpoint, you're probably right. Would there be occasions where Canada would have ships operate where the USN or NATO wasn't? Definitely a cost vs capability thing to consider.  Seems that the discussions Spencer100 noted with Davie indicates that someone is putting some thought to a temporary capability.  How fast could a new pennant number be painted into a spare Fast Supply ship?


----------



## jollyjacktar

There can't be too many places I could think of that some allied tanker of sorts wouldn't be in the vicinity as needed.  The USN operate just about everywhere as do the RN on the Atlantic side of things.  The RN usually have an RFA tanker on station in the interesting places such as the Caribbean for example or the Med etc.  And of course there's nothing saying you can't pull in somewhere if you need to refuel as well.  When I did OP CARIBBE in 2011, we used the RFA Ware Ruler for a RAS once or twice and pulled into port for the other times we needed fuel/groceries.

That being said, I am sure there is "someone" who's been tasked to come up with various contingency plans for options on a way ahead until we get our legs back.


----------



## Good2Golf

Thanks JJT, good to know that kind of background.  Much obliged.

regards
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The problem is- everyone is short of AORs. The USN in particular. So just saying "oh, we can just rely in our allies" is really just the same as making "Hope" your prime COA.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The problem is- everyone is short of AORs. The USN in particular. So just saying "oh, we can just rely in our allies" is really just the same as making "Hope" your prime COA.



SKT, if the USN is short AORs, why did they mothball two of the fast supply class ships? 

Regards
G2G


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, we're all hurting to some extent or another.  Gone are the days of plenty for everyone.  I do doubt that however much the USN is down in their luck when set against their glory days that they don't have assets within reasonable reach of where we're sailing away from home waters when a port of call isn't an option.

It still will be some time, however, until we have all our war canoes finished completely with the HCM upgrades and tests.  We're not in a position to be doing much that takes us where we need to have the legs an AOR gives without being co-opted with our friends.  Therefore we can still get to where we need to be by stopping in for fuel in the ports on route, however much of a pain in the butt it is.  And by the time all the canoes are out, tested and prepped we'll be that much closer to having our AOR capability back in house.

And anyhow, "Hope" of one sort or another has pretty much been a course of action throughout my years in the mob IIRC.


----------



## dimsum

> This problem, needless to say, predates this government. For decades, governments of both the Liberal and Conservative stripe have treated defence procurement not as a means of supplying our troops with the best equipment fastest at the lowest price, but as a giant corporate welfare machine gussied up with the odd artillery tube and a bit of camouflage.


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-the-military-is-a-fighting-force-not-a-public-works-project


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> SKT, if the USN is short AORs, why did they mothball two of the fast supply class ships?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



God only knows. I guess when the choice is between Carriers and AORs (even the USN has money trouble), you choose Carriers.

The Kaisers are particularly expensive AORs to operate. Their crew is way in excess of what we would put onboard. It is designed to keep up with a Carrier Battlegroup, so it has gas turbine engines. Very fast, but very expensive to run.


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> God only knows. I guess when the choice is between Carriers and AORs (even the USN has money trouble), you choose Carriers.
> 
> The Kaisers are particularly expensive AORs to operate. Their crew is way in excess of what we would put onboard. It is designed to keep up with a Carrier Battlegroup, so it has gas turbine engines. Very fast, but very expensive to run.



You are thinking of the Sacramento Class of fast support tankers. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Detroit_%28AOE-4%29

The Kaisers were the smaller civilian run AOR's. Chile purchased one that was declared surplus to USN needs.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Whoops. Thanks for the correction!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Irving CEO puff-piece--note Sept. 1 date for first A/OPS steel-cutting:



> Shipyard to drive Halifax economy with $190 million spent locally
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding has invested well beyond the value of the interest-bearing loan from the province to deliver the best quality and value to Canada. It is a $350-million investment in a strengthened long-term future for our skilled workers and the community where we are very proud to serve as Canada’s combatant shipbuilder.
> 
> We built a larger facility than was required for the first set of ships, the Arctic offshore patrol ships. We did this to ensure a seamless transition for our employees and our operations as we complete the patrol vessels and move forward to build the larger Canadian surface combatant ships in 2020.
> 
> Nova Scotia suppliers have been a very important part of our yard modernization and Arctic patrol ship program. Sixty-three per cent of spending to date has been here in Nova Scotia. That is more than $190 million into the local economy.
> 
> Today, we’re getting ready to build the first ship, with steel cutting on Sept. 1. Orientation of our existing workforce has begun at the Nova Scotia Community College, a vital partner in building the skill of our current and future employees.
> 
> We’re hiring. We want to keep skilled Nova Scotians home and bring them home.
> 
> Where we don’t have the expertise in Canada, we are bringing in the best and brightest from around the world who will make Nova Scotia home.
> 
> At peak, direct employment at Irving Shipbuilding and our sub-contractors in Halifax is forecast to grow to 2,500…
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1287020-shipyard-to-drive-halifax-economy-with-190-million-spent-locally



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

As usual, I am confused.  Can somebody straighten me out?

Michael den Tandt - National Post - May 15 2015 



> Seaspan's yard in North Vancouver has in the past produced mainly barges and ferries. As a result, it required a big upgrade, which the company has done, at a cost it says of $170 million. That work was completed in November. Yet no contract with the federal government has been finalized, *nor has construction of the coast guard vessels begun*.
> 
> ....



On the other hand, on Oct 28, 2014 11:28 AM in "Professional Mariner"



> Seaspan starts building Canada's first NSPS ship
> 
> Oct 28, 2014 11:28 AM
> 
> The offshore fisheries science vessel is part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy
> 
> The following is the text of a news release from Seaspan:
> 
> (NORTH VANCOUVER, British Columbia) (Oct. 27) — The Honorable Diane Finley, minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, announced today that _*Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards has started construction on two initial blocks for the first National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) ship, the Canadian Coast Guard’s offshore fisheries science vessel (OFSV)*_.
> 
> “We are thrilled to begin initial block construction on the OFSV and are grateful that Minister Finley is here to celebrate this milestone moment with us," said Brian Carter, president of Seaspan Shipyards. “We are proud to be Canada’s capability partner for non-combat vessels and are looking forward to continuing our service to the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy under the NSPS.”
> 
> The initial block construction coincides with the final phases of Seaspan’s Shipyard Modernization Project, a two-year, $200 million project which once complete in November will provide state-of-the-art facilities to efficiently deliver ships under the NSPS program for more than 20 years.
> 
> “Today’s announcement confirms that the NSPS is working to employ Canadians and generate economic opportunities within our shipbuilding and marine industrial base across the country,” said Carter.
> 
> Seaspan’s NSPS build package will create stable work over the next decade for trades and suppliers throughout British Columbia and across Canada. It is estimated that this work will create a total of 5,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs throughout the life of the build program, and produce almost $500 million per year in gross domestic product for B.C.’s economy.



It would certainly appear, to me at least, that Seaspan and the Federal Government, contrary to Mr. den Tandt's assertion, have started to build NSPS vessels for the Coast Guard.

Can somebody fill in the blanks for me?

I leave aside the gratuitous swipe at Seaspan having to gear up with a new shipyard (privately financed) while no mention is made of the Nova Scotia government financed upgrade of Irving's yards.  

Seaspan apparently didn't have the facilities because they only worked on tugs and barges (a surprise to the Navy, trawlers and cruise industry I am sure). What was Irving's excuse?

Final edit:  Seaspan completed their yard modernization ahead of time and officially opened for business on November 6,2014.

Yard Modernization Complete


----------



## Kirkhill

FYI PWGSC  May 1 2015.





> NSPS Technical Briefing on Canadian Surface Combatant - Speaking Notes
> 
> May 1, 2015
> 
> Check against delivery
> 
> Good morning/afternoon;
> 
> My colleagues—and I are pleased to be here today to update you on the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.
> 
> As you know, we have provided regular updates on the progress of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy. We are now just a little over three years after signing the overarching Umbrella Agreements with Vancouver Shipyards and Irving Shipbuilding. This is a 30-year project and we are just at the beginning. In this short time, significant progress has already been made. The two shipyards have completely transformed themselves, investing hundreds of millions of dollars to modernize their infrastructure. These modernizations are nearly complete. The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy has already generated significant economic benefits and jobs for Canadians. And it will continue to do so.
> 
> This year we will see construction start on the first ships in the lead projects: the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship in Halifax and the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel in Vancouver. While the shipyards have been preparing to cut steel in Halifax and Vancouver, we have been setting the stage for upcoming National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy projects. Today we will be focusing on the Canadian Surface Combatant project.
> 
> The Canadian Surface Combatant is one of the most significant projects undertaken by the Government of Canada to date. A budget envelope of $26.2 billion was established to build up to 15 vessels to renew the Canadian Surface Combatant fleet for the Royal Canadian Navy. In order to meet the Navy’s needs, while ensuring that Canadians get value for money and significant economic benefits, we have adopted a comprehensive procurement strategy. Let me tell you more about the “Most Competitive Procurement Strategy”.
> 
> Canada engaged industry to help inform the development of the procurement strategy for the Canadian Surface Combatant. With input from industry, we short-listed two potential approaches. The first was to competitively choose and fund a single design team. The second was to competitively select and fund two design teams. Each of these approaches had some industry support – however, there was no consensus across the industry.
> 
> In addition to consultations with industry, we also assessed our recent experience with naval design–and-build procurements which, like the Canadian Surface Combatant project, started with ambitious technical requirements and a constrained budget and for which, like the Canadian Surface Combatant project, a significant driver for the procurement strategy was the ability to successfully reconcile requirements with budget.
> 
> Our most recent project of this type was our first attempt at the Joint Support Ship procurement project where we utilized the two competing design teams approach. In this project, we were unable to successfully work with two competing teams to reconcile requirements with budget. These cost/capability tradeoffs are not easily done because the two teams and the government officials with whom they work must be kept firewalled from each other to ensure fairness in the competition. This does not allow the government to modify requirements based on innovative design approaches proposed by the companies, without being exposed to considerable legal risk. Ultimately, in the case of the Joint Support Ship project, an inability to do those tradeoffs resulted in bids that were well over budget.
> 
> As we continued with our procurement strategy assessment, and in light of the Defence Procurement Strategy, it also became evident that we needed to focus on the strategy for competitively selecting the systems and equipment that would be incorporated into the Canadian Surface Combatant ships. We want to maximize competition for the opportunities that the project creates for Canadian business or work to be done in Canada, as well as maximizing value and innovation.
> 
> This led to an evolution of the strategy to competitively choose and fund a single design team through the “Most Competitive Procurement Strategy”.
> 
> The Most Competitive Procurement Strategy facilitates the competitive selection of systems and equipment and enables us to incorporate Value Propositions into these selection processes. One key advantage is that after we have selected the Combat Systems Integrator and the Warship Designer, we will then work with Irving Shipbuilding to competitively select the equipment, systems and sub-systems suppliers throughout the process. This is in contrast to a two team approach where we would expect extensive teaming arrangements early in the process, which would limit our ability to compete those equipment and systems throughout the process. This also drives costs down and ensures value for money.
> 
> In summary, to maximize the potential of the competition, we determined that the best approach would be to complete the reconciliation of requirements and budget. Then, knowing the requirements, Irving Shipbuilding, the Combat Systems Integrator and a Warship Designer will be able to effectively conduct the competitions to select the systems, sub-systems and equipment for the ships and complete the designs.
> 
> Constructing warships is no easy task. In fact, it is a long, difficult and complex endeavour. So while we have chosen Irving Shipbuilding to build these vessels, we will need the expertise of a Warship Designer as well as a Combat Systems Integrator. These roles are critical to this project.
> 
> The role of a Warship Designer is to provide and adapt a platform design. The degree of customization possible for existing designs will inform the approach best suited to choosing a Warship Designer and obtaining best value and best fit in this role. By using an existing design, we can reduce developmental risk and time in the design phase.
> 
> The Combat Systems Integrator, on the other hand, designs and integrates the combat system, primarily made up of the sensors (for example the sonar and radar), the weapons (for example the missiles and guns) as well as the various communications systems. These systems will enable the Navy to fulfill its missions and are essentially the raison d’être for the warship. It is also the area of highest complexity and greatest cost.
> 
> The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy is focused on delivering the equipment that our men and women in the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard need to do their jobs, developing and sustaining a robust domestic shipbuilding industry, creating highly skilled jobs for Canadians and maximizing opportunities for Canadian industry – including export opportunities. The benefits must flow far beyond the shipyards, and extend across Canada. The Canadian Surface Combatant procurement strategy reflects these priorities.
> 
> To make the best decision and meet our objectives, we relied on the same key characteristic that made the shipyard selection process a success: early and ongoing consultation, ensuring sound governance.
> 
> This strategy will ensure the greatest degree of competition throughout the supply chain and maximize opportunities for Canada, while ensuring value for the Navy and taxpayers.
> 
> We will be working with Irving Shipbuilding, who, as the Canadian Surface Combatant prime contractor, will be ultimately responsible for the successful delivery of the ships. However throughout the process, Canada will set the requirements. I want to be clear on this point: regardless of who is executing any particular competitive process, it will be Canada who is setting the standards and ensuring that the processes are being conducted properly in a fair, open and transparent way.
> 
> The Canadian Surface Combatant procurement strategy will begin immediately.
> 
> First, Canada, working in consultation with Irving Shipbuilding and other firms with warship expertise, will immediately commence initial reconciliation of the Royal Canadian Navy’s requirements with the budget.
> 
> _*Starting next month, we will establish a short list of qualified designers and integrators. In order to pre-qualify, these firms will have to demonstrate their experience and capability in warship design and combat systems integration. The prequalification should be complete in early Fall 2015. We expect to have a Combat Systems Integrator and a Warship Designer by early 2017.
> 
> The next stage will be for Canada, Irving Shipbuilding, the Combat Systems Integrator and the Warship Designer to undertake multiple design spirals to design the ship within our budget, under a design-then-build approach. This is the same approach that we have used successfully for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels.
> 
> Throughout that design process, there will be a series of competitive processes to source the required equipment, systems and sub-systems.*_ We fully expect that Canadian companies with expertise in those areas to be able to compete on and in many cases win those sub-contracts. My colleague, from Industry Canada will talk more to how we will maximize opportunities for Canadian companies in a couple minutes.
> 
> Throughout the strategy, there will be a strong emphasis on using open, fair and transparent competitive processes. Canada will set the standards for these competitions whether the processes are conducted by the Shipyard, the Combat Systems Integrator or the Warship Designer. The standards will include applying the principles of the Defence Procurement Strategy to ensure that Canadian companies are able to do meaningful work on these ships.
> 
> In order to provide an additional layer of independent oversight, we have engaged a fairness monitor to oversee the entire Canadian Surface Combatant procurement process to ensure fairness and transparency.
> 
> One of the key objectives of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy has been the avoidance of a boom-bust shipbuilding cycle. Mitigating this risk is a significant focus for Canada and Irving Shipbuilding.
> 
> We are of course also looking forward to delivering the first ship of the new fleet of surface combatants to the Royal Canadian Navy. Under the Most Competitive Procurement Strategy, we will be able to reach a Canadian Surface Combatant construction start 12 months sooner than under the dual design team option which, in turn, will enable us to take delivery of the first ship 12 months sooner. It is imperative to ensure there is no production gap between the last Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship and the first Canadian Surface Combatant. Therefore, we are also examining options to get to cutting steel sooner by streamlining the procurement processes, performing the first phase of requirements reconciliation this summer, two years earlier than originally planned, and by using off-the-shelf equipment wherever feasible to reduce developmental risk. These are a few examples of how, under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, Canada, Irving Shipbuilding and the industry will be able to plan ahead and seek out ways to better manage the overall shipbuilding program of work.
> 
> For an undertaking as important and complex as this project, proper governance is vitally important. The governance committees for the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy will oversee the timely implementation of this strategy. This includes a National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy Ministers’ Working Group that will ensure that decisions are being made in a timely manner and in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers.
> 
> Through these strong governance structures, important decisions on costs, capability, requirements, evaluation criteria, procurement strategies for equipment, systems and sub-systems, Canadian benefits and timelines will be made at the appropriate levels in a timely manner.
> 
> The design and construction of the Canadian Surface Combatant is expected to span 20 to 30 years, which is good news for the industry. As with any long-range project, we appreciate that technology will evolve over time and, consequently, the first Canadian Surface Combatant will not be fitted with the same equipment as the last one off the production line. Applying what we’ve learned so far through National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy and utilizing the Most Competitive Procurement Strategy will allow us to apply knowledge and expertise to make decisions at the appropriate times in the process. It will also offer the flexibility to work with our partners to discuss strategy and trade-offs and make the necessary adjustments. This will provide the Royal Canadian Navy with a renewed warfare capability and versatility allowing it to deploy worldwide on short notice.
> 
> The construction of the Canadian Surface Combatant is expected to begin in the early 2020s. Canada will continue to work closely with Irving Shipbuilding, the selected Warship Designer and the Combat Systems Integrator to ensure the successful delivery of vessels.
> 
> I will now turn to my colleague from DND.
> 
> It is anticipated that Canada will acquire two ship variants to replace the capabilities of the Iroquois-class destroyers and Halifax-class frigates.
> 
> Both variants will have the necessary combat capabilities to operate in air, surface, and sub-surface threat environments. A small number of ships will have the ability to provide area air defence (to protect against threats at greater range).
> 
> The remainder of the Canadian Surface Combatants will replace the capabilities provided by the current fleet of multi-role frigates. Ultimately, the surface combatant fleet will provide the Government of Canada with the capabilities necessary to control and defend Canada’s maritime approaches, defend North America, and lead a wide range of international operations.
> 
> The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy will enable ongoing discussions between the government, Irving Shipbuilding Inc., and qualified Combat System Integrators and Warship Designers regarding the Canadian Surface Combatant requirements. The project will continue the review of its high-level requirements and specifications. It is a complex undertaking to determine how to allocate capabilities across each of the two variants within the budget. As the procurement process and design work progresses, this analysis will be essential to ensure that the design solution is affordable and that there is a valid cost proposal for building the ships. Throughout the analysis, our procurement approach is set up to recommend to Government to revisit capabilities, if appropriate. Furthermore, we intend to consult with the Independent Review Panel for Defence Acquisition, as well as other potential third parties and stakeholders.
> 
> We fully expect that the Canadian Surface Combatant project will benefit from shipbuilding efficiencies and lessons learned during the building of the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships that precede it.
> 
> I will now turn to my colleague from Industry Canada to talk about the strategy to maximize benefits for Canadian companies throughout the process.
> 
> The Canadian defence sector plays an important role in the Canadian economy—including over 650 firms, contributing to the employment of more than 65,000 full-time workers and generating $9.4 billion of revenues annually.
> 
> Industry analysts have estimated that government ship projects could contribute 15,000 jobs across Canada and over $2 billion in annual economic benefits over the next 20 to 30 years.
> 
> To further strengthen the economy, the Industrial and Regional Benefits Policy and the Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy will apply to this procurement. Irving Shipbuilding Inc, as prime contractor, will be required to ensure that it, and all the companies it subcontracts, together undertake business activity in Canada equal to the value of the contracts they secure. An additional investment in Canada must be made in skills, technology and industrial development equal to one half of one percent of the contracts secured.
> 
> The Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy includes a Value Proposition that will require bidders for the Combat Systems Integrator, Warship Designer, and related systems, sub-systems, equipment and services to compete not only on price and technical merit, but also on their economic contribution to Canada as contained in their Value Propositions.
> 
> Earlier industry engagement is a cornerstone of the Defence Procurement Strategy. We will be working closely with industry to define the Value Proposition evaluation frameworks in order to leverage significant economic benefits to Canada.
> 
> Applying these Policies will strengthen Canada’s defence sector and support the growth of suppliers across Canada, including small and medium-sized enterprises.
> 
> The Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy is a powerful investment attraction tool for Canada. The policy will encourage firms to grow their existing presence in Canada and make new investments in order to generate growth and high-quality jobs for Canadians.
> 
> Industry Canada has completed significant analysis of Canadian capabilities related to direct opportunities for Canadian suppliers on the Canadian Surface Combatant project and mapped these capabilities against international market opportunity. The data highlighted areas where Canada has significant strengths and where there is significant opportunity for growth in international markets – these include communications, sonar and command and control. This illustrates the importance of developing unique value propositions in order to maximize economic benefit to Canada when competing systems, sub-systems, equipment, and services.
> 
> In conclusion I would like to reiterate a point I made at the beginning: the procurement of these ships is an incredibly complex undertaking. We have held 15 industry engagement sessions on the Canadian Surface Combatant project since 2012. We have engaged independent experts throughout the process. And we have established a robust and effective governance structure. All of this has been the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of people. And it has all informed the decisions that I have outlined to you today. However, with complexity comes uncertainty. Therefore, I am not here telling you that we have found all the answers and that the path forward is cast in stone. Rather we recognize that we will need to make adjustments as we progress. We will adjust and evolve as warranted and continue to engage with industry and the public. This is why we have developed a strategy that provides us with such flexibility and married it with a robust Governance Structure to ensure risks are well managed.
> 
> Thank you, my colleagues and I will now take your questions.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Back to Seaspan/CCG:




> Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards yard modernization complete; first blocks for Coast Guard’s Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels under construction
> Posted on: December 29th, 2014
> 
> Brian Carter, President of Seaspan Shipyards says, “We completed our shipyard upgrade October 30, two months in advance of the projected date and significantly under budget,”...
> 
> Funded entirely by Seaspan, the $170-million yard reconstruction project has transformed Vancouver Shipyards into the most modern facility in North America, and will establish a shipbuilding and ship repair centre of excellence on the West Coast...
> 
> *Shipbuilding begins on first offshore fisheries vessel*
> 
> At an October 27 ceremony, Seaspan executives, along with Diane Finley, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, announced that Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards has started construction on two initial production blocks for the first NSPS ship, the Canadian Coast Guard’s Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel (OFSV). Brian Carter estimates the new vessel construction work will result in the creation of 5,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs over the next 20 years, to produce almost $500 million per year in gross domestic product for B.C.’s economy.
> 
> Carter says, “We’re on plan, we said we’d start first OFSV in October this year, which we did. We’ll start the remaining blocks in early 2015, so everything is onward and upward. We’re developing the off-shore oceanographic science vessel which is what we build after the three OFSVs and we’re in the design process for the joint support ship which will be the largest ship ever built in western Canada.” Describing the shipbuilding process, Carter says, “Ships are built in blocks that start with a piece of steel plate. The plate is cut, stiffeners are attached to give strength. This is called a panel, and the panels are joined together, resembling a five-sided block. The blocks are then outfitted with everything we can possibly put in it such as piping, ventilation, electrical systems and equipment. We try to get as much of that in during this process.” Once out of the pre-outfitting stage, the block is painted, multiple blocks are joined together forming grand blocks which, when all assembled, form the ship.
> 
> “This work completes the vessel to about 92 per cent, and that’s as much as we can do on land.” Once in the water, the ship is commissioned, systems are connected and testing takes place, this work will be done at Seaspan’s Victoria shipyards. The key to the construction however, Mr. Carter says, is getting the blocks as pre-fitted as they can be. He notes that blocks are grouped since those requiring more outfitting take longer to complete. “Forty blocks make up the off-shore fisheries science vessel and there are six families of blocks. We plan the schedule to level-load our facilities, so we truly operate as a manufacturing assembly line.”..
> http://www.canadiansailings.ca/?p=9426



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

How unlike Irving...


----------



## MarkOttawa

But from Kirkhill's Technical Briefing May 1:



> ...
> This year we will see construction start on the first ships in the lead projects: the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship in Halifax and the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel in Vancouver. While the shipyards have been _preparing to cut steel in Halifax and Vancouver_ [emphasis added]...
> http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/na-sp-05-01-eng.html



?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

More on the Oct 27th 2014 announcement - from IMTARC




> Vancouver Shipyards starts production of first NSPS vessel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watched by Seaspan Shipyards President Brian Carter, *Minister Diane Finley presses button to initiate steel cutting*
> 
> Source: Marine Log
> Date: October 27, 2014
> 
> OCTOBER 27, 2014 — Diane Finley, Canada's Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada visited Vancouver Shipyards, Vancouver, B.C. today to announce the award of a $5-million contract for the production of two initial blocks for the first National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) ship, the Canadian Coast Guard's Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel (OFSV). *She also pressed a button to start production rolling.
> 
> "I'm pleased to be here to cut steel on the initial block production of the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel," she said. "This milestone shows our progress and our commitment to rebuilding our Canadian marine industry*, which will ultimately lead to the creation of high-quality jobs and economic growth in communities across Canada."
> 
> The Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel will be the first class of ship to be built at Vancouver Shipyards under the government's shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> “We are thrilled to begin initial block construction on the OFSV and are grateful that Minister Finley is here to celebrate this milestone moment with us, said Brian Carter, President – Seaspan Shipyards. “We are proud to be Canada’s capability partner for Non-Combat vessels and are looking forward to continuing our service to the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy under the NSPS.”
> 
> The initial block construction coincides with the final phases of Seaspan’s Shipyard Modernization Project, a two-year, $200 million project, which once complete in November, will provide state-of-the-art facilities to deliver ships under the NSPS program for more than 20 years.
> 
> Building the initial blocks will enable the shipyard to test new processes, get personnel familiar with new equipment and streamline construction for when full production begins in spring 2015.



As you say Mark :  ???


----------



## Kirkhill

Maybe this adds a bit more to the puzzle -



> Seaspan Marine cut steel October 27 at its Vancouver Shipyards to start production of two blocks that will be part of the first large non-combat ship for the federal government.
> 
> 
> A total of 40 blocks will be welded together in a modular construction system used to form the ship, an offshore fisheries science vessel.
> 
> Blocks hold everything needed for a specific area of a vessel, including piping, electrical components and other equipment.
> 
> The first two blocks will test new processes, tools, facilities and equipment prior to starting full production in spring 2015, said Brian Carter, president of Seaspan Shipyards.
> 
> The initial blocks are destined for the bottom sections for the first of three offshore fisheries science vessels. Seaspan, owner of Vancouver Shipyards, Vancouver Drydock and Victoria Shipyards, is under contract to build $11.3 million worth of non-combat ships for the federal government.
> 
> At this time, 50 workers are on the job. As the next two vessels begin, about 350 workers will be used, Carter said.
> 
> 
> Times Colonist



Link


----------



## Kirkhill

More on the matter - And I am given more reason to believe that somebody is using Mr. den Tandt to stir the pot.

From all that I can see there is little reason to believe that there is any problem on the West Coast or that there is any room for Davie at the table - unless the government were to consider adding more vessels to its planned procurement strategy or wanted to accelerate the pace of delivery (ie the pace of spending).  I don't see any indication of any of that.



> National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy Technical Briefing (January 16, 2015)
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
> 
> Good day,
> 
> RAdm Pat Finn, Kevin McCoy and I are pleased to be here today to provide you with an update on the implementation of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy. As you know, we have provided you with regular updates at key milestones of the program.
> 
> Today, we are pleased to inform you that we have reached agreement with Irving Shipbuilding on the build contract for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships. This is a significant milestone. Our briefing this morning will therefore focus on the AOPS build contract.
> 
> Before we get to the AOPS, let me do a quick run through on a few of the other elements of the program. I’ll start with the shipyard transformations and modernizations. These have been remarkable.
> 
> Over the last three years, Vancouver Shipyards and Irving Shipbuilding have planned, demolished, reconfigured and rebuilt their yards so that they could construct Canada’s large vessels efficiently.
> 
> _*Vancouver completed its $170 million transformation a few months ago, ahead of schedule. Irving will complete its $340 million modernization this year, on schedule.*_ It is important to reiterate that these renovations are at zero cost to Canada.
> 
> These major reconfigurations had to be completed before any build activities could take place; they are a condition of the selection of the yards to build Canada’s fleets; and the state of readiness and completion will be validated by First Marine International, our independent third party expert on shipbuilding.
> 
> As a result, _*both the combat and the non-combat packages will begin vessel construction this year. In fact, construction of the two initial blocks for the Canadian Coast Guard’s Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels began last October in Vancouver.
> 
> We are moving forward on the build contract for the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels and on purchasing long lead items for the Joint Support Ships.*_
> 
> Each of the ships in the NSPS program is advanced through a design-then-build approach which we’ve briefed you on previously. The design-then-build approach allows for the exercise of design-cost trade-offs to ensure affordability, while ensuring delivery of the Navy’s and the Coast Guard’s requirements and capabilities.
> 
> More to the point, getting this approach right is key to addressing the questions of cost, capability and schedule that seem to get asked most often in relation to AOPS.
> 
> I will address each of these in turn in relation to the AOPS build contract. The initial AOPS design was provided to Irving Shipbuilding in June 2012. Since then, the shipyard has been maturing the design through multiple reviews. The shipyard is now at the final stages of completing the design process and moving to a build-ready state.
> 
> _*Throughout the design-cost-capability reviews, construction estimates are refined until substantive costs are provided. These are not based on benchmarks from other countries or computer estimates or parametric models. This is a costing model that is informed by data directly related to the shipyard, the ship and its capabilities. It includes five elements:
> 
> a three dimensional model that provides a full understanding of the design and construction elements – and Kevin will demonstrate a sample of that modeling in his presentation;
> a supply chain established by the shipyard where the major equipment has been selected through competitive processes;
> a design that has been reviewed, scrutinized, refined and costed for both labour and material;
> a number of detailed reviews by the Government of Canada and the shipyard to ensure risk elements are known, assessed and mitigated; and
> Finally - review and validation by an independent third party - the American Bureau of Shipping, which included a review of costs.
> The design-then-build approach also includes construction of the first sections of the vessels – known as initial blocks or production test modules. The shipyard will test its new infrastructure, environment and production processes, with these initial blocks.*_
> 
> As the design work progressed, we negotiated the build contract. For the last 14 months, we have been working with Irving Shipbuilding to structure an innovative incentive-based build contract.  We started the contract negotiations from a principles perspective. _*We identified risk elements such as the liabilities and warranties, and discussed ways to ensure that the funds expended would be maximized on ships as opposed to contingencies for “what-ifs”.*_
> 
> From there, we focused on interest-based negotiations, the “why” behind each of the cost elements. The end result is in the best interest of Canadian taxpayers and the shipyard as both parties will focus on the efficient management of the contract so as to deliver cost savings to the Crown while ensuring the Navy receives the ships it requires.
> 
> As an example, it is in Irving’s best interest to keep costs down so as to receive an increased Fee based upon our negotiated incentivized fee structure.
> 
> Concurrent to these discussions, we conducted cost and profit discussions with the focus on cost containment and value for money.
> 
> The culmination of these efforts is a contract that delivers the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships that the Royal Canadian Navy requires within a contract that provides best value for taxpayers.
> 
> _*The AOPS is a new design and a new class of ship, being built in a brand new shipyard. These factors bring risks with them.*_
> 
> As for any complex program, the challenge is to find the appropriate balance between risk and cost certainty.
> 
> _*The contract with Irving Shipbuilding is for six ships. It is structured to include incentives to keep costs down and to deliver six ships, within a ceiling price. Should costs increase, due to unforeseen factors, the contract will guarantee the delivery of five ships within the same ceiling price.*_
> 
> However, building five ships will negatively impact the shipyard as the incentives to build six ships turn into significant disincentives if only five ships are built.
> 
> The AOPS contract is a Cost Reimbursable Incentive Fee or CRIF based contract. This assigns risk-sharing of some key elements, such as liabilities and warranties, to either the shipyard or the Crown, whichever is better equipped to manage it. It also includes contingencies for fluctuations in exchange rates, inflation and labour rates.
> 
> The President of Irving Shipbuilding, Mr. Kevin McCoy, will speak to the contract incentives, and the strategies the shipyard has put in place with regard to the number of ships to be built in just a few minutes.
> 
> The total potential value of the build contract is $2.3 billion.
> 
> The original AOPS budget of $3.1 billion was established in 2007. This included acquisition costs such as ship design and construction, infrastructure costs (jetties), spares, logistics, project office operations and contingencies. As the Auditor General noted in his report, and the government acknowledged, a number of factors such as cost-of-living and exchange rates will impact budgets that are set far in advance. Generally, these factors affect the amounts set aside for contingencies. And that is the case for the AOPS project.
> 
> As a result, the overall AOPS project budget was recently increased to $3.5 billion, to re-establish an appropriate contingency. This additional funding comes from DND’s existing accrual envelope and does not affect other DND acquisitions or operational activities.
> 
> Capability:
> 
> While a design then build approach with several design reviews allows for cost capability trade-offs, NO major capability reductions were identified during the design process. Let me repeat that: NO major capability reductions were identified during the design process. Admiral Finn will provide additional details on the capability issues in a moment.
> 
> Schedule:
> 
> When the shipyard selection process was completed in 2011, we established a schedule to begin the AOPS construction in 2015. And I am pleased to say that the construction of an initial block will commence this summer, and full production will begin in September, as planned and scheduled after the shipyard selection process. This will see delivery of the first AOPS vessel in 2018 and a further vessel approximately every 9 months thereafter.
> 
> I will now ask Admiral Finn to speak to how the AOPS vessels meet the Navy’s requirements.
> 
> Pat Finn: Thank you Tom, As designed, the new class of ships, now called the Harry DeWolf class, will meet the requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces. These ships are capable of operating in the Arctic, providing a greater presence in the north and an operational capability further into the season. The NSPS has enabled an approach that allowed us to complete a rigorous design review. It also provides insight into the implications of various requirements. This has resulted in some changes to the ship design, none of which have resulted in the elimination of major capability or affected the ability to meet all operational requirements.
> 
> Examples of the changes include lengthening the ship to make it simpler to produce and simplification of some of the communications systems.
> 
> Through our design then build approach we have reviewed, refined, and matured the AOPS ship design to get all the production details right, factor in the potential risks, and finalize costs.
> 
> Our cost estimates are informed by real data, real prices, and real quotes from industry.
> 
> The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report was based on a parametric model of the AOPS ship that utilizes high-level technical and performance parameters such as displacement and speed as primary inputs.
> 
> Parametric modelling is typically used during the very early stages of a project when critical design details are not known. As such, parametric models are subject to a wide range of uncertainty.
> 
> It is for these reasons that we are confident in the delivery of six ships as opposed to the PBO estimate that there would still only be a 50% probability of getting six ships after a budgetary increase..
> 
> Importantly for Canadians, AOPS will better enable the Navy to assert and enforce sovereignty in Canadian waters, including in the Arctic. The ships are fundamentally designed to meet the Canadian Armed Forces requirements.
> 
> I will now turn the floor over to Kevin McCoy who will speak to the measures taken by the shipyard that will drive the shipyard’s production and number of ships.
> 
> Kevin McCoy: With this contract, Irving is planning to build six ships. We are heavily incentivized to do so and we expect to deliver six ships for the Royal Canadian Navy.
> 
> As Tom mentioned, this is a new design and class of military ship that will be constructed in a brand new shipyard. These things bring risks with them – that is a fact of life.
> 
> What we have done here is try to understand and manage these risks and provide for what will happen if they occur.
> 
> The AOPS contract is a balanced and fair contract – with appropriate levels of risk being taken by all parties.
> 
> In the event that risks materialize and increase costs – there is a pre-agreed mechanism to deal with them in a simple, well understood way.
> 
> Around the world the best performing shipbuilding programs are those where the design of the ship is complete before construction begins.
> 
> The rigorous approach laid out by Canada to fully design the ship before cutting first steel – maximizes production efficiency and reduces overall program risk.
> 
> Canada and Irving are working closely together to avoid these risks – the best example being the design-then-build approach being taken. Let me show you a few images of what the 3D model looks like.
> 
> The contract is innovative, well thought out, appropriate and balanced. It ensures an effective partnership and collaboration between the Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding.
> 
> It will also create jobs. We estimate that over 1000 jobs will be sustained at the yard at the peak of construction. We will also be generating work across Canada. To date, even before we start construction on the AOPS, Irving Shipbuilding has issued contracts worth $331 million, to suppliers across Canada.
> 
> Tom Ring: As Mr. McCoy just emphasized, we are expecting that the cost reimbursable incentive fee based contract creates the right incentives for the shipyard to construct six AOPS vessels.
> 
> In conclusion, we are pleased that the men and women of the Navy and Coast Guard will get the equipment they need to do the important work we ask of them.
> 
> As stated by the Auditor General, the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy is well managed and will help the Government of Canada to procure ships in a “timely and affordable manner”.
> 
> In addition, the Canadian economy is, and will continue to benefit from this strategy. This is a 30-year program that is creating an estimated 15,000 jobs across Canada and generating over $2 billion a year in economic benefits.
> 
> To date, 197 companies in Canada have already benefited from NSPS work.
> 
> We are available to take your questions.



Link


----------



## jollyjacktar

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The contract with Irving Shipbuilding is for six ships. It is structured to include incentives to keep costs down and to deliver six ships, within a ceiling price. Should costs increase, due to unforeseen factors, the contract will guarantee the delivery of five ships within the same ceiling price.



And sure as God made little green apples, Irving will ensure they only have to deliver 5 for the price of 6.  That's their usual COA of FYO.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And sure as God made little green apples, Irving will ensure they only have to deliver 5 for the price of 6.  That's their usual COA of FYO.



In fairness, jjt, that's everyone's _ideal_ business plan ...


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In fairness, jjt, that's everyone's _ideal_ business plan ...



Agreed, it would the ideal of most business to deliver less for more.  Shareholders love it.  But, I do hate being "fair" to Irving as would most of my brethren.  The more you learn, the more you despise, to be frank.


----------



## Halifax Tar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Agreed, it would the ideal of most business to deliver less for more.  Shareholders love it.  But, I do hate being "fair" to Irving as would most of my brethren.  The more you learn, the more you despise, to be frank.



I worked as supply support in the Irving yard in the early-mid 2000 Preserver refit.  From a logistical stand point it was eye opening, and really solidified my postion that we should buy "off the shelf" from countries that can deliver quality, on time for a fair price.


----------



## Underway

The National Post article is obviously badly researched amoung other things.  Certain reporters just keep referencing their own work and don't actually go out and do their own research, just assume what others have written is still the case etc...  Especially when it comes to the Royal Canadian Navy.  Trying to explain the the public that "yes the sub fleet for all intents and purposes is full operational, including the one that had the fire..." is an exercise in futility.  The press makes it worse as they can't/won't shake the subs are lemons story (not to mention our complete inability to properly sell subs as an important defence platform).  We don't do ourselves any favours in the RCN as we see all the warts and are very self critical.

CSC:
If the contract is structured correctly and all indications seem to point that way, then Irving will get more money if they produce more ships.  It could easily be something as simple as they max out profit of "X" dollars per ship built.  So if they don't find a way to keep costs under control and then deliver the full 6 ship product then they lose out on profit.  

Look at the Cyclone project as a rough (very rough) example.  Penalties have been given to Sikorsky as they couldn't meet their contract obligations.  I don't know if they are making any profit but the gov't looks at least as if they are trying to get the best value and still get the helo's.  Of course the Irving family and industries in vote getting places change things.  

The most interesting thing from a cost control perspective is that there are now 3 shipyards in Canada that could conceivably build the CSC, and if Irving shows badly then there becomes a potential for them to loose out on the later builds of the CSC.  What should happen is that the CSC be built in blocks of 4 or so ships at a time, with contracts written only for the next 4 ships.  That way you can pull the next 4 builds from the shipyard should they not meet the requirements. 

BLOCK 1:  4 ships, AAW/ C2 variants
BLOCK 2:  4 ships GP variant - start designing the next gen systems for BLOCK 3
BLOCK 3:  4 ships GP variant upgraded with newest mature tech/weapons - designing next gen systems for BLOCK 4 using lessons learned from BLOCK 1/2
BLOCK 4:  3 ships GP variant upgraded again - design CSCII to replace BLOCK 1
BLOCK 5:  4 ships, AAW/ C2 variants of the CSC II project, when complete pay off BLOCK 1...
cont'd....

At each one of those BLOCKs you can either recompete the project or get rid of someone like the Warship Designer/ Combat Systems integrater should they not be meeting the requirements.

But I'm the eternal optimist...


----------



## larry Strong

A stop gap measure.........

Canada looking at retrofitting commercial ships to resupply navy 

Posted with the usual caveats.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-looking-at-retrofitting-commercial-ships-to-resupply-navy-1.2387077



> Ottawa is considering retrofitting commercial ships to resupply the Royal Canadian Navy, CTV News has learned.
> 
> The measure is considered a stopgap, as the navy no longer has ships capable of delivering food, water, ammunition, spare parts and other necessities to vessels at sea.
> 
> Government records released to The Canadian Press earlier this week showed that navy mechanics in Halifax were forced to scour the Internet and use eBay to find parts for one of its two supply ships. Documents show navy mechanics had to use eBay to find ship parts.
> 
> 
> 
> Documents also showed that many of the parts on the 45-year-old HMCS Preserver were "beyond acceptable limits," and corrosion issues had begun to compromise its structural integrity.
> 
> The plan is to replace the makeshift supply ships in 2020, when the navy's new support ships are expected to hit the water.
> 
> The retrofitting plan will be reviewed by the federal cabinet for the third time next week.
> 
> Sources tell CTV News' Mercedes Stephenson that should the proposal receive approval, Quebec's Davie Shipyard will be granted the contract.




Cheers
Larry


----------



## ringo

I wonder if there looking at Finnish tankers Purha and Jurmo for conversion?


----------



## Underway

It's the right call, as the govt is backed into a corner and the navy needs a re supply stopgap measure.  Interestingly enough its in a Quebec shipyard in time for an election.....


----------



## Pelorus

And look, it's an icebreaker too!


----------



## MarkOttawa

And here's an icebreaking cargo ship built in Japan for Canadian operator Fednav:






1) First Arctic Cargo Shipped Through NW Passage



> By MarEx 2014-09-19 14:18:00
> 
> Fednav, a Canadian-owned company and world leader in Arctic navigation, announced that its vessel, the MV Nunavik sailed from Deception Bay en route to China via Canada’s Northwest Passage, with a full cargo of nickel concentrate. The Nunavik will be one of the first commercial vessels to transit the Northwest Passage completely, and the first to do so unescorted with an Arctic cargo, and with Canadian expertise.
> 
> The Nunavik is the most powerful conventional (non-nuclear) icebreaking bulk carrier in the world, and sails from Deception Bay, Northern Quebec year round, transporting product from the Canadian Royalties mine. The Nunavik will deliver 23,000 tons of nickel concentrate to Bayuquan in China...
> 
> "Fednav is proud to have designed this remarkable ship and to plan the first independent commercial voyage through the Northwest Passage,” said Paul Pathy, President and co-CEO of Fednav Limited. “It is through the extraordinary capabilities of the Fednav team, the ship’s crew, and its world-leading technology that we can undertake this journey with confidence."..
> http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/First-Arctic-Cargo-Shipped-Through-NW-Passage-2014-09-19



2) Fednav brings new icebreaker to the Canadian Arctic



> Montreal, March 20, 2014 – Fednav announces the arrival in Canada of its latest, highly specialized icebreaker, the MV Nunavik. Built at JMU’s Tsu Shipyard in Japan, the ship will be used to export the concentrates produced at the Canadian Royalties owned Nunavik Nickel mine at Deception Bay in northern Quebec. The vessel will also supply the mine with equipment and fuel, year round.
> 
> Rated Polar Class 4, the Nunavik is the most powerful bulk-carrying icebreaker in the world. It is similar in design to the Umiak I, the Fednav ship servicing Vale’s Voisey's Bay operation in Northern Labrador. The Nunavik will sail unescorted in Arctic regions and will operate in the extreme winter conditions of the Canadian Arctic. It is capable of maintaining continuous progress of 3 knots in 1.5 m of ice.
> 
> The vessel was designed by Fednav and JMU, and will sail between Deception Bay and Northern Europe on a year-round basis. The engine produces 29,600 hp, three times the power of a conventional bulk carrier of the same size. The Nunavik will be supported by Enfotec Technical Services, a Fednav subsidiary to provide up to date information on ice conditions as well as technical support to the inhouse IceNav navigation system...
> http://www.fednav.com/en/media/fednav-brings-new-icebreaker-canadian-arctic



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I always liked the look of these ships which used to come to Vancouver on a regular basis


----------



## Underway

A piece from the Canadian Naval Review spring issue, points out some of the issues facing the procurement of ships, including some of the public issues with selling the navy to Canada.  



> Warship Developments:
> Why Such Delays and Prognostication?
> Doug Thomas
> 
> Like the never-ending winter that all but West Coasters are enduring, I am getting very tired of delays in replacing naval equipment, including shipborne helicopters. I hope to live long enough to see the Cyclone helicopter deployed at sea, but there are still 50-year old Sea Kings in the skies over CFB Shearwater. I am currently in good health, but will I see the new AORs? Hopefully. Will I live to see the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) that is intended to replace our current destroyers and frigates? Th at may be a stretch based on the experience of the past few decades!
> 
> It is hard to understand why HMCS Harry DeWolf, the first Arctic Off shore Patrol Ship (AOPS), will not commence sea trials until at least 2018. The initiative to build these vessels for the navy was announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in July 2007. It was understood at the time that the AOPS design would be heavily based on the Norwegian Coast Guard vessel KV Svalbard – an uncomplicated and relatively inexpensive ship (about US$100 million in 2002). The Canadian vessels will be considerably more expensive yet smaller and slower than Svalbard, but will have improved capabilities in surveillance, supporting other government initiatives in the Arctic, improved habitability and improved ability to support operations ashore. Nevertheless, why didn’t we buy or lease a Svalbard or similar vessel, and gain experience during the years needed to build our own? We would have established a presence in the North much earlier, and gained experience operating in northern waters which could have been applied to operating the new ships.
> 
> I appreciate that the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) should help with future naval programs but meanwhile the Tribal-class destroyers and Replenishment Ships Protecteur and Preserver have been condemned to the scrapyard and their replacements are a distant promise. These ships served Canada well, and for considerably longer than expected when they were built.  They were allowed to wear out in service to the point of decrepit old age, when cracks and breakdowns became commonplace. In the future, one hopes that procurement necessary to meet agreed DND requirements will be implemented in a more timely manner rather than be the subject of perpetual political infighting or departmental inaction.
> 
> Looking back, the government decision in August 2008 not to proceed with building Joint Support Ships (JSS), due to cost estimates of the two consortia bidding on the contract, was a bad one – there was barely enough available funding ($2.9 billion) to build two ships rather than the required three. So what has happened? We have finally agreed that we will build only two ships, they will be an Improved Berlin-class as operated by the German Navy, and we may have them operational in about 2020 – six years aft er withdrawing Protecteur and Preserver from service. The continuing delay with this project means an increase in the cost of raw materials at the same time as there has been a considerable drop in the value of the Canadian dollar. This will inevitably mean an increase in the cost of JSS, the end of any possibility of adding a third ship, and possible further dilution in capability to reduce cost. Let me see: World War II lasted for about six years, and we will go that long before re-acquiring a capability to operate a Canadian task group with its own underway replenishment capability. What is wrong with this picture?
> 
> Our former four Tribal-class destroyers have been whittled down to one: HMCS Athabaskan. However her retention is for a few years at best and at a reduced state of readiness.
> I shudder to think of the commentary by the chattering classes regarding the much more expensive Canadian Surface Combatant Project, which will first replace the navy’s area air defence and command and control capability resident in the Tribals, and later the general purpose capability of our current frigates.
> 
> Like so many recent procurement programs – many of them naval it seems – ‘sticker shock’ seems to be part of the problem. It is rather like trading-in an elderly family
> car: you step into a dealer’s showroom with the aim of buying a safe, fuel efficient and reliable vehicle. You sit down with a salesman to price out something that meets your requirements, only to find that costs have skyrocketed. What do you do? If you need a new car to meet your transportation requirements, you bite the bullet and pay what it costs because you realize that you are not going to get a new car for the same price that you paid for your old car 10 years ago.
> 
> Recently CBC television aired what should have been a good news story about HMC Submarine Victoria. Victoria took observers to sea to demonstrate that she had assumed high-readiness and was ready to deploy anywhere the Canadian government might need her. The coverage concentrated on costs and delays, accidents, that these boats are 25 years old and that only Victoria was high-readiness, that two others were at a lower state of readiness, and the fourth in refit. The inference for the viewer was that there was a problem in that only one submarine was fully operational. There was no explanation of what was meant by tiered readiness, whereby ships and submarines rotate through various stages of readiness and availability based on a cycle of refits, work-ups and the need to conduct deployments to more dangerous areas of the world.
> 
> Then, to balance what the navy was saying, CBC invited comment from a certain professor from the University of British Columbia who has been a bitter foe of the Victoria-class and other naval programs, and who – not surprisingly – repeated his litany of complaints. There was no mention that the four ex-British submarines were laid up in reserve for a number of years after completion, due to the Royal Navy switching to an all-nuclear submarine force, or that the Chretien government dithered for four years aft erexpressing an interest in acquiring these submarines, or that the purchase price for all four was about the cost of one new submarine. And, finally, there was no mention of the reality that if these second-hand vessels had not been acquired, Canada would have lost its submarine capability as the government was unwilling to pay the cost of new submarines, and that the delay in achieving high-readiness is due to a serious lack of funding rather than an inherent problem with the design.
> 
> Surely our national governments – of whatever political stripe – should be able to decide what defence capabilities are needed, and budget for that well into the future. Forward planning should require broad agreement by the major parties as to defence requirements, so that there are no fundamental arguments against a previously agreed capability every time we need to replace a class of ships or an aircraft . If the project seems excessively priced, it is understandable that there will be discussion, but it seems to me that the recent policy of including cost of future maintenance, fuel, personnel, eventual disposal, etc., simply inflames the rhetoric from individuals who don`t agree with spending any money on defence. It seems that there is always a nasty argument against whatever bigticket item is the topic of the day. I would posit that this large G-7 country needs certain defence capabilities. For example, it needs a national general purpose naval task group, deployable anywhere in the world to safeguard national interests and able to operate with Canadian allies. In order to do this we need to equip that task group with suitable area air defence, surface and anti-submarine warfare capabilities, command and
> control facilities that can be integrated with those of our major allies, and an underway replenishment ship carrying supplies, spares, ammunition and helicopter repair facilities for our ships and their Cyclone helicopters. Such a capability is described in the Defence White Paper of 1994 and, presumably, is still in effect.


----------



## MarkOttawa

As for the Coast Guard--costs increase, many new ships many years down the road:



> National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy
> Technical Briefing on Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel [June 12]
> ...
> The Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels are part of the Fisheries and Oceans Canada/Canadian Coast Guard Fleet Renewal Program [see description here http://www.seaspan.com/building ]. And they are the first project for the non-combat work package under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.
> 
> We are pleased to tell you that the Government of Canada and Seaspan Shipyards have reached an agreement in principle that will see the construction and delivery of three Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels...
> 
> Full rate production will begin in the coming weeks and the delivery of the vessels is expected in 2017 [in 2012 the government said the first two vessels would be delivered last year! http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2012-2013/inst/dfo/st-ts04-eng.asp#mcp2 ].
> 
> In a few minutes, my colleague from PWGSC will provide the details of the agreement in principle. With those details taken into account, and based on Seaspan cost estimates, the Canadian Coast Guard has determined that the total budget, including project management, design and engineering, spares, training and other costs to put the vessels into operation, as well as the construction of the ships will require a total budget of up to $687 million...
> 
> The original OFSV budget of $244 million was developed in 2004 [and was still being used in 2011 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2011-2012/info/mcp-gpe-eng.asp#dfo ]. It did not contain adequate provision for inflation, project management, engineering and design costs, and did not properly include contingencies required for a project of this magnitude [three 3,000 tonne ships]. The current budget is based on detailed cost estimates provided by the shipyard...
> 
> Full production of the vessels is expected to begin shortly, with delivery of the first vessel scheduled for Spring 2017, the second vessel to be delivered 5 months later, and the third 3 months after that...
> 
> Canada’s Non-Combat requirements are such that there are no long production runs of the same class of ship [so getting costs down will be, shall we say, challenging]. We will be building three OFSVs, followed by a single Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel, followed by 2 Joint Support Ships, followed by a single Polar Icebreaker [delivery 2021-22 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/rpp/2015-16/SupplementaryTables/mcp-eng.html#s1.4 ]. It is only after the Polar project that we get into a true production line with up to five Medium Endurance Multi-Tasked vessels and up to five Offshore Patrol Vessels [announced in 2013, to cost $3.3 billion http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=778419&crtr.tp1D=1 ]...
> 
> http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/medias-media/dm-ms/2015-06-12-eng.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> As for the Coast Guard--costs increase, many new ships many years down the road:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Crap! It's contagious.


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Crap! It's contagious.



I would argue the entire project forgot to get its flu shot and is sick


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We are not alone, look at the USCG ship building program


----------



## Kirkhill

Is the problem with LockMart?

Our friends in Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany are a lot less reliant on LockMart for putting their ships together.  I think they were, in part, driven to independent solutions because they couldn't afford what LockMart was offering.

The Yanks and the Brits are heavily tied to LockMart.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is the problem with LockMart?
> 
> Our friends in Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany are a lot less reliant on LockMart for putting their ships together.  I think they were, in part, driven to independent solutions because they couldn't afford what LockMart was offering.
> 
> The Yanks and the Brits are heavily tied to LockMart.



It might be.  Friend of mine works on the civi side of naval procurement and project management.  He HATES Lockmart and always loves working with Thales,  who are far more involved in the countries you listed above.  One of his main issues is how Lockmart always seems to weasel out of the contract requirements or getting them changed after the contract has been awarded.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Underway said:
			
		

> One of his main issues is how Lockmart always seems to weasel out of the contract requirements or getting them changed after the contract has been awarded.



Sounds as if hooking them up with Irving is a match made in heaven (or hell in reality).  They both have the same SOP's, I mean business plan.


----------



## Kirkhill

I know there was an abundance of confusion when the AOPS design was switched from the Left Coast to the Irving Coast.  Contractors that had tendered civilian solutions were informed that it was now a military project.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So it begins 

http://www.nsnews.com/news/seaspan-ottawa-reach-deal-on-three-ships-1.1968322

North Vancouver’s Seaspan Shipyards has reached an agreement in principle with the federal government to build the first three offshore fisheries/Coast Guard vessels under Ottawa’s national shipbuilding program.

The agreement, announced Friday, sets a “target” price of $400 million for the three offshore fisheries science vessels and a “ceiling” of $544 million, said senior government officials.

The total budget to put the three vessels into service — including training, project management costs and contingencies — is up to $687 million, almost three times the project’s originally estimated cost of $244 million.

That’s likely one reason for protracted contract negotiations between Seaspan and Ottawa leading up to Friday’s agreement, which will form the basis of a construction contract.

Officials said Friday the original $244 million estimate, developed in 2004, didn’t contain provision for inflation, project management, engineering or design costs and didn’t include enough contingency.

Before agreeing to the new figures, the federal government had Seaspan’s estimates vetted by an expert third party, which found them “fair and reasonable,” said officials.

Under the terms of the contract, the shipyard will receive extra incentive payments if the three ships come in under the $400- million target budget or are delivered ahead of schedule.

The government will not pay more than the ceiling price of the contract, even if costs run higher.

Government officials said Ottawa will have staff on site at the North Vancouver shipyard while the vessels are under construction to monitor costs and progress on the ships.

Some of the extra money needed to complete the project will come from already-completed helicopter and hovercraft projects, which were finished under budget.
The lion’s share — about $300 million — will be moved from an approximately $3-billion budget for 10 multi-task 65-metre and 75-metre Coast Guard vessels that Ottawa plans to build at Seaspan after the massive navy joint support ships and polar icebreaker are completed.

The imminent signing of the construction contract means work on the federal vessels will start very soon at the North Vancouver shipyard, said Brian Carter, president of Seaspan Shipyards. “This is an important day for Seaspan,” he said. “We’re very, very close to that important milestone.”

Once construction of the offshore fisheries vessels is underway, the workforce in the trades at the shipyard is expected to swell from about 200 currently to more than 500 workers.

He added that the contract will mean spinoff work for suppliers across the country. Seaspan has already contracted to spend more than $200 million with 137 companies as part of its work on the national shipbuilding program.

The first vessel is expected to be finished early in 2017, with the other two following later in that year.

The vessels will be operated by the Canadian Coast Guard and used by fisheries scientists to do assessments of fish stocks and the marine ecosystem, as well as respond to marine emergencies.

The federal government and Seaspan have yet to reach an agreement on the two massive navy joint support ships, which will also be built at Seaspan under the national shipbuilding program.

In 2013, both the parliamentary budget officer and the auditor general raised questions about whether the $2.6 billion set aside by Ottawa will be enough to build the two ships.

- See more at: http://www.nsnews.com/news/seaspan-ottawa-reach-deal-on-three-ships-1.1968322#sthash.brkXIapF.dpuf

also dog and pony show at Irving

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/irving-shipbuilding-cuts-steel-as-test-for-fall-production-1.3118637


----------



## FSTO

If Seaspan can mirror its performance of the ORCA project, these vessels will be ready in short order and will be under budget. I seem to recall the last 3 ORCA's were delivered at least 18 months prior to their due date. Granted these are smaller, simpler vessels but the concept of construction is the same as larger vessels.


----------



## Underway

One of the main differences with that contract IIRC is that the Orca's were built at Vic Ships.  Seaspan doesn't own that drydock, I think they lease it.  So it was in their best interest to get them out faster and under budget to get another project in there (repair job or whatever).  

But yah, completely agree.  I trust Seaspan to get the job done relatively efficiently.  Irving on the other hand...


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:
			
		

> One of the main differences with that contract IIRC is that the Orca's were built at Vic Ships.  Seaspan doesn't own that drydock, I think they lease it.  So it was in their best interest to get them out faster and under budget to get another project in there (repair job or whatever).
> 
> But yah, completely agree.  I trust Seaspan to get the job done relatively efficiently.  Irving on the other hand...


They lease the Government of Canada Graving Dock. 
But there is a culture at Seaspan of getting things done correctly and quickly. 
Irving?


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> They lease the Government of Canada Graving Dock.
> But there is a culture at Seaspan of getting things done correctly and quickly.
> Irving?



 :rofl:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Back to Irving and A/OPS:



> Arctic patrol vessels ‘really have started’ construction, says Irving president
> 
> “The ships really have started,” Kevin McCoy, the company’s president, said at a news conference Thursday [June 18].
> 
> Diane Finley, federal minister of public works and government services, cut a piece of steel destined for one of two “test modules” at Irving’s Marine Fabricators site in Dartmouth.
> 
> McCoy said that piece and the modules would be part of the first of six Arctic offshore patrol vessels Irving is constructing as part of the federal shipbuilding contract.
> 
> “This piece of steel will form the lower part of the bulkhead just aft of the main propulsion engine of the first (ship),” McCoy told reporters.
> 
> The work now underway will consist of cutting steel for two sections — McCoy likened them to large Lego blocks — of the 64 it will take to construct one Arctic patrol vessel…
> 
> Work on these two blocks will “take a little extra time this summer to make sure that our processes are right, that our training is right, that everything works the way we expect it to before we go into full production of the ship,” McCoy said…
> 
> On Tuesday, more than 600 people attended an Irving job fair in Dartmouth for more than 200 openings the company has for journeypersons in the welding, pipefitting, marine fabrication and ironworking trades.
> 
> “About half of that will be people that we recall that are on layoff and about half will be new employees,” McCoy said.
> 
> He estimated the company will hire about 125 new people by the end of 2015.
> 
> Two more job fairs are scheduled for next month in Fort McMurray, Alta., and Sydney.
> 
> Hiring will continue as work moves along and is expected to peak in 2017 at 1,000 direct jobs for the Arctic offshore patrol vessels, company spokeswoman Mary Keith said earlier this week…
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1293835-arctic-patrol-vessels-%E2%80%98really-have-started%E2%80%99-construction-says-irving-president



First ship supposed to be delivered in 2018–on verra:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2015-status-report-transformational-major-crown-projects.page#P3

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Privateer

FSTO said:
			
		

> But there is a culture at Seaspan of getting things done correctly and quickly.
> Irving?



Hopefully Seaspan and Irving (and the Government) will treat their work under the existing contracts an an ongoing competition between Seaspan and Irving to show who should be awarded any additional future contracts from the Government.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seaspan may see it that way, but Irving will just think: "No worries I just call up the old boys network and threaten layoffs"


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... tomorrow morning, according to this:


> The Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Andrew Saxton, Member of Parliament for North Vancouver, and John Weston, Member of Parliament for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast–Sea to Sky Country, will highlight an important milestone regarding shipbuilding.
> 
> Date: June 24, 2015
> Time: 10 a.m.
> Location: Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards
> 50 Pemberton Avenue
> North Vancouver, British Columbia ....


----------



## MarkOttawa

The announcement:



> Harper Government Celebrates Start of Construction of First Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel
> http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=990919



But see:



> New Canadian Coast Guard Vessels: Sticker Shock and Never Never Land (media scrutiny?)
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/mark-collins-new-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-sticker-shock-and-never-never-land-media-scrutiny/



As for JSS--he would, wouldn't he?



> Vancouver shipbuilding CEO downplays worries about gov't strategy
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/vancouver-shipbuilding-ceo-downplays-worries-about-gov-t-strategy-1.2438434



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO

I see that CTV got a hold of the PPT presentation that the JSS project desk gave to the Senior Review Board. This same brief is available on the DWAN through the site (I just forget the name, I'll provide the link when I get into work tonight) that contains all of the ongoing DND projects. As with any project brief, there will be a slide that has risk assessment that goes from bad to worse and COA's that will be considered to deal with said risks. Any PM worth their salt will have all the risks covered in their presentation.

All CTV did was cherry pick the worst case scenario. Good job! (and they wonder why they are seen to be as credible as a used car salesmen)


----------



## PuckChaser

Capability investment database is the name you're looking for, awesome page.


----------



## FSTO

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Capability investment database is the name you're looking for, awesome page.



Thanks, old age and brain fart. Need to retire soon.


----------



## FSTO

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Capability investment database is the name you're looking for, awesome page.


All the document links in the data base have now been blocked. 
Thanks CTV.


----------



## Allen

CTV would have us believe the JSS project is all but cancelled. All based on their spin of a routine risk assessment. It must have been a slow news day.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Frontline Defense Magazine has an update on the NSPS. Because the article is to big to post I'm just providing a link to the article.


 NSPS Projects Status and Future Direction


----------



## MarkOttawa

Conservatives lose conservative paper:



> National Post View: Are the Tories sound managers? Not of the Navy
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-are-the-tories-sound-managers-not-of-the-navy



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

Nothing in the article was over stated, quite the opposite if anything.


----------



## PuckChaser

The whole NSPS is pork barreling, that's how our procurement system is designed. I don't understand how people would think the supply ship would be any different. We could have had ships years ago if it wasn't political suicide to have them built overseas and mission systems installed here.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note this at "Defense Industry Daily" about building ships in Canada--five times too costly (Coast Guard in this instance, more links at article itself):



> Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSPS)
> ...
> Oct 7/13: More CCG Ships. Canada’s new Minister of Public Works and Government Services adds up to 10 Canadian Coast Guard ships to the NSPS, and a separate speech says “Vancouver Shipyards will be adding [the C$ 3.3 billion program] to its order books”. This addition would bring the NSPS’ planned total to C$ 38.3 billion, while fulfilling a FY 2012 budget commitment of $5.2 billion over 11 years to renew a very aged but necessary fleet. With that said, C$330 million for each of these 10 new ships is overpriced by a factor of about 5x, which is consistent with a comparison of Canada’s JSS project vs. Britain’s similar MARS/ Tide Class.
> 
> The new commitment would add up to 5 more Medium Endurance Multi-Tasked Vessels, which are ~65m, shallow draught ships that can lay/ emplace aids to navigation, and fill basic unarmed patrol and support roles.
> 
> Another 5 Offshore Patrol Vessels would be up to 75m long, but their focus would lean more toward fisheries protection than the long-range armed projection/ command and control role of larger OPVs like the Dutch Holland Class external link. They would also perform other basic patrol and support roles...
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canadas-national-shipbuilding-strategy-07164/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just a question here, if someone knows the answer: Does the government report the cost of ships the same way that they report on, say, the acquisition of the F-35's. i.e. by reporting the full cost over the full life cycle of the ship, thus including any associated costs for maintenance, operation, refits and upgrades throughout the 35 years expected life duration?

If so, the would explain a good deal of the "five time" the costs from other nations that only report on the actual construction cost. And in such case also, the multiplication factor would obviously be greater for cheaper/smaller vessels than for the large ones.


----------



## dapaterson

AFAIK, the NSPS costs reported are acquisition costs, not lifecycle costs.  Note that acquisition costs include more than just steel and sensors - they include any infrastructure required for the new ships, the salary costs of personnel employed on the project, two years of spares, any new tooling required for shops, any new training equipment and materials...


----------



## jollyjacktar

IIRC the new ships were described including their life cycle costs etc with the respective yards providing maintenance and repairs (ala MCDV) as that is all part and parcel of the costs.


----------



## Underway

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> IIRC the new ships were described including their life cycle costs etc with the respective yards providing maintenance and repairs (ala MCDV) as that is all part and parcel of the costs.


True.

You also have to consider that places like the NetherlNds directly subsidize their shipbuilding industries through different methods.  The U.S., Australia and Canada do it through paying way to much for warships instead of direct payments to shipyards.  "This is not the pork barreling you're looking for..."


----------



## Infanteer

In principle, I'm not opposed to spending more in Canada if it means we revive our shipbuilding industry.  South Korea is cheap because they have an industry - if we hit the easy button and go there, our domestic industry doesn't get a chance.  A bit simplistic, but its a first principle.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Infanteer said:
			
		

> In principle, I'm not opposed to spending more in Canada if it means we revive our shipbuilding industry.  South Korea is cheap because they have an industry - if we hit the easy button and go their, our domestic industry doesn't get a chance.  A bit simplistic, but its a first principle.



And that is, in principle, what the _New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy_ is all about: it is an industrial support measure, not a shipbuilding strategy. It defines, in dollar terms, how much the government is willing to invest, over a finite period, to "revive" and (_one hopes_) sustain a Canadian shipbuilding industrial base ... The fact that some warships and CCG vessels will be produced is coincidental. The government doesn't really care, all that much, what comes out of those yards, as long as jobs are created and maintained. International trade rules allow exemptions to the normal, "open competition" rules for _national security and defence_ and Canada, like most countries, sneaks its coast guard into that definition. (If we were funding an industrial support strategy to build, say, car ferries, we might find ourselves in international trade courts ... on the losing end of the argument.)

The "trick," now, from the perspective of some very senior civil servants, is: how to _sustain_ and/or _maintain_ that industrial (shipbuilding) capability so that, eventually, it can sustain itself? The goal should be to require the RCN and the CCG to develop (and fund) long term "fleet renewal" (shipbuilding) programmes covering, say, 40 to 50 years! But it is hard (impossible?) for government departments, much less the whole of government, to make and manage real, long term "growth" plans.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Hmm:



> BAE Shops Type 26 Ship Design to Germany
> 
> German plans to acquire a fleet of new combat ships through a European competition have opened the door to a possible sale of the British Royal Navy's Type 26 frigate design, BAE Systems executives said.
> 
> The German Ministry of Defense is expected soon to issue invitations to tender to several of Europe's big naval shipyards as it seeks designs for a 7,500-metric-ton multirole combat ship known as the MKS180...
> 
> Berlin is looking to open up a defense procurement process that has been battered over the last year or so by criticisms of cost overruns and program delays. Traditionally the German MoD has handed naval contracts to local shipyards like ThyssenKrupp Marine, Lurssen and German Naval Yards, Now, it looks like other European shipbuilders may be given a chance to provide designs.
> 
> The German Navy plans to acquire four MKS180s with options for a further two vessels.
> 
> BAE's naval ship business, based in Glasgow, Scotland, hopes to take advantage of the more open procurement process in Germany by offering a design based on the Type 26, also known as the global combat ship in export markets...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/07/25/bae-seeks-new-market--type-26-frigate--germany/30513361/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Harrigan

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And that is, in principle, what the _New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy_ is all about: it is an industrial support measure, not a shipbuilding strategy. It defines, in dollar terms, how much the government is willing to invest, over a finite period, to "revive" and (_one hopes_) sustain a Canadian shipbuilding industrial base ... The fact that some warships and CCG vessels will be produced is coincidental. The government doesn't really care, all that much, what comes out of those yards, as long as jobs are created and maintained. International trade rules allow exemptions to the normal, "open competition" rules for _national security and defence_ and Canada, like most countries, sneaks its coast guard into that definition. (If we were funding an industrial support strategy to build, say, car ferries, we might find ourselves in international trade courts ... on the losing end of the argument.)
> 
> The "trick," now, from the perspective of some very senior civil servants, is: how to _sustain_ and/or _maintain_ that industrial (shipbuilding) capability so that, eventually, it can sustain itself? The goal should be to require the RCN and the CCG to develop (and fund) long term "fleet renewal" (shipbuilding) programmes covering, say, 40 to 50 years! But it is hard (impossible?) for government departments, much less the whole of government, to make and manage real, long term "growth" plans.



I agree this would be ideal, and presumably the "predictable, stable long-term funding" promised in CFDS was supposed to allow this.  But that predictable, stable funding didn't last very long....


----------



## Edward Campbell

My guess is that Conservative spin doctors will say, "the funding is still there, it has just been delayed a wee bit because of economic forces beyond our control." What is, clearly, *not there* is the number of ships. But, as I said, the shipbuilding _strategy_ isn't about ships, they are incidental; it's an industrial support programme ~ it skates around the normal, accepted rules of international trade because it relates to national security and defence.

It's not a bad idea. Korea did something a wee bit similar (although they just thumbed their noses at trade law because they were, back in the 1970s, still a "developing" country). The Finns did it, too. Neither is an exact match for what the Canadians want to do, but the idea is the same. The Finns used government money (defence/coast guard contracts) to modernize their yards and train workers and managers. Now they compete, head-to-head with e.g. the French, Italians and Spanish for both "piece work" (Finland build the hull, another country "fits up" and finishes the ship) and whole ship contracts ~ like HUGE cruise ships. Labour costs are high in Finland, it's an advanced welfare state. But they can and do compete in a global marketplace.

This is not, _I suspect_, a Conservative government _strategy_; _I think_ it's a civil service/bureaucratic startegy that probably had its genesis back about 15 years ago, when Jean Chrétien was PM. It has all the hallmarks of something that some very bright people in _Finance_ and _Industry Canada_ would have developed and then given to the politicians for _refinement_.

One slightly tangential but related factor: we have a _skills_ shortage that _I know_ has been bothering some senior officials since the 1980s. We have a surplus of "Women's Studies" graduates and a real, measurable shortage of tool and die makers, machinists, welders, electricians, plumbers and carpenters and so on and so forth. A successful _industrial strategy_ must, somehow or other, restore the _lustre_ to the skilled trades. That's a _social_, not a monetary issue: many skilled trades already command much higher salaries than are available to a sociology or social work graduates, even with an advanced degree.


----------



## GR66

While the shipbuilding strategy might be about rebuilding industrial capacity rather than building ships...that industrial capacity will wither without actual ships to build.  We had the industrial capacity when we build the Halifax-class frigates...but without any orders beyond that the industry withered and the industrial capacity was lost.  We might be spreading it out a bit more this time with multiple ship classes being built this time around (AOPS, CSC, JSS, CCG Icebreaker, etc.) but is there really much hope that this time will be much different in the long run?

Maybe, if as Edward has suggested, we had a truly long-term fleet renewal plan...a new corvette/frigate sized combattant every "X" number of years, a new AOPS every "Y" years, a new CCG vessel every "Z" years then we'd have the ability to maintain our industrial capacity without a complete industrial renewal required every generation or two.


----------



## jollyjacktar

If they want to keep the capacity alive, then they should do as some other countries do and replace the fleet on a continual, rotational basis.  That way the fleet gets renewed on a regular basis, new technology can be incorporated as it evolves and the skills and yards are kept alive.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If they want to keep the capacity alive, then they should do as some other countries do and replace the fleet on a continual, rotational basis.  That way the fleet gets renewed on a regular basis, new technology can be incorporated as it evolves and the skills and yards are kept alive.




_I think_ that both GR66 and jollyjacktar are talking about a programme involving a large number of classes of ships, each class with only a few vessels. Thus, the current surface combatant project should consist of three or even four classes, each of, say, four ships (like our _Tribals_ in the 1970s). To do that one must, _I suspect_, first life extend some of the current _Halifax_ class FFHs.


----------



## Infanteer

The last time we created a domestic warship building industry from nothing, the St Laurent hull, with 20 ships, was released in four batches (St Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie, Annapolis).  Perhaps the CSC (or whatever it is called today) needs to be planned the same?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The last time we created a domestic warship building industry from nothing, the St Laurent hull, with 20 ships, was released in four batches (St Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie, Annapolis).  Perhaps the CSC (or whatever it is called today) needs to be planned the same?




_I don't know_ what's practical. I'm _reasonably confident_ that I understand the _strategy_ and the policy drivers behind it, but I'm really not sure how that industrial support _strategy_ might be made into a useful _tactical_ plan to actually build warships.  :dunno:


----------



## Baz

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The last time we created a domestic warship building industry from nothing, the St Laurent hull, with 20 ships, was released in four batches (St Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie, Annapolis).  Perhaps the CSC (or whatever it is called today) needs to be planned the same?



My opinion is yes; I'll go one step further.  Within a few years each of the ships is different in large part anyway, so let's just incrementally change them as we go along?

Plus, maybe have less ships, ride them hard for twenty years, put them in reserve for ten (so we have a surge capability) and then sell them off... Never do a mid-life at all.  Of course, we need to build the capability up to do that first.

I also think that the ships must be built in Canada for National reasons.  We must also insist they are as good as we can reasonably make them, for National reasons.  Irving should be *forced* to do it right, and transfer that knowledge into the economy.  I have no idea how to force them, though???


----------



## GAP

> I have no idea how to force them, though???



Pay them lots more......oh? we're doing that anyway?   :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Baz said:
			
		

> My opinion is yes; I'll go one step further.  Within a few years each of the ships is different in large part anyway, so let's just incrementally change them as we go along?
> 
> Plus, maybe have less ships, ride them hard for twenty years, put them in reserve for ten (so we have a surge capability) and then sell them off... Never do a mid-life at all.  Of course, we need to build the capability up to do that first.
> 
> _I also think that the ships must be built in Canada for National reasons._   ✔  _The government, both the elected, political one and the "real" on in the civil service agrees with you._   _We must also insist they are as good as we can reasonably make them, for National reasons._ ✔ _  I'm pretty sure the RCN agrees ... not so sure about any one else._   _Irving should be *forced* to do it right, and transfer that knowledge into the economy._ _✘_  I suspect _Industry Canada_ and the ministers from Atlantic Canada disagree. I have no idea how to force them, though???


----------



## Baz

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Irving should be *forced* to do it right, and transfer that knowledge into the economy. ✘  I suspect Industry Canada and the ministers from Atlantic Canada disagree. I have no idea how to force them, though???



Absolutely, so let me expound on *forced* (the use of the stars).

In a perfect world, it would just be understood it is a symbiotic relationship.  Canada supports the shipyard, gives it a reasonable expectation of on ongoing effort, treats it as a partner (not as those damn workers up at that 'civie' shipyard), and understands we are a capitalist society and Irving needs to make a reasonable profit.  In return, the Irving puts the crews second (obviously after making a profit as that is their reason for existence), spends the money wisely, advises the government intelligently, flows down the benefits to Canadian society, treats the crown as a partner, and generally does the best they can in the interest of Canada.

But given we don't live in a perfect world, then we contractually try to *force* that relationship.  However, every time we try I don't see us succeeding.

So, my use of the term *forced* is what I would like to see with my perfect world glasses, but I have absolutely no idea how we would reasonably accomplish that...


----------



## STONEY

If the NDP win the next election will we see an end to this shipbuilding strategy and another black period for the Forces in general.


----------



## Edward Campbell

STONEY said:
			
		

> If the NDP win the next election will we see an end to this shipbuilding strategy and another black period for the Forces in general.




If, and it's still a *Big IF*, they form a government it will not be good times for the CF, but the NDP may not be as anti-military as you assume. Remember that political ideology is, in government, always offset by the practicalities of both politics (jobs in the shipbuilding industry, for example) and policy (the civil service (the _Mandarins_) has (the _Mandarins_ have) a lot of influence and they will not, by and large, want to see any sharp left turns in any policy, especially not in foreign and defence policies. Finally, all indications are that M Mulcair is a _centrist_ and, as we have seen in the past decades, the PM is a very, very powerful man: his ideas prevail. Yes, there are some anti-military _loony lefties_ in the NDP, a few will be in cabinet, but M Mulcair's views will matter more than any or even all of theirs.


----------



## quadrapiper

Re: the NDP - the prospect of good union jobs might help, within the party, counterbalance the distaste for military spending.

As far as the renewal aspect, would a "block" or "mark" approach be easier to sell than a new class every x years? "We" currently need a massive replacement project; could you then more readily build x "improved CSCs" every so often, without having to go through a keel-up design process? Or is that design process also a capability that needs exercising lest it wither?


----------



## Kirkhill

Keep in mind modularity as well

I think that might help with block obsolescence and mid life refits as well.

It would also have a considerable impact on lifetime costs.

Swap a gun bucket for a laser bucket.  Port lasers from old hull to new hull.  Change sensors on integratedmission mast.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The last time we created a domestic warship building industry from nothing, the St Laurent hull, with 20 ships, was released in four batches (St Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie, Annapolis).  Perhaps the CSC (or whatever it is called today) needs to be planned the same?



Infanteer, the last time we created a domestic warship industry from nothing was  for the HALIFAX class frigates. We built a nice brand new yard for the Irving's, and then paid them to close it down after the last ship came out and no follow on plans were in place. 

As for the SAINT-LAURENT's, we did not develop a domestic warship industry from nothing with them. They were the first large warship fully designed by Canadian yards, but were built by an industry that was barely 5 years out of building hundreds of them for WWII and thus, still had all the technological knowledge, qualified manpower and effective yards (SAINT-LAURENT was laid down less than five years after the end of the war).



			
				quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Re: the NDP - the prospect of good union jobs might help, within the party, counterbalance the distaste for military spending.
> 
> As far as the renewal aspect, would a "block" or "mark" approach be easier to sell than a new class every x years? "We" currently need a massive replacement project; could you then more readily build x "improved CSCs" every so often, without having to go through a keel-up design process? Or is that design process also a capability that needs exercising lest it wither?



That is actually the idea with the CSC's.

The plan is to build them at a rate that will not become "boom-and-bust" so that, a first batch can be put out and gain some experience with the design, leading to lessons learned that will then be incorporated into the second batch, finally leading to a third batch sufficiently late enough to then incorporate new technology appearing in the meantime to become what would otherwise have been elements to incorporate into a "mid-life" refit of the original batch. 

The hope is that by the time these "final" evolutions of the design and technology appear in the fleet, they would then serve as the departure point for the next "single-class" design to be selected to start the process of replacing the earliest CSC's to hit the water … and the cycle would begin again.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Infanteer, the last time we created a domestic warship industry from nothing was  for the HALIFAX class frigates. We built a nice brand new yard for the Irving's, and then paid them to close it down after the last ship came out and no follow on plans were in place.
> 
> As for the SAINT-LAURENT's, we did not develop a domestic warship industry from nothing with them. They were the first large warship fully designed by Canadian yards, but were built by an industry that was barely 5 years out of building hundreds of them for WWII and thus, still had all the technological knowledge, qualified manpower and effective yards (SAINT-LAURENT was laid down less than five years after the end of the war).
> 
> That is actually the idea with the CSC's.
> 
> The plan is to build them at a rate that will not become "boom-and-bust" so that, a first batch can be put out and gain some experience with the design, leading to lessons learned that will then be incorporated into the second batch, finally leading to a third batch sufficiently late enough to then incorporate new technology appearing in the meantime to become what would otherwise have been elements to incorporate into a "mid-life" refit of the original batch.
> 
> The hope is that by the time these "final" evolutions of the design and technology appear in the fleet, they would then serve as the departure point for the next "single-class" design to be selected to start the process of replacing the earliest CSC's to hit the water … and the cycle would begin again.




Thanks, OGBD, "batch" is the word I was looking for (and Infanteer, too, _I suspect_). We don't necessarily need many _classes_ of ships, a few classes, with _"batches"_ with each, and each _batch_ being a slightly improved version, is the idea for which I was searching.


----------



## Infanteer

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Infanteer, the last time we created a domestic warship industry from nothing was  for the HALIFAX class frigates. We built a nice brand new yard for the Irving's, and then paid them to close it down after the last ship came out and no follow on plans were in place.
> 
> As for the SAINT-LAURENT's, we did not develop a domestic warship industry from nothing with them. They were the first large warship fully designed by Canadian yards, but were built by an industry that was barely 5 years out of building hundreds of them for WWII and thus, still had all the technological knowledge, qualified manpower and effective yards (SAINT-LAURENT was laid down less than five years after the end of the war).



Ack.  I seem to recall reading somewhere that we had to import British shipbuilding expertise for the St Laurents as the domestic industry had eroded enough since the end of the Second World War.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The yards were doing fine at that time. You understand that after the war, a lot of replacement cargo ships were needed to replace the "quick fix" liberty ships with proper and adapted cargo and tankers. No competition from Asian or continental European yards at that time, so lots of work in North America.

However, even during WWII, Canadian yards had never developed the capacity to design warships. They merely bought out British designs and built them from acquired plans. This is where they got some help for the Sallyrands. In fact, they got great help from a leading British warship designer who did not appreciate that many of his more forward ideas were not accepted when designing the Type 12 frigates in England. He emigrated to Canada and Vickers, in Montreal, grabbed him right away. He was instrumental in the design of the SAINT-LAURENT's, and, interestingly enough, it impressed the British sufficiently that they incorporated a lot of that same thinking in their Type 12 follow on class, the LEANDER's.

As we say in French: "No one is a prophet in his own country".  ;D


----------



## NavyShooter

Shades of the Lewis gun?

[/size]





> History
> 
> The Lewis gun was invented by US Army Colonel Isaac Newton Lewis in 1911, based on initial work by Samuel Maclean.[1] Despite its origins, the Lewis gun was not initially adopted by the American military—most likely because of political differences between Lewis and General William Crozier, the Chief of the Ordnance Department.[2] Lewis became frustrated with trying to persuade the US Army to adopt his design and so ("slapped by rejections from ignorant hacks", as he said),[3] retired from the army. He left the United States in 1913 and headed to Belgium, where he established the Armes Automatique Lewis company in Liège to facilitate commercial production of the gun.[4] Lewis had been working closely with British arms manufacturer The Birmingham Small Arms Company Limited (BSA) in an effort to overcome some of the production difficulties of the weapon.[1]
> The Belgians bought a small number of Lewises in 1913, using the .303 British round, and in 1914, BSA purchased a licence to manufacture the Lewis machine gun in England, which resulted in Col. Lewis receiving significant royalty payments and becoming very wealthy.[3] Lewis and his factory moved to England before 1914, away from possible seizure in the event of a German invasion. The Belgian Army acquired only a handful of his guns, probably only just in double figures.
> 
> They were not on general issue in the Belgian Army. They were used only in a few forays by motor vehicles, south of Antwerp, against the flank of the invading German Army.
> The onset of World War I increased demand for the Lewis gun, and BSA began production (under the designation Model 1914). The design was officially approved for service on 15 October 1915 under the designation "Gun, Lewis, .303-cal."[5] No Lewis guns
> were produced in Belgium during World War I;[6] all manufacture was carried out by BSA in England and the Savage Arms Company in the US.


 
(Source is the ever-useful Wikipedia....sorry)


----------



## Good2Golf

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks, OGBD, "batch" is the word I was looking for (and Infanteer, too, _I suspect_). We don't necessarily need many _classes_ of ships, a few classes, with _"batches"_ with each, and each _batch_ being a slightly improved version, is the idea for which I was searching.



[Cliff Clave trivia]

Not to overly Americanize things, and as a light blue (well, sort of) guy, I find it interesting that the US Navy refers to the progressive phased development of ships as "Flights" (ref: [amongst many] Arleigh Burke Flights-I, IA, II, IIA, III info )

[/Cliff Claven trivia]


----------



## jollyjacktar

Well, they are in Squadrons.


----------



## NavyShooter

We have 2 flights of Frigates, FFH-330-335, and FFH-336-341.

They have different versions for the incident boards, physical layout is not the same.

Of note as well, they WERE designed with space for expansion, in fact, for those that know the 400Hz power generation system, the 'missing' SFC-7 was actually fitted 'for' but not 'with', and the breaker for it is in the Stbd Side flats, outside 4 Mess.  It was to give the ship an additional SMI-E (Shipboard Missile Interface Equipment, now replaced by the EIC's) to allow us to carry an additional pack of VLS missiles.

NS


----------



## dimsum

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> We have 2 flights of Frigates, FFH-330-335, and FFH-336-341.
> 
> They have different versions for the incident boards, physical layout is not the same.
> 
> Of note as well, they WERE designed with space for expansion, in fact, for those that know the 400Hz power generation system, the 'missing' SFC-7 was actually fitted 'for' but not 'with', and the breaker for it is in the Stbd Side flats, outside 4 Mess.  It was to give the ship an additional SMI-E (Shipboard Missile Interface Equipment, now replaced by the EIC's) to allow us to carry *an additional pack of VLS missiles.*
> 
> NS



Interesting - where would have the extra missiles been housed?


----------



## NavyShooter

This was the 'planned' 30 foot extension.  (This was considered for the last 6 ships but not actioned.)


----------



## MarkOttawa

jollyjacktar: 



> Well, they are in Squadrons.



Indeed, much aviation terminology stems from naval--aircraft commanded by a captain with a first officer.  And note RAF ranks after merger of RNS and RFC, e.g. Wing Commander, Group Captain, Air Commodore:
http://www.rafweb.org/Ranks-Uniform/Ranks1.htm

"Reeve, Banneret, Fourth-Ardian, Third-Ardian, Second-Ardian, Ardian" anyone?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eland2

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The yards were doing fine at that time. You understand that after the war, a lot of replacement cargo ships were needed to replace the "quick fix" liberty ships with proper and adapted cargo and tankers. No competition from Asian or continental European yards at that time, so lots of work in North America.
> 
> However, even during WWII, Canadian yards had never developed the capacity to design warships. They merely bought out British designs and built them from acquired plans. This is where they got some help for the Sallyrands. In fact, they got great help from a leading British warship designer who did not appreciate that many of his more forward ideas were not accepted when designing the Type 12 frigates in England. He emigrated to Canada and Vickers, in Montreal, grabbed him right away. He was instrumental in the design of the SAINT-LAURENT's, and, interestingly enough, it impressed the British sufficiently that they incorporated a lot of that same thinking in their Type 12 follow on class, the LEANDER's.



Interesting. And to think that I once thought that the St. Laurent class of ships were derived from the design of the Leander class, not the other way around. I mean, it seemed to me to be a reasonable way to think considering that much of what the Canadian military acquired in terms of military hardware in the decades that followed the Second World War was of British provenance, if it wasn't American, and very little of it was of Canadian design and manufacture. 

Even as a young reservist in the late 1970s, I couldn't help but notice how schizophrenic our kit procurement seemed to be. Wearing a US M1 helmet while carrying a C1 SMG (which was basically a copy of the British Sterling SMG) that mounted a FNC1A1 bayonet (again, of British design) and '58-pattern webbing (also British in design) and operating a Plessey-built C42 radio set that was made in England, all while wearing combat clothing (or coveralls) and boots of Canadian design and manufacture (and the combat boots then weren't truly of Canadian design, they were actually Norwegian-pattern, with the way the upper part of the boot was sewn onto the lower).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

A common misconception - that the SAINT-LAURENT were derived from the LEANDER.

HMCS SAINT LAURENT:

Laid down: November 1950
Launched: 1951
Commissioned: October 1955

HMS LEANDER:

Laid down: April 1959
Launched: 1961
Commissioned: March 1963


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Interesting. And to think that I once thought that the St. Laurent class of ships were derived from the design of the Leander class, not the other way around. I mean, it seemed to me to be a reasonable way to think considering that much of what the Canadian military acquired in terms of military hardware in the decades that followed the Second World War was of British provenance, if it wasn't American, and very little of it was of Canadian design and manufacture.
> 
> Even as a young reservist in the late 1970s, I couldn't help but notice how schizophrenic our kit procurement seemed to be. Wearing a US M1 helmet while carrying a C1 SMG (which was basically a copy of the British Sterling SMG) that mounted a FNC1A1 bayonet (again, of British design) and '58-pattern webbing (also British in design) and operating a Plessey-built C42 radio set that was made in England, all while wearing combat clothing (or coveralls) and boots of Canadian design and manufacture (and the combat boots then weren't truly of Canadian design, they were actually Norwegian-pattern, with the way the upper part of the boot was sewn onto the lower).



In Germany our troops ended the war and spent I think to 1955 using British kit, when we moved south we converted to US kit such as deuces, 3/4 tons, 105mm and 155mm howitzers to replace the CMP's, 25 pdrs and 5.5". Then we ran Centurions with M113's


----------



## GR66

There are a number of companies that have "families" of small combattant designs...corvettes to small frigates (I'm thinking Blohm+Voss' MEKO family or DCNS's Gowind family).  Some of these look interesting but they seem to lack some of the things I think are key to a nation with our size of maritime territory (range, endurance, hanger space for larger maritime helicopters, etc.). 

Would it make any sense for Canada to partner with one of these companies to add a model at the large end of one of these families that meets our specific needs (range/endurance/MH) and at the same time expands the size of their existing family of ships.  We could have a long-term purchase plan of flights of these vessels that are built and fitted-out in our own shipyards in order to maintain our shipbuilding capacity over the long term.  

At the same time we could possibly also license-build these larger hulls for the "parent" company of the family of ships (for fitting out in their own shipyards to their customer's specs?) for any of their customers that may want a larger vessel (flagship?) to supplement their smaller ships in the same family.

This kind of approach may mean that we might want to have more than just a single CSC class of ship.  Perhaps this smaller, modular-built multi-purpose small combattant plus a larger, more capable "destroyer"-type vessel with area air defence capability which we'd either build in small lots domestically, or maybe purchase the base hulls from an existing foreign class and fit them out in our own shipyards.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

meanwhile down under

http://gcaptain.com/australian-shipbuilding-jobs-safe-under-new-naval-frigates-program/#.VcEZcfmnRyE


----------



## MarkOttawa

US $40 million for vessels other than subs--cost of insisting on building in Oz (rather like us):
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/08/04/australia-build-new-naval-fleet-65b-package/31107267/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> US $40 million for vessels other than subs--cost of insisting on building in Oz (rather like us):
> http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/08/04/australia-build-new-naval-fleet-65b-package/31107267/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Also a massive political side too - South Australia had lost a lot of car (and related) manufacturing jobs after Holden shut its plant in Adelaide.


----------



## MarkOttawa

RAND corp. study:



> Australia's Naval Shipbuilding Enterprise
> Preparing for the 21st Century
> ...
> *Key Findings*
> 
> Australian Policymakers Face a Trade-Off Between Paying a Price Premium and Benefiting from Broader Economic Development
> 
> The Australian government must choose among three options: build the naval surface ships on Australia's acquisition list entirely in-country, build them partially in-country and partially overseas, or have them built at shipyards overseas. Each strategy carries costs and risks.
> 
> Our examination concludes that domestic production of naval ships in Australia currently carries a price premium — estimated to be between 30 to 40 percent compared with similar ships built abroad.
> 
> The premium to build in Australia could be lower than the 30 to 40 percent range if Australia adopts a continuous build strategy to avoid rebuilding an industrial and management capability with each new ship program, starts with mature designs at the onset of production, and minimizes changes during production. With such measures (and a cultural shift in industry toward continuous improvement), we can envision this premium being cut in half.
> 
> Our examination of shipbuilding's economic effects suggests that there may be economic benefits associated with shipbuilding, especially when it occurs in areas that would otherwise have slack in their labor forces. The benefits are unclear and are largely dependent on broader economic conditions in Australia.
> 
> *Recommendations*
> 
> The Australian government faces a trade-off between paying a price premium for indigenous production and benefiting from some broader economic development from such production. The 30- to 40-percent price premium for building in Australia could drop to approximately half that level over time with a steady production program that leads to a productive workforce.
> 
> Supporting an Australian shipbuilding industry that is cost-effective will require specific steps, including filling the gap between the end of the air warfare destroyer program and the start of Future Frigate construction and adopting a continuous build strategy that starts a new surface combatant every 18 months to two years. There will be some challenges with replacing the Anzac-class ships in a timely manner, but those challenges can be overcome with careful management of the current and future fleets...
> http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1093.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Infanteer

Great link - I just skimmed it (it's a monster at just under 300 pages) but there is clearly a lot of useful data in there.  I'd like to see a Canadian think-tank use it as the basis for a similar Canadian study to help better define the metrics of the NSPS.


----------



## MilEME09

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Great link - I just skimmed it (it's a monster at just under 300 pages) but there is clearly a lot of useful data in there.  I'd like to see a Canadian think-tank use it as the basis for a similar Canadian study to help better define the metrics of the NSPS.



If done right I could see continuous shipbuilding here in Canada if we planned it right to replace surface combatants, submarines, support ships, etc... in a timely fashion combined with upgrades, and long term maintenance. In theory we could keep the shipyards open indefinitely and after a few years make them also competitive on the international market.


----------



## MarkOttawa

MilEME09: 



> ...competitive on the international market.



I suspect that is never never land.

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

I think you need to strike submarines from that list. Highly specialized building yards and we'll never be able to keep enough orders for them to be profitable without costing double what a foreign built one would be.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think you need to strike submarines from that list. Highly specialized building yards and we'll never be able to keep enough orders for them to be profitable without costing double what a foreign built one would be.



I would then just toos submarine in the long term maintenance pile, we could never be competitive in that field with the americans, germans, and so on.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> MilEME09:
> 
> I suspect that is never never land.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I think there is hope for Seaspan in Vancouver. It is located near a major maritime activity corridor and the yard is big enough to handle the government of Canada construction work and accommodate other work at the same time in a useful amount. If they use the original program funding to modernize production properly, they could tap into the smaller but more lucrative construction of specialized "one-off" vessels used for special tasks (deep diving support tenders - processing plant ships, etc.) as Davie, under European management is doing now very efficiently.

I don't think there is any hope for Irving Shipyard however, because as long as they are using the yard for government builds, the yard is too small to do anything else than some repair work on passing traffic from time to time. And where would you go to expand the yard?


----------



## jollyjacktar

They're expanding the yard in the direction of the basin to some degree.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't think there is any hope for Irving Shipyard



You could have stoped right there...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They're expanding the yard in the direction of the basin to some degree.



Isn't that to put up their new parking complex? I don't believe they are adding any slips, nor could they.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

This is what I have never understood re: the deal with Irving Shipbuilding.  The Saint John Yard was far bigger than the Halifax Yard with plenty of room for expansion.  The government paid Irving to decommission the Saint John Yard only to pay them again for a new yard with less capacity than the yard they had in Saint John and no room for expansion.  The concept literally makes no sense.

The only thing I can think of is Irving being able to get work for offshore oil industry when/if it actually cranks into overdrive.  Sable Island and Offshore was supposed to be the next big thing but I've read there is far less gas then they originally thought.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think there is hope for Seaspan in Vancouver. It is located near a major maritime activity corridor and the yard is big enough to handle the government of Canada construction work and accommodate other work at the same time in a useful amount. If they use the original program funding to modernize production properly, they could tap into the smaller but more lucrative construction of specialized "one-off" vessels used for special tasks (deep diving support tenders - processing plant ships, etc.) as Davie, under European management is doing now very efficiently.
> 
> I don't think there is any hope for Irving Shipyard however, because as long as they are using the yard for government builds, the yard is too small to do anything else than some repair work on passing traffic from time to time. And where would you go to expand the yard?




It seems to me that you're saying that there isn "hope" for a Canadian shipbuilding industry, supported by a moderate, but steady, flow of government (including warship) contracts; maybe not on the scale of France or South Korea, but "hope" all the same; is that right?

If that's true, and assuming one of those yards must be on the Pacific coast, then how many other yards (in the Great Lakes, the _Fleuve Saint-Laurent_ and/or on the Atlantic Coast) are viable and/or necessary?

-----

Slightly related, but WRT a Canadian _marine strategy_: we need, as part of a _national strategy_ one military centre in the Arctic: Nanisivik? Resolute Bay? Grise Fiord? It needs to be accessible by C-17 (year round) and AOPS for _n_ months of the year. (Is _n_ ≥ 7 a useful guess?) We should want to have a small permanent staff there:_ Loggies_, mainly, I suppose. A permanent military presence is, _in my view_, a _sine qua non_ for asserting and maintaining sovereignty in the region, especially in/on/under the waterways. Part of the "price" of (not just for, but associated with) AOPS should be an Arctic port ~ as part of the "price" for securing the North.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It seems to me that you're saying that there isn "hope" for a Canadian shipbuilding industry, supported by a moderate, but steady, flow of government (including warship) contracts; maybe not on the scale of France or South Korea, but "hope" all the same; is that right?
> 
> If that's true, and assuming one of those yards must be on the Pacific coast, then how many other yards (in the Great Lakes, the _Fleuve Saint-Laurent_ and/or on the Atlantic Coast) are viable and/or necessary?



Not quite what I am saying. Royal Drew hit it more on the nose: At Irving's, the yard is too small to permit both the government build and other work to go on simultaneously. And yes, the St-John shipyard would have been better. So if the strategy is to make an industry that will become more self sufficient (i.e. will get private contracts) that was not the right yard to pick. 

We have to be careful here, however. The Shipbuilding Strategy is an industrial strategy to support a specific industry, but those shipyards remain private enterprise. The government has no business telling them to close or stay open. Best proof is Davie Shipbuilding: entirely privately owned, it is currently the largest operating shipyard in Canada, has good bookings and is doing fine since it came out of bankruptcy protection. It was not part of the selection process during the selection of yards for the Ship building strategy because it was in bankruptcy proceedings. However, it is proving to be viable without any government assistance.

Also, we have to be very careful about claiming, all the time, that the government "paid the Irving's to close Saint-John Shipbuilding". It is not that simple. 

While the government paid the Irving's a huge amount to build a modern and efficient new shipyard for the Saint-John Shipbuilding yard and gave them contracts for twelve large and expensive builds (the HAL's), the Irving's completely failed to market that into civvies side contracts to keep the yard going and/or expand. So when the Batch III frigates were cancelled (before even letting the contract out), the Irving found themselves with a completely idle yard and tons of employees to lay off as a result of their failure to market their new yard.

They parlayed their political capital into some form of "damages" for the "cancellation" from the government so they could pay for the lay-offs without digging into their own pocket. The government reluctantly agreed to avoid the political fall-out but then required the yard to be closed for good as compensation (so they would never have to do this again).

Considering this, it is surprising that the current government decided to go with a yard operated by the Irving's yet again, though to their discharge, the Halifax yard has always survived on repair/refit work when no government work was ongoing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The fast cats here was an attempt to create a "boutique" ship building industry as it was clear we could not compete on conventional hulls. The politicians should have kept it at that, it was always a gamble and a worthy one in my opinion. Glen Clark tying his political future to them was dumb just as the way they were sold off was equally dumb. There was a lot of spin off benefits and aluminum small craft industry here is a direct result of the training and skillsets acquired.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Not quite what I am saying. Royal Drew hit it more on the nose: At Irving's, the yard is too small to permit both the government build and other work to go on simultaneously. And yes, the St-John shipyard would have been better. So if the strategy is to make an industry that will become more self sufficient (i.e. will get private contracts) that was not the right yard to pick.
> 
> We have to be careful here, however. The Shipbuilding Strategy is an industrial strategy to support a specific industry, but those shipyards remain private enterprise. The government has no business telling them to close or stay open. Best proof is Davie Shipbuilding: entirely privately owned, it is currently the largest operating shipyard in Canada, has good bookings and is doing fine since it came out of bankruptcy protection. It was not part of the selection process during the selection of yards for the Ship building strategy because it was in bankruptcy proceedings. However, it is proving to be viable without any government assistance.
> 
> Also, we have to be very careful about claiming, all the time, that the government "paid the Irving's to close Saint-John Shipbuilding". It is not that simple.
> 
> While the government paid the Irving's a huge amount to build a modern and efficient new shipyard for the Saint-John Shipbuilding yard and gave them contracts for twelve large and expensive builds (the HAL's), the Irving's completely failed to market that into civvies side contracts to keep the yard going and/or expand. So when the Batch III frigates were cancelled (before even letting the contract out), the Irving found themselves with a completely idle yard and tons of employees to lay off as a result of their failure to market their new yard.
> 
> They parlayed their political capital into some form of "damages" for the "cancellation" from the government so they could pay for the lay-offs without digging into their own pocket. The government reluctantly agreed to avoid the political fall-out but then required the yard to be closed for good as compensation (so they would never have to do this again).
> 
> Considering this, it is surprising that the current government decided to go with a yard operated by the Irving's yet again, though to their discharge, the Halifax yard has always survived on repair/refit work when no government work was ongoing.



OGBD, I don't know what Irving's strategy is with regards to the NSPS long term but I know that they have a strategy which may not be apparent to us.  The Irving's own over 300 different companies and subsidiaries, all of which are vertically integrated with one and other.  Both Irving Oil and J.D. Irving, through its Kent Line subsidiary, run their own merchant fleets of tankers, bulk carriers and container ships.  Many of these ships were built in the 80's and 90's when Saint John Shipbuilding was still in full swing.  Perhaps the play is to have the government pay for a new shipyard and also for an initial batch of naval vessels at which point Irving will be in position to revitalize their own fleet.  If that doesn't happen they can always reroll the money they have made off the NSPS into some of their other industries, this is exactly what happened at Saint John Shipbuilding as part of the site is now occupied by a brand new paper mill.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Isn't that to put up their new parking complex? I don't believe they are adding any slips, nor could they.



The parkade is on the Niobe Gate side of the yard.  Their new constuction is on the other end.  They have a new building which was expanded size-wise (I believe) to the basin side of their turf.  Construction will be modules which will be spit out as as full ship on the basin end (IIRC).  But, yes, you're right in that they don't have the luxury of real estate to go big with ala Davies etc.  I have not seen SeaSpan so I don't have any idea of what their turf looks like.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seaspan is split up in 3 parts http://www.seaspan.com/seaspan-shipyards


----------



## MarkOttawa

Davie's specific ship for AOR:



> http://ow.ly/i/cj1C4



More on twitter:



> 1) @TimmyC62
> 
> Timothy Choi #Resolve #AOR for @RCN_MRC 2 b built on 2010-vintage Asterix 1702 TEU, already purchased fr owners by @chantierdavie
> https://twitter.com/TimmyC62/status/630838165398360064
> 
> 2) @TimmyC62
> 
> Purchase price of hull was $20m, conversion cost expected to be $350m, to be chartered out to RCN by new Davie subsidiary
> https://twitter.com/TimmyC62/status/630838475227443200




Plus:



> Davie’s AOR ship gets boost from Hepburn
> 
> An agreement between Hepburn Engineering and Davie Shipbuilding will bring new technologies to Davie’s Resolve-Class Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) ship.
> 
> As the leading supplier of Underway Replenishment Systems, Hepburn will provide Davie with a Replenishment-At-Sea (RAS) system. Previously, Hepburn has supplied the RCN and RAS with equipment for over 45 years...
> http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2015/08/10/davies-aor-ship-gets-boost-from-hepburn/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

question is, if bought as a stop gap, after our own purpose built ships are ready, will these ones continue use? I woul hope yes if they are good at their jobs, one of these for 370 million? bloody well buy 2-4 of them for cheap, then we would have a fleet of AOR's to cover when some are in refit, or long term maintenance and once our own two/three are build we probably would have two ready on each coast at all times giving us more mission flexibility.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'll bet that the Berlin's get the axe in favour of leasing the services from Davies, Chile, Spain etc etc etc.


----------



## MilEME09

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'll bet that the Berlin's get the axe in favour of leasing the services from Davies, Chile, Spain etc etc etc.



cutting our losses at two ships would be more cost effective, and just buy these ships outright from Davies, just think for 2.2 billion we could get 5.9 ships by my liberal calculations. thats a lot more bang for our buck.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

And Davie has now branched off and become not just a shipyard but also a PMC, interesting times.


----------



## MarkOttawa

jollyjacktar:



> I'll bet that the Berlin's get the axe in favour of leasing the services from Davies, Chile, Spain etc etc etc.



Can't see any gov't taking the B.C./Seaspan political risk--however more AOR work for Davie works well politically for Quebec and then fewer CSCs (but nothing need be said about that for some time).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

That may be so, but I'm not the only one with these suspicions.


----------



## jmt18325

Well, if we bought, say, 3 of these, we could funnel more money to Seaspan for another large CCG icebreaker.  The navy gets its ships sooner, and so does the CCG.  Win, Win.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Davie will easily be able to sell these ships once the Berlins come online.  It's a very good deal for Davie, this is basically one big free "we build affordable AORs" campaign for them.


----------



## MarkOttawa

jmt18235:



> Well, if we bought, say, 3 of these, we could funnel more money to Seaspan for another large CCG icebreaker.  The navy gets its ships sooner, and so does the CCG.  Win, Win.



Indeed, makes excellent sense.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> jmt18235:
> 
> Indeed, makes excellent sense.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I mean, it's not like our AORs would really need to be used the way we've been using them so far (as warships).  Other navies don't do that.


----------



## MilEME09

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Davie will easily be able to sell these ships once the Berlins come online.  It's a very good deal for Davie, this is basically one big free "we build affordable AORs" campaign for them.



and i bet after building a few their price will come down too, and every potential customer in south America, and the pacific will look at them.


----------



## Underway

You have to consider how they will be used as well though.  Current AOR doctrine means that the Queenstons will be considered "warships" and integral to a task group.

These ships will not be warships and would not be part of a task group in higher risk areas.  However that's not necessarily a bad thing and would certainly combo well with two Queenstons esp for things like domestic ops or aid to civil power.


----------



## jmt18325

Underway said:
			
		

> You have to consider how they will be used as well though.  Current AOR doctrine means that the Queenstons will be considered "warships" and integral to a task group.



Let's allow the warships to do the...warshipping.  With say, 3 of these, and a combatant force of 12 more capable combatants (a jack of all trades type) we could have a more flexible, responsive force, IMO.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Underway said:
			
		

> You have to consider how they will be used as well though.  Current AOR doctrine means that the Queenstons will be considered "warships" and integral to a task group.
> 
> These ships will not be warships and would not be part of a task group in higher risk areas.  However that's not necessarily a bad thing and would certainly combo well with two Queenstons esp for things like domestic ops or aid to civil power.



 :goodpost:

You also need to consider the fact that if we were to all of a sudden scrap the Queenston Class we would need to restart the procurement process from scratch.  These ships aren't meant to be permanent, they are a stopgap measure and wouldn't meet the SOR for the project.  You can't just buy whatever the heck you feel like when you feel like it, you think we all would know this by now.  The government has a plan, it's not perfect but at least it's there, lets at least try and follow it through for once.


----------



## Harrigan

Underway said:
			
		

> You have to consider how they will be used as well though.  Current AOR doctrine means that the Queenstons will be considered "warships" and integral to a task group.
> 
> These ships will not be warships and would not be part of a task group in higher risk areas.  However that's not necessarily a bad thing and would certainly combo well with two Queenstons esp for things like domestic ops or aid to civil power.



Not sure what the doctrines states now, but in 1982 the RN had many RFA and civilian ships well into the combat zone, including in San Carlos Water.  Two of them, ATLANTIC CONVEYOR and RFA SIR GALAHAD, did not return.

Harrigan


----------



## George Wallace

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Not sure what the doctrines states now, but in 1982 the RN had many RFA and civilian ships well into the combat zone, including in San Carlos Water.  Two of them, ATLANTIC CONVEYOR and RFA SIR GALAHAD, did not return.
> 
> Harrigan



Pretty much my feeling as well.  Modern warfare, on land or at sea, has fairly well done away with any "safe zones" well removed from the fight.  Just think of the Battle of the Atlantic in WW II and you will find that technology leaves all shipping at risk.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not to mention our own Merchant Cruisers


----------



## Underway

This whole discussion has me ruminating on the quote "amateurs think of tactics while professionals think of logistics" in relation to AORs and availability.  Seems like we are really still just amateurs in many ways....


----------



## MarkOttawa

One suspects there is a word missing in the italicized bit below:



> At the beginning of August, the Government of Canada gave Davie Shipbuilding permission to advance with Project Resolve, an initiative to pursue at-sea support.
> 
> The latest news reports that Davie has bought the Asterix, a 1,702-teu boxship.
> 
> In the past, Asterix belonged to Capital Ship Management, an Evangelos Marinakis-controlled company. Now, Davie will own the vessel through Project Resolve Inc. and charter it out to the _Royal Navy_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The transaction cost Davies somewhere around $20 million – but the plans don’t stop there. The word’s out that Davie will convert the ship into a complete naval vessel, capable of carrying two helicopters and refueling moving warships.
> 
> To complete the transformation, the Asterix’s container guides will be replaced with 10,000 tonnes worth of fuel tanks. As a result, the finished product should have the ship measure in at 40-teu.
> 
> Estimates say this conversion will cost upwards of $350 million.
> 
> It’s a costly endeavor, but Davie believes the Capital ship has a promising foundation. With cruising speeds of 20.5 knots and a versatile hull shape and design, the Asterix has huge potential...
> http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2015/08/11/davie-to-give-capital-ship-a-royal-makeover/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well to be blunt we did leave it up to the "Professionals" (as in senior leaders management of DND) who knowingly ran our AOR's into the ground and did not have a replacement plan. So it's a bit ripe for them to tell the amateurs what to do.  8)

The Mistrals with leased helicopters and landing craft could resupply the other ships with everything but fuel and provide a useful hanger space to keep the SeaKings (and spare aircraft) running till replaced with fully kitted Cyclones for the ASW role. We would still struggle on the Oiler side and leasing one seems to be the only option unless our betters bite the political bullet and build one/two overseas.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well to be blunt we did leave it up to the "Professionals" (as in senior leaders management of DND) who knowingly ran our AOR's into the ground and did not have a replacement plan. So it's a bit ripe for them to tell the amateurs what to do.



To be fair Gen Hillier when he was CDS often commented about how his biggest challenge was getting the navy recapitalized especially the AOR's.  Him and RAdm Buck got along like a house on fire and really tried to get the navy's equipment sorted out.  Unfortunately there were successive minority gov'ts in at the time and getting all party support for ships in the middle of a land war in asia was difficult to say the least.  

Even in 2009 when I met the MND in Afghanistan and asked him why the Conservatives were not cleverly using the "Economic Action Plan" to drive forward with a ship procurement strategy he actually put his arm around my shoulders, looked around in a conspiratorial way to ensure no one else could hear and said ".... it's because Davie went bankrupt and f****d the whole thing up!" (exact quote).

Perfect storm of recapitalization of strategic airlift, tanks, etc... with economic downturn and  minority gov'ts killed what were probably the first two windows of opportunity.  Still no excuses.  If they wanted to get it done, they would have spend political capital on it.


----------



## jollyjacktar

My present boss was involved in some of that in the later stages and has made comments on that fiasco and this project.  All I will say is there were many mistakes and miscommunications and this new endeavour may well be a big problem for several very good logical reasons.


----------



## Baz

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Mistrals with leased helicopters and landing craft could resupply the other ships with everything but fuel and provide a useful hanger space to keep the SeaKings (and spare aircraft) running till replaced with fully kitted Cyclones for the ASW role. We would still struggle on the Oiler side and leasing one seems to be the only option unless our betters bite the political bullet and build one/two overseas.



You don't think there is any potential for a starboard side RAS point?  It wouldn't make it an AOR but we could keep the skill alive.

I'm not sure we even start off with leased helps and landing craft... I still think we use them as giant training ships for now...


----------



## Seyek

For those of who don't really know anything on the topic, how exactly do the Queenstons compare to the Asterix conversion?


----------



## Lumber

Seyek said:
			
		

> For those of who don't really know anything on the topic, how exactly do the Queenstons compare to the Asterix conversion?



Queenstons will be full milspec.


----------



## STONEY

The Queenstons will also be double hulled tankers as reqd by international law while the others are container ship conversions which may not meet the new laws and thus banned from many world ports.
Most of the worlds navys are getting rid of there single hulled AORs because of this. IE the RN and the fairly new AORs.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The start of a very interesting piece, by a project insider, at Vanguard magazine:



> The RCN’s Joint Support Ship disaster
> Henning Jacobsen
> 
> In late May, the Royal Canadian Navy paid off HMCS Protecteur, last of two remaining support ships [more here and see “RCN Joint Support Ship Stopgap: Feds Talking with Davie, Québec“]. Built in the 1960s, the Protecteur-class was expected to be replaced by 2012. At present, the government is working with Seaspan Shipyards to begin construction on two Joint Support Ships, to be known as the Queenston class. In the interim, however, it may have to consider a commercial alternative to bridge the gap between now and when new ships enter service in 2020. Henning Jacobsen served as a consultant on the initial Joint Support Ship Program that was cancelled in 2008. He argues the program to deliver a new support ship should never have reached this point…
> http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2015/08/12/the-joint-support-ship-debacle/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Lumber

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The start of a very interesting piece, by a project insider, at Vanguard magazine:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



So, what I understand from that article is that , 7 years ago, if the Canadian Government had agreed to increase spending on the JSS by 25% (from $2.9B to $3.7B), we would have had 3 of them by now? We just refused to listen to industry when they said "it just can't be done for the price you want?".

They even said "we can build two for that price" and we said "no". In the end, we _are_ only building two.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

STONEY said:
			
		

> The Queenstons will also be double hulled tankers as reqd by international law while the others are container ship conversions which may not meet the new laws and thus banned from many world ports.
> Most of the worlds navys are getting rid of there single hulled AORs because of this. IE the RN and the fairly new AORs.



Actually, the Davie proposal will be double hulled. That is the reason they are working from a Container ship conversion instead of a tanker conversion. The required tanks will be built inside the existing hull and properly away from it, making it a double-hulled ship. Much simpler than trying to make a similar conversion on an existing tanker's tanks. For one thing, no need for any decontamination before you can start welding.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Lumber said:
			
		

> So, what I understand from that article is that , 7 years ago, if the Canadian Government had agreed to increase spending on the JSS by 25% (from $2.9B to $3.7B), we would have had 3 of them by now? We just refused to listen to industry when they said "it just can't be done for the price you want?".
> 
> They even said "we can build two for that price" and we said "no". In the end, we _are_ only building two.



Bingo! Give that man a cigar :dude:


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Bingo! Give that man a cigar :dude:



I'll take imaginary internet (MP) points as well.


----------



## jmt18325

STONEY said:
			
		

> The Queenstons will also be double hulled tankers as reqd by international law while the others are container ship conversions which may not meet the new laws and thus banned from many world ports.
> Most of the worlds navys are getting rid of there single hulled AORs because of this. IE the RN and the fairly new AORs.



A tank inside of a sealed ship hull should qualify and double hulled.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Tweet:



> @Murray_Brewster
> 
> Curious no mention of #RCN's supply ships by PMSH at today's campaign event at dock where they are supposed to be built. #elxn42
> https://twitter.com/Murray_Brewster/status/631562910221758464



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Tweet:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I really hope they're smart enough to not go through with that.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Davie AOR conversion tweet:



> OMX ‏@offsetmarket
> 
> @chantierdavie unveils impressive #ProjectResolve website: projectresolve.ca
> INNOVATIVE, AFFORDABLE, 100% CANADIAN.
> The Navy / La Marine, Canadian Forces, Jason Kenney ن and 2 others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/offsetmarket/status/632596663895498752



Hull of course not actually Canadian:
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2015/08/11/davie-to-give-capital-ship-a-royal-makeover/

Plot thought that maybe some with influence may have:

1) Ditch Seaspan JSS and give Davie 2/3 AOR conversions;

2) Give Seaspan one or two more new icebreakers, CCGS Diefenbreaker itself to start building much sooner.

Political winner, regardless which party forms government after next election?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

Its not going to be a quick decision, that's not gonna be something covered under the caretaker provisions.


----------



## jmt18325

Does anyone have any idea what the tonnage on this ship will be?  I have a hard time seeing the RCN giving this up even if they get the JSS in the end.


----------



## Underway

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any idea what the tonnage on this ship will be?  I have a hard time seeing the RCN giving this up even if they get the JSS in the end.



Currently Asterix is about 18200 tonnes without the cargo.  I don't know what she's rated for but thats a place to start.  I wouldn't be surprised that after conversions full load she's about 25000-30000...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The Asterix class has about 24,000 tons deadweight.

Some of that will go for all the mods made to the ship, but I would not be surprised if she ended up with about the same or a little more cargo capacity than the PROTECTEUR class, so about 16,000+ tons of cargo.

That would put her at about 38,000/39,000 tons full load.

As for giving up the capacity by the RCN, it depends on the contract. If they don't have a purchase clause at a set price at the end of the lease, then she goes back to Davie. And Davie may not want to sell her to the RCN in the end, if they feel they can make more money by then selling her on the open market (after all, I think everybody knows the RCN crew take very good care of the toys they are given - much better than many other nations - but then again, we usually get to play with our toys much longer than anybody else).


----------



## jollyjacktar

My boss says she will be in the 40 range.


----------



## jmt18325

So it will be, in its intended role, more capable than the JSS, it seems.


----------



## jmt18325

The project resolve page emphasizes a flexible service contract.  It sounds like they're gunning to keep this ship in service, even when/if the JSS comes to fruition.


----------



## jollyjacktar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So it will be, in its intended role, more capable than the JSS, it seems.



Not necessarily.  As a. retrofit merchant she may be lacking some capabilities.


----------



## Good2Golf

22-24k DWT and  14-16k Tare sounds about right if you figure 4-6k for RAS gear, reefer plant, tanks and plumbing, and hangars...sound like 38-40k full up.


----------



## jmt18325

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not necessarily.  As a. retrofit merchant she may be lacking some capabilities.



Their primary role is to refuel and resupply.  It seems that this ship would do that better.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Their primary role is to refuel and resupply.  It seems that this ship would do that better.



Are you a Davie Lobbyist?  You are pushing this awful hard.   :

We are getting the Berlin's.  This ship is a stopgap, nothing more.

Also what justification can you provide that a secondhand coverted container ship is going to do a "better" job than a custom built warship already in use by another Navy?  It's stupid comments like this that make me question how qualified you are to speak on this issue.

Then again, opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one.


----------



## jmt18325

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Are you a Davie Lobbyist?  You are pushing this awful hard.   :
> 
> We are getting the Berlin's.  This ship is a stopgap, nothing more.



I'm in favour of getting this one and keeping it.  If we get the Berlins, keep those too.  We had a requirement for 3 ships, after all.


----------



## jmt18325

For me though, the problem with the current plan is this - we go without replacements for the the CCGs most important vessels for a very long while into the future.  There seems to be enough work here for all 3 yards.  If this had been started when the Conservatives first took office, it might not be quite so dire now.


----------



## Good2Golf

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Davie AOR conversion tweet:



The front of that sure looks like CSC conceptual artwork...Davie building an angle here?


----------



## jollyjacktar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Their primary role is to refuel and resupply.  It seems that this ship would do that better.


Yes, that is the primary role of an AOR, however, we do more with them than just that.

Some problems that might face us with a converted merchant (as experienced by the RAN with HMAS SIRIS).  

This vessel is large, she won't be able to berth at Esquimault for starters.  

Merchant vessels such as container ships are designed to go from point A to point B at a given speed for maximum efficiency.  Not to speed up and slow down like a yo-yo as demanded during a RAS or moving in concert with a task group or assignment.  They're not suited to chase down (as they're able) and board other vessels (as we were doing with the PRO/PRE).

The tank conversions are going to make it difficult to move fuel around and ballast the ship as needed.  If you can't easily move the fuel, it can and does go bad.  Which is expensive and another headache in and of itself.  (I've seen that happen on PRE)

Where are you going to stick all these RCN personnel?  The ship is designed and built for a small merchant crew.

As for a helicopter...  what the RAN tried with SIRIS and tacked on a contraption on the ass end.

These were some of the points brought up by my boss, who is a NAVARC and is a Tanker Wanker as well.


----------



## jmt18325

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Where are you going to stick all these RCN personnel?  The ship is designed and built for a small merchant crew.
> 
> As for a helicopter...  what the RAN tried with SIRIS and tacked on a contraption on the *** end.



Have you looked at the website?

http://projectresolve.ca/website/

The entire superstructure is to be replaced.


----------



## Infanteer

If the ship is as good as that website, we are golden!


----------



## Good2Golf

Historically, we've received even more capability than the contractor promised, and usually early and under budget. :nod:

[/sarcasm]

;D


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm in favour of getting this one and keeping it.  If we get the Berlins, keep those too.  We had a requirement for 3 ships, after all.


The RCN can't man the ships were have/had, and you want them to get more than they asked for?


----------



## jmt18325

They asked for 3.  It's also worth noting that this ship will be crewed by civilians.  It would have no impact.


----------



## jollyjacktar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> They asked for 3.  It's also worth noting that this ship will be crewed by civilians.  It would have no impact.



Really?  So what about the 100+ RCN personnel who'll be attached to this vessel???


----------



## jmt18325

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Really?  So what about the 100+ RCN personnel who'll be attached to this vessel???



Each new vessel that comes online will take fewer personnel than those that came before.  Add to that the fact that we're unlikely to get 15 CSCs...


----------



## PuckChaser

So you're hoping the surface combatant program under delivers so we can get an extra support ship to support fewer CSCs?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Well, seeing as you're apparently not a sailor, I can understand your basis for comment.  

Right now and now for the foreseeable future, we have a manning issue.  Again, our vessels are not merchant vessels.  We do more with our ships than just go from port to port delivering goods and cargo.  They (merchant ships) are not as manpower thirsty as they're not busy running ops rooms with various watches, carrying out boardings on target vessels, humanitarian missions ashore, RAS, going into harms way and therefore needing damage control/casualty clearing teams to deal with those events and I could go on.  Right now, we're robbing Peter to pay Paul to get ships to sea.  Davies dream will be coming on line far in advance of the Queenstowns, AOPS or CSC, as those projects get closer to completing ships, they'll require manpower for those projects.

Yes, they both (merchant/naval) float around on the augie in ships.  But, how they do business is very different and each requires a different method of getting their respective business done.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So you're hoping the surface combatant program under delivers so we can get an extra support ship to support fewer CSCs?



I'm hoping I'm pleasantly surprised.  I'm just being realistic given the history of Canadian procurement.


----------



## jmt18325

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well, seeing as you're apparently not a sailor, I can understand your basis for comment.
> 
> Right now and now for the foreseeable future, we have a manning issue.  Again, our vessels are not merchant vessels.  We do more with our ships than just go from port to port delivering goods and cargo.



But should we?  That's am important question really.  Maybe we should leave the warship work to warships.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Lumber said:
			
		

> Queenstons will be full milspec.



??Berlin class was built to Classification Society Germanische Lloyd spec, which is a commercial design standards, with some additional design changes to meet military needs (ie some basic self defence).  That's far different then a milspec design in a lot of respects.

https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/blohmvoss-class-lhd.html

So far we're up to $370 million for a used, bastardized ship.  Seem like a good deal to anyone?  There will probably also be challenges from all the other shipyards that could have done this work that wasn't put out for solicitation that will cost us (taxpayers) a lot of money.  Also there will probably be a lot of hidden costs that we eat in our operational budgets, plus the actual lease costs.

This is politics at its worst.


----------



## jmt18325

And if we do continue to do that, would it be bad to have a 3rd ship like the Resolve available, so that we always have a ship (well, 99% of the time anyway) that can respond when needed?


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> ??Berlin class was built to Classification Society Germanische Lloyd spec, which is a commercial design standards, with some additional design changes to meet military needs (ie some basic self defence).  That's far different then a milspec design in a lot of respects.
> 
> https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/blohmvoss-class-lhd.html
> 
> So far we're up to $370 million for a used, bastardized ship.  Seem like a good deal to anyone?  There will probably also be challenges from all the other shipyards that could have done this work that wasn't put out for solicitation that will cost us (taxpayers) a lot of money.  Also there will probably be a lot of hidden costs that we eat in our operational budgets, plus the actual lease costs.
> 
> This is politics at its worst.



Two things, we aren't getting Berlins, we are getting Bohn's, which quite frankly only look the same on the outside.  The Bohn is very different as it took lessons learned from the Berlins and made an entirely new type of ship 11 years later.

Secondly a "used bastardized ship" is a hell of a lot better than no ship at all, or even the PRE, PRO at the end of their life.  And its limited risk for the gov't.  We're only leasing the ship.  So how much money do you think they are willing to pay for the conversion.  Maybe Davie takes all the risk here, certainly its less risk for the gov't than building all new ships themselves.  And I don't see a plethora of AOR's floating around the ocean so they prob could find another customer if needed no problem (Aussies always seem to like to buy used...).  
Probably should have done this a long time ago.


----------



## Navy_Pete

It's just not cost effective and a bad use of taxpayer money.    And may or may not get any real capability, all just to buy some votes in QC.

This would have been a good decision in 2013.  Or 2011.  It's not like the AORs suddenly got to be 45 years old, this was a known problem that was exacerbated by the govt funding cuts to DND.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> Two things, we aren't getting Berlins, we are getting Bohn's, which quite frankly only look the same on the outside.  The Bohn is very different as it took lessons learned from the Berlins and made an entirely new type of ship 11 years later.


Actually, we aren't getting Bohns either.  Changes to maritimes regulations and other class society regs since the Bohn was built meant the design needed to be updated, and I'm sure it will be 'Canadianized'.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://frontline-defence.com/index_archives.php?page=2252



> Re-initiated as the JSS Project under NSPS in 2010, the RCN eventually (June 2013) chose the German Berlin Class (Hull #3 BONN) by Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) as a suitable design, however, a great deal of Canadianization will be required to meet the RCN’s needs. BMT Canada and Alion have been involved in high level design work and the Canadianization requirements.
> 
> As per the NSPS direction for non-combatant ships, Seaspan Shipyards will build the two JSS. Seaspan and Alion have been awarded some further Phase I design work contracts, and Thales Canada has been chosen to do the Combat Systems Integration (CSI) work for non-combatants.
> 
> Like AOPS, *JSS will be built largely to commercial specifications. It is believed that Seaspan uses Det Norske Veritas / Germanischer Lloyd (DNV GL) as the Class by Builder Classification Society*. A statement of work is under development within DND to engage in a competitive bid process for a Classification Society contract for the support of the Non-Combatant vessels.



Is it possible to verify this Frontline article?

Here's the gen on the AOPS from the same article



> Although listed in the NSPS combatant ships category assigned to Irving, *the AOPS vessels will be built largely to commercial standards to reduce costs. DND is in the process of entering into a sole source contract with Lloyd’s Register Canada Limited (LRCL) for combatant vessels, including AOPS*. An Advance Contract Award Notice was posted to the Government of Canada Buy and Sell web page recently. Production designs are currently being completed by Irving, with the assistance of OMT, and recent (Jan 2015) conversations with AOPS Project staff indicate that procurement of equipment for that project is well underway.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> ...So far we're up to $370 million for a used, bastardized ship.  Seem like a good deal to anyone?  There will probably also be challenges from all the other shipyards that could have done this work that wasn't put out for solicitation that will cost us (taxpayers) a lot of money.  Also there will probably be a lot of hidden costs that we eat in our operational budgets, plus the actual lease costs.
> 
> This is politics at its worst.



 :dunno:

Well, we spent $292M to FMS buy six 38 to 42 year-old CH-47Ds to bridge until the CH-147Fs came on line and they provided a capability.  When the Queenstons come on line, the case for an interim capability will cede to the history books and we'll all move on.  A big AOR being $80M more than six helicopters we flew for 18 months in a small single area of operations doesn't actually seem horrible...am I missing something?  ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

JSS is supposed to be on line (IOC of first vessel) in 2019.

When is the Davie ship supposed to be ready?  How long is the gap?


----------



## jmt18325

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> JSS is supposed to be on line (IOC of first vessel) in 2019.



If that's still the date, it's a pipe dream.

The Government of Canada recently awarded a build contract for the OFSV to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards. The yard will deliver three of these vessels to the Canadian Coast Guard under a ceiling price of $514 million. MP Saxton also announced that the first ship, to be delivered in the spring of 2017, will be named CCGS Sir John Franklin in honour of the Arctic explorer

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=990919

That's ship 1 of job 1.  That means there's still the OOSV to go and then the JSS starts production.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :dunno:
> 
> Well, we spent $292M to FMS buy six 38 to 42 year-old CH-47Ds to bridge until the CH-147Fs came on line and they provided a capability.  When the Queenstons come on line, the case for an interim capability will cede to the history books and we'll all move on.  A big AOR being $80M more than six helicopters we flew for 18 months in a small single area of operations doesn't actually seem horrible...am I missing something?  ???
> 
> Regards
> G2G



http://www.bbc.com/news/business-17127488
The Royal Navy has chosen South Korean firm Daewoo for a £452m deal to build four new fuel tankers....

That was back in 2012.  They actually had to pay Daewoo to delay delivery so they could get people trained up.  If we wanted a new capability in a short time frame, we could have done something similar.  Or picked up the USN fast tankers for a song (or a lease with the sequestration cuts tying them up).  We could have done all kinds of things to get an AOR capability now, for far less then the Davie deal, where it wouldn't have been an unproven design.

Your example as buying old Chinooks and using them as is.  This is more like buying a different kind of helicopter, paying a lot of money to convert them to do something similar to the Chinooks using an unproven retrofit design, and hoping they provide the same capability.  Apples and oranges.  It's not a terrible option, but there are lots of other, better, faster, more reliable options that have been ignored for the last several years.

If this wasn't a shipyard in QC, it wouldn't even be on the table.  If it wasn't an election starting, it wouldn't have gotten any kind of preliminary LOI.  This is such obvious pandering to the electorate in a region where the ruling govt is trying to make gains based on promises that they may do something, eventually, if they get reelected, to get a capability (eventually), that exists only on paper, that they could have already filled the gap for YEARS ago when the initial JSS RFP went sideways because of how ridiculous the system is.  And it's going to waste a lot of taxpayer money for what is most likely going to be a canceled contract and a quiet payout down the road.


----------



## Good2Golf

My point was actually more about the amount of money spent to provide an interim capability that you seemed to have the issue with.  I acknowledge the D-models were "[well] off the shelf" and that ASTERIX will require substantive mods, but the RCN or DND or GoC not getting things done right in the past is history, and while the lessons associated with ALSC/JSS shouldn't be ignored, we are where we are now and it seems like something is needed now.  If QUEENSTON could happen tomorrow, great.  Do you think VSY is capable of doing that to provide QUEENSTON on the same timelines that Davie can modify ASTERIX, and if so, what would happen to OSFV, AOPS, Polar, etc...?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Furniture

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It's just not cost effective and a bad use of taxpayer money.    And may or may not get any real capability, all just to buy some votes in QC.
> 
> This would have been a good decision in 2013.  Or 2011.  It's not like the AORs suddenly got to be 45 years old, this was a known problem that was exacerbated by the govt funding cuts to DND.



It seems to me to be a better use of money than having tankers from developing or financially unstable countries loaned to us so that we can conduct our duties at home. I'm sure you can agree with me that it's downright embarrasing to have Chile and Spain sending tankers to our ports because we as one of the richest countries in the world can't fuel our own boats underway.

Even if Resolve can only liquid RAS in "safe" waters we are far ahead of where we are now.


----------



## ringo

FGS Bonn not Bohn

IMHO we will be lucky to get 10 CSC.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Tweet:



> OMX
> ‏@offsetmarket
> 
> @Mark3Ds OMX and @chantierdavie will be disclosing Canadian Content details in coming months.
> https://twitter.com/offsetmarket/status/632724871437524992



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

ringo said:
			
		

> FGS Bonn not Bohn
> 
> IMHO we will be lucky to get 10 CSC.



I would agree that we'll get somewhere between 8 and 12, and never 15.  That is, after all, the general trend around the world.


----------



## suffolkowner

I would have gone Davie and only Davie right from the start. 
I think we can expect the three tribal replacements to be around $4 billion each; witness Australia's costs. Thats 12 billion out of a $26 billion budget, leaving $14 billion for 12 remaining ships. Not likely especially given the inflation deficit between Finance and the military. Currently  running at -2% a year(?). Probably time to completely reevaluate the goals.


----------



## Underway

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I would agree that we'll get somewhere between 8 and 12, and never 15.  That is, after all, the general trend around the world.



You're assuming that they are a block build and then stop.  I'm assuming that they will just keep building ships forever because that's what the whole plan is for, just keep continuously building ships.  Like Areigh Burke, flights.... just keep modding the flights.  

So CSC flight 1 will be 4 AAW Destroyers,  flight 2 will actually be a different ship class the general purpose destroyer which will take us up to 8-9, flight 3 lessons learned from flight 3 makes us up to 12-15.

Then the new build CSC mark 2 which is 4 AAW Destroyers again and we get rid of the original CSC AAW destroyers, because midlife refits are really expensive when you might as well get a new ship.


----------



## jmt18325

Underway said:
			
		

> You're assuming that they are a block build and then stop.  I'm assuming that they will just keep building ships forever because that's what the whole plan is for, just keep continuously building ships.  Like Areigh Burke, flights.... just keep modding the flights.
> 
> So CSC flight 1 will be 4 AAW Destroyers,  flight 2 will actually be a different ship class the general purpose destroyer which will take us up to 8-9, flight 3 lessons learned from flight 3 makes us up to 12-15.
> 
> Then the new build CSC mark 2 which is 4 AAW Destroyers again and we get rid of the original CSC AAW destroyers, because midlife refits are really expensive when you might as well get a new ship.



If that happens, I'll be impressed.


----------



## Underway

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> If that happens, I'll be impressed.



Thats the plan, and if they don't remember... votes in Halifax count on it, no matter the party.  That's a good motivator when you actually _have_ a military industrial complex.  Which only exists in Canada in places like London.


----------



## CougarKing

An update on PROJECT RESOLVE:

Navy Recognition



> L-3 MAPPS Selected by Chantier Davie Canada and Project Resolve for the
> Royal Canadian Navy’s Interim Auxiliary Oil Replenishment (iAOR) Provision of Service
> 
> Saturday, 12 September 2015 09:00
> 
> *L-3 MAPPS announced today that Chantier Davie Canada Inc. and Project Resolve Inc. have selected its Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS) for the conversion of the container vessel M.V. Asterix into an Auxiliary Oil Replenishment (AOR) ship for the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) interim supply ship capability. Civilian container vessel M.V. Asterix will be converted into an Auxiliary Oil Replenishment (AOR) ship for the Royal Canadian Navy’s interim supply ship capability. Picture: Chantier Davie*
> 
> “L-3 MAPPS is a recognized world leader in automation for naval vessels built to commercial marine as well as military standards and has extensive experience in ship upgrades for customers worldwide,” said Rangesh Kasturi, president of L-3 MAPPS. “We are pleased to be chosen by Chantier Davie and Project Resolve for this innovative project to support the RCN’s urgent requirements and we look forward to the implementation contract being finalized shortly. We have been very impressed with the ‘Team Canada’ approach for the project and are looking forward to making our contribution.”
> 
> “Project Resolve will provide the RCN with a critically important replenishment at-sea capability,” said Spencer Fraser, chief executive officer of Project Resolve Inc. “We are extremely proud to have assembled a pan-Canadian supply chain that will feature ‘best-of-breed’ naval technologies developed and produced here at home by Canadian personnel. L-3 MAPPS is a trusted partner with a fantastic pedigree of supporting the RCN and exporting Canadian naval technology worldwide. The company will be bringing a very modern and proven capability to our iAOR solution.”
> 
> L-3 MAPPS announced today that Chantier Davie Canada Inc. and Project Resolve Inc. have selected its Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS) for the conversion of the container vessel M.V. Asterix into an Auxiliary Oil Replenishment (AOR) ship for the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) interim supply ship capability. Computer rendering of the vessel after conversion. Picture: Chantier Davie
> 
> Using technology pioneered in Canada, the L-3 MAPPS IPMS provides comprehensive monitoring and control of a ship’s propulsion, electrical, ancillary, auxiliary and damage control machinery systems. With advanced functionality, such as the Battle Damage Control System, Onboard Team Training System, Equipment Health Monitoring System and CCTV, as well as integration with the ship’s combat management and navigation systems, the IPMS allows the crew to safely and effectively operate the ship for all mission requirements. L-3 MAPPS’ technology is used by 18 navies worldwide and is installed on most of the RCN’s major warships and submarines. The company also provides advanced Safety Management Systems for some of the world’s newest and largest cruise ships and naval auxiliary vessels.


----------



## Edward Campbell

CTV News suggests, in a report that, at least, the surface combatant portion and, maybe, the entire shipbuilding _strategy_ is _very high risk_ in economic, industrial and capability terms.


----------



## Good2Golf

I'm puzzled as to why Trudeau referred to the ice breaker as a Defence ship, isn't the Diefenbaker going to be a CGS, not a HMCS?


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> CTV News suggests, in a report that, at least, the surface combatant portion and, maybe, the entire shipbuilding _strategy_ is _very high risk_ in economic, industrial and capability terms.


In text here:



> Canada's biggest-ever military procurement at 'very high risk,' documents suggest
> CTV News
> With files from CTV News' Mercedes Stephenson
> 20 Sep 2015
> 
> Documents obtained by CTV News suggest that the Conservative government's plan to overhaul the Royal Canadian Navy with a multi-billion dollar procurement to replace frigates and destroyers may be in trouble.
> 
> According to internal documents obtained by CTV News' Mercedes Stephenson, the "Canadian Surface Combatant" program is at "very high risk" of running over budget, behind schedule, lacking skilled manpower, and producing inadequate capabilities.
> 
> The documents warn there is a risk the project, "may be unable to deliver the optimal number of ships with the capabilities necessary to meet operational requirements" and that may, in turn, lead to the navy's "inability to deliver operational effect and/or a failed procurement."
> 
> With its $26B price tag, the program is considered the "crown jewel" in the government's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.
> 
> Sources tell CTV News that a fixed budget, combined with increasing costs and procurement delays, mean the navy has likely already lost one or two of the promised 15 ships.
> 
> Consequences of failing to deliver the ships on time include the potential inability to protect Canadian coastlines and engage in such international operations as tracking drug smugglers or terrorists at sea.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-biggest-ever-military-procurement-at-very-high-risk-documents-suggest-1.2572855


----------



## suffolkowner

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'm puzzled as to why Trudeau referred to the ice breaker as a Defence ship, isn't the Diefenbaker going to be a CGS, not a HMCS?



Probably confusing with AOPS or maybe going back to the original intention of armed heavy icebreakers


----------



## suffolkowner

http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2015/09/australias-90-billion-naval.html

A link to some info on Australia's own shipbuilding plans. In comparison to ours the numbers are similar minus the subs


----------



## FSTO

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'm puzzled as to why Trudeau referred to the ice breaker as a Defence ship, isn't the Diefenbaker going to be a CGS, not a HMCS?



Because he and his handlers have no clue and are too lazy or just don't care to get their facts right.


----------



## FSTO

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> CTV News suggests, in a report that, at least, the surface combatant portion and, maybe, the entire shipbuilding _strategy_ is _very high risk_ in economic, industrial and capability terms.



And once again someone gave Mercedes a PPT presentation that outlines all the risks to the project and they cherry picked the worst case scenario.

Not too say there is no risk, but I doubt it is the all consuming dumpster fire that the media tries to portray it is.


----------



## YZT580

The report missed one key item:  The risk increases exponentially if Trudeau gets elected simply because he will delay it while reviewing it and reworking it so as to enable his people to benefit financially.  All projects have risk of failure that is why you have teams to assess the risks and plan around them.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> CTV News suggests, in a report that, at least, the surface combatant portion and, maybe, the entire shipbuilding _strategy_ is _very high risk_ in economic, industrial and capability terms.


The Info-machine responds (statement also attached in case link doesn't work)....


> The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces today released the following statement on recent media coverage on the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program, which will renew the Royal Canadian Navy surface combat fleet by replacing the capabilities provided by the destroyers (Iroquois-class) and the multi-role patrol frigates (Halifax-class):
> 
> This project is currently in the definition phase, which means we are at the stage of firming up more of the detail, examining issues such as cost, schedule and requirements, and identifying any risks early so that they can be mitigated. The documents being referred to in some media reports are a management tool to help do exactly that.
> 
> As the project progresses through the definition phase, National Defence and the Royal Canadian Navy will continue to evaluate risks, adapt accordingly, and find efficiencies when and where possible. This is an ongoing process that will continue to evolve throughout the life of the project.
> 
> Through the design-then-build approach, the ship designs will be reviewed, refined and matured to get all of the production details right, and to factor in potential risks and finalize costs and schedule.
> 
> At this stage of a project, it is not unusual for some risks to be assessed as high. This may change over time as the project plan develops.
> 
> A key element of all warship design and construction programs is to develop requirements that will result in affordable solutions. In the case of the CSC, this process commenced with the early engagements with industry, the commencement of the initial requirements reconciliation with Irving Shipbuilding and will continue as the Government, with the expertise of the Warship Designer, the Combat Systems Integrator and Irving Shipbuilding, undertakes the work to finalize the requirements reconciliation, which will drive the design and construction of the CSC, with the project budget.
> 
> Capacity challenges are common as projects ramp up and various mitigation factors are at play within the project, including drawing expertise from across the Government of Canada, working with allies, and engagements with industry.
> 
> The CSC project is one that will span decades. There is constant attention to schedule with continual study to identify ways to reduce the time taken for various activities without jeopardizing performance. Such a focus is being applied to CSC to ensure the project progresses in a timely manner.”


----------



## Lumber

Why can't we just do à la Blohm + Voss and plan to build 30 CSCs and sell half of them to other countries?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Lumber said:
			
		

> We can't we just do à la Blohm + Voss and plan to build 30 CSCs and sell half of them to other countries?




We have one too many problems with off-shore sales: _foreigners_.

     We use a lot of foreign technology in out ships and we need (usually explicit) permissions from each foreign technology supplier to sell it to a third party; and

     The same foreign countries who supply us with bit and pieces are trying to sell their own ships to the same third party countries.

I remember when the _Halifax_ class was very new, _circa_ 1990, Canada sent one ship to the Gulf on a "goodwill" (sales) mission ... it was actually beaten to almost every port by a mix of British and US ships and followed, almost immediately, by ships from several other countries.


----------



## quadrapiper

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We use a lot of foreign technology in out ships and we need (usually explicit) permissions from each foreign technology supplier to sell it to a third party...


I'm assuming that following the Mistral approach - proven hull of a certain pattern fitted with the buyer's choice of kit - would be too much of a nuisance to be worth it?


----------



## Lumber

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We use a lot of foreign technology in out ships and we need (usually explicit) permissions from each foreign technology supplier to sell it to a third party; and



What about becoming a sub-contractor for Blohm + Voss? We help build some ships for countries that they have already been selected to build for, and as a result we get out ships cheaper (from both insentives and economies of scale). We could use a modification of the Meko design. Canada then wouldn't have to buy the designs, just the ships.


----------



## George Wallace

Lumber said:
			
		

> What about becoming a sub-contractor for Blohm + Voss? We help build some ships for countries that they have already been selected to build for, and as a result we get out ships cheaper (from both insentives and economies of scale). We could use a modification of the Meko design. Canada then wouldn't have to buy the designs, just the ships.



If I remember correctly, Davies was saved from financial ruin when they were bought out by foreign interests.  Now they are solvent.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Lumber said:
			
		

> What about becoming a sub-contractor for Blohm + Voss? We help build some ships for countries that they have already been selected to build for, and as a result we get out ships cheaper (from both insentives and economies of scale). We could use a modification of the Meko design. Canada then wouldn't have to buy the designs, just the ships.




You're asking the wrong guy ... I really don't know enough about the shipbuilding industry, neither here, in Canada, nor globally, to offer any sensible ideas. Some countries: Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, South Korea and Spain seem to do it very well and to compete, also very well, with the USA. The UK _used to be_ a major shipbuilder and still is, _I think_, for small warships and some specialized types, but we must note that it is having the hull of its new aircraft carrier built in France.

We do have some people here to whose opinion I listen, though ... people with good knowledge and experience in naval/shipping/ship building matters. (I understand some trade/political issues, that's all ...)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just a small correction AJC: The Queen Elizabeth are entirely built in the UK by BAE Systems Naval Ships division, at their Glasgow and Portsmouth yards (some at Filton too? Not sure here). The French yards would have been involved had the French agreed to buy a third one as their "PA2", the back up carrier to the Charles de Gaulle. They pulled out of the plans and as a result did not get any work.


----------



## Kirkhill

I am given to believe, by articles that have appeared in the national press that the RCN is considering a procurement strategy of recycling existing weapons systems to the new CSC platforms.

I suggest that my friends the Danes, advisers to and participants in the Irving team, pioneered this approach to their advantage.

While it is true that the cost of the actual "launcher" (gun, missile/mortar/torpedo tube) constitutes a marginal savings I offer this:

"Worked for the Danes - Their Stanflex system reduces the capital cost of building ships by separating their weapons systems from the hull.  It takes away the price of the launcher, minimal, but also sensors and sensor upgrades, the logistics and maintenance package for the weapons, the supply of the ammunition, the maintenance and QC of the ammunition, the upgrade of the ammunition....

It actually is the reason that the Huitfeldts and the Absolons were built for only $300,000,000 apiece.

If you lifted the VLS from the Iroquois Class you could transfer them and their missiles at zero cost to the new boats.

The weapons can then be upgraded on their own budget and timeline.  

The 57s on the Halifax class could also be made available to the AOPS - again justifying keeping the weapons budget separate from the $26,000,000,000 budget ( and adding the advantage of upgunning the AOPS if so desired).  

Good plan all around."

I suggested this rationale to an acquaintance.

Edit:  The rationale for severing the weapons from the ships would be enhanced if the GBAD-CRAM system were found to be common to both the RCN and the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery.  It can be fun confusing accountants.

Fatta la legge trovato l'inganno ("No sooner is a law made than someone will find a way around it.") - My new motto.


----------



## suffolkowner

Is 11 as low as it's going to go?

http://thechronicleherald.ca/federal-election-2015/1314651-ship-numbers-may-decline-kenney


----------



## Kirkhill

I am sure that 10 to 15 years from now, if a new needs assessment is conducted and additional hulls are required the options available will be:

Add more money to the budgets
Deliver some/all of the later ships with reduced capabilities
Deliver a new class of ships entirely with a different balance of capabilities.

To build ships in 2030 based on a 25 year old needs assessment was never a realistic plan for fleet management.  It was a plan to allow industry to make decisions to build an industry.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Trouble is, is that the lead time for a new class of ship is almost out of the question that late in the game.  It would be similar to the EH101 for example.  Planned in the late 80's, killed early 90's and here in the mid 10's still on going, years over due and so much money wasted.  Hell's bells the AOR's are another prime example of things going pear shaped.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile Petronas can order and have delivered a large LNG carrier in 18 months. If the will is there.....


----------



## jollyjacktar

The will might be there, but in the hurry to be all things to all voters, we've lost the way.


----------



## Kirkhill

UK Type 21 Amazon Class entered service in 1974 - Total of 8 built
Batch 1 = 8

UK Type 22 Broadsword entered service in 1979 - Total of 14 built
Batch 1 = 4
Batch 2 = 6
Batch 3 = 4

UK Type 23 Duke Class entered service in 1987 - Total of 16 built
UK Batch = 13
Chile Batch = 3

Last vessel built in 1999

....Peace Dividend In Effect.....

UK Type 26 Global Combat Ship 13 planned to enter service from 2020 in three separate variants with the Type 27 possibly due from 2030.

http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/global-combat-ship

Prior to the Peace Dividend Era 38 hulls were built to 6 designs in 25 years.

I know you Canucks are at least as good as us Brits were....

St-Laurent Class entered service in 1955 total of 7 built

MacKenzie Class entered service in 1962 total of 4 built

Annapolis Class entered service in 1964 total of 2 built

Iroquois Class entered service in 1972 total of 4 built

Halifax Class entered service in 1992 total of 12 built
2 Batches planned

....Peace Dividend In Effect.....


----------



## Bearpaw

I have a question for those of you involved in this program:

"What is a reasonable estimated cost of the Bofors 57mm Mk 3 gun and fittings in a STANFLEX module?"

Also, is it possible and/or advisable to upgrade the MCDV to this gun?

Thanks in advance,

Bearpaw


----------



## Stoker

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> I have a question for those of you involved in this program:
> 
> "What is a reasonable estimated cost of the Bofors 57mm Mk 3 gun and fittings in a STANFLEX module?"
> 
> Also, is it possible and/or advisable to upgrade the MCDV to this gun?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Bearpaw



The gun is too large and the magazine too small. The 40MM will most likely be replaced with a remote operated .50 cal already in inventory.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Are you sure chief?

I am rather hoping someone will smarten up and the BAE Mk38 25 mm gun destined for the HARRY DeWOLF class will also be installed on the MCDV as main gun.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It would make a huge amount of sense from both a logistics and training POV.

Therefore, it will never happen.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Are you sure chief?
> 
> I am rather hoping someone will smarten up and the BAE Mk38 25 mm gun destined for the HARRY DeWOLF class will also be installed on the MCDV as main gun.



I believe it is this one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanuk_Remotely_Controlled_Weapon_Station


----------



## GR66

Just throwing this out there for discussion because I've found that you can learn a great deal from the experienced forum members when they talk about the pros and cons of platforms and equipment suggested by others.

I have seen two different "up-gunned" versions of the LCS floated by Austal (builder of the "Independence" trimaran LCS design).  The first, the "International" LCS had two 8-cell Mk.41 VLS systems on the fore deck and two quad-harpoon launchers on top of the hanger.

The more recent "Multi-Mission Combatant" version has two 8-cell Mk.41 VLS systems on either side of the superstructure (32 cells total) and the 8 x harpoons on the fore deck.

What if you combined those two designs to have a ship with 48 x VLS cells (16 on fore deck and 16 on each side of the superstructure) and the 8 x harpoons above the hanger.  The Mk.41 VLS is modular so you could arm the ships for a wide variety of missions.  For anti-air you could have the front 16 cells each with a quad-pack of Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles for short range defence and the remaining 32 cells with SM-2 missiles for longer range defence.  Other missions could use some of the cells for ASROC torpedoes for ASW.  Making a couple of the VLS launchers the deeper "strike" version (instead of the shallower "tactical" version) would give the option of using some of the cells for Tomahawk cruise missiles or BMD capabilities.

The LCS has a huge flight deck and a large hanger which could support both a helicopter and possible UAVs.  There is also a 11,000 sq ft mission bay.  Since current Canadian doctrine doesn't really plan for using our CSCs for delivering vehicles and troops, perhaps you could cut the size in half to support a larger crew and still have 5,000 sq feet available to support things like mine clearing mission modules, humanitarian supplies, extra RHIBs for boarding missions, a couple of vehicles for disaster relief, etc.

Here's a link to the MMC data sheet on Austal's website:  http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/dd47585d-170b-4e43-a80c-2d849e065b2d/mm-brochure-horiz2011.pdf

A design like this could benefit from commonality with the USN's LCSs and the same basic design could be used for both the anti-air destroyer and corvette versions of the CSC.

We could go even further and eventually replace the Kingston-class with Austal's Multi-Role Vessel which is basically a smaller version of the LCS design.  That ship would (I'm guessing) have some mechanical commonality with the LCS.  The data sheet on the MRV is here:  http://www.austal.com/Resources/Deliveries/4a74c8d1-9ece-4ea8-8693-bcf8493e31cf/mrv-80-data-sheets-sml.pdf


----------



## 63 Delta

Any chance the new ships we are getting will be built in a process like this? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac9_1444671346

Seems like quite the production line.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yup, that's pretty much how it's done.  Modular, just like that.  But without the inspiring music (that was deemed too expensive).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

the virtual reality walkthrough at 4:05 is quite cool


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, much better than what I've seen on our side.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Our friend Michael O'Leary posted this, from 1934, on his blog, "The Regimental Rogue." It is germane today:

http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/blog/index.blog/2356806/canadian-navy-will-continue-with-few-ships/


> The Regimental Rogue
> Canadian Navy will Continue with Few Ships
> 
> No programme of Naval Construction Planned
> Arms at Minimum
> Dominion to Keep Land and Air Forces at Skeleton Strength
> 
> The Gazette, Montreal, Que., 2 January 1934
> (By the Canadian Press)
> 
> Ottawa, January 1.—Canada contemplates no programme of naval construction for 1934, as so far as any Government policy concerns itself with matters of defence the Dominion will embark on no lines of expansion in any branch of the service it was learned here. The four destroyers and three minesweepers which constitute the Royal Canadian Navy will continue to do so; the skeleton strengths of the permanent force units will be so maintained, while whatever is done for the Royal Canadian Air Force will be in the way of replacement only.
> 
> Some years ago the naval branch of the Defence Department had under consideration the laying-up of the minesweepers and building some sloops of the Valerian class to take their place. The advent of the depression however, killed this project, and those 17-year-old drifters remained in commission.
> 
> Of the four drafted into service during the war and given names reminiscent of Canadian military achievement on the west front — "Ypres," "Festubert," "Thiepval," and "Armentieres" — three remain. Thiepval was lost in the Pacific seven years ago. Ypres has now become a "depot ship." Only Festubert and Armentieres continue active.
> 
> Two of Canada's destroyers, "Skeena" and "Saguenay," are at the top of their class as modern warships of that type. They are only three years old, as equipped with every modern device that makes for efficient vessels and are in every respect formidable men o'war. The others, "Champlain" and "Vancouver," are still technically on loan to this country from the Royal Navy, but the Admiralty said good-bye to them long ago and does not expect to get them back. They are 16 years old. Within the next three of four years plans will have to be drawn up for their replacement, and the likelihood is that this will be achieved by constructing two more destroyers of the Saguenay class.
> 
> Shortly after the war, the British Government presented Canada with a small flotilla comprising one light cruiser, "Aurora," and two destroyers, "Patriot" and "Patrician." The cruiser was laid up in 1922. The destroyers continued to serve until almost five years ago when they followed their parent ship to the scrap-heap.
> 
> Canadian naval policy envisages a fleet owned, controlled and manned by Canadians. The first two elements are accomplished facts, the last is being gradually achieved, for the vast majority of the personnel are now natives of this country and, for the first time since naval activities assumed any importance in the Dominion, the Director of Naval Operations—Captain Percy W. Nelles, R.C.N.—is a Canadian.
> 
> Naval policy, however, does not by any means contemplate a "big" navy. It conforms to the resolution of the 1923 Imperial Conference which set forth that "the primary responsibility of each portion of the Empire represented at the conference is for its own local defence." A writer in a recent issue of an English military journal crystallized this in the following terms:
> 
> "With respect to the role of Canada's sea forces, it must be understood that whereas the security of her sea-borne commerce is recognized as a national responsibility, there are certain considerations which must not be lost sight of. At the outmost limits of the sea-lines of communication in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, South America or Africa, etc., an individual Canadian cargo is perhaps hard to find; but at the focal point of the cone, in the vicinity of Canadian waters, these cargoes become, so to speak, congested, and operation against Canadian trade in these limited areas would have an adverse effect on Canadian industry.
> 
> "It must be remembered, however, that Canada is peculiarly well situated. Geographically and strategically, vis-à-vis trans-oceanic power. Our vulnerable focal point lies 5,000 miles on one side and 3,000 miles on the other from any possible overseas adversary. In any maritime conflict it is difficult to conceive of any major forces of possible enemies being detached to attack Canadian trade at these distances, at its most vulnerable point. It is, of course, possible that minor or improvised forces might well be available for such an objective if no defences were maintained to oppose them."
> 
> Reduced to its simplest terms, this means that Canadian naval policy is to guard the sea-lanes which fan out from the mouth of the St. Lawrence, from Halifax and Saint John on the Atlantic, and from Victoria and Vancouver on the Pacific. Beyond that, naval responsibility is regarded as resting elsewhere.
> 
> Whether Canada's present forces are adequate to deal with whatever situation may arise that would demand a practical application of this policy is the concern of the naval experts working in collaboration with the Treasury Department. Warships are expensive, and Canada's financial resources are employed to their limit in taking care of railway deficits, interest on war loans and the national debt, unemployment relief, unbalanced budgets and the administrative services. Having regard to the demands of the Treasury for the maintenance of those features of national existence that are urgent and immediately necessary, any possibility of naval expansion in the near future is so remote as to be ruled out of the picture.



OK, there's no "great depression" going on, but the _recovery_ from the recent "Great Recession" has been, is being anaemic, at best. The _Globe and Mail_ reports that "The $1.4-billion surplus predicted by the Conservatives for the current fiscal year: poof, gone. It’s now a $3-billion hole. The same goes for next year’s $1.7-billion surplus. It’s now a nearly $4-billion shortfall, and so on. And that’s before tallying up the cost of the Liberals’ numerous election promises, which include roughly $5-billion a year worth of additional infrastructure spending." The _National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy_ was not about ships, and it certainly wasn't a _strategy_; it was a statement about the limits of a financial support (subsidy) programme for one sector of the Canadian economy. The Liberals have committed to "meeting the commitments that were made as part of the National Shipbuilding and Procurement Strategy," but I suspect that's in dollar terms, not numbers (or even types) of ships. As recently as two years ago, the Auditor General said that "it's unclear how many ships the strategy will produce, particularly with such cost restrictions in place — meaning the navy could be forced to reduce the fleet size below its needs."

I'm willing to give Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau all the available benefits of all my many doubts about their platform and the recent financial forecast: I suspect that Minister Morneau has asked his officials to "low ball" the forecast so that the Trudeau regime will be able to deal with low expectations, and maybe even exceed them. I believe that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau does plan "to invest in strengthening our Navy," to the tune of the $34 Billion promised by Prime Minister Harper (some of that being for the CCG); I'm just not sure that will procure what _Canada really needs_ ~ not just what the RCN and CCG _want_, but _what Canada needs_. The Conservative "fudged" the numbers to make themselves look good; I am pretty sure the Liberals are "fudging" them again, to give themselves the benefits of low expectations. But nothing alters the fact that $34 Billion will not build the civil and military fleets Canada needs in the 21st century and there is nothing on the horizon ~ no promises of spending priority changes or tax increases to fund defence procurement, for example ~ to suggest that the Government of Canada _wants_ or feels any need to invest in national defence. In other words: welcome to the 1930s.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Our friend Michael O'Leary posted this, from 1934, on his blog, "The Regimental Rogue." It is germane today:
> 
> http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/blog/index.blog/2356806/canadian-navy-will-continue-with-few-ships/


Like they say, everything old is new again - good catch!


----------



## CougarKing

Irving Shipbuilding trying to get Davie's contract? 

CBC



> *Irving Shipbuilding fires back at shipbuilding association criticism
> Shipbuilding Association of Canada says Irving is trying to delay Davie contract*
> 
> By Jennifer Henderson, CBC News Posted: Nov 23, 2015 6:37 PM AT Last Updated: Nov 23, 2015 6:41 PM AT
> 
> 
> The association that represents some Canadian shipbuilders says it's "surprised and disappointed" Halifax's Irving Shipbuilding Inc. is urging the Trudeau government to stall a contract previously awarded to a Quebec shipyard.
> 
> Chantier Davie Canada Inc. of Lévis, Que., wants to convert a civilian cargo ship into a badly needed military supply vessel that would provide fuel, food and ammunition to Royal Canadian Navy ships at sea.
> 
> CBC News reported last week that Irving Shipbuilding had sent letters for four cabinet ministers asking the new Liberal government to delay final approval of the $700-million Davie contract. The deal had been awarded by the Harper government during the October federal election campaign.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Lumber

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Irving Shipbuilding trying to get Davie's contract?



Irving not considering the impact on sailors.


----------



## dimsum

Lumber said:
			
		

> Irving not considering the impact on sailors.



To be fair, no company really thinks of the end user as the reason they do things - it's for profit (or to keep employees working).  I'd doubt that Lockheed-Martin or Northrop Grumman would, in their corporate (not PR dept) hearts, really care about the impact of their products on aircrews/maintenance crews.


----------



## Kirkhill

Dimsum said:
			
		

> To be fair, no company really thinks of the end user as the reason they do things - it's for profit (or to keep employees working).  I'd doubt that Lockheed-Martin or Northrop Grumman would, in their corporate (not PR dept) hearts, really care about the impact of their products on aircrews/maintenance crews.



With respect, that is an incorrect statement. While I acknowledge that it is true of many companies, and in my experience it is more true of small companies than large, any company that loses sight of its first loyalty, to its clients, is destined to fail miserably and spectacularly.

Companies succeed by delivering products that people do not complain about.  

Companies do not succeed by moaning about their competition and criticizing their clients' decisions.  That is a surefire guarantee of losing the next contract.

Irving is being idiotic.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Companies have, above all else, a _fiduciary duty_* to the shareholders to care, again above all else, for the shareholder's investments. More than one CEO and member of a board has found himself/herself in real, legal trouble when shareholders think the corporation is acting in the best interests of anyone, including the workers or the government, rather than in theirs. Courts have somewhat different interpretations in  various jurisdictions throughout Canada, America and the rest of the world, but the _principle_ is the same.

_____
* Fiduciary Duty
   Definition

   A fiduciary duty is a legal duty to act solely in another party's interests. Parties owing this duty are called fiduciaries. The individuals to whom they owe a duty are called principals. Fiduciaries may not profit from their relationship with their principals
   unless they have the principals' express informed consent. They also have a duty to avoid any conflicts of interest between themselves and their principals or between their principals and the fiduciaries' other clients. A fiduciary duty is the
   strictest duty of care recognized by the US legal system.

   Examples of fiduciary relationships include those between a lawyer and her client, a guardian and her ward, and a director and her shareholders.

   Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> With respect, that is an incorrect statement. While I acknowledge that it is true of many companies, and in my experience it is more true of small companies than large, any company that loses sight of its first loyalty, to its clients, is destined to fail miserably and spectacularly.
> 
> Companies succeed by delivering products that people do not complain about.
> 
> Companies do not succeed by moaning about their competition and criticizing their clients' decisions.  That is a surefire guarantee of losing the next contract.
> 
> Irving is being idiotic.



Sadly, it hasn't stopped Irving from getting contract after contract.  I think they have a deal with the Devil or something similar.  They are almost universally loathed and hated by most of the fleet for being a bunch of asshats.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, a report that the UYK will cut its _frigate_ order and build some smaller, presumably cheaper ships, too is something I have been asking about for some time. 

I understand that the _institutional Navy_ wants _major combatants_, _frigates_ that, at about 7,000 tons, displace nearly as much as our last _light cruiser_ (HMCS Ontario (1944-58). But _I suspect_ that the policy centre in Ottawa (PCO, Finance and Treasury Board) might not share that desire. The _centre_ approved, and the new Liberal centre seems inclined to support, the _National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy_ which, as I have pointed out, is, really, a budget (<$35 Billion) for an industrial subsidy programme that hangs it hat on the RCN and CCG because "national security" projects are exempt from the rules of international trade law that, generally, prohibit industrial subsidies.

I wonder if we can get 15 major surface combatants (frigates) from the money allocated. I still wonder if something like eight to 10 frigates and six or eight or even 10 _corvettes_ ~ less than, say, 2,000 tons, less than 50 crew, less than 30% of the cost of a frigate, but with 60+% or so of the capability ~ might not be a politically better "fit" for Canada.


----------



## Lumber

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I still wonder if something like eight to 10 frigates and six or eight or even 10 _corvettes_ ~ less than, say, 2,000 tons, less than 50 crew, less than 30% of the cost of a frigate, but with 60+% or so of the capability ~ might not be a politically better "fit" for Canada.



This is why we need a new white paper, and we need to stick to it. Things in the world have changed a bit since 2006, including the economy. While I would love to see a modest fleet of AA destroyers, frigates, and a pair of assault carriers, we just can't afford it. If we don't get the number of ships originally promised, and our Defence Strategy remains the same, then I feel the Navy is going to be extremely handicapped in its ability to execute its mandate.


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Sadly, it hasn't stopped Irving from getting contract after contract.  I think they have a deal with the Devil or something similar.  They are almost universally loathed and hated by most of the fleet for being a bunch of asshats.



That would suggest that the Fleet is not their client.  Politicians or PWGSC may be their client.  Consider it the Naval version of the single payer health care system.  You get what you are given, not what you need.

ERC:

I accept the fiduciary responsibility of the corporation - but that in no way diminishes the fact that companies will not exist without customers.  And revenues do not flow unless customers are satisfied.

And workers and the government are not in the same basket as customers.  Customers supply revenues.  Workers and the Government are pure costs. Except when the Government is the customer - as is the case with Irvings.


----------



## Privateer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Companies have, above all else, a _fiduciary duty_* to the shareholders to care, again above all else, for the shareholder's investments. More than one CEO and member of a board has found himself/herself in real, legal trouble when shareholders think the corporation is acting in the best interests of anyone, including the workers or the government, rather than in theirs. Courts have somewhat different interpretations in  various jurisdictions throughout Canada, America and the rest of the world, but the _principle_ is the same.



I feel compelled to point out that this is not a correct statement of the law with respect to fiduciary duties, at least in Canada.  I do hear statements from people from time to time, that "the company owes a fiduciary duty to its shareholders" or, more commonly, that "the directors of a company owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders".  Neither statement is correct as a rule.

There is a rule that directors of a corporation owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation itself, not to the shareholders.  As the Supreme Court of Canada said in _BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders_, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 560, 2008 SCC 69 (link: http://canlii.ca/t/21xpk ):



> 37     The fiduciary duty of the directors to the corporation originated in the common law. It is a duty to act in the best interests of the corporation. Often the interests of shareholders and stakeholders are co-extensive with the interests of the corporation. But if they conflict, the directors' duty is clear -- it is to the corporation: Peoples Department Stores.
> 
> 38     The fiduciary duty of the directors to the corporation is a broad, contextual concept. It is not confined to short-term profit or share value. Where the corporation is an ongoing concern, it looks to the long-term interests of the corporation. The content of this duty varies with the situation at hand. At a minimum, it requires the directors to ensure that the corporation meets its statutory obligations. But, depending on the context, there may also be other requirements. In any event, the fiduciary duty owed by directors is mandatory; directors must look to what is in the best interests of the corporation.
> 
> 39     In Peoples Department Stores, this Court found that although directors must consider the best interests of the corporation, it may also be appropriate, although not mandatory, to consider the impact of corporate decisions on shareholders or particular groups of stakeholders. As stated by Major and Deschamps JJ., at para. 42:
> 
> "We accept as an accurate statement of law that in determining whether they are acting with a view to the best interests of the corporation it may be legitimate, given all the circumstances of a given case, for the board of directors to consider, inter alia, the interests of shareholders, employees, suppliers, creditors, consumers, governments and the environment.
> 
> As will be discussed, cases dealing with claims of oppression have further clarified the content of the fiduciary duty of directors with respect to the range of interests that should be considered in determining what is in the best interests of the corporation, acting fairly and responsibly."
> 
> 40     In considering what is in the best interests of the corporation, directors may look to the interests of, inter alia, shareholders, employees, creditors, consumers, governments and the environment to inform their decisions. Courts should give appropriate deference to the business judgment of directors who take into account these ancillary interests, as reflected by the business judgment rule. The "business judgment rule" accords deference to a business decision, so long as it lies within a range of reasonable alternatives: see Maple Leaf Foods Inc. v. Schneider Corp. (1998), 42 O.R. (3d) 177 (C.A.); Kerr v. Danier Leather Inc., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 331, 2007 SCC 44. It reflects the reality that directors, who are mandated under s. 102(1) of the CBCA to manage the corporation's business and affairs, are often better suited to determine what is in the best interests of the corporation. This applies to decisions on stakeholders' interests, as much as other directorial decisions.
> 
> ...
> 
> 66     The fact that the conduct of the directors is often at the centre of oppression actions might seem to suggest that directors are under a direct duty to individual stakeholders who may be affected by a corporate decision. Directors, acting in the best interests of the corporation, may be obliged to consider the impact of their decisions on corporate stakeholders, such as the debentureholders in these appeals. This is what we mean when we speak of a director being required to act in the best interests of the corporation viewed as a good corporate citizen. However, the directors owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation, and only to the corporation. People sometimes speak in terms of directors owing a duty to both the corporation and to stakeholders. Usually this is harmless, since the reasonable expectations of the stakeholder in a particular outcome often coincide with what is in the best interests of the corporation. However, cases (such as these appeals) may arise where these interests do not coincide. In such cases, it is important to be clear that the directors owe their duty to the corporation, not to stakeholders, and that the reasonable expectation of stakeholders is simply that the directors act in the best interests of the corporation.



A court will examine the specific facts of each case to determine whether one person (natural or juridical) owes another person fiduciary duties on an _ad hoc_ basis, but there is no general rule that corporations or directors owe fiduciary duties to shareholders.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Understood, Privateer, but according to its own website, "J.D. Irving, Limited is a diverse family owned company with operations in Canada and the United States." Now, I understand that the shareholders are family members but that doesn't mean one family member cannot sue the other in US courts, like Delaware, where fiduciary duty is taken seriously.


----------



## Privateer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Understood, Privateer, but according to its own website, "J.D. Irving, Limited is a diverse family owned company with operations in Canada and the United States." Now, I understand that the shareholders are family members but that doesn't mean one family member cannot sue the other in US courts, like Delaware, where fiduciary duty is taken seriously.



That would depend on where the particular J.D. Irving corporation and the particular shareholder are resident.  It looks like there are multiple related corporations.

I can assure you that the courts here do take fiduciary duty very seriously, where such duties exist under Canadian law.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _CBC_'s James Cudmore (who is a member here) takes a look at the shipbuilding strategy in a report headlined: "Shipbuilding strategy needs work to get ballooning costs under control, ministers told."

Mr Cudmore says that "The government's massive $39-billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy (NSPS) is in need of repair, with costs for some projects soaring by as much as 181 per cent and others on the cusp of being cancelled, according to briefing materials prepared for some Liberal ministers."

The crux of the report is that the money, $30-40 Billion, is, very simply, insufficient to do the two things required:

     1. Rebuild a Canadian specialist shipbuilding capability that the Government (of the day) of Canada "crashed it in the 1980s" ~ a specific reference to the end of the CPF project and the eventual (2003) decision to close the Saint John Shipbuilding enterprise; and

     2. Build new warships and specialist Coast Guard vessels.

In _my opinion_ there is enough money for 2 (actually building ships) but not for 1 and 2, together.

The issue is, now, further complicated by the entry of Davie (Levis, QC) into the fray with its proposal to modify a container ship into an AOR_ish_ vessel and lease it to the Government of Canada which has caused concerns within the competitive ranks of the Canadian shipbuilding industry.


----------



## jollyjacktar

You can also add to the mix, IIRC there will be penalties payable to Davies this week in the amount of $89 million if the contract is not signed.  Thanks, Irving, once again for your outstanding assistance to the Canadian taxpayer.


----------



## NavyShooter

But.....Irving always does first rate work, their quality is top-notch!  I saw it first-hand with MON when we got her back.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

ERC, I don't think that the entry of Davie "complicates" the matter.

I know that many reporters like to point out that Davie was not selected or lost out in the selection process of the NCSS. But that simply is not true. At the time of the selection competition, Davie did not apply. It was under bankruptcy protection.

After the yard was acquired by European interests, it tried a last minute effort to be considered for the non-combatants work only, but its participation was denied as too late.

That was now three or four years ago. Did you see davie "bitchin", making threats to the government on a political level, sending letters or stating it would resort to the courts? No. They did not qualify and for them that was the end of it.

Now, three years later, with the program for non-combatants suffering delays and the decrepitude of the Navy's AOR's forcing their retirement, Davie makes a proposal for an interim solution to the government. This solution is completely outside of the NCSS.

So who comes in complaining? Irving. Already the biggest winner of the NCSS, and complaining about work that belongs to Seaspan anyway - who is not itself complaining. And what is their complaint? I re-read very carefully their letter to the ministers: They are not complaining that they could not put forth a proposal. They did put one out there. It was rejected after analysis. What they are complaining about is that the reason(s) for their project not being accepted was not explained to them. That is their sole beef, and they are now trying to use that excuse to get the new government to completely re-open the matter and give them a second crack at getting that work. Talk about whinny brats.

Personally, if that is the way Irving wants to play and I was Davie, I would take the opportunity of any "review" of the NCSS to go out, get an existing modern and up to date design for a destroyer/frigate, make a good costing of it and go to the government and lobby to say: "Look, Irving is screwing you on the costs side. I can do this for about 2/3 of their price". But that's just me, I have been known to hold a grudge.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ERC, I don't think that the entry of Davie "complicates" the matter.
> 
> I know that many reporters like to point out that Davie was not selected or lost out in the selection process of the NCSS. But that simply is not true. At the time of the selection competition, Davie did not apply. It was under bankruptcy protection.
> 
> After the yard was acquired by European interests, it tried a last minute effort to be considered for the non-combatants work only, but its participation was denied as too late.
> 
> That was now three or four years ago. Did you see davie "bitchin", making threats to the government on a political level, sending letters or stating it would resort to the courts? No. They did not qualify and for them that was the end of it.
> 
> Now, three years later, with the program for non-combatants suffering delays and the decrepitude of the Navy's AOR's forcing their retirement, Davie makes a proposal for an interim solution to the government. This solution is completely outside of the NCSS.
> 
> So who comes in complaining? Irving. Already the biggest winner of the NCSS, and complaining about work that belongs to Seaspan anyway - who is not itself complaining. And what is their complaint? I re-read very carefully their letter to the ministers: They are not complaining that they could not put forth a proposal. They did put one out there. It was rejected after analysis. What they are complaining about is that the reason(s) for their project not being accepted was not explained to them. That is their sole beef, and they are now trying to use that excuse to get the new government to completely re-open the matter and give them a second crack at getting that work. Talk about whinny brats.
> 
> Personally, if that is the way Irving wants to play and I was Davie, I would take the opportunity of any "review" of the NCSS to go out, get an existing modern and up to date design for a destroyer/frigate, make a good costing of it and go to the government and lobby to say: "Look, Irving is screwing you on the costs side. I can do this for about 2/3 of their price". But that's just me, I have been known to hold a grudge.



Despite my son working at Irving, sigh..., I would so love to see them get their teeth kicked down their throats for a change.  That's a good suggestion you've made, OGBD.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I stick by "complicates." This is a political process; it's an industrial subsidy programme that only, peripherally, involves the RCN and CCG because that (using "national security") is how one gets around WTO rules (and potential sanctions) about illegal industrial subsidies. The final programme will, of necessity reflect political/industrial/economic realities ~ warships are an afterthought and an excuse, not the object of the exercise.

I half understood why Davie was excluded from the NSPS, but I still believe that governments will want to direct work to a major Quebec yard ~ I think it makes good industrial policy sense.

I don't know how anyone plans to square the circle of keeping three shipbuilding centres "busy" enough over the next 50 years ~ which is one of the things a "strategy" ought to consider. It means, of course, extended programmes building in "batches" while, I guess, further extending the life of the existing (already life extended) fleet.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

But the political process is all done: The NCSS yards have been selected and the work is being apportioned to them under the Strategy.

Davie is not trying to butt-in to the NCSS work, they just happened top make a side proposal for a small interim aspect not touched by the NCSS resulting from delays in acquisitions.

Davie did not make waves to get government work at all costs. Since it has been acquired by European interests, it has made a good living from work on one-off highly specialized ships (that are not the cookie-cuter ones you have built in Asia), which they can build at 60% of the cost of building same in Europe, and by building for the US Navy (they build modules for the landing ship docks, the supply ships and aircraft carriers). 

So they don't complicate things because they are not actively seeking to change the NCSS. Irving on the other hand ...


----------



## Kirkhill

I continue to believe that Irving should not have been given the AOPS.  It should have been left on the West Coast as a Civilian Vessel where the design teams had done the preliminary work and were familiar both with patrol vessels and arctic vessels.

Check the lineage of the AOPS, the Svalbard and Double Acting Icebreaking Tankers - STX, Aker, Kvaerner Masa, West Coast Manly.

I also continue to believe that Seaspan/Washington Marine, left to its own devices, and based on its commercial background, is equally capable of supplying cost effective logistic solutions to the Navy.  

http://www.seaspancorp.com/fleet-summary/managed-fleet/


----------



## jmt18325

The problem there is that Seaspan already has more pressing work than Irving.  We have the Halifax and the Kingston.  They're at least capable of doing the job.

We have no AOR, we're in danger of culling heavy icebreakers, and we're in real danger of the CCG being reduced to a shadow of what it is even today.  Adding the AOPS to that just wouldn't work.


----------



## Kirkhill

Fair enough - should the AORs be bumped up ahead of the OFSVs for the Coast Guard then?


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Fair enough - should the AORs be bumped up ahead of the OFSVs for the Coast Guard then?



Maybe, but then the Hudson is even older than the AORs were.  Apparently it's only miracles keeping her around.  The Same is true of the Louis S St Laurent.  

The CCGS Terry Fox (the 'new' heavy icebreaker) was originally scheduled to be decommissioned in 2020.  She was built in 1983.  The Louis S St Laurent is 14 years older than her.  There are two other icebreakers older than the Terry Fox (or is it 3?).  To add to that, the large multi task vessels (light icebreakers) aren't even in the que yet and have to wait for the OOSV, the JSS, the Diefenbaker,  5 medium multi task vessels, and 5 offshore patrol vessels.  There will also, at some point, need to be a replacement for another batch of mid shore patrol ships and for the other OOSV.

There are, all told (including what is building) 30 - 35 vessels that need to be built for the CCG in the next 20 years.  Some of them are very sophisticated and expensive.


----------



## Kirkhill

So the Davie solution manages a problem that was evident when the NSPS was put in place but has become exacerbated by the loss of the AORs - and would allow the Diefenbaker to be moved forward (and whisper it) maybe a sister to be built.

And let Irving focus on getting out the 6 AOPS and 15 CSC hulls.  As to how many dollars of gucci kit, the navy wants PWGSC to buy to put in the hulls, and which hulls should get what kit, and how many sailors they are willing to trade for the dollars to buy that kit.....

Other interesting questions.


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So the Davie solution manages a problem that was evident when the NSPS was put in place but has become exacerbated by the loss of the AORs - and would allow the Diefenbaker to be moved forward (and whisper it) maybe a sister to be built.



I would imagine, given the conciliatory tone of Coillard at the First Minister's meeting, that it will probably proceed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The sniveling and whining on CBC is sickening, did the CPC do a great job, perhaps not but looking at the history of ship building contracts in Canada, they really did set out to fix a systemic problem in regards to the ship building industry and I not sure anyone could have done a better job handling the political considerations.


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> The sniveling and whining on CBC is sickening, did the CPC do a great job, perhaps not but looking at the history of ship building contracts in Canada, they really did set out to fix a systemic problem in regards to the ship building industry and I not sure anyone could have done a better job handling the political considerations.



The problem is that it took too long.  If they would have started in 2006 rather than 2009 - 2010, we'd be in possession of 1 AOPS, all 3 OFSVs and most of the way towards another AOPS and the OOSV.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

No argument there, but I don't think the politicians had wrapped their heads around the immensity of the problem at that time.


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> No argument there, but I don't think the politicians had wrapped their heads around the immensity of the problem at that time.



That's the real problem.  Really this is all about 10 years too late.  That means that from now until 2030 - 2035, it's going to be a job just to keep the capability we have, especially on the non combat side.  We've already lost everything that we're going to on the Combat side.  Arguably, the retirement of the 280s and the reallocation of parts of their crew has left the combat side of the navy stronger than it has been in years, especially as the last of the Halifax class make their way through their upgrade program.  

I fully expect that the last 280 will be retired in early 2017, as the last 330 reaches IOC after its update.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.casr.ca/ft-adv-sidebar2.htm



> Canadian Defence Procurement  –  sidebar  –  February 2004
> 
> Streamlining Defence Procurement:   Can  NDHQ  deliver ?
> 
> Recommendations to _*former Minister of National Defence, John McCallum*_,
> by his Select Advisory Group (on Administrative Efficiencies)
> 
> Sidebar 2  —  ALSC:  an Example of Inappropriate Procurement Projects.
> No relation to CF needs, a lack of strategic focus, and simply unaffordable.
> 
> Update: Another successful rebranding exercise by DND planners. ALSC became the Joint Support Ship Project. The $2.6B JSS project became a cornerstone of the Harper government's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy in July of  2010.
> 
> Joint Support Ships/ALSC  –  the 'Afloat Logistics Sealift Capability' program
> 
> Size comparison - Joint Support Ship/ALSC (behind) looms over Protecteur The ALSC project dates back to 1992.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Totally unsurprising news.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.



> Exclusive
> Cost to build navy's new warships more than doubles to $30B
> 
> Independent analysis suggests Canada will have to accept fewer ships — or spend a lot more money
> 
> By James Cudmore, CBC News Posted: Dec 01, 2015 4:00 PM ET| Last Updated: Dec 01, 2015 4:00 PM ET
> 
> The price of 15 new warships for the navy has more than doubled, from $14 billion initially set aside for construction to more than $30 billion, says an independent analysis of the largest military procurement in Canadian history.
> 
> That takes the total cost to upgrade Canada's navy to $42 billion — $16 billion more than the $26.2-billion approved by the government for the Canadian Surface Combatant program.
> 
> That would make the warships component alone more expensive than the approved budget for the entire national shipbuilding program, which also includes supply ships, coast guard ships and Arctic vessels.
> 
> The cost analysis was conducted by the firm A.T. Kearney earlier this year.   Kearney was asked to provide a qualitative analysis that examines "the relationship between the draft requirements and the feasibility and affordability of delivering a solution that achieves full mission performance."
> 
> The report has not been released, but CBC News has learned the blunt answer is that it would be impossible to deliver the ships the navy asked for at the price the Defence Department had set.
> 
> Budget too low?
> 
> The project budget was set years ago at $26.2 billion. Of that, $14 billion was to be spent on the design and construction of warships.
> 
> The rest of the budget is for the provision for ammunition, infrastructure costs such as jetties, spare equipment and support.
> 
> It's the cost for the design and construction that has been found to have more than doubled.
> 
> Those costs were confirmed to CBC News by officials and staff of the former Conservative government, some of whom had been briefed on the report's contents.
> 
> One of those sources said the navy had specified requirements for its new warships that would make them "the most capable ships in the world."
> 
> The former official said the navy's requirements would make the vessels among the fastest single hull warships in operation.
> 
> Some capabilities don't yet exist
> 
> Many of those requirements are also said to be developmental, in other words a capability that does not yet exist or requires further work before it's ready for production.
> 
> Developmental costs are hugely expensive and difficult to peg, industry sources say. It's impossible to know exactly how much it will cost to develop the technology to make a requirement feasible.
> 
> That level of complexity — and the budget uncertainty it produced — angered one former Conservative official, who said the navy was demanding a warship beyond Canada's needs.
> 
> "Why do we need to be better than the Brits and the Americans," the official wondered. "We're a middle power."
> 
> The Kearney report is controversial within government. It was paid for by Irving Shipbuilding Inc., the company selected to build combat ships for the navy.
> 
> The audit was tendered with the approval of Conservative government officials, who after recognizing increasing budget problems in the $39-billion National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy were anxious to see an independent assessment of what the Defence Department's demands would actually cost.
> 
> Liberals warned about growing costs
> 
> Some allege the Defence Department tried to keep the Kearney report under wraps, claiming the information was protected by regulation.
> 
> The tension between Defence and other actors in the procurement system has been high since former public works minister Rona Ambrose forced a reset of the controversial process to replace the CF-18 fighter jets.
> 
> That file became problematic once it was learned the full cost to own and operate the preferred F-35s was in the neighbourhood of $25 billion — far more than the $9-billion purchase price Defence had once advertised.
> 
> There's a similar discussion underway with ships. The full cost of 15 of those new warships, including personnel, operating and maintenance costs over 30 years, was set at more than $90 billion.
> 
> With the production cost increases pegged by Kearney, the full warship budget grows to more than $106 billion.
> 
> The trouble might not end there.
> 
> Could costs grow?
> 
> Others in the industry expect production costs to grow even further.
> 
> They point to Australia's current experience with the Hobart-class warship, which is a rough equivalent in air-defence capability to what is proposed for three of Canada's 15 new warships.
> 
> Australia's Hobart-class is over budget and projected to cost nearly $3 billion per ship. If that trend holds for Canada, costs could climb yet again.
> 
> It's this reality the new federal cabinet was briefed about earlier this month.
> 
> Last week, CBC News reported Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Public Services Minister Judy Foote were warned the shipbuilding strategy is in need of repair, with costs for some projects soaring by as much as 181 per cent and others on the cusp of being cancelled.
> 
> A briefing to the ministers called for an "action plan" to get the program back on track.
> 
> Tradeoff: Cost vs. capability
> 
> Put simply, the government will have to decide how much capability is appropriate for the Canadian navy and at what cost.
> 
> Dave Perry, a defence analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said there is a significant funding issue that could affect capability.
> 
> "It's a question of what the government actually wants to do. Do they want to maximize on the numbers? Do they want to maximize on the capability?"
> 
> Perry agreed officials have underestimated the true cost of each ship.
> 
> "I certainly think that [the cost is] at least $2 billion for a fully capable ship, the ones they're talking about with sophisticated air defence capability, as well as the ability to lead in a task group function," he said. "And potentially more, depending on exactly what goes into it and when they're built."
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nsps-naval-ship-procurement-costs-1.3345435


----------



## Kirkhill

How many AAW variants?
How many Cmd variants?
How many GP variants?
How many fitted "for not with" Stanflex variants?

Gap is between Navy's "want" and Government's "purse".  "Need" is unknown and variable.


----------



## AlexanderM

Just cancel the contract with Irving already and go a different direction, or inform Irving that we will not be signing the contract, as it has not yet been signed.


----------



## GAP

> Cost to build navy's new warships more than doubles to $30B



Well, gee, that's surprising.....hmmm....maybe this made in Canada thingy isn't gonna work......might be time to check out other suppliers worldwide to either wholly or partially do the job at a reasonable price

After all, this is a new government with a whole new mandate......


----------



## dimsum

GAP said:
			
		

> Well, gee, that's surprising.....hmmm....maybe this made in Canada thingy isn't gonna work......might be time to check out other suppliers worldwide to either wholly or partially do the job at a reasonable price
> 
> After all, this is a new government with a whole new mandate......



And destroy the current political power they have in Atlantic Canada (and western Canada if Seaspan's contracts don't go ahead)?  Not a chance.


----------



## AlexanderM

Dimsum said:
			
		

> And destroy the current political power they have in Atlantic Canada (and western Canada if Seaspan's contracts don't go ahead)?  Not a chance.


They don't have to cancel the Seaspan contract, they could have them build 1-2 more large Icebreakers and then have the AOR's built in Korea, like the Brits and we'd still save money.  Then give Davie a chance to bid on the CSC, Irving still gets the AOP's.


----------



## Kirkhill

PS

Did anybody ever ask for 15 Hobarts or AAW equivalents?


----------



## Underway

The exact quote was 3 of the 15 ships will be equivalent of the Hobarts.

The Gov't will spend the money.  Atlantic Canada votes beckon.  That and it won't even be this government that gets to decide on the final cost, it will be the one 8 years from now that gets to cancel the last few ships because of cost.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:
			
		

> The exact quote was 3 of the 15 ships will be equivalent of the Hobarts.
> 
> The Gov't will spend the money.  Atlantic Canada votes beckon.  That and it won't even be this government that gets to decide on the final cost, _it will be the one 8 years from now that gets to cancel the last few ships because of cost_.




Or gets to make a silk purse from a sow's ear by s t r e t c h i n g the procurement into three "batches" (interspersed with one life extension of the already life extended _Halifaxes_ and two batches of small combatants) thus giving us a real viable, long term shipbuilding programme.


----------



## AlexanderM

So Aegis is being selected over Smart-L/APAR?


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> The exact quote was 3 of the 15 ships will be equivalent of the Hobarts.



Thanks for that..... I am afraid a bit of a red film clouded my vision momentarily.  Need to work on that blood pressure thingy.


----------



## jollyjacktar

There are two clips attached to this story.  V/Adm Norman and Rosemay Barton coming off the top ropes on the Liberals in the political panel discussion.  As a sure sign it's the end times, the Dippers are saying we need to build more ships etc.  The Liberals look as if they're going to bail to some degree.  Not so easy now that they're in the driver's seat...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/warships-30-billion-navy-mark-norman-1.3347145


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> There are two clips attached to this story.  V/Adm Norman and Rosemay Barton coming off the top ropes on the Liberals in the political panel discussion.  As a sure sign it's the end times, the Dippers are saying we need to build more ships etc.  The Liberals look as if they're going to bail to some degree.  Not so easy now that they're in the driver's seat...
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/warships-30-billion-navy-mark-norman-1.3347145




From the _CBC News_ story:

          ""I will say that [any number] that's in a single digit is inadequate to Canada's needs," Norman said."

The initial plan was for 15 ... suppose we go for, say, 18, but only nine (single digits) are major surface combatants (destroyer/frigate at, nominally, 5,000+ tons) while the other nine (still a single digit) are small combatants, still ocean going warships but less than, say, 2,500 tons and less than 25% the capital, cost of a major combatant and less than 20% of the costs to crew and operate, day-by-day, but able to do more than 65% of the tasks.

I know, I know ...  :deadhorse:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

A guy I worked with questioned yesterday "why we even need a Navy?" 

If a Major in the CAF says that, imagine what joe blow is saying on the street?  This is what we are dealing with folks, idiocy of the highest level.  It's up to us, through guys like Admiral Norman, to educate the uneducated!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes, ERC, you are beating a dead horse!

But seriously, I believe there are many things people in these forums who are non-naval types (or are only merchant navy types) don't seem to fully appreciate.

First of all: The largest part of the cost of a warship is not the hull and machinery (which is all of the cost in merchant ships), its in the weapons systems/sensors/communication gear and combat systems integration. So, the main point in reducing cost is not to reduce the size of the ship, but rather to cut down on weapons systems and combat systems integration. 

Second of all: Saying a ship can do 40% or 60% or 100% of the tasks is meaningless in naval terms. Each ship must be able to carry out 100% of the tasks it is equipped to do and, when sent on a task alone (or in a task group), it (they) must be able to do 100% of the task it is (they are) sent to do. The only relevant question for a warship is "what threat am I going to face and what capability must I have to face it successfully?"

Thirdly: I'll say it again - the defence of Canada's coast is carried out at thousands of Nautical miles from it - so only a deep sea ships can do that.

Finally, when selecting the weapons and equipment fit of future warships, it is important to remember that you are starting a process that takes ten t fifteen years before the first ship joins the fleet, where that ship is expected to serve for thirty to forty years. So you have to ask yourself, from the start, what developments in weaponry and threat can I expect to face in the next twenty to thirty years and what provision can I make now for the ship being upgradable at its mid-life?.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> A guy I worked with questioned yesterday "why we even need a Navy?"
> 
> If a Major in the CAF says that, imagine what joe blow is saying on the street?  This is what we are dealing with folks, idiocy of the highest level.  It's up to us, through guys like Admiral Norman, to educate the uneducated!



I think that is what Admiral Norman is suggesting: a public debate where he can explain the facts of life to Canadians (A First Sea Lord of the Cold War era once said: "Navies are expensive, but a damn sight cheaper than not having them").

As of your friend, you can always ask him "what do we even need C-17's for?". Also you can tell him he can diss the Navy when the airforce starts having real cargo capability (over 40,000 tons per trip) and when all of the world's cargo planes start carrying more than 5% of the world's trade  ;D. Remind him that currently, 90% of that trade goes by sea.


----------



## suffolkowner

This blow up in costs shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, it's been talked about since day one. There are no cost controls on Irving and Seaspan and every day that the project is delayed inflation eats into the budget. It is interesting that all 3 parties remain committed to a blue water navy built in Canada. Like OGBD pointed out in the CSC thread I was under the impression that $26B was for the construction of the ships not $14B! I would work different numbers though say $3.5B x 4 AAD = $14B, that's just going off Australia's numbers from a slightly more mature shipbuilding industry and that dreaded inflation again. It would not surprise me to see $4B per AAD. What that leaves to fill out the fleet is anyone's guess, but like ERC I think we should be looking at a mixed fleet of combatants.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think that is what Admiral Norman is suggesting: a public debate where he can explain the facts of life to Canadians (A First Sea Lord of the Cold War era once said: "Navies are expensive, but a damn sight cheaper than not having them").
> 
> As of your friend, you can always ask him "what do we even need C-17's for?". Also you can tell him he can diss the Navy when the airforce starts having real cargo capability (over 40,000 tons per trip) and when all of the world's cargo planes start carrying more than 5% of the world's trade  ;D. Remind him that currently, 90% of that trade goes by sea.



when I ask people how their TV's and toys got to the store, many of them said "by train?" I said "From China?" and they still thought it came by train. Most people are in total ignorance of the infrastructure web around them, until a piece breaks.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Colin P said:
			
		

> when I ask people how their TV's and toys got to the store, many of them said "by train?" I said "From China?" and they still thought it came by train. Most people are in total ignorance of the infrastructure web around them, until a piece breaks.




But, and it's a HUGE _BUT_, even if you manage to convince the "ordinary Canadian," the taxpaying voter, that the sea lines of communications are vital to his or her comfort and security it will be a real, major stretch to convince her/him that the navy, especially _our_ Navy is, somehow, connected; if (s)he does understand that navies keep the SLOC open, keep commerce flowing, etc, (s)he is most likely to think it is the US Navy's job ... because the US is the biggest beneficiary of global trade and commerce.

This is a political problem about how much money "we," the nation, spend on one industrial sector to create and keep the "jobs! Jobs!! JOBS!!!"

I know, still a  :deadhorse: ... but it's _*not*_ about warships, for ships of any kind, it's all about industrial support and subsidies and "regional development," and so on.


----------



## suffolkowner

I'm not sure protecting commercial shipping from pirates is a good reason to defend a $4B capital purchase.


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Thirdly: I'll say it again - the defence of Canada's coast is carried out at thousands of Nautical miles from it - so only a deep sea ships can do that.



This reminds me of something an instructor said at some point:  

Q:  How many ships does it take to destroy the 20 largest North American cities?

A:  One.  At thousands of miles away and likely not even seen until it's too late (if it's an SSBN).


----------



## Kirkhill

Dimsum said:
			
		

> This reminds me of something an instructor said at some point:
> 
> Q:  How many ships does it take to destroy the 20 largest North American cities?
> 
> A:  One.  At thousands of miles away and likely not even seen until it's too late (if it's an SSBN).



15 Hulls with 15 Crews flying 15 flags

15x 225 MUSD if Absalons
15x 325 MUSD if Huitfeldts
15x 100 MUSD if Rasmussens
15x 100 MUSD if Svalbards
15x 150 MUSD if Hollands
15x 200 MUSD if Maersk Triple Es

The prices of supplying transportation, logistic support, showing the flag and conducting sovereignty patrols 1.5 to 5 BUSD.

Add weapons and crew numbers to suit the mission and the price goes up from there.

There is no upper limit on what it is possible to spend.  There is a lower limit.  That is clearly definable.

Everything above the lower limit is a matter of choice.  And even the lower limit can be adjusted downwards by deciding the Coast Guard can do the Navy's job.

I can understand the desire to see if you can get a bit more out of the system.  But it may also be possible to overplay the hand and end up with less.


----------



## Lumber

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I'm not sure protecting commercial shipping from pirates is a good reason to defend a $4B capital purchase.



This is a good point.

No body's navies are shooting at each other (right now). The biggest threats to international trade are pirates and terrorism. Do you need an AAD to escort merchies through the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb? How likely is Canada to get into an actual shooting war with a country that has a first-world navy? Maybe we should spend the money on faster, special operations platforms armed with point-defence and force protection vice convential AAW/ASuW/ASW. 

Just a thought.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Well the old maxum is we're always training and equipping for the last war.


----------



## AlexanderM

Lumber said:
			
		

> This is a good point.
> 
> No body's navies are shooting at each other (right now). The biggest threats to international trade are pirates and terrorism. Do you need an AAD to escort merchies through the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb? How likely is Canada to get into an actual shooting war with a country that has a first-world navy? Maybe we should spend the money on faster, special operations platforms armed with point-defence and force protection vice convential AAW/ASuW/ASW.
> 
> Just a thought.


If a shooting war begins you just ran out of time to prepare for a shooting war.


----------



## suffolkowner

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a blue water navy. I just don't think the need for one has been clearly explained. Is it to constrain Chinese/Russian ambitions? Fine. To pull our weight in the international community? Again fine. Defence against pirates and drug smugglers seems like a stretch for 15 6000 tonne ships. This whole 15 major surface combatants seems like a case of the RCN having eyes bigger than their stomach.


----------



## Sub_Guy

No.  Not to long ago 16 major surface combatants.  So 15 is not a case of the RCN having eyes bigger than their stomach.

I say cut the army out all together and fund the Navy.  What do we need an army for?  If any force is going to attack us they will be approaching from one of the three oceans.  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill

A pox on both houses - F35s are the magic bullet.

With that said - 

I am absolutely sure that when Constable painted this in 1839 







the discussion was about breaking up ships of the line while wasting silver on building frigates for the West Africa Squadron anti-slavery patrol.



> By the 1850s, around 25 vessels and 2,000 officers and men were on the station, supported by nearly 1,000 'Kroomen', experienced fishermen recruited as sailors from what is now the coast of modern Liberia.
> 
> Service on the West Africa Squadron was a thankless and overwhelming task, full of risk and posing a constant threat to the health of the crews involved. Contending with pestilential swamps and violent encounters, the mortality rate was 55 per 1,000 men, compared with 10 for fleets in the Mediterranean or in home waters.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/royal_navy_article_01.shtml

Nevermind that that non-military, constabulary role gave Britain the moral authority to rule the waves for the next 100 years and the public support to finance it.

And with that public support they managed to fund a fleet of these


----------



## GR66

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> If a shooting war begins you just ran out of time to prepare for a shooting war.



I think this is a hugely important point.  Gearing up naval production for a conflict will be slower than for either of the other elements due to the size and complexity of the platforms.  We'll never have enough money to provide for every capability that we would WANT in preparation for a conflict but we should definitely provide a solid base to cover what we realistically might NEED in a conflict.

We as a nation really must decide what we NEED our military to be able to do and what we'd LIKE our military to be able to do.  Only then can we wisely spend the huge amounts of money that arming our military requires.


----------



## jmt18325

With even the UK looking for more of a high low mix, it seems that it may be necessary to do the following:

3 AAD ships of a lesser capability than we were originally planning so that at least 1 can always be deployed;
6 multirole ships with ASW warfare so that at least one can always be deployed from each coast;
6 corvettes, or at the very most, basic frigates of a smaller size.  These would have gun and self defence armament and would be able to do 90% of what the RCN does.


----------



## suffolkowner

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> With even the UK looking for more of a high low mix, it seems that it may be necessary to do the following:
> 
> 3 AAD ships of a lesser capability than we were originally planning so that at least 1 can always be deployed;
> 6 multirole ships with ASW warfare so that at least one can always be deployed from each coast;
> 6 corvettes, or at the very most, basic frigates of a smaller size.  These would have gun and self defence armament and would be able to do 90% of what the RCN does.



I'm somewhat in agreement with this, I believe I read somewhere that US studies have shown that 9 hulls was the minimum needed from cost perspectives(?). I wouldn't necessarily be in favour of sacrificing capability, in fact I would hope that all the ships would be more capable than the Halifax class. Smaller frigates can be extremely capable as well look at Singapores Formidable class.


----------



## jmt18325

I think Stanflex with the same hull for all is the answer then.  I'm questioning if we're not giving up too much for AAD in this case.  15 capable frigates in all areas from point defence to ASW to ASuW would be far more affordable.


----------



## AlexanderM

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I think Stanflex with the same hull for all is the answer then.  I'm questioning if we're not giving up too much for AAD in this case.  15 capable frigates in all areas from point defence to ASW to ASuW would be far more affordable.


I'd pick Ivars myself, but not with Irving.


----------



## dimsum

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> No.  Not to long ago 16 major surface combatants.  So 15 is not a case of the RCN having eyes bigger than their stomach.
> 
> I say cut the army out all together and fund the Navy.  What do we need an army for?  If any force is going to attack us they will be approaching from one of the three oceans.  :nod:



I know you're being facetious, but you do bring up a good point.  Also, wasn't the same discussion being made for the new fighters (either continental defence or expeditionary capability as the main driver?)


----------



## GR66

With a military of our size and budget I think conceptually I'd be willing to accept dropping certain capabilities and focusing on others.  If we aren't willing to put the money that's required to be an effective multi-capability force then maybe we can at least focus on certain capabilities and do them really well.  My fear however is that we will drop some capabilities and still not equip ourselves so at to be able to properly fulfill our specialized roles either.


----------



## Underway

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I say cut the army out all together and fund the Navy.  What do we need an army for?  If any force is going to attack us they will be approaching from one of the three oceans.  :nod:



I've been arguing this for years.  The CA is bloated and over-large for our requirements and always has been, especially its reserve elements.  But its political suicide to go after the units.  Can you imagine if someone suggested that they get rid of the PPCLI and half the PRES reserve units and spend the remainder on the navy/airforce?  Wow.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Underway said:
			
		

> Can you imagine if someone suggested that they get rid of the PPCLI and half the PRES reserve units and spend the remainder on the navy/airforce?  Wow.



There should be more outrage from the thought of a scaled down Navy.


----------



## dimsum

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> There should be more outrage from the thought of a scaled down Navy.



There should be, but most Canadians would never see an RCN ship unless they either lived in Victoria/Halifax, or saw one as it was doing a Great Lakes tour.  For the folks without easy access to a coast, it's pretty hard for the RCN to really do much recruiting/presence when the best they could do is bring up some simulators or a RHIB, when the AF can have airshows and the CA can bring a LAV.

Coupled with the fact that the news over the last ten years or so has been focused on Afghanistan, then Libya, then Iraq/Syria, which are mostly Army/Air Force missions, then the Navy gets left in the PR dust.


----------



## Journeyman

Underway said:
			
		

> ....CA is bloated and over-large for our requirements ...


 How have you determined Canada's requirements and the forces required to address them?   op:

[Should be a separate thread, obviously]


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lumber said:
			
		

> This is a good point.
> 
> No body's navies are shooting at each other (right now). The biggest threats to international trade are pirates and terrorism. Do you need an AAD to escort merchies through the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb? How likely is Canada to get into an actual shooting war with a country that has a first-world navy? Maybe we should spend the money on faster, special operations platforms armed with point-defence and force protection vice convential AAW/ASuW/ASW.
> 
> Just a thought.



About as likely as it looked in 2000 that Canada would get involved in a decade of combat operations in a Central Asian country.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> About as likely as it looked in 2000 that Canada would get involved in a decade of combat operations in a Central Asian country.



Which we chose to get involved in while employing what we had on hand and what we could beg, borrow or steal from the open market.


----------



## Lumber

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Which we chose to get involved in while employing what we had on hand and what we could beg, borrow or steal from the open market.





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> About as likely as it looked in 2000 that Canada would get involved in a decade of combat operations in a Central Asian country.



Yes, and how many Harpoons did our ships fire? How many Sea Sparrows? How many torpedoes? Did we shoot incomming anti-ship missiles out of the sky with our CIWS?


----------



## suffolkowner

http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol11num2/vol11num2art1.pdf

a look at inflation and the AOPS, we can expect similar trends with CSC. The AOPS is to me a flawed design/idea at least with respect to the RCN it wouldn't bother me to end up with only 3 or 4 instead of the 5,6,7,8


----------



## jmt18325

We're going to end up with either 5 or 6.  The contract doesn't allow for anything else.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lumber said:
			
		

> Yes, and how many Harpoons did our ships fire? How many Sea Sparrows? How many torpedoes? Did we shoot incomming anti-ship missiles out of the sky with our CIWS?



My point is, that it's really impossible to forecast where we will be fighting next and with what. About the only thing you can be sure of that in a future naval conflict you be bringing what you have, not what you want or need.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> How have you determined Canada's requirements and the forces required to address them?   op:
> 
> [Should be a separate thread, obviously]



Lets not go there  :warstory:

I don't have the time or the energy (it's been sucked out of my veins slowly but surely) to get in to a huge debate about this but I will say I believe Canadian Defence Strategy should give primacy to the Navy and Air Force over the Army.  I'm a believer in forward defence and the best way to achieve that is with a strong Navy and Air Force.  

Our military needs a reorientation though, it needs to move away from preparing to "fight the big war" and refocus on "fighting many small wars".  We are still gearing up as if it's 1962 and 20,000 Russian Tanks are going to pour through the Fulda Gap.  That's not a reflection of the present reality or what the future security environment (FSE) is probably going to look like.

To quote Land Operations 2021,

"In general, the future security environment will continue to exhibit high volatility and uncertainty.  Already, ongoing trends (e.g. globalization, rapid scientific and technological innovation, demographic change, shifting regional power balances, the growing prominence of non-state actors) are leading to considerable change in the nature of conflict and its conduct.  The result is that traditional threats and challenges are increasingly being eclipsed by newer dangers.  While the prospect of inter-state war will not disappear, future challenges will be more diverse-with asymmetric attacks launched by transnational terror groups, and the political instability, civil war and humanitarian crises characteristic of fragile countries making up the lion's share of turmoil in the early 21st century."

The key portion is highlighted in yellow and even though the book was written in 2007 I believe it's still relevant today.  The resurgence of Russia as a conventional threat to the West is being vastly exaggerated and overstated and China is not interested in a fight with us, it would be too bad for business.  The biggest threat to our interests is from non-state actors and failed/failing states, primarily in Africa and the Middle East.  

The Navy needs to reorient itself to combating this threat if it wants to remain relevant to Canadian Defence in the 21st Century.  That reorientation should be a move towards operations in the littoral.  The Navy needs to maintain the ability to conduct conventional naval operations but needs to move towards supporting land and air forces in the conduct of their operations.

Two big capabilities I see as a requirement for the Navy in the Future Security Environment:

1.  Troop and Cargo Lift (i.e. something like the Mistrals)
2.  Land Attack Capability (i.e. Tomahawk Missiles)

A Canadian Naval Task Force consisting of a Canadian Surface Combatant (With a Land Attack Capability), A Mistral (Carrying a SOTF and/or Battalion Gp), a Joint Support Ship and a Victoria Class Submarine, would give the Canadian Armed Forces a very good capability.  

I'm a big believer in plug and play and a land attack capability along with ability to troop lift, gives the Navy far larger role in playing with the other services.  You also give yourself the ability to "layer" effects with the other services/arms.  (i.e. tie your land attack capability in with an Air Task Force, SOTF, etc).

Edit:

Or we can all just continue to exist in our stovepipes and the Navy can continue to prepare itself to take on the Russian submarine fleet of 1970.


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> The resurgence of Russia as a conventional threat to the West is being vastly exaggerated and overstated and China is not interested in a fight with us, it would be too bad for business.  The biggest threat to our interests is from non-state actors and failed/failing states, primarily in Africa and the Middle East....



Hear! Hear! 

And two thumbs up for the rest of it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Hear! Hear!
> 
> And two thumbs up for the rest of it.



Funnily enough, The Russians and Chinese are both in the process of substantially shrinking their respective Defence Establishments.  Russia is moving towards a professional Armed Forces with their "Gerasimov Doctrine" with the SOP being to avoid "direct and overt military confrontation" yet we seem to be simply calling for more of the same  rly:


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Hear! Hear!
> 
> And two thumbs up for the rest of it.



Begging the question again - would we be better served with 18 frigates something like the Meko A200?  Perhaps even 12 of those, and 12 of something like the Irish Navy patrol ships?


----------



## Journeyman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I will say I believe Canadian Defence Strategy should give primacy to the Navy and Air Force over the Army.  I'm a believer in forward defence and the best way to achieve that is with a strong Navy and Air Force.


I certainly agree.... from a national defence perspective.  

However, if the government of the day, whichever colour ties they wear, sees the military not as a tool of national defence  -- relying of the US security umbrella for coverage -- but as the go-to force to pay our way internationally, then it needs to be determined what requirements that entails.  From my experience, (five deployments in which I saw no sailors), the Army seems to be the default setting, notwithstanding the government having discovered SOF. 

*Nonetheless, I'd still be hesitant to point at any element and say "that's  where the bloat and room for $$ cutting is."*  I merely hoped for a bit more intellectual depth than, "I'm a sailor, so the Army should be done away with," although it wasn't a particularly large hope.


Split to a separate thread yet?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, The Russians and Chinese are both in the process of substantially shrinking their respective Defence Establishments.  Russia is moving towards a professional Armed Forces with their "Gerasimov Doctrine" with the SOP being to avoid "direct and overt military confrontation" yet we seem to be simply calling for more of the same  rly:



China is building warships at a good pace, I'm not so sure about their down shifting.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> China is building warships at a good pace, I'm not so sure about their down shifting.



Yes, but the size of their overall Defence establishment is shrinking



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> I certainly agree.... from a national defence perspective.
> 
> However, if the government of the day, whichever colour ties they wear, sees the military not as a tool of national defence  -- relying of the US security umbrella for coverage -- but as the go-to force to pay our way internationally, then it needs to be determined what requirements that entails.  From my experience, (five deployments in which I saw no sailors), the Army seems to be the default setting, notwithstanding the government having discovered SOF.
> *Nonetheless, I'd still be hesitant to point at any element and say "that's  where the bloat and room for $$ cutting is."*  I merely hoped for a bit more intellectual depth than, "I'm a sailor, so the Army should be done away with," although it wasn't a particularly large hope.
> 
> Split to a separate thread yet?



I agree with you that the Army seems to be the default setting for everything we do but I believe this is because the whole Defence Establishment has been on "cruise control" since WWII.  The government isn't composed of a bunch soldiers or military experts, they rely on the Military's advice for that, unfortunately our advice is typically shoddy and devoid of any sort of appreciation of what is actually required.  We've proven to the government time after time that, military leadership cannot be trusted.

We've done a great job educating most of our Officers on the technical aspects of their job but Canadians, as a general rule, don't do Strategy very well.  As a result our officers work in stovepipes across the services and we can never present any sort of united front on an issue.  Divide and rule is the flavour of our Armed Forces, rue the day the Canadian Armed Forces ever achieves consensus within its ranks.


----------



## Lumber

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Navy needs to reorient itself to combating this threat if it wants to remain relevant to Canadian Defence in the 21st Century.  That reorientation should be a move towards operations in the littoral.  The Navy needs to maintain the ability to conduct conventional naval operations but needs to move towards supporting land and air forces in the conduct of their operations.
> 
> Two big capabilities I see as a requirement for the Navy in the Future Security Environment:
> 
> 1.  Troop and Cargo Lift (i.e. something like the Mistrals)
> 2.  Land Attack Capability (i.e. Tomahawk Missiles)
> 
> A Canadian Naval Task Force consisting of a Canadian Surface Combatant (With a Land Attack Capability), A Mistral (Carrying a SOTF and/or Battalion Gp), a Joint Support Ship and a Victoria Class Submarine, would give the Canadian Armed Forces a very good capability.



We already have a limited land attack capability, albeit rather limited (Harpoon have smaller warheads and much, MUCH shorter range than a Tomohawk) and a 57mm is, well... a 57m...

I agree whole heartedly to gear the navy more toward littoral/support ops. The addition of a Minstral/Canberra type ship would satisfy this need, and a Mk41 VLS can accomodate Tomhawks for the land attack requirement.

However, acquiring this capability *and* maintaing the capability of conducting coventional ASW, ASuW and AAW is becoming more and more expensive, and I don't believe we have the budget (as a country as a whole) to do both. I think it's better to be good at one than mediocre at both.

The worst case scenario would be Canada at war, by itself, with another first world navy (lets say China or Russia). In such a war, we would enjoy technological parity (and in some cases superiority) over their equipment and training, but they would enjoy a significant superiority in numbers, especialyl in the submarine deparment. Shoud we really be preparing for this eventuality? No. We would need to either spend an obscene amount of money increasing the size of our fleet, or developing some kick-*** never before heard of combat systems to make up for their numerical advantage.

Moving down the list, we get Canada at war, with allies, against another first world navy. This is the typical cold-war way of thinking. Now we have to ask ourselves, how can we best _contribute_ to such a task group. During the cold war, our ships were primarily ASW platforms. We didn't even get our first Anti-Ship missiles until 1990 when a pair of quad-pack Harpoons were strapped ad hoc to the deck of TERRA NOVA for Op Friction. Instead of trying to contribute mediocrely to all three areas of warfare, should we go back and concentrate on just one (or) of them? 

Our bare minimum capability should be based on answering the question "What is the worst scenario that we can reasonably see ourselves being involved in _by ourselves_". We then need all of the capabilities required to address that situation. The next level of capabilities needs to answer the question "How can we best contribute to scenarios we find ourselves in with other nations." 

Some of things I know about modern ASuW and ASW make me wonder why we even bother. So here's my radical idea for a new fleet:

1. Purpose built Amphious Support/Assault ships (Helicpters, Landing Craft, room for a Battalion).
2. Purpose built land attack ships (lots of Tomahawks and a large-calibre, accurate gun system. No AAW, ASuW and ASW capability, other than decoys)
3. Purpose built anti-piracy/anti-smuggling ships (fast AF, multiple SO RIBs, UAVs and maybe a helicopter. No AAW, ASuW or ASW capability).

People keep saying we shouldn't do anything unless it's with NATO or by UN mandate. Fine, lets not go anywhere unless there are a few UK/French/US AAD around to watch our backs while we pummel the crap out of ISIS.  :akimbo:

Isn't this thread about a ship_*building*_ strategy?  :highjack:


----------



## GR66

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The resurgence of Russia as a conventional threat to the West is being vastly exaggerated and overstated and China is not interested in a fight with us, it would be too bad for business.



While I'd agree that a general war between either Russia or China and the West is a very remote possibility, that doesn't mean that a regional conflict against either one of them (or against their proxies armed and and equipped with their latest weapons) isn't still possible.

As jollyjacktar noted, the Chinese are expanding their navy with a pretty clear goal of being able to prevent the USN from having the capability to intervene in a regional conflict.  And as long as the US remains the defacto military superpower, the best hope that Russia or China would have in a regional conflict with them would be to prevent the US from being able to deploy its military forces in the firstplace.  That to me suggests that the RCN could play a pretty important role by maintaining a strong ASW capability (ships and MPAs).  This role may not be incompatible with a larger fleet of smaller vessels.


----------



## AlexanderM

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The resurgence of Russia as a conventional threat to the West is being vastly exaggerated


Currently, I agree. The Russian military, which underwent many years of neglect, isn't currently in good condition, and as I understand it, Putin has no intention of overhauling the ghost of the military that once existed under the USSR. Instead, he is going to put close to 1 trillion dollars into the military, over the next decade, and essentially organize capability around that new equipment. If his plan succeeds, they will become more and more of a threat as time moves forward.

I certainly sense a new and somewhat different type of arms race taking shape, not so much based around massive armies for large scale war, but more about high tech stealth and detection, along with the emergence of lasers and other high tech weapons. I also believe that Russia will become more of a bully as their capability increases. I have concerns that if we don't see that coming we won't be prepared.


----------



## blacktriangle

Journeyman said:
			
		

> How have you determined Canada's requirements and the forces required to address them?   op:
> 
> [Should be a separate thread, obviously]



Agreed - this should be discussed in a different thread. 

If we ruled out major expeditionary ops, I think all services could find some major savings in both personnel and equipment...at least IMO. The first step is a defence policy that is in line with what we are willing and able to do, and what we are willing to spend.

I will say that at least IMO, the RCAF and RCN should have the lead for the defence/sovreignty of Canada. If we really just want to protect our homeland, I'd rather see new SSKs and more AOPS type vessels, and less focus on major combatants. Go ahead and hate me.


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> However, acquiring this capability *and* maintaing the capability of conducting coventional ASW, ASuW and AAW is becoming more and more expensive, and I don't believe we have the budget (as a country as a whole) to do both. I think it's better to be good at one than mediocre at both.
> 
> Our bare minimum capability should be based on answering the question "What is the worst scenario that we can reasonably see ourselves being involved in _by ourselves_". We then need all of the capabilities required to address that situation. The next level of capabilities needs to answer the question "How can we best contribute to scenarios we find ourselves in with other nations."



Canada absolutely needs the capability to operate on our own.  That means a combination of ships, subs and aircraft that can make up a multidimensional task group.  You loose sovereignty without an ability to independently operate.  This is why the Halifax class and the TRUMP program were launched in the first place.  We realized that ASW made us bit players and took options away from the government.

There is no logical reason why we can't or shouldn't have a world class multidimensional navy.  It's not like we are a poor country, we can easily afford it.  And the concept of "we fight over there so the fighting doesn't come here" applies to the navy most of all.


----------



## suffolkowner

I think with respect to the Shipbuilding program we're going to be in a real pickle pretty quick if inflation is eating up between 7 and 11% per annum. When you combine that with costing that was based on international established shipyards that were globally competitive its obvious that the numbers will have to be completely reworked. I don't really have any faith in Seaspan doing a better job than Irving at least with respect to pricing (they've already seen almost %300 increase) It will be interesting to see what happens with AOPS and how close to budget Irving can stay and what happens when they are over budget


----------



## Kirkhill

With respect to Canada's emphasis on Anti-Submarine Warfare:

Didn't we just kind of stumble into that because that was what was needed to get food and munitions to Britain?  Britain's Navy was tasked for Home Defence and international support of littoral combat operations.  The US Navy was focused on the Pacific and they had an armed Coast Guard at home.

We plugged a hole supplying Line of Communications ships.  That met an operational requirement of Britain.

After the war the RCN clung to that role even as the need for convoys seems to have petered out.  The Anti-Sub skills were then put at the service of the USN and, apparently, are used to assist the US in deploying its fleets to meet its national objectives.

What are Canada's national objectives?

Are Anti-Sub Frigates really the only thing we need to meet those objectives?

I accept that we can't be all things to all people. But we should be most things to ourselves. No?


----------



## GR66

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> [snip]
> 
> What are Canada's national objectives?
> 
> Are Anti-Sub Frigates really the only thing we need to meet those objectives?
> 
> I accept that we can't be all things to all people. But we should be most things to ourselves. No?



What ARE Canada's national objectives in terms of naval forces?

What foreign nation (other than the US) has the naval capability to put a credible surface task force into Canadian territorial waters to pose a threat to our national interest?  

Now let's remove the arctic where others more knowledgeable than myself have pointed out that a surface force trying to push at ant-like speed through the ice or stuck in the narrow confines of the arctic archipelago could best be handled by aircraft rather than other surface ships.

Let's also rule out our close allies since it would be a fool's game to try and build a navy capable of taking on the USN, and is building a navy around the concept of facing your LEAST likely opponents a sound strategy that is likely to produce the best mix of forces you may actually require?

Who does that leave?  China and Russia?  Do either of them have the capability to put surface forces into Canadian territorial waters?  Can anyone provide me a credible scenario where such a Chinese or Russian naval force would NOT trigger a joint Canadian/US response?  Can anyone provide me with a credible scenario where we wouldn't welcome US involvement in repelling such an attack?  Does anyone believe that either the Russian or Chinese navies could defeat the USN/RCN with an expeditionary naval force in North American territorial waters within range of ground-based air support?

I would suggest that the greatest direct military (and political) threats to Canadian maritime territory would be submarines, non-conventional attacks and tests of our sovereignty/ability to respond to incursions.  All of these threats I believe would be best countered by a larger fleet of vessels with the good ASW capabilities that can cover a greater territory.  The need to conduct major anti-surface threats is much less likely and air threats in our own backyard are likely best countered by our own air assets.

Those are our self-defence national interests (in my opinion anyway), so what are our expeditionary national interests?  Have we ever as a nation taken unilateral expeditionary military action against another country?  Are we likely to?  Are we likely to want to?  I think we're much more likely to send our expeditionary naval forces as part of a coalition with our allies.  So the question then is what would be a useful contribution that we could make to a multi-national force?


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> After the war the RCN clung to that role even as the need for convoys seems to have petered out....



You have that backwards.  The RCN specifically went out and _specialized_ in ASW because at the time submarines were the only force that had ever had or could ever pose a direct threat to Canada itself.  The inability of the RCN during the war to find and destroy subs in the Gulf of St. Laurence during WW2 was a massive embarrassment and showed the need for effective ASW in littoral systems.  Hence the ASW helo, dipping/variable depth sonar development etc, etc....  It was actually an example of good naval policy based upon a perceived and real threat, as well as Canada's expected role should war break out with the Soviet Union.  

Where the change came was towards the end of the Cold War when it was obvious that subs were not the only threat to Canada and NATO and that more general purpose ships were needed. Especially after the loss of the Bonnie and the cruisers.  Hence the Halifax and TRUMP programs.  It turned out that these were the right ships for the right time as they came on-line just when the Soviet Union was disintegrating, and thus the threats became varied and different with failed and failing states holding old Soviet weapons.



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> What ARE Canada's national objectives in terms of naval forces?
> 
> What foreign nation (other than the US) has the naval capability to put a credible surface task force into Canadian territorial waters to pose a threat to our national interest?
> 
> Now let's remove the arctic where others more knowledgeable than myself have pointed out that a surface force trying to push at ant-like speed through the ice or stuck in the narrow confines of the arctic archipelago could best be handled by aircraft rather than other surface ships.
> 
> Let's also rule out our close allies since it would be a fool's game to try and build a navy capable of taking on the USN, and is building a navy around the concept of facing your LEAST likely opponents a sound strategy that is likely to produce the best mix of forces you may actually require?
> 
> Who does that leave?  China and Russia?  Do either of them have the capability to put surface forces into Canadian territorial waters?  Can anyone provide me a credible scenario where such a Chinese or Russian naval force would NOT trigger a joint Canadian/US response?  Can anyone provide me with a credible scenario where we wouldn't welcome US involvement in repelling such an attack?  Does anyone believe that either the Russian or Chinese navies could defeat the USN/RCN with an expeditionary naval force in North American territorial waters within range of ground-based air support?
> 
> I would suggest that the greatest direct military (and political) threats to Canadian maritime territory would be submarines, non-conventional attacks and tests of our sovereignty/ability to respond to incursions.  All of these threats I believe would be best countered by a larger fleet of vessels with the good ASW capabilities that can cover a greater territory.  The need to conduct major anti-surface threats is much less likely and air threats in our own backyard are likely best countered by our own air assets.
> 
> Those are our self-defence national interests (in my opinion anyway), so what are our expeditionary national interests?  Have we ever as a nation taken unilateral expeditionary military action against another country?  Are we likely to?  Are we likely to want to?  I think we're much more likely to send our expeditionary naval forces as part of a coalition with our allies.  So the question then is what would be a useful contribution that we could make to a multi-national force?



Last I checked we were partners in the enforcement of the freedom of the seas.  You can't do that with only ASW forces.  You also can't operate with allies in a credible level or with input if you bring ancillary forces that can only plug into a ASW role.  That's like showing up to build a house and your tool box only has a hammer.  The Aussies learned from us during OP Artemis that no one gives a crap if you show up without a Command and Control ship or you can't even deploy your own command team in your own ships.  Canada took a lead role during OP ARTEMIS because we were not specialized and did some very good work there.

During the Libya crisis general purpose was the name of the game.  An ASW ship would have been relatively useless.  Charlottetown did good work and was the first ship since Korea to have been shot at by an enemy.  

As for unilateral action, yep, illegally arresting Spanish fishermen on the high seas.  When our interests are at stake we will act alone if necessary.  Fortunately most of our foreign policy interest align with our biggest allies.  The China/Russia argument is silly.  We don't know what the future will bring so instead of just getting flood insurance on the house, how about getting the full coverage package.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> You have that backwards.  The RCN specifically went out and _specialized_ in ASW because at the time submarines were the only force that had ever had or could ever pose a direct threat to Canada itself.  The inability of the RCN during the war to find and destroy subs in the Gulf of St. Laurence during WW2 was a massive embarrassment and showed the need for effective ASW in littoral systems.  Hence the ASW helo, dipping/variable depth sonar development etc, etc....  It was actually an example of good naval policy based upon a perceived and real threat, as well as Canada's expected role should war break out with the Soviet Union.
> 
> Where the change came was towards the end of the Cold War when it was obvious that subs were not the only threat to Canada and NATO and that more general purpose ships were needed. Especially after the loss of the Bonnie and the cruisers.  Hence the Halifax and TRUMP programs.  It turned out that these were the right ships for the right time as they came on-line just when the Soviet Union was disintegrating, and thus the threats became varied and different with failed and failing states holding old Soviet weapons.
> 
> ....



Point taken.

I guess, if there is one tool that I find missing in the RCN's toolbox, that I really wish was there to supply a broad, general purpose, capability, is a corps of marines.  And I don't mean a corps of thousands deployed by battalions.  But a corps capable of supplying platoon and company sized troops deployable in most of the hulls that the RCN sails.   A corps that brings the RCN closer into the shore.  

Ideally the corps of marines could be found from existing land forces - but I have the sense that neither the Square Combat Team army, nor the Blue Water navy are particularly interested in making such a thing happen.  I know that there are other voices but the institutional biases seem set.

Perhaps, a starting point, would be to raise, on the Navy's establishment and under Navy command and control a corps of sea soldiers.  If nothing else it could allow for additional command billets.

How does this tie into building ships?  As has been pointed out - ships are cheap and weapons expensive.  Supplying berths in a hull is relatively cheap.  A hull with room for soldiers adds another broadly utilitarian capability at a relatively low cost.

And yes, I am arguing for some portion of the CSC hulls to be built to something like the Absalon pattern.   The hulls would keep Irving employed and be useful even if it did reduce Lockmart's profits.


----------



## FSTO

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Point taken.
> 
> I guess, if there is one tool that I find missing in the RCN's toolbox, that I really wish was there to supply a broad, general purpose, capability, is a corps of marines.  And I don't mean a corps of thousands deployed by battalions.  But a corps capable of supplying platoon and company sized troops deployable in most of the hulls that the RCN sails.   A corps that brings the RCN closer into the shore.
> 
> Ideally the corps of marines could be found from existing land forces - but I have the sense that neither the Square Combat Team army, nor the Blue Water navy are particularly interested in making such a thing happen.  I know that there are other voices but the institutional biases seem set.
> 
> Perhaps, a starting point, would be to raise, on the Navy's establishment and under Navy command and control a corps of sea soldiers.  If nothing else it could allow for additional command billets.
> 
> How does this tie into building ships?  As has been pointed out - ships are cheap and weapons expensive.  Supplying berths in a hull is relatively cheap.  A hull with room for soldiers adds another broadly utilitarian capability at a relatively low cost.
> 
> And yes, I am arguing for some portion of the CSC hulls to be built to something like the Absalon pattern.   The hulls would keep Irving employed and be useful even if it did reduce Lockmart's profits.


The Maritime Tactical Operations Group is likely a tentative first step.

Link to National Post. article removed due to reference to its author.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Maritime Tactical Operations Group is likely a tentative first step.
> 
> Link to National Post. article removed due to reference to its author.



If so then it is to be encouraged and fed.


----------



## GR66

Underway said:
			
		

> Last I checked we were partners in the enforcement of the freedom of the seas.  You can't do that with only ASW forces.  You also can't operate with allies in a credible level or with input if you bring ancillary forces that can only plug into a ASW role.  That's like showing up to build a house and your tool box only has a hammer.  The Aussies learned from us during OP Artemis that no one gives a crap if you show up without a Command and Control ship or you can't even deploy your own command team in your own ships.  Canada took a lead role during OP ARTEMIS because we were not specialized and did some very good work there.
> 
> During the Libya crisis general purpose was the name of the game.  An ASW ship would have been relatively useless.  Charlottetown did good work and was the first ship since Korea to have been shot at by an enemy.
> 
> As for unilateral action, yep, illegally arresting Spanish fishermen on the high seas.  When our interests are at stake we will act alone if necessary.  Fortunately most of our foreign policy interest align with our biggest allies.  The China/Russia argument is silly.  We don't know what the future will bring so instead of just getting flood insurance on the house, how about getting the full coverage package.



I'm not suggesting that we become ONLY and ASW force.  I'm suggesting that for domestic defence what would seem to serve us best would be a relatively larger number of hulls with good ASW capability.  Area anti-air, land attack and heavy ASuW capabilities would be less important in the domestic role.  The need/desire for more rather than fewer hulls and a limited budget would suggest a design of the large corvette/small frigate type vessel for this role.  I also think that this type of ship would be more than adequate for unilateral domestic actions such as arresting fishermen or boarding cargo vessels, etc.

I think that this is the type of ship that it would make sense for Canadian shipyards to focus on building.  There are only a handful of countries that have similar naval requirements to ours and it would make some sense for us to have the capability to build ships that fit our primary role of self-defence and meet our specific needs (range, endurance, large maritime helo capability, etc.).

What we choose to bring to the table for expeditionary purposes is another story entirely.  There are a number of roles we could choose to fulfill.  We could have flexible multi-role ships, specialized ships for taking a command role, area air defence, land attack, maybe a Mistral-type platform, etc.  There are several options we could choose, but I'd argue that whatever ships we select for an expeditionary role they could be far fewer in number than our "domestic role" ships and could possibly be cheaper to buy from elsewhere rather than try and build them in Canada.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Maritime Tactical Operations Group is likely a tentative first step.
> 
> Link to National Post. article removed due to reference to its author.



Had we gotten the Mistrals , I suspect that we would have a bigger focus on that capability, despite the gnashing of teeth in some quarters.


----------



## Kirkhill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline

With respect GR66, but we have the world's longest coastline - about 200 to 250,000 km of it.  And those coasts are rich places.

About 70% of our landmass has no road access.  That leaves air and sea as the primary access routes.  

Air is fast but lacks capacity and staying power.  Sea is slow but can carry every resource known to man and keep them available and move them where needed.  

Combine Sea and Air (both land-based and sea-based) and the Government can reach out and touch every part of Canada.  That is why I am a fan of the AOPS concept.

If the RCN were to exploit the MTOG concept and the AOPS concept as the launch point for a littoral capability it would serve domestic needs first - supplying an additional layer of security in some pretty far flung places in our own back yard as well as supplying logistical support that could be effectively employed in disaster relief.  

AOPS, MTOG, add in the Rangers, the Arctic Company Response Groups and the regs IRUs and you have the basis for developing a real combined ops capability that is based around a real need in a real scale.   Those capabilities could be built upon and developed and exported to the expeditionary forces.

And I feel that the Absalon style Command and Support ship has a role in that development both in domestic waters and in higher threat environments.  

Build the hulls. Add weapons to suit the threat and the budget.

Edit: Sorry for failing to mention explicitly the key role of the RCAF in all of this - for moving troops and their supplies rapidly to where they are needed when they are needed and especially the key role of the rotary wing community in all phases of war and in all environments.


----------



## jmt18325

Why has no one published any pictures of the AOPS under construction (or the OFSV, for that matter)?


----------



## Stoker

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Why has no one published any pictures of the AOPS under construction (or the OFSV, for that matter)?



There's one or two pictures out there online. I would imagine as the ships becomes more recognizable we'll start to see construction pictures.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

they have , just not exciting bits yet.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> they have , just not exciting bits yet.



Interestingly I picked up the new on the street AOPS concept of operations pdf and the updated Kingston Class one as well. Lots on interesting information how and where they will employ both classes of ships in the future.


----------



## jmt18325

I was hoping for slightly more up to date pictures.  You'd think the OFSV would have progressed a lot in the last 6 months.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yea I looked but did not see, they might have  prohibition about cameras in site. you could e-mail them for update


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yea I looked but did not see, they might have  prohibition about cameras in site. you could e-mail them for update



That seems like a lot of work ha.  We probably won't see much until they finish building something.


----------



## GR66

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline
> 
> With respect GR66, but we have the world's longest coastline - about 200 to 250,000 km of it.  And those coasts are rich places.
> 
> About 70% of our landmass has no road access.  That leaves air and sea as the primary access routes.
> 
> Air is fast but lacks capacity and staying power.  Sea is slow but can carry every resource known to man and keep them available and move them where needed.
> 
> Combine Sea and Air (both land-based and sea-based) and the Government can reach out and touch every part of Canada.  That is why I am a fan of the AOPS concept.
> 
> If the RCN were to exploit the MTOG concept and the AOPS concept as the launch point for a littoral capability it would serve domestic needs first - supplying an additional layer of security in some pretty far flung places in our own back yard as well as supplying logistical support that could be effectively employed in disaster relief.
> 
> AOPS, MTOG, add in the Rangers, the Arctic Company Response Groups and the regs IRUs and you have the basis for developing a real combined ops capability that is based around a real need in a real scale.   Those capabilities could be built upon and developed and exported to the expeditionary forces.
> 
> And I feel that the Absalon style Command and Support ship has a role in that development both in domestic waters and in higher threat environments.
> 
> Build the hulls. Add weapons to suit the threat and the budget.
> 
> Edit: Sorry for failing to mention explicitly the key role of the RCAF in all of this - for moving troops and their supplies rapidly to where they are needed when they are needed and especially the key role of the rotary wing community in all phases of war and in all environments.



And what exactly are the MILITARY threats on our long coastline?  Are you suggesting that military invasion of Canadian territory by a foreign power is a significant enough threat that we should design our force structure and equipment requirements to meet that threat?

I 100% agree that we should have the ability to respond to disaster type situations everywhere in our territory, but is that capability on which we should base our MILITARY procurement?


----------



## Kirkhill

I am suggesting that the Canadian Armed Forces can be used more broadly than simply militarily.

Domestic Disaster Relief
Domestic Constabulary
Anti-Piracy 
Anti-Smuggling
and yes, Anti-Pollution.
Sovereignty Patrols.
Search and Rescue.

All of those help to make the case for having an armed government force.  All of them supply training opportunities to hone skills that can be applied in higher threat environments.

Those satellite images that you want.
Those UAVs that you want.
Those trucks that you want.
Those helicopters that you want.
Those transport aircraft that you want.
Those comms that you want.
Those ships that you want.

The more that you can justify their existence domestically the more likely you are to get them.

If you can raise the bar for the budget on the C4ISTAR and Logistics side of the house and show how much of the defence and security budget goes to the mundane, perhaps it will be easier to argue for additional funds for fighting gear.

The forces, absolutely should be focused on warfighting.  But if you are going to hang around waiting for armageddon to justify yourselves to the general public you are going to have a long wait.

You need to be seen to be doing useful stuff in the meantime...


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I am suggesting that the Canadian Armed Forces can be used more broadly than simply militarily.
> 
> Domestic Disaster Relief
> Domestic Constabulary
> Anti-Piracy
> Anti-Smuggling
> and yes, Anti-Pollution.
> Sovereignty Patrols.
> Search and Rescue.
> 
> All of those help to make the case for having an armed government force.  All of them supply training opportunities to hone skills that can be applied in higher threat environments.
> 
> Those satellite images that you want.
> Those UAVs that you want.
> Those trucks that you want.
> Those helicopters that you want.
> Those transport aircraft that you want.
> Those comms that you want.
> Those ships that you want.
> 
> The more that you can justify their existence domestically the more likely you are to get them.
> 
> If you can raise the bar for the budget on the C4ISTAR and Logistics side of the house and show how much of the defence and security budget goes to the mundane, perhaps it will be easier to argue for additional funds for fighting gear.
> 
> The forces, absolutely should be focused on warfighting.  But if you are going to hang around waiting for armageddon to justify yourselves to the general public you are going to have a long wait.
> 
> You need to be seen to be doing useful stuff in the meantime...



As far as I know the RCN does all that now and more.


----------



## YZT580

The vast majority of our commerce is shipped by sea.  If you consider the enormous cost to commerce that a rabble such as the Somali pirates were able to extract it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to extend those costs ten-fold with an organized group such as ISIS instead.  Are you going to let the Americans or Brits carry the weight of protecting our commerce or do we pitch in as equal partners?  You can't do that with coastal patrol and ASW vessels; they don't have the legs.  Waiting for the next war to build almost defeated us last time around.  The next war won't give us the time to build it will be fought with what we have in stock.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> As far as I know the RCN does all that now and more.



No argument here Chief.  A bit more publicity might be in order.  Also, perhaps, a bit more Jointery?  

I know it is hard to get Tanks on board Frigates.  But it shouldn't be too hard to get muddy boots on the decks?

The point I am trying to make is that the areas that the CAF is weakest in are the very things that have the greatest domestic utility.

And those things are critical to your warfighting and expeditionary needs.  The things that lack glamour, lack glamour precisely because they are so utilitarian.

And no, YZT, I don't want a navy of Coastal Patrol Boats - in part because with 250,000 kms of coastline to patrol and a 200 nm deep EEZ - those just don't make sense.  We are not Ireland or Italy or even the UK.

Our ships need legs and need to ride the Atlantic comfortably.  And precisely because they need to be built to that standard they can deploy over long distances - especially when supplemented by good logistics - which also are beneficial domestically.

Having said that, what portion of our fleet should we be sending to assist in the Somali effort, to work alongside allies, to show the flag, to gain experience, to teach others?  All of those are perfectly valid reasons for deploying overseas and apply equally to the Army and the Air Force.

But start from the position that the primary environment is jackpines and muskeg, snow deserts and mountains, grey rollers and icebergs.  Build to meet those needs first and then figure out where else they can be profitably employed.  Don't build for Pearl Harbour, and 29 Palms or even the streets of Europe.


----------



## jmt18325

So we need ASW, we need AsuW, we need ships with long legs, and we need ships that can take a hurricane in the Atlantic.  That's fine.  We also, arguably, need ships that can defend themselves from arial attack.  That said, do we really, when you consider the massive cost, need AAD?  Would we be better served getting 15 modern ships, equivalent to the Halifax class, at close to the budget that we have available?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Our ships are not strictly suited, or deployed, to domestic operations. We have numerous NATO and international obligations that we are required to perform. We need ships suited for those obligations. 

That means proper warships, not the little ships of Dunkirk.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Our ships need legs and need to ride the Atlantic comfortably



Hopefully this isn't the minimum standard.   A comfortable ride in the Atlantic could be pure hell in the Pacific

Unfortunately we will see a leaner more agile force and because the Liberals have a majority (thanks voters of Canada) they can do whatever the fuck they want and there is sweet fuck all we can do about it.


----------



## Stoker

Honestly we would need 300 BILLION to build what we would need to look after our domestic and international requirements properly and have the trained personnel to man them. Until we have a government that sees the value of a well funded Navy we will continue to limp along with bellow the bare minimum.


----------



## GR66

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The vast majority of our commerce is shipped by sea.  If you consider the enormous cost to commerce that a rabble such as the Somali pirates were able to extract it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to extend those costs ten-fold with an organized group such as ISIS instead.  Are you going to let the Americans or Brits carry the weight of protecting our commerce or do we pitch in as equal partners?  You can't do that with coastal patrol and ASW vessels; they don't have the legs.  Waiting for the next war to build almost defeated us last time around.  The next war won't give us the time to build it will be fought with what we have in stock.



I don't think anybody is suggesting a ship that is strictly ASW capable and without any other capabilities.  But there's a big difference (cost-wise) between a ship equipped with a 57mm gun, a single 8-cell VLS-41 launcher for missile self-defence and a quad Harpoon launcher and an AAW destroyer with an Aegis-type radar, 32+ cells of VLS-41 launchers, SM-3 missiles for ballistic threats, Tomahawk cruise missiles for land attack, etc.

I think that the first type of vessel is likely more than capable of doing 90% of what we ask of it.


----------



## jmt18325

GR66 said:
			
		

> I don't think anybody is suggesting a ship that is strictly ASW capable and without any other capabilities.  But there's a big difference (cost-wise) between a ship equipped with a 57mm gun, a single 8-cell VLS-41 launcher for missile self-defence and a quad Harpoon launcher and an AAW destroyer with an Aegis-type radar, 32+ cells of VLS-41 launchers, SM-3 missiles for ballistic threats, Tomahawk cruise missiles for land attack, etc.
> 
> I think that the first type of vessel is likely more than capable of doing 90% of what we ask of it.



Exactly.  It would also come much closer to fitting within our budget envelope.  Look to Australia as an example of what we can expect in costs.


----------



## jmt18325

What about Norway's newest frigate?  I think it's a really compelling design, given the relatively low cost of it.


----------



## Underway

GR66 said:
			
		

> I don't think anybody is suggesting a ship that is strictly ASW capable and without any other capabilities.  But there's a big difference (cost-wise) between a ship equipped with a 57mm gun, a single 8-cell VLS-41 launcher for missile self-defence and a quad Harpoon launcher and an AAW destroyer with an Aegis-type radar, 32+ cells of VLS-41 launchers, SM-3 missiles for ballistic threats, Tomahawk cruise missiles for land attack, etc.
> 
> I think that the first type of vessel is likely more than capable of doing 90% of what we ask of it.



We need 4 of the AAW destroyers, and the rest general purpose.  Its just basic task group math.  One ship for C4ISR, AAW, etc... and the other two for general purpose action.  The AAW provides layered Air defence ability,  including the ability to target sub launched missiles from 120NM away, combined with the GP ships hunting the subs with their embarked helos and other sensors.  Add in Commodore level staffing and comms for the AAW ships.  If you want to hunt subs you need the AAW destroyer to coordinate.

I agree that Tomahawks are not required for Canada, and due to the nature of the VLS you need longer ones to load them IIRC.  For land attack its a simple matter of choosing a bigger gun for the GP's.  5" 60 would be a good choice as its proven and relatively cheap, or the new 76mm from Oto M.  Harpoon B can also ruin your day ashore (one was almost fired in anger by a CPF... true 2nd hand story... :subbies if need be.

All the new ships should have Aegis type radars though APAR is publicly the front runner.  No FCS needed, improves your comms bandwidth, can jam, harder to detect it operating vs background radiation, had redundancy built in and reduced radar X section.  And being solid state way less mechanical maint.  Its the way to go by far, and you can track and target more ships than the current STIR's system.


----------



## GR66

I'd be more than happy to to see 4 (or more) AAW ships to go along with a bunch of GP ships.  However, in light of our budget my personal opinion is that I'd prefer to see 12-15 GP "must have" ships and no AAW "would love to have" ships instead of 6 x GP ships and 4 x AAW ships.  I'd also be perfectly fine with having our Canadian shipyards focusing only on the GP ships and buying the 4 x AAW ships offshore piggybacked on another country's order to save some money.


----------



## PuckChaser

We don't need Tomahawks, but isn't the Block II Harpoon capable of land attack? Might be a good happy medium.


----------



## Good2Golf

> Chief Stoker:
> Honestly we would need 300 BILLION to build what we would need to look after our domestic and international requirements properly and have the trained personnel to man them. Until we have a government that sees the value of a well funded Navy we will continue to limp along with bellow the bare minimum.



Doing some math...

(12 x $3B [GP FF] + 3 x $4B [AD DD/FF]) x (1 [factor for capital acquisition] + 3 [factor for in-service support for 30 yrs] + 1.5 [factor for O&M for 30 yrs]) = $264B (CY)

Chief, round me up a bit and I'm in your corner...+/-  :nod:

If we're both still around in 2050, let's splice the main brace and see how close we came to the final expenditure. 

Regards,
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Doing some math...
> 
> (12 x $3B [GP FF] + 3 x $4B [AD DD/FF]) x (1 [factor for capital acquisition] + 3 [factor for in-service support for 30 yrs] + 1.5 [factor for O&M for 30 yrs]) = $264B (CY)
> 
> Chief, round me up a bit and I'm in your corner...+/-  :nod:
> 
> If we're both still around in 2050, let's splice the main brace and see how close we came to the final expenditure.
> 
> Regards,
> G2G



If 30 years of operating costs takes you to 2050, then the ships will be complete by 2020.  Either you're assuming away Canadian shipyards for the more efficient and productive ones in Korea, or your timeline is off... by a decade or more...


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If 30 years of operating costs takes you to 2050, then the ships will be complete by 2020.  Either you're assuming away Canadian shipyards for the more efficient and productive ones in Korea, or your timeline is off... by a decade or more...



I was going to extrapolate at the 2/3 point, dapaterson.  There are some who would argue we use a 40-year, in which case, I would use 4x for ISS and 2.0 or O&M...empirically and extrapolarially-speaking, of course.  :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Sounds about right G2G.

However, using your factors (i.e. 7 times cost @ 3b$ for GP and 4b$ for AAD), you get 336 b$ over 40 years, which averages to 8.4 b$/year.

Current annual defence expenditures are at 23 b$. Assuming the ships are ordered right now, they start hitting the water in 2025. Budget by then, at todays value but corrected for inflation is going to be $26.2 b$, so, on average, the new Navy would require a little less than one third of the budget.

This however, is with the current level of expenditure, which is 8 cents per tax dollar, and at the paltry level of 1% of GDP. So don't anyone here come and tell me that it's too expensive an undertaking for a country like Canada. IMHO we can easily support a Navy of 15 SCSC in the proportion of 3 AAD/12 GP ships if we want to.

And I am not even sure about the figures you use to start with. The Australian Hobarts can give a good estimate of cost of the AAD destroyers, and at 3 b$ each, would support a cost of 4 b$ in five to ten years. But GP forces are at about 1.2 b$ to 1.4 b$ now, so they would support a cost of about 2 to 2.5 B$ in ten to fifteen years in my estimation.


----------



## NavyShooter

Just wait until the media starts adding the cost of the crew salaries into the price of operating the ships....over 20-40 years....like they did with the F-35.

(Or was it the PBO that did that with the F-35?)

I think the key aspect (which was touched on ages ago) was that the National Shipbuilding Strategy is a jobs and infrastructure program with a side-benefit being the production of (a few) ships.

How many ships depends on how deep the trough is, and how much is drawn into the pork-barrel, and how much is siphoned off into capability.

Ships are an incidental outcome of this program.

In my opinion.


----------



## Good2Golf

OGBD, yes, updating my guess estimate to a 40-year program would bracket Chief Stoker's $300B nicely.  

I used numbers that were a "mix" (possibly Scotch and Rye-assisted) of Hobart, RN Type 45/26, Dutch LCF and...DDG1000   in an effort to capture a range of "what ifs" for hull/CSI costs.  

Again, remember I once flopped around on VDQ for half a day and stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last week, but otherwise a ruck-humping pigeon, so I could be right out of 'er...  :nod:

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Just wait until the media starts adding the cost of the crew salaries into the price of operating the ships....over 20-40 years....like they did with the F-35.
> 
> ...



Difference between the two programmes:

1 Aircraft.  1 Seat
1 Ship.  Many Berths, and seats and galleys.  

What does the operating cost look like if the GP crew numbers drop from 225 to 100, or even 150?

The Navy can impact the number of hulls in a variety of ways.

I would rather build big ships (6000 tonnes) with small crews and reduced armaments that can be augmented than build small ships (1500 tonnes) that will always be limited in capabilities.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Sounds about right G2G.
> 
> However, using your factors (i.e. 7 times cost @ 3b$ for GP and 4b$ for AAD), you get 336 b$ over 40 years, which averages to 8.4 b$/year.
> 
> Current annual defence expenditures are at 23 b$. Assuming the ships are ordered right now, they start hitting the water in 2025. Budget by then, at todays value but corrected for inflation is going to be $26.2 b$, so, on average, the new Navy would require a little less than one third of the budget.
> 
> This however, is with the current level of expenditure, which is 8 cents per tax dollar, and at the paltry level of 1% of GDP. So don't anyone here come and tell me that it's too expensive an undertaking for a country like Canada. IMHO we can easily support a Navy of 15 SCSC in the proportion of 3 AAD/12 GP ships if we want to.
> 
> ...



OGBD - Isn't that one of the arguments used to support the F35?

Of course we can afford 15 SCSCs.  Of course we can afford 65 F35s.  Of course we can afford an Armoured Division with sealift and an Airborne Bde with airlift. And we could afford to do all those things at the same time.

But our fellow citizens choose not to.

So then what?

PS (and to make sure no one feels left out: Of course we can afford to re-capitalize the Coast Guard....)


----------



## suffolkowner

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> OGBD - Isn't that one of the arguments used to support the F35?
> 
> Of course we can afford 15 SCSCs.  Of course we can afford 65 F35s.  Of course we can afford an Armoured Division with sealift and an Airborne Bde with airlift. And we could afford to do all those things at the same time.
> 
> But our fellow citizens choose not to.
> 
> So then what?
> 
> PS (and to make sure no one feels left out: Of course we can afford to re-capitalize the Coast Guard....)



Don't forget the Victoria class or their replacements which are pretty much dollar for dollar with the Halifax. In isolation I say yes to everything but recapitalizing the CAF is obviously part of a greater process. The RN is down to what 19 destroyer/frigates and we want 15? Obviously different situations as the RN brings other things to the table but that's kind of the point as the RCN is/will be principally a SCS navy. Is that what we want/need?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Chris, the argument was never used in the F-35 debate, but I will get back to that later.

As regards the SCSC, not only has this "argument" not been made yet, but there has actually not been any "argument" on either side made - just the breaking news that a the National Shipbuilding Strategy is "in trouble" and more expensive than anticipated. Thus, to say that our fellow citizen _choose_ not to support 15 SCSC's is simply incorrect at this point in time: they have not made their position known as of yet.

As regards the "making of this argument" to our fellow citizens (so they can actually "choose" what they think they want), it may have been discussed in these fora (and I, for one have discussed it before) but in the public in general, the mainstream media or the political circles, the argument is never really made, which in my mind leads to improper decision making by the population.

IMO, if ever there was a time to explain to Canadians how these procurement program figures fabrication* work, it was the F-35 debate. 

The government basically presented its figures of 25b$ to the public. lo and behold, the budget officer then comes out with a 40b$ figure and tries to imply the government did not do its work properly. Our friendly MSM then jumps on the band wagon and basically, accuses the government of lying to Parliament and the Canadian people - with the opposition jumping on the bandwagon (and putting itself in a position to look like an as# now if they ever have to actually get F-35's after review of the facts).

Here's the thing: The government figures were for 25 years of acquisition/operations, so on average 1b$ a year**, while the Budget Officer's figures were for 40 years, so on average also 1b$ a year. This would have been the perfect opportunity for the government to explain why the figures were essentially the same, we were just using different time scale, and to explain to the public that what really matters is not the overall figures, but the impact in the defence budget year after year (but, noooooo! Mr. Harper had to take the opportunity to try and discredit the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and it back fired on him). Had the conservatives done that, they would have been able to show that the defence budgets from one year to the next would have been only slightly affected by the replacement of F-18's by F-35's, with more noticeable impacts (but still small ones) only in three or four years of the program, when at its peak.

So, no Chris, the argument has never been made properly to the public, and I sure wish somebody would make it one of these days. But here is the thing: It is not for the CAF to make that argument - it is for the civilians of DND (the DM and so forth) and for the politicians. We in the CAF carry out the defence of the realm, but it is the politicians that are responsible for providing for it. That is what civilian control means in a democracy.

/RANT OFF 


*: Yes, fabrications - the accuracy of _one to five year_ predictions made by well developed economic models of actors "in the know" for the economy is below 50% - meaning they can actually throw a dice and get better predictions - here we are trying to predict costs and usage of materiel of the next 30, 40 or 50 years when you include the acquisition lead time: it becomes pure guesswork and has no validity other than as a baseline for planning purposes.

**: I know it is not spread evenly, that for instance it may be 4 to 5 b$ in each of the two or three years where we actually get the new planes, much lower then for each of the following five years and getting higher towards the end in view of higher maintenance costs, but in the grand scheme of things, since multiple acquisition programs are always underway at varying budget and stages, the overall figures balance out.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Don't forget the Victoria class or their replacements which are pretty much dollar for dollar with the Halifax. In isolation I say yes to everything but recapitalizing the CAF is obviously part of a greater process. The RN is down to what 19 destroyer/frigates and we want 15? Obviously different situations as the RN brings other things to the table but that's kind of the point as the RCN is/will be principally a SCS navy. Is that what we want/need?



Quite correct in pointing out that the RN's 19 destroyers/frigates capability cannot be a gauge of our situations. To gauge one against the other, you have to give value to the RN's two aircraft carriers, five amphibious ships, 12 nuclear submarines and large patrol/mine warfare fleet, not to mention much more extensive fleet of support vessels than our two to three AOR's.


----------



## Kirkhill

Actually OGBD - no arguments with your rant.

I was referring to the internal debate on these fora, wherein the argument has been made that we can afford to do more.  

I agree that the argument externally has not been made - if by that we mean that we have been unable to convince our fellow countrymen of the need or the ability to support the cost.  

On the other hand, what if there is just no interest in hearing the argument?  I can agree that tactically a bunch of things could have been, and could in the future be, done better/differently.  But I know from my own very extended Franco-Canadian family that there is just no interest in hearing the arguments in support of the position.  Most folks would rather discuss hockey or else just willingly accept the "No War" mantra.  I was bombarded with it on Facebook during the last election, to the point I just shut down.  It wasn't worth the aggro of getting into a fight.  And it is not just a Franco thing.  It crosses all Canadian nationalities, religions and cultures - and political affiliations.

I honestly believe that getting defence dollars out of the Canadian public and politicians is like fishing for trout on a low test line.  You are always in danger of the line breaking and losing any chance at landing the catch.  You have to let them strip the line when they run away. You can't drag them in when they are actively opposing you.  You have to wait for the opportunities to gently reel in that spent line and bring them back to you.

It is a lousy method of planning your next meal but it is the only real opportunity available.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Concur.

Love the fly fishing analogy, for those who understand it.


----------



## CougarKing

Another issue regarding Vancouver shipyards as well as the Canadian Coast Guard:

CBC



> *Design of Coast Guard's fisheries ships led to fears of capsizing
> Discovery of possible flaw results in longer, heavier vessels to make them seaworthy*
> 
> By James Cudmore, CBC News Posted: Dec 04, 2015 5:09 PM ET Last Updated: Dec 04, 2015 5:31 PM ET
> 
> *The government's plans for the Coast Guard's new fisheries and science vessels produced a ship some engineers considered so unstable it was unseaworthy and if sailed on the open ocean would capsize in heavy seas*, CBC News has learned.
> 
> The issue was discovered in 2012 once the blueprints of the government-ordered design were sent to Vancouver Shipyards, where three of the ships are being built under the government's shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> Engineers there uncovered what they believed to be a fault, which led to a re-design of the vessel and the addition of 8.4 metres to the ship's 55-metre length.
> 
> *The changes increased the displacement of the ship by 610 tonnes, or roughly 24 per cent. Government literature about the vessels also suggests the ships will now travel half a knot more slowly.*
> 
> fficials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which oversees the Canadian Coast Guard, had previously admitted to CBC News there were design changes, but played down their significance.
> 
> "Some early underlying assumptions and calculation of weights and centres of gravity required changes," Frank Stanek, manager of media relations for DFO, said in a statement in 2014.
> 
> "The issue was satisfactorily addressed by the shipyard engineering team in close consultation with the government."
> 
> But CBC News has learned the design problem was considered so severe by the shipbuilders it was thought it would be unsafe to build and sail the vessels.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> Program hit by delays
> 
> These are not the first stormy seas the Offshore Fisheries and Science Vessel (OFSV) program has weathered.
> 
> The program has been beset by delays and spending increases. *The original plans set the budget at $244 million for three hulls and established a final delivery date of 2014.*
> 
> Last week, CBC News reported government ministers had been warned the program's costs have grown $687 million.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Serious I think every vessel the government built in the 90's was top heavy, the torpedo recovery vessels and the Class 500 cutters come to mind.


----------



## cavalryman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Serious I think every vessel the government built in the 90's was top heavy, the torpedo recovery vessels and the Class 500 cutters come to mind.


We do have a very top heavy military... [


----------



## Underway

So what you're saying is that Seaspan is doing their job properly by checking the designs they are asked to build?  Good job Seaspan!  Glad to see that the P Eng's at the shipyard aren't just a rubber stamp and take their designation seriously.

Extra cost and time is bad, but ships that flip over and kill people are way worse.


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't know what the fuss was all about.  There is always room for another cabin(boy) aboard a government ship...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that Seaspan is doing their job properly by checking the designs they are asked to build?  Good job Seaspan!  Glad to see that the P Eng's at the shipyard aren't just a rubber stamp and take their designation seriously.
> 
> Extra cost and time is bad, but ships that flip over and kill people are way worse.



Believe me I am glad they caught it. I know Robbie Allen fairly well, the story he told me about dealing with Coast Guard while trying to design the 500 class showed me what the problem is, a vessel built by comittee, each adding a bit here and bit there without anyone considering the consequence of that. Plus trying to do it on the cheap and not helped by the shipyard of the day substituting carbon fibre pipe for steel pipe for mast monitors. Among other fails. My girlfriend of the time said: "isn't it top heavy and to short?" From the mouth of babes as she knew squat about ships, but nailed the issues in one glance. Allen had started out with a proven hull design, the problem was with the client.


----------



## GK .Dundas

It's interesting it's beginning to look like we will be lucky to get ten ships as opposed to fifteen. I find this interesting because the Navy since the mid 70's has always stated that they(the navy) need an absolute minimum of twenty four Frigate / Destroyer sized ships to fulfill it's basic duties . 
 Now every time naval technology has taken a leap that would allow a lesser number  of vessels the government has stepped in a basically increased the number of those assigned duties. As a result that minimum  has never dropped  of course we never managed to get to that number since the early eighties . 
 My question is what do we do if we find ourselves in a situation where need those twenty four Frigates and Destroyers ? I suspect this a question the current Government hopes nobody asks  or worse find themselves in.


----------



## jollyjacktar

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> My question is what do we do if we find ourselves in a situation where need those twenty four Frigates and Destroyers ? I suspect this a question the current Government hopes nobody asks  or worse find themselves in.



We start getting curb stomped and can only hope and pray that a big brother hears the fracus and can come to our aid.  We won't have the luxury of a build up of capability as we enjoyed 70 years ago.  Warships are too expensive, too complex to just whip together, parts are sourced from outCan OEM more often than not and we might not be able to reproduce them for that matter.  The OEMs might just come from the state we're having issues with as well to compound matters.  As Gwynn Dyer stated "the next war will be a come-as-you-are, war."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> It's interesting it's beginning to look like we will be lucky to get ten ships as opposed to fifteen. I find this interesting because the Navy since the mid 70's has always stated that they(the navy) need an absolute minimum of twenty four Frigate / Destroyer sized ships to fulfill it's basic duties .



That is not quite what the statement, or corresponding situation, was.

In the mid-to late sixties, NATO reviewed its requirements to fight the next "battle of the Atlantic" and as a result, in the very early seventies, assigned tasks to various members. Canada's alliance obligations under that scheme was to provide four escort groups. Each groups were to be six ships, thus Canada had an obligation to NATO to have 24 ships available.

That is where the number 24 came from: fulfilling NATO obligations, not fulfilling our "basic" duties. That is also the reason why, after the IRO's came into service, we retained SAINT-LAURENT, ST. CROIX, CHAUDIÈRE and COLUMBIA  "in reserve". They were in pretty bad shape and useless, but it let us claim that we met our 24 destroyers obligation to NATO.

This requirement died with the end of the cold war.

As to what minimum number of frigates/destroyers we need, it again gets back to what do we want the Navy to be able to do. And to answer that question we need to have the government get on with its "open and transparent" process of coming up with a new White Paper on defence that conforms to todays' defence challenges.

And Jollyjacktar, here is a little secret: every single war in the history of the planet has been "come as you are". When war breaks out , you have what you have - on both sides, but then you can start to build up/mass produce war materiel. If you were a bit prescient (and in most cases, wars don't just breakout, there is a period of tension where both sides see what might happen and start preparations), you can implement urgent production programs before it actually breaks out - like the corvettes of WWII which were implemented before the war began as an emergency program.

The "Come as you are war" concept of the 60's and 70's what premised on something different: that the next war with the Soviets would not give us time after the beginning of the war to build up resources because it would escalate into a nuclear conflict as soon as things start to go bad for one side, and that nuclear conflict would resolve the matter once and for all. I personally don't believe that the next war will necessarily "go nuclear" right away, so things are not totally going to be crystallized with what you have at the beginning.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And Jollyjacktar, here is a little secret: every single war in the history of the planet has been "come as you are". When war breaks out , you have what you have - on both sides, but then you can start to build up/mass produce war materiel. If you were a bit prescient (and in most cases, wars don't just breakout, there is a period of tension where both sides see what might happen and start preparations), you can implement urgent production programs before it actually breaks out - like the corvettes of WWII which were implemented before the war began as an emergency program.
> 
> The "Come as you are war" concept of the 60's and 70's what premised on something different: that the next war with the Soviets would not give us time after the beginning of the war to build up resources because it would escalate into a nuclear conflict as soon as things start to go bad for one side, and that nuclear conflict would resolve the matter once and for all. I personally don't believe that the next war will necessarily "go nuclear" right away, so things are not totally going to be crystallized with what you have at the beginning.



Seen.  But seeing as a warship or aircraft of today are not the same kettle of fish as a Corvette or Spitfire I don't believe we will be able to ramp up if a major shitshow errupts as it will be moving quickly and the tools of today are leaps and bounds ahead of then.  They were knocking off a Corvette in about 100 days were they not?  Unless we started to build a cheap but nasty type of vessel we're not going to get what we need in speed and numbers to meet with a major outbreak.  While there can be signs of things going west that might give one a chance to get dressed and buy some survival gear before the storm hits, will we be so lucky or able??


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Even then King and the navy realized they were going to be in a war and tried to build up the navy as much as budget and politics would permit. My opinion of him trying to navigate the political shoals pre-war and during the early part of the war has definitely increased.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That is why I have always said that a proper national shipbuilding strategy for Canada should provide for continual build of destroyers/frigates at the rate of one coming in service every year or 13-14 months max, so that if you "operate" 14 to 15 of them, by the time your ship is 15 years old, it goes into reserve for another 10 to 15 years and you put the most recent in operational service in its stead, the whole on a continual basis, so that you have about 15 in service and after a while, another 15 reasonably still in good shape as a reserve. If anything happens, you can rush the reserve ships in service with a minimal upgrade of sensors and electronics.

That also means you would have an industrial base to expand quickly so that, should the need arise, you can start cranking up these things at double or triple the rate (one new ship every four to six months.)

Finally, you would then be able to have other yards ramp up to produce "cheap and nasty" as required. For instance, if you find yourself in a war that is mostly ASW, you can crank up production of small ships, about 1500 to 2000 tons with a hangar and a bear trap, a tail and one hull mounted sonar, small gun for self-protection and a CWIS/decoy for self protection, capable of 26-28 knots on diesels. We have industrial capacity now in Canada to do something like that quickly if need be (they would look something like the New Zealand Otago class vessels.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That is why I have always said that a proper national shipbuilding strategy for Canada should provide for continual build of destroyers/frigates at the rate of one coming in service every year or 13-14 months max, so that if you "operate" 14 to 15 of them, by the time your ship is 15 years old, it goes into reserve for another 10 to 15 years and you put the most recent in operational service in its stead, the whole on a continual basis, so that you have about 15 in service and after a while, another 15 reasonably still in good shape as a reserve. If anything happens, you can rush the reserve ships in service with a minimal upgrade of sensors and electronics.
> 
> That also means you would have an industrial base to expand quickly so that, should the need arise, you can start cranking up these things at double or triple the rate (one new ship every four to six months.)
> 
> Finally, you would then be able to have other yards ramp up to produce "cheap and nasty" as required. For instance, if you find yourself in a war that is mostly ASW, you can crank up production of small ships, about 1500 to 2000 tons with a hangar and a bear trap, a tail and one hull mounted sonar, small gun for self-protection and a CWIS/decoy for self protection, capable of 26-28 knots on diesels. We have industrial capacity now in Canada to do something like that quickly if need be (they would look something like the New Zealand Otago class vessels.



Agree 1000%


----------



## quadrapiper

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...a tail and one hull mounted sonar, small gun for self-protection and a CWIS/decoy for self protection, capable of 26-28 knots on diesels. We have industrial capacity now in Canada to do something like that quickly if need be (they would look something like the New Zealand Otago class vessels.


Assuming dependent on a certain amount of unavailable-in-Canada kit being available, either at time of build or mothballed against the eventuality?


----------



## STONEY

We have yet to issue a list of requirements. We have yet to issue a request for proposals. 
The Pre qualified bidders have yet to submit their proposals. We have yet to pick one of these ship designs.
Despite this we already are wineing that 29 billion is not enough. Seems to be negative thinking like saying you can not
afford to buy a gift before you know what it is.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Seen.  But seeing as a warship or aircraft of today are not the same kettle of fish as a Corvette or Spitfire I don't believe we will be able to ramp up if a major shitshow errupts as it will be moving quickly and the tools of today are leaps and bounds ahead of then.  They were knocking off a Corvette in about 100 days were they not?  Unless we started to build a cheap but nasty type of vessel we're not going to get what we need in speed and numbers to meet with a major outbreak.  While there can be signs of things going west that might give one a chance to get dressed and buy some survival gear before the storm hits, will we be so lucky or able??



And that is why I continue to bang the drum for buying as many hulls as the government will allow within the budget set and then arm them afterwards.

Put your network in place to manage engineering and navigation and one or two "naval" sensors and weapons - and leave space to plug in more.  Then fill the holes with new systems for deployed ships, old systems for domestic ships and not systems for training ships doing sovereignty patrols.  

And I heard the arguments for every ship always being ready for Pearl Harbor.    I disagree, obviously.  Even the RN disagrees.  Because they have hydrological vessels, cutters, fisheries patrol vessels, logistics ships, even unescorted carriers.  The risk is managed by selecting which ships with which assets sail which waters.

In event of a punch up you can find bullets for old Bofors and 76s.  You can buy bolt on SSMs and SAMs.  You can even load a seacan full of mines on board, and torpedoes.  You can load TASS systems and UAVs and AUVs and all sorts of other technology.  If you have the hulls.

Build the hulls.

The money is there for that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I am with Chris. Build the hills and worry less about the weapon and sensors for now. Having done enough deployments, kit seems to magically appear, if the government wants you someplace bad enough.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am with Chris. Build the *hills* and worry less about the weapon and sensors for now. Having done enough deployments, kit seems to magically appear, if the government wants you someplace bad enough.



Are alive with Liberals







Lol. Sorry.  :gottree:


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And Jollyjacktar, here is a little secret: every single war in the history of the planet has been "come as you are". When war breaks out , you have what you have - on both sides, but then you can start to build up/mass produce war materiel. If you were a bit prescient (and in most cases, wars don't just breakout, there is a period of tension where both sides see what might happen and start preparations), you can implement urgent production programs before it actually breaks out - like the corvettes of WWII which were implemented before the war began as an emergency program.
> 
> The "Come as you are war" concept of the 60's and 70's what premised on something different: that the next war with the Soviets would not give us time after the beginning of the war to build up resources because it would escalate into a nuclear conflict as soon as things start to go bad for one side, and that nuclear conflict would resolve the matter once and for all. I personally don't believe that the next war will necessarily "go nuclear" right away, so things are not totally going to be crystallized with what you have at the beginning.



I completely agree.  The quote from Gwen Dyer that was referred to had an extra addition to it which is often lost when quoting him.  What he was specifically referring too was that with the very high technology of the current (read 1985 tech) military could not be produced fast enough to keep pace with losses in the event of Warsaw Pact vs NATO.  That meant that you would have to "come as you are" and then build faster, cheaper, easier low tech solutions if the war dragged on.  The new versions of the cheap and nasties.  You saw this with the end of WW2, as Shermans and T-35's could be produced much faster despite the fact they were not the "best" tank vs the Germans versions, they were good enough and the quantity over quality argument was very important.  Even the Germans tried to improve the cheap with the Panzerjager's etc...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Having hard at Irving--via twitter:
https://twitter.com/mspilkaokeefe/status/678301867672252416



> @mspilkaokeefe
> New MPs & Gov't take note: Frontline's opening editorial has an ELI5 primer on the challenges facing NSPS structure.
> http://defence.frontline.online/interactive/15def6-3d/html5/index.html?page=1



FrontLine Defence:
http://defence.frontline.online/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

My youngest son works at Irving.  He finally got his eyes opened with what was done with VDQ.  He is disgusted and tells me that even the old hands said it was the worst refit they'd ever seen come out of the yard.  If they're bitching, it must be true.


----------



## NavyShooter

I heard that the VDQ was a mess coming out....hard to think it was worse than MON.  I was duty tech the first night we got MON out of their hands (grasp?  claws?) 

-No heat
-No running water
-emergency lighting rigged
-no functional washrooms

It was....interesting....


----------



## Pat in Halifax

And yet the institution preaches accountability-I guess only those in uniform are held accountable. I also guess it really is true: All people are created equal, some more equal than others.
This is not new either and has been happening since the HALIFAX class first started doing DWPs in Halifax-They ALWAYS came out in worse shape than when they went in. You wouldn't keep taking your car to a garage for service if that was the case would you? Maybe some of those with their f***ing blinders on would I guess. Unfortunately those are the same ones glossing things over and praising this marriage of government and industry. One reason I really had to take the uniform off-These things were driving me nuts...and who will pay?...the crew will be worked to the bone to reactivate and meet a near impossible time line. What happened to "Lessons Learned"; more like "Lessons Missed".
Can't tell this is pissing me off can you?!


----------



## Stoker

I think a lot of yards are guilty at less than stellar refits. I remember a few years ago Athabaskan's state wasn't very good when they got her back to Halifax finally. From first hand experience MCDV refits at certain smaller yards have also been less than good.


----------



## jollyjacktar

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I heard that the VDQ was a mess coming out....hard to think it was worse than MON.  I was duty tech the first night we got MON out of their hands (grasp?  claws?)
> 
> -No heat
> -No running water
> -emergency lighting rigged
> -no functional washrooms
> 
> It was....interesting....



My son works at ISI.  He told me about VDQ, he was digstusted with the state of her.  Said she needed at least two months work before she should have been turned over to the navy.  But, they wanted to meet the deadline and to be able to trumpet they turned her over in time.  As far as I'm concerned, heads should roll for this.  Of course, it won't and FMF will be forced to repair her.


----------



## tabernac

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I think a lot of yards are guilty at less than stellar refits. I remember a few years ago Athabaskan's state wasn't very good when they got her back to Halifax finally.



I spoke with the HTs that were involved with ATH's Port Weller refit. There were plenty of other issues, but they had high praise for the PW metal workers. I'm told they did miracle work, certainly when you compare that specific area to the (less than stellar) rest of the refit.

/tangent

edit for clarity


----------



## STONEY

It would seem to me that if you are getting ships back from shipyards  in such poor condition that is the fault
of the Navy not the shipyards. I spent several years on the Navy trials team and we tested every ship that 
came out of refit at 5 different shipyards over that time and would refuse to accept anything that did not meet specs .  This included inspecting all compartments for cleanness and all equipment for proper operation. We required the yard to rectify or we did not accept. Either the Navys standards have dropped a lot or it was not in the contract. I guess the days of new car smells in refitted ships are gone. It could be that someone is trying to save money by leaving out as much as possible out of the contract hence you get what you pay for.

Cheers


----------



## jollyjacktar

I honestly don't know of any sailor, including myself, who likes what comes out of ISI.  We'd refuse to accept it if we could but those decisions come from beyond our control or level.  To be fair, and I really hate to be fair, some of the problems come from arisings and they're not always going to fit into the budget or time scale to correct.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely no one had the stones to refuse the transfer from the yard, as it would go political in a hurry these days.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I know the one's who would have loved to had no choice but say, yes.  Those decisions always are made at much higher pay grades and probably are always political in nature.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> I spoke with the HTs that were involved with ATH's Port Weller refit. There were plenty of other issues, but they had high praise for the PW metal workers. I'm told they did miracle work, certainly when you compare that specific area to the (less than stellar) rest of the refit.
> 
> /tangent
> 
> edit for clarity



I know the shipyards out west were making all the complex piping (up to 8' across) to feed water from the Penstocks to the turbines for the small Hydro projects. They were the only people that had the skillsets to do them.


----------



## Rifleman62

From the UK, dated info.

http://www.consultancy.uk/news/3115/canada-blows-its-combatant-ship-budget-out-of-water

Canada blows its combatant ship budget out of water

31 December 2015 Consultancy.uk

The price of war is set to cost the Canadian tax payer dearly as the cost of building 15 surface combatant ships for the navy balloons more than $16 billion to reach $30 billion. The increase was found following an audit by independent professional services firm AT Kearney. One suggested way forward is to reduce the number of ordered ships. 

Canada, following continued geopolitical uncertainty and its proximity to the sometimes disputed artic region, has sought to upgrade its navy. 15 newly designed combat ships were ordered in the late 2000s, for the price of $14 billion as part of a wider budget for the navy of $26.2 billion. Yet the federal government recently announced that even that budget has been blown out of the water. 

To develop a clearer picture of the total cost of the programme, A.T. Kearney was called in to audit the programme and develop a projection of total costs. The consulting firm was hired to provide a qualitative analysis that examines “the relationship between the project requirements and feasibility, and affordability to provide a solution that allows [the Navy] to fully realise its mission.” The analysis shows that the cost was put at $30 billion for the combat ships, thus $16 billion above budget and pushing the total navy budget to $42 billion. 

The problem for the Canadian government is a result of a mismatch between expectations, cost and requirements. There were already initial concerns about the $14 billion agreement when it was agreed to. “We had concerns all along,” says Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, Commander Royal Canadian Navy, in an exclusive interview with the CBC. “It is obvious that the concerns were less acute in 2008 and 2009, when the foreclosure process [cost] down was still fresh and the ink was drying. But as we went forward, you know, we had real concerns.” 

Concerns about the costs blowout associated with the construction programme were further raised in 2013, when the Auditor General of Canada Michael Ferguson warned that there were considerable unknowns involved in the project, including labour and equipment, inflation and other project uncertainties, placing critical questions about the originally decided budget cap of $14 billion. 

The cost explosion has been attributed to a number of factors: the marine requirements did not exist to meet the construction demand and needed to be developed. It was almost impossible to judge the cost of the technology required for advanced war ships, given the pace of development. Even today, the final costs produced by A. T. Kearney remain projections, as the ships are still only in the design phase. 

The programme has been placed under pressure from the Minister of National Defence when Jason Kenney, who in October suggested that, given budget constraints, the number of ships ordered may need to be lowered to 11. “Based on expert advice that we received from the Royal Canadian Navy and after exhaustive analysis the Ministry of Public Works, following the most comprehensive and transparent major process in the history of the Canadian government, we believe that it is possible with a budget of $26 billion to build between 11 and 15 warships surface,” Kenney explains.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Story above:



> ...15 newly designed combat ships were ordered in the late 2000s...



The CSCs were neither actually designed nor ordered.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bearpaw

I think the whole problem resides in the CSC concept itself----it would have been good to have used these ideas in the late 1980's when the Halifax class was being designed.  

IMHO what the RCN needs for surface combatants are

4 DDGH----area air defence destroyers with a significant ASW and ASuW capabilities
                -- these should be somewhat larger than the Type 45 for the RN, have 2 CH-148,.....
                -- the AAD capability should be very heavy in view of potential swarming attacks
                -- these are very expensive ---my guess is $2.5 billion to $3 billion each

8 Frigates----somewhat larger than Halifax class---more heavily armed for AA and ASuW roles
                 -- my guess is that these would cost $1.5 - $2.0 billion each

12+ "Corvettes"---about 2500 tons, similar to an enlarged Braunshweig class ship with 1 helicopter for ASW
                 ---my guess is that these would cost about $0.5 - $1.0 billion each
                 --this is the class of ship that we might be able to sell to other countries as part of a 
                    revised NSPS.

Just my 2-cent opinion.

Bearpaw


----------



## CBH99

I understand there is an enormous cost in building the infrastructure necessary, in order to actually build the ships.  But $30B?

That breaks down to $2B for every single ship.  That seems _awfully expensive...

Is it possible to build the hulls, and then install the latest & greatest in weaponry, sensors, C&C facilities, etc - after?  Since these vessels will be upgraded in the future, do all of these systems need to be built into the ship?  Or can we get the hulls built in a more speedily & cost effective manner, and then equip them after?

I'm not an expert in this in the slightest.  I've read quite a few suggestions from people who have far more knowledge about this than I do, and some of those suggestions seem quite logical.  

Going with fewer than 15 ships seems to be really digging into our ability to be flexible & responsive when needed.  _


----------



## CBH99

Further to what BearPaw posted...

With the introduction of the AOPS to the fleet, will the MCDV fleet still be maintained at current strength?

Because if AOPS can carry out some of the patrol duties currently being fulfilled with the Halifax class, perhaps that is why few numbers of CSC could be suggested?

Again, just thinking out loud here...   :2c:


----------



## Stoker

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Further to what BearPaw posted...
> 
> With the introduction of the AOPS to the fleet, will the MCDV fleet still be maintained at current strength?
> 
> Because if AOPS can carry out some of the patrol duties currently being fulfilled with the Halifax class, perhaps that is why few numbers of CSC could be suggested?
> 
> Again, just thinking out loud here...   :2c:




In regards to the MCDV's as AOPS comes online they will be utilized in more MCM and DRDC support role. They still however deployed to the Arctic and Caribbean. I doubt if the MCDV's will be tied up as they are very cheap to operate.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The sums being discussed include the maintenance, crewing, fuel etc for the vessels over their lifespan.  If you were to project the cost of insurance, fuel and maintenance for that new car you just bought, it wouldn't look so attractive either.  It's all how's the data is being presented that makes the eye's bulge.  In the end, at the completion of 30 years it will still be $1B per year that would have  been spent anyways when the fuel, crewing and maintenance was accounted for.  Don't get all caught up in the spin that some would like to mislead the general public on.


----------



## YZT580

Liebererals doing what they do best!  Making it look like the cons. were out to lunch, apologise to the navy because they can't be given what they need or maybe even cancel the whole thing after the current batch are constructed thus freeing up cash to fund their favourite project: themselves.


----------



## PuckChaser

I don't think they'll cancel anything that dumps money into Halifax. They need to pay back the support from the election, so they're best way is to dump cash into the porkbarrel that is Irving, regardless of the quality of ship we get. We'll end up with something that costs as much as a Zumwalt, but performs like a Tribal.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The sums being discussed include the maintenance, crewing, fuel etc for the vessels over their lifespan.  If you were to project the cost of insurance, fuel and maintenance for that new car you just bought, it wouldn't look so attractive either.  It's all how's the data is being presented that makes the eye's bulge.  In the end, at the completion of 30 years it will still be $1B per year that would have  been spent anyways when the fuel, crewing and maintenance was accounted for.  Don't get all caught up in the spin that some would like to mislead the general public on.



So VERY true......


----------



## Underway

It doesn't _really_ matter what the costs are at the end of the day for ship numbers.  Even if they order less ships.  At the end of the day as soon as that last ship is in the steel cutting phase then they will have to order more ships.  Unless they want to go back to the boom bust cycle and cost taxpayers even more at the end of the line.  That's the rub.  

A continual build program means just that, continual build.  I'm not worried about the number of ships.  Then when number 8 is being built they will look at replacing something else to keep the yards going.  If they don't... then that signifies a complete 180 in the government's shipbuilding strategy long term.  Good luck losing Atlantic Canada votes as all the parties are interested in keeping the yards going.  The mil industrial complex will work in our favour for once.

I am worried about the capability of those ships if they focus on numbers.  That's where the real issue is.  If there is a significant loss in capability or an inability to do the job required then that in many ways is more important.

The other thing is if they order say 11 ships, then add on 6 more as a separate contract you will see the real cost of a ship building program as the start-up costs are no longer in the price tag.


----------



## Good2Golf

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> So VERY true......



Concur. [Edited clarification: I mis-read the conversation and thought that folks were discussing the overall construction/acquisition costs (I agree closer to $30B, at least) upon which one must then add out-year P, O&M -- this total amount will be large (100's of B likely, over a third of a century), but much of the P, O and (little) M, i.e. non-ISS 'M' and would be, less inflation applied, the same P, O&M as the Gov't would be spending on 3xDDH and 12xCPF]

JJT is bang on about the importance of understanding what is included within a "cost [figure]."  Most people wouldn't believe how expensive the average ~$30k-ish family car is over its average 8-10 year lifetime...a lot more than the $30k, that's for sure.  

Be clear about what period over which the capability will be supported and including what elements, and the numbers, while large, will appear more acceptable in context.

By comparison, over the same 40-year period, the Federal Government will have spent $3,284B* (current year dollars), or more than the cost of having National projection of Naval force around the world, on personal transfers alone (OAS, CPP, EI, Child xfrs, etc...) 

:2c:

G2G


* Ref: 2015 Budget breakdown


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:
			
		

> It doesn't _really_ matter what the costs are at the end of the day for ship numbers.  Even if they order less ships.  At the end of the day as soon as that last ship is in the steel cutting phase then they will have to order more ships.  Unless they want to go back to the boom bust cycle and cost taxpayers even more at the end of the line.  That's the rub.
> 
> _A continual build program means just that, continual build.  I'm not worried about the number of ships.  Then when number 8 is being built they will look at replacing something else to keep the yards going.  If they don't... then that signifies a complete 180 in the government's shipbuilding strategy long term._  Good luck losing Atlantic Canada votes as all the parties are interested in keeping the yards going.  The mil industrial complex will work in our favour for once.
> 
> I am worried about the capability of those ships if they focus on numbers.  That's where the real issue is.  If there is a significant loss in capability or an inability to do the job required then that in many ways is more important.
> 
> The other thing is if they order say 11 ships, then add on 6 more as a separate contract you will see the real cost of a ship building program as the start-up costs are no longer in the price tag.




I agree ... in so far as the _strategy_ involves ships at all it, it means a steady flow of ships so that the capability remains intact ... that may mean that the Navy gets its ships in _batches_ rather than in complete sets of one class; think about the St Laurent, Restigouche and Improved Restigouche classes (the Restigouche and Improved Restigouche classes were, really, _batches_ that _could_ have been designated as Improved St Laurent) designed in the 1940s and, laid down starting in 1950 and launched between 1951 and 1957, but, for the 21st century, stretch that to, say, ten or 15 years for three _batches_ of, say three or four ships each.


----------



## jmt18325

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The sums being discussed include the maintenance, crewing, fuel etc for the vessels over their lifespan.



The $30B is just for construction.


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The $30B is just for construction.



And in my mind that is where the entire Canadian programme falls flat.  I still can not find somebody that has convinced me that 15 Huitfeldts could not be built for 4.5 BCAD (300 MCAD apiece) with an additional 100 MCAD apiece for every AAW suite put aboard. Nor why the AOPS can't be built for 100 MCAD apiece or a Holland Class OPV for a similar price.   In my humble opinion there is some serious jiggery-pokery going on with the books on all Canadian procurement projects.

Right now, I would be taking all the weapons scavenged from the Tribals and the AORs and putting them in STANFLEX buckets as a completely separate project and then designing all of the MCDVs, AOPSs and CSCs to accomodate those modules.    That would relieve those projects from carrying a new weapons budget.

The weapons could be upgraded independently, acquiring limited numbers of 5" guns, 35mms, RWS systems, new torpedo systems, lasers, rail guns, what have you.


----------



## jollyjacktar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The $30B is just for construction.



It is what I stated, which came from a Town Hall meeting I attended from the very top...


----------



## FSTO

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree ... in so far as the _strategy_ involves ships at all it, it means a steady flow of ships so that the capability remains intact ... that may mean that the Navy gets its ships in _batches_ rather than in complete sets of one class; think about the St Laurent, Restigouche and Improved Restigouche classes (the Restigouche and Improved Restigouche classes were, really, _batches_ that _could_ have been designated as Improved St Laurent) designed in the 1940s and, laid down starting in 1950 and launched between 1951 and 1957, but, for the 21st century, stretch that to, say, ten or 15 years for three _batches_ of, say three or four ships each.




 I know I keep beating this :deadhorse: but man if the collective (government, politicos, Navy and CF) hadn't had their heads so deeply buried in the sand we could have addressed this entire issue when HMCS OTTAWA sailed away from Saint John. Water under the bridge I suppose, but this has to be the LAST time we build an entire industry from scratch.


----------



## MarkOttawa

> Posted by: jmt18325 Today at 14:14:22 »
> 
> Quote from: jollyjacktar on Yesterday at 20:30:01
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sums being discussed include the maintenance, crewing, fuel etc for the vessels over their lifespan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The $30B is just for construction.
Click to expand...


This is what the Navy said in 2010:


> ...In August, _Vanguard_ spoke with Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Ian Mack, National Defence’s Director General for Major Project Delivery (Land and Sea) about the navy’s shipbuilding program...
> 
> _Canadian Surface Combatant_
> 
> The most anticipated vessel in the new wave of shipbuilding is the Canadian Surface Combatant, the 15 ships that will replace the current mix of destroyers and frigates. With acquisition costs of about $26 billion and in-service support estimated at almost $15 billion over twenty years, these ships will be Canada’s military presence on the world’s oceans...
> http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2010/09/01/new-fleet-sight-canadian-navy-builds-tomorrow/



I.e. $41 billion total estimate then over 20 years--so $30 billion is hardly lifetime cost.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The $30B is just for construction.
> 
> This is what the Navy said in 2010:
> I.e. $41 billion total estimate then over 20 years--so $30 billion is hardly lifetime cost.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



That included the other classes of vessels.  The monies being discussed here by me are strictly for the CSC.  As I said, I am repeating what was told to us in a Town Hall from the very top.


----------



## AlexanderM

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And in my mind that is where the entire Canadian programme falls flat.  I still can not find somebody that has convinced me that 15 Huitfeldts could not be built for 4.5 BCAD (300 MCAD apiece) with an additional 100 MCAD apiece for every AAW suite put aboard. Nor why the AOPS can't be built for 100 MCAD apiece or a Holland Class OPV for a similar price.   In my humble opinion there is some serious jiggery-pokery going on with the books on all Canadian procurement projects.
> 
> Right now, I would be taking all the weapons scavenged from the Tribals and the AORs and putting them in STANFLEX buckets as a completely separate project and then designing all of the MCDVs, AOPSs and CSCs to accomodate those modules.    That would relieve those projects from carrying a new weapons budget.
> 
> The weapons could be upgraded independently, acquiring limited numbers of 5" guns, 35mms, RWS systems, new torpedo systems, lasers, rail guns, what have you.


Exactly!! Even 1 to 1.3 billion each would be fine and we would essentially have 15 destroyers, even if we call some of them Frigates. Yet with Australia spending 3 billion each on the Hobarts, Irving can't get in on that action fast enough and they'll say it justifies the numbers. Someone in the government has to have the intelligence to put a stop to this nonsense.


----------



## MarkOttawa

It seems very clear to me that these words refer only to the CSCs: 



> ...With acquisition costs of about $26 billion and in-service support estimated at almost $15 billion over twenty years, these ships...



Indeed the article gives this separate costing earlier:



> ...
> _Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship_
> 
> Canada will buy as many as eight ships to patrol the North. Initial costs will be about $3 billion, with another $4.3 billion for operations and maintenance over 25 years of operations...



And this is what the Auditor General stated in the 2013 Fall Report (Exhibit 3.3):



> ...The estimated acquisition cost is $26.2 billion, net of GST, and the estimated cost for personnel, operations, and maintenance is $64 billion for 30 years [maybe personnel and ops costs were not included in 2010 in-service support estimate of $15 billion]...
> http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201311_03_e_38797.html#hd3b



The government saw the report before it was issued and could have corrected those figures.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When the last AOP's slides down the ways, is when they should be starting to replace the MCDV, with focus on what the AOP's are not good at or to big to do.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> When the last AOP's slides down the ways, is when they should be starting to replace the MCDV, with focus on what the AOP's are not good at or to big to do.



The MCDV's are not being replaced by AOPS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You misunderstood what I said, is that when the AOP's are all constructed and in service, the program to replace the MCDV's should be underway with steel being cut, hopefully as the last AOP's slides down the ways. the MCDV's appears to the jack of all trades for everything the Halifaxes won't/can't do, I suspect the AOP's will do some of what the MCDV's do now and that means you might be able to refocus the design.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> You misunderstood what I said, is that when the AOP's are all constructed and in service, the program to replace the MCDV's should be underway with steel being cut, hopefully as the last AOP's slides down the ways. the MCDV's appears to the jack of all trades for everything the Halifaxes won't/can't do, I suspect the AOP's will do some of what the MCDV's do now and that means you might be able to refocus the design.



Understood. MCDV's will refocus their efforts on MCM but still will deploy to the Caribbean and the Arctic with AOPS according to the new concept of class document that was just released.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Going back to cost, the costs to rebuild the industrial capacity should be cleaved off the cost of actually building the ships, so everyone know what is what. That industrial rebuilding should be costed against Public works or a similar department and the actual ship construction and outfitting costs to the DND.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Going back to cost, the costs to rebuild the industrial capacity should be cleaved off the cost of actually building the ships, so everyone know what is what. That industrial rebuilding should be costed against Public works or a similar department and the actual ship construction and outfitting costs to the DND.



 :bravo:

But wasn't there some debate a while back about how that would play with WTO rules?  Could a publicly funded shipyard compete internationally for commercial contracts?  If it were a nationalized shipyard devoted to military procurement could it sell to anybody other than its own and other national governments?   I believe that is part of the weird calculus that sees up building a capability on the back of very small Navy.

Take a look at the AORs.  Davie, Seaspan and Irving all have yards that could manage the conversions, and I am willing to bet, increase the delivery rate once the kinks have been worked out, but the government is only willing to supply the cash to build 1 to 2 ships a year.  That burn rate has permitted ISY and Seaspan to figure out a business plan that will amortize their initial capital outlay over the life of the NSPS.  

They could build more, faster, if the money was there faster.  But the money is/was coming at the planned rate and that rate had to accommodate the need to create the industry.

Don't get me wrong.  No sarcasm here.  I agree entirely with the sentiments.  I am just not sure about the practicalities after the international trade lawyers and the government accountants get through describing the rules of the game.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Going back to cost, the costs to rebuild the industrial capacity should be cleaved off the cost of actually building the ships, so everyone know what is what. That industrial rebuilding should be costed against Public works or a similar department and the actual ship construction and outfitting costs to the DND.



This is what Europe does, and is why their ships are often so much cheaper.  Also you need to include the discount from subsidizing weapons industries/programs directly which we also don't do here in Canada.  Hence why I'm sure it costs more to by FCS in Canada than it does in France.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> :bravo:
> 
> But wasn't there some debate a while back about how that would play with WTO rules?  Could a publicly funded shipyard compete internationally for commercial contracts?  If it were a nationalized shipyard devoted to military procurement could it sell to anybody other than its own and other national governments?   I believe that is part of the weird calculus that sees up building a capability on the back of very small Navy.
> 
> Take a look at the AORs.  Davie, Seaspan and Irving all have yards that could manage the conversions, and I am willing to bet, increase the delivery rate once the kinks have been worked out, but the government is only willing to supply the cash to build 1 to 2 ships a year.  That burn rate has permitted ISY and Seaspan to figure out a business plan that will amortize their initial capital outlay over the life of the NSPS.
> 
> They could build more, faster, if the money was there faster.  But the money is/was coming at the planned rate and that rate had to accommodate the need to create the industry.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  No sarcasm here.  I agree entirely with the sentiments.  I am just not sure about the practicalities after the international trade lawyers and the government accountants get through describing the rules of the game.



This may very well be true as most other countries major subsidized yards were created and put on the dole well before these WTO rules came into place.


----------



## suffolkowner

For sure a proper accounting would consider foreign subsidies as well as the return to the treasury from the money spent in Canada. That's got to be a third of the total project? I think it's been posted numerous times regarding the Halifax class what the substantial offsets were.


----------



## CougarKing

NSPS architect and top Public Works bureaucrat Thomas Ring passes the torch to Lisa Campbell:

National Post



> *Michael Den Tandt: One bureaucrat’s $26-billion sign-off on new Canadian naval fleet*
> 
> Michael Den Tandt | January 7, 2016 | Last Updated: Jan 8 8:33 AM ET
> More from Michael Den Tandt | @mdentandt
> 
> *A sole-source deal involving naval shipbuilding contracts worth $26 billion was signed on behalf of the government of Canada by a single federal bureaucrat at the end of his tenure, after his successor had assumed her duties*.
> 
> An eight-page outline, entitled Agreement on Principles Between Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. (“ISI”) For The Canadian Surface Combatant Project, obtained by the National Post, describes terms of an agreement between Ottawa and ISI naming the latter “prime contractor” on the federal plan to build a new Canadian naval fleet, budgeted to cost $26 billion.
> 
> The document does not appear to be a formal, final contract and contains no fixed fee estimates, delivery schedules or dollar figures to be paid to Irving for rendering this service, which is akin to a construction firm acting as general contractor on a home renovation project, while also bidding on parts of the work itself.
> 
> In a prepared statement late Tuesday, Public Services  and Procurement Canada (formerly Public Works and Government Services Canada) confirmed no overarching contract has yet been signed. “Canada has designated Irving Shipbuilding as the Prime Contractor for the Definition and Implementation Phases of the CSC project. While three preliminary services contracts have been awarded to ISI for work relating to the CSC project, *the Definition Contract for CSC has not yet been awarded. *It is Canada’s intention to award the Definition Contract to ISI following the completion of the competitive selection of the Combat Systems Integrator and Warship Designer subcontractors.”
> 
> Dated Jan. 22, 2015, the “agreement on principles” is signed on behalf of Irving Shipbuilding by co-chief executive James D. Irving, vice-chairman Ross Langley, president Kevin McCoy, and vice-president of programs Scott Jamieson.
> 
> *Thomas Ring, a former senior bureaucrat at the Defence and Public Works departments who played a leading role in framing the former Conservative government’s national shipbuilding procurement strategy in 2011*, is the sole signatory for the government of Canada. His signature is dated Jan. 21. No job titles are included with his or the other four signatures.
> 
> Ring is now a senior fellow in the University of Ottawa’s graduate school of public and international affairs. His retirement from his last federal post as assistant deputy minister (acquisitions) at Public Works became public in late August 2014, nearly six months before the Irving deal was signed.
> 
> According to a defence industry source, Ring served his final days at Public Works in mid-to-late January 2015. He did not respond to a telephone request Tuesday for an interview*. His successor and the current ADM (Acquisitions) at Public Works, Lisa Campbell, formally assumed the role Jan. 16, 2015, according to an internal Public Works memo reported by the Ottawa Citizen at the time.
> *
> In its prepared response, Public Services and Procurement Canada added: “On January 21, 2015, (the) date of the signature of the agreement on principles between Canada and Irving Shipbuilding, Mr. Ring was the assistant deputy minister responsible for Acquisitions Branch. To ensure that there was a smooth transition in Acquisitions Branch, Ms. Campbell joined the department prior to Mr. Ring’s retirement.”
> 
> News of ISI’s appointment as prime contractor broke last Jan. 20, a day before the memorandum was signed by Ring and two days before it was signed by ISI.* It set Ottawa officialdom abuzz due to the arrangement being sole-sourced — meaning it was awarded without formal bids — and because of the staggering sum of public money involved.
> *
> The National Post’s John Ivison reported Jan. 21, 2015, that the arrangement had been run by the ministerial working group responsible for procurement, but not the cabinet, because, according to an unnamed source at Public Works, it was an “administrative contractual decision.”
> 
> *
> Like the vast majority of current federal military procurement projects, the Canadian surface combatants program is behind schedule and plagued by ballooning costs.* An initial commitment to build 16 warships was scaled back to 15, then “up to 15,” and most recently downgraded to possibly as few as 11.  The selection of a combat systems integrator and warship designer for the project has yet to be made.
> 
> Irving’s dominant role in managing the CSC project has important implications for the ultimate disposition of the systems and design work, which comprises upwards of 60 per cent of the cost of building a modern warship. ISI has long-standing ties with U.S. defence giant Lockheed-Martin. Several other global defence firms, including Thales Group and DCNS Group, are also expected to bid on parts of the work.
> 
> The CSC program forms the backbone of the previous government’s shipbuilding initiative, unveiled with great fanfare in October 2011. It is also central to the new Liberal government’s promise to reform and improve byzantine military procurement practices that have bedeviled every Canadian administration since the Brian Mulroney era.
> 
> During the recent federal campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to set aside once and for all the star-crossed F-35 fighter-jet purchase, find a lower-cost fighter for the Royal Canadian Air Force, and plow any savings into rebuilding the Royal Canadian Navy.


----------



## dapaterson

Irving shipyard is in the news over a large number of warranty claims for the new Coast Guard vessels: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/coast-guard-irving-ships-1.3422997



> New mid-shore patrol ships have been the subject of numerous warranty claims by the Canadian Coast Guard, including for faulty wiring, polluted water tanks, premature corrosion and a gearbox failure, which could endanger the safety of the crew, Radio-Canada has learned.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Surprised we are not

The last CCG contract that I am aware of that no failures were the 1100 class built on the west coast and the Matsumoto shipyard contract for the 41' cutters which was the result of a cancelled failed east coast contract.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Typical Irving quality we've come to expect and dread.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Surprised we are not
> 
> The last CCG contract that I am aware of that no failures were the 1100 class built on the west coast and the Matsumoto shipyard contract for the 41' cutters which was the result of a cancelled failed east coast contract.



Do you mean that the Pearkes and the Black were OK but the other four type 1100 had problems?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I cannot comment on them as I have no knowledge of their build. I can say that every ship we got from the East Coast was (in the words of my Bosun) a Sh*t pit. The Laurier apparently need a lot of work when she came out here. The Narwhal and Barlett where good ships, just badly worn, the Norman McLeod Rogers, came out here, Asbestos was seen floating from the deckheads, the cost of removal combined with all the other repairs caused her to be surplussed. I should add the Hovercraft contract did go fairly well.

Other major contract failures that I know of
Landing craft fuel barges (terrible design and terrible build quality) 
first 41' cutter contracts (first one rejected, contract given to west coast yeard)
70' Point class (only 2 of the 9 built due to poor workmanship)
47' Lifeboat (After testing the first one, the Kingston yard lost the contract, the remaining boats were built by Nanimo shipyards)


----------



## Underway

Is it just me are are all ship building contracts a disaster waiting to happen?  When I'm looking around the internet and talking to other sailors it seems like almost all military ship projects are managed badly, have tonnes of problems and never seem to sort themselves out until years after the ship has been in operation.  Every country has their issues.  Just a few examples:  the LCS, the Type-45, Hobart Class... Also in speaking to my NATO friends they all have gripes and bitches about their "builders" and cost overruns/shoddy work.  Just a fact of life perhaps?  Warships are the most complicated engineering task a society can embark on, even more than a space program.  Should we not expect a lower standard overall?


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile civilian hulls are turned out at a high rate and serve their masters well until they are replaced.

Personally I think a big part of the issue is the high rate.  Practice makes perfect and the civilians producing civilian vessels for civilian purposes understand their trade, their craft and their clients.

None of that seems to be true in the military world.


----------



## CBH99

Chris Pook - with the _possible_ exception of the USN...just based on the fact that their military shipbuilders are constantly building new ships & new blocks of ships, and seem to have the process pretty well practiced.


----------



## Kirkhill

I would argue that the USN is in the same boat - your pardon.

They can build multiples but they have difficulty with the first of class - San Jose, Independence and Freedom, immediately come to mind.

The LCS types they are still debugging.  And Zumwalts have been a long time coming and likely to be few in number.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I would argue that the USN is in the same boat - your pardon.
> 
> They can build multiples but they have difficulty with the first of class - San Jose, Independence and Freedom, immediately come to mind.
> 
> The LCS types they are still debugging.  And Zumwalts have been a long time coming and likely to be few in number.



All true.  I was speaking with men who were involved in the San Antonio.  The costs and mistakes were epic.  She cost $20B just to bring from plan to jetty, so much so they could not afford to install her VLS in the bow.  The company that won the contract for the gearboxes and associated parts went under halfway through the design and build.  The USN was forced to find another company to start from the beginning and finish that part of the build.  Very expensive.


----------



## Kirkhill

Gearboxes.  Powerplants.  Hull.  Navigation gear.  Engine Rooms and Mechanical services. Even Platform Management Systems .... Surely those are all portable from the civvy world to the naval world?  With the ready expertise?

Or does everything have to be re-engineered every time?


----------



## CBH99

I was thinking more along the lines of classes of vessels already in service, i.e. Alreigh Burke class - that tend to have fairly predictable build schedules.

But when it comes to new classes of vessels, your right - definitely can't argue.  And the amount of money paid definitely seems to be a premium.


----------



## Monsoon

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Gearboxes.  Powerplants.  Hull.  Navigation gear.  Engine Rooms and Mechanical services. Even Platform Management Systems .... Surely those are all portable from the civvy world to the naval world?  With the ready expertise?
> 
> Or does everything have to be re-engineered every time?


Gearboxes and powerplants - Not at all. You won't find civilian ships with the complex CODAG sort of arrangements that are common (and necessary for redundancy) on warships.

Hull - Nope. Naval hulls these days are optimized for radar cross-section reduction, which isn't even remotely a civilian consideration.

Navigation gear - The nav systems on a warship need to be integrated with the combat systems, which for a variety of reasons means they need to be developed as military grade from scratch.

Engine rooms and mechanical services - Again, these arrangements tend to look very different on warships due to the need to optimize for survivability (so, a higher degree of compartmentalization and redundancy, etc).

Platform Management Systems - The civilian requirement doesn't have to address the need to "float-move-fight": naval systems are heavily geared towards shipboard fire fighting and damage control. Where civilian ships sometimes to use the same IPMS as military ones (for example, the former CAE/now L3 system), that's because the systems were designed specifically for military use and can be "down-graded" to fit the civilian requirement.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Underway said:
			
		

> Is it just me are are all ship building contracts a disaster waiting to happen?  When I'm looking around the internet and talking to other sailors it seems like almost all military ship projects are managed badly, have tonnes of problems and never seem to sort themselves out until years after the ship has been in operation.  Every country has their issues.  Just a few examples:  the LCS, the Type-45, Hobart Class... Also in speaking to my NATO friends they all have gripes and bitches about their "builders" and cost overruns/shoddy work.  Just a fact of life perhaps?  Warships are the most complicated engineering task a society can embark on, even more than a space program.  Should we not expect a lower standard overall?



From what i read on the internet,the T-45's have big problems (electrical),when all the power(electrical)is needed the lights go out(wartsillas trip themselves out)
Looks strange to me(has to do,in my mind,with all the government cutting on the project)

So it seems that the T-45 need a lot more electrcal power(maybe a solution is to put a 3rd wartsilla in), but then "our" DZP's  use the wartsillas too,no problems there.but offcourse we use 4 and they are 1.7MW each,so that's why no probs there.

here's a short piece of the story:

THE former head of the Royal Navy has said the government needs to act immediately to refit the engines of Britain’s most advanced warships.

The calls come as the Ministry of Defence (MoD) revealed that the £6bn fleet of six Type 45 destroyers will be fitted with new engines because the keep breaking down.

However, Admiral Lord Alan West said the reliability of the warships – which are all based in Portsmouth – had been on-going issue for the past few years and should have been dealt with sooner.

Speaking to The News today, Lord West said: ‘Clearly this is a pervasive, systemic problem that needs to be resolved as quickly, as it can,

‘These are not just teething problems.

‘It was quite clear, certainly two years ago, that this was systemic.

‘We have got 19 frigates and destroyers and if six have engine problems then we have only 13 – that’s unacceptable.’

He criticised the MoD for not taking action sooner to resolve the issue and urged the Treasury to provide cash to fund the refit programme sooner rather than later.

Read more: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/update-former-navy-head-says-type-45-s-engine-woes-are-systemic-1-7187230#ixzz3yjIz2qFZ

gr,walter


Here's a bit more(so it'll be clear it's electrical)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35432341

here's the answer of Voldakov(DT-forum),looked a bit deeper into the problems;


Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
If not building enough ships is the root cause of the U.K.'s naval building program then Canada and the RCN have an even worse problem. 
I covered this on the RAN thread, the issue is apparently not the propulsion system but under power diesel generators, i.e only two Wartsilas of only 1Mw each, verses the Type 23 with four DGs of 1.5Mw each. When trawling along on station the ships would be running on DGs only to save fuel, when the required power exceeds what the DGs can provide the whole thing (or specific systems) trip out as there is insufficient power.


----------



## GR66

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Gearboxes and powerplants - Not at all. You won't find civilian ships with the complex CODAG sort of arrangements that are common (and necessary for redundancy) on warships.
> 
> Hull - Nope. Naval hulls these days are optimized for radar cross-section reduction, which isn't even remotely a civilian consideration.
> 
> Navigation gear - The nav systems on a warship need to be integrated with the combat systems, which for a variety of reasons means they need to be developed as military grade from scratch.
> 
> Engine rooms and mechanical services - Again, these arrangements tend to look very different on warships due to the need to optimize for survivability (so, a higher degree of compartmentalization and redundancy, etc).
> 
> Platform Management Systems - The civilian requirement doesn't have to address the need to "float-move-fight": naval systems are heavily geared towards shipboard fire fighting and damage control. Where civilian ships sometimes to use the same IPMS as military ones (for example, the former CAE/now L3 system), that's because the systems were designed specifically for military use and can be "down-graded" to fit the civilian requirement.



I'm curious as to how many of these items have to be completely re-designed for each and every new class of warship.  Cannot any of these militarized designs be re-used from class to class, or are there not major western manufacturers that supply these items to an array of ship builders?  What I'm trying to understand is if we are making these problems ourselves by the way we are contracting our warship construction (each nation doing it's own thing...each new class in each nation to it's own shipbuilder or shipyard, etc.) rather than the problems being actual technical problems.


----------



## FSTO

GR66 said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to how many of these items have to be completely redesigned for each and every new class of warship.  Cannot any of these militarized designs be reused from class to class, or are there not major western manufacturers that supply these items to an array of ship builders?  What I'm trying to understand is if we are making these problems ourselves by the way we are contracting our warship construction (each nation doing it's own thing...each new class in each nation to it's own shipbuilder or shipyard, etc.) rather than the problems being actual technical problems.



Our "Cadillac" that were built in the 50's and 60's were basically the same hull and powerplants. Instead of giving them different names they could have been called "flight 1, 2, 3, 4.
The USN did the same with the Spruances and Ticonderongas. Many of the ideas from those two were incorporated into the Arleigh Burkes.


----------



## GR66

FSTO said:
			
		

> Our "Cadillac" that were built in the 50's and 60's were basically the same hull and powerplants. Instead of giving them different names they could have been called "flight 1, 2, 3, 4.
> The USN did the same with the Spruances and Ticonderongas. Many of the ideas from those two were incorporated into the Arleigh Burkes.



Thanks for the reply.  I'm certainly not dismissing the differences between civilian and military shipbuilding noted by Hamiltongs, but are his points a little overstated only because that level of difficulty is based the Canadian-specific reality of OUR shipbuilding industry?  If we handled the purchase differently would these SYSTEMS related problems be less?  Is picking mature, proven (in other classes of active ships) systems even an option in the world shipbuilding market?  

I guess what I'm getting at, is it possible to choose a series of proven systems (the Gearboxes and powerplants from this ship, the Navigation gear from that ship, the mechanical services from this ship, and the Platform Management Systems from a different ship) and shift all of the design and development issues strictly into the hull design and systems integration?


----------



## NavyShooter

I could be wrong (happens to me now and then) but if I recall correctly, there was an intention that the existing Combat Management System (CMS) on our frigates would be 'robust' enough to be ported over to other classes of vessels, such as the CSC.

Obviously, sensors would be different, and weapons, but the core program I think was intended to be common between platforms.

That said, looking specifically at Nav systems, we have much in common between platforms, using the same SHINNADS, RLGNs, and NDS systems.

For reference though, installing the NDS cabinets (Navigation Distribution System) as a retrofit/upgrade took over 2000 hours, plus the cost of the cabinets.  (per ship) and while this was done on some ships concurrently with the MLR, it was not an MLR project.

NS


----------



## Kirkhill

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Gearboxes and powerplants - Not at all. You won't find civilian ships with the complex CODAG sort of arrangements that are common (and necessary for redundancy) on warships.
> 
> Hull - Nope. Naval hulls these days are optimized for radar cross-section reduction, which isn't even remotely a civilian consideration.
> 
> Navigation gear - The nav systems on a warship need to be integrated with the combat systems, which for a variety of reasons means they need to be developed as military grade from scratch.
> 
> Engine rooms and mechanical services - Again, these arrangements tend to look very different on warships due to the need to optimize for survivability (so, a higher degree of compartmentalization and redundancy, etc).
> 
> Platform Management Systems - The civilian requirement doesn't have to address the need to "float-move-fight": naval systems are heavily geared towards shipboard fire fighting and damage control. Where civilian ships sometimes to use the same IPMS as military ones (for example, the former CAE/now L3 system), that's because the systems were designed specifically for military use and can be "down-graded" to fit the civilian requirement.



And now I needs must proceed very carefully here because I was out of my depth when I fired off my first blast.

But.  Always up for a challenge.

"Gearboxes and powerplants - Not at all. You won't find civilian ships with the complex CODAG sort of arrangements that are common (and necessary for redundancy) on warships."

Which may perhaps explain the move to diesel-electric plants with podded propulsors?  And the tendency to focus on diesel engines rather than gas turbines?  Given a choice of turbine or diesel for tanks the Brits, Jerries, Italians and French, and the Russians, all opted for Diesel.  Only the Americans felt there was an advantage in the turbines.  

As to mechanical gear boxes and complex linkages - industry has moved away from mechanical variators and gear boxes to frequency drives precisely because they are simpler to install, easier to locate, cheaper to maintain, less likely to fail, and easier to replace.  Not to mention easier to maintain water tight even in an NEMA 6P environment.

"Engine rooms and mechanical services - Again, these arrangements tend to look very different on warships due to the need to optimize for survivability (so, a higher degree of compartmentalization and redundancy, etc)."

Again I would point out the benefits of the hybrid diesel-electric configuration in this regard, especially as it is much easier to seal a power line transiting a bulkhead than it is a rotating shaft or even a pipe. 

And the podded propulsion systems don't seem to be going away.

"Hull - Nope. Naval hulls these days are optimized for radar cross-section reduction, which isn't even remotely a civilian consideration"

I would differentiate between hull design and hull construction.

I take your point about the design parameters - but the shape of the hull doesn't seem to be a major problem for civilian yards, either above or below the waterline.   And the issue I am addressing is the constructability of the vessel and ability to contract experienced yards to do the work.

Here is one company's gallery of commercially available hulls.  http://vardmarine.com/vessel-gallery/


"Navigation gear - The nav systems on a warship need to be integrated with the combat systems, which for a variety of reasons means they need to be developed as military grade from scratch."

"Platform Management Systems - The civilian requirement doesn't have to address the need to "float-move-fight": naval systems are heavily geared towards shipboard fire fighting and damage control. Where civilian ships sometimes to use the same IPMS as military ones (for example, the former CAE/now L3 system), that's because the systems were designed specifically for military use and can be "down-graded" to fit the civilian requirement."

Taking these two together I think you overcome your Navigation objection in your Platform Management objection.  You say that they only reason the IPMS systems are available is because they were developed for military standards and then derated to meet the civilian world.  Something like a Cray computer perhaps?

The point is that the same technology is now available for both civilian and military platforms. And with respect to navigation, are your positioning and situational awareness needs (exempting aircraft) any greater than an offshore survey vessel, a cable layer, a trawler, or a semi-submersible rig?

Finally, with respect to Navy Shooter's comments about the portability of the Halifax Modernization I believe that that has already be demonstrated by the selection of the same system for the New Zealand frigate upgrades.

http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/ca/what-we-do/naval-combat-management-systems.html

A different ship, with different sensors and weapons but the same combat management system provided by Lockheed.


Again,  no expert me but I try to stay informed.

Looking forward to an educational rebuttal.  [


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Looking forward to an educational rebuttal.  [



Ah! C'mon Chris ... You had to say that. You know, just KNOW, that I have to answer that now !!!

But I'll answer a part of  GR66's post first:



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> I guess what I'm getting at, is it possible to choose a series of proven systems (the Gearboxes and powerplants from this ship, the Navigation gear from that ship, the mechanical services from this ship, and the Platform Management Systems from a different ship) and shift all of the design and development issues strictly into the hull design and systems integration?



What GR66 suggests is obviously done to a large extent, even for warships. Look at the Halifax's: The GE LM2500 gaz turbines were not invented and built a special way just for the class, and neither were the Pielstick diesel engines. But those type of engines are not "off-the-shelf" items. GE does not build its turbines on an assembly line and then put them in a store room until they sell them. They build when they have an order; same for large diesel engines. So they are still "one build" items and cost you full price wether the design is pre-existing or not.

Same for the gearboxes, really. They, individually, are from existing designs. The problem, wether in a CODAG or CODOG configuration, is integration of all these sets of gearboxes through the complete power curve. This is done through a very complex set of electronic controls over gears and clutches and shafts, etc. This is where the money goes and it has to be done every time you deal with a different hull configuration and ship size, even if you use the same power plant/gearbox combination.

To give an example of what I mean here, but over simplifying for illustration purposes - so please no crucifixion based on missing details or not quite perfect explanation - take the following: The frigate is ordered from cruising at ten knots to 30 knots, unexpectedly. It had been running on diesel with the GT's down (you don't keep the GT's up when not using them otherwise, what's the point of  cruise engine). Now you obviously don't start the GT's, de-clutched, then de-clutch and shut the diesel, then clutch-in the GTs. As the levers on the bridge are pushed forward, the GTs come up and progressively start to provide power to the shafts while the diesel engine progressively ceases to transmit power, so that overall, the ship seamlessly accelerates through to 30 Kts. This gradual switchover occurs aver a portion of the power curve, near the maximum power of the diesel and the medium power of the GTs. but it must happen in such ways that the GTs much greater power is not fed back into the Diesel's gearing so that the competing forces would break the gear.

BTW, there are no such requirements for merchant ships. Most of them are single engine with single gearbox to a single shaft, and even those with multiple engines and screws usually have separate engines to separate shafts each through their individual gearbox. Not so warships, where a single GT could just as easily provide the power to both shafts - yet another level of gearing complexity, usually controlled through electronic systems.

So the short answer GR66, is that we already do what you propose, but it doesn't save money on the actual piece of equipment, and the main problems arise from integration of these systems into a whole.

Now on to my good friend Chris.  I'll put my comments in yellow into his text:


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> "Gearboxes and powerplants - Not at all. You won't find civilian ships with the complex CODAG sort of arrangements that are common (and necessary for redundancy) on warships."
> 
> Which may perhaps explain the move to diesel-electric plants with podded propulsors?  And the tendency to focus on diesel engines rather than gas turbines?  Given a choice of turbine or diesel for tanks the Brits, Jerries, Italians and French, and the Russians, all opted for Diesel.  Only the Americans felt there was an advantage in the turbines.
> 
> And given choice, the Brits, Jerries, Italians, French, Russian and Americans all opted for Gaz turbines for the upper end of the power requirement for their new frigates and destroyers. The upper power curve requirements for warships are just too great. Look at your favourite country (the only one that opted for all diesel for a frigate, but while acknowledging that they miss on the acceleration in the upper speed range as a result) Denmark: Absalon 16.6 MW of power for 24 Kts to Iver's 32.8 MW for 30 Kts. The last 20% of speed costs you as much power as the first 80%. As regards pods, no one uses them for the frigates/destroyers. Those countries going "all-electric" propulsion, like the Brits and the Americans, use electric motors geared through actual shafts with standard screw. Azipods have serious speed limitation as a result of their design, so they are used in warships that don't need higher speeds but great manoeuvrability, such as mine warfare crafts and amphibious warfare vessels.
> 
> As to mechanical gear boxes and complex linkages - industry has moved away from mechanical variators and gear boxes to frequency drives precisely because they are simpler to install, easier to locate, cheaper to maintain, less likely to fail, and easier to replace.  Not to mention easier to maintain water tight even in an NEMA 6P environment.
> 
> Don't know which industry you refer to. I am not aware of any industry where they have to deal with the integration of power from various source the way that CODAG, CODOG, COGOG or COGAG does.
> 
> "Engine rooms and mechanical services - Again, these arrangements tend to look very different on warships due to the need to optimize for survivability (so, a higher degree of compartmentalization and redundancy, etc)."
> 
> Again I would point out the benefits of the hybrid diesel-electric configuration in this regard, especially as it is much easier to seal a power line transiting a bulkhead than it is a rotating shaft or even a pipe.
> 
> Partially agree: Electric propulsion makes it easier to compartmentalize the power plant. But not limited to diesel. Even with Integrated Electric propulsion, to which the UK (type 45 and Queen Elizabeth) and the US are moving (Zumwalt), you need the massive power of GT's for combatant warships.
> 
> And the podded propulsion systems don't seem to be going away.
> 
> They haven't even made it in for surface combatants, as discussed above.
> 
> "Hull - Nope. Naval hulls these days are optimized for radar cross-section reduction, which isn't even remotely a civilian consideration"
> 
> I would differentiate between hull design and hull construction.
> 
> I take your point about the design parameters - but the shape of the hull doesn't seem to be a major problem for civilian yards, either above or below the waterline.   And the issue I am addressing is the constructability of the vessel and ability to contract experienced yards to do the work.
> 
> Actually, there are two points here: First, merchant ship's hulls are basically one big square box with a slightly more pointy end at the front and and slightly tucked-in ass. On top of it you put the seaman's residence, which is just a big square box. Warship hulls are much  more complex in shape and therefore in construction, because of the need for stealth (above water) and noise reduction (below water). Moreover, and this is the second point, Merchant ships are not built for speed in all sea states and resistance to external shock and forces (usually through flexibility). Warships are, which is why they are built from a different type of steel, high tensile one, than the steel used for merchant ships, and contrary to Merchant ships, where a small slip in welding letting a drop of water here and there is no big deal, warship welds are to be perfect and are, as a result, all usually x-rayed for precision during construction. The welding is different and experience in one doesn't mean experience in the other.
> 
> Here is one company's gallery of commercially available hulls.  http://vardmarine.com/vessel-gallery/
> 
> No, it's not a gallery of hulls "available". The gallery has two things: Some are photographs of ships, which means "look, I've built and sold that ship to someone - so if you want exactly the same one, I have the plans and can build it from scratch for you", but it is still to be built and at the same cost as the first  + inflation, and it has drawn pictures of some ships, which means that they have never built such ship, like the look and concept, but if you like them and want one, they have to start from scratch to draft the plans and build it. The only company that builds and keeps "basic" "warships" (I mean the hull, machinery and superstructure, but not the finishing or any weapons/electronics) is Damen, which keeps - in view of its popularity - a small number of pre-built bare-hulls for their STAN 4207 patrol boat.
> 
> "Navigation gear - The nav systems on a warship need to be integrated with the combat systems, which for a variety of reasons means they need to be developed as military grade from scratch."
> 
> "Platform Management Systems - The civilian requirement doesn't have to address the need to "float-move-fight": naval systems are heavily geared towards shipboard fire fighting and damage control. Where civilian ships sometimes to use the same IPMS as military ones (for example, the former CAE/now L3 system), that's because the systems were designed specifically for military use and can be "down-graded" to fit the civilian requirement."
> 
> Taking these two together I think you overcome your Navigation objection in your Platform Management objection.  You say that they only reason the IPMS systems are available is because they were developed for military standards and then derated to meet the civilian world.  Something like a Cray computer perhaps?
> 
> I would not quite go so far as Hamiltongs on this point, you don't always need to re-invent the wheel, but - I believe what he had in mind is the following: As regards navigation systems, think about it in Army terms. Lets say that we decided that from now on Arty F.O's would call in their strike embedded with the front line infantry using an iPad. You would probably say that the iPad has to be able to be dropped in the mud or water, stepped on accidentally with combat boots, shot at with light weapons, etc. Apple doesn't make that iPad, but you could put an iPad software and processors in a portable box that would resist all that. That is what the civilian navigation systems on warships also have to face, thus they must be built into, to quote Ford, "military grade" casings and boxes.
> 
> As for the IPMS systems, again here, no need to start from scratch, bu the analogy is not to buying a computer, but to buying software that needs adaptation overtime. The concept is closer to buying Oracle for your financial and manpower management in large organization: Oracle already has a system drafted and developed, but you need to do a lot of programming work to adapt and input all the specific data and modifications that meet your organization specific need. That integration work is the complex and expansive part. It's the same for the IPMS.
> 
> The point is that the same technology is now available for both civilian and military platforms. And with respect to navigation, are your positioning and situational awareness needs (exempting aircraft) any greater than an offshore survey vessel, a cable layer, a trawler, or a semi-submersible rig?
> 
> Actually, they are greater: None of the civilian ship you mention have to do their work at 30 Kts, while swinging wildly to port or starboard at the rate a warship at speed can turn, while feeding this very precise information on movement to systems that need it to be able to basically shoot a bullet at another, incoming, bullet.
> 
> Finally, with respect to Navy Shooter's comments about the portability of the Halifax Modernization I believe that that has already be demonstrated by the selection of the same system for the New Zealand frigate upgrades.
> 
> http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/ca/what-we-do/naval-combat-management-systems.html
> 
> A different ship, with different sensors and weapons but the same combat management system provided by Lockheed.
> 
> Same combat management system, but because it has different weapons and sensors, a different integration. However, having just completed the integration work of their base system for the Halifax's, LockMart was able to be more precise and more reliable in quoting the price of integrating these into their base combat system.



I hope we are still friends, Chris  :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill

More to follow. Wait Out.   :cheers:


----------



## Karel Doorman

th Oldgate,for your explanation,even i got it.  :bowing:

Well to be fair not all the terms and abbreviations but hey i'm learning here(not an marine expert,just an enthusiast) [

Hope you 2 are still friends,lol 

gr,walter


----------



## Kirkhill

Oh I got it Walter.  I was just delaying the inevitable prior to admitting defeat.  Not that I am admitting defeat.....  ;D

I have to keep trying.

Point taken on the incorporation of the Gas Turbine.  (I would buy myself some wiggle room by pointing out that all the vessels in question were based on safe technologies of the 1990s and designed in response to the threat appreciation of the 1990s  -  As noted earlier in the thread technologies, threats and responses have all changed.  Perhaps the needs assessment of 2016 is different than that of 1996?)

http://marine.man.eu/docs/librariesprovider6/marine-broschures/diesel-electric-drives-guideline.pdf?sfvrsn=0
http://www.qe2.org.uk/engine.html
http://news.usni.org/2015/09/23/navy-set-to-install-hybrid-electric-drives-in-destroyer-fleet-staring-next-year
http://www.l-3mps.com/maritimesystems/hybrid-ehmti-042013.aspx

As far as "which industries" - I will admit that no industries use multiple power sources - except insofar as converting all power to electricity and then using electricity uniquely to power its rotating equipment and controls. Regardless of load or response times.
That electricity comes from on-site gensets and cogen plants, or offsite wind, hydro, nuclear, coal, gas, diesel..... The point is that the electrical system permits flexibility and is a lot less demanding in terms of space.

With respect to "pods" - perhaps I should reword that and say "nacelles", or even modules.  The notion is that the prop, motor and reduction gear can all be treated as a compact module, that is relatively easy to accommodate within the hull structure, conformally.  It doesn't have to be dangling in the breeze (or is that the wake?) and it doesn't have to azimuthing.  You can still employ a conventional prop and rudder control system. And the propulsor unit is discrete from the power supplies which can be distributed along the length of the keel as well as port and starboard making the ship less vulnerable to damage in any given sector.  One genset flooded and the ship can still "float-move-fight" (I believe was the expression?).

WRT hull forms - I think, OGBD, you may be underestimating how much fuel efficiency is valued in the civilian world.  And, in any event, if the civilian yards can create complex bow and stern forms then they can certainly manage to create more "interesting" module shapes when they are buggering about in between.

Civilian doesn't just mean Emma Maersk.  It incorporates a multitude of designed for purpose work boats.

WRT navs, platform management and combat systems management - I suspect a rapprochement is likely there - both technically and between ourselves.

Once the databus is defined than we are simply debating what sensors, switches and motors are being incorporated. 

Final point: 

I am a strong believer in working with what is available within the budget that is available. I know all things are possible if cash... but there is never enough cash.  That means trying to figure out how to get the most out of what I, and my clients, can afford. In this context, I suggest, that means trying to figure out how much you might be able to achieve by buying to civilian standards and incorporating civilian design concepts.

That is, after all how we ended up with the Corvettes - derived from the whale catcher Southern Pride.






https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3d/Southern_Pride%2C_after_RN_conversion.jpg

What could be accomplished with this as a model?






http://www.havfisk.no/en/fleet/fleet-overview/gadus-neptun
http://www.havfisk.no/upload_images/83660EB698B149C9A5A3CFF5E8501A80.pdf

http://www.havfisk.no/upload_images/83660EB698B149C9A5A3CFF5E8501A80.pdf

She is no high speed frigate, agreed, but neither is she simply a floating box with a pointy end.

Your service, Sir.   :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill

By the way:

Here is a link to a virtual tour of Gadus Neptun

http://invisual.no/havfisk/


----------



## Kirkhill

Some more links on the use of electrical power

A discussion comparing Gas Turbine powered compressors to electric compressors and the use of permanent magnets.

http://www.nist.gov/pml/high_megawatt/upload/7_1_Weeber-Approved.pdf

Some applications for permanent magnets:



> "This machinery is undoubtedly a new departure for fishing vessels towards electrical drive", explains Ramon Carreira, General Manager of Ibercisa, adding that to have this type of equipment allows improved operational performance on board the vessel - less power installed, better flexibility to overcharge electrical engines for temporary use by increasing par; lower installation costs, elimination of pipes and onboard oils, simplification of on board systems, improved noise levels, and more environmentally friendly, not forgetting considerable savings in fuel costs".
> 
> Apart from control systems the Ibercisa order is comprised of the following:
> 
> 2 electric split trawl winches electrically driven by a 360 kW - 600 rpm - 440 V, controlled by frequency converter; with a capacity for 3000 m rope Ø 34 mm or 3.400 m Ø 32 mm with a pull of 49,5 tons at first lay at 37,8 m/min.
> 
> 2 electric Gilson winches driven by 75 kW a 1800 rpm ; with capacity for 125 metres of Ø40 mm rope and pulling power of 22,2 tons at19 m/min on the first layer.
> 
> 6 electric sweepline winches driven by 110 kW motor a6 1800 rpm with a capacity of 1.100 metres of Ø28 mm wire and a line pull of 14,3 tons at 30 m/min.
> 
> 2 electric net sounder winches driven by electric motor of 55 kW at 1800 rpm; with capacity of 4.000 metres of Ø11,3 mm wire and with a capacity for 5,5 tons at a speed of 55m/min.
> 
> 2 electric cod end winches driven by electrical motor 75kW at 1800 rpm with a capacity for 150 m wire of Ø22 mm and a line pull power of 12,9 tons at 32,4 m/min.
> 
> 3 electric net drums: one driven by an electric motor of 260 kW a 1800 rpm with capacity of 20 m3 of net and a line pull power of 29,8 tons at 45 m/min; another with a motor of 30 kW and a motor of 30 kW at 1800 rpm with a capacity for 13 m3 of net and a pull of 5,5 tons at 28 m/min; and a third drum with dual control for a motor of doble accionado motor of 105kW at 1800 rpm with capacity for 14 m3 of net (2 x 7 m3).
> 
> 1 electric auxiliary anchor winch driven by a 55 kW motor at 1000 rpm and capacity for 370 metres of 44mm wire and a pul of 21,2 tons at 12,4 m/min.
> 
> 1 electric mooring winch driven by 18,5 Kw motor at 1800 rpm with capacity for 290 mm chain of 28mm and a pull of 9,3 tons at 11 m/min
> 
> 2 electric auxiliary winches of 45 kW at 1800 rpm with a pull of 7,8 tons a t 31,8 m/min on the first layer.
> 
> 2 electric auxiliary winches with 5 kW a 1800 rpm motor with automatic and electromagnetic brake with a capacity for 60 metres of Ø12 mm chain and a pull of 0,8 toneladas at 37 m/min on the first layer.
> 
> The advantages of electric drive on fishing equipment are without doubt one of the great technological advances in optimization of fishing operations. The installation of electrically driven machinery gives immediate benefits in terms of vessel exploitation costs by greatly affecting one of any boat owners biggest headaches: fuel costs.
> 
> Electrical controls on the machinery not only reduce the space needed for installation but are also lighter and more efficient, giving better winch performance with the automatic trawl system. However these are not the only reasons in favour of the electrical drive control. Others are:
> 
> - Installation costs are lower as no pipes or tubes are needed.
> - Fuel consumption is lower, maintenance and noise levels are also reduced, improving the security and health of workers on board.
> - The control systems of winches using alternative currents, are comprised of frequency variators, alternative current (AC). winch gearbox, refrigeration system for motors and an energy regeneration system.
> - The greater efficiency of the winch (input/output power) and the possibility of regenerating power during cast off improve the fuel consumption ratios of the vessel.
> - The control system efficiency of electric drive is situated around 85%-90% as opposed to the hydraulic drive which can vary between 50% and 70%.
> - They offer better control than hydraulic systems, variable speed control from 0%-100% of maximum rpm and all the par at any rpm level.



http://www.industriaspesqueras.com/noticias/tecnologia/37833/ibercisa_will_suplly_deck_machinery_for_the_new_trawler_of_fishermen_finest_.html

Contra-Rotating propellers with electric drive.

http://www.scana.no/sites/all/files/Contra%20Rotating%20Propulsion_0.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As far as Pods go, they seem best suited for slower vessels that need to be very maneuoverable. I recall reading somewhere that at high speeds they can have issues and that they are not the best for directional stability.


----------



## Cloud Cover

On the issue of how quickly naval shipbuilding costs can balloon, this is not just a NATO/AUS issue, it appears to be a profiteering, capitalist democracy issue:

"Initially in 2008, the total program cost with long-term spare parts was expected to cost ₹ 3,800 Crore (US $950 Million),[30] but the construction costs escalated about 225% , and by 2011, cost of the program became ₹ 11,662 Crore (about US $2.6 Billion at that time), with each ship costing ₹ 3,900 Crore (about US $870 million at that time).[31] The Defense Minister A. K. Antony cited the causes being the delay in supply of warship-grade steel by Russia, increase in costs of Russian specialists due to inflation during the build period, wage revision due from October 2003 and delay in finalization of cost of weapons and sensors."

Kolkata Class Destroyer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata-class_destroyer


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> As far as Pods go, they seem best suited for slower vessels that need to be very maneuoverable. I recall reading somewhere that at high speeds they can have issues and that they are not the best for directional stability.



I probably should have been more careful with the use of the word pod.  Perhaps propulsor module or somesuch would be more appropriate.

The pod is one example of a group of electric drives that essentially cause the propeller to become an electric mixer at the back of the boat.  It can hang underneath in its own pod, which can be uni-directional or azimuthing, or it can be conformally integrated into the hull.  The article below does a great job of describing the development from the first electric battleships in 1917 (the Tennessee class) to the Zumwalt via the diesel electric and nuclear submarines.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/going-electric/

Some highlights 



> In each case, the ship’s prime mover drives a generator rather than a propeller shaft. The propeller (or propulsor) is driven by a motor wired to the generator. In modern cruise ships, this kind of arrangement makes it possible to place the propellers in pods, which can rotate to turn the ship – to give it unusual maneuverability for its size. *In a warship, electric power in itself might have several consequences.* One would be that the ship would not have to run all of her engines all the time, because electric power from any of them could drive all of her propellers. At the very least, that* would make for much better efficiency and longer range at a given speed*. That increased efficiency alone justified electric drive for several new major amphibious ships. *USS Makin Island (LHD 8), first of the class to use a gas-turbine/electric drive*, made news in 2009 for saving $2 million during her transit from Pascagoula, Miss., to San Diego, Calif. *The Navy’s Lewis and Clark-class T-AKE dry cargo and ammunition ships also use an integrated propulsion system. The ships’ four MAN diesel generators serve two electric propulsion motors driving a single shaft. *The first of class Lewis and Clark was launched in 2005.





> *In the 1980s, the Royal Navy adopted partial electric drive for its new Type 23 frigates because electric drive isolated the quiet propeller from the ships’ inherently noisy diesel engines used at low speed. *Because the diesel did not have to be connected directly to the propeller, it could be sound-mounted. In the past, frigates, which had to be silenced, were generally powered by relatively inefficient, but inherently quiet, gas turbines. Diesels were far more efficient, but also produced far more noise, and silencing them (e.g., by sound-mounting and hooding) was expensive and elaborate, mainly because the ships’ propeller shafts still had to be connected directly to their engines. *Modern diesel-electric submarines do not have this problem because their diesels drive generators, hence, are easier to sound-mount and hood. *The argument favoring diesel efficiency may become important to the U.S. Navy in a future of expensive fuel. In the late 1980s, the Royal Navy generally espoused electric drive in future surface warships on economy grounds.





> Because the engines did not have to be placed in line with the motors actually driving the propellers, they could be spread out in such a way that the ship could not be disabled by a single hit. For example, the power plant could be divided (at least in theory) between a portion in the conventional below-water position (where it was reasonably well protected against above-water attack) and a portion above water, hence better protected against underwater attack. Such dispersion did entail a larger ship and some problems of routing uptakes and downtakes, and it has not yet been attempted – but it is probably in the cards if navies become more interested in survivability. Electric power could be routed to the motors along several paths, further improving the ship’s ability to survive damage. This seems to have been done in the new Zumwalt. Quite aside from that, eliminating a long propeller shaft would eliminate an important vulnerability, in that the shaft itself could be distorted by underwater damage (such as shock). If it kept turning, it would tear up the ship’s bottom. If that seems a remote consideration, remember that a bent shaft that kept turning helped considerably to sink the British battleship Prince of Wales in 1941 by opening up the ship’s hull like a sardine can.



The technology is being used for work boats

http://www.nortrade.com/sectors/news/stadt-electric-propulsion-to-8-offshore-vessels

and for cruise liners.

http://www.hightechfinland.com/direct.aspx?area=htf&prm1=889&prm2=article


Concurrently there is movement from induction motors to permanent magnet motors which permit the elimination of the weight and volume of a mechanical gearbox entirely.   And it also permits the development of novel solutions like contra-rotating propellers without mechanical gear boxes or planetary gears etc.

http://www.inpower.no/news/permanent-magnet-technology-from-inpower-to-scana-propulsion






Finally, on the power supply front, a couple of alternatives to the gas turbine - multiple diesels 

http://www.wartsila.com/energy/learning-center/technical-comparisons/combustion-engine-vs-gas-turbine-advantages-of-modularity

and batteries

https://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/Energy_storage_photos/Energy%20Storage%20on%20Future%20Electric%20Ships.pdf

I understand that one of the advantages of the gas turbine is acceleration of the ship - but how long does it take to get up to speed from a cold start?  Or alternatively, how much fuel do you burn idling?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I know on are old RR Gnome turbine, the difference between "idle" and top speed was from 60-80 gallons roughly as I recall. Basically the turbine runs within a set RPM band regardless of load, we could be off the ramp from cold in 3 minutes when the alarm rang. I don't know how that translate to a big turbine.


----------



## donaldk

Colin P said:
			
		

> I know on are old RR Gnome turbine, the difference between "idle" and top speed was from 60-80 gallons roughly as I recall. Basically the turbine runs within a set RPM band regardless of load, we could be off the ramp from cold in 3 minutes when the alarm rang. I don't know how that translate to a big turbine.



From my time on IROQUOIS, the turbine fuel consumption was:

Pratt & Whitney FT4A Main engine
25L/min - idle
150L/min - full power (trimmed well.. they be as much as 180L/min) - 25,000 SHP
(about 15% more than the FFH's LM2500)

Cruise Engine Allison 570-KF
5L/min - idle
25L/min - full power (7500 SHP approx)
(.... a boat load more than the FFH PDE)

Due the superb fuel economy of the platform (pun intended), a common configuration if we didn't need to get anywhere quick was to drag a shaft and turn the other with a cruise engine online.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks donaldk.

More numbers for me to play with and maybe increase my understanding.

Cheers.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

All right, I think that the dust has settled a bit now, so time for my next intervention.

First of all, I think you hit he communication problem on the nose, Chris. 

Yes, it was the suggestion of using "pods" that caused us to take issue, not the use of electric motors. In fact, as I pointed out, when paired with a standard shaft and screw combination, it is becoming more widely used by advanced navies (be it The Type 45, the Queen Elizabeth class or the Zumwalt) and it is generally designated as Integrated Electric Propulsion. This is not to be confused with the Type 23 (Duke class) or the mods to the Arleigh Burke's, which results in what is usually designated as CODLAG. In those last two types, the electric motors are connected to the complex gearing system so they can become a third option for propulsion. 

For instance, the Burke's have, on top of their cruise/sprint main engines, three gas turbines generators. These gas turbines are smaller and consume less than the main ones. Two of these are required when all the electronics, hotel loads and weapons systems are running - the last one being the emergency back-up. Now, when just traveling from point A to point B (crossing the Atlantic coming back home, for example), the two running GT generators have excess electrical capacity from the ship's needs. Running them up to full, and if need be throwing the third in, costs a lot less fuel than running the mains but yet generate enough electricity to accommodate an electrical motor connected into the main gearing system to propel the ship economically. 

Now, in the case of the next major surface warship of the Canadian navy, the propulsion plant has not been selected, that I know of, so using an Integrated Electrical Propulsion system is still possible. However, while more economical on fuel, such propulsion, especially on high speed warships is not necessarily cheaper to install onboard than a more conventional form of propulsion system. And the higher end need for power still requires gas turbines to provide the vast amounts of electricity required*. Also, electrical propulsion requires a lot of room for various supporting electrical components (transformers/rectifiers/frequency modifiers, heat dispensation systems, extra switchboards etc.).

BTW, the Canadian navy already is an "electric-propulsion" Navy. Other than the HAL and the last IRO, all the other commissioned ships and submarines are driven by electrical motors, and the AOPS will also have electrical motors for propulsion.

Finally, I am not sure I understand your point concerning the Gadus Neptun (though I like the single cabin for all living quarters). Since this is the Shipbuilding Strategy thread, are you suggesting our strategy should be to build a whole fleet of shrimp trawlers and empty the Grand Banks of yet another species of ocean animal?

If your point is to build "cheap" hulls as cost saving measure, then we are not getting through, I think. The ship's hull and machinery on modern warship, even though more complex and expensive than civilian ones, is not the largest part of the cost. What would you do with your "Gadus Neptun" derivative? Replace the trawl deck equipment with a Mk41 launcher of 32 slots? Then put what, 32 "quad" ESSM in 8 of them and use the others for 24 SM2 Block IIIB's? Just the missiles (not the launchers, not the electronic control launch systems and none of the required radars and fire directors or combat system to both detect and track the target on the one hand, and fire at them) will set you back  $108 million US - today. The things in the parenthesis, even without being fully integrated systems, will set you back another 60 to 80 millions US$. And we have not even touched on surface warfare or ASW. Who cares then if the hull/machinery costs you 100 or 200 millions?

But here is the other thing. In peace time, you don't plan on and build low end, second (or third) class ships that might be called for by a last minute emergency programs. You plan and build the higher end, complete capability warships that are the real fighters. And the corvette were stop gap until the real ships needed for escort - the larger proper frigates, destroyer escorts and destroyers, could be built in sufficient number by mid 1943, and new non-civilian technology came on line (centimetric radar, hedgehog and twin beam asdics that let you get bearing, distance and depth). And the corvettes were more of a make the merchant seaman feel good ship than anything. The only useful ship in the early escorts were the lone destroyers, and for safety, the admiralty relied on routing and lack of number of subs available to the enemy.  




* I note that you referred in one of your posts to the QE2 (the cruise ship). To show you the difference, we can compare her to the actual QE aircraft carrier. They both are electric driven, and both have electrical motors that require approximately 80 MW to feed at their higher speed. The QE2 does that with seven large diesel engines (she then has two "spares"). the motors and diesel engines basically occupy the same space that was previously devoted to the four steam turbines (two were reversing turbines) and three h-u-g-e (to quote the Donald) boilers. The two GT generators - same amount of power - on the QE, on the other hand are each located at the base of the two deck islands. If they used that on the QE2, they would have been able to fit the motors and the two GT generators in the old steam turbines engine room and gained the space of the three boiler rooms. There are other reasons (weight distribution and ship stability for instance) that dictated using nine large diesels ofr the QE2, but on a warship, any space we can save on machinery can be re-used for living quarters, stores and, most important - weapons and ammunition.


----------



## Kirkhill

WRT to Electric Boats:

When building Electric Boats do not give the contract to Lucas.



> Delays on Trident replacement and Type 45 power failures probed by Defence Select Committee
> Ministers on Defence Select Committee investigate huge defence projects which could have major implications on Britain's arms industry
> 
> 
> By Alan Tovey, Industry Editor7:41PM GMT 03 Feb 2016
> 
> Two of Britain’s biggest defence projects in decades are being investigated by the Defence Select Committee in a probe that could have serious implications for the UK's arms suppliers.
> 
> MPs on the committee have written to Defence Secretary Michael Fallon questioning a lack of progress on a replacement for Britain’s Trident nuclear submarines. They also want to know exactly who is responsible for the repeated power failures on the Navy’s Type 45 destroyers.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> The committee is also seeking clarity on the embarrassing power failures that have hit the Navy’s latest ships, the Type 45 destroyers, which entered service just seven years ago.
> 
> Last week the MoD confirmed six of the vessels will need major refits that are expected to run up a repair bill of tens of millions of pounds because the £1bn warships keep breaking down.
> 
> Type 45 destroyers – which were built by BAE – run off electricity produced by Rolls-Royce gas turbines and generators through an electrical grid supplied by General Electric, powering everything from the propellers to the radar.
> 
> However, running all the systems together causes the system to trip out, putting the vessel into a blackout and leaving it defenceless.
> 
> The select committee wants to know the details of the problems, including when they started and how often they have occurred, whether the cause is a failure of components, design or construction and who will pay to eliminate the problems.
> 
> In a letter to the Defence Secretary, Mr Lewis said: “The reports of engine failures and the refit programme appear to reflect a far more serious problem that ‘equipment reliability issues’ as described last year by MoD ministers.”



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/12139146/Delays-on-Trident-replacement-and-Type-45-power-failures-probed-by-Defence-Select-Committee.html


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

"...six of the vessels..." *"... six of the vessels..."*  ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

There are only six vessels in the class. Perhaps they should have said " ... the six vessels ..." or "... all six vessels ...".

Just saying.   [:-[


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> "...six of the vessels..." *"... six of the vessels..."*  ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> 
> There are only six vessels in the class. Perhaps they should have said " ... the six vessels ..." or "... all six vessels ...".
> 
> Just saying.   [:-[



I think the expression you are looking for is: "The whole feckin lot of them!"


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> WRT to Electric Boats:
> 
> When building Electric Boats do not give the contract to Lucas.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/12139146/Delays-on-Trident-replacement-and-Type-45-power-failures-probed-by-Defence-Select-Committee.html



be afraid, be very, very afraid http://www.lucasaerospace.eu/

Lucas switch have 3 positions, dim, flicker and smoke


----------



## Journeyman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Lucas switch have 3 positions, dim, flicker and smoke


My first bike was a Norton. Oh, how I wish the Prince of Darkness had provided the third option of "dim."


----------



## Edward Campbell

Journeyman said:
			
		

> My first bike was a Norton. Oh, how I wish the Prince of Darkness had provided the third option of "dim."




Oh, yes .. as the old saying goes, amongst the Austin Healy and MG-B owners: "If you can't buy best, buy British!"










                                                                                             That meant a whole generation of young army officers back _circa_ the 1960s.


----------



## Old Sweat

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Oh, yes .. as the old saying goes, amongst the Austin Healy and MG-B owners: "If you can't buy best, buy British!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That meant a whole generation of young army officers back _circa_ the 1960s.



Not forgetting those of us who drove Triumph TR3s. The pinnacle of British technology's contribution to mobility was the pace stick.


----------



## Kirkhill

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Not forgetting those of us who drove Triumph TR3s. The pinnacle of British technology's contribution to mobility was the pace stick.



Since we have digressed this far - 

I believe we did a bit better than that.  Here's my "Best of British"  -  LNER's A4 Mallard.






And I would have loved to see this







But I wouldn't let a Brit electrician out of his cage.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ah, the Daimler Dart (SP250):





http://www.daimlersp250dartownersclub.com/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

A thing of beauty. I saw one once at the Dockyard parking lot in Halifax.  Some retired naval officer's wheels.


----------



## chrisf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> She is no high speed frigate, agreed, but neither is she simply a floating box with a pointy end.



If you want to get a little closer to comparing "apples to apples" comparing a civillian ship to a warship, look at something like the Technip Deep Explorer.

Room for a large crew, significant redundancies in the the machinery space built in as a requirement to be DP3 capable, a helideck (could easily be moved to the cargo deck with a hanger added) and lots of space for "extra" equipment.

It's not a warship, but it's a much better comparison than factor trawler.

You won't find the speed needed in any civilian designs though.


----------



## Kirkhill

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> We are taking an approach called FA-XX. We’ll [start a study] next year that would assess all those missions the F/A-18 E/F plugs into, in the air wing. How could we capture those capabilities in another way instead of buying another very high-end, very expensive platform replacement? Certainly there will be platforms involved, but do they have to be platforms that look and feel and operate much like an F/A-18 E/F or an F-35 does today? Could it be done differently? Could we do the mission sets different?
> 
> For example, we talk a lot to NAVAIR [Naval Air Systems Command] about future designs being more of a truck that has an open architecture design, so you can plug different sensors, different payloads and weapons into that for a specific mission, and be able to move those sensors and payloads around so you can do multiple different missions on different days, or different sorties, instead of trying to build everything into a jet — that becomes very expensive.
> 
> It is very much in line with [the direction of Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations], where he talked about payloads over platforms. In other words, the payload piece is what is important. Getting the right payload in the right place, at the right time is also critical. But what kind of truck that payload rides around on is what we are really after.
> 
> So we want to look holistically at all of the things that contribute to a mission. They include space-based. They include other platforms that are already part of the air wing — E-2D Hawkeyes, EA-18G Growlers — and the rotary wing component. How do we do a system-of-systems look across all of those platforms, and decide what capability gaps we need to cover as the F/A-18 E/Fs start to fall off?
> 
> Now we try to tell industry that we are just opening up the aperture to have a conversation about what they think the art of the possible is. I have had some great discussions with industry partners about this. Do not just look to walk in here with a new design, a sixth-generation aircraft. I am not interested in that conversation yet. I am interested in what are the technologies that you think you can bring? And specifically propulsion, which drives future capability. That is the timeline driver. If you are looking at a game-changing propulsion capability, whether it is long dwell, fast and high, all of those types of attributes to a propulsion capability, we have got to start working that now to lead to whatever the truck looks like.
> 
> And as you are developing that propulsion capability, then you can start to look at what kind of payloads? What kind of sensors? What kind of integrating capability that you want to develop across the air wing, so you continue to have the same effect of a different shape, a different mix of an air wing in the future.
Click to expand...



This is all about aircraft but it encapsulates what I was thinking about ships.  The ship as a flexible, reconfigurable truck with the military focusing on sensors and weapons and the civilian side focusing on the truck.

Not as Sigs Op.  I like the OSVs as well and I get that they don't go as fast as the navy needs.  But the issue in my mind is not the details of the hull form or power plant but the manner in which construction occurs and how well it is managed.

I remain convinced that any market that can manufacture vessels with hullforms that can break ice sideways









can build you any hull shape that you want.  Regardless of the metal.

And OGBD: Similarly, I am going to continue to stump for building ships at minimum cost, that can be sailed with minimum crews, and that can fitted with the weapons and the weapons crews that the mission demands. Just like any other cargo and passengers.

I keep hearing about how the navy can't recruit the numbers to man the ships they have at the levels wanted/needed.

I keep hearing that the navy can't afford to buy the ships they want/need with the weapons they want/need.

And yet I don't hear any appetite for doing things differently even though the existing plan is stressed to or beyond the breaking point.

I'm honestly not trying to pick fights.  I guess I am just really intrigued by the psychology.  

I saw this for the first time a couple of days ago. And it applies to me as well - I don't do change personally very well at all.






Final thought:

This from Tomahawk 6's posting on the SM-6 "repurposing"



> Given that modern warships are not the armored battlewagons from the battleship era, it is relatively easy to achieve a “mission kill” on a current-generation surface combatant. That means even with its small warhead, the SM-6 should be more than effective against, for example, a Russian Kirov-class battlecruiser due to the warhead's speed. The kinetic energy from a very fast missile can do enormous damage by itself.



http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/sinking-enemy-warships-the-us-navys-fiery-new-weapon-15132

I don't understand how a few more knots of speed will allow the threat to be outrun.  Is the cost of specialization, of optimization, worth the coin?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Seriously, Chris: The motor ship Baltika? 

That thing, which BTW costs $200M Canadian when all is taken into consideration, is half the size of the AOPS and can only deal with 60 cm of ice.

Anyway, I get a feeling we are not getting through with our explanations: Yes, building a proper hull for a warship and fitting that hull with more powerful engines is more expensive than the  hull/machinery combination for a merchant ship, but its no big deal. In the grand scheme of things, on a 1.2 B$ frigate, paying 100M$ more for the hull and power plant than for a similar sized merchant ship is not what is going to break the bank. And the value you get for that extra money is essential (i.e. merchant ship's don't care if they have a big hole in their hull in one of the cargo holds because they know they will sink - period and therefore don't care about the various holds actually being built to prevent water spreading from one to the other; nor do they have to be airtight for nuclear fall out, biological or gas attacks resistance - merchant ship don't have back up main engines capability, or double extra electrical generation capability, because if the mains fail or they lose electrical power, they just drift until fixed or rescued.)

Like we said many times before, it's the weapons, weapons systems, sensors, sensors integration and platform integration that represent 2/3's to 3/4's of the cost of a warship.

And no, weapons flexibility like the one the Air Force may be looking at is NOT an option. If I am in the middle of the Atlantic and get attacked by air when I am carrying ASW weapons, I don't have the ten days required to sail back home, switch my weapons load and go back to where I was to face the attack. Each ship must carry all it needs for her own self protection in all aspects, and then have room left for the mission for which she is optimized.

Where we do get flexibility is in the loading of weapons. For instance, a Mk41 launcher can carry VLS ASROC's, or quad ESSM's or SM-2, SM-3 or SM-6, or Tomahawk, and soon the nextgen Harpoon etc. You vary the mix, you automatically vary the optimized mission you can carry out. But the sensors cannot be so mixed-and-matched. The radar systems, optical systems and EW sensors, together with the communications systems, have to be designed, organized and mounted on the ship permanently and as a whole, because (1) some of them are too large for bolt-on/bolt-off modularity and (2) the most important aspect: they all generate some form of interference with one another and therefore, their placement must be such as to eliminate or minimize any such interaction and where need be, build in the sequence of use so that they don't suffer from the effects of such interference and are used in the right order (for instance, the radar detection systems of the EW suite must be set up and programmed so they don't get overwhelmed by the ship's own radars).

Finally: Yes, those few extra knots are essential - not to outrun a supersonic missile - but for the aspect of the operation of the ship and of carrying its mission. For instance, a frigate assigned to provide ASW escort to a merchant ship (or a few merchant ships in convoy) has to be able to sprint 30 to 40 NM ahead of the group, stream the tail and loiter at slow speed to determine if there are any contacts that warrant prosecution or if the area is sanitized, then pull the tail and sprint again when the convoy has closed to about 10 NM. If you only have 2 or 3 knots advantage on the merchant ship, then you get about seven to ten hours of useless sprinting for every two hours of listening/prosecuting - that is only 17 to 22% of the time spent doing your job. At ten knots advantage, that ratio falls to two hours of sprinting for two hours of listening/prosecuting - or 50 % of the time doing your job. Is that worth an extra 100M$ for the hull and power plant in a 1.2B$ frigate? I would say yes, personally. And that is just one example where that extra speed may be required.


----------



## chrisf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> This is all about aircraft but it encapsulates what I was thinking about ships.  The ship as a flexible, reconfigurable truck with the military focusing on sensors and weapons and the civilian side focusing on the truck.
> 
> Not as Sigs Op.  I like the OSVs as well and I get that they don't go as fast as the navy needs.  But the issue in my mind is not the details of the hull form or power plant but the manner in which construction occurs and how well it is managed.
> 
> I remain convinced that any market that can manufacture vessels with hullforms that can break ice sideways



Speed can be increased not a problem, thing about the OSV, DSV, construction vessel, etc, they're all built pretty much from the outset to be modified now, not quite "modular" only because there's no standardization between equipment, but definitely able to modify quickly and easily.

We built a cable layer out of one recently, only took 48 hours.


----------



## Kirkhill

Probably not before time: I yield.


----------



## Kirkhill

Coming at my Johnny One Note desire to get muddy boots in the RCN's ships from a different tack:

I was looking at our near peer navies - the Aussies, Brits, French, Italians, Spaniards, Dutch and Danes  - and I discovered that for every navy but the Italians there appears to be a relatively constant fleet ratio of Crew to Passengers (including flight dets and wings amongst the passengers) of 1 to 1.

For the Aussies and Dutch 1 to 1.
For the Danes it is 1.17 : 1
For the Brits (including RFA lift) it is 1.08 to 1
For the Spanish it is 0.82
For the French it is 0.70
For the Italians it is 0.45

Virtually all the new vessels, down to the minor Patrol vessels like the BMMs and the BAM-Meteoros have relatively even split between Pax and Crew.

PDF attached below.

Not all the navies adopt the same strategies obviously.  Some spread the passengers more uniformly across the fleet.  Most maintain some "pure" navy vessels and some "pure" lift vessels.  But all the fleets have a significant lift capacity.

Could a similar metric be applied to the RCN?  Could the RCN accomodate a Government of Canada / CDS requirement, within the existing budget, that the fleet be able to lift as many passengers as it has crew berths?

I suggest that the Dutch fleet presents its government with the following options:

It can deploy an AAW Zeven Provincien and a Holland OPV to the Caribbean or the Gulf with an embarked Platoon in the Holland that can be augmented by an additional Company, also in the Holland if the circumstances demand.

It can deploy a Battle Group in one of its LPDs.

Combining all assets it can deploy a Brigade Group with armoured and rotary wing support.

Can't we aspire to, and accommodate, that level of capability?  And still maintain a strong blue water RCN?



On a side note:

One other thing that became apparent to me was how many different classes of ship were to be found in each navy.  Particularly in the French, Spanish and Italian navies.  I am not talking about different capabilities but simply numerous small classes of the same capability.

They don't look at a single 15 vessel build but at 5 builds of 3 vessels (or 3 builds of 5 vessels), each incorporating new capabilities and technologies.  And they don't seem particularly bothered by the logistics of maintaining that variety of vessels in service.

When the Brits said that they needed 19 Destroyers/Frigates and they ran out of money they retailored their suit to suit the cloth.  They have decided to build 6 Type 45s, 8 Type 26s and 5 Type 31s.  Should we not be looking at the same for our CSC buy?

Also, I note that the Brits are not shy about saying that they are purchasing Patrol Vessels solely for the purpose of keeping yards open and maintaining skills.  The Patrol Vessels may come in handy, have short service lives, minimal crews and minimal weapons and sensor suites.  They take some of the coastal load off the high end vessels as well as some of the training burden.  But their bigger contribution is keeping they yards open.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Coast Guard vessels being built by Seaspan Vancouver a big budget problem too:



> Budget for building oceanographic research ship inadequate, cabinet told
> 
> The federal cabinet will soon be asked to pump more money into one of the key civilian projects under the national shipbuilding strategy in what's expected to be the first real test of the Trudeau government's commitment to stick with the Conservative-era program.
> 
> The Canadian Press has learned that federal bureaucrats have warned the Liberals that the current $144 million budget for the offshore oceanographic science vessel is inadequate and will need to be topped up in order to complete the vessel.
> 
> The science ship will be built by Vancouver-based Seaspan shipyards as part of a package of non-combat vessels meant to replace the coast guard's aging fleet, including the nearly 52-year-old CCGS Hudson research vessel.
> 
> If approved by the Trudeau government, it would be the second funding injection for the program in the last eight years.
> 
> A series of documents leaked to The Canadian Press show the initial cost of the new research vessel was pegged at $108 million in 2008 and a year later the federal treasury board was required to pump an additional $35 million into the project.
> 
> [_No need for any leak_--those figures have been publicly available here, scroll down to "Progress Report and Explanation of Variances":
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/rpp/2015-16/SupplementaryTables/mcp-eng.html#s1.3
> 
> Note also the timetable: "Request for Proposal for Design Issued: April 2010"; "Delivery of Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel: 2017-18"--that's eight perishing years!]
> 
> A spokesman for the Fisheries Department, which oversees the coast guard, would not confirm the size of the new funding increase -- or the specific reason for it, but suggested the situation is still in flux.
> 
> "No increase to the original ... budget has yet been determined," David Walters said. "Costing information will continue to improve as engineering work for the new vessel progresses."
> 
> But a slide deck briefing, dated Nov. 16 and provided to federal ministers, warned that "significant funding decisions" were required for both the navy's planned frigate replacements and the oceanographic science vessel, specifically "whether to provide the budget increase required to complete the project."
> 
> It comes at an awkward time, as a cabinet committee is reportedly set to review a controversial decision related to the military shipbuilding project [[see "RCN Ship Procurement, or, the Curse of Irving: Canadian Surface Combatant Section"
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/mark-collins-rcn-ship-procurement-or-the-curse-of-irving-canadian-surface-combatant-section/ ].
> 
> The oceanographic vessel is separate program from three planned fisheries science vessels, which are already under construction at Seaspan and have had their own budget woes. The briefing shows the budget for the fisheries ships increased by 181 per cent to $687 million between 2009 and 2015.
> 
> Part of the escalation had to do with the federal government's inexperience in managing "multiple, complex ship projects" in an industry that under previous Liberal and Conservative governments had become moribund.
> 
> The documents note there was also a steep learning curve for the Vancouver shipyard, which "needed to find skilled staff, establish capability to undertake design work and learn how to use new facilities -- (something that) led to delays and increased cost for offshore fisheries science vessels."..
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/budget-for-building-oceanographic-research-ship-inadequate-cabinet-told-1.2778567



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

Avoiding an embarassment? Too late!

Canadian Press



> *Shipbuilders call for federal strategy overhaul to avoid an 'embarrassment'*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
> 
> February 17, 2016
> 
> OTTAWA - The Shipbuilding Association of Canada is hoping the Liberal government will change course when it comes to the renewal of the country's navy and civilian fleets.
> 
> The industry group said Wednesday that the current strategy, laid out in the former Harper government's national shipbuilding program, is not working and has led to "unaffordable and untenable" renewal programs.
> 
> It also wants to see the overall marquee strategy reopened "to include any Canadian shipyard capable of delivering ships to the program."
> (...SNNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting the ship building Association includes Seaspan and Davie, but not Irving, perhaps this is code for "Irving is making a massive mess of this" but politically they can't say that.


----------



## GR66

Frankly I'd be happy if the shipbuilding strategy was revised to provide long-term supply of the "must haves" for the RCN and leave the more specialized requirements for separate contracts.

Something like shipyard "A" produces 1 x General Purpose Halifax-type replacement patrol frigate every two years while shipyard "B" produces one corvette/OPV Kingston-type replacement in the alternating years.

Have this an ongoing contract that would keep the RCN supplied with 12 x GP Frigates and 12 x Corvettes/OPVs with each vessel retired (or shifted to the Reserves?) after 24 years of service.  Production could be done in Blocks of 3 or 4 of each class with a review of the design then taking place every 6 or 8 years.  This would allow for ongoing improvements to the designs/equipment without need to send the entire class in for a mid-life refit.

Other contracts (AAW Destroyers, Supply Ships, specialty vessels, etc.) could then be tendered as smaller, easier to manage contracts.  With Canadian shipbuilders already given the lion's share of the ship building with long-term contracts for ongoing Frigates/OPV's it might even then be easier politically to go offshore to purchase the specialty vessels.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

:goodpost:

+1


----------



## Bearpaw

I completely agree with GR66---the NSPS must be broken into smaller pieces and some rational thought given to exactly which type of ships should be produced domestically to ensure a viable ship-building industry.
The CSC program should be broken into an AAW-Destroyer program and a Halifax-like frigate replacement program.
The current projections of the CSC program have the AAW-destroyer hulls far too small for effective AAW in the future swarming attacks that could occur---the AAW ships should be extremely heavily armed.  IMHO the RN type 45 is well equipped for radar, sensors,.. but is quite likely under-armed in terms of numbers of missiles,.... for the type of attacks that may come.  The Arleigh Burke class is about the right size for the AAW-destroyer so that it can have a sufficient missile load-out.

Domestic warship production should concentrate on corvette-class and coastal defence class ships---these are the ONLY types of ships we could possible sell to Tier 3 navies.  There should be NO expectation of producing AAW-destroyers or frigates and being able to sell them.  The only nations that can afford to buy those types already produce their own.

A future Submarine replacement program should be domestic----mainly for maintenance and support reasons.

Good post GR66!

Bearpaw


----------



## Karel Doorman

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> I completely agree with GR66---the NSPS must be broken into smaller pieces and some rational thought given to exactly which type of ships should be produced domestically to ensure a viable shipbuilding industry.
> The CSC program should be broken into an Destroyer program and a  frigate replacement program.
> The current projections of the CSC program have the AAW-destroyer hulls far too small for effective AAW in the future swarming attacks that could occur---the AAW ships should be extremely heavily armed.  IMHO the RN type 45 is well equipped for radar, sensors,.. but is quite likely under-armed in terms of numbers of missiles,.... for the type of attacks that may come.  The Arleigh Burke class is about the right size for the AAW-destroyer so that it can have a sufficient missile load-out.
> 
> Domestic warship production should concentrate on corvette-class and coastal defence class ships---these are the ONLY types of ships we could possible sell to Tier 3 navies.  There should be NO expectation of producing AAW-destroyers or frigates and being able to sell them.  The only nations that can afford to buy those types already produce their own.
> 
> A future Submarine replacement program should be domestic----mainly for maintenance and support reasons.
> 
> Good post GR66!
> 
> Bearpaw



Bearpaw,I'm not Canadian(Dutch in fact)but( in my view)to think that Canada would buy something like the Arlieghs is crazy,
-Far too expensive(both in buying and upkeep)
-you'll have to redesign them(or make adjustments)for them to take APAR/SMART-L,if you'll go that way
-I'm sure there are other reasons why Canada wouldn't buy them

Apart from the fact offcourse that the Burke's are big enough to put a lot of missiles on them(that much is true) ;D

But when is enough,enough?(missiles)30?40?50?etc

As for the T-45 also big enough,but also far to expensive,think (as many do here)Canada would be better of with an European design(whatever it might be,Iver,F-124,DZP,F-100 all will fit nicely)and use American weapons(missiles)as they do.

Whether  it would be better to built them yourselves or buy them overseas(that's a political decision,money flowing back into own economy,jobs,but also more expensive) all things that should be taken in account(building/designing experience is another)

I think(again my opinion as a Dutch  [Xp )Canada's navy should be more like the Dutch Navy(bigger offcourse   )but with about the same capabilities.

As for the Subs(replacements)same story really.The Netherlands and Canada need a same sort of boat(as they have now)Walrus and Vics are quite comparable(in stealth,range,weaponsoutfit etc)
So as i posted in the"what i don't understand" topic,in the next   months a decision is being made for the (future)replacement of the Walrus-class,as this will go through,hopefully(more budget is needed,now 2.5  B for 4 ,need at least another 1.5 B to be able to do that )it might be interesting for Canada to see what happens.
-Both navies (i think )will go for a 3000 t boat
-as great a range(at least)but probably bigger as what the Walrus has
-newest systems(weapons)
-etc

Also these boats will be build simultaneously with Swedens and the Norwegian new boats(at least that's what i got from the plans)Which means a bigger series(not all the same Sweden and Norway will order smaller boats)but they will be more boats built simultaneously,which offcourse means price can(hopefully)come down,learn from first boats and learn/addapt accordingly.
And offcourse as more Navies have some sort of the same boats upkeep and upgrades can be done in group.
Imagine what this could mean for Canada when they would join(learning from each other,upgrading together,etc)

This is my idea of what Canada should do and get alot more "bang for their buck" so to speak.

I love to hear all of your views in this matter,

gr,walter

PS i don't know how many shipbuilders Canada's got but offcourse when the decision is made divide the work(or let 2 off them build the frigates,1 OPV's etc.)We(Netherlands haven't got that much of a choice being that Damen is the primairy (and only) shipbuilder for the Navy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

we have 3 major yards, Seaspan, Davie and Irving


----------



## Kirkhill

> PS i don't know how many shipbuilders Canada's got but offcourse when the decision is made divide the work(or let 2 off them build the frigates,1 OPV's etc.)We(Netherlands haven't got that much of a choice being that Damen is the primairy (and only) shipbuilder for the Navy.



So... all your projects are sole-sourced to a privately held, family run company and costs are contained?

So un-Canadian.


----------



## PuckChaser

We can't get surface combatants without major cost increases, yet someone is proposing we start a domestic submarine manufacturing capability from scratch? Waiter, I'll have what they're smoking...


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We can't get surface combatants without major cost increases, yet someone is proposing we start a domestic submarine manufacturing capability from scratch? Waiter, I'll have what they're smoking...



must be some good stuff, because at the rate we are going all these big projects are going to be half the federal budget before long.


----------



## ArmyRick

What the heck, since the real world got tossed, I am throwing in for 2 aircraft carriers as well! Disband the senate and redirect the funds as down payment?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Sorry to disappoint ArmyRick, but two carriers require more fighter planes than Canada currently owns and operates.  :nod:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oldgateboatdriver:



> Sorry to disappoint ArmyRick, but two carriers require more fighter planes than Canada currently owns and operates.  :nod:



Not necessarily--see regarding the RN's two QE class carriers:



> ...
> The maximum capacity for F-35s is reportedly 36 aircraft, but during routine operations, each carrier might have only a dozen F-35Bs on board...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/uk-commits-to-2-carriers-fully-crewed-f-35b-numbers-tbd/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Other end of the spectrum.

RN looking at building 8 Type 26s and 5 yet unidentified Type 31s as light frigates.

BMT's hat in the ring for the Type 31 a 4000 tonne, 25 knot hull with a range of 7000 nm at 15 knots.

Crew of 85 with additional berths for up to 124 (39 Pax)

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6102250/BMT%20Warships%20Venator%20110%20General%20Purpose%20Light%20Frigate%20Technical%20Brief.pdf

Scalable weapons fit.


----------



## jmt18325

I would say that light frigates are the answer to our budget problems.


----------



## MarkOttawa

JMT18325:

Or maybe a mix of CSCs and OPVs, especially if some hulls not built in Canada, er, Irving?



> Italian Navy’s Offshore Patrol Vessel Plans (RCN?)
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/mark-collins-italian-navys-offshore-patrol-vessel-plans-rcn/



Orders:



> Seventh PPA ordered for Italian Navy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.janes.com/article/55973/seventh-ppa-ordered-for-italian-navy



Just one example.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

I think the issue is, no matter what you call them, you always have a choice between high capability ships and low capability ships.  Depending on how much water you want to put in you wine you can end up with 1 ship costing 20 Billion Dollars or 200 ships costing 100 Million Dollars.  You can put 2800 people into the crew of you single 20 Billion Dollar ship or crew your 200 ships with 14 each.

Or you can build an assortment of ships on a sliding scale of capabilities for the same budget.

That discussion has to happen long before anybody starts asking me for any more tax dollars to build the ships they would like to sail.

Slainte.


----------



## jmt18325

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> JMT18325:
> 
> Or maybe a mix of CSCs and OPVs, especially if some hulls not built in Canada, er, Irving?
> 
> Orders:
> 
> Just one example.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



That could work as well.  The reality is, many of the missions that the RCN does require very little in the way of heavy weaponry (pirate patrol, drug patrol, now refugee patrol).  If we had 6 very capable ships (Spanish 105 type, for example) and 9 like the above ship, we'd have a good compromise.


----------



## Half Full

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I think the issue is, no matter what you call them, you always have a choice between high capability ships and low capability ships.  Depending on how much water you want to put in you wine you can end up with 1 ship costing 20 Billion Dollars or 200 ships costing 100 Million Dollars.  You can put 2800 people into the crew of you single 20 Billion Dollar ship or crew your 200 ships with 14 each.
> 
> Or you can build an assortment of ships on a sliding scale of capabilities for the same budget.
> 
> That discussion has to happen long before anybody starts asking me for any more tax dollars to build the ships they would like to sail.
> 
> Slainte.



What we need to do is stop trying to fit acquisitions to a fixed budget.  Money should not drive strategy.   We need the government to tell us exactly what their expectations of the Military are (capabilities, readiness levels, etc...), and then fund those requirements.  I am hopeful that the Defence Policy Review will go a little ways towards that, however it will be flawed without an overarching Foreign Policy and National Security Policy reviews.  All this talk about how many CSCs, how many OPVs, etc... mean absolutely nothing without a document/policy/strategy that indicates why, what, where and when we need the Navy (or the CAF for that matter).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

1 super hull can only be in one place and if damaged your out of the game completely, while we do plan to have a number of hulls, will we have enough to do all of the tasks and replace damaged hulls. If we need 15 ships, then we really need 20 hulls with 5 going through upgrades/mid life/repairs/warm layup. In my perfect world you have a core of 1x AA/Command destroyer, 1x Mistral type ship, 1x full JSS, one of the Davie type light JSS, 1x sub on both coasts. Around that core you have a number of Halifax's, AOPS and Kingston class. That leaves 1 sub as a rover and one in refit


----------



## Kirkhill

Half Full said:
			
		

> What we need to do is stop trying to fit acquisitions to a fixed budget.  Money should not drive strategy.   We need the government to tell us exactly what their expectations of the Military are (capabilities, readiness levels, etc...), and then fund those requirements.  I am hopeful that the Defence Policy Review will go a little ways towards that, however it will be flawed without an overarching Foreign Policy and National Security Policy reviews.  All this talk about how many CSCs, how many OPVs, etc... mean absolutely nothing without a document/policy/strategy that indicates why, what, where and when we need the Navy (or the CAF for that matter).



Money drives everything.  Full Stop.

If we had the Yanks' budget we could rule the world.  We don't.

With respect to the tasks, roles, strategems etc.: It has been amply demonstrated time after time that we do what we want to do - not what we need to do.  Even during WW2 we had the USN and the RN between us and the threat.  Our services were welcome and contributory, even critical. But we did what we wished to do, not what we were forced to do.  Unlike the Aussies who were actively invaded by Japan.

In peacetime that applies even moreso.  And apparently our fellow citizens don't wish to do very much.  So the question becomes how much can you accomplish with what money is available.

I argue, with Colin, that there is value in numbers and that not all vessels need to be built to meet the same threat level, or to perform the same tasks.

I would much sooner see a large variety of vessels with a large variety of capabilities, than a single class of ships that can only do one thing.  I would also prefer to see a much greater reliance on technology over manpower.

The Halifax has a nominal complement of 225. Given that the personnel budget is approximately half of the capability budget then it follows that increasing the reliance on technology and reducing the manning level by 50% will free up more money for additional hulls for the "unemployed" crew.  Perhaps enough money to build and man an additional pair of large OPVs like the Holland.  Or a single light frigate like the Venator, or even a gutted frigate with half the engines that can still be used militariliy in support like the Absalon, or a Bay class LSD.....

We get presented simple, single outcome solutions and told that it is only this or nothing. Send more money.  I reject that entirely. 

What I would like to see from the professionals is a full array of the opportunities available given the funds available.   Then we can start to make policy decisions.

Cost and analyze the capabilities of a fleet of MGBs operating out of Esquimalt and Halifax and tell Canadians what they can and cannot do.  And what the remaining threat is.

Then start moving out from there to OPVs for the EEZ, to transports, to escorts.... etc.

Those studies should only have to be done once and then updated every generation or so.  And if they already exist then publish them.

The sad fact remains that the CAF has to sell itself to the Canadian Public, not just as an employer but as a capability.  And it does a piss-poor job of it.  The politicians won't do the job for you so you have to do the job yourself.

And by the way, before you dismiss the merits of an MGB fleet out of hand 

http://navaltoday.com/2015/02/17/eunavfor-sweden-and-the-netherlands-fight-pirates/

From each according to his ability.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1035509
Government of Canada selects expert to advise on National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy

For Immediate Release

February 22, 2016  —  Gatineau, Quebec

The Honourable Judy M. Foote, Minister of Public Services and Procurement, in partnership with the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Hunter Tootoo, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard, and the Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, today announced that Steve Brunton, has been selected as Expert Advisor to assist on the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS).

Steve Brunton is a retired Rear Admiral from the Royal Navy (United Kingdom), with extensive experience in overseeing shipbuilding programs and naval acquisitions. He will provide Ministers and senior government officials with independent expert advice on multiple facets of the NSPS, including risk and program management, construction benchmarking and competitiveness, and performance and operational improvements.

Through the NSPS, the Government is supporting the renewal of the Canada Coast Guard fleet, and is ensuring that the Royal Canadian Navy is able to operate as a true-blue water maritime force. The NSPS will also bring long-term economic benefits to the marine industry and related sectors in communities across Canada.
Quick Facts

    Steve Brunton, CBE MSc MCGI CEng FIET FCMI, is currently providing strategic program and risk advice to the UK Ministry of Defence. In addition, he worked for the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy for 36 years, most of which was spent in the area of acquisitions.
    The contract is for one year, with potential one-year extensions up to 10 years. The annual value of the contract will vary depending on the tasks performed by Steve Brunton.

Quotes

    “Steve Brunton’s extensive experience and expert capability make him particularly well-suited for this work, and provide excellent value to Canada. Engaging him will help us to anticipate and address challenges face on, and to continue to make progress on our commitments on the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.”
    The Honourable Judy M. Foote
    Minister of Public Services and Procurement

    “I would like to take the opportunity to welcome Steve Brunton as Expert Advisor to assist on the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy. I look forward to working with him as we deliver critical capabilities needed by the brave naval men and women of our Royal Canadian Navy so that they can defend Canadian waters and take part in international missions well into the future.”
    The Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan
    Minister of National Defence


----------



## Baz

Half Full said:
			
		

> What we need to do is stop trying to fit acquisitions to a fixed budget.  Money should not drive strategy.   We need the government to tell us exactly what their expectations of the Military are (capabilities, readiness levels, etc...), and then fund those requirements.  I am hopeful that the Defence Policy Review will go a little ways towards that, however it will be flawed without an overarching Foreign Policy and National Security Policy reviews.  All this talk about how many CSCs, how many OPVs, etc... mean absolutely nothing without a document/policy/strategy that indicates why, what, where and when we need the Navy (or the CAF for that matter).





			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Money drives everything.  Full Stop.



Yep.  If for no other reason as soon as the government said "what their expectations of the Military are,and then fund those requirements" every single empire and office in Ottawa would pile on about how thier pet project is part of those expectations, and the cost would run completely out of control.  There is no way the government should, or will, give the military a blank cheque.




			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> In my perfect world you have a core of 1x AA/Command destroyer, 1x Mistral type ship, 1x full JSS, one of the Davie type light JSS, 1x sub on both coasts. Around that core you have a number of Halifax's, AOPS and Kingston class. That leaves 1 sub as a rover and one in refit



I think you are a little heavy: if you are going to have the Amphib it should be center of the task group and the Command ship, so:
1x Expediationary (ie Mistral or Canberra) type ship, 1x full JSS, one of the Davie type light JSS, 2 x sub on both coasts, around that core you have a number of Halifax replacements (like Type 31s with AAW capability, Strike [ie Tomahawk in VLS, with Standard SM-6, Harpoon until the replacement is here, and maybe ASROC], and basic littoral maneuver [ie maybe a stern ramp]) and AOPS.  No destroyers, no Kingston (ie do not replace), and maybe as few as 4 Hailfax replacements per coast.  Might need something light?

Rational: The Expeditionary, JSS, and light JSS are going to need down time, so it gives flexibility.  Best case Expeditionary and JSS, pretty good Expeditionary and light JSS, acceptable JSS and light JSS, not desirable just one of them.  Expeditionary stays with the task group while JSS / light JSS can make supply runs.  Expeditionary makes a much better center of the TG and Command ship.  However, those first three won't be cheap and need crew (and lot's of aircraft) so need to give somewhere, hence the much lower number of replacements for the Halifax's.

In my perfect world, international deployments would routinely be an Expeditionary, JSS, or light JSS plus one Halifax replacement to give flexibility forward all the time.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Steve Brunton, CBE MSc MCGI CEng FIET FCMI

Yes, but can he speak French?


----------



## Kirkhill

What would happen if?

Rather than one BIG HONKING SHIP we were to consider basing our inshore/EEZ fleet on the small Enforcer class LPDs.

Instead of AOPS and MCDVs we were to base our EEZ force on the Enforcer 8000.

Consider putting 3 on each coast, two at sea at any time.  They would provide a base of operations for helicopters, UAVs and high speed interceptors like the CB-90.

They would have onboard LCUs and Bv206s, an ability to export power and water to shore, a proper role 2 hospital and the ability to lift people and materiel into and out of harms way.

As domops assets they would support small communities along the coast and Other Government Departments.  They have relatively small crews of about 90 and some / all of those could be reservists.  They don't need to be fitted with weapons but could be fitted for CIWS stations.

For expeditions one or two could be retasked from domops and rely on the RCN for escort, just like the civilian vessels the RCN will likely be escorting as well.

Big fat landing spots in a bumpy ocean.

Damen's description:



> GENERAL
> 
> Basic functions
> 
> Amphibious transport, disaster relief, helicopter
> operations, evacuation operations, operation
> support, maintenance support, joint operations
> command, training
> 
> Classification
> 
> Lloyd’s Register of Shipping: 100 A1,
> Amphibious Transport Ship, both intact and
> damage stability according SOLAS



http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/landing-platform-dock/landing-platform-dock-8000



> DIMENSIONS
> Length o.a. 133.00 m
> Beam mld 24.80 m
> Depth no.1 deck 15.00 m
> Draught 5.20 m
> Displacement full load 8300 tonnes
> 
> PERFORMANCE
> Speed 16-20 knots
> Range at 16 knots >6000 nm
> Endurance 30+ days at sea crew only
> 15+ days at sea with full complement
> 
> PROPULSION SYSTEM
> Propulsion system Diesel-Direct + PTI (hybrid)
> Propulsion engines Diesel engines + Electrical motor
> Propulsion power 12.000 kW
> Propellers 2 x CPP
> Bow thrusters 2 x
> 
> AUXILIARY SYSTEM
> 4 x Diesel generator sets
> 1 x Emergency diesel generator set
> 
> ACCOMMODATION
> Air-conditioned spaces for 95 crew and 450 embarked marine
> forces (troops), consisting of cabins, stores, galley, mess rooms and
> sanitary spaces.
> 
> MEDICAL FACILITIES
> Role 1, examination room, sickbay fitted for 6 patients and dentistry
> facilities.
> 
> TRANSPORT CAPACITY
> Flight deck 2 spots medium size helicopter (NH-90 o.e.)
> 1 spot suitable for heavy helicopter (Chinook o.e.)
> Hangar 2 x medium size helicopter
> Dock 2 x LCM-1706 or equivalent
> Flight deck 1250 m²
> 400 lane meters
> RoRo space 1100 m2
> 290 lane meters
> Ship Stores 100 m2
> Cargo/Ammo 480 m2
> 
> EQUIPMENT
> Stern ramp 70 t
> Side ramp 50 t
> RO unit(s)
> 1 x Cargo elevator 25 t
> 2 x Deck crane 25 t
> 2 x LCVP in Davits
> 2 x fast RHIB
> Cargo hatch
> 
> WEAPON & SENSOR SUITE
> 1 x 30mm gun
> 2 x .50 machine gun
> 2D Surveillance & target indication radar, IFF
> Electronic support measures
> Radar / electro optical fire control
> Combat management system, CIC
> Integrated internal & external communication system
> 
> NAUTICAL EQUIPMENT
> Extensive navigational equipment, GMDSS, echo sounder, powerand
> ship’s management system with integrated ECDIS.
> 
> OPTIONS
> NBCD citadel
> Wash down installation
> Shock protection
> Underwater noise reduction








Broadly similar to the Kiwis Canterbury in role and size.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> What would happen if?
> 
> Rather than one BIG HONKING SHIP we were to consider basing our inshore/EEZ fleet on the small Enforcer class LPDs.
> 
> Instead of AOPS and MCDVs we were to base our EEZ force on the Enforcer 8000.
> 
> Consider putting 3 on each coast, two at sea at any time.  They would provide a base of operations for helicopters, UAVs and high speed interceptors like the CB-90.



I think you may have just inadvertently made an argument along the lines of "quantity has qualities of it's own", in large or small numbers.  Would not the concept of the two ships "at sea at any time" with their crews, helo's etc imply a very high operational cost and quickly induce a parts/life cycle attrition problem?  

What is wrong with a a large number of far more basic (very basic) and cheaper to operate vessels and non shipborne maritime UAV's that do just as well.  I realize this does not address the expeditionary capability, but we don't have one now.  

I agree that nothing says "fuck off" to an adversary better than a fleet mix of heavy destroyers, submarines, fleet replenishment and support ships, along with LPH's and all the other kit. But again, the RCN does not have any of that now, except for the subs and some modernized frigates that (in a pragmatic sense) can barely defend themselves except for prosecuting a submarine. I think the case might be made for a better equipped RCN if it loses it's CF-18 aircover, the Aurora fleet fades away there is no suitable replacement for either.   Not that I am wishing a pox on the RCAF...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Baz said:
			
		

> Yep.  If for no other reason as soon as the government said "what their expectations of the Military are,and then fund those requirements" every single empire and office in Ottawa would pile on about how thier pet project is part of those expectations, and the cost would run completely out of control.  There is no way the government should, or will, give the military a blank cheque.
> 
> 
> I think you are a little heavy: if you are going to have the Amphib it should be center of the task group and the Command ship, so:
> 1x Expediationary (ie Mistral or Canberra) type ship, 1x full JSS, one of the Davie type light JSS, 2 x sub on both coasts, around that core you have a number of Halifax replacements (like Type 31s with AAW capability, Strike [ie Tomahawk in VLS, with Standard SM-6, Harpoon until the replacement is here, and maybe ASROC], and basic littoral maneuver [ie maybe a stern ramp]) and AOPS.  No destroyers, no Kingston (ie do not replace), and maybe as few as 4 Hailfax replacements per coast.  Might need something light?
> 
> Rational: The Expeditionary, JSS, and light JSS are going to need down time, so it gives flexibility.  Best case Expeditionary and JSS, pretty good Expeditionary and light JSS, acceptable JSS and light JSS, not desirable just one of them.  Expeditionary stays with the task group while JSS / light JSS can make supply runs.  Expeditionary makes a much better center of the TG and Command ship.  However, those first three won't be cheap and need crew (and lot's of aircraft) so need to give somewhere, hence the much lower number of replacements for the Halifax's.
> 
> In my perfect world, international deployments would routinely be an Expeditionary, JSS, or light JSS plus one Halifax replacement to give flexibility forward all the time.



The Russian modified Mistral if built in France could be had cheap enough to get 3 (rotating 1 through refits) But they are not well armed, hence the AD destroyer. From my reading your AD ship needs to be big enough to carry a sustainable amount of reloads and we need 3 of those as well with one in refit. The Halifax's can provide ASW, the AOP's may fill the constabulary role both over seas and in the North, so minimum 5, (1 on each coast to sail with the fleet and the other to head north to support CCG ops in the spring/summer/fall plus refit) The Kingstons will still be needed to maintain a presence on the coast while the fleet is deployed and AOP is up North. These can be primary Reserve crewed, long term task naval reserve unit to provide crews and if they know they are going to have X number of slots from x date to x date every year, they can use that as a recruitment tool. Eventually we are going to need some smaller northern based vessels manned by local reservists and reg support staff, perhaps tuk and Frobisher Bay?


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I think you may have just inadvertently made an argument along the lines of "quantity has qualities of it's own", in large or small numbers.  Would not the concept of the two ships "at sea at any time" with their crews, helo's etc imply a very high operational cost and quickly induce a parts/life cycle attrition problem?
> 
> What is wrong with a a large number of far more basic (very basic) and cheaper to operate vessels and non shipborne maritime UAV's that do just as well.  I realize this does not address the expeditionary capability, but we don't have one now.
> 
> I agree that nothing says "fuck off" to an adversary better than a fleet mix of heavy destroyers, submarines, fleet replenishment and support ships, along with LPH's and all the other kit. But again, the RCN does not have any of that now, except for the subs and some modernized frigates that (in a pragmatic sense) can barely defend themselves except for prosecuting a submarine. I think the case might be made for a better equipped RCN if it loses it's CF-18 aircover, the Aurora fleet fades away there is no suitable replacement for either.   Not that I am wishing a pox on the RCAF...



I agree entirely that quantity has a quality all its own.  As to the tempo of ops I would be happy if it broadly mimicked the anticipated tempo described in the original AOPS SOR of 2009 

17 weeks arctic, 8 weeks sovpats, 4 weeks trials and WUPS, 7 weeks available in port, 6 weeks leave and 10 weeks maintenance.


----------



## PuckChaser

Interesting turn of events, no "Made in Canada" design.

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/02/23/liberals-alter-course-on-frigate-replacement-and-rely-on-foreign-design-2/#.VszvCtCgVC9 (More on link)



> Liberals alter course on frigate replacement and rely on foreign design
> 
> By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press — Feb 23 2016
> 
> OTTAWA — The Trudeau government has quietly revised the framework for the navy's planned frigate replacement program, opting for a proven foreign design over a custom domestic blueprint.
> 
> The news was delivered to defence industry contractors meeting in Ottawa on Tuesday.
> 
> Lisa Campbell, the assistant deputy minister in the acquisitions branch at Public Services and Procurement Canada, said an evaluation has determined that there are existing warship designs that would meet Canadian needs and deciding to go in that direction "was a big step for us."
> 
> Commodore Art MacDonald said the navy has also refined its requirements for the advanced warships, on which Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax is expected to begin construction some time around 2020.
> 
> In addition, the federal government will run only one competition for building both the ship and installing the sophisticated electronics, instead of doing it separately, as originally planned.
> 
> Campbell said those decisions will help not only speed up the shipbuilding process, which has been proceeding at a glacial pace, but could help control costs down the road.
> 
> When originally conceived, the Harper government estimated the cost of building 15 warships would be in the range of $26 billion, but internal documents and published reports last fall suggested the price tag could go as high as $40 billion.
> 
> Relying on a proven, off-the-shelf warship design from another country takes a lot of the uncertainty out of the planning process, Campbell said.
> 
> "We don't know the actual cost per ship yet," she said in an interview. "We're not talking about a custom build anymore. We're talking about existing designs .... and in our view that is likely to have an impact on diminishing all sorts of risks."
> 
> There would be, however, some modifications to the design to suit unique Canadian requirements. The process is not unlike the one followed when the Harper government selected a German design for the navy's soon-to-be-built joint supply ships.


----------



## AlexanderM

Good news!! Now take Irving out of the deal and we'll really be making progress!


----------



## PuckChaser

Now we can stop living in the dream world, and start listing out some in-service designs we'd like to see...


----------



## Kirkhill

So the Liberals scotched the integrated platform when buying helicopters and opted to go with separate platform and systems integrators.

Now they are scotching the separate platform and systems integrators and buying an integrated platform when buying ships.

I am not criticizing.  I like the "off the shelf designs will work for us".  

I am just amused at how we get there.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Please, please, please, let it be a FREMM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxSsHeiioG0


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Please, please, please, let it be a FREMM:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxSsHeiioG0



Seigneur!!!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And bonus: You'll get all the pubs in (proper and understandable) French right off the bat - no waiting five years for bad translations where idiots in Ottawa invent new vocabulary.


[My latest beef, which I thought was just weak knowledge of French by an English-Canadian admiral when she came to Montreal, was calling the AOPS "Navire de patrouille extra-côtier et de l'Arctique".  :facepalm:
Certainly sounds like Ottawa bozos: first of all "navire de patrouille" can be summed up in French by the single word "patrouilleur", then the concepts of harbour/inshore/offshore progression exists in French and it is "portuaire/côtier/hauturier". Thus "Patrouilleur Hauturier et Arctique" was all that was ever needed and proper.]


----------



## Kirkhill

Have faith OGBD, you will would likely end up with Italian manuals.


----------



## MarkOttawa

PuckChaser:

Foreign design decision for CSC made some months ago:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/mark-collins-rcns-canadian-surface-combatant-will-be-foreign-design/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And bonus: You'll get all the pubs in (proper and understandable) French right off the bat - no waiting five years for bad translations where idiots in Ottawa invent new vocabulary.
> 
> 
> [My latest beef, which I thought was just weak knowledge of French by an English-Canadian admiral when she came to Montreal, was calling the AOPS "Navire de patrouille extra-côtier et de l'Arctique".  :facepalm:
> Certainly sounds like Ottawa bozos: first of all "navire de patrouille" can be summed up in French by the single word "patrouilleur", then the concepts of harbour/inshore/offshore progression exists in French and it is "portuaire/côtier/hauturier". Thus "Patrouilleur Hauturier et Arctique" was all that was ever needed and proper.]



Pffffft!  That's easy for you to say.  I'm a poor, dumb, bloke.  It might just as well be in Egyptian hieroglyphs for all I could read and understand.  It's all like a Charlie Brown teacher talking, to me.


----------



## PuckChaser

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> PuckChaser:
> 
> Foreign design decision for CSC made some months ago:
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/mark-collins-rcns-canadian-surface-combatant-will-be-foreign-design/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



CP must be just catching up, thanks.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Just Canadian media.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

If the CSC mix d signs are the Horizon for an AAD destroyer, and FREMM for a frigate, 6 +9 respectively, that would be a very solid and respectable fleet. With the Berlin Class and the Davie conversion, one could then start thinking about 2x 10-12000 tones Enforcer and probably even a Cavour class carrier.  
The that would be a navy on par with the long abandoned Leadmark project.


----------



## Journeyman

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> If the CSC mix d signs are the Horizon for an AAD destroyer, and FREMM for a frigate, 6 +9 respectively, that would be a very solid and respectable fleet. With the Berlin Class and the Davie conversion, one could then start thinking about 2x 10-12000 tones Enforcer and probably even a Cavour class carrier.


The bit in yellow is what gave it away;  you had a beverage or two after work, didn't you?


----------



## Karel Doorman

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> If the CSC mix d signs are the Horizon for an AAD destroyer, and FREMM for a frigate, 6 +9 respectively, that would be a very solid and respectable fleet. With the Berlin Class and the Davie conversion, one could then start thinking about 2x 10-12000 tones Enforcer and probably even a Cavour class carrier.
> The that would be a navy on par with the long abandoned Leadmark project.



While the Horizons are great ships  :nod: ,France cancelled the last planned 4(series of 8)so now there are "just" 4 of them in service.
Why? Horizons are very expensive ships much more so then Fremm,so when/if DCNS is chosen it would likely be the Fremm for Canada(also great ships)
Suggestions were made on the dutch defence forum("Defensieforum")to go for these "puppies" for our ASW needs(but likely it will be an own design.)

gr,walter


Shame to see Damen is out,would love to see more then 4 DZP's on the seas or an evolved version,LCF-2; (just saying this as a dutchie)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes, Karel D, the Horizon are more expensive than the FREMMs, but the cancellation of the last four was only partially due to their cost. It had more to do with the fact that the Horizon's are the air defence destroyers for the French aircraft carriers and so, when France decided to cancel acquisition of the second carrier to complement the Charles de Gaulle, that cut the need for AD destroyers by half. 

Now France and the UK have an agreement to operate the carriers as a joint European undertaking, so that, when the two Q.E. are in service, two out of three will always be available to Europe or NATO.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So does any foreign design use the "bear trap" helicopter recovery system?


----------



## Bearpaw

Wikipedia asserts that the Italian Horizon class destroyer  Caio Duilio has:

"The handling of wheeled helicopters on the flight deck is guaranteed up to sea state 6 by the semi-automatic Canadian system TC-ASIST[7] of Indal Technologies committing to these operations a single operator."

Bearpaw


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yes, Karel D, the Horizon are more expensive than the FREMMs, but the cancellation of the last four was only partially due to their cost. It had more to do with the fact that the Horizon's are the air defence destroyers for the French aircraft carriers and so, when France decided to cancel acquisition of the second carrier to complement the Charles de Gaulle, that cut the need for AD destroyers by half.
> 
> Now France and the UK have an agreement to operate the carriers as a joint European undertaking, so that, when the two Q.E. are in service, two out of three will always be available to Europe or NATO.



So.....how many aircraft carriers do we have to defend? Surely we can save the entire cost of an AD variant?  Would we need them if we had a few LPDs/LPHs?


----------



## Baz

Colin P said:
			
		

> So does any foreign design use the "bear trap" helicopter recovery system?



According to https://www.curtisswrightds.com/products/naval-systems/helicopter-securing-traversing/rast.html "More than two hundred ship sets have been delivered to navies in Australia, Canada, Japan, Spain, Taiwan and the United States."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You still need an AD variant, Chris.

The reason they use them for their carriers (and I should have said, their Mistral's also) is that any task group deployed as a group in an area where combat is possible needs to have air cover for the task group. It's just that France usually deploys such a group around their carrier or Mistral's as command ship. 

In our case, our Canadian task Groups deploy around a supply ship and a few destroyers or frigates. You still need a command ship and to provide area air cover - it's just that in our case it is the Area air defence ship which is both at the same time instead of being separate vessels.


----------



## Kirkhill

No.  I don't need an AD variant.  Me and my muddy boots will never go to sea in one of your task forces.   >

Apparently you need an AD variant to protect your speed boats and the gas station you need to take with you.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> No.  I don't need an AD variant.  Me and my muddy boots will never go to sea in one of your task forces.   >
> 
> Apparently you need an AD variant to protect your speed boats and the gas station you need to take with you.  ;D



Don't knock it until you try it... soup at 10, beer at sea, banyans with beer, steak night, duty free when you come home, swim-ex (rare nowadays), three hots and a cot, a real toilet that flushes, showers.  It's better (mostly) on the dark side.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> No.  I don't need an AD variant.  Me and my muddy boots will never go to sea in one of your task forces.   >



Yeah! That's why, I figured a long time ago, you always seek to impose all your cockamamy plans on us poor sailors: You don't have to sail with the results.  ;D


----------



## GR66

I have my own opinion of course about what kind of capabilities I would personally like to see Canada have, a different opinion on what is likely (or at least should likely be) affordable for a country like Canada, and a third opinion on what I think the current Canadian Liberal government is likely to agree to.

That being said, I think that a trading country with a coastline as  long as Canada's and with substantial proven and probable resources within its maritime EEZ has a certain baseline minimum requirement in order to adequately patrol and monitor our waters (even in absence of a perceived direct military threat), provide governmental support to citizens living along our coastlines, and to meaningfully participate in collective overseas operations with our allies.

My gut feeling is that this could likely be adequately provided by a total of 16-24 ships, likely of two or possibly three different classes.  One would have to be roughly analogous to the current Halifax-Class Frigates with military spec construction and reasonable all-around general purpose capability (embarked ASW helicopter, towed-array sonar, self-defence AA capabiliities and moderate ASuW capability).  I'd think that an absolute minimum of 8 of the total number of ships (preferrably 12?) would have to be of this type.  

The balance of the ships could probably be more like the AOPS/Kingston-Class of vessels.  Ideally each of these (or at least half of them) should be able support helicopter operations and have some type of flex-deck capability in order for them to be able to fullfill the roles of "lillypad"-type forward base units, provide capability of deploying personnel and/or equipment to any domestic or overseas area required (non-combat situations), have the ability to embark an ASW helicopter and mission module towed-array sonar/Mine countermeasures kit, and fast craft to conduct boarding operations.

The Canadian shipbuilding industry should be contracted to produce these ships on an ongoing basis so that we always have the baseline fleet available in a constant state of renewal and are never again in the position of having to completely rebuild the RCN from scratch.

There are other ships and capabilities that Canada may/should want, but these requirements may change over time (and our ability to fund them may come and go as well) so they should be separately funded on an as-required (as-affordable) basis.  This would include things like high-end ASW destroyers, AAD destroyers, helicopter carriers, LPDs, submarines, etc.  Funding these "specialty" vessels as required should never come at the expense of funding our baseline requirements.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yeah! That's why, I figured a long time ago, you always seek to impose all your cockamamy plans on us poor sailors: You don't have to sail with the results.  ;D



Well, solve the problem.  My back is itchy and needs scratching.  How about you plan on carrying a bunch of guys with muddy boots from the get go?  They might be a bit more understanding of the need for a well equipped escort.

I am sure the USN and the USMC appreciates your efforts.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And, as I have explained before in various threads, the decision to carry muddy boots at sea is not the Navy's, but our political masters. And it seems that every time they look at what it implies and would cost, they back off.

In 1970, our friend Mr. Hellyer asked the Navy to be able to integrate with the army and carry it where needed. The Navy, then organized around one carrier escort group and four ASW escort groups, offered to switch to one carrier strike group and two groups built around one Iwo Jima class amphibious ship each. Hellyer liked it, but when it was presented to the government o the day, with its actual cost, it was rejected.

Not long ago, we learned that the CDS recommended to the government that they jump at the opportunity that we had to acquire the two "Russian" Mistral's from the French. The CDS did not come up with that recommendation on his own: You can be sure that he consulted with the RCN and that if the RCN had been anything but enthusiastic at the idea, he would not have made the recommendation. What we learned, however is that the civil head of the department (the DM) advised the government against it because it could have affected the shipbuilding strategy. The government declined.

When we have ships that are likely to have to support landings (and those are NOT frigates and destroyers) of forces, we make allowance for that: The AOPS, the most likely to have to support small land parties, will each have the capacity to embark and land 20 troops together with their ATV's or snowmobile or trucks/Bv's, most likely to help with Rangers patrol going from one island to the next when the ice does not permit safe passage. Similarly, the JSS's will have embark capacity.

So it's not the Navy blocking muddy boots from ships - just from ships where they don't belong and serve no purpose, such as frigates and destroyers.

But you have to be mindful of the cost, which seems to be the government big block in all cases: Buying amphibious warfare vessels, which are still expensive vessels, just to park them for 25 years in Halifax and Esquimalt and use them once or twice a year for a two weeks army exercise is a stupid waste of money. 

If on the other hand you wish to make more regular and constant use of them, then where do you get the muddy boots? Last I checked, the army was having a hard time filling all of its current combat arms units and provide the personnel for their existing taskings. If you wished to, say, maintain one amphib per coast with 500 "boots" on them, would that not require triple that to maintain? That amounts to 3,000 extra soldier just as the fighters. So you probably need about 1,000 more as on shore support. Then you have to add maybe 1,500 to 2,000 more people in the RCAF to provide the extra air assets that such ship would require. That is what is scaring the government away.

As for the Navy, well Ready Aye Ready! We'll do what our masters tell us to do ... but so far that have not asked for an amphibious capability. Period.


----------



## ArmyRick

The army perspective

What type of force do we need to land and to do what mission

I see the following as realistic missions for an amphib ship
-Support humanitarian missions (lets get the liberals all excited)
-NEO
-Missions like Somalia that were reasonable proximity to sea shore (Could the amphib act as a floating service support base?)
-NATO joint exercises (with the USMC, Royal Marines, Dutch Marines, etc) I see these as not just exercises but a display of capabilities
-Supporting some sov ops in the North (during the balmy months of the year perhaps?)
-CANSOFCOM probably has a list of things they could do with it but can not tell us
-Assistance to SAR missions (like Flight 111 air disaster? Floating Rescue base? RCMP, Medics, etc operating off one ship?)
-Of course a few boot stomping exercises with good old ground pounders (like me)

You do not need a special unit, just create battle groups or company groups, etc from existing Brigades. You may need to coordinate things for the Pathfinder cell in Trenton and combat engineer divers to adapt/develop procedures for operating with these ships


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Van Doo's practiced off the French Mistral. I suspect mostly a lot small changes, like waterproofing, dealing with corrosion, adapting some equipment. The LAV is good for this and worked with the landing craft. The mix would require a robust Combat Engineer team, with TLAV’s an something that can fulfill a BARV function. The Infantry battalions can rotate through, but a dedicated Combat Engineer and Svc Battalion group would be needed as they would be the specialists in the landing craft to shore interface. It would not need to be a large group, but the skillsets and knowledge base would need to be kept alive.

The Airforce would have to make the biggest changes, stand down some or all of the Griffions, replace them with the same airframe as the Cyclones (without the ASW kit) and they can perform both the marine and land helo functions. The helicopters being marinized will be more expensive upfront, but save money on training, parts and less maintenance for the ones not working in the marine environment.

The RCN runs the landing craft and I don’t see many issues there, some good and interesting taskings for Petty Officers and ratings.

Having amphibs would be for the RCN what the C-17 is for the RCAF, it would change what and how they do it. It would give the government of the day huge flexibility in what we do, with whom , when and how. The ships would likely pay for themselves in the international horsetrading that goes on between allies. The Amphibs along with the C-17’s would give Canada significant capability to support NATO & non-NATO mission.


----------



## jollyjacktar

They also were on USS Gunston Hall in 06.  Very rough trip for them.  They were as green as their cadpat.  We called them Van Spews.   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

To be clear - This is addressed to my friend OGBD  :nod:

Money is what money is.  I can always create an unaffordable plan.

Alternately I can have ships built that include space on each ship for a joint staff element, an SOF team, a FOO/FAC team and a platoon to provide them security (and conduct boarding on the side).  That represents an accommodation of about 60 bodies or so in addition to the berths the RCN deems necessary to fight the ship and carry a helicopter.

Most of the modern "combat" ships seem to have those provisions.  Does your navy include those provisions?


Step up plan 1

Add a Company Combat Team to each Task Force that deploys.  That could be accommodated in a "gutted frigate" like the Absalon.  Same hull, same engines (just fewer), same systems, just a big, sheltered deck for carrying muddy boots and their gear and the necessary connectors.  The Absalon still has enough speed to keep up with a Task Force - or do you regularly advance at rates in excess of 25 knots?

Step up plan 2

Provide lift capacity for a separate Infantry Battle Group complete with a Heavy Combat Team for support.  Something along the lines of the Rotterdam.

Absalons and Rotterdams could be gainfully employed in the domestic EEZ, alongside the de Wolf's, supplying floating bases and emergency response capability, when not needed overseas.  Although I rather suspect that Haiti would prefer to see a Rotterdam in Port-au-Prince than an AD frigate.  They may end up getting more sea time than the ADs.

WRT manning.

Marvelous thing about berths is that they do not need to be filled all the time.  And guys that are willing to sleep in bags on the snow are probably not overly bothered if their bunk doesn't have wood trim, especially if they are only going to be in those bunks for a week or so. 

The platoon teams that live on board should have naval accommodations but the larger teams?  The bigger issue is getting their gear where they need it.  They can be flown on board to marry up with their gear and sleep on canvas for a week or so.  They could come on board at a local dock in the theater of operations.  They could be ferried out by sea or they could be ferried out by helicopter.

And on the subject of manning:

The good old fleet of three AORs, four DDHs and 12 CPFs supplied berths for some 4600 sailors, currently reduced to 2700 for just the 12 Halifax.

If you went with a fleet of 6 Horizons/Orrizonte (174 + 32 pax) and 9 Aquitaines/Bergamini (Accomodations for 200 with a crew or 108 to 147 depending on source - lets say 147) you still only come up with seaberths for some 2367 sailors.  Short of the 2700 and well short of 4600.

Or are you going to do what the Spanish did with the Bazan/Nansen/Hobarts?  Crew them with 202 when the Norwegians are using crews of 120?  

Note that the Bazan, Nansen, Hobarts, Aquitaines, Bergamini, Orrizonte, Horizons, not to mention the Type 45, Type 26, Type 31, F125 and Iver Huitfeldt - all have provision for "muddy boots".  And all of the fleets have additional provision to bring the ratio of muddy boots to jack tars up to 1 pair of muddy boots for each jack tar.

Finally wrt cockamamie ideas.  Well, the contraire is the idee fixe.  A durable concept well recognized among the Belges.   

;D :cheers:


----------



## Baz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And, as I have explained before in various threads, the decision to carry muddy boots at sea is not the Navy's, but our political masters. And it seems that every time they look at what it implies and would cost, they back off.



In my opinion, OGBD hit it squarely on the head.

I would like to have the Canadian Task Group centered on an Expeditionary Warfare Ship (like Mistral or Canberra) with robust service and support (like JSS or JSS light) and proper escorts (my preference would be all the escorts the same, with AAW and ASW capability, but ColinP and OGBD have gone a long way to convince me that it is in fact a dedicated AAW ship with the Maritime Commander embarked and a couple of ASW escorts).  That capability should be duplicated on each coast, and the combination of one expeditionary, one JSS, and one JSS light would mean we should always have 2 of the three available.  For availability reasons then it means 4 AAW ships (so you don't have to move them coast to coast to fill holes), an absolute minimum of 6 ASW ships (it's not so low because it really covers the need, but something has to give), and 4 subs.  For that I'd give up the Kingstons and let AOPs cover the gap (again, because unfortunately something has to give).

As a taxpayer, if we had such a capability, I'd like to see it robustly forward deployed, conducting exercises with our Allies.  Say, one TG (as small as one Expeditionary, JSS, or JSS light, plus one escort) forward all of the time, with the remainder of the TG ready to join.  With that number of hulls you'd need to rotate ship to shore quite aggressively.

But, what gives on the Army side: that is roughly one Battalion(-) plus Combat Support and Combat Service Support per coast.  That's a minimum of 4 in the rotation assuming only  one Coast is deployable at any given time; more if you want to be able to routinely surge both coast.  And remember, they would actually be routinely deployed.

That's a third of the Army: I would again take that hit and reorg the Army around 3 major capabilities: a light airborne/airmobile 4 battalion force, a medium sea mobile and insertable (but not full amphibious assault ie kick in the door) 4 battalion force, and a heavy (ie armoured) 4 battalion force.  Each battalion would be all arms; the Army knows how to organize them.  Not that unless we go to war that means one battalion of each force is always available.

And then we need to think about the Air Force as well.  Currently there are two squadrons of MH, one on each coast, which don't embark.  That would literally have to double, and each of those squadrons would no longer be just MH; they would have an MH flight for the escorts, a littoral lift flight for the Expeditionary ship, probably an UAV flight, and in a perfect world an Fire Support (ie AH) flight.  At the very minimum that means bringing the number of Cyclones up to 50 (from 28), but still only having 28 MH mission sets (maybe that could be removed and installed on any airframe).

As an aside, if you were going to get AH to support littoral fire support, you may as well put some in the other force squadrons as well.  Could we replace the 412s with AH-1Ys and UH-1Zs built in Maribel?

Based on my exposure to SCTF, something along these lines was exactly what Hillier was envisioning.  Only real differences from my understanding is the whole concept of JSS Light is very new, and AHs weren't in the mix (but the concern over littoral fire support was already understood).  And it wasn't affordable... the Olympics allowed it to go quietly.


OK, so that's not affordable, what about the lighter option, around Enforcer.  So, let's say four of them in rotation:
- still going to need roughly the same escort force
- still going to need roughly the same support force, so let's keep it at two Berlins and two Davies build
- still going to lead, an albeit lighter, Battalion, so the Army reorg is the same
- still going to need to go to two squadrons of helos on each coast, but might get it down to around 44
Now your not really capable of doing Expeditionary Littoral Maneuver, except with robust support of other nations.  still not a bad capability.

But nope, still too expensive for the government (especially this government).


OK, how about 2-3; everything starts to shrink:
- AAW escorts can come down to 2-3 as well
- 2-3 support ships (make them all the Davies build to save money; in other words, get Enforcers instead of Berlins)
- down to 40 helos total, maybe in the existing two squadrons, or maybe one deployable squadron added
- But we still have the problem of re-org the Army...


So, now we are at 2-3 JSSs (Berlins), and:
- if the stars align, 1-2 Davies build
- 2-3 AAW ships
- 6-10 ASW escorts
- 4 subs
- 28 helos, but no dedicated littoral lift or fire support
- can sort of embark on the Berlins, but not organized around it.
ie, exactly what the plan is.

Although I'd prefer (and as a taxpayer would be willing to help pay for) any of the options earlier in the list, the reality is it is that last option (built around a JSS, which is really just a replacement AOR) that the government is willing to support.


----------



## Kirkhill

Baz, 

I appreciate the reasoning but I would prefer to see dollars attached.  My biggest problem in all of these budgeting exercises is the vapour ware that seems to create Canadian cost estimates and the seems to generate numbers at odds with those of our allies.

70,000,000 for Aker to build Svalbard.  460,000,000 for Irving to build AOPS. 

As for the Army - I know the Army guys will jump on me for this one - but I thought we already maintained an Army expeditionary battle group.  We just don't have any means to get them where they need to be.

And I don't think there would be a problem finding platoons and companies for independent duties.

One thing that caught my eye though was on the MHs and their equipment suite.

I was under the impression from the beginning of the exercise that the MHs were to be equipped with Roll On Roll Off ASW stations so that the Cyclones could be employed in logistics roles such as Vertrep and troop lift.  Not so?


----------



## FSTO

Like all the ideas tossed about but what needs to happen is complete buy-in from the 2 main political parties (sorry NDP, but I just cannot see you guys taking another run for at least 20 years). We cannot afford to have wholesale changes to our defence and foregin affairs policies every 4 - 8 years. We need a white paper that both parties support now and in the long term. 
I think the reason why Oz can do a so much better job than us on defence policy is that they have buy in by both the Liberals and Labour and policy doesn't change that much with a change in government. Also not having the US in your backyard and having a potentially hostile (SE Asia) neighbour in your frontyard helps to focus the national decision makers.
So a white paper and bipartisan agreement is a bare minimum for a coherent and sustainable Canadian Defence Policy.


----------



## Kirkhill

Agreed FSTO

But as dim as the politicians might be I have developed a sense that within the Forces there are many folks that fight their corner to demonstrate that the only option is their option.  That doesn't help guide the politicians to anywhere useful.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Those are all good missions, and realistic, ArmyRick. And I wish people would stop getting me wrong: I would support such mission (anybody who reads my posts knows that I was amongst the first to suggest we should jump at getting the Mistrals that became available), but we have to understand what it entails. And then, we have to see if our masters in Ottawa think the cost is worth the price. So far they said no.

I am putting my comments in yellow in you "perspective" below, ArmyRick. They are meant as constructive and for the purpose of helping the discussion. For that purpose, I will assume that we are talking two mMistral types (one per coast)



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> The army perspective
> 
> What type of force do we need substituting "would we like" would be more appropriate to land and to do what mission
> 
> I see the following as realistic missions for an amphib ship
> -Support humanitarian missions (lets get the liberals all excited)
> Agree: But in the last 15 years, we have done three of those, Florida, New Orleans and Haiti. Is it worth spending $2b on ships and $100M per year on O&M funds.
> -NEO
> Again, agree: But the only one we have ever had to do would have been Lebanon. They needed evacuation now. The French, Italian and Dutch who were all near took one to two weeks to get their ships there. If starting in Canada, you can add another two weeks. Is it worth it at that time - unless we are already in the area by sheer coincidence)
> -Missions like Somalia that were reasonable proximity to sea shore (Could the amphib act as a floating service support base?)
> Absolutely the amphi could act as service support base. In fact, you may recall that the AOR Protecteur actually did provide such support, with the Sea King helicopters and Navy/Air Force team being at the airport first to inspect the landing strip and ensure the air traffic of the ops.
> -NATO joint exercises (with the USMC, Royal Marines, Dutch Marines, etc) I see these as not just exercises but a display of capabilities
> Totally agree: For me, that would be the first and foremost reason to acquire. But can the army afford it? Such exercise usually last three weeks in the simulated landing area, add the trip there and back for the army, plus the prior training in all phases to get ready for it, which would include your final point of boot stomping exercise. All told it would be like doing one of your brigade level ex every time. Can it be fitted as extra in what you do now?
> -Supporting some sov ops in the North (during the balmy months of the year perhaps?)
> Again, agree fully. In fact, Arctic sov is probably one of the best reason to acquire the capability: a lot easier to have a ship that can travel there to fully support an army group and its attached air assets than to deploy them separately by air and have to fly in all the support materiel as things unfold.
> -CANSOFCOM probably has a list of things they could do with it but can not tell us.
> Then I won't tell either ... but I know what they could do with the capability  .
> -Assistance to SAR missions (like Flight 111 air disaster? Floating Rescue base? RCMP, Medics, etc operating off one ship?)
> That one is unlikely. What was required for Swiss Air 111 was mostly divers support and underwater exploration gear. We already have other vessels (diving tender and MCDV) that can do that.
> -Of course a few boot stomping exercises with good old ground pounders (like me)
> Agree. As mentioned somewhere else above, we naval types always enjoy trying to guess if you guys are green in the face because you have applied your camo paint, or not
> 
> You do not need a special unit, just create battle groups or company groups, etc from existing Brigades. You may need to coordinate things for the Pathfinder cell in Trenton and combat engineer divers to adapt/develop procedures for operating with these ships


----------



## FSTO

Likely true.
I just wish there were few more Louis St. Laurents and a lot less Liz Mays in the HoC. The St.Laurents would be able to come up with a coherent vision and tell the CAF to get on with it. 
But instead we get empty headed rhetoric like "Return to our Peacekeeping Roots" and Defence of the North in a Sustainable Manner".


----------



## Baz

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> One thing that caught my eye though was on the MHs and their equipment suite.
> 
> I was under the impression from the beginning of the exercise that the MHs were to be equipped with Roll On Roll Off ASW stations so that the Cyclones could be employed in logistics roles such as Vertrep and troop lift.  Not so?



Sort of so... there is potentially a bunch of different configs, and the can be fitted for up to 22 seats, but...

(Disclaimer: I'm pulling the seat counts from memory, so they may be one or two off.)
Full ASW has 6 seats.
The first things out would be the sonar and the sono launchers, which would give you 12ish.  This would be a SAR or Naval lift config.
Pull the console and you're up to 20ish.  There is still an avionics rack you want to keep.
Pull the rack and your up to 22, but lose a bunch of things like any ability to use the mission computer.

However, there is no planned config with the antennas pulled, including the radar.  Therefore, it's not really "troop lift," it's administrative lift.

So what I was alluding to was to have all the aircraft clean configed (with a cover for the radar and a couple of other things), but wired to accept the mission kit.  Another option would be to have green (and painted green?) aircraft without the wiring, which would save money but lower flexibility.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks again Baz, and FSTO, I agree with you on St-Laurent and May.

OGBD:

I enjoy picking on you because I know the feeling is mutual.

WRT the requirement to maintain a deployment capability. Your own statements describe the number of missions we (Canadians) have actually undertaken in the absence of a dedicated capability.  We maintained a capability in Europe for a lot longer and did a lot less with it.

There were politicians, not so long ago, arguing against the purchase of the C17s and the upgrade of the C130s on the grounds that they didn't want them sitting at the end of the runway doing nothing.  One even went so far as to say that if he were elected he would sell off the C17s.  He didn't want to be anybody's fire brigade.

I have no doubt that if Mistrals, DeWitts, Rotterdams, Bays, Enforcers, Canterburys, Absalons, Crossovers were available they would get good use.


----------



## Kirkhill

Tangent from 2006 on the C17s



> Harper government may face rough ride over military purchase
> 
> For Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien, the military albatross that dogged their tenures was helicopters. For Stephen Harper, if he follows through with a major spending announcement this week, it could be airplanes a very large, military cargo plane, one of the largest in the world.
> 
> BY CANWEST NEWS SERVICE JUNE 12, 2006
> 
> 
> OTTAWA - For Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien, the military albatross that dogged their tenures was helicopters.
> 
> *For Stephen Harper, if he follows through with a major spending announcement this week, it could be airplanes a very large, military cargo plane, one of the largest in the world. The debate over those plans could be the hot potato that threatens a political firestorm.*
> 
> Harper is expected to announce a plan to purchase four massive, C-17 military cargo planes at a cost of $2.5 billion. The purchase will be unusual for another reason because it's expected to be sole-sourced that means no competition from other companies to bid on the massive contract.
> 
> That will be good news for Boeing, the American manufacturer of the C-17, as well as for the Bush administration. The purchase is expected to be unusual for another reason it will be government-to-government, in what is known in the defence industry as a Foreign Military Sale.
> 
> Already, this has sparked the expected *political outrage from the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois*, who have serious questions about how buying direct through the U.S. government will *deprive the Montreal-based aerospace industry *of billions of dollars of lucrative industrial spinoffs in the coming decades.
> 
> Harper and his senior cabinet ministers have deflected the political criticism so far, but more *serious trouble is brewing* on another crucial front:* the federal public service believes buying the C-17s is a bad idea* and is going public with its concerns.
> 
> When the Ottawa Citizen reported earlier this month *on the Conservative's plan to buy C-17s, the federal bureaucracy rebelled* in another time-honored way: someone leaked an internal Public Works Department document to the *Liberal opposition that suggested bureaucrats were getting political pressure from Harper himself to speed up military equipment purchases*.
> 
> ''During the recent election, much was said about the need to improve the capabilities of the Canadian Forces,'' said a two-month-old Public Works backgrounder.
> 
> ''It is important that the government announce concrete actions and results before the summer. It is also essential that announcements be made in such a way that the broad stakeholder community is fully engaged; that military procurement is seen to be a fair process; and that there is broad public trust in the outcomes of change.''
> 
> The document also revealed *Harper had formed a steering committee of top cabinet ministers ''to co-ordinate all government action plans'' to craft a ''new and streamlined process for military procurement.'*'
> 
> The document echoed similar leaked memos from the 1990s that showed Chretien had formed a secret cabinet committee to oversee the purchase of a replacement for the aging fleet of Sea King helicopters a smoking gun many critics said provided evidence of political meddling.
> 
> *Alan Williams*, a retired federal public servant who knows more about buying military hardware than just about anybody else in official Ottawa, said *the plan to buy C-17s without competition is a bad deal* for taxpayers because it robs the government of all leverage in negotiating.
> 
> ''So politically it's not smart, business wise it's not smart. It's not good for anyone in the military. The only thing potentially it does is allow the government to say, 'look we bought something,''' said Williams, who left the Defence Department in April 2005 after six years as the assistant deputy minister materiel, a job that put him the eye of the storm over every large military equipment purchase including the politically charged $3-billion Sea King replacement.
> 
> Before that, Williams spent five years overseeing all federal government contracts as the assistant deputy minister in the Public Works Department.
> 
> *''It's easy to guess, well, we like C-17s. But you don't know until you test the marketplace whether or not it is the best product,'' Williams, who is writing a book *on the lucrative business of federal government contracts, said in an exclusive interview.
> 
> If the Conservatives buy the Boeing plane directly through the U.S. government, they will pay a three- to five-per cent premium on the purchase price as the standard ''brokerage'' fee that accompanies such purchases, he said.
> 
> Canada will also lose leverage over negotiating the lucrative extras the maintenance contracts and other high-priced spinoffs the Canadian aerospace industry could benefit from. In his 33-year-career in the public service that spanned Conservative and Liberal governments, Williams said he could not recall any major military equipment purchase that was sole-sourced.
> 
> But there's another question: does the military even need C-17s?
> 
> Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, has said Canadian troops in Afghanistan have a more pressing need for shorter-haul tactical transport planes to replace the aging fleet of Hercules, as well as helicopters and armoured trucks. Hillier has said the Canadian Forces can meet its needs for now by continuing to rent long-range transport planes on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> In a bitter exchange at the Commons defence committee last week with Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh accused the Harper government of putting its own political agenda ahead of what the military really needs.
> 
> ''What you've done is introduced the political agenda into this, of buying the C-17s ahead of the tactical lift,'' Dosanjh charged.
> 
> MacKay made a telling deviation from the standard response line other Conservative cabinet ministers Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, Senator Michael Fortier and Harper himself have taken in the last week in fending off questions about the C-17 purchase. Instead of saying the government has made no decision yet and it is hypothetical to discuss buying C-17s, MacKay essentially confirmed the plan at the end of a vigorous line of questioning from Dosanjh.
> 
> *''C-17 is not needed in Afghanistan,'' Dosanjh charged.*
> 
> ''That's your opinion,'' MacKay replied, without denying it was on table.
> 
> At NATO's 2002 Prague summit, Canada entered into a 15-country agreement that gives it access to a pool of large long-distance planes, mostly leased from Russian firms.
> 
> The plan entitles the Canadian Forces to 150 flying hours per year on Russian-built Antonov long-distance cargo planes.
> 
> Canada is guaranteed access to two Antonovs on 72-hours notice, and is entitled to six aircraft over a nine-day period, Williams said.
> 
> Asked whether he thinks Canada's newfound interest in C-17s is political, Williams replied: ''It would be hard for me to fathom a reason why the bureaucracy would want to do it this way.''
> 
> An ill-fated helicopter deal played a major role in ending nine years of Conservative reign in 1993, as the Chretien Liberals derided the Conservative's so-called "Cadillac" purchase of $5.8-billion worth of Cormorant helicopters to replace the Sea Kings. The Cormorant deal became a key election issue in the campaign that ultimately brought the Liberals to power.
> 
> But over a decade, Chretien's decision to cancel the Cormorant contract dogged him as a paper trail emerged that made a compelling case that political meddling was at the root of the delay in replacing the Sea Kings.
> 
> *If Harper buys the C-17s, the political fallout too would hound him for years to come, Williams predicted.
> 
> ''He's going to be on the defensive forever.''
> *
> Ottawa Citizen
> 
> © (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.


----------



## FSTO

So what that article is saying to me is that our DM's and their staff are far far far more interested in the "process" and blackmailing companies than in getting the right equipment for the job.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> OGBD:
> 
> I enjoy picking on you because I know the feeling is mutual.



I wouldn't call it picking: Its an ongoing muscled but civil debate of opinions which, I believe is very educational for both parties and, I would think, for those that follow its unfolding.

There are no hard feelings at all, quite the opposite: I don't get to go to your side of the country these days, but rest assured that next time I am in your neck of the woods, the first round of 25 yrs old single malt is on me.  



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> So what that article is saying to me is that our DM's and their staff are far far far more interested in the "process" and blackmailing companies than in getting the right equipment for the job.



He who profits is enslaved to the provider of funds. What I find most disturbing in the "Mistral" debacle of last year is that the uniformed personnel supported the acquisition but it was opposed by the National Defence DM, not the PWGS one, on the basis of effect on the Shipbuilding Strategy, which we all know is an industrial strategy - not a military one.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I wouldn't call it picking: Its an ongoing muscled but civil debate of opinions which, I believe is very educational for both parties and, I would think, for those that follow its unfolding.
> 
> There are no hard feelings at all, quite the opposite: I don't get to go to your side of the country these days, but rest assured that next time I am in your neck of the woods, the first round of 25 yrs old single malt is on me.
> 
> He who profits is enslaved to the provider of funds. What I find most disturbing in the "Mistral" debacle of last year is that the uniformed personnel supported the acquisition but it was opposed by the National Defence DM, not the PWGS one, on the basis of effect on the Shipbuilding Strategy, which we all know is an industrial strategy - not a military one.



I look forward to the sharing.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...
> He who profits is enslaved to the provider of funds. What I find most disturbing in the "Mistral" debacle of last year is that _the uniformed personnel supported the acquisition but it was opposed by the National Defence DM, not the PWGS one, on the basis of effect on the Shipbuilding Strategy_, which we all know is an industrial strategy - not a military one.




But the "National Defence DM," not anyone in uniform, is the official charged with _managing_ defence policy, which, arguably, was the domain within which the _Mistral_ decision lay. The fact that the CDS may have "liked" the idea of having a _Mistral_ is irrelevant given that there was no policy base for acquiring such a beast. The _Shipbuilding Strategy_ is, indeed, an industrial support programme, but it is a "national" one and a significant one, and it is one that I would expect that all senior officials would support, actively.


----------



## Good2Golf

...although in fairness to the CDS, there were, as intended within the DND construct, two different advices given:  Military (capability) Advice, and Departmental Advice (Policy/Resources).  The first is the CDS' and second exclusively the DM, so having Mil and Dept advices not being the same is not a bad thing, otherwise, one might argue that military advice should always be a sub-set (it isn't) in full compliance underneath a political/policy/resource-driven position.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Nothing to add, this is an educational thread for me.  Just a post to stay in the loop.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...although in fairness to the CDS, there were, as intended within the DND construct, two different advices given:  Military (capability) Advice, and Departmental Advice (Policy/Resources).  The first is the CDS' and second exclusively the DM, so _having Mil and Dept advices not being the same is not a bad thing_, otherwise, one might argue that military advice should always be a sub-set (it isn't) in full compliance underneath a political/policy/resource-driven position.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G




In fact it is a very good thing. One of the (near fatal) flaws in the reorganization that axed CFHQ and integrated it into NDHQ was a _perceived_, never stated, _requirement_ that the DM and CDS be "in accord" before taking anything to the minister. (My, personal, memory suggests that a change in minister changed that, but I also remember that it took a long time for the idea that the military staff could offer "uncoordinated" advice (advice that had not been "approved" by e.g. ADM(Pol)) to disappear.) Of course advice from the CDS should not come as a surprise to the DM, nor _vice versa_, but I agree fully that the military is allowed to give independent advice ... but on policy matters the DM's voice should, almost always, prevail because he, not the CDS, is the expert on defence policy.


----------



## Baz

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... but on policy matters the DM's voice should, almost always, prevail because he, not the CDS, is the expert on defence policy.



I agree wholeheartedly.  Like it or not, DND is the biggest discretionary spending in the Federal budget.  That money should be used in the best interest of Canada, and not just the military interests, like every other country does; how we ensure the best bang for the buck doing so seems to be out of align more and more of late.

I do think, but would have to research, that sometimes apples get compared to oranges.  You don't have to look long to find quotes like "Key principles of Dutch defence industrial policy.  The Dutch approach combines import substitution in the form of offsets, export promotion in the form of R&D investments, skill development, market access instruments and by supporting through procurement and R&D support a national champion in shipbuilding."  (http://aerospacereview.ca/eic/site/060.nsf/vwapj/Def_Ind_Pol_Approaches_-_Final_Draft_-_July_13.pdf/$FILE/Def_Ind_Pol_Approaches_-_Final_Draft_-_July_13.pdf page 28)  The government provides extra money so that they can maintain a ship building industry and export ships (at reasonable costs), and therefore at first look their ships are cheaper, because that is good for their country.  It doesn't mean that going and buying them there is good for ours (it may be, but not necessarily).

However, question for you... would you agree that the CDS is, and should be, the expert, and therefore primary advisor on operations?  I feel that way because it should be somebody that understands the risks that tells others to take them.  There has been some disturbing rumbles as of late that the DM is infringing...


----------



## Journeyman

Baz said:
			
		

> There has been some disturbing rumbles as of late that the DM is infringing...


IF true.....perhaps that's the inevitable legacy of having had a weak CDS.  I suspect that with our current CDS, such a potential situation would be rebalanced in short order.


----------



## Kirkhill

Baz said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> I do think, but would have to research, that sometimes apples get compared to oranges.  You don't have to look long to find quotes like "Key principles of Dutch defence industrial policy.  The Dutch approach combines import substitution in the form of offsets, export promotion in the form of R&D investments, skill development, market access instruments and by supporting through procurement and R&D support a national champion in shipbuilding."  ....
> 
> *The government provides extra money so that they can maintain a ship building industry and export ships (at reasonable costs), and therefore at first look their ships are cheaper, because that is good for their country*. ....



I am quite all right with Canada adopting that strategy wrt Bombardier for example.  But is there some cultural difference between Damen and Bombardier, or even Irving, a similar company, that occasions such very different results?   Or is there some obvious set of management practices that prevent 70,000,000 dollar Svalbards becoming 460,000,000 de Wolfs?

I would also note that Thales Integrated Mission Mast, welded to the Holland OPV, was explicitly part of that strategy.  The Hollands were "cheap" for the Navy to buy and operate.  They kept the yards busy.  They showcased the IMM.  As they sail around they sell the Netherlands, Damen, Thales NL, the Hollands and the IMM.  All of which results in Dutchmen working rather than collecting the dole.

The concept is not bad.  I am not that wedded to the Free Market. It is just that I have yet to see any evidence of cost effective results here in Canada.   Perhaps part of the difference is that the Dutch, while happy to pocket a Guilder, also want an effective method of keeping the French and the Germans out.  Conversely, we are lumbered with a population that is just as happy if no ship sails, or no plane flies,  so long as they get good jobs with good pensions.


----------



## Spencer100

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/171597/canada-alters-course-on-frigate-replacement%3B-opts-for-foreign-design.html

Does this mean they are going to rebid the shipyard to build them?  Or just prime contractor and Irving is still the ship yard?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am not sure if the term "free market" actually applies to large warship ship building, almost every yard gets some form of subsidy one way or another.


----------



## Kirkhill

> When originally conceived, the Harper government estimated the cost of building 15 warships would be in the range of $26 billion, but internal documents and published reports last fall suggested the price tag could go as high as $40 billion.



The art and science of estimating.

Announced estimate 26 BCAD at time of announcement.

IF this were a Concept or Feasibility determination according to AACE guidelines then it would be a Class 4 Estimate.
According to AACE rules then the 26 BCAD is allowed to vary between +30% and -15% and between +120% and -60%

Effectively that means that the actual cost of the project could come in somewhere between 26 BCAD - 60% (or 10 BCAD) and 26 BCAD + 120% (or 57 BCAD) and the estimator would have done his job in a suitably professional manner.

26 BCAD Class 4 means a project cost of 10 to 57 BCAD.




IF this were a Budget or Authorization determination according to AACE guidelines then it would be a Class 3 Estimate.
And, according to AACE rules then the 26 BCAD is allowed to vary between +20% and -10% and between +60% and -30%

Effectively that means that the actual cost of the project could come in somewhere between 26 BCAD - 30% (or 18 BCAD) and 26 BCAD + 60% (or 42 BCAD) and the estimator would have done his job in a suitably professional manner.

26 BCAD Class 3 Loose means a project cost of 18 to 42 BCAD



If the estimater were confident in his or her assumptions and was prepared to sign off on a tight estimate then the 26 BCAD project could be expected to cost somewhere between 23 BCAD and 32 BCAD.

26 BCAD Class 3 Tight means a project cost of 23 to 32 BCAD



Given the "up to 40 BCAD" expectation I believe it is likely that a loose Class 3 Budget Estimate or a tight Class 4 Feasibility Estimate was the basis for planning.

That, in my opinion, would not be unreasonable given that yard, ship, weapons fit and support packages were all known unknowns.



IF the government has moved to decide on a firm supply package, a known design that has previously been built,  then they are effectively moving up to a Bid or Tender Estimate, or a Class 2 Estimate.  Many of the known unknowns become known and quantifiable.

At that point the 26 BCAD project could come in between 25 BCAD and 29 BCAD (tight) or between 22 BCAD and 34 BCAD (loose).


26 BCAD Class 2 Tight means a project cost of 25 to 29 BCAD
26 BCAD Class 2 Loose means a project cost of 22 to 34 BCAD.



Normally this would mean the government could be more comfortable on making projections about the number of ships with the number of systems possible with a budget of 26 BCAD.  If we assume that the intention was to build 16 hulls for 26 BCAD and the budget holds but costs rise to the equivalent of 34 BCAD then available 26 BCAD will only buy 12 ships with the intended capabilities.

More ships can be acquired if some or all of them have reduced capabilities.



None of this takes into account the timelapse between the original 26 BCAD estimate and the current realities or realities at time of construction.

Nor does it take into account the Canadian Conundrum that sees a 100 MCAD Svalbard become a 460 MCAD Harry de Wolf with broadly similar fits and capabilities.  Fits and capabilities also broadly similar to the second hand Ice Ship that the RN bought second hand from Rieber of Norway in 2011 for about 400 MNOK or 63 MCAD - constructed in 2001.  Or something in the same price range as a new Svalbard. 

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/surface-fleet/survey/antarctic-patrol-ship/hms-protector

Link to AACE estimates guide.

So when the press get ahold of a number like 26 BCAD and discover to their glee that the number could be higher, I does not demonstrate the malfeasance of the estimator or the incompetence of the client.  It demonstrates the ignorance of the press.

A Feasibility Study is not a Budget.

A Budget is not a Contract.


----------



## Kirkhill

New from Michael den Tandt:



> The economic argument is that, in creating big multi-year bottlenecks at two yards while leaving one de facto out in the cold, the NSPS is impeding the growth of the latter while making the former inordinately reliant on non-commercial work.
> 
> “It is not too late to correct the flaws in the previous strategy,” the release says pointedly. “The remaining umbrella agreements are non-binding and Canada has a free hand in shaping the future of domestic shipbuilding.”
> 
> The crux, given the foregoing, will be this: Can the Trudeau government stickhandle its way out of part of an $8-billion commitment to British Columbia, in a reboot that directly benefits Quebec, without igniting a regional tug-of-war and backlash akin to the Bristol-Aerospace-Bombardier fiasco of 1986?
> 
> That was no small thing; it was instrumental in the creation of the Reform Party. Adjusting the NSPS to deliver more ships sooner at lower cost would seem to make eminent sense. Whether this government has the skill to pull it off, without sparking an epic regional bun fight, is the open question.



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/michael-den-tandt-liberalss-untangling-of-shipbuilding-strategy-could-ignite-regional-tug-of-war

PM Trudeau's dad accused Brian Mulroney of being the Sorcerer's Apprentice.  At least he had an apprenticeship.

Option one:

Pull jobs from BC and give them to Quebec - proven strategy.

Option two: 

Throw more money at the problem and create a boom which will go bust as soon as the fleet is rebuilt - another proven strategy.


----------



## MarkOttawa

One idea to placate both Davie and Seaspan:



> Why not more Canadian Coast Guard Icebreakers Instead of RCN JSS?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/mark-collins-why-not-more-canadian-coast-guard-icebreakers-instead-of-rcn-jss/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

And some chap name of Mark?  ;D

It's only money.

Admittedly if they are planning on borrowing money I would sooner it were borrowed to buy new ships (including a whole bunch of environmental response vessels built on the West Coast) than to sink into the abyss of social infrastructure.  I wouldn't even mind if they called it Green Infrastructure.


NOCGV Aalesund






NOCGV Harstad





NOCGV Barentshav.




And these guys run on Christie's preferred fuel: Liquified Natural Gas

They can leave those very unCanadian deck guns at home.

And yes, those are environmental response vessels.


Barentshav


> their main tasks are EEZ patrol, fishery inspection, search and rescue as well as tug readiness along the shore of Norway which is seeing increasing traffic from tankers.



Alesund


> Ålesund is used for general EEZ patrol, including fishery inspection and search and rescue.



Harstad


> Harstad was built as a multipurpose vessel, but optimised for emergency towing of large oil tankers (up to 200,000 tonnes deadweight (DWT)), oil spill clean-up and fire fighting. The most common duty will be fishery inspection and search and rescue in Norway's large exclusive economic zone. The steadily increasing traffic of large oil tankers along the Norwegian coast explains the need for this type of vessel.


----------



## Kirkhill

So...

If there were more money in the kitty:

1 - Send the JSS work to Davie and tell Quebec get out of the way of  Energy East. (Add in some work for Bombardier - if they want a BCAD then they can supply something for that cash).

2 - Give Christie's yards an equivalent dollar value / man hours of work to build LNG powered environmental response boats for the Coast Guard to operate on her coast and tell her to get out of the way of Northern Gateway and Transmountain.

3 - Get Irving (and Bombardier) under supervision and get their costs under control.

With the oil (and LNG) coming out of the pipelines we could actually afford to buy this stuff.


----------



## NavyShooter

Unfortunately, all of this involves decisions being made, and actions being taken.  Neither of which seems to be a priority in the NSPS process.

I believe the solution will continue to be per below:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Let's not forget that part that cost was to rebuild the shipyard capacity. Shipyards need new builds to recapitalize the equipment and modernize, repair work keeps things ticking along but rarely allows for big budget items like that big crane at Seaspan. As i said before, let Davie build the 2 light JSS, by the time the JSS are built, those 2 lights will need to go into refit, then keep a JSS and light JSS on both coasts. This way you fleet will always have a JSS and as Baz pointed out the light can also go back reprovision and resupply the fleet while the main JSS stays on station.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, I think that what MarkOttawa proposes is a good start.

Whether we like it or not, by the time the Diefenbaker hits the water (to replace the Saint-laurent, one would think), the Terry Fox will near 40 years old and also need replacement. Same goes for the 1200 class, except the Larsen, which is a bit younger.

I therefore agree with M.O suggestion: move the Berlin's to Davie right after they finish the project Resolve (and sister, I would suggest) and get Seaspan going on the Diefenbaker that much earlier, followed by two more. With three polar icebreakers, one can be posted West so as to operate from the Western Arctic while the other two operate from the East. Then Seaspan can turn its attention to building four heavy river icebreakers to replace the 1200 class.

Meanwhile: Cut the AOPS program and turn it into a proper OPV program, with OPV's that are ice strengthened only (a good example would be the New Zealand "Otago" class ships (Again, a Canadian design - we seem to be able to design ships for everybody except ourselves ???). With the OPVs out of the way, likely faster than the AOPS would have been, Irving can get on with the "combatants".

Meanwhile, when finished with the supply ships, Davie could be made to acquire the design and build a couple of "Mistral" type LHD's.

Result: A continued effective fleet of icebreakers for the Coast Guard and, in about 12 to 15 years, a Navy with four supply ships, a couple of medium size amphibs, about 12-14 DDG/FFG, about 8-10 OPV's and whatever submarines we would wish to acquire (and my view would be getting 6 to 8 of them).

A good, efficient and capable mid-size, general purpose blue-water Navy.

BTW: IMHO, under the "Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy", we should under no circumstances whatsoever attempt to build our submarines. This is one for the foreign builders for sure. It is a type of shipbuilding that is far too complex and different than the others to be learned, mastered and undertaken for limited runs - talk to the Australians if you don't believe me.


----------



## NavyShooter

OGBD,

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable plan, which is why it won't happen.



NS


----------



## dapaterson

Steel has been cut and assmely begun of the first of the AOPS.  Scrapping the platform right now would mean the loss of that work, and delays in gettings ships in the water. (And probably layoffs at Irving until the next ones are ready).

While I suspect the AOPS schedule is aggressive and likely will be a little delayed; changing horses midstream would further delay things.  Perfect is the enemy of good enough; I think, for now, AOPS is good enough.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Steel has been cut and assmely begun of the first of the AOPS.  Scrapping the platform right now would mean the loss of that work, and delays in gettings ships in the water. (And probably layoffs at Irving until the next ones are ready).
> 
> While I suspect the AOPS schedule is aggressive and likely will be a little delayed; changing horses midstream would further delay things.  Perfect is the enemy of good enough; I think, for now, AOPS is good enough.



Agreed.  Something is better than nothing.  My issue is with the costing of all the projects.  Frankly, I don't believe any of the numbers.


----------



## GR66

Just shifting ships around from one shipyard to another may help speed up delivery of badly needed hulls, but it won't reduce the overall cost of the program which is what the government really needs to happen.  Any changes really will likely require a change in WHAT is being produced in addition to changes in WHERE they are being produced.

Perhaps IF Project Resolve (and perhaps a 2nd sister ship?) plus ONE new JSS could be built by Davie at about half the cost of the current JSS program and IF those three ships are enough to meet the RCN's minumum supply ship needs then maybe the JSS build could be pulled from Seaspan and given to Davie and Seaspan instead build TWO ice breakers for the CCG.  Good politics in Quebec, limited damage to Seaspan, and more ice breakers for the CCG (and faster).  This change still though would likely be cost neutral, so cost savings will still have to come from somewhere else in the NSPS (realistically the CSC portion).

If the cost savings from the program will have to come from the CSC portion then what are the options?  Fewer hulls?  Drop the AAD version?  A cheaper GP design?


----------



## NavyShooter

I seem to recall discussion about the 'Canadianization' of the AOPS design costing us around $270 million dollars.

If we expand that complexity to a full-blown warship in the CSC, then the cost of the 'Canadianized' design for it will run closer to a billion dollars.

If we literally buy a set of suitable plans and skip most of the 'Canadianization' then we stand to save most of that billion dollars....or so.

That's some real money.  If we were REALLY smart and just bought the completed hulls overseas, we'd get them for literally pennies on the dollar, fit them out here with the whiz-bang high-tech gear, and go from there.

The biggest problem I see with the NSPS is that it's making a non-competitive set of shipyards even less competitive, because they're only selling one product to one entity, and there is no-one else in the world that'll buy from them.  The only way these yards stay open, and the workers employed is if there is continued government of Canada input and purchase from the yards.  We do not have a big enough fleet to require all of these yards, because if they all built all the ships all at once, we'd have returned to the boom/bust production cycle, and the yards would all close in 15 years, and we'd have to re-do this process all over again in 25 years.


----------



## Kirkhill

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I seem to recall discussion about the 'Canadianization' of the AOPS design costing us around $270 million dollars.
> 
> If we expand that complexity to a full-blown warship in the CSC, then the cost of the 'Canadianized' design for it will run closer to a billion dollars.
> 
> If we literally buy a set of suitable plans and skip most of the 'Canadianization' then we stand to save most of that billion dollars....or so.
> 
> That's some real money.  If we were REALLY smart and just bought the completed hulls overseas, we'd get them for literally pennies on the dollar, fit them out here with the whiz-bang high-tech gear, and go from there.
> 
> The biggest problem I see with the NSPS is that it's making a non-competitive set of shipyards even less competitive, because they're only selling one product to one entity, and there is no-one else in the world that'll buy from them.  The only way these yards stay open, and the workers employed is if there is continued government of Canada input and purchase from the yards.  We do not have a big enough fleet to require all of these yards, because if they all built all the ships all at once, we'd have returned to the boom/bust production cycle, and the yards would all close in 15 years, and we'd have to re-do this process all over again in 25 years.



NS I believe you are on the very low side.

If Svalbard plans had just been sent to a Canadian yard for construction it would have been easy to compare the chain of events that resulted in Irving charging 2300 MCAD for 5 boats, maybe 6 if we get lucky which the Norwegian yard could have been expected to produce at 350 MCAD to 500 MCAD for 5 boats.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/irving-reaches-shipbuilding-deal-with-federal-government-1.2912429
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ottawa-signs-288m-contract-for-design-of-arctic-ships-1.1312194
http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/AOPS_EN.pdf
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html

According to the PBO the estimates are generated by Yankee software.  Apparently not by talking to yards that are actually building comparable ships.


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/171597/canada-alters-course-on-frigate-replacement%3B-opts-for-foreign-design.html



How did everyone just skip by this article?  If this is true then its basically code for "we give up" or "no inovation" and we will get a ship designed for 15 years ago.  Unless the Type 45 is on the table (which was only designed for 10 years ago).  I was kinda hoping for a domestic design to showcase a made in Canada solution and perhaps with a lead into developing a foreign sales market but why dream big when you can dream Canadian.  

Also going to one contract for the ship and the electronics systems cuts a bunch of companies out of the loop unless they start paring up (which they will most likely do), and significantly gives Lockheed an even greater head start over the rest.  I suppose it might matter which "off the shelf" ship that they pick but there are not many out there that match the current tonnage requirements or the ability to do both AAW or GP on the same hull without significant mods.  Unless of course the are using a "based on" model and modifying it.  But that seems unlikely.  The Liberals are terrified of risk.  Navy is as well.  Which is so odd coming from an organization that is supposed to manage risk all the time, we do a very very bad job of it.


----------



## PuckChaser

What do you want, a Canadian version of the Hobart at $8B for 3 ships? Maybe we should design a Canadian-Zumwalt class. Total steal at $4B a ship.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Underway: Foreign design for CSC was public last November; ace media did not notice:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/mark-collins-rcns-canadian-surface-combatant-will-be-foreign-design/

Updated Public Works link:
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/snac-nsps/prequalification-eng.html

Mark Collins


----------



## AlexanderM

Underway said:
			
		

> How did everyone just skip by this article?  If this is true then its basically code for "we give up" or "no inovation" and we will get a ship designed for 15 years ago.  Unless the Type 45 is on the table (which was only designed for 10 years ago).  I was kinda hoping for a domestic design to showcase a made in Canada solution and perhaps with a lead into developing a foreign sales market but why dream big when you can dream Canadian.
> 
> Also going to one contract for the ship and the electronics systems cuts a bunch of companies out of the loop unless they start paring up (which they will most likely do), and significantly gives Lockheed an even greater head start over the rest.  I suppose it might matter which "off the shelf" ship that they pick but there are not many out there that match the current tonnage requirements or the ability to do both AAW or GP on the same hull without significant mods.  Unless of course the are using a "based on" model and modifying it.  But that seems unlikely.  The Liberals are terrified of risk.  Navy is as well.  Which is so odd coming from an organization that is supposed to manage risk all the time, we do a very very bad job of it.


I don't see a problem, there are a number of excellent designs out there, I'm partial to the Iver Huitfeldt-class myself.


----------



## jmt18325

FREMM...that's all.


----------



## Kirkhill

I said upthread (probably more than once) that I don't trust the project numbers.

European Defence Bureaucrat:  We want an defence force that is well equipped and we want to subsidize our economy. Our citizens don't like big armies and navies but they do like jobs.  We don't want to be seen paying for defence.  We will support our defence industry through the economy by other means that are popular and provide labour, tax and marketing support and limit the defence budget.  

US Defence Bureaucrat: We want a defence force that is well equipped and we want to subsidize our economy.  Our citizens like a big army and navy and they also like jobs. We want to be seen paying for defence. We will support our economy through the defence industry to provide labour, tax and marketing support and inflate the defence budget.

Canadian Defence Bureaucrat:  We don't want a defence force at all.  We want to subsidize our economy but our citzens don't like armies and navies while they do like jobs.  We don't want to be seen paying for defence but our allies insist that we do. We will support our economy by spending our limited European budget on inflated American equipment so as to limit our capabilities.  Then when we get asked to do something we might get lucky and not be able to provide anything useful.

As I said:  I am feeling depressed.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> i think that is actually quite accurate, except for when the Canadian citizenry really do want a scrap (and there have been those times), in which case the government still says uh-oh, but still "no." So we have a legacy of governments saying no when the answer should be yes, and a citizen history of saying no and yes depending on the time of day and the weather. (or "whether", depending on which way you feel entitled look at it).
> 
> The argument that maintaining an armed force as a critical deterrent against foreign aggression, and a useful and sharp tool in foreign policy comes at the price of social welfare deprivation is false. Most of Canada's greatest social welfare advances occurred during or as a result of conflict, or came into being by the efforts of those who participated in military conflict.
> I have yet to see any defence budget (actual or proposed), that would impair, degrade, deprive or otherwise interfere with any social program, give rise to any tax increase,  substantially worsen any deficit, deny any person their Charter Rights, deflect, delay or deny the building of critical infrastructure, and the list goes on....
> 
> The facts are this is not a chickenshit country, but we have been governed for 50 years by chickenshit paranoia and FUD.  The cost of this shipbuilding program, while larger (and it will grow enormously) is really just a drop in the overall bucket, and does not displace any sacred cows.


----------



## Kirkhill

You're not helping.

How about you pour me one of these instead?


----------



## misratah500

I want two things out of these CSC ships. I want a deck gun over 100mm and large capacity for missiles than 24 CPF or 29 IRO had. God love it if we could get a cruise missile kinda capability.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Heaven knows how many ships (what types?), when and for what money the RCN will sometime get:



> $26B for new fleet of warships ‘notional’: Foote [one time a great notion?]
> Minister admits original estimate won’t cover cost of building ships
> 
> The government doesn’t know how much its new fleet of warships will cost, how many vessels it will be able to build, or when they will be delivered.
> 
> In an interview with The Chronicle Herald on Friday [March 4], Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy Foote confirmed that the $26.2-billion figure announced by the Harper government to deliver up to 15 warships is no longer accurate [_quelle surprise_!].
> 
> “That budget was a notional amount, anybody looking at the numbers would question how you could possibly get up to 15 ships for $26.2 billion,” Foote said…
> 
> The price tag for the warships has been fraught with doubt for several years, with experts, industry insiders, and internal documents all stating the program would be considerably over budget — some estimates say the real costs to build the fleet could be as high as $40 billion.
> 
> Foote said it’s way too early to put a new cost on the program, but said the government would be transparent about numbers when it reaches that point…
> 
> The program is already behind schedule, and too large of a gap between finishing the construction of six Arctic offshore patrol ships — which are also being built in Halifax by prime contractor Irving Shipbuilding — and beginning the warships would cause logistical issues for Irving and likely mean layoffs. And although a successful modernization program has been completed on Canada’s aging Halifax-class frigates, experts say they can only be stretched so far — the navy needs warships sooner rather than later.
> 
> During a press tour of the Halifax shipyards on Friday, Irving president Kevin McCoy assured reporters that a ship design would be picked by 2017, and the company would have a contract in hand to begin construction by December 2019 or January 2020.
> 
> Foote said while _she expects the government to have picked a warship design in about a year, there’s too much uncertainty to have a concrete timeline beyond that_ [emphasis added].
> 
> “We’re not far along to know that at this point. I know we initially talked about 2020s . . . I know that’s what Irving would like, but until we’ve completed the consultation process I don’t think it would be fair for me to be saying, ‘This is the date,’ ” Foote said.
> 
> Foote said the single competition off-the-shelf design approach would save some time, but not how much …
> 
> The number of ships to be built by Irving has also been uncertain — the original proposal called for construction of “up to 15” warships, but during the election campaign the Conservatives said that number could be as low as 11...
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/1346888-26b-for-new-fleet-of-warships-notional-foote



Well they would do that, wouldn't they?



> Irving mounts public relations push as questions swirl around frigate program
> http://www.timescolonist.com/irving-mounts-public-relations-push-as-questions-swirl-around-frigate-program-1.2190650



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Send money........


----------



## safetysOff

> Send money........



Or lower expectations given recent track record


----------



## MilEME09

Or the Canadian way for procurement, both


----------



## Karel Doorman

So i read something on the dutch defence forum,article from a German Naval Magazine about Canadian Procurement.  :facepalm:

The "Canadian Surface Combatant" -Project device in rough seas.
According to Navy planning to 15 new warships old now largely replace already decommissioned destroyer TRIBAL class and long term to replace the frigates HALIFAX class. 2017 fall design decisions about 2022 then begin construction.
The beginnings of the project go back more than ten years back. Originally they wanted to implement it at a cost of a total of less than 10 billion euros. 2008 (skeptical) government added to vigorously and approved a ceiling to be understood as a total amount of about 17 billion euros. Now one expects, however, with up to 28 billion euros.
The Navy leadership sees from the beginning of serious errors in the cost calculation. Already in 2008 approved financial framework was based on totally obsolete data. Lack of professionalism "bureaucrats" and lack of experience of Canadian shipyards have also led to a "mere" estimate of costs that were set far too low under political pressure. Worse than the "ceiling" fixed financial framework have prevented any remedy; there had never been an adaptation to current developments (inflation), and the Navy was a revision of perceived as cost-impulsive tactical- / technical requirements out of the way gone.
Thus, the project "Canadian Surface Combatant" now a "high-risk projects", which not only goes beyond the budget framework and threatens to overwhelm the capabilities of the national shipbuilding industry, but that ultimately the Navy with a considerable time lag inadequate and little future oriented skills could bring. Observers expect that instead of the planned 15 new combat ships only about 10 will be affordable, and this even when their construction is spread over time, the cost is therefore spread over more financial years than planned.


Will provide link;

German article :
http://www.marineforum.info/Aktuelles_Heft/MaaW/maaw.html

Seems like a crazy amount of money for"just" 15 ships,wow. :nod:

"I mean you could buy about 45 Fremm's for that kind of doe.(seems stuff's/building/planning  not going quite right in Canada)" not my remark but a guy from the dutch forum said that and actually he's quite right.

Maybe it's time for Canada to get on speaking terms(designing and building together)with the Dutch ,since "our" M-class will be up for replacing in about the same sort of timescale(2022-ish)and my thought will be that the MPF2(M-class Patrol Frigate 2)will be in the 600 million neighborhood a piece so for Canada (with some additional costs offcourse,since you like those  [ ,sorry couldn't help myself) the whole project(15 ships) could be done for around the 10 Billion figure   (so there's still money,a lot actually, in the "kitty",18 Billion give or take)

Maybe an option?

gr,walter

ps possible to include ice-strengthening right from the start then(designing it with)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Karel Doorman:  Good luck with such good sense in Canada--all our political parties insist on building the ships in Canada (jobs! jobs! jobs!) and cost be damned--until the conclusion is reached that fewer ships, probably less capable, is the solution.  But still built in Canada.  Nuts but reality.

There's even controversy over the possibility that new RCN tugboats might not be built in Canada:



> Canadian Shipbuilders highlight perils from using foreign-built ships
> http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canadian-shipbuilders-highlight-perils-from-using-foreign-built-ships-569056541.html



Have a look at the "Canadian Navy" posts here for extensive background:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/tag/canadian-navy/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Karel Doorman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Karel Doorman:  Good luck with such good sense in Canada--all our political parties insist on building the ships in Canada (jobs! jobs! jobs!) and cost be damned--until the conclusion is reached that fewer ships, probably less capable, is the solution.  But still built in Canada.  Nuts but reality.
> 
> There's even controversy over the possibility that new RCN tugboats might not be built in Canada:
> 
> Have a look at the "Canadian Navy" posts here for extensive background:
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/tag/canadian-navy/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa




Mark i get your disappointment in this matter.(really i do)  and think most of you(Canadians)think the same.

But maybe when the 2 of us(i mean our countries)design them together it's possible to built the Canadian "portion"of the new series in Canada itself(or at least most of them)

I mean we're both there from the start then and both parties should have a saying in the building aspect.

gr,walter


----------



## Baz

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Maybe it's time for Canada to get on speaking terms(designing and building together)with the Dutch ,since "our" M-class will be up for replacing in about the same sort of timescale(2022-ish)and my thought will be that the MPF2(M-class Patrol Frigate 2)will be in the 600 million neighborhood a piece so for Canada (with some additional costs offcourse,since you like those  [ ,sorry couldn't help myself) the whole project(15 ships) could be done for around the 10 Billion figure   (so there's still money,a lot actually, in the "kitty",18 Billion give or take)



Although I agree the prices are higher in Canada for no real reason, I'm not convinced we would get them at the price the Dutch Government does.  Less than 5 minutes on google yielded "Our staff is experienced in pursuing subsidies from the Dutch government or from the European Union if applicable."  http://www.quel.com/suppliers/damen-shipyards-oostende, in addition to some other links, just by typing in "Damen Schelde subsidies."

The US is the worst example of this, the subsidize the crap out of the industry; but so does everyone else, even if it is hidden like in tax breakshttp://officerofthewatch.com/2013/03/20/spanish-yards-criticise-dutch-shipyards-financial-practices/.  Why would the Dutch government let us have the same deal they are paying for behind the scenes?


Of course, I have no idea what the true financials are, and you certainly aren't going to find them on the internet...


----------



## Karel Doorman

Baz said:
			
		

> Although I agree the prices are higher in Canada for no real reason, I'm not convinced we would get them at the price the Dutch Government does.  Less than 5 minutes on google yielded "Our staff is experienced in pursuing subsidies from the Dutch government or from the European Union if applicable."  http://www.quel.com/suppliers/damen-shipyards-oostende, in addition to some other links, just by typing in "Damen Schelde subsidies."
> 
> The US is the worst example of this, the subsidize the crap out of the industry; but so does everyone else, even if it is hidden like in tax breakshttp://officerofthewatch.com/2013/03/20/spanish-yards-criticise-dutch-shipyards-financial-practices/.  Why would the Dutch government let us have the same deal they are paying for behind the scenes?
> 
> 
> Of course, I have no idea what the true financials are, and you certainly aren't going to find them on the internet...



I wouldn't know if they would give Canada same sort of deal,but then again,think with me  

Let's say an "extra"-cost for Canada would be in the 200 million area,a piece(just thinking out loud here),the whole project would still be half of the budget,give or take.i mean the 28 billion figure for 15 is just sheer insanity,in my mind.(or will it be somesort of "Burke's"? )

gr,walter


----------



## Kirkhill

Baz said:
			
		

> Although I agree the prices are higher in Canada for no real reason, I'm not convinced we would get them at the price the Dutch Government does.  ....



Or anybody else in Europe.

Nobody in Europe, not even the Brits, manages to inflate the costs of their ships as well as we do.

And by the way - the Navy is not without fault here.  As has been noted many times - much of the cost is what is stuck in the ship, and not the ship itself.  And the Navy determines that.  

Our Admirals seem to have read Scharnhorst and determined that General Purpose means Every Purpose.


----------



## MilEME09

http://www.citynews.ca/2016/03/09/davie-shipyard-drops-unsolicited-bid-on-liberals-to-build-icebreakers/

Looks like Davie wants more of the pie


----------



## Karel Doorman

BTW i have a question for you'll:

If(and i say if,but looks like it) the "Iver" is chosen as a "template" for the new frigates what will it cost(if needed for Canada)to built them to full mill spec?(since they're partially mill spec now)

I mean it will be alot more,no?

just asking,don't know whether this would be an issue just interested;

gr,walter

PS,whatever ship will be chosen it will be a great day for Canada when the decision is finally made.


----------



## AlexanderM

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> http://www.citynews.ca/2016/03/09/davie-shipyard-drops-unsolicited-bid-on-liberals-to-build-icebreakers/
> 
> Looks like Davie wants more of the pie


I hope they drop a bid for the CSC build as well.


----------



## sandyson

For half of the various estimated costs of these ships, we could probably just bribe any 'bad guy' (...or gal) to go away.


----------



## PuckChaser

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I hope they drop a bid for the CSC build as well.


So we can spend years in legal fights only finally to get the first ships in 2040?


----------



## AlexanderM

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So we can spend years in legal fights only finally to get the first ships in 2040?


The only contract that has been signed is for the AOP's. I wonder if anyone knows the ramifications of not signing additional contracts with Irving. MarkOttawa do you know?


----------



## jollyjacktar

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The only contract that has been signed is for the AOP's. I wonder if anyone knows the ramifications of not signing additional contracts with Irving. MarkOttawa do you know?



I think Puck Chase has it right.


----------



## Kirkhill

Building ships or building an industry?

If the Government want cheap and fast they can do that.  It is only a matter of "needing cash now".  And the industry will boom and bust just like it always has.

If they want to manage the cash flow a bit better then they will pace the cash flow and the builds, as was the original plan.

Now if the yards can demonstrate that they are good, solid, credible suppliers then maybe money could be found to pick up the pace.

But none of that guarantees that any option will produce a good ship.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Building ships or building an industry?
> 
> If the Government want cheap and fast they can do that.  It is only a matter of "needing cash now".  And the industry will boom and bust just like it always has.
> 
> If they want to manage the cash flow a bit better then they will pace the cash flow and the builds, as was the original plan.
> 
> Now if the yards can demonstrate that they are good, solid, credible suppliers then maybe money could be found to pick up the pace.
> 
> But none of that guarantees that any option will produce a good ship.




I think you're right.

The team (a team of very, very senior civil servants) who concocted the shipbuilding strategy were aiming to build a sustainable industry. 

International trade rules (very correctly) ban subsidizing "domestic champions" in pretty much any trade sector ~ the aim is to make everyone a bit richer by enforcing one of the first "rules" of capitalism: in a free market the better product at the lower cost will sell the most and everyone will benefit, some by bauilding the better product, others by being able to buy it at lower costs. But, and there's always a but, there are exceptions to even the best rules and one exception ~ large enough for e.g. the Americans and the French to sail giant aircraft carriers through it ~ is "national security." We can "buy Canadian," and, thereby, pour taxpayers' money into otherwise failing industries, when it is for "national security"

What _I believe_ those very senior civil servants had in mind _was_ a programme that would have seen two or three yards build ships, *slowly, but steadily*, for the RCN and the CCG and then refit those ships when the building slowed even further ... 

build ...
            ... build ...
                            ... build ...
                                            ... build ...
                                                            ... refit ...
                                                                          ... build ...
                                                                                         ... refit ...
                                                                                                       ... refit ...
                                                                                                                     ... refit ...
                                                                                                                                   ... build ...
                                                                                                                                                  ... refit ...
                                                                                                                                                                ... refit ...
                                                                                                                                                                              ... build ... and so on, year after year and decade after deacde.

The programme or _strategy_ was designed for industrial "permanency:" to keep the yards working for a very, very long time at an acceptable (in terms of employment) rate of production. It's a very _civil service_ sort of a plan: sensible, achievable, prudent ... and very unpopular with the Navy, which wants everything, right now, and with many politicians, too, who want _*jobs! Jobs!! JOBS!!!*_ in abundance, also right now.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CSC Eyes right!



> Status Report on Transformational and Major Crown Projects
> ...
> Milestone	Date
> Project Approval (Definition Phase I) 	June 2012
> Project Approval (Definition Phase II) 	2016
> Contract Approval (Definition Phase II) 	2016
> Project Approval (Implementation) 	Early 2020s
> Implementation Contract - Awarded 	Early 2020s
> First Delivery 	Late 2020s
> Initial Operational Capability 	Late 2020s
> Full Operational Capability 	Mid 2040s
> Project Close-Out 	Late 2040s
> ...
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2016-status-report-on-transformational-and-major-crown-projects.page#P6



Makes never never land look goodl

JSS IOC now 2020 vice 2019, only two:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2016-status-report-on-transformational-and-major-crown-projects.page#P14

A/OPS on schedule, first delivery 2018--but no number given:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2016-status-report-on-transformational-and-major-crown-projects.page#P3

Surely not fewer than five?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/mark-collins-contract-signed-for-5-or-6-rcn-arcticoffshore-patrol-ships/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if any of the other oversea contract account for this

_The remaining $1.2 billion will be spent on infrastructure such as new jetties in the North, contingency funds, ammunition, spare parts and training._


----------



## Kirkhill

Watch what happens when we hit a 50 cent dollar.  

(I guess the good news will be that Ontario and Quebec factories will be humming and we out here in the hinterlands can continue to relax).


----------



## Underway

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The programme or _strategy_ was designed for industrial "permanency:" to keep the yards working for a very, very long time at an acceptable (in terms of employment) rate of production. It's a very _civil service_ sort of a plan: sensible, achievable, prudent ... and very unpopular with the Navy, which wants everything, right now, and with many politicians, too, who want _*jobs! Jobs!! JOBS!!!*_ in abundance, also right now.


Not quite (yellow highlight mine).....
The Navy was the one who proposed this type of build system.  The reason was budgetary.  It costs more to have a midlife refit and then continued maintenance per year than to just have  new ship built with maintenance up to midlife and retire the old ship.  The initial numbers in the life cycle cost analysis IIRC back in 2006 (which is a stretch) was a savings of $200 odd million a year for a fleet of 12 ships in a continual build system.  The navy gets new ships more often,  the people get jobs, and the gov't saves money.  Everyone wins except FMF!

All that industrial permanency stuff was to sell it to the government, and quite frankly is not a bad idea in an of itself from the navy perspective (we need domestic expertise and some place for retiring chiefs to work don't we?  ;D).  Whether that math holds with ballooning costs we will see, however those same cost balloon for maint and midlife as well....


----------



## jmt18325

The 50 cent dollar is a ways off now.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Coast Guard has problems too though less severe obviously than CSC--costs also going up:



> Canadian Coast Guard Vessel Acquisitions Sliding Right
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/mark-collins-canadian-coast-guard-vessel-acquisitions-sliding-right/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

So.

Does the sense of urgency change when the government changes?


----------



## jmt18325

There's supposed to be some kind of announcement as Seaspan tomorrow.


----------



## jmt18325

So the government has signalled their commitment to the OOSV and the JSS by providing the (increased) money for the long lead items:

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/03/14/foote-announces-65-4m-in-new-shipbuilding-contracts/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So am I reading that right that Davie is proceeding with the JSS light?


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> So am I reading that right that Davie is proceeding with the JSS light?



The Liberals promised to deliver all of the ships in the NSPS through the NSPS.  This is a clear signal of them keeping that promise.

In reality, the NSPS is a great idea.  It's just about a decade late, leaving gaps in the interim.


----------



## dapaterson

No. A great idea would be to abandon DREE and all its children, and stop paying ridiculous multiples of world prices for Made In Canada.


----------



## jmt18325

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No. A great idea would be to abandon DREE and all its children, and stop paying ridiculous multiples of world prices for Made In Canada.



When you spend a dollar in Canada, that dollar stays in Canada potentially forever.  It's recycled and multiplied time and again.  If we buy ships somewhere else, that dollar is gone.  The reality is, ships that are more expensive, produced in Canada, are actually not that much more expensive (and even cheaper) when you consider economic opportunity cost.


----------



## dapaterson

If the government is taking few dollars out of the productive economy, the economy grows.  Government has no money of its own to spend.  If it's spending more somewhere, it's taking more somewhere else.


----------



## jmt18325

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If the government is taking few dollars out of the productive economy, the economy grows.  Government has no money of its own to spend.  If it's spending more somewhere, it's taking more somewhere else.



If it spends money somewhere else, the money is gone.  If it spends the money here, it stays here.  Amounts are irrelevant.


----------



## jollyjacktar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> When you spend a dollar in Canada, that dollar stays in Canada potentially forever.  It's recycled and multiplied time and again.  If we buy ships somewhere else, that dollar is gone.  The reality is, ships that are more expensive, produced in Canada, are actually not that much more expensive (and even cheaper) when you consider economic opportunity cost.



Yeah, right.  Unless that dollar goes to the Irving off shore tax avoidance fund... pull the other one now.


----------



## jmt18325

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yeah, right.  Unless that dollar goes to the Irving off shore tax avoidance fund... pull the other one now.



Sure, there is that.  Most of it doesn't go there though.


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> When you spend a dollar in Canada, that dollar stays in Canada potentially forever.  It's recycled and multiplied time and again.  If we buy ships somewhere else, that dollar is gone.  The reality is, ships that are more expensive, produced in Canada, are actually not that much more expensive (and even cheaper) when you consider economic opportunity cost.



The problem with that is that most of the stuff that will be going INTO the ships is not built in Canada.  The hull may be Canadian materials and the labour for assembling the whole package may be Canadian.  But most of the gear, where the big bucks will be spent, will not be Canadian.

Radar.  Engines. Weapons.  Ancillary engine room gear like oil separators.  Some comms, some sonar, some of the control stuff will be sourced here - but even there many of the components, like computers, PLCs, switch gear, are all manufactured overseas.

And PS.  If money comes from me and goes to you it is relevant to me.


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The problem with that is that most of the stuff that will be going INTO the ships is not built in Canada.  The hull may be Canadian materials and the labour for assembling the whole package may be Canadian.  But most of the gear, where the big bucks will be spent, will not be Canadian.



We're not going to get those things for less money by building elsewhere though, and are probably going to get them from the same place no matter where the hull happens to be built.  At least by building them here, we ensure not only that the money for the construction and materials stays here, but that we have the capability to repair the ships in the future.  The economic opportunity that is lost by building offshore is huge, even if there is some money to be saved.  I used to be in favour of building offshore, but, someone made me see the light in regard to lost economic opportunity.


----------



## CBH99

Further to the points made by JMT, and correct me if I'm wrong, BUT...

-  The cost of building the ships in Canada will undoubtedly include labour.  I'm going to assume (perhaps wrongfully) that labour will be a fairly sizable portion of any money spent, building the ships here.  Is that labour not taxed?  Is it not taxed relatively robustly, given we are in Canada?

The point to the above is that while money will be spent, the government may get a considerable amount of that money back.  Whether it is workers being taxed, and then further paying GST on their purchases.  If the materials are sourced in Canada, then there are taxes to be paid in the acquisition of those materials.  And those workers are taxed, etc etc.

So while we may pay a hefty sum to have the ships built in Canada, the government will eventually see a sizable amount of that money returned to it, in various forms.  If they are built overseas, that money is gone.  No tax revenue, no workers paying GST, less money to Canadian suppliers, their workers aren't being taxed, etc etc.

**Full disclosure - I'm not the sharpest pencil in the case.  I could be 100% wrong about everything I said above.


----------



## Karel Doorman

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Further to the points made by JMT, and correct me if I'm wrong, BUT...
> 
> -  The cost of building the ships in Canada will undoubtedly include labour.  I'm going to assume (perhaps wrongfully) that labour will be a fairly sizable portion of any money spent, building the ships here.  Is that labour not taxed?  Is it not taxed relatively robustly, given we are in Canada?
> 
> The point to the above is that while money will be spent, the government may get a considerable amount of that money back.  Whether it is workers being taxed, and then further paying GST on their purchases.  If the materials are sourced in Canada, then there are taxes to be paid in the acquisition of those materials.  And those workers are taxed, etc etc.
> 
> So while we may pay a hefty sum to have the ships built in Canada, the government will eventually see a sizable amount of that money returned to it, in various forms.  If they are built overseas, that money is gone.  No tax revenue, no workers paying GST, less money to Canadian suppliers, their workers aren't being taxed, etc etc.
> 
> **Full disclosure - I'm not the sharpest pencil in the case.  I could be 100% wrong about everything I said above.



GBH99,Offcourse you're right on all of the above. :nod:

And  the point made "if they're built here,you'll have the know how to do repairs,updates",etc is also correct.Since you yourself worked on the hulls(for example)you were there when they(ships)were built,learning along the way.

That's why i suggested;"Maybe it's possible for Canada when choosing a foreign design,to built a number of them,maybe even most(ships)in Canada.I don't know what's possible when making a deal with a foreign shipbuilder.(but there are a number(maybe most,or even all) of them who are willing to do just that(to secure the deal.

So that's up to the government to secure such a deal(let them do their job,if even possible  > )

gr,walter


----------



## Good2Golf

Any Navy folk conversant with FMF capabilities able to comment on jmt18325's comment that 'ability to repair' is dependent on domestic production?  I though 1st/2nd-line (and some 3rd-line?) FMF-type repair was rather different from who produced (or would later modify/refit) a ship? ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I don't think jmt18325 was referring to FMF specifically. He was talking about doing repairs here, period. I think he was referring to large repairs that could then be done by the yard that built the ship in Canada to start with, as they would have the knowledge to do so.

As for FMF, for the ongoing maintenance and repairs at the scale they work on, they are quite capable to adapt to any design or equipment, wherever it may have been built. To them, what is more relevant is not where the ship or system was built, but whether the government acquired the plans, standards and rights to modify/fix/repair from the equipment provider, something we already do for numerous pieces of gear FMF fixes, but which were acquired outside of Canada.


----------



## jmt18325

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't think jmt18325 was referring to FMF specifically. He was talking about doing repairs here, period. I think he was referring to large repairs that could then be done by the yard that built the ship in Canada to start with, as they would have the knowledge to do so.



That's exactly what I'm talking about - especially if we're building the same hulls right beside any being repaired, at the same time ( the equipment that goes in to each individual ship is irrelevant to this point).  The general knowledge of military shipbuilding, and specific knowledge for our hulls is right there.


----------



## Good2Golf

Seen, fair enough.  I thought there was a nuance that if we didn't build in Canada, that we might not be able to conduct 3rd-line repairs in Canada.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If a shipyard does not get new builds it will fall behind in technology and skillsets, making upkeep and refits very difficult, which due to our geography would mean doing all our refits in US yards, which they would be happy to do and they aren't known for being overly efficient either. If we are going to "waste money" let's at least waste it here. I still like to see 2 Mistrals built and the final finishing and landing craft could be done at Davie without interrupting the other builds. Also let Davie do 1 JSS light that we can use till the JSS are in service and then it can be used to cover off long refits or support long range deployments.


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> Also let Davie do 1 JSS light that we can use till the JSS are in service and then it can be used to cover off long refits or support long range deployments.



They're already doing that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

thanks for clarifying it was not clear if the Liberals were honouring that


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> thanks for clarifying it was not clear if the Liberals were honouring that



Yeah, they took a week to review the deal and proceeded with it, as it was going to cost them money no matter what.


----------



## MilEME09

Honestly if we want to build an industry and get capabilities quickly, I would toss money at Davie's other proposal that they offered the government, yes its adding more to the over all project but it would increase the other all ship building capacity of the country. Heck maybe say hey Davie want to build us a Mistral?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That would drive up a lot of costs, but I suspect a that they be happy with a final fitting out and building the landing crafts


----------



## jmt18325

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Honestly if we want to build an industry and get capabilities quickly, I would toss money at Davie's other proposal that they offered the government



Ships that we don't necessarily need, that don't necessarily meet our needs.


----------



## Kirkhill

One place where Davie's might come in handy is if they have Offshore Support Ships for use as Environmental Response Ships and Tugs for the Coast Guard for the East and West Coasts.  

To escort tankers to and from the pipeline terminals at Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Vancouver and Saint John.  Not to mention Come-by-Chance.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Pipelines?  In today's Canada?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/?s=heartbreak

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Well they won't be to the US.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/john-kerry-secretary-of-state-canada-1.3483311


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> *We're not going to get those things for less money by building elsewhere though, and are probably going to get them from the same place no matter where the hull happens to be built.*  At least by building them here, we ensure not only that the money for the construction and materials stays here, but that we have the capability to repair the ships in the future.  The economic opportunity that is lost by building offshore is huge, even if there is some money to be saved.  I used to be in favour of building offshore, but, someone made me see the light in regard to lost economic opportunity.



I wanted to come back to this point.  The more I thought about it, based on my own personal experiences, the more I believe that that is an incorrect statement.

Background:  I used to work for a European company selling equipment into Canada and the US.  There were three different business models in effect.  The two principle models were "The Market Company" and "The Distributor Model".  In the market company case we talked directly to the end user.  In the distributor model we talked to intermediaries who talked to the end user.  The third model, in the case of really big clients was direct sales from the parent company.

The difference in the route could be as much as a 50% cost reduction.  Typically every intermediary will see something in the order of a 25% margin.  Even if we only gave the distributor a 10% discount the distributor would tack a "what the market will bear" addition on to it.  We did it internally as well.

A piece of equipment that we sold we would buy from the division of the company charged with the particular market segment the customer was involved in.  The division would buy it from the factory.  And then overhead costs would be charged internally.

The Best/Worst personal case I had came very early in my career.  I was responsible for a system that had been sold to a company in the interior of BC.  The location was sufficiently remote, the equipment was sufficiently complex and, as I have noted, the equipment was European so the client wanted to keep an enhanced packet of spares on hand.

One piece of equipment that was identified as critical was a valve for controlling the steam supply.  The client asked for price and delivery on a spare.  After waiting for a month I got an answer to relay to the client.  $10,000 and 3 months.

Now the valve was critical and stainless steel but it was only a 2" valve. So I went looking for the rationale.  I called up the factory in Sweden.  They said they got the valve from a distributor in Sweden.  That distributor got the valve from a European distributor in Brussels.  The Brussels distributor got the valve from its parent in the US.  The US distributor got the valve from the US parent of the company that manufactured the valve.  The valve was actually manufactured in Canada.  I was working in Scarborough.  The valve was manufactured in Mississauga.   The base valve was an off the shelf item with the standard ASME flanges replaced by DIN metric flanges.  The customer eventually bought the valve from the primary vendor in Mississauga for $1100.  

The $10,000 valve became a $1100 valve.

(In fairness the valve had physically been transported, and crossed borders, every step of the way which added to the markups as freight, insurance and taxes were also added).

On another front:

I once spent a year living with a client, learning his problems, learning how he wanted to solve his problems, preparing solutions, revising solutions and offering him a package of pumps and valves.

One day I was informed the project was going ahead, using my solution, but the client was going to buy the package from another supplier.  I asked which of my competitors the client would be using.  He informed me he would be using my pumps and valves as well as my solution. He just wouldn't be buying it from me.  

Apparently, the division that sold the pumps and valves to my company in Canada also sold the same equipment to distributors in the States.  One of the Stateside distributors got a deeper discount (40%) than we, a "sister" company, did.  We got 25%.   That Stateside distributor then sold them to a BC distributor who sold them to a distributor where I was working who sold them to the client.   And they still managed to sell them to the end user cheaper than I could supply them.  Now the guy that got the sale hadn't had to put in the year of leg work, and didn't have to cover my salary, and the salaries of all the other people that supported me in finding the solution, so his costs were lower. But that didn't matter to the client.  He got the best solution (IMHO) at the best price.  And I went on to find my next "paying" customer.

The purpose of the parables is to demonstrate that the market is a weird and wonderful place.  Typically, the fewer the distributors there are between the factory and the end user then the lower the price.   And I sense/believe that that typically is where Canadian defence contractors find themselves - adding their 25% to a long chain that already sees the US paying $600 for a hammer.

But, as the other story shows, you can't take anything for granted.  Every deal has a life of its own and logic is not high on the programme.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Ships that we don't necessarily need, that don't necessarily meet our needs.



Sounds like the model of every purchase we've ever made for the CAF, besides the C-17, M777 and Chinooks....


----------



## Kirkhill

Sorry for continuing the hijack, but a third parable came to mind.

I was project manager for a plant on a job that had a 20 MCAD budget.  We identified the process requirements.  We sourced vendors.  We identified infrastructure requirements and sourced those vendors.  We generated a refined budget and started negotiating final deals, where we adjusted our needs/wants to fit the available budget.

As the project progressed contracts were signed and more and more of the budget was committed.  Ultimately I was left with a diminished budget, but still a healthy one.

In the interim the plant identified an urgent need (a UOR in your terms I guess) for a piece of kit.  That kit was purchased for $250,000, installed and made operational.  And the project continued.

As the project continued, and equipment was sized it became apparent that the traffic flow wouldn't work without a second piece of kit, just like the one we had just bought for $250,000.

Now I was bundling process equipment so as to create large packages attractive to vendors.  When you are negotiating large numbers then percentage points take on a whole different meaning.  Vendors will regularly leave a negotiation cushion, along with a contingency, along with their highest possible margin, in their original offer.  Depending on the size of the project the sum of all those component can result in a lot of flexibility.  Particularly if the vendors are in a meaningful competition.

My plan was to tell the vendors that I had a budget of 6 MCAD for a package of systems and spares.  This included the stuff that I had to have and the stuff that I would like to have.  I wasn't particularly fussed about the exact nature of the solution.  The budget solution was just that, a budget solution.  I was willing to hear alternate solutions that would achieve the same things.  The job would go to the vendor that gave me a plant with the most capabilities within my budget.

One of the pieces of equipment in my 6 MCAD package was another $250,000 piece just like the one we had just bought.  One of the vendors came up with a similar piece from an equally reputable source, with a long track record, at a list price of $60,000.  Not $250,000 but $60,000.  We agreed to accept that solution.

The next issue was negotiating the final price of the contract.  The $60,000 piece of kit, supplied within the 6 MCAD job represented 1% of the total budget.  The negotiation resulted in the price being driven down by more than 1%.  In essence we got that capability, which had just cost us $250,000 as a stand-alone UOR, for free when buried within the context of a larger project.

Pricing jobs is a fraught experience.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Ships that we don't necessarily need, that don't necessarily meet our needs.



pray tell what is our needs? 
1950's We don't need a large combat force, oh hello Korea
1950's We don't need interceptors, missiles will rule
1990's- You don't need any heavy weapons in Bosnia 
mid 90's- Tanks are dead, ASW is dead
year 2000-We won't be in Combat anytime soon, certainly not Central Asia
2012- COIN is the way of the future, other than places like Ukraine, Syria
2016- peacekeeping/peace making/piracy, etc etc

The lesson is that we really are not good at predicting the future, the UK, Australia, Egypt, several European countries all consider Amphibs important. We border 3 oceans and have significant coastline. I can see lot's of arguments for them.


----------



## Kirkhill

Build a platform.  Stick stuff on it.  Adjust stuff to suit the occasion.  And then if you have time and money and the need is obvious then you can make a specialized unit for the next generation.

That is the history of virtually every weapons system we have out there.

The early men of war were converted merchant ships, whether it was cogs or east indiamen.  
The early fighters were canvas bags of sticks and string that carried men with pistols and mortar bombs.
The corvettes were civilian pattern whaling boats with stuff stuck on them, just like the civilian yachts pressed into service.
And the Apache, like the Viper, evolved from the Cobra which started out life as the Huey Gunship.

Other examples would be Dakotas and Hercs and Chinooks and Sea Kings, or even  Lockheed Electras, DeHavilland Comets and Boeing 737s.


----------



## jmt18325

We have a plan.  Lets not set ourselves back again by railroading it.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree we have a plan.

We have a plan to build 15 hulls with stuff in them for 20 billion dollars.

Nobody has said that we have a plan to put all the stuff we want into those hulls for 20 billion dollars.  Nor has anybody put forward a plan for how we would employ those stuffed hulls once we got them.


----------



## jmt18325

As I understand, the hulls are a direct replacement for those we have (not counting the AOPS).  We'll employ them the same way, I'd think. 

The jobs created by the industry are worth as much as the ships themselves when it comes to the interest of the country.


----------



## Kirkhill

Two qualifiers there:  You understand.  You think.

Neither one of those are in the contracts that haven't been written yet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Frankly I don't care or hold my breath for any white paper or plan, the reality is that for most of our history, we have been sending expeditionary forces overseas. The C-17's, C-130J and even the Chinooks all support that reality. For the navy only the JSS truly  supports that history, the rest of the navy is there to ensure the army, it's equipment and supplies get there safely (and they have done that well). Before we could specialize on ASW because of the US doing the other tasks.
 It is quite plausible that the US may retract it's global role either with a protectionist POTUS or to manage it's debt or a combo of both. I will argue that the RCN needs to readjust to more expanded role with a robust ASW, decent AAD and some Amphib ability. Canada may very well find itself in a conflict supporting other nations other than the US. A perfect example would be a Falkland type conflict, armed intervention into a Sri Lankan conflict, supporting a Aceh type disaster. One things Amphibs will do is give us an ability to gain international brownie points with our allies by transporting their troops, say taking Brits or Italians to Libya. Even if Canada is not in a combat role, our C-17's and amphibs would allows us to be significant contributors to a wide range of missions, including the ones we have yet to realize.


----------



## Kilo_302

More on Davie's unsolicited proposal. They're working the media now, and no matter what the facts are these optics certainly don't look good for our current strategy. Is Davie's proposal really out to lunch?

Interesting to read about the cost-plus percentage approach. I respond to government RFPs quite often, and they're nearly always a mess (most RFPs are) but I agree with Alex Vicefield, it makes absolutely no sense to make it attractive to a contractor for a project to cost more.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/davie-shipyard-boss-canada-shipbuilding-plan-bizarre-1.3494460



> The boss of Canada's largest shipyard says a $36-billion national shipbuilding plan is becoming an "international embarrassment" with a "bizarre" costing regime and "exorbitant" prices, despite producing no ships to date.
> 
> "It's been five years and the two shipyards haven't built a single ship," said Alex Vicefield, CEO of Inocea, a global shipping conglomerate that owns Quebec's Davie shipyard.
> 
> "All we hear are delays and cost overruns which are so high, they are turning the Canadian shipbuilding industry into an international embarrassment."
> 
> Davie shipyard makes unsolicited bid to build for coast guard
> Harper government rejects offer to save $500M on new icebreaker
> Davie was stung last week by the Liberal government's apparent rejection of its offer to provide ships more quickly, and at much lower cost, than projected under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, or NSPS. That plan was designed by the previous Conservative government and has been endorsed by the Liberals.
> 
> Alex Vicefield 20121119
> Alex Vicefield, CEO of Inocea, a global shipping conglomerate that owns Quebec's Davie shipyard, calls Canada's national shipbuilding strategy 'bizarre' and designed to create 'exorbitant' costs. (Jacques Boissinot/Canadian Press)
> 
> In comments provided to CBC News from his headquarters in Monaco, Vicefield said that, "Having spent my career in the international marine industry, I have experienced government procurement throughout many different countries, both developed and emerging, but never have I witnessed a country so willing to spend money unnecessarily. It's almost as if money is no object."
> 
> Vicefield cited the procurement strategy of awarding cost-plus contracts, which guarantee a profit margin, rather than fixed-price contracts, which he said are the norm internationally.
> 
> Of the cost-plus approach, he said, "Under that system, profits are calculated as a percentage of the costs incurred. This provides no incentive for shipyards to reduce costs when possible."
> 
> 'Perverse incentives'
> 
> That critique jives with an analysis commissioned by the Harper government, delivered to the Trudeau government last November by PricewaterhouseCoopers and obtained by CBC News.
> 
> It found that "the regime provides perverse incentives for industry to increase costs … if the profit percentage is fixed, increased costs result in increased profits."
> 
> The analysis, first reported by The Canadian Press, called this process "detrimental to the global competitiveness of Canada's defence industry."
> 
> Vicefield agreed, in even blunter terms.
> 
> "Anywhere else in the world, if someone wants a ship built, you do a design and you go out to all capable shipyards to quote it and provide delivery schedules and so on. Under the NSPS it seems to be the opposite. That's bizarre."
> 
> The icebreaker gap
> 
> Even so, Vicefield said he supports the intent of the shipbuilding program — to re-equip the navy and the coast guard with ships built in Canada. His objection is that it is not set up to meet those goals.
> 
> Announced in June 2010 and billed as the largest procurement in Canada's history, the shipbuilding program awarded the right to build a fleet of warships to the Irving shipyard in Halifax, with non-combat ships, including a polar icebreaker, to be built in North Vancouver by Seaspan.
> 
> hi-ice-breaker-20121023
> The new icebreaker — dubbed the Diefenbaker by the Harper government — was originally priced in 2008 at $720 million. However, since construction has been delayed for at least 10 years, it is expected to cost closer to $2 billion.
> 
> The Davie yard was in bankruptcy when those two yards were chosen, but is now solvent and remains the biggest yard in Canada. Taking advantage of delays in getting Seaspan's yard ready to begin work, Davie has already muscled in on the program, winning an order to provide an interim naval supply ship by refitting a discounted commercial vessel. That ensures some 1,100 jobs at its own yard on the south shore of the St. Lawrence across from Quebec City.
> 
> More recently, Davie offered to adapt a series of existing ships available at steep discounts because of the slowdown in the oil industry, including a three-year-old icebreaker sitting idle after Royal Dutch Shell cancelled a costly Arctic project.
> 
> Davie has also offered to begin work immediately on a new polar icebreaker, priced at less than $800 million, to fill a "capacity gap" until Seaspan produces its own icebreaker.
> 
> That vessel already has a name — it was dubbed the "Diefenbaker" by the Harper government — but it will not begin to exist until the late 2020s, because Seaspan must first build two supply ships. By then, after inflation, the Diefenbaker is expected to cost about $2 billion — more than twice as much as Davie's offer.
> 
> 'Unsolicited bid'
> 
> Even so, Minister of Public Services and Procurement Judy Foote, visiting Seaspan on Friday, said the government would not respond to an "unsolicited bid" from Davie and is committed to the existing procurement strategy.
> 
> The Edison Chouest Aiviq
> Davie has offered to refit a series of existing ships which are available at steep discounts because of the slowdown in the oil industry, including a three-year-old icebreaker. The Edison Chouest Aiviq is currently sitting idle in Seattle after Royal Dutch Shell cancelled a costly Arctic project. (ChouestVideo/YouTube)
> 
> Vicefield told CBC News he's not taking that as a final rejection, because the government could still choose to solicit such bids. He expects it will, because of an embarrassing "capacity gap" looming now as Canada's only large icebreaker, the Louis St-Laurent, reaches the end of its long life.
> 
> Now almost 50 years old, "the Louis," as it is known, has undergone numerous refits and will soon return to Davie for another, but the ship is rusting and due to be decommissioned in the next few years. If Seaspan cannot provide a new icebreaker until 2027 or later, there will be a 10-year gap in Canada's ability to assert sovereignty in the Arctic.
> 
> The 2010 voyage of the Louis St-Laurent
> Vicefield said filling that gap is not an attack on the national shipbuilding strategy, but an addition to it.
> 
> "We are merely trying to provide a solution to a known sovereignty problem that is coming with the certainty of tomorrow's sunrise.… This is even more important in light of Russia's stated goal of fielding 11 nuclear and conventionally powered Arctic icebreakers by 2020. Canada may even face a situation where China has a greater capability in our North than we do."
> 
> Davie's local MP, Conservative Steven Blaney (Lévis-Bellechasse) agrees.
> 
> "We need icebreakers," said Blaney, calling the Davie plan "very interesting for the taxpayer.… These are additional ships, complementary to the NSPS, which I endorse."
> 
> He said the minister was wrong to reject Davie's proposal.
> 
> "I find it beyond belief, inconceivable, to brush aside such a proposal.… Are we rich enough not to seize that opportunity?"


----------



## Kirkhill

Is Davie wrong on the costing of Canadian ships?  I don't think anybody here would disagree with them.

With respect to supplying ships in the short term - there is always the Charter route.  That might make sense for the Coast Guard's ice breakers, and also for Joint Support Ships.

The Cragside is a converted RoRo that is used as a floating base by the USSOC.  It is a chartered civilian ferry, similar to the Point Class RoRos supporting the RFA and the RN, that was converted by Maersk.  

http://nextnavy.com/the-coming-fight-over-the-navys-fighting-ferries/

I was curious to read that Irving's loan from the Government of Nova Scotia, the one they used to finance the rebuild of their yard, is not repayable if they generate enough jobs.  Meanwhile Seaspan financed their yard construction themselves.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is Davie wrong on the costing of Canadian ships?  I don't think anybody here would disagree with them.
> 
> With respect to supplying ships in the short term - there is always the Charter route.  That might make sense for the Coast Guard's ice breakers, and also for Joint Support Ships.
> 
> The Cragside is a converted RoRo that is used as a floating base by the USSOC.  It is a chartered civilian ferry, similar to the Point Class RoRos supporting the RFA and the RN, that was converted by Maersk.
> 
> http://nextnavy.com/the-coming-fight-over-the-navys-fighting-ferries/
> 
> I was curious to read that Irving's loan from the Government of Nova Scotia, the one they used to finance the rebuild of their yard, is not repayable if they generate enough jobs.  Meanwhile Seaspan financed their yard construction themselves.



I don't like the idea of chartering civilian vessels after the GTS Katie debacle.  Things go south for some reason and we're held hostage requiring further actions.  Better to be self sufficient.  As a potential end user, I don't give a shit where the equipment comes from per se.  I am tired of all the yanking and wanking that goes with our procurement as a pork barrel opportunity for the various parties involved (politicians, industry and special interest groups) whilst being mismanaged by PWGCS (whom are the real enemy, AFAIK).


----------



## Kirkhill

JJT - the difference between Katie and Cragside is the crew.

Cragside is a bare bones charter.  She is operated by Americans. That qualifies as 9 points of the law.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I have no existential anguish attached to the long term lease and operation of civilian ro-ro ships by either Navy or CFAV personnel. The real question, however, is what would we need them for? When was the last time large amounts of Army gear had to be shipped somewhere or back from somewhere?

Keep in mind that is what ro-ro would be used for, not as cheap/stop-gap amphibs.

If we are going to entertain employing the services of Davie, my personal choice would be to acquire the rights to the plans for the "improved" Mistral (the ones developed for the Russians, that are already modified for Arctic operations and ice rated) or for the Dutch "Rotterdam", I meant "Johan de Wit"  class, and turn those over to Davie for a two-ship build.


----------



## CougarKing

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> More on Davie's unsolicited proposal.



An ex-RCN commander's response to Davie's description of the NSPS as "bizarre".

CBC



> *Retired navy commander critiques Davie shipyard's shipbuilding strategy view*
> 'It comes from a frame of reference which is not Canadian,' says Ken Hansen, now a university researcher
> By Natalie Dobbin, CBC News Posted: Mar 18, 2016 6:00 AM AT
> 
> A retired navy commander in Halifax says Davie shipyard's critique of the national shipbuilding strategy is flawed.
> 
> "I think that principally, it comes from a frame of reference which is not Canadian," *Ken Hansen* told CBC Mainstreet Thursday
> 
> The 32-year veteran is now a resident research fellow at Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies.
> 
> Davie shipyard's CEO, Alex Vicefield, told CBC News earlier this week that the strategy is "bizarre" and "an international embarrassment." He called the prices "exorbitant" and criticized the program for producing no ships in five years.
> 
> (...SIPPED)


----------



## Cloud Cover

This thread started almost 7 years ago. The JSS/AOR thread 12 years go. Steel has not been cut. With a whopping big federal budget deficit on the way, it will be easy to not spend on things that are not started, even if there are penalties. The idea that any of these projects will actually come to fruition is slipping away.  

And for all their faults, the CEO of Davie is correct about 1 thing- this is an international embarrassment if only for the fact that we have 3 oceans, probably one for each ship that is eventually built. The optics in the international community through the lens of a national defence "capacity building" will not look good if the Liberals do not carry through with the program, but it is not the international community that elects them. 

The Liberals really have two roads to choose to create good paying blue collar jobs in the east coast- (and that's what this is all about, the Navy is secondary, almost tertiary) - one road is building combatant warships at tremendous cost to taxpayers,and the second road is Energy East, which is a private funded project that will actually drive royalties and revenues for the government, create thousands of refinery jobs on the coast, require harbour upgrades to export products from refineries, and possibly create some modest employment in the shipping industry. This would make off-shoring the building of warships to FR or IT or NL (or wherever- Germany?), a much easier pill to swallow even if there is bitterness in the shipyards.  

The fact that Minster Morneau is requesting costs and apparently not receiving reliable answers is troublesome- makes it too easy to delay and pass this one off (again) and focus on some other job creating strategy. At worst, dollars will be committed but not released if the idea of some other scheme to create jobs takes hold.


----------



## Kirkhill

Walking and chewing gum is possible.  If you can afford the gum.

The existing Irving-Seaspan plan to build up an industry is possible.  

It is also possible to concurrently build up the navy and the coast guard at a more rapid pace by outsourcing, by Davie's type conversions, by bare bones charters.  And none of that needs to impact the Irving - Seaspan contracts or the long term plan.

By the time the plan has reached completion any ships "rushed" into service just now would be due for replacement in any event.

But, as has been pointed out numerous times before, that would mean spending more money faster than any government has demonstrated a desire to spend.  (Or convincing the builders to build them for less or convincing the Navy and the Coast Guard to ask for a different mix of ships.)


----------



## jmt18325

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> This thread started almost 7 years ago. The JSS/AOR thread 12 years go. Steel has not been cut.



There are two ships under construction.  A third will start construction next quarter.  The first will finish by the end of the year.  There's finally progress.  Now is the wrong time to stop.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> There are two ships under construction.  A third will start construction next quarter.  The first will finish by the end of the year.  There's finally progress.  Now is the wrong time to stop.



OSFV and AOPS have started construction. Cancel everything else and build it offshore. We'll have CSC and JSS completed before the last OSFV and AOPS rolls out of Canadian yards. The Liberals have proven time and time again they're willing to spend billions in cancellation fees for political goals, the only reason we won't see this get canned as Atlantic regions went Red, and if they cancel the Irving deal, they'll get shut out of Nova Scotia in the next election.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> OSFV and AOPS have started construction. Cancel everything else and build it offshore.



And have the money leave the economy forever. 



> We'll have CSC and JSS completed before the last OSFV and AOPS rolls out of Canadian yards.



The last AOPS will roll out in about 2.5 years.  I highly doubt we'd have anything by them.



> The Liberals have proven time and time again they're willing to spend billions in cancellation fees for political goals



I can only think of one time, and it wasn't billions.



> the only reason we won't see this get canned as Atlantic regions went Red, and if they cancel the Irving deal, they'll get shut out of Nova Scotia in the next election.



They made a commitment to shipbuilding and the RCN.

I'm all for buying ships now that Davie is offering - if they fit with what we need.


----------



## PuckChaser

What's more important, a properly built, modern military at a reasonable cost in reasonable timeframe, or money dumped into industries that are not capable of building military warships after NSPS is done, because they are unable to compete internationally? We're flushing money down the toilet with Seaspan and Irving, and getting half of what we should get for twice the price. You want to boost the economy? Fine. Do it with non-combatant ships. Don't continually screw the CAF over with pork barrel politics with questionable effect on the economy.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What's more important, a properly built, modern military at a reasonable cost in reasonable timeframe, or money dumped into industries that are not capable of building military warships after NSPS is done, because they are unable to compete internationally?



Well, the point of the NSPS is that it never ends, but, as government's primary purpose is to serve the populace, I'd argue that both are equally important.   



> We're flushing money down the toilet with Seaspan and Irving, and getting half of what we should get for twice the price. You want to boost the economy? Fine. Do it with non-combatant ships. Don't continually screw the CAF over with pork barrel politics with questionable effect on the economy.



I wonder if building offshore is really cheaper when opportunity costs are considered?


----------



## AlexanderM

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> OSFV and AOPS have started construction. *Cancel everything else and build it offshore.* We'll have CSC and JSS completed before the last OSFV and AOPS rolls out of Canadian yards. The Liberals have proven time and time again they're willing to spend billions in cancellation fees for political goals, the only reason we won't see this get canned as Atlantic regions went Red, and if they cancel the Irving deal, they'll get shut out of Nova Scotia in the next election.


Now we're talking! The Brits are building their AOR's in Korea I believe, we could do the same for the AOR's and the CSC but as you say, it won't happen.


----------



## airwin

I have no problem with spreading out the program over a long period of time, or spending more money to build the ships locally.  Creates well paying, long term employment for thousands of families. Canadian companies and employees will be contributing a percentage of that cost right back into the coffers through income tax, and small business owners in those communities will see their restaurants and retail stores full.  There are obviously some issues with the processes as highlighted in the recent report (things like profit being a percentage of overall project cost), and it would probably be best to finally get down to brass tacks on the CSC segment of the project.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I wonder if building offshore is really cheaper when opportunity costs are considered?



What opportunity costs? If we get the ships for half the price, that's more money to go into infrastructure, or buy other stuff DND needs. The latest Berlin AOR was roughly $500M. We're getting less half a ship for that, and it was only a few years ago it was built. We're well over $1.3b CAD for estimates on the surface combatant. A FREMM for the French Navy cost $960m CAD less than 2 years ago. Buying Canadian costs more, for negligible benefit. Look at the HLVW, LSVW as examples of failed stimulus using DND procurement.

Should we now (using a Sigs example), build a radio manufacture industry capable of making Type 1 encrypted radios, solely designed, researched and built in Canada? That $40k USD 117G radio is now costing us $200k because we're propping up companies with no other buyer other than the CAF. At a certain point, admit we only have certain commercially viable industries that can build military products, and give them first crack. Everyone else can use their own corporate funds to show us what they can do, not the other way around.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What opportunity costs?



It's not like buying trucks or planes. We have the people and facilities to build the ships (now).  If we buy offshore, the money and skill is pretty much gone (unless we're getting 100% irb return).


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ....  If we buy offshore, the money and skill is pretty much gone (unless we're getting 100% irb return).



Or we could sell them something they really need.

They sell us oil.  We sell them LAVs.

They sell us F35s.  We sell them softwood lumber.

They sell us t-shirts and Nikes.  We sell them coal.

It can work.  It has been known to work in the past.


----------



## CougarKing

In anticipation of the current govt.'s upcoming new budget: Let's see if this current govt. will put the money where their mouth is when it comes to promises of naval spending:

Globe and Mail



> *Ottawa to face decisions on navy’s frigate replacement program*
> 
> Murray Brewster
> 
> OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
> 
> Published Sunday, Mar. 20, 2016 9:15PM EDT
> 
> Last updated Sunday, Mar. 20, 2016 9:17PM EDT
> *
> The federal cabinet will soon be asked to make an initial down payment on the navy’s $104-billion frigate replacement program with an approval that will lay the groundwork for the new fleet, The Canadian Press has learned.*
> 
> It will be asked not only to approve requirements for the new warships and cost tradeoffs, but also first-stage funding, which will allow defence planners to get the ball rolling.
> 
> But getting a revised cost estimate before the Liberal government has proven to be a painful exercise and budget planners at National Defence and the Finance Department engaged in a tug-of-war over projections ahead of Tuesday’s federal budget, several defence and government sources say.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CBH99

I think the $104B was a typo...or, despite following this subject matter closely, I missed something huge.    :-\


----------



## Kirkhill

No. It isn't a typo.  And you didn't miss anything.

They have included the costs of hiring sailors and buying ammunition for weapons that haven't been invented 30 years from now.  The 28 Bn has been deemed insufficient and booted upwards to 40 Bn and an additional 64 Bn has been added in for personnel and distillate to make the number look as scary, and as meaningless, as the F35 costing.

When is the last CSC supposed to be delivered - somewhere around 2040?  What price the oil you will be buying to power the lasers and rail guns that will be replacing your Harpoons and SR76s?

And how many sailors will be on board?

It is all a crapshoot.  The only thing you can know for sure is the contract you sign for delivery next week.  A 30 year estimate is meaningless.  

What capabilities will there be on board Chinooks and B52s in 2040?  They's still be flying 100 years after they were built.  Should we make our projections 100 years out?

What about our truck fleets?  How many times will we have to renew the fleet over 100 years and what will trucks look like and what will they cost?


----------



## MilEME09

It's playing politics, reverse side of the same coin, you see it all the time announcing say $1B over 5 years for something. Well that's great your spending 1 billion, but in reality it's $200 million every year for 5 years. $104 Billion over 30 years is $3.5 Billion a year rounded up, drop in the bucket and that's only estimating to 2040, over the entire life span of these ships, knowing Canadian procurement, and not expecting anything to change over the next 50 years i'd say we can forecast life out to 2060 pegging us at only 2 billion a year towards the entire life span of these ships.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's not like buying trucks or planes. We have the people and facilities to build the ships (now).  If we buy offshore, the money and skill is pretty much gone (unless we're getting 100% irb return).


What skills? Defense procurement is about buying a piece of kit. Let some other department worry about buying skillsets (that we don't have), with their money. 50% over market value is a hell of a lot of money that could buy more missiles or fuel or food for those sailors. You want money in Canada? Let them do repair work. We shouldn't be waiting 20 years for a surface combatant because Irving has to learn how to build one first.


----------



## CBH99

That actually pisses me off, because I find it extremely dishonest and misleading to include a ton of costs that would have been incurred anyway.  (On the media's behalf.)

The sailors will be employed, regardless of what design of ship they choose.  Those ships will require fuel, regardless of what design they choose.  How much fuel?  That depends on how often they are deployed, etc -- but regardless, those costs will exist no matter what.

As someone with an interest in the matter, and as a taxpayer - I want to know what getting the new ships will cost.  Not how much they will cost 'including fuel, salaries, food, cleaning supplies, pencils & paper, etc' -- I want to know how much the BUILDING & ACQUISITION of the ships will cost.  Leave all the other numbers out of it, especially for costs will be incurred regardless.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Stop trying to bring balance with the MSM, you'll die tired.  They have their axe to grind against the fascist military industrial complex the procurement system must obviously be.  Sometimes you can't fix stupid.


----------



## PuckChaser

It's the same stupid life cycle costs they tried to apply to the F35. For some reason the bureaucrats can't figure out we're buying a tool to perform a capability, you don't calculate the full life cycle cost of a hammer for a construction engineer, you just pay $20 bucks for it and carry on.


----------



## MarkOttawa

PuckChaser: For more fun with procurement figures see:

The myth of the $600 hammer
http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the-600-hammer/5271/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's the same stupid life cycle costs they tried to apply to the F35. For some reason the bureaucrats can't figure out we're buying a tool to perform a capability, you don't calculate the full life cycle cost of a hammer for a construction engineer, you just pay $20 bucks for it and carry on.



Wouldn't that be something else:

Acquisition cost: $20.
Used by Carpenter for 10 years, 1,000 hours a year @ salary $45 an hour.

Cost of hammer: $450,020.

 ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

You forgot to add the cost of the nails, 1000 nails at $40 a box times 20 boxes a year for 10 years = another $8000.


----------



## Kirkhill

CBH99 said:
			
		

> That actually pisses me off, because I find it extremely dishonest and misleading to include a ton of costs that would have been incurred anyway.  (On the media's behalf.)
> 
> I agree - partially - right up until the "would have been incurred anyway".  The line items are still applicable but the quantities may be variable.
> 
> The sailors will be employed, regardless of what design of ship they choose.
> 
> But how many sailors?  While we are building ships in 2040 to an off the shelf design of 2010 what will our allies and enemies be sailing?
> 
> Those ships will require fuel, regardless of what design they choose.
> 
> But what fuel?  Distillate?  Or something else?  What engines will be driving our competitors ships in 2040?
> 
> How much fuel?  That depends on how often they are deployed, etc -- but regardless, those costs will exist no matter what.
> 
> No arguments here.
> 
> As someone with an interest in the matter, and as a taxpayer - I want to know what getting the new ships will cost.  Not how much they will cost 'including fuel, salaries, food, cleaning supplies, pencils & paper, etc' -- I want to know how much the BUILDING & ACQUISITION of the ships will cost.  Leave all the other numbers out of it, especially for costs will be incurred regardless.
> 
> Agreed entirely.



The combination of the single class and long build makes no sense.  We will be building, and sailing, obsolete ships with obsolete weapons and obsolete sensors, powered by obsolete engines by the time the single class contract is filled.

And how many sailors the navy will need, and how many ships they will need, to do what jobs, are all in the never-never.

If the build rate is setting the pace and the pace is one hull a year then set the programme up for delivery of flights of 4 to 6 hulls at a time and review the design as soon as the first flight is contracted so that the next flight will more closely match the needs and capabilities.

I agree entirely that the only number that matters is the cost of the build contract.  

And, if you do go off into the never-never, you only encourage your vendors to inflate prices as they feel themselves to be on the hook for the unknowable.

Aaaaargh!!!! Shyte.   ;D :facepalm:


----------



## dapaterson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I agree entirely that the only number that matters is the cost of the build contract.



No.  Ideally vendors will present ideas that may cost more but result in downstream savings ("For an extra $5M we can automate the basket weaving function, so you'll have four less basketweavers on board, but one more basket-weaving machine technician on board"), so the ongoing operating costs are germane when looking at options.  If you look solely at acquisition cost, you get the lowest cost compliant bidder, and not necessarily the best capability for the funds available.


----------



## Kirkhill

OK.  I will accept that DAP.  That is an appropriate use of costing O&M - determining the cost of operating the vehicle/platform based on current year data.  That can be used for comparing designs.  It can also be used for setting next year's operating budget.  It can't be considered a reliable means of setting a 40 year budget.

Life-Cycle costing is tool for comparing solutions.  And that is all.  Least cost wins - barring quality factors.

I did let my temper get the better of me.


----------



## CougarKing

Semi-related: an update on NRWS.

Defense-Aerospace



> *Raytheon Canada Limited Chosen to Enhance Royal Canadian Navy Crew Safety*
> (Source: Raytheon Co.; issued March 18, 2016)
> CALGARY, Alberta --- Raytheon Canada Limited, a subsidiary of Raytheon Company, *has been awarded a contract to install up to 58 Naval Remote Weapon Stations (NRWS) on Royal Canadian Navy surface vessels. The NRWS is a mission-proven solution that replaces manually operated stations with technologies that allow for remote operations.*
> 
> Remote operations enhance crew safety by eliminating the need to have operators on the deck of the ship during close-range engagement. The NRWS is based on the proven Mini-Typhoon product line provided by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Limited, Raytheon Canada Limited's teammate on this award.
> 
> "Raytheon modernizes mission critical systems while retaining proven capabilities and effectiveness for our partners," said Todd Probert, board of directors, Raytheon Canada Limited. "This integrated and innovative technology will provide effective weapon operations for the Royal Canadian Navy operating in high-threat littoral areas
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I hope it turns out to be something like the French Nexer/Narwall system, where a single operator using a single console can monitor 360 degrees around the ship in all lighting conditions for asymmetric threat and then, simply order the system to shoot at one or more target as required, with the system then tracking and firing independently at the designated target, again over 360 degrees, without the operator needing to get involved (letting him/her concentrate on identification of further threats).


----------



## Cloud Cover

On the issue of life cycle costs, I believe this was something that the auditor general requires, and it was Kevin Page who called out the government for ignoring or suppressing those costs on there F35. I'm not sure if it is legal requirement to add in all the related costs, but certainly it makes financial administrative sense? There are some costs that cannot be factored in, like battle damage, shipyard sabotage, running aground, the price of beer for the mess etc.


----------



## PuckChaser

It makes 0 sense to include these costs, as they would get paid regardless. Maybe Kevin Page thought we'd just fire all the mechanics and pilots if we didn't buy the planes.


----------



## Cloud Cover

For some reason the bean counters disagree, but there has to be some degree of cost projection. It is the right of government to decide how much they want to fiscally commit to. But, you 're right,  I don't see them doing that sort of accounting for other things, like, for example, the cost of Parliament for the next 30 years, or the cost of official bilingualism. There are sacred cows, and the military is not sacred like the rest, but nevertheless it is a cow to be milked, apparently.


----------



## Kirkhill

I have no problem with costing out a service.  

But a better metric is to take next year's O&M costs, modify them according to the expectations of the vendors of any new kit and then add on the incremental cost of the unit (ship or plane).  The incremental costs are the cost of supplying the unit divided by its life expectancy, plus and financial costs for financing the unit.

The cost of the service needs to be annualized in the near term.  Not projected to the great blue yonder.

As far as the plane or ship itself is concerned, the only valid metric is the contracted price for delivery.

The cost of operating the CBC for next year -  That makes sense.  The projected cost of operating the CBC over the next millenium - That makes no sense.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As I have indicated before, what matters to me, and I believe to the public in general, are numbers that one can make sense of that truly inform any decision. That is what accounting was invented for (as one of my teacher once explained): provide decision makers with clear and relevant information.

Personally, it is the politicized way the government figures are derived and then presented that is dishonest, not the actual point accountants wish to make. And the PBO is just as bad, as his F-35 report demonstrated.

Information on the actual item cost of a system is important. Related costs that may be incurred as a result are important (imagine a totally new weapon that costs only 100 millions, but require us to add 5,000 extra service people). Expected operation and maintenance costs are important (and the underlying hypotheses, such as regular peacetime use vs war time use, etc.). But they must be properly presented so as to not create confusion, which means they must be contextualized into the existing budget plans, and not be allowed to be all added up into a single "total life cycle cost" figure that scares everyone.

So for instance, in the shipbuilding case, you would say something like: The AOPS will cost $900M each to build (item cost); during the seven years covered by construction, expenditures are expected to be "a" in year one, "b" in year two, etc. resulting in no increase in the Cf capital budget in year one and two, then $100M increase in capital budget of year three, etc (this contextualizes by indicating the  changes only in each year, as other capital projects come to an end or have lower expenditures, etc.); to service the AOPS, we will have to spend $ 250M to build new jetties in Halifax and in Iqaluit (related costs); this will result in spending of "x" in each of the following capital expenditure budget years, with no effect/increases of "y" in those years budget (contextualized); expected O&M costs during the lifetime of the AOPS are expected to be "a" in year "x", "b" in year "y", etc. to the end of service and for normal peacetime use (hypothesis), which represents an increase/decrease of "y" dollars in year "a", etc. etc. and therefore, no change or an increase/decrease of "y" dollars in the overall CF budget for years "a", etc. etc.

This may seem long and convoluted, but the people and the lazy journalist who feed them information (1) would not have an overall scary figure to brandy about and (2) would be able to see immediately not just the specific various cost factors, but their projected effect in every budget year. This last figure being the most important one.

This information exists, but it is currently buried in complex budget calculation internal to the department only, and the journalists don't usually go looking for them: The single total cycle cost figure is much larger and therefore more spectacular for the journalists. It sells more paper to say "The Canadian Navy fleet renewal will cost taxpayers $100b" than to say "The Canadian Navy fleet renewal will require a 2% annual increase in the CF capital acquisition budget for the next five years, remaining at that level thereafter but will not require increases in the annual defence budget otherwise, corrected for inflation."


----------



## Good2Golf

If the Royal Research Society doesn't jump on the name for its icebreaker, perhaps HMCS Boaty McBoatface could be used for one of the more boaty-looking boats of the future fleet?  

Regards
G2G

p.s.  I agree with OGBD that whatever costing is presented should have as a primary purpose, to appropriately inform decision makers and public alike, on the costs of programs that the Government is about to invest in.  That said, the Government should also, for perspective's sake, provide information that indicates what an equivalent amount of life-cycle costs would be for the existing fleet.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Would prefer that to either of the official JSS names the previous administration decided upon.


----------



## PuckChaser

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If the Royal Research Society doesn't jump on the name for its icebreaker, perhaps HMCS Boaty McBoatface could be used for one of the more boaty-looking boats of the future fleet?



RRS Usain Boat and RRS Boat Marley and the Whalers were my 2nd and third choices.


----------



## Kirkhill

Just a slight tangent (or maybe just a tack) with an article that illustrates some of how the other half lives.  I knew the original Starbound (prior to her update) and a lot of Guido Perla's other ships, all of which, to my knowledge are still in service.

http://www.fishermensnews.com/story/2016/04/01/features/cp-starbound-conversion/384.html




Some takeaway numbers:

New build - 100 to 150 MUSD
Displacement - 4571 LT
Length - 300 ft
Power - 4650 kW (2550 kW shaft propulsion reserve, 1800 kW shaft cogeneration).

Service Life to Date - 25 years (All in the North Pacific and Bering Sea)




> April 1, 2016 | Vol 72, No 04
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starbound dockside at Dakota Creek Industries after completion of the lengthening project. Photo courtesy of Dakota Creek Industries, Inc.
> 
> In the past two decades, there has been a paradigm shift in global fishing regulations that has incentivized the construction of large fishing vessels capable of bringing ship owners higher profits through economies of scale. Following the moratorium on all large pelagic driftnet fishing vessels ratified internationally in 1991, new fishing regulations focus on catch quotas rather than fishing vessel size restrictions to ensure sustainable fisheries.
> 
> With vessel size restrictions lifted, owners can now opt to build large vessels incorporating machinery that extends their processing capability. Among the most common technologies driving interest in large vessels are fish meal plants that process fish scraps – typically thrown overboard in decades past – into fish oil and fish meal.
> 
> Fish oil can be used for auxiliary power and steam generation aboard fishing vessels and in a wide range of consumer products shore-side. Fish meal is used regularly as a fertilizer in agriculture, and its sale can increase the profitability of some vessels by almost 30 percent.
> 
> At the same time, the Pacific Northwest fishing fleet is aging, and many owners are faced with the fiscal realities of replacement in the upcoming decade. As a result of the 1991 construction moratorium that nearly halted new building in the 1990s, at the time of writing the average catcher is approaching nearly 40 years of age. If the size of the present fleet is to be maintained into the future, ship owners could find themselves playing catch-up and spending cumulatively on the order of $16 billion in upcoming years on new vessels. For owners of the largest ships, the cost of a new build is significant, with some estimates at upwards of $150 million for a new catcher-processor. As a result, owners are seeking alternatives to new building that extend the life and capacity of their vessels, meanwhile hedging the risks inherent to a $100 million or more investment in an industry with an erratic regulatory past, volatile product markets, and an uncertain future.
> 
> Aleutian Spray Fisheries' catcher-processor C/P Starbound, a formerly 240-foot catcher-processor, has been operating faithfully between Seattle, Dutch Harbor, and the Alaska Pollock Fishery since her launch in 1989. She was originally constructed at Dakota Creek Industries (DCI) of Anacortes, Washington and designed by Guido Perla & Associates (GPA) of Seattle. Starbound was built through the collaborative efforts of Aleutian Spray Fisheries (ASF) owner Henry Swasand, a Norwegian immigrant naval architect and unmistakably American fisherman, Guido F. Perla, a naval architect based out of the Ballard Fishermen's Terminal at the time, and Dick Nelson, an esteemed shipbuilder at DCI. Swasand had acquired a Bergen diesel engine in the late 80s and wanted a catcher-processor in his fleet capable of replacing the predominantly foreign-owned processors that dominated the Alaska Pollock Fishery at the time. Perla and Nelson were happy to oblige.
> 
> At the time of her construction, the original Starbound design was shortened by the removal of parallel midbody due to budgetary constraints on the project. The fish processing deck was scaled down accordingly. The reduction in length over Perla's original design meant that there was no room at the time for a fish meal plant that would later become the state-of-the-art for catcher-processors.
> 
> After regulatory shifts toward catch quotas that necessitated increased processing efficiency, the need for a fish meal plant became apparent to Starbound's owners, which still includes the Swasand family.
> 
> In 2015, GPA was contracted to begin design on a new 60-foot midbody section to extend Starbound to 300 feet overall. ASF's team of Cary Swasand and Starbound Captain Karl Bratvold, with Cory Kaldestad and Chief Engineer Henry Vanderbeek, approached GPA and DCI to perform the feasibility study and ultimately the conversion.
> 
> ASF deemed conversion preferable to new construction for several reasons. For one, Starbound had been impeccably maintained by ASF over her 25 years at sea, and where conversion may not have made sense for many older vessels because of corrosion and other wear-and-tear, Starbound's framing and shell plating was wonderfully preserved in spite of her age. In addition, the fact that Starbound's scantlings had originally been designed to suit a longer vessel made the lengthening even more feasible. Finally, conversion made great fiscal sense. ASF did not need additional capacity on Starbound for finished fillets and surimi – no provision was made during the lengthening to increase cargo space for this purpose. Rather, because the catch is limited by quotas both owned and leased, ASF merely needed to increase the capacity of Starbound for downstream products: fish meal and fish oil. A 60-foot midbody addition would give ASF a means of maximizing their profits for each catch quota at less than half the cost of a new vessel offering the same capability.
> 
> Prior to conversion, Starbound measured 240 feet overall with a beam of 48 feet and a load line displacement of 3,802 LT. After conversion, her overall length measured 300 feet and her displacement increased to 4,571 LT. The boat was cut at frame 64-1/2, deemed the best location for the cut because a cut there preserved an unloading elevator trunk serving the forward fish cargo hold and was located at the location of the side tangents where the parallel midbody could be integrated with the least impact.
> 
> Hull scans were taken at the location of the incision to establish the shell plating seam locations and the heights of the decks. Scantling design for the new midbody was carried out according to Det Norske Veritas' steel vessel rules.
> 
> A new Haarslev-designed fish meal plant, replete with two fish meal storage holds offering a combined capacity of 21,800 ft3, a structurally integrated raw material hopper, and a structurally integrated control room, were added to the new midbody below the main deck. A new Marel processing plant, with updated surimi processing capability provided by the addition of a new bank of plate freezers, was added to the fish processing plant on the main deck. On the upper deck, deckhouses were expanded to make room for a fire suppression room, a reverse osmosis fresh water plant room, two hydraulic machinery rooms, and two sugar storage rooms holding 40 metric tons of sugar. A break room was also expanded.
> 
> Elsewhere on Starbound, new rooms were added aft of the existing superstructure at the cabin deck to accommodate a stateroom with four more berths and a ship's office. An office was relocated from the upper deck to the cabin deck to make room for yet another new stateroom accommodating two more berths on the upper deck. Also on the cabin deck, in anticipation of the lengthening, ASF installed two new Rapp GSW10000 Gilson winches offering up to 50 tons of pull – an increase of 20 tons over the previously installed winches. The Gilson blocks were redesigned as sheaves hard mounted to the Gilson gantry at the urging of Bratvold and Vanderbeek, who realized the advantages in swing and noise reduction over their original pad eye and shackle-supported blocks.
> 
> A new hydraulic crane replaced the original deck crane on the starboard side of the vessel at the foc'sle deck and will serve as an unloading crane for fish meal stored in the fish meal holds below the main deck. By design, fish meal coming off the bagging line will be bagged and packed into 1.4 ton supersacks and then moved via conveyor to one of the fish meal holds (port or starboard, outboard of the plant). From the conveyor's terminus at the aft position in the holds, one of the 2-ton American Crane Co. bridge cranes will move the supersacks forward and aft and facilitate stacking within each hold. During unloading, supersacks can be moved fore, aft, and athwartships to the starboard unloading trunk, where the new Rapp crane will pick the bag and place it shoreside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (LEFT ABOVE) Starbound under construction at Dakota Creek Industries of Anacortes, Washington in 1989.
> A final component of the Starbound lengthening was an extensive repower and total drive train replacement. Soon after Starbound began operating, the power required for towing her net so taxed the original 2,550 kW Bergen BRM-6 engine that the shaft-driven generator was effectively decommissioned in place. To accommodate increased power demand and reinstate the use of the shaft generator, ASF selected an MaK 9M32E delivering 4,650 kW of power. With the original Baylor M446LTT-324 shaft-driven generator overhauled and re-installed, up to 1,800 kW of power can be diverted to power Starbound's electrical equipment. 2,550 kW reserved for propulsion and delivered via a new Reintjes reduction gear with a new shaft and a new controllable pitch propeller. Pursuant to the repower, the exhaust system was also completely overhauled. A new boiler was installed.
> 
> With Starbound's conversion complete, she will no doubt provide years of faithful service to ASF and her crew. When she was first constructed, Starbound's legacy as an American designed, built, and owned vessel was foremost in the minds of Swasand, Perla, and Nelson. As Perla puts it: "American history is based on smart people getting together to achieve a goal and [the Starbound lengthening project has] honored that history of American ingenuity."
> 
> Matthew Groff is a graduate of Webb Institute and naval architect at Guido Perla & Associates (GPA) in Seattle, WA where he assumed the role of project manager for the Starbound project in October 2015.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was getting a size reference from wiki on handymax and came across this interesting tidbit:

The cost of building a handymax is driven by the laws of supply and demand. In early 2007 the cost building a handymax was around $20,000,000. As the global economy boomed the cost doubled to over $40,000,000, as demand for vessels of all sizes exceeded available yard capacity. After the Global Economic Crisis in 2009 the cost fell back to $20M.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handymax 

Interesting how the cost even for a "simple" ship can change so much.


----------



## Kirkhill

1980 to 2000 steel at $300 to $400 per ton






2000 to 2001 steel declines to $225 per ton






2001 to 2004  steel spikes at $760 per ton






2012 steel at $500 per ton

2016 steel at $50 per ton

https://www.quandl.com/collections/markets/industrial-metals

Supply and demand - and the absence of China means 

http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/06/uk-government-starts-search-for-buyer-for-tata-s-british-steel-interests/


----------



## jollyjacktar

Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.



> Who’ll fix Canada’s new ships an open question
> 
> THE CHRONICLE HERALD
> Published April 8, 2016 - 7:56pm
> 
> The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy is the biggest capital project the Canadian government has ever undertaken, but the $39-billion price tag is only a portion of what will be spent on the ships over their lifespans.
> 
> Early projections put the personnel, operation and maintenance costs for the Canadian Surface Combatant ships alone at $65 billion over 30 years. No one knows for sure how much of that figure reflects the maintenance and repair costs but suffice to say a lot of money will be spent to keep the fleet up to snuff. Which raises the question: who will do the job?
> 
> According to the Department of Public Services and Procurement website, the repair, refit and maintenance contracts for all vessels bought under the NSPS will be competitively sourced through the normal procurement process, and will be open to all Canadian shipyards (including Seaspan and Irving, the two main shipbuilders.) The government has already announced the process for a $1.5-billion-plus contract that will cover repair, refit and maintenance for both the Arctic-Offshore Patrol Ship and Joint Support Ship for 35 years. The job, also known as in-service support, will be awarded in 2017, with the first two vessels in each class set to come into service in 2018 and 2019.
> 
> While the maintenance contracts can go to any of Canada’s handful of shipyards, Ken Hansen, former navy officer and Dalhousie security analyst, said the two yards actually building the NSPS vessels have significant advantages in bidding.
> 
> Whether or not that’s a bad thing depends on perspective.
> 
> “If you’re looking at them from the point of view of efficiency, then no. If you’re looking at it from the point of view of fairness, then possibly,” he said.
> 
> As the prime contractor for the warships, Irving will do some of the hiring of subcontractors, but maintenance contracts fall to the Naval Shipbuilding Projects Office, an arm of government. And the navy can do much of its own maintenance and repair.
> 
> Most ships’ crew can handle minor emergency fixes and other first-line maintenance. The government also operates two large dockyards, called Fleet Maintenance Facilities. The largest, FMF Cape Scott, is located in Halifax and a second, FMF Cape Breton, is in Esquimalt, B.C. They employ hundreds of skilled workers, both civilian and military, and have historically been responsible for what’s known as second-line maintenance. That includes repair, maintenance tasks that can’t be contracted out because of security concerns or lack of capability in the private sector. Large refits, modernization and life-extension projects have generally been done by private companies.
> 
> Though it’s unclear exactly how much work will be done by the navy’s fleet maintenance facilities, a spokeswoman for the Department of National Defence said in an emailed statement Friday that the government has established a Future of In-Service Support (FISS) program help transition from the current to future stat of providing in-service support.
> 
> “It will encompass the full spectrum of design, management, training and execution of all engineering and maintenance activity, ranging from what is done on board ships by the crew, to the delivery of more complicated aspects of maintenance done by the fleet maintenance facilities, to the work done by industry,” she said.
> 
> FISS will facilitate the integration of skill sets and infrastructure between the Crown and industry, ensuring critical repair capabilities are retained within the navy.
> 
> “Fleet maintenance facilities are a strategic asset for the government of Canada, and will continue to have a critical role in providing in-service support of the future fleets.”
> 
> Hansen said handing over repair and maintenance of navy vessels to the private sector is a trend that has been established by the in-service support contracts for the Victoria-class submarines and Kingston-class vessels, and that plans to maintain the NSPS ships in the same manner is another step away from reliance on the fleet maintenance facilities. This, he said, fits in with the “more teeth less tail” military models favoured by both the current and format government. In-Service support is also often framed as a cost-saving measure in that taxpayers aren't paying for the bigger workforce inside DND, but Hansen said that logic is a bit of a smokescreen, and that costs tend to rise as it becomes more difficult for private industry to complete the work as ships age.
> 
> “The pattern is now set, moving almost all maintenance and upgrading and major repair work out of DND and into commercial yards, and that means what is left for the FMF is the very short term, very specialized stuff. They used to be much more capable than that and the evidence with that is in the number of people they employ,” Hansen said.
> 
> Roger Chiasson, a retired navy captain and the former commanding officer of FMF Cape Scott, disagrees. He said in-house support will continue to play an important role as a lot of second-line maintenance requires very quick turnarounds that private industry is not equipped to do. Moreover, there are situations where contracting work out privately would be extremely unwise from a security standpoint.
> 
> Fleet maintenance facilities employ fewer people than they did when Chaisson ran FMF Cape Scott in the early 90s. Then there were 1,500 regular employees and about 200 others, compared to 1,200 there now.
> 
> But the change occurred as a result of contracting out non-core capabilities and natural fleet changes and does not indicate a trend that will result less reliance on navy-run dockyards in the future, he said.
> 
> “That decline stopped five to 10 years ago. Both dockyards have been in very steady shape as far as employee levels for quite a few years,” he said.
> 
> “There are situations where you can’t expect (private industry) to respond with the speed or the skillsets that are required to meet the threats. The whole idea of the navy having a support element is to be able to respond to whatever the government requires of you.”
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1355421-who%E2%80%99ll-fix-canada%E2%80%99s-new-ships-an-open-question


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Was the move from a fleet depot ship a good one, or does it impose limitations on the Fleet?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Don't quite get what you're hinting at Colin.

Even though the Fleet Maintenance Facilities are named after the old depot ships (HMCS CAPE SCOTT and HMCS CAPE BRETON), they are shore based facilities. The actual depot ships were retired in the late 60's and early 70's, even though CAPE BRETON was, for a while, permanently moored at the tip of "C" jetty in Esquimalt so that some of its shops could continue to be used and so it could be used as barracks (The Naval reserve officers used to be quartered on board during the summer in the 70's and early 80's - when the actual ship was disposed of as artificial reef).

So we have not had depot ships for almost 40 years now. I have never heard any one claiming this imposed any limitations on the fleet.

One thing the article does not mention either is that more than just second line maintenance used to be done in the dockyards. When the DELEX refits on the IRE's and MACKENZIE's were done on the West Coast, it was a Dockyard job. Similarly, the various long refits, including SOUP, on the "O" boats on the East Coast used to be done in-house at the Dockyard, as were the "emergency" refits on the IRE's and IRO's that went to Gulf War I.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Cape Breton was still there in 99 when I was on my 3's.  I think Colin might be referring to Fleet Maintenance Group (FMG).  Their loss was a blow.


----------



## Stoker

Hopefully FMF will having nothing to do with the PM contract for AOPS or the tankers. ISSC is way better to deal to get repairs done than dealing with FMF.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Cape Breton was still there in 99 when I was on my 3's.  I think Colin might be referring to Fleet Maintenance Group (FMG).  Their loss was a blow.



Considering the expeditionary nature of many of our naval taskings, would some sort of mobile unit that can repair the ships overseas be worthwhile?

As I see (correct or not) our oversea ships are either dependent on our allies or on a civilian dockyard for anything the crews can't handle alone. I suspect the damage repair we saw our HT do a little while back is likely one of the bigger jobs they have had to do and likely getting close to the maximum.

I can see the advantages in having a depot ship (built from a commercial hull) with cranes, workshops, spares to support our missions, it's mobile, not really dependent a great deal on shoreside and offers some security of components and sensitive equipment. The downside is that our fleet deployments are likely not big enough to justify the above. 

what triggered the question was the growth in support from commercial firms and depletion of the skills and people in house.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Cape Breton was still there in 99 when I was on my 3's.  I think Colin might be referring to Fleet Maintenance Group (FMG).  Their loss was a blow.



My bad, Jollyjacktar: Didn't quite express myself right. The "early 80's" reference was for its use as barracks for Naval Reserve officers (I think that ended in 86, after which everybody was sent to Venture directly), not the year of disposal of the ship herself. You are right on disposal date: She was sunk as reef in 2001. 

And Colin, having some sort of mobile support unit _might_ be a good idea, but we already are having a hard time providing the various type of engineers with a proper shore/ship employment ratio. If we do that and get them to sea even more than current rates, I think we'll get a mutiny on our hands.  :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

thanks I had a feeling that our deployments and resources are to small for this to make sense now.


----------



## NavyShooter

Just wait....we're going to see a bunch of engineering types coming available in the summer due to the re-org of the schools under NPTG.  We'll see a surge of (mostly) MS-CPO2 Engineering types and a few operators coming up for grabs.  

Imagine standing up a new version of the old FMG?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If the Royal Research Society doesn't jump on the name for its icebreaker, perhaps HMCS Boaty McBoatface could be used for one of the more boaty-looking boats of the future fleet?
> 
> Regards
> G2G
> 
> p.s.  I agree with OGBD that whatever costing is presented should have as a primary purpose, to appropriately inform decision makers and public alike, on the costs of programs that the Government is about to invest in.  That said, the Government should also, for perspective's sake, provide information that indicates what an equivalent amount of life-cycle costs would be for the existing fleet.



Your wish may come true.  Boaty McBoatface did win the online poll (what else did they expect by asking the internet  :) and apparently the adults are not amused.  Surprise.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/boaty-mcboatface-boat-1.3541002

So the name might be up for grabs.   :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

They may just have to do a "John Scott" and live with the result of their own choice to put it up for grab on the internet.

Then again ... we all know that  the U.K. is not  a democracy, but  an "Aristocratic government tempered from time to time by general elections".  [


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> They may just have to do a "John Scott" and live with the result of their own choice to put it up for grab on the internet.
> 
> Then again ... we all know that  the U.K. is not  a democracy, but  an "Aristocratic government tempered from time to time by general elections".  [



I gather the guy that suggested it as a joke is sorry he did.  He voted for "David Attenborough".  I've heard of General Elections, he's a troublemaker...


----------



## Good2Golf

Did we lock down the name for i-AOR yet? ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Did we lock down the name for i-AOR yet? ;D



I'm seconding this one:


			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Your wish may come true.  Boaty McBoatface did win the online poll (what else did they expect by asking the internet  :) and apparently the adults are not amused.  Surprise.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/boaty-mcboatface-boat-1.3541002
> 
> So the name might be up for grabs.   :nod:


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Did we lock down the name for i-AOR yet? ;D



_Her Majesty's Canadian Fleet Auxiliary_ CONSOLATION PRIZE would get my vote


----------



## Cloud Cover

Will Resolve  even be an HMCS as opposed to an MV? When is the last time the RCN leased a ship and commissioned it with its own RCN designated name? HMCS Magnificent? Which was not, by the way, privately owned...  

BTW, found a neat image of the Resolve Project  today, rescuing what appear to be migrants at sea ... very Canadian....


----------



## jollyjacktar

No no no that's the second place team in the bathtub races they do out west each year.


----------



## Journeyman

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Boaty McBoatface did win the online poll (what else did they expect by asking the internet  :) .....


So the current  Defence Policy Review may produce _exactly_  the results the government has in mind.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The real question here (re: the Resolve project ship named ???) is where the f*&^% does she keep those LCVP's?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ssh no facts or question allowed. They know they just need to spread the Bovine Feces deep on the shingle to keep the Ministers happy. I like what they are doing and don't think they need to put out stuff like this, but then I don't control the cheque book.


----------



## quadrapiper

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The real question here (re: the Resolve project ship named ???) is where the f*&^% does she keep those LCVP's?


In the traditional manner:


----------



## Kirkhill

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> In the traditional manner:


----------



## Cloud Cover

In HADR ops, supposedly the ship will have "up to 8 rapidly deployable small boats."  There doesn't appear to much room to store 2 LCVP on the main deck. But it is a good question, otherwise it is a quite misleading depiction. 
Im actually happy Davie is doing this. If they were to replicate the feat in double time, and configure another Asterix class into a multi role support ship with some other unique capability enhancements, there would be nothing stopping (other than money) the RCN from using the vessel or Davie making the vessel available on a charter basis to other navies. The fact they are doing this iin spite of the dysfunctional procurement system speaks well to entrepreur"ship". After the defence review,  support ships with significant HADR features may be the only remaining viable future of the blue water RCN (+ AOPS). It would fit the Trudeau doctrine of "make support, not war."


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> In HADR ops, supposedly the ship will have "up to 8 rapidly deployable small boats."  There doesn't appear to much room to store 2 LCVP on the main deck. But it is a good question, otherwise it is a quite misleading depiction.
> Im actually happy Davie is doing this. If they were to replicate the feat in double time, and configure another Asterix class into a multi role support ship with some other unique capability enhancements, there would be nothing stopping (other than money) the RCN from using the vessel or Davie making the vessel available on a charter basis to other navies. The fact they are doing this iin spite of the dysfunctional procurement system speaks well to entrepreur"ship". After the defence review,  support ships with significant HADR features may be the only remaining viable future of the blue water RCN (+ AOPS). It would fit the Trudeau doctrine of "make support, not war."



Resolve






MV Cragside - US SOF Base (Converted Maersk Ferry)






Point Class RoRos - similar to the original MV Cragside vessel



















How about 3 or 4 of these converted to a standard similar to the MV Cragside? - Freighters, Sea-Base, Disaster Response.  

Crew of 18 to 22.  

These are the types of vessels the RCN would be convoying in times of war in any event - the role would be to get these vessels from point  A to point B undamaged.  Maybe add some RCNR anti-air/anti-pirate specialists.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chris: I like your optimism in the Trudeau era. You are thinking about getting some capability to move things for fighting wars or even peace making.


----------



## Kirkhill

Whoops! There goes another rubber tree plant!  [


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You could run at least 1 as a Royal Canadian Fleet Auxiliary, with reasonable rent out rate to move NATO and other select countries stuff as requested.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to the thought - here is an article from ThinkDefence that lays out the capabilities of Cragside.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/01/return-auxiliary-mothership/

One thing that really caught my eye was this:



> *The Contractor* shall independently operate all deck equipment to include the craft handling/launching systems.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sort of related

The Honourable Hunter Tootoo, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, announced this week that the construction contract for seven new survey vessels has been awarded to Kanter Marine Inc. of St. Thomas, Ontario.  The $5.3 million investment will go towards customized hydrographic survey vessels that will be outfitted with permanent state-of-the-art multibeam sonar systems to help the Canadian Hydrographic Service continue to meet rigorous international standards for hydrographic surveys. The vessels are currently expected to begin construction immediately, with production and delivery to be complete by March 2017. Fisheries and Oceans Canada expects to take receipt of the first vessel by October 2016. http://www.cosbc.ca/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2418:seven-new-vessels-for-chs&Itemid=294

http://kantermarine.com/kanter-news/

along with this https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/5944-Fugro-to-provide-hydrographic-survey-services-to-CHS-in-Canada


----------



## Underway

Article from last quarters Canadian Military Journal comparing MOTS vs new build.  Never quite realized how difficult doing the two different ship classes with maximized similarity effected risk and cost.  I suppose if you do the right planning and go the MOTS++ direction it will probably work.  I know there is not an assumption aside from hull, hotel and engines that the ships will be the same.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> Article from last quarters Canadian Military Journal comparing MOTS vs new build.  Never quite realized how difficult doing the two different ship classes with maximized similarity effected risk and cost.  I suppose if you do the right planning and go the MOTS++ direction it will probably work.  I know there is not an assumption aside from hull, hotel and engines that the ships will be the same.








Interesting concept - to my eye it looks like HDMS Absalon with the Thales Integrated Mast from the HNLMS Holland.


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> Sort of related
> 
> The Honourable Hunter Tootoo, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, announced this week that the construction contract for seven new survey vessels has been awarded to Kanter Marine Inc. of St. Thomas, Ontario.  The $5.3 million investment will go towards customized hydrographic survey vessels that will be outfitted with permanent state-of-the-art multibeam sonar systems to help the Canadian Hydrographic Service continue to meet rigorous international standards for hydrographic surveys. The vessels are currently expected to begin construction immediately, with production and delivery to be complete by March 2017. Fisheries and Oceans Canada expects to take receipt of the first vessel by October 2016. http://www.cosbc.ca/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2418:seven-new-vessels-for-chs&Itemid=294
> 
> http://kantermarine.com/kanter-news/
> 
> along with this https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/5944-Fugro-to-provide-hydrographic-survey-services-to-CHS-in-Canada



All part of the same program, so very related.


----------



## Lumber

Chris Pook said:
			
		

>



Whatever happened to designing ships to actually _look_ menacing? Sigh...


----------



## Kirkhill

Absalon





Iver Huitfeld - lower counter than Absalon or the CSC Concept. - suggesting, in addition to the large hangar, a large mission bay-boatdeck in the CSC, similar to Absalon


----------



## Karel Doorman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Interesting concept - to my eye it looks like HDMS Absalon with the Thales Integrated Mast from the HNLMS Holland.



Well Chris if this is the chosen concept and the sensor array would be that of the "Hollands"(probably an evolution)it could do worse. [

The OPV's are distinguished by the integrated mast supplied by Thales which virtually all sensor systems are housed. It contains a Thales Sea Master 400 (SMILE) air warning radar, a Thales Sea Watcher 100 (SeaStar) surface warning radar and Thales Gatekeeper infrared / electro-optic warning system. The Gatekeeper is a new product and used HD cameras to detect inter alia periscopes and divers in the sea a short distance. In the top of the mast is further an antenna for satellite communications. At the corner points of the pyramid-shape antenna assemblies are arranged in front of the (military) UHF and VHF radio bands. The vessels may make observations up to a distance of 140 nautical miles .The Holland class recently revealed to build a better air picture during an exercise than a Type 45 destroyer specializing in air defense.

gr,walter

ps,in my mind ,it could look a bit more menacing too,more like "Iver"


----------



## Underway

It's just an artist concept sketch.  The actual ship will look like it looks when the integrator and designer are chosen.  I wouldn't be surprised if there is a significant superstructure difference (outside of the hangar) between the different classes as well given the CMJ article.  Also ships have a good side,  




 just like all of us.
For me I look better in the dark (at least that's what my wife says)   ???.  

I wouldn't be surprised if the APAR mast was part of the ship.  Every drawing, sketch, indication points in that the direction.  Does that give Thales (and whomever their design partner is) an inside track or is it just a matter of still buying the equipment that we want and just having the combat systems integrator "integrate it".   I'm assuming the latter...


----------



## Edward Campbell

I really don't care how "menacing" or whatever our ships might appear. I am concerned with only two things:

     1. _*Performance*_ ~ can they do what the government is likely, over the next 25 years, to ask of them? and

     2. _*Cost*_ ~ how many can we afford?

These ships were ugly ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





     ... and they remained ugly even after their fo'c's'les were extended, and their bigger sisters were not much less ugly ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... but they did what was asked of them at a cost (in dollars and "buildability" and ship handling) that was affordable.

My understanding is that the RCN wants 25± surface combatants. I'm not convinced that the defence budget can afford even a dozen of the big, sophisticated Canadian Surface Combatant and a half dozen _Harry DeWolf_ class ships; hence my questions about a mixed fleet of, say, 8 to 12 CSCs, 4-6 _Harry DeWolfs_ and 10 to 12 _corvettes_ ... all being "buildable" and "maintainable" in Canadian yards, all being more or less suitable for the range of tasks that are likely to be assigned, and all being affordable in dollars (to buy and operate) and crews.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think there may be bit of a misunderstanding here E.R.C.: I think the Navy plan calls for 25 "major" warships (as opposed to "minor" warships like the MCDV's).

The split range would be 14-15 CSC, 4-5 AOPS and 5-6 submarines. The favoured split would be 15-4-6.


----------



## GR66

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> My understanding is that the RCN wants 25± surface combatants. I'm not convinced that the defence budget can afford even a dozen of the big, sophisticated Canadian Surface Combatant and a half dozen _Harry DeWolf_ class ships; hence my questions about a mixed fleet of, say, 8 to 12 CSCs, 4-6 _Harry DeWolfs_ and 10 to 12 _corvettes_ ... all being "buildable" and "maintainable" in Canadian yards, all being more or less suitable for the range of tasks that are likely to be assigned, and all being affordable in dollars (to buy and operate) and crews.



Is that size of fleet still affordable?  The CSC program is looking for 15 hulls with no Corvettes and the ability to obtain this with the available cash is being questioned.  Will dropping the number from 15 to 8-12 free up enough to build 10-12 Corvettes?

It appears from my limited understanding that modern "Corvettes" have roughly similar combat capabilities to the current Halifax-class Frigates (in terms of # of missiles) but with roughly half the crew (understanding that there are issues with that).  That being said, could you get away with a fleet of 20 x Corvettes with 1 new build per year from Canadian shipyards to provide fleet stability for the RCN and permanent industrial benefits without the current boom/bust cycle.  This core fleet would be able to fulfill most of the roles of the existing 12 x Halifax-class (maybe less range, endurance and flexability due to the smaller size and reduced crew) as well as provide an upgraded capability from the existing 12 x Kingston-class.  

This "core" fleet could be suplemented with 4-6 higher-end destroyers (with AAW/Command capabilities) that could either be built domestically leveraging the ongoing warship building capabilities realized from the Corvette contract, or purchased overseas.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Two points GR66:

First, modern corvettes have about the same firepower as the Halifax class - except in ASW because none can carry a helicopter of the same class as the Sea Kings/Cyclone. But they do not have the same combat capabilities. The frigates have a much more complex and sophisticated sensors, communications and command and control suite that gives them marked advantage over corvettes.

Second point, and I have made this point before, if you start from a given amount of combat systems, sensors and communication gear you wish to put on a ship, the difference in cost between a 2000 tons corvette or a 5000 tons frigate is not very big - perhaps in the order of 10 to 15 % more. For the added endurance and crew comfort (especially in our waters of the grand Banks or off Haida Gwai) the difference in price is easily worth it.


----------



## GR66

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Two points GR66:
> 
> First, modern corvettes have about the same firepower as the Halifax class - except in ASW because none can carry a helicopter of the same class as the Sea Kings/Cyclone. But they do not have the same combat capabilities. The frigates have a much more complex and sophisticated sensors, communications and command and control suite that gives them marked advantage over corvettes.
> 
> Second point, and I have made this point before, if you start from a given amount of combat systems, sensors and communication gear you wish to put on a ship, the difference in cost between a 2000 tons corvette or a 5000 tons frigate is not very big - perhaps in the order of 10 to 15 % more. For the added endurance and crew comfort (especially in our waters of the grand Banks or off Haida Gwai) the difference in price is easily worth it.



Excellent info.  Thanks.

So, if we could have a corvette design that could carry a Cyclone-class helicopter that would solve the ASW gap?  

As for the sensors (i.e. "combat capabilities" vs firepower) would that only apply where the ships are NOT deployed along with an AAW-capable ship?  Am I correct in my understanding that the purpose of an AAW ship is to use its more advanced sensors to direct both it's own weapons AND those from other ships?  In effect the non-AAW ships are really arsenal ships?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No, the difference between the AAW ships and the other frigates is that the AAW ship carries more powerful air search and air tracking radars (such as having a Aegis radar system, for instance) and carries - this is the biggest difference - a large complement of long range AA missiles, so it can provide area air defence. The general purpose ships carry lesser anti air assets, usually of the shorter range type, for point defence purposes only.


----------



## GR66

Are those point defence missiles directed by the AAW ship or the general-purpose ship carrying them?  Are the short-range air defence radars on a general-purpose frigate (like the Halifax-class) better than what can be installed on a corvette-sized ship?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The general purpose ship controls her own weapons, unless involved with a "co-operative" engagement, something which is only available to ships that carry that command and control system - American made - and only available to a very few nations outside the US.

And the air search radars on a current generation frigate (I will leave the HAL class out specifically) are usually of a higher caliber than on modern corvettes. For instance, on a frigate, you may find the SMART-L/APAR combination of search/track AA radars, while a corvette would only carry a SMART-S one. (I know, the HAL have been retrofitted with SMART-S only but that is because they do not have the room on the superstructure to mount the other combination mentioned, and stretching the hulls to make superstructure room available would have been too expansive for the mid-life refit.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As Lasers become smaller and more powerful, likely they will be a good choice to supplement existing armament on small vessels, working a close in defense system against ASM's and small vessels.


----------



## quadrapiper

Colin P said:
			
		

> As Lasers become smaller and more powerful, likely they will be a good choice to supplement existing armament on small vessels, working a close in defense system against ASM's and small vessels.


Is the requirement for massive generating systems to support the laser expected to disappear as well? Or is there something on the horizon that will run off a submarine-sized reactor plant, or a reasonable conventional generator setup?


----------



## Kirkhill

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Is the requirement for massive generating systems to support the laser expected to disappear as well? Or is there something on the horizon that will run off a submarine-sized reactor plant, or a reasonable conventional generator setup?



A liter of marine distillate weighs 0.89 kg.
A kg of distillate contains 42 MJ/kg (Low Heat Value)
A liter of distillate contains 37 MJ of energy

A Generator Set is 40% efficient in producing electricity
A liter of distillate will produce 15 MJ of electricity or 15,000 kJ

The Laser on the USN Ponce is rated at 30 kW or 30 kJ/s
A liter of distillate will power that laser for 500 sec or 8 minutes and 20 sec.

How many 30 kW motors do you have on board currently?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You might end up with some sort of capacitor system for smaller ships where you get X number of shots in a given time. I am thinking for engagements like the IDF Corvette vs a Hezbollah ASM, you likely need 2-3 shots to stop/damage a larger missile, you might have enough shots to engage 2 ASM's at that rate before having to recharge. The bonus will be the lesser top hamper of the laser, mount and wiring compared to a gun/missile system. It may mean that newer small ships might require larger/more generators to accommodate for these types of weapons.


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ...Math...
> The Laser on the USN Ponce is rated at 30 kW or 30 kJ/s
> A liter of distillate will power that laser for 500 sec or 8 minutes and 20 sec.
> 
> How many 30 kW motors do you have on board currently?


The USS PONCE uses a dedicated diesel generator to provide power to the laser because this give it a 35% efficiency and the electrical system can be separated from the rest of the ships systems (which would have required more engineering and greater risk to the ships overall power grid).

Secondly the laser on the PONCE is a collection of 6 smaller industrial lasers that focus on a single spot.  This means that you only need to store or provide 5kW of energy to each laser individually.  This is a much easier engineering challenge that 30kW from one source.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> You might end up with some sort of capacitor system for smaller ships where you get X number of shots in a given time. I am thinking for engagements like the IDF Corvette vs a Hezbollah ASM, you likely need 2-3 shots to stop/damage a larger missile, you might have enough shots to engage 2 ASM's at that rate before having to recharge. The bonus will be the lesser top hamper of the laser, mount and wiring compared to a gun/missile system. It may mean that newer small ships might require larger/more generators to accommodate for these types of weapons.



You need lasers in the 100kW range to do those things which are still a long way off.  In order to kill something that moves fast you need to get a huge amount of energy on the target in the shortest amount of time possible.  A 30kW weapons won't do that currently and needs a couple of seconds to burn through something to cause damage.  It also doesn't have a good range in its ability to cause damage (1NM or so).  The best thing about the LaWS (Laser Weapons Systems) currently is that they can dazzle targets, paint targets, and provide excellent optics for the crew.  They are also low training time (being controlled with basically an Xbox controller) for most sailors.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84805

There is no doubt in my mind that by the time the CSC comes online that there will be readily deployable shipborne LaWW that are effective in a number of circumstances.  Hopefully the ship design is flexible enough to allow for installation.  I'm sure it will be as they don't take up much space  as shown in this picture.


----------



## Kirkhill

A 125 kW generator.


----------



## Cloud Cover

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Is the requirement for massive generating systems to support the laser expected to disappear as well? Or is there something on the horizon that will run off a submarine-sized reactor plant, or a reasonable conventional generator setup?



No, the massive generating systems are required for the Transporter System to beam the NBP onto another ship*.   


*in 2935 the RCN will be looking for volunteers/OD's to test this.


----------



## Journeyman

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> *in 2935 the RCN will be looking for volunteers/OD's to test this.


By 2935, they will be hoping that at least 3 of the 16 serving sailors will volunteer, to be overseen by the 4,568 Flag Officers at NDHQ National Kumbaya Chat Circle.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> As Lasers become smaller and more powerful, likely they will be a good choice to supplement existing armament on small vessels, working a close in defense system against ASM's and small vessels.



Colin is the one who is right here: Laser will always only be a supplementary combat system. You will still need all the other weapons system because nothing will ever replace kinetic ammunition where infliction of damages to an enemy is concerned and because lasers will always have two irremediable drawbacks: (1) you need good vis. Fog and rain will disperse and render ineffective; and, (2) it can be rendered useless with a simple parade: mirrors. Start painting your anti-ship missiles with mirror paint and voila - no more lasers to worry about.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> A 125 kW generator.



Perfect:

Now, insert into a compartment below deck that is three time that size. Dismount from wheels and instead remount on base welded into the ship's structural beams, but take care to (1) shock mount to resist blast in nearby compartments and (2) rubber isolate mount to eliminate transmission of any vibration to the ship hull. Then cocoon to cut noise. Add fuel lines coming from the main tanks from two different directions (feel free to get them to supply a locally located day tank if you wish) - add fuel filters banks. Now modify the oil pan so that the suction on the lube oil will not be lost when the whole thing constantly pitches up and down by 20 degrees along the shaft axis and rolls up to 50 degrees from side to side (by the way, this violent motion also is a driving factor on how solidly the thing must be connected to the deck). Now, take this lube oil and pump it through external piping to go through first a set of micron oil filters then a heat exchanger where sea water cools the oil before returning to the engine - provide for a sea water pump to run this sea water through the heat exchanger. Clone this lube oil system so that you have a second one as backup and provide valve blocks to switch from one to the other. Now do something external similar to this to cool the engine's cooling water system, also doubled for back up. Then, provide fume extraction system and run the exhaust through long piping system to evacuate to the outside, passing through some chiller system to hide its infra red signature. As the compartment is a steel box, provide a source of air, basically a fan system drawing air from the upper deck, that will also provide final cooling in the compartment environment.

Now you have a naval generator set to operate separately from the ship's main generators.


----------



## GAP

pffft !!!...............easy peasy.......go nuclear!....... ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

OGBD or you can do what the CCG and just hard mount it to the frames, the R class had 1 generator hard mounted for pumps, we always ran that one for the first week of the patrol, it was a relief when we switched to the isolated one.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

But the R-Boats didn't have to evade detection by submarines. did they!  ;D


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Colin is the one who is right here: Laser will always only be a supplementary combat system. You will still need all the other weapons system because nothing will ever replace kinetic ammunition where infliction of damages to an enemy is concerned and because lasers will always have two irremediable drawbacks: (1) you need good vis. Fog and rain will disperse and render ineffective; and, (2) it can be rendered useless with a simple parade: mirrors. Start painting your anti-ship missiles with mirror paint and voila - no more lasers to worry about.



Ahhh, but in fog and rain, how will the enemy get positive ID crit? If they're non-state actors who don't give a shit about ID crit, then they don't have long range surveillance and won't be able to find us in the fog at all. ASMs may be perfectly capable in rain and fog, but their human operators are not.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> pffft !!!...............easy peasy.......go nuclear!....... ;D



I'm actually 100% behind this. Between rail guns and Laser Air Weapon Systems, Nuclear is the way.

Besides, it's better for the environment, and we won't have to RAS as often!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But the R-Boats didn't have to evade detection by submarines. did they!  ;D



It would not surprise me that would make them do so in times of an emergency. While doing a seismic contract, using an old fishboat, i could not run the Lister diesel as the regular sound pulses from that old thumper showed up on the trace, which became a problem as the alternator on the main was not kicking in with the low rev's we were using.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Some shipbuilding "strategy":

Sticker Shock for RCN: Aussies Getting Supply Ships for Quarter of What We’re Paying
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/mark-collins-sticker-shock-for-rcn-aussies-getting-supply-ships-for-quarter-of-what-were-paying/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Blake Castelein

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Some shipbuilding "strategy":
> 
> Sticker Shock for RCN: Aussies Getting Supply Ships for Quarter of What We’re Paying
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/mark-collins-sticker-shock-for-rcn-aussies-getting-supply-ships-for-quarter-of-what-were-paying/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I bet if we did what the Aussie's are doing the navy might just get 15 CSC's with the extra cash. Just my  :2c: ;D


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Some shipbuilding "strategy":
> 
> Sticker Shock for RCN: Aussies Getting Supply Ships for Quarter of What We’re Paying
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/mark-collins-sticker-shock-for-rcn-aussies-getting-supply-ships-for-quarter-of-what-were-paying/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Hey, an nonsensical strategy is still a strategy.


----------



## jmt18325

That's not a direct cost to cost comparison.  There are many costs to building a ship that don't avoid the shipyards or the hull, including and especially the loss of sending the skill and money elsewhere.

There's also the reality that countries don't count money the same.


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt:

Your point is well founded. 

But the fact remains that the RAN will pay less than the RCN to acquire equivalent capability. If the Canadian Government wants the RCN to have that capability but wants it to use a higher price supply chain then it should fund the difference - either by increasing the RCN's budget or by funding the supply chain directly.   

If they fund the RCN for the additional cost then they will increase the defence budget - gaining NATO creds.  If they fund the supply chain they can maintain a low defence budget thereby maintaining good standing with the people that elected them.


----------



## jmt18325

I'm all for increasing the budget.  The original plan that the Conservatives put forward in ~2008 had enough money in it.  Both the Conservatives and now so far the Liberals have left us with less than enough for the plans that we have going forward.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm all for increasing the budget.  The original plan that the Conservatives put forward in ~2008 had enough money in it.  Both the Conservatives and now so far the Liberals have left us with less than enough for the plans that we have going forward.



We have the opposite of Australia. They have all party support to ensure proper funding and equipped military, we have all party support to raid DND's budget whenever they want to fund some hairbrained scheme.


----------



## AlexanderM

Speaking of Australia, they can come up with this kind of money for new submarines.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/france-wins-50b-submarine-contract-20160425-goeuxh.html


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We have the opposite of Australia. They have all party support to ensure proper funding and equipped military, we have all party support to raid DND's budget whenever they want to fund some hairbrained scheme.



Very true, and very unfortunate.  It's a recent trend in Australia - maybe one day?  

Since we're not getting a bigger budget right now, it's my contention that we should scale back our plans to fit that budget.


----------



## Underway

The Aussies paid the big price years ago to develop their national shipbuilding capability and are currently paying it now with the HOBART Class (3 billion AUS and counting for a single ship....).  They spent lots of money to create a domestic sub building capacity and let that lapse and now have to pay again to restart it.  They are hardly perfect however...

Spain is undergoing a serious economic transformation (read hard times) and I wouldn't be surprised if the gov't there kicked in some incentives to reduce the shipyards build costs so they could get more contracts.  Also Australia has so much building going on for their navy etc... I don't know if they have the spare capacity to build in Australia, not to mention are their shipyards big enough to handle an AOR size build.  

Even still, that's a huge price difference.  It goes back to the what are we really paying for question.  Building a shipyard or building ships. (or votes)


----------



## Cloud Cover

Underway said:
			
		

> Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!
> of course it's votes, and jobs turn into votes. This is why Trudeau is doing an about face on pipelines... he realizes that they will create more jobs at less taxpayer expense, and that big numbers of east coast jobs are not going to be created by the shipbuilding program.  How much of east coast economy is suffering due to the fire in the real capital of NFLD (Fort Mac). Quite bit. They will be able to employ more people on pipelines and refineries than they ever will through building ships. The capital spending program is not about the Navy, never was, and I would not be surprised to see the whole thing scrapped in favour of some sort of lighter, less costly alternative-like investing in bribes to first nations and Quebec to facilitate pipeline construction.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Now consider Aussies' new Antarctic semi-icebreaker (pretty big ship) to built by Dutch firm Damen in Romania:



> Australia Orders Antarctic Supply Research Vessel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australian icebreaker operated by DMS Maritime to be constructed by Damen
> 
> The Australian Government has signed a deal with DMS Maritime, a wholly owned subsidiary of Serco, for the delivery, operation and maintenance of an Antarctic Supply Research Vessel (ASRV) with icebreaking capabilities.
> 
> The vessel, to be built by the Damen Shipyards Group, will form an integral part of the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) program in the coming years.
> 
> The April 28 signing ceremony in Hobart Tasmania was attended by Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julia Bishop and Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt.
> 
> The total investment is over $1.912 billion (AUD), with $529 million being invested in the capital cost of the icebreaker, and $1.38 billion to be spent on operations and maintenance over its 30 year lifespan, according to the Australian Antarctic Division.
> 
> Explaining the decision to subcontract Damen for the design and building of the vessel, Serco CEO Asia Pacific Mark Irwin said, “Damen is a leading international shipyards group with a strong international presence. As well as building a broad portfolio of standardized vessels in series, Damen has produced a range of bespoke vessels including scientific, hydrographic, naval and ice ships. Damen and Serco have a strong partnership and over the last 10 years, Damen has supplied over 40 vessels used by Serco to support naval operations in the U.K. and Australia.”
> 
> The realization of this vessel will draw upon a number of companies within the Damen Shipyards Group and Damen’s wider network. Denmark-based KNUD E. HANSEN executed the concept and tender designs, whilst engineering and project management is being delivered by Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding (DSNS) in Vlissingen, the Netherlands. Construction and outfitting of the vessel will be carried out at Damen Shipyards Galati, Romania.
> 
> Damen Sales Director Asia Pacific, Roland Briene, said, “Drawing on the diverse skills found across our organization, we are able to connect up all the dots in order to deliver a cohesive, full scope project execution. An icebreaking research and supply vessel such as this represents a new market entry for Damen and we are very pleased to be working with AAD and DMS on this exciting project.”
> 
> The ASRV represents a state-of-the-art solution which will facilitate Australia’s wider exploration of the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. The vessel will be 156 meters in length, with a beam of 25.6 meters. She will be able to break ice up 1.65 meters at speeds of 3 knots and will supply Australia’s permanent research stations in Antarctica and Macquarie Island with cargo, equipment and personnel. Designed with 500 m2 on board laboratory and office facilities, the vessel will also serve to conduct research activities. The ASRV will host up to 32 DMS Maritime crew and as many as 116 AAD scientific personnel as well as a doctor, in climate controlled accommodation.
> 
> After completion at Damen’s yard in Galati, the ASRV will sail to DSNS in the Netherlands for _handover to the client, scheduled for April 2020_ [emphasis added--that's four years].
> http://www.marinelink.com/news/australia-antarctic409454.aspx



_In 2008_ PM Harper announced the CGG would get its (one only) new icebreaker (the "Diefenbreaker") in 2017:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/powerful-new-icebreaker-to-be-named-after-diefenbaker-harper-announces/article955156/

Now, hah, we see "Delivery of Polar Icebreaker: 2021-22":
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/rpp/2015-16/SupplementaryTables/mcp-eng.html#s1.4

And cost has doubled from $720 million (see_Globe_ story above) to $!.3 billion (DFO link above).  Nice work if you can get it--and if it ever gets done.

Damen:
http://www.damen.com/

Damen design was used for CCG mid-shore patrol vessels built by Irving:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/mark-collins-new-canadian-coast-guard-vessel-type-enters-service/

But:



> The Curse of Irving, Canadian Coast Guard Vessels Section
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/mark-collins-the-curse-of-irving-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-section/



Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not hearing a lot of love for the Hero class, sort of a R class 2.0


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If it costs $530 to build this "semi-icebreaker" in Romania today, then 1.3 b$ for a full Arctic icebreaker built in Canada five years from now is not so bad.


----------



## Underway

Another article on NSS procurement flaws.  This time with a fancy chart.  Though it brings up industries biggest worries.  No SOR leading to an Irving controlled process that freezes out companies that are not their best friends.

Edit:  Newer article addressing some of the concerns brought up in the first one I posted.  Things seem to be moving but I'm not sure what direction....


----------



## MilEME09

Apparently irving is trying to pitch some kind of "maritime support ship" for humanitarian operations to the goverment. To be revealed at CANSEC on wednesday. 

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Good2Golf

Dare one ask what a "Maritime Support Ship" is? ???

An NJSS? (non-Joint Support Ship) :dunno:


----------



## jollyjacktar

That should be interesting, I'll look for it tomorrow.


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Dare one ask what a "Maritime Support Ship" is? ???



My bet is that it's a way for Irving to draw billions more from the public purse to deliver (late and in a state of disrepair) a platform that offshore builders could deliver for a fraction of the price in a timely manner.


----------



## jollyjacktar

ROTFL


----------



## Good2Golf

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict it will have stalls to embark Unicorns, and special holds to store rainbows...

:2c:


----------



## PuckChaser

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'm going to go out on a limb and predict it will have stalls to embark Unicorns, and special holds to store rainbows...
> 
> :2c:


Don't forget the Sunny Ways catchers on the top.


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My bet is that it's a way for _--insert company here--_ to draw billions more from the public purse to deliver (late and in a state of disrepair) a platform or product that offshore builders or vendors could deliver for a fraction of the price in a timely manner.


And there's you have Canadian defence acquisition policy in an almost-Twitter-length passage.

My haiku version





> Forces need some stuff.
> Off the rack?  Nope.  Too cheap and
> no local content.


----------



## Lumber

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> My haiku version



Here comes the Navy!
All fat and filled with gravy!
Irving gets money.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lumber said:
			
		

> Here comes the Navy!
> All fat and filled with gravy!
> Irving gets money.


Now, if only they'd let us do haiku summaries for briefing notes  >


----------



## Lumber

IRO cracked in two.
A replacement, we can do!
Build it in Quebec.

This is fun!  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Apparently irving is trying to pitch some kind of "maritime support ship" for humanitarian operations to the goverment. To be revealed at CANSEC on wednesday.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



A RO/RO with a helipad on top and crane, with a portable hospital inside, done!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> A RO/RO with a helipad on top and crane, with a portable hospital inside, done!


Honkin' big ship here.
No Forces need?  Too easy - 
Make it a "help" ship!


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> A RO/RO with a helipad on top and crane, with a portable hospital inside, done!









MV Cragside

http://gizmodo.com/the-u-s-a-s-floating-special-forces-base-sure-doesnt-lo-1603035635


----------



## MilEME09

So basically Davie's ship but crappier, over budget and long delayed?


----------



## Cloud Cover

I think the actual purpose of this Cragside vessel needs clarification. The Gizmodo article makes no sense: 

Craigside apparently can launch and recover "numerous" UAV and house weapons, small craft, 200 special forces, is cheap to operate etc etc.  Ok, I get that. Plus it does not tie up a large warship like an LPD/LPH etc.  

But then they go to say a benefit is that this is a platform leased and converted to supposedly deal with whatever undefined legal issues there may be with deploying special forces from a warship by remaining in international waters. This makes no sense since presumably US military aircraft (Osprey, Sea Stallion etc) would cross into sovereign airspace and deliver the goods. What it does create is a legal issue and hell of a risk of having a civilian flagged vessel attacked in International Waters in retaliation for whatever the mission of the special forces might undertake. It would be an act of war if the vessel was a warship or an act potentially leading to war it it was a civilian ship with military personnel on board. In any event, a warship can also remain in International Waters and conduct special ops insertion evolutions.  Most retaliatory attackers would think twice about that, since a warship is usually armed,  can defend itself and can call on nearby friends for help.  On the other hand, PMC personnel could operate from such a ship, and if it was attacked, there might be lesser consequences all around? other than cost, I do not see any real advantage here. It is not as if the ship is a stealth ship whose locations and activities cannot be monitored by any half decent intel organization.


----------



## Lumber

Need a ship right now?
No, well, here's one anyways!
Davie is Satan.

 >


----------



## Cloud Cover

Lumber said:
			
		

> Need a ship right now?
> No, well, here's one anyways!
> Davie is Satan.
> 
> >



Bolts of lightning will come your way for that.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lumber said:
			
		

> Need a ship right now?
> No, well, here's one anyways!
> *Davie is Satan.*


But a polite Satan, it appears - this, from the Davie Info-machine ...


> Davie commends Irving Shipbuilding on taking a positive and innovative approach to solving some of the major capability gaps facing the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard with regards to the current federal shipbuilding programs.
> 
> Last week, Irving Shipbuilding provided an unsolicited proposal to the Government of Canada for the provision of a converted ship for humanitarian relief operations.
> 
> Over the past months it has become widely acknowledged that Canada faces significant and long-term capability gaps in its fleet capability, particularly as a result of delays in the delivery of Canada's much-needed non-combat vessels.
> 
> Realizing this, East coast shipyards in Canada's key shipbuilding hubs in Nova Scotia and Quebec have pro-actively provided alternative, cost-efficient and innovative ways to convert existing commercial vessels to fill gaps in Canada's non-combat fleet. In particular, for Humanitarian Relief, Icebreaker and Multirole Support vessels.
> 
> Speaking at the CANSEC exhibition in Ottawa, Alex Vicefield, Davie's Chairman today commented "Irving Shipbuilding is confirming what has been universally recognized over the past months, including by the Government of Canada in the Canada Transportation Act review. That there are several classes of ship which Canada urgently needs and the current shipbuilding program is not capable of delivering. This is a great initiative from Irving Shipbuilding - these kind of unsolicited proposals where industry takes what it has learnt in how to provide fast-track, cost-efficient solutions to address critical operational gaps, is exactly what is needed right now."
> 
> Mr. Vicefield added "We must pursue these kind of interim and supplementary programs to ensure that we can close the capability gaps which either currently exist, or shortly will, in Canada's federal fleet. Of course this can't be done without bringing in the capacity of Canada's largest and highest capacity shipbuilder. We must look back to the origins and the original recommendations that industry made to the previous government and reconsider how the full capacity of Canada's shipbuilding industry can optimize fleet renewal and ensure a continuous work flow."
> 
> Just prior to the launch of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, Davie and Irving Shipbuilding signed a Memorandum of Understanding to ensure sufficient capacity within the shipbuilding programs to deliver the number of ships required, on budget and on time. The agreement was based around seven key principles involving collaboration in technology, management, shipbuilding capacity and work sharing to ensure value for money for Canada ...


----------



## Lumber

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> But a polite Satan, it appears - this, from the Davie Info-machine ...



A cabal at hand?
Surely not in these fair seas!
LPC and all...


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I think the actual purpose of this Cragside vessel needs clarification. The Gizmodo article makes no sense:
> 
> Craigside apparently can launch and recover "numerous" UAV and house weapons, small craft, 200 special forces, is cheap to operate etc etc.  Ok, I get that. Plus it does not tie up a large warship like an LPD/LPH etc.
> 
> But then they go to say a benefit is that this is a platform leased and converted to supposedly deal with whatever undefined legal issues there may be with deploying special forces from a warship by remaining in international waters. This makes no sense since presumably US military aircraft (Osprey, Sea Stallion etc) would cross into sovereign airspace and deliver the goods. What it does create is a legal issue and hell of a risk of having a civilian flagged vessel attacked in International Waters in retaliation for whatever the mission of the special forces might undertake. It would be an act of war if the vessel was a warship or an act potentially leading to war it it was a civilian ship with military personnel on board. In any event, a warship can also remain in International Waters and conduct special ops insertion evolutions.  Most retaliatory attackers would think twice about that, since a warship is usually armed,  can defend itself and can call on nearby friends for help.  On the other hand, PMC personnel could operate from such a ship, and if it was attacked, there might be lesser consequences all around? other than cost, I do not see any real advantage here. It is not as if the ship is a stealth ship whose locations and activities cannot be monitored by any half decent intel organization.



The US (and the Brits) already deploy military assets from civil fleets on the high seas.  They have being doing it forever.  The Royal Navy started with pressed civilian vessels.

Regardless of the manning issues, and the status varying on the threat level and employment, the point is that the vessel represents a transport and basing capability.  Yes, it has no defensive capability, but that gives a Task Force something to do.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I had a look at their model today.  Weird looking bastard.  They have a ton of containers up forward under the weather deck.  Not exactly clear how they get there or out.   :dunno:

Davies on the other hand had a good VR headset where you took a bit of a tour inside and out to a Cyclone and up during a two point RAS.  Their booth while smaller, seemed to want you to come see.  Irving were acting like they owned the place and weren't necessarily wanting uniformed visitors.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I had a look at their model today.  Weird looking *******.  They have a ton of containers up forward under the weather deck.  Not exactly clear how they get there or out.   :dunno:
> 
> Davies on the other hand had a good VR headset where you took a bit of a tour inside and out to a Cyclone and up during a two point RAS.  Their booth while smaller, seemed to want you to come see.  Irving were acting like they owned the place and weren't necessarily wanting uniformed visitors.



Is there a website that has that info?


----------



## jollyjacktar

For which?  Davies has, Irving will too, I am sure.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I had a look at their model today.  Weird looking *******.  They have a ton of containers up forward under the weather deck.  Not exactly clear how they get there or out.   :dunno:
> 
> Davies on the other hand had a good VR headset where you took a bit of a tour inside and out to a Cyclone and up during a two point RAS.  Their booth while smaller, seemed to want you to come see.  Irving were acting like they owned the place and weren't necessarily wanting uniformed visitors.



Why would they? Uniformed people are not the ones that cut the cheques, and they are more difficult to buy off !!!   [


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Why would they? Uniformed people are not the ones that cut the cheques, and they are more difficult to buy off !!!   [



I suppose that's true and we're the ones who bitch (the most) about their shitty products.


----------



## The Bread Guy

FSTO said:
			
		

> Is there a website that has that info?


Can't find a page, but here's a photo shared via the HFX _Chronicle-Herald_ ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That is actually a photoshopped picture of ship of the same class as the above mentioned MV Cragside. I don't believe that Irving even has that ship acquired yet.

They were a class of six sister ships that were built on order from the British department of defence to be under long term lease that would provide heavy sealift to British forces "on call". When not needed by the RN, they would be operated on the North sea runs by their civilian owners, but subject to recall. They have almost all been released from their lease obligations now. I think there are two of them left on lease, until it runs out in a few years.


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That is actually a photoshopped picture of ship of the same class as the above mentioned MV Cragside. I don't believe that Irving even has that ship acquired yet.
> 
> They were a class of six sister ships that were built on order from the British department of defence to be under long term lease that would provide heavy sealift to British forces "on call". When not needed by the RN, they would be operated on the North sea runs by their civilian owners, but subject to recall. They have almost all been released from their lease obligations now. I think there are two of them left on lease, until it runs out in a few years.



Oh sweet! More British hand-me-downs...


----------



## FSTO

Good god, why do we insist on coming up with these hair brained schemes! Spend 20 bucks to save 5 seems to be the mantra of Canada. If we want this type of capability then go get a couple of Mistrals or Canberra's or San Guistos; change our defence doctrine to maximize their capabilities and get on with it!


----------



## Bass ackwards

I wonder how much longer before someone in government decides that auxiliary cruisers are the way to go...

Why go to the bother and expense of building River and Tribal class vessels when you can simply bolt surplus guns to an existing _Jervis Bay_ or _Rawalpindi_

 >


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That is actually a photoshopped picture of ship of the same class as the above mentioned MV Cragside. I don't believe that Irving even has that ship acquired yet.
> 
> They were a class of six sister ships that were built on order from the British department of defence to be under long term lease that would provide heavy sealift to British forces "on call". When not needed by the RN, they would be operated on the North sea runs by their civilian owners, but subject to recall. They have almost all been released from their lease obligations now. I think there are two of them left on lease, until it runs out in a few years.



Actually the Cragside / Ocean Trader is one of half a dozen RoRos built for and operated by Maersk.  The Point class RoRos are a separate class of 6 built in Germany for the RN lease contract.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> Good god, why do we insist on coming up with these hair brained schemes! Spend 20 bucks to save 5 seems to be the mantra of Canada. If we want this type of capability then go get a couple of Mistrals or Canberra's or San Guistos; change our defence doctrine to maximize their capabilities and get on with it!



I can think of one good reason.

You buy/beg/steal/acquire a basing/transport capability at least cost in capital, operations, maintenance and manpower, and find out if it gets used effectively or if it is just going to rust at the pier side.

One of the arguments against the C17, and the Chinooks, was that there wasn't a plan for their use and the old Chinooks were accused of being under-utilized.  The C17s have since become back-bones of the fleet and, apparently, foreign policy.  

Leasing a Cragside as a floating base/transport would be an interesting experiment.


----------



## FSTO

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I can think of one good reason.
> 
> You buy/beg/steal/acquire a basing/transport capability at least cost in capital, operations, maintenance and manpower, and find out if it gets used effectively or if it is just going to rust at the pier side.
> 
> One of the arguments against the C17, and the Chinooks, was that there wasn't a plan for their use and the old Chinooks were accused of being under-utilized.  The C17s have since become back-bones of the fleet and, apparently, foreign policy.
> 
> Leasing a Cragside as a floating base/transport would be an interesting experiment.



I would think that once we had a Mistral (or similar type) we would be wondering how we ever lived without it.


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't disagree.

But apparently a whole bunch of functionaries did.  Just as they balked at the C17s.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Mistrals and the C-17/C130J would/do give future governments all sorts of options for response that did not exist previously.


----------



## ringo

Boeing still has 1 unsold C17 IIRC, that CAF should be purchase to argument current fleet.

Great shame the idiots in Ottawa didn't snap up those Mistral's when they had the chance, could have passed them off as DART ships.


----------



## PuckChaser

I'd say with the current budget cut the CAF doesn't have the money, but if we're going to borrow $30B to pay for campaign promises, whats another $300M CAD?


----------



## Michael OLeary

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'd say with the current budget cut the CAF doesn't have the money, but if we're going to borrow $30B to pay for campaign promises, whats another $300M CAD?



But there's one more detail to consider:



> If the proposal is accepted, *it would cost the government $300 million for the conversion*, a 30-person civilian crew, maintenance and the first five-year lease, and about $25 million a year after.



Cost of ship not included.


----------



## Kirkhill

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> But there's one more detail to consider:
> 
> Cost of ship not included.



Emphasis on a different syllable:



> If the proposal is accepted, it would cost the government $300 million for:
> 
> the conversion,
> a 30-person civilian crew,
> maintenance and
> the first five-year lease.
> 
> 
> and about $25 million a year after.


----------



## tomahawk6

I read this article about the replacement of Canada's surface warships destroyers/frigates.In the article they seemed to favor the French FREMM.Idf this is in the wrong spot please move.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/3996-dcns-confident-its-fremm-is-the-right-solution-for-the-royal-canadian-navy-csc-program.html


----------



## Kirkhill

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I read this article about the replacement of Canada's surface warships destroyers/frigates.In the article they seemed to favor the French FREMM.Idf this is in the wrong spot please move.
> 
> http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/3996-dcns-confident-its-fremm-is-the-right-solution-for-the-royal-canadian-navy-csc-program.html



From T6's linked article:



> “The crew complement could be adapted as well: The current FREMM was *originally* expected to have a crew of *108 sailors*, the *French *Navy eventually moved up to around *120 sailors* which is a moderate increase. Growth margins of the current design could accommodate a crew of *180 sailors *to answer *Canadian* needs without major modifications.”



For the record, across 15 ships that represents an additional 1080 sailors above the minimum necessary to man the vessels.

How many more vessels could be built if the numbers were reduced?  More CSCs, AORs, Subs, LPDs, Corvettes or AOPSs.  Lumber has pointed out that he with the most ships wins in any given engagement.  More bodies per platform equals more casualties.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'd say with the current budget cut the CAF doesn't have the money, but if we're going to borrow $30B to pay for campaign promises, whats another $300M CAD?



The government had the money and since you unexpectedly lost 3 ships from operations, we had the money and the sailors.


----------



## Underway

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I read this article about the replacement of Canada's surface warships destroyers/frigates.In the article they seemed to favor the French FREMM.Idf this is in the wrong spot please move.
> 
> http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/3996-dcns-confident-its-fremm-is-the-right-solution-for-the-royal-canadian-navy-csc-program.html



What I found most interesting about this article is the following:



> As a matter of fact, under the refined procurement process, Canada prompts bidders to integrate in their offer up to 24 Canadian equipment, systems and technologies. It is not a surprise to have on this list equipment such as helicopter handling system, underway replenishment at sea or integrated platform management system (IPMS). Such systems will have to be fitted onboard FREMM. However as far as missiles are concerned, shipbuilders may offer the system of their choice. Canada seems decided not to re-use the venerable Mk41 launchers currently fitted on its vessels. Therefore DCNS will probably offer missile solutions by MBDA. Regarding radars there no Canadian requirement for now. For the Air Defense variant DCNS is proposing a FREMM fitted with a 4 panel array radar (active electronically scanned) from Thales



And this:


> Growth margins of the current design could accommodate a crew of 180 sailors to answer Canadian needs without major modifications.



Looks like they are trying to sell the FREMM-ER
.
The thumbnail sketch of the ship desing is taking place now in the open source documents.  Of the 24 systems not mentioned we're probably looking at sonars, torpedoes, EW systems, comms (internal, external), and nav systems. Possibly some damage control ones.  I can't seem to find a list of these so I'm just guessing based upon "Canadianized" equipment currently mounted. Obviously equipment for the helos, IPMS and RAS must be matching.  The active electronically scanned array from Thales listed here is probably the Sea Fire 500 AESA.  I'm surprised there is no requirement for radar.  One would think that there would at least be a volume search combined with an multi-function.  That's a great combination as they cover each others weaknesses off.  Perhaps that's coming later as the project becomes more defined.

Aster missiles would be an interesting variation from the current SM series.  The Aster 15 and 30 are the same missile with a larger boost phase for the latter.  The 30 could be swapped one for one with an SM2.  But the ESSM can only be swapped 4 for 1 with the Aster 15.  Loss of capability for the GP version of the ships perhaps for the self defence AAW aspect.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> How many more vessels could be built if the numbers were reduced?  More CSCs, AORs, Subs, LPDs, Corvettes or AOPSs.  Lumber has pointed out that he with the most ships wins in any given engagement.  More bodies per platform equals more casualties.



I don't know where Lumber stated that, but it is incorrect in any event.

Beginning as far back as the battle of Salamis, where more than 750 Persian ships were defeated by about 375 Greek ships, and all the way to the Battle of Midway, where the Americans defeated a Japanese force about twice their size and composed of heavier ships, sea battles have been won by smaller fleets than those of the defeated party.


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't know where Lumber stated that, but it is incorrect in any event.
> 
> Beginning as far back as the battle of Salamis, where more than 750 Persian ships were defeated by about 375 Greek ships, and all the way to the Battle of Midway, where the Americans defeated a Japanese force about twice their size and composed of heavier ships, sea battles have been won by smaller fleets than those of the defeated party.



I mentioned it here: Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship 

I was simplifying things drastically, as I was not taking into account air cover, submarines, and the skill level of commanders. Simply put, I was saying that a naval battle between navies armed with the most modern anti-ship missiles would be a war of attrition. Anyone who got missiles shot at them would be dead, so whoever has the most ships would win, since most warships these days seem to carry the same number of anti-ship missiles (roughly 8).


----------



## Underway

Article on  the difficulties and why it's so hard to procure a warship.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Underway said:
			
		

> Article on  the difficulties and why it's so hard to procure a warship.



Really nice ship on the left of the photo btw. [Xp  (how sad there won't be more of this class)

And may i ad the "zevens"were built on time and on budget,so it's possible.

gr,walter


----------



## Stoker

I see Davie is proposing a MULTI-ROLE NAVAL SUPPORT VESSEL  www.federalfleet.ca. This could fill an number of roles quite nicely.

Proven Design. Mission-Ready. Built in Canada.

The MRNSV adopts a missionized-payload approach to provide 
a multi-role platform for navies and coast guards to perform a 
wide variety of functions including: 
> Border Patrol and Search & Rescue
> Humanitarian and Disaster Relief (HaDR)
> Forward Ship Maintenance and Repair
> Submarine Rescue
> Scientific Research
> Coastal Resupply
> Training (target launch and CQC)





  http://www.davie.ca/pdf/MRNSV-Pamphlet.pdf


----------



## jollyjacktar

Almost reminds me of the Morsby or Anticosti in appearance.


----------



## YZT580

link is down


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Almost reminds me of the Morsby or Anticosti in appearance.



Sort of, this ship is twice the length. Its fairly large. It could replace the Quest quite nicely.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It's a lot more than twice the length of the MORESBY/ANTICOSTI. It is actually, at 14,000 gross tons to MOR/ANT's 2,000, 7 times bigger. It is in fact almost the same length as a HAL but more than three times their size. In other words, this thing is huge and would only be exceeded in size by the new AOR's.

Why the offer at this time though?

Because this is Cecon's second hull, stopped at about 80 % completion.

Davie got a contract from Cecon a few years back to build three deep sea construction vessels. Highly specialized ships built to support remote construction on the sea bed for the oil and gas industry. The first one, m/v Cecon Pride, was completed and delivered in 2015 - you see a picture at the bottom of the last page of the pamphlet.

With the price of oil dropping off like fallen leaves last year, Cecon put a stop or delay order on the last two - not required at this time. So Davie find's itself holding on to a three quarter's complete deep sea construction vessel, already paid for, until Cecon re-starts the program. Perfect timing to propose doing minimal modifications to turn this vessel into a multi-purpose naval vessel, if successful buy it back from Cecon, pocket the money and still have a contract in hand for two more when Cecon re-opens the line.

Again: Smart on the part of Davie, IMHO.

By the way, Chief, Quest is actually the only one vessel it could not replace. Quest has all sorts of special treatment for noise reduction to make her able to work various acoustic equipment, which this thing does not have and would make the research useless or at least very difficult.

I see a few difficulties with the proposal in the current environment in Canada: It covers responsibilities split amongst more than one Department - and in some department (Transport, not to name it   ) across different divisions - that are each their own little empires, so it would raise serious questions of "ownership", if you may.

Also, are we really in need of these capabilities at this time? I'll explore that from their list below:

_The MRNSV adopts a missionized-payload approach to provide 
a multi-role platform for navies and coast guards to perform a 
wide variety of functions including: 
> Border Patrol and Search & Rescue
It could be useful for the Coast Guard as supplementary asset in that function, but many resources already exist.
> Humanitarian and Disaster Relief (HaDR)
At 16 knots, it would take a lot of time to deploy - and which coast would you select for basing? Moreover, how frequently would it be required? Such a ship would have been useful for the Swissair disaster, but how often can we expect such thing. We had a nice deep sea diving support capability with CORMORANT before, but in a tight budget environment, she was decommissioned instead of refitted because the overall requirement did not justify the expense.
> Forward Ship Maintenance and Repair
I could see that, but again, how often would we need such capability?
> Submarine Rescue
We have not had a specific submarine rescue capability since CORMORANT was retired in 1997. There has been no pressure to replace that capability and I don't think there will be any in the future unless we greatly increase the number of submarines we operate.
> Scientific Research
I could see that, especially in the Arctic, but it is not a naval responsibility nor our area of expertise. That belong in the old Oceans and Fisheries purview (whatever they are called these days).
> Coastal Resupply
Not sure what they mean here. I don't see fuelling masts, so we are not talking RAS. If they mean re-supplying coastal towns, I think that is a TC responsibility. If they mean they could go to coastal bays and harbours, take frigates and destroyers alongside and resupply them in fuel and food, etc., I could see that being useful, but really only for Arctic deployment. Such vessel could certainly provide a great support function to the AOPS when deployed up North by combining the shop/coastal supply functions and linking St John's with Inuvik in that capacity and would reduce the pressure to build infrastructure in the North.
> Training (target launch and CQC)
Can't see that one, we already have coastal CFAV's that are much smaller, more economical to run and have only a handful of personnel required to carry that function. The ship proposed here would be overkill._

I note that there is one possible use for such ship that is not mentioned or even hinted at (and here I know I will please my friend Chris): Such ship would make one hell of a nice forward deployed offshore base for special forces.  :nod:


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's a lot more than twice the length of the MORESBY/ANTICOSTI. It is actually, at 14,000 gross tons to MOR/ANT's 2,000, 7 times bigger. It is in fact almost the same length as a HAL but more than three times their size. In other words, this thing is huge and would only be exceeded in size by the new AOR's.
> 
> Why the offer at this time though?
> 
> Because this is Cecon's second hull, stopped at about 80 % completion.
> 
> Davie got a contract from Cecon a few years back to build three deep sea construction vessels. Highly specialized ships built to support remote construction on the sea bed for the oil and gas industry. The first one, m/v Cecon Pride, was completed and delivered in 2015 - you see a picture at the bottom of the last page of the pamphlet.
> 
> With the price of oil dropping off like fallen leaves last year, Cecon put a stop or delay order on the last two - not required at this time. So Davie find's itself holding on to a three quarter's complete deep sea construction vessel, already paid for, until Cecon re-starts the program. Perfect timing to propose doing minimal modifications to turn this vessel into a multi-purpose naval vessel, if successful buy it back from Cecon, pocket the money and still have a contract in hand for two more when Cecon re-opens the line.
> 
> Again: Smart on the part of Davie, IMHO.
> 
> By the way, Chief, Quest is actually the only one vessel it could not replace. Quest has all sorts of special treatment for noise reduction to make her able to work various acoustic equipment, which this thing does not have and would make the research useless or at least very difficult.
> 
> I see a few difficulties with the proposal in the current environment in Canada: It covers responsibilities split amongst more than one Department - and in some department (Transport, not to name it   ) across different divisions - that are each their own little empires, so it would raise serious questions of "ownership", if you may.
> 
> Also, are we really in need of these capabilities at this time? I'll explore that from their list below:
> 
> _The MRNSV adopts a missionized-payload approach to provide
> a multi-role platform for navies and coast guards to perform a
> wide variety of functions including:
> > Border Patrol and Search & Rescue
> It could be useful for the Coast Guard as supplementary asset in that function, but many resources already exist.
> > Humanitarian and Disaster Relief (HaDR)
> At 16 knots, it would take a lot of time to deploy - and which coast would you select for basing? Moreover, how frequently would it be required? Such a ship would have been useful for the Swissair disaster, but how often can we expect such thing. We had a nice deep sea diving support capability with CORMORANT before, but in a tight budget environment, she was decommissioned instead of refitted because the overall requirement did not justify the expense.
> > Forward Ship Maintenance and Repair
> I could see that, but again, how often would we need such capability?
> > Submarine Rescue
> We have not had a specific submarine rescue capability since CORMORANT was retired in 1997. There has been no pressure to replace that capability and I don't think there will be any in the future unless we greatly increase the number of submarines we operate.
> > Scientific Research
> I could see that, especially in the Arctic, but it is not a naval responsibility nor our area of expertise. That belong in the old Oceans and Fisheries purview (whatever they are called these days).
> > Coastal Resupply
> Not sure what they mean here. I don't see fuelling masts, so we are not talking RAS. If they mean re-supplying coastal towns, I think that is a TC responsibility. If they mean they could go to coastal bays and harbours, take frigates and destroyers alongside and resupply them in fuel and food, etc., I could see that being useful, but really only for Arctic deployment. Such vessel could certainly provide a great support function to the AOPS when deployed up North by combining the shop/coastal supply functions and linking St John's with Inuvik in that capacity and would reduce the pressure to build infrastructure in the North.
> > Training (target launch and CQC)
> Can't see that one, we already have coastal CFAV's that are much smaller, more economical to run and have only a handful of personnel required to carry that function. The ship proposed here would be overkill._
> 
> I note that there is one possible use for such ship that is not mentioned or even hinted at (and here I know I will please my friend Chris): Such ship would make one hell of a nice forward deployed offshore base for special forces.  :nod:



In regards to replacing Quest, it certainly could carry out all the tasks that the Kingston class have been doing in regards to DCRC without the noise suppression. It could also serve as a mobile support base for the Kingston Class as they are getting back into MCM overseas and support in the Arctic as facilities are sparse in the Arctic. I would imagine with its size could be used to fuel other vessels. Dependent on how much we could get the vessel for it could provide a number of capabilities that we no longer have or haven't had in the first place.


----------



## ringo

Jack of all trades, if the price is right probably a good pick up, operate with civilian crew just like the Resolve program.

IIRC Moresby/Anticosti had limited aor capability.

On a side note IMHO the Berlins, although an excellent design, there build in Canada cost is prohibitive  perhaps it would be cheaper to build hull overseas with final fitting out in Canada.
Operating the Berlins as a commercial venture should also be explored, ala Resolve.
Vancouver shipyards would then concentrate on icebreaker construction.


----------



## MarkOttawa

ringo wrote: 



> ...
> Operating the Berlins as a commercial venture should also be explored, ala Resolve.
> Vancouver shipyards would then concentrate on icebreaker construction.



See:



> Why not more Canadian Coast Guard Icebreakers Instead of RCN JSS?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/mark-collins-why-not-more-canadian-coast-guard-icebreakers-instead-of-rcn-jss/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would like to offer a proven interim design to provide an immediate ability to fill the current gaps. The 40mm from the Kingston would fit perfectly on this.

http://www.nauticapedia.ca/dbase/Query/Shiplist4.php?&name=Edgewater%20Fortune&id=4962&Page=1&input=Edgewater


----------



## Kirkhill

Deas Slough?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That's where BC Ferries keeps and maintains their ferries


----------



## Kirkhill

Thought it looked familiar.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sorry, misunderstood, that is New Westminster quay, you can see a bit of the Pattlo Bridge in the photo.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oh, nevermind.  Sorry.


----------



## AlexanderM

ringo said:
			
		

> Jack of all trades, if the price is right probably a good pick up, operate with civilian crew just like the Resolve program.
> 
> IIRC Moresby/Anticosti had limited aor capability.
> 
> On a side note IMHO the Berlins, although an excellent design, there build in Canada cost is prohibitive  perhaps it would be cheaper to build hull overseas with final fitting out in Canada.
> Operating the Berlins as a commercial venture should also be explored, ala Resolve.
> Vancouver shipyards would then concentrate on icebreaker construction.


I would vote to build the AOR's in South Korea, along with the Brits, a different design at a fraction of the cost, and build the CSC hulls the same way, certainly have Seaspan build additional icebreakers, 1-2.  Still go ahead with the Davie plan.


----------



## Kirkhill

Funny thing about both the Davie and Irving proposals - Effectively they are buying cheap hulls overseas and locally fitting out to need.  At a fraction of the time and money.

Seems to be a winning strategy. Wonder why nobody else does that......... (sarcasm alert).


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook: Sarcasm fully justified. With extra snark:

The Extravagant Lunacy of Building RCN and Canadian Coast Guard Vessels in Canada
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/mark-collins-the-extravagant-lunacy-of-building-rcn-and-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-in-canada/

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Politics! Politics! Politics!  All parties.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> All parties.


Agreed.  But if both parties are going to pork-barrel anyway, why not keep up a low-rate, constant build?


----------



## dapaterson

What building?  There are a few AOPS in the build cycle right now, but JSS and CSC are years away from steel cutting.


----------



## AlexanderM

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Agreed.  But if both parties are going to pork-barrel anyway, why not keep up a low-rate, constant build?


I understand that Irving is saying that slow build on the CSC will make them more costly, so quicken the build to get the price down and don't make me go looking for the source on that, read it somewhere about a week ago or so.


----------



## Journeyman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I understand that Irving is saying .....


You don't need to dig up the citation; you may with to Google "bias" though.


----------



## AlexanderM

Here is one article on building the ships faster. I saw a quote somewhere regarding the Liberals wanting to bring the costs down and Irving saying, then build the ships faster, so I'm thinking this may be a product of that approach.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/government-changes-course-on-26-billion-warship-program-in-hopes-vessels-will-be-delivered-sooner

This one still does not have the quote I'm looking for, but is about reducing costs. I've included the quote about $2 billion per ship if it was designed in Canada, so end cost will hopefully be below that, which wouldn't be that bad as I believe Irving had their sights set on the $3 billion that the Hobarts are costing, which is ridiculous. 

https://www.localxpress.ca/local-news/liberals-make-announcement-refining-navys-frigate-replacement-plan-316072

But McCoy said that the industry average for a combat ship designed from scratch is about $2 billion. With shipbuilding inflation rising at four to five per cent per year, that’s a potential cost savings of 10 per cent if construction starts two years sooner.

“It essentially takes two years of time and two years of cost out of a very complex process,” he said. “Think about the effort it takes to design a warship from scratch. Canada won’t have to go through that.”


----------



## AlexanderM

Oops, hit quote instead of modify.


----------



## Cloud Cover

These are all good points, but for some reason the ship somehow rings as desirable for me, not the least of which is the fact that other than AOPS and Resolve, no other ships are being built/converted. It may be that Canada could do well with building a small, versatile non-combat "utility fleet" and if thats the case, I will reverse my earlier statements and say this should be an RCN function, otherwise with this government do we not run the risk of their being no RCN at all?



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The MRNSV adopts a missionized-payload approach to provide
> a multi-role platform for navies and coast guards to perform a
> wide variety of functions including:
> > Border Patrol and Search & Rescue
> It could be useful for the Coast Guard as supplementary asset in that function, but many resources already exist. The RCN could deploy this asset for these functions overseas. As I understand it, the CCG has a domestic-territorial mandate, the RCN has the authority and the ability to intervene or provide assistance elsewhere
> > Humanitarian and Disaster Relief (HaDR)
> At 16 knots, it would take a lot of time to deploy - and which coast would you select for basing? Moreover, how frequently would it be required? Such a ship would have been useful for the Swissair disaster, but how often can we expect such thing. We had a nice deep sea diving support capability with CORMORANT before, but in a tight budget environment, she was decommissioned instead of refitted because the overall requirement did not justify the expense. Permanently forward deploy to a region of the world where transit time is short and there is a base to operate from. {Italy, Cyprus, Crete etc.)
> > Forward Ship Maintenance and Repair
> I could see that, but again, how often would we need such capability? No idea.
> > Submarine Rescue
> We have not had a specific submarine rescue capability since CORMORANT was retired in 1997. There has been no pressure to replace that capability and I don't think there will be any in the future unless we greatly increase the number of submarines we operate. No chance whatsoever of increasing the sub fleet, and even if we did those subs would be built long after these ships were razor blades.
> > Scientific Research
> I could see that, especially in the Arctic, but it is not a naval responsibility nor our area of expertise. That belong in the old Oceans and Fisheries purview (whatever they are called these days). Containerized ELINT suites??
> > Coastal Resupply
> Not sure what they mean here. I don't see fuelling masts, so we are not talking RAS. If they mean re-supplying coastal towns, I think that is a TC responsibility. If they mean they could go to coastal bays and harbours, take frigates and destroyers alongside and resupply them in fuel and food, etc., I could see that being useful, but really only for Arctic deployment. Such vessel could certainly provide a great support function to the AOPS when deployed up North by combining the shop/coastal supply functions and linking St John's with Inuvik in that capacity and would reduce the pressure to build infrastructure in the North. Agreed. And they could deliver humanitarian supplies but I also do not see a RAS structure, or the room for fuel tanks to perform that function.
> > Training (target launch and CQC)
> Can't see that one, we already have coastal CFAV's that are much smaller, more economical to run and have only a handful of personnel required to carry that function. The ship proposed here would be overkill.[/i]  The UK SBS utilizes the decommissioned Sir Tristam for commando training. There may be a role for that with the enhanced NBP, training of divers and special forces.
> 
> I note that there is one possible use for such ship that is not mentioned or even hinted at (and here I know I will please my friend Chris): Such ship would make one hell of a nice forward deployed offshore base for special forces.  :nod:  Fully agreed. Counter terrorism, hostage rescue, etc. Needs better helo set up though. {more helo's- Griffons, Chinooks and stripped down Cyclones); larger RHIB that are armed with crew served weapons but can also be dropped/recovered by Chinook. An JT seems to understand and endorse the use of special forces. This may the golden answer.


----------



## Cloud Cover

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Here is one article on building the ships faster. I saw a quote somewhere regarding the Liberals wanting to bring the costs down and Irving saying, then build the ships faster, so I'm thinking this may be a product of that approach.
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/government-changes-course-on-26-billion-warship-program-in-hopes-vessels-will-be-delivered-sooner
> 
> This one still does not have the quote I'm looking for, but is about reducing costs. I've included the quote about $2 billion per ship if it was designed in Canada, so end cost will hopefully be below that, which wouldn't be that bad as I believe Irving had their sights set on the $3 billion that the Hobarts are costing, which is ridiculous.
> 
> https://www.localxpress.ca/local-news/liberals-make-announcement-refining-navys-frigate-replacement-plan-316072
> 
> But McCoy said that the industry average for a combat ship designed from scratch is about $2 billion. With shipbuilding inflation rising at four to five per cent per year, that’s a potential cost savings of 10 per cent if construction starts two years sooner.
> 
> “It essentially takes two years of time and two years of cost out of a very complex process,” he said. “Think about the effort it takes to design a warship from scratch. Canada won’t have to go through that.”



Somewhere in this thread is a source that says India, which is insisting most of its ships now be built in India, suffered a 30 percent per year inflation rate in domestic builds because their shipyards lack the permanent expertise that other countries have. It will take an entire working generation to change that in Canada provided tat there is enough build activity to fuel 2 or more workforce generations (i.e. 50 years of continuous shipbuilding).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The expertise that shipyard get, translates into other industries, out here they were making the complex piping for small hydro power houses as they were the only ones that could weld the type of steel and complex curves.


----------



## Kirkhill

If, Godhelpme, if the government could be persuaded to take defence seriously, and finance it appropriately, and following on from Cloud Cover's commentary....

A (Royal) Canadian Fleet Auxiliary / Auxiliary Fleet Services Canada?

Created on the Davie/FedNav model 
Militarized civilian vessels (like the RFA)
Built in Canadian yards
Manned by Canadians
Jobbed out to other nations for both humanitarian and fleet support duties

Meanwhile the RCN gets to focus on providing escorts and patrols to allow free passage.

That requires combat vessels but because our yards are full then the combat vessels can be purchased off shore.

Meanwhile the yards, building expertise in civilian vessels, not just the Auxilliaries but also the Coast Guard vessels necessary to provide the support required to escort tankers at tidewater, to monitor the EEZ, to keep shipping lanes clear of ice, to survey and research, to supply tug and environmental response services, the yards get a chance to find out if they can be come competitive with foreign builders.

Fill the yards with Coast Guard and Fleet Auxiliary orders for logistics vessels.  Buy combat vessels overseas and locally modify/fit out.

It would essentially do for Davie/Irving/Washington what has already been done for Bombardier.

Where would the money come from - from the sale of oil and gas delivered to tidewater and possibly from the sale of ships offshore - or, at very least, from the "social infrastructure" fund.


----------



## Cloud Cover

This is, of course, all built on the speculation that the current government will in large part change the role, mission and mandate of the RCN, which I personally think is highly likely not just for the RCN but the entire CAF.  The status quo mandates for the RCN, even if there was any modest rearmament and modernizing, and although not entirely broken, is not working well enough, and is focused on past war(s) and mission(s). 

Change is good! If the current government wants to bring unique, useful contributions to coordinated international efforts, then the CF and the RCN require unique, useful, adaptable equipment and perhaps an entirely new force structure.   The bottom line for me is that as long as the changes do not permanently weaken the already minuscule ability to defend some parts of our sovereignty. So that means we do need lethality in the form of some combat aircraft, patrol aircraft, some combat vessels (surface and sub surface) that pack a significant wallop, and some regular force army formations equipped with highly effective equipment.


----------



## Kirkhill

Cloud Cover - I am not suggesting that the RCN be re-roled.  Just the opposite.

The RCN should continue in its current mission.  

The Government has the opportunity to fill a hole in the market by creating a logistics service that would both service domestic needs and could be a generator of foreign ties if not foreign cash.

Much of the domestic "service support" is actually more in keeping with Coast Guard areas of interest.  The other, more deployable capabilities essentially are long range transport variants.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Anything that changes CCG Mandate will be resisted by Senior Management from what I have observed. Certainly they will resist unless those changes are funded and do not impact the current work programs. In the CCG world, ice breaking and Navaid/buoy tending are the primary goals, followed by fish protection, science  and SAR a distant cousin.  Buoy tending/science and Fish can alternate depending on the role of the particular ship.
For years CCG has been cutting back the services it delivers, inshore SAR, inland navaids, coastal navaids, MCTS, SAR related towing. Since the report came out regarding the World Class shipping, they are now upgrading and building new navaids on the routes tankers are likely to take.


----------



## Kirkhill

How would they feel about environmental response, fire, tow, tug and recovery duties?

In other words duties performed by the Norwegian Coast Guard in support of Norway's Oilfields.

Edit:  And tell me again why we are debating if the government's employees will deign to follow directed government policy?  I sense a theme here.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Edit:  And tell me again why we are debating if the government's employees will deign to follow directed government policy?  I sense a theme here.



Title for a new movie/documentary?  "Departments Behaving Badly"


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> How would they feel about environmental response, fire, tow, tug and recovery duties?
> 
> In other words duties performed by the Norwegian Coast Guard in support of Norway's Oilfields.
> 
> Edit:  And tell me again why we are debating if the government's employees will deign to follow directed government policy?  I sense a theme here.



Environmental response is in their duties, but on the West coast they struggle to get qualified Incident Commanders and enough gear for a large spill. They fulfill the mandate requirements, but just. They use one ship in a spill exercise about once a year.


----------



## dapaterson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Edit:  And tell me again why we are debating if the government's employees will deign to follow directed government policy?  I sense a theme here.



Because governments think nothing of assigning tasks without the necessary resources to accomplish them.  It is at the lower levels of the organization that deconfliction occurs: If I have the personnel to do two things, and government expects me to do four, which two do I do?


----------



## Kirkhill

I would tend to do four poorly and ask for the resources to do better in next year's review with the evidence in hand of failure to meet the assigned goals.

It isn't my job to decide which of the boss's edicts are priorities.

But - is that the same as people arguing that the assigned task is in conflict with their history and their ethos?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Liberals are masters at announcing a new initiative and then only funding it for the honeymoon period and then pulling the funding for something new. They rarely shut things down, preferring to leave empty shells lying around that can be funded as PR issues arise. They don't care that much about the lower level funding struggles.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I never understood why such program's costs were never calculated 'net of Canadian Income Taxes collected' as that would be a much better comparison to the cost of purchasing from foreign shipyards.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Liberals are masters at announcing a new initiative and then only funding it for the honeymoon period and then pulling the funding for something new. They rarely shut things down, preferring to leave empty shells lying around that can be funded as PR issues arise. They don't care that much about the lower level funding struggles.



So basically spending/wasting a lot of money(tax money might i add)funding"new"projects" and never seeing them through till the end.All in the name of being able to say"we're on it" :

I think it's time that the defence department or the Canadian people for that matter are prepared to give the politicians a good kick in the bollocks.

Every time they start up a new project(for replacing the "old" ships)and not seeing it through means that next time it will cost even more,in the meantime Canada has to do with ships which are actually in need of replacement.(and might i add ,getting less and less for your money,playing the waiting game.) [:'(

gr,Walter


----------



## Good2Golf

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> ...I think it's time that the defence department or the Canadian people for that matter are prepared to give the politicians a good kick in the bollocks...



In the theoretical abstraction of democratic representation, the politicians are the people.  Until the people want a more focused defence expenditure/investment, in place of the industries supported (read injecting money into them) in the people's 'back yard', Defence will just have to live with what the people feel like given it.  People shouldn't hate the player (Defence), but rather the game (politics) which they, whether they like it or not, of which they are a significant portion.  :nod:

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

G2G -

Democracy: Government of, for and BY the people.  Right?  

Even if that means they decide not to decide and leave it up to proxies.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Cloud Cover - I am not suggesting that the RCN be re-roled.  Just the opposite.
> 
> The RCN should continue in its current mission.
> 
> The Government has the opportunity to fill a hole in the market by creating a logistics service that would both service domestic needs and could be a generator of foreign ties if not foreign cash.
> 
> Much of the domestic "service support" is actually more in keeping with Coast Guard areas of interest.  The other, more deployable capabilities essentially are long range transport variants.



Actually Mr. Pook,  I am coming around to a different outlook than previous. 15 new CSC ships? Forget it, never going to happen. 10-12 mediocre half ass ships? Why even bother?  Three or four 8-9000 ton destroyers. Yes, I think that might be the better and more pragmatic future blue water RCN (plus auxiliaries like tankers etc.).  Does this mean less ships per coast or only 1 combat ship* per coast with one in refit/workups etc? yes- so what?> i mean really, what difference will it really make to have fewer ships? When the RCN had 24 frigates and destroyers plus X number of wooden hull minesweepers, there were still not enough to meet commitments and political expectations. With only 5 (or less) ships that are actually very capable, there may be more merit in having ships that can actually take the fight to the enemy at sea, below the surface, in the air and ashore. Further, I don't think it would ever be possible to shrink the RCN from that low base in numbers. The next logical step would be to back off from the high seas, something I do not think even the most rainbow-unicorn- sun shine driven government would attempt. 

* i am purposely discounting the AOPS as a combat vessel. The class may be many things to many people, but it is most certainly not a combat ship. Hors de combat...


----------



## jmt18325

I would say that 6 would be the minimum.  We'd then need 12 more capable ships to replace the Kingston class.  With a logistics ship, I think we might have a winning formula.


----------



## CBH99

I am *hoping* that pressure from our NATO allies, the US in the form of NORAD (Remember, NORAD now covers the maritime environment) - and the general public as a whole - that the government will acquire enough ships to secure both a domestic & expeditionary role simultaneously.

4 or 5 large, highly capable combatants might make for a great blue water force to be reckoned with.  Combine that with the 2 tankers, and air assets, and that sounds like a highly capable battle-group.

But we have the largest coastline in the world, on 3 sides of the country.  Having 1 ship available on each coast is pathetic, even by our politicians standards.  Plus, with NORAD now encompassing the maritime environment, I don't think the US would be too happy about the "gigantic 3-ocean coastline to the north with no ships around".  And I really *dont* think the US wants to pick up the slack, as their naval assets are stretched thin as it is.

15 state-of-the-art CSC ships?  I agree, I don't believe it is going to happen anymore.  Too much time wasted on stupid crap that any competent government should have thought through before the project was even launched.  I'm thinking 12 will be the magic number we end up with (based on nothing more than a gut feeling.)

12 CSC & a replacement of the Kingston class with something a bit faster would give us a great combination of domestic ships that can travel a bit faster than the Kingston, and a respectable blue water force.


----------



## Cloud Cover

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I am *hoping* that pressure from our NATO allies, the US in the form of NORAD (Remember, NORAD now covers the maritime environment) - and the general public as a whole - that the government will acquire enough ships to secure both a domestic & expeditionary role simultaneously.
> 
> 4 or 5 large, highly capable combatants might make for a great blue water force to be reckoned with.  Combine that with the 2 tankers, and air assets, and that sounds like a highly capable battle-group.
> 
> But we have the largest coastline in the world, on 3 sides of the country.  Having 1 ship available on each coast is pathetic, even by our politicians standards.  Plus, with NORAD now encompassing the maritime environment, I don't think the US would be too happy about the "gigantic 3-ocean coastline to the north with no ships around".  And I really *dont* think the US wants to pick up the slack, as their naval assets are stretched thin as it is.
> 
> 15 state-of-the-art CSC ships?  I agree, I don't believe it is going to happen anymore.  Too much time wasted on stupid crap that any competent government should have thought through before the project was even launched.  I'm thinking 12 will be the magic number we end up with (based on nothing more than a gut feeling.)
> 
> 12 CSC & a replacement of the Kingston class with something a bit faster would give us a great combination of domestic ships that can travel a bit faster than the Kingston, and a respectable blue water force.



If there are 12 ships, that would be the worst outcome because they will certainly be of mediocre, compromised capability. And while we may have the longest coastline, it has been the case for some time that the RCN has not been capable of defending it with any degree of seriousness since the 1960's. So what does coast line actually matter in the equation? It really counts for nothing in the long run, even with the Arctic opening up this country is really not mentally and politically capable of equipping the RCN for doing anything about it. 

Ironically, using a mediocre 4-6000 ton CSC surface ship for coastal patrol is overkill, and a waste of tonnage by about 4000 tons.  

A smaller fleet of 12 or less purpose built coastal patrol ships armed (1500-2000 tons) with a lethality calculus that includes more than only chain guns, and fully equipped with some very serious surveillance and detection equipment (radar, sonar etc) plus a helo deck (probably not a hangar) would be a modest attempt but still a highly unlikely outcome for the RCN.  Again, on a one for one basis, I have doubts that the MCDV, if they are replaced at all, will be at a 1:1 level. Realistically, it will be 1:2 or 1:3 ratio.   This is Canada, not Australia, so people really need to lower all of their expectations.  Perhaps using a light version of the Freedom class LCS.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Cloud Cover:

1) There is no basis whatsoever to support a claim that if 12 CSC's are built they will be either mediocre or of compromised capability.

2) There is no indication of the CSC's being in the 4000-6000 range. In fact all indications to date are in the 6000-8000 range.

3) There is nothing in your background to indicate a knowledge base from which to make informed views on the topic.

4) The RCN has been defending Canadian coasts successfully for the last 70 years.

5) The RCN doesn't "patrol" the coasts of Canada, no more than the Army patrols the streets of Toronto. It's not our mission - never has been -never will be unless some Bozo turns the RCN into a coast-guard. When you people that try and comment on the composition of the RCN from your Army/Air Forces perspective finally understand what the mission of Navies is and how they go about executing that mission, you may finally understand that point.

6) There are currently no plans to replace the MCDVs. You can be sure however, that when the time comes there is absolutely no basis to conclude that the ratio of replacement will be anything other than 1 for 1 (that was the case for the MCDV's that replaced the 12 minor warships: 7 PB's (Fort Steele is the 7th if you wonder) and 5 YNG's).

7) What's your beef with wood ??? Nothing wrong with the old wood and aluminium minesweepers. They did great service to the country.


----------



## Cloud Cover

1) The basis is obvious: capability costs money, lots of it especially for 12 ships. Historical trends do not favour the RCN obtaining a highly capable combat ship being capable of doing little more than defending itself.  I cannot think of another country equivalent to Canada that is building 12 large surface combatants. Even the Brits stopped at 6 Daring class due to costs.  
2) I have seen 5-7000 ton plans but nothing approaching 8000 tons.
3) I served in the Navy and worked for quite a while with a defence contractor in the weapons and sensor development field.
4) Nobody has attacked the Canadian coast line in the past 70 years, and nobody probably ever will.  Interdicting refugee ships and drug smugglers doesn't count as anything more than support to law enforcement.  
5) Correct on "patrol"- but I have sailed on more than a few up-down the coast trips which the Navy itself has somehow managed to position as Patrol.
6) Correct: there are no plans to replace the MCDV's 
7) I fondly remember the sweeps in Esquimalt (along with the gate vessels)  

Cheers.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

My comments in yellow.



			
				Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> 1) The basis is obvious: capability costs money, lots of it especially for 12 ships. Historical trends do not favour the RCN obtaining a highly capable combat ship being capable of doing little more than defending itself.
> Right. The Annapolis class was more capable than its predecessors, then the 280's were not only much more capable than the steamers, they were also as if not more capable than their contemporary. Then the frigates were a lot more capable than the ships they replaced and again, as capable as their contemporaries. The O boats were superior to the tench they replaced, as the Windsors (for all their faults) are more capable than the O-boats. Yeah! I see the historical trend of having less and less capable ships. /SARC OFF
> I cannot think of another country equivalent to Canada that is building 12 large surface combatants. Even the Brits stopped at 6 Daring class due to costs.
> Bull. The Type 45 was planned as class of six and built in full. The frigates replacement program (Type 26) is planned for 13 vessels. The French are building 8 FREMM's, with an option to be exercised in a couple of years for three more - making it a class of 11. Australia is looking at a class of 9 frigates after they receive their Hobarts, to replace their older classes of ships. Together, that makes 12 new ships, three of which are AAD destroyers, which is proportionally  the same as Canada's CSC, which is planned to have three or four in the AAD variant and 11 to twelve in the GP variant.
> 2) I have seen 5-7000 ton plans but nothing approaching 8000 tons.
> I have not seen anything smaller than 5,800 light load, which is 6,000 really and up to 7,800 light load.
> 3) I served in the Navy and worked for quite a while with a defence contractor in the weapons and sensor development field.
> 4) Nobody has attacked the Canadian coast line in the past 70 years, and nobody probably ever will.  Interdicting refugee ships and drug smugglers doesn't count as anything more than support to law enforcement.
> Agree. Then will you people stop looking at close to shore patrolling as a Navy "mission". It's not. As for support to law enforcement, we do a little bit of it, when required. But when is that? In 24 years in, the sea time I spent on support of law enforcement can be counted in hours, and not in the high end of it. I think you will agree with me that it cannot be what determines the composition of the Navy.
> 5) Correct on "patrol"- but I have sailed on more than a few up-down the coast trips which the Navy itself has somehow managed to position as Patrol.
> Agree. Done my fair share of those. But you know as well as I do that we are not looking for anything in particular during those, that there is no systematic and organized patrol plan for the year, and while out on such Sovpat, we still carry out our primary duty which is to train up the crew. The final aim is just to show the flag to anyone we happen to cross and compile the common surface picture.
> 6) Correct: there are no plans to replace the MCDV's
> 7) I fondly remember the sweeps in Esquimalt (along with the gate vessels)
> 
> Cheers.



Keep up the good work!


----------



## Cloud Cover

Right. The Annapolis class was more capable than its predecessors, then the 280's were not only much more capable than the steamers, they were also as if not more capable than their contemporary. Then the frigates were a lot more capable than the ships they replaced and again, as capable as their contemporaries. The O boats were superior to the tench they replaced, as the Windsors (for all their faults) are more capable than the O-boats. Yeah! I see the historical trend of having less and less capable ships. /SARC OFF
Sarcasm is good. All of those ships could (potentially) defend themselves from last generations threats and prosecute a submarine contact. The exception being the 280's after refit with the SM missile and better radars all around the fleet. The RCN removed it's capability for NGS, for example (but arguably not needed anyway), with the frigates and to a lesser extent the 76mm on the 280's.    

Bull. The Type 45 was planned as class of six and built in full. The frigates replacement program (Type 26) is planned for 13 vessels. The French are building 8 FREMM's, with an option to be exercised in a couple of years for three more - making it a class of 11. Australia is looking at a class of 9 frigates after they receive their Hobarts, to replace their older classes of ships. Together, that makes 12 new ships, three of which are AAD destroyers, which is proportionally  the same as Canada's CSC, which is planned to have three or four in the AAD variant and 11 to twelve in the GP variant.  
The Type 45 went from 12 to 8 to 6: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ddg-type-45-britains-shrinking-air-defense-04941/
Whatever other navies have planned does not necessarily mean those will be outcomes. If they build them, fine. And again, the RCN has already publicly conceded that 15 ships, while optimal, is not likely to be the outcome. Even with the CSC at 12 ships, the RCN will not realistically be in the same fleet tier category as the French navy and for that matter, the RAN. 

Agree. Then will you people stop looking at close to shore patrolling as a Navy "mission". It's not.
What does the P in AOPS stand for? Pusser?  Close to shore patrolling is not a function of Transport Canada and the Coast Guard takes seriously as that entity has slowly devolved into a seaborne construction company. The vaunted "Hero" class is not a proper patrol boat either in a naval sense. That is to say the ship would not be a very convincing or compelling deterrent to an aggressor. But then again, there are no known aggressors potentially looking for a fight, at least since the Spanish navy hung around the Grand Banks a few decades ago.    

Anyway, I'm done with this. I guess we will have to wait and see what actually transpires over the next 15 years, which will be 22 years from when this thread started.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> G2G -
> 
> Democracy: Government of, for and BY the people.  Right?
> 
> Even if that means they decide not to decide and leave it up to proxies.



Some say 'cynic', others call them a 'pragmatic realist'....but...yes...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/davie-shipyard-union-negotiations-stall-1.3672939



Negotiations for a new collective agreement have stalled at Canada's largest shipyard after workers overwhelmingly rejected their employer's offer.

"The employer tried to convince us of its merits, but workers showed that the offer was ridiculous," said the president of the Davie Shipyard union, Raphaël Jobin.

    Davie shipyard boss calls Canada's national shipbuilding strategy 'bizarre'
    Davie shipyard makes unsolicited bid to build for coast guard

Workers voted down the employer's offer on Sunday morning. The old collective agreement expired on June 30. 

The employer's offer included:

    A one per cent pay raise starting July 1,
    A 0.5 per cent signing bonus,
    A renewal of the agreement for 18 months, 
    Another one per cent salary increase starting January 2017.

Ninety-one per cent of Davie shipyard workers voted against it. Some 800 employees are represented by the union.

"Our mandate is to demand decent working conditions for workers," said Jobin.
Direct impact on business

*Without a collective agreement in place, the shipyard isn't allowed to bid on contracts for the Canadian Coast Guard*.

More than 70 employees were laid off in June when two contracts were terminated.

Negotiations between the union and employer will continue this week.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Woah! Woah! Woah! Time out here.

You mean to say that a shipyard cannot bid on government work unless they have a collective agreement in place, but the government can go on for years without an agreement in place with it's own employees!!!!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Woah! Woah! Woah! Time out here.
> 
> You mean to say that a shipyard cannot bid on government work unless they have a collective agreement in place, but the government can go on for years without an agreement in place with it's own employees!!!!


..
Or months and months without paying them properly.... Phoenix.  God help us when they roll that shit out on the CF


----------



## Ostrozac

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ..
> Or months and months without paying them properly.... Phoenix.  God help us when they roll that crap out on the CF



Word on the street is that it isn't bad if your pay is absolutely stable month to month, with no variances or adjustments, or so the powers that be are reassuring us, so the military should have no issues with it, because we don't have all that pesky overtime that is such a surprise to the Phoenix system.

It's a good thing that military members don't go the field for Cas LDA, don't jump for Cas Para, never go on operations and don't go on MATA/PATA. Oh, and if you really feel like kicking the Primary Reserve while they're down -- then implement Phoenix for Class A reservists.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am lucky, my pay is boring, so far I am ok, but that could change....


----------



## STONEY

Does this mean that project Resolve could end up late and over budget.  Gee in the promo video put out by Davie all the workers they talked too just loved it there  like money is no object they just working for so great a employer.


----------



## CBH99

That is the danger of unions.  While they are there looking out for the best interests of the union members/staff, I think most people just want to go to work & keep their lives simple.

Don't get me wrong.  Unions can and do serve a legitimate purpose in the welfare of their members.  I just feel that sometimes, petty things end up being big deals, which _*can*_ cause more harm than good.

Is a less than 1% difference on their paycheck really going to affect them that much?


----------



## KawarthaCruiser

The United States has provided a number of decommissioned USCG Hamilton class patrol ships to the Philippines government for their use.  By the time Canada’s new CSC class allow for Halifax class units to be retired would there be enough serviceable life left in any of the ships to make a similar gift worthwhile?  Canada would demonstrate to the Philippines and other Pacific partners we are contributing something to the common defense of the region and are more than just a trade partner wanting to make money in the region. 

Apologies in advance if this is too far from the threads topic.


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting point Kawartha:

If ships were purchased and used for ten years, then sold directly or gifted (ie sold to Global Affairs to donate to needy governments) it seems to me that that would make it less costly to acquire newer vessels.  And we could forego the cost of life extension projects.

PS - a good chunk of my childhood was spent around Lock 19.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

More Irving goodness http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1387683-200m-irving-loan-surety-kept-secret


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P: Otherwise the curse of...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Lumber

From: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-about-make-tanks-we-know-them-obsolete-17158



> Particularly, Russian experiences in Ukraine—where both sides are using upgraded Soviet-built tanks and anti-tank weapons—have shown that despite the best active, reactive and passive armor available, a tank will eventually be penetrated. “We discovered that no matter how skillful the crew, the tank would get up to ten hits,” Pukhov said during a luncheon at the Center for the National Interest in Washington, D.C.—which is the foreign policy think-tank that publishes The National Interest—on July 26. *"Even if you have perfect armor—active, passive. In one case it will save you from one hit, in another case from two hits, but you’ll still get five hits and you’re done. That’s why now you’re supposed to have some kind of Tank 2.0.”[/*color]




It's the last bit that resonates with me. Anti-ship missiles are getting faster and faster, with some ridiculously long range (300nm). Anti-ship missiles and shore based launchers are hugely inexpensive when compared against the cost of a warship and the training for all the crew. How many modern missiles could a modern warship handle before their defensive systems were overloaded? You really only need one or two to get through and you've guaranteed a mission kill on most modern warships. 

Maybe we should be rethinking the whole concept of warships?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:
			
		

> Maybe we should be rethinking the whole concept of warships?



In which direction ?  Heavier armour packages ?  Increased missile defence systems ?

Perhaps the whole idea of battle groups engaging each other in open conflict on the high seas is a bit passé these days ?  

The future of blue water Navies is interesting.


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> In which direction ?  Heavier armour packages ?  Increased missile defence systems ?
> 
> Perhaps the whole idea of battle groups engaging each other in open conflict on the high seas is a bit passé these days ?
> 
> The future of blue water Navies is interesting.



I will continue to argue for more ships, smaller ships, smaller crews, a higher percentage (well beyond zero) of unmanned platforms.  In my opinion you want to increase the number of targets/firing points/observation posts and decrease the their value by reducing the number of lives at risk on any one vessel.

You can't disperse as readily as the army.  You can, like the air force, play "Three card monte", and hide your C2 assets in the largest possible deck of cards.


----------



## AlexanderM

Lumber said:
			
		

> From: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-about-make-tanks-we-know-them-obsolete-17158
> 
> It's the last bit that resonates with me. Anti-ship missiles are getting faster and faster, with some ridiculously long range (300nm). Anti-ship missiles and shore based launchers are hugely inexpensive when compared against the cost of a warship and the training for all the crew. *How many modern missiles could a modern warship handle before their defensive systems were overloaded?* You really only need one or two to get through and you've guaranteed a mission kill on most modern warships.
> 
> Maybe we should be rethinking the whole concept of warships?


The APAR/Smart-L combination, but mainly the APAR was able to handle 32 targets at once with 16 in the terminal phase simultaneously but then it was upgraded and that number has now gone up. I read somewhere that the system is now only limited by the number of missiles in the launchers but I have been unable to confirm this information.


----------



## Lumber

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The APAR/Smart-L combination, but mainly the APAR was able to handle 32 targets at once with 16 in the terminal phase simultaneously but then it was upgraded and that number has now gone up. I read somewhere that the system is now only limited by the number of missiles in the launchers but I have been unable to confirm this information.



Tracking 32 supersonic targets is one thing; hitting 32 supersonic missiles in the middle of their high-g weave with your own supersonic point defence missiles is a whole other bag. The APAR/SMART-L combo uses SM-2s, which are semi-active missiles which still require illumination for terminal guidance. 

Even with the PAAMS system, which uses active seeker head Aster missiles, that's still a problem. 32 Anti-ship missiles clustered together is going to make ite extremely difficult for each counter missile to find it's target.


----------



## George Wallace

Reality and Hollywood; two different things.


----------



## Lumber

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Reality and Hollywood; two different things.



Reality and the BAE/Thales/Lockheed Martin/Raytheon brochure; two different things.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lumber said:
			
		

> Reality and the BAE/Thales/Lockheed Martin/Raytheon brochure; two different things.



:rofl:

Add Irving to that mix too.


----------



## Thumper81

Lumber said:
			
		

> Tracking 32 supersonic targets is one thing; hitting 32 supersonic missiles in the middle of their high-g weave with your own supersonic point defence missiles is a whole other bag. The APAR/SMART-L combo uses SM-2s, which are semi-active missiles which still require illumination for terminal guidance.
> 
> Even with the PAAMS system, which uses active seeker head Aster missiles, that's still a problem. 32 Anti-ship missiles clustered together is going to make ite extremely difficult for each counter missile to find it's target.



Lumber,

APAR also provides the illumination of the targets with the Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination technique.  So when it's doing target tracking it switches over to illumination and then back to tracking.  That's why you don't see separate fire-control radars with CWI on the De Zeven Provinciën and Sachsen class AAW frigates which have APAR.  You don't need them.  APAR will do all of that as well as splash (gun fire) spotting.


----------



## Lumber

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> Lumber,
> 
> APAR also provides the illumination of the targets with the Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination technique.  So when it's doing target tracking it switches over to illumination and then back to tracking.  That's why you don't see separate fire-control radars with CWI on the De Zeven Provinciën and Sachsen class AAW frigates which have APAR.  You don't need them.  APAR will do all of that as well as splash (gun fire) spotting.



My point about illumination wasn't a concern about "where's the source of the illumination?", it was a point about some of the draw back of illumination. 

If you light up a cluster of 32 missiles with your illuminators, I'm willing to bet that your counter missiles aren't going to hit anything at all. Your missiles will get so confused by all of the radar returns, they'll just give up and take a nap in the ocean.


----------



## Halifax Tar

A fully loaded CPF only carries 24 missiles.  8 of them being the Harpoon.  

Even if the other 16 all found their mark that still leave 16 for the EW and decoy systems, CIWS and 57mm... 

It doesn't sound like a happy ending for the CPF. 

Sorry I know I am sort of out of my lane, me being a Navy Storesman and not an ops type, but I have always felt our CPFs would either become floating hulks, after we made first contact, or we would be useless and need to RTB and rearm after we fired off our volley of missiles. 

Just my uneducated thoughts...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

While I share Lumber's view of counter-missile's deportment in a saturated environment, I have to say that, even in a near-peer conflict, the chance of encountering so many missiles fired at a single ship is pretty low to inexistent. 

I am relying here on the number of missiles found on board near peers warships and the number of air launched/shore launched missiles available to such enemy. For instance, look at Halifax Tar's post below: As he states, the HAL's carry eight SSMs. However, about 98% of warships in the world only carry 8 SSMs or less. So to mount an attack of 32 SSM against a single frigate, they would have to have four ships attacking a single frigate simultaneously. what are the chances of such an engagement occurring?

Much more likely is that such a large number of missiles would only be used against a large force, such a carrier battle group, etc. in which case the missiles would split their attention between the various ships, who would themselves concentrate on their portion of the battle. There would be leakers but not a catastrophic situation as the one described here (32 missiles to a single ship with its counter-missiles confused).

I remind you again: The fact that an anti-ship missile has a 300 km range does not mean they can actually be launched effectively at 300 km. Also, with missiles, there is a tendency to be more careful in the expenditure of ammunition - both because they are very expansive and because you probably need to keep some on hand for your return to base as you can't reload at sea (except the US, partly) - unlike shells.


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> While I share Lumber's view of counter-missile's deportment in a saturated environment, I have to say that, even in a near-peer conflict, the chance of encountering so many missiles fired at a single ship is pretty low to inexistent.



Agree 100%. This just goes back to my post that Reality and "the Brochure" are not the same thing. I'm not impressed by a claim that "Our AA system can shoot track and illuminate 32 targets at once", because first, that probably won't ever happen, and second, tracking/illuminating a target and hitting a target; two different things.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Would an air threat not be a scenario where 32 missiles could be launched.  

I am assuming most attack aircraft can carry 4 missiles (at least) so that makes for 8 attacking aircraft.  

A much more plausible situation if you encounter an appropriately equipped and determined enemy. 

Agreed; that a CPF found alone in an open conflict is probably not a probable real world scenario as they are meant to integrate into battle groups, yes ?  Thus bringing the full weight of that BGs offensive and defensive capability into play.


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Would an air threat not be a scenario where 32 missiles could be launched.
> 
> I am assuming most attack aircraft can carry 4 missiles (at least) so that makes for 8 attacking aircraft.
> 
> A much more plausible situation if you encounter an appropriately equipped and determined enemy.
> 
> Agreed; that a CPF found alone in an open conflict is probably not a probable real world scenario as they are meant to integrate into battle groups, yes ?  Thus bringing the full weight of that BGs offensive and defensive capability into play.



It doesn't even need to be a full CBG.

Consider: when not in open conflict, USN Carriers often sail with just one Tico covering them (I like to call them their guard dog). In this scenario, you'd have only one AAW ship available to cover the carrier, and they _would_ need to be able to shoot down numerous missiles at the same time to protect the carrier.  Would it be 32? Probably not. If the US isn't in a full scale shooting war, then chances of some terrorist/non-state actor/rogue element getting their hands on 32 anti-ship missiles is very low. If the US _was_ in a full scale shooting war, then they wouldn't be alone with only a Tico covering them; they'd probably have the whole CBG in close proximity.




			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Agreed; that a CPF found alone in an open conflict is probably not a probable real world scenario as they are meant to integrate into battle groups, yes ?



Yes, and no. We're trained to integrate into battle groups, but first, from my experience, we don't do it very well, and second, our area-Air Defence capability is next to non-existent. The ESSMs on CPFs are meant for point defence; they are meant to protect the CPF, not to shoot missiles threatening _other_ units (this is an update form the original Sea Sparrows, which could only shoot something down if it was coming straight at you). 

A destroyer, may they rest in peace, could have shot down incoming missiles even if they were positioned on the opposite side of the carrier from where the missiles are coming from. CPFs, not the same story. If we tried, there would be a whole bunch of shrapnel holes and pissed off yanks aboard the carrier.


----------



## AlexanderM

I believe this is regarding the updated system, the old system could lock onto 32 targets with 16 in terminal phase, notice now it is only limited by the number of missiles in the launchers.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/tha0029_datasheet_apar_hr.pdf

Here's the quote.

Multiple semi-active radar
homing missiles in flight
simultaneously, number only
limited by launcher capacity

In this article we see reference to the APAR Block II and the Canadian CSC program.  I realize we don't have a war handy to prove this system against multiple incoming threats, and the system is still evolving which will be on a continuous basis, but what system has proved itself against multiple threats? 

http://www.janes.com/article/60639/phased-array-radar-scans-canadian-surface-combatant-cansec2016d1

I posted this in the other thread, but this is the type of overall system we are trying to achieve, where one ship with an excellent system can link up with other ships and direct the fire of their missiles, can be in any battle group.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/netherlands/defence/press-release/excellent-performance-hms-de-zeven-provincien-international-0


----------



## Cloud Cover

So neither FELEX or the HCM follow on projects upgrade the CPF the Mk 48 Mod 0 Launcher, even though they opted for the ESSM? I thought one of the primary benefits of the ESSM (other than it is by far a better missile) was that the modifications to the launcher could allow for 4 x ESSM in the same space as 1 x RIM 7 missile.


----------



## AlexanderM

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> So neither FELEX or the HCM follow on projects upgrade the CPF the Mk 48 Mod 0 Launcher, even though they opted for the ESSM? I thought one of the primary benefits of the ESSM (other than it is by far a better missile) was that the modifications to the launcher could allow for 4 x ESSM in the same space as 1 x RIM 7 missile.


I know that 4 ESSM's fit in one MK41 launch tube in place of say one SM2, but that's the only 4 to 1 ratio that I'm aware of.


----------



## Thumper81

From what I saw from the Mk 48 GMVLS info was that two ESSM's can take the place of one sea sparrow.


----------



## Lumber

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> From what I saw from the Mk 48 GMVLS info was that two ESSM's can take the place of one sea sparrow.



Yes, but we didn't get that upgrade. They just packed 1 ESSM into the same launcher as the SSM (Mk48 GMVLS Mk0). What they do with all the extra space around the missile, I don't know.. So, potential for 32 PD missiles, but in reality only 16. 

Just enough to make you "feel" like you're safe...


----------



## blacktriangle

Just enough emitters/infrared sources to paint a giant target for enemy subs and national level systems...

 ;D


----------



## AlexanderM

32 ESSM's per CPF would have been a nice upgrade, should have happened.

This link is to an article that has a video containing a segment in which HMCS Montreal fires a couple of ESSM's, just if anyone is interested.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/netherlands/defence/press-release/excellent-performance-hms-de-zeven-provincien-international-0

This may be the future of taking out incoming missiles, as soon as they have systems with a power ratings over 100kW it will start to get interesting, and more applicable to warships.

http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/army-truck-shoots-drones-mortars-lasers

and

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45465025/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/new-vehicle-laser-blows-everything/#.V7XtwZgrLcc


----------



## CougarKing

Progress?

Chronicle Herald



> *Irving issues warship RFPs — sub-trades invited to make proposals for design, systems*
> ANDREA GUNN OTTAWA BUREAU
> Published August 19, 2016 - 4:22pm
> 
> The request for proposals for Canada’s new fleet of warships will be out within weeks.
> 
> Lisa Campbell, Assistant Deputy Minister of Defence and Marine Procurement at Public Services and Procurement Canada confirmed to the The Chronicle Herald Wednesday that Irving Shipbuilding — the prime contractor for the combat package of the National Shipbuilding Strategy and builder of the new Canadian Surface Combatants — will issue the final combined request for proposal (RFP) for a warship design and combat systems before the end of the summer.
> 
> This comes following what is expected to be final industry engagement meetings that took place in Halifax this week.
> 
> At the meeting, the 12 prequalified firms, or shortlisted request for proposal respondents — among them industry giants like Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, ThyssenKrupp, Navantia and DCNS — were given the final draft of the massive, 1,500 plus page proposal documents ahead of receiving the final version likely sometime in September. More than 80 suppliers have also been involved in a number of industry engagement meetings that haven't taken place in the last year.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Kirkhill

Sub-trades, eh?

Sounds like a contract for my new patio....


----------



## Kirkhill

Lessons learned from the F35 program.



> One lesson to takeaway is leadership. The program’s first 18 years saw nine directors. The military’s habit of swapping out program managers every three years to accommodate officer career paths just doesn’t work with a long, complex acquisition process, he added.
> 
> After the Defense Department recognized this, it installed Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan as the director, and has kept him in the position.
> 
> “The single biggest requirement [for a program like the F-35] becomes competent, long-tenured leadership,” Venable wrote.



http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/september/Pages/AirForceF35ProponentsStrikeBackatCritics.aspx


----------



## jmt18325

OFSV #1 is starting to look like a ship:

http://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries/nss-photo-gallery-ofsv1


----------



## Colin Parkinson

yes saw that yesterday, looking good, even though I live not far from them, I have yet to see a lift on the crane. (My daughters class got to name it)


----------



## CougarKing

A look at Davie's changing fortunes:

Montreal Gazette



> *Formerly adrift, the Davie shipyard in Lévis rides a rising tide*
> Mark Cardwell, Special to Montreal Gazette
> 
> Published on: September 30, 2016 | Last Updated: September 30, 2016 3:46 PM EDT
> 
> 
> LÉVIS — Four years ago, most people wouldn’t have paid a plug nickel for the Davie shipyard.
> 
> Awash in red ink, manned by a skeleton crew and adrift after a failed and controversial bid to land some of the $35 billion in federal contracts awarded under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, the once-proud yard appeared headed for the business-world equivalent of Davy Jones’s Locker.
> 
> But a troika of brash British entrepreneurs saw opportunity in the pending financial shipwreck on the east end of this small city on the south shore of the St-Lawrence River, directly opposite Quebec City.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Futher to the Davie post above,
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1457546.html#msg1457546

it looks like some trial balloons are being floated (via Michael den Tandt of Postmedia)--plus some wild-assed speculation on my own:



> RCN, Canadian Coast Guard: Big Changes for Government’s Shipbuilding “Strategy”?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/mark-collins-rcn-canadian-coast-guard-big-changes-for-governments-shipbuilding-strategy/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Futher to the Davie post above,
> http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1457546.html#msg1457546
> 
> it looks like some trial balloons are being floated (via Michael den Tandt of Postmedia)--plus some wild-assed speculation on my own:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Jeez, don't you just hate it when you have to tell folks you were right all along?   ;D

So lets suppose that Aker (who not only designed the Diefenbaker PI but also the AOPS's currently being built by Irving - and who have been known on the west coast as Aker, Kvaerner, STX Marine and now Vard and are Tier 1 suppliers of Design and Engineering to Seaspan and involved in supplying the OFSVs and OOSVs - and who designed CCGV Leonard J. Cowley) actually got to build the vessels that they designed.  Would that be such a bad thing?

And tell me again why Irving got the AOPSs when all the preliminary work had been done on the West Coast?

Aker also built the Svalbard - the original AOPS - and builds OPVs for the Norwegian Coast Guard - like the Harstad.

So let's suppose you were planning on exporting oil and gas off of a rocky green coast defined by lots of fjords - and you wanted to build a fleet of tenders to keep the tankers safe and the waters clean - and you wanted to ensure the air was kept as clean as possible by keeping carbon emissions to a minimum through the use of natural gas as a fuel - who would you call?

Trial balloons?

BC - you get to sell your natural gas
We, the feds, will build you a fleet of tenders manned by the Coast Guard (with new native crews?)
You, BC will then accede to AB oil being shipped from your ports - from which you will collect revenue.
AB, you get tidewater
BC, you also get to sell "clean" electricity to AB to reduce their carbon cost of extraction.


----------



## jmt18325

Building offshore is very unlikely (except perhaps in the way that Australia does - part offshore and finishing work at home).  Building at Davie - far more likely.


----------



## Kirkhill

Which then opens up the West Coast for building Aker designs.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Compare with Canada:



> Norway to build three Arctic patrol vessels
> 
> Norway is to fast-track the acquisition of three new coastguard vessels to replace the current Nordkapp-class [57mm gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordkapp-class_offshore_patrol_vessel ],
> the country's prime minister has announced.
> 
> Construction will start in 2018, with delivery between 2021 and 2023. The ships, which will be built simultaneously, are planned to feature ice-breaking capabilities, an increased sailing range, and helicopter hangars.
> 
> While the new class's final specifications are yet to be determined, Birgitte Frisch of Norway's Ministry of Defence told IHS Jane's on 4 October that operational requirements include "the necessary stability to carry [out] boat and helicopter operations in Arctic waters".
> 
> They will have an additional wartime role to participate in naval and support operations, she said.
> http://www.janes.com/article/64360/norway-to-build-three-arctic-patrol-vessels



Around half the size of the A/OPS?  But still:

RCN A/OPS announced in 2007, only now under construction:
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?crtr.sj1D=&mthd=advSrch&crtr.mnthndVl=&nid=335789&crtr.dpt1D=&crtr.tp1D=&crtr.lc1D=&crtr.yrStrtVl=2008&crtr.kw=&crtr.dyStrtVl=26&crtr.aud1D=&crtr.mnthStrtVl=2&crtr.yrndVl=&crtr.dyndVl=

First delivery 2018?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/irving-arctic-patrol-ship-kevin-mccoy-shipbuilding-1.3751563

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

a good reminder on going to light http://gcaptain.com/photos-show-catastrophic-damage-to-hsv-swift-following-missile-attack/?utm_campaign=Roost&utm_source=Roost&utm_medium=push


----------



## jollyjacktar

Another reason why building naval ships to commercial standards is stupid, too.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I believe she was an all-aluminium construction - a material that western navies abandoned for military vessels after the Falkland conflict because it's combustion temperature is too low in relation to the intensity resulting form the types of fires that modern missiles can cause.


----------



## FSTO

Took that ship from Dili to Darwin during OP TOUCAN back at the turn of the century. She actually came alongside us while we (PROTECTEUR) was at anchor in Dili Harbour to refuel.

My fav blog has a good story on the attack and the resulting discussion regarding operations in the littoral. 

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-near-death-nature-of-near-shore.html


----------



## AlexanderM

FSTO said:
			
		

> Took that ship from Dili to Darwin during OP TOUCAN back at the turn of the century. She actually came alongside us while we (PROTECTEUR) was at anchor in Dili Harbour to refuel.
> 
> My fav blog has a good story on the attack and the resulting discussion regarding operations in the littoral.
> 
> http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-near-death-nature-of-near-shore.html


The article brings up the issue of the time it takes to engage at such close range, when there is almost no time, but did that ship have any missile defense systems?  Point being, are there not systems that can respond quickly, but then one has to have them?


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> a good reminder on going to light http://gcaptain.com/photos-show-catastrophic-damage-to-hsv-swift-following-missile-attack/?utm_campaign=Roost&utm_source=Roost&utm_medium=push



A good reminder of horses for courses.  Set aside that this vessel was leased for civilian purposes from a civilian company and operated by a civilian company.

You might as well argue for keeping RHIBs out of the water.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In that region it goes like this: "Your either on our side, or your the enemy, we don't care if your a civilian, leased or just visiting this planet..."


----------



## Kirkhill

True dat...

But it doesn't change the fact that the vessel itself is not the problem.  Inflatable rhibs, wooden dhows, aluminum ferries, steel oil tankers.  None them are immune and all of them use those waters.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Chris, at least three of those steel hulled (steel everything really) tankers, that I know of, made it to their final destination during Gulf War I to find out that they had actually hit mines in the Gulf without noticing, and with little damage to show for it.

I know the characteristics of the missiles that allegedly hit the old HSV-2 in the present case and, IMHO, they would have just bounced off oil tanker's hulls without anybody feeling the least thing, other than seeing a small (by tankers standard) ball of flames along the hull followed by ... nothing. And they would have just kept on going.

In fact, I suspect that type of missile, allegedly used, would have done little damage to any Western frigate.

And AlexanderM: Yes, self-defence systems, such as decoys or point-defence system (such as a Phalanx) would likely have saved that ship, had they been equipped with it. But there is one caveat here: in mid-ocean, we can put these systems on full automatic and the reaction time is excellent. In close waters of the littoral, in an area with some air activity in particular, a human must be in the loop  to avoid accidents - and that means that the reaction time and actual shooting down of the oncoming missile is delayed by that much, with potential consequences. It probably cuts your timely reaction time by half.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

More info on the Swift attack and on the latest attack on the USN https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-mason-fired-3-missiles-to-defend-from-yemen-cruise-missiles-attack


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> More info on the Swift attack and on the latest attack on the USN https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-mason-fired-3-missiles-to-defend-from-yemen-cruise-missiles-attack



Make me curious just how close that first missile got if they fired both SM-2s and an ESSM. (If they fired an ESSM, then pretty damn close!)

If they needed to fire an ESSM, what does say about the efficacy of the SM-2, especially against C-802s?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Methinks there is a lot of people scurrying around looking at what has happened and what is happening. None them will or should divulge lessons learned, we can only hope they are learning and adapting.


----------



## jollyjacktar

An excellent article on some of the innovations and economic spin offs of our shipbuilding industry, CPF in particular. 

Canadian Naval Technology
Earns Global Sales


----------



## Good2Golf

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> An excellent article on some of the innovations and economic spin offs of our shipbuilding industry, CPF in particular.
> 
> Canadian Naval Technology
> Earns Global Sales



Thanks for that link...very interesting.  I didn't know about the maritime origin of Davis Engineering's IRSS; I thought  was aerospace based.  Cool.

Regards
G2G


----------



## MilEME09

and there off,



> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-replacement-competition-1.3812705
> 
> 
> 
> The Trudeau government is now ready to solicit bids from defence contractors interested in designing and equipping Canada's next generation of combat ships.
> 
> And it is demanding an extraordinary amount of detail and data from those companies, some of which have waited years for the program to get underway.
> 
> Even before the ink is dry on the proposal request, there are concerns among some bidders about how much Canadian content will end up in the new surface combat ships.
> 
> The federal cabinet has given the green light to release a long-anticipated request for proposals for an off-the-shelf warship design and combat systems.
> 
> Pre-qualified defence companies are expected to receive their packages on Thursday and the government is anticipated to follow up with a technical briefing to explain the details to the public.
> 
> The bidders have until April 27 to submit their plans to Irving Shipbuilding Inc., which was selected in 2015 as the prime contractor.
> 
> The Halifax-based company is the federal government's go-to yard for combat ships under the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
> 
> CBC News has obtained partial extracts of the draft request for proposal, which has been the subject of intense backroom debate among potential bidders.
> 
> The document — dated Oct. 9, 2016 — asks for an exceptional amount of detail and clearly displays the amount of control Irving is exercising over the bidders and potential subcontractors.
> High stakes for taxpayers
> 
> The stakes for Canadian taxpayers are enormous and the Liberal government has wrestled, since coming to power a year ago, to get a handle on the project, expected to be the most expensive under the umbrella of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
> 
> Internal estimates produced last year in the transition between the Conservative and Liberal governments suggest the construction cost for 15 warships could exceed $40 billion. In addition, another $60 billion — or more — could be added to the price tag when lifetime maintenance and staffing requirements going decades into the future are considered, as the auditor general has insisted.
> 
> Public Works Minister Judy Foote said last May the government won't release a cost estimate until there is a signed contract in the program, which is expected to be the largest procurement in Canadian history.
> 
> The cone of silence also extends to the draft request for proposals, which prohibits bidders and their subcontractors from talking to the media about the project, unless they receive written approval from Irving.
> 
> There's also an attempt to keep a lid on the cutthroat competition.
> 
> "Neither the bidders, nor any of their respective subcontractors, employees or representatives shall make any public comment, respond to questions in a public forum or carry out any activities to either criticize another bidder or any bid — or publicly advertise their qualifications," said the proposal, obtained by CBC News.
> 
> The navy is looking for a warship with the capability of hunting submarines, but also defending against enemy aircraft and missiles. It is expected to be swift enough to keep up with U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups and be armed with both a single 127-millimetre gun and surface-to-surface missiles of its own.
> 
> The new surface combatants will also carry up to 200 sailors and have the deck space available to allow for the conduct of humanitarian missions, such as the at-sea rescue of migrants.
> 
> The Liberals, like the Conservatives before them, have also not committed to building a specific number of warships, which are not expected to enter service until the mid-2020s.
> 
> Rather than designing a replacement for the navy's patrol frigates from scratch, the government chose last spring to go with a proven warship design from another country.
> 
> Expected bidders include:
> 
> Alion-JJMA Corp. (U.S.).
> Lockheed Martin (U.S.).
> BAE Systems Surface Ships Ltd. (Britain).
> DCNS (France).
> Fincantieri (Spain).
> Navantia (Spain).
> Odense Maritime Technology (Denmark).
> ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (Germany).
> 
> Some are ship designers, while other build electronics.
> Backroom battles
> 
> There have been numerous backroom brawls leading up to the release of the request for proposals, including concerns about how much high-end Canadian-made electronics — known as systems integration — will go into the new warships.
> 
> Sources, who are close to the file but only able to speak on background, tell CBC News that L-3 Communications Canada has written a letter, supported by some of the other bidders, warning the government no significant Canadian content — radar, sonar and communications — will end up in the surface combatants unless the foreign designers are forced to work with a company from this country.
> 
> The evaluation process, however, gives points to companies with higher Canadian content.
> 
> The request for proposals demands that each bidder supply an eye-watering amount of detail, including the number of "fasteners" that would be used to build each ship, including all anchors, bolts, nails, nuts, rivets and rods. The government also wants part numbers and descriptions about what tools will be used.
> 
> Some contractors see it as "an utterly incredible request," according to sources, who say "a lot of trees will die" in order to supply paper for the presentation. Some of the companies that bid on the air force's fixed-wing search and rescue plane program last January faced similar demands for detail, to the point where two bidders hired moving vans just to deliver their presentations to Public Works.
> 
> But officials working on the warship program insist — since it is an off-the-shelf design — each bidder should have all of that detailed information at their fingertips and it helps refine cost projections.
> 
> There has been a bruising fight over the federal government's demand that each contractor hand over intellectual property rights or all of the foreground and background data that goes into each design. An earlier draft of the plan said bidders would be disqualified if they failed to do so, but federal officials have agreed to a compromise.
> 
> The issue is of enormous importance because of the lucrative long-term maintenance contracts that will follow the construction.
> 
> If the government doesn't get the right deal, it could cost taxpayers untold hundreds of millions of dollars down the road in licensing fees, and might even restrict the military's ability to update and use its own equipment.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To deliver the proper aid packages on Humanitarian missions you really need a 155mm gun.

Seaspan advises it's OFSV is at 50% complete for the first ship, 12% for the 2nd, the 3rd one will start late 2016 and layout and planning underway for the Science vessel.


----------



## tabernac

[quote author=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-replacement-competition-1.3812705]
The navy is looking for a warship with the capability of hunting submarines, but also defending against enemy aircraft and missiles. It is expected to be swift enough to keep up with U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups and be armed with both a single 127-millimetre gun and surface-to-surface missiles of its own. The new surface combatants will also carry up to 200 sailors and have the deck space available to allow for the conduct of humanitarian missions, such as the at-sea rescue of migrants. 
[/quote]

Interesting. This is the first I've heard of tangible requirements for the CSC being published in the media. On the surface, it appears a cross of OMT's Iver Huifeldt combat systems equipment fit with Absalon's A mount and flex deck would fit the bill.


----------



## Lumber

Blah blah blah blah blah blah *127mm GUN!!! *blah blah blah blah blah.

This is how I saw the article.


----------



## jmt18325

Funny - me too.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, if these are the overall requirements, and the intent is still for a "off-the-shelf" design - which explains why the listing must be detailed to the point of having the exact number of attachments (a ridiculous idea that can only come from a ignorant builder, like Irving) - as they supposedly "have already built one", then they will have failed because the combination of these requirements eliminate everybody.

I also note that there does not seem to be a call for two different variants - a GP variant and then a Command/AAD version, as was originally envisaged. Also, there is no mention of any capacity to operate in ice: wasn't that supposed to be a future Canadian requirement for all warships?

Anyway, assuming the following are the models proposed by the various bidders, let's see how they meet or fail to meet some requirements:

BAE --> Type 26 (or type 45?)
DCNS --> FREMM or Horizon
Fincantieri --> FREMM or Horizon, Italian versions.
Navantia --> F100 or Hobart
Odense --> Iver Huitfeldt
Thyssen Grup --> Type 125

Out of that group, only the following have a 127 mm/5 inch gun: Type 26, Type 45, Italian FREMM - GP version only, F100, Hobart.

But you have to add the requirement of keeping up with US aircraft carrier groups. This means speed of 30 Kts (the Americans would probably prefer something closer to the Arleigh Burke's 34 Kts sustained speed capability). For inclusion's sake, I will accept those who advertise a speed of 29+ Kts.

In the group with a 127/5 gun, the only one with a speed of 29 Kts + is Fincantieri's FREMM - but that is for the GP version only, which has a limited ASW suite, and cannot meet the requirement for a "humanitarian mission deck".

In fact, the Iver Huitfeld would probably be the easiest one of all these to adapt for  a 127 mm gun in lieu of its 76 mm one, but it would have to be moved forward and lower. And the IH has the speed required (only one rated at 30 Kts out of the lot). However, if you marry it to the Abalone's flex deck for humanitarian relief, then you lose four knots and can't keep up with the US, and you also have to drop the ASW suite. Otherwise, you don't have the room to accommodate the flex deck. The Type 26 would be close to all the requirements if it wasn't for it's speed, which is way too low at 26 Kts. Improving with more powerful engines and associated gearboxes would be a complex matter, and likely expansive.

Ergo, my conclusion that, contrary to advertised intent, any proposal by the bidders will, by necessity, require a modified version of what they already have built, with the consequence that they won't be as precise as Irving may want them to be. And that's only for a few major requirements.  The detailed requirements will necessarily require changes to any of the designs thatch be proposed by these bidders, if only for things like shipboard fire fighting fitted systems (the Europeans don't use the same sizes as we do), or the electrical distribution systems (we use 125 v, they use 230 v.), etc.


----------



## Journeyman

> The new surface combatants will also carry up to 200 sailors...


Palletized?   op:


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ..., only the following have a 127 mm/5 inch gun: Type 26, Type 45, Italian FREMM - GP version only, F100, Hobart.
> 
> Iver Huitfeldt is fitted for the 5"
> https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Huitfeldt-klassen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This frigate is also armed with two OTO Melara 76-mm guns. Also there is a single 35-mm Oerlikon Millennium Close-In Weapon System (CIWS). The last mentioned is an advanced weapon system. It has a rate of fire of a whooping 1 000 rpm and uses special air-burst ammunition to destroy incoming missiles. It is planned that in the future the two 76-mm guns will be replaced by a more potent *127-mm gun* and additional 35-mm CIWS.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.military-today.com/navy/iver_huitfeldt_class.htm
> 
> ....
> 
> In the group with a 127/5 gun, the only one with a speed of 29 Kts + is Fincantieri's FREMM - but that is for the GP version only, which has a limited ASW suite, and cannot meet the requirement for a "humanitarian mission deck".
> 
> In fact, the Iver Huitfeld would probably be the easiest one of all these to adapt for  a 127 mm gun in lieu of its 76 mm one, but it would have to be moved forward and lower. And the IH has the speed required (only one rated at 30 Kts out of the lot). However, if you marry it to the Abalone's flex deck for humanitarian relief, then you lose four knots and can't keep up with the US, and you also have to drop the ASW suite. Otherwise, you don't have the room to accommodate the flex deck. The Type 26 would be close to all the requirements if it wasn't for it's speed, which is way too low at 26 Kts. Improving with more powerful engines and associated gearboxes would be a complex matter, and likely expansive.
> 
> Ergo, my conclusion that, contrary to advertised intent, any proposal by the bidders will, by necessity, require a modified version of what they already have built, with the consequence that they won't be as precise as Irving may want them to be. And that's only for a few major requirements.  The detailed requirements will necessarily require changes to any of the designs thatch be proposed by these bidders, if only for things like shipboard fire fighting fitted systems (the Europeans don't use the same sizes as we do), or the electrical distribution systems (we use 125 v, they use 230 v.), etc.
Click to expand...



Odense Maritime Technology (Iver Huitfeldt)



> Odense Maritime Technology (OMT) -- Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture Provider
> Responsible for the engineering, design and integration of all aspects of the AOPS with the exception of propulsion, and command and surveillance systems


http://www.irvingshipbuilding.com/irving-shipbuilding-supplires-aops-subcontractors.aspx

Do you lose 4 knots because Absalon has the flex deck or because she only has half the engines that the Huitfeldt has 

Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8,2 MW each vs two of the same engines?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The four knots are lost as a result of having half the engines but it leads to using a lesser strength of steel on the Absalon than on the Ivar Huitfeldt.

However, on the Absaslon, the second engine room (with the other two engines and one larger DG) is used as mess decks for habitation. On the Ivar Huitfeldt, these mess decks are pushed into the flex deck area. Similarly, the ASW systems at the stern of the IH take some of the room of the flex deck. Finally, the Absalon does not have a traversing system for the helicopters - IH does and obviously, to operate a large helicopter such as the Canadian CH-148 Cyclone in the North Atlantic for ASW, you need the traversing gear and the air stores and shops. All these take the rest of the flex deck room.

BTW, the IH is not "fitted for" the 5 inch gun. There is an intention (and some of the sub-systems are located to help) of replacing the two 76 mm guns with a single 5 inch gun at a later time. But it's one or the other and the 5 inch gun is not as good as two 76 mm guns for anti-air defence or for asymmetrical warfare against small high speed boats. The 5 inch gun is obviously superior for surface warfare against large armed ship and for naval gun support of troops on shore. Either is a compromise, but the IH cannot have both a 5 inch and retain one 76 mm.

There is another aspect, and I don't know to what extent it would come into play because the requirement to work with a US carrier group seems something new, but with four diesels instead of gas turbines for higher speeds, the IH has a considerably slower acceleration / braking power curve and those are two extremely important aspects when operating with American carriers (lest one wishes to be runneth over). I don't know how that would affect the evaluation.

Finally, if you look at what Odense is doing for the AOPS, when you eliminate propulsion, command and surveillance system, it basically is providing the architecture work for the hull and living spaces, period. I would not necessarily see that as a leg up on the others. I hope that ultimately, it is the Canadian government and the Navy who decides the design it wants, not Irving. (in which case we would get the design that Irving can produce with the greatest differential between it's real low cost and how much - based on looks and gobbledygook - Irving can get the government to agree to spend, including all "justifiable" extras  :nod.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I find it odd that Davie does not show the progress on the Resolve Class AOR? According to their schedule, sometime next year it should be ready.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The four knots are lost as a result of having half the engines but it leads to using a lesser strength of steel on the Absalon than on the Ivar Huitfeldt.
> 
> However, on the Absaslon, the second engine room (with the other two engines and one larger DG) is used as mess decks for habitation. On the Ivar Huitfeldt, these mess decks are pushed into the flex deck area. Similarly, the ASW systems at the stern of the IH take some of the room of the flex deck. Finally, the Absalon does not have a traversing system for the helicopters - IH does and obviously, to operate a large helicopter such as the Canadian CH-148 Cyclone in the North Atlantic for ASW, you need the traversing gear and the air stores and shops. All these take the rest of the flex deck room.
> 
> BTW, the IH is not "fitted for" the 5 inch gun. There is an intention (and some of the sub-systems are located to help) of replacing the two 76 mm guns with a single 5 inch gun at a later time. But it's one or the other and the 5 inch gun is not as good as two 76 mm guns for anti-air defence or for asymmetrical warfare against small high speed boats. The 5 inch gun is obviously superior for surface warfare against large armed ship and for naval gun support of troops on shore. Either is a compromise, but the IH cannot have both a 5 inch and retain one 76 mm.
> 
> There is another aspect, and I don't know to what extent it would come into play because the requirement to work with a US carrier group seems something new, but with four diesels instead of gas turbines for higher speeds, the IH has a considerably slower acceleration / braking power curve and those are two extremely important aspects when operating with American carriers (lest one wishes to be runneth over). I don't know how that would affect the evaluation.
> 
> Finally, if you look at what Odense is doing for the AOPS, when you eliminate propulsion, command and surveillance system, it basically is providing the architecture work for the hull and living spaces, period. I would not necessarily see that as a leg up on the others. I hope that ultimately, it is the Canadian government and the Navy who decides the design it wants, not Irving. (in which case we would get the design that Irving can produce with the greatest differential between it's real low cost and how much - based on looks and gobbledygook - Irving can get the government to agree to spend, including all "justifiable" extras  :nod.



Thanks OGBD.

Devilish details.

I have been working from this information:



> Additional Notes
> The foredeck (A-position) is prepared for an installation of a 127 mm Gun Mk M/02 LvSa (5” Mk 45 Mod 4), the B-position is containerized and can eventually be fitted with an additional 35 mm CIWS Mk M/04 LvSa.



http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/IverHuitfeldt_Class(2012).htm

As to what OMT is providing - I would hope that it's scope of supply would include project management and scheduling.  Because that is what enabled OMT to build the vessels rapidly and cost-efffectively at a civilian yard.....Which may prove your point.  They are doing it the Irving way instead.


----------



## Lumber

I'm not sure I understand why there has to be so much compromise...

The CPFs fit all of the requirements listed, with the exception of having a 5" gun, and not having extra space for "Humanitarian" assistance. Otherwise, they're good at hunting subs, swift enough to keep up with U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups (trust me, been there), and armed with the best surface-to-surface missiles that we can get.

If I recall, wasn't there a plan in the 90s for the first 3 in the Halifax-class to have an extra watertight section? That could be used for "humanitarian" assistance packages. As for the 5" gun requirement, I'm not naval architect; how much work would it be to lengthen the focsle, add some structural reinforcements, and tack on a 5" in place of the 57mm?

What I'm getting at is... Halifax-Class 2.0?


----------



## hugh19

No the extension was for a Mk 41 VLS.  No you can't replace a 57mm with a 127mm without major mods and losing mess deck space. 127mm penetrate the deck the 57 doesn't


----------



## Lumber

sledge said:
			
		

> No the extension was for a Mk 41 VLS.  No you can't replace a 57mm with a 127mm without major mods and losing mess deck space. 127mm penetrate the deck the 57 doesn't



I didn't mean modify an existing Halifax-class. I meant have a warship designed that is basically the CPF, but with a slight longer focsle to accommodate a 127mm, and an added section in the middle for additional "humanitarian" space. Then build that ship from the ground up.


----------



## YZT580

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand why there has to be so much compromise...
> 
> how much work would it be to lengthen the focsle, add some structural reinforcements, and tack on a 5" in place of the 57mm?
> 
> What I'm getting at is... Halifax-Class 2.0?



Ask a local welder and he'll have it done in a couple of weeks, ask Irving and it will double the cost of the hull and add two years to the development time


----------



## GR66

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> [snip]
> 
> However, on the Absaslon, the second engine room (with the other two engines and one larger DG) is used as mess decks for habitation. On the Ivar Huitfeldt, these mess decks are pushed into the flex deck area. Similarly, the ASW systems at the stern of the IH take some of the room of the flex deck. Finally, the Absalon does not have a traversing system for the helicopters - IH does and obviously, to operate a large helicopter such as the Canadian CH-148 Cyclone in the North Atlantic for ASW, you need the traversing gear and the air stores and shops. All these take the rest of the flex deck room.
> 
> [snip]



My understanding is that the Iver Huitfeldt actually has one less deck than the Absalon, so if you used the IH's lengthened hull c/w ASW system and added back the additional deck of the Absalon (to regain the Flex Deck capability) you could meet most of the requirements listed.  No idea how much the traversing system for the helicopters takes, but would it still leave you enough room for a useable flex deck?  Also, I'm wondering if the re-introduction of an additional deck to the basic IH design might reduce the overall speed even with the 4 x diesel engines.

My reference for this is from:  http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivar-huitfeldt-class/

"The exterior is easily distinguished from Absalon Class as the Iver Huitfeldt is one deck lower, and lacks an internal multipurpose deck (flex deck)."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not quite GR66.

The Absalon's hull is higher by about one deck, but it does not have an extra deck internally. The extra height of the formed hull is required because you need the extra head space to use the flex deck for its purpose. Think of the standard height of a deck or passageway on one of our frigates: you would not be able to fit an army truck, or container, or any other large earth moving equipment for disaster relief in such a low height. so below deck, the flex deck is actually double height to accommodate this type of equipment.

However, if you retain that extra hull height for the "frigate" version, the problem becomes too much top weight and you can't accommodate heavy mast equipment (same reason BTW why the FELEX could not fit the APAR/SMART-L combination Canada would have preferred over the SMART-S).

Again here, if you wish to take part of one and fit it in the other, you run into serious re-design and engineering issues of stability, etc., etc., etc.

All I was saying is, every time you want to modify something from the actual design used, you run into producing something new - even if it looks similar on the outside - and you are not designing "off-the-shelf" anymore, with the consequences on costs saving from "having done it before" being lost.

For instance, from a fitted equipment/flex deck combination point of view, the closest design in the mix would be the Type 26 global frigate, but it's too slow. But to up-engine it for speed would be a major redesign, as aspects such as gearboxes, clutches, cooling systems, hull strength (what class of high tensile steel to use) and so forth are all affected by the power curve of the fitted engines.

As I noted before, nothing in naval engineering/naval architecture is as simple as it may look to outsiders, and little is as "off-the-shelf" as one would like it.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> As I noted before, nothing in naval engineering/naval architecture is as simple as it may look to outsiders, and little is as "off-the-shelf" as one would like it.



I think that largely depends on whether you want a fitted suit or a pair of coveralls.

The more freeboard that you leave in the design the easier it is to incorporate the unexpected.  In which case buying the T45 design and not using all its "capacity" would be a better strategy than buying the T26 design which would be "tight" from the get go.

Having said that - the T45's power and electrics do not tend to give one the "warm-fuzzies".


----------



## quadrapiper

Lumber said:
			
		

> If I recall, wasn't there a plan in the 90s for the first 3 in the Halifax-class to have an extra watertight section? That could be used for "humanitarian" assistance packages. As for the 5" gun requirement, I'm not naval architect; how much work would it be to lengthen the focsle, add some structural reinforcements, and tack on a 5" in place of the 57mm?


Wasn't there also something, very much along this line (new-build stretched CPF), floated by DND as a Halifax replacement late 90s/early 2000s, several iterations of policy before the "new shipbuilding strategy" and the current CSC process?


----------



## Cloud Cover

sledge said:
			
		

> No the extension was for a Mk 41 VLS.  No you can't replace a 57mm with a 127mm without major mods and losing mess deck space. 127mm penetrate the deck the 57 doesn't



Batch 2 design of the CPF program did have an extra 32' in hull length, indeed for the Mk 41 VLS, and the ship was to be fitted with additional systems so that it could function as an AAW fleet defence role. That was cancelled, and the design for the most part reverted back to the Batch 1 design. I think Montreal was the first of the Batch 2 ships. There was, for a brief time in (i think) 1989 or 1990 an idea for a 3rd Batch of 4 (6?) ships that was essentially the stretched version the original design, had a VLS and the same 57mm gun, I recall seeing a proposed design sketch at Black Rock where it had only a flight deck for a helo and no hanger. Anyway, it was either never fully designed, or if it was, it was shelved very quickly thereafter. But,  that type of ship was definitely announced on the parade square at Nelles as a government commitment along with, if you can remember this classic idea- the 2500 tonne corvette known as the _Canadian Surveillance and Sovereignty Enforcement Vessel_.  I think all of this was a little much for Canadian shipyards who were struggling to to produce the CPF on time, had the MCDV on order, were dealing the idea of either nuclear or AIP submarines, refitting the 280's etc. A rare time when there was too much work for the shipyards.  

BTW, in the early 1970's there was an idea put forward (with other options) to replace the _entire_ surface fleet with only 4 ships. Large vessels of 10,000 tonnes with - get this- space and landing spots for 9 helicopters: http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no1/10-haydon-eng.asp

A copy of the concept picture for this vessel was in the Chiefs office at Black Rock, I think he took it with him when he retired in 1987.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The four knots are lost as a result of having half the engines but it leads to using a lesser strength of steel on the Absalon than on the Ivar Huitfeldt.



Rubbish !!....While its true that the Absalon class uses a lower grade base steel than the Huitfeldts, around all of the vital areas of the vessel , ie the CIC, weapons deck, ammo stores, engine control room , bridge , guns etc they use the same thicker armor steel ( ARMOX) as the frigates......and none of it has anything to do with their speed or number of engines. 



> However, on the Absaslon, the second engine room (with the other two engines and one larger DG) is used as mess decks for habitation.



It most certainly isn't......like the frigates, the Absalon has 2 separate engine rooms and with a very similar layout but with only 1 ME and 2 DG in each instead of the 2+2 of the Huitfeldts. 



> On the Ivar Huitfeldt, these mess decks are pushed into the flex deck area


.

Again...no....oh and its _Iv*e*r_ not Ivar !......and lets just get one thing straight ......contrary to what you claim the Absalons does indeed have 1 more deck than the frigates and each of those is somewhat smaller/lower than on the Huitfeldts. So their internal arrangements/layout is actually quite different to each other which is why your statement makes no sense.



> Similarly, the ASW systems at the stern of the IH take some of the room of the flex deck


. 

No...see above.....IH is not fitted with a TAS/VDS system but prepared for one by reserving space for it.....just like on the Absalon. Not in any way shape or form related to the presence or absence of a flex deck!



> Finally, the Absalon does not have a traversing system for the helicopters


Yes it does.....like all helicopter carrying ships in the RDN it is equipped with Mactaggart Scotts TRIGON handling system. 



> BTW, the IH is not "fitted for" the 5 inch gun.



Yes it is!........The only thing needed to fit a MK45 mod 4 is to remove the adapter ring that is used to mount the current 76mm Oto ....everything from the base mount, space beneath the gun , ammo stores and hoists, to electrical interface  etc is designed for and with a 5" gun in mind.



> There is an intention (and some of the sub-systems are located to help) of replacing the two 76 mm guns with a single 5 inch gun at a later time.



Incorrect.....there was an intention to replace the  A position (called P1 in RDN parlor) 76mm gun with a MK45 and then fitting an additional 35mm Millenium CIWS in the B gun position(P2..currently fitted with the other 76mm in a Stan Flex container) , mirroring the fitout on the Absalons.......however those plans seems to have been quietly shelved, partly because the 2x76mm( or 1x76mm+1x35mm) is actually a better fitout for their core AAW role and because the 5 inch with its +$25M pricetag just isn't worth the squeeze for what it does. 



> But it's one or the other ... but the IH cannot have both a 5 inch and retain one 76 mm.



 :facepalm:...Yes it can....ffs!!..at least you are consistently wrong.




> the IH has a considerably slower acceleration / braking power curve


The CODAD propulsion configuration is definitely a compromise, sacrificing a little speed/acceleration for much longer range. Despite this the IH makes the most of their rather modest ~33MW and are actually surprisingly fast and responsive..and in the real world only marginally slower than similar GT equipped warships. 



> and those are two extremely important aspects when *operating with American carrier*s


Which is exactly what the IH frigate HDMS Peter Willemoes will be doing for the next 6+ months as part of CSG2



> Finally, if you look at what Odense is doing for the AOPS, when you eliminate propulsion(you dont ), command and surveillance system, it basically is providing the architecture work for the hull and living spaces


So basically designing an entirely new ship then.....for something that is supposedly based on the Svalbard its funny that the DeWolf has almost nothing in common with the former....its longer, beamier , has much greater displacement, uses (partly) naval build standards not commercial like the Norwegian vessel,  different boat spaces and hangar layout , other weapons and sensors etc ....and looks nothing like the Svalbard in fact .


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Oh and OGBD ....before you try to discredit me again by alluding to my army past , i would like to point out that ..yes ..i was a Lance Corporal in the Danish Army and a technician by trade , working mostly on tanks (Leo 1 and 2 ) . But then i went and got myself a degree in marine engineering and now work as a naval engineering rating in the Royal Danish Navy. 
Besides that though, i also happen to know and work with several of the people who designed and built both the Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt classes, just as i know many of those who operate them know.

I also have access to the blueprints and build specifications of both vessels, as well as to the actual ships when they are in home port....which all gives me a fair degree of confidence in saying : when it comes to Danish Warships i KNOW.....and you might think you know....though judging by what you have written so far you are either getting your info from google or simply just making shit up.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good morning MikeKiloPapa.

First of all, I would like to thank you for all the good information you put in your posts above. It is truly appreciated, even if humbling.

Let me also say that, if you go back and read the post you allude to where I would have "tried to discredit you", you will see that it didn't. I merely indicated at the time that your profile, all army, did not explain where your expertise would come from, but also indicated that you might have other sources not disclosed. You have now disclosed it and it is clearly valid expertise, probably making you the SME in these forums on those ships, from an engineering point of view.

Also, I know it is Iver, but my damn autocorrect must be Russian and keeps changing it to Ivar on me all the time and I don't always spot it.

Finally, I will tend to simplify things and cut details out that may make more knowledgeable people cringe when I am trying to make a specific point. In the present case, the point was simply that the Canadian government has issued specs and is asking, through Irving, for detailed bids on the basis of an existing design because the bidders (Odense for your  country) have "already built one". Some people, in these forums and in other places, take the view that the Absalon and the Iver Huitfeldt are one and the same because they look similar on the outside, and therefore you can just cut this part here, take that part there, etc. and it's no big deal. So I was countering by showing that in naval architecture, everything is connected to the rest and therefore, a change here leads to another change there and, etc. etc. you get a complete new type of ship from the one you started with. 

I very poorly chose the examples of the results of such movements in internal arrangements based on my flawed information (I apologize, as my knowledge is based on open source information only, and it does not give full deck by deck arrangements, so I have to build a mental pictures from various videos, TV shows, and government info put out on the internet - sometimes Google, but as little as possible). However, you make my point even more eloquently when you stated that "their internal arrangement/layout is actually quite different".

In other words, and I think you make that point too, even though they are of similar look and hull form, they are two different class of ships. And my point was that if you take parts of one and parts of the other, you end up with a third design different again from the other two, and thus not an "off-the-shelf" design.

Now, let me address some of the points in your post (in yellow) and ask you a few questions if I may:



			
				MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Rubbish !!....While its true that the Absalon class uses a lower grade base steel than the Huitfeldts, around all of the vital areas of the vessel , ie the CIC, weapons deck, ammo stores, engine control room , bridge , guns etc they use the same thicker armor steel ( ARMOX) as the frigates......and none of it has anything to do with their speed or number of engines.
> 
> Poorly expressed myself here, but you confirm my point: Other than the protected spaces, the Absalon use a lower grade of steel for most of their hull. Nothing wrong with that as it saves money, and I am sure your naval architect friends will confirm to you that the grade of steel used is related to the expected speed of  a given ship design. The faster the expected speed, the higher the grade of steel.
> 
> It most certainly isn't......like the frigates, the Absalon has 2 separate engine rooms and with a very similar layout but with only 1 ME and 2 DG in each instead of the 2+2 of the Huitfeldts.
> 
> 
> Again...no....oh and its _Iv*e*r_ not Ivar !......and lets just get one thing straight ......contrary to what you claim the Absalons does indeed have 1 more deck than the frigates and each of those is somewhat smaller/lower than on the Huitfeldts. So their internal arrangements/layout is actually quite different to each other which is why your statement makes no sense.
> 
> Just a few questions here: Would I be correct in understanding that in the Absalon, that "extra" deck is only from the Engine rooms and forward, but that I was correct that the flex deck area is no more decks, in number, but much higher, than in the Iver? Also, would it be correct to say that, in the Absalon, there are no living quarters aft of the engine rooms, but in the Iver, there are such quarters?.
> 
> No...see above.....IH is not fitted with a TAS/VDS system but prepared for one by reserving space for it.....just like on the Absalon. Not in any way shape or form related to the presence or absence of a flex deck!
> 
> Yes it does.....like all helicopter carrying ships in the RDN it is equipped with Mactaggart Scotts TRIGON handling system.
> 
> We do not consider the TRIGON handling system to be a "traversing" system in Canada. The one system that is acceptable for us is an equivalent to our 'bear trap" and undermount system of rails below deck. That is because we tend to use our helicopter in weather like this, unlike every body else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p1xx0ysfeM
> 
> Yes it is!........The only thing needed to fit a MK45 mod 4 is to remove the adapter ring that is used to mount the current 76mm Oto ....everything from the base mount, space beneath the gun , ammo stores and hoists, to electrical interface  etc is designed for and with a 5" gun in mind.
> 
> Do you mean that the magazine, handling room and hoist shafts are of the right size to take either a 76 mm or a 5 inch handling system, or that you actual handling system (belts, ammo holders in the hoist, raming bars, clamps, and storage shelves in the magazines) don't have to be changed to handle either size?
> 
> Incorrect.....there was an intention to replace the  A position (called P1 in RDN parlor) 76mm gun with a MK45 and then fitting an additional 35mm Millenium CIWS in the B gun position(P2..currently fitted with the other 76mm in a Stan Flex container) , mirroring the fitout on the Absalons.......however those plans seems to have been quietly shelved, partly because the 2x76mm( or 1x76mm+1x35mm) is actually a better fitout for their core AAW role and because the 5 inch with its +$25M pricetag just isn't worth the squeeze for what it does.
> 
> I see here that I am incorrect for two reasons: (1) because the idea has been abandoned already and (2) because I did not mention the extra detail of replacing the second 76 mm gun by  a millennial 35 mm. Otherwise, we seem to be in agreement that the 5 inch gun even with the millennial 35 mm, is not as good a combination for AAW as the two 76 mm. It confirms my view that the two types of guns have different functions.
> 
> :facepalm:...Yes it can....ffs!!..at least you are consistently wrong.
> 
> I believe you will find that the Millenial 35 mm is much lighter than the 76 mm gun (even in the STANFLEX container) and that the 5 inch gun is much heavier than the 76 mm gun. As a result, if you install the 5 inch gun you have to replace the second 76 mm gun with the lighter millennial to maintain weight distribution and stability. Could this be verified with your naval architect friends?
> 
> The CODAD propulsion configuration is definitely a compromise, sacrificing a little speed/acceleration for much longer range. Despite this the IH makes the most of their rather modest ~33MW and are actually surprisingly fast and responsive..and in the real world only marginally slower than similar GT equipped warships.
> Which is exactly what the IH frigate HDMS Peter Willemoes will be doing for the next 6+ months as part of CSG2
> 
> I did not mean to imply in any way that the IH could not operate in an American carrier group (in fact, I pointed out they are the only ship in the list of bidders that meet the actual top speed requirement for such ops) but that I did not know how the Canadian evaluation team would look upon the lower acceleration curve in their evaluation and wether it would affect it negatively (we have had some bad experience in Canada [no casualties - knock on wood] with ships getting squished or scraped by US carriers). Please accept that I would be very happy to see our next gen warships all be Iver Huitfeldt's
> 
> So basically designing an entirely new ship then.....for something that is supposedly based on the Svalbard its funny that the DeWolf has almost nothing in common with the former....its longer, beamier , has much greater displacement, uses (partly) naval build standards not commercial like the Norwegian vessel,  different boat spaces and hangar layout , other weapons and sensors etc ....and looks nothing like the Svalbard in fact .
> 
> Don't know what your point is here, but I believed I did not make mine correctly. There was a suggestion by a poster in here that the fact that Odense is already working with Irving on the AOPS, they might have a leg up in getting the warship contract. My point was that the portion of the AOPS work Odense got did not include the most important aspects of the upcoming bid: the combat system integration and power plant design, it may not provide them with such an advantage - that's all i meant to say.


----------



## jollyjacktar

op:  (not meant to be insulting in any which way, this exchange is interesting and educational)


----------



## Karel Doorman

Still sad to see that we were not in the bidding Poole(Damen),but hey that's how it goes sometimes.  :-\

When will the final decision be made?

gr,walter


----------



## GR66

Excellent information here MKP and points well taken OGBD!


A couple of questions on the actual RFP...does anyone know if the listed requirements are must haves for the ships being offered, or are they objectives that the various designs will be scored against using some kind of points system on how close they each come to meeting the full requirement?  

Also, does the RFP specifically rule out the offering of two different versions in order to meet the full set of requirements?  For example, having the IH to fulfill the AAD requirement but not having the flex deck and the Absalon meeting the flex deck requirement but not the AAD requirement?

Do any of the other in-service designs have a flex deck?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Those are good questions GR66. And I suspect we will never know as the detailed RFP is kept under wrap, apparently at the request of Irving (one infers from the fact that no one is allowed to speak publicly about it without Irving's permission). Personally, I have great reservations with important contracts of the government being kept secret for no apparent good reason (other than keeping criticism down), but even greater reservation when such secrecy is kept for the benefit of a contractor - not the government -especially if it happens to be Irving Shipyards.

As for the other designs with a "flex deck", only the BAE Type 26 has such deck, unless Fincantieri decides to offer versions of it's upcoming Italian Navy P.P.A. vessel.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on Italian PPAs: 

Italian Navy’s Offshore Patrol Vessel Plans (RCN?), Part 2
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/mark-collins-italian-navys-offshore-patrol-vessel-plans-rcn-part-2/
...





...[/quote]

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

First of...thank you for a well thought out and reasonable response to my posts, the wording of which was needlessly hostile and confrontational....it was uncalled for and for that i apologize.




			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In other words, and I think you make that point too, even though they are of similar look and hull form, they are two different class of ships. And my point was that if you take parts of one and parts of the other, you end up with a third design different again from the other two, and thus not an "off-the-shelf" design.



Good point and i broadly agree.....however it must be said that modifying an existing design is usually cheaper and faster than developing a new vessel from scratch. A case in point :

 What eventually became the Iver Huitfeldt class frigates actually started out as a smaller ship , then known under the euphemism "Patrol Ship". The initial design plans showed a vessel of about 4500-5000 tonnes FL and with a much more limited sensor and weapons fitout. By that time ca 2003, the design of the command and support ships (Absalon class) was almost completed and several scale models were undergoing trials in test facilities in both the Netherlands (MARIN) and in DK (Force Technology) .

 The Maersk designed hull turned out to be very efficient and showed exceptional seakeeping qualities , and it was therefore decided to base the patrol ships/frigates on the same hull. 
Thus we saved a significant amount of time and money on the design process by not having to start from scratch. 
But even though the IH design used the Absalon as a starting point, the demand for greater speed, survivability and signature reduction  meant several notable changes had to be made and so the two vessels differ not only internally but also externally and below the waterline : Twice the power per shaft affects the flow around the hull and also the noise created....so to optimize IH for greater speeds as well as ASW quietening , the under water hull shape had to be redesigned , particularly the rear part.

What they do have in common is Standard Flex....which is not just the modules, but the underlying design philosophy that every piece of equipment aboard should be easy and as cheap as possible to maintain, upgrade or replace (accessibility).And of course they have a great degree of commonality in equipment, components and weapons.



> Other than the protected spaces,


Which is pretty much the entire superstructure above the waterline ;-) ...but lets not quibble 


> Nothing wrong with that *as it saves money*, and I am sure your naval architect friends will confirm to you that the grade of steel used is related to the expected speed of  a given ship design. The faster the expected speed, the higher the grade of steel.


Money being the key word here....TBH i dont think speed had anything to do with the decision....the RDN _wanted_ to use high strength steel but the tight budget meant they had to settle for a lesser grade.  As the Command-Support ship designation af Absalon suggests they were not meant to be first line surface combatants and so it was deemed an acceptable compromise. 

As to the relation between steel grade and ship speed ....IDK .....operating environment ,  type and size of vessel , cost, and projected lifespan are all factors that affect which grade of steel you choose....so while speed might play a role i think its a minor one in this context....in civilian vessels, like say container ships, the hull plating is so thick it doesn't really matter much which grade they use(within reason )....in my experience the same type is used whether its a 15kt or 25kt ship.  Though to be fair i am pretty new to this business so i'm not exactly the ultimate authority on the subject.



> Would I be correct in understanding that in the Absalon, that "extra" deck is only from the Engine rooms and forward, but that I was correct that the flex deck area is no more decks, in number, but much higher, than in the Iver?


In short, no.....its difficult to explain,...but here goes :the Absalon has 4 decks beneath her helo deck , whereas IH only has 3 .  The flex deck on Abs is 2 decks high..

Here is a preliminary draft of the Absalon ....its not completely accurate but it gives an idea of the general layout : 
http://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/SoevaernsNyt/2003/_FlexStoetteskibePopUp.htm



> would it be correct to say that, in the Absalon, there are no living quarters aft of the engine rooms, but in the Iver, there are such quarters?


Unfortunately no, as neither of them have any accommodation aft of the engine rooms , only workshops, stores/cargo rooms, the crew gym and the ships hospital. 



> We do not consider the TRIGON handling system to be a "traversing" system in Canada. The one system that is acceptable for us is an equivalent to our 'bear trap" and undermount system of rails below deck



I see no reason why the such a traversing system couldn't quite easily be fitted to any design you may choose, including IH/Absalon.....AFAIK none of the other designs  in the running is fitted with either bear trap or a RAST system, and i know all UK ships uses TRIGON as well.



> That is because we tend to use our helicopter in weather like this, unlike every body else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p1xx0ysfeM


 ;D.....you know what i call that ?.....another day at the office ;-).....which in my case is bobbing around on the brine around Greenland ( and occasionally the Faroe Islands) Since a part of my job also involves being on the helo damage control/rescue team i am intimately familiar with helo shipboard operations in rough weather. we often practice in the kind of seas you post above. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC2XIGMI2kM

As for TRIGON, well it is officially certified for use in sea state 6 and we have used it in way worse conditions than that..and on a ship smaller than the Halifax and Iroquois classes. It works just fine.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Do you mean that the magazine, handling room and hoist shafts are of the right size to take either a 76 mm or a 5 inch handling system


Bingo!.. 



> I believe you will find that the Millenial 35 mm is much lighter than the 76 mm gun (even in the STANFLEX container) and that the 5 inch gun is much heavier than the 76 mm gun. As a result, if you install the 5 inch gun you have to replace the second 76 mm gun with the lighter millennial to maintain weight distribution and stability.



Well....there are really two issues here.....one is structural, the other revolves around stability.  Structurally speaking the forward A mount and surrounding deck is designed for the weight of the MK45, while the B mount is built to handle the 76mm gun. So structurally there are no problems with a 3"+5" setup. 

In terms of stability , you have a point, at least in theory......however the actual difference in weight between the 35mm and 76mm is smaller than you'd think. In fact the Millenium mount is only about 3 tonnes lighter than the 8 tonnes Oto melara, and the latter has a lot of its weight placed down lower ( in the container) whereas the 35mm has all its weight placed on top.  That means that the impact on the ships stability would be relatively minor and the small reduction well within the safe design margins.



> we have had some bad experience in Canada [no casualties - knock on wood] with ships getting squished or scraped by US carriers



Sounds dangerous.....could you elaborate ?



> Please accept that I would be very happy to see our next gen warships all be Iver Huitfeldt's



I unfortunately think they are too old and too handicapped in the ASW department to really have a chance. However i do think OMT is your best bet of actually getting all 15 warships on the allocated budget. The IH probably represents the 95% solution and the question is if that is enough for Canada. 



> Don't know what your point is here, but I believed I did not make mine correctly.



Yeah...disregard that last paragraph of mine....i was just babbling....obviously answering a question you weren't asking.



> My point was that the portion of *the AOPS work Odense got* did not include the most important aspects of the upcoming bid: the combat system integration and power plant design



Well how could they?....they are not a combat system integrator but a warship designer. So yes that might put them at a disadvantage compared to DCNS, TKMS , LM etc who has both capabilities in house. However OMT is quite used to working with these CSI companies like they did on the building of IH in DK....where system integrations was supervised and carried out by the RDN project office in conjunction with the combat system suppliers (and OSS/OMT). Having the navy directly involved and in charge of the CS integration also makes sure that it gets what it wants, and not what the combat systems integrator think the navy needs ( something a certain German CSI company is notorious for)


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As for the other designs with a "flex deck", only the BAE Type 26 has such deck



It might be a bit of national bias showing here so forgive me , but i dont think you can really classify the T26,s Mission Bay as a flex "deck"... its more like an enlarged boat hangar. With an embarked helicopter and the standard 2 rhibs carried, it only has space for what...two 20' ISO containers at most ? I suppose it can also carry a UAV/USV/UUV but then again so can most other modern frigates/destroyers.


----------



## Kirkhill

Would some pictures add to the discussion?

Iver Huitfeldt from the stern






And Absalon from the same view 





The Absalon's stern with both doors open





The Absalon compartment drawing provided by MKP.





And the Flex-Deck as described by the Danish Navy






An amateur's scaled comparison of the Absalons and Huitfeldts





And a Halifax (Quebec) for a further comparison





With respect to the flying of helicopters - it appears that the Absalons and Huitfeldts both have larger flight decks than the Halifaxes (about twice as long, and 3 meters wider - 19m vs 16m) and the ships displace about 1/3 more at 6300 tonnes vs 4759 tonnes.

Just for reference - here is the original Sea King DDH - the 2800 tonne Assiniboine with a 13m beam.


----------



## Kirkhill

From my view it appears that the foc's'le from the B gun position forward is common but from the Bridge aft, including the Bridge, there is another deck that extends the tumblehome all the way aft raising the flight deck and hangars as well as the Bridge.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Would some pictures add to the discussion?
> 
> Iver Huitfeldt from the stern
> 
> And Absalon from the same view
> 
> The Absalon's stern with both doors open
> 
> With respect to the flying of helicopters - it appears that the Absalons and Huitfeldts both have larger flight decks than the Halifaxes (about twice as long, and 3 meters wider - 19m vs 16m) and the ships displace about 1/3 more at 6300 6650 tonnes vs 4759 tonnes.



 :goodpost:

Though its not exactly the most flattering pictures.....the Absalon in particular looks like an overweight car ferry from that angle ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't know about that.  I've always seen that as her best angle.  But that may just be me.   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.slideshare.net/Logimatic/seen-sailed  A fluff piece but full of useful data.  Iver Huitfeldt Class Frigate - Peter Willemoes


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I don't know about that.  I've always seen that as her best angle.  But that may just be me.   ;D



Ahh...i see ....all about the (‿ˠ‿) ..eh!  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

I came across this Rand publication from 2016 on "Designing Adaptable Ships". It discusses Modularity, Flexibility and Adaptability as three separate, though inter-related, issues.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR696/RAND_RR696.pdf

It refers to an issue that has been broached here before: the cost of not using every available space



> *How Additional Space and Additional Ship Services Could Affect
> Design and Construction Costs*
> 
> As discussed in Chapter Two, our concept of flexibility—as compared
> to modularity—involves bigger spaces and larger margins. Designing a
> ship with more space than immediately needed and the ability to easily
> add power, cooling, and other services to a ship space provides a level of
> adaptability greater than what results from strict modularity. However,
> Navy ship construction estimates are based primarily on the weight
> of the ship, so the additional size and weight associated with more
> modular, flexible ships comes at a cost. The basic trade-off is between
> potentially greater construction costs for the additional space and margins
> and the reduced costs of modernizing the ship in the future. This
> trade-off is not well understood.
> Maintaining adequate power and cooling margins to accommodate
> future growth is also difficult. The margins set for new construction
> are typically reduced early in a design when cost targets are threatened.
> Adding power and cooling to an existing ship when adequate
> margins are not available is very costly, if at all feasible.
> Effect



I would argue that, self-evidently, the Navy Estimating Model is the problem and that a bigger ship with a higher full load displacement is not a more expensive ship.  If that were the case then Container Ships would cost more than Aircraft Carriers.

As I have said before, wrapping steel around an empty space is neither difficult nor expensive.  What goes into that space drives the costs.

In Canada we have already seen the impact of this model on the debates about the supply of ships with the Parliamentary Budget Office defaulting to the US Navy model and declaring that more money was needed for the ships to be produced.

But what if the ship includes unused space? - It is larger, yes, but it is also lighter - until it is filled with something.

The Europeans and the Civilian world draw different conclusions than the US Navy.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I came across this Rand publication from 2016 on "Designing Adaptable Ships". It discusses Modularity, Flexibility and Adaptability as three separate, though inter-related, issues.
> http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR696/RAND_RR696.pdf
> 
> The Europeans and the Civilian world draw different conclusions than the US Navy.



Just to play the devils advocate here , the counter-argument might be that the US Navy has actual and recent naval combat experience. 

Whereas (continental) European navies.....not so much.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol8num2/vol8num2art2.pdf

A related Canadian article from 2014 describing the difficulty of estimating costs of construction.  It does, however, make the point that less complex is cheaper.  I would argue that the least complex model is an empty hull - at which point you have an adaptable, flexible craft.


----------



## STONEY

I must say i was very impressed that the Iver Huitfeldt was able to steam 9,400nm  across the atlantic at an average speed of 27kts and not run out of gas. The vessel can sail across from Europe to America and back again and still have fuel left over. This would cut down on the number of RAS'S required. None of the many vessels i've sailed on including Cruise ships could match this . I QUESTION THESE FIGURES QUOTED IN A PREVIOUS POST, BUT IF TRUE VERY IMPRESSIVE. 

CHEERS


----------



## Kirkhill

Point taken on that Stoney.

Here is what I understand to be the design standard:



> The Danish frigate program targeted total life cycle cost and applied principles from
> commercial shipping. In commercial shipping focus is on reduction of crew cost, fuel cost
> and emissions. Understanding these commercial cost efficiency principles gave DALO
> another perspective on the frigate program.
> 
> Striving for low fuel cost at cruising speed (18knots) while meeting the requirements
> for fast acceleration and high top speed became a core part of the propulsions system
> concept developed for the frigates.
> 
> The result was a propulsion system giving best-in-class fuel economy.* At 18 knots cruising
> speed, the frigate requires 31 tonnes of fuel per day giving an endurance of 9,300 nautical
> miles*. This endurance is 80-100% better than other new frigate designs on the market today.
> Despite the excellent fuel economy at cruising speed, the frigate can reach 29.3 knots in less
> than 120 seconds. A propulsion system based on a gas turbine could deliver a slightly higher
> maximum speed but it was not selected as it significantly increases CapEx and fuel costs and
> reduces endurance by approximately 50%
> .
> In short, Navy ships must be role models and set new standards by continuing to look at new
> efficient ways of operating.



http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/OMT-Dansh-Frigate-Programme-April-2014.pdf


----------



## Kirkhill

And on the subject:



> the Danish approach is quite different from that of the US Navy. To start with, *most of the ship’s lower decks were designed by Maersk, one of the world’s largest shipping companies, with a focus on efficient, robust designs that are easy to maintain.
> 
> “The basic design is a Maersk design, with a hull similar to a container ship,”* said Cmdr. Christian Horsted, the ship’s executive officer. “Things are very orderly, very well-arranged. It looks like the people who designed the ships have designed a lot of ships.”
> 
> Horsted pointed to the bridge and machinery room arrangements, which leave *room to add improvements*. “Things are really set up right,” he said, looking up at half-filled overhead wire ways. “The cabling runs leave lots of room for extra wiring for more sensors whenever they’re added.”
> 
> *As an economy measure*, the ship also features *a number of used items*. The 76mm guns, and launchers for Evolved Sea Sparrow and Harpoon missiles, for example, are refurbished fittings from decommissioned ships.
> 
> The sophisticated combat suite, however, is all-new, featuring Thales Smart-L and APAR radars, other sensors and fire-control equipment nearly identical to Dutch De Zeven Provincien-class and German Sachsen-class frigates.
> 
> Yet *while Nils Juel is operational* — this reporter’s visit took place just after the ship completed several weeks taking part in a major exercise with the US Navy along the eastern seaboard — *the ship remains, in some ways, incomplete*.
> 
> The two 76mm guns, for example, are essentially temporary fittings. *The forward mounting is sized to take a US Mark 45 5-inch gun, but no funds have been allocated to purchase the $50 million weapons. The second gun position also is intended to mount another close-in weapon system, yet to be purchased.
> 
> Amidships, the 32-cell Mark 41 vertical launch system is unused, awaiting not just operational certification, but also the purchase of additional components and Standard surface-to-air missiles.
> 
> Aft, atop the hangar, what appeared to be a 35mm Oerlikon Contraves Millenium gun was actually a dummy. The weapon is still being certified but, to keep the flight deck’s air worthiness certifications, a fake gun was installed to maintain wind current features.
> *
> 
> *The ship also is hiring more crew members. The original crew size of 100 was found to be “too lean,” Jensen said, and 17 more slots have opened, about half in the engineering department. *But even with 117 crew members, the Danes will have a crew smaller than similar warships.
> 
> “We try to do the same things the Dutch and Germans do, but with fewer people,” Jensen said, explaining that the ship features a high degree of automation, as well as 50 cameras placed throughout to monitor spaces such as the engine rooms, hangar and missile decks.
> 
> *The three frigates are manned with two and a half crews, allowing for one ship to be training, another to be deployed, with the half-manned ship undergoing maintenance*. About half the crew aboard Nils Juel, including Jensen, returned this year from a deployment aboard the Iver Huitfeldt, and joined this ship a few months before the cruise to the US.
> 
> The ships also *are being brought up to higher war-fighting standards*, Horsted said, and are *being certified by the British Royal Navy’s Flag Officer Sea Training organization*. Among other things, that means* improving damage control fittings and adding some internal features*.
> 
> *Improvements also need to be installed in the engineering control center*, said Lt. Christian Jens, the ship’s electro officer. “*We still need a secondary steering control installation and navigational equipment*,” he said.



http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/archives/2014/11/24/aboard-danish-frigate-clean-lines-and-room-to-grow/78531906/

Note that the article is from 2014 and some things, like the 35 mm guns, have changed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have to wonder are we trying to ask these ships to do to much? Does the Flex deck come at to much cost for the other factors? I don’t see what the flex deck brings that a charted/bought RO/RO does not bring or even a Mistral would do better.

Also all this modularity seem to minimize strength and water/fire integrity in case of major damage from a anti-ship missile?


----------



## Kirkhill

My reason for proposing the Flex Deck is that it is likely to be close to the point of need at the time that it is needed.  Whereas a charter will be weeks,  if not months away.  And even then it may not be possible to charter a vessel willing to stand in harm's way.

"Better a battalion in time than a division too late".


----------



## Kirkhill

STONEY said:
			
		

> I must say i was very impressed that the Iver Huitfeldt was able to steam 9,400nm  across the atlantic at an average speed of 27kts and not run out of gas. The vessel can sail across from Europe to America and back again and still have fuel left over. This would cut down on the number of RAS'S required. None of the many vessels i've sailed on including Cruise ships could match this . I QUESTION THESE FIGURES QUOTED IN A PREVIOUS POST, BUT IF TRUE VERY IMPRESSIVE.
> 
> CHEERS





> Between San Juan, Puerto Rico to Ponta Delgado on the Azores, a distance of 2,400 sea miles, an impressive speed of around 27 knots was maintained. In addi- tion, it should be mentioned that the various stages of the voyage were undertaken under very varied conditions. The wind strength varied from calm to 22-24 m/sec with the resulting wave heights from zero meters to around seven meters. The total distance sailed on the trial journey was 9,050 sea miles.



Quote from the "fluff" piece I referenced above.    The vessel in question maintained 27 kts for 2400 nm.    The total distance sailed was 9050 nm but it doesn't stipulate average speed or if refuelling occurred


----------



## STONEY

Chris thanks for clarification. Still 2,400 nm at 27kts is still impressive as there are NUC  boats out there that couldn't do that.  Fluff piece or not there seems to be a lot more details on this vessel than the other frigates in the running  for our competition .   Cheers


----------



## Good2Golf

STONEY said:
			
		

> Chris thanks for clarification. Still 2,400 nm at 27kts is still impressive as there are NUC  boats out there that couldn't do that...



Range or speed?  Other than the Russian ice-breakers, I'm not aware of any nuclear-powered vessel sailing today that could not reach 27 kts?

Regards
G2G


----------



## STONEY

I said BOATS not ships. There are several NUC  boats that advertise a top speed of 25 kts except for short bursts and several others that don't advertise because of op security. Cheers.


----------



## Good2Golf

STONEY said:
			
		

> I said BOATS not ships. There are several NUC  boats that advertise a top speed of 25 kts except for short bursts and several others that don't advertise because of op security. Cheers.



Ack.  I thought in the context, you were referring to surface vessels, not subs.

cheers
G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa

Irving and BAE in bed together--implications for CSC?



> Irving joins UK firm on new bid worth $5.2 billion
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding has partnered with UK-based defence company BAE Systems to bid on a the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships and Joint Support Ship In-Service Support contract, worth up to $5.2 billion.
> 
> BAE announced last week in a press release that the two companies had joined forces under the name Canadian Naval Support Ltd.
> 
> Irving is also responsible building the fleet of six Harry DeWolf-class AOPS, while Seaspan’s Vancouver shipyards are constructing the two Queenston-class auxiliary vessels.
> 
> “CNS combines the capabilities of Canada’s long-term trusted partner for the National Shipbuilding Strategy with the expertise of one of the global leaders in warship repair and maintenance as used and trusted by some of Canada’s closest allies,” the statement reads.
> 
> The Department of Public Services and Procurement launched the open competition for in-service support, including refit, repair, maintenance and training, for both the Harry DeWolf-class and Queenston-class vessels in July.
> 
> At the time, the department said combining the contracts for the AOPS and JSS In-Service Support under a single contractor instead of holding separate competitions for each class of ship will benefit industry by increasing workforce stability and reducing costs through economies of scale.
> 
> The contract will include an initial service period of eight years, with options to extend services up to 35 years under an open and competitive process. According to tender documents, the initial work period is valued at $600 million-$800 million, while the total potential contract value that would include the “exercise of all possible options” is worth $5.2 billion.
> 
> The tender closed Nov. 8…
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1415394-irving-joins-uk-firm-on-new-bid-worth-5.2-billion



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

From BAE Systems Nov. 4:



> ...
> BAE Systems has confirmed that the first steel will be cut on the Royal Navy’s Type 26 Global Combat Ships in Glasgow in summer 2017, subject to final contract negotiations with the UK Ministry of Defence...http://www.baesystems.com/en/article/manufacturing-of-the-type-26-global-combat-ships-to-start-in-summer-2017



More from Irving/BAE article above:



> ...
> BAE Systems is the the designer of the UK navy’s yet-to-be constructed fleet of frigates — the Type 26 Global Command Ship. BAE also happens to be one of 12 pre-qualified firms that have been approved to bid on a joint design and combat systems integrator for the Canadian Surface Combatant program. The firm is to expected to submit the Type 26 as an off-the-shelf design for Canada’s new fleet of warships, which will be constructed by Irving Shipbuilding, also the prime contractor.
> 
> Last summer, the government drew accusations of stacking the deck in favour of BAE Systems from industry sources after widening the criteria for the new frigate to allow designers to submit bids for ships that have already been built by other countries, as well as those on which detailed design work has commenced, making room for the Type 26.
> 
> During a media briefing on the the launch of the CSC request for proposal in late October, assistant deputy minister of materiel and retired rear admiral Pat Finn defended the government’s decision to allow for ship designs that have yet to be constructed in the competition, saying that with the number of design changes that will be needed to Canadianize the ship, every bidder could be seen as offering “paper ships.”
> 
> Former navy commander and marine security analyst Ken Hansen said the new partnership between Irving and BAE is likely only partially about the support contract. If the Type 26 is being looked on favourably by insiders, as has been alleged, Hansen said the collaboration between them is a smart business move...
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1415394-irving-joins-uk-firm-on-new-bid-worth-5.2-billion



Hmm.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Just consider this August post:



> Irving Halifax Has Lead Evaluating RCN Canadian Surface Combatant Design/Weapons Systems Bids
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/mark-collins-irving-halifax-has-lead-evaluating-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-designweapons-systems-bids/



Double hmm.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

The "Lead" navies have given the world the following state of the art ships:

3 Zumwalts (2 in the water, one building) - down from a planned 32
6 Type 45s - down from a planned 12

3 Seawolfs - down from a planned 29 (although the Virginia's are taking up the slack)
7 Astutes - constrained.

And need we mention the 90 musd, 1000 tonne, disposable LCS?

Not worth talking about carriers and boomers because they will never be in the Canadian fleet.

I can't think of any more frightening combination than Irving, Bath Iron Works and BAE.


----------



## AlexanderM

I've noticed there is talk of increased defense spending, all part of keeping the American government happy, all part of establishing a whole new relationship with President Trump, renegotiating NFTA, etc. Could be interesting to see what happens here, as I expect the Americans will say increase defense spending, re Canada's committment to NATO or else, could even spill into the whole F-35 issue. Apparently Canada reached out to the Trump people right away about a willingness to renegotiate NFTA, among other things, and it looks like defense spending will be on the table. I am curious to see what happens, as i think the Trump people are going to be insistant. This may provide a political solution to a political problem. Saw this in an interview on the weekend.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CP story by Lee Berthiaume (further links at original):



> Conflict of interest concern overshadows Canada’s effort to replace warship fleet
> 
> The multibillion-dollar effort to replace the navy’s warship fleet is being buffeted by concerns about a potential conflict of interest involving Irving Shipbuilding, the Halifax company that is leading the project.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding and British shipbuilder BAE Systems recently announced they have paired together to bid on a $5-billion maintenance and support contract for the navy’s new Arctic patrol vessels and resupply ships.
> 
> READ MORE: Federal government in race against time as warship project takes next step
> 
> But BAE is also expected to enter its Type 26 frigate into a competition being run by Irving, in conjunction with the Defence Department, to select the warship design to replace the navy’s 12 frigates and three destroyers.
> 
> Irving will ultimately build the vessels.
> 
> Irving and the federal government say measures have been taken to ensure full transparency and fairness around the warship project, which previous estimates have pegged at as much as $40 billion...
> http://globalnews.ca/news/3069847/conflict-of-interest-concern-overshadows-canadas-effort-to-replace-warship-fleet/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Davie releases on video on Project Resolve https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0JV8ajbLjA


----------



## Kirkhill

Got to give full marks to Davie's marketing department......

Do Seaspan or Irving have one?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Got to give full marks to Davie's marketing department......
> 
> Do Seaspan or Irving have one?



Seaspan has done similar and has an ongoing photo gallery. I found that Davie fell down on this as they stopped posting progress and I wondered how things were going. I am pleased to see the progress.


----------



## MilEME09

I have to say I am impressed, 10% ahead of schedule, 72% complete in October, main deck to be installed by end of November before winter really sets in. At this rate she will be having HMCS Resolve painted on her in no time, and launched in the spring. I am excited for you Navy guys who will get first crack at her. Davie I think will be in a very good position for future contracts if the Resolve preforms well, I do hope we buy her out right.


----------



## jmt18325

Crazy that we might get 3 federal large vessels next year.  At least we're finally getting somewhere.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Latest--note Davie proposals:



> Seaspan at Work: RCN JSSs Still Sliding Right (CCG icebreaker not for now)
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/mark-collins-seaspan-at-work-rcn-jsss-still-sliding-right-ccg-icebreaker-not-for-now/



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

sure looks like there's room for Davie to sneak a few ships in


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting situation - 

Seaspan and Irving are building to RCN - Procurement Canada specs in Canadian yards.

Davie is leasing ships built to their specs from vessels built in foreign yards.

Sounds like apples to apples to me.


----------



## Lumber

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Interesting situation -
> 
> Seaspan and Irving are building to RCN - Procurement Canada specs in Canadian yards.
> 
> Davie is leasing ships built to their specs from vessels built in foreign yards.
> 
> Sounds like apples to apples to me.



#sarcasm?

But _for realzies_, part of the procurement problem, IMO, is having to hash out in full details exactly what our requirements should be. I know that we should be estimating the situation, not the other way around, but I could name a dozen warships from around the world that "we could work with". Just pick one, sign the contract, and we'll work out the rest later.

It's not the best system, but we could make it work...


----------



## Kirkhill

Sarcasm - but of the lightest style.

I am not opposed to working with what is available instead of building to suit.

Which is easier to change?  Doctrine or design?


----------



## MarkOttawa

_Quelle surprise_!  Open and transparent, anyone?



> Parliament’s budget watchdog, National Defence battling over warship data
> 
> National Defence and Parliament's budget watchdog have been quietly battling over access to key information about the government's multi-billion-dollar plan to buy the navy new warships.
> 
> The department says it remains committed to openness and transparency, but the information requested by parliamentary budget officer Jean-Denis Frechette is "very sensitive" and outside his mandate.
> 
> Frechette, however, alleges there is a culture of secrecy within National Defence, and that the department remains among the worst when it comes to transparency.
> 
> "National Defence is a problematic case," Frechette told the Senate defence committee on Monday.
> 
> "There is a certain culture whereby this information suddenly becomes confidential or cabinet confidence."
> 
> The dispute is reminiscent of similar disagreements between National Defence and Frechette's predecessor, Kevin Page, particularly when it came to the F-35 stealth fighter.
> 
> This time, the disagreement started in September when Frechette wrote two letters to National Defence's top bureaucrat, John Forster, asking for documents explaining the type of equipment and capabilities the navy requires in its new warships.
> 
> The purpose was to come up with a cost estimate for the project, which has been billed as the single largest military procurement in Canadian history and forms the backbone of the federal government's national shipbuilding strategy...
> http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/12/13/parliaments-budget-watchdog-national-defence-battling-over-warship-data-2/#.WFAzNFxqDIV



Related:



> Irving Working with BAE Systems: Implications for RCN Canadian Surface Combatant?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/mark-collins-irving-working-with-bae-systems-implications-for-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant/
> 
> RCN Canadian SurfaRCN Canadian Surface Combatant, Irving, Intellectual Property…and Espionage (plus fighters and Trump)ce Combatant, Irving, Intellectual Property…and Espionage (plus fighters and Trump)
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/mark-collins-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-irving-intellectual-property-and-espionage-plus-fighters-and-trump/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

We over classify everything. I wouldn't be surprised if someone just slapped a SECRET sticker on the document, when the capabilities/systems could be described in broad strokes in an UNCLASS format.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We over classify everything. I wouldn't be surprised if someone just slapped a SECRET sticker on the document, when the capabilities/systems could be described in broad strokes in an UNCLASS format.



yep like a manual on our 105mm howitzer being secret, despite all the details of this WWII era gun being in many library books.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> yep like a manual on our 105mm howitzer being secret, despite all the details of this WWII era gun being in many library books.


 Could be worse, with the PRes weapons techs need SECRET to go on your trades courses. Your first trades course is ancillary kit, IE stoves and lanterns. Someone want to try and take a stab at why you need secret for that coleman stove from Canadian Tire?


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Could be worse, with the PRes weapons techs need SECRET to go on your trades courses. Your first trades course is ancillary kit, IE stoves and lanterns. Someone want to try and take a stab at why you need secret for that coleman stove from Canadian Tire?



The senior members of the trade are the ones who set the requirements.  If they wanted too they could change it.  Might be some sort of random institutional inertia on this one.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I hope everybody realizes that we are talking about Army weapons tech here. There is no such animal as a reserve naval weapons tech.  The only naval weapons techs in the reserves are those that chose to stay in the Supplementary reserve after their regular service.


----------



## MilEME09

if anyone has over an hour to waste, Davie has posted the recent hearing into the naval readiness of the RCN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH9pMRWydeg


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> if anyone has over an hour to waste, Davie has posted the recent hearing into the naval readiness of the RCN.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH9pMRWydeg



My thoughts on this:

-Our MP's are generally ignorant of naval matters, shipbuilding matters even one's whom are in the backyard of the shipyards for NSPS chosen yards

-Davie makes me laugh with their honest yet sarcastic jabs at the other shipyards ("I think they're very good at building tugs and barges...")

-Three other countries are looking at doing the Resolve type conversion (this is a big win if it happens)

-Davie is pushing for a second Resolve conversion as the JSS is still behind schedule

-we are getting shafted on costs for the ships we are building

-the real reason that the Canadian ships are so expensive is because of the rules for profit from military contracts (1-7%) and that the overhead on yards is reduced the more civilian contracts the shipyard has saving money for the gov't.  Hence why European yards can make ships so much cheaper as they are also working on civilian contracts at the same time.

-building ships in many shipyards at the same time saves money because of inflationary pressures


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Westcoast yards have limited capacity for new builds, most of the new build yards here surfaced for a contract and then died. Burrard Shipyard used to have about 7-10 slips for building in it's heyday. There was no way Seaspan could handle the latest BC Ferries contract had they won. I am all for 2x Project Resolve ships, by the time the 2 AORs are ready, those Resolve ships will need a good refit and frankly having a 2 AOR on each coast with one in hot/cold layup or refit makes sense. In fact by the time the AOR's are 7 years old, replace the Resolves with 2 new conversions.

If you want functioning shipyards, you are going to need to give them new builds. The shipyards out here do really good repair and modification work and survived mainly on commercial contracts. However the domestic civilian fleet is not really that big and shipyards struggle with competing with Chinese yards that can build barges for a fraction of what they would cost here. (amazing what can be done by ignoring environmental and labour laws)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Would building additional Project Resolve vessels start to cut into yard space required for the SCC?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

A question worthy of a Member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, Cdn Blackshirt (being sarcastic here).

Short answer: NO!

Assuming you are talking of the CSC (SCC is the Supreme Court of Canada, and I am pretty sure their request for a new building does not involve shipyards  ;D), they are to be built at Irving shipyard Limited in Halifax, while even a second "resolve" would be built at Davie, in Quebec city. So no reduction of CSC capability at all.

One thing to understand here as an illustration of Davie's capacity: If the GoC was to keep the current build pace it has set with the two yards that won the right to contract under the shipbuilding strategy, Davie could do both of their work simultaneously and still have excess capacity to build.

Basically, Seaspan and Irving have two slips each, while Davie operates seven by itself.

I have to say, Colin, that I am a little surprised by your assertion that Seaspan could not have handled the latest contract for new built BC ferries had they won it. It is a lot simpler to put together a BC ferry than a Berlin class AOR and the even more complex Arctic class icebreaker. If you are correct, it does not augur well for those two types of ship. As the heads of Davie testified, ship repairs and maintenance is a different world than new build.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think they could do it if they had to, but it would likely cause some further slippage. There has been almost no new builds out here since the Spirit class and that shipyard was closed up and dismantled, they actually built the hull in 2 different places and then slid the superstructure built at a new yard on the Fraser and then all the pieces joined together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-class_ferry

I think Seaspan will be in a better position to bid in the next couple of years, it had to rebuild the yard from scratch and start on the ships at the time BCF was looking for replacements. BCF will have to replace the C class at some point and I hope that goes to Seaspan. I think the 2nd OSFV will go quicker than the first and things will speed up, they are a good yard and now have the right tools. Davie also had to go through some painful processes and to be completely fair to them, did it without a major federal contract, which bodes well. Frankly if I could wave a magic wand I would give Davie the Irving contract and Irving can whither and die, which would be good for the whole east coast.


----------



## FSTO

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> if anyone has over an hour to waste, Davie has posted the recent hearing into the naval readiness of the RCN.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH9pMRWydeg



That was so painful to listen to. 
The worst was to hear how tortured the entire process of getting a new AOR has been and how utterly indifferent the MP's were towards that byzantine system. You would think they would be outraged at the time and money wasted.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

For me, FSTO, the most painful was to hear how bone-head basic the questions from Committee members were. A couple hours of research over the internet and even just keeping up with the MSM should have educated those members to the incredibly basic facts they elicited from their questions. If this is a standing Committee and you want to be on it, educating yourself to the basics of the subject matter of the Committee would seem to me to be an absolute requirement.

And Colin, I wouldn't mind letting Irving wither and die where new build is concerned, but I think that some repair and maintenance capacity is still required in Halifax - for the merchant ships, not the Navy - but still. There is enough such work coming from  fishing/oil and gas/commercial shipping industries to warrant a small yard.

BTW, the way you describe Seaspan putting together the S-class BC ferries is exactly what Davie points to when they talk of module build off-site. Davie knows all about that as it, itself, built such modules for the US Navy's last two Nimitz class aircraft carriers (they didn't win the bid for the first Ford class, but may yet get some more work as that class builds up). And just on the St-Lawrence River/Seaway system, there are four other smaller yards that could easily do module work for Davie if need be (and I am not including Aecon in Pictou or Newdocks in St. John's which could easily be added to the list).


----------



## The Bread Guy

Note to headline writer:  they're not alone in seeking something simpler - from the _Halifax Chronicle-Herald_, via the CAF Dispatch blog, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act_ ...


> *Shipbuilders Seek Simplified Government System*
> By: ANDREA GUNN, The Chr(o)nicle Herald
> 
> Having someone make swift decisions would save time and money on the National Shipbuilding Strategy, according to the government’s two key shipbuilders.
> 
> Both Irving Shipyard in Halifax and Seaspan in Vancouver have recommended Ottawa take a page from other seafaring nations and hire someone to act as a single point of accountability and decision-making in shipbuilding.
> 
> Jonathan Whitworth, CEO of Seaspan — which has contracts to build DFO and Coast Guard vessels as well as the navy’s Joint Support Ships under the NSS — told the Chronicle Herald the current system is cumbersome, often requiring extensive consultation among different bodies and levels of bureaucracy for simple decisions on things like engineering changes or matters of priority on the shipyard floor.
> 
> “What we’re asking for from the government side is that we have one person that can speak for all of the stakeholders within the government,” he said.
> 
> Whitworth said it’s often unclear who the point of contact is for a particular decision, and queries could end up with any number of government bodies: national defence, DFO, Public Works and Procurement Canada, or even the Treasury Board.
> 
> “There’s a lot of individuals,” Whitworth said.
> 
> “I will say we get along well, we talk in large groups, but that’s just really not the most efficient way to really make decisions.”
> 
> Whitworth said ideally there would be a central point of accountability within government for the NSS combat package, which Irving is building in Halifax, and one for Seaspan’s non-combat package.
> 
> “Just like any project, especially complex projects, time is money. The ability to make decisions on a more timely basis means the ship will be built quicker, which means it will inevitably be cheaper,” Whitworth said.
> 
> Though Irving president Kevin McCoy was not available for an interview, he offered similar comments to the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence in Ottawa earlier this month. Asked why the U.S. and U.K. tend to not have the same issues with delays as Canada when it comes to naval procurement, McCoy sa speed of decision-making as a major concern.
> 
> “I think one thing that does work against the system here is the very distributed authorities and responsibilities through many departments rather than what I’m used to, a single accountable officer, particularly for a program as huge as the Canadian service combatant,” McCoy told the committee.
> 
> “Somebody that can say, yes, in that area I’m going to go with Canadian content, in that area I’m going to go with operational requirements, in that area I’m going to go with low costs and risks and be able to push forward rather than debate it for a very long period of time.”
> 
> He went on to say that for major builds like the Canadian Surface Combatant, inflation is a real killer to a ship count, putting even more importance on swift decision-making if the navy wants the best bang for its buck.
> 
> Whitworth told the Chronicle Herald that Irving and Seaspan have already made the recommendation to government both at the defence committee as well as at a regular private meeting with government officials several weeks earlier, but have yet to get any sort of concrete answer.
> 
> He said the recommendation is not a particularly new or groundbreaking one and is something both the U.S. and U.K. have employed for years.
> 
> In fact, Whitworth said, Steve Brunton — the man hired by Ottawa last year as the government’s independent advisor on shipbuilding and ship acquisition — used to hold that position within the U.K. ministry of defence.
> 
> “This is something you don’t have to plough new ground with,” he said.
> 
> Retired navy commander and defence analyst Ken Hansen said there is definite value in having a single point of accountability on shipbuilding, from a time-saving point of view, but also to avoid issues with industrial capacity and workforce management.
> 
> “In a country like Canada where shipbuilding has not been very active for a long time, the suppliers have dwindled and their industrial capacity is reduced, so if you suddenly inject two, three, four more different construction programs under the central policy you can create conflict between them,” he said.
> 
> By putting a point of co-ordination in place, the government could better prioritize its shipbuilding activity to get the most value for the money.
> 
> The only potential issue, Hansen said, is that sometimes decisions will have to prioritize a certain project over another to arrive at the best option for the NSS as a whole.
> 
> “Whenever you have to make choices between various priorities, there’s always someone who is disappointed in the outcome.”
> 
> Public Works and Procurement Canada did not respond to an interview request by the Chronicle Herald’s deadline.


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Note to headline writer:  they're not alone in seeking something simpler - from the _Halifax Chronicle-Herald_, via the CAF Dispatch blog, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act_ ...



That would require:

A knowledgeable person
A person authorized to act independently
A person willing to make decisions and accept the consequences of the decisions made
A person with sufficient budget to manage the inevitable errors.

 :rofl:


----------



## Old Sweat

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> That would require:
> 
> A knowledgeable person
> A person authorized to act independently
> A person willing to make decisions and accept the consequences of the decisions made
> A person with sufficient budget to manage the inevitable errors.
> 
> :rofl:



and would be protected by checks and balances imposed from outside or internally to cover her or his butt not to mention the Crown's Royal Canadian Rump, that we would be back at square one, unless this super executive aka paragon of procurement was recruited from a homeless shelter in the Byward Market..


----------



## Underway

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> and would be protected by checks and balances imposed from outside or internally to cover her or his butt not to mention the Crown's Royal Canadian Rump, that we would be back at square one, unless this super executive aka paragon of procurement was recruited from a homeless shelter in the Byward Market..



That person already exists and was hired by Canada for a different job.



> Steve Brunton — the man hired by Ottawa last year as the government’s independent advisor on shipbuilding and ship acquisition — used to hold that position within the U.K. ministry of defence.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway:

What is his current role and how does he fit into the scheme of things?  Is he authorized to make decisions?


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Underway:
> 
> What is his current role and how does he fit into the scheme of things?  Is he authorized to make decisions?



http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1035509

Not sure if he is finished or not but he more than qualified to be the "Super Project Manager" on this project.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To borrow from the Game of Thrones, he would almost need the powers of the "Hand of the King" and the integrity f a Stark and more wisdom than one.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Irving is looking for expertise in Poland.  Not surprising at all for me.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1442036-exclusive-ships-start-in-poland-irving-looks-to-europe-for-n.s.-shipbuilding


----------



## jmt18325

A few things happened today:

https://twitter.com/seaspan/status/836752637152346113

The last construction block for the first OFSV was lowered in to place - but the delivery schedule has slipped from November 2017 (IIRC) to "early 2018".

Construction of the third OFSV started today.  That was originally scheduled to start in late November - so a 3 month slippage there as well.  Construction of the lone (for now) OOSV should begin later this year as the yard can now work on 4 vessels (at different stages of development) at a time.  

The detailed design contract for the JSS was awarded to Seaspan today.  The first JSS is scheduled to begin construction after completion of the first OFSV in "early 2018".  It is to be delivered by "early 2021", a slip from November 2020.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Bets on CCG getting so far one and only new icebreaker from Seaspan on schedule?  From last December (further links at original):



> ...in fact the slippage of the Seaspan icebreaker’s delivery from 2021-22 to 2022-23 was already public this March, scroll down here. Also in March it was made public that the RCN JSS’ IOC had slipped from 2019 to 2020; now it has indeed slipped further to 2021. Gosharootie. Bets on the icebreaker’s schedule being kept? That Davie proposal seems well worth consideration.
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/mark-collins-seaspan-at-work-rcn-jsss-still-sliding-right-ccg-icebreaker-not-for-now/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

With only davie on schedule , the problems keep mounting

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Davie is ahead of the already tight schedule they set for themselves. Watch for the ship entering service early fall of this year.

And if the government was smart enough to make a similar deal they offered for a second one now, it would be in the water in early 2019.


----------



## MilEME09

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, Davie is ahead of the already tight schedule they set for themselves. Watch for the ship entering service early fall of this year.
> 
> And if the government was smart enough to make a similar deal they offered for a second one now, it would be in the water in early 2019.



Davie is setting it self up well to be a good ship builder, a second Resolve class would go leaps and bounds for the RCN


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Apparently, Thales Canada, a subsidiary of the French electronics Thales group, has won the right to negotiate of itself the in-service contract for the AOPS and JSS, as they had the best bid. If it pans out (the government and Thales have until the early fall to come to an agreement), I am pretty sure that the physical work on the ships will go to Davie.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Apparently, Thales Canada, a subsidiary of the French electronics Thales group, has won the right to negotiate of itself the in-service contract for the AOPS and JSS, as they had the best bid. If it pans out (the government and Thales have until the early fall to come to an agreement), I am pretty sure that the physical work on the ships will go to Davie.



That was announced some time ago. Refits may go to davie however all other work will be done alongside Halifax Esquimalt using local companies.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, Davie is ahead of the already tight schedule they set for themselves. Watch for the ship entering service early fall of this year.
> 
> And if the government was smart enough to make a similar deal they offered for a second one now, it would be in the water in early 2019.



Sadly, they frequently fall short in the smrt decision making category.  I expect them to dirty the sheets on being smart and getting a second option from Davies.  I do hope they surprise me, but I'm not counting on it happening.


----------



## Underway

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Sadly, they frequently fall short in the smrt decision making category.  I expect them to dirty the sheets on being smart and getting a second option from Davies.  I do hope they surprise me, but I'm not counting on it happening.



Hopefully, Davie can make a few sales of the Resolve concept to other nations and keep the yard going either way.  I find myself cheering for them.  I used to hate that yard but since the new ownership took over they've charmed me.


----------



## suffolkowner

I liked Davie's Federal Fleet proposals as well all together

another resolve
the fast track icebreaker
and the three VS4220(?)

i am thinking that the three VS4220 have probably gone to the creditors by now though, does anyone have any info?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Being a West Coast boy I have a soft spot for Seaspan who have worked hard to step up to the plate and ran for years with no government contracts, I am also impressed with Davie and the Resolve class. Irving I have no time for from everything I hear about them from multiple sources.


----------



## captloadie

Given what we are being told about the FY situation the Department is currently in, and the outlook for next FY, I would not place any bets on acquiring any new capital items that aren't already under contract. The fiscal outlook for the next 2-3 years is pretty gloomy, given all these new troop commitments that are being thrown around. I know the capital infrastructure budget is separate from the O&M budget, but the big number at the end of the day is still the same, and its how the pies gets sliced that will influence many decisions.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Seaspan delivery of three CCG Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels sliding right:

1) Seaspan March 2016:



> ...
> With production of the second OFSV now underway, significant progress continues on the first OFSV with 35 of 37 blocks currently under construction. The two CCG ships are part of VSY’s three vessel, incentive-based build contract for the construction of _three OFSVs, which will be delivered under a ceiling price contract before the end of 2017_ [emphasis added]. Work on the third OFSV is scheduled to begin later this year...
> https://www.seaspan.com/seaspans-vancouver-shipyards-starts-construction-on-second-offshore-fisheries-science-vessel-ofsv



2) Gov't Feb. 28, 2017:



> ...
> Minister Foote also took part in a steel-cutting ceremony for the third Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel (OFSV) being built for the Canadian Coast Guard. Seaspan's Vancouver Shipyards now has all three of OFSVs under construction, with the _first ship scheduled for delivery in early 2018_ [emphasis added]...
> http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/government-takes-final-step-before-building-joint-support-ships-2199453.htm



Displacement of OFSVs is 3247 MT--see Seaspan descriptions of ships they're building:
https://www.seaspan.com/building

And those vessels are wildly over-priced--but build in Canada, Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!



> New Canadian Coast Guard Vessels: Sticker Shock and Never Never Land (media scrutiny?)
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/mark-collins-new-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-sticker-shock-and-never-never-land-media-scrutiny/



Forever sliding right--in 2012 then-gov't said first two OFSVs would be delivered in 2014 and third in 2015!
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2012-2013/inst/dfo/st-ts04-eng.asp#mcp2

Want to bet on JSSs and icebreaker being anywhere near schedule?  

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

Seaspans CEO announced he will be retiring at the end of 2017, maybe the next guy Frank Butzelaar who will take over April 3rd, might get things back on track. Does any one know if there are financial penalties for the continued delays?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The first one is 65% finished, I suspect they will make up some time on the next 2 as most of the bugs are out of the system and design. They basically rebuilt the yard from scratch prior to doing this. The yard and the company were never a "government yard" so I expect they will do ok, I also expect that the former CEO is worn out from getting things up and running.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> The first one is 65% finished, I suspect they will make up some time on the next 2 as most of the bugs are out of the system and design. They basically rebuilt the yard from scratch prior to doing this. The yard and the company were never a "government yard" so I expect they will do ok, I also expect that the former CEO is worn out from getting things up and running.



They were doing reasonable trade on repair and refit work competing against US and Pacific Rim yards before the rebuild.   I can't help but wonder how they will do once the government contracts are finished.  It will be interesting to see what their price for a ship built to commercial standards for the commercial market will be.  I would expect timelines to be shorter and prices to be lower.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It will certainly make them more competitive in the repair market where they already have a good rep. Regardless of how good they are, we can't compete on wages, regulations with most overseas yards. The trade agreements may make it impossible to place tariffs on incoming new builds from Europe, however it may be possible to to do so with the Asia yards.


----------



## Underway

Oops....

Irving contract with Spanish firm brings overseas carpenters, others to Halifax shipyard

And the fecal matter hits the rotary impellor in 3..2..


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I doubt the Provincial or Federal politicians in the area will take on Irving. It would require a national push from Ottawa to challenge them. More ammo for Davie to attack Irving's contracts.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> I doubt the Provincial or Federal politicians in the area will take on Irving. It would require a national push from Ottawa to challenge them. More ammo for Davie to attack Irving's contracts.



Irvings doing that them selves with this one


----------



## MarkOttawa

Underway: Irving looking for Scots workers too:



> ...Irving of Nova Scotia, is building a warship dock hall similar to the ones abandoned by BAE Systems and is currently advertising to lure skilled Clydeside shipbuilders to Canada...
> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15101460.Major_investment_scrapped_at_Upper_Clyde_s_last_yards/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Underway: Irving looking for Scots workers too:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Godstrewth.  Mair Clydesiders! Has everybody wi' a memory retired?



> Joe Davidson
> 
> Joe Davidson, labour leader (b at Shotts, Scot 1915; d at Motherwell, Scot 23 Sept 1985). Always political, he described himself as an evolutionary socialist "with the proviso that evolution needed a shove at every opportunity.
> 
> He came to Canada in 1957 and worked in iron foundries in Hamilton and Dundas, Ontario, before he became a mail sorter in Toronto and a shop steward in the Canadian Postal Employees Association transformed into the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) in 1965. During the 1965 strike, he was active on the Toronto strike committee. He was elected president of the Toronto local 1967, became vice-president of CUPW in 1968 and was president 1974-77. His presidency encompassed 2 national postal strikes and dozens of smaller skirmishes over automation. He became the media's choice as the most hated man in Canada and in 1983 he retired.



Hire a Scot?  Right Bolshie lot they are.   [


----------



## George Wallace

Underway said:
			
		

> Oops....
> 
> Irving contract with Spanish firm brings overseas carpenters, others to Halifax shipyard
> 
> And the fecal matter hits the rotary impellor in 3..2..



It hit the fan two days ago, on Talk Radio here.  Lots of unemployed Canadian carpenters in Halifax and environs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It hit the fan two days ago, on Talk Radio here.  Lots of unemployed Canadian carpenters in Halifax and environs.


Start barricading government offices and the front gate and they might get action.


----------



## jmt18325

We don't have the expertise here (yet - anymore).  It's completely understandable.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For fitting and carpentry work? I find that hard to believe, yes they have never done that particular work before, but there is this thing called training and anyone with the available skills can learn the details quickly. Since we are paying a premium already to ensure jobs for Canadians, I don't want companies reneging on that social contract.


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> For fitting and carpentry work? I find that hard to believe, yes they have never done that particular work before, but there is this thing called training and anyone with the available skills can learn the details quickly. Since we are paying a premium already to ensure jobs for Canadians, I don't want companies reneging on that social contract.



And I would hope that these jobs are just to fill small holes.  If there's any large scale and or long term function, I'm not for that.


----------



## Underway

It's only going to get worse when the trade deal with the EU is finalized. There are plenty of clauses for contract and gov't work to go to bidders from outside of the country (conversely, Cdn firms can get work in the EU).  Get used to this sort of thing. If it means we get more ships or more capable ships then sell the whole damn thing out to the Spanish for all I care.


----------



## Edward Campbell

My _opinion_, worth exactly what you're paying for it, is that "workers" are not the problem, management is.

It is fairly common, amongst some so-called _*conservatives*_, especially, to blame workers and unions and generous social programmes and so on for our rather dismal productivity. That's nonsense, _in my opinion_. 

I think we have, broadly, second rate corporate management in Canada and I think part of that is the fault of politicians going all the way back to "the great Sir John A," who erected protectionist walls that, effectively, _weakened_ Canadian industry by shielding it from the sort of healthy competition that makes enterprises more competitive and productive. 

It might well be that what helped turn _Davie_ around, making it much more innovative and productive, was foreign ownership and management and, equally, that what makes _Bomardier_ or _Irving_ relatively _*unproductive*_ is _*Canadian*_ ownership and management.

My  :2c:


----------



## MarkOttawa

E.R. Campbell:  :bowing:

Indeed.  Our "capitalists" have essentially succeeded in such, essentially protected, fields as beer (now taken over by foreign firms), liquor and groceries.  Wow.  Ask any non-Canadian to name a manufactured product we export and you will get a big blank (few know Bombardier is Canadian and few knew Blackberry was).  Compare with, say, Sweden, Switzerland etc.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

Uhh, I can't name a a product from those countries either.

This is the usual Canadian self immolation.  Canada has the world's third largest aerospace company.  It's required a lot of help, just as have the first largest, second largest, and fourth (and fifth and...).  Blackberry was for a time another success story.  Canada's finaccial services sector and energy and mining sectors are other areas of success.  

We're a pretty successful country overall.  We simply have a high bar to compare ourselves to just to the south.


----------



## NavyShooter

Interesting.  I was just sort of offered a job with the CSC team working at Irving.  

I had to explain to the gent about my past experiences with Irving, and why I will never put my name on a business card that has the Irving logo on it.  I don't even like buying gas from Irving stations.


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Uhh, I can't name a a product from those countries either.
> 
> ...



Volvo
Saab
Bofors
Haegglunds
Ericsson
Electrolux
Alfa Laval
SKF
Tetra Pak

From Sweden
Off the top of my head.


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Volvo
> Saab
> Bofors
> Haegglunds
> Ericsson
> Electrolux
> Alfa Laval
> SKF
> Tetra Pak
> 
> From Sweden
> Off the top of my head.



Impressive.  I didn't actually think of Volvo.  It's Swedish again after not being so for many years.

I forgot to mention another Canadian success story - insurance.


----------



## jollyjacktar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Impressive.  I didn't actually think of Volvo.  It's Swedish again after not being so for many years.
> 
> I forgot to mention another Canadian success story - insurance.



I would hardly call being a modern form of Robber Baron and screwing the common folks a success.  Unless you're a shareholder.


----------



## jmt18325

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I would hardly call being a modern form of Robber Baron and screwing the common folks a success.  Unless you're a shareholder.



While I would agree that insurance is basically a giant pyramid scheme, it's something that we've done very well.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Forgive me if I don't join you in celebrating legalized thieves.  However fantastic they might be at rolling their victims.

Next, I fear you'll be wanting me to thumbs up pedophiles or lawyers, or used car salesmen or...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Volvo
> Saab
> Bofors
> Haegglunds
> Ericsson
> Electrolux
> Alfa Laval
> SKF
> Tetra Pak
> 
> From Sweden
> Off the top of my head.


Not to metion this (although Saab & Bofors is mentioned) ...


----------



## CombatDoc

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Volvo
> Saab
> Bofors
> Haegglunds
> Ericsson
> Electrolux
> Alfa Laval
> SKF
> Tetra Pak
> 
> From Sweden
> Off the top of my head.


And don't forget Sweden's best known export - Abba! By comparison, Canada gave the world Celine Dion.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Er, Ikea anyone?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Er, Ikea anyone?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



 :facepalm: Forest for the trees.


----------



## MilEME09

Rick nails it again,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCDlmYivjb8


----------



## MarkOttawa

Further to this 2016 post,



> Irving Halifax Has Lead Evaluating RCN Canadian Surface Combatant Design/Weapons Systems Bids
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/mark-collins-irving-halifax-has-lead-evaluating-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-designweapons-systems-bids/



rather a "hmm" here:



> U.S.-only the rule for some Irving navy contract jobs
> 
> A subcontractor for Irving Shipbuilding is hiring engineers and specialists in Halifax for work on Canada’s next fleet of warships, but there’s a catch — some applicants must be U.S. citizens.
> 
> Gibbs & Cox is a U.S. naval architecture and engineering firm that has been retained by Irving to support engineering and design on the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) and Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) Programs.
> 
> The company’s website is currently advertising about 20 jobs, some co-based in both Halifax and Arlington, Va., where Gibbs & Cox is headquartered, and others based solely in Halifax.
> 
> Approximately half of these jobs require U.S. citizenship, while the other half require U.S. Secret Security Clearance.
> 
> Listings for both a combat systems interfaces lead and a combat support systems manager, which appear to be related to work on the CSC design, specify the jobs are based solely out of Halifax. Both positions require U.S. citizenship.
> 
> The job description for the systems manager, in part, reads: “Serve as the manager for 5-10 individuals and be responsible for the shipyard design integration of combat systems support systems for a naval combatant design.”
> 
> Other listings for a naval marine systems engineer, auxiliary systems engineer, and cybersecurity lead are also based solely in Halifax, and are only open to U.S. citizens.
> 
> A number of other listings, again some based solely in Halifax and others based in both in Halifax and Arlington, do not require U.S. citizenship, but require U.S. Secret Security Clearance.
> 
> Some examples of listings based solely in Halifax and requiring U.S. Secret Security Clearance include a lead supportability/software engineer and a hardware systems safety engineer. Both positions specify work on navy ship designs.
> 
> According to the U.S. Department of State website, U.S. citizenship is generally required to gain security clearance, except under specific circumstances where limited access to can be granted to someone who “possess a special expertise that is needed for specific programs, projects, contracts, licenses, certificates, or grants.”
> 
> Irving, the prime contractor for the combat portion of the government’s multi-billion-dollar National Shipbuilding Strategy, is building six Harry DeWolf Class Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, with the first to be delivered in 2018 and the navy’s new fleet of up to 15 Canadian Surface Combatants starting in the 2020s.
> 
> Jobs for Canadians has been billed by government as one of the main benefits of the program...
> 
> On security requirements, Lewis said Irving requires Gibbs & Cox employees working at their shipyard to have a clearance that is “at least equivalent to Canadian Secret Security Clearance.”
> 
> “Given that Gibbs & Cox does significant U.S. naval work, it is not surprising that they would seek U.S. Secret Security Clearance and citizenship.”
> 
> But well-placed industry sources told The Chronicle Herald that the fact that U.S. Secret Security Clearance alone is specified — not Canadian, NATO or Five Eyes security classification — combined with the fact that many of the job postings are for combat systems work seems to point to a preference for certain U.S. systems on Canada’s new fleet of warships.
> 
> Retired navy commander and defence analyst Ken Hansen shares this assessment.
> 
> The federal Department of Public Services and Procurement is currently soliciting combined bids from 12 pre-qualified firms for both a pre-existing warship design and combat systems integrator — the company that will make sure all the ship’s systems work together.
> 
> Hansen said it’s likely Irving is betting a large portion of the CSC’s systems will have U.S. technology.
> 
> “This is all about the CSC program and what they perceive to be the most likely outcome, which would be a design that would have a significant amount of U.S. material content.” he said.
> 
> Given Canada and the U.S. are allies, their companies work together on defence projects and navies at times conduct joint operations, it’s logical Hansen said that many key pieces of technology will come from the U.S. This could include voice and data communications, encryption, and data display equipment.
> 
> Hansen said it’s not surprising, then, that U.S. Secret Security Clearance or citizenship is required for many of the Gibbs & Cox positions given the engineers could be working with sensitive U.S. technology.
> 
> But Hansen said those requirements could also potentially favour U.S. companies when it comes to the huge combat systems integrator contract. A likely candidate is Lockheed Martin, which has a long history with Canada, including the recently-completed Halifax-class frigate modernization...
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1447901-u.s.-only-the-rule-for-some-irving-navy-contract-jobs



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

Saw that this morning,  very disappointed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For some of the very sensitive software and equipment that is ITAR controlled, I can see people being brought in. I can see a specialist being brought in to oversee and manage the placement and hookup of particular propulsion units and gear boxes. I can see a few specialist being brought in to oversee and manage things like this individual modular hotel setup which is fairly new to us. However the people doing the work should be Canadians who then learn how to do this stuff, making the shipyard more viable for future contracts.


----------



## Kirkhill

Result:

Zumwalt pricing instead of Absalon pricing.

Must protect the US shipbuilding margin......


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Fair enough, but if you want shipyards that can repair the ship, they will need new builds and the reality is that each country subsidizes their yards one way or another. If we want cheaper ships, by all means get them built overseas, but don’t expect to have the expertise here to maintain them. Canadian yards cannot compete for new builds mainly due to labour, taxation, regulatory  and environmental regs. If we are going to build here and pay a premium price, then I dam well expect that Canadians get about 95% of the jobs, because that is what the premium is for. Irving appears to want to charge us the “Canadian premium experience price” and hire a lot of foreigners for likely a lot less to do it, reducing any positive effects to the Canadian economy, in which case we are getting hosed over twice.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> For some of the very sensitive software and equipment that is ITAR controlled, I can see people being brought in. I can see a specialist being brought in to oversee and manage the placement and hookup of particular propulsion units and gear boxes. I can see a few specialist being brought in to oversee and manage things like this individual modular hotel setup which is fairly new to us. However the people doing the work should be Canadians who then learn how to do this stuff, making the shipyard more viable for future contracts.



ITAR is a massive issue and so has to be dealt with properly as you can't teach Canadians some of the stuff fast enough (or may not even be allowed too). Also, there is no replacement for experience in integrating these sorts of systems year over year like they do with the continuous build in the US.  Remember there are a number of systems that the RCN has dictated that _must_ be included in any design no matter the bidder.  Comms, ECM, Harpoons and Torps may be on that list and most likely stay as US tech. Everything else is probably up for other options.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> *Fair enough, but if you want shipyards that can repair the ship, they will need new builds and the reality is that each country subsidizes their yards one way or another. If we want cheaper ships, *by all means get them built overseas, but don’t expect to have the expertise here to maintain them. *Canadian yards cannot compete for new builds mainly due to labour, taxation, regulatory  and environmental regs.*



Solution the first - adjust the regulatory environment and get rid of all those impediments
Solution the second - find the subsidization route that countries other than the US employ and employ it
Solution the third - adjust the RCN's expectations


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but if you want shipyards that can repair the ship, they will need new builds and the reality is that each country subsidizes their yards one way or another. If we want cheaper ships, by all means get them built overseas, but don’t expect to have the expertise here to maintain them. Canadian yards cannot compete for new builds mainly due to labour, taxation, regulatory  and environmental regs. If we are going to build here and pay a premium price, then I dam well expect that Canadians get about 95% of the jobs, because that is what the premium is for. Irving appears to want to charge us the “Canadian premium experience price” and hire a lot of foreigners for likely a lot less to do it, reducing any positive effects to the Canadian economy, in which case we are getting hosed over twice.



The shipyard setup for repairing vs building is completely different; most of the shipbuilding equipment is useless for repair work.  You can't build/outfit megablocks while repairing existing ships.  The skillsets are similar but you can't take the same facilities to have them change roles. 

We have been repairing ships with no build facilities since the frigates came online, and even before that, SJS was never used for repair work.

They are really two different industries; it's like a Ford plant vice the mechanics.


----------



## donaldk

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Solution the first - adjust the regulatory environment and get rid of all those impediments
> Solution the second - find the subsidization route that countries other than the US employ and employ it
> Solution the third - adjust the RCN's expectations




Problem with your Point 1:
Lore of the RCN: No one is allowed to offer thought that would make sense.  You should know this by now.
Lore of DND Budgeting: Can't spend part of that $200M commitment left over yet because the EX04 wants his performance bonus.  If anyone asks about APS 2017 moves, say "we're out of money". (fictitious non NSPS example... )
Lore of government contracting: Ignore the contractual violations by the vendor (because PSPC is going to tell you to STFU anyways and the DND procurement folks enjoy their BBQs), authorize any and all extras expediently - no checking, bend over and take it in the a** when legal threats hit inbound, and leave all the external PR stuff to public affairs (PSYOPS).

A lot of work required for your Point 2:
Given the above, its a shame to think NSPS might actually be headed into a massive roadblock thanks to legal shenanigans over the CSC portion.  AOPS is just a PR game, CSC is where absolute seriousness must exist.  We (as the Canadian public) still haven't been furnished an appropriate explanation as to why our fine former VCDS VAdm Norman was removed from his post  :-X.  The ITAR engineering firm above isn't the only thing ISI is hiring foreign... I have heard enough from Unions 1 and 28 members which are absolutely PISSED off over the foreign skill trades being hired in (i.e. not just the PEs / PEngs who have native US clearance - I am meaning easily Canadian sourced areas like pipe fitters / welders / wood workers, etc).

As to point 3, RCN's expectations could be adjusted to minimize ITAR and force ISI to do the same (the HCM project did this with putting in a Swedish CMS and radar fit), that would mean selecting a non-ITAR engineering firm.  If an engineer has done design work on a ITAR-ed system, any similar designs could be ruled ITAR by the US - Boeing got accused HARD with this on a few occasions during the 777/787 design projects where it was thought their ITAR engineers shared info to their civilian products counterparts.  The only critical ITAR piece I see we need is the encryption framework for the comms and portions of the SATCOM/IT fit (since we often set up links to USAF/USN kit).  Convenient ITAR systems would be the weapons fit - but the US isn't the only game in town... our desire is driven by the fact that American sourced consumables for the weapons systems are plentiful and often sold/leased to us at lucrative pricing as showcased by the Victoria class refit for taking the Mk48 vs the UK's equivalent torpedo system.  MSE systems/hull form in any shape or form do NOT require ITAR systems, and Israel makes absolutely awesome offensive weapons systems, and the Swedes won us over for CMS/Sensors (as per HCM/FELEX wise - except IEWS which is Israeli...).  We do have this thing called a National Security Exception clause with contracting... maybe non-ITAR clause should also be considered in the procurement world (and worded strong enough to survive a NAFTA/WTO challenge).


----------



## NavyShooter

I have calculated that I have 8 years, 2 months left before I'm paying to come to work based on pension rates, cost of bridge fare, parking, etc.

I do not anticipate that I will see a CSC hit the water within that 8 year 2 month period. 

E.R. Campbell said it well, if you look at the NSPS as being a means to effectively procure warships for our Navy, then it will be a failure.  If you look at it as a jobs project, with some warships being a useful by-product, then it will be a success.

The recent OUTCAN hiring processes from ISI seem to be putting the lie to the second half though...if the jobs don't go to Canadians, then why are we doing this at all?

I'm not an expert at any of this stuff, but because of the position I'm in, I see how messed up logistics is, and if procurement is as messed up (and I hear it's worse) then I'm not surprised by any of it.

NS


----------



## STONEY

People have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills . Irving has a 96 percent local workforce. I have worked at 5 different shipyards and they have all been staffed by a united nations of workers. Just watched a documentary about a giant shipyard in Korea that is building several large ships and was struck by the large numbers of westerners supervising the work. I think that on any large project of any kind anywhere in the world you would find workers from various locals. Remember its the main job of a union to bitch to justify their existence.


cheers


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I know just the show you are talking about, Stoney.

But it was about the building of the new Maersk Super-E cargo ship. Those Westerners supervising were all Danish engineers from the owner company: Maersk. They were there at all time to oversee all aspects of construction and ensure everything was up to their own standards.

Perhaps if the government of Canada had as many supervising engineers, as well qualified as Maersk's ones, and took that much continual interest in the construction of its vessels at various yards, the products we get would be of much greater quality. But Irving yards may not appreciate  [.


----------



## jollyjacktar

More to the point, OGBD, is if politics didn't come into play with what is delivered by Irving et al. We see shit being done at said yard and forced upon us (having to accept delivery to save face) by the top echelons, all for the sake of appearances.  And to add insult to injury they then turn around and reward these pirates with even more contracts.  It's BS.


----------



## MarkOttawa

We should be so lucky to have only one-year delay with a ship (and cost far, far less than ours--note where built):



> A Year Late, UK Receives First Carrier-Support Ship [actually not just for carriers]
> 
> The first of four British military tankers being built in South Korea to support operation of the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier force has finally been handed over to the Ministry of Defence, twelve months later than expected.
> 
> “Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidespring was accepted off contract earlier this month and is due to arrive in the UK in 2017 for customisation and capability assessment trials before entering service,” an MoD spokesman confirmed to Defense News Jan 17.
> 
> RFA Tidespring should have been accepted off contract last January but has been delayed while technical issues have been resolved by the builders, Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME).
> 
> “Some technical issues were discovered following RFA Tidespring’s sea trials, and alongside this, new regulations around cable insulation required adjustments to the build schedule. These issues were fully resolved prior to acceptance,” said the spokesman.
> 
> The 37,000 tonne tanker was due to have been in service with the RFA, the logistics and operational support arm for the Royal Navy, last September to start replacing single-hulled ships that no longer meet international standards.
> 
> Under the original time frame three of the four ships should have been handed over to the British by now with the final tanker scheduled to be accepted this April.
> 
> Despite the problems, the spokesman said all four ships are “expected to be in service by the end of 2018, consistent with the original intent.”
> 
> The spokesman said the firm-price nature of the contract meant the delays had not resulted in any additional cost to the MoD...
> 
> Britain ordered four tankers from DSME in 2012 in a $597 million deal that sparked controversy here over the MoD’s decision to put the program out to international competition, rather than reserving the work for local yards. None of the British yards submitted a bid...
> http://www.defensenews.com/articles/a-year-late-uk-receives-first-carrier-support-ship



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Besides looking for workers in Poland and Scotland,
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1476424.html#msg1476424
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1478781.html#msg1478781

Irving is also recruiting in Oz:



> http://bourque.com/irvingaussie.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> We should be so lucky to have only one-year delay with a ship (and cost far, far less than ours--note where built):
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


4 tankers for under $1B Cdn. I wish we had done this and had them build the hulls for the CSC's, could probably have done those for just over $1B each, all in.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries/nss-photo-gallery-ofsv1


----------



## MilEME09

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Besides looking for workers in Poland and Scotland,
> http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1476424.html#msg1476424
> http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1478781.html#msg1478781
> 
> Irving is also recruiting in Oz:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Maybe they can get some Australian management instead so we can run a shipbuilding program on time


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I note that Seaspan now has all 3 OSFV under construction and planning is underway for the OOSV. The First OSFV is about 75% complete, looks like they are just fitting her out and all major modules are attached. I suspect they will gain some time back on the next 2. The OOSV appears to be a longer version of the OSFV's so it should go well also. If things go right there should be 3 ships under construction at all times.


----------



## jmt18325

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Maybe they can get some Australian management instead so we can run a shipbuilding program on time


Like the Hobart class.....


----------



## MilEME09

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Like the Hobart class.....



Just saying at this point in time they do have more experience building ships


----------



## jmt18325

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Just saying at this point in time they do have more experience building ships



Definitely true - on the other hand, it looks like this plan will soon produce a ship.  It's taken a while, but, funding contingent, this thing is finally doing what it's supposed to do.


----------



## MarkOttawa

jmt18325:



> ...it looks like this plan will soon produce a ship.  It's taken a while, but, funding contingent, this thing is finally doing what it's supposed to do.



At what ludicrously inflated cost and ridiculous delays?  And now need foreign workers for those Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! 

BALLS-UP!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

The reality is, most of the people working there aren't foreign workers.  I still would argue that it's good to have this industry.  I'd argue the same about Bombardier.


----------



## NavyShooter

*It would be good to have this industry as a competitive one, not one that can only survive on over-inflated government contracts.


----------



## jmt18325

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> *It would be good to have this industry as a competitive one, not one that can only survive on over-inflated government contracts.



I think it's valuable as a strategic asset and employment driver.  It's also important to remember that money spent here stays here.  It would be interesting to know the net cost of sending contracts out of Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't care if Canadian built ships cost 10 times Dutch built ships.  All you have to do is inflate the defence budget by a factor of 10.  After all the money is spent here in Canada.

The fact that we don't continues to suggest to me that governments, especially Liberal ones, love to inflate the costs so as to maximize the amount of money pumped into the economy while minimizing capabilities it might be expected to employ.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We need a ship building/repair industry, we don't "need" it to be Irving, or Davie, or Seaspan. The NSPS was a good idea, but it was 20 years late, so no matter what we do, it's not enough and it costs way more, because the yards had to catch up as well.


----------



## jmt18325

A little short term pain is worth some long term gain, I think.


----------



## MarkOttawa

We don't demand a jet fighter manufacturing industry in Canada, a tactical/strategic airlifter one, a medium-lift helo one--nor tank and artillery making.  What's so special about things that float on water (we don't demand U-Boat building either)?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Lumber

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> We don't demand a jet fighter manufacturing industry in Canada, a tactical/strategic airlifter one, a medium-lift helo one--nor tank and artillery making.  What's so special about things that float on water (we don't demand U-Boat building either)?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Irving.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> We don't demand a jet fighter manufacturing industry in Canada, a tactical/strategic airlifter one, a medium-lift helo one--nor tank and artillery making.  What's so special about things that float on water (we don't demand U-Boat building either)?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


You can certainly argue the point, but if you don't build ships here, you will not have the ability to do any repair to them. That is the reality and then there is the political cost of spending that much outside of the country. As long as money is flowing into peoples pockets and into the local economy people will stomach quite the price tag. For very specialized equipment, people will accept the overseas argument, but for a ship they will ask "Why can't we do that?"


----------



## Kirkhill

A ship is little more than a tin dugout with an inboard motor.  What differentiate ships is all the stuff that the dugout keeps afloat.

When looking at the supply chain for NSPS can anybody answer how many Canadian firms insert themselves along that chain between the foreign manufacturer and the finished vessel?  Each one of them taking their 25% and engineering?  How many foreigners?  

My sense of the possible markups are that Manufacturing sells to Distribution who sells to Marketing who sells to Region who sells to Agent who sells to Integrator who sells to System supplier who sells to shipbuilder who sells to end user.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The number of suppliers for a ship can be staggering, which is why a lot of smaller companies often orbit around a successful shipyard.


----------



## Kirkhill

Agreed there are a bunch of moving parts.

But I have told this tale before.

A plant in BC required a spare valve.  It talked to the vendor in Scarborough which talked to its marketing department in Sweden who talked to the After Sales Department in another Swedish town which talked to a European distributor in Belgium who talked to a supplier in Germany who went to US manufacturer who talked to the Canadian supplier in Brantford Ontario.

The original price of the valve was $1200.  The price to the BC client was $10,000.  The difference between the stock Canadian valve and the "European" valve was ASME flanges vs DIN flanges.

Supply chain management.


----------



## chrisf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> A ship is little more than a tin dugout with an inboard motor.  What differentiate ships is all the stuff that the dugout keeps afloat.



That's a bit of an over simplification isn't it?



> When looking at the supply chain for NSPS can anybody answer how many Canadian firms insert themselves along that chain between the foreign manufacturer and the finished vessel?  Each one of them taking their 25% and engineering?  How many foreigners?
> 
> My sense of the possible markups are that Manufacturing sells to Distribution who sells to Marketing who sells to Region who sells to Agent who sells to Integrator who sells to System supplier who sells to shipbuilder who sells to end user.



And? That's literally how any modern supply chain works.

Ships are delivered as a group of system, which each individual system delivered directly by the yard (Either the yard directly, or a division of the same company owning the yard) or by a sub contractor. 

With the many of the major systems, the sub-contractor will also be the manufacturer (Engines, propulsion, generation, etc)


----------



## chrisf

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> We don't demand a jet fighter manufacturing industry in Canada, a tactical/strategic airlifter one, a medium-lift helo one--nor tank and artillery making.  What's so special about things that float on water (we don't demand U-Boat building either)?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Nothing, except a yard that can build warships can build pretty much any sort of civilian ship. Facilities, and skills of the craftsmen employed are common to pretty much any sort of ship building.

Requiring a ship to be built in Canada helps to ensure the industry exists to build other ships (I'm not saying it's particularly effective)

Any of the other industries you mention require changes in production facilities to produce other products.


----------



## MarkOttawa

We could do what Dutch do with Damen--build hulls in Romania and ship home for finishing (Aussies did same with Navantia LHD); but for some reason metal-bashing jobs at extortionate cost are deemed essential to  Canadian politicians.



> http://www.damen.com/en/companies/damen-shipyards-galati?mId=10128
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

The point on supply chain management is that you don't have to accept the long route.  In the instance that I cited the BC company swapped out the DIN flanges for ASME flanges and bought the valve in Canada for the Manufacturer's Suggest Retail Price with discount.  So $10,000 became $1000.  Of course, in their case they had an incentive to cut out middle men and save money. It was their money.


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> We could do what Dutch do with Damen--build hulls in Romania and ship home for finishing (Aussies did same with Navantia LHD); but for some reason metal-bashing jobs at extortionate cost are deemed essential to  Canadian politicians.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Mark, that big steel wall looks more impressive in photo-ops than the miles of cabling installed in raceways onboard.

And I believe the Brits have done the same with their tankers - built off shore but returned to Britain for final installation of government supplied equipment like comms and weapons.


----------



## chrisf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The point on supply chain management is that you don't have to accept the long route.  In the instance that I cited the BC company swapped out the DIN flanges for ASME flanges and bought the valve in Canada for the Manufacturer's Suggest Retail Price with discount.  So $10,000 became $1000.  Of course, in their case they had an incentive to cut out middle men and save money. It was their money.



That's not cutting out the middle man, they modified their equipment to accept North American parts.

I deal with the situation regularly, equipment manfuactered in Europe with parts that are standard, common and cheap in Europe, but cost a fortune to buy from a local supplier in north America. The solution is often to modify the equipment to accept North American parts (I've also dealt with a local supplier who will buy and send me an invoice for pretty much anything from any website I send him, with a very reasonable markup... saves a fortune vs buying it from an "official" dealer locally, downside is there's the occasional risk of counterfeit parts)

I understand the point you're trying to get at, but the story isn't relevant to ship building, as the supply chain is much more direct.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The reality is, most of the people working there aren't foreign workers.  I still would argue that it's good to have this industry.  I'd argue the same about Bombardier.




You're on the right track. It is, of course, "good" to have shipyards and aerospace companies: they can, might ~ if they are well managed ~ provide good, steady jobs for Canadians in their communities and they can "anchor" a defence industrial base which ~ although we devoutly hope not ~ might be a necessity, someday.

The problem, and I think it is the biggest problem in Canadian industry, is management ~ this is especially true in some "family firms" like _Bombardier_ and _Irving_ where controlling shareholders still are often unqualified family. 

Take a look at _Davie_: what a HUGE change adult management made in just a short time.\

I will guarantee you, with one iota of fear of contradiction that Stephen Harper, when he was PM, wanted, for purely partisan political reasons to bankroll _Bombardier_ but his most senior civil service advisors said, "No, sir. It's a financial black hole. If they reform their management then, by all means, support them with government money, but not until then ..." _Bombardier_ never reformed and the Conservatives never sent money. The difference between Prime Minister Harper and Justin Trudeau was that the former often (not always) put the country ahead of partisan political advantage, the latter never does that.

When the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy was developed the "tiger team" of senior civil servants left _Davie_ off the list because they felt that _Davie_'s management was beyond redemption; _Davie_'s private shareholders changed that and now it is _Irving_ that looks third rate ~ because it is a third rate company.

It is generally accepted that _Bombardier_ and _Irving_ cannot, ever, be allowed to fail ~ government (provincial and national) will always step in ~ but that's what we believed about CFB Summerside and _Davie_ and, in the latter case, government pushed it to the very edge.

Yes, we want to build ships and aircraft and electronics and, and, and ... in Canada, using Canadian labour, by and large, and Canadian steel and Canadian plastics. But we should not reward inept management just because it is Canadian or a regional "champion."


----------



## Edward Campbell

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> We could do what Dutch do with Damen--build hulls in Romania and ship home for finishing (Aussies did same with Navantia LHD); but _for some reason metal-bashing jobs at extortionate cost are deemed essential to  Canadian politicians_.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa




All politicians, everywhere, are frightened nearly to death of the large number of less than well educated your (mostly) men who "need" low skill, high wage, metal bashing (and digging minerals and chopping tress and, and, and ...) jobs. We, in the modern, US led West have, broadly and generally, done a less then sterling job of preparing our young people to succeed in the world ... so we need to "create" jobs for a lot of them. Look at how the US North East (the rust belt) just voted.


----------



## jmt18325

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You're on the right track. It is, of course, "good" to have shipyards and aerospace companies: they can, might ~ if they are well managed ~ provide good, steady jobs for Canadians in their communities and they can "anchor" a defence industrial base which ~ although we devoutly hope not ~ might be a necessity, someday.
> 
> The problem, and I think it is the biggest problem in Canadian industry, is management ~ this is especially true in some "family firms" like _Bombardier_ and _Irving_ where controlling shareholders still are often unqualified family.
> 
> Take a look at _Davie_: what a HUGE change adult management made in just a short time.\
> 
> I will guarantee you, with one iota of fear of contradiction that Stephen Harper, when he was PM, wanted, for purely partisan political reasons to bankroll _Bombardier_ but his most senior civil service advisors said, "No, sir. It's a financial black hole. If they reform their management then, by all means, support them with government money, but not until then ..." _Bombardier_ never reformed and the Conservatives never sent money. The difference between Prime Minister Harper and Justin Trudeau was that the former often (not always) put the country ahead of partisan political advantage, the latter never does that.
> 
> When the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy was developed the "tiger team" of senior civil servants left _Davie_ off the list because they felt that _Davie_'s management was beyond redemption; _Davie_'s private shareholders changed that and now it is _Irving_ that looks third rate ~ because it is a third rate company.
> 
> It is generally accepted that _Bombardier_ and _Irving_ cannot, ever, be allowed to fail ~ government (provincial and national) will always step in ~ but that's what we believed about CFB Summerside and _Davie_ and, in the latter case, government pushed it to the very edge.
> 
> Yes, we want to build ships and aircraft and electronics and, and, and ... in Canada, using Canadian labour, by and large, and Canadian steel and Canadian plastics. But we should not reward inept management just because it is Canadian or a regional "champion."



Davie wasn't left out - they lost.  Their condition at the time made it that way.  We awarded Irving and Seaspan these projects based on a points system.  They got the most points.  The entire thing was scored and praised by a fairness monitor.  Looking back and wishing things would have been different won't change the way that they were, unfortunately.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You're on the right track. It is, of course, "good" to have shipyards and aerospace companies: they can, might ~ if they are well managed ~ provide good, steady jobs for Canadians in their communities and they can "anchor" a defence industrial base which ~ although we devoutly hope not ~ might be a necessity, someday.
> 
> The problem, and I think it is the biggest problem in Canadian industry, is management ~ this is especially true in some "family firms" like _Bombardier_ and _Irving_ where controlling shareholders still are often unqualified family.
> 
> Take a look at _Davie_: what a HUGE change adult management made in just a short time.\
> 
> I will guarantee you, with one iota of fear of contradiction that Stephen Harper, when he was PM, wanted, for purely partisan political reasons to bankroll _Bombardier_ but his most senior civil service advisors said, "No, sir. It's a financial black hole. If they reform their management then, by all means, support them with government money, but not until then ..." _Bombardier_ never reformed and the Conservatives never sent money. The difference between Prime Minister Harper and Justin Trudeau was that the former often (not always) put the country ahead of partisan political advantage, the latter never does that.
> 
> When the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy was developed the "tiger team" of senior civil servants left _Davie_ off the list because they felt that _Davie_'s management was beyond redemption; _Davie_'s private shareholders changed that and now it is _Irving_ that looks third rate ~ because it is a third rate company.
> 
> It is generally accepted that _Bombardier_ and _Irving_ cannot, ever, be allowed to fail ~ government (provincial and national) will always step in ~ but that's what we believed about CFB Summerside and _Davie_ and, in the latter case, government pushed it to the very edge.
> 
> Yes, we want to build ships and aircraft and electronics and, and, and ... in Canada, using Canadian labour, by and large, and Canadian steel and Canadian plastics. But we should not reward inept management just because it is Canadian or a regional "champion."



I'd argue only Irving Shipbuilding is a third rate company, mostly because Irving doesn't care about it.  Now if we're talking Irving Oil or J.D. Irving Limited, that's where the company actually puts its effort.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Davie wasn't left out - they lost.  Their condition at the time made it that way.  We awarded Irving and Seaspan these projects based on a points system.  They got the most points.  The entire thing was scored and praised by a fairness monitor.  Looking back and wishing things would have been different won't change the way that they were, unfortunately.



On that one jmt, you are talking through your hat on things you are ignorant about.

Davie was NOT IN THE PROCESS at all. This was for one simple reason: At the time of the bidding on the Shipbuilding Strategy, they were under bankruptcy protection, which automatically made them ineligible to participate - so they didn't. Just before the selections were made, but after the biding was closed, they came out of protection with the new owners and tried to bid for the non-combatant portion (the easiest one to quickly write a bid for), but it was not considered as it was deemed too late.

They never really had a bid in, and if they had under the new management, I am willing to bet anything they would have beaten Irving by a hundred miles.


----------



## jmt18325

I remember watching the results live though.  I remember that Davie had fewer points than the other two.  I remember Davie having a bid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shipbuilding_Procurement_Strategy

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/27419-timeline-shipbuilding-procurement-contract

Edit:  I don't remember if they were disqualified or not during the evaluation - what I do remember is that they had the lowest point total of the 3 yards, and would have lost anyway.


----------



## MilEME09

This snuck up two days ago on youtube, Project resolve update.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rwE09aCpZU

flashy, looks like the super structure is all going up.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Seems like Irving wants to get shipbuilders out of Australia(Ozzy workers, [ )  

(Found this on DT was posted by GF)

    Main Content



Print Email Facebook Twitter More
Canadian shipbuilder hopes to poach Aussie talent as SA projects wind down
By political reporter Angelique Donnellan

Updated 16 minutes ago

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.

Video: Irving Shipbuilders are searching for workers. (ABC News)
Map: Osborne 5017

A major Canadian shipbuilder has launched a bold recruitment drive Down Under looking to poach South Australian workers amid the local industry's so-called "valley of death".

In a newspaper advertisement and a social media campaign, Irving Shipbuilders calls on Australian workers to move to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and "North America's most modern shipyard".

Over the next 30 years, Irving said it would be constructing up to 21 modern patrol ships and surface combatants.

"By joining our team of more than 1,500 shipbuilders you can enjoy a dynamic, diverse and family-friendly career with a company dedicated to your success, health, wellness and safety," the company's buildshipsincanada website said.

Premier Jay Weatherill said delays in Federal Government decision-making meant Irving was seizing on a gap in work between the Air Warfare Destroyers, Future Frigates and submarines.
Irving Shipbuilders in Halifax.
Photo: Irving Shipbuilders is offering Aussie workers a relocation package and support if they move to Canada. (Supplied: Irving Shipbuilders)

"It is disappointing that we've had this dithering between Defence contracts and so now we've got this valley of death, where a lot of work is going to be lost down at Techport," Mr Weatherill said.

    "We shouldn't have been dithering about future submarines toying with the idea of sending them to Japan, many years were wasted.

"There is a risk that we'll lose some of our workers, obviously we want to retain as many here as we can," Mr Weatherill said.

A spokesperson for Federal Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne said: "Labor's six years of indecision has created this mess".

"It's the Turnbull Coalition Government that has commissioned 54 vessels and is investing $89 billion in continuous shipbuilding, which will create 5,000 direct jobs.

"The Turnbull Government have a plan and we are working with stakeholders across the country to implement it."
The company's pitch includes:

    Travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia, for you and your family
    Immigration support and assistance through to permanent residency
    Assistance integrating into the community
    Buddy program to ease transition into the workforce
    Generous relocation package

ASC at Osborne has been shedding hundreds of employees because work on the Air Warfare Destroyer project is winding down.

On its website, Irving said it was looking for engineers (hull, mechanical and electrical), combat systems engineers and specialists and ironworkers.

"Irving Shipbuilding is proud to provide our workforce with stable, good-paying jobs you can raise a family and build a future on," the website advertisement said.

The company will hold a recruitment session in Adelaide on April 20 as well as in Melbourne and Sydney.
Halifax vs Adelaide

Nova Scotia is a province almost completely surrounded by ocean in Canada's east, and is one of the country's three maritime provinces.
Ice hockey players celebrate a goal.
Photo: Ice hockey is the number one game in town. (Flickr: Doug Kerr)

It has a population of almost 1 million people and its capital is Halifax was "one of the best places to live in Canada".

Any South Australians interested in moving there should pack thermals, as temperatures over winter can drop to -15 degrees Celsius.

Like Adelaide, sport is important in Nova Scotia but any Aussies will need to swap punts for pucks, with ice hockey the top game in town.

Tourism Nova Scotia describes the province as a place where you can "feel your pace fall in sync with the rhythm of the sea, as the clean salt air breathes life into an afternoon".

"Immerse yourself in culture that ranges from traditional to avant-garde, from bagpipes to world-class golf."

Food is described as typically Canadian with an emphasis on local seafood.

Topics: manufacturing, states-and-territories, government-and-politics, federal---state-issues, federal-government, osborne-5017, adelaide-5000, sa

First posted about an hour ago
Print Email Facebook Twitter More


    Terms of Use
    Privacy Policy
    Contact Us
    © 2016 ABC

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-07/canadian-shipbuilder-reveals-plan-to-raid-aussie-talent-pool/8426206


----------



## suffolkowner

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I remember watching the results live though.  I remember that Davie had fewer points than the other two.  I remember Davie having a bid:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shipbuilding_Procurement_Strategy
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/27419-timeline-shipbuilding-procurement-contract
> 
> Edit:  I don't remember if they were disqualified or not during the evaluation - what I do remember is that they had the lowest point total of the 3 yards, and would have lost anyway.



I memory is in agreement with yours jmt for whatever that's worth! Again for what it's worth I seem to remember that Davie and Daewoo had an agreement conditional on Davie wining the contract.

If we were a smaller country(geographically) with only one coast all work could have and should have been concentrated at Davie, IMO. But that is not how things work in Canada imagine the uproar if both Seaspan and Irving ere shut out for a Quebec yard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Considering the political climate in Canada, I always thought the NSPS was the best we could have hoped for and had it been done 15 years ago, we would not be facing the political crisis regarding a failing fleet that we face now.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering the political climate in Canada, I always thought the NSPS was the best we could have hoped for and had it been done 15 years ago, we would not be facing the political crisis regarding a failing fleet that we face now.



Crisis implies people care, most Canadians do not, they seem to care more about election and parliamentary reform these days (which are important issues in my opinion). We will continue to be the red headed step child of the government until something serious happens to embarrass the government publicly. Like if W5 or someone did an in depth investigation of the dilapidated state of our armed forces or something, or god for bid we loose a bird in europe or Iraq.


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering the political climate in Canada, I always thought the NSPS was the best we could have hoped for and had it been done 15 years ago, we would not be facing the political crisis regarding a failing fleet that we face now.



Even if it would have been launched by say, Paul Martin, it would have been more successful.  That would have given a 5 year head start.


----------



## MilEME09

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Even if it would have been launched by say, Paul Martin, it would have been more successful.  That would have given a 5 year head start.



Technically it was, remember the JSS program? started by the martin government, cancelled by the harper government officially due to cost, and would of delivered it's first ship in 2012/13


----------



## Colin Parkinson

However the JSS was a one off contract for that class and not a overall approach to shipbuilding as I recall?


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> However the JSS was a one off contract for that class and not a overall approach to shipbuilding as I recall?



correct, still if it was left alone then the NSPS came along, atleast we would of gotten supply ships. Oh well Davie will be delivering this fall


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For all the doom and gloom, we should keep in mind that 1 CCG ship is almost done, construction on 2 others. 2 AOPs construction is underway and 1 AOR conversion is moving along. By the time Irving and Seaspan are done with the current schedule, replacements will be needed for the 1100 class icebreakers and Kingston Class.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> For all the doom and gloom, we should keep in mind that 1 CCG ship is almost done, construction on 2 others. 2 AOPs construction is underway and 1 AOR conversion is moving along. By the time Irving and Seaspan are done with the current schedule, replacements will be needed for the 1100 class icebreakers and Kingston Class.



 :goodpost:


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> For all the doom and gloom, we should keep in mind that 1 CCG ship is almost done, construction on 2 others. 2 AOPs construction is underway and 1 AOR conversion is moving along. By the time Irving and Seaspan are done with the current schedule, replacements will be needed for the 1100 class icebreakers and Kingston Class.



That's true, and that's why I say the program was about 5 years too late.  We wouldn't be where we are right now, if we had supply ships rolling off the line, and destroyers starting construction.


----------



## Kirkhill

1992 Afloat Logistics Support Capability

http://www.cntha.ca/static/documents/mej/mej-32.pdf

Same era as the Merlins/Cyclones.

Protecteur was 23 years old at the time (and interestingly a civvy design).


----------



## jollyjacktar

Pah! We were promised four AOR in the water by 2005. (ALSC) Now,they struggle to deliver even half of that.

Both sides have sung many a fine tune and led us on a pretty dance to nowhere time and time again over the years.  Too many times, bed shitters all.


----------



## jmt18325

It's worth giving Harper some credit then - he actually got the ball rolling, for real.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

JMT I totally agree, getting the NSPS done was amazing in it's own right, considering the diverse politics and interests of this country. It's doubtful that we can support 3 major shipyards in this country, while my hat tips to Davie for what they have done and are doing, they are not located in an area to support the navy effectively. Irving is, now if I could toss Irving management into the chuck and replace it with Davie's I would be a happy camper. It was a reality that Irving was going to win the east coast part, sadly Irving has a death grip on the Maritimes. What I would do right now is sign a contract for a second Resolve Class AOR, continue on with the NSPS schedule and start planning what ships will need replacing and when once the current NSPS ships are built. Both west Coast and East coast yards will need a slow but steady flow of new government hulls to build.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin: The Navy is not like the Coast Guard. We do most of our support ourselves at the Dockyards. That's what Fleet Maintenance Forces are for. The "support" we get from actual shipyards are only for build up and for large scale "mid-life" refits. Even the corporations that get "in-service support" contracts come and carry out their work at the Dockyards. So it really does not make any difference where the yards are located. You may recall that one of the IRO's was refitted in the Great Lakes, just as an example.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Colin: The Navy is not like the Coast Guard. We do most of our support ourselves at the Dockyards. That's what Fleet Maintenance Forces are for. The "support" we get from actual shipyards are only for build up and for large scale "mid-life" refits. Even the corporations that get "in-service support" contracts come and carry out their work at the Dockyards. So it really does not make any difference where the yards are located. You may recall that one of the IRO's was refitted in the Great Lakes, just as an example.



The new girls will be ISSC supported.  FMF facilities will be used but the actual folks down the road will more and more be contractors vs in house personnel.  I understand that that (at least at FMFCS) these "outsiders" are to some extent already on the shop floors.  For years they have been whittling down numbers of workers by attrition and other methods.  Many changes have and will come to pass.


----------



## Underway

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The new girls will be ISSC supported.  FMF facilities will be used but the actual folks down the road will more and more be contractors vs in house personnel.  I understand that that (at least at FMFCS) these "outsiders" are to some extent already on the shop floors.  For years they have been whittling down numbers of workers by attrition and other methods.  Many changes have and will come to pass.



Less gov't union employee's to deal with.  If you don't like the work that was done it's relatively easy to get rid of a contractor for the next contract.  Also should work slow down you don't need to worry about finding idle hands jobs for folks who can't be laid off until work picks up again.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

On the other hand your corporate knowledge walks out the door and there is no one to shoot the "good idea fairy" when they come to repeat the same mistakes.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> On the other hand your corporate knowledge walks out the door and there is no one to shoot the "good idea fairy" when they come to repeat the same mistakes.



Nope, they are now the contractors that were originally FMF.


----------



## STONEY

Has anyone else noticed That the largest highest capacity shipyard in Canada Had the entire bridge structure for the Resolve built outside the country in Finland thus employing many Finish workers thus exceeding Irving employing foreign workers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

True but they are not charging premium price either


----------



## Kirkhill

It does make an interesting cost control comparison though.  Especially as it also incorporates the same L3 Integrated Platform Management System used in the FELEX programme and the AOPS and OSI's Integrated Navigation and Tactical System used on the AOPS.  It seems to me that that control architecture being defined has the potential of reducing all future construction and training costs.  It also has the potential of greatly reducing the design uncertainty costs on future estimates.

So if Davie can get things done for 30 cents on the dollar doing things their way is it not fair to ask what the government can do to help the other yards get down to the same price range?  And is the current system worth a 70 cent premium?


----------



## Stoker

I find it interesting about the negativity towards using ISSC. I have dealt primarily with ISSC for the last 20 years and FMF on occasion. If you want your work completed with no union BS, that's the way to go. Not surprising that most if not all of the new classes of ships are getting ISSC. I haven't seen any FMF workers quit and become contractors, as they generally wouldn't last a minute doing honest work and being fired if they tried their union BS there.


----------



## NavyShooter

FMFCS has 'planned' its way out of maintaining the fleet.

The amount of billed hours to get a single job done is huge.  The process of planning the jobs, then assigning it to a shop...and then tasking the other shop...and then back to the first...crazy.

Consider, we have to install a new cable.  We also need to install a cable bracket to hold it as it goes down a bulkhead.

The job is 'planned' into a work period, and FMF agrees that they'll do it.

First shops shows up and peels away the bulkhead insulation so that the steel is exposed.

Welding shop shows up, with a fire sentry, grinds off a spot of paint, and welds on a threaded stud.  

Fire sentry stays for 60 minutes to ensure cooling/no fires/etc.

Next day, paint shop shows up, puts on a layer of primer (2 brush strokes)

Next day, paint shop shows up, puts on a coat of white paint over the primer (3 brush strokes)

Day after that, once the paint is dry, the insulation guys come back and re-install the insulation.

Paint shop comes back late that day to paint over the patch-tape for the insulation.

Day after that, the electrical shop shows up and threads on the bracket and starts the cable run.

Once the cable run is done, and is clamped in place on the bracket, the electronics shop shows up to do the cable termination.

Once the cable is terminated, they send another guy down to put a label on the cable.  At each end, and on each side of every bulk-head penetration so it can be traced through compartments on the ship.

Then the electronics shop shows up again and tests the cable (can't test it until the labels are on) at which point it's ready to connect.

The Nav shop then shows up and connects the cable to the piece of nav gear that was just installed.

Then, once that's all done, the ship can, at the end of the work period, go back to the ammo depot and bring all the ammo back onboard that had to be landed so that they could weld that close to the magazine (less than 2 meters.)



OR,

Hire an ISSC, who sends a team of 3 guys over, and it's done in a day, and the planned cable run that would have taken it within 2 meters of a magazine is re-routed with an amendment submitted to the specification.

But....FMF is an efficient tool to maintain the fleet....


----------



## MilEME09

You mean maintaining jobs right? And costing us time band money

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> FMFCS has 'planned' its way out of maintaining the fleet.
> 
> The amount of billed hours to get a single job done is huge.  The process of planning the jobs, then assigning it to a shop...and then tasking the other shop...and then back to the first...crazy.
> 
> Consider, we have to install a new cable.  We also need to install a cable bracket to hold it as it goes down a bulkhead.
> 
> The job is 'planned' into a work period, and FMF agrees that they'll do it.
> 
> First shops shows up and peels away the bulkhead insulation so that the steel is exposed.
> 
> Welding shop shows up, with a fire sentry, grinds off a spot of paint, and welds on a threaded stud.
> 
> Fire sentry stays for 60 minutes to ensure cooling/no fires/etc.
> 
> Next day, paint shop shows up, puts on a layer of primer (2 brush strokes)
> 
> Next day, paint shop shows up, puts on a coat of white paint over the primer (3 brush strokes)
> 
> Day after that, once the paint is dry, the insulation guys come back and re-install the insulation.
> 
> Paint shop comes back late that day to paint over the patch-tape for the insulation.
> 
> Day after that, the electrical shop shows up and threads on the bracket and starts the cable run.
> 
> Once the cable run is done, and is clamped in place on the bracket, the electronics shop shows up to do the cable termination.
> 
> Once the cable is terminated, they send another guy down to put a label on the cable.  At each end, and on each side of every bulk-head penetration so it can be traced through compartments on the ship.
> 
> Then the electronics shop shows up again and tests the cable (can't test it until the labels are on) at which point it's ready to connect.
> 
> The Nav shop then shows up and connects the cable to the piece of nav gear that was just installed.
> 
> Then, once that's all done, the ship can, at the end of the work period, go back to the ammo depot and bring all the ammo back onboard that had to be landed so that they could weld that close to the magazine (less than 2 meters.)
> 
> 
> 
> OR,
> 
> Hire an ISSC, who sends a team of 3 guys over, and it's done in a day, and the planned cable run that would have taken it within 2 meters of a magazine is re-routed with an amendment submitted to the specification.
> 
> But....FMF is an efficient tool to maintain the fleet....



Nicely put and the exact reason why I like dealing with them. To them getting a job done quick is better for them and us, whereas FMF likes to drag it out.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

STONEY said:
			
		

> Has anyone else noticed That the largest highest capacity shipyard in Canada Had the entire bridge structure for the Resolve built outside the country in Finland thus employing many Finish workers thus exceeding Irving employing foreign workers.



Seriously beginning to wonder if you are on Irving's payroll there, Stoney.

Source please!!!

Mine are internal people at Davie (good friend is in the house). The superstructure was built in their assembly hall, deck by deck fully fitted, then assembled like a cake outside the main assembly chamber until too tall - moved outdoor and assembled in two pieces. To build something like that in Finland then move it to Canada by ship, the bloody transport ship would not have been able to see over the structure from their ship's bridge. It also would not have gone unnoticed anywhere.


----------



## suffolkowner

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Seriously beginning to wonder if you are on Irving's payroll there, Stoney.
> 
> Source please!!!
> 
> Mine are internal people at Davie (good friend is in the house). The superstructure was built in their assembly hall, deck by deck fully fitted, then assembled like a cake outside the main assembly chamber until too tall - moved outdoor and assembled in two pieces. To build something like that in Finland then move it to Canada by ship, the bloody transport ship would not have been able to see over the structure from their ship's bridge. It also would not have gone unnoticed anywhere.



http://navaltoday.com/2017/03/06/canadian-project-resolve-aor-superstructure-to-arrive-from-finland/


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Seems he got you, OGBD...


----------



## dapaterson

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> FMFCS has 'planned' its way out of maintaining the fleet.
> 
> The amount of billed hours to get a single job done is huge.  The process of planning the jobs, then assigning it to a shop...and then tasking the other shop...and then back to the first...crazy.
> 
> Consider, we have to install a new cable.  We also need to install a cable bracket to hold it as it goes down a bulkhead.
> 
> The job is 'planned' into a work period, and FMF agrees that they'll do it.
> 
> First shops shows up and peels away the bulkhead insulation so that the steel is exposed.
> 
> Welding shop shows up, with a fire sentry, grinds off a spot of paint, and welds on a threaded stud.
> 
> Fire sentry stays for 60 minutes to ensure cooling/no fires/etc.
> 
> Next day, paint shop shows up, puts on a layer of primer (2 brush strokes)
> 
> Next day, paint shop shows up, puts on a coat of white paint over the primer (3 brush strokes)
> 
> Day after that, once the paint is dry, the insulation guys come back and re-install the insulation.
> 
> Paint shop comes back late that day to paint over the patch-tape for the insulation.
> 
> Day after that, the electrical shop shows up and threads on the bracket and starts the cable run.
> 
> Once the cable run is done, and is clamped in place on the bracket, the electronics shop shows up to do the cable termination.
> 
> Once the cable is terminated, they send another guy down to put a label on the cable.  At each end, and on each side of every bulk-head penetration so it can be traced through compartments on the ship.
> 
> Then the electronics shop shows up again and tests the cable (can't test it until the labels are on) at which point it's ready to connect.
> 
> The Nav shop then shows up and connects the cable to the piece of nav gear that was just installed.
> 
> Then, once that's all done, the ship can, at the end of the work period, go back to the ammo depot and bring all the ammo back onboard that had to be landed so that they could weld that close to the magazine (less than 2 meters.)
> 
> 
> 
> OR,
> 
> Hire an ISSC, who sends a team of 3 guys over, and it's done in a day, and the planned cable run that would have taken it within 2 meters of a magazine is re-routed with an amendment submitted to the specification.
> 
> But....FMF is an efficient tool to maintain the fleet....



Or, as Flanders and Swann explained it in the '60s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyeMFSzPgGc


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Seriously beginning to wonder if you are on Irving's payroll there, Stoney.
> 
> Source please!!!
> 
> Mine are internal people at Davie (good friend is in the house). The superstructure was built in their assembly hall, deck by deck fully fitted, then assembled like a cake outside the main assembly chamber until too tall - moved outdoor and assembled in two pieces. To build something like that in Finland then move it to Canada by ship, the bloody transport ship would not have been able to see over the structure from their ship's bridge. It also would not have gone unnoticed anywhere.



You do realize there are specialized transport vessels that do exactly this type of work?


----------



## Kirkhill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0JV8ajbLjA

I would encourage reviewing the attached video from minute 15 onwards.


----------



## Kirkhill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rwE09aCpZU

And also this from about the 30 second mark.

Of course, these days you can't always believe what you see on the internet.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or, as Flanders and Swann explained it in the '60s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyeMFSzPgGc



DAP - thanks.  I was looking for that one as well.   [


----------



## Kirkhill

More on the Davie-ALMACO alliance and also the role of OMX in Canadian supply chain management.

Based on the video evidence (and the testimony from OGBD) I suggest that the sentence "The vessel’s accommodation will soon be delivered by ALMACO as a single structure to be integrated at the Davie shipyard." means that ALMACO was responsible for delivering the structure to dockside to be transported whole onboard the ship.  ALMACO, a Finnish company, managing Canadian workers in a Canadian facility would seem the most likely conclusion.

http://www.davie.ca/news/davie-forges-partnership-world-leading-marine-accommodation-specialists/



> OCT 16, 2015
> DAVIE FORGES PARTNERSHIP WITH WORLD-LEADING MARINE ACCOMMODATION SPECIALISTS
> 
> Chantier Davie Canada Inc.- Établit un partenariat avec ALMACO
> 
> LÉVIS, QC, Oct. 16, 2015 /CNW Telbec/ – Davie today announced that it has formalized a partnership with ALMACO Group, a world-leading marine accommodation specialist. *ALMACO designs and project manages* the construction of marine accommodation at shipyards and industrial fabricators throughout the globe.
> 
> *Skills and technology transfer to bolster Canadian capabilities
> *
> 
> As part of the partnership, ALMACO will open a site-office and setup assembly facilities at Davie as well as enter into a technology- and knowledge-transfer with Canada’s largest shipbuilder for its current and future shipbuilding and offshore fabrication programs.
> 
> Vilhelm Roberts, CEO of ALMACO Group spoke of his excitement on the company’s move into Canada, “Leveraging ALMACO’s core skill-sets in designing, engineering and project managing marine accommodation with Davie’s large-scale, specialized shipbuilding capabilities is a winning combination.”
> 
> Alan Bowen, CEO of Davie added, “Marine accommodation is an important part of all of our build programs. As industry-leaders in the oil & gas, passenger and naval shipbuilding markets, outfitting large-scale marine accommodation forms an important part of every project. This partnership with ALMACO will ensure that we are implementing best-practice, highest-quality accommodation outfitting which meets the needs of our clients and provides seafarers and passengers with best-in-class accommodation and facilities.”
> 
> Engaging Industry and the End-User
> 
> As part of Davie’s current ‘Project Resolve’ program to convert a containership into an Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment ship for the Royal Canadian Navy, ALMACO and Davie have worked with OMX, a Canadian supply chain technology platform focused on optimizing Canadian content in defence procurements, to engage both domestic equipment suppliers as well as serving and retired Royal Canadian Navy staff.
> 
> An ongoing survey (available at https://theomx.com/surveys/2015/projectresolve) has allowed industry and Royal Canadian Navy staff to make their suggestions as to how Davie and ALMACO can optimize the accommodation on board and improve the quality-of-life for all personnel onboard.
> 
> Nicole Verkindt, President of OMX commented “This level of engagement with the people who will actually sail onboard federal ships is innovative and unprecedented. By using the suggestions from the OMX survey, it has allowed Davie to work with ALMACO and Canadian suppliers to provide a safe, efficient and comfortable living environment for our sailors”
> 
> Chantier Davie Canada Inc. (Davie)
> 
> Voted North American Shipyard of the Year 2015 by Lloyd’s List, Davie is Canada’s largest and highest capacity shipbuilder and industrial fabricator. Davie provides a broad range of products and services to industries from offshore oil & gas to defence. Certified to ISO 9001:2008, Davie leverages its high capacity fabrication facilities with its advanced project management and engineering capability to manage end-to-end construction projects and provide best-practice through life solutions to its corporate and governmental clients.
> 
> ALMACO Group
> 
> ALMACO Group was founded in 1998 and has offices in Brazil, China, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Singapore and USA. ALMACO is expanding into Canada by partnering with Davie, Canada’s largest shipbuilder. ALMACO builds and modernizes Accommodation and Food Handling areas for the Marine, Offshore and Construction industries. ALMACO works with owners and builders around the world.



http://www.almaco.cc/news/latest_news/davie_awards_almaco_group_the_delivery_of_the_superstructure_for_project_resolve



> *March 06, 2017*
> 
> News
> 
> In 2015, ALMACO Group teamed with Canada’s largest and highest capacity shipbuilder and industrial fabricator, Davie Shipbuilding, to deliver high quality accommodation for its current and future shipbuilding projects.
> 
> Today, the two companies announced they will be extending their partnership to develop a production line for modular pre-fabricated accommodation at Davie in Québec for future Canadian programs.
> *The first project between the two companies involved the delivery of the accommodation unit for Canada’s Resolve-Class AOR; a naval auxiliary vessel which will be the largest ship operating in the Royal Canadian Navy fleet. The vessel’s accommodation will soon be delivered by ALMACO as a single structure to be integrated at the Davie shipyard. *
> 
> ALMACO’s scope of work includes the full EPC (Engineering, Procurement and Construction) contract for the accommodation including cabins, public areas, galley, provision stores, wheelhouse and technical spaces. Combining cruise-ship standard accommodation with military requirements will ensure a safe yet highly comfortable experience for the crew.
> 
> “We are proud to be part of this project where ALMACO and Davie will combine Finnish accommodation production expertise with Canadian shipbuilding capabilities to the great benefit of the vessel’s end users and to meet the timeline for the delivery of the superstructure.” Says Vilhelm Roberts, ALMACO Group’s President and CEO. He added, “As part of this partnership, ALMACO is sharing its skills and technology in accommodation areas with Davie’s personnel as the company has a long and successful history of providing modular prefabricated structures and cabins around the world.”
> 
> Jared Newcombe, CEO of Chantier Davie also commented, “ALMACO has consistently delivered on this project and what we are learning through this partnership is invaluable. Though the accommodation represents less than 15% of the entire project, it is certainly one of the areas where these kind of world-class, specialized skills do not currently exist in Canada.”
> 
> Mr. Newcombe added “It is one thing being able to build ships but outfitting accommodation to modern, cruise-ship standards is a different basket of skills and expertise. With this partnership, we will be able to deliver world-class accommodation on our ships with a far higher degree of efficiency”.
> 
> ALMACO’s concept of fabricating accommodation solutions globally is an advantage for future projects carried out at Davie’s shipyard premises, which will strengthen the cooperation between the companies even further. “ALMACO will establish a more permanent presence in Canada by supporting projects at Davie, with the aim of fabricating modular cabins in Québec”, states Mikael Liljeström, President of ALMACO’s Offshore division.
> 
> - See more at: http://www.almaco.cc/news/latest_news/davie_awards_almaco_group_the_delivery_of_the_superstructure_for_project_resolve#sthash.6SzoiQVV.dpuf


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Seems he got you, OGBD...



Yep - got me cold -and I don't like that.

Will be having a talk with my friend today ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

All right, info from my friend:

It was supposed to be built, under Finnish supervision, by their new Quebec based plant, which BTW is one of Davie's unused assembly shed.

However, since Davie is financing the whole thing by itself until delivery, they are working real hard at early delivery. So the people at Almaco told them that since they have to get their Quebec workers trained and qualified at their plant in Finland, they could save 30 days by getting the superstructure assembled there and then shipped, so Davie said go ahead. It is, however assembled for 60% by their Quebec workers, who will then move into the Quebec facility for further work in the North American market. Get this, however: there is no savings as far as costs are concerned, only time.

My friend is telling me that, and this is totally unofficial, they are trying real hard for an early August delivery as opposed to the original October date the set for themselves.


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> All right, info from my friend:
> 
> It was supposed to be built, under Finnish supervision, by their new Quebec based plant, which BTW is one of Davie's unused assembly shed.
> 
> However, since Davie is financing the whole thing by itself until delivery, they are working real hard at early delivery. So the people at Almaco told them that since they have to get their Quebec workers trained and qualified at their plant in Finland, they could save 30 days by getting the superstructure assembled there and then shipped, so Davie said go ahead. It is, however assembled for 60% by their Quebec workers, who will then move into the Quebec facility for further work in the North American market. Get this, however: there is no savings as far as costs are concerned, only time.
> 
> My friend is telling me that, and this is totally unofficial, they are trying real hard for an early August delivery as opposed to the original October date the set for themselves.



Tell me again why Irving is involved in shipbuilding?


----------



## NavyShooter

They exist to make FMFCS look good?


----------



## jollyjacktar

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> They exist to make FMFCS look good?



Ouch...


----------



## jmt18325

FSTO said:
			
		

> Tell me again why Irving is involved in shipbuilding?



Tell me how what Davie did would be allowed under the NSS...


----------



## FSTO

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Tell me how what Davie did would be allowed under the NSS...



I really don't care. Davie saw a need, put together a business case that was accepted by the RCN and the government of the day and it appears they will deliver ahead of schedule. Or are you the type who values process over product. 
Irving has displayed time after time that they really could care less about quality of their work. Davie used to be like that as well but their new owners have really (so far) stepped up their game.


----------



## jmt18325

FSTO said:
			
		

> I really don't care.



I know you don't.  My point is that such an option is not open to Irving or Seaspan given the terms of their contracts.


----------



## suffolkowner

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I know you don't.  My point is that such an option is not open to Irving or Seaspan given the terms of their contracts.



Nor should it be in my opinion, but that shouldn't preclude the government from taking advantage of the solutions offered by Davie's Federal Fleet initiative. Cost and time have been consistently underestimated by the government. Seaspan can be adequately compensated with an additional icebreaker and AOR. The need is there, but no money and if there is no personnel for the RCN and CCG to man the fleets what's the point.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:
			
		

> I really don't care. Davie saw a need, put together a business case that was accepted by the RCN and the government of the day and it appears they will deliver ahead of schedule. Or are you the type who values process over product.
> Irving has displayed time after time that they really could care less about quality of their work. Davie used to be like that as well but their new owners have really (so far) stepped up their game.




Exactly ~ it's amazing what a little _renewed_ management can achieve.


----------



## Navy_Pete

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I know you don't.  My point is that such an option is not open to Irving or Seaspan given the terms of their contracts.



I'm not sure it's actually excluded, but they may have to make some Canadian investments to offset the money spent overseas, so it probably wouldn't make sense financially.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> All right, info from my friend:
> 
> It was supposed to be built, under Finnish supervision, by their new Quebec based plant, which BTW is one of Davie's unused assembly shed.
> 
> However, since Davie is financing the whole thing by itself until delivery, they are working real hard at early delivery. So the people at Almaco told them that since they have to get their Quebec workers trained and qualified at their plant in Finland, they could save 30 days by getting the superstructure assembled there and then shipped, so Davie said go ahead. It is, however assembled for 60% by their Quebec workers, who will then move into the Quebec facility for further work in the North American market. Get this, however: there is no savings as far as costs are concerned, only time.
> 
> My friend is telling me that, and this is totally unofficial, they are trying real hard for an early August delivery as opposed to the original October date the set for themselves.



I like what they're doing on the whole, I have some small quibbles with their plan, but on the whole.  Two thumbs up.  If things were different with Davies I would be looking for opportunities to knock on their doorway.  Sadly, 9'er won't leave the coast.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> I really don't care. Davie saw a need, put together a business case that was accepted by the RCN and the government of the day and it appears they will deliver ahead of schedule. Or are you the type who values process over product.
> Irving has displayed time after time that they really could care less about quality of their work. Davie used to be like that as well but their new owners have really (so far) stepped up their game.



To tell you the truth I really think the only reason why the ship is on time and they are pulling out all the stops to possibility deliver early is to make the other yards look bad and to get more of the pie. If Davie was the prime yard, we would still be seeing what we are seeing now.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> To tell you the truth I really think the only reason why the ship is on time and they are pulling out all the stops to possibility deliver early is to make the other yards look bad and to get more of the pie. If Davie was the prime yard, we would still be seeing what we are seeing now.



In the end, I don't give a fuck why they're doing it.  They're doing it and that is more than the other two can say, especially ISI.  

I'll add, that Davies doesn't make ISI, look and deliver like shit.  They do that all their own.  I'll leave Sea Span out of it as I'm an East Coast guy and cannot comment on the West Coast yard as I don't have any experience there.


----------



## Flavus101

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> To tell you the truth I really think the only reason why the ship is on time and they are pulling out all the stops to possibility deliver early is to make the other yards look bad and to get more of the pie. If Davie was the prime yard, we would still be seeing what we are seeing now.



Is that not the benefit of capitalism? Constantly having to meet targets, innovate, become more efficient, etc. that is how our society progresses.

Not having "too big to fail" corporate entities that simply reap the benefits of those who succeed through their determination, knowledge and effort.

This is why I wish that we held people/corporations more accountable for their actions and be more blunt in our assessments of performance rather than spending time finding creative ways to say someone did a shite job.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> In the end, I don't give a frig why they're doing it.  They're doing it and that is more than the other two can say, especially ISI.
> 
> I'll add, that Davies doesn't make ISI, look and deliver like crap.  They do that all their own.  I'll leave Sea Span out of it as I'm an East Coast guy and cannot comment on the West Coast yard as I don't have any experience there.



While not perfect (nobody is) Seaspan produces a quality product that is head and shoulders above anything Irving does. One of the reasons is that they lease the graving dock area they work in (in Victoria) and time is money. Repairs have to be done quickly and right the first time, especially with the number of cruise liners they get in to work on. If they were screwing things up the cruise industry would just go somewhere else.


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:
			
		

> While not perfect (nobody is) Seaspan produces a quality product that is head and shoulders above anything Irving does. One of the reasons is that they lease the graving dock area they work in (in Victoria) and time is money. Repairs have to be done quickly and right the first time, especially with the number of cruise liners they get in to work on. If they were screwing things up the cruise industry would just go somewhere else.



They are also involved with that Kiwi Ship upgrade I believe as well as Lockheed Martin Canada got the contract and are subcontracting to Vic Ships (from memory... might have got some details wrong there) for a lot of the cable work etc...


----------



## Cloud Cover

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> In the end, I don't give a frig why they're doing it.  They're doing it and that is more than the other two can say, especially ISI.



Well, I agree to a point (about Davie). I agree 100% about ISI. Davie has turned itself into a competitive, innovative, motivated ship yard. How un-Canadian is that for military procurement.

This thread is 71/2 years old. No steel cut for CSC, I'm not aware of even a design, just requirements. There are other older threads for other ships (ASLC/JSS) going back 14 years, still no steel cut even though the class of ship has been selected. 

Many of you will be long retired before new ships are scheduled to arrive, how much of a proportion of the Navy will actually never serve an entire career (say 25 years) without a new combat ship built and delivered. (I'm not sure how the Resolve is characterized). 

But on the other point made - that if Davie was in the shoes of ISI, would they act any differently? That a fair question.  As noted previously by another poster, the CSC seems to be more of a process than a product anyway. Reputationally, I would like to think that the new Davie management would be quite careful about being dragged down like that, but money in the 10's of billions changes a lot of things. Its not as if there is not a lot of work going on because there is, but it seems to be paper by the tonne, not steel. Shame.


----------



## dapaterson

Some of this speaks to incentives - Davie sees no money until they deliver a product; the other two shipyards have received significant up-front payments.  I suspect if ISI or Seaspan weren't seeing payment until hulls hit the water, there might be an increased sense of urgency there as well - and more of a push on their part to get DND to clearly define their deliverables.


----------



## jmt18325

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Well, I agree to a point (about Davie). I agree 100% about ISI. Davie has turned itself into a competitive, innovative, motivated ship yard. How un-Canadian is that for military procurement.
> 
> This thread is 71/2 years old. No steel cut for CSC, I'm not aware of even a design, just requirements.



That is currently under selection.  We'll know sometime by next spring.  It's too bad it's taken so long, but at least there's light in the tunnel now.


----------



## NavyShooter

Maybe.  Maybe we'll see something by spring on the CSC.

I'm not holding my breath.

I have 8 years remaining before I plan to retire.  In that time, I do not honestly anticipate seeing another class of warship arrive that will replace the Frigates.  

NS


----------



## MilEME09

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Maybe.  Maybe we'll see something by spring on the CSC.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> I have 8 years remaining before I plan to retire.  In that time, I do not honestly anticipate seeing another class of warship arrive that will replace the Frigates.
> 
> NS


Atleast youll get Resolve in your career

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## MarkOttawa

To remind, note timeline for construction start at end:



> Irving extends bidding deadline
> 
> Ottawa says the building of Canada’s new fleet of warships is still on schedule, even though it’s given a two-month extension to the 12 firms pre-qualified for bidding.
> 
> Public Services and Procurement Canada announced this week it will now take bids to supply the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships until June 22. The deadline was April.
> 
> According to a news release issued by the department, the extension was granted at the request of industry.
> 
> The government said that in order to meet the navy’s requirements, as well as to provide economic benefits to Canada, it is important to ensure it receives the maximum number of bids possible.
> 
> “At this point, based on feedback from industry, an extension is the best course of action,” the release read.
> 
> “It is not unusual for bidding periods to be extended, particularly for complex initiatives such as this one, which is the most complex procurement project in recent history.”
> 
> The department also said the 12 pre-qualified firms — among them industry giants like Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, ThyssenKrupp, Navantia and DCNS — have submitted a total of 164 questions about the procurement, and received 88 responses.
> 
> The request for proposal for a pre-existing warship design and combat systems integrator for the Royal Canadian Navy, to be built at Irving Shipyards in Halifax, was released on Oct. 27 after extensive consultation with industry.
> 
> That release also came several months later than planned — in August Lisa Campbell, Assistant Deputy Minister of Defence and Marine Procurement at Public Services and Procurement Canada said the final request for proposal would be issued by the end of the summer.
> 
> But the government maintains that even with this extension the program remains on track. The release states that completion of the procurement process remains the fall of 2017, with _ship construction starting in the early 2020s_ [emphasis added--that could extend to 2022-23!]...
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1442727-irving-extends-bidding-deadline



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

164 questions.

88 answers.


----------



## GR66

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 164 questions.
> 
> 88 answers.



I guess technically that's a passing grade.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seaspan has a new set of pictures up of the 3 Fisheries vessels under construction https://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries


----------



## GAP

A TALL SHIPS TALE, INDEED
http://www.bourque.com/
Interesting that the local press in Halifax has a perfunctory piece about the latest & greatest from Irving & Co. But that Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) program has certainly turned into a head-scratcher. For starters, is it true the Canadian program is $3.5 billion for 6 ships = $583m per ship in Canadian dollars, which in US Dollars is $ 429m per ship ? And what did other countries pay for EXACTLY the same design ? Well, is this true: Norway = US$100m to design and build an entire AOPS design, Denmark = spent US$105m to then build two ships of the same design Ireland = spent US$125m to also built two entire ships of the same design ? Is it true the average price abroad is USD $57.5m (not including Norway because the design was also included in that price of USD $100m) ? If so, can it be that Irving's cost to build the AOPS is approx. 746% of the cost of the average price to build abroad ? Worse, is it true that Irving got paid US$ 288m just to design an already designed ship ? Where is Treasury Board Prez Scott Brison, Nova Scotia's favourite banana, on all of this ?


----------



## CBH99

I remember a few years ago now (I think?) when it was front page news in the media...and scouring the forums here, reading everything I could about it.

How does it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to design an already designed ship?


----------



## Stoker

GAP said:
			
		

> A TALL SHIPS TALE, INDEED
> http://www.bourque.com/
> Interesting that the local press in Halifax has a perfunctory piece about the latest & greatest from Irving & Co. But that Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) program has certainly turned into a head-scratcher. For starters, is it true the Canadian program is $3.5 billion for 6 ships = $583m per ship in Canadian dollars, which in US Dollars is $ 429m per ship ? And what did other countries pay for EXACTLY the same design ? Well, is this true: Norway = US$100m to design and build an entire AOPS design, Denmark = spent US$105m to then build two ships of the same design Ireland = spent US$125m to also built two entire ships of the same design ? Is it true the average price abroad is USD $57.5m (not including Norway because the design was also included in that price of USD $100m) ? If so, can it be that Irving's cost to build the AOPS is approx. 746% of the cost of the average price to build abroad ? Worse, is it true that Irving got paid US$ 288m just to design an already designed ship ? Where is Treasury Board Prez Scott Brison, Nova Scotia's favourite banana, on all of this ?



Ireland and the Danish ships are not the same design if that's what you mean. Its true about the cost to a certain extent, it was 80M ea in 2002 less their radar and helo for the Norwegian ship. The 4.3 billion also factors in in service support for 25 years.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Ireland and the Danish ships are not the same design if that's what you mean. Its true about the cost to a certain extent, it was 80M ea in 2002 less their radar and helo for the Norwegian ship. The 4.3 billion also factors in in service support for 25 years.



With the Chief on this one.

The only valid comparison to the de Wolf's is the Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard, commissioned in 2001 at a cost of 575,000,000 NOK (or about 124 MCAD allowing for current exchange and inflation).  The Svalbard was the original concept vessel. It was the working model of the type.  It was the template.  

A side by side comparison of the Svalbard and the de Wolf bear this out.

The Danish Arctic Patrol Vessels (presumably the Rasmussens) are smaller and not in the same class.
The Irish vessels are both smaller and not ice rated.
Neither one should be compared to the de Wolf at any level.

But it is  fair to ask, in my opinion, why the de Wolf costs 383 MCAD (2.3 BCAD divided by 6 hulls) instead of 124 MCAD.  Why an existing design that was bought and paid for had to be reworked three times at additional cost (10 MCAD to STX, another 10 MCAD to STX and then 250 MCAD to Irving) before the "Contract" was even signed.

The Svalbard went from paper to the water for (at the time) 70 MUSD.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> With the Chief on this one.
> 
> The only valid comparison to the de Wolf's is the Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard, commissioned in 2001 at a cost of 575,000,000 NOK (or about 124 MCAD allowing for current exchange and inflation).  The Svalbard was the original concept vessel. It was the working model of the type.  It was the template.
> 
> A side by side comparison of the Svalbard and the de Wolf bear this out.
> 
> The Danish Arctic Patrol Vessels (presumably the Rasmussens) are smaller and not in the same class.
> The Irish vessels are both smaller and not ice rated.
> Neither one should be compared to the de Wolf at any level.
> 
> But it is  fair to ask, in my opinion, why the de Wolf costs 383 MCAD (2.3 BCAD divided by 6 hulls) instead of 124 MCAD.  Why an existing design that was bought and paid for had to be reworked three times at additional cost (10 MCAD to STX, another 10 MCAD to STX and then 250 MCAD to Irving) before the "Contract" was even signed.
> 
> The Svalbard went from paper to the water for (at the time) 70 MUSD.



Lets be honest as much as love this new capability we're getting, its a cash cow for Irving. The design was reworked to have a less capable propulsion system among some changes, probably to save money. The same was done in the early 90's with the Kingston Class with redesigns as cost cutting measures.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Irving took exception to Bourgue's take on the issue http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-contract-holds-250m-mystery-1.1300816


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The 4.3 billion also factors in in-service support for 25 years.



If Norway only prices in the sticker price then it's going to be a rather large difference.  But Irving didn't get the in-service support contract I thought.  Didn't that go to Thales?  Or was that a maintenance contract.


----------



## Kirkhill

My understanding is that Norway paid the current equivalent of 124 MCAD total for a working ship starting from a blank sheet of paper.

We paid 5 MCAD to buy the plans from Norway
10 MCAD to have the plans modified by STX
10 MCAD to have the plans modified again by STX (to get rid of the azipod reversing through ice thingy)
250 MCAD to Irving to have them figure out how to build something broadly similar to the modified plans supplied by STX via the Government
2300 MCAD to Irving to have them actually build 5 hulls (6 if you're really good boys and girls)
1800 MCAD to Thales to supply the In Service Support

(Thales gets a total of 5300 MCAD to supply ISS to both the AOPS and the JSS ships over 35 years)

So my takeaway is that the comparable Canadian budget is 2300 MCAD plus 250 MCAD, or 2550 MCAD, for 5 hulls or 510 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD
Or 2550 MCAD for 6 hulls is 425 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD
Or 2300 MCAD for 6 hulls (deleting the 250 MCAD planning budget) is 383 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD.

Anyway you cut it Norwegian purchasing agents seem to be able to buy 3 or 4 ships for the amount of money that Canadian agents are willing to spend for 1.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> My understanding is that Norway paid the current equivalent of 124 MCAD total for a working ship starting from a blank sheet of paper.
> 
> We paid 5 MCAD to buy the plans from Norway
> 10 MCAD to have the plans modified by STX
> 10 MCAD to have the plans modified again by STX (to get rid of the azipod reversing through ice thingy)
> 250 MCAD to Irving to have them figure out how to build something broadly similar to the modified plans supplied by STX via the Government
> 2300 MCAD to Irving to have them actually build 5 hulls (6 if you're really good boys and girls)
> 1800 MCAD to Thales to supply the In Service Support
> 
> (Thales gets a total of 5300 MCAD to supply ISS to both the AOPS and the JSS ships over 35 years)
> 
> So my takeaway is that the comparable Canadian budget is 2300 MCAD plus 250 MCAD, or 2550 MCAD, for 5 hulls or 510 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD
> Or 2550 MCAD for 6 hulls is 425 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD
> Or 2300 MCAD for 6 hulls (deleting the 250 MCAD planning budget) is 383 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD.
> 
> Anyway you cut it Norwegian purchasing agents seem to be able to buy 3 or 4 ships for the amount of money that Canadian agents are willing to spend for 1.



What I would like to know is what a Norwegian shipyard worker gets paid versus a Irving worker and is the ship at the same standards and same features and equipment as Svalbard.


----------



## jmt18325

You'd also have to adjust the Norwegian figures for inflation.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> What I would like to know is what a Norwegian shipyard worker gets paid versus a Irving worker and is the ship at the same standards and same features and equipment as Svalbard.



Well - let's start with the Svalbard's standards, features and equipment
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894/post-325773.html#msg325773





> K/V “Svalbard”
> 
> -   Coast Guard Ship From Langsten
> 
> The new pride of the Navy, K/V “Svalbard” was taken over from Langsten AS on the 15th of December (2001?). The Coast Guard Ship is the Navy’s only ice-breaker and the largest vessel in the whole force.  This is Langsten’s build number 182.  The ship cost 575 millioner kroner (101 MCAD as of 24 Jan 2006).
> 
> 
> …..Minister of Defence Kristin Krohn Devold, with …. Kjell Inge Rokke and other dignitaries ringside.  (Rokke owns Aker which in turn owns Langsten).  It has taken eight years to realise this vessel, from when the project was begun at SFK in August 1993 to this day. So this was a big day, to have the ship handed over.  In 1993 it was intended that the new Coast Guard Vessel should be ready in 1997, but suddenly in 1995 production was stopped. That was a lack of money.  Then the force planning guidance de-prioritized the ship and from 1996 until 1998 it was uncertain if the ship would be completed at all.  But in 1999 it was put back into the plan again, and in December of that year contracts were let with Langsten.  Langsten has a solid tradition of building modern marine vessels. Amongst others the spy ship “Marjata” was built here.
> 
> The hull of “Svalbard” was built by Tangen Yards.  It is built in special steel and comprises at least 50,000 pieces and 40 sections.  By the 17th of February (2000?) the hull was launched and towed to Tomrefjorden in Romsdal, where Langsten finished the vessel.
> 
> K/V “Svalbard” is a gigantic vessel with a displacement of some 6300 tonnes, a length of 103 meters and a breadth of over 19 meters making it the Navy’s largest for the foreseeable future.
> 
> …….
> 
> The Coast Guard
> 
> ……
> 
> K/V “Svalbard” is classified as a Polar 10 Icebreaker by DNV (Det Norske Veritas), the highest polar ice class defined in DNV’s regulations and the most powerful icebreaker ever built in Norway.  The vessel is specially built for sailing in ice infested waters, and be able to operate in multi-year (year old?) polar ice with a thickness of up to one meter.  The northern Barents Sea, especially in winter time, will be the vessel’s primary area of operation.  The ship can also break ice ridges, back up and “screw guard (?)” about four metes deep.  (Not clear on this – may have to do with the azipod drive and the ability of similarly designed, double-ended ice-breaking tankers, to turn around and drive through ice backwards).
> 
> The vessel has also a De-Ice class notation, being equipped with an anti-icing system with a capacity of 1500 kW.  She has got 17 km of heating cable in all outside decks and the front of the boat to this purpose.  This prevents icing which can be a great problem in arctic (operations?).
> 
> K/V “Svalbard” has a helicopter deck and hangar and will have a helicopter on board when the vessel is out on patrol.  In the hangar there is room for two helicopters. The advantage of helicopters is that they can operate freely and relatively far from the vessel.  In addition to supervision and control of the fishery violations the helicopter is a really important resource for search, rescue and assistance.
> 
> The ship will bring to the Coast Guard many useful capabilities including ice-breaker, towing vessel and helicopter platform.  The vessel has really good capacity in search and rescue and can carry through “clean-up” (?) of polluted environments in the extremity (?)  (might also just mean that it can continue to operate in a very harsh environment).
> 
> Dimensions
> 
> Length overall      103.7 m
> Length post to post        89.0 m
> Greatest width         19.1 m
> Draught (KVL)          6.5 m
> 
> Tank capacity is about 500 tonnes of fuel oil and 200 tonnes of fresh water.  That is enough for 127 persons.
> 
> Class: DNV *1A1, Icebreaker Polar 10, RPS, F-A, E0, HELDK-SH, De-Ice, FiFi1.
> 
> Machinery
> 
> The ship is diesel-electric with a power plant of four Bergen Diesel BRG-8 engines, producing around 13,020 kW altogether.  Propulsion is provided by two Azipods, each of 5000 kW, which are classified Icebreaker Polar 10.  In addition ABB “provided” (?) a conventional Azipod of about 15 MW power output to obtain this classification.  RPS in the class notation means that the ship has “redundant propulsion separated”.
> 
> 
> The vessel is also outfitted with a Brunvoll bow-thruster (?). Harbour power generation consists of a Volvo Penta diesel engine of 1071 kW which drives a Stamford generator of 1339 kVa.  The pumping system is from Ing. Per Gjerdrum AS, the separators from Westfalia and the compressors from Sperre.  Heat exchangers are manufactured by APV and supplied by AS Norco Oslo.
> 
> Engine room isolation is by R&M Industries AS and the ventilation is by ABB Miljo.  …. is from Pyro and tank monitoring systems by ABB.  The engine room is fire-protected with the Argonite system from Heien-Larssen and an alarm system from Autronica.
> 
> Deck
> 
> The ship is notably outfitted with a helicopter deck and a hangar with room for two helicopters.  Also installed onboard is a helifuel-system, with outfitting for refuelling of each helicopter together with other types, both on the heli-deck and in the air.  The vessel can therefore function as a mobile platform at sea (and re-provisioning island?) for military and other helicopters on operations that would otherwise not be possible.  The advanced foam monitor system on the heli-deck is supplied by Heien-Larssen, but the Fi-Fi system is from Kvaerner Eureka.  The heli-deck is also equipped with gyro-stabilised in-flight reference system (light) and contour lighting,  “virtually making manning free operations (?)”.  Flight Centre has also been instrumented with a datalink to the Norwegian Meteorolgical Institute to supply weather reports.
> 
> The deck gear, including hatches, deck machinery such as anchor, vessel and towing winches are supplied by Hydrakraft.  The anchor and….is from Erling Haug, windows and light ports from Marine Aluminium, water tight doors from Winell and fire doors from Nor-Pro.  Davits from MOB-baten.  Deck and Navigation lights?  are from Tranberg, searchlight? From Norselight.  The ship is instrumented by a system from International Maling.
> 
> Interior and Miscellaneous.
> 
> The vessel is for a crew of 20 officers and 28 other ranks, with a four-man helidet. In addition the the ship has accommodation for more than 75 persons.
> 
> The interior is held “secure” as there is a gas citadel / over-pressure ventilation system where all incoming ship’s air will be scrubbed for radio-active, bacteriological and chemical contamination.
> 
> Interior work spaces are outfitted by R&M Industries.  TeamTech supplied the incinerator and Evac vacuum toilet system.  Electro-technicals consultant was Skan-El, but ABB Installations AS supplied the electric installation.  E0-system is the ABB Advant Station 500 series.
> 
> The electronic outfit was installed by Electronicon AS.  The outfit includes advanced instrumentation with air and surface radar, colour-, black/white and IR cameras, sonar …. for over and under water communication.  The system has the capability to record, store and present all this information real-time and time-delay (?), with “intention” (?) of documenting and evaluating incidents.  This gives the vessel a good capacity in the role of Command Vessel in large operations in connection with rescue, pollution and sovereignty operations.



Chief - you will know better than me how that stacks up against the de Wolfs but, from what I can glean from open source materials the displacement, length, beam and power plants are dead ringers.

As to what Norwegian workers get paid  - according to the OECD the average wage in 2015 was 50,908 USD while in Canada it was 47,843 USD.  

https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/average-wages.htm

Curiously Norwegian workers were  62% more productive than Canadian workers, according to the OECD, generating 78.7 USD of Gross Domestic Product for each hour worked while Canadians only generated 48.6 USD of GDP for each hour worked.  We do less with more.

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV

As to the relative costs of the vessels

Again I will go back to the published purchase price for the Norwegian ship of 575,000,000 Norwegian Krone in July 2001.

According to this calculator the inflation rate in Norway from July 2001 to July 2015, when Irving got the Build contract, was a total of 22.35 29.33%

That raises the price from 575,000,000 NOK to 587,851,250 743,636,950 NOK.

According to this page the exchange rate from NOK to Canadian Dollars in July 2015 was 6.2765 NOK per CAD

Conversion of 587,851,250 743,636,950 NOK in July 2015 to CAD results in an inflated, converted value of 93,659,085 118,479,558 CAD.

Meanwhile, leaving aside the preliminary design work but including the 250 MCAD design contract and the 2300 MCAD build contract then Irving is receiving 2,550,000,000 CAD to design and build 5 or 6 de Wolfs.

2,550,000,000 divided by 5 = 510,000,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 118,479,558 CAD = 5.445 4.304 Svalbards per de Wolf
2,550,000,000 divided by 6 = 425,000,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 CAD 118,479,558 = 4.538  3.587 Svalbards per de Wolf
2,550,000,000 divided by 8 = 318,750,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 CAD 118,479,558 = 3.403 2.690 Svalbards per de Wolf

And the deckgun on the Svalbard is the same 57mm Bofors mounted on the Halifax.

Edited for failure to properly use the inflation calculator I referenced.  

Now it is only 2 to 4 Svalbards per de Wolf.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Well - let's start with the Svalbard's standards, features and equipment
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894/post-325773.html#msg325773
> 
> 
> 
> Chief - you will know better than me how that stacks up against the de Wolfs but, from what I can glean from open source materials the displacement, length, beam and power plants are dead ringers.
> 
> As to what Norwegian workers get paid  - according to the OECD the average wage in 2015 was 50,908 USD while in Canada it was 47,843 USD.
> 
> https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/average-wages.htm
> 
> Curiously Norwegian workers were  62% more productive than Canadian workers, according to the OECD, generating 78.7 USD of Gross Domestic Product for each hour worked while Canadians only generated 48.6 USD of GDP for each hour worked.  We do less with more.
> 
> http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV
> 
> As to the relative costs of the vessels
> 
> Again I will go back to the published purchase price for the Norwegian ship of 575,000,000 Norwegian Krone in July 2001.
> 
> According to this calculator the inflation rate in Norway from July 2001 to July 2015, when Irving got the Build contract, was a total of 22.35 29.33%
> 
> That raises the price from 575,000,000 NOK to 587,851,250 743,636,950 NOK.
> 
> According to this page the exchange rate from NOK to Canadian Dollars in July 2015 was 6.2765 NOK per CAD
> 
> Conversion of 587,851,250 743,636,950 NOK in July 2015 to CAD results in an inflated, converted value of 93,659,085 118,479,558 CAD.
> 
> Meanwhile, leaving aside the preliminary design work but including the 250 MCAD design contract and the 2300 MCAD build contract then Irving is receiving 2,550,000,000 CAD to design and build 5 or 6 de Wolfs.
> 
> 2,550,000,000 divided by 5 = 510,000,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 118,479,558 CAD = 5.445 4.304 Svalbards per de Wolf
> 2,550,000,000 divided by 6 = 425,000,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 CAD 118,479,558 = 4.538  3.587 Svalbards per de Wolf
> 2,550,000,000 divided by 8 = 318,750,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 CAD 118,479,558 = 3.403 2.690 Svalbards per de Wolf
> 
> And the deckgun on the Svalbard is the same 57mm Bofors mounted on the Halifax.
> 
> Edited for failure to properly use the inflation calculator I referenced.
> 
> Now it is only 2 to 4 Svalbards per de Wolf.



I wasn't able to find any general characteristic drawings for the Svalbard online to compare with my drawings of the DeWolf Class, interestingly enough the Russians have drawings of their new Arctic patrol ship online. Without getting into any details the DeWolf Class seem to be built extremely well from what I can see. Where I work we will be the organization that will be conducting readiness exercises with the ships as they come out so overtime I'll know more and more about their features. I suspect we have features that the Svalbard  doesn't have and probably different electronics, I don't know how much a difference in price that will make.

The ships are expensive there is doubt about that and i'm sure the government knew that when they signed the contract, the simple reality is building ships in Canada will always be more expensive than building offshore but that was never an option.


----------



## Kirkhill

Seen Chief, and agreed on the cost issue.  

I have trouble wrapping my head around the "quality" issue.  That is always problematical on any project.

For example, quality is often offset against life expectancy.  I don't know what life the Norwegians are expecting out of the Svalbard but she was launched and commissioned in 2001.  She has already given 16 years of service and, according to this article, she is expected to serve for at least the same amount of time again.

Let's just say, now that steel has been not just cut, but also welded, I would really like the Auditor General to do a side by side analysis of the Svalbard and the de Wolf.   Just like I would really like a side by side of the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels and a modern trawler like Havfisk's Gadus Neptun.  Or, like I would really like a side by side of the Resolve and the Queenstons.

At this stage in the development of any enterprise, and I think the establishment of a shipbuilding capacity in Canada, qualifies, it seems appropriate to me to start getting a handle on whether or not our initial planning assumptions are valid and also to start coming to terms with real costs in our actual environment.

We have enough of a basis for a comparison now that I think that should be a priority before we start signing contracts for the CSCs or any other vessels.

Not to mention the impact that the assumptions have on the defence budget and, consequently, defence policy.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Seen Chief, and agreed on the cost issue.
> 
> I have trouble wrapping my head around the "quality" issue.  That is always problematical on any project.
> 
> For example, quality is often offset against life expectancy.  I don't know what life the Norwegians are expecting out of the Svalbard but she was launched and commissioned in 2001.  She has already given 16 years of service and, according to this article, she is expected to serve for at least the same amount of time again.
> 
> Let's just say, now that steel has been not just cut, but also welded, I would really like the Auditor General to do a side by side analysis of the Svalbard and the de Wolf.   Just like I would really like a side by side of the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels and a modern trawler like Havfisk's Gadus Neptun.  Or, like I would really like a side by side of the Resolve and the Queenstons.
> 
> At this stage in the development of any enterprise, and I think the establishment of a shipbuilding capacity in Canada, qualifies, it seems appropriate to me to start getting a handle on whether or not our initial planning assumptions are valid and also to start coming to terms with real costs in our actual environment.
> 
> We have enough of a basis for a comparison now that I think that should be a priority before we start signing contracts for the CSCs or any other vessels.
> 
> Not to mention the impact that the assumptions have on the defence budget and, consequently, defence policy.



The Svalbard is used a little differently than we would use the DeWolf Class. According to what I have read the Svalbard is used for quite a bit of fisheries work where we will undoubtedly do some but not a lot. The DeWolfs will deploy pretty much everywhere the Kingston Class currently does in the Arctic, North Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, Europe, Med and Africa. I have no doubt the ships will have a long life in the RCN and bring to the table capabilities that we currently don't have in the Arctic.


----------



## Kirkhill

See, if I was to usurp "Thucydides" preferred role as King for a Day, way back in 2006, or better 2001, I would have been having another Svalbard built in Norway and charter her for Canadian service to find out what she could do for us.  Kind of like the Resolve project.

Then we wouldn't have to make so many uninformed assumptions - and we would only be out of pocket for 100 MCAD instead of buying pokes of pigs for billions of dollars.

100 MCAD investment to verify the need for the 4300 MCAD invested in the AOPS programme.

100/4300 = 2.3% of the total project budget.

In any business that I have been associated with that would be considered a reasonable investment for risk mitigation.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> See, if I was to usurp "Thucydides" preferred role as King for a Day, way back in 2006, or better 2001, I would have been having another Svalbard built in Norway and charter her for Canadian service to find out what she could do for us.  Kind of like the Resolve project.
> 
> Then we wouldn't have to make so many uninformed assumptions - and we would only be out of pocket for 100 MCAD instead of buying pokes of pigs for billions of dollars.
> 
> 100 MCAD investment to verify the need for the 4300 MCAD invested in the AOPS programme.
> 
> 100/4300 = 2.3% of the total project budget.
> 
> In any business that I have been associated with that would be considered a reasonable investment for risk mitigation.



Well you're right we should of had purpose built RCN patrol craft in the Arctic for many years now and facilities to service and build them. I guess its all about hindsight.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Well your right we should of had purpose built RCN patrol craft in the Arctic for many years now and facilities to service and build them. I guess its all about hindsight.



Lieutenant Backsight Forethought


----------



## jollyjacktar

So which dream out of 6 is our present shipbuilding program.  Are we going to be rolled up and overrun or are we going to be successful and turn back the evil hoards?


----------



## Kirkhill

Well, the pessimist in me says that we are on dream 1.  (First AOPS iteration).  The optimist allows as how we might be on dream 3 (OFSVs, Resolve, AOPS).


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's an alternate history.

1 Oooh.  Norwegians have a bright shiny thing.  

2 Ask Norwegians what they plan to do with it. 

3 Ask Norwegians if we can put some RCN and Coast Guard types on board for a season to see how they use it.

4 Offer to swap the Svalbard for a Kingston and a Coast Guard breaker during an Operation Nanook cycle to see how their kit performs in our environment and our kit performs their tasks.

5 Arrange a longer term swap if desirable.

6 Have a Canadian company organize a bare-bones charter of a new build Svalbard on a 3 year renewable lease with an option to buy.

7 Write Concept of Operations in conjunction with Statement of Requirements

8 Ask for preliminary tenders

9 Adjust ConOps and SoR to suit

10 Ask for tenders

My sense is we jumped straight to phase 7 before we did all the "low cost" stuff at the beginning.


----------



## jmt18325

To be fair...I don't think that's fair.  The RCN operates in the arctic, as does the CCG.   The RCN also operates in a coastal defence role.  I'm pretty sure we knew what we wanted.


----------



## Kirkhill

We might have known what we wanted but did we know what opportunities and capabilities the Svalbard presented?

It is the reason that I noted that the Statement of Requirement and Concept of Operations have to be written conjointly.

You have to understand both what you are trying to accomplish and, as well, fully understand the capabilities of the tools available.

There is little purpose in writing a Concept of Operations (for example maintaining an under-ice presence) if the tools required do not exist (non-nuke AIP subs) or are not available to you (nukes).


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> We might have known what we wanted but did we know what opportunities and capabilities the Svalbard presented?
> 
> It is the reason that I noted that the Statement of Requirement and Concept of Operations have to be written conjointly.
> 
> You have to understand both what you are trying to accomplish and, as well, fully understand the capabilities of the tools available.
> 
> There is little purpose in writing a Concept of Operations (for example maintaining an under-ice presence) if the tools required do not exist (non-nuke AIP subs) or are not available to you (nukes).



We have operated in the Arctic for years and have many lessons learned. We have also sent our officers on exchange to other ice breaking ships of other countries and the CCG. Undoubtedly that played into what exactly we wanted out of our Arctic Patrol Ships.


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> We have operated in the Arctic for years and have many lessons learned. We have also sent our officers on exchange to other ice breaking ships of other countries and the CCG. Undoubtedly that played into what exactly we wanted out of our Arctic Patrol Ships.



I'm quite good friends with one of the officers who drafted the initial concept of ops and know they put a lot of effort into it.  Chief Stoker is quite correct in his statement.  There was a large amount of reading of the lessons learned from arctic operations and trying to get a feel for what capabilities the ships needed and what training the sailors needed.  Including (humorously) the fact that the bosn's were not in favor of piggybacking the infantry ashore, so as the infantry wouldn't get frostbite in the first hour of the operation due to wet boots.  Hence there is a covered landing craft requirement.  I don't think the Svalbard has that capability.


----------



## Kirkhill

I get what is being said.  And I respect the effort put in.

My experience on a variety of projects though, suggests to me, that there is a considerable difference in outcome when a product is described in terms of what one expects to encounter as opposed to being presented with a piece of kit and then finding out what you can do with it.

In the first instance I have found that time is consumed debating infinite possibilities.  In the second case 80% of the assigned task is completed with the kit on hand and it is discovered that the available kit allows different tasks to be managed as well.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> I'm quite good friends with one of the officers who drafted the initial concept of ops and know they put a lot of effort into it.  Chief Stoker is quite correct in his statement.  There was a large amount of reading of the lessons learned from arctic operations and trying to get a feel for what capabilities the ships needed and what training the sailors needed.  Including (humorously) the fact that the bosn's were not in favor of piggybacking the infantry ashore, so as the infantry wouldn't get frostbite in the first hour of the operation due to wet boots.  Hence there is a covered landing craft requirement.  I don't think the Svalbard has that capability.



Its funny you mentioned that. Several of our trips to the Arctic we had to ferry Infantry ashore in small boats and no doubt they became wet before they got in, getting wet in the Arctic can be disastrous. Even our boats crews with the standard orange floater suits that were great with winter off Halifax were not so great in the Arctic, thus the recommendation went it by us for dry suits and rubber boots for the boats crews.


----------



## Kirkhill

The need to stay dry in the north -  does that mean that the RCN is considering boats more along these lines?











I understand that some experience was had with them when one of the Danish Rasmussens was incorporated on an Operation Nanook exercise.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Not that I have heard.  The only new, small boats coming  I'm aware of are for the MTOG folks.  I haven't seen what they look like as this endeavour is in a sister section at work but your suggestions, Chris, don't appear to be  what would be suitable for boarding parties.


----------



## Kirkhill

Seen Jack.  Thanks.


----------



## Bearpaw

Perhaps a Canadianized (arctic conditions) version of the CB90 might work.  Fully loaded  weight is about 20 tons so the crane could handle them.

Bearpaw


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The need to stay dry in the north -  does that mean that the RCN is considering boats more along these lines?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that some experience was had with them when one of the Danish Rasmussens was incorporated on an Operation Nanook exercise.



Yes I was on that exercise


----------



## Kirkhill

Excellent photographs Chief.  Thanks for posting them.

Did you develop an opinion on the SAR boats?  I seem to recall you being complimentary about the Rasmussen and its crew.


----------



## Stoker

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> Perhaps a Canadianized (arctic conditions) version of the CB90 might work.  Fully loaded  weight is about 20 tons so the crane could handle them.
> 
> Bearpaw



The only new boats are being built for the AOPS in NS, basically a big Rhib.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2017/03/13/356446-irving-shipbuilding-selects-rosborough-boats-to-supply-multi-role-rescue.html


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Excellent photographs Chief.  Thanks for posting them.
> 
> Did you develop an opinion on the SAR boats?  I seem to recall you being complimentary about the Rasmussen and its crew.



Nice ships, very professional crew. The machinery plant is very automated.


----------



## PuckChaser

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The only new boats are being built for the AOPS in NS, basically a big Rhib.
> 
> http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2017/03/13/356446-irving-shipbuilding-selects-rosborough-boats-to-supply-multi-role-rescue.html



http://www.rosboroughboats.com/rhib/ is the boat the article is talking about.


----------



## dapaterson

Davie launches with both barrels at Irving: "If Irving Shipbuilding can build ships so cheaply then why are their ‘Arctic’ Offshore Patrol Ships costing taxpayers multiples of what all other countries have built the same ship for?"

http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news%2F2278


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Davie launches with both barrels at Irving: "If Irving Shipbuilding can build ships so cheaply then why are their ‘Arctic’ Offshore Patrol Ships costing taxpayers multiples of what all other countries have built the same ship for?"
> 
> http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news%2F2278



I read that today and thought, "Screw you Irving!!"


----------



## CBH99

BOOM!!  Well written & the timing could not be more perfect!  Stay down, b**ch!

Hope this letter gets published in some major media outlets...*hint hint* at potential journalists that may comb this site every now & again.


----------



## MilEME09

FSTO said:
			
		

> I read that today and thought, "Screw you Irving!!"


That was a big middle finger to Irving and i love it!

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## STONEY

I notice that he fails to mention that Davie is years behind and millions over budget on a couple of car ferries for the Quebec Gov.


----------



## CBH99

I wonder how much of that was the old management, prior to the restructuring, compared to the newer management.  But, valid point.


----------



## FSTO

STONEY said:
			
		

> I notice that he fails to mention that Davie is years behind and millions over budget on a couple of car ferries for the Quebec Gov.



In the same vein, Irving fails to mention the late delivery, cost over-runs and massive clean-ups that FMF Cape Scott has had to do on every one of their refits.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

STONEY said:
			
		

> I notice that he fails to mention that Davie is years behind and millions over budget on a couple of car ferries for the Quebec Gov.



That's true, but it seems to me that there are faults on both side here.

One retired senior manager of the STQ (Quebec Ferry Corporation - the client) indicated in fairly recent open letter to Le Soleil (Quebec city's main newspaper)that there were fault on both sides. The STQ misjudged what is involved and costs to build ferries running on natural gas and Davie also misjudged what is involved in building such ships. The solution is probably for both sides to give some, but until that is resolved at the contractual level, the ferries are not getting any work done on them. The delay is contractually caused, not a result of construction delays.

This is not exclusive to Davie. One of the STQ other recent ferry acquisition just predating the two being built at Davie was actually built in Europe (Fincantieri, if memory serves). Yet the F.A. Gauthier has had more than two hundred deficiencies discovered in the first year of use and it cost more than a million dollars just to remedy most of them. Natural gas run ferries are just new and it takes some time to develop the slightly different approach needed to build them.

While it does not excuse Davie, I can't help but wonder if Irving would have been half as reasonable in the resolution of such problem as Davie appears to be (one of the reason we don't hear too much about this is the rather businesslike and prosaic approach of Davie on this: When asked, they simply state that this is a contract dispute in the process of being resolved in collaboration with the client. No venting or attempts at leveraging politics or disparaging the client by calling it the source of all problems, etc.). As of today, the delays are about a year and half - most of which has simply seen no work (stop order) - and the price dispute is over a cost overrun of about 18%. We are nowhere near the triple to five time costs range of Irving.


----------



## Bearpaw

Chief Stoker,

Thanks for the nice photos!

The reason I threw out the CB90 idea is that the SAR boat in your photos looks like a non-military version of the CB90.  

Bearpaw


----------



## jollyjacktar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not that I have heard.  The only new, small boats coming  I'm aware of are for the MTOG folks.  I haven't seen what they look like as this endeavour is in a sister section at work but your suggestions, Chris, don't appear to be  what would be suitable for boarding parties.



Chris, a correction.  I was at a work related breakfast today and the three new small boats recently acquired came up.  I was mistaken in believing they were for the MTOG folks, they're not.  They're for Force Protection (FP) use.  The NAVRES are dipping their toes into that pool once more and the boats that were recently acquired were used Defender class boats from the USCG.  As FP boats I think they're ideal and much better than what was purchased following 9/11 and the previous incantation of the NAVRES doing FP duties or what I used as an MP back when.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Chris, a correction.  I was at a work related breakfast today and the three new small boats recently acquired came up.  I was mistaken in believing they were for the MTOG folks, they're not.  They're for Force Protection (FP) use.  The NAVRES are dipping their toes into that pool once more and the boats that were recently acquired were used Defender class boats from the USCG.  As FP boats I think they're ideal and much better than what was purchased following 9/11 and the previous incantation of the NAVRES doing FP duties or what I used as an MP back when.


----------



## Kirkhill

Are they suitable as open water boats?  Or strictly for harbours?

They look like nice little runabouts.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Are they suitable as open water boats?  Or strictly for harbours?
> 
> They look like nice little runabouts.



I seen them at sea and in harbors, they handle quite well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think they are a copy of the US CG design for escort and harbour protection, they take some surf and waves, generally the crews wear our before the boat does.


----------



## jollyjacktar

What we've acquired, Colin, are USCG boats.  Gently used, only on Sunday, by a careful, paranoid, little old lady.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I have my doubts too.

NAVRES pers were certainly given ammunition and ROE's when the two Harbour Defence Units were stood up after 9/11 to protect ships in Halifax and Esquimalt. Similarly, they were given ammo and ROE's for the Vancouver Olympics, even if they operated under a cadre of reg force personnel.

I can certainly attest to the fact that we were armed, carried ammunition and given ROE's when we participated in OP SALON (the Oka crisis).

However, outside these particular operations, when NAVRES personnel is on the water, it's for training or exercises. Why on earth would you carry live ammunition for that?

I'm pretty certain that, when the new "reinforcement" FP team of NAVRES personnel deploys oversea to actually do its job, they will be given ammunition and ROE's.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> What we've acquired, Colin, are USCG boats.  Gently used, only on Sunday, by a careful, paranoid, little old lady.



Considering the average age of US Coasties and being given a fast boat, I doubt that very, very much. A lot people have 2 speeds only in these boats, stop and fast.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering the average age of US Coasties and being given a fast boat, I doubt that very, very much. A lot people have 2 speeds only in these boats, stop and fast.



I am sure they had their moments too.  I remember being in their position on nights with all that Harbour and Basin to patrol.  I suppose I should have added the sarcasm emoji but I didn't think it necessary.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> I'm quite good friends with one of the officers who drafted the initial concept of ops and know they put a lot of effort into it.  Chief Stoker is quite correct in his statement.  There was a large amount of reading of the lessons learned from arctic operations and trying to get a feel for what capabilities the ships needed and what training the sailors needed.  Including (humorously) the fact that the bosn's were not in favor of piggybacking the infantry ashore, so as the infantry wouldn't get frostbite in the first hour of the operation due to wet boots.  *Hence there is a covered landing craft requirement.  I don't think the Svalbard has that capability.*



This bit has been niggling at the back of what is left of my brain 

If I look at the de Wolf's posterior (personal predilection) I see this







and if I look at Svalbard's similar assets I see this






and this

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150303-arctic-expedition-sea-ice-polar-bears-lance-norwegian-polar-institute/

(Sorry but I can't link to the photograph)

Now, apparently, the "covered landing craft" capability in the de Wolf is covered by being able to swing a landing craft outboard using her work deck crane.  20 tonne rating I understand.

Svalbard also has a work deck with a crane (12 tonne only but.... ) where the work deck is actually bigger and more accessible than de Wolf's (Note the 20 foot sea can seen aboard both vessels).

And the hangar is bigger on the Svalbard (2x NH90 vs 1x CH-148).

I know I am flogging ancient horsemeat but it is Friday.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Don't know what your exact point is here, Chris.

But, the actual area dedicated to containers and extra boats at the stern of both vessels is about the same. It's just that Svalbard's is completely exposed, while half of the De Wolf's is covered by the flight deck. The flight decks themselves are about the same size, but the De Wolf, as result of this arrangement has a longer superstructure than the Svalbard.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Don't know what your exact point is here, Chris.
> 
> But, the actual area dedicated to containers and extra boats at the stern of both vessels is about the same. It's just that Svalbard's is completely exposed, while half of the De Wolf's is covered by the flight deck. The flight decks themselves are about the same size, but the De Wolf, as result of this arrangement has a longer superstructure than the Svalbard.



I guess my point was that I am still looking for, and failing to find, any reason to justify not just the multipliers on constructions, but also the design contract and the two definition contracts, when the original design appears capable of doing everything the de Wolf is intended to do.

It was suggested that perhaps there was an issue with the ability to launch a covered landing craft.  It appears to me that Svalbard, barring a lighter duty crane, has an equivalent capability to the deWolfs.   I am not persuaded that adding an additional 8 tonnes of SWL capacity justified increasing the vessel price from 100 MUSD or so to something 2 to 5 times that (depending on who is doing the counting).  Would we get rebated for derating the forward gun from 57mm to 25mm?

Regretfully, I am enjoying indulging the snark.  

 :cheers:


----------



## jmt18325

The Svalbard would not cost $100M today.  Construction inflation is massive.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Aussies sensible about procuring polar ship, unlike us with CCG icebreaker build-in-Canada by Seaspan (someday):



> First Steel Cut [by Dutch Damen in Romania] for Australia's New Polar Research Ship
> 
> Marking the commencement of construction of the Damen Antarctic Supply Research Vessel (ASRV), a steel cutting ceremony has been held at Damen Shipyards Galati, Romania. Damen is constructing the ASRV for Serco Defence, a wholly owned subsidiary of Serco Australia who, in turn, signed a contract with the Australian Government last year for the delivery, operation and maintenance of the vessel.
> 
> “Cutting the first steel for any vessel is always significant. However, the fact that the ASRV is such a ground-breaker makes this a very exciting moment,” said Damen Project Director Joop Noordijk. “The whole team are looking forward to building _what is actually an icebreaker, survey vessel and resupply vessel all rolled into one_ [emphasis added].”
> 
> The 160-meter ASRV will perform numerous tasks for the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD). “The new vessel is a multi-mission ship designed to sustain our geographically dispersed stations, support helicopter operations, sustain shore parties on remote islands, map the seafloor and undertake a variety of scientific activities across the Southern Ocean,” said AAD Modernization Program Manager Rob Bryson.
> 
> To fulfil these diverse roles, the ASRV boasts considerable cargo capacity: up to 96 TEU below decks and 14 TEU and six 10-foot containers on the aft deck, as well as more above the helicopter hanger and in front of the helideck. This represents a substantial increase in container carrying capacity from the AAD’s current vessel, the Aurora Australis, which can transport a total 19 containers. In practical terms, this means that the ice-breaking ASRV will be able to resupply two stations in one voyage.
> 
> In addition to supplying Australia’s three permanent research stations on the Antarctic continent as well as its research station on the sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island with cargo, equipment and personnel, the ASRV will be able to carry out comprehensive scientific research activities. To this end, the vessel will be equipped with a 500 m2 on-board laboratory that will serve as workspace for up to 116 AAD scientific staff.
> 
> In terms of research possibilities, the ASRV will serve as a valuable asset towards the advance of scientific knowledge and understanding of the Southern Ocean. The vessel will feature a 13-meter deep wide moon-pool for deployment of conductivity, temperature, acoustic and depth measurements...
> 
> Construction and outfitting of the vessel will be carried out at Damen Shipyards Galati, with engineering and project management being provided by Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding in the Netherlands.
> https://www.marinelink.com/news/australias-research-first425922



Bet Aussies paying nothing like $1.3B and will get the ship fairly soon.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

More on that here Mark

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/icebreaker/procurement-process

http://www.damen.com/en/news/2016/05/australian_icebreaker_operated_by_dms_maritime_to_be_constructed_by_damen

http://www.damen.com/-/media/New-Corporate-Damen/Images/News/2016/05/Australian_Icebreaker_operated_by_DMS_Maritime_to_be_constructed_by_Damen/Product_Sheet_Antarctic_Supply_Research_Vessel_05_2016.pdf

25,000 tonnes, 156 m x 25.6 m, 1.65 m ice at 3 knots.  Labs and moon pools and 2 medium helos.

JSS crossed with AOPS crossed with OOSV - on a Project Resolve type contract but for 30 years of service.

Thanks for the heads up Mark.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Call Damen and sign us up for two. Done.

Wait? What? That is not how we roll in Canada?


----------



## Karel Doorman

Well Mark and others this is what's it's expected to cost.


Key points:

    Believed to cost around $500 million
    Represent's largest investment in Antarctic science and research
    New icebreaker will be operational in 2019(2020)
    A national competition will be held to name the vessel
    At 156 metres, ship more than 50pc longer than Aurora Australia
    Icebreaking capacity of 1.65 metres at 3 knots
    Can carry 96 containers and 116 staff

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-29/pm-turnbull-releases-details-of-new-500-million-icebreaker/6893848

And for the Canadian government(in case it's unknown


DAMEN SCHELDE NAVAL SHIPBUILDING
De Willem Ruysstraat 99
4381 NK Vlissingen
P.O. Box 555
4380 AN  Vlissingen 
The Netherlands
phone
+31 (0)118 48 50 00
fax   +31 (0)118 48 50 50
info@damennaval.com
www.damennaval.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Aussies sensible about procuring polar ship, unlike us with CCG icebreaker build-in-Canada by Seaspan (someday):
> 
> Bet Aussies paying nothing like $1.3B and will get the ship fairly soon.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



The 3 OFSV are all underway with one almost complete, with a Science vessel next (basically a bigger OFSV) and then the icebreaker. If the design stage is finished, then I would expect that steel for the icebreaker could start being cut on the launch of the 2nd OFSV. I suspect that 3 ships is likely the most they can handle at any one time


----------



## jollyjacktar

Tied into the new ships, it seems the In-service support contract to be awarded to the Canadian subsidiary of the French defence giant Thales.  I would have linked the story, but I can't because of the author.  I read the announcement will be officially made this month.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just out of curiosity, did we invite foreign builders to bid on their own, under the caveat that they could build Canadian facilities from scratch?

Or were they mandated to partner with existing Canadian-owned businesses?

I seems some of the big international players could have built brand new state-of-the-art facilities on virgin ground, which would have dramatically improved the product quality, build time, and been efficient enough to then complete globally after our military projects were completed.


Thanks, M.


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> The 3 OFSV are all underway with one almost complete, with a Science vessel next (basically a bigger OFSV) and then the icebreaker.



Not quite - it's OFSVx3, OOSVx1, then JSSx2, then Polar Icrebreakerx1.

The yard can build 4 ships at different stages at the same time.  The OOSV should start construction this year.  JSS 1 will start construction when OFSV 1 is done, and JSS 2 will start construction when OFSV 2 is done.  The Polar icebreaker won't start construction until OFSV 3 is done.  That said, it's not all that different of a timeline, considering that all 3 OFSV should be done by early 2019 some time.  I'm unclear if they're going to jump straight into the large patrol ships and medium multitask vessels as the OOSV wraps up.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P: Seaspan is to build 2 JSS before the one (only) CCG icebreaker--build contract award for latter supposed to be 2021 with delivery now pushed to 2023 (we'll see about that schedule and what will the 2013 $1.3B cost estimate [ https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/mark-collins-canadian-national-shipbuilding-strategy-long-term-costs-or-wild-ass-guesses/ ] be in dollars then?  Scroll down here:
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/projets-projects-eng.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You guys are correct, but with the Resolve coming on line, they may bump the icebreaker up front, depending on how much life they just gained for the Louie


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P: See my even more radical thinking along similar lines from Oct. 2015:

Why not more Canadian Coast Guard Icebreakers Instead of RCN JSS?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/mark-collins-why-not-more-canadian-coast-guard-icebreakers-instead-of-rcn-jss/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin P said:
			
		

> You guys are correct, but with the Resolve coming on line, they may bump the icebreaker up front, depending on how much life they just gained for the Louie



This might be an interesting idea but how far along is the icebreaker in the design phase?


----------



## jmt18325

I think we should stick to the plan - yes there will be some short term pain, but if we follow it and build continuously, that shouldn't repeat.


----------



## Navy_Pete

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> This might be an interesting idea but how far along is the icebreaker in the design phase?



Yeah, we passed that decision point a few years ago; JSS design work is ticking along on track and Polar hasn't really started


----------



## Cloud Cover

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Yeah, we passed that decision point a few years ago; JSS design work is ticking along on track and Polar hasn't really started



Agreed with caveats:
a- What can be done to move the plan forward _by years_ without compromising quality and requirements;
b-What can be done _in Canada_ to reduce costs without reducing the number of ships.

If a and b are not an option, what can be leased elsewhere as an interim solution. Pumping additional money into FFG's to life extend them (as will likely be required) as some of these are eventually going to be retired before the new fleet is completed (some of them they may well be 48-50 yrs old at that point). Is it likely the RCN will drop to a fleet of less than 10 operational FFG before Irving is putting ships in the water?


----------



## AlexanderM

Building the ships more quickly is the way to get costs down, and the only sane course of action, other than building the hulls in South Korea. Financing is cheap right now, so finance the back half and pay it off over the 20 years. Get the ships built!


----------



## jmt18325

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Building the ships more quickly is the way to get costs down, and the only sane course of action, other than building the hulls in South Korea. Financing is cheap right now, so finance the back half and pay it off over the 20 years. Get the ships built!



Building ships more quickly derails the entire plan set out by the Harper government, and puts us back into the boom/bust cycle that has left us here, unable to build ships economically.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Flew over Seaspan yesterday and would have had a great shot of the OFSV's under construction had I had my camera ready, ggrr dufus!!!


----------



## serger989

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Building ships more quickly derails the entire plan set out by the Harper government, and puts us back into the boom/bust cycle that has left us here, unable to build ships economically.



No, that is part of it. They should build quickly, we should also build abroad. Our own shipbuilders should be building up a much larger commercial base for foreign and domestic buyers. If they can't get work outside of government work, they aren't doing things properly. At least, that's how I see it in my opinion. They are more than likely going to experience another boom/bust after this work in 2030+. Are we going to keep ordering a steady flow of ships? I highly doubt it based on Canada's procurement history. If they set themselves up to do only government work for that time period, they aren't going to have a lot of leeway in foreign markets? This NSPS has frustrated me for a while lol


----------



## AlexanderM

serger989 said:
			
		

> No, that is part of it. They should build quickly, we should also build abroad. Our own shipbuilders should be building up a much larger commercial base for foreign and domestic buyers. If they can't get work outside of government work, they aren't doing things properly. At least, that's how I see it in my opinion. They are more than likely going to experience another boom/bust after this work in 2030+. Are we going to keep ordering a steady flow of ships? I highly doubt it based on Canada's procurement history. If they set themselves up to do only government work for that time period, they aren't going to have a lot of leeway in foreign markets? This NSPS has frustrated me for a while lol


Agreed! The idea that building ridiculously expensive ships over a long period of time is somehow going to make us competitive has no connection with reality.


----------



## jmt18325

serger989 said:
			
		

> No, that is part of it. They should build quickly, we should also build abroad. Our own shipbuilders should be building up a much larger commercial base for foreign and domestic buyers. If they can't get work outside of government work, they aren't doing things properly. At least, that's how I see it in my opinion. They are more than likely going to experience another boom/bust after this work in 2030+. Are we going to keep ordering a steady flow of ships? I highly doubt it based on Canada's procurement history.



That's the genius of the plan - some ships will already need replacement by the time that the plan is done.  The first AOPS will be more than 20 years old by the time the last CSC is built in 2041, and the remaining Kingstons will be ancient.  The NSPS was designed to end the boom bust.  Civilian work is irrelevant (but would add an extra layer of protection).  End the boom bust and much of the extra cost is eliminated.

Of course, it will always cost more to build here, but not necessarily in net terms.


----------



## Kirkhill

serger989 said:
			
		

> No, that is part of it. They should build quickly, we should also build abroad. Our own shipbuilders should be building up a much larger commercial base for foreign and domestic buyers. *If they can't get work outside of government work, they aren't doing things properly. *At least, that's how I see it in my opinion. They are more than likely going to experience another boom/bust after this work in 2030+. Are we going to keep ordering a steady flow of ships? I highly doubt it based on Canada's procurement history. If they set themselves up to do only government work for that time period, they aren't going to have a lot of leeway in foreign markets? This NSPS has frustrated me for a while lol


 :goodpost:

Other countries yards are not just naval yards.  They build cruise liners and specialty hulls like OFSVs, icebreakers, research vessels, patrol vessels, private vessels....  And Korea builds containers and tankers.

Take a look at Fincantieri - https://www.fincantieri.com/en/ or Damen for a smaller national champion - http://www.damen.com/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The National Shipbuilding Strategy has always been an industrial strategy - not a naval strategy.

The Navy doesn't really care where its ships are built, so long as they fully work and meet all operational criteria.

Thus, if the yards benefiting from the major upgrades in both facilities and training/experience for their manpower cannot turn this into a commercial venture distinct from the government procurement, then the whole strategy is a failure. Unless of course, the government demonstrate that the capacity for Canada to build in country all of its government vessels, military and civilian, is of an essential strategic importance. No such demonstration has been made, nor has the matter even been brought into the public representation of the strategy.

But there is one other aspect no one touched on: Is the government going to let the selected yards sell warships to foreign powers? The government tried with the HALIFAX class but failed. This happened for a very simple reason: the sale pitch was mostly aimed at other NATO countries and most of them already had their own in-country programs they were not about to change just to buy Canadian - no matter how good they were. On the other hand, the government was not willing to let sales out to countries that were less savoury to the Canadian public, like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Egypt, for instances. Since other nations like the French and the Dutch have no such qualms, they get those sales even if they subsidize them, to keep their yards going. If the Canadian government of today is still reluctant to do so (and, judging by the ruckus over sale of mere LAV's to Saudi Arabia, I suspect the government still is), the strategy is not going to work.

Moreover, this very possibility of foreign sales (if the government had ever planned on permitting it) is now forfeited anyway since, instead of designing a home grown Canadian design and product, we have selected foreign designs (Acker for the Berlin and we don't know who yet for the CSC's) and it's unlikely the original designers will let the Canadian yards sell them instead of selling them directly.

Also: I still have a scotch bottle (Glen Breton 2007) bet on the fact that the AOPS will be turned over to the Coast Guard within 5 years of their acquisition  :nod: . So the Navy will need a real offshore surveillance vessel. [


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Building ships more quickly derails the entire plan set out by the Harper government, and puts us back into the boom/bust cycle that has left us here, unable to build ships economically.



jmt18325, I struck out your last bit because we won't be building ships economically with the present plan; however, the point was never to build anything economically.  I think you and I, regardless of whoever we associate with politically can agree that one of the primary roles of the Government is to support the development of Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) either through legal frameworks in the form of legislation or through subsidization and investments, either indirect or direct.

Whether the CAF get 15 ships tomorrow or five years from now, it's more important strategically that we have a shipbuilding industry as part of an overall government CNI plan.  As far as I'm concerned, the shipbuilding plan is a good thing.  Strategically, it's important that we have the capacity to build ships for a variety of reasons as shipbuilding; like aviation, oil, electricity, etc.  Are key industries of national power and should be supported accordingly.


----------



## jmt18325

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> jmt18325, I struck out your last bit because we won't be building ships economically with the present plan; however, the point was never to build anything economically.  I think you and I, regardless of whoever we associate with politically we can agree that one of the primary roles of the Government is to support the development of Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) either through legal frameworks in the form of legislation or through subsidization and investments, either indirect or direct.
> 
> Whether the CAF get 15 ships tomorrow or five years from now, it's more important strategically that we have a shipbuilding industry as part of an overall government CNI plan.  As far as I'm concerned, the shipbuilding plan is a good thing.  Strategically, it's important that we have the capacity to build ships for a variety of reasons as shipbuilding; like aviation, oil, electricity, etc.  Are key industries of national power and should be supported accordingly.



I would agree with you completely.  I think what I was referring to was the money that we've had to spend to rebuild this capacity just to start the construction phase of the NSPS - it was probably close to (if not more than) $1B in terms of infrastructure for the shipyards and training for the shipbuilders.  All of that cost is either directly or indirectly passed on to the government, inflating the costs and the timeline.  The idea of the NSPS is to bring that to an end.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I would agree with you completely.  I think what I was referring to was the money that we've had to spend to rebuild this capacity just to start the construction phase of the NSPS - it was probably close to (if not more than) $1B in terms of infrastructure for the shipyards and training for the shipyards.  All of that cost is either directly or indirectly passed on to the government, inflating the costs and the timeline.  The idea of the NSPS is to bring that to an end.



You and I are in vigorous agreement!

I hear a lot of talk about us buying Korean, sure we would save money up front but here is a military scenario for you, what if South Korea gets invaded?

Is it an acceptable COA to base our entire Naval procurement around the availability of ships from a country in a potentially volatile region with the distinct possibility that if war does breakout, we loose access to our supplier?  I don't think so  8)


----------



## Good2Golf

Ship-building strategy = maritime version of Colt Canada, no?  ???


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ship-building strategy = maritime version of Colt Canada, no?  ???



My personal opinion is when it comes to CNI, the rule MUST BE 'buy domestic'.  Right now we are commanding a Multinational Battlegroup in an area which for Canada is probably 'Key Terrain' as far as Defence of North America is concerned.  

Would you place your BSA on the FEBA?  So why would you place your warship building capabilities in an area that, if war were to actually break out, would become contested ground?  Our vital ground is most definitely the Atlantic and to a lesser extent the Pacific Oceans so it behoves us to be able to project in to it from a position of strength.

 :2c:


----------



## serger989

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's the genius of the plan - some ships will already need replacement by the time that the plan is done.  The first AOPS will be more than 20 years old by the time the last CSC is built in 2041, and the remaining Kingstons will be ancient.  The NSPS was designed to end the boom bust.  Civilian work is irrelevant (but would add an extra layer of protection).  End the boom bust and much of the extra cost is eliminated.
> 
> Of course, it will always cost more to build here, but not necessarily in net terms.



Unfortunately there is no genius to this plan. The Kingstons had a $100 million refit cancelled because the AOPS are replacing them. If you look at the defense review that just released, the RCN is only getting 15 AAW/ASW frigates, 2 JSS, 5-6 AOPS, and "modernized" Victoria subs. For the foreseeable future, that's it. Just because they will NEED replacement, doesn't mean they will get replaced (The plan to begin our JSS started in 2004 for example, but ours rusted out before we even had the new ones laid down). There is no binding contract for the unforeseen future. The NSPS guarantees the work listed above + Seaspans CCG work and that is all it does. These companies are responsible themselves for building up their own suppliers and means of distributing the work. Our CNI for shipbuilding is entirely dependent on the success of these yards which has nothing to do with the amount of money we throw at them and everything to do with the capability they posses. Case in point, Saint John shipyard modernized, Irving said frig it and made it a Wallboard facility, moved to Halifax, then begged for a 300 million forgivable loan to modernize, after we paid them 55 million for their Wallboard facility. Also I am still of the opinion that keeping Davie "locked out" of the NSPS was a mistake. We can also sign new contracts for unrelated ships (Project Resolve/Resolute)... So we can have 2 Queenstons and 2 Resolves, the 3rd Queenston was not guaranteed and is dependent on Seaspans own budget currently, as is the 6th AOPS. How can having more yards participate in our own building be detrimental to us, especially when Davie's capacity is unique in that they are the largest in Canada...?

So I ask, when their contract is completed, what then? Will they suddenly be sought after companies for international work after 20+ years of not contributing in foreign markets? Even big international yards have trouble selling just military vessels or specialty ships, competitions are no joke. They are being set up for another boom and bust, but this time, in 20+ years instead of 10+ years. If you give them nothing but government work, and then have their future work basically attached to refitting... Their skill will diminish just like it did and has currently (History shows). They need to step up and go beyond Canadian work. Yes, have Canada buy from Canadian yards, but those same yards can then divide their own work up internationally on some aspects to expedite builds, freeing up their capacity/schedule to then do even more work. You get work by having buyers interested in you, not 1 buyer. We aren't the USN where we have 100+ vessels (and a huge budget) to constantly rotate in and out of refitting and modernizing the fleet.

Sorry if I am wrong on any of this, please kick me in my arse and correct the crap out of me. I am more than anything looking to understand this whole situation. I have to say however, that I love this website because it's one of the only realistic places to have this specific discussion on the whole damned internet lol


----------



## Karel Doorman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> Other countries yards are not just naval yards.  They build cruise liners and specialty hulls like OFSVs, icebreakers, research vessels, patrol vessels, private vessels....  And Korea builds containers and tankers.
> 
> Take a look at Fincantieri - https://www.fincantieri.com/en/ or Damen for a smaller national champion - http://www.damen.com/



Btw have you seen on the Damen site what they're planning for the Dutch Navy?

Click on Damen and the Royal Dutch Navy(site),you can see what they're planning for replacement M-class,Walrus-class and the MCM's(Tripartite),click on the arrow to the right. [  (concepts)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Canadian shipbuilders will always struggle due to labour and regulation costs. The one thing that can be fixed is management and Canadian management is not considered the most effective in the world to be polite. (well it’s better than Leylands was) 

Seaspan was upgrading itself, before the NSPS and had survived for many years without government contracts, built a global rep for efficient repairs on budget and on time. Davie went through a tough spot, pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and I respect them for that. I suspect there is no legal reason why the NSPS cannot be transferred to Davie if Irving fails to perform. The government needs to hold their feet to the fire, particularly on the quality of build of the AOPs and make the CSC contract dependent on that quality.

AS for CNI, one of my big worries is that that there are only 2 refineries in BC, one at 56,000bbd and the other around 26,000bbd. The smaller one in Prince George is getting quite old, the bigger one is set in an earthquake zone. Currently any excess fuel demand has to be met with US supply for the South Coast, so we are dependent on foreign sources for refined fuels out here if something goes wrong. I would be willing to have the government support the rebuilding of the smaller one and building a new one near the South coast as a back up. The gas companies are not interested in building more refineries as it would increase supply driving the local price of gas down. Gas companies do not have the national interest or even the regional interests at heart.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin:

Please don't tell me you are trying to excuse the Canada shipyards on the grounds that their labour costs are higher than the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, France and Italy and that their regulatory burden is also higher.

That will have to be demonstrated to me by evidence I have not yet seen.

And PS - WRT the refinery situation, wouldn't it have been nice if additional pipelines to tide water had been approved?  Then you could build more refineries.


----------



## jmt18325

serger989 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately there is no genius to this plan. The Kingstons had a $100 million refit cancelled because the AOPS are replacing them. If you look at the defense review that just released, the RCN is only getting 15 AAW/ASW frigates, 2 JSS, 5-6 AOPS, and "modernized" Victoria subs. For the foreseeable future, that's it.



As far as I understand, though the original plan was to retire the Kingston for the AOPS, they will now continue to operate along side them for the foreseeable future.  Though the midlife upgrade was cancelled, they have been receiving other, less expensive upgrades to allow them to continue in their role.  The Liberal plan only goes out to 2037, and the CSC planned build out goes out to 2041. 
The Seaspan side will have no problem with a continuous build with all of the CCG ships that will need replacing over the next 3 decades.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Colin:
> 
> Please don't tell me you are trying to excuse the Canada shipyards on the grounds that their labour costs are higher than the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, France and Italy and that their regulatory burden is also higher.
> 
> That will have to be demonstrated to me by evidence I have not yet seen.
> 
> And PS - WRT the refinery situation, wouldn't it have been nice if additional pipelines to tide water had been approved?  Then you could build more refineries.



Technically there is already a pipeline to tidewater, the plan is to make it bigger  As for labour costs, I said they will "struggle", while it's less of an issue with some European yards, I believe the Polish yards can undercut us a fair bit on that issue. No way we can compete with Chinese or Turkish yards where labour is cheaper and regulations and environmental standard can be less or nil. My argument is that the biggest factor that influences cost that can be changed is management. Effective management is why I think 2 out 3 yards are doing well.


----------



## Kirkhill

Let me know when you want a refill and I'll see what I can do.  >

In European terms the Scandinavians tended to use the Poles to produce their bare hulls while the Dutch seem to favour the Romanians now, the Spaniards pricing themselves out of that market.  The western yards seem to be focused on the outfitting and hotel work.

In effect the stuff that Davie is doing for their Project Resolve.


----------



## Underway

Some economic analysis of the CSC on foreign vs domestic build.
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2017/06/06/csc-cost-versus-benefits-to-canadians/


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> Some economic analysis of the CSC on foreign vs domestic build.
> http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2017/06/06/csc-cost-versus-benefits-to-canadians/



For full disclosure, this report was commissioned by ISI.  The assumptions aren't unreasonable (there are similar RAND reports on the cost for build in AUS) but are on the optmistic end of the spectrum.

The only real way to see what the cost might be would be to pay EU builders to put a fully costed proposal out.  At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what the true cost is; the 'build in Canada' policy renders it a moot point.

There are lots of good reasons to build in Canada; I just don't get why we are focused on the end products and ignoring the other critical parts that go into it, like steel, engines, valves etc are all made overseas.


----------



## Kirkhill

Is it clearly established the difference between the cost to the RCN, and thus the impact on the defence budget, vice the benefits that accrue to Government and Canada at large?

I mean, I don't really care if the Government wants to pump 20 BCAD into the economy by buying a single ship every year for 20 BCAD.  I do care if that leaves nothing else in the budget to buy boots and radios.

As somebody said you can pay people to dig holes and fill them in again if all you want to do is add money to the economy.

Edit: By the way it seems that the working assumption is fitting an Arleigh Burke DDG-51 Flight IIA or III into the hull of the day - leaving open that BMD option.


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is it clearly established the difference between the cost to the RCN, and thus the impact on the defence budget, vice the benefits that accrue to Government and Canada at large?
> 
> I mean, I don't really care if the Government wants to pump 20 BCAD into the economy by buying a single ship every year for 20 BCAD.  I do care if that leaves nothing else in the budget to buy boots and radios.
> 
> As somebody said you can pay people to dig holes and fill them in again if all you want to do is add money to the economy.
> 
> Edit: By the way it seems that the working assumption is fitting an Arleigh Burke DDG-51 Flight IIA or III into the hull of the day - leaving open that BMD option.



BMD really just depends on the missile type.  Pretty much any AAW ship out there has the sensors and datalinks needed.  There are probably a few software changes required as well.  But all in all a Canadian warship could do BMD without the public even realizing it.  A SM6 is multirole after all...


----------



## MarkOttawa

> ...all in all a Canadian warship could do BMD without the public even realizing it.  A SM6 is multirole after all...



Tee hee.  Maybe one or two in the media might.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:
			
		

> BMD really just depends on the missile type.  Pretty much any AAW ship out there has the sensors and datalinks needed.  There are probably a few software changes required as well.  But all in all a Canadian warship could do BMD without the public even realizing it.  A SM6 is multirole after all...



Are you certain it is as simple as that? That is not what I have heard/read.


----------



## Karel Doorman

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Are you certain it is as simple as that? That is not what I have heard/read.



That's my thoughts exactly,again no expert.

From what i read and heared the US is able to do this for a while now(BMD),in Europe The Dutch(oh yeah  [lol: )where the first to be able to do that aswell,but that meant an upgrade(software)to the Smart-L,so how do you see the Canadian ships do that aswell?(i think the Type-45 could do this "trick"aswell,maybe again with some software upgrades)Offcourse it should be clear that the to be built new ships should be able to do that,but i am talking now.

gr,walter


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Are you certain it is as simple as that? That is not what I have heard/read.



I see the issue. _Current Canadian warships_ couldn't do it because we don't have a fleet AAW capability.  A sea sparrow is not a BMD missile.  What I meant was that the CSC (for the AAW variant) I can almost guarantee will have the capability without the public knowing about it.

There really are only two AAW missile systems out there to buy and the Aster family or SM family are it and both of those are capable.

SM6 and Aster 30 both have terminal phase ballistic missile engagement capability because of their long range and internal targeting.  This is important for AAW, as you want to be able to engage things like Chinese anti-ship Ballistic Missiles.  It's not necessarily about defending the coast of Canada from rogue N. Korean missiles, but often more about fleet defence against land based ballistic area denial systems.

So yah, I think the CSC will have a BMD capability even if limited in scope.  We will just tell the public that we are capable of fleet missile defence for ourselves and our allies and leave it at that.  But generally the AAW CSC will be able to easily integrate with a USN task group through Link or cooperative engagement capability and take a shot.


----------



## Monsoon

The BMD capability is a function of the capacity of search radars, fire control radars and the missiles themselves. While a VLS-launched SM6 is capable of doing BMD, the search and fire control radars on our ships do not have the required capabilities. The limiting factor is the angle of approach: ballistic missiles in their final approach are moving exceptionally fast and from very nearly directly above. You need a full 3D volume scanning radar (one that includes coverage "straight up") capable of detecting threats very quickly, and a fire control radar capable of designating targets at close to the vertical. For all intents an purposes, APAR is pretty much a requirement to accomplish this.


----------



## a_majoor

Linking this to the "Thinking outside the Hull" article and the future of the Naval reserve, would it not be useful to build a sort of inexpensive "Liberty ship" with the ability to use containerized weapons or cargo for the Reserve?

The ships would simply need to have the high capacity data links to take sensor information from off board sources like other ships, aircraft or potentially satellites and pass the information to the missiles or torpedoes waiting in the containers to prosecute targets (meaning these ships could participate in ASW, surface warfare or air/missile defense depending on the load out and what sensors they are feeding from). In wartime, this would provide "magazines" of extra firepower, while in peacetime, these ships could carry containers of supplies and ferry them to ships via helicopter or VTOL UAV's. This would also fit in nicely with the preferred "public" role of disaster relief and support operations (the ship sails to disaster area and delivers relief supplies). And since it would be configured to ferry supplies and weapons on and off board using helicopters, this also gives it "some" utility to support amphibious operations by ferrying troops and supplies ashore via helicopter.

As for ship building, these would not be particularly challenging to build, and even secondary shipyards could be given contracts to build these vessels, or the main shipyards could do this between building the surface combatants and waiting for the various refurbishing and mid life updating jobs to maintain some currency and skill sets.


----------



## Kirkhill

Monsoon said:
			
		

> The BMD capability is a function of the capacity of search radars, fire control radars and the missiles themselves. While a VLS-launched SM6 is capable of doing BMD, the search and fire control radars on our ships do not have the required capabilities. The limiting factor is the angle of approach: ballistic missiles in their final approach are moving exceptionally fast and from very nearly directly above. You need a full 3D volume scanning radar (one that includes coverage "straight up") capable of detecting threats very quickly, and a fire control radar capable of designating targets at close to the vertical. For all intents an purposes, APAR is pretty much a requirement to accomplish this.



As I understand it the US Navy already possesses the ability to launch any missile in any VLS cell on any ship in a Task Group independently of the command structure of the vessel carrying the missile.  I also understand that the ability of the RCN to operate within this system is both highly prized by the RCN and highly valued by the USN.

I also understand that Air Defence Networks, such as NASAMS, permit the deployment of missile launchers, on land, on a temporary, relocatable basis, with separations of up to 25 km, with control from a central trailer.

From that, I take it, that any vessel that incorporates a Mk 41 Strike Length VLS module, can launch any Standard missile, SM2, SM3 or SM6.  It doesn't need radar.  It doesn't need a Captain.  It doesn't even need national authority.  It just needs to keep formation and stay in range of the command net.

But that reduces the vessel to a magazine - and the crew to a security detail.

Not much independence of action there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not to mention scaring the hell out of the crew when a missile launches independently, unless of course the Captain of the ship has to allow for remote control, then they might expect it. Otherwise you might have crews working around the missile bays when one is fired.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not to mention scaring the hell out of the crew when a missile launches independently, unless of course the Captain of the ship has to allow for remote control, then they might expect it. Otherwise you might have crews working around the missile bays when one is fired.



I presume that a well-bred Task Group commander would be polite enough to inform the local watch commander of his intentions.  If he had the time.

Perhaps something along the lines of: "Commander's compliments, Sir. Would you clear the decks?"


----------



## Colin Parkinson

More like an order from the Task force commander to move to an alert status where all AD are armed and then a command to hand control to a central command station on whichever ship controls AD for the task force. A ship would only handover control if the firing points are clear. Which would also mean that either they have to request permission to take back control so they can carry out deck functions or just advise the commander they are taking their missiles offline for x period. Similar to a industrial site lockout of equipment for safe working.
What it could mean that if a ship took a hit that destroyed or damaged the command center, the defenses could be taken over by another ship, that has pluses and minus as well. The recent collision between the USN ship and freighter will be an excellent learning example and simulates 1 or 2 hits by Anti-ship missiles minus the fires. That one knocked out all power to the ship, which would take all systems off line.


----------



## Half Full

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> As I understand it the US Navy already possesses the ability to launch any missile in any VLS cell on any ship in a Task Group independently of the command structure of the vessel carrying the missile.  I also understand that the ability of the RCN to operate within this system is both highly prized by the RCN and highly valued by the USN.



If you are talking about Cooperative Engagement Capability and the ability for the TG Commander to fire missiles from one of his ships at a target being identified from another, than no we do not have that capability within our ships.  We can definitely use another ship's targeting info and fire on their contact using, say a Link track, but they can't reach into our ships and fire our missiles/guns.


----------



## serger989

Underway said:
			
		

> What I meant was that the CSC (for the AAW variant)



Remember, the CSC is a single-class of ship  All 15 will have ASW/ASuW/AAW. The question will then be, what kind of VLS will it have and how expensive will the missiles be lol I can't imagine what we can afford for all 15... 15 BMD capable ships sounds mighty expensive.


----------



## Kirkhill

Half Full said:
			
		

> If you are talking about Cooperative Engagement Capability and the ability for the TG Commander to fire missiles from one of his ships at a target being identified from another, than no we do not have that capability within our ships.  We can definitely use another ship's targeting info and fire on their contact using, say a Link track, but they can't reach into our ships and fire our missiles/guns.



Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

serger989 said:
			
		

> Remember, the CSC is a single-class of ship  All 15 will have ASW/ASuW/AAW. The question will then be, what kind of VLS will it have and how expensive will the missiles be lol I can't imagine what we can afford for all 15... 15 BMD capable ships sounds mighty expensive.



Serger, the Saint-Laurent's, which included the Saint-Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie and Annapolis sub-classes were "single-class" ships: Same hull, same machinery for propulsion and power production, main primary lay-outs. However, they were four different ships with different weapons , combat systems and sensors suites in the end to make for different functions.

Don't confuse single class for "everything-except-the-actual-missiles-will-be-the-same". The AAD/Command version will almost certainly have a different fit of missiles, weapons and sensors (and probably comms also) from the general purpose version. In particular, I don't expect the general purpose version to carry the same high-power/high-volume 3D radars and associated combat system required for area air defence, as this would be incredibly expansive when  much cheaper other radars/combat system will do fine where point-defence is concerned.


----------



## Spencer100

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-design-problems-1.4181542

More problems it looks like.  

One of the bidder is not happy


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-design-problems-1.4181542
> 
> More problems it looks like.
> 
> One of the bidder is not happy



Stuff like this makes me crazy:

_"The grant required by the [request for proposals] would permit Canada and [Irving Shipbuilding Inc.] to use 'background' intellectual property supplied pursuant to the [request for proposals] to compete with the bidder supplying the intellectual property for subsequent military procurement contracts with other nations," said the documents._

Who writes these documents?  If I was a foreign ship builder I probably would've flipped off our government a long time ago....the combination of gross incompetence and the condition above justifies people getting fired.


 :facepalm:


----------



## Kirkhill

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Stuff like this makes me crazy:
> 
> _"The grant required by the [request for proposals] would permit Canada and [Irving Shipbuilding Inc.] to use 'background' intellectual property supplied pursuant to the [request for proposals] to compete with the bidder supplying the intellectual property for subsequent military procurement contracts with other nations," said the documents._
> 
> Who writes these documents?  If I was a foreign ship builder I probably would've flipped off our government a long time ago....the combination of gross incompetence and the condition above justifies people getting fired.
> 
> 
> :facepalm:



Makes you wonder how many of these folks have ever actually negotiated a contract .

Without a doubt I will sell you the ability to compete against me.  In fact, you can have my whole company.  I was looking to retire. 

If you want to know how this works take a look at India and Israel.  India is negotiating the rights to build F16s - nice aircraft but a bit stale-dated.  Israel is buying F35s,  and would really like to know what's under the hood.  But they won't be told.  On the other hand they will figure out how to adapt the F35 to their needs within the limits imposed and, concurrently, figure out how to work with what they have.

Peculiarly they seem to have gone "operational" as soon as they got their hands on an F35 and didn't bother waiting for the manual to be written.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Necessity is the mother of invention and what drives Israeli actions.  They can't piss about like we do, getting nowhere fast.


----------



## Underway

The intellectual property thing is always a problem.  I was told (second hand info here with no sources to link, take with appropriate salt garnish) when the CF-18's were new the Americans wouldn't give us any info on any of the programing for the radar and other flight systems because of intellectual property and security reasons.  So our techs hacked the system, pulled all the programing out and then modified it as necessary.

Difference is here is one industry might very well be handing another industry competitive secrets.

Also I never really understood how an off the shelf design could do all the things we asked it to.  I always thought it would be a MOTS+ design from day one, and any industry folks who looked at bidding for the program should have figured that out from even the most cursory glance at the requirements.  What design out there does proper AAW and GP.  Not a single one.  As OGBD stated earlier it's a single class in hull and propulsion only.


----------



## Kirkhill

And in the case of the FREMM project the French and Italians also have different power packs.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

>



Further to this:  

I just found this photo of the Nunakput 2017 excursion boats.  It is described as a 32 foot Inshore Jet Boat.






It looks a bit different to the USCG Force Protection RHIBs shown above.

Anybody have any news on them? Specs?  Compatibility with AOPS?  Whether or not a RWS could be mounted on that pedestal forward of the cabin?


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Further to this:
> 
> I just found this photo of the Nunakput 2017 excursion boats.  It is described as a 32 foot Inshore Jet Boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks a bit different to the USCG Force Protection RHIBs shown above.
> 
> Anybody have any news on them? Specs?  Compatibility with AOPS?  Whether or not a RWS could be mounted on that pedestal forward of the cabin?



These are force protection boats out of FDU, nothing to do with AOPS and no RWS capability.


----------



## Kirkhill

Seen.  Thanks


----------



## NavyShooter

That "pedestal" is capable of fitting a C-6 if I recall correctly.  There is a locker in the cabin for it.

The cabin is *just* large enough to fit the gear needed for a Klein 5000 series Side scan SONAR system.


----------



## FSTO

We got those shortly before I left Sea Div in 07. They were/are garbage.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

How so? I note they are using 3 for the McKenzie River run


----------



## Kirkhill

Apparently built by ABCO out of Lunenburg?  No implied reference to quality with that.

http://www.abco.ca/32-twin-jet-navy-patrol-boat.html


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> How so? I note they are using 3 for the McKenzie River run



They are? Wow. I don't know where they hid the 2 we got on the west coast but they were able to find 3 functioning ones eh. Well colour me surprised!

So when we got them at Sea Div in 06 or 07, the Seaborne Base Defence Force had been up and running since shortly after 9-11 and the Navy had been looking for something that could be more useful 24/7 and in all weather than the Ribs we were using at the time.
So out of the blue these two boats show up and Sea Div was told to start training the FP people on them. Well there was no SOR, no LCMM set up to support (when I called Ottawa I got a "?????, who the **** ordered these things) no QSP writing board to flesh out what the training syllabus would be. Nothing.
Then we took them out and they were okay in the harbour but as soon as you went past Fisgaard Light they got the crap beat out of them, they leaked and there was no transverse watertight bulkhead to mitigate this issue in case the boat was holed. As I said before there was no support for the boat, the engines, nor for the electronics. So it was an orphan that nobody wanted to take responsibility for. 
We tried to make it work and the FP folks took it but it only stayed within the harbour limits. I have no idea how they worked in Halifax but I have a feeling it wasn't very well.
When I left Sea Div in 08 I think the boats were sitting on blocks on B Jetty.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thanks for the info, I saw a video on FB I am trying to find


MacKenzie River Run
In the North, the RCN will operate small boats on Great Slave Lake in July. Two boats will potentially circumnavigate Great Slave Lake, while an additional two boats will proceed from Hay River up the MacKenzie River to Tuktoyaktuk.

Using Joint Task Force North’s Operation Nunakput, an annual surveillance and presence operation, as a backdrop, the RCN will gain valuable insight into small boat internal water operations and Canadian Ranger cooperation. Sailors will celebrate Canada 150 as modern-day voyageurs of Canada’s internal waters.

These signature events are just a sample of what the RCN has planned for the year, as a host of other events will be held in communities across the country from ships’ visits to maritime galas to participation in the Invictus Games.

“This is an exciting time to be a Canadian and part of the navy,” says VAdm Lloyd. “We have many wonderful activities planned for this special year, and I hope that all Canadians will have the chance to celebrate this milestone alongside members of the RCN.”


----------



## MilEME09

Meanwhile in the US
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-navy-releases-specs-for-a-proposed-guided-missile-frigate-a-break-from-the-littoral-combat-ship


> WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is looking for inputs from industry on a new multimission guided-missile frigate adapted from existing ship designs, a major departure from its modular littoral combat ship, according to a request for information released Monday.
> 
> The RFI lays out a ship that opens the door to almost any existing design that can be adapted to the Navy’s needs, which extends beyond just the two LCS hull forms being built by Lockheed Martin and Austal USA.
> 
> The service is looking for a ship with combat and mechanical systems that will fully integrate with a carrier strike group, hunt submarines and kill ships over the horizon. Labeling the ship the FFG(X), the ship will be expected to keep up with the full carrier strike group and be able to operate independently in high-end threat environments.
> 
> The Navy is looking to avoid "sticker shock," said Rear Adm. Ronald Boxall, the service's director of surface warfare, said in a Monday telephone interview, and engage with ship builders about what trade-offs the Navy would have to make to get the most capability from the ship.
> 
> "This is an effort to get the design right up front," Boxall said. "We're looking to have a dialogue with industry to get the most capability for the best price."
> 
> Boxall did not say how much the U.S. Navy is willing to spend but said the RFI was intended to draw out what the U.S. Navy could get for its shipbuilding dollar.
> 
> In order to get the ship to the fleet as fast as possible, the U.S. Navy wants builders to adapt from existing designs, the RFI said.
> 
> "A competition for FFG(X) is envisioned to consider existing parent designs for a Small Surface Combatant that can be modified to accommodate the specific capability requirements prescribed by the US Navy," it reads.
> 
> The U.S. Navy wants a frigate that can keep up with the aircraft carrier — a nagging problem with the current classes of small surface combatants — and have sensors networked in with the rest of the fleet to expand the overall tactical picture available to the group.
> 
> “The FFG(X) will normally aggregate into strike groups and Large Surface Combatant led surface action groups but also possess the ability to robustly defend itself during conduct of independent operations while connected and contributing to the fleet tactical grid.”
> 
> The U.S. Navy would like for the ship to be able to:
> 
> Kill surface ships over the horizon
> Detect enemy submarines
> Defend convoy ships
> Employ active and passive electronic warfare systems
> Defend against swarming small boat attacks
> 
> The U.S. Navy is looking to limit the number of ground-breaking technologies that go into the ship, looking for engineering and combat systems that are already common in the fleet.
> 
> The U.S. Navy lists several capabilities, among the most important including:
> 
> A fixed, phased-array radar
> An "AEGIS-derivative" combat system that uses a common source library
> The ability to launch a single MH-60R Seahawk helicopter
> Four canister launched over-the-horizon weapons
> SeaRAM
> MQ-8C Firescout
> 
> Other capabilities in "tier two" include various sonar equipment such as variable-depth and towed-array sonar, Cooperative Engagement Capability to be able to share target data with other ships and aircraft in the fleet, rigid-hull inflatable boats, Next Generation Surface Search Radar, and a MK 110 57mm gun and related systems.
> 
> The U.S. Navy wants the ship to be used for surface and anti-submarine warfare — traditional frigate roles — and to take on lower-level missions, such as security cooperation, that don't require multibillion-dollar warships. It also must be hardened against electronic warfare attack.
> 
> The U.S. Navy is also particularly interested in having the frigate be a platform for deploying unmanned systems "to penetrate and dwell in contested environments, operating at greater risk to gain sensor and weapons advantages over the adversary."
> 
> The frigate should be able to establish a complicated picture of a tactical environment with its on-board sensors, unmanned systems and embarked aircraft and beam that information back to the fleet through secure communications.
> 
> The U.S. Navy intends to award the contract for the first FFG(X) in 2020. It will buy one in 2020 and one in 2021, followed by two each year after that. The U.S. Navy's requirement is for 52 small-surface combatants, the bulk of which will be LCS.



I wonder if it would be possible for us to just combine programs with the states, have American and Canadian yards building the same ships for both nations.


----------



## Kirkhill

https://www.facebook.com/FOIN.JTFN/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE

The "Inshore Jet Boats" being put into the water for Nunakput 2017 by crane from a low-loader.


----------



## FSTO

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Meanwhile in the US
> http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-navy-releases-specs-for-a-proposed-guided-missile-frigate-a-break-from-the-littoral-combat-ship
> I wonder if it would be possible for us to just combine programs with the states, have American and Canadian yards building the same ships for both nations.



I think that ship has sailed (pun intended). 
But if we had a forward looking and agile bureaucracy that could seize on a opportunity to get more bang for the buck. Oh why do I waste bandwidth, it'll never happen.

But for the USN; man after DDX, Zumwalt, LCS and even the Ford class carrier the transformation generation sure got their genitals hammered flat. Sometimes those bright young folks in short pants (and skirts) are just too smart for their own good.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info, I saw a video on FB I am trying to find
> 
> 
> MacKenzie River Run
> In the North, the RCN will operate small boats on Great Slave Lake in July. Two boats will potentially circumnavigate Great Slave Lake, while an additional two boats will proceed from Hay River up the MacKenzie River to Tuktoyaktuk.
> 
> Using Joint Task Force North’s Operation Nunakput, an annual surveillance and presence operation, as a backdrop, the RCN will gain valuable insight into small boat internal water operations and Canadian Ranger cooperation. Sailors will celebrate Canada 150 as modern-day voyageurs of Canada’s internal waters.
> 
> These signature events are just a sample of what the RCN has planned for the year, as a host of other events will be held in communities across the country from ships’ visits to maritime galas to participation in the Invictus Games.
> 
> “This is an exciting time to be a Canadian and part of the navy,” says VAdm Lloyd. “We have many wonderful activities planned for this special year, and I hope that all Canadians will have the chance to celebrate this milestone alongside members of the RCN.”



Here is a collection of photos I have of Operation Nunakput  https://www.facebook.com/pg/GOCANADANAVY/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1533451013380290

If you look under videos I have a number of videos from the trip.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It was a great idea and long overdue, kudos to all involved.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris, this will get your gears turning, very LST looking http://www.cosbc.ca/index.php/current-issues/ships-of-the-week/item/3538-july-7-rotra-vente


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks Colin.

I never cease to be amazed at what people can do when left to their own devices.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nice shot


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Why the curtains on each sides of the hull? Are there secrets there the Canadian Coast Guard wants to keep from everybody on the planet ? ;D


----------



## jmt18325

That's a big boat (sorry, ship).


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Why the curtains on each sides of the hull? Are there secrets there the Canadian Coast Guard wants to keep from everybody on the planet ? ;D



Welding/painting screens?  Irving has/had the same thing over the refit of the Halifax.  It looked like the entire ship was wrapped for Xmas.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> Welding/painting screens?  Irving has/had the same thing over the refit of the Halifax.  It looked like the entire ship was wrapped for Xmas.



Different types of hoarding are standard for metal/paint work.  There are different cleanliness standards for preparation, application and verification afterwards.

The benefit of doing most of the painting indoors is you don't need to provide extra covers so saves a lot of time and money to get the required quality.  If you mess it up things rust so it can be really expensive to fix after the fact.

But you have now triggered flashbacks to discussions of SSPC standards, NACE certifications and DFT checks...

TLR getting paint to dry properly is hard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Why the curtains on each sides of the hull? Are there secrets there the Canadian Coast Guard wants to keep from everybody on the planet ? ;D



Overspray protection and to keep the shithawks off  [


----------



## jollyjacktar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's a big boat (sorry, ship).



My youngest boy is one of the Paint and Welding shop supervisors for that ship.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Two items 

A poke in Irving's eye http://m.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1501804-leger-new-navy-ship-is-one-that-got-away-from-irving-shipbuilding

and open house at Seaspan Oct 1st https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/seaspan-vancouver-shipyards-open-house-tickets-37280131878


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Is Seaspan serious, Colin?

I quote from their ad. : "the first large ship to be built in Canada in a generation".

Their generations can't be too long: OFSV (Seaspan): 64 meters and 3250 tons.

Two years ago, Davie completed (built in two years) the Cecon Excellence: 130 meters and 13600 tons. Since then, Davie has also completed two ferries, longer than the OFSV but about the same displacement.

And of course, the nearing finish stage of the first AOPS at Irving: 100 meters and  6450 tons.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely written by some young PR person or a quote written by the event organizing webpage is more likely, note the odd formatting as well.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Irving's jobs? jobs? jobs?



> Irving Shipyard union questions hiring practices
> _Unifor says 27 foreign ironworkers brought to Halifax; company says it’s commited to hiring Canadians first_
> 
> The union representing Halifax shipyard workers is concerned about Irving Shipbuilding’s ongoing practise of looking overseas for workers they say could be found at home.
> 
> In the winter, The Chronicle Herald learned Irving was holding job fairs in Eastern European cities such as Gdansk, Poland, and had hired a full-time, permanent international recruiter. Around the same time, the company also received criticism from the union for hiring a Spanish naval outfitting contractor to bring in employees for carpentry work on the Arctic and offshore patrol ships it is currently building as part of its $60-billion contract to build new vessels for the Canadian navy.
> 
> Irving is the prime contractor for the combat portion of the government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy and, in addition to building six Harry DeWolf-class Arctic offshore patrol ships, Irving is also building the navy’s new fleet of up to 15 Canadian surface combatants starting in the 2020s. The creation of long-term jobs in Canada has been consistently sold as one of the major benefits of the program.
> 
> But Unifor Local 1 says it is concerned that 27 ironworkers have been hired into the shipyard from Lithuania and Romania throughout the months of September and October. Irving says only 13 workers have been hired internationally at this time.
> 
> The union alleges that the company is not providing proper justification for the hiring of these workers, nor has it consulted with the union throughout the process...
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1513376-irving-shipyard-union-questions-hiring-practices



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

My son tells my wife that the Italian welders hired can't weld for shit.  He keeps failing their welds.  The others from Eastern Europe are also driving them nuts as they have no comprehension of safe working practices.  Should have hired Canadians...


----------



## NavyShooter

What could possibly go wrong in an Irving shipyard?  

Could the produce a lesser product with quality control issues and be late while doing so?

Never!  That couldn't happen here!

SHIPS START HERE....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We are paying a premium to have the ships built here for the express purpose of building domestic expertise and giving Canadians good jobs. Now they do this, frankly Davie is looking better and better every day for the CSC.


----------



## MilEME09

Here's an interesting angle, as some of you might have heard a Chinese state owned corporation is attempting to buy Calgary based Aecon. Aecon also happens to have a steak in Irving from the articles I've read. I don't think any of our allies would be handing anything over to a company with partial ownership by the Chinese state.


----------



## jollyjacktar

That would be an immediate door slammer, I am sure.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Buried in this article, is the date for the first ship to be launched as part of the NSPS program , Dec. 12th from North Vancouver

http://www.timescolonist.com/business/victoria-shipyard-to-continue-busy-refit-schedule-into-2020-1.23094378


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Interesting writeup from the Brit Chairman of Davie's Shipbuilding apparently in response to some comment from Irving Shipbuilding.



> COMMENTARY: Pipe down — Davie’s not eating Irving’s lunch
> 
> ALEX VICEFIELD
> 
> Published November 14, 2017 - 3:04pm
> Last Updated November 14, 2017 - 6:09pm
> 
> This is in response to your recent coverage after Quebec’s National Assembly passed a unanimous motion last week that called for Quebec shipyards to be permitted access to future federal shipbuilding programs.
> 
> It took less than 48 hours for politicians in Nova Scotia to respond with cries of outrage. The premier came out stating that the shipbuilding monopoly was Nova Scotia’s and then a local member of the federal Liberal caucus quickly jumped on the cause, emphasizing the support that Irving Shipbuilding holds amongst the 32 Atlantic Canadian MPs.
> 
> Er, OK, but what does Quebec’s “ask” have to do with Atlantic Canada? The answer is absolutely nothing.
> 
> The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy was introduced by the former Conservative government as a sourcing or procurement strategy for a specific (limited) number and type of ships it needed, hence the name. Why the new government decided to take the “P” out of the NSPS (to make it just the “National Shipbuilding Strategy”) is anyone’s guess; though for everyone following the saga, they will know that it is something I have been doing for some time.
> 
> So the National Shipbuilding Strategy, as it now is and as grandiose as it sounds, consists solely of two very simple “umbrella agreements” with Irving Shipbuilding and Seaspan Shipyards. They simply state that the government may negotiate with those two shipyards to build a specific number and type of ships. The number and type of ships is defined in the final annex of the umbrella agreement and reflects what has been widely published. For Irving, it’s six offshore patrol ships and 15 surface combatants. For Seaspan, it’s five ships for the Coast Guard and two supply ships for the navy.
> 
> It is by no means an all-encompassing strategy to renew the entire federal fleet or bolster the wider domestic shipbuilding industry. Certainly nothing worthy of its new name, which suggests that it is the silver bullet that the shipbuilding industry, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard need it to be.
> 
> That’s because it only includes a handful of ships and doesn’t include the many large ships that will be required for a full renewal of the federal fleet. They are not included in the National Shipbuilding Strategy. That is where the opportunity lies for other shipyards in Canada. For everything from innovative programs like our Resolve-class naval support ship to new heavy icebreakers for the coast guard to replace ships that are already rusted out.
> 
> Davie has indeed made offers to the federal government to help out, but it has only ever offered to build one of the ships that was already penned for another shipyard under the NSS. That was the polar icebreaker and we offered to build it in 2013, given reports that Seaspan Shipyard would only be able to build ships one at a time, meaning that the coast guard’s polar icebreaker would have wait for a decade before construction was to begin and until after the navy got its supply ships.
> 
> That news broke while we were repairing the existing polar icebreaker (CCGS Louis St. Laurent) and it was evident that the coast guard couldn’t wait another decade. So in the original spirit of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, which was meant to see shipyards across the country co-operating, we first offered to build the hull for Seaspan and send it out to them to be finished.
> 
> If they had said yes, the Canadian Coast Guard would have had a brand new icebreaker delivered this year. Instead, the door was slammed closed at a meeting we had with them on the west coast. That meant even more disappointment for the men and women of the coast guard who will have to continue operating a 1967-built ship in the most hostile conditions on Earth for the next decade. Just because of greed. In fact, given that Russia now has 11 polar icebreakers, we thought it could be a good idea for Canada to have at least have two of them so it probably wouldn’t have even meant taking work away from Seaspan.
> 
> So how have we upset Irving Shipbuilding? Well, we have never offered to, nor even hinted at taking work away from their dwindling coffers, so it can’t be that.
> 
> Naturally, they were upset with us when we reopened Davie in 2012 and their A-Team of senior management packed their bags and headed out to our friendly shipyard upriver. I wouldn’t want to speculate on the working atmosphere at the Halifax Shipyard — I understand that receives more than enough coverage in your publication — but needless to say those fine people didn’t need much coaxing. And it’s natural the folks at Irving Shipbuilding may be feeling a bit down when they have to witness Davie delivering on its programs, launching ships and being voted best North American shipyard. But we have never tried to take their work away.
> 
> So when Irving goes door-to-door and rounds up the support of all their local politicians to speak up against this political extortionist in Quebec (that’s me) who is supposedly threatening their future, those politicians would do well to actually ask the simple question, “How does this affect Nova Scotia?”
> 
> The answer is that it doesn’t and the reality is that we wish Atlantic Canada all the best.
> 
> In fact, we have great confidence in the region, its people and its welcoming attitude to business. That is why we are setting up shop in Halifax and will be homeporting Canada’s next supply ship there, employing mostly Nova Scotian crewmembers and using the wide range of local suppliers. We are proud that we will be bringing 700 jobs and more than $1 billion in economic benefits over the next 10 years to Nova Scotia.
> 
> Alex Vicefield is the British chairman of Davie Shipbuilding.



 Article Link


----------



## Colin Parkinson

While I respect the work that Davie did, they have been pretty harsh on the 2 companies so it's not surprising they are met with closed doors. They marketed to hard and now have to deal with that. If Davie gets any part of the NSPS contract it will mean less job years at the other 2. I believe there is a very good argument for 4 AOR's long term and if they started on the 2nd Resolve class now, the first is likely to be ready for a long refit by the time the first Queenston class comes online. 

Seaspan will launch their first OFSV next month and I would not be surprised if they managed to finish the next 2 by the end of 2018 or first quarter of 2019, then the OSSV would likely rollout 2020. By that time they likely be cutting steel for the Queenston and working on the first modules.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Can someone elaborate as to why Davie was locked out?

It seems questionable at best to restrict the bidding on such a massive project to only (2) shipyards, as there is so much room for collusion/price fixing, and which then gives government negotiators zero leverage.


----------



## dapaterson

Davie was under bankruptcy protection when the NSPS went out.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Davie was under bankruptcy protection when the NSPS went out.



Does anyone know if they've now cleared the minimum financial stability requirements of the original NSPS spec's?


----------



## MarkOttawa

From RUSI Nova Scotia by former member of CCG:



> The National Shipbuilding Strategy Needs to be Revamped
> 
> In 2003 John Manley, then federal government Minister of Finance, said that shipbuilding in Canada was a “sunset industry” and that Canada could not afford huge subsidies for shipbuilding.  Seven years later, Rona Ambrose, then federal Public Works minister, said that the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) would renew the fleets of the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy.  Quite a turnaround!
> 
> Now we are at the end of 2017 and the only operational vessel that we have seen is the Motor Vessel (MV) Asterix, a commercial vessel to be chartered to the RCN as an interim replacement for the Navy’s retired replenishment oilers (in naval terminology, AOR).  And, Asterix was not built by one of the two shipyards named as prime contractors in the NSS!
> 
> The two prime contractors, Irving Shipbuilding Incorporated of Halifax, NS, and Seaspan Marine Group of Vancouver, BC, have suffered delays while rebuilding obsolete facilities and awaiting clear direction from the federal government.  Priorities and schedules have changed during that time leaving the needs of the Coast Guard and the Navy unmet, and at the same time diverting already limited funds to refits required to prolong the service lives of vessels that should be replaced.
> 
> Refits of older vessels are expensive because of the requirement to conduct steel replacement, and modernize electronics and power amongst other issues.  Life extension projects take the vessel out of service for prolonged periods and incur additional costs through having to source out-of-production parts and equipment or installing new equipment for which those vessels might not have been designed.
> 
> Why does Canada have the money to preserve obsolete ships but not to build new ships?  That is not a fair question, however; it isn’t the financial issue that is the problem, it is the fact that Canada does not yet have the willingness to modify the NSS to include more shipyards or to modify vessel requirements.
> 
> The Asterix is an example of what could be accomplished with more shipbuilding capacity.  The RCN needs more than one AOR, in fact it needs three (remember the Preserver, Provider and Protecteur?): one on each coast and one to respond to replacement for refits of the other two.  And to take it a bit further, the third one, when available, could be utilized to replenish Coast Guard icebreakers and RCN vessels working in the Arctic during the summer months.
> 
> So what is wrong with having Chantier Davie, or another yard, converting two more replenishment vessels on budget and on time as well as at a much reduced cost relative to the Joint Support Ships (JSS), the projected AOR replacements?  And why doesn’t the federal government purchase them as opposed to chartering?  The resulting cost savings could then be used to build the seemingly forgotten JSS or to increase the funding available for the warship replacements which should be a priority.
> 
> Canada’s largest icebreaker, CCGS Louis S. St.-Laurent, will be 50 years old in 2019.  Yes, she had a major mid-life refit during which her bow was replaced and she was re-engined from steam turbine to diesel electric.  However, since then she has been to the North Pole three times, and conducted icebreaking in the Arctic and Gulf of St. Lawrence winter and summer over those years.  There was talk of a Polar 10 nuclear icebreaker, later downgraded to a conventionally powered Polar 8 but built to serve all government departments in the Arctic during a nine month operational season.  The Polar 8 was cancelled in 1990 at the last moment and progress on a replacement has proceeded slowly.  The latest development has the new major icebreaker being “bumped” in the production line by the requirement to build two more AOR after three science vessels are completed by Seaspan.  This will result in at least late next decade before a replacement is put in service.  And that is only one icebreaker.  CCGS Terry Fox, Canada’s second most powerful icebreaker, was built in 1983 as a commercial Arctic drilling support vessel for Gulf Canada, was leased by the Coast Guard in 1991 and purchased outright in 1993.  The remaining type 1200 icebreakers were built in the late ‘70s and are approaching replacement requirements.  Costs increase with every delay.  There is no mention of them in the NSS.
> 
> Building the Arctic Offshore and Patrol Vessels (Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship project) is delaying yard capacity for building the frigate replacements.  As an outsider, the AOPV appear to be designed neither as actual icebreakers nor as interdiction vessels.  At best, they may fulfill a role as ice-strengthened training vessels or Kingston-class (Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel project) replacements.  Perhaps the production should be limited to three vessels with the resultant savings being reassigned to the frigate replacement project.  And, in order to speed up that project, Canada should speed of the process of looking seriously at warships used by allied nations that respond to the 80% rule of meeting our identified needs.  The design cost savings and inter-changeability of units with allies could prove invaluable in meeting Canada’s NATO commitments.  We have done that successfully with other military acquisitions.  Those savings might also mean that we could build some larger warships as command units to augment the RCN’s capability.
> 
> The NSS should be realigned to meet the changed needs of Canada’s marine departments.  A third shipbuilding yard is an absolute necessity, and the changing requirements of the Coast Guard and Navy need to be addressed.
> 
> _Jim Calvesbert is a retired Canadian Coast Guard officer, having served at sea and ashore.  He is a graduate of the Canadian Coast Guard College and holds a B.Ed. from the Université de Moncton, a Masters degree in Marine Management from Dalhousie University, and is a member of the Master Mariners of Canada.  As a consultant, he has worked nationally and internationally in the marine field.  This work is the sole opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Canadian Department of National Defence, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Coast Guard or the Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia.  The author may be contacted by email at: RUSINovaScotia@gmail.com._



Mark
Ottawa

https://rusi-ns.ca/national-shipbuilding-strategy/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The problem with to much capacity is that it's unlikely the government would replace any of these new vessels for the next 25-30 years so you end up with yards lying people off and going bankrupt. If we can find a way to keep more civilian hull builds here in Canada through taxes on foreign new builds, while at the same time ensuring our yards don't get lazy due to to much protection.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P:



> ...If we can find a way to keep more civilian hull builds here in Canada through taxes on foreign new builds...



That approach was abandoned seven years ago--Canadian shipping lines just could not afford build-in-Canada:



> Canada waives 25 pct import tariff on ships
> 
> OTTAWA, Oct 1--The Canadian government said on Friday it would waive a 25 percent tariff on imports of large cargo ships, tankers and ferries to help lower costs for the shipping industry.
> 
> Ottawa estimates the measure, retroactive to Jan. 1, will save the industry C$25 million ($24.5 million) a year over the next decade.
> 
> Currently imported ships are subject to a 25 percent tariff, the highest rate of duty for imported goods. ($1 = $1.02 Canadian [those good old days!])
> https://uk.reuters.com/article/canada-economy-flaherty/rpt-canada-waives-25-pct-import-tariff-on-ships-idUKTOR00783120101001



And the RCN and CCG can't afford build-in-Canada either with NSS as now constituted.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

I would stick with "chartering" rather than "buying", based on track record.

When chartering the tendency seems to be to work with what is available.  That is, the charterer acquires the best available technology.  Heavy emphasis on "available".  It is on the water and floating.

When buying the tendency seem to constantly search for not just the best available technology but the best technology available 40 years down the line.  

It becomes not just an argument of the "best" and the "good enough" but between the "might be" and the "good enough".

If industry can successfully charter the services from independent suppliers like Federal then why can't the Government - and put Coast Guard employees on board along with the private mariners?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Without new builds we won't have any shipyards to do the repair work or the ones we have left use 40 year old+ equipment. The key for things like ferries is to make the taxes high enough that domestic yards look better and not so high that they get lazy and stupid. I doubt that that there are many yards overseas that are not heavily subsidized one way or another.


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm not arguing for off-shore build necessarily.  

My point goes more to the specification of the vessels.  I am coming to believe that a lot of the delays and price increases are occasioned by the convoluted debating societies involved in writing up the specs and the need to have all the deliberations in writing.

Industry doesn't do things the same way government does... because they have to face a time imperative.  

If Canadian yards were offered contracts with a one to two year delivery horizon I think, as Davie has demonstrated (and so has Seaspan) then I think they could maintain a profitable business.  But if they are going to have to wait 10 years for specs to be drawn up and then be held to a production rate of one obsolescent hull per year 20 years later they will never make a dime.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

True, we were just trying to buy a 27' Aluminum crewboat, the companies sent me spec sheets that contained their standard build and options, about 4 pages. PWGSC sent me a typical template to buy a boat, it was 23 pages long for a open topped boat with outboards. Apparently asking that the supplier of said boat is local to the coast is bad. Nothing in the 23 page document limits who can bid, apparently asking for an experienced boat builder is also bad. This is why we get a company that never built a proper boat in it's life gets a contract to build self-righting lifeboats and then when the first piece of shit rolls out, they have to cancel the contract and give it to someone else. I can think 5 different small vessel contracts where this has happened.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Damn straight, Colin.

What's the first thing we ask builders in the private sector when we go shopping for something? It's "So, what have you built lately?", usually followed by contacting the last few people who bought from them to go see what they think and what the product looks like.

Of course, in the private sector, we also don't usually issue full specs on what we want. The discussion is more along the line of us contacting a certain number of suppliers whom we know to make the product we are looking for and saying "We need an XYZ to do ABC job with it, what have you got and for how much." Then , they send you their specs for their product for your review, with their price for it (and an expiry date for those prices to stand).

They understand that we will then review specs of everyone and pick the one which fits both our budget and is best in relation to our requirements. They also know we may or may not pick the cheapest one.

If government procurement could only be done along those lines, what a dream it would be.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seaspan photo gallery is updated for this month 

http://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries/nss-photo-gallery-ofsv2


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As the soap opera continues

https://www.lequotidien.com/chroniques/gilbert-lavoie/le-lobby-personnel-de-james-k-irving-63a787220446acd4f68f4f5aa9f31979


----------



## MarkOttawa

Lots of truth at this longish piece--the start:



> Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy Heading for the Rocks & What Should Be Done
> 
> Canada’s most ambitious procurement plan, since shortly after the Second World War, is in peril like so many other procurement projects – past and present.  The National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) is heading towards disaster and the Liberal government is unable to provide the course correction. Seven years ago, the NSS was unveiled by the Harper government and was expected to come to a final conclusion in 2041.  Its announcement was proclaimed with admiration from all sides. But this also meant that the fate of the NSS was to entrusted in the hands of multiple successive governments and that the future of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) and the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) would rest on project responsibility. The _unfortunate reality of politics is that the Liberals, as the standing government, cannot concede that they are mishandling an ill-fated project and the Conservatives, the official opposition, cannot concede that the project was already ill-fated under their rule as governing party_ [emphasis added]. This means that there is a political stalemate as neither party wants to admit anything –  a mutual detente that will only damage the CCG and RCN.  The unfortunate truth is that the NSS has been stalled, and that the costing was not adjusted for these delays and so the quality and quantity of the ships have already been downgraded. This, also, has led to gaps in the build schedule and the prospect of shipbuilding jobs being lost. The very same jobs that the NSS would fated to save and revitalize the industry.
> 
> The good news is that the NSS is still in its formative years and the situation has changed. However, the situation changed because it was already seen as dire. The RCN’s supply ships were rightfully decommissioned, but without a backup plan the RCN has been relying on renting out the Chilean supply ship, the Almirante Montt, for the past two years. The RCN was caught without a a backup plan as the construction of the Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment Ship replacement has  yet to begun at the Seaspan shipyard in Vancouver –  a project that was launched in 2004, but then was put under the auspices of the NSS. Nor has any construction work on the single Polar-Class heavy icebreaker, which the delivery is now being estimated to be in 2030. That being said, Canada’s medium-sized icebreakers were commissioned between 1978 and 1987 and there are no plans to replace them, even though they already need to be replaced. An essential requirement as the Canadian government continues to espouse the importance of the Arctic and the possibility of the opening of the North West Passage...
> http://defencereport.com/cdns-nat-ship-strategy-heading-for-the-rocks-what-should-be-done/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Two shipyards, Irving Halifax and Seaspan Vancouver, were each awarded a monopoly to build certain types of RCN and CCG vessels with no designs chosen, no realistic cost estimates and no facilities then capable of the shipbuilding-what could possible go wrong?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Two shipyards, Irving Halifax and Seaspan Vancouver, were each awarded a monopoly to build certain types of RCN and CCG vessels with no designs chosen, no realistic cost estimates and no facilities then capable of the shipbuilding-what could possible go wrong?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Everything


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To be fair to Seaspan, they put together a modern yard faster than the government could sort out their designs. The OFSV needed a redesign as yard noted concerns about stability once given the design. Not surprising, stability has been a major issue with most the large government ship designs. Of the small vessel contracts, almost every one built back east has been a failure (70', 47', 41's, fuel barges, oil spill response lobster boat design). Not sure about the Arun boats, but one has to ask why they chose a old design being replaced by the people that designed it. Sort of like buying the Iltis design as the Germans where getting rid of theirs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not sure if you can see this , from Facebook, first OSFV is moved onto the floating drydock for launching https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156915314433242&set=pcb.2084994318378590&type=3&theater&ifg=1


----------



## Kirkhill

And now she (he?) floats....

https://www.facebook.com/CanadianCoastGuard/photos/pcb.317881172027981/317881122027986/?type=3


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There should 2-3 vessels launched next year


----------



## MarkOttawa

Paper by peacenik Prof. Michael Byers (one-time federal NDP candidate) with whom I almost always disagree--but his critique of the shipuilding "strategy" is, I think, almost completely bang on target.  I wonder about recommendation 2 (p. 14) on CSC--how horribly long a delay might a "re-launch" entail and does "off-the-shelf" mean no "Canadianization"?  That would seem impossible:  



> Onto the Rocks: With disaster looming, National Shipbuilding Strategy needs urgent change of course
> http://byers.typepad.com/files/byers-shipbuilding-report-embargoed.pdf



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Paper by peacenik Prof. Michael Byers (one-time federal NDP candidate) with whom I almost always disagree--but his critique of the shipuilding "strategy" is, I think, almost completely bang on target.  I wonder about recommendation 2 (p. 14) on CSC--how horribly long a delay might a "re-launch" entail and does "off-the-shelf" mean no "Canadianization"?  That would seem impossible:


Another strange claim is made by Byers in that paper.  

“The latest deadline of 30 November 2017 passed with only three bids reportedly received—from a total of 12 pre-approved bidders.  Three out of twelve does not constitute a respectable submission rate for an ostensibly competitive process involving $60 billion in taxpayer-funded work.”

There were only seven pre-approved bidders in the warship-designer role.  Does this not mean a maximum of seven—not twelve—bids could have been received?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Perhaps he has misunderstood what the term "bidder" means in the context of the  CSC program portion of the NSS.  Anyway, I doubt there is very much for him to add than what was already addressed in the attached document ("audit report template")

Speaking of which, and maybe this could be a new thread, the configuration of assets that comprise a Canadian Naval Task Group. 

"*Preliminary SOR.* The preliminary SOR will continually evolve into the early 2020s. Since 2008, several significant changes have been made to the CSC requirements, which are now well substantiated by extensive operational research, as shown in the most recent SOR. However, there is no definition of the size of the naval task group, which is the fundamental tactical formation for the RCN. As the design of the CSC evolves, this definition will be a key consideration in determining the size of the CSC fleet. It is recommended that C Navy revise the SOR to address the various sizes and compositions of naval task groups as the capability of the CSC evolves.

"Naval task group size, a major factor in determining the  number of CSC required, is not specifically addressed in the project SOR."   

There is currently a definition of a Naval task group in Leadmark 2050, but the RCN is currently without all of the assets to wholly and reliably meet that definition. It seems to me that the functional variants of the CSC (GP, ASW, AAW) will re-establish the missing pieces, together with the JSS if any of those are ever delivered.


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Another strange claim is made by Byers in that paper.
> 
> “The latest deadline of 30 November 2017 passed with only three bids reportedly received—from a total of 12 pre-approved bidders.  Three out of twelve does not constitute a respectable submission rate for an ostensibly competitive process involving $60 billion in taxpayer-funded work.”
> 
> There were only seven pre-approved bidders in the warship-designer role.  Does this not mean a maximum of seven—not twelve—bids could have been received?



Again Prof Byers does sloppy work. Even _the most basic of research_ would show that seven shipbuilders were preapproved and some of them (three if memory serves) were also approved as the combat systems integrators, there was never going to be 12 bids.  Ever.  There was also a few combat systems integrators that were approved that don't build ships (Saab Australia, Lockheed Canada, etc...).  With the change part way through the bidding process to the requirement to pick a single design then these separate bidders (builders and integrators) were essentially forced to team up with each other.   Lockheed with BAE, Saab with Navinata, Atlas with Alion.   

Further, the amalgamation of Naval Group and Fincantieri was created due to outside influences (Fincantieri buying some french yards, both owning FREMM and deciding to compete their joint ships together on the market etc etc...).  Out of the total 6 (as two amalgamated) possible teams (max though I believe that some teams were 3 bidders together) 4 bid.   The Danish and German shipyards did not bid.  There might be a number of reasons for that (couldn't get combat integration partners, their ships were similar in design to the Alion bid etc...).

Not to mention, I expect a PhD who does military research to actually read the contract requirements and not CBC new releases to understand what OGBD has most eloquently posted earlier that the savings of the FREMM offer would only be maybe 15 billion at most, which is a savings of approx 25% and given what Prof Byers states in his own document a savings of 20% would be ok to ignore.

In fairness many of the criticisms are valid.  In particular there is some concern regarding Quebec and Montreal being cut off.  Also the guaranteed profit by the shipyards is stupid IMHO. But the sloppy research and complete ignorance of certain facts or any depth to his analysis, or balance in his research,  taint the entire article and makes me wonder about the validity of the other comments regarding issues that I am not as familiar with.  A proper paper takes its opposing arguments and deconstructs them with logic and fact.  He examined few to no opposing arguments and just presented his own opinion.


----------



## Underway

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Speaking of which, and maybe this could be a new thread, the configuration of assets that comprise a Canadian Naval Task Group.



Head on over to this thread.  That seems as good as place as any to discuss strategic direction of the RCN, task group sizes and such.


----------



## MTShaw

I'm perplexed about the number of ships Canada is building. Fo


----------



## ModlrMike

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I'm perplexed about the number of ships Canada is building. Fo



So, apparently is the government.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I'm perplexed about the number of ships Canada is building. Fo



What perplexes you?  All the ships or the navy ships specifically.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I'm perplexed about the number of ships Canada is building. Fo



Then read this:

http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/sacred/The_Guide_for_the_Perplexed.pdf

/SARC OFF.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Interesting article, I'm sure that our current government won't do much about this.

https://maritime-executive.com/oped/an-out-of-the-blue-icebreaker-opportunity


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I'm perplexed about the number of ships Canada is building. Fo



What's perplexing about it?

For what it's worth, I wouldn't call the NSPS a failure.  I actually think it's a long overdue strategy that is gong to benefit this country long term.  We've also achieved cross-party consensus on it as well!

I would say, so far the program is a moderate success considering this was our shipbuilding industry just a few years ago:







It was a capital crime that Saint John Shipbuilding was ever allowed to wither and die as it could have easily sustained the NSPS alone.






But we've got two greatly expanded shipyards out of this that are actually producing ships!






















As a supposed maritime nation, it's great that we are finally starting to act like one.


----------



## Czech_pivo

If you say so.
Both of these yards just seem to be small in scale when compared to Saint Johns Shipyard and Davie. They are barely going to be turning out 1 ship per year each.  The timeline to complete 15 CSC is 16+ years once they cut steel on the first ship. It looks as though Irving can only work on 2 ships at a time, as demonstrated by the fact the the 3rd AOPS only had steel cut once the 1st AOPS was completely assembled (though not dropped in the water). I'm willing to bet the Seaspan won't have the space to be working jointly on the new JSS (which won't have steel cut on them for what, another 4yrs?) ships, but will have to substantially complete one before steel can be cut on the other. 
If I dare to look out to the 2032 time frame, its safe to say the Irving won't have a chance in global warmed hell in winning any bid to replace our 4 subs (if we do decide to continue to have subs....) as they'll only be halfway done (maybe, hopefully, fingers crossed) the build out of the 15 CSC's. That effectively means the Seaspan will get this contract by default - unless Davie manages to holdout another 15yrs doing odds and sods jobs - but will Seaspan even have this capacity to do so as they'll be just starting the build of the icebreaker they've been promised, let along the 10 coastal defense ships that they are supposed to build..... So, who builds the subs in the 2032-34 time frame......


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> If you say so.
> Both of these yards just seem to be small in scale when compared to Saint Johns Shipyard and Davie. They are barely going to be turning out 1 ship per year each.  The timeline to complete 15 CSC is 16+ years once they cut steel on the first ship. It looks as though Irving can only work on 2 ships at a time, as demonstrated by the fact the the 3rd AOPS only had steel cut once the 1st AOPS was completely assembled (though not dropped in the water). I'm willing to bet the Seaspan won't have the space to be working jointly on the new JSS (which won't have steel cut on them for what, another 4yrs?) ships, but will have to substantially complete one before steel can be cut on the other.
> If I dare to look out to the 2032 time frame, its safe to say the Irving won't have a chance in global warmed hell in winning any bid to replace our 4 subs (if we do decide to continue to have subs....) as they'll only be halfway done (maybe, hopefully, fingers crossed) the build out of the 15 CSC's. That effectively means the Seaspan will get this contract by default - unless Davie manages to holdout another 15yrs doing odds and sods jobs - but will Seaspan even have this capacity to do so as they'll be just starting the build of the icebreaker they've been promised, let along the 10 coastal defense ships that they are supposed to build..... So, who builds the subs in the 2032-34 time frame......



The problem with the Saint John Yard was that it was too big for a country like Canada.  In other words, we had too much supply without the demand.  The whole point of the NSPS is to create a Shipbuilding Industry that meets the needs of the government but is..... also sustainable.  It's a strategic industry and it's very important we have one.

You'll note that the Saint John Shipyard is still there.  The Indoor facilities have been converted in to an Irving Wallboard Plant while all the Drydocks still remain.  Irving has left those Drydock's in place for a reason, should the demand arise, they can be reopened.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> If you say so.
> Both of these yards just seem to be small in scale when compared to Saint Johns Shipyard and Davie. They are barely going to be turning out 1 ship per year each.  The timeline to complete 15 CSC is 16+ years once they cut steel on the first ship. It looks as though Irving can only work on 2 ships at a time, as demonstrated by the fact the the 3rd AOPS only had steel cut once the 1st AOPS was completely assembled (though not dropped in the water). I'm willing to bet the Seaspan won't have the space to be working jointly on the new JSS (which won't have steel cut on them for what, another 4yrs?) ships, but will have to substantially complete one before steel can be cut on the other.
> If I dare to look out to the 2032 time frame, its safe to say the Irving won't have a chance in global warmed hell in winning any bid to replace our 4 subs (if we do decide to continue to have subs....) as they'll only be halfway done (maybe, hopefully, fingers crossed) the build out of the 15 CSC's. That effectively means the Seaspan will get this contract by default - unless Davie manages to holdout another 15yrs doing odds and sods jobs - but will Seaspan even have this capacity to do so as they'll be just starting the build of the icebreaker they've been promised, let along the 10 coastal defense ships that they are supposed to build..... So, who builds the subs in the 2032-34 time frame......



Taking a long time to build the ships is actually the plan.  You don't want to build...(takes off shoes to count) 21 ships at Irving in 10 years.  Then lay off everyone and lose the industry.  You want to take 21 years to build the 21 ships at a steady pace of one per year.  Then at year 22 you build the AOPS replacement instead of dealing with expensive old ship maintenance and an expensive midlife refit.  Its actually much cheaper for the gov't to do this then trying to keep ships floating for 30+ years.  Delays in starting the building is not the plan however so I'll give you that, but once the building starts its supposed to go on for a long time.

St. Johns shipbuilding is partially so large because that's the old way to build ships.  The Irving yard is currently building 3 ships of larger tonnage then the CPF's in a third of the space, while refitting the Freddy at the same time, because of new technology and systems such as block building.  New techniques are much more space efficient.

Finally, only an idiot would build submarines in Canada.  It requires a shipyard designed from the ground up as submarines are a very specific build type. The head of Davie was asked point blank at a Fed Committee meeting on shipbuilding whether Canada should build its own submarines and he stated "No, that would be a mistake.  Submarines are a very specific build type with very specific skill sets and shipyards." (note: paraphrased from memory)  You can't just build a sub in any old shipyard.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Underway said:
			
		

> Taking a long time to build the ships is actually the plan.  You don't want to build...(takes off shoes to count) 21 ships at Irving in 10 years.  Then lay off everyone and lose the industry.  You want to take 21 years to build the 21 ships at a steady pace of one per year.  Then at year 22 you build the AOPS replacement instead of dealing with expensive old ship maintenance and an expensive midlife refit.  Its actually much cheaper for the gov't to do this then trying to keep ships floating for 30+ years.  Delays in starting the building is not the plan however so I'll give you that, but once the building starts its supposed to go on for a long time.
> 
> St. Johns shipbuilding is partially so large because that's the old way to build ships.  The Irving yard is currently building 3 ships of larger tonnage then the CPF's in a third of the space, while refitting the Freddy at the same time, because of new technology and systems such as block building.  New techniques are much more space efficient.
> 
> Finally, only an idiot would build submarines in Canada.  It requires a shipyard designed from the ground up as submarines are a very specific build type. The head of Davie was asked point blank at a Fed Committee meeting on shipbuilding whether Canada should build its own submarines and he stated "No, that would be a mistake.  Submarines are a very specific build type with very specific skill sets and shipyards." (note: paraphrased from memory)  You can't just build a sub in any old shipyard.








Australia's purpose built submarine facility.  It may become useful in the future to have this capability in Canada, especially if the NW Passage becomes a viable shipping route.  If we decide to go this route, we are better placed with the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy than we would be without it.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Thanks for the lesson on Sub-building and the need for specialised yards.  :nod:
So the Aussie's won't be using their yards to build their new subs? Are they looking at completely building a new yard specific for their subs?  Will the France build the shells back in France and the Aussie's just complete the insides?
So, the belief is that we won't have sailing around the world in 30+yr old ships in the future, but building new ones around the 25yr mark going forward?


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:
			
		

> Taking a long time to build the ships is actually the plan.  You don't want to build...(takes off shoes to count) 21 ships at Irving in 10 years.  Then lay off everyone and lose the industry.  You want to take 21 years to build the 21 ships at a steady pace of one per year.  Then at year 22 you build the AOPS replacement instead of dealing with expensive old ship maintenance and an expensive midlife refit.  Its actually much cheaper for the gov't to do this then trying to keep ships floating for 30+ years.  Delays in starting the building is not the plan however so I'll give you that, but once the building starts its supposed to go on for a long time.



Smart Strategy, it's just came very late so now is the pains for years as we catch up. Once it's all caught up in 20 years, then hopefully governments will keep sending contracts so that no ship ever retires without replacement again.


----------



## Kirkhill

Maintaining capability by spacing out replacements is good strategy.

The problem is, as MilEME09 points out, we have a significant backlog due to the absence of a replacement plan in the past.

It would be good strategy to maintain the NSP plan but take up FFS (is it only me that can't look at that without laughing  ) and Davie on their offer to create a leased fleet for the near term to solve CCG and naval support problems.

I am betting that if FFS had a fleet of Asterixs and Oilers and perhaps a couple of LPD type transports that they could find good contracts with the UN and other navies on the open market.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Plus the picture of Seaspan only captures one of their facilities 

http://www.seaspan.com/wp-content/uploads/drydock2.jpg

http://www.seaspan.com/wp-content/uploads/65-16-182-1024x683.jpg


----------



## Underway

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Australia's purpose built submarine facility.  It may become useful in the future to have this capability in Canada, especially if the NW Passage becomes a viable shipping route.  If we decide to go this route, we are better placed with the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy than we would be without it.



Australia is payed for it through the nose to get their sub capability going.  And are paying again to get it refurbished/updated for the new subs. It might be worth it for us to do the same if we get 9-12 subs and plan on having a strategic submarine capability investment. But personally in this case better just to have someone else build them for much cheaper, or alternatively do the build elsewhere and finish up here with specific equipment that can be installed after the sub is built.


----------



## Underway

Reading the most recent issue of CDR and in the interview with the Shadow Minister for National Defence it's mentioned (by the Shadow Minister) that the current CSC contract underwent a redraft to only guarantee 3 ships for the designer.  It's inferred that the next 12 ships might be a different design, leading to a potential AAW ship design and a seperate company doing the GP design.  There has been no discussion on this I can find anywhere.  The accusation indicates that this one of the reasons a number of bids were not submitted.

Is this opposition bluster or is there some meat to this?


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:
			
		

> Reading the most recent issue of CDR and in the interview with the Shadow Minister for National Defence it's mentioned (by the Shadow Minister) that the current CSC contract underwent a redraft to only guarantee 3 ships for the designer.  It's inferred that the next 12 ships might be a different design, leading to a potential AAW ship design and a seperate company doing the GP design.  There has been no discussion on this I can find anywhere.  The accusation indicates that this one of the reasons a number of bids were not submitted.
> 
> Is this opposition bluster or is there some meat to this?





> Bidders have also quietly expressed concern that the initial order will only involve three warships, which are meant to replace the navy's command and control destroyers.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-design-problems-1.4181542

Maybe Gibbs & Cox was hired by Irving to help design the twelve general-purpose frigates?


----------



## Cloud Cover

I will contact Bezan office tomorrow. If he’s stating this in public, there will be a referring document.

About the CDR magazine, nice ad in there from PALAerospace on the 8Q300. I wish them much success.

Also, on page  51 and 78 there is a new GGI of AOPS (Looking good) and the bow assembled to the rest of the ship on HdW.  That is indeed a monstrous ship!


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-design-problems-1.4181542
> 
> Maybe Gibbs & Cox was hired by Irving to help design the twelve general-purpose frigates?



Haha no.  Gibbs & Cox audited the RCN's requirements if I recall correctly.  That, from what I hear is a bizarre story in an of itself thanks to ITAR.


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:
			
		

> Haha no.  Gibbs & Cox audited the RCN's requirements if I recall correctly.  That, from what I hear is a bizarre story in an of itself thanks to ITAR.


They are doing a lot more than that.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1447901-u.s.-only-the-rule-for-some-irving-navy-contract-jobs


----------



## Underway

Cool.  I'm not surprised, ITAR can place burdens in odd places.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Seeing as many of the big wheels at ISI are retired USN Admirals, it doesn't shock me at the rules and connections to US Contractors.


----------



## Czech_pivo

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/nouvelles-news/2017-11-27-eng.html


----------



## Kirkhill

It'd be disconcerting to some if Canada could build ships at Davie prices instead of Gibbs & Cox prices.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> Reading the most recent issue of CDR and in the interview with the Shadow Minister for National Defence it's mentioned (by the Shadow Minister) that the current CSC contract underwent a redraft to only guarantee 3 ships for the designer.  It's inferred that the next 12 ships might be a different design, leading to a potential AAW ship design and a seperate company doing the GP design.  There has been no discussion on this I can find anywhere.  The accusation indicates that this one of the reasons a number of bids were not submitted.
> 
> Is this opposition bluster or is there some meat to this?



I think it's set up for flights of ships; the first few ships will have the learning curve so you will want your milestone payments structured accordingly. That way you can negotiate the cost/payment methods differently once they hit their stride and develop some kind of performance incentives that make sense once you have some experience. Because of the general methodology of how they build the ships now you almost want to look four-six ships down the line before you change variants so you can make sure you allow enough time for design changes to get planned and incorporated into the modules. They will be building parts of three ships at a time and stuff like cable hangers, penetrations etc get done at the module level so there is a lot of lead, or big impacts from rework (including creating backlogs on the production line).

Depending which company wins then there may already be different variants available, so that shouldn't be an issue, unless we do something clever like pick a totally different weapons system that has quite different interface requirement (ie different cooling, power, structural reinforcement etc) that make it more than a plug and play.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Following on from what Navy_Pete said, I heard via the_ rumour net_, but a very well informed _rumour net_ that I trust, the intent of the NSPS designers was a steady flow of ships over years, even decades ~ one "class" of (very large) frigates in three for our five different "batches," each somewhat different, especially in technology fits, from the others.

That "class" would begin being replaced by the first "batch" of a new class before the last "batch" of the old class finished mid-life refit.

The idea was the the Navy could keep two yards in (roughly permanent) business so that 'federal fleet' (RCN and Coast Guard) orders would smooth out the peaks and valleys of the business cycle.

The planners, I was told, always thought that there would be more than just two "big honkin' ships" and that there would be a replacement for the MCDV somewhere in a "NSPS2" but they ended their deliberations at $(CA)35+ Billion because that was seen to be "more than enough" for the Canadian public to swallow.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

That would certainly drive cost per unit up, if you were redesigning/reengineering every 3 ships....  ???


----------



## MarkOttawa

Davie--self-interestedly but with reason--weighs in on the ancient Coast Guard icebreaking fleet front (most work in fact is on Seaway and off Atlantic Canada):



> Cold snap raises concerns about coast guard's aging icebreakers in the St. Lawrence
> _Recent equipment problems prompts calls to replace old vessels_
> 
> A mechanical break that kept icebreaker Terry Fox from providing assistance to a trapped ferry between Quebec City and Lévis earlier this week is renewing calls to replace the coast guard's aging icebreaker fleet.
> 
> "The fleet of icebreakers is old," said Steven Blaney, the Conservative MP for Bellechasse-Les-Etchemins-Lévis.
> 
> The ferry was eventually towed to shore by a private company and the Terry Fox icebreaker is now undergoing repairs so that it can be up and running again.
> 
> After the incident on Wednesday, the ferry service between Quebec City and Lévis had to be cancelled Friday because of the accumulation of ice along the St. Lawrence River.
> 
> *Quebec port business at risk without new icebreakers, documents warn*
> 
> "We need icebreakers," said Blaney. "Even with the existing strategy to replace the ships, the fleet will continue to grow old."
> 
> While a spokesperson for the coast guard acknowledged the aging vessels, she also defended the entity's work over the last week.
> 
> "We have deployed all of our ships and we're covering all of our key sectors," said Julie Gascon.
> 
> The criticism raised after the incident involving the Quebec City ferry also failed to mention the efforts made by the coast guard, she added.
> 
> "I really think it's a shame," she said. "Our teams are working day and night to serve clients."
> 
> *Davie shipyard offers help*
> 
> The Davie shipyard in Lévis has also offered to loan four of its powerful icebreakers to the coast guard to subsidize number of ships available during the winter along the St. Lawrence River.
> 
> "I think this is the perfect illustration of the pertinence of the Davie shipyard in what we're calling the debacle of the coast guard because the ships are so old," he said.
> 
> The proposed project to replace the ships would also create 300 jobs for the struggling Quebec-based company, he added. Davie Canada laid off nearly 400 employees right before the Christmas holidays...
> 
> 
> Paul Barbeau, a naval architect, warns that simply carrying out repairs to the old icebreakers isn't enough.
> 
> "Our icebreakers have worked very hard and they are tired," he said. "There is no doubt that if we want to maintain that reliability that we have to get new ones."
> 
> "We can't continue to repair them constantly — work conditions are very difficult."
> 
> *Report raises alarm over Canada's aging coast guard fleet*
> 
> Frédérick Boisvert, the spokesperson for the company, said that this week's incident shows that the coast guard's current icebreakers are at the end of their life cycle.
> 
> "The federal fleet is rusting so quickly that it can only be replaced," he said...
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-icebreakers-coast-guard-aging-fleet-1.4476465



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Monsoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Davie--self-interestedly but with reason--weighs in on the ancient Coast Guard icebreaking fleet front (most work in fact is on Seaway and off Atlantic Canada):


Well, if Federal Fleet (as distinct from Davie, which is just the yard they work out of) can drum up more work to keep their private equity masters happy without slinging mud to try to derail existing procurements, then more power to them.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Monsoon: quite but _on verra_...would just be nice if some reason were applied to all this mess.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The ongoing saga, goes on, and on.....


http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/mark-norman-case-prosecutors-1.4478470


----------



## MTShaw

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I'm perplexed about the number of ships Canada is building. Fo



Wow. I didn't know that was me. I was going to make a comment about making a 4 naval groups of four ships with 15 ships. I thought i'd cancelled. Oops.

M


----------



## Colin Parkinson

OFSV #2 is coming along nicely 








As is the first AOP's


----------



## Cloud Cover

The AOPS is huge, eh. Looks like folks on top of the bridge could play hockey up there. Will be interesting to see it in the water dwarfing the Kingston’s and the frigates.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Somewhat related, interesting how good ideas have unintended results. 2003 would have been a good time to do the NSS and have replacement vessels before the the older vessels failed.

http://www.news1130.com/2018/02/05/federal-government-gave-millions-to-irving-subsidiary-records-reveal/


----------



## jollyjacktar

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> The AOPS is huge, eh. Looks like folks on top of the bridge could play hockey up there. Will be interesting to see it in the water dwarfing the Kingston’s and the frigates.



She's a queer looking girl, seems to be too squat for her length.  But she needs to be so for what she is intended to do.  And yes, she is big.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Of course she is: She is one and half time the size of the frigates.

I don't know why we have to keep explaining this, even to seamen sometimes, but size of ships is measured by displacement, not length or width or height or draught.

She weighs a little over 6000 tons to the frigates 4200 tons, hence the is 1.5 times the size of a frigate.

We use this method because the thing that matters in ships is mo-men-tum. She will not be anywhere near the capacity of a frigate for acceleration and deceleration. Drivers beware if they have not worked large, heavy (I would almost say underpowered - at least to a naval officer) ships: Take it slow 'cause you will need more room! Ask the tanker drivers


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You just have more time to watch your mistakes unfold...... ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Ah yes! Maritime accidents: You see them coming for miles ... and many long minutes (made even longer by the pit in your stomach that makes everything feel like slow motion), in full knowledge that there is just nothing in the universe that will stop what you know is about to happen from happening.

 :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Ah yes! Maritime accidents: You see them coming for miles ... and many long minutes (made even longer by the pit in your stomach that makes everything feel like slow motion), in full knowledge that there is just nothing in the universe that will stop what you know is about to happen from happening.
> 
> :nod:



I had a USNS/MSC bos'n once tell me about watching a Kevlar hawser snap....for 90 seconds.  They knew it was going...and SFA they could do about it, except clear the deck. :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Of course she is: She is one and half time the size of the frigates.
> 
> I don't know why we have to keep explaining this, even to seamen sometimes, but size of ships is measured by displacement, not length or width or height or draught.
> 
> She weighs a little over 6000 tons to the frigates 4200 tons, hence the is 1.5 times the size of a frigate.



Frigates can load out much heavier than 4200 tons, depending on the required condition.

Harry is more of a linebacker than running back.  You want to get all that displacement to punch through, just like a linebacker.  She's designed for power not speed.  Still makes her look like one of the ugly step sisters from Cinderella.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I'm comparing light loads displacement.

I think the HAL's top up at around 4800 tons full load, but then, the HDW will top up at around 7000 in full load also, so it's still the same.

And BTW, , icebreaking is not done by "punching through", it is done by crushing down. Look at the bow section of the HDW on the picture. Above the water line, the bow is mostly wide and blunt, flaring out to the sides quickly - not a very hydrodynamic shape, nor shape that would do any more than pushing the ice inefficiently in front of the ship, which would block her way quickly.

However, slightly above the waterline itself, the hull takes sharp backward turn and then goes at about a 30 degree angle towards the back, creating fairly flat "sled like" shape: That's the icebreaker's trade mark (if you look at merchant ships, or the old AOR's you would see a "knife-like" shape going straight down like a wedge - with or without a bulbous bow). The ice breaker uses that "sled-like" angled hull to ride up on the ice until you get to the point where the weight of the ship riding on the ice is heavy enough to crush it below the ship, the flared bow then serving both to do the crushing and to move the crushed ice out of the way.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nothing more peaceful, than trying to sleep on a ship breaking ice..................


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I'm comparing light loads displacement.
> 
> I think the HAL's top up at around 4800 tons full load, but then, the HDW will top up at around 7000 in full load also, so it's still the same.
> 
> And BTW, , icebreaking is not done by "punching through", it is done by crushing down. Look at the bow section of the HDW on the picture. Above the water line, the bow is mostly wide and blunt, flaring out to the sides quickly - not a very hydrodynamic shape, nor shape that would do any more than pushing the ice inefficiently in front of the ship, which would block her way quickly.
> 
> However, slightly above the waterline itself, the hull takes sharp backward turn and then goes at about a 30 degree angle towards the back, creating fairly flat "sled like" shape: That's the icebreaker's trade mark (if you look at merchant ships, or the old AOR's you would see a "knife-like" shape going straight down like a wedge - with or without a bulbous bow). The ice breaker uses that "sled-like" angled hull to ride up on the ice until you get to the point where the weight of the ship riding on the ice is heavy enough to crush it below the ship, the flared bow then serving both to do the crushing and to move the crushed ice out of the way.




Thanks for that, OGBD, I really enjoy learning, at my advanced age, from this site.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And BTW, , icebreaking is not done by "punching through", it is done by crushing down. Look at the bow section of the HDW on the picture. Above the water line, the bow is mostly wide and blunt, flaring out to the sides quickly - not a very hydrodynamic shape, nor shape that would do any more than pushing the ice inefficiently in front of the ship, which would block her way quickly.



Crushing down is a better term for what I was envisioning in my minds eye.  Ride up, crush down through, move forwards, ride up .........  like walking on deep snow with a hard crust on top that you have to break through each step as you move forwards.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Found this article on arstechnica on the problems of the German F125 acceptance, but the comment from a previous member of the build team was of the most interest.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/02/german-navy-experiences-lcs-affect-in-spades-as-new-frigate-fails-sea-trials/

Matthew.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

To quote one of our great protest song of the 60's:

"Oh! When will they ever learn, Oh! When will they ever learn"


And us too, unfortunately.


----------



## Rifleman62

> "German military procurement is “one hell of a complete disaster. It will take years to sort this problem out.”



Looks like their military procurement "people" went to the same Academe as the Canadians. Same as their Systems and our Phoenix people. ;D



> ..... the comment from a previous member of the build team was of the most interest.


 Sounds like the Germans and Canadians both have the same cunning plan.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACnqI1l4I9s&feature=youtu.be


Wonder if we could sell the Germans CH-148 Cyclones?


----------



## Loachman

I don't follow this thread, but stumbled across the article below earlier today and thought that it might be of interest.

Davie et Irving: traitement à deux vitesses à Ottawa

Publié le 09 février 2018 à 06h57 | Mis à jour à 06h57 

www.lapresse.ca/affaires/economie/transports/201802/09/01-5153208-davie-et-irving-traitement-a-deux-vitesses-a-ottawa.php

Via Google Translate:

The Davie and Irving shipyards do not seem to be entitled to the same treatment when they send an invitation to the Minister responsible for federal contracts. A deputy minister warned Minister Carla Qualtrough not to visit the Lévis shipyard last fall but "recommended" her to go to the Halifax shipyard, internal notes consulted by La Presse reveal.

These briefing documents, obtained under the Access to Information Act, were prepared shortly after the appointment of Ms. Qualtrough as Minister of Public Services and Procurement. Deputy Minister Marie Lemay sets out guidelines on the response to be provided following separate invitations by Davie and Irving at the end of last summer.

These two companies have been competing for years in the hope of winning maritime contracts with the Government of Canada. Irving has raised more than $ 60 billion in contracts, while Davie has been excluded from almost the entire federal procurement process.

SENTIMENT OF EXCLUSION

The Davie shipyard, which has experienced many financial difficulties and shareholder changes in recent decades, found itself in the middle of a political storm last fall. The company was expecting a contract from the Canadian Navy to build a second supply vessel, after delivering a first one - the Asterix - last December. Ottawa did not finally order a second boat.

In the absence of contracts, Davie has laid off 800 of his 1,200 workers in recent months, provoking an outcry in the Quebec City area. Several politicians - including Prime Minister Philippe Couillard - have denounced systematic discrimination against Davie, while Irving and Vancouver's Seaspan have garnered the bulk of federal contracts in recent years.

"SYSTEMATIC OBSTRUCTION"

The briefing notes obtained by La Presse follow the same logic, says a well-informed source of the naval industry, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals from the federal government.

"This deputy minister's recommendation is just another proof of the systematic obstruction of federal public servants with the Quebec shipyard, which is still the largest in the country."

In Davie's internal documents, the deputy minister recommends that Carla Qualtrough agree to meet with the big boss Alex Vicefield, but suggests that she refuse to attend the inauguration of the Asterix, since the place and the date had not yet been fixed at that time.

On the Irving file, the deputy minister advises to have both a meeting with the big boss, James Irving, and a site visit.

"The reasoning is that it would be beneficial to know the extent of your portfolio and continue to encourage a strategic relationship with Irving." - Deputy Minister Marie Lemay

The letter written on behalf of the Minister indicates that she will be pleased to visit the Halifax shipyard "as soon as [her] schedule allows [her] time". Ms. Qualtrough went to Irving's facilities on December 19 at a formal ceremony.

TWENTY VISITS

According to a rough calculation, Trudeau government ministers visited the Irving and Seaspan shipyards about 20 times in the last two years. Davie received two visits from Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, during the same period.

In the face of growing pressure in the Quebec City area, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced last month the launch of negotiations between Ottawa and Davie for the leasing of four icebreakers. This contract, if it materializes, could allow about 300 workers to be recalled for a period of two years.

"We are proud that Chantier Davie Canada has been selected by the Trudeau government to deliver four icebreakers to the Canadian Coast Guard," spokesman Frédérik Boisvert said yesterday.

"COMPETITIVE PROCESS"

In an email to La Presse, a spokesperson for Public Services and Procurement Canada noted that the contracts at Irving and Seaspan were awarded "as a result of an open, fair and transparent competitive process." She recalls that Davie "has the right to bid on small vessel construction projects, as well as ship repair, refit and maintenance".

This spokesperson added that Minister Qualtrough refused to visit the Davie shipyard on the occasion of the inauguration of Asterix "because the location of the launch had not yet been determined."

Contracts awarded to Irving and Seaspan shipyards under the National Shipbuilding Strategy total more than $75 billion. Davie, who has been excluded from this program, has received approximately $650 million in federal contracts in recent years.

In Carla Qualtrough's office, a spokeswoman pointed out that the minister and her staff "have met with the Davie, Seaspan and Irving shipyard management and unions on a number of occasions since the Minister's appointment."

"Our Government recognizes the excellent work done by Davie employees, and we have begun discussions with shipyard leaders on options to meet the Canadian Coast Guard's need for interim icebreakers," he said. "Given that Davie is currently in discussion with our government, we will explore the possibility of a visit when the discussions are over."

- With William Leclerc, La Presse


----------



## MTShaw

Loachman said:
			
		

> I don't follow this thread, but stumbled across the article below earlier today and thought that it might be of interest.
> 
> Davie et Irving: traitement à deux vitesses à Ottawa
> 
> Publié le 09 février 2018 à 06h57 | Mis à jour à 06h57
> 
> www.lapresse.ca/affaires/economie/transports/201802/09/01-5153208-davie-et-irving-traitement-a-deux-vitesses-a-ottawa.php
> 
> Via Google Translate:
> 
> The Davie and Irving shipyards do not seem to be entitled to the same treatment when they send an invitation to the Minister responsible for federal contracts. A deputy minister warned Minister Carla Qualtrough not to visit the Lévis shipyard last fall but "recommended" her to go to the Halifax shipyard, internal notes consulted by La Presse reveal.
> 
> These briefing documents, obtained under the Access to Information Act, were prepared shortly after the appointment of Ms. Qualtrough as Minister of Public Services and Procurement. Deputy Minister Marie Lemay sets out guidelines on the response to be provided following separate invitations by Davie and Irving at the end of last summer.
> 
> These two companies have been competing for years in the hope of winning maritime contracts with the Government of Canada. Irving has raised more than $ 60 billion in contracts, while Davie has been excluded from almost the entire federal procurement process.
> 
> SENTIMENT OF EXCLUSION
> 
> The Davie shipyard, which has experienced many financial difficulties and shareholder changes in recent decades, found itself in the middle of a political storm last fall. The company was expecting a contract from the Canadian Navy to build a second supply vessel, after delivering a first one - the Asterix - last December. Ottawa did not finally order a second boat.
> 
> In the absence of contracts, Davie has laid off 800 of his 1,200 workers in recent months, provoking an outcry in the Quebec City area. Several politicians - including Prime Minister Philippe Couillard - have denounced systematic discrimination against Davie, while Irving and Vancouver's Seaspan have garnered the bulk of federal contracts in recent years.
> 
> "SYSTEMATIC OBSTRUCTION"
> 
> The briefing notes obtained by La Presse follow the same logic, says a well-informed source of the naval industry, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals from the federal government.
> 
> "This deputy minister's recommendation is just another proof of the systematic obstruction of federal public servants with the Quebec shipyard, which is still the largest in the country."
> 
> In Davie's internal documents, the deputy minister recommends that Carla Qualtrough agree to meet with the big boss Alex Vicefield, but suggests that she refuse to attend the inauguration of the Asterix, since the place and the date had not yet been fixed at that time.
> 
> On the Irving file, the deputy minister advises to have both a meeting with the big boss, James Irving, and a site visit.
> 
> "The reasoning is that it would be beneficial to know the extent of your portfolio and continue to encourage a strategic relationship with Irving." - Deputy Minister Marie Lemay
> 
> The letter written on behalf of the Minister indicates that she will be pleased to visit the Halifax shipyard "as soon as [her] schedule allows [her] time". Ms. Qualtrough went to Irving's facilities on December 19 at a formal ceremony.
> 
> TWENTY VISITS
> 
> According to a rough calculation, Trudeau government ministers visited the Irving and Seaspan shipyards about 20 times in the last two years. Davie received two visits from Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, during the same period.
> 
> In the face of growing pressure in the Quebec City area, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced last month the launch of negotiations between Ottawa and Davie for the leasing of four icebreakers. This contract, if it materializes, could allow about 300 workers to be recalled for a period of two years.
> 
> "We are proud that Chantier Davie Canada has been selected by the Trudeau government to deliver four icebreakers to the Canadian Coast Guard," spokesman Frédérik Boisvert said yesterday.
> 
> "COMPETITIVE PROCESS"
> 
> In an email to La Presse, a spokesperson for Public Services and Procurement Canada noted that the contracts at Irving and Seaspan were awarded "as a result of an open, fair and transparent competitive process." She recalls that Davie "has the right to bid on small vessel construction projects, as well as ship repair, refit and maintenance".
> 
> This spokesperson added that Minister Qualtrough refused to visit the Davie shipyard on the occasion of the inauguration of Asterix "because the location of the launch had not yet been determined."
> 
> Contracts awarded to Irving and Seaspan shipyards under the National Shipbuilding Strategy total more than $75 billion. Davie, who has been excluded from this program, has received approximately $650 million in federal contracts in recent years.
> 
> In Carla Qualtrough's office, a spokeswoman pointed out that the minister and her staff "have met with the Davie, Seaspan and Irving shipyard management and unions on a number of occasions since the Minister's appointment."
> 
> "Our Government recognizes the excellent work done by Davie employees, and we have begun discussions with shipyard leaders on options to meet the Canadian Coast Guard's need for interim icebreakers," he said. "Given that Davie is currently in discussion with our government, we will explore the possibility of a visit when the discussions are over."
> 
> - With William Leclerc, La Presse



Davie are the worse of the worst sore losers.


----------



## Underway

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Wonder if we could sell the Germans CH-148 Cyclones?



Oddly enough, the Germans were (are?) seriously considering the Cyclone.  Odds are we will have proven the airframe and systems by the time they are looking for a replacement for the Sea King.  The convergences of Canadian/German procurement is creepy coincidental in many ways.  Now if we could pick up some Puma IFV's...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I spoke to a number of German Officers, recently. It was spooky how closely events in their military mirrored CF misfortunes.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MTShaw said:
			
		

> Davie are the worse of the worst sore losers.



Which makes them better than Irving, which is the worse of the worst sore winner. After all, It's Irving who tried to use its influence with the Liberal party in order to have the new government cancel a contract already negotiated and agreed to by the past government, just so they could snatch it up themselves after having already 40B$ worth of contract in their pocket.

Seriously, MTS? There is nothing, underline nothing, in that article from Davie, other than saying they are happy to have gotten the interim ice breaker contracts. The article is from a business reporter at La Presse - the MONTREAL newspaper, which couldn't care less if a business in Quebec City lays off 800 employees, and is based on information from Ottawa obtained on an access to information request and on discussion with Ottawa based civil servants known to this reporter.

Nothing to do with Davie here.

And for the factual information of the people hanging around here, when the senior Federal civil servant states that Davie was not selected "as a result of an open, fair and transparent competitive process.", that spokesperson is full of it.

When the selection of shipyards for the NSPS was being made, Davie was in receivership and could not get itself considered, until the last minute, because it was bought and brought out of bankruptcy a few weeks before the closing of the process. Davie put together a last minute bid to get selected as the yard for the non-combat vessels (the one Seaspan got). However, that bid was rejected by the government without further consideration because one of the "requirement" was to have a collective agreement in place and in Davie's case because of the bankruptcy, the agreement had expired and, obviously, the new owners hadn't had time to sit down with the union and negotiate a new one. So to say that Davie had a fair and competitive shot at this work is simple bullsh^^t. Ottawa didn't even look at the actual Davie bid. (BTW, about having an agreement in place at the time of selecting the yard as opposed to when you do the work: How's that working out for Irving?) 

Now, in another thread relating to the Coast Guard, we have just learned that the Cygnus - on of four East coast fisheries patrol vessel is limping back to port having sprung a leak. She is 37 years old. Her older sister the Cape Roger is 41 years old and has already suffered flooding while alongside. This leaves the two "youngsters" of the gang, Leonard Cowley, 34 and Grenfeld 31. These are to be replaced, under the NSPS, by Seaspan after they complete the next three Ofshore science vessels, the two JSS and the Arctic Icebreaker. We are talking a start date at least 10 years from now, by which time the "Atlantic Four" will be between 41 and 51 years old. These are the ships and people watching our fisheries and keeping foreign fishermen in line off our East coast!

Meanwhile, the "interim" icebreakers are there to stop the current gap until the new river icebreakers (class 3-4) come on line. When? We don't know as no contract for their replacement are even contemplated at this time in the NSPS. So they would be at the end of the current Seaspan  pile - thus not even begun for the next 15years. These icebreakers are between 31 (the Larsen) and 40  (Amundsen and Radisson) years old as we speak, they will be at least between 45 an 54 by the time they are replaced if things stand as they are.

I, for one, think that if you are going to build new icebreakers, they should come from a single yard, as it is specialized work - so better to concentrate in one place.

This said, can anyone tell me why Canada doesn't simply negotiate with Davie for the immediate acquisition of a satisfactory design for a Coast Guard offshore patrol vessel and then give Davie the contract to build five of them, maybe six, right now. In return, you give Seaspan a contract to build three or four river icebreakers right after the Diefenbaker.

The NSPS may have been a good idea when it was envisaged, but it took too much time to execute and right now, the Coast Guard is in dire straight, even a lot more than the Navy.


----------



## Loachman

MTShaw said:
			
		

> Davie are the worse of the worst sore losers.



Please - there is no need to reproduce the whole article in a response.


----------



## Loachman

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Wonder if we could sell the Germans CH-148 Cyclones?



We could if we built them, but we don't.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Nothing to do with Davie here.
> 
> And for the factual information of the people hanging around here, when the senior Federal civil servant states that Davie was not selected "as a result of an open, fair and transparent competitive process.", that spokesperson is full of it.
> 
> When the selection of shipyards for the NSPS was being made, Davie was in receivership and could not get itself considered, until the last minute, because it was bought and brought out of bankruptcy a few weeks before the closing of the process. Davie put together a last minute bid to get selected as the yard for the non-combat vessels (the one Seaspan got). However, that bid was rejected by the government without further consideration because one of the "requirement" was to have a collective agreement in place and in Davie's case because of the bankruptcy, the agreement had expired and, obviously, the new owners hadn't had time to sit down with the union and negotiate a new one. So to say that Davie had a fair and competitive shot at this work is simple bullsh^^t. Ottawa didn't even look at the actual Davie bid. (BTW, about having an agreement in place at the time of selecting the yard as opposed to when you do the work: How's that working out for Irving?)



The Davie bid was fully reviewed and scored; the yards were selected based on that, and VSY had a better proposal for the NC package. Not sure where you heard otherwise, but it's simply not true.

Not being bankrupt is a pretty reasonable requirement,and is a standard requirement that is part of pretty much every single GoC contract to provide certain financial guarantees. You can't seriously criticize anyone for that; if it wasn't considered then you would probably also be up in arms about 'pandering to Quebec' and politics interfering with procurement process. If they lost points for not meeting something that was very clearly laid out in the evaluation scoring guide (which they had as part of the RFP) then it's really no one's fault but the bid team, but c'mon.  Would you have someone in chapter 11 build your house?


----------



## Rifleman62

Spot on! My error.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

3 points, Navy_Pete:

1) Your reference to "Chapter eleven" is like a reference to Second Amendment rights. It's a US thing that has absolutely nothing to do with Canada.

2) I didn't say they were rejected because they were in bankruptcy: They were out of it by that time. I said it was because they didn't have a Collective Agreement in place with their Union at the time.

3) I hold my info from a good friend of mine: The lawyer in charge of the file for the then owners of Davie. Were is yours from?


----------



## MTShaw

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Which makes them better than Irving, which is the worse of the worst sore winner. After all, It's Irving who tried to use its influence with the Liberal party in order to have the new government cancel a contract already negotiated and agreed to by the past government, just so they could snatch it up themselves after having already 40B$ worth of contract in their pocket.
> 
> Seriously, MTS? There is nothing, underline nothing, in that article from Davie, other than saying they are happy to have gotten the interim ice breaker contracts. The article is from a business reporter at La Presse - the MONTREAL newspaper, which couldn't care less if a business in Quebec City lays off 800 employees, and is based on information from Ottawa obtained on an access to information request and on discussion with Ottawa based civil servants known to this reporter.
> 
> Nothing to do with Davie here.
> 
> And for the factual information of the people hanging around here, when the senior Federal civil servant states that Davie was not selected "as a result of an open, fair and transparent competitive process.", that spokesperson is full of it.
> 
> When the selection of shipyards for the NSPS was being made, Davie was in receivership and could not get itself considered, until the last minute, because it was bought and brought out of bankruptcy a few weeks before the closing of the process. Davie put together a last minute bid to get selected as the yard for the non-combat vessels (the one Seaspan got). However, that bid was rejected by the government without further consideration because one of the "requirement" was to have a collective agreement in place and in Davie's case because of the bankruptcy, the agreement had expired and, obviously, the new owners hadn't had time to sit down with the union and negotiate a new one. So to say that Davie had a fair and competitive shot at this work is simple bullsh^^t. Ottawa didn't even look at the actual Davie bid. (BTW, about having an agreement in place at the time of selecting the yard as opposed to when you do the work: How's that working out for Irving?)
> 
> Now, in another thread relating to the Coast Guard, we have just learned that the Cygnus - on of four East coast fisheries patrol vessel is limping back to port having sprung a leak. She is 37 years old. Her older sister the Cape Roger is 41 years old and has already suffered flooding while alongside. This leaves the two "youngsters" of the gang, Leonard Cowley, 34 and Grenfeld 31. These are to be replaced, under the NSPS, by Seaspan after they complete the next three Ofshore science vessels, the two JSS and the Arctic Icebreaker. We are talking a start date at least 10 years from now, by which time the "Atlantic Four" will be between 41 and 51 years old. These are the ships and people watching our fisheries and keeping foreign fishermen in line off our East coast!
> 
> Meanwhile, the "interim" icebreakers are there to stop the current gap until the new river icebreakers (class 3-4) come on line. When? We don't know as no contract for their replacement are even contemplated at this time in the NSPS. So they would be at the end of the current Seaspan  pile - thus not even begun for the next 15years. These icebreakers are between 31 (the Larsen) and 40  (Amundsen and Radisson) years old as we speak, they will be at least between 45 an 54 by the time they are replaced if things stand as they are.
> 
> I, for one, think that if you are going to build new icebreakers, they should come from a single yard, as it is specialized work - so better to concentrate in one place.
> 
> This said, can anyone tell me why Canada doesn't simply negotiate with Davie for the immediate acquisition of a satisfactory design for a Coast Guard offshore patrol vessel and then give Davie the contract to build five of them, maybe six, right now. In return, you give Seaspan a contract to build three or four river icebreakers right after the Diefenbaker.
> 
> The NSPS may have been a good idea when it was envisaged, but it took too much time to execute and right now, the Coast Guard is in dire straight, even a lot more than the Navy.



I've had a number of strokes. My brain works fine apart from communication, so bare with me. 

But that and fatigue are making a proper reply to your appreciated response impossible.

In short, your right to a point. Quebec is trying to take Seaspan's work. _Link to article removed in accordance with site rules._

No, I'm not saying your wrong. In short

I'd love in for Davie to become Canada's Coast Guard yard.   
Then Seaspan gets to build 3 JSS and future work minor ships like OPV or Corvette
Irving gets what it already has.

That's the best you get from me today.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 3 points, Navy_Pete:
> 
> 1) Your reference to "Chapter eleven" is like a reference to Second Amendment rights. It's a US thing that has absolutely nothing to do with Canada.
> 
> 2) I didn't say they were rejected because they were in bankruptcy: They were out of it by that time. I said it was because they didn't have a Collective Agreement in place with their Union at the time.
> 
> 3) I hold my info from a good friend of mine: The lawyer in charge of the file for the then owners of Davie. Were is yours from?



1) Chapter eleven is like Kleenex; it's widely understood as being in bankruptcy protection, but yes, understand it's an American law

2)Not true, they lost because they came 3rd, with only two spots on the podium.

3)By reading all three bids, the scoring criteria, the results and the recommended outcome based on the scores (ie Irving gets combat, VSY gets non combat)

The process went massively out of it's way to be free of interference, free from politics, and absolutely fair that any suggestion otherwise is pretty ridiculous. I had nothing to do with the RFP at the time, but it really was a massive amount of time and resources spent to make sure that the results could not be challenged under the guise of it not being fair, and the fact that the Davie bid was even considered was them bending over backwards to avoid challenges after the fact.  

Responding to RFPs is a big investment of time and resources; the NSS is a thirty plus year program where the government partnered with shipyards to rebuild an entire industry as a strategic investment. Being insolvent and not having a collective agreement are both massive risks and should absolutely be considered when we are talking about the Government spending BILLIONS of taxpayers money. Putting together a hurried bid that doesn't meet all the criteria will result in a low score.

They did a good job on Asterix, and their ad campaigns are pretty funny, but that was built on the fly, exempt from all kinds of rules that the two NSS shipyards have to follow (ie build in Canada, IRBs, etc) and doesn't require anywhere near the abilities needed to actually build a ship from scratch.  Really encouraging that they can get there, and they did a lot of good things, but they would need a lot more things than just a graving dock to start efficiently building ships at the kind of pace they would need to be commercially competitive, which would require modernization of the facilities and a bunch more people.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Seen, N.P.

However: Again, I did not say that there was interference, political or other, in the process. But there are different degrees of what constitutes fairness.

For instance, in the current phase of selecting a design for the CSC, they have changed the rules (not to mention made multiple extensions) so that they can review bids, and then tell various bidders if there are non conformities to give them a chance of correcting same. That maybe good for the government side of things, but a bidder that is in full conformity from the start may find that "unfair".

In reverse here, knowing that the various bidders (there were more than the two winners and davie) had had 9 months to put their bid together, while Davie had three weeks, couldn't they have either given them an extension to negotiate a Collective Agreement (after all, the damn process was already 2 years behind by then), or simply told them that any consideration - setting that aside - would require them to enter into one within a given amount of time after?

I do take exception, however, with your comment on Davie's need for modernization and more than just a graving dock. First of all, the other two yards were, at the time in the same or even worse degrees of backwardness where facilities are concerned. They only improved and modernized their facilities as a result of getting selected for the NSPS. Second of all, Davie has modernized and rebuilt and improved its various shops and they are just as modern as need be already - their pipe shop is actually considered a model. Third, they have much more than only  graveyard, they in fact have five separate large slips that can be used and shops for module assembly. You talk of "pace" for commercial competitiveness: They could build the CSC's six at time and be done in little more than two batches if the government wished. Come and see me when Irving can match that pace. Finally, building ships from scratch: Since the new ownership took over and excluding Asterix, they have built five ships from scratch in the 3500 to 4500 tons displacement range, including three extremely complex deep sea construction ships. Who else has done that in Canada in the last 5 years.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Yes, they modernized the yards to meet the standard that was mandated in the NSS; Davie would have done the same as it was part of their proposal.  Upgrading the shipyards is a mandatory contract requirement.

Davie still has some upgrades required to meet that standard.

They've done a lot, but I think you are underestimating the complexity and work required to build CSC; even the best warship builders in the world aren't able to build anything at that pace. From cutting steel to launch one ship takes a few years until launch, but they'll have three or four ships in different phases of production at a time.

ISI currently has three AOPs under construction, and VSY has three OFSVs on the go (with two projects in the design phase). It takes a long time to get an industry started but it's actually starting to to roll on at a decent pace, and you have to remember there was a couple of years for each yard to basically tear it all down and rebuild the infrastructure plus get a team put together. Weirdly enough a thirty year program to build a strategic asset takes some time.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Not a very bright way to make terribly expensive acquisitions--all about politics (all parties) not needs of RCN or CCG.  Our federal governments just not serious about core responsibilities.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Not a very bright way to make terribly expensive acquisitions--all about politics (all parties) not needs of RCN or CCG.  Our federal governments just not serious about core responsibilities.


What do you suggest?  Only buy off the shelf from overseas?  That might be a lot quicker.  But are Canadian governments even interested in providing badly needed ships for the navy and coast guard at an adequate rate?  The National Ship Building Strategy needs to be drastically changed to include Davie.  There appears to be no way Seaspan can supply all those ships for the coast guard and navy in a timely manner.


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> The National Ship Building Strategy needs to be drastically changed to include Davie.



No it doesn't.  There are plenty of other options and other builders that can do such work if required. Why Davie and not Welland (as a random example)?  They did good work on previous RCN ships over the years and it could be argued you'll get more votes out of the Liberal/PC balanced Niagara region with that sort of pork barrelling then in Quebec who constantly are "what have you done for me lately" with their voting.  Not not to mention Niagara needs the jobs a hell of a lot more than Quebec City does.

Fixating on Davie is dangerous.  If you want to add a yard for work then hold a competition, like always.  If Davie is the best bidder then they get the work.  I would be willing to bet that given a competition, the Asterix project would have cost less for taxpayers, Welland could have done that conversion work easily as well and that competition would have forced the price down.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Actually, Welland didn't do so great on ATH's last refit.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You do realize, Underway, that  "Welland" is part of Heddle Marine.

They screwed up the ATH at Welland, and I think the Coast Guard was none too please with how the Amundsen came out of refit either. Then at the Hamilton yard, they screwed up the Hudson - badly.

Out of all their locations, the last ship they build was a small lake/river ferry in 1992. They, in fact did not even put in for the NSPS: They merely indicated they were hoping to get sub-contract work from it (fat chance with Irving winning - Whereas Davie, from the start has been advocating part build work let to subcontractors).  http://www.wellandtribune.ca/2011/07/22/boon-to-local-economy-if-shipbuilding-bid-wins-2

And also, there was competition for the Asterix. After Davie came out with its proposed plan for an interim AOR, the government asked other selected companies to propose something similar. Both Seaspan and Irving made proposals, but Davie's was the one selected. You may recall that the letter from Irving that started the whole Admiral Norman debacle was one where Irving was asking the Trudeau government to reconsider their proposal, claiming it had been unfairly considered. What was different with the Asterix deal was not that there was no competition, it was that to go faster they modified the rules to give the final contract by single source process after getting all the various proposals for review edited to add: and to foil the a**holes civil servants who refused to let the government even consider ANY interim ship by fear of their cherished NSPS becoming unraveled - you may be sure these are the same ones that have now made sure no second iAOR will ever see the light of day).


----------



## Underway

I'm not advocating for them, just using them as an example.  And as an example of why we should stop listening to the loudest shouter.

As for screwing up the ATH, I heard a completely different story.  The RCN screwed that up.  Welland did their due diligence and found far more damage to the ATH structure (during ultrasounds etc...) then the RCN was willing to pay for, which of course through everything out of kilter.  The ship was one big wave away from disaster due to structural fatigue.  The towing incident certainly can't be blamed on the yard.  

But it's essentially irrelevant to my argument.  It doesn't necessarily have to be Davie but necessarily has to be a competition.  Odds are Davie would win easy a fair competition.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I am 100% with you that everything should be by open competition.

As I said above, however, in view of various delays in the NSPS (mostly from the governments, not the yards), and the dire situation of the Coast Guard fleet (at least in the Navy, we got all the frigates mid-lifed), there are now serious gaps in the needs of the fleets in relation to the deliverables of the NSPS and beyond.

This provides an opportunity for immediately expanding industrial benefits of the fleet replacements without depriving the selected shipyards under the NSPS of any benefits they have already acquired under it. With a bit of imagination (and really - not much in terms of brainpower required), this can alleviate the fleets needs while improving for all on the NSPS.

But yes: only by doing it with fair and open competitions.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Underway said:
			
		

> As for screwing up the ATH, I heard a completely different story.  The RCN screwed that up.  Welland did their due diligence and found far more damage to the ATH structure (during ultrasounds etc...) then the RCN was willing to pay for, which of course through everything out of kilter.  The ship was one big wave away from disaster due to structural fatigue.  The towing incident certainly can't be blamed on the yard.



I came off ATH shortly before she went in to Welland and kept in touch with the guys who were there doing QA.  Don't kid yourself,  there was plenty wrong with the refit that wasn't on our side.  And the timing of the tow was because of the yard.


----------



## Navy_Pete

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I came off ATH shortly before she went in to Welland and kept in touch with the guys who were there doing QA.  Don't kid yourself,  there was plenty wrong with the refit that wasn't on our side.  And the timing of the tow was because of the yard.



Can confirm; there was re-re-re-work on multiple tanks due to major QC fails on the paint (subcontractor work).  On the plus side, they did excellent steel, pipe and electrical work and their own paint department was good (just too small to do all the tank work).  That delayed the undocking (can't paint tanks in the water) so we couldn't do any of the set to work and sail her back before the canals closed for the season, hence the tow.

Port Weller was not part of Heddle Marine when ATH was there; they were a separate company that was a subsidiary of Upper Lakes group.  They shut down shortly after ATH, and understand it's now basically just a facility available for rent of the drydocks.  It's too bad; all the guys that worked there were giving it that last shot, but were going to move on as the work in the area was all drying up (Welland industrial base has basically collapsed), but there were some really good people there.

Agree with the need to review it and compete some of the new work; the CCG has had a bunch of new requirements come up since the NSS started 10 years ago so it's a good time to look at it.  There are a few other yards that could build some of the medium ships and a couple options for the large ships but someone like Davie should be well positioned to make a competitive bid.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The problem with trying to do "open bidding" but only allowing 2-3 domestic competitors is you're very likely to get bid rigging and inflated profiteering.  

On some of these national security type contracts where we are politically saying "we must source from domestic sources" I would argue it makes sense to treat such procurement as a regulated utility and cap a maximum (cost +) agreement with the profit margin falling as they miss on quality or time specifications.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Concur, Navy_Pete: Heddle basically scooped up everything as they closed in the Great Lakes system.

Port Weller did, however, belong to Upper Lakes Shipyard Group at the time it acquired Davie - so as to be in position to get the NSPS contract - at which time, Davie would have been lead with subcontract work to Port Weller. At least that was the hope.

Davie / Upper Lake didn't get the contract. You know what happened then to Port Weller, and Upper Lake found a new buyer for Davie, and sold it oversea to Inocea. Everybody knows the rest.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Keep in mind that there is only going to a certain amount of work to maintain these shipyards in the future, the NSPS is an attempt to ensure that there is just enough yards to keep that work going. The idea is great, just 20 years late. I respect the effort Davies put in, but honestly will there be enough work to keep 3 large yards going for the next 30 years? Another thing going against Davie, is it is not geographically well located for naval ship repair. As a country it is critical that we have a capable yard on both coasts to maintain the fleets properly. Halifax has always been the centre of east coast naval operations for a good reason, frankly I wish I could replace Irving management with Davies. From a purely logistical point of view for long term ship repair, Davie is poorly located.


----------



## Uzlu

Colin P said:
			
		

> I respect the effort Davies put in, but honestly will there be enough work to keep 3 large yards going for the next 30 years?


I think it might be possible.  But does it have to be thirty-year programmes?  How about twenty-five-year or twenty-year programmes?  There would be less long-and-expensive refits.  How about the following for very-long-term planning purposes?  Irving builds only destroyers and frigates, Seaspan builds only icebreakers, and the third shipbuilding company builds all other large ships for the navy and coast guard.  

Perhaps something like three destroyers, twelve frigates, twenty icebreakers, four replenishment ships,  one fleet diving-support ship, two naval-research ships, three offshore fisheries-science vessels, one offshore oceanographic-science vessel, nine ice-strengthened navaids tenders, one offshore search-and-rescue cutter, four ice-strengthened offshore search-and-rescue cutters,  and four fishery-patrol vessels or their equivalents.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Canadian ship replacement thinking-20 years, hmm we should think about replacing this? 25 years or dear this thing is really getting bad, we should double up on the paint. 30 years- what do mean it's broken, how much to fix it? Oh my........ 35 years, PANIC, PANIC, oh my god how did this crisis happen???? Senior management says, no worries we will study the problem, meanwhile "modernize" your service delivery to delete the need for that ship...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Conclusion of lengthy CGAI paper:



> A Basic Primer on Naval Shipbuilding
> ...
> by Ian Mack
> ...
> One should not be surprised by the propensity for delays in execution. Canada enjoys living next door to the U.S. and having strong ties with our southern neighbour. Rightly or wrongly, Canadians see the U.S. as the guarantor of Canada’s defence. The corollary is that Canadians view the Department of National Defence as a government entity worthy of less interest than the business of most other departments of government. If one accepts this hypothesis, three corollaries follow. First, Canada still needs to be able to contribute to collective defence to maintain these strong ties – and especially with the Trump administration, where burden sharing by allies who enjoy the U.S. security guarantee remains an objective under the recently released National Defense Strategy. Second, Canadian politicians are unlikely to invest significant capital in finding ways to accelerate defence procurement, which represents political liability due to its expense and significant risk profile for what is essentially overhead of the undervalued defence program. And third, because it is expensive, they want industrial and technical benefits for Canadian companies from every contract, especially noting that these are high-paying jobs with the potential to fuel national prosperity. In implementation, the delivery of shipbuilding projects under NSS can be assessed as hugely expensive, well north of $50 billion. All this is to say, successive governments want to do military procurement, but with a minimum of risk. Continuous attempts to de-risk inherently complex and thus risk-laden initiatives such as shipbuilding consume a lot of effort and time.
> 
> Delays are therefore common, putting timely procurement execution in jeopardy across the board. But one should manage their expectations for more timely execution. Unless the world goes into a major war, Canada’s strategic position changes in the world order, the U.S. applies uncommon pressure, or military procurement gets so broken that the politicians cannot take the political heat – delays will continue. There are things that could be done more expediently within the military procurement system but there must be motivation to identify those opportunities and implement the related changes. Other nations empower external czars to do comprehensive end-to-end reviews of programs and projects to identify options employed elsewhere. Then ministers specifically default to accepting proposed recommendations unless there is a compelling reason not to. Without such an approach or similar, attempts to reduce delays are likely to be more akin to tinkering at the edges. Noting these comments relating to schedule for Canadian weapon systems platform acquisitions, it follows that significant changes of procurement strategy mid-course run a very high probability of creating even longer delays than staying the course we are now on.
> 
> *So What*
> 
> In the end, this is all about the future of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, an enterprise-wide change initiative of national proportions. It is truly a complex initiative that can be expected to take decades to mature, as was typically required when national naval shipyards went into place in other nations in the previous century. And as stated in the opening paragraphs of this paper, challenges will continue to emerge – challenges that will need continual and candid explanation.
> 
> For many years, our government has stated they would pursue a list of solutions to the current ills: enhanced oversight, greater shipbuilding expertise and capacity within the government, improved budgeting based on better cost estimates, and four key measures of outcome performance (timeliness of project execution, delivery of vessels within approved budgets, shipyard productivity and economic benefits).
> 
> These are not easily achieved. Internationally, nations are struggling to recruit shipbuilding expertise in sufficient quantities to manage more than one or two major naval procurements continuously over a decade and the knowledgeable people to provide mature governance. International associations engaged in complex project management research have said that in truly complex endeavours, the iron triangle of matched requirements and schedule with cost are nigh on impossible to predict with much confidence until actual deliveries occur in a sorted fashion, so an enhanced record on cost estimation is inherently unlikely.
> 
> Then there is the issue of shipyard productivity. Interestingly, when various international benchmarking experts were asked to define when the NSS shipyards could be measured to show strong productivity, they were unanimous in saying that, noting the order book for each shipyard (and especially for Vancouver Shipyard), “not for a very long time”. The shipyards are committed to reach something termed “target state” once they have effectively built a ship and thus demonstrated all the key construction activities. Target state is a set of best practices in shipbuilding, essentially the fundamentals to good productivity. But achieving target state will not necessarily deliver good productivity. Using an analogy, this is similar to being able to master the various skills of driving a car: parallel parking, changing lanes, navigating and the like. But once the driver’s licence is obtained as proof of such competencies, one is not yet necessarily ready to tackle downtown New York traffic in rush hour or the 401 in Toronto during a white-out snow squall. Having the basic skills does not make you a good driver. Under NSS, target state is confirmation that all of the basic skills are present to a reasonable level of competence, but their integration in the face of greater complexity and adversity may not yet be present. Achieving target state does not confirm that the shipyards are meeting some international productivity standard such as “tons of steel per person-year” over multiple ships – and in shipbuilding, such standards themselves are controversial. For all of these measures, the race is on to deliver in every one of them – but schedule is king. In hindsight and noting the priority of defence for Canadians (or rather, the lack of priority), it could be argued that NSPS was the right thing to do in principle but perhaps too ambitious for Canada. But there is a counter argument if the “Build in Canada” shipbuilding policy prevails. As was apparent from the first JSS procurement activity that was terminated, the alternative in this century is likely to be best described as lurching from one crisis to another, shipbuilding project by shipbuilding project and Canadian shipyard by Canadian shipyard.
> 
> NSS is not on the rocks but it is in shoal waters. NSS can offer great benefits if Canada can stay the course. There have been and are challenges today. And because the processes shaping procurements are largely set by the client, the ball is in the government’s court. Therefore, the government of Canada is encouraged to (1) commission an independent end-to-end review of NSS with the express intent of expeditiously implementing the resulting recommendations, and (2) implement frequent, regular and honest communications with the public, no matter the issues at hand. These two additional actions alone will go a long ways to keeping NSS off the rocks...
> 
> _Ian Mack (Rear-Admiral Ret.) was the director-general in the Department of National Defence responsible for a decade (2007-2017) for the conception, shaping and support to the launch and subsequent implementation of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, and for guiding the DND project managers for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, the Joint Support Ships and the Canadian Surface Combatants. Since leaving the government, he has offered his shipbuilding and project management perspectives internationally. Ian is a longstanding Fellow of the International Centre for Complex Project Management._
> http://www.cgai.ca/a_basic_primer_on_naval_shipbuilding



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Knowledgeable friend comments: 



> I couldn't generate any optimism at all. I doubt we have the managerial skills in this country, certainly not in government, to make this a success. And not enough money.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## NavyShooter

From the 'boots on the deck level' I have very little confidence that the work-force at ISI is capable of producing the product.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

This is the part (admission?) from Admiral Mack's article that gets my blood boiling:

* and four key measures of outcome performance (timeliness of project execution, delivery of vessels within approved budgets, shipyard productivity and economic benefits).*

Anybody sees any indication in there that the warships are supposed to be fit for fighting at a level commensurate with their expected duties?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile US Navy's new frigate program warp-speeding past CSC:



> Navy awards design contracts for future frigate
> 
> The Navy has awarded $15 million contracts to five companies for conceptual designs for the FFG(X) program.
> 
> Huntington Ingalls, Lockheed Martin, Austal USA, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, and Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri have all been asked to submit mature designs over the next 16 months before the Navy drops down to a single detailed design and construction contract.
> 
> All the contracts contain options that could grow the value to between $22 million and $23 million, according to the contract announcement. The work is expected to be complete by June, 2019.
> 
> The U.S. Navy intends to award the contract for the first FFG(X) in 2020. It will buy one in 2020 and one in 2021, followed by two each year after that, according to the Navy’s most recent 30-year shipbuilding plan. The U.S. Navy’s requirement is for 52 small-surface combatants, the bulk of which will be LCS.
> 
> Both Austal and Lockheed Martin are competing amped up versions of their littoral combat ships. Huntington Ingalls is offering a version of the Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter. Fincantieri is offering its FREMM design. General Dynamics is offering a patrnership with Spanish shipbuilding Navantia, for its F100 frigate.
> 
> The Navy is looking for builders to balance value and capabilities, according to a statement, the Naval Sea Systems Command.
> 
> “Throughout the accelerated acquisition process for FFG(X), the Navy will incentivize industry to balance cost and capability and achieve the best value solution for the American taxpayer,” the statement reads.
> https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/02/16/navy-awards-design-contracts-for-for-future-frigate



Much more on USN FFG(X) at _USNI News_, with lots of weapons systems details:



> Navy Picks Five Contenders for Next Generation Frigate FFG(X) Program
> https://news.usni.org/2018/02/16/navy-picks-five-contenders-next-generation-frigate-ffgxprogram



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Meanwhile US Navy's new frigate program warp-speeding past CSC:



Not past, perhaps catching up.  The CSC program will be awarded soon, this summer I expect.  However I do expect the US to start their build sooner than us, considering they already have multiple shipyards that can do the work or already doing the work for frigate sized ships.  Though technically we do have a yard building frigate sized ships right now.


----------



## Kirkhill

Don't we now have three yards capable of building frigates?  Irving, Davie and Seaspan?  Four if you include Seaspan's Victoria Yard.


----------



## MarkOttawa

By the way the CSC was announced in 2008:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201311_03_e_38797.html#ex3

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile the new opponents


----------



## MTShaw

Colin P said:
			
		

> Meanwhile the new opponents



No they're America's new opponent. It's they're latest useful tool to rile it's population against the imagined opponent. 

Meanwhile everybody, including the Americans, are busy doing business with the Chinese.

BTW the way, the Chinese appear, on the surface, quite capable.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin P said:
			
		

> Meanwhile the new opponents



Is it just me or does that Chinese tanker look allot like a Pro class ?  Perhaps slightly updated.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As I understand it, the Pro class were considered successes, so elements of that design would be incorporated. It will be interesting to see if China also goes down the Astreix route for the next generation?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Is it just me or does that Chinese tanker look allot like a Pro class ?  Perhaps slightly updated.



More than a passing resemblance to my eyes too.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And look like US, Spanish, French, Australian and Italian ones. Every AOR of that generation had this typical arrangement.


----------



## Kirkhill

Would the commonality of design make station keeping and RAS procedures more uniform?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Would the commonality of design make station keeping and RAS procedures more uniform?



I think the commonality of the design is due to considerations around station keeping (ie the bow pressure wave effect) and other general practical considerations.  You would have to update both the AOR and receiving ships concurrently to do any radical changes, but they've updated the receiver and probes a few times over the years. The RAS procedures themselves are uniform across NATO for interoperability reasons, so whether you RAS off the USN, UK, Spain, Turkey, Greece etc all the signals are identical, and we use the same reference for station #s etc.

I imagine that the Russian and Chineses procedures aren't hugely different, although they may have different signals.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

OFSV #2 coming together at Seaspan https://www.facebook.com/codi.pearce.5/posts/10155992491703950







https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/27973053_10155992491603950_7583068008708230592_n.jpg?oh=4b39f441e04c5c71a21b4e5c4cd4b0b0&oe=5B175463

Twitter https://twitter.com/seaspan?lang=en


----------



## Underway

How long was it between this stage and launch for the first one?  Just interested about the timings, as we might be able to extrapolate JSS timelines from actual yard space at this rate.


----------



## Spencer100

Seaspan lawsuit

https://biv.com/article/2018/02/vancouver-shipyards-launches-lawsuit-against-federal-vessel-subcontractor


----------



## Underway

Updates to the NSS schedule.  

Harry DeWolfe is expected in the water in June 2018, so six months behind original schedule.  Delivery to the RCN in 2019.   Margaret Brooke will be brought out of the shed when HDW goes into the water for her megablock assembly.  3rd AOPS steel is already being cut.  There were significant efficiencies found in production between AOPS #1 and AOPS #2.  The new schedule will be able to make up time with the efficiencies found so ship #5 will only (assuming no other issues) be 2-3 months behind the original schedule.

Seaspan is looking at building some of the blocks for the JSS in the gap between the OFSV and the OOSV (this has been in the media).  The idea here is to build blocks for parts of the ships that will not change as the design is refined (like tanks and bow).  These blocks will be built for both ships at the same time and stored until the OOSV is complete.  This is also expected in move up the timetable for when the JSS will be delivered and keep Seaspan from laying off people in the gap.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Just a question for the people formerly known as Hull Techs. When these ship sections are mated and welded together, other than the weld and some longitudinal bracing, what guarantees the hull integrity on each side of the weld? Is there plating to prevent twisting and shearing?


----------



## jollyjacktar

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Just a question for the people formerly known as Hull Techs. When these ship sections are mated and welded together, other than the weld and some longitudinal bracing, what guarantees the hull integrity on each side of the weld? Is there plating to prevent twisting and shearing?



To answer your question, they are using stronger bulb bars.  What is of some concern is the decks are not staggered between blocks to give some extra strength but straight.  The bow was apparently 60mm out when they trued to mate the bow on.   Irving tried to get away with it but it was picked up by our QA and attempts are now being made to bring the side shells closer together.  

https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Seaspan lawsuit
> 
> https://biv.com/article/2018/02/vancouver-shipyards-launches-lawsuit-against-federal-vessel-subcontractor



Rumour mill out here is that there will be delays of the OFSV going into service due to issues possibly related to this lawsuit.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Piece by Dave Perry of CGAI--read between the lines of gov't reports and optimism will be greatly tempered (note at chart slipping to right of delivery dates);



> How is the National Shipbuilding Strategy Going?
> http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol13num4/vol13num4art5.pdf



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Mind you I remember the Henry Larson being delayed 6 month after launch due to a failure of a large electrical component during sea trials. I wonder how NSS compare to other large ship programs in Canada's history?


----------



## jmt18325

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Piece by Dave Perry of CGAI--read between the lines of gov't reports and optimism will be greatly tempered (note at chart slipping to right of delivery dates);
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



You have a lot of criticisms of the program, but not all that many proposals.  Should we just stop building the ships that we're already building?


----------



## MarkOttawa

jmt18325:  To be realistic would have Irving complete the (how many in reality?) RCN A/OPS and Seaspan the first four CCG vessels.  Then would simply buy everything else abroad at what I believe would be very substantial cost savings with much earlier delivery.  If need to keep some shipyards on west and east coast going for maintenance/repairs just subsidize them directly if necessary.

But that won't happen for obvious political reasons.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

Obvious political and strategic reasons.  There's no question that the plan was too late and too slowly implemented.  Now it is, and abandoning it would be a costly idea.


----------



## Uzlu

Colin P said:
			
		

> Mind you I remember the Henry Larson being delayed 6 month after launch due to a failure of a large electrical component during sea trials. I wonder how NSS compare to other large ship programs in Canada's history?


On 22 December 1977, it was decided to order six frigates of a projected twenty-ship programme.  HMCS _Halifax_ was commissioned on 29 June 1992.


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> To be realistic would have Irving complete the (how many in reality?) RCN A/OPS and Seaspan the first four CCG vessels.  Then would simply buy everything else abroad at what I believe would be very substantial cost savings with much earlier delivery.  If need to keep some shipyards on west and east coast going for maintenance/repairs just subsidize them directly if necessary.


https://army.ca/forums/threads/120223/post-1517415.html#msg1517415


----------



## Cloud Cover

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM


I missed that video in your reply! Funny!


----------



## Underway

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Obvious political and strategic reasons.  There's no question that the plan was too late and too slowly implemented.  Now it is, and abandoning it would be a costly idea.



I would argue that its not bad money.  It's delayed by 6 months for CSC.  In the grand scheme of things that's really nothing for a project this big.  There are going to be delivery issues from a large number of subcontractors that are beyond the control of Irving and the gov't that will push the program back even more.  Long lead items may run into issues.  It's only going to get pushed back further.


----------



## Loachman

This is the full article, because it's just too brilliant to only post a teaser.

I've not confirmed the prices, though...

http://www.newsoptimist.ca/opinion/columnists/hello-newport-news-shipyard-i-d-like-to-buy-an-aircraft-carrier-1.23201637

Hello, Newport News Shipyard? I’d like to buy an aircraft carrier

From the Top of the Pile

Brian Zinchuk/Battlefords News-Optimist

March 14, 2018 01:28 PM

“Hello, Newport News Shipyard? I’d like to buy an aircraft carrier.

“No, I’m not joking. I represent the Canadian government. I would like to buy a Ford-class nuclear powered aircraft carrier. You know, the one with the fancy schmancy electromagnetic catapults and arresting wires. Not one of those old Nimitz-class ones. They’re soooo 1970s. I want a 21st century carrier.

“Yes, I know it’s nuclear powered. We mine uranium in Saskatchewan, remember? We can handle that.

“What’s the cost you say? US$13 billion? That’s about C$17 billion? Okay. I’ll just keep talking Yankee Doodle Dandy money here so we don’t get confused, then convert to Monopoly money at the end, eh?

“Very good. Okay, so, like, when I go buy my pickup, they always have these bells and whistles, so can you tell me what those might be? Oh, yes, planes. I might need some of those. About 75, you say? And you call that an air wing? I thought those older Nimitz carriers carried 90 planes. Don’t need that many anymore? Okay, fine 75. I might get a few more. Where do I get them from? Call Lockheed Boeing and Grumman, then call you back about some other stuff I might need, like floor mats, undercoating and escort vessels? Okay. Be right back.”

>Click<

“Hello Lockheed? I’m from the Canadian government. I was just talking to your good buddies down in Newport News about buying a new carrier, and they tell me I need some planes, so I should call you first about some F-35Cs. Yeah, I need 36. That’s right, 36. Yes, I know that’s about half of what Canada was talking about for buying for the whole country, but we want this to be a gooder, so give me the full 36. Three squadrons. Right. US$121 million a pop, eh? So that’s $4.4 billion, give ’er take? Okay, put us down for 36.

“Oh, and you now own Sikorsky, too, right? I need 19 of those Seahawks helicopters. No, not those piece of crap Cyclones you sold us. Seahawks, got it? R and S models. About US$45 million each? About US$855 million. Okay, put me down for that, two. I might have to get back to you, cause I’m buying some escorts that will need choppers, too. Okay, bye.”

>Click<

“Boeing, old buddy! Yeah, it’s me, your Canadian hoser! Yeah, that guy. Remember we got all pissy about that Bombardier C-series tariff thing? Well, we’re over that, and we need some Super Hornets. Yeah, that’s right, the whole shebang – F-18E, F and G models. That’s right, G for Growler. I want a couple 12-plane squadrons of Es and Fs, and another five Growlers. How much? US$70 million each? So that’s US$2 billion? Okay. Get ‘em to me quick and we’ll throw in a case of Crown Royale. Later, gator.”

>Click<

“Grumman! How’s it going? I’m calling from Canada! We’d like to buy some of your planes. Yes, I know it’s been a very long time since Canada flew Grummans off a carrier. We’re trying to make up for that now. We need four E-2D Hawkeyes and two C-2 Greyhounds. You say they’re US$176 million and US$40 million a crack, eh? US$784 million. Okay. Get ‘em here quick.

>Click<

“Okay, Newport News, you said you had some escorts for me? You can relay a message to your other division of Huntington Ingalls in Maine? Okay. We’re going to need some escorts for a carrier strike group. I guess we can’t get any more of those Ticonderoga Class Aegis cruisers, so we’re going to keep it simple and use Arleigh Burke Class Aegis destroyers instead. No, I don’t want any frigates, that’s the whole reason we’re in this mess in the first place. How many do I need? Five? At US$2.2 billion each? Done. And I need two choppers each? Okay, I’ll call Lockheed back and add them.

And you say I might want a couple subs for escorts. How about the ones we already have? Too slow, eh? Okay. I’ll call Electric Boat.

“Yes, we have a new supply ship. We’re good, but thanks for offering.”

>Click<

“Electric Boat? Yeah, Canadian government here. We need two Virginia-class subs. How much? US$2.7 billion? Done. Build ‘em, please. Yes, we’re polite that way.

>Click<

Muttering to self: “Okay, carrier, US$13 billion; air wing, US$8.5 billion; surface escorts, US$11 billion; sub escorts, US$5.4 billion. That comes to US$37.9 billion. We’re going to need some bombs and bullets for all this, so let’s throw in another, oh, US$6 billion. That should cover it. So about US$43.9 billion gets a new and fully armed carrier strike group. What’s that in Canadian? C$56 billion.

“And the Royal Canadian navy figures it’s now going to cost us C$60 billion, give or take, for just 15 surface combatants, i.e. big frigates or small destroyers.

“Something’s not right here…”

Brian Zinchuk is editor of Pipeline News. He can be reached at brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net


----------



## CBH99

I'm impressed with the amount of effort & wit he put into that, and still kept it fairly accurate & relevant!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Something stinks in Denmark, as they say...   :tsktsk:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Here's where his math fails, however: we don't have the 8.5 B$ Canadian in the annual budget to operate that carrier group, in every given year.


----------



## jollyjacktar

But it does illustrate how garbage our procurement system is, value for money.


----------



## Loachman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here's where his math fails, however: we don't have the 8.5 B$ Canadian in the annual budget to operate that carrier group, in every given year.



Maybe we could rent some out to pay for the rest. Perhaps Germany might be interested.


----------



## Spencer100

You place that order right now and the NAFTA things goes away


----------



## Loachman

Unless we could get an even better deal in Mexico.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seasapn twitter shows that OFSV #2 modules are all together, now for fitting out.


----------



## Good2Golf

Loachman said:
			
		

> Unless we could get an even better deal in Mexico.



They may be too busy co-building (with the Dutch) their own POLA frigates based on the Dutch Damen 'Sigma' Frigate. :dunno:


Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman

> They may be too busy co-building (with the Dutch) their own POLA frigates based on the Dutch Damen 'Sigma' Frigate.


Hey, they need to raise money to pay their share of 'The Wall' [Berlin 2.0, not Pink Floyd]

/back to naval speak


----------



## Uzlu

Well, I thought it should be very obvious by now that there is no way Seaspan can build all of the non-combatants for the coast guard and navy in a timely manner.  But, apparently, there are many bureaucrats that disagree with me.





> Why the Liberals really don't want to talk about leasing icebreakers
> 
> *The leasing arrangement bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the deal that brought Vice-Admiral Norman down*
> 
> It was one of those rare displays of opposition unanimity in the House of Commons that aren't flashy, but are definitely hard to ignore.
> 
> On at least three occasions last week, a member of the Conservatives, the New Democrats or the Groupe Parlementaire Québécois (the splintered remains of the Bloc Quebecois) rose to ask basically the same question:
> 
> Whatever became of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's sudden pledge last January to acquire Coast Guard icebreakers through the Chantier Davie shipyard in Levis, Que.?
> 
> The replies from the Liberal side tended to be the typical question period non-answer: _We continue our negotiations._
> 
> The complete answer could prove politically uncomfortable for the governing Liberals — which explains the banal obfuscation.
> 
> "We will not do the negotiations here in the House," Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough said.
> 
> Small wonder.
> 
> On its surface, the arrangement under "negotiation" bears a striking resemblance — in procurement terms — to the deal that brought down the country's second-highest military commander, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
> 
> He was accused of leaking secret cabinet deliberations related to the last federal contract — a $668 million deal — struck with the Chantier Davie yard.
> 
> Norman will appear in court next week to face one charge of breach of trust.
> 
> The inability of the once highly-touted National Shipbuilding Strategy to produce supply ships for the navy in a timely manner no doubt will be one the pillars of his defence.
> 
> *A hopelessly broken procurement system?*
> 
> The fact that the Liberals, who once questioned the utility of the former Conservative government's plan to lease a navy supply ship, are now negotiating their own rental of light icebreakers — from the same yard — speaks volumes to some analysts.
> 
> If Norman intends to argue that the system is hopelessly broken, the prime minister's seemingly out-of-the-blue pledge in Quebec City back in January effectively makes the point for him.
> 
> "In terms of the broader objective of what Admiral Norman and some others were working towards, which was getting ships one way or another, the government is today faced with that same dynamic in icebreaking," said Dave Perry, an expert in procurement with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
> 
> The Liberals, he said, have discovered the options for getting ships in the water when they are not actively being built — or when the building is hopelessly behind schedule — are "relatively finite" under the country's marquee shipbuilding program.
> 
> That strategy, devised by the Conservatives in 2010, designated Vancouver's Seaspan as the civilian builder of federal vessels, including the navy's permanent supply ships and icebreakers. Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax is the prime contractor in warship construction.
> 
> Chantier-Davie is outside of the official program and Norman's quest to get the navy a temporary supply ship had no end of opponents within the federal bureaucracy.
> 
> Those same forces may very well be at work in the new icebreaker "negotiations."
> 
> Industry sources close to the deal said there have been a number meetings with federal officials, but no clear progress so far.
> 
> *Lease or buy?*
> 
> Apparently, the Liberal government has yet to settle on whether it wants to lease — or purchase outright — as many as four icebreakers, which were built originally for the oil and gas industry but are now available through Chantier-Davie.
> 
> As with the naval supply ship project, opponents have quietly argued that the leasing scheme weakens the federal strategy.
> 
> Elinor Sloan, a former policy analyst at National Defence, dismissed that argument and said there's more than enough work to go around.
> 
> "I don't think awarding small icebreakers would undermine the National Shipbuilding Strategy, because right now Seaspan and Irving have decades of work lined up ahead of them," said Sloan, who is now a professor of international relations at Carleton University.
> 
> There are serious capability gaps within the federal fleets that need to be addressed, said both Sloan and Perry.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chantier-davie-icebreakers-analysis-1.4603819


----------



## Cloud Cover

ok, so whats the narrative now?


- federal entity(s) require ships (new, leased or whatever- they are desperate)
- government says no, no, we need jobs! jobs! jobs! from building ships, not from leasing ships
- private entity offers leased ships and jobs
- government signs contract for said ships and jobs and says "we inherited a turd"
- government arranges to have senior military appointee charged for said "turd"
- another federal entity now says we need more ships
- government leader announces that leasing, is now an option for more ships 
- government then engages in politics to obscure whether leasing is going to be an event or not
- meantime no new jobs are being created (other than the ones not related to leasing)
- criminal trial is a month away for senior military appointee. 
- facts will be disclosed at trial, uncomfortable facts.
- government leader infers option 1 (design, build and buy) is too hard or too expensive or both (he doesn't know); 
- option 2 (let someone else do the design, build and then lease with the credit card) is politically uncomfortable; 
- government leader asks his people to ask other people to create a hitherto unknown separate but generally similar option to 2;
- and now, whoever in the government or in the federal entity that is "close to the matter" is talking out of line;
- will there be another investigation;
- if option 1 and 2 are out, is there another turd option?


----------



## Dale Denton

That sounds frustrating enough to be accurate.^

"If one cannot lease the turd or one cannot design and build the turd, then one must BECOME the turd"
- Me


----------



## MarkOttawa

And what will effect of CSCs' massive (and still really unkown) cost be on CAF budget capabilities overall, given that we are never going to get close to spending 2% of GDP on defence?



> Australian government warned over planned spending on naval shipbuilding
> 
> The Australian government has been warned that its naval shipbuilding programme (NSP) could consume so much of the country’s defence procurement budget that it might put at risk the ability of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to respond to emerging priorities.
> 
> The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) said in a paper about the country’s defence budget on 24 May that the NSP – featuring the planned procurement of assets including 12 new submarines, nine frigates, and 12 offshore patrol vessels – could eat up about one-third of the country’s procurement expenditure in perpetuity.
> 
> ASPI said that even taking into account future growth in the budget and the _government’s plan to raise the expenditure to 2% of GDP by 2020–21_ [emphasis added], the procurement expenditure could be stretched and the government will be challenged to sustain a balanced force structure.
> http://www.janes.com/article/80322/australian-government-warned-over-planned-spending-on-naval-shipbuilding



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Already looking like she just came back from patrol


----------



## Colin Parkinson

New landing craft contract let the AOPs

http://shipsforcanada.ca/our-stories/abco-industries-to-build-landing-craft-for-royal-canadian-navys-new-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ships


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> New landing craft contract let the AOPs
> 
> http://shipsforcanada.ca/our-stories/abco-industries-to-build-landing-craft-for-royal-canadian-navys-new-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ships



Call sign POGO 1


----------



## FSTO

I hope that ramp can actually reach the ground!


----------



## Dale Denton

When does it hit the water? Sometime later this Summer?


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> I hope that ramp can actually reach the ground!



They look similar to what the CCG used in the Arctic?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You mean those horrible steel ones?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin P said:
			
		

> Already looking like she just came back from patrol



The good old east coast weather  ;D

I remember working at the Port of Belledune and having to regularly give the metal on the coal crane a little TLC for rust and corrosion.


----------



## Underway

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> When does it hit the water? Sometime later this Summer?



I'm hearing late fall (Dec) from some places (skuttlebutt).  But that might be the date she's turned over to the navy.  There are still builders/acceptance trials in the timeline somewhere.  Subcontractor delivery issue and the fact the bow was 60mm too wide has caused some delays.

On the plus side the same skuttlebutt says that AOPS #2 is relatively on schedule.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Underway said:
			
		

> I'm hearing late fall (Dec) from some places (skuttlebutt).  But that might be the date she's turned over to the navy.  There are still builders/acceptance trials in the timeline somewhere.  Subcontractor delivery issue and the fact the bow was 60mm too wide has caused some delays.
> 
> On the plus side the same skuttlebutt says that AOPS #2 is relatively on schedule.



My son is on that build.  He says September.


----------



## Cloud Cover

He’s got to be proud working on that big bugger! I  hope he has a long , fulfilling and enjoyabel career!


----------



## jollyjacktar

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> He’s got to be proud working on that big bugger! I  hope he has a long , fulfilling and enjoyabel career!



Me too, as l hope to join him in a couple of months.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Just saw this come across the wire on CBC 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/davie-coast-guard-icebreakers-canada-vicefield-byers-gagnon-1.4730332


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Just saw this come across the wire on CBC
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/davie-coast-guard-icebreakers-canada-vicefield-byers-gagnon-1.4730332



Interesting 



> Davie aims to replace Canadian Coast Guard's entire icebreaker fleet ...
> https://www.cbc.ca/.../canada/.../davie-coast-guard-icebreakers-canada-vicefield-byers...
> 3 hours ago - Chantier Davie Canada Inc., the country's largest shipbuilding firm, is gunning for contracts to build new icebreakers for the Canadian Coast ...


  3 hours prior to 20:17 MST.

But article not available at 20:17 MST.  404.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

CBC doesn't like me anymore, because both of these link tell me the story I seek doesn't exist.


I guess that's what I get for regularly writing to tell them to check their facts.  ;D


----------



## Czech_pivo

Well I’ll be.....the article was there previously.  I guess they pulled the story for some reason, maybe someone got cold feet.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Interesting
> 3 hours prior to 20:17 MST.
> 
> But article not available at 20:17 MST.  404.




It was probably a story cooked up by Davie or Federal Fleet, its something that they would say......


----------



## serger989

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Well I’ll be.....the article was there previously.  I guess they pulled the story for some reason, maybe someone got cold feet.



I have the article open in a cached version, haven't read it yet. If you open it that way it will work if you stop the browser from refreshing.

Edit: This gist of it was Davie praise but mainly that the 3 Viking icebreakers were selected, the AIVIQ was not, work will begin this summer. I was hoping Canada would pick up the AIVIQ too.


----------



## Uzlu

> Davie aims to replace Canadian Coast Guard's entire icebreaker fleet
> 
> Shipbuilding firm will start work on icebreaker conversion this summer
> 
> Chantier Davie Canada Inc., the country's largest shipbuilding firm, is gunning for contracts to build new icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> "Given the age of the Canadian Coast Guard fleet, the entire icebreaker fleet will need to be replaced in the near future," says Alex Vicefield, CEO of Inocea Group, which has owned Davie since 2012.
> 
> "We have every intention of submitting a world-class proposal together with global leaders in icebreaker design."
> 
> Until then, Davie, located across the river from Quebec City in Lévis, is in the home stretch of negotiations with the federal government to convert three surplus commercial icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> Under its new management, Davie has made its mark in the industry by turning surplus ships into lower-cost solutions.
> 
> The first converted icebreaker will be ready in time for the 2018-2019 ice season on the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes.
> 
> However, when it comes to building new ships, there remain doubts about Davie's ability to deliver at a competitive cost.
> 
> Marc Gagnon is director, government affairs and regulatory compliance for the Montreal-based Fednav, which operates a fleet of nearly 100 ships.
> 
> Fednav buys its ships in Japan because, Gagnon says, Canadian-built ships cost "at least twice as much."
> 
> "Davie no longer has the capacity to build an icebreaker or a frigate," Gagnon said. "To do so, they would have to re-equip their shipyard."
> 
> Vicefield said Davie is aware of the challenges ahead and has invested $60 million to upgrade its steel-cutting and IT infrastructure.
> 
> The University of British Columbia's Michael Byers, who argues that Ottawa's current shipbuilding strategy is too costly and needlessly slow, says building government ships in Canada makes sense and Davie is definitely up to the task.
> 
> "For every $100 million that is spent on building a ship in Canada, you would get several times more than that in terms of knock-on economic activity," Byers said.
> 
> "And Davie is the logical place to do it. They have a very large shipyard. They have a very capable workforce. The labour costs are relatively low and it's an active shipyard."
> 
> Last year, before Ottawa agreed to sit down with Davie to discuss the icebreaker conversions, Davie delivered the Asterix — a container ship converted into a supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy — on time and on budget.
> 
> ​In 2015, when the navy's existing two supply ships were no longer seaworthy, Vicefield and his team proposed converting the Asterix to a naval supply ship for about $600 million.
> 
> "What they did with the Asterix was very impressive," Byers said. "There is no other shipyard in Canada that could have done that."
> 
> In comparison, Vancouver-based ​Seaspan was chosen to build two new navy supply ships for $2.6 billion. But the first new supply ship will only be ready in 2020.
> 
> "This is a cutthroat business and there is a lot of money involved and a lot of politics involved," Byers said.
> 
> "Davie has the capacity and the experience to build icebreakers, plus they have the lowest costs in terms of labour of any shipyard in the country," he said.
> 
> The Canadian Coast Guard has an aging fleet of 13 ice-breaking vessels and two hovercraft.
> 
> Canada's oldest and largest icebreaker, the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, was commissioned in 1969.
> 
> It was to be replaced in 2017 by the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker.
> 
> But from the initial estimate of $720 million, the Diefenbaker is now expected to cost over $1.4 billion, with delivery in 2022.
> 
> To meet Ottawa's need for "interim icebreakers," Davie found four icebreakers built for oil and gas drilling off the coast of Alaska that were idled when oil prices fell, putting an end of Shell's Arctic venture.
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau agreed to negotiations with Davie to acquire the three smaller ice-breaking vessels, leaving aside the larger Aiviq.
> 
> With no other shipyard matching Davie's proposal, the conversion work will begin this summer.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/davie-coast-guard-icebreakers-canada-vicefield-byers-gagnon-1.4730332


----------



## Czech_pivo

Thanks for posting the article. Some majorly incorrect dates for the JSS delivery - off by 3yrs min - and for the new Def, at least 6yrs off on that. Crap analysis and research being done.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile big Canadian shipping company Fednav (quoted in CBC story above) buys icebreaking bulk barriers in Japan, much cheaper than build-in-Canada:



> ...
> Montreal-based Fednav has ordered a new icebreaking bulk carrier in Japan to sustain the year-round transportation requirements of Glencore’s Raglan nickel mine in northern Quebec, writes David Tinsley.
> 
> The 31,000dwt vessel has been contracted through trading house Sumitomo Corporation and will be built by Japan Marine United Corporation (JMU) at the Yokohama shipyard. The template for the project will be provided by Fednav’s 31,750dwt Nunavik, claimed to be the world’s most powerful icebreaking bulker when commissioned in 2014 from JMU’s Tsu yard. Nunavik is in turn similar in design to the company’s 32,000dwt Umiak 1, delivered in 2006 by JMU predecessor Universal Shipbuilding. Both existing vessels support northern mining operations.
> 
> The _newbuild will be of Polar Class 4 standard and, as with Umiak 1 and Nunavik_ [emphasis added], will offer a broader cargo carrying capability than that of a pure bulker. While ensuring a southbound flow of high quality nickel concentrates, she will also be used to transport a variety of supplies to the mining complex on northbound voyages, including equipment, machinery and dry and liquid consumables...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.motorship.com/news101/ships-and-shipyards/icebreaking-bulker-for-canadian-arctic-mine



More on Fednav from 2014:



> The Great Canadian National Shipbuilding Procurement Screw-Up (aka NSPS), Icebreaker Section, Part 2
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/mark-collins-the-great-canadian-national-shipbuilding-procurement-screw-up-aka-nsps-icebreaker-section-part-2/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Soviet Union had Finnish made icebreaking freighters coming to Vancouver regularly, nice looking ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-15_(ship)


----------



## MarkOttawa

More earlier on the three commercial icebreakers Davie to convert for CCG, built in Norway 2000:



> Canada taps Davie for three AHTS-conversion medium icebreakers
> ...
> These ships would provide interim capability for the Canadian Coast Guard, while replacement vessels are being built under the National Shipbuilding Strategy [_what? only one, Seaspan's Diefenbaker, currently planned_]. Icebreakers are essential to ensuring that Canadian ports remain open during Canada's ice seasons, ensuring goods such as fresh produce and fuel are delivered safely...
> 
> These ships will be used to backfill for Canadian Coast Guard vessels while they are undergoing maintenance, refit and vessel life extension.
> 
> These ships will conduct critical icebreaking duties for the Southern wintertime program and are to be deployed as needed in support of Arctic summertime programs.
> 
> The first ship will be put to immediate use for icebreaking during the upcoming 2018-2019 season...
> 
> [Davie's] Project Resolute proposed using the same leasing model for four icebreakers, including a polar icebreaker. The candidate ship for that conversion was Edison Chouest Offshore's Aiviq.
> 
> Today's Canadian Government announcement, however, makes no mention of Federal Fleet Services or leasing, and focuses only on the three medium icebreakers offered under Project Resolute. The three candidate ships proposed by Project Resolute for this role are the Viking Supply Ships AB vessels Tor Viking II, Balder Viking and Vidar Viking.
> https://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=29600:canada-taps-davie-for-three-ahts-conversion-medium-icebreakers&Itemid=231



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

The Vidar Viking was in port in Bergen when we stopped in a few years ago; she's a good sized ship!

It sounds like we're buying these outright, and basically paying Davie to do some conversion work.  Good news for the CCG!

Doesn't sound like it will be ask extensive a conversion if it will keep around 200-400 people working. Aside from maybe switching the domestic power runs to 110/60 hz (vice 220V 50 hz), new paint scheme and possibly some kind of update on the electronics, guessing it might be more of an baseline refit ?


----------



## Swampbuggy

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The Vidar Viking was in port in Bergen when we stopped in a few years ago; she's a good sized ship!
> 
> It sounds like we're buying these outright, and basically paying Davie to do some conversion work.  Good news for the CCG!
> 
> Doesn't sound like it will be ask extensive a conversion if it will keep around 200-400 people working. Aside from maybe switching the domestic power runs to 110/60 hz (vice 220V 50 hz), new paint scheme and possibly some kind of update on the electronics, guessing it might be more of an baseline refit ?



I believe they’re adding a hanger and probably davits/crane for RHIB’s too.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

They are adding a flight deck, a hangar and, look at both pics carefully, an extra housing aft of the bridge  in the superstructure. This is likely to house extra personnel (CCG probably runs with more personnel that a civilian merchant ship) including scientists for summer Arctic deployments, lab space for same and extra shops, again for the same reason.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> They are adding a flight deck, a hangar and, look at both pics carefully, an extra housing aft of the bridge  in the superstructure. This is likely to house extra personnel (CCG probably runs with more personnel that a civilian merchant ship) including scientists for summer Arctic deployments, lab space for same and extra shops, again for the same reason.



Interesting looking work boat, port side aft.  I wonder if that’s part of the package a la AOPS landing craft.


----------



## Good2Golf

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Interesting looking work boat, port side aft.  I wonder if that’s part of the package a la AOPS landing craft.



Looks like a Metalcraft Interceptor 11M, made in Kingston, ON.

G2G


----------



## Patski

apparently, they will use one as is, this winter, while the other 2 are getting converted,  I guess they really need they urgently!


----------



## Swampbuggy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Looks like a Metalcraft Interceptor 11M, made in Kingston, ON.
> 
> G2G



Very cool! Thanks for the link.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Quebec gov't really behind Davie--message to feds:



> Government of Québec joins JP Morgan and Anchorage Capital in financing syndicate for Resolve-Class Naval Support Ship
> 
> Today, Federal Fleet Services and Davie Shipbuilding announced that as part of its Maritime Strategy Fund through the Quebec Shipbuilding Support Program, the government of Québec joins JP Morgan and Anchorage Capital as part of the financing syndicate in the first Resolve-Class Naval Support Ship, m/v Asterix. The government of Quebec is investing $188m alongside another $300m from investment banks.
> 
> Spencer Fraser, CEO of Federal Fleet Services, said "We are very pleased to have the Government of Québec join our financing syndicate alongside our partners JP Morgan and Anchorage Capital, thereby reaffirming their commitment to the marine industry and to Canada's largest shipbuilder. This is a win-win transaction for Davie and the Government of Québec. It frees up some of the cash which was invested into building the ship and will be exclusively reinvested in the shipyard. It also allows the Government to make a profitable, risk-adjusted investment to bolster the province's marine industry which will be fully repaid."
> 
> James Davies, president of Davie Shipbuilding added, "The Resolve-Class Naval Support Ship has been a hugely successful program. After delivering on time and to budget, Federal Fleet Services is now operating the ship on a long-term lease to the Royal Canadian Navy. With a stable cashflow coming in from the lease to the Royal Canadian Navy, we have been able to free up the cash used during the construction in order to continue investing in the shipyard as we take on imminent, new projects such as the construction of icebreakers, ferries and the repair and refit of the naval fleet. It is a testament to the vision, forethought and competence of the Province that the Shipbuilding Support Program has been designed, implemented and successfully deployed. This low risk investment program allows Québec to propel its maritime industrial cluster back to the forefront of the shipbuilding industry in the Western hemisphere. We are proud to be part of this success and incredible achievement by the Province."
> 
> *About Davie*
> Davie and Federal Fleet Services are part of the Inocea group [head office in Monaco http://www.inocea.com/ ]. While Davie focuses on shipbuilding, Federal Fleet concentrates on obtaining contracts and on vessel rental. _Davie is Canada's largest and most experienced shipyard. It is also the highest capacity shipyard in Canada, with 50% of the country's total capacity_ [emphasis added]...
> https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-quebec-joins-jp-morgan-and-anchorage-capital-in-financing-syndicate-for-resolve-class-naval-support-ship-687508751.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Fednav wants to build ships in Norway to lease to CCG 
( http://www.maritimemag.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=767:fednav-proposal-on-three-ice-breakers-for-canadian-coast-guard&catid=4:news&Itemid=6 ) 

vice buying the Davie conversions (those three ships built in Norway earlier! Polar icebreaker Aivik that Davie is also pushing for CCG, no deal yet, was built in US http://www.davie.ca/pdf/Aiviq.pdf ):



> Politics at play in major shipbuilding contract that could land in Quebec
> 
> The federal government is looking to a Quebec company for a major shipbuilding contract, but a competitor is questioning the backroom politics behind who gets the job.
> 
> The contract is to convert three used ships from Norway and the United States into icebreakers. Levis’ Davie Shipyards is vying for the contract.
> 
> “The only company in the world that can fit all these criteria is Davie,” said the company’s VP of Public Affairs Frederik Boisvert.
> 
> However, competing company Fednav, Canada’s largest ocean-going cargo shipper, said it wants to build several brand new icebreakers in Norway, where they said shipbuilding is more efficient.
> 
> “It’s about having built an assembly line effectively and perfecting something,” said Fednav CEO Paul Pathy.
> 
> Canada’s current fleet of icebreakers is aging and Pathy questioned the federal government’s practice of stretching the ships’ lifespan.
> 
> “Right now, there are no heavy icebreakers available because they’re all on layup because they’re so old,” he said. “They keep being renewed and renewed and renewed.”..
> https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/politics-at-play-in-major-shipbuilding-contract-that-could-land-in-quebec-1.4005945



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

Sometimes I’m convinced that we live in a banana republic.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Sometimes I’m convinced that we live in a banana republic.



It would be considered corruption if it wasn't an accepted practice by rank and file Canadians but it is so you can't call it corruption and it wouldn't be perceived as such by our politicans or constituents  8)


----------



## Czech_pivo

Let me ask this question, in all my layman's ignorance.  Why is it that its deemed a 'national security matter' for us to be able to retain our ability to build frigates and coastal defense vessels (and nothing larger than that) but its not a 'national security matter' for us to be able to build any sort of advanced fighter jet, military cargo or search and rescue plane? 
I keep hearing again and again and again, how difficult it is to build a modern warship but yet I hear nothing, nothing about Canada being able to build a fighter jet and retaining (recreating is a better word) this 'ability' for our 'national security'.  I'm sure that if we poured as much money into our aerospace industry (Bombardier) as we are currently doing for Irving and Seaspan (and soon to be Davie), that we'd be able to build something comparable to what the Swedes, Brits and French are capable of. Is it because our aerospace industry is overwhelmingly based in Ontario and Quebec that we are not doing this?  Because these two provinces are the most populated, most developed and wealthiest? That they don't need the work, but the East Coast does?
Its a huge game of smoke and mirrors that is being played out.  On one hand building ships in Canada and overpaying for them and waiting decades and decades for them to be built here is deemed 'good for Canada'.  It means taxpayers dollars are kept in Canada, Canadian workers have jobs and Canada retains a 'national security' ability - but - on the other hand, being able to defend our skies, the approaches to our coasts and project Canadian 'power' (?) by building Canadian fighter jets or Canadian cargo planes or Canadian search and rescue planes, is not deemed a priority, not a 'national security' requirement. Who cares if Canadian taxpayers money is shipped off to the US, who cares if Canadian aerospace workers are lost, if their skills are shipped off down south. 
I look forward to comments on this.  I look forward to being 'educated' on why building warships in Canada is good but building fighter jets or military cargo planes or search and rescue planes in Canada is bad.  I look forward to hearing from all of you.  
I love this country, but its so hard to do sometimes.


----------



## AlexanderM

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Let me ask this question, in all my layman's ignorance.  Why is it that its deemed a 'national security matter' for us to be able to retain our ability to build frigates and coastal defense vessels (and nothing larger than that) but its not a 'national security matter' for us to be able to *build any sort of advanced fighter jet*, military cargo or search and rescue plane?


It's my understanding that after the Arrow was cancelled the American president made an arrangement with the Canadian Prime Minister which essentially lead to the formation of the North American Defense Industry. We stopped building fighters and Canadian companies were then able to bid on US defense contracts, as the US wanted to project one unified industry for North America. I used to be able to find a source for this, and am not strong on the details, so if anyone has a source please provide a link. In my mind it would have been better if we had built the Arrow and not gone down this road.


----------



## Dale Denton

First, your love wavers depending on how many planes we build?

Don't forget the love that Bombardier got in federal and provincial $ all of these years. But no, they haven't received the blank chq to build a fighter, something that we haven't built in...I can't even remember. Consider how competitive the fighter/aircraft market is now, between knowledgeable and capable companies. Griffons were built here, whose to say some other non-advanced aircraft variant won't be built under licence here (fingers crossed for Venoms)? The Avro era is dead, how many industries can we afford to rebuild? 60 C-Series were just sold today, the industry seems just capable enough and not as dead as the shipbuilding industry was before NSPS.

The NSPS (of whatever it's called now) is a great idea for Canada, considering our short-sighted history of procurement. Imagine if it only called for the cheapest building practices, and we built most of everything offshore. The same people who advocate for that now would be advocating building and keeping the money here if reversed. Its a long-term strategy to rebuild the RCN and CCG, expensive yes, but long term its smarter. 

Can a taxpayer remember how much it cost to build the expensive Halifax's, Tribals in Canada? Will they remember better that we spent so much extra on building an entire industry here or that we could've spent money on ships built in Europe and outfitted here? Or would we remember how much better for the local communities it would've been to build at home, and not in Romania?


----------



## Cloud Cover

I'm pretty certain some assembly of the CF-18 was done in Toronto (MD plant in Malton). A whack of CF5 were built in Quebec in the 1970's.  I think the larger issue is military aircraft design, research and development. Other than throwing money at the F35,  the country seems to be largely absent from that since the Arrow in terms of fighter aircraft.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Let me ask this question, in all my layman's ignorance.  Why is it that its deemed a 'national security matter' for us to be able to retain our ability to build frigates and coastal defense vessels (and nothing larger than that) but its not a 'national security matter' for us to be able to build any sort of advanced fighter jet, military cargo or search and rescue plane?
> I keep hearing again and again and again, how difficult it is to build a modern warship but yet I hear nothing, nothing about Canada being able to build a fighter jet and retaining (recreating is a better word) this 'ability' for our 'national security'.  I'm sure that if we poured as much money into our aerospace industry (Bombardier) as we are currently doing for Irving and Seaspan (and soon to be Davie), that we'd be able to build something comparable to what the Swedes, Brits and French are capable of. Is it because our aerospace industry is overwhelmingly based in Ontario and Quebec that we are not doing this?  Because these two provinces are the most populated, most developed and wealthiest? That they don't need the work, but the East Coast does?
> Its a huge game of smoke and mirrors that is being played out.  On one hand building ships in Canada and overpaying for them and waiting decades and decades for them to be built here is deemed 'good for Canada'.  It means taxpayers dollars are kept in Canada, Canadian workers have jobs and Canada retains a 'national security' ability - but - on the other hand, being able to defend our skies, the approaches to our coasts and project Canadian 'power' (?) by building Canadian fighter jets or Canadian cargo planes or Canadian search and rescue planes, is not deemed a priority, not a 'national security' requirement. Who cares if Canadian taxpayers money is shipped off to the US, who cares if Canadian aerospace workers are lost, if their skills are shipped off down south.
> I look forward to comments on this.  I look forward to being 'educated' on why building warships in Canada is good but building fighter jets or military cargo planes or search and rescue planes in Canada is bad.  I look forward to hearing from all of you.
> I love this country, but its so hard to do sometimes.



You basically just answered your own question.  What do I mean by this?

The aerospace industry in Canada is sustainable because it has a large commercial upside to it that makes it viable with or without government contracts.  The shipbuilding industry is not the same and Canadian Shipbuilding would wither and die without government contracts.  

It's a National Security Issue because Canada is essentially an island whose security is dependent on our ability to project power in to the Maritime Domain.  There is a large logistical aspect to this that is overlooked because the vast majority of Canadians don't live on the ocean and don't see the effects first hand but these pictures should tell you all you need to know:












There are limits to airpower, even with modern jets.  The ocean is very big and even with modern air power, you can't cover convoys trying to cross the ocean indefinitely.

Not to mention, most commercial shipping is owned by foreign companies, who builds our logistic tail for us if we have no shipbuilding industry?


----------



## Czech_pivo

So you are saying that the right choice is being made, retaining ship building over fighter/cargo/search & rescue planes ability. 
If that is the case, that we are an island and must have the ability to defend our island, then why so few ships? Why less than Australia? Less than Spain and Italy, which are not islands?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> So you are saying that the right choice is being made, retaining ship building over fighter/cargo/search & rescue planes ability.
> If that is the case, that we are an island and must have the ability to defend our island, then why so few ships? Why less than Australia? Less than Spain and Italy, which are not islands?



The purpose of the National Shipbuilding Strategy is to have the capacity to build ships, the fact we get some warships out of that is a plus but not the fundamental purpose of the Program it self.  

You are conflating two issues.  Military ships and the industry of shipbuilding itself.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Humphrey Bogart:



> You are conflating two issues. Military ships and the industry of shipbuilding itself.



Hardly. In terms of building large ships Canadian shipyards are completely uncompetitive; so naval/coast guard contracts are all there is.  From 2010:



> Shipping industry gets tariff break
> 
> Imported cargo ships, tankers and large ferries will no longer be subject to a 25 per cent tariff, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced Friday.
> 
> The measure is aimed at making it cheaper for Canadian shipowners to replace aging fleets with more modern and more efficient vessels.
> 
> Waiving the tariff will save the industry $25 million a year for the next 10 years, the government estimates.
> 
> "These were tariffs that don't serve any purpose because … the _ships to which they apply are not capable of being made competitively in Canada_ [emphasis added]," Flaherty told reporters in St. Catharines, Ont.
> 
> "There's a big business … in refitting ships and a lot of that happens here and that is not affected by this tariff," he said. "This is one of those tariffs that had outlived its usefulness."
> 
> The tariff removal will be retroactive to the start of the year. The measure applies to all general cargo vessels, tankers, and ferries longer than 129 metres...
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/shipping-industry-gets-tariff-break-1.902798



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Humphrey Bogart:
> 
> Hardly. In terms of building large ships Canadian shipyards are completely uncompetitive; so naval/coast guard contracts are all there is.  From 2010:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



And you also completely miss my point  :nod:

The important thing is having the industrial capacity to build ships, not the ships themselves.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Seems to me the industrial capacity needs as much work as the political capacity. Example: this thread is nearly 10 years old- first ship yet to be launched. The JSS AOR thread is 14 years old, no new AOR except for a lease.  There are many things dysfunctional in Canada, this must be near the top?


----------



## Czech_pivo

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Seems to me the industrial capacity needs as much work as the political capacity. Example: this thread is nearly 10 years old- first ship yet to be launched. The JSS AOR thread is 14 years old, no new AOR except for a lease.  There are many things dysfunctional in Canada, this must be near the top?



Spot on.
How long did it take to begin receiving replacements for the sea-kings? And we are not done receiving them yet....over 25 yrs from when Mulroney signed the original contract.

I understand the difference of having the capacity to build the ships is completely separate from how many ships we actually build. My original question was why ships over planes? Why not planes over ships? Why not both? We used to do both. So far I’ve only had one person attempt to answer my question. That we are an island, therefore we need to continue to have the ability to build ships. Is that it? Is that the answer?


----------



## serger989

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Spot on.
> How long did it take to begin receiving replacements for the sea-kings? And we are not done receiving them yet....over 25 yrs from when Mulroney signed the original contract.
> 
> I understand the difference of having the capacity to build the ships is completely separate from how many ships we actually build. My original question was why ships over planes? Why not planes over ships? Why not both? We used to do both. So far I’ve only had one person attempt to answer my question. That we are an island, therefore we need to continue to have the ability to build ships. Is that it? Is that the answer?



I think that the only way Canada would gain more aerospace industry capability would be if Airbus/BAE/Dassault or SAAB allow us to manufacture their products (Gripen/Typhoon/C295 etc etc) in conjunction with Bombardier. I really don't see it happening any other way politically. If for instance we ignore the Lockheed and Boeing bids in our fighter jet competition and instead go European, I could see an agreement where we can build in Canada. It's not out of the realm of possibility, but it would never happen on our own, at least I don't think so.


----------



## CBH99

I believe Dassault had already suggested we could build Rafale under license & even suggested full technology transfer.  So it's definitely within the realm of possibility if we decided to go down that road...but that's a discussion for another thread.


----------



## Furniture

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Spot on.
> How long did it take to begin receiving replacements for the sea-kings? And we are not done receiving them yet....over 25 yrs from when Mulroney signed the original contract.
> 
> I understand the difference of having the capacity to build the ships is completely separate from how many ships we actually build. My original question was why ships over planes? Why not planes over ships? Why not both? We used to do both. So far I’ve only had one person attempt to answer my question. That we are an island, therefore we need to continue to have the ability to build ships. Is that it? Is that the answer?



Canada isn't in the buisness of designing ships, we are shopping for foreign designs and then building them. We may decide on a fighter than can be built in Canada under license just like the ships are.

Canadian companies are part of the F-35 build process and we haven't even decided to buy the aircraft, so there is already a Canadian aeorspace industry that is competing on the international stage. Canada also has a sucessful land systems industry, small arms industry, and small arms ammunition indusrty to name a few other things we do in Canada beyond ships.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I’m pretty certain that Canada has designed most if not all of the ships that it has built since 1950 with the exception of the aircraft carriers and submarines. For this go-around, a more accurate statement would be that Canada is looking to adopt a design and then build from there. 

Canadian aero-tech companies receive F35 contractual work not just on the merits of their abilities but because the feds contribute dollars to the development of the aircraft in exchange for industrial benefits and therefore some work must flow back to Canada.


----------



## Uzlu

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I’m pretty certain that Canada has designed most if not all of the ships that it has built since 1950 with the exception of the aircraft carriers and submarines.


Yes.  The _St. Laurent_, _Restigouche_,_ Mackenzie_, _Annapolis_, and _Iroquois_-class ships were all, if I am not mistaken, designed by Canadians in Canada.  Perhaps also the _Halifax_ class.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Correct on all counts, Uzlu - even for the Halifax's.

In fact, we were going to design the next class too under the NSBS, but then the Liberals took power and thought they could save time and money (by reducing uncertainty) by using an already developed design. It hasn't worked yet and is unlikely to work in the end because, as I have explained before, everything is packed so tight in a warship that, as soon as you change one little thing somewhere in the design, it snowballs all the way down to everything else and ends up being a new design anyway. That's the truth they are in the process of rediscovering now, and with the delays to go with it - and which the French builders, by offering the FREMM's built their way but in Canada wanted to avoid and save Canada money.


----------



## dapaterson

The RCAF learned / was forced to learn that lesson - somehow, we avoided a long procurement cycle and delays by buying Herc Js and C17s right off the line - about the only Canadianization is the roundel.

Somehow, the lessons learned of lower cost, faster delivery and easier sustainment haven't made their way into the National Irving Bailout Strategy.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The RCAF learned / was forced to learn that lesson - somehow, we avoided a long procurement cycle and delays by buying Herc Js and C17s right off the line - about the only Canadianization is the roundel.
> 
> Somehow, the lessons learned of lower cost, faster delivery and easier sustainment haven't made their way into the National Irving Bailout Strategy.



You can do that with airplanes because the OEM supports the model right off the line through it's life.  You can't do that with ships because there is no OEM.

If you look at the Fincantieri hail mary, the $30B was for the cost of just the ships.  If you read the Defence Watch article where he interviewed Mr. Finn a month or so ago, he broke down the project costs into where it went.  About 50% went to the hulls, so if you do the math, we're in the same boat. Plus we don't have to pay for them to redo all the production engineering to build in Canada, or update the design to meet newer safety standards, or re-engineer things like the domestic power supply (from 220 V 50Hz to NA power).  And they aren't dumb; they know there will be a bunch of arisings, and we'd pay through the nose, so it was all a bit of a bullshit stunt. Would have been sweet to go spend a year or two in Italy for the first few crews for training, but then who cares about the costs of hundreds of full moves overseas?

Oh, and the supply chain would all be whatever the existing was is, so sure it would have been fun to try and get parts sent over from Europe and not result in major delays, TRANREQs out the rear, and other shenanigans for basic consumables once in service.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Davie is now in the NSPS, I wonder if that will trigger any lawsuits 


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ottawa-will-allow-quebec-s-davie-shipyard-to-bid-on-national-shipbuilding-plan-contracts-1.4780836


----------



## MarkOttawa

What ships might Davie build? One big icebreaker for CCG? Other big breakers? CCG Offshore Patrol Vessels from Seaspan planned for late 2020s? Big Honking Amphib with humanitarian also in mind?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> What ships might Davie build? One big icebreaker for CCG? Other big breakers? CCG Offshore Patrol Vessels from Seaspan planned for late 2020s? Big Honking Amphib with humanitarian also in mind?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Depends on what it means when it says, from the article, "But Parliamentary Secretary for Procurement Steven MacKinnon announced Ottawa will reopen the shipbuilding procurement agreement at a news conference Friday."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> What ships might Davie build? One big icebreaker for CCG? Other big breakers? CCG Offshore Patrol Vessels from Seaspan planned for late 2020s? Big Honking Amphib with humanitarian also in mind?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Just looking at Ocean's Canada side, including the Coast Guard, here are ships in dire need of a replacement plan outside the ones currently under the Strategy: Five to six new River icebreakers, eight new Multi-task vessels, two ocean research vessels, two survey ships, four river survey ships, two ocean SAR vessels. Add to that the BH Amphib you mention as a possibility and there is enough extra work to keep all three yards busy for fifteen year, especially if the government wakes up to the increase need for defence spending to satisfy our Southern neighbour, which might entice them to get three to five more surface combatants and perhaps a third full-fledged AOR, so we might contribute two ships at all times to the new NATO "thirty ships" rapid deployment force that is coming up.

If you look at our defence needs closely, you can see that smaller inshore patrol vessels for the RCN to provide back-up support to potential anti-terrorist ops by other government departments (as we had to do for the Oka crisis with PBL ACADIAN, but have no capability to do today) and possibly better Offshore patrol vessels in the 1200-1500 tons  / 25 Kts capable range to supplement the AOPS in the South could also be nice to have ships in view of the threat in our current world.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Now your sounding like a bloody Aussie naval officer, highly un-Canadian to actually fill a defense need.  8)


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just looking at Ocean's Canada side, including the Coast Guard, here are ships in dire need of a replacement plan outside the ones currently under the Strategy: Five to six new River icebreakers, eight new Multi-task vessels, two ocean research vessels, two survey ships, four river survey ships, two ocean SAR vessels. Add to that the BH Amphib you mention as a possibility and there is enough extra work to keep all three yards busy for fifteen year, especially if the government wakes up to the increase need for defence spending to satisfy our Southern neighbour, which might entice them to get three to five more surface combatants and perhaps a third full-fledged AOR, so we might contribute two ships at all times to the new NATO "thirty ships" rapid deployment force that is coming up.
> 
> If you look at our defence needs closely, you can see that smaller inshore patrol vessels for the RCN to provide back-up support to potential anti-terrorist ops by other government departments (as we had to do for the Oka crisis with PBL ACADIAN, but have no capability to do today) and possibly better Offshore patrol vessels in the 1200-1500 tons  / 25 Kts capable range to supplement the AOPS in the South could also be nice to have ships in view of the threat in our current world.



And if the moratorium/ban on tankers on the west coast were lifted then there would be need enough for Norwegian style support vessels (Barentshav, Harstad, Alesund and Nornen) that would supply work for SeaSpan, Victoria and Vancouver, jobs, and dollars - all paid out of Alberta oil and gas revenues.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And if the moratorium/ban on tankers on the west coast were lifted then there would be need enough for Norwegian style support vessels (Barentshav, Harstad, Alesund and Nornen) that would supply work for SeaSpan, Victoria and Vancouver, jobs, and dollars - all paid out of Alberta oil and gas revenues.




I guess it's a question of just how far one might be able to stretch the national security loophole in international trade law ~ something about which OGBD will know far more than I. It seems to me that almost anything related to the military, a coast guard and government research will qualify ... it seems to me that if it's painted white or grey (or RCMP blue) and crewed by people paid by the government then it probably qualifies. 

The aim of the NSPS is to rebuild (some of) our shipyards by allowing them to retool using government contracts and then have government work to provide a base upon which they can survive when they cannot get enough civil work. The actual needs of the Navy and Coast Guard are secondary, even tertiary concerns.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I guess it's a question of just how far one might be able to stretch the national security loophole in international trade law ~ something about which OGBD will know far more than I. It seems to me that almost anything related to the military, a coast guard and government research will qualify ... it seems to me that if it's painted white or grey (or RCMP blue) and crewed by people paid by the government then it probably qualifies.
> 
> The aim of the NSPS is to rebuild (some of) our shipyards by allowing them to retool using government contracts and then have government work to provide a base upon which they can survive when they cannot get enough civil work. The actual needs of the Navy and Coast Guard are secondary, even tertiary concerns.



If the vessels were "fitted for not with", as some of the Norwegian fleet is, then that security loophole probably grows pretty wide.


----------



## Navy_Pete

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The aim of the NSPS is to rebuild (some of) our shipyards by allowing them to retool using government contracts and then have government work to provide a base upon which they can survive when they cannot get enough civil work. The actual needs of the Navy and Coast Guard are secondary, even tertiary concerns.



That's not really accurate; the Navy was the one that was pushing for the NSPS, as having shipyards in Canada with a load leveled schedule means that we have that strategic capacity to build, and makes it more likely we'll actually replace our ships before they completely fall apart.  Short and medium term means the first few ships are loss leaders, but long term means we've got similar capabilities to our allies (RAN, RN, etc) at a strategic level.  I hate politics in general, but this does make it more likely that we'll at least think of getting funding to build something after CSC, and maybe even consider doing something similar to our allies and selling off the first batch of CSC (rather than an MLR) and build a replacement flight.


----------



## Uzlu

I am assuming Davie is going to be building mostly icebreakers.  But Irving and Seaspan better build high-quality ships on time and on budget.





> Halifax Shipyard seeks confirmation from the Federal Government regarding the National Shipbuilding Strategy
> 
> HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, Aug. 13, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The following is a statement from Irving Shipbuilding seeking confirmation from the Federal Government regarding the National Shipbuilding Strategy:
> 
> On Friday, August 10th, Steven MacKinnon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Service and Procurement Canada and Member of Parliament (Gatineau, Quebec) stated that Davie Shipyard in Levis, Quebec will have opportunities to bid and win work under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS).  Mr. MacKinnon also described Davie as a solid partner in the NSS, effectively equating Davie to Irving Shipbuilding and Vancouver Shipyards which were both selected in a national competition in 2011 for the exclusive right to build Canada’s future Coast Guard ships and future Navy combatants and auxiliary ships.
> 
> In developing the framework for the NSS, Canada acknowledged that there was not enough future large ship construction required for the Navy and Coast Guard to sustain more than two shipyards and their skilled workforce.  It was through a fully transparent and competitive process that Irving Shipbuilding and Vancouver Shipyards were selected as Centers of Excellence to build Canada’s future fleets. Davie Shipyard lost the competition in 2011.
> 
> The men and women of the Halifax Shipyard are concerned that these remarks signal the possible redirection of shipbuilding work out of Atlantic Canada.  These are well-paying, good jobs, won fairly through a competitive process.
> 
> We call upon the Federal Government to confirm to Irving Shipbuilding, our shipbuilders and their families, the Province of Nova Scotia, and all Atlantic Canadians that the National Shipbuilding Strategy remains intact and, therefore, construction of the ships for Canada’s Navy and Coast Guard will be done exclusively by Irving Shipbuilding and Vancouver Shipyards.
> 
> While we have no interest in getting into a public squabble with our valued government customer, this issue is too important to the long term strategic success of our shipyard and the economic wellbeing of our shipbuilders, and all Atlantic Canadians, to leave ambiguous and unsettled.


https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/08/13/1551188/0/en/Halifax-Shipyard-seeks-confirmation-from-the-Federal-Government-regarding-the-National-Shipbuilding-Strategy.html


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> That's not really accurate; the Navy was the one that was pushing for the NSPS, as having shipyards in Canada with a load leveled schedule means that we have that strategic capacity to build, and makes it more likely we'll actually replace our ships before they completely fall apart.  Short and medium term means the first few ships are loss leaders, but long term means we've got similar capabilities to our allies (RAN, RN, etc) at a strategic level.  I hate politics in general, but this does make it more likely that we'll at least think of getting funding to build something after CSC, and maybe even consider doing something similar to our allies and selling off the first batch of CSC (rather than an MLR) and build a replacement flight.


Completely true.  Maritime Command developed and sold the government on a continuous build program.  NSPS is the end result after years of mutation within the halls of power.  Our own little military industrial complex.


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:
			
		

> Completely true.  Maritime Command developed and sold the government on a continuous build program.  NSPS is the end result after years of mutation within the halls of power.  Our own little military industrial complex.



Give Irving and Davie a flight of CSC's to build, who ever delivers the best product on time and on budget gets a second flight, by the time CSC's are done, have a Kingston replacement ready to build


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Give Irving and Davie a flight of CSC's to build, who ever delivers the best product on time and on budget gets a second flight, by the time CSC's are done, have a Kingston replacement ready to build


Another possibility is to give Irving a contract for one surface combatant and to give Davie a contract for one surface combatant.  The shipbuilder than comes closest to the ideal of building a high-quality warship on time and on budget gets to build half of the modules of the remaining thirteen surface combatants and final assembly of the completed modules.  And a similar competition for the replacement of the _Kingston_s.


----------



## Uzlu

> In a press conference Monday, Parliamentary Secretary for Procurement Steven MacKinnon answered by asserting that "Davie [has had] and will continue to have opportunities under the national shipbuilding strategy to bid, to win work."


https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/canada-buys-commercial-icebreakers-for-its-coast-guard


----------



## Dale Denton

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Another possibility is to give Irving a contract for one surface combatant and to give Davie a contract for one surface combatant.  The shipbuilder than comes closest to the ideal of building a high-quality warship on time and on budget gets to build half of the modules of the remaining thirteen surface combatants and final assembly of the completed modules.  And a similar competition for the replacement of the _Kingston_s.



But you know in reality that it'll turn into a race, and quality will be thrown aside for speed of delivery. 

Wouldn't you wanna be the shipyard that could have the first of class ceremony and press? Who is really gonna cover the fact that the welds sucked or the HVAC didnt work 2 months after acceptance? Unless you wrote in that both would be launched at the same time regardless, and that the ship that completed shakedown best would be made Flagship.


----------



## YZT580

There is such a thing as a contract you know.  For better or for worse we entered a legitimate agreement with Irving and Seaspan.  Yes both companies have profited from the agreement but both companies have installed massive infrastructure that would never have been there otherwise.  Just because a third company wants a piece of the action is no reason to go back on our agreements: only non-delivery or bad quality control would entitle us to do that.  From what I gather much of the delay in Seaspan has been a result of faulty plans that had to be revised: plans that Seaspan had no part in initiating.  Irving seems to be on track now that they have gotten their act together so what is the beef?  there are lots of ships still to be procured that will come on line outside of the national policy agreements or that neither Seaspan nor Irving will be able to deliver when required (after all, there are only so many man years and so much construction space at the yards): let Davies bid on them and they can compete with the other two at that time.


----------



## MarkOttawa

YZT580:



> There is such a thing as a contract you know.



As for as I know there is no contract with Irving for actual construction of CSCs, nor with Seaspan for the icebreaker.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

2.2 The Umbrella Agreements of 2012

In January 2012, umbrella agreements were signed with the two selected shipyards. According to PWGSC, the umbrella agreements are “long-term strategic sourcing arrangements that define the working relationships and administrative arrangements under which the government will negotiate fair and reasonable individual contracts” with the selected shipyards to build ships.22 Although they “are not contracts” in and of themselves and “make no commitments for future work,” 23 the umbrella agreements “highlight the principles and general intent of the relationship between Canada and the designated shipyard. They describe certain preconditions to contract awarding and other specific terms to be included in the contracts.” 24

That being said, there is no contractual obligation to allocate all of the NSPS’s large-ship construction program contracts to the selected shipyards under the umbrella agreements. With the present system, the shipyards must still fulfill certain commitments and preconditions defined in the umbrella agreements in order to obtain contracts. These include, among other things, getting their workforces and infrastructures ready for the construction of the CCG and RCN ships.25 Failure to do so could potentially result in the termination of an umbrella agreement with the federal government. As far as is known, the NSPS agreements mark the first time that the federal government has signed umbrella agreements with Canadian shipbuilders.

As a result of these umbrella agreements, both Halifax Shipyard and Vancouver Shipyards have been actively engaged in the process of upgrading, expanding and preparing their shipyards for production. This work is valued at approximately $300 million at Halifax Shipyard and $200 million at Vancouver Shipyards. As emphasized by PWGSC, “These upgrades are at no cost to Canada.” 26 They are financed by the shipyards themselves, although each shipyard is receiving some financial assistance from its respective provincial government.27 Shipyard modernization work began in the fall of 2012.28 It was completed at Vancouver Shipyards in November 201429 and is expected to end at Halifax Shipyard by September 2015.30
2.3 The 2012-2013 Preliminary Contracts

Since the signing of the umbrella agreements, several contracts pertaining to specific ship projects have been negotiated and awarded to the two selected shipyards. Preliminary contracts, for example, were awarded to Halifax Shipyard for the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships ($9.3 million in July 2012 and $288 million in March 2013)31 and to Vancouver Shipyards for the Joint Support Ships ($1.4 million in August 2012), the Polar Icebreaker ($3.8 million in August 2012) and the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels ($15 million in February 2013).32 These contracts pertained to the ship designs and to pre-production work at the shipyards.33
2.4 2013 New Ship Announcement

In October 2013, the federal government expanded the large-ship construction program, announcing its selection of Vancouver Shipyards to construct:

    up to 10 additional large non-combat ships for the Canadian Coast Guard fleet at an estimated cost of $3.3 billion … in addition to the already announced Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels, Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel and … Polar Icebreaker that will be constructed at Vancouver Shipyards for the Canadian Coast Guard.34

This raised the total estimated acquisition cost of the NSPS large-ship construction program to over $36 billion. The new types of ships to be built for the CCG included:

    Medium Endurance Multi-Tasked Vessels (up to five ships); and
    Offshore Patrol Vessels (up to five ships).35

2.5 The 2014-2015 Construction Contracts

The first ship construction contracts were issued:

    in October 2014 to Vancouver Shipyards for the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels ($5 million for two “initial block” modules to be built and fitted in the first ship);36 and
    in January 2015 to Halifax Shipyard for the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships ($2.3 billion).37

Construction of the initial block modules for the first Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel commenced in October 2014.38 The construction of the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships is expected to start in September 2015.39

In June 2015, the federal government announced that it had reached an “agreement in principle” with Vancouver Shipyards for the “construction and delivery of three Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels” at a “$400 million target cost,” but with a “ceiling price of $514 million.” It also announced that “full production” of the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels was “expected to begin shortly.” 40

More here https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2015-35-e.html?cat=international#a4


----------



## YZT580

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> YZT580:
> 
> As for as I know there is no contract with Irving for actual construction of CSCs, nor with Seaspan for the icebreaker.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


You are absolutely correct.  But there was and is a very firm handshake with the stated expectation of contracts associated with it.  That should be enough and if it isn't than our government needs to take a very long step back.


----------



## MilEME09

What it does mean though is if a yard is falling behind we can give work to say Davie as an example. To keep the program on track


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> What it does mean though is if a yard is falling behind we can give work to say Davie as an example. To keep the program on track



On exactly what would they be falling behind on?  They would have to invest in infrastructure and training of personnel and would be even more behind on a proper warship build.  Oh they could probably build some of the blocks but there is no indication in any way that they could be faster.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> On exactly what would they be falling behind on?  They would have to invest in infrastructure and training of personnel and would be even more behind on a proper warship build.  Oh they could probably build some of the blocks but there is no indication in any way that they could be faster.



It could be that certain blocks might be built at Davie and shipped to Irving or vis versa. Not that uncommon. That would speed up delivery as more blocks can be constructed at once.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Look at the big honkin' ship (26,000t) New Zealand in having built by Hyundai, South Korea--a tweet:
https://twitter.com/NZUN/status/1029398916540784641



> NZ at the UN
> ‏Verified account @NZUN
> 
> #HMNZSAotearoa keel-laying ceremony held at Hyundai Heavy Industries in South Korea. Her missions will include humanitarian and disaster relief, support to #UnitedNations security operations and coalition naval task groups, and Antarctic re-supply. @NZDefenceForce



More, will enter service 2020--light-wave speed by Canadian standards, eh? Note and weep, cost and speed of acquisition:



> ...
> In July 2016, the Government approved the purchase of a new naval tanker which will be ice-strengthened and winterised for operations in Antarctica. The project will cost $493 million...
> http://navy.mil.nz/mtf/aotearoa/default.htm



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Tonnage is misleading.  Its ice strengthened and winterized for Antarctica operations.  This ship is much smaller then the JSS.  And its not a combat vessel.  However the cost is not misleading.  Getting Korea to build is basically the cheapest option out there.


----------



## suffolkowner

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Look at the big honkin' ship (26,000t) New Zealand in having built by Hyundai, South Korea--a tweet:
> https://twitter.com/NZUN/status/1029398916540784641
> 
> More, will enter service 2020--light-wave speed by Canadian standards, eh? Note and weep, cost and speed of acquisition:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Is this the bmt aegir 26? I think the difference between our Queenston Class was dissected here before. I too was under the impression that no contract had been finalized for the Queenston Class and CSC, surprising that approval to proceed on the Queenston given that.


----------



## Uzlu

> Davie VP: Irving Shipbuilding ‘like a naughty child asking if his mummy still loves him’
> 
> A longstanding spat between two of Canada’s largest shipyards has been heating up — name calling and all — and experts say it’s likely to get worse.
> 
> Last week, Quebec-based shipbuilder Chantier Davie Canada Inc. won a $610-million contract to convert three icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> During a news conference in Levis on Friday, Steven MacKinnon, parliamentary secretary for public services and procurement Canada, told reporters that other shipyards, including Davie, will continue to have opportunities to win work as part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS).
> 
> Some media outlets that reported on the event framed MacKinnon’s statements as a retooling of the overall strategy — a massive multibillion-dollar, decades-long endeavour — that could see Davie possibly inch its way into work that has already been awarded to other shipyards.
> 
> During the news conference, a Davie executive also alluded to an NSS ‘refresh’ that the company claims to have been informed by government will be announced in the fall.
> 
> All this was cause for concern for Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax, which was named prime contractor for the combat portion of the NSS in 2011 and has been tasked with building six Arctic and offshore patrol ships and 15 new warships for a cost of around $60 billion.
> 
> In a media release issued Monday, Irving spokesman Sean Lewis asked for clarification from the government that the work, and associated jobs, would not be reallocated from Irving or Vancouver-based Seaspan, which is responsible for the smaller non-combat portion of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
> 
> Responding to a request for comment from The Chronicle Herald on Tuesday, Frederik Boisvert, VP of public affairs with Davie, sent two different statements via text message, both of which he attempted to rescind saying they were draft statements that weren’t intended to be sent.
> 
> In one of those messages, Boisvert says the ‘long-awaited reform’ of the 2011 NSS that is soon to be announced has tensions running high at the offices of Davies’ competitor.
> 
> “So much so that Irving Shipbuilding, like a naughty child asking if his mummy still loves him, published a press release <...> asking the government to confirm that all was still OK.”
> 
> He then goes on to say the umbrella agreements between Irving and Seaspan are non-binding and that the government has a free hand in determining where to build its ships.
> 
> In a third and final statement, Boisvert commends the federal government for a long-awaited reform of its shipbuilding plans and touts the benefits of having Davie as a partner in the ‘new National Shipbuilding Strategy.’
> 
> By many accounts, however, there is no new strategy or reformation that has been announced or has yet to be announced.
> 
> The Office of Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough confirmed on Monday and reiterated on Tuesday: the announcement Friday did not make any changes to the strategy and the work at Irving and Seaspan remains and will continue to remain unchanged.
> 
> But when MacKinnon was pressed by reporters on Friday about whether the rumoured refresh of the NSS was coming, and whether that meant more work for Davie, he was vague.
> 
> More peculiar still, back in March, The Chronicle Herald reported on a political poll that asked Halifax residents, in between questions about their MP’s performance, how important Irving continuing its role as the primary contractor on the National Shipbuilding Strategy is in deciding their vote. At the time, the NDP and Conservative parties both denied that the poll was theirs, and the Liberal party would not comment.
> 
> David Perry, senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, told The Chronicle Herald that although many people equate the NSS with the work being done by Irving and Seaspan, the project was always about the larger picture.
> 
> All shipyards in Canada have always had the opportunity to bid on repair, maintenance and refit work related to the NSS, and even for new builds for smaller vessels.
> 
> The work awarded to Davie thus far, the icebreakers as well as converting a commercial container ship — MV Asterix — into an interim auxiliary naval replenishment ship, has all fallen under those categories, Perry said, and does not in any way signal a change in the program.
> 
> “When the government talks about the shipbuilding strategy they mostly talk about the major packages of work, they don’t talk about all the other repair refit maintenance stuff,” he said. “(Davie) has always been eligible for the other stuff.”
> 
> So if there has been no change to the shipbuilding strategy, why is it being framed that way?
> 
> Ken Hansen, a retired navy commander and defence analyst, says it’s par for the course.
> 
> “There’s no love lost between these two companies. It’s warfare as far as they’re concerned, there’s really deep and old animosity between them,” he said.
> 
> Davie, which was emerging from bankruptcy when the NSS contracts were awarded in 2011, has long called foul on the Irving contract, but according to Hansen the rift between the two companies goes back decades, as one might expect of two competing companies in a relatively limited industry.
> 
> Hansen thinks the spin by Davie is simply a PR move to gain support among politicians.
> 
> “There is no change to the way this is working, but (Davie) is trying to make it look that way for political gain. They need allies, they’re still trying to crack this nut — they want back into where the big money is and the big money is all in Irving’s hands,” he said.
> 
> “They’re trying to build momentum to give the politicians the courage to reopen this issue.”
> 
> Hansen said it’s too early to tell if Davie will be successful, but cautioned that any change will cause a lot of unrest and even more delays in delivering ships the navy needs.
> 
> “They can’t start pulling this apart and cutting pieces of the carcass to send to a third place, which is what always happens in this country,” he said.
> 
> As for the rumours, spin, and drama, Hansen said it will get worse unless the government offers full clarity on the issue,
> 
> “It’s been really bad in the past and what you’re seeing here is an indication it’s going to get worse,” he said. “They’re playing games and the government has got to sort it out quick.”


http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1590811-davie-vp-irving-shipbuilding-%E2%80%98like-a-naughty-child-asking-if-his-mummy-still-love


----------



## Czech_pivo

The simple, undeniable fact is that neither Seaspan nor Irving have any capacity to build anything new in the next 10yrs in Seaspans case and 20+yrs in Irving’s case beyond the already identified needs for the CSC, JSS, 3 fisheries ships, the science vessel and The Def. 
However, our clapped out Coast Guard needs a complete refresh and the Kingston class is already 20+ yrs old and we’ll need to completely replace them well, well before Irving will be finished with the 15 CSC’s.  So, there is plenty of work leftover for Davie and others to bid on and win. 
I can only imagine that the Kingston replacements will be over 1200 tons and 20+ knots and there will be 10-14 of them most likely.


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The simple, undeniable fact is that neither Seaspan nor Irving have any capacity to build anything new in the next 10yrs in Seaspans case and 20+yrs in Irving’s case beyond the already identified needs for the CSC, JSS, 3 fisheries ships, the science vessel and The Def.
> However, our clapped out Coast Guard needs a complete refresh and the Kingston class is already 20+ yrs old and we’ll need to completely replace them well, well before Irving will be finished with the 15 CSC’s.  So, there is plenty of work leftover for Davie and others to bid on and win.


Seaspan is also going to build up to ten offshore patrol vessels and medium endurance multi-tasked vessels.  So they too might be running at full capacity for at least the next twenty years.  So is the plan to wait until the icebreakers are at least seventy-years old before replacing them?  I agree with you.  There is enough work for Irving, Seaspan, and Davie.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu: 



> ...
> Seaspan is also going to build up to ten offshore patrol vessels and medium endurance multi-tasked vessels.  So they too might be running at full capacity for at least the next twenty years.  So is the plan to wait until the icebreakers are at least seventy-years old before replacing them?  I agree with you.  There is enough work for Irving, Seaspan, and Davie.



Or, to save a whole ton of taxpayer money, esp. with regard to CCG vessels where few national security angles apply, why not just buy abroad? But this is Canada and those actually crewing vessels must wait...and wait...and wait...because of our hopeless politics and lack of serious media and public concern/attention:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pYG1Vbgq0o

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Or, to save a whole ton of taxpayer money, esp. with regard to CCG vessels where few national security angles apply, why not just buy abroad? But this is Canada and those actually crewing vessels must wait...and wait...and wait...because of our hopeless politics and lack of serious media and public concern/attention


Yes, having, say, fifteen icebreakers built abroad will save lots of money for taxpayers.  But why have icebreakers been built in Canada?  Put yourself in Trudeau’s shoes.  Make a public announcement that you will spend, say, twenty-billion dollars overseas for, say, two polar class 2 icebreakers, seven polar class 3 icebreakers, and six polar class 4 icebreakers.
  
When all those enraged Seaspan and Davie shipbuilders go up to you and start complaining, what are you going to say to them?  What about all of the other Canadian businesses that work with Seaspan and Davie?  What if employees of these companies go up to you and start complaining?  What are you going to say to them?
  
I am sorry you got laid off.  I did it to save taxpayers some money.  Please vote for me in the next election, because I really do care about you and your family that you are trying to support.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Well, that's what an excellent CEO of a well-run company would do if we're looking at this from a business lens. 

What I'm not seeing (and maybe others can correctly point this out to me), is Irving and/or Seaspan increasing capacity in any manner - and what I mean by capacity, is the ability to be laying down more than 1 keel at a time.  If Seaspan and Irving want to be building all these other ships that are needed outside of the currently identified ones (all Coast Guard, Kingston replacements, etc), then propose a solution (that is realistic and be held, feet to the fire, accountable) to speed up the timelines to complete the AOPS, CSC, JSS, etc in order for you to win and build the necessary Coast Guard and Kingston class replacements. 
As it stands now, the timeline to complete the last CSC is well into the 2040's......who the hell can wait 20-25years to start replacing the Kingston's?  Oh wait, we did something similar already with the Cyclone's when the EH101 was cancelled at a cost of 500 million back in 1993 and we are now celebrating the first overseas deployment of a Cyclone 25yrs later....


----------



## Uzlu

> The Liberals want to 'refresh' the shipbuilding strategy. What does that mean?
> 
> *Recent comments by a parliamentary secretary had Irving asking for a public commitment to the strategy*
> 
> The federal government has been quietly debating a "refresh" of its marquee — but troubled — national shipbuilding strategy, federal documents reveal.
> 
> A memorandum to the deputy minister of Finance, obtained by CBC News under access to information legislation, notes there was "tangible progress" in ship construction last year, but also references impending production gaps at the two designated shipyards: Irving-owned Halifax Shipyard and Seaspan in Vancouver.
> 
> The size and scope of the "policy refresh" was not made clear in the heavily redacted memo, dated Jan. 23, 2018. Officials at Public Services and Procurement Canada were asked to explain, but did not produce a response by Tuesday evening.
> 
> As recently as last week, government officials were insisting they were still committed to the strategy.
> 
> *Still 'broken'?*
> 
> During the last election campaign, the Liberals pledged to fix the "broken" procurement system and invest heavily in the navy.
> 
> Conceived under the Conservatives but embraced by the Liberals, the national shipbuilding strategy has been plagued by delays and ballooning cost estimates in the building of both warships and civilian vessels.
> 
> Critics have long complained it would be cheaper and faster for Canada to buy offshore from foreign competitors.
> 
> It also remains unclear whether the build-in-Canada provision that is at the heart of the strategy is up for consideration in the reset.
> 
> Much of the icebreaking fleet belonging to the coast guard is in need of replacement — a critical gap that led the government recently to set aside $610 million for the refurbishment of three commercial ships.
> 
> Similarly, the navy has been forced to lease a replenishment ship because of delays associated with the Joint Support Ship program.
> 
> Confidential sources in the defence community said the review is being driven partly by a yet-to-be completed assessment of the coast guard, which has — according to a 2015 statutory assessment — among the oldest coast guard fleets in the world.
> 
> The retooled policy is expected to be ready this fall, the sources said, and will also encompass updated budget estimates and timelines for delivery.
> 
> Last spring, CBC News reported the federal government had received a revised delivery schedule for vessels being constructed at Seaspan. But it refused to release it.
> 
> The new timetable, which apparently forecasts delays outside of the company's control, is politically sensitive. It speaks to issues at the heart of the breach-of-trust case against Vice Admiral Mark Norman, the military's second-highest commander — in particular, the program's inability to deliver ships in a timely manner.
> 
> *Irving asks for clarification*
> 
> The new questions about the future of the strategy come just days after Irving Shipbuilding issued a terse public statement, asking the federal government to clarify comments by Steve MacKinnon, the parliamentary secretary to the public works minister.
> 
> While unveiling the icebreaker deal on Friday, officials with Chantier-Davie, the company doing the refurbishment, suggested it would now be able to bid on projects under the shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> MacKinnon described the Levis, Que., yard as a solid partner in the system. But under the shipbuilding strategy, the Davie yard is allowed to bid on repair and refit work — not on construction of new vessels.
> 
> "The men and women of the Halifax Shipyard are concerned that these remarks signal the possible redirection of shipbuilding work out of Atlantic Canada," Irving Shipbuilding said in a written statement, issued late Monday.
> 
> "We call upon the federal government to confirm to Irving Shipbuilding, our shipbuilders and their families, the Province of Nova Scotia, and all Atlantic Canadians that the National Shipbuilding Strategy remains intact and, therefore, construction of the ships for Canada's Navy and Coast Guard will be done exclusively by Irving Shipbuilding and Vancouver Shipyards."
> 
> The federal government apparently has responded to the Irving statement by signalling its support for the strategy.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-shipbuilding-navy-refresh-1.4785465


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> What I'm not seeing (and maybe others can correctly point this out to me), is Irving and/or Seaspan increasing capacity in any manner - and what I mean by capacity, is the ability to be laying down more than 1 keel at a time.  If Seaspan and Irving want to be building all these other ships that are needed outside of the currently identified ones (all Coast Guard, Kingston replacements, etc), then propose a solution (that is realistic and be held, feet to the fire, accountable) to speed up the timelines to complete the AOPS, CSC, JSS, etc in order for you to win and build the necessary Coast Guard and Kingston class replacements.
> As it stands now, the timeline to complete the last CSC is well into the 2040's......who the hell can wait 20-25years to start replacing the Kingston's?


There are no incentives for Irving and Seaspan to expand capacity.  If, however, the Liberals say to Irving and Seaspan that they will be awarding new ship-building contracts and at a faster rate, then there is an incentive to expand capacity.  But the Liberals must also say that these new contracts will never be awarded to Davie.


----------



## MilEME09

Uzlu said:
			
		

> There are no incentives for Irving and Seaspan to expand capacity.  If, however, the Liberals say to Irving and Seaspan that they will be awarding new ship-building contracts and at a faster rate, then there is an incentive to expand capacity.  But the Liberals must also say that these new contracts will never be awarded to Davie.



Perhaps this refresh should amend things so that shipyards incur penalties for missing key mile stones/ delivery dates, with costs going up maybe it might be a way to try and get them to get back on track.


----------



## Czech_pivo

"There are no incentives for Irving and Seaspan to expand capacity.  If, however, the Liberals say to Irving and Seaspan that they will be awarding new ship-building contracts and at a faster rate, then there is an incentive to expand capacity.  But the Liberals must also say that these new contracts will never be awarded to Davie."

Sure there's an incentive for them to expand capacity - its called losing out on contracts to Davie et al - which it sounds like there might be the possibility of this occurring - which is good, as competition drives innovation, new technologies, better quality and quicker to market.  I'm glad that Davie is sounding off, winning contracts and stirring the pot - complacency leads to stagnation, lack of innovation and ultimately failure.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Some of the delays at Seaspan are design related and I am not sure who is responsible for those design issues, as far as I am aware the design is given to the yard and they build to it and argue over smaller issues. Rumour has it that there are stability issues with the designs of the fisheries vessel, which would be of no surprise as most government vessels are top heavy.

Current OFSV #2 https://twitter.com/seaspan/status/1027230643191799808

JSS gallery is up http://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries/nss-photo-gallery-jss-1


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Some of the delays at Seaspan are design related and I am not sure who is responsible for those design issues, as far as I am aware the design is given to the yard and they build to it and argue over smaller issues. Rumour has it that there are stability issues with the designs of the fisheries vessel, which would be of no surprise as _*most government vessels are top heavy*_.
> 
> Current OFSV #2 https://twitter.com/seaspan/status/1027230643191799808
> 
> JSS gallery is up http://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries/nss-photo-gallery-jss-1



I see what you did there


----------



## Dale Denton

So what should a 'refreshed' shipbuilding policy look like? How do we fill in these gaps, reduce time to get to he steel cutting, and save money at the same time? All while keeping the $$$ in Canadian shipyards? 

Anyone have suggestions?

What if 1 shipyard built the hulls and put blocks together, and another outfitted the systems? Or do we throw more projects at them?


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The simple, undeniable fact is that neither Seaspan nor Irving have any capacity to build anything new in the next 10yrs...



So that huge brand new ship about to be launched in September sitting on the jetty outside Irving is my imagination?  Or perhaps the currently floating red and white vessel alongside Seaspan is an illusion?

I understand the frustration but please try to tone down the exaggeration and hyperbole.  Accuracy helps everyone in their discussion!   :nod:


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:
			
		

> So that huge brand new ship about to be launched in September sitting on the jetty outside Irving is my imagination?  Or perhaps the currently floating red and white vessel alongside Seaspan is an illusion?
> 
> I understand the frustration but please try to tone down the exaggeration and hyperbole.  Accuracy helps everyone in their discussion!   :nod:



I was referring to the fact that they cannot take on any more work than what they already have and realistically re-build the entire icebreaker fleet, the Kingston's or anything else within the needed time frame.  
Go back and look at when Seaspan can realistically begin building The Def and have it ready for action - its like 8yrs from now, if all goes smoothly.  The LSL will be how old by then, 55yrs, 60yrs old?  The last of the CSC's is scheduled to be completed in the mid 2040's, close to 25yrs from now.  HMCS Ottawa will be close to 45-50yrs old then - do you think that it might not suffer the same fate as the Algonquin, full of cracks and unable to sail? They do not have the ability to take on anymore work  - unless they can increase capacity - in order to rebuild the icebreakers, the Kingston's or anything else that is needed.


----------



## CBH99

Not to wade into a discussion between Underway & Czech that I simply observed, but I have to side with Czech here...I think you misunderstood what was being said there Underway, if you read up a few posts.

I think it was pretty clear that neither Seaspan or Irving can take on any MORE work than they already have booked - and that Davie will most likely need to be included in any future contracts, as the current allotment of work has both Irving & Seaspan busy for the next 10yrs or so.

So if the CCG needs icebreakers or conversions, if the Kingstons need replacing, etc etc - Davie should be included since they are a national shipyard (one of the best in North America, mind you) - and the legal issues that prevented them from initially being included are now behind them.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Not to wade into a discussion between Underway & Czech that I simply observed, but I have to side with Czech here...I think you misunderstood what was being said there Underway, if you read up a few posts.
> 
> I think it was pretty clear that neither Seaspan or Irving can take on any MORE work than they already have booked - and that Davie will most likely need to be included in any future contracts, as the current allotment of work has both Irving & Seaspan busy for the next 10yrs or so.
> 
> So if the CCG needs icebreakers or conversions, if the Kingstons need replacing, etc etc - Davie should be included since they are a national shipyard (one of the best in North America, mind you) - and the legal issues that prevented them from initially being included are now behind them.



And, concurrently, we should work hard to get orders from other countries, and align trades training accordingly,  so our ship building 'prowess' never declines again through want of orders....


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Not to wade into a discussion between Underway & Czech that I simply observed, but I have to side with Czech here...I think you misunderstood what was being said there Underway, if you read up a few posts.
> 
> I think it was pretty clear that neither Seaspan or Irving can take on any MORE work than they already have booked - and that Davie will most likely need to be included in any future contracts, as the current allotment of work has both Irving & Seaspan busy for the next 10yrs or so.
> 
> So if the CCG needs icebreakers or conversions, if the Kingstons need replacing, etc etc - Davie should be included since they are a national shipyard (one of the best in North America, mind you) - and the legal issues that prevented them from initially being included are now behind them.



I only took issue with the hyperbole not the thoughts behind it.  Completely agree that there needs to be a more speedy delivery.  The Halifax Class were designed for 25 years.  We are there now and dealing with massive corrosion issues across the fleet (mostly on the East Coast, mainly due to different deck coverings oddly enough).  

Having Davie fill gaps in the Coast Guard is an excellent idea.  The fleets are so run down there is plenty of work for everyone right now.  As for Kingston replacements those boats are doing rather well.  FMF and the contractors are doing a good job to keep them going.  I haven't heard a single person in the RCN talk about Kingston replacement as a concern (yet), though I have heard talk about sub replacement since Strong Secure Engaged came out (even floating the Australia will be looking for partners discussion).


----------



## MilEME09

Partner with the aussies on subs? Might be easier to sell as a commonwealth ally


----------



## Czech_pivo

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, concurrently, we should work hard to get orders from other countries, and align trades training accordingly,  so our ship building 'prowess' never declines again through want of orders....



Amen -
Would love to see if we can sell something to the Kiwis or the Chileans since both of them have trusted us to do refits on their naval vessels. 
But again, unless Iring can increase capacity, I don’t see how they will have time to build anything extra.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Amen -
> Would love to see if we can sell something to the Kiwis or the Chileans since both of them have trusted us to do refits on their naval vessels.
> But again, unless Iring can increase capacity, I don’t see how they will have time to build anything extra.



In WW2 we did just fine increasing capacity real fast: 

'Canada in 1940 had just started to build patrol vessels for the protection of its own coasts, but Britain soon placed orders for 26 ten-thousand-tonne cargo ships and soon after orders for naval escorts and minesweepers. This was just the beginning, as Britain made clear it needed Canada to build as many naval and merchant ships as it possibly could. The practically non-existent Canadian interwar shipbuilding industry - three shipyards employing fewer than 4,000 men - expanded to 90 plants on the East and West Coasts, the Great Lakes and even inland. More than 126,000 men and women were employed. In all, the shipyards built 4,047 naval vessels, most of them landing craft but including over 300 anti-submarine warships, among them 4 Tribal class destroyers, and 410 cargo ships. At its wartime peak in September 1943, the industry was able to deliver the ten-thousand-tonne SS Fort Romaine in a stunning 58 days from the start of construction.'
https://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/newspapers/canadawar/shipping_e.shtml

The global supply chain is moving towards 'autonomous' cargo ships, as I understand it, and no doubt this will fast become a main feature of China's 'Belt and Road' initiative: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-unmanned-ships-cargo-industry-dearly.html

Here's our big chance to leverage a big domestic shipping program for longer term success.


----------



## MilEME09

Ships in ww2 were also less sophisticated then a modern warship. A Lee Enfield No. 4 mk 1 would take less time to manufacture then say a timberwolf. 



			
				Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Amen -
> Would love to see if we can sell something to the Kiwis or the Chileans since both of them have trusted us to do refits on their naval vessels.
> But again, unless Iring can increase capacity, I don’t see how they will have time to build anything extra.



Not unless they wanna wait 25 years, are any of our shipbuilders even in a position to expand capacity like some of us have suggested? for example does Davie still have the Tracy and Vikers sites? Can any smaller facilities or sites be asked to help with construction for example the Port Weller Dry Dock facilities owned by Saint Lawrence Seaway or Theriault Shipyard?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bruce MacKinnon, in the Halifax _*Chronicle Herald*_, draws this conclusion: http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2018-08-16-editorial-cartoon#


----------



## Czech_pivo

Here are some back of the envelope facts, gathered off of Irving's own website re the AOPS

1) 3 Sept, 2015 first steel cut on the first AOPS
     1.1) 10 June, 2016 first 2 of the 4 main engines installed (9 months duration)
            1.2) Dec, 2017 final mega block assembled (27 months duration)
                   1.3) Sept ??, 2018 first AOPS is launched (36 months duration)
Start to launch - 3yrs duration

2) 26 Aug, 2016 first steel cut on the second AOPS
      2.1) April, 2018 first 2 of the 4 main engines installed (timeline under the 1st AOPS was 9 months - here its 20 months)
             2.2) Final mega block assembled ?? - using the timeline established under the 1st AOPS, 27 months, this should occur in Nov of 2018.....
                    2.3) ?? second AOPS is launched - using the timeline established under the 1st AOPS, this should occur in Aug of 2019
Start to launch - ??

3) Dec 2017, first steel cut on the third AOPS
      3.1) ?? first 2 of the 4 main engines installed - again, using the timeline under the first AOPS, this should occur in Sept 2018 OR if using the timeline under the 2nd AOPS, July, 2019....)
             3.2) Final mega block assembled ?? - using the timeline established under the 1st AOPS, this should occur March 2020
                     3.3) ?? third AOPS is launched - again using the timeline under the 1st AOPS, this should occur in Dec 2020.
Start to launch - ??

Yes - I fully agree/accept that this is a crude methodology to be using, but its all that is readily available.  Using the information that is on Irving's own website one can conclude that timeline established on the 1st AOPS has already slipped on the 2nd AOPS and its too early to tell if its slipping on the 3rd AOPS but I'm willing to bet that it is.

So, are the timelines slipping because Irving is having a hard time getting up to speed (surely the final mega block being wider than the rest of the ship by what, 40mm can't be helping), or are they slowing down the delivery times in order to 'close' any 'gap' between when they finish that last (will it be 5 or 6 AOPS?) ship and start the first CSC in the mid 2020's?


----------



## FSTO

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Bruce MacKinnon, in the Halifax _*Chronicle Herald*_, draws this conclusion: http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2018-08-16-editorial-cartoon#



Maybe if Irving and the province of Nova Scotia would quit griping about non-existent threats to their piece of the shipbuilding pie and get to bloody work they already have.
Remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Seaspan acquired the submarine refit contract? Newsflash Irving and NS, you folks on the east coast do not have the divine right to every government shipbuilding contract. You actually have to produce a quality product!!!!


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> Newsflash Irving and NS, you folks on the east coast do not have the divine right to every government shipbuilding contract. You actually have to produce a quality product!!!!



You're new here, aren't you?


----------



## Lumber

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You're new here, aren't you?



People who think the Laurentian elites are bad should come to the east coast and bare witness to how strongly a few rich and influential people can dominate huge sectors of industry.


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You're new here, aren't you?



I have my moments. ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Ships in ww2 were also less sophisticated then a modern warship. A Lee Enfield No. 4 mk 1 would take less time to manufacture then say a timberwolf.
> 
> Not unless they wanna wait 25 years, are any of our shipbuilders even in a position to expand capacity like some of us have suggested? for example does Davie still have the Tracy and Vikers sites? Can any smaller facilities or sites be asked to help with construction for example the Port Weller Dry Dock facilities owned by Saint Lawrence Seaway or Theriault Shipyard?



The rifle comparison is not a great one, as that modern techniques make it easier than before. In some ways, modern ship building techniques make it easier as well. The 3D virtual design helps solve a lot of issues beforehand for example. What bugs me is that with all the computing power, we still build unstable designs.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You're new here, aren't you?




I remember ~ during the TRUMP era ~ when _*Irving*_ was our "fair haired boy" and _*Davie*_ was the devil incarnate. _*Davie*_ drove it self/was driven into (near?) bankruptcy partially, *I think*, be being too "entitled" while _Irving_ was (thirty_ish_+ years ago) showing real entrepreneurship ... now, perhaps, the tables are turned. 

But the politics of "regional development" in Canada are totally destructive ... when governments pick winners everyone ends up losing.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Lumber said:
			
		

> People who think the Laurentian elites are bad should come to the east coast and bare witness to how strongly a few rich and influential people can dominate huge sectors of industry.



Oland, McCain, Irving, Sobey, Eddy, etc.  Pick your poison!


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> People who think the Laurentian elites are bad should come to the east coast and bare witness to how strongly a few rich and influential people can dominate huge sectors of industry.



There isn't that much industry to dominate unfortunately.  Which might be part of the problem. Frankly looking around Halifax it seems like the main employer is government directly (military, coast guard, health care) or indirectly (Dalhousie University, Irving Shipbuilding).  So who's really dominant?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Underway said:
			
		

> There isn't that much industry to dominate unfortunately.  Which might be part of the problem. Frankly looking around Halifax it seems like the main employer is government directly (military, coast guard, health care) or indirectly (Dalhousie University, Irving Shipbuilding).  So who's really dominant?



Up in Northern NB, all the big multinational mills closed up shop for one reason:  they got tired of dealing with militant unions.

Smurfit-Stone closed in Bathurst in 2005 (Bathurst had been making paper for almost 100 years) after just completing millions of dollars in upgrades to the mill.  Why?  Company got wind the Union planned strike action.  Bye Bye Mill.


----------



## observor 69

"The New Richmond and Bathurst mills have an annual production capacity of 235,000 tons of linerboard and 243,000 of corrugating medium respectively. Both mills have been recently idled due to market conditions.

Smurfit-Stone also plans to permanently shut a paper machine at Fernandina Beach, Fla. The machine has been idle since April 2001.

Smurfit-Stone said demand is slowing for packaging in North America, as manufacturing is being shifted overseas. "We are in a mature industry that has struggled to achieve adequate returns," Moore said.

"We have been unable to pass along inflationary costs, such as energy and fiber, to our customers. In addition, the manufacturing exodus overseas has had a strong impact on containerboard demand throughout North America.

Last month, Abitibi-Consolidated announced plans to close several paper machines in Newfoundland and Ontario as it tries to cope with tough conditions in the paper sector.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/bathurst-mill-closes-hundreds-lose-jobs-1.547783


----------



## Navy_Pete

YZT580 said:
			
		

> There is such a thing as a contract you know.  For better or for worse we entered a legitimate agreement with Irving and Seaspan.  Yes both companies have profited from the agreement but both companies have installed massive infrastructure that would never have been there otherwise.  Just because a third company wants a piece of the action is no reason to go back on our agreements: only non-delivery or bad quality control would entitle us to do that.  From what I gather much of the delay in Seaspan has been a result of faulty plans that had to be revised: plans that Seaspan had no part in initiating.  Irving seems to be on track now that they have gotten their act together so what is the beef?  there are lots of ships still to be procured that will come on line outside of the national policy agreements or that neither Seaspan nor Irving will be able to deliver when required (after all, there are only so many man years and so much construction space at the yards): let Davies bid on them and they can compete with the other two at that time.



There is no place for common sense or logic on the internet!  :tsktsk: :tsktsk:

Two minor points to add though; both VSY and ISI invested 9 figures in upgrading the shipyards and took about two years after contract award, so nothing really started being built until 2015.  It was understood that there is a huge learning curve at the start.  Davie would need a similar level of investment to get their shipyard up to a similar level to build shipyards efficiently, so they aren't some kind of panacea.

Also, cut steel date means nothing really, as that's a ceremonial thing that you can do without even having a design.  The drumbeat is picking up, so driving down the flash to bang timeline, but we knew back in 2009 that would take 3-4 ships minimum before any new shipyard got to a reasonable level of efficiency at the front end, and we're still in the bit of a learning curve where the improvements are in the 30%+ range, so everyone needs to calm down and carry a towel, and look at the long term picture where we're in a 30 year program.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> "The New Richmond and Bathurst mills have an annual production capacity of 235,000 tons of linerboard and 243,000 of corrugating medium respectively. Both mills have been recently idled due to market conditions.
> 
> Smurfit-Stone also plans to permanently shut a paper machine at Fernandina Beach, Fla. The machine has been idle since April 2001.
> 
> Smurfit-Stone said demand is slowing for packaging in North America, as manufacturing is being shifted overseas. "We are in a mature industry that has struggled to achieve adequate returns," Moore said.
> 
> "We have been unable to pass along inflationary costs, such as energy and fiber, to our customers. In addition, the manufacturing exodus overseas has had a strong impact on containerboard demand throughout North America.
> 
> Last month, Abitibi-Consolidated announced plans to close several paper machines in Newfoundland and Ontario as it tries to cope with tough conditions in the paper sector.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/bathurst-mill-closes-hundreds-lose-jobs-1.547783



Oh I remember vividly.  Did the article also mention that Smurfit "sabotaged" their own equipment so nobody could put the mill back in to operation?  

There are stated reasons and real reasons for things.  Miramichi NB had three mills at the time and two of them were also on strike for 18 months.  Only one remains now and it's the non-unionized one.  

Smurfit also left the site to become an environmental catastrophe:

Welcome to Sarajevo, NB folks:







De-industrialization has killed much of Atlantic Canada.

Don't worry though, they still cut lots of wood in NB, they just ship it all to Quebec.  In fact, the NB Government increased how much wood companies were allowed to harvest annually to unsustainable levels.


----------



## Uzlu

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Two minor points to add though; both VSY and ISI invested 9 figures in upgrading the shipyards and took about two years after contract award, so nothing really started being built until 2015.  It was understood that there is a huge learning curve at the start.  Davie would need a similar level of investment to get their shipyard up to a similar level to build shipyards efficiently, so they aren't some kind of panacea.





> Boisvert said the investment will give the firm the money it needs to update its facilities, as well as a cash flow to fund future projects.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-investment-davie-shipyard-1.4737096


----------



## Baz

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Two minor points to add though; both VSY and ISI invested 9 figures in upgrading the shipyards...



To be fair, my undrstanding is ISI didn't invest anything.  The Nova Scotia government did in forgivable loans.  In effect, if all goes well ISI makes a profit.  If it doesn't, the Nova Scotia taxpayers take the loss.  So there was very little risk assumed by ISI.

I understand that's how these things are done, especially in Nova Scotia, but it does highlight that none of this is simple.


----------



## Underway

Baz said:
			
		

> To be fair, my undrstanding is ISI didn't invest anything.  The Nova Scotia government did in forgivable loans.  In effect, if all goes well ISI makes a profit.  If it doesn't, the Nova Scotia taxpayers take the loss.  So there was very little risk assumed by ISI.
> 
> I understand that's how these things are done, especially in Nova Scotia, but it does highlight that none of this is simple.



I think Navy_Pete was referring to investment in infrastructure amounts for the shipyards vice who actually pays the bill.  ISI has invested over $300 million in its shipyard despite the fact that the NS gov't gave them a loan.


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.cbc.ca/1.4788322?cmp=FB_Post_News

Looks like quality issues already from Seaspan


----------



## CBH99

To be fair, it does happen... seems like overall, it was a small number of welds compared to the total number of welds done on the ship.  Perhaps an inexperienced person with not enough training or supervision.

To be fair, even the US Navy has welding issues pop up "seemingly" frequently, and they always have tons of ships under construction...in their case it's an even smaller percentage due to the sheer number of ships they build annually, but it happens.  (Recently there were some defective welds on missile launch tubes intended for new submarines.)

I wouldn't instantly flame the yard...just make sure they are aware of the problem, fix it, and make the necessary changes so it's fixed in the future also.


----------



## JMCanada

CBH99 said:
			
		

> To be fair, it does happen...
> 
> I wouldn't instantly flame the yard...just make sure they are aware of the problem, fix it, and make the necessary changes so it's fixed in the future also.



Very reasonable & sensible reply.

I worked once in a nuclear plant at the time of refueling, the condenser had to be reworked (where pure water cools the radioactive steam circuit).

There were hundreds of welds and of course a few of them came out wrong. The matter is to ensure by different means (including X-rays) that each and every weld is ammended and perfectly seals the two elements. Then the work can go on to next step.


----------



## Good2Golf

Indeed.  That's the purpose of a QA system within a production framework.  The fact that it appears as though the flaws were identical across hull numbers and that the welding process/equipment involved was identified and replaced means the systems is working.  I say good on VSI for not shying away from acknowledging the issue and addressing what's being done to resolve the issue and prevent its occurrence in the future.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Indeed.  That's the purpose of a QA system within a production framework.  The fact that it appears as though the flaws were identical across hull numbers and that the welding process/equipment involved was identified and replaced means the systems is working.  I say good on VSI for not shying away from acknowledging the issue and addressing what's being done to resolve the issue and prevent its occurrence in the future.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Fully agree.  Far worse that bad welds get past QA and leads to all the problems that might cause.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:
			
		

> Fully agree.  Far worse that bad welds get past QA and leads to all the problems that might cause.



Quality is all about leadership, of course:

"The aim of leadership should be to improve the performance of man and machine, to improve quality, to increase output, and simultaneously to bring pride of workmanship to people. Put in a negative way, the aim of leadership is not merely to find and record failures of men, but to remove the causes of failure: to help people to do a better job with less effort.”

W. Edwards Deming


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Quality is all about leadership, of course:
> 
> "The aim of leadership should be to improve the performance of man and machine, to improve quality, to increase output, and simultaneously to bring pride of workmanship to people. Put in a negative way, the aim of leadership is not merely to find and record failures of men, but to remove the causes of failure: to help people to do a better job with less effort.”
> 
> W. Edwards Deming



Nice touch, daftandbarmy.

I had to study  In Search of Excellence too, when I was doing my graduate diploma in administration. So you and I both know that Deming is not using the word leadership to denote the activity of guiding and motivating others (as we would use it in the military) but as noun to designate the upper management of a company as an identified group of people. Basically he is saying that constantly improving quality of the product is the main task of the upper management of a company. He had studied the Japanese post war corporate world after all.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Nice touch, daftandbarmy.
> 
> I had to study  In Search of Excellence too, when I was doing my graduate diploma in administration. So you and I both know that Deming is not using the word leadership to denote the activity of guiding and motivating others (as we would use it in the military) but as noun to designate the upper management of a company as an identified group of people. Basically he is saying that constantly improving quality of the product is the main task of the upper management of a company. He had studied the Japanese post war corporate world after all.



Yup. He also said:

'Under no circumstances should we export North American management styles to a friendly country.'

Which is right on the nose with respect to what it takes to properly manage systems and processes to ensure high quality products and services.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Still slightly ff topic:

It's rather a pity, in a way, that the Asians, especially the Japanese and Koreans read and listened to Deming in the 1960s while American industrial "_leaders_" decided, in the 1950s, to ignore him and go with concepts like _Planned Obsolescence_ instead.


----------



## Kirkhill

America followed the example of the Paris Salons - new fashions for every season.

The personal computing market seems to have followed the same trend as well.  Why create something that won't breakdown for 10 years if the technology is going to be obsolete in 6 months?

Makes you wonder about building ships and aircraft for 40 years ......


----------



## Dale Denton

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> America followed the example of the Paris Salons - new fashions for every season.
> 
> The personal computing market seems to have followed the same trend as well.  Why create something that won't breakdown for 10 years if the technology is going to be obsolete in 6 months?
> 
> Makes you wonder about building ships and aircraft for 40 years ......



Never thought of that before, thanks.

SHouldnt it be written in (maybe in the 'shakeup' coming up) that after every 3 CSCs Irving builds, that there be a new 'Flight' or 'MK' made? What good is it to build a 2025-era CSC for $2Billion or whatever in 2040 if its using 15-20 year old tech?

Strong-Secure-Engaged = Obsolete, Unsafe, Late


----------



## Uzlu

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> SHouldnt it be written in (maybe in the 'shakeup' coming up) that after every 3 CSCs Irving builds, that there be a new 'Flight' or 'MK' made?


Yes.  I think it might be five blocks of three—somewhat similar to what was done with the_ St. Laurent_, _Restigouche_, _Mackenzie_, and _Annapolis_-class ships.  I think it might be five classes of ships having a common hull and propulsion machinery.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Basically he is saying that constantly improving quality of the product is the main task of the upper management of a company. He had studied the Japanese post war corporate world after all.   

It’s “Kaizen” that you’re referring to.  Something that when I worked in Boston for a large US firm back in the late 90’s was all the rage. ‘Small, constant change for the good.’  Something that I tell my kids to focus on - try for constant small improvements.


----------



## Kirkhill

Kaizen having been learnt by the Japanese from the Americans Deming and Shewhart and then sold back to the Americans by Americans who went to Japan to learn how to build cars the American way.

Thus demonstrating both that nothing gets forgotten and everything gets forgotten.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> I only took issue with the hyperbole not the thoughts behind it.  Completely agree that there needs to be a more speedy delivery.  The Halifax Class were designed for 25 years.  We are there now and dealing with massive corrosion issues across the fleet (mostly on the East Coast, mainly due to different deck coverings oddly enough).
> 
> Having Davie fill gaps in the Coast Guard is an excellent idea.  The fleets are so run down there is plenty of work for everyone right now.  As for Kingston replacements those boats are doing rather well.  FMF and the contractors are doing a good job to keep them going.  I haven't heard a single person in the RCN talk about Kingston replacement as a concern (yet), though I have heard talk about sub replacement since Strong Secure Engaged came out (even floating the Australia will be looking for partners discussion).



The MCDV’s are ok for now, as you say, but they’ll likely need replacement prior to either ISI or VSY completing their ongoing projects with AOPS, CSC, all the CCG stuff etc. When that time comes, and the other shipyards are still tied up, it looks like Davie will be in a good spot to get the gig. I wonder, though, about the 1000 tonne and under clause. If all other yards are restricted to building ships under 1000 tonnes, does that not limit the options for an MCDV replacement? I’m aware that as they stand, the KINGSTON’s are under that limit, but I would think the next vessel to take their place may want to include things like a helo pad, for instance. Is there an OPV class out there that can land (but not necessarily hangar) a helo AND weighs less than 1000 tonnes? I don’t believe I’ve seen or heard of one. Anyway, I have an uneasy feeling that caveat may stick in our throats at some point.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Why would we want to operate a helo off a ship that small? Why not just spec it for some sort of UAV right off the bat?


----------



## Swampbuggy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Why would we want to operate a helo off a ship that small? Why not just spec it for some sort of UAV right off the bat?



That’s exactly my point. I’ve heard a million times how small size is one of the main drawbacks of the MCDV.  That and speed. So, one would project that whatever is to replace it, whenever that may be, a larger ship is likely to be favoured. But, that clause of the 1000 tonne limit for any shipyard outside of ISI or VSY means that you will realistically have to wait 20 years for a new patrol ship, or that it will be small again and without the ability to land a helo. I’m not saying it’s a necessity, but certainly the option to use an OPV as a lily pad is appealing. What it boils down to is that the clause limits what we can do, either time wise or capability wise, and I think that may cause problems.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> That’s exactly my point. I’ve heard a million times how small size is one of the main drawbacks of the MCDV.  That and speed. So, one would project that whatever is to replace it, whenever that may be, a larger ship is likely to be favoured. But, that clause of the 1000 tonne limit for any shipyard outside of ISI or VSY means that you will realistically have to wait 20 years for a new patrol ship, or that it will be small again and without the ability to land a helo. I’m not saying it’s a necessity, but certainly the option to use an OPV as a lily pad is appealing. What it boils down to is that the clause limits what we can do, either time wise or capability wise, and I think that may cause problems.



My point is that, sometimes the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

Find a nice UAV that we all like and build that into your 1000 tonne limit. Even with the current crop of UAVs on the market, we can get some eye watering sensors and maybe even arm it.


----------



## Lumber

We could go for a Visby-Calass or Hamina-Class, or even a Sa'ar 5. If we wanted to go over the 1000T limiit, we could go with something like a River-Class and you'd get your flight deck.


----------



## Kirkhill

What do you want the ship to do?

Do you want the ship to be a patrol vessel - in which case a small vessel with a lot of launchers and missiles, including UAVs (ranging in size from Scan Eagles to "Flying Peanuts") are viable options.

Or do you want to increase the functionality and operational area of the helicopter fleet - allowing it to be deployed and sustained for longer periods in remote locations - in which case adding lily-pads to every suitable vessel makes sense.

A suitable vessel?  Anything that costs a lot of money should have a lily pad.    Small vessels should not cost a lot of money and thus should not necessarily have lily pads.

Conversely lily pads do not need to cost a lot of money even when large lily pads.  They only end up costing a lot of money when militarized.   Civil lily pads could be large and cheap - except when flying the Maple Leaf.


----------



## Swampbuggy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> My point is that, sometimes the juice ain't worth the squeeze.
> 
> Find a nice UAV that we all like and build that into your 1000 tonne limit. Even with the current crop of UAVs on the market, we can get some eye watering sensors and maybe even arm it.



I get that, I’m just a bit worried that a sheet of paper effectively ties the hands of the RCN in choosing what and when it gets a replacement for the MCDV. I understand completely that UAV’s are likely to take over many roles that were traditionally tasked to a helo. But, they can’t do everything, like personnel transfer for example. And with a deck you can perhaps refuel a chopper and increase time on station or range. At any rate, I was just using the helo deck as an example of how the choices could be limited. There are others as well. Maybe ice strengthening vs armament or sensor packages could be another area where the options get limited by the build restrictions on tonnage. For myself, I’m ok with something fast, simple and relatively small. Something like an ARMIDALE with 2 good RHIB’s and a UAV would be well under a 1000 tonnes and very useful for the RCN. Hey, maybe we can get OZ to throw them in with the used F-18’s and we can have Davie refit them! 😜


----------



## Dale Denton

Lumber said:
			
		

> We could go for a Visby-Calass or Hamina-Class, or even a Sa'ar 5. If we wanted to go over the 1000T limiit, we could go with something like a River-Class and you'd get your flight deck.



Wow that Hamina-Class is impressive. Only 250T? Maybe get the propulsion of the MCDVs, stretch it for a light (CCG) helicopter or UAV. Maybe then it'll be an expensive-enough to Canadianize it. Just day-dreaming...


----------



## Swampbuggy

Lumber said:
			
		

> We could go for a Visby-Calass or Hamina-Class, or even a Sa'ar 5. If we wanted to go over the 1000T limiit, we could go with something like a River-Class and you'd get your flight deck.



Sure, but that gets you back to waiting in line for VSY and ISI to finish their queues. Maybe you could pull the CCG OPV’s from VSY and give them to Davie, if they’re going to be less than 1000 tonnes, and then in turn get VSY to build some 1500-2000 tonne RCN OPV’s. That would be a bit quicker than waiting for 20+ years and it fulfills the contract stipulations.


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> We could go for a Visby-Calass or Hamina-Class, or even a Sa'ar 5. If we wanted to go over the 1000T limiit, we could go with something like a River-Class and you'd get your flight deck.



I shudder when thinking about what happens to the crew and equipment on those tiny Baltic ships on the Grand Banks.  River class is more the type I would like for an MCDV replacement.  Small crew, limited weapons, Helo/UAV pad, good seakeeping, decent legs and speed.  A suitable gun or two.  But that's only for Offshore patrol.  If you want minehunting then you need to be a bit more creative, as MCDV's are near the top of size for minehunting platforms.  Most minehunting platforms are about 500 tons or so and would really suffer in open waters off the east coast.


----------



## Uzlu

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Sure, but that gets you back to waiting in line for VSY and ISI to finish their queues. Maybe you could pull the CCG OPV’s from VSY and give them to Davie, if they’re going to be less than 1000 tonnes, and then in turn get VSY to build some 1500-2000 tonne RCN OPV’s. That would be a bit quicker than waiting for 20+ years and it fulfills the contract stipulations.


If Davie is allowed to build large ships for the coast guard and navy, there is no need to wait for Seaspan to finish its queue.  The Seaspan offshore patrol vessels will be more than 1000 tonnes—that is why Seaspan will be building them.  If the navy wants offshore patrol vessels—not more Harry DeWolfs—it might make sense to build them for the coast guard and navy—one design and lots of ships to drive down the cost per ship.


----------



## Stoker

As some has already stated a replacement for the Kingston Class is not being looked at right now. I would say we could easily get another 10 to 15 years out of the class and they"re being modernized all the time. In fact I just spent the last month on one of them in the high Arctic and they are in pretty good shape. The problem is that the class is being asked to do two roles, one as a mine warfare type utility ship and that of a patrol ship. I can't see the RCN going with a fast patrol ship as a Kingston Class replacement. To replace the class we need two classes of ships not one.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Uzlu said:
			
		

> If Davie is allowed to build large ships for the coast guard and navy, there is no need to wait for Seaspan to finish its queue.  The Seaspan offshore patrol vessels will be more than 1000 tonnes—that is why Seaspan will be building them.  If the navy wants offshore patrol vessels—not more Harry DeWolfs—it might make sense to build them for the coast guard and navy—one design and lots of ships to drive down the cost per ship.



That’s the problem, nobody (outside of Seaspan and Irving)  can “build” large ships, Davie included, if they’re over 1000t. That’s a stipulation of the NSS. That’s why ISI started going sideways when the G said a refresher might be in the works for NSS. They’re worried that clauses like this one may get “reworked” and allow Davie to horn in on their action.


----------



## Cloud Cover

.... but what of the above ships would take on the mine counter measures role? Can you do sensibly that from a corvette or an OPV? A specially constructed and treated hull is required, or at least was required before the Kingston class seemed to ditch that idea for better or for worse. I'm not aware of anything that changes the requirement for a special materials hull, even remote underwater equipment.  Of all the capabilities the RCN might be requested or forced to give up, I would think the ability to clear our harbours of mines might be one worth enhancing?


----------



## Stoker

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> .... but what of the above ships would take on the mine counter measures role? Can you do sensibly that from a corvette or an OPV? A specially constructed and treated hull is required, or at least was required before the Kingston class seemed to ditch that idea for better or for worse. I'm not aware of anything that changes the requirement for a special materials hull, even remote underwater equipment.  Of all the capabilities the RCN might be requested or forced to give up, I would think the ability to clear our harbours of mines might be one worth enhancing?



The Kingston Class operates Auv's now for mine warfare including the standard route survey and divers. Most of this takes place outside the mine danger zone.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> As some has already stated a replacement for the Kingston Class is not being looked at right now. I would say we could easily get another 10 to 15 years out of the class and they"re being modernized all the time. In fact I just spent the last month on one of them in the high Arctic and they are in pretty good shape. The problem is that the class is being asked to do two roles, one as a mine warfare type utility ship and that of a patrol ship. I can't see the RCN going with a fast patrol ship as a Kingston Class replacement. To replace the class we need two classes of ships not one.



10-15 years more of the MCDV is good news. But, is it realistic to expect another 20-25? Maybe if 6-8 were kept/refit as MCM only vessels, does it seem likely. If AOPS and some other OPV/corvette (6-8) were to take on the patrol portion of their current taskings, then possibly you keep the mine warfare and get your under 1000t ships.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> 10-15 years more of the MCDV is good news. But, is it realistic to expect another 20-25? Maybe if 6-8 were kept/refit as MCM only vessels, does it seem likely. If AOPS and some other OPV/corvette (6-8) were to take on the patrol portion of their current taskings, then possibly you keep the mine warfare and get your under 1000t ships.



Original design life for the Kingston Class was 25 yrs, I doubt if they will be using them for another 25 yrs but who knows. As for taking over their patrol duties, they don't patrol exclusively except for OP Caribbe or fisheries which we don't do anymore but as in all RCN vessels all the time they are at sea for whatever they are patrolling. MCM is a very small part of what they do.


----------



## dapaterson

Ideally, the RCN would have two dozen minor combatants, with a new one joining the fleet each year, and a dozen or so major combatants, with a new one joining the fleet every two years.  But that would require a dedicated, long term plan that would survive more that one CRCN and more than one government...


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> As some has already stated a replacement for the Kingston Class is not being looked at right now. I would say we could easily get another 10 to 15 years out of the class and they"re being modernized all the time. In fact I just spent the last month on one of them in the high Arctic and they are in pretty good shape. The problem is that the class is being asked to do two roles, one as a mine warfare type utility ship and that of a patrol ship. I can't see the RCN going with a fast patrol ship as a Kingston Class replacement. To replace the class we need two classes of ships not one.



That might be happening, if you consider the AOPS is supposed to do that patrol work.  Perhaps it frees the MCDV's up to be MCM and route surveyors again.  Especially when you think that there could be a few more AOPS built than originally thought give the Irving work gap issue.  So when their replacements are eventually looked at 15 years from now they could focus on MCM ships.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> That might be happening, if you consider the AOPS is supposed to do that patrol work.  Perhaps it frees the MCDV's up to be MCM and route surveyors again.  Especially when you think that there could be a few more AOPS built than originally thought give the Irving work gap issue.  So when their replacements are eventually looked at 15 years from now they could focus on MCM ships.



Concept of ops has the Kingston's pretty much doing the same deployments as they do now. AOPS will also deploy to the same areas as well and if i'm a betting man lots of other areas as well. The only advantage the Kingston's have is that they are very economical to operate compared to AOPS or any other platform we currently have.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> That might be happening, if you consider the AOPS is supposed to do that patrol work.  Perhaps it frees the MCDV's up to be MCM and route surveyors again.  Especially when you think that* there could be a few more AOPS built than originally thought* give the Irving work gap issue.  So when their replacements are eventually looked at 15 years from now they could focus on MCM ships.



IIRC it was "originally thought" that the RCN would be taking delivery of 8 AOPS with the vessels operating in the EEZ year round and conducting 2 deployments of 4 months each in the Arctic during the Summer navigable season.  "Concept of Support for AOPS - January 2009 - Version 9.0"   

I don't have access to version 0.0 or 1.0.


----------



## Dale Denton

Read through chunks of this today. Interesting note on submarines as I know they were discussed here in length. 

Fantastic read-through:

http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP9031883/nddnrp06/nddnrp06-e.pdf



> Rear-Admiral (Retired) Patrick Finn, DND’s Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), agreed.
> He told the Committee that DND was, in fact, planning on keeping the Victoria class
> submarines operational for “about 10 to 12 additional years” and was presently
> investigating “to what extent [it] could prolong those submarines’ lifespans” to “2030, and
> even beyond” and how it could “increase their current capacity” in the future. At the
> moment, there are no replacement plans, he noted.373


----------



## MilEME09

The oldest ship Chicoutimi was lainched in 1986, by 2030 she will be 44 years old. While I am no expert that seems like a long time for a submarine.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The oldest ship Chicoutimi was lainched in 1986, by 2030 she will be 44 years old. While I am no expert that seems like a long time for a submarine.



Welcome to Canada.  How old were the Sea Kings that we are just in the process of retiring?  How old is the Louis St. Laurent ice breaker?  How old will it be when we finally retire it?  How old were the Iroquois destroyers when they finally gave up the ghost?  How old are the CF-18's once they are finally retired? The Aurora's? The list goes on and on. 

Here in Canada, we run everything into the ground, nothing is retired (unless it really really breaks) until its over 40yrs old at a minimum.  

Saying this with tongue in cheek.... I'm surprised that we haven't tired to take the Lancaster Bomber from the Canadian Warplane Museum in Hamilton and press it into service as a long range recon plane off the west coast.....


----------



## Cloud Cover

How old is the B52? How old is the Minuteman III?  The USS Nimitz was launched in 1972, the Eisenhower in 1975.  We are not alone in this space except that we cannot seem to get approved projects that have the support of government off the ground. That is the real problem. 
Edit to say that as far as I can glean from these boards, it’s not easy to tell if our own procurement people or industry themselves are the cause of so many recent delays. When senior cabinet intervenes, like the Leo2, the C130J, C17, maybe even the 147F, things get done.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Welcome to Canada.  How old were the Sea Kings that we are just in the process of retiring?  How old is the Louis St. Laurent ice breaker?  How old will it be when we finally retire it?  How old were the Iroquois destroyers when they finally gave up the ghost?  How old are the CF-18's once they are finally retired? The Aurora's? The list goes on and on.
> 
> Here in Canada, we run everything into the ground, nothing is retired (unless it really really breaks) until its over 40yrs old at a minimum.
> 
> Saying this with tongue in cheek.... I'm surprised that we haven't tired to take the Lancaster Bomber from the Canadian Warplane Museum in Hamilton and press it into service as a long range recon plane off the west coast.....



Properly maintained and upgraded ships and air frames can last for many years.


----------



## Ping Monkey

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The oldest ship Chicoutimi was lainched in 1986, by 2030 she will be 44 years old. While I am no expert that seems like a long time for a submarine.




We'll be in good company.  The Taiwan Navy's SS-791 Hai Shih is presently 73 years old, and undergoing a life extension refit to keep her sailing until 2026!!    
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/taiwans-ancient-submarine-will-reach-astounding-80-years-19150


----------



## Czech_pivo

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> How old is the B52? How old is the Minuteman III?  The USS Nimitz was launched in 1972, the Eisenhower in 1975.  We are not alone in this space except that we cannot seem to get approved projects that have the support of government off the ground. That is the real problem.
> Edit to say that as far as I can glean from these boards, it’s not easy to tell if our own procurement people or industry themselves are the cause of so many recent delays. When senior cabinet intervenes, like the Leo2, the C130J, C17, maybe even the 147F, things get done.



I completely agree that there are many other examples of ships/air frames in use by other countries navies/air forces around the world that are as old.  But these tend to be the outliers - not the norm.  Its entirely normal here in Canada to run our equipment well past the normal/expected 'due date'.  Within the major NATO players and the other 'developed nations' outside of NATO, I'm willing to place a gentlemen's bet that our ships/air frames are the oldest overall bar none.  Some will say that means we are getting our monies worth then - and there is some truth to that - but I'd say that is not the case. To me its an overall sign of total disrespect to our Armed Forces and the men and women in them. 

How many of us drive 40yr old cars day to day to work?  How many of us would do so even if we spent the money/time/effort to properly maintain them?  I'm willing to bet none of us.  Those 40yr old cars are called 'classics' and are not driven daily to and from work, they don't have child seats in them, they are not stored outside in the elements.  They are pampered and treated with kid gloves.


----------



## FSTO

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Read through chunks of this today. Interesting note on submarines as I know they were discussed here in length.
> 
> Fantastic read-through:
> 
> http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP9031883/nddnrp06/nddnrp06-e.pdf



2030 is only 12 years away. Since it takes an average of 15 years to get a project from concept to FOC, I think we are already astern of station on a submarine replacement. I cannot fathom why we are not even thinking about replacing the Victoria's.


----------



## Cloud Cover

FSTO I agree with most of what you are saying but look how long our projects have been in the pipeline and are stalled. Heck, some threads about equipment such as support ships that have had political support since 2004 and other than Asterix, no support ship has been delivered.  I'm just saying that in some instances "we" as a country has far less to do with the problem than "we" as a defence industry and military organization (civilians and uniformed).


----------



## Dale Denton

Anyone else think the issues with outdated equipment stem from a mismanaged organisation? Could we not make defence procurement a new crown corporation? Run it like a business, replacing revenue with capability as the goal? 

I think its also a matter of timing more than anything though. If projects started and finished at reasonable rates, then the procurement people could be shifted around better to get something delivered on time.

NSPS (or whatever its name is now) is doomed to recreate the boom and bust cycle in our shipbuilding industry. How active will the 3 main yards be through the 2020s compared to the 2030s? Building AOPS, AORs, CSCs at the same time through the 2020s, then what? Where is the industry expected to go from 2030 on? Gov't would've fulfilled the large gap it built 10 years ago (by 2029), have a navy and CCG (for the most part) with almost all new ships. Maybe start building subs, MCDV replacements by then? How much work will there be to split? How much work will other countries have them do?

Is it possible to fit a 6 sub contract for Davie? It looks like the CSC program has had a rocky go of it, how would you trust a new sub contract to be handled?

Also, what happens if one of the 3 big yards land a big contract with a friendly country? Do they knock a RCN ship off the line to fit them in? What is the capacity for the industry to get outside work?


----------



## Uzlu

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Is it possible to fit a 6 sub contract for Davie?


No.  Only yards that build submarines would be able to build submarines.  For Davie to be able to build submarines, there would have to be a lot of money spent to set up a new yard just to build submarines.  Then Davie’s employees must be trained to build submarines—again, lots of money must be spent.  

Building submarines in Canada only makes sense if all the political parties agree on a continuous-build strategy—e.g., always order a new boat to be built every other year.  Because it makes no sense to spend all of this money only to mothball the yard and lay off all the workers after these six boats are built.


----------



## Cloud Cover

More or less that's the Australian plan.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The subs should be bought offshore, we won't even be able to fantasize about selling any.


----------



## MilEME09

I was more referring to the pressure hulls and if they could hold up for 40 years. Im guessing maintaining subs is a different can of worms compared to surface vessels.


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I was more referring to the pressure hulls and if they could hold up for 40 years.


They have been lightly used.


----------



## Kirkhill

Uzlu said:
			
		

> They have been lightly used.



Do they rust faster at dock or at sea?


----------



## Uzlu

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Do they rust faster at dock or at sea?


Not rust.  The number of dive-and-surface cycles that stresses the submarine’s hull.


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Properly maintained and upgraded ships and air frames can last for many years.



Very true.  The submarines are the example that the surface ships are now using for material management.  They are extremely well monitored and taken care of, probably because of their past issues.  The current submarines are in excellent shape.




			
				Uzlu said:
			
		

> They have been lightly used.





			
				Uzlu said:
			
		

> Not rust.  The number of dive-and-surface cycles that stresses the submarine’s hull.



Very true, repetitive loading is the main issue here, like bending a paperclip back and forth (for those of you who are not aware of material issues... apologies to those who are for sounding "know it all" like).  NETE is developing new testing techniques to look for internal stress cracks in the pressure hull so we don't have a Montreal idler gear type situation.  Those subs are lavished with attention from a material perspective due to SUBSAFE requirements (and rightly so).


----------



## Good2Golf

Interestingly, submarines and airplanes share many similarities regarding fatigue life - many (pressurized) aircraft have their lifetime measured in ‘cycles’, which includes a complete pressurization cycle from ambient surface pressure to a specified ‘cabin otessure’ while at cruise altitude (usually 8,000 MSL for most) and a return to ambient surface pressure.  The major difference being aircraft physically expand slightly during each pressurization cycle due to reduced atmospheric pressure at altitude, while submarines experience compressive pressure cycling during their dive cycles.  In both cases, the repeated tensile or compressive cycling fatigues the main structure as well as fittings and external connectors, leading to the use of remaining structural life. 

Of course, if you inadvertently apply excessive pressure cycles to such structures, either in tension for planes, or compression for subs, things don’t go well...to wit: (below)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And planes only have to deal with, as an obvious maximum, changes in pressure of one atmosphere.

At 800 feet, a submarine is subjected to 25 atmosphere of pressure. That's one of the reason there is no sound really associated with the airplane body going through the cycle, while submarines' hulls and pressure fittings creak during the process - particularly during an emergency dive or surfacing. It's a noise that takes some getting use to.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://www.marinelink.com/news/shipbuilding-seaspan-shipyards-building-440822

here’s a shipbuilding resurgence underway in Canada that’s being driven by a long-term multibillion dollar government initiative to rebuild the federal fleet of Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard vessels and breathe new life into the country’s shipbuilding industry. Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards is an active player.
Under Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), the Vancouver, B.C. shipbuilder was selected in 2011 to deliver several types of large non-combat vessels for the Navy and Coast Guard, while another shipyard on the East Coast, Irving Shipbuilding, will deliver the combat ships. The NSS also calls for a number of smaller vessels from several other yards throughout Canada.
Vancouver Rising
Seaspan Shipyards won the open competitive bid to build non-combat vessels over 1,000 gross tons in Vancouver. That backlog currently includes three Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels (OFSV), one Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel (OOSV) and one Polar Class Icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard, plus two Joint Support Ships (JSS) for the Royal Canadian Navy. The company anticipates further work on non-combat vessels to be defined by its federal customer in the coming years.
This current and future activity is revitalizing an entire industry by creating new work up and down the shipbuilding supply chain. To date, thanks to its NSS-related work alone, Seaspan has $600 million in committed contracts and engaged approximately 500 Canadian firms, the vast majority of which are small- and medium-sized enterprises.
“The National Shipbuilding Strategy is causing a rebirth of shipbuilding on the West Coast, simply put,” said Tim Page, Vice president of Government Relations at Seapsan Shipyards. “We have not had a backlog of work ever such as we have today, nor have we had the promise of that backlog of work because there has not been a federal, national commitment to a long-term strategic recapitalization program for our maritime forces probably since the Second World War.”Prior to the NSS, the shipyard had mostly built tugs, barges and ferries. “Currently, we have three active and concurrent and shipbuilding programs underway, which is a rarity in North American shipbuilding,” Page said. Seaspan is well into the program to produce the three fisheries science vessels, and in June it began building the first of two joint support ships. The yard is also designing, planning and procuring long-lead items for our oceanographic science vessel. Work to produce a polar icebreaker is also due to join the mix.


‘Considerable Risk’
Balancing such a workload has its challenges. “It’s a portfolio that includes considerable risk, given the soft-toothed nature of program – three vessels, one, then two, then one,” Page explained. “So, over the first seven vessels that we will be producing here at Vancouver Shipyards, there will be four prototypes, which is a pretty tall order for an industry that has recently been reborn.”
“The federal government has decided that the best way of managing the program in the year to years is to have a series of contracts for each project. So, for the fisheries science vessel we have four separate contracts: an ancillary contract to get us started; engineering contract to do all the design and engineering – preproduction, if you will; a long-lead item contract that allows us to go to market to acquire vendor furnished information, to mature design work and ultimately get costing so that we can have a pretty good idea what it’s going to cost to build the ship so that the government can then get us under contract to build.”
“We don’t have build contracts for the oceanographic science vessel yet,” Page said, “and we have no formal contracts for our polar icebreaker program yet, nor do we have anything but a commitment by our federal government to build up to 10 additional vessels after we’ve completed the polar icebreaker.” The build schedule will ultimately be determined by federal government demand, he explained: “We see this as a 20-year build program. It’s for [the government] to decide how they want to manage that.”
An Ecosystem of Suppliers
All the while, an expanding pool of suppliers is pitching in with Seaspan for the long-term endeavor. “The Canadian market is keenly interested in supporting us,” Page said. “They are, like we, inexperienced in the business by virtue of not having built any large vessels in this country for 30 years. So, we’re all learning together; we’re all in the same classroom, if you will, all trying to figure out how to anticipate our federal customer’s needs, and then how to procure those needs in a timely, cost-effective, quality-driven perspective.”
“That supply base is growing with every successive program that we engage in with our federal government,” Page said. “We’re creating an ecosystem, if you will, that will sustain the efforts of Vancouver Shipyards and responding to the demand of our customer for a long, strategic build program.”
The Canadian government estimates that contracts awarded through the NSS (overall, not just at Seaspan) have contributed some $7.7 billion to the nation’s gross domestic product and create or maintain an average of more than 7,000 jobs per year.
Seaspan Invests
With the promise of steady work through the NSS, Seaspan has invested heavily in its facilities and staff required for the large-scale, long-term project. In 2014, the shipyard completed a two-year $170 million modernization program that included the addition of a very large gantry crane (named Hiyí Skwáyel, the Squamish language translation of “Big Blue”), four fabrication buildings and a load-out pier. “We’ve created here, in our opinion, the most modern shipyard of its kind in North America,” Page said. Additionally, in April this year, Seaspan opened a new 7,800 square meter office next to its yard that will serve primarily as a collaborative space for Vancouver Shipyards to execute preproduction work under the NSS.
With a project of this magnitude also comes demand for a new and larger talent pool. “We are heavily invested in universities, colleges and trade schools. We’re directly invested and indirectly training, and then we’re hoping that graduates of those programs will look at Seaspan Shipyards as a place to earn a well-paid salary and live a productive and enjoyable work experience,” Page said. “We’re also attracting a number of welders, pipe fitters, steel fabricators from the oil and gas sector which is currently experiencing a downturn in Alberta. They’re certified tradespeople, but they have no relative experience building ships. So, we’ve got an active on-the-job training of our blue-collar workforce. And we’re training through apprentices and internships in that respect, as well as in the white-collar area.”
“Given the absence of shipbuilding in Canada and shipbuilding on the West Coast for 30 years, people hadn’t been looking to careers in shipbuilding or ship repair,” Page said. “We’re helping to change that but recognize that we have a responsibility to mature that workforce on a faster pace than simply through the formal education system.”
Progress and Lessons Learned.
“As we’re managing a relationship with two different federal customers, figuring out how to flex the muscles of our newly-built shipyard, attracting and training a largely green workforce on both the trade side and the white-collar staff side, and developing a domestic supply chain isn’t used to building ships in this country for the last 30 years, there are considerable risks in all of that. And we are living those risks in real time,” Page said.
The first large vessel designed and built under the NSS, the lead of the three new OFSVs, was launched behind schedule near the end of 2017. “I think the schedule estimates were optimistic when they were first created, in part out of a political imperative to get the shipbuilding strategy underway,” Page said. “We were willing partners in that optimism because we’re very proud of having won the competition, very proud of the work done here in a very short number of years to rebuild Canada’s shipbuilding industry here on the West Coast and to be attracting and training as many young Canadians from diverse backgrounds as we have been able to.”
The milestone vessel, the 63-meter CCGS Sir John Franklin, was launched December 8, 2017. Together with its two sister ships currently under construction, the vessels will replace three aged Coast Guard vessels that are used for research to better understand the health of fish stocks and their ocean environment.
“A first-of-class vessel in a new shipyard always has a myriad of lessons to be learned from it, which we are now applying to the construction of the second and third vessels in that same class. A whole lot in the operations side and the production side, but whole lot as well in the engineering, planning and program management side has been learned. And we’re now applying those lessons learned to our downstream work for the oceanographic science vessel and joint support ship.”
On June 15, Seaspan held a steel cutting ceremony for the first JSS. The new ships will deliver fuel and other supplies to vessels at sea in support of the Navy’s defense and humanitarian missions. They’ll also offer medical/dental facilities and provide support for helicopter operations and equipment repair. Once completed, the 173-meter vessels will be among the largest ships ever constructed on Canada’s West Coast.


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Interestingly, submarines and airplanes share many similarities regarding fatigue life - many (pressurized) aircraft have their lifetime measured in ‘cycles’, which includes a complete pressurization cycle from ambient surface pressure to a specified ‘cabin otessure’ while at cruise altitude (usually 8,000 MSL for most) and a return to ambient surface pressure.  The major difference being aircraft physically expand slightly during each pressurization cycle due to reduced atmospheric pressure at altitude, while submarines experience compressive pressure cycling during their dive cycles.  In both cases, the repeated tensile or compressive cycling fatigues the main structure as well as fittings and external connectors, leading to the use of remaining structural life.
> 
> Of course, if you inadvertently apply excessive pressure cycles to such structures, either in tension for planes, or compression for subs, things don’t go well...to wit: (below)




Wowa!!!!   How did that thing not fall out of the sky??  That's scary.  Really scary.  Enjoy your next Air Canada flight folks...


----------



## Baz

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Wowa!!!!   How did that thing not fall out of the sky??  That's scary.  Really scary.  Enjoy your next Air Canada flight folks...



It wasn't flying.  They were conducting a pressurization test, the outflow valves were capped and it wasn't realized, and the tech misread the gauge.

More pictures and a lessons learned slide at https://www.powershow.com/view/131712-MTk0Z/KC135_PRESSURIZATION_MISHAP_powerpoint_ppt_presentation?varnishcache=1, but it is not a definitive source.  Accident report at https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990407-2

More scary is that aircraft was over 40 years old at the time of the mishap in *1999*.  They are still flying KC-135s; granted maybe not the oldest ones. But according to https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2015/11/23/grueling-pace-for-old-planes-tankers-and-their-maintainers-cant-afford-to-slow-down/ the average age was 55 years in 2005.  How many pressurization cycles does that represent?

For an incident caused by incorrect maintenance to the pressure fuselage occurring in flight see https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/maintenance_hf/library/documents/media/human_factors_maintenance/aircraft_accident_report--aloha_airlines.flight_243.boeing_737-200.n73711.near_maui.hawaii.april_28.1988.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You think the PAO's office would be experts on stuff like spelling.......


----------



## JMCanada

Not sure that this is the proper thread, but found this interesting article...

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/navy-blues#


----------



## Colin Parkinson

From seaspan twitter

Seaspan Shipyards is pleased to announce the achievement of an important milestone on the CCGS Sir John Franklin. Last week saw the successful running of the vessel’s main diesel generators. The ship will now progress into full load trials.

From their webpage, OFSV #3

http://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries/nss-photo-gallery-ofsv3


----------



## ringo

DeWolf for Coast guard? if there is a gap between construction of 5 navy DeWolf's and Type 26 construction, could that gap be filled by building 1 or 2 DeWolf's for CCG, would DeWolf's be of any use to CCG ice-breaking in St. Lawrence etc?


----------



## FSTO

ringo said:
			
		

> DeWolf for Coast guard? if there is a gap between construction of 5 navy DeWolf's and Type 26 construction, could that gap be filled by building 1 or 2 DeWolf's for CCG, would DeWolf's be of any use to CCG ice-breaking in St. Lawrence etc?



No
DeWolf can operate in ice but AFAIK she would not be able to break the ice found in the St. Lawrence.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Plus she can't really do buoy tending. They could be easily modified to do science work. CCG generally hates non-multi-tasked vessels. I doubt they really wanted the Hero class which is basically going back to a slightly more capable R-Class. They didn't waste time getting rid of one of the 500 class (John Jacobson) leaving one left in service (Gordon Reid).


----------



## Czech_pivo

Quebec's Davie shipyard to split billion-dollar ship maintenance contracts

Quebec's Davie shipyard is in line to get a piece of federal contracts worth billions of dollars for maintenance on Canadian navy ships.



Looks like wiser heads are prevailing and realizing, though not fully, that Irving and Seaspan don't have enough idle capacity to maintain the existing fleet and attempt to build out the new one.  This will again play out with the Kingston's finally give up the ghost 
and the Victoria's need they're life extension in another few years. Davie will again come to the forefront.

Public Services and Procurement Canada announced Thursday in a news release it intends to sign contracts worth $7 billion with Davie, in Lévis, Que., Irving Shipbuilding Inc. in Halifax and Seaspan Victoria Shipyards in Victoria.

The government did not provide a breakdown of how much each contract is worth.

However, a source told Radio-Canada it would be the biggest contract in Davie's history.....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/davie-shipyard-contract-1.4887200


----------



## Dale Denton

A scenario, interested in seeing your thoughts/solutions:

You run the re-re-started shipbuilding strategy.

A protracted legal battle causes a delay in awarding the CSC contract. The shipyard will lay off hundreds unless another contract for something else is signed. The gov't of the day is eager not to lose jobs in a politically vital region, to prove itself in the shipbuilding industry, and to show the strategy is working. There is now an expected 2 year gap (don't focus on why). The shipyard cannot start to build anything for the CSC as the contract can't be awarded yet. Cabinet supports your solution to get this shipyard working asap, cost is not the biggest factor anymore (jobs/time are).

Rules:

You can't pre-build anything for the CSC.
Nothing can be built in large numbers, as the gap is 2 years at most (unless you scrap the CSC project).
Re-tooling the shipyard is not an issue (for ****s and giggles).
You may change the strategy, but cannot cancel classes already being built.

What do you suggest and why?


----------



## Patski

I'm no specialist, but since Irving is picking the pace with AOPS, why not a 7th?  it might be too much to call it a "spare" one, but having 3 on each side of the country at all time might be hard, maintenance, refit, problems, the 7th could fit the gap when one is in dry dock?


----------



## YZT580

Contract Davies to convert another Freighter (to shut them up) and then sole source a RO RO to work as a delivery vessel for the army when required.  Lease it out for commercial use with a recall provision.  That way we get a supply ship capable of transporting to Europe or elsewhere, keep everyone working at Irving and keep Davie happy all at the same time and it is a resource that we don't have at all right now.  There are lots of commercially available plans to ensure that no expensive re-engineering is required and it should make for a fairly quick build.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Yup. “Encourage” unsolicited bids to fund ideas that address capability gaps for non CSC naval duties.  Perhaps a 800 foot through deck tug boat, a peace support “ferry” and lease some “surplus” yet to be built FFG ships from the US.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Commission from Irving, on a sole source contract, two (heck, maybe even three if they can squeeze it) brand spanking new HALIFAX class frigates with full "mid-life" refit upgrades already on them. 

Irving or the GoC already own all the rights and plans needed to do that and you would have brand new hulls ready to be the ones that will go on in a reasonable shape until they become the last ones replaced by the CSC's.

Wait! Won't work. It's too logical.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

yep just move the builder plates to the new hull and any beams with a registry number. That would be like almost every flying Beaver out here, an old plate with new parts surrounding it. When the CSC is finally built, sell the old/new Halifax's to a 3rd world country.


----------



## NavyShooter

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> A scenario, interested in seeing your thoughts/solutions:
> 
> You run the re-re-started shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> A protracted legal battle causes a delay in awarding the CSC contract. The shipyard will lay off hundreds unless another contract for something else is signed. The gov't of the day is eager not to lose jobs in a politically vital region, to prove itself in the shipbuilding industry, and to show the strategy is working. There is now an expected 2 year gap (don't focus on why). The shipyard cannot start to build anything for the CSC as the contract can't be awarded yet. Cabinet supports your solution to get this shipyard working asap, cost is not the biggest factor anymore (jobs/time are).
> 
> Rules:
> 
> You can't pre-build anything for the CSC.
> Nothing can be built in large numbers, as the gap is 2 years at most (unless you scrap the CSC project).
> Re-tooling the shipyard is not an issue (for ****s and giggles).
> You may change the strategy, but cannot cancel classes already being built.
> 
> What do you suggest and why?




I present my argument from the other thread....


CSC will be cancelled due to the delays, court-cases, and excessive costs (not including any space for overruns)
GOC will contract with ISI to instead build an additional 15 modified AOPS
AOPS design will be modified for last 15 ships to include the new SG-180 upgrade that we just bought for the Halifax class, a slightly upgraded OPS room with a better DLPS (Digital Link) system and an improved armament suite to include a 40mm or 57mm deck gun (preferably 57mm with no ammo hoist - you get the 120 rounds in the mount then have to manually reload) and a set of triple Torp Tubes on each side.  For ASW, they'd add the ability to mount a containerized ASW towed array system.


Presto.  We have a simplified fleet of 21 ships - all of the same type.  It lets them throw a bunch of money at LM as a 'sympathy' response for losing the CSC to enable the redesign of the OPS room and tie in the SG-180.  


From the perspective of the RCN - horrible loss of capability.
From the perspective of the GOC - we get the same number of ships, but a lot less cost
From the perspective of the Public - they don't know what we do anyhow, so it's a win win.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

NS,

You are an evil genius.

That is an all too plausible scenario.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not much of a bone for LM in getting them to integrate a single new radar (for those who didn't know, SG-180 is the surface/air 2D search radar called the Sea Giraffe) into an otherwise unremarkable "combat" system. They ought to be able to do that in their sleep over the week end  ;D.

I can see, however, the government going for a crazy plan that would put towed away sonar on a hull that submarines can hear coming from three times the range of the said TAS.  :nod:              :face palm:


NS, please stop giving the government arguments - next thing you know they'll adopt the plan and state that a serving naval officer came up with it as justification.


----------



## NavyShooter

I ain't no ossifer, I's 'just' a chief.  

One of the brighter lights in this thread said a long time ago (not me) that the NSPS is not a program to build ships for the Navy.  It's effectively a job creation program, and the ships are a useful byproduct.  

Whatever ships the RCN gets will dictate the capabilities that we bring to the table...and so long as there are platforms for the MARS officers to punch their command tickets on, they'll mostly be happy. 

We won't even see that much loss of real capability for a long time since they'll keep the Halifax Class on as long as possible to maintain some capability.

The final 'fix' that this solution provides is the manpower problem - 21 AOPS has less crew than 7 Halifax class - and with the maintenance being done by ISSC (in service support contract) it will also 'fix' the gaps that are appearing in technical trades (W Eng and MARTECH.) 

Again, it's the last thing that the Navy wants or needs - but as an evil genius plan - it's certainly do-able.

And really, would the average member of Joe Public know any different?  Grey ship, has RADAR on top, has gun out front - no missiles because those are too expensive, get 21 ships for less than 1/3 of the original cost, yeah, less capable, but did we really NEED those Cadillac ships anyhow?  Flag gets shown overseas, we still respond to humanitarian relief missions, grey hulls built in Canada means good publicity for government, money saved goes to pay down deficit - the budget balances itself - what's the likelihood of this coming to pass...?

Maybe I should write it up in a BN to the CoC as an alternate solution...?  Then it goes on the corporate record instead of just as a crazy idea on the interwebz.   :worms: op: :temptation: 

NS


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I ain't no ossifer, I's 'just' a chief.



What makes you think that Joe Public - or even the GoC - knows the difference between a commissioned officer or a Chief Petty Officer, where "naval" officers are concerned.  ;D


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What makes you think that Joe Public - or even the GoC - knows the difference between a commissioned officer or a Chief Petty Officer, where "naval" officers are concerned.  ;D



They have no clue and don't care that they have no clue.


----------



## Infanteer

Nor should they really.  I don't really know the hierarchy in a hospital or an oil field, and I wouldn't be chided for not knowing.


----------



## FSTO

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Nor should they really.  I don't really know the hierarchy in a hospital or an oil field, and I wouldn't be chided for not knowing.


Its really pretty simple and our media would know if they'd just fricken ask.

Hospital
Hospital Administrators - Doctors - Nurses - cleaning staff

Oil Field
Tool push - roughneck - labourer

(I guess I'm just more curious about things than the average bear)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I can live with Joe Public not knowing, though they really ought to have at least a basic idea. But the GoC? Inexcusable! After debt servicing, national defence is the single largest federal budget item. They are there to manage our money and so they should have a clue. The same way that, while I don't necessarily know about hospital management, I still expect my Provincial government to know all about it.


----------



## Baz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I can live with Joe Public not knowing, though they really ought to have at least a basic idea. But the GoC? Inexcusable! After debt servicing, national defence is the single largest federal budget item. They are there to manage our money and so they should have a clue. The same way that, while I don't necessarily know about hospital management, I still expect my Provincial government to know all about it.



I think you meant department spending not federal budget item.  In the 2916-17 $311 billion budget, $48.1 was elderly payments, $36 was the health transfer, and $25 defence, followed closely by $24.15 service the debt.


----------



## JMCanada

Back to the "poll"... I would go for two new ships based on the AOPS but fitted for/as  submarine rescue and ocean-going tugs.
I think they would not need big changes from original AOPS, main ones could be
- dedicated new sonar and sensors suite
- longer endurance, so the need for increased fuel and provisions capacity.
- new, appropiate crane.
- maybe propellers or propulsion system should be also reviewed to slightly increase speed (by 3-5 knots I guess).
- perhaps they would not require to deal with 120 cm thick ice... maybe 70 cm would be fine.

  :


----------



## Kirkhill

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Back to the "poll"... I would go for two new ships based on the AOPS but fitted for/as  submarine rescue and ocean-going tugs.
> I think they would not need big changes from original AOPS, main ones could be
> - dedicated new sonar and sensors suite
> - *longer endurance, so the need for increased fuel and provisions capacity*.
> - new, appropiate crane.
> - *maybe propellers or propulsion system should be also reviewed to slightly increase speed (by 3-5 knots I guess)*.
> - *perhaps they would not require to deal with 120 cm thick ice... maybe 70 cm would be fine*.
> 
> :



I'm pretty sure that those three requirements would result in an entirely new class of ship that would be pretty different to the current AOPS.  You would be resetting all the way back to the keel plate.   But that is just an informed surmise.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quite right, Chris.

In fact, with the AOPS hull form, the increase in power that would be required to increase the speed by 3 to 4 knots would be off the scale. Such speed increase can only be achieved by redesigning the hull form.


----------



## Stoker

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Back to the "poll"... I would go for two new ships based on the AOPS but fitted for/as  submarine rescue and ocean-going tugs.
> I think they would not need big changes from original AOPS, main ones could be
> - dedicated new sonar and sensors suite
> - longer endurance, so the need for increased fuel and provisions capacity.
> - new, appropiate crane.
> - maybe propellers or propulsion system should be also reviewed to slightly increase speed (by 3-5 knots I guess).
> - perhaps they would not require to deal with 120 cm thick ice... maybe 70 cm would be fine.
> 
> :



All ships can tow, AOPS is not suitable as a ocean going tug due to its design, they will all be able to embark our SUBSAR and SUBSMASH payloads. 

- dedicated new sonar and sensors suite- Sure I guess, what new sonar and sensor suite would you want?
- longer endurance, so the need for increased fuel and provisions capacity.- 6500NM range, more fuel capacity than a CPF, a fairly large provision storage capability and the ability to embark 6 20FT ISO containers. Remember these are designed to operate independently in the Arctic for up to 4 months without major support.
- new, appropiate crane.- Again they have a crane suitable to land vehicles, containers.
- maybe propellers or propulsion system should be also reviewed to slightly increase speed (by 3-5 knots I guess).- These ships are limited to the hull in regards to speed. 
- perhaps they would not require to deal with 120 cm thick ice... maybe 70 cm would be fine.-Not sure what you mean, 120 is what you need in the Arctic and again that's what its designed to operate it. Are you talking about a AOPS light?


----------



## Cloud Cover

This idea of a new flight of HALIFAX class is an interesting idea. The USN has multiple flights of BURKE class, each building the previous. The only thing I can think of is the current FFG design is pretty much maxed out for weight, and changes to above waterline might threaten the stability of the ship unless they lengthened it? But as an interim project, why not?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Edit: I believe there may be abandoned plans in existence for such a ship sitting in archives somewhere: the Provincial Class AWD?  http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/current/futurddg/


----------



## CBH99

Not a half bad looking ship...

15 of those with state of the art "whatever we need" might not be all that bad.  (More complicated than that, I know...)

But still.  A C2 capable AAW ship that would be decently simple to move forwards on.


----------



## Swampbuggy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Not a half bad looking ship...
> 
> 15 of those with state of the art "whatever we need" might not be all that bad.  (More complicated than that, I know...)
> 
> But still.  A C2 capable AAW ship that would be decently simple to move forwards on.



Wondering about the radar stealthiness of this design, though. It’s my understanding that lots of right angles and hard edges make the vessel easier to find with radar, but I’m not an expert. I suppose you could clean that up, a little, with out much of a major change to the plans?


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Wondering about the radar stealthiness of this design, though. It’s my understanding that lots of right angles and hard edges make the vessel easier to find with radar, but I’m not an expert. I suppose you could clean that up, a little, with out much of a major change to the plans?



There's a reason why we are not building more Halifax Class or variants of the Class. Its outdated with no stealth characteristics.


----------



## Dale Denton

I'm sure any ship designer/engineering firm could clean some of the exterior up somehow...

What could you reasonably change to a CPF to make modern (again) enough through to the late 2020s? How can you re-configure a CPF for C2 and AAW that could be done as a moderate refit? 

Even if the platform design dates back to the 80s.


----------



## Stoker

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> I'm sure any ship designer/engineering firm could clean some of the exterior up somehow...
> 
> What could you reasonably change to a CPF to make modern (again) enough through to the late 2020s? How can you re-configure a CPF for C2 and AAW that could be done as a moderate refit?
> 
> Even if the platform design dates back to the 80s.



In my opinion the somehow is to design an entirely new hull and ship. the design is over 30 years old. There are lots of advances in warships that the hull won't support.


----------



## JMCanada

First of all, thanks for all your inputs, they make me learn from all. This was a “what if” game and I didn’t want to extend too much in my previous post. Supporting my idea, let me drop a few more comments…

One point is that I saw 17 knots somehow slow compared to the 2x4.5 MW motors. Then I was not sure if it was due to the hull shape or to the propellers (fixed or variable pitch? optimized for low speeds because of ice? – I also don’t know) . For an ocean going tug and submarine rescue ship, I considered 3-5 additional knots would help. I intentionally used conditional (“maybe propellers and prop. system should be also reviewed”) meaning that it should be studied both in terms of Navy needs and technical feasibility without introducing major changes/risks on the design. Sorry that I was too brief in my post. 

Same way applies to the ice thickness. If it were as easy as just to use a thinner layer of steel in the hull (probably not), and if the Navy would not require these two ships for full Arctic environment, then they could be redesigned for 70 cm instead of 120 cm. Please remember that in the game we had no problem about money and had time enough untill mid 2020’s, when we would find the production gap, to make such redesign. 

Crane (for SUBSAR) - I read sweeds using a 55 tons, A-shaped crane for their Sub-rescue ship, Korea uses an A-shaped crane as well. Might it happen that the 20 tons crane of the AOPs would not serve for the purpose? Is it really required an A-shape crane? and is the AOPS crane of such type?

Towing- of course any ship can tow. However, other navies (US, France, Russia, for instance) do operate oceanic tugs (UK relies on a Forward repair ship listed in the RFA), relieving other ships from such task. 

Range and payloads – Good to know about the SUBSAR & SUBSMASH payloads! Then it wouldn’t be necessary too much of special design for the AOPS platform. On the other hand, since these 2 additional ships would not need to cover the Arctic, then it might be useful to redesign the hull for ocean-going (and benefit from a “lower” [1] polar class). Good also to know about the 4 months endurance of the AOPS (I had no data on that). But still 6500 nmi might be reviewed acc. to the needs and requirements of the RCN.  IMHO it might be a little bit short to properly cover the Pacific without refueling in the way to assist to the distressed vessel. Vancouver to Sidney distance is about 6.700 nmi straight [2].

While I had in mind to use as much as possible an existing platform (the AOPS) and cover a possible gap in the Navy’s fleet, from the comments received it becomes clear that such ships (2x submarine rescue & oceangoing tugs) should better be designed from a blank sheet.

[1] Lower as less restrictive, therefore, higher number. 
[2] Yeah, the range depends on the cruise speed as well. I’m primarily pointing to the RCN to determine the targeted range for such SUBSAR & Tug duties, and secondly expressing that IMHO 6.500 nmi would not suffice.

Sorry for this loooong post. And thanks again for your comments.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> In my opinion the somehow is to design an entirely new hull and ship. the design is over 30 years old. There are lots of advances in warships that the hull won't support.


This is a fair point, however the designers of the Burke have evolved the design in flights since 1988, around the same time the 330 were taking shape in the yards. Is this not where we have gone wrong with shipbuilding, instead of small but steady streams of improved flights or batches, we go big and then go bust. The CPF design could have, and still can evolve and modernize, including hull changes, stealth, propulsion etc. Some the evolutions would certainly be radical, granted. 
One more question, are we gaining or losing capability with a Type 26 with only one helo, or should there be a design option for 2 embarked similar to the 280. Each ship retaining UAS equipment as well.


----------



## MilEME09

Considering how full our yards are at the moment with the exception of Davie who would even be able to build new flights of halifaxs/halifax sub-class?  Id bet only a foreign yard could build them any time soonish. Lets assume by magic it did happen the order would need to be significant to make it worth it to a yard, we would need massive recruiting and training efforts if we wanted a fleet of 20+ surface combatants capable of blue water operations


----------



## JMCanada

If the yards are full, no need to re-invent the wheel. Why not call the aussies and order 3 or 4 Hobarts?
They are AWD with C2 capabilities.

I am pretty sure they could deliver on fixed price and within schedule.


----------



## Stoker

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> This is a fair point, however the designers of the Burke have evolved the design in flights since 1988, around the same time the 330 were taking shape in the yards. Is this not where we have gone wrong with shipbuilding, instead of small but steady streams of improved flights or batches, we go big and then go bust. The CPF design could have, and still can evolve and modernize, including hull changes, stealth, propulsion etc. Some the evolutions would certainly be radical, granted.
> One more question, are we gaining or losing capability with a Type 26 with only one helo, or should there be a design option for 2 embarked similar to the 280. Each ship retaining UAS equipment as well.



The Burke class was built to evolve over time and is significantly larger than the CPF, the Halifax Class was not. Talking to several Nav Arc's that worked on the life extension told me that the design has reached its end.


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> If the yards are full, no need to re-invent the wheel. Why not call the aussies and order 3 or 4 Hobarts?


If the yards are full?  https://www.marinelink.com/news/quebec-eyes-federal-shipbuilding-460538
Why not?  https://army.ca/forums/threads/120223/post-1517415.html#msg1517415


----------



## Swampbuggy

JMCanada said:
			
		

> If the yards are full, no need to re-invent the wheel. Why not call the aussies and order 3 or 4 Hobarts?
> They are AWD with C2 capabilities.
> 
> I am pretty sure they could deliver on fixed price and within schedule.



I’m thinking this negates what started the line of thought this thread was addressing. The pitch for an overhauled HALIFAX was to address a larger gap at ISI if Alion succeeds in having its day in court. If that drags in, then the “gap” will be larger. Buying AAD vessels from around the world wouldn’t keep Irving employees in the meat, and so the Government would never entertain that thought. If there is a gap, and if the G was to try and fill it, I’d suspect another AOPS or two is likely to be the way they’d go. Or, possibly some type of RO/RO logistics ship as a refit from an existing vessel. I can’t see them spark up a line of essentially new build ships to address a couple years of lean times at Irving, much less throw a pile of cash to a foreign shipbuilder, even if it means getting AAD capability much sooner.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I’m thinking this negates what started the line of thought this thread was addressing. The pitch for an overhauled HALIFAX was to address a larger gap at ISI if Alion succeeds in having its day in court. If that drags in, then the “gap” will be larger. Buying AAD vessels from around the world wouldn’t keep Irving employees in the meat, and so the Government would never entertain that thought. If there is a gap, and if the G was to try and fill it, I’d suspect another AOPS or two is likely to be the way they’d go. Or, possibly some type of RO/RO logistics ship as a refit from an existing vessel. I can’t see them spark up a line of essentially new build ships to address a couple years of lean times at Irving, much less throw a pile of cash to a foreign shipbuilder, even if it means getting AAD capability much sooner.



Why not move the inevitable replacement of the Kingston's forward and if there is a large enough gap as a result of more Gov't ineptitude.  Look to replace them them roughly 10 Corvettes, split the work between Irving and Davie. Possibly 2 to Irving and the other 8 to Davie. Look to use an existing 1,200 - 1,600 ton design with light armament (reuse the 4 '76's off the Iroquois's for the first 4, great way to save money, besides WTF are the 76's doing anyways right now, and then start to cycle the 57's for the remaining 4-6 as the Halifax's on offline ) and add some light ASW and give them a speed around 22-24kn's.

Many have said that the Kingtons' aren't going anywhere soon, but the reality is that they will need to be put down eventually, why not start doing so in 4-5yrs from now. The oldest Kingston (HMCS Kingston) will be 29yrs old by then, not exactly a young girl, more like someone thinking about taking early CPP payments.....


----------



## Swampbuggy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Why not move the inevitable replacement of the Kingston's forward and if there is a large enough gap as a result of more Gov't ineptitude.  Look to replace them them roughly 10 Corvettes, split the work between Irving and Davie. Possibly 2 to Irving and the other 8 to Davie. Look to use an existing 1,200 - 1,600 ton design with light armament (reuse the 4 '76's off the Iroquois's for the first 4, great way to save money, besides WTF are the 76's doing anyways right now, and then start to cycle the 57's for the remaining 4-6 as the Halifax's on offline ) and add some light ASW and give them a speed around 22-24kn's.
> 
> Many have said that the Kingtons' aren't going anywhere soon, but the reality is that they will need to be put down eventually, why not start doing so in 4-5yrs from now. The oldest Kingston (HMCS Kingston) will be 29yrs old by then, not exactly a young girl, more like someone thinking about taking early CPP payments.....



Can’t unfortunately send anything over 1000 tonnes to be built at Davie. That’s one of the clauses in the NSS. Anything over 1000 tonnes to be built at ISI or VSY. So, in that case, either you spec out a new coastal vessel at apx the same size as an MCDV and somehow manage to get ISI and Davie to work together or you build something more capable but have to have it done where there’s already a it of work to get through. If the “gap” is only a couple of years, you’d never get those ships done before CSC starts cutting steel, IMHO.


----------



## Dale Denton

What about the "NSS Shakeup"? Maybe bump that number up by 800-1000 tonnes? 

Build a few Visby's, or Sa'ar classes.


----------



## Swampbuggy

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> What about the "NSS Shakeup"? Maybe bump that number up by 800-1000 tonnes?
> 
> Build a few Visby's, or Sa'ar classes.



If I were a betting man, I’d say there would be some sort of heavy cash penalty in making that sort of change to the program. Not too mention the stink storm of publicity the other two shipyards would unleash. That clause is unbelievably defining of who does what in warships in Canada. You may even call it a structural regulation and I doubt the other two yards would take that lying down.


----------



## MilEME09

Why fuss with the surface fleet? Pretty essy pill to swallow that the victoria replacement would need to be off shore built


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Why not move the inevitable replacement of the Kingston's forward and if there is a large enough gap as a result of more Gov't ineptitude.  Look to replace them them roughly 10 Corvettes, split the work between Irving and Davie. Possibly 2 to Irving and the other 8 to Davie. Look to use an existing 1,200 - 1,600 ton design with light armament (reuse the 4 '76's off the Iroquois's for the first 4, great way to save money, besides WTF are the 76's doing anyways right now, and then start to cycle the 57's for the remaining 4-6 as the Halifax's on offline ) and add some light ASW and give them a speed around 22-24kn's.
> 
> Many have said that the Kingtons' aren't going anywhere soon, but the reality is that they will need to be put down eventually, why not start doing so in 4-5yrs from now. The oldest Kingston (HMCS Kingston) will be 29yrs old by then, not exactly a young girl, more like someone thinking about taking early CPP payments.....



It would make sense to have a Kingston Class replacement in the wings for any perceived gap, they can be built as a gap appears and the oldest vessel can be placed in reserve/retired/sold


----------



## Cloud Cover

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> If I were a betting man, I’d say there would be some sort of heavy cash penalty in making that sort of change to the program. Not too mention the stink storm of publicity the other two shipyards would unleash. That clause is unbelievably defining of who does what in warships in Canada. You may even call it a structural regulation and I doubt the other two yards would take that lying down.



Well I certainly hope the gov do not take opportunity* to pay a fine and reset the program to Day 0. However, that does seem to be the tradition. 

* after the October election, of course.


----------



## AlexanderM

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> What about the "NSS Shakeup"? Maybe bump that number up by 800-1000 tonnes?


Or do a more extensive shakeup and reconsider the FREMM offer, give some Corvettes to Irving. Did the Liberals not say they were going to fix the procurement system, or am I remembering wrong? So difficult to get things done in this country.


----------



## JMCanada

Colin P said:
			
		

> It would make sense to have a Kingston Class replacement in the wings for any perceived gap, they can be built as a gap appears (...)



Quite sensible, indeed.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Why not move the inevitable replacement of the Kingston's forward and if there is a large enough gap as a result of more Gov't ineptitude.  Look to replace them them roughly 10 Corvettes, split the work between Irving and Davie. Possibly 2 to Irving and the other 8 to Davie. Look to use an existing 1,200 - 1,600 ton design with light armament (reuse the 4 '76's off the Iroquois's for the first 4, great way to save money, besides WTF are the 76's doing anyways right now, and then start to cycle the 57's for the remaining 4-6 as the Halifax's on offline ) and add some light ASW and give them a speed around 22-24kn's.
> 
> Many have said that the Kingtons' aren't going anywhere soon, but the reality is that they will need to be put down eventually, why not start doing so in 4-5yrs from now. The oldest Kingston (HMCS Kingston) will be 29yrs old by then, not exactly a young girl, more like someone thinking about taking early CPP payments.....



The 76's are supposedly no longer in our inventory so you can discount them. There's no plans to build a corvette class and the 57mm's may be destined for AOPS as they are replaced with CSC's.
Right now it appears that and i'm just speculating that when all the AOPS are built, you may see some of the older Kingston Class paid off but a number remaining for the mine warfare role. As a person involved directly with the class and its maintenance they are in great shape and I wouldn't doubt some or all will be around another 10 to 15 years. Eventually they will all be paid off however as far as I know nothing planned on its replacement and they may very likely not be replaced with AOPS taking up the slack.


----------



## Uzlu

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Did the Liberals say they were going to fix the procurement system, or am I remembering wrong?


To fix the procurement system, politics must be removed from it.  That means all the political parties must agree to take politics out of procurement and work together for the good of the Canadian army, navy, and air force.  That means instead of the political party that is currently in power calling all the shots, a committee made up of members from all the political parties gets to decide on procurement.  I do not see this happening anytime soon.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think an "improved" Kingston class would be a good idea, maybe a tad longer with a bit more accommodation and work deck, with AOP's coming on line, I forsee the Kingstons staying closer to home and their replacement will still need some ice ability, at least on par with the current vessel. I don't see it needing a flight deck or fast speed, this is more of a hard working dirty job and maneuverability type vessel, doing jobs ill suited for the bigger ships.


----------



## Swampbuggy

If I were a federal politician, I think I’d try to kill a bunch of birds in one shot. So, say a significant gap becomes evident, maybe 2-3 years between AOPS and CSC. I think I’d pull the trigger on 2 more AOPS. Then, just before the federal elections, I’d throw something dandy at Davie to shore up my Quebec votes. That “something” could be a complete refit of 6-8 MCDV to become dedicated MCM vessels. The remaining 4-6 get cleaned up and donated to foreign navies as a goodwill gesture. Maybe to some of the African nations we’ve being visiting these last couple of years. 

It’s something for everybody. 
-ISI builds 23 ships instead of the 20 it was one year ago. 
-Davie is still in the game doing refits until the MCDV needs replacement in 10-12 years. Maybe they become a centre of ingenuity as opposed to the 2 centres of “excellence”. They could do a HADR or Hospital ship conversion too, possibly. 
-VSY isn’t spooked by Davie getting another AOR, so they’re happy

Now you have votes secured in three areas. 

Also
-MCM capability is secured for the next 10-12 years
-OPV situation is stabilized for the next 25 years, until ISI finishes CSC and can start the whole process over again one ship at a time. 
-Canada gains international credibility for fostering defence around the world with the donation of the surplus MCDV’s. 
-CSC program picks up right after AOPS 8 without missing s beat.


----------



## Dale Denton

I like that idea^.

Even better, to plan to donate or sell off (at big discount) all RCN ships as replacements roll in. Send them to developing nations. Its a safe bet as any refit those nations will wanna do will probably be given to a Canadian shipyard. 

Selling/donating a CPF to someplace like Ukraine or Africa in 5 yrs would be a local game-changer as soon as a CSC is launched. Would account for a multi-million dollar donation that is safer than say... selling LAVs to a KSA. They would buy us a lot of goodwill cookies.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> If I were a federal politician, I think I’d try to kill a bunch of birds in one shot. So, say a significant gap becomes evident, maybe 2-3 years between AOPS and CSC. I think I’d pull the trigger on 2 more AOPS. Then, just before the federal elections, I’d throw something dandy at Davie to shore up my Quebec votes. That “something” could be a complete refit of 6-8 MCDV to become dedicated MCM vessels. The remaining 4-6 get cleaned up and donated to foreign navies as a goodwill gesture. Maybe to some of the African nations we’ve being visiting these last couple of years.
> 
> It’s something for everybody.
> -ISI builds 23 ships instead of the 20 it was one year ago.
> -Davie is still in the game doing refits until the MCDV needs replacement in 10-12 years. Maybe they become a centre of ingenuity as opposed to the 2 centres of “excellence”. They could do a HADR or Hospital ship conversion too, possibly.
> -VSY isn’t spooked by Davie getting another AOR, so they’re happy
> 
> Now you have votes secured in three areas.
> 
> Also
> -MCM capability is secured for the next 10-12 years
> -OPV situation is stabilized for the next 25 years, until ISI finishes CSC and can start the whole process over again one ship at a time.
> -Canada gains international credibility for fostering defence around the world with the donation of the surplus MCDV’s.
> -CSC program picks up right after AOPS 8 without missing s beat.



A few problems, one is to convert the Kingston Class to a dedicated MCM vessel would be cost prohibited, the reason why it wasn't done a few years ago. We already do NCM operations now, with the ship like it is as we moved away for mechanical minesweeping to using AUV's and route survey, a new degausing system was just installed. Giving these ships to an small African nation would be a mistake, first of all they do not have the expertise or facilities to refit these ships. There is a reason why they only operate small boats. I would say the ships would last two years at most before they would be useless and a burden on their small resources.

Not to mention we don't give warships away and that's been the policy for some time now. We would scrap them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think we get enough AOP's already. Tag Irving to design and build the new MCDV give Davie another AOR, Seaspan is busy enough the next while. The CG 1100's are going to need work/replacement as well. Personally I would just build an improved version as they are great vessels and then you could donate one of the 1100's to Ukraine as well.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think we get enough AOP's already. Tag Irving to design and build the new MCDV give Davie another AOR, Seaspan is busy enough the next while. The CG 1100's are going to need work/replacement as well. Personally I would just build an improved version as they are great vessels and then you could donate one of the 1100's to Ukraine as well.



I like the idea and a longer hull would support a speed of about 20 knots. I could suggest quite a few improvements.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think we get enough AOP's already. Tag Irving to design and build the new MCDV give Davie another AOR, Seaspan is busy enough the next while. The CG 1100's are going to need work/replacement as well. Personally I would just build an improved version as they are great vessels and then you could donate one of the 1100's to Ukraine as well.



Sure but when can Irving do it? 2038? No way they can design and build a completely new vessel in the type of gap that is likely to happen due to Alion’s complaint. But, the AOPS line is already in full swing. Two more should be a walk in the park. When CSC is close to ending, then your proposal makes a lot of sense. You give Davie another AOR and Seaspan is gonna freak. You give Davie a pile of refit work on MCDVs, even just overhauling as opposed to what I suggested earlier, and it really shouldn’t ruffle any feathers.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> A few problems, one is to convert the Kingston Class to a dedicated MCM vessel would be cost prohibited, the reason why it wasn't done a few years ago. We already do NCM operations now, with the ship like it is as we moved away for mechanical minesweeping to using AUV's and route survey, a new degausing system was just installed. Giving these ships to an small African nation would be a mistake, first of all they do not have the expertise or facilities to refit these ships. There is a reason why they only operate small boats. I would say the ships would last two years at most before they would be useless and a burden on their small resources.
> 
> Not to mention we don't give warships away and that's been the policy for some time now. We would scrap them.



That’s fascinating about not giving warships away, Chief. Is that an actual government policy or just common practice here? I know the USN, RN and RAN have done it in the past and it seemed like a good idea. If they can’t be donated, then however many get paid off go to the scrappers or target practice, maybe. 

 As far as the MCDV refit goes, I guess what I would suggest then, is to overhaul whatever needs overhauling and just deploy them primarily in whatever mine warfare role they’re best suited to. Leave the other deployments to AOPS, I suppose. 

This is all blue-sky stuff, anyway, as I doubt the Alion court action will create a significant impact on the current timeline. 

But I could be wrong.


----------



## suffolkowner

I'm surprised the government wouldn't have Irving build a few more AOPS to fill whatever gap there is an foist them on the CCG


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> That’s fascinating about not giving warships away, Chief. Is that an actual government policy or just common practice here? I know the USN, RN and RAN have done it in the past and it seemed like a good idea. If they can’t be donated, then however many get paid off go to the scrappers or target practice, maybe.
> 
> As far as the MCDV refit goes, I guess what I would suggest then, is to overhaul whatever needs overhauling and just deploy them primarily in whatever mine warfare role they’re best suited to. Leave the other deployments to AOPS, I suppose.
> 
> This is all blue-sky stuff, anyway, as I doubt the Alion court action will create a significant impact on the current timeline.
> 
> But I could be wrong.



Put it this way, those ships will not be any condition to be given to another country at the end of their service life in the RCN. We generally wear ships out and then scrap them. The concept of operations has the AOPS doing many of the roles the Kingston Class did, however the Kingston Class will be doing many of the tasks they are doing now including OP Caribbe and the Arctic. The operating cost of a Kingston Class is still way below that of an AOPS.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Put it this way, those ships will not be any condition to be given to another country at the end of their service life in the RCN. We generally wear ships out and then scrap them. The concept of operations has the AOPS doing many of the roles the Kingston Class did, however the Kingston Class will be doing many of the tasks they are doing now including OP Caribbe and the Arctic. The operating cost of a Kingston Class is still way below that of an AOPS.



Yes, I imagine it would be. Lugging that 6000+ tonne hull around would use a fair bit of fuel, I’d guess. Not to mention the extra bodies on board, as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Government can change policy with a stroke of the pen, I have seen Acts totally rewritten and policy completely replaced and if I stick around for another 9 months, will see it again. As for ships, you be surprised at what we consider old, others will consider "broken in" I Just found out a Public Works Dredge built in 1961 and disposed of in 2000 is working now in Malaysia and a Dredge works far harder than any other ship. A smaller vessel like the Kingstons won't "rack" as much as the bigger ships and won't suffer as much from stress cracks. The Mexicans were using WWII vintage vessels until recently.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Government can change policy with a stroke of the pen, I have seen Acts totally rewritten and policy completely replaced and if I stick around for another 9 months, will see it again. As for ships, you be surprised at what we consider old, others will consider "broken in" I Just found out a Public Works Dredge built in 1961 and disposed of in 2000 is working now in Malaysia and a Dredge works far harder than any other ship. A smaller vessel like the Kingstons won't "rack" as much as the bigger ships and won't suffer as much from stress cracks. The Mexicans were using WWII vintage vessels until recently.



I'm not going to get into the specifics with you in an open forum but in 10 years the oldest CFP's will be about 40 years old. They won't be going anywhere but the breakers.


----------



## MARS

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I'm not going to get into the specifics with you in an open forum but in 10 years the oldest CFP's will be about 40 years old. They won't be going anywhere but the breakers.



The first ship I sailed in was commissioned under a King...just sayin  :nod:


----------



## Stoker

MARS said:
			
		

> The first ship I sailed in was commissioned under a King...just sayin  :nod:



So did I old timer...... 8)


----------



## Journeyman

MARS said:
			
		

> The first ship I sailed in was commissioned under a King...just sayin  :nod:


Mackenzie King?


----------



## Stoker

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Mackenzie King?



HMCS Porte St Jean commissioned 05-Dec-51.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And paid off 1 SEP 95 - I was her last captain for an Ex. that covered the last two weeks of August.

She was not my first ship - but my second, though my first one also entered Canadian service under King George VI, but for the RCMP: HMCS FORT STEELE, as she then was in naval service.

But the Jean was the best Gate Vessel. She never let us down. 44 years of good and loyal service to her country.


----------



## Cloud Cover

This thread just passed its 9 year anniversary and the government is denying they’ve settled on a ship type but affirming there is still an intent to proceed. Maybe we should rename it the Old New Shipbuilding Strategy. I believe the AOR thread is something like 14 years old, approximately the half life of the ships that are still not built.


----------



## dimsum

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> This thread just passed its 9 year anniversary and the government is denying they’ve settled on a ship type but affirming there is still an intent to proceed. Maybe we should rename it the Old New Shipbuilding Strategy. I believe the AOR thread is something like 14 years old, approximately the half life of the ships that are still not built.



Not sure whether to  :rofl: -  :facepalm: or  :not-again:


----------



## Dale Denton

It makes you wonder, with all the wealth of information, knowledge, and 100s of years of experience between ppl in this thread - that this is still an issue.

Gaps, delays, politics and incompetence still exist in this file on the gov't side, yet they have mostly been solved in an online forum...

I'm also always curious as to who reads these posts, and has been reading for 10 years. $100 odd Billion dollars on the line, its probably being watched continuously by the industry and by the yards.


----------



## Czech_pivo

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> It makes you wonder, with all the wealth of information, knowledge, and 100s of years of experience between ppl in this thread - that this is still an issue.
> 
> Gaps, delays, politics and incompetence still exist in this file on the gov't side, yet they have mostly been solved in an online forum...
> 
> I'm also always curious as to who reads these posts, and has been reading for 10 years. $100 odd Billion dollars on the line, its probably being watched continuously by the industry and by the yards.



Here's a thought, which political party is one day just going to say, 'Bugger it, we are just going to pay the American's XX $ a/year and have them take over all of the defense of NA and we'll just use any savings to create subsidized tofu growing farms in the few areas that will be negatively impacted by this.

They say that a country gets the government and leaders that they deserve.  We are living proof of this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I know people, myself included most days, tend to lay blame on our political leaders for "less than ideal funding and equipment" issues.  Isn't the issue rather with the Canadian population in general though?  They don't see we have any "real" threats to Canada, that is to their homes, communities, etc that are "real".  They are distant, in far off places, and a more real concern for them is the car won't start this Saturday morning at 0500 when they are trying to get the kids to hockey practice.

Politicians listen to the majority of voters and do what they want, that is how they keep their jobs.  I have just resigned myself to accept the average Canadian supports on on/around Nov 11th, they love the Snowbirds, the Nova Scotia International Tattoo, etc but they want their tax dollars to do other things than actually fund a fighting-capable military.


----------



## observor 69

I met a retired Egyptian naval officer at our local rec center a while ago. As it goes we exchanged stories of our previous working life. He spoke of how much he enjoyed his career in the Navy. Egypt has a strong Navy for all the reasons mentioned by Eye In The Sky. His son is completing a degree in Computer Science at York U and he is suggesting to him that he should join the Canadian Armed Forces. When he asked me about our military I was hard pressed to explain "why" it is so underfunded and equipped. 
But as I thought about it I realized the politicans are under no pressure by voters for a stronger military.
The general public, unlike Egypt, see no external threats to Canada. Australia has a stronger and funded military. I suspect this is because the country sees threats to there security.
I generally had a good career in the RCAF but it took a while to understand that support by the government of the day is driven by voter priorities .


----------



## Dale Denton

Perhaps a terrible combination of embarrassment, lack of leadership, and not being in the public eye enough.

People don't know the bad state because we do an excellent job of hiding our embarrassing failures. Somebody higher up needs to take the bullet and come out publicly (while still in office) to note the terrible state; a whistle-blower; a Hillier 2.0. Embarrass the gov't for not moving, delaying projects, etc...

More parades, even if they are a drain on resources. Shove the military into peoples faces. More, and bigger presence at local community events (don't take 3 reservists and 1 G-wagon to a big event - bring something like a Leopard or TAPV at least) The populous is numb to this because nobody told them. They have to look it up and take an interest. 

We'll never just give up and pay the US for defence. Its much easier to rely on a quiet organisation to suffer in a slow silence...

Unionize the Forces. We wouldn't be the first.

Would these not work?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> I met a retired Egyptian naval officer at our local rec center a while ago. As it goes we exchanged stories of our previous working life. He spoke of how much he enjoyed his career in the Navy. Egypt has a strong Navy for all the reasons mentioned by Eye In The Sky. His son is completing a degree in Computer Science at York U and he is suggesting to him that he should join the Canadian Armed Forces. When he asked me about our military I was hard pressed to explain "why" it is so underfunded and equipped.
> But as I thought about it I realized the politicans are under no pressure by voters for a stronger military.
> The general public, unlike Egypt, see no external threats to Canada. Australia has a stronger and funded military. I suspect this is because the country sees threats to there security.
> I generally had a good career in the RCAF but it took a while to understand that support by the government of the day is driven by voter priorities .


Perhaps. There is government and there is Parliament. One has a duty to defend, the other has a duty to decide how. In our country, we have it backwards compared to say: Australia. I think Australia is the best geographical, demographic, democratic, wealth distribution, urban/ rural comparator country. We are a little bigger in most categories, but where we really have them beat is fucking everything up, on any topic at any scale.  For certain, they can also screw up a one horse show, but we Canadians, well can’t even decide if we want a horse, pony or dog show before we screw it up, and by the time we are done the dog has screwed the pony and the horse, and then we blame someone  else. I think we have become the most self harming, masochistic political embodiment of a country in the free world.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Do we, the CAF, not has any responsibility in this matter ?  I agree the lions share falls on the shoulders voters and politicians, but are we terrible at translating what we need and why in terms the populace can get behind and push their elected leaders for ?


----------



## YZT580

Don't blame the public, they only go with what they know.  All questions regarding security are answered with standard government double talk and attention is immediately diverted onto the issue of the day for the politician along with the assuring words that they have it under control and they are taking steps to make it better.  Where the responsibility lies is with your officer corps.  Senior officers simply bend over rather than making the lack of boots, the lack of aircraft, the buy the cheapest (SAR aircraft) etc. a noticeable issue.  Their duty is to the queen and to the country, not to the PM and it is about time that they recognised the difference and pointed out forcefully and publicly that they are unable to carry out their mandate to protect Canada because they haven't got the tools to do so.


----------



## Swampbuggy

A really simple way of getting ordinary people to understand what the CAF does is to make it personal. For instance, the RCN is chronically misunderstood by Canadians that don’t live anywhere near the coasts. But, all one really needs to do is to look at their consumer products. By and large our purchases have come in to this country via shipping container. If the average Canadian could look at his/her shoes or cell phone and realize that it came from overseas, then there is the start of a connection. Explain to these consumers that in order for them to get their goods, shipping lanes must be secured and ports need to be protected, and you’ll give them a reason to appreciate the Navy. 

Also, I had heard at one point that the CAF can’t actively promote itself to Canadians? Is that true or just a myth?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Believe me I have had numerous conversations with university educated people who think all the stuff from China come by rail......

Here is a pdf my Department put together to help people involved in environmental reviews understand Marine shipping in the Canadian context. The RCN should do similar.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjB86fXlJ3fAhUBzIMKHX2nCDYQFjAAegQIBxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fceaa-acee.gc.ca%2F050%2Fdocuments%2Fp80054%2F115538E.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1Ve3pYU0z19nATNJDlyyWf


----------



## Uzlu

Is what is going to happen to Canada’s icebreakers going to be similar to what happened to Canada’s replenishment ships and destroyers?





> Davie warns of shipbuilding strategy ‘disaster’ as Coast Guard icebreaker delivered
> 
> LEVIS, QUE.—As the Canadian Coast Guard took possession of a new icebreaker at Quebec’s Davie Shipyard Friday, a Davie official warned that the national shipbuilding strategy could be headed for “disaster.”
> 
> Frederik Boisvert, vice-president of public affairs, said shipyards in British Columbia and Nova Scotia that have won almost all shipbuilding contracts so far are not equipped to handle the work.
> 
> “We’re ready to help. We’ve got the capacity,” Boisvert said. Davie, he said, “could build in parallel six massive ships. The two other shipyards, Seaspan (in Vancouver) and Irving (in Halifax) they can only do one at a time. So, sincerely, that national strategy might become a bit of a disaster if we’re not leveraged properly.”
> 
> The comments cast a cloud over what was billed as a celebration of a milestone for the shipyard across the St. Lawrence River from Quebec City, delivery of the first new icebreaker floated by the Coast Guard in 25 years. Federal officials announced another $90 million in work for Davie to convert two other icebreakers.
> 
> The three ships were bought from Norway in August, at an announced cost of $610 million. Budget documents revealed in November that with tariffs, brokerage fees, engineering work and other costs, the total cost had risen to $827 million.
> 
> Boisvert said the icebreaker contract will bring the workforce up to about 260, but that is well below the 1,400 who once worked there. There is a danger of losing expertise, he said.


https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/12/14/davie-warns-of-shipbuilding-strategy-disaster-as-coast-guard-icebreaker-delivered.html


----------



## Stoker

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Is what is going to happen to Canada’s icebreakers going to be similar to what happened to Canada’s replenishment ships and destroyers?https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/12/14/davie-warns-of-shipbuilding-strategy-disaster-as-coast-guard-icebreaker-delivered.html



Got to hand it to Davie, they're self promoters for sure. Makes it sound like they they single handed built 3 new ice breakers for the CG, when it was a minor conversion job. Sure if they got the capability like they said give them a contract to build 6 heavy ice breakers if we're not too busy giving the money away to another country.


----------



## FSTO

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Got to hand it to Davie, they're self promoters for sure. Makes it sound like they they single handed built 3 new ice breakers for the CG, when it was a minor conversion job. Sure if they got the capability like they said give them a contract to build 6 heavy ice breakers if we're not too busy giving the money away to another country.



I used to be a hard critic of Davie back in the TRUMP days, but since their restructuring they have gotten their act together. Unlike Irving who spend more time pulling the strings of their political puppets vice getting to work on the plethora of contracts they have been gifted from the Feds. Too bad their QA is shyte.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> I used to be a hard critic of Davie back in the TRUMP days, but since their restructuring they have gotten their act together. Unlike Irving who spend more time pulling the strings of their political puppets vice getting to work on the plethora of contracts they have been gifted from the Feds. Too bad their QA is shyte.




Everyone touts their "on time and on budget" in the media when the truth is that they had agreements with their unions to be on time at all costs in order to get more business. I have no doubt they would be the same as any other ship builder once they get a piece of the pie. If anything they sound like sore losers.


----------



## NavyShooter

The garbage I have personally seen coming out of the local 'preferred bidder' here in Halifax has me using words in personal conversation like 'willful and deliberate' and 'sabotage' and 'incompetence' as well as 'outright theft.'


The fact that our ships have to strip all of our firefighting gear because 'someone' will cut the hose ends off to steal the brass connectors, we have to strip out the lazy-rod brass covers, again, because they'll get stolen, the fact that unused compartments end up getting padlocked so that workers don't go and hide in them to have a nap...well, the above words are ones I've used, will continue to use, and based on the things I've seen, I don't think the 'non-preferred' contractor in Quebec can do any worse.  


I was asked about 2 years ago if I'd be interested in a civilian job working for a certain company in the HRM...I responded that I had too much pride in myself to see my name on a business card with their company's name on it.  


We've always had problems with every yard we go to...back in the 80's there's the tale of a ship (Gatineau?) getting pulled out of a yard by a crew on a weekend when the shipyard workers went on strike.  There's tales of ships arriving at other yards and immediately having holes cut in the hull specifically to prevent something like that happening again.  There's tales of incompetence and greed and porkbarreling in every yard we've ever used.  I don't expect that will change.  


The problem with any Government Contract, particularly one of any real size, is that it's a political issue, not a capability issue.  


Someone said it best when they indicated that the NSPS is a jobs program, where the ships are merely a useful byproduct.


NS


----------



## Kirkhill

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The garbage I have personally seen coming out of the local 'preferred bidder' here in Halifax has me using words in personal conversation like 'willful and deliberate' and 'sabotage' and 'incompetence' as well as 'outright theft.'
> 
> 
> The fact that our ships have to strip all of our firefighting gear because 'someone' will cut the hose ends off to steal the brass connectors, we have to strip out the lazy-rod brass covers, again, because they'll get stolen, the fact that unused compartments end up getting padlocked so that workers don't go and hide in them to have a nap...well, the above words are ones I've used, will continue to use, and based on the things I've seen, I don't think the 'non-preferred' contractor in Quebec can do any worse.
> 
> 
> I was asked about 2 years ago if I'd be interested in a civilian job working for a certain company in the HRM...I responded that I had too much pride in myself to see my name on a business card with their company's name on it.
> 
> 
> We've always had problems with every yard we go to...back in the 80's there's the tale of a ship (Gatineau?) getting pulled out of a yard by a crew on a weekend when the shipyard workers went on strike.  There's tales of ships arriving at other yards and immediately having holes cut in the hull specifically to prevent something like that happening again.  There's tales of incompetence and greed and porkbarreling in every yard we've ever used.  I don't expect that will change.
> 
> 
> The problem with any Government Contract, particularly one of any real size, is that it's a political issue, not a capability issue.
> 
> 
> Someone said it best when they indicated that the NSPS is a jobs program, where the ships are merely a useful byproduct.
> 
> 
> NS



Sidebar



> ...At the height of World War I, in February 1915, workers in munitions factories on the Clyde had walked out, with industrial unrest spreading to factories in Sheffield and Birmingham.
> 
> Later in the year, 15,000 Clyde shipyard workers went on strike again in protest at the compulsory deduction of rent arrears from their pay packets.
> 
> Then, in 1917, 200,000 workers in 48 different towns walked out, mainly over wages, but also over food prices, exemptions from military service and what they termed ‘war profiteering’....





> [Others] went further — and refused to abstain from strike action until 1941 and the Nazi invasion of Russia .... Even though strikes had been made illegal in wartime, there were at least 900 in the first few months of the war.
> 
> In May 1940, as Hitler launched his attack on the Low Countries and France, ... saw more and more reason to strike ...
> 
> During the rest of the war, there were strikes all across the country — in engineering factories, the coal mines, aircraft manufacturers, shipyards, and by bus drivers and conductors.
> 
> In 1943, workers at a factory in London making tail-fins for Halifax bombers went on strike and more than 16,000 women and some men walked out of the Rolls-Royce factory in Glasgow — where they should have been making engines for fighter planes.
> 
> Another key area of industrial unrest was the docks. In December 1943, 1,000 dockers went on strike in Middlesbrough and 1944 was considered to be an annus horribilis in terms of strike action, with lightning walk-outs in many ports at full stretch preparing for the invasion of Europe.
> 
> There were strikes at docks in the west of England, including Plymouth, in January....



Daily Mail

The anecdotes are useful.  The Daily Mail does its usual job of adding its interpretation. 

The point is "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, (nor from the shipyard worker our ship) but from their regard to their own interest."   We deal with the situation as it stands.  That doesn't mean accepting the situation though.  It may mean accepting having to trade punch for punch to get what we want.

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/adam_smith_136391


----------



## JMCanada

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> (...) Sure if they got the capability like they said give them a contract to build 6 heavy ice breakers if we're not too busy giving the money away to another country.



Please correct me if I'm wrong or the Leadmark 2050 I am using is no longer valid, but in page 58, under "platforms" column, it states:  
http://navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/rcn_leadmark-2050.pdf

Before 2035  ==> Incremental HA/DR capacity & capability introduced 
through hull & deck arrangements
Platform investments ==> Purpose-converted peace-support ship acquired.

So basically these two are talking about the same ship(s), I guess. I understand as well this is the big amphibious ship we talk about in another thread.

(1) If Davie is asking for further contracts, might it be the time to give them another one for conversion of an existing vessel into such "Purpose-converted peace-support ship"?  _[I would call it *Project resourceful * ]_

There is however one line which is not clear to me at all: Page 58, Platform investments ==> Replacement Canadian Coastal Patrol Ship acquired. The line just above says "MCDVs life-extended". Could you please help me to decipher this?

----

On the other hand, I have also know from there about MCDVs life extension. Meaning at least they will not be replaced until beyond 2035. However there is a target or commitment to maintain both the MCM capabilities and a kind of coastal defence, while "Maritime  Platforms  for  Joint  Action  in  the  Littorals" is also mentioned (pages 42-45). 

I am therefore addressing now an issue to be solved in the 2030s, for new combatants to enter service within the 2035-50 period. Both the scenarios and the techniques may have changed quite a bit, nevermind I make my question...

(2) Would it make sense to split the 12 new combatants (12 + 15 CSC = 27 as mentioned in the document)  into six Off-shore Patrol Vessels (of about 1400-1800 tons, complement about 40-50) to substitute the MCDVs and six corvettes/light frigates of about 3000-3500 tons (complement about 100) ?

These light frigates would then be double sized than OPVs, while half-size than AOPS and less than half of CSCs. They might better serve than OPVs in medium-contested waters or peace-keeping missions under international assignments, while being much cheaper to crew and operate than the big combatants.

Once again, thanks in advance for your inputs.


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Would it make sense to split the 12 new combatants (12 + 15 CSC = 27 as mentioned in the document)  into six Off-shore Patrol Vessels (of about 1400-1800 tons, complement about 40-50) to substitute the MCDVs and six corvettes/light frigates of about 3000-3500 tons (complement about 100) ?


My preference would be to build lightly armed versions of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend-class_cutter.  Ten for the coast guard, twelve for the navy, change the law, and give the _Harry DeWolf_s to the coast guard.


----------



## Cloud Cover

This was an interesting editorial letter in the CNR 11 years ago.  Consider what the author states and where the RCN is heading with AOPS and 15 CSC today, with 2-3 AOR (inc. Asterix).

http://www.navalreview.ca/2007/10/the-navys-future-fleet-plans-are-not-what-canada-needs/

"The perennial dilemma of the DND/CF (including the navy) will only be solved by a resolute display of government leadership; leadership that issues an explicit statement of strategic goals and priorities for the Canadian military.  The navy must not be allowed to dictate strategy and policy to the government, or to interpret direction as they see fit.  Of course, an informed public will be a useful adjunct to forming government decisions.  And with specific reference to the navy, the debate that finalizes those expectations most certainly should not begin, as mainstream naval officers and traditional ‘navalists’ always insist, with an expression of the sanctity and non-negotiability of the task group as the centre of our maritime security concept."

My guess is that if the public was truly and honestly informed ... oh, never mind. 

"The navy does little to encourage a public debate, although one is essential.  Indeed, with the admiral’s huge appetite for expanding the fleet, one is long overdue.  The reason for its faint encouragement for discourse is the navy’s expectation that it needs to simultaneously lead and moderate the participants, lest the result not be in accordance with the vision.  Maritime strategy has been reduced to little more than a pawn; a line of argument that justifies naval ambitions." 

To a remarkable extent, this article seems to have been on the mark.  

Look what the RCN was expecting in 2007 in about "20-25 years":

"Over the next 20 to 25 years, I [Vice Admiral Robertson] would like to see maritime forces evolving toward a mix of two littoral manoeuvre ships [amphibious landing ships]; three joint support ships; four to six submarines; four task group command/force air defence destroyers; 12 to 14 future frigates; 28 Cyclone maritime helicopters; 16 multi-mission aircraft for long-range maritime surveillance; eight offshore patrol corvettes; four to six coastal defence vessels; eight to 16 internal waters/inshore patrol vessels; and a small constellation of tactical unmanned vehicles remotely piloted or deployed autonomously from our ships and submarines."

I think Australia got our navy, and we got F&^%$# with even less.


----------



## Journeyman

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Platform investments ==> Purpose-converted peace-support ship acquired.


Once again, acknowledging that I'm a non-sailor, out of my lane, I had to Google "peace-support ship" (I would have thought that a collection of CVNs/SSNs would support peace pretty adequately).*

I found this description, Serge Bertrand, "Future Roles for the RCN," _CGAI_,  July 2016: 


> Better equipped to conduct peace support operations. Recent operations by the RCN as well as allied navies have underscored a pressing need for the CAF to acquire a dedicated peace support ship, specifically to meet the unique demands of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) operations. Such operations typically unfold in chaotic conditions, often in the absence of, or hampered by extensively damaged, transportation networks and infrastructure. The characteristics that would permit such a ship to act as a seabase include: a substantial sealift capacity to embark personnel, vehicles, force logistics and humanitarian materiel for transport into theatre; equipment to embark/disembark cargo as well as transfer cargo at sea; deck space to accommodate or operate medium or heavy lift aircraft and landing craft to act as the ship/shore connectors to project, sustain and support a force ashore, as well as to recover it; and the internal space that can be dedicated to a joint headquarters, civil-military coordination centre, and medical and dental facilities and accommodations for evacuees.
> 
> Such a vessel would likely be among the most heavily utilized assets in the future CAF inventory. Capable of anticipatory pre-positioning or rapid deployment, a peace support ship would be an ideal platform for joint action across a range of relatively permissive scenarios. Such scenarios would include the evacuation of non-combatants from zones of incipient conflict, as well as support to forces ashore during a post-conflict recovery or stabilization period.
> 
> Moreover, such a vessel would likely emerge as the CAF’s principal defence diplomacy asset, deployed routinely to regions of strategic interest to Canada with a range of personnel and joint capabilities embarked to strengthen regional capacities and strategic partnerships, or more broadly to conduct goodwill missions with other federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations and assets embarked.


 Given our current government's proclivities, I don't think that one would be enough.


* Although having recently watched the movie "Hunter Killer," apparently 1 x LA-class SSN and 4 x SEALs can save the world.  :


----------



## Cloud Cover

Both Irving and Davie submitted concepts and unsolicited bids to the current government, and they were rejected.


----------



## Kirkhill

If the Bossman, Gerald Butts, really wanted that UN seat and didn't mind spending more money he doesn't have than he should be all over a fleet of floating warehouses that could be prepositioned at allied ports - places like, say:

Kingston, Jamaica
Cologne, Germany (Yes you can float into Cologne although Copenhagen or Rotterdam might be better) 
Kuwait
Singapore

And if he wanted to spend more future money he might even consider some for 

Dakkar
Mombasa 
Busan with a couple for domestic service.

Fill them up with sea cans of bean, bandages and blankets.  

Sea cans of bullets can be flown in along with troops with guns as the situation warrants.

But then we would be ready for anything - and what excuse would we have to delay until the emergency passed?


----------



## Kirkhill

Or even charter half a dozen of these 







Perhaps including some design element from this

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21261/americas-elusive-special-operations-mothership-is-packing-stealth-speedboats


----------



## Cloud Cover

Charter?  Why, when we could build one in not less than 35 years.


----------



## Cloud Cover

And for the prize, what class of warship is tied up astern (port) in that picture.


----------



## Sub_Guy

🤔.   Royal Navy Type 23?


----------



## Cloud Cover

I thought so to, but the gun mount seems too close the fo’csle and it doesn’t look like a 4.5”. The deck equipment doesn’t seem right either. What little can be seen of it, anyway. I was thinking one of the German designed corvettes.  
But Type  23 seems to be the best gues, perhaps the image is distorting the view too much.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I thought so to, but the gun mount seems too close the fo’csle and it doesn’t look like a 4.5”. The deck equipment doesn’t seem right either. What little can be seen of it, anyway. I was thinking one of the German designed corvettes.
> But Type  23 seems to be the best gues, perhaps the image is distorting the view too much.



I agree, it was a quick guess.  I initially thought it could have been a MOD 0 gun.   It is not a Type 23.   Reverse image search on "the google" indicates that this photo was taken in Mare Harbour, Falkland Islands.

Here's the same pic from a different angle.


----------



## garb811

Looks like the Type 22, HMS Chatham by the hull number.

HMS Chatham


----------



## Cloud Cover

yup. There you go!


----------



## JMCanada

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Back to the "poll"... I would go for two new ships based on the AOPS but fitted for/as  submarine rescue and ocean-going tugs.



Just by chance, one month later, I come across these ... T-ATS (X) being built for the US Navy:
https://mobile.navaltoday.com/2019/01/09/us-navys-new-t-atsx-class-vessels-to-feature-macgregor-deck-machinery/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://web.mit.edu/2n/Abst-ExecSum/2009/Design/T-ATS(X).pdf

At the end of the day some basic features are not so far from the AOPS. 
But still there would be so many differences as to make a risky project to launch two similar vessels on time and budget.


----------



## Uzlu

> Business group wants National Shipbuilding Strategy reopened for Quebec shipyard
> 
> *Association puts pressure on Liberals to direct new projects to Davie yard*
> 
> A Quebec-based business association claiming to represent over 1,000 companies inside and outside the province is launching a high-profile campaign to convince the Liberal government to reopen the oft-maligned National Shipbuilding Strategy.
> 
> The group is demanding the federal government include the Davie shipyard, in Levis, Que., in the policy and plans to make it a major issue in the October federal election.
> 
> The Association of Davie Shipbuilding Suppliers, which has been around for about a year, represents companies that do business with the shipyard.
> 
> It plans an online campaign, beginning Thursday, and will lobby chambers of commerce as well as federal and provincial politicians.
> 
> It is hoping to use its extensive membership and thousands of associated jobs to put pressure on the government in an election year to direct the building of additional coast guard ships exclusively to the Quebec yard, one of the oldest in the country.
> 
> The shipbuilding strategy, conceived under the previous Conservative government but embraced by the Liberals, has turned into a giant sinkhole for federal cash with little to show for it, Simon Maltais, the association's vice-president, told CBC News.
> 
> "We can call it a boondoggle," he said. "It has been seven years in the making. At the moment, there is absolutely no operational ship afloat and working for Canada."
> 
> The Conservatives under former prime minister Stephen Harper chose two shipyards — Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax and Seaspan in Vancouver — as the government's go-to companies for the construction of new warships and civilian vessels.
> 
> The Davie shipyard was, at the time, emerging from bankruptcy, and under the strategy it only became eligible for repair and refit work on existing vessels and perhaps the construction of smaller vessels.
> 
> *Delays and cost overruns*
> 
> Irving and Seaspan have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in modernizing their yards and have just begun to produce new vessels.
> 
> The first Arctic offshore patrol ship for the navy is being outfitted in Halifax and others are in various stages of construction.
> 
> Three offshore fisheries science vessels, constructed in Vancouver for the coast guard, are undergoing repairs after defective welds were discovered last year.
> 
> The entire program has been beset with delays and rising cost estimates.
> 
> Last year, Public Services and Procurement Canada refused to release a revised timeline for the delivery of ships from Seaspan, including construction of a heavy icebreaker and the navy's two joint support ships.
> 
> *Politics and shipbuilding*
> 
> Maltais said it makes no sense to keep excluding Davie from full-fledged ship construction work when much of the coast fleet is over three decades old and in dire need of replacement.
> 
> Refreshing the strategy would insure the federal government gets the ships it needs and Quebec companies "get their fair share" of the program.
> 
> "We know it's an electoral year and, yes, we want the federal government and the people in the election to talk about it," he said.
> 
> Maltais clams members of his association have been talking to federal politicians on both sides of the aisle in the province and they support the idea.
> 
> "They seem to be on the same page as us," he said.
> 
> Defence analyst Dave Perry, an expert in procurement and the shipbuilding program, said the political campaign has the potential to make the federal government uncomfortable, but he doubts it will achieve the objective of reopening the strategy to add a third shipyard.
> 
> "That would certainly be a major change in the strategy," he said. "There had been a view of doing something less than that."
> 
> The proposal being put forward by the association would not take any work from Halifax or Vancouver, but instead direct all new work, on additional icebreakers for example, to the Quebec yard.
> 
> Just recently, Davie was awarded a contract to convert three civilian icebreakers for coast guard use, but the association argues the need is greater.
> 
> The federal government did debate an overhaul of the strategy, according to documents obtained and published by CBC News last summer.
> 
> The size and scope of the "policy refresh" was not made clear in a heavily redacted memo, dated Jan. 23, 2018.
> 
> So far, nothing has taken place and government officials have insisted they were still committed to the two-yard strategy.
> 
> During the last election campaign, the Liberals pledged to fix the "broken" procurement system and invest heavily in the navy.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/national-shipbuilding-strategy-reopen-1.4979592


----------



## Edward Campbell

Notwithstanding the politics of it all, and there's a lot at the national and provincial levels, it is, now, over 10 years since Stephen Harper ordered the creation of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy and it probably is time to review its progress and foundations.

There were very good business reasons to have excluded _Davie_ from the process in 2008/09 (the 'strategy' was implemented in 2010, after two years of preparation):_ Davie_ was near bankruptcy, again, at least partially, in my opinion, because it had been coddled by successive federal and Quebec governments for a generation, ever since Pierre Trudeau introduced 'fiscal federalism' back in the 1970s. _Davie_ was awarded contracts even when their bid was, clearly, non-compliant because (at least through the 1980s and into the 1990s) 25% of all major crown project money had to be, usually, spent in Quebec ... they were not the only beneficiaries, but they suffered for it by virtue of being large and visible and they fell into some dreadfully bad management habits as a result.

Well, _Davie_ has new (foreign) owners who are adept at playing the Quebec card but seem, for now, at least to me, to be competent engineers and businessmen ... and that's a nice change.

A sensible prime minister might say to his Clerk: "look, the NSPS is serving us well, but let's take a second look at it to see if the assumptions of ten years ago are still valid."


----------



## FSTO

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *A sensible prime minister *might say to his Clerk: "look, the NSPS is serving us well, but let's take a second look at it to see if the assumptions of ten years ago are still valid."



Unfortunately we are sadly deficient in that department.


----------



## Uzlu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS_ivAA6BBs&feature=youtu.be
Incidentally, I think Trudeau and the Liberals will do nothing to modify the national shipbuilding strategy.


----------



## Stoker

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS_ivAA6BBs&feature=youtu.be
> Incidentally, I think Trudeau and the Liberals will do nothing to modify the national shipbuilding strategy.



Grasping at straws Davie is, this may backfire on them.


----------



## Navy_Pete

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding the politics of it all, and there's a lot at the national and provincial levels, it is, now, over 10 years since Stephen Harper ordered the creation of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy and it probably is time to review its progress and foundations.
> 
> There were very good business reasons to have excluded _Davie_ from the process in 2008/09 (the 'strategy' was implemented in 2010, after two years of preparation):_ Davie_ was near bankruptcy, again, at least partially, in my opinion, because it had been coddled by successive federal and Quebec governments for a generation, ever since Pierre Trudeau introduced 'fiscal federalism' back in the 1970s. ...



That's actually a misconception; I'll post the link below, but originally 5 shipyards were shortlisted, and only 3 (including Davie) submitted bids.  The three bids were scored, with the two shipyards selected.  The parlimentary record has a pretty good summary.

https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201535E

I guess one thing to keep in mind is it is a 30+ year strategy, and the contracting mechanisms etc were based around some specific goals.  Makes perfect sense to relook at things, but Canada does have a contractual arrangement with each shipyard, so if want to change tack now, you may need to do some renegotiation with the shipyards.

Another important point is that both shipyards had to modernize their facility after they were awarded with the NSPS contracts, and that took about 2-2.5 years. That's something Davie would have also had to have done, so if they do roll under the NSS and same rules apply, it's not like they would be cutting steel the next day.  (see sections 2.2 of attached report for an overview) 

For non-navy types, for the differences between a repair yard and a modern build yard, think a car assembly line versus a garage.  Totally different beasts with different skill sets, equipment and facilities needed (as well as a totally different balance of the various trades).  You could do it in existing facilities, but the reason why it was a 'strategy' was the long term goal was to have Canadian shipyards that could meet our own fleet needs, but also be competitive enough to be able to eventually take outside orders on the books. That was the 25-30 year end state goal (that is explained in the overview of the attached article), but not really a sexy timeline if you are looking at accomplishments over a four year term.

 :cheers:


----------



## MarkOttawa

"reason why it was a 'strategy' was the long term goal was to have Canadian shipyards that could meet our own fleet needs, but also be competitive enough to be able to eventually take outside orders on the books."

And someday pigs will swim submerged for a long time and live. How can we keep so deluding ourselves?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ModlrMike

The singular flaw with the national ship building program is the failure to recognize that Irving Shipbuilding believes they're the only ones who should be building ships in Canada.


----------



## NavyShooter

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The singular flaw with the national ship building program is the failure to recognize that Irving Shipbuilding believes they're the only ones who should be building ships in Canada.




Despite the fact that they can't even do a refit that doesn't require 20,000-100,000 hours of additional maintenance time to complete once the ship gets back into RCN hands.


I use the terms 'wilful and deliberate' when I discuss the sabotage refits that I've been involved with from a certain shipyard in Nova Scotia.


NS


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Grasping at straws Davie is, this may backfire on them.



You wouldn't be saying that if you knew the state of the Coast Guard fleet.

The RCN is shipshape in Bristol fashion compared to the poor Coast Guard. It needs ships and it really, really needs them now!

Besides, what would be wrong with another Asterix, even if we still get two JSS's?

Funny enough, she has been operating now for what, a year? and I have not seen or heard a single negative thing about her. Not one!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> "reason why it was a 'strategy' was the long term goal was to have Canadian shipyards that could meet our own fleet needs, but also be competitive enough to be able to eventually take outside orders on the books."
> 
> And someday pigs will swim submerged for a long time and live. How can we keep so deluding ourselves?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



There hasn't been a major Federal ship order on the westcoast that I can recall since the 2x 500 class built in the late 80-early 90's, the west coast yards had to compete for everything, even provincial ferry contracts.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You wouldn't be saying that if you knew the state of the Coast Guard fleet.
> 
> The RCN is shipshape in Bristol fashion compared to the poor Coast Guard. It needs ships and it really, really needs them now!
> 
> Besides, what would be wrong with another Asterix, even if we still get two JSS's?
> 
> Funny enough, she has been operating now for what, a year? and I have not seen or heard a single negative thing about her. Not one!



I have operated with the CG at times and have plenty of friends who work with the CG. I know they need new ships. All I'm saying is that Davie seems like the proverbial sore loser on the NSS putting out press releases offering unsolicited cut rate prices on ship conversions and slick videos on how bad the competition is and how good they are.  Will this campaign work, getting them a slice of the NSS pie?, perhaps however it also maybe be driving the government away from giving them anything else. You might want to ask yourself with a PM who has strong ties to Quebec and with an election coming up is not pandering to Davie and getting them the contracts for new builds and we all know how he loves to pander. I personally would say its the same reason why the second Asterix type conversion is not being built.

As for Asterix you are right you haven't seen a single negative thing about her publicly.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I have operated with the CG at times and have plenty of friends who work with the CG. I know they need new ships. All I'm saying is that Davie seems like the proverbial sore loser on the NSS putting out press releases offering unsolicited cut rate prices on ship conversions and slick videos on how bad the competition is and how good they are.  Will this campaign work, getting them a slice of the NSS pie?, perhaps however it also maybe be driving the government away from giving them anything else. You might want to ask yourself with a PM who has strong ties to Quebec and with an election coming up is not pandering to Davie and getting them the contracts for new builds and we all know how he loves to pander. I personally would say its the same reason why the second Asterix type conversion is not being built.
> 
> As for Asterix you are right you haven't seen a single negative thing about her publicly.



So if Davie doesn't build the required new Coast Guard ships, since they average over 30yrs old, then who is going to build them?

This all comes down to capacity - and neither Seaspan nor Irving has any left.  To Davie's point, their facilities (regardless of modernity of them), do represent 50% of the total capacity when looking at Seaspan, Irving and Davie.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> So if Davie doesn't build the required new Coast Guard ships, since they average over 30yrs old, then who is going to build them?
> 
> This all comes down to capacity - and neither Seaspan nor Irving has any left.  To Davie's point, their facilities (regardless of modernity of them), do represent 50% of the total capacity when looking at Seaspan, Irving and Davie.



I never said they shouldn't get to build CG ships, its their incessant wining about it.  The government did get them to do a light conversion on those three ice breakers and they are getting some CPF maintenance in a few years so its not like they're getting nothing. As for who should build them, there's always the offshore option. Seems like Norway and Finland can do a good job so there are options. As for Irving's capacity, it appears that a major section of land directly across from the Halifax Dockyard that is currently DND property with lots of water frontage is coming on the market fairly soon. Word has Irving eying it to build maintenance facilities to increase their capacity.


----------



## Uzlu

Interesting article.   https://www.cgai.ca/overcoming_boom_and_bust_analyzing_national_shipbuilding_plans_in_canada_and_australia


----------



## Good2Golf

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Interesting article.   https://www.cgai.ca/overcoming_boom_and_bust_analyzing_national_shipbuilding_plans_in_canada_and_australia



A very interesting an insightful piece!  CGAI never disappoints when it comes to cogent, neutral/unbiased analysis and writing.

Thanks for this.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> As for who should build them, there's always the offshore option. Seems like Norway and Finland can do a good job so there are options. As for Irving's capacity, it appears that a major section of land directly across from the Halifax Dockyard that is currently DND property with lots of water frontage is coming on the market fairly soon. Word has Irving eying it to build maintenance facilities to increase their capacity.



Wait a minute, if you're suggesting that we have our needed Coast Guard ships to be built offshore, what was the point of us spending hundreds of millions on subsidizing Seaspan so they could build some Coast Guard ships?  Why bother having some built here at bloated prices and then have others built overseas?  Why not have them all built here?

Didn't the French/Italians propose the same thing with the CSC?  Have the first batch of 3 be built in Europe and then have the last 12 built here - in a shorter timeline and at a fixed cost? And we turned them down flat.

The fact is that 50% of our total current shipbuilding capacity is not being utilized and the remaining 50% is overwhelmed with what is has and has 0 ability to address what still needs to be built over the next 20yrs.  

As for the statement as to Davie 'whining' - its the prudent thing for them to do - as any business person (from the small corner store shop owner to Bombardier), marketing to the masses their abilities and willingness to take on new business.

I really hoping that with Scott Brison gone that this anti-Davie nonsense is flushed down the toilet and saner heads are given the floor.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Wait a minute, if you're suggesting that we have our needed Coast Guard ships to be built offshore, what was the point of us spending hundreds of millions on subsidizing Seaspan so they could build some Coast Guard ships?  Why bother having some built here at bloated prices and then have others built overseas?  Why not have them all built here?
> 
> Didn't the French/Italians propose the same thing with the CSC?  Have the first batch of 3 be built in Europe and then have the last 12 built here - in a shorter timeline and at a fixed cost? And we turned them down flat.
> 
> The fact is that 50% of our total current shipbuilding capacity is not being utilized and the remaining 50% is overwhelmed with what is has and has 0 ability to address what still needs to be built over the next 20yrs.
> 
> As for the statement as to Davie 'whining' - its the prudent thing for them to do - as any business person (from the small corner store shop owner to Bombardier), marketing to the masses their abilities and willingness to take on new business.
> 
> I really hoping that with Scott Brison gone that this anti-Davie nonsense is flushed down the toilet and saner heads are given the floor.



Didn't you just say Sea Span is at capacity and ships are over 30 yrs old? Since the government seems not want Davie to build anything else for them perhaps going offshore is the answer? To tell you the truth i'm not sure if Davie would be the answer for new builds, perhaps purchase some more ships built overseas and convert them, they seem good at that.


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Wait a minute, if you're suggesting that we have our needed Coast Guard ships to be built offshore


The coast guard ships will not be built offshore.  The purpose of the National Shipbuilding Strategy is to build all coast guard and naval surface vessels 1 000 tonnes displacement or larger in Canada and not Finland, Norway, or any other country.  It appears that Trudeau and the Liberals believe that Seaspan should build all of the coast guard ships.  I think this is a disastrous decision.  

What Trudeau and the Liberals should do is to revise the National Shipbuilding Strategy to include Davie.  What they should do is to have all the political parties, all the shipbuilders, all the interested government departments, the navy, and the coast guard get together to come to some sort of agreement on a national shipbuilding strategy that everyone can live with.  And there should be mandatory annual reviews to fine tune this strategy if needed.


----------



## Stoker

Uzlu said:
			
		

> The coast guard ships will not be built offshore.  The purpose of the National Shipbuilding Strategy is to build all coast guard and naval surface vessels 1 000 tonnes displacement or larger in Canada and not Finland, Norway, or any other country.  It appears that Trudeau and the Liberals believe that Seaspan should build all of the coast guard ships.  I think this is a disastrous decision.
> 
> What Trudeau and the Liberals should do is to revise the National Shipbuilding Strategy to include Davie.  What they should do is to have all the political parties, all the shipbuilders, all the interested government departments, the navy, and the coast guard get together to come to some sort of agreement on a national shipbuilding strategy that everyone can live with.  And there should be mandatory annual reviews to fine tune this strategy if needed.



I know they won't however the government did buy three used icebreakers from Europe through Federal Fleet.  Perhaps a case can be made to purchase additional lightly used boats and have Davie convert them. Isn't that what Davie was originally proposing.


----------



## Good2Golf

Uzlu said:
			
		

> ...
> What Trudeau and the Liberals should do is to revise the National Shipbuilding Strategy to include Davie.  What they should do is to have all the political parties, all the shipbuilders, all the interested government departments, the navy, and the coast guard get together to come to some sort of agreement on a national shipbuilding strategy that everyone can live with.  And there should be mandatory annual reviews to fine tune this strategy if needed.



Particularly since the Strategy is more than “a tenth of a century” old.   :nod:

Good governance best practices would include the kind of periodic reviews Uzlu notes above.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The main issue with the NSPS is that it is 20 years to late. Currently Seaspan has 3 and bit ships underway, with 3 more on the books to be built. That will keep them for another 6-8 years. The government could pick a design independent of any shipyard (I favour an updated 1100 class evolution) and they can parcel out 3 to davie and reserve the other 3 for whatever shipyard needs it. Both Davie and Seaspan have stepped up to the plate in my opinion, Irving is the spoiled child. Frankly I would love to give 3 1100 class to Davie, a Resolve conversion and completion of 2 Mistral class ships to be partly built in France with the rest in Davie. 
Also by the time the CSC is running full bore, we need to replace the Kingstons.


----------



## Baz

Living in Nova Scotia, I'm personally more tired of the whining coming out of Irving and it's union.

Even though maintenance of the frigates isn't part of the NSS, wasn't already contracted, and from all accounts Irving didn't have the capacity to have two in the yard at once as the schedule needs, they formed the "Ships Stay Here" campaign.  Some of the comments resulting from that on Facebook towards Quebec were disgusting, especially coming from an area as propped up by federal money as Halifax.

I'm also not sure why as a Nova Scotia taxpayer I have to shoulder the risk in the form of forgivable loans as opposed to Irving for their dockyard upgrade.

They say it's to avoid a production gap and the loss of skilled workers, yet they don't care if thaey take care of those same workers.  Don't need welders for a few weeks, lay them off.  And then act surprised that you have labour issues.  Not that the union is altruistic though.

But hey, the result is an order for a sixth AOPS, that it isn't even clear there is a requirement for, even though it seems (because nobody releases the figures) that Irving didn't contractually qualify for, and its unclear if the RCN can man (much like it's unclear the RCAF can man the "fighter gap" buy) to avoid the "production gap."

I guess if it works it isn't whining?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> The main issue with the NSPS is that it is 20 years to late. Currently Seaspan has 3 and bit ships underway, with 3 more on the books to be built. That will keep them for another 6-8 years. The government could pick a design independent of any shipyard (I favour an updated 1100 class evolution) and they can parcel out 3 to davie and reserve the other 3 for whatever shipyard needs it. Both Davie and Seaspan have stepped up to the plate in my opinion, Irving is the spoiled child. Frankly I would love to give 3 1100 class to Davie, a Resolve conversion and completion of 2 Mistral class ships to be partly built in France with the rest in Davie.
> Also by the time the CSC is running full bore, we need to replace the Kingstons.



Seaspan should have 4 ships on the books - the 2 JSS, the 1 Scientific ship (which is part of the NSPS but suddenly no one is talking about) and The Dief.  Thats a total of 4 ships and it will take them longer than 8 years to build those 4 ships, more like 10yrs. 

And then don't forget about the small ships, the OPVS that were listed as part of the NSPS that Seaspan was supposed to build.  When taking that under consideration, Seaspan has 0 capacity left for 10-14yrs - fact.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> Also by the time the CSC is running full bore, we need to replace the Kingstons.



Nice to see that someone else is thinking about these ships as well.  These need to be started to be thought about - what type of ship will we replace them with, the timeline to replace them and then, most importantly, who will have the excess capacity to build them.

The oldest of the Kingston (HMSC Kingston) will turn 25yrs old this summer....think about that....are we looking to keep them around for another 10yrs?  Great, that will make them 35yrs old. So, if we plan to start building new ones in 10yrs then we need to start planning what we will need, pick a design, hold the competition, do the review, agree to a contract and then start building them.  Given our track record over the last 18yrs and how we've yet to build and have accepted into the RCN not 1 ship in that time frame, I'm of the belief that we need to start moving NOW on the Kingston as those 10yrs to go by and nothing will be done.


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> When taking that under consideration, Seaspan has 0 capacity left for 10-14yrs - fact.


Probably closer to twenty years.  Instead of Seaspan building ships for the navy and coast guard for forty years before starting again on another forty-year build cycle, Seaspan and Davie could each have twenty-year build cycles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Seaspan should have 4 ships on the books - the 2 JSS, the 1 Scientific ship (which is part of the NSPS but suddenly no one is talking about) and The Dief.  Thats a total of 4 ships and it will take them longer than 8 years to build those 4 ships, more like 10yrs.
> 
> And then don't forget about the small ships, the OPVS that were listed as part of the NSPS that Seaspan was supposed to build.  When taking that under consideration, Seaspan has 0 capacity left for 10-14yrs - fact.



You note I said 3 and "bit" they have started one of the JSS, so technically that leaves them with 3 confirmed orders waiting for build. I think the problem is that the Science Vessel design has some major flaws in it, which is not surprising, a lot of Federal Government ships were top heavy designs, with to much stuff in to little hull. I am not exactly sure who is responsible for the design, the rumour I have heard is that the team tagged with turning the plans into a ship, started flagging potential flaws and now there is a finger pointing exercise going on.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> You note I said 3 and "bit" they have started one of the JSS, so technically that leaves them with 3 confirmed orders waiting for build. I think the problem is that the Science Vessel design has some major flaws in it, which is not surprising, a lot of Federal Government ships were top heavy designs, with to much stuff in to little hull. I am not exactly sure who is responsible for the design, the rumour I have heard is that the team tagged with turning the plans into a ship, started flagging potential flaws and now there is a finger pointing exercise going on.



Add 10 meters to the length of the hull and move on...... :rofl:


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> You note I said 3 and "bit" they have started one of the JSS, so technically that leaves them with 3 confirmed orders waiting for build. I think the problem is that the Science Vessel design has some major flaws in it, which is not surprising, a lot of Federal Government ships were top heavy designs, with to much stuff in to little hull. I am not exactly sure who is responsible for the design, the rumour I have heard is that the team tagged with turning the plans into a ship, started flagging potential flaws and now there is a finger pointing exercise going on.



I also find it somewhat sad that we are a 3 Ocean country that is trying to build a single new Scientific Research ship that will be spread across all 3 Oceans.... :facepalm:


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I also find it somewhat sad that we are a 3 Ocean country that is trying to build a single new Scientific Research ship that will be spread across all 3 Oceans.... :facepalm:



Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, Vancouver - Clear-cuts.   Surrounded by trees.  It is hard to see any further.


----------



## Dale Denton

What happened with that supposed 'refresh'?

What do you hope to see thrown to Davie? Would be counter to the purpose of rebuilding an industry if you let 1 shipyard suffer for the sake of 2 busier ones.

I hope that at minimum they get an MCDV refit job pushed through, or perhaps more CCG work. Unlikely, but another Asterix but more modified towards HADR, with capability for sub-tender/rescue ship.


----------



## Stoker

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> What happened with that supposed 'refresh'?
> 
> What do you hope to see thrown to Davie? Would be counter to the purpose of rebuilding an industry if you let 1 shipyard suffer for the sake of 2 busier ones.
> 
> I hope that at minimum they get an MCDV refit job pushed through, or perhaps more CCG work. Unlikely, but another Asterix but more modified towards HADR, with capability for sub-tender/rescue ship.



I doubt if MCDV refits will be going through Davie anytime soon unless they bid on them like every other yard.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, Vancouver - Clear-cuts.   Surrounded by trees.  It is hard to see any further.



Actually, Chris -having lived there for a long time - Quebec city knows it is a maritime city and the River is essential to it.

Personally, I still think the solution for, I'll say "Ocean Services Canada" instead of just the Coast Guard to be clearer, is a two yards solution: You need one yard that specializes in ice breakers and another one to then get on with building the other non-icebreakers vessels. And don't get me wrong, the "multi-task" vessels that can do some ice breaking ( such as the Martha L. Black, for instance) are NOT ice breakers in my book. BTW, my book also includes three, not just one, Arctic icebreaker in the Diefenbaker class.


----------



## NavyShooter

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I doubt if MCDV refits will be going through Davie anytime soon unless they bid on them like every other yard.




We can only hope that Davie might do so...maybe they'll come back in nearly serviceable condition instead of needing tens of thousands of hours of additional maintenance time to reactivate them.


I wonder if we could leave the brass fittings and fire-hoses on a ship that would go to Davie, or if they'd get stolen and have the hose ends cut off to sell for the scrap value there as well?


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> We can only hope that Davie might do so...maybe they'll come back in nearly serviceable condition instead of needing tens of thousands of hours of additional maintenance time to reactivate them.
> 
> 
> I wonder if we could leave the brass fittings and fire-hoses on a ship that would go to Davie, or if they'd get stolen and have the hose ends cut off to sell for the scrap value there as well?



Actually we have no problems with the MCDV's coming back from Shelbourne or St.John's. I don't know where you're getting tens of thousands of additional maintenance time. Refits for MCDV's are handled quite differently than the CPF's.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> What happened with that supposed 'refresh'?
> 
> What do you hope to see thrown to Davie? Would be counter to the purpose of rebuilding an industry if you let 1 shipyard suffer for the sake of 2 busier ones.
> 
> I hope that at minimum they get an MCDV refit job pushed through, or perhaps more CCG work. Unlikely, but another Asterix but more modified towards HADR, with capability for sub-tender/rescue ship.



They will make a whole bunch of noise and promises up to the election and then "forget"


----------



## Uzlu

> Pierre Drapeau, president of the association of suppliers to the shipyard, told Trudeau that work is urgently needed at Davie. He said less than 3 per cent of the contracts from Ottawa’s national shipbuilding strategy have gone to the Levis shipyard, which is across the river from Quebec City, and workers are losing their jobs.
> 
> Trudeau blamed the previous Conservative government of Stephen Harper for awarding ship-building contracts to Vancouver and Halifax while leaving out Quebec’s capital.
> 
> He said he understands the frustration, but Canada can’t be seen as a country that tears up previously signed contracts when a new government is elected.


https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/trudeau-pressed-in-quebec-city-to-give-more-contracts-to-david-shipyard/wcm/5f4e088e-ebb7-4bc5-b667-8297a6b1dd3c


----------



## FSTO

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/trudeau-pressed-in-quebec-city-to-give-more-contracts-to-david-shipyard/wcm/5f4e088e-ebb7-4bc5-b667-8297a6b1dd3c



*He said he understands the frustration, but Canada can't be seen as a country that tears up previously signed contracts when a new government is elected.*

That's pretty rich coming from a Liberal. Anyone remember Chretien and "Zero Helicopters!"? What a load of codswallop!


----------



## Rifleman62

Blaming Harper is getting old.


----------



## CBH99

I agree.  Any political party that has been in power for a few years needs to stop blaming the previous government, especially when it comes to issues that have arisen out of DECADES of "kicking the can down the road".  Just own it, and deal with it.


I know we've beaten this horse to death, so I won't go into it...but if we had some sort of committee on defense issues that wasn't affiliated with a single political party, who had members from all relevant parties in it's ranks, who could push projects through & retain support from the major political parties throughout elections, it would go a long way to ending the "the government before us is at fault" nonsense...

Oh wait...Standing Committee on National Defense...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FSTO said:
			
		

> *He said he understands the frustration, but Canada can't be seen as a country that tears up previously signed contracts when a new government is elected.*
> 
> That's pretty rich coming from a Liberal. Anyone remember Chretien and "Zero Helicopters!"? What a load of codswallop!



Except, and that is a little understood aspect of the strategy, that the "strategy" does not oblige Canada to build ships at those yards, only to negotiate in good faith with them for certain ships - already specifically identified in the strategy - so as to provide these yards with steady work for about 20 years and thus guarantee them a basis from which to develop expertise they can monetize with other non-government work. If those "good-faith negotiations fail or don't produce a fair price, the Government is already free to shop somewhere else for a better price. 

The non combat ships identified include more than the Dief, three OFSV currently building , science vessel and two AOR's. They include the 10 Coast Guard Offshore patrol vessels.

However, the replacement of the medium/river icebreakers (type 1200) of the Coast Guard and the multi-task type 1100, not to mention by then the type 1050 and the Tully - so basically 26 more vessels, need to start being replaced NOW!

That is more than enough work for three yards for the next 20 years and it can be done by quickly planning apportionment between Seaspan and Davie (even by assigning more vessels to Seaspan on that occasion) and bringing Davie in the Strategy under the same terms as the others for the other Coast Guard ships.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oldgateboatdriver:



> medium/river icebreakers (type 1200) of the Coast Guard and the multi-task type 1100, not to mention by then the type 1050 and the Tully - so basically 26 more vessels, need to start being replaced NOW!



Indeed but government does not want to spend the money (either did Conservatives), plus no one dares buy abroad to get vessels quickly.

Plus:



> monetize with other non-government work



 :rofl:

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



My sentiments exactly ... but it was, allegedly, the point of the strategy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We only buy used vessels from overseas.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> We only buy used vessels from overseas.



Interesting observation.

So.

Third party purchases vessel overseas and delivers it to Halifax or Esquimalt under its own power.

RCN takes delivery dockside and pays third party for delivery of a "used" vessel.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That would have been the case had the Mistral deal gone through. Likely sailed over here and then refitted with Canadian requirements.


----------



## Kirkhill

It could equally apply to a vessel commissioned by the third party to meet Canadian requirements.  Somebody like Washington Marine Group.  Or Davie. Or FedNav. Or Irving.


----------



## Dale Denton

Anyone else check out the new Seaspan NSS site? Interesting picture of the Diefenbaker:


----------



## PuckChaser

Blackhawks would sure be a nice addition to them...


----------



## Kirkhill

Moonpool eh?

Just the thing for launching UAVs .... and torpedoes.... and mines.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Looks to me as if this gov't wants to give a fourth conversion contract to Davie pretty smartly in hope of offsetting SNC-Lavalin fallout in Oct. election (our governments for years have been pathetic in planning for and funding key federal responsibilities such as CAF, CCG and RCMP--problem with last is feds not willing to make provinces pay their full freight for contract policing, not a federal role):


> Canadian Coast Guard seeks input on options for procuring existing light icebreaker
> 
> News release
> 
> February 18, 2019 – Gatineau, Quebec – Public Services and Procurement Canada
> 
> Through a Request for Information issued today, the Government of Canada is seeking input from the marine industry regarding the procurement of an existing light icebreaking vessel to provide options for filling interim requirements in the Canadian Coast Guard’s delivery of icebreaking services for the St. Lawrence Seaway while others ships in the fleet undergo maintenance.
> 
> This vessel will complete the Canadian Coast Guard’s plan to add four interim icebreakers to its fleet. This past summer, the Government of Canada purchased three interim medium icebreakers, which are being converted at Chantier Davie in Levis, Quebec. The first of the three medium icebreakers, the Canadian Coast Guard Ship Captain Molly Kool, was welcomed into the Canadian Coast Guard fleet on December 14, 2018.
> 
> _Industry has until April 16, 2019, to respond to the Request for Information regarding the procurement of an existing light icebreaker_ [emphasis added]...
> https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2019/02/canadian-coast-guard-seeks-input-on-options-for-procuring-existing-light-icebreaker.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Refreshingly frank piece by RADM (ret'd) Ian Mack--but I think this conclusion wrong--there are simply some things we cannot do in any remotely efficient or cost-effective way and hence should not try. But politics and "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!":



> ...Were we launching NSPS today, we could realistically hope to have done better. I have said before that Canada’s continuing prosperity can only grow through national endeavours which are exceptionally difficult by their very nature and which government must routinely nurture, if not manage. _Mastery of complex endeavour leadership and execution is not a choice, it is imperative to our future as a nation_ [emphasis added].



The paper:



> Emerging Lessons from the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy
> https://www.cgai.ca/emerging_lessons_from_the_national_shipbuilding_procurement_strategy



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

Thanks Mark, that was a good read.

I think part of the problem NSS is going through is the high turnover at the BGH level, as most of the original players from all departments are long gone, and the supporting underlings have all changed out.  There was a big loss of background knowledge and understanding of what the goals were, so it kind of lost the bubble when it was forced into the deliverology foolishness.  Mr. Mack was one of those corporate anchors, so his retirement had a big impact on a few key things drifting off into bureaucratic oblivion.


----------



## Uzlu

> Davie, rivals square off over future of multibillion-dollar shipbuilding plan
> 
> OTTAWA — The president of Davie Shipbuilding says he is confident the Quebec-based shipyard will be tapped to build two new ferries included in this week’s federal budget.
> 
> But James Davies says it is time the federal government stop rewarding other shipyards for failing to deliver new vessels to the navy and coast guard, and officially admit his company into the multibillion-dollar national shipbuilding plan.
> 
> The comment came late Wednesday as top officials from Davie and its two bitter rivals, Vancouver-based Seaspan Shipyards and Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding, appeared one after the other before the Senate finance committee.
> 
> Seaspan and Irving were selected through the shipbuilding strategy in 2011 as the two shipyards responsible for building what at the time was estimated to be $35 billion worth of new vessels for the navy and coast guard.
> 
> Davie also competed but was passed over and has since been forced to fight for scraps outside the plan.
> 
> That includes the provision of an interim resupply vessel for the navy and three second-hand icebreakers for the coast guard.
> 
> Davies also told the committee he did not think any other shipyard could provide the two new ferries included in the budget. They will replace two existing ferries, one of which operates between Quebec and Prince Edward Island and the other between Nova Scotia and P.E.I. The budget does not provide any further details, including cost or when they will be built.
> 
> Despite his sunny view of his company’s capability, Davies was clearly focused on getting his shipyard admitted into the national shipbuilding plan. He noted that, seven years after it was launched, both Seaspan and Irving are continuing to get work despite not having delivered a ship, and the plan’s overall costs have doubled.
> 
> “A deal with no consequence of failure is toothless,” Davies said. “Consequence means that in the light of such failure, the government needs the ability to choose an alternative supplier for future contracts.”
> 
> That includes potentially breaking up the work that, under the current arrangement, is almost entirely the purview of the other two yards, he said, and contracts not yet awarded.
> 
> Davies specifically mentioned 10 large coast guard vessels that were promised to Seaspan in 2013 at an estimated cost of $3.3 billion, but construction of which won’t realistically start until sometime in the mid- to late-2020s.
> 
> During his own appearance, Irving Shipbuilding president Kevin McCoy defended his shipyard’s work to date, telling the committee that the first of 21 vessels Irving has been tasked to build, an Arctic patrol ship for the navy, will be delivered this summer.
> 
> Progress is also being made on five others, McCoy said, as well as the navy’s new, $60-billion warship fleet, which will be built in the coming decade.
> 
> The original cost of those warships was estimated at $26.2 billion, while the first Arctic ship was initially expected in 2015, but McCoy nonetheless said there has been a lot of false information and rhetoric about the state of the plan — and of Irving.
> 
> Seaspan chief executive officer Mark Lamarre similarly said a short time later that work is advancing on the West Coast as three fisheries science vessels for the coast guard are near completion after several delays, some of which were caused by faulty welding.
> 
> Steel has also started to be cut on the first of two long-overdue resupply vessels for the navy, he said.
> 
> Lamarre admitted Seaspan has faced challenges, but he said difficulties were inevitable given that it had been a generation since the government and shipbuilding industry launched such a massive project.
> 
> Both sides have learned some hard lessons over the years that are now being applied, he added.
> 
> While they didn’t mention Davie, the Seaspan and Irving officials also both pushed back against any suggestions of opening up or otherwise changing the national shipbuilding strategy, saying a fair competition was held in 2011.
> 
> James Irving, co-chief executive officer of J.D. Irving Ltd., which owns the Halifax yard, said his company invested $450 million of its own money with the “good faith” understanding the strategy would not be changed.


https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/03/20/davie-rivals-square-off-over-future-of-multibillion-dollar-shipbuilding-plan/


----------



## Kirkhill

"good faith" understanding.

"I assumed"?

"Quid pro quo"?

"Believe me"?

Real question - was the NSPS predicated on delivering the hulls defined and contracted or was it based on replacing all the hulls in the federal fleet, and increasing the number of hulls should the need arise, and replacing the replacements, now and forever, amen?

Or was that just the assumption of Irving?

Second issue - is it just me or does anyone else perceive that Seaspan is less invested in keeping Davie out of the running and that Irving seems to take the lead on the Davie file?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Second issue - is it just me or does anyone else perceive that Seaspan is less invested in keeping Davie out of the running and that Irving seems to take the lead on the Davie file?



Seaspan gets the benefit of geography in this case.  There's no one else close to their size/ability on the West Coast. Due to our deep historical mantra of pleasing as many Provinces as possible when spending public money, this puts them in a fantastic, almost unassailable, position.  

Irving on the other hand has to deal with a geographically closer, long time rival, who has a larger capacity and comes from the undisputed King of squeaky wheels getting the grease in Canada.  

The reality is that Davie will get more contracts - its a given fact that its going to occur - its just a question of what they get.  Irving wants ALL of those 15 CSC ships and will fight a scorched earth policy to protect them.  Davie will have to be content with more CCG vessels and quite possibly the Kingston replacements because they will need to be replaced before the CSC programme is completed and before Seaspan can complete the 2 (3?) JSS, the Dief, the OSV and whatever CCG OPV's they were promised.


----------



## Uzlu

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Real question - was the NSPS predicated on delivering the hulls defined and contracted or was it based on replacing all the hulls in the federal fleet, and increasing the number of hulls should the need arise, and replacing the replacements, now and forever, amen?
> 
> Or was that just the assumption of Irving?
> 
> Second issue - is it just me or does anyone else perceive that Seaspan is less invested in keeping Davie out of the running and that Irving seems to take the lead on the Davie file?





> The National Shipbuilding Strategy is a long-term project to renew Canada's federal fleet of combat and non-combat vessels.


https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/index-eng.html

I am assuming that this means that once all the ships that displace 1 000 tonnes or larger are replaced, new ships will be built in Canada to replace these replacements.  And I am assuming that Irving and Seaspan will again build most of these ships.  Davie hates Irving.  Irving hates Davie.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So far only Seaspan/Lockheed have won an overseas military contract to refit Allied warships (NZ). the Seaspan yards out here have built a solid rep for their repair work.


----------



## Baz

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Blackhawks would sure be a nice addition to them...



Being pedantic, given the paint scheme it is technically a MH-60T Jayhawk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_MH-60_Jayhawk.


----------



## Spencer100

[urlhttps://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canadian-coast-guards-newest-vessel-damaged-after-running-into-victoria-port/ar-BBVaVUH?ocid=spartanntp][/url]

Not even handed over and it has to go back to the body shop. lol


----------



## Navy_Pete

From the Times Colonist

Team to probe crash of Coast Guard ship at Ogden Point

https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/team-to-probe-crash-of-coast-guard-ship-at-ogden-point-1.23769090

Looks like the trials team got a bit excited coming alongside at the end of a week of sea trials and ran into the jetty while backing up.

Good thing this is still fully in Seaspan's control (so they are responsible for all repairs) but for damage to the stern, rudder and propellor that may require a quick docking to fix.   :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

With a tug in support as well,unless a mechanical issue, then someone has some career management issues ahead.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You just know you are in Victoria when they feel the need to tell us that "bird nesting boxes" were damaged in the collision but "no bird were using them" at the time.

 ;D


----------



## Navy_Pete

To be fair, that's probably because the only birds in Halifax this time of year are the seagulls swimming around by the harbour sewage outflow pipe.  ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover

Ahh yes, the perpetual flame retardant shit birds of Halifax. FML, they can ruin a uniform.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Heard a rumour elsewhere that it was run by a third party, and everyone onboard has been let go, including the cook.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just a rumour?

Shipyards don't put out enough new ships to warrant having "test-crew" on salary. They invariably hire out for these tests. Most often, they hire the crew of the company who commissioned the vessel, but if that crew is not available, they will simply go out and hire mariners at large to do the job. 

Now, considering the time required in the CCG to make Master, I would be very surprised if this was an actual CCG crew on board for these trials, as they wouldn't screw up like that. Moreover, this being the CCG, they may not even have completed the crew selection process, so don't have a crew: wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. So, yeah! Likely a hired crew.


----------



## TimneyTime

$60bn for new warships out of Irvnig shipyard in Halifax.

15 type 26 frigates.

This means BAE is also involved somehow, because the type 26 is their design.

The problem with the type 26 design, is that the propulsion system is known to randomly shut down at sea.

Basically, it seems like insurance to keep the maintenance requirement high, and therefore employ more people.  I guess that's a good thing, but also annoying as hell for the stokers.

While the type 26 looks really cool, the procurement process completely ignored past issues with the type 45s from BAE that were sold to the British Navy. The type 26 uses the same propulsion system.

Of course, the British type 26s were built at Clyde shipyards, so a lot of the blame should probably be placed there.  And hopefully Irving has plans to be extra careful when assembling the propulsion systems for the Canadian frigates.

https://www.thestar.com/halifax/2019/02/08/halifax-irving-shipbuilding-workers-applaud-60b-design-contract-awarded-to-lockheed-martin-for-warship-fleet.html

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/questions-raised-about-propulsion-system-on-new-canadian-warship-amid-fears-engines-could-conk-out

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-clyde-and-the-type-26-frigate-a-never-ending-source-of-conspiracy-theories/


----------



## Navy_Pete

Where are they getting that info?  The type 26 has never been to sea, and the commonality with the type 45 is the propulsion configuration.  It's like saying this rear wheel drive car would shut off, so all other rear wheel drive cars have the same problem.

The type 45 issue was a combination of undersized generators and a one off GT with a complicated intercooler system (for energy recovery) that never worked properly.  They are currently replacing the generators with bigger ones, and guessing the GTs will eventually be replaced by something else as they are the only ones in the world in operation, so they are going to be incredibly expensive to maintain.

The type 26s use a completely different GT (the RR MT30; a marine variant of the boeing 777 engine and also used on a number of other warships in various navies), and they would obviously have learned the lesson on sizing the generators.

Not involved in the projects, but there are a bunch of really smart people involved on all sides, and confident they would avoid the same pitfalls as the 45. Saying they are the same propulsion system is one of those conclusions that comes from people who don't really understand what they are talking about.


----------



## Uzlu

Canadian Naval Review appears to be suggesting that the Canadian variant of the Type 26 might have different propulsion machinery compared to the British variant.





> The Type 26 is leading edge in layout and automation, even if some of the characteristics vary between the navies, such as speed which will be based on different propulsion machinery, and national requirements, such as whether you wish to be able to join and keep up with an American carrier battle group.


Source:  PDF page 11 of http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol14num2/vol14num2waves.pdf


----------



## TimneyTime

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Where are they getting that info?  The type 26 has never been to sea, and the commonality with the type 45 is the propulsion configuration.  It's like saying this rear wheel drive car would shut off, so all other rear wheel drive cars have the same problem.
> 
> The type 45 issue was a combination of undersized generators and a one off GT with a complicated intercooler system (for energy recovery) that never worked properly.  They are currently replacing the generators with bigger ones, and guessing the GTs will eventually be replaced by something else as they are the only ones in the world in operation, so they are going to be incredibly expensive to maintain.
> 
> The type 26s use a completely different GT (the RR MT30; a marine variant of the boeing 777 engine and also used on a number of other warships in various navies), and they would obviously have learned the lesson on sizing the generators.
> 
> Not involved in the projects, but there are a bunch of really smart people involved on all sides, and confident they would avoid the same pitfalls as the 45. Saying they are the same propulsion system is one of those conclusions that comes from people who don't really understand what they are talking about.



I hope so, because those are pretty slick looking ships.

Smart people can bungle things up a lot worse than stupid people sometimes, because stupid people aren't smart enough to build something that's so overly complicated that it can be bungled up that badly.  Stupid people can also get involved later on, and/or restrict the original design based on cost.  I haven't really looked around, but I'm guessing that the type 45's undersized engines had a cost reassessment, and the result was smaller engines.  I'm pretty sure really smart people also worked on the type 45, as well.


----------



## Kirkhill

Besides, somebody had to be the first.  6 hulls, with 6 propulsion systems, barely qualifies as prototyping.

The equivalent, historically, would be the first hulls with screws, the first steam turbine hulls, the first diesel hulls, the first gas turbine hulls.  The Type 45s were the first electric hulls.  

A savvy engineer would have expected them to break down in unexpected ways.

A silly politician would have expected them to work perfectly and put them into service after their progenitors were crapped out and were unavailable for backup.

Note that all those other modifications came within the context of an expanding and experimental navy that wasn't overly concerned about the fact that many ships used different technologies and logistics required particular care and attention.

After all, once you have made the mental leap from having to keep spare masts on board to needing a spare governor for your boiler, everything else looks like detail.


----------



## Uzlu

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> A savvy engineer would have expected them to break down in unexpected ways.


This is why going for extremely innovative warships is almost always a bad idea—way too much opportunity for things to go wrong.  _Zumwalt_-class destroyers, I am looking at you.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Here's a bit of info on the WR-21 engines; as you can see it adds a lot of infrastructure to the GT, so when they talk about the intercooler problems this is how it all fits together.  If it had worked as designed, the fuel savings would have been significant, but life has a way of not following the paper plans;

 WR 21 paper

As well, here is an overview of the updates to the type 45 wrt the propulsion system.

 defense news story

They did all kinds of innovative things on the ship, but the main engines underperforming really bit them on the arse with an all electric propulsion system.  We black out all the time, but you have a few minutes of grace when with the engines directly driving the shaft.  Sometimes it's best to let someone else with deeper pockets innovate, so we'll benefit from their experience.


----------



## Kirkhill

Uzlu said:
			
		

> This is why going for extremely innovative warships is almost always a bad idea—way too much opportunity for things to go wrong.  _Zumwalt_-class destroyers, I am looking at you.



I don't think there is anything wrong with going for extremely innovative warships, or anything else for that matter.  Just don't plan your primary Course of Action around them.  Build them while you can rely on the stuff you know works as you sort out the kinks in the new kit.  If they work as advertised.  Brilliant.  Bonus.  If they only achieve 80% of the pamphlet you are still ahead of the game.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> ...
> an all electric propulsion system.  We black out all the time,...



Another place and time: I learned the value of Loc-Tite at sea.

I sold a fish processing line to a ship (a 600 footer, WW2 vintage steam turbine that had been converted).  The plant had its own MCC (Motor Control Centre) and had a combination of electro-mechanical controls and a PLC. 

It operated fine alongside but after she had been at sea a few weeks she started acting up.  We started getting illogical logics.  Weird shutdowns that couldn't be traced and didn't make sense.

We limped through the season and brought her back into dock and went over her completely.  Plant worked fine alongside.  

Next season went to sea and the problems started up again but this time immediately.

Eventually it was discovered that vibrations were rattling all the connections loose.  The problems were solved by going round every connection and hand tightening it.  That fix lasted a couple of weeks before having to do it all over again.

Eventually the problem was solved by the judicious application of loc-tite to every screw on every terminal. Blue, as I recall.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Eventually the problem was solved by the judicious application of loc-tite to every screw on every terminal. Blue, as I recall.



I think loctite, belzone metal filler, and the fiberglass wrap are sailor alternatives to duct tape, and should almost be issued as part of your kit.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Eventually the problem was solved by the judicious application of loc-tite to every screw on every terminal. Blue, as I recall.



Blue? Pshawww!  That was your problem
For the bi-weekly revisits....Go red, or go home! 

#KnowYourLoctite  :nod:


----------



## Journeyman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Another place and time: I learned the value of Loc-Tite at sea.
> 
> 
> 
> Blue? Pshawww!  That was your problem. For the bi-weekly revisits....Go red, or go home!
Click to expand...

Hell, I never would have guessed that Chris Pook was a sailor.....


----------



## Kirkhill

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hell, I never would have guessed that Chris Pook was a sailor.....



Wannabes come in all shapes and sizes...  ;D


----------



## Navy_Pete

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> I hope so, because those are pretty slick looking ships.
> 
> Smart people can bungle things up a lot worse than stupid people sometimes, because stupid people aren't smart enough to build something that's so overly complicated that it can be bungled up that badly.  Stupid people can also get involved later on, and/or restrict the original design based on cost.  I haven't really looked around, but I'm guessing that the type 45's undersized engines had a cost reassessment, and the result was smaller engines.  I'm pretty sure really smart people also worked on the type 45, as well.



 ??? The British are exceptionally good at building overly complicated feats of engineering, but normally they work out, and can be pretty elegant (in a kind of Rube Goldberg machine kind of way).

The generators were undersized in that the main engine had significant reliabiliy/power output issues, so they were running way more load than what had been expected. It's the difference between the 'concept of operations' and reality, and happens to the best of us (especially when you are spitballing that 10-15 years out from it actually hitting the water).

If it had worked though, they would have looked like geniuses, as the fuel savings would have been huge (or increased range/operating capability, depending how you ant tot look at it).  They went big and bold, but when you can go through 50k litres a day at sea, 10-20% is really significant. Compound that over 30 years and the reduced operating costs savings are enormous. Some things look great on paper, work great on lab tests, and fall apart in the field. Complex problems have complex solutions and complex risk assessments. Warships are complex (probably only surpassed by subs and space ships) so sometimes you have multiple small unlikely risks compound into a big problem, and they are sorting it out.

In any case, still a massive mischaracterization to say we're getting a type 45 main propulsion system. Also, the brits are really pushing to have the upcoming type 31 to be a really flexible design that they can easily adapt for export, so don't underestimate the pressures to keep the type 26 and the export variants as solid performers using proven technologies, and do as little innovation as practicable on the major systems. The 45s have some really cool features, and will be great if they sort out the bugs, but they really need a win with the type 26, as building and exporting the type 31s is part of their own shipbuilding strategy for the UK.


----------



## JMCanada

Here i am posting the open part of a longer article about the Irving family, published in France, is NB a feudal province more than a liberal one? 
For your consideration, as far as the NSS is linked to them.

https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2019/04/DENEAULT/59710  (french)
https://mondediplo.com/2019/04/13canada  (english)


----------



## Cloud Cover

Yes, it is feudal and all the rest.


----------



## MarkOttawa

This situation is a shameful reflection on both the Harper and Trudeau government's, and on the monstrosity that is the shipbuilding "strategy":



> Coast guard struggling to help with rescues, Arctic resupply due to old fleet
> 
> _'Many ships will not remain operational until their replacements arrive,' internal documents say_
> 
> Reduced search-and-rescue coverage, ferry-service disruptions, cancelled resupply runs to Arctic and coastal communities and nearly $2 million in lost navigational buoys.
> 
> Those are among the real safety, social and commercial impacts that communities across the country are starting to feel as the Canadian Coast Guard's fleet gets older, according to new documents obtained by The Canadian Press.
> 
> And the problems are expected to get worse: the documents warn that more than a third of the coast guard's 26 large vessels have exceeded their expected lifespans, and many won't survive until replacements arrive.
> 
> "Vessels are at increasing risk of unrecoverable failure," reads one PowerPoint presentation prepared by coast guard officials last summer and marked "secret." "Many ships will not remain operational until their replacements arrive."
> 
> Obtained through the access-to-information law, the documents underline the stakes facing the federal government and various communities if Canada does not have a capable coast guard fleet.
> 
> They come amid questions about how and when the government will replace the coast guard's existing vessels. Only five new coast guard ships are currently included in the government's multibillion-dollar national shipbuilding plan.
> 
> The PowerPoint presentation is particularly frank in its assessment of what it describes as the "early impacts of an older fleet coupled with increasing demand" that are already visible.
> 
> "Over the past four years, lengthening repair periods and unplanned outages have temporarily reduced coverage in all four offshore search-and-rescue areas in Atlantic Canada," reads one section.
> 
> *'Repair and maintenance issues'*
> 
> The coast guard has also lost nearly $2 million in navigational buoys in recent years "because they could not be removed due to ship availability and ice conditions," the presentation adds.
> 
> Ferry services have been interrupted — specifically Marine Atlantic's operations serving Newfoundland — and commercial ships have been left waiting for days for icebreakers "at significant costs to industry."
> 
> Canada has also failed in recent years to meet its obligations under the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization for fisheries conservation and protection "due to repair and maintenance issues," the presentation says.
> 
> And the resupply of Arctic and coastal communities have been delayed or cancelled — a problem that continued even after the presentation was prepared, as residents of three communities in the Northwest Territories can attest from last fall.
> 
> "I don't know why they couldn't have arranged an icebreaker," John Holland, senior administrative officer for the hamlet of Paulatuk, told The Canadian Press in October after one scheduled sea lift was cancelled.
> 
> The coast guard has a long history of being overlooked and ignored in political Ottawa, which is one of the key factors in the age of the agency's fleet, said Rob Huebert, an expert on the Arctic at the University of Calgary.
> 
> The presentation underscores the impact of such neglect, he said — namely, real safety concerns, in the case of search-and-rescue services and lost navigational buoys, and northern communities cut off from supplies.
> 
> "We have talked in the past about an older coast guard fleet and that there are problems [but] we can't get into details because the details are never presented," Huebert said. "This is the actual reality. This is what is happening."
> 
> _Delivery dates uncertain_
> 
> Asked about the documents this week, Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said in a statement the fleet "remains reliable" and the federal government "takes the renewal of the coast guard fleet seriously."
> 
> Ottawa recently bought three second-hand icebreakers to pick up some of the slack, he noted, while the multibillion-dollar national shipbuilding plan includes money for one icebreaker and four science ships for the coast guard.
> 
> "We will continue to look at solutions so that Canadians can continue to receive the services they need," Wilkinson added.
> 
> Yet exactly when Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver will deliver the five ships included in the national shipbuilding plan remains uncertain, let alone when the government will decide how and when to replace the rest of the fleet.
> 
> Seaspan was supposed to deliver the first of three fisheries-science vessels in early 2017 before problems were found with the ship's welding. It then crashed into a breakwater last month while returning from its first test run at sea.
> 
> Government officials say they still anticipate receiving that science ship this summer, and that the other two will follow over the next year or so. Even if that happens, there is no firm schedule for the new heavy icebreaker and other science vessel to arrive.
> 
> Seaspan has also been tapped to build two new supply ships for the navy, the first of which won't be delivered until at least 2023.
> 
> _Meanwhile, Seaspan and its Quebec-based rival Davie have been engaged in a fierce behind-the-scenes battle over the contracts for 10 other coast guard ships that were promised to the Vancouver yard in 2013.
> 
> Seaspan has all but warned that its survival is contingent on building those ships, which were initially estimated to cost $3.3 billion_ [emphasis added--see "Just Announced New Canadian Coast Guard Vessels Overpriced by Factor of Five" https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/mark-collin-just-announced-new-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-overpriced-by-factor-of-five/ ] .
> 
> Davie, however, has pointed out that Seaspan won't be able to start work on the ships for years and wants the government to shift the business to Davie.
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/coast-guard-arctic-resupply-1.5088605



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> This situation is a shameful reflection on both the Harper and Trudeau government's, and on the monstrosity that is the shipbuilding "strategy":
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Sorry.....how many ships did Chretien and Martin build?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kingston Class were first launched 1996, Chreatin was PM as of 1993, likley the PC started the process and the Libs get credit for it.


Same with the 500 Class in the CCG, launched about the time Chreatin took over, Chreatin was in power for the purchase of the Victoria Class subs, a good idea really badly done.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Sorry.....how many ships did Chretien and Martin build?


Well...didn’t Martin launch the original JSS project, only to have Harper cancel it?


----------



## MarkOttawa

According to Wikipedia: 



> ...
> In 2006, the Government of Canada under Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to continue the Mid Shore Patrol Vessel Project initiated by the government of former Prime Minister Paul Martin...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero-class_patrol_vessel



Those vessels were not part of the shipbuilding "strategy" and are the only new fairly sizeable vessels built in Canada actually to be in service with CCG or RCN since 2006. Thirteen years.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Well...didn’t Martin launch the original JSS project, only to have Harper cancel it?



The AOR replacement saga is painful to look over. Started as just a regular AOR replacement that then morphed into the ALSC Frankenstein monstrosity which was thankfully killed by the Conservatives for a reset. So we are now getting a reduced capability AOR (2 kingposts vice 4) for more money.  :


----------



## Swampbuggy

FSTO said:
			
		

> The AOR replacement saga is painful to look over. Started as just a regular AOR replacement that then morphed into the ALSC Frankenstein monstrosity which was thankfully killed by the Conservatives for a reset. So we are now getting a reduced capability AOR (2 kingposts vice 4) for more money.  :



Out of curiosity, would you be opposed to 2 ASTERIX class with 4 posts and also 2 PROTECTEUR class, were FFS to keep supplying the warm bodies?


----------



## FSTO

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, would you be opposed to 2 ASTERIX class with 4 posts and also 2 PROTECTEUR class, were FFS to keep supplying the warm bodies?



Nope, we can do it if we also fix the recruiting system (getting people through the door, thru basic and thru QL3)


----------



## Cloud Cover

ALSC was a project item under that acronym as far back as 1998, when PowerPoint was only 10 years old.  
Edit: prior to that it had some other name, and was much smaller— about 8000 tonnes IIRC.


----------



## Sub_Guy

FSTO said:
			
		

> The AOR replacement saga is painful to look over. Started as just a regular AOR replacement that then morphed into the ALSC Frankenstein monstrosity which was thankfully killed by the Conservatives for a reset. So we are now getting a reduced capability AOR (2 kingposts vice 4) for more money.  :



Wasn’t our ALSC idea brought to life by the Dutch as the HNLMS Karel Doorman?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Wasn’t our ALSC idea brought to life by the Dutch as the HNLMS Karel Doorman?



Option 3 looks like it: http://mari-tech.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/01%20afloat%20logistics%20and%20sealift%20capability.pdf


----------



## FSTO

IIRC, ALSC begat Hillier's Big Honking Ship idea, or maybe it was the other way around. In the end after all the smoke cleared we are getting classic AOR's but 20 years too late.


----------



## Kirkhill

Best line from the presentation -

"The requirement is to the design as the chicken is to the egg." (Sir Rowland Baker, RCNC)

True then, true now, true on every project.  

Thus iterative design and continuous improvement.  Also known as "advancing in circles".


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:
			
		

> IIRC, ALSC begat Hillier's Big Honking Ship idea, or maybe it was the other way around. In the end after all the smoke cleared we are getting classic AOR's but 20 years too late.



AOR replacement project has been on the books since the late 80s/early 90s, so the big honking ship was rev 2 that ended up in a failed procurement. Pretty funny reading the original project file, as it was basically just replace the PRE/PRO with comparable oilers (ie JSS with 4 RAS stations). Probably could have bought a ship off the shelf for the cost of the staff work alone (if we accounted for it, which we don't).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

IIRC, the AOR replacement office was set up in 1991, with a view to the first replacement AOR entering service in 2002, as PRO turned 30. The MARCOM (as it  was then) plan was for four standard AOR's. 

But nothing stays as planned when it gets through NDHQ. The Army (sorry Mobile Command, then) got through Bosnia and Kosovo in short order and was not happy to find out they had to get their equipment there on the back of merchant ships (That was even before the G-T-S Katie incident on the way back  ;D). And so, they asked the Navy if they could find a way to piggy back on the AOR's and the ALSC was born. But everybody wanted the ALSC to be fully capable for each of their mission and that turned them into monster. (On that note, the Dutch JSS are much more modest and are basically logistics support vessels for the Dutch army, with some useful naval support function on the side. That would not do for Canada, which needed the reverse: Full time support of the Navy with capacity for the Army on the side.)

The cost estimate for the megalomaniacal ALSC came back from industry and caused a conniption at HQ. The plan was shelved and a more reasonable "JSS" plan was then stood up. Even that turned out to be too much and as a result, we now have a more diminished AOR, still called a JSS for some reason, even though its Army support capability is quite limited and not much bigger than the old AOR's. In fact, MV Asterix has more Army support capability than the future PRO class vessels.

As for the big honking ships of Hillier, they had nothing to do with either the JSS, ALSC or the AOR's. It was a dream of an actual amphibious vessel,and it's a bug he got from operating with the US Marines for  short while.


----------



## Swampbuggy

FSTO said:
			
		

> Nope, we can do it if we also fix the recruiting system (getting people through the door, thru basic and thru QL3)



So, to be clear, you’d support having 4 AOR, even if 2 were conversions like ASTERIX, though you’d prefer all RCN crewing.


----------



## FSTO

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> So, to be clear, you’d support having 4 AOR, even if 2 were conversions like ASTERIX, though you’d prefer all RCN crewing.



I'm agnostic regarding mixed crewing for support vessels.


----------



## Swampbuggy

FSTO said:
			
		

> I'm agnostic regarding mixed crewing for support vessels.



I misread your response to my original question regarding the AOR’s. I thought you were saying you didn’t like the 2 ASTERIX/2 JSS idea with FFS crew. My bad. I think I’m starting to see what my wife has been saying about me and comprehension...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the mixed manning is the way of the future whether it's liked or not. If we were in the future to get a support ship beyond the Resolve class, it would also be likely manned by a mixed crew as it's unlikely we will take part in opposed landings. Considering the expeditionary nature of our military it makes a lot of sense to have such capability and is a good way to contribute to combined missions in the future.


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But nothing stays as planned when it gets through NDHQ. The Army (sorry Mobile Command, then) got through Bosnia and Kosovo in short order and was not happy to find out they had to get their equipment there on the back of merchant ships (That was even before the G-T-S Katie incident on the way back  ;D). And so, they asked the Navy if they could find a way to piggy back on the AOR's and the ALSC was born. But everybody wanted the ALSC to be fully capable for each of their mission and that turned them into monster.
> As for the big honking ships of Hillier, they had nothing to do with either the JSS, ALSC or the AOR's. It was a dream of an actual amphibious vessel,and it's a bug he got from operating with the US Marines for  short while.



I'm thinking some senior Mud Monkey  ;D stumbled upon this picture of Maggie during the Suez Crisis and thought, "Crikey! Why don't we get one of these!"


----------



## Patski

I've been following the forum and the news for a while... as a civilian, that's what I understand... Canada's part of the arctic ocean is badly served.  CCGS ships are aged and are failing from time to time, and some communities had problems getting supplies last winter.  The 3 Viking ships wont be enough to patch the problem... Seaspan is overloaded with work and the Diefenbacker has been postponed to probably mid 2030's?  JSS, then a scientific ship, then the other JSS and then maybe the Dief?  

The Dewolf Class while ice capable wont be able to operate up north from fall to late spring, they are not designed for that...  Russians have nuclear ice breakers and if I'm right, they are building a nuclear military icebreaker?  If so... why dont we build 2 polar class military ships? one on each coast? Something Class 3 or 2?  even got a name for them  ;D  HMCS Erebus and Terror!

What do you think about my civilian view of the situation and my solution?  The only thing is, I dont think there is any of the shelf design ready for this kind of military ships?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If you want to operate in the arctic in the winter you need nuke subs and even then they are limited to beneath the ice for the most part. Compressed ice sheets can easily block shipping and even tear open ships, like a growler did to the CCGS Camsul, almost sinking her. Operating ships up there in the winter is not for the faint of heart.


----------



## FSTO

One of a warship's best defensive tactic is maneuverability. Being heavily constrained by ice is not conducive to survivability.

More C17s, Hercs, and Chinooks for arctic operations would be a better use of our money.


----------



## Kirkhill

With respect to maneuverability in the ice - consider this video when thinking about vulnerability to boarding parties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJd9PZA9pac


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and this is not even multi-year ice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyJ5pvkJUpA


How to get suspended https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AxMR2IRIZc


----------



## MarkOttawa

Forever ships:



> CCG Provides Icebreaker Nod for Seathigor
> 
> Thordon Bearings has received a Canadian Coast Guard contract to supply six award-winning SeaThigor shaft seals for retrofit installation to three purpose-built icebreakers.
> 
> The 5,910grt CCGS Pierre Radisson, named after the 17th-century French fur trader and explorer, along with sisterships CCGS Amundsen and CCGS Des Groseilliers, will each be retrofitted with two SeaThigor forward seals during scheduled drydockings over the next year.
> 
> The order, confirmed on the 1st of April, follows the success of the 2017 installation and subsequent operation of SeaThigor seals aboard the oceanographic and hydrographic survey vessel CCGS Hudson, for which a procurement agreement was signed with the Government of Canada under its Build in Canada Innovation Program (BCIP).
> 
> Due to the success of that first SeaThigor installation, the government permitted the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) to deal directly with Thordon Bearings without either party having to go through a competitive bid process, via the BCIP – Additional Sales.
> 
> The 98.2m (322ft) long, 1200-class vessels are designed to Arctic Class 3 requirements and operate twin 674mm (26.5in) diameter shafts driving fixed pitch propellers. Propulsive power is generated by six Alco M251F main engines delivering 10142kW of power.
> 
> The seals supplied to the Pierre Radisson-class of ships will also be the first SeaThigors designed with a split casing, as Carl Sykes, Manager of Thordon’s Global Service & Support division, explained.
> 
> CCG is a long-standing customer of both Thordon Bearings and RMH, with a number of vessels operating Thordon’s seawater lubricated COMPAC bearing system.
> 
> One of the first CCG vessels to benefit from COMPAC was the 6098gt CCGS Des Groseilliers, which was installed with the system 17-years-ago.  It will be fitted with a SeaThigor seal at a scheduled drydocking in 2020. CCGS Amundsen will be converted to COMPAC at its next drydocking, when the SeaThigor seals will also be installed.
> https://www.marinelink.com/news/ccg-provides-icebreaker-nod-seathigor-465084



See here for details on the three #CCG icebreakers noted above being modernized--youngest, CCGS Des Grosseilliers, is 37 years old 
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/icebreaking/home

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

nice to see a no drama procurement contract.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:
			
		

> One of a warship's best defensive tactic is maneuverability. Being heavily constrained by ice is not conducive to survivability.
> 
> More C17s, Hercs, and Chinooks for arctic operations would be a better use of our money.



AOPS aren't warships though; they are civie ships painted grey with some token armament. Similar to MCDVs, they will have lots of uses for operations, but combat won't be one of them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One always hopes that your adversaries read and follow your doctrine.....


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> One always hopes that your adversaries read and follow your doctrine.....



Yep we have to watch out for the red and yellow hoards


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> AOPS aren't warships though; they are civie ships painted grey with some token armament. Similar to MCDVs, they will have lots of uses for operations, but combat won't be one of them.



I have never confused AOPS and MCDVs with actual warships!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Yep we have to watch out for the red and yellow hoards



they don't play by traditional rules 
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3005523/how-swarm-chinese-fishing-vessels-could-swamp-dutertes-effort


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> they don't play by traditional rules
> https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3005523/how-swarm-chinese-fishing-vessels-could-swamp-dutertes-effort



I'm sure if AOPS deploys over there we'll be on our guard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

China is looking at the Arctic and will use similar tactics. They are already pushing Australia around.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/as-australia-looks-north-chinas-presence-in-the-antarctic-continues-to-grow/news-story/d93aa030c6846e5bfe98f6fdc12f93c9


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> China is looking at the Arctic and will use similar tactics. They are already pushing Australia around.
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/as-australia-looks-north-chinas-presence-in-the-antarctic-continues-to-grow/news-story/d93aa030c6846e5bfe98f6fdc12f93c9



I say welcome to Canada.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Shouldn't this go in the "Defending Canada's Arctic" thread?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Arctic sovereignty hoo-hah:

1) The Cracking of the NPW Compromise: A Sign of a Conflict to Come or Tempest in a Teacup? (I'm with Prof. Exner-Pirot):
https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/sign-conflict-come-or-tempest-teacup

2) Earlier from Prof. Exner-Pirot: How to write an Arctic story in 5 easy steps
https://www.arctictoday.com/write-arctic-story-5-easy-steps/

3) And earlier post of mine: Arctic Tensions Not Really About the Region but Relations With Russia
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/mark-collins-arctic-tensions-not-really-about-the-region-but-relations-with-russia/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Headline rather makes on squirm--Aussies sensibly buying ship from Damen of Netherlands which is building it in Romania:



> New Australian Icebreaker Receives Unique Steering System
> 
> ...The icebreaker will be able to handle:
> 
> • waves up to sea state 9 (14 meters (46 feet) plus significant wave height)
> • wind speed up to Beaufort 12 (hurricane)
> • air temperature ranging from −30° Celsius to 45° Celsius, and
> • water temperatures ranging from −2° Celsius to 32° Celsius.
> 
> She will have the capability to:
> 
> • travel at an efficient cruising speed of 12 knots, with a maximum sustained speed of 16 knots in open water
> • break ice at a continuous three knots in ice of 1.65-meter (5.4-foot) thickness
> • transfer personnel and cargo from the icebreaker to the stations using a range of means over water, over ice and by air, including the capability to operate and support four light helicopters or two medium helicopters
> • handle, stow and transport up to 1,200 tonnes of solid cargo consisting primarily of containers and break bulk cargo, including large items of plant and equipment using the ships own cargo cranes, and
> 1,900,000 liters of bulk liquid cargo (Special Antarctic Blend diesel used for station operations)
> • support voyages for up to 90 days, which includes the ability to remain within the Antarctic area for up to 80 days
> • accommodate 117 personnel with modern services including a specialised medical facility, and
> ensure a high standard of environmental compliance.
> 
> The vessel will be able to sustain multidisciplinary and concurrent science operations, and support numerous sample and data collection systems, including for sea-floor, sea-ice, sea life and atmospheric research. It will have the capability to deploy, operate and with location precision recover a range of equipment and instruments in a range of conditions...
> 
> Length overall: 160.3 meters (526 feet)
> Maximum beam: 25.6 meters
> Maximum draft: 9.3 meters
> Displacement: 25,500 tonnes
> Icebreaking: 1.65 meters at three knots
> Speed: 12 knots economical, 16+ knots maximum
> Range: > 16,000 nautical miles
> Endurance: 90 days
> Cargo fuel capacity: 1,900,000 liters / 1,671 tonnes
> Container capacity: 96TEU
> Cargo weight: 1,200 tonnes
> Passengers: 117
> Crew: 32
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://maritime-executive.com/article/new-australian-icebreaker-receives-unique-steering-system



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Back to the Arctic hoo-hah:



> Our Dangerous Dog-Sled and Reindeer Gaps!
> 
> “Moscow is moving to claim Arctic territory as barriers between Russia and North America melt,” reported The New York Times this weekend[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/europe/global-warming-russia-arctic-usa.html ]. The paper is referring to icebergs — apparently they are melting, something about “global warming”? — and as they crumble away, why, there’s nothing left to hold back the Red Menace:
> 
> RESOLUTE BAY, Canada — After finishing a training drill on surviving the bitter cold, the soldiers gathered around Ranger Debbie Iqaluk to hear about an inescapable fact of life in the high Arctic: The ice is melting despite the frigid temperatures.
> 
> And that means the Russians are coming.
> 
> Her retelling of how she watched as an enormous iceberg fractured, just a few feet from the military base here, was riveting. It is one thing to be told constantly that the melting polar ice cap has opened up the Arctic, disappearing what used to be an impenetrable barrier between North America and Russia. It is quite another to see it firsthand.
> 
> The iceberg took five years to melt, but by 2018 it was gone, taken over by a sea that with each year is melting earlier in the season. That has brought Russia right to Canada’s doorstep, cutting into the “Fortress North America” concept that has long comforted military planners on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.
> 
> NATO is rushing to try to catch up. Last month, hundreds of troops from member countries and partners, including France, Norway, Finland and Sweden, joined Canadian soldiers, reservists and rangers for the Nanook-Nunalivut exercises that aimed in part to help alliance forces match Russian readiness in extreme-cold climes. (The United States sent observers but no troops this year.)...
> 
> But here’s the thing: I wish the reporters, photographers and editors involved in this could have just owned it for what it is: A lark. A travelogue, enjoyed on the government dime.
> 
> Instead, they take seriously their duty to sing for their supper. And so we have to hear a bunch of dreary, half-baked nonsense about how the ice wall is falling and the White Walkers in fur hats are on the way.
> 
> This area of Canada is so desolate that, to quote the article, “Until Russia appeared on the horizon” (!) the main work underway was “soldiers armed with ancient rifles standing guard against polar bears.”
> 
> Until Russia appeared on the horizon? How did they appear there again? Right, right, the icebergs melted — and like Tina Fey channeling Sarah Palin, we could suddenly look across a half-frozen sea, littered with dejected and emaciated polar bears, and see Russia, lookin’ right back at us. Damn them! (Does this really make sense to anyone?)
> 
> Slogging forward ever further into absurdity, the article seeks out the Defense Minister of Canada, who “in a telephone interview … made clear that the alliance had no intention of ceding the icy expanse.”
> 
> Could this be more vague? What are we not ceding exactly — the ocean? The land? The oil and gas presumably out there? (And how did that telephone interview go anyway? “Defense minister, this is The New York Times! Will you be ceding any of Canada’s icy expanse?”)
> 
> Too many questions! Onward! Mush, mush!
> 
> The article tells us that Russia is reopening military bases in the Arctic — no details of that offered, hey, it’s just The New York Times, what do you want, facts? Google it!
> 
> (So I did, here’s a typically breathless CBS News report from almost exactly two years ago in response to a Kremlin p.r. blitz about a new military base in northern Russia. CBS News takes the bait and raves uncritically about “the unveiling of the country’s crown jewel.” Crown jewel! To me, it looks like an old Holiday Inn in Fargo. But to CBS News in 2017 — in the midst of our Russiagate mass psychogenic illness — it is Russia’s crown jewel, because it provides housing for “150 troops”, some of whom may or may not be riding reindeer — I’m not kidding— and unspecified “war planes.” “For now,” the CBS News reporter concludes, “Russia’s flag seems to be firmly planted on the top of the world.” All this melodrama is for, again, a military base Russia has built on its own territory that houses 150 people, some planes, and plus-minus some reindeer. Fine, whatever, I am ready to eyeroll and move on with my life — but there’s more! “Great reporting! I’m glad we did this!” gushes Nora O’Donnell of CBS This Morning. “This is a future battlefront, the Arctic.” Co-host Charlie Rose chimes in enthusiastically, “That’s exactly what it is! The conflict with Russia is now global, every part of the Earth, including the top and the bottom.”)
> 
> And the Earth-encompassing struggle continues. As with CBS News two years ago, so with The New York Times this weekend...[read on--but we have nothing like the number if icebreakers the author says]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tip of the hat to Bob Gould for the “dog sled gap” joke
> https://medium.com/@mattbivens_34439/our-dangerous-dog-sled-and-reindeer-gaps-9e819fbbf278



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

Mark (and others)

Is there an accepted range on the number of icebreakers and their capabilities that we need?
I count 15 icebreakers although 9 are Polar Class 5 and 3 with Polar Class 3 and 3 with Polar Class 2 (?)

In the pipeline

The 3 Davie refits coming online with a Polar Class of 4 plus 6 AOPS with a Polar Class of 5 and the Diefenbaker with a Polar Class of 2


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As confirmed by a CCG Captain, the Russians have better charts of our arctic than we do. If Russia makes a move on our arctic bit, it will likely be done in concert with China. They will take a bite, using non-military and para-military resources, backed by the military. Bringing it back to this thread, the AOPs are very much a step in the right direction, although you will notice that other nation building similar ships for similar mission choose heavier armament. My guess that the AOPs and their crew will be eventually tossed into a situation where they are the only RCN assets in the area and will not always have aviation support. Now the AOPS supported by RCN nuclear powered subs would be a significant force to contend with. However is not happening, so we are back to an AOP's perhaps with a CCG vessel in support as the first responders to any intrusion, you want to give that Captain and crew all the resources to do that job and enough firepower to ensure that the other side does not feel tempted to push to hard.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The RCN will never have an SSN fleet.
The AOPs is not a combat ship. There is no plan to have ice capable, combat capable ships for the RCN within the lifetime of anyone who is alive today.
Canada will almost certainly never fight a battle in the arctic or otherwise successfully deter a determined arctic resource claimant.

If we “lose” or cede the arctic, will it make any really noticeable and tangible  difference to people in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and the south more generally? If the answer is “none”, or nothing that cannot be purchased in a product,  then don’t expect anything serious be done about the arctic. 
If the answer is yes, it’s ours!!, nobody can seriously expect the Canadian political and regulatory system to function in a manner that defends it and then enables it to be likely that resources will be extracted from the arctic. There would be significant delay, cost, lawsuits and bungling and bankruptcies. 

Canada should be under no illusions here: under Russian and Chinese management, the resources will be both coveted and extracted. There is hardly any reason to doubt this will happen and just about the same amount of inevitability that we won’t stop it, and cannot stop it.

Reality applied. Time for this country to understand its place in the world of now and the future.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P, Cloud Cover: If anyone tried to commit what amounts to territorial aggression against our territory that would involve NATO and, in particular, the US which has its own direct interests and simply would not tolerate such action. There would be a real risk of conflict with the Americans leading to...? Would Russia/China be willing to run that risk for what, for some time, will remain largely _quelques arpents de neige_? 

In any event the Russkies have plenty of _glace_ in, and in a while under, the ocean there to keep them fully occupied without looking elsewhere. The Chinese, for their part, have far more important concerns in the East and South China Seas, the western Pacific generally, and the Indian Ocean.

This fixation on threats to territory in the Arctic is a uniquely and neurotic Canadian obsession based on no serious analysis. The real military problems there relate to its being used as an aerial (and to some extent underwater) pathway for great powers to attack each other--not what's in the region itself.
Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

That's the problem with the typical Canadian response: our friends will help us.  Good luck with that.
You're right it's a Canadian neurotic thing, and it's probably not worth much fuss. 
The US isn't doing much about China and Russia in the Caribbean, don't think they  will be much different in practice up North unless they stake a claim themselves.


----------



## Swampbuggy

All of the above being said, the AOPS could potentially see the 57mm when they’re divested from the CPF’s. Maybe PHALANX or Harpoons too, if the need existed. At that point they’d be as well equipped as any other ice capable surface vessel in terms of firepower. Subsurface would have to be dealt with by the USN or maybe an AIP RCN boat, if the technology keeps improving.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Colin P, Cloud Cover: If anyone tried to commit what amounts to territorial aggression against our territory that would involve NATO and, in particular, the US which has its own direct interests and simply would not tolerate such action. There would be a real risk of conflict with the Americans leading to...? Would Russia/China be willing to run that risk for what, for some time, will remain largely _quelques arpents de neige_?
> 
> In any event the Russkies have plenty of _glace_ in, and in a while under, the ocean there to keep them fully occupied without looking elsewhere. The Chinese, for their part, have far more important concerns in the East and South China Seas, the western Pacific generally, and the Indian Ocean.
> 
> This fixation on threats to territory in the Arctic is a uniquely and neurotic Canadian obsession based on no serious analysis. The real military problems there relate to its being used as an aerial (and to some extent underwater) pathway for great powers to attack each other--not what's in the region itself.
> Mark
> Ottawa



Is a Chinese/Russian/someone else research/weather station planted onto land claimed by Canada such an aggression that our allies are going to help us? We don't use much of our north and people will eventually start chewing on it, likely sooner than anticipated. We are equipping our AOP's for the 1990's mentality, not the 21st century.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Can someone, please, move this damn discussion to the _Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty_ thread, so we can get back to discussing Shipbuilding Strategy matters as required.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P: Why run any such risk of riling the Eagle when one has much more important fish to freeze? Look at things from the Russian/Chinese perspective. We're not in an "Ice Station Zebra" world, for now. In any event nothing Canada on its own could do could deter any major power if it chose to risk war; that's why we have allies:
http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/66962%7C0/Ice-Station-Zebra.html






Mark
Ottawa

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Such a move may not appear logical to us, but other views have other logic and the 21st Century seems destined for interesting times and the ships we build now will see a good chunk of this new century and all that goes with it. Also with our current procurement process and recruitment you may not have that many aircraft to support arctic operations as you would like.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That's fast, although I suspect they used parts meant for the 3 rd ship in the series. 

https://www.nsnews.com/news/coast-guard-ship-back-in-action-after-hitting-breakwater-1.23793489


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-canada-awards-contract-for-acquisition-of-four-naval-large-tugs-806906347.html


----------



## MilEME09

4 tugs to replace 7, bad math in my opinion


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not really bad maths.

First of all, the Firebrand and Firebird were always fire fighting vessels more than tugs, and in fact did precious little in terms of tug work. They really were only used as such exceptionally at night or on week end when the Glens were not available. So if you get four replacement tugs - each with firefighting capability - and create a rotation so one is always available in each home port, then there is no loss there.

As for having four large tugs vs. five, well we had three on the East coast because we had 12 major surface warships, to the West coast's 8. The West coast managed with two for eight ships. And that's what we are going to have on the East coast after the next round of replacement hulls (probably 8 type 26 East and 7 West - if we follow the RCN's or CAF's biased eastern view of the world, though the reverse would make more sense in today's world). The HDW are expected to require no tugs. Moreover, the new tugs are expected to be much more powerful and maneuverable than the Glen's based on the specs in the tender. 

In any event, if you have a sufficient availability of smaller tugs, and with the Ville class you do, then it should not be a problem.

BTW, I am glad Ocean Industries got the contract: They are a totally unsubsidized international success story with their tugs, both in building them and operating them (they provide tug services in many places both in the St-Lawrence river system and internationally to the US and the Caribbean's.


----------



## JMCanada

I'm not a professional, but would dare to think that the 3-2 tugs per E-W coast might be related too to the coastline n. miles and square n.miles  to be serviced. Am I wrong?


----------



## Stoker

JMCanada said:
			
		

> I'm not a professional, but would dare to think that the 3-2 tugs per E-W coast might be related too to the coastline n. miles and square n.miles  to be serviced. Am I wrong?



Not really, tugs are used occasionally outside the harbour usually for the odd tow of a target or to deliver a ship to Pictou or such for refit. All CO's are encouraged to use tugs if available. I would imagine when AOPS finally are accepted they will make heavy use of tugs at least initially. We don't need a large number of tugs because we don't have a large fleet.


----------



## Navy_Pete

This is great news, that project has been on the book for a decade or two in various forms.  Glad to see Group Ocean won it; they are a pretty impressive company and expect as long as we stick with our initial requirements this should roll out pretty smoothly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

OFSV #1 is back on track and completing sea trials, I have heard they grabbed all the bits they needed to fix her from #3 which will delay them a bit but not by much. https://www.facebook.com/sean.potter.547/posts/10155780813766741


----------



## MarkOttawa

Is that icebreaker in image supposed to be for Seaspan new builds after the Diefenbreaker (whose design I think is largely done)? 



> Vard explores concepts for Canadian Coast Guard future fleet
> 
> Vancouver, B.C., based Vard Marine, Inc [ https://vardmarine.com/ ]. reports that the Canadian Coast Guard has awarded it an engineering services contract to explore concepts for the Coast Guard’s future fleet renewal program.
> 
> Vard says that the work scope is aligned with the company’s core competencies in tailored, fit for purpose, multi-mission ship design. It includes parametric concept design, feasibility studies and operational analysis, system design studies, trade-off analysis, and cost modeling. The work is intended to explore requirements for multiple future fleet ship types and could stretch over several years.
> 
> The contract continues a relationship between the Canadian Coast Guard and Vard Marine that began with Vard Marine designed patrol and science vessels built in the mid 1980’s and carrying on with the development of the designs for the Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel and the Polar Icebreaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.marinelog.com/news/vard-explores-concepts-for-canadian-coast-guard-future-fleet/



Will Seaspan have any capacity to build more icebreakers at same time as it--if ever--gets around to building these CCG never never land vessels promised in 2013 by Conservatives to be built after the Diefenbreaker:



> Just Announced New Canadian Coast Guard Vessels Overpriced by Factor of Five
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/mark-collin-just-announced-new-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-overpriced-by-factor-of-five/



Vard Marine is subsidiary of VARD AS, owned by Fincantieri:



> VARD, together with its subsidiaries, is one of the major global designers and shipbuilders of specialized vessels. Headquartered in Norway and with 9,000 employees, VARD operates nine strategically located shipbuilding facilities, including five in Norway, two in Romania, one in Brazil and one in Vietnam...
> http://www.vard.com/about/Pages/default.aspx



And note the sensible way Norway has main VARD build ships for its coast guard:



> Vard inks NOK 5bn deal for 3 Norwegian coast guard vessels
> 
> Norwegian shipbuilder and designer Vard has signed a new contract for the construction of three coast guard vessels for the Norwegian Coast Guard.
> 
> As informed, the value of the contract exceeds NOK 5 billion, equal to about USD 617 million.
> 
> The Norwegian government had originally announced plans for the construction of three new coast guard vessels in September 2016. Following review of offers from three competing yards, Vard Langsten was selected to continue negotiations in October 2017. The investments were approved by the country’s parliament at the beginning of June 2018, with the final negotiations having been completed and finalized in the following weeks.
> 
> Deliveries of the three vessels are scheduled from Vard Langsten in Norway in Q1 2022, Q1 2023 and Q1 2024, respectively. _The hulls will be built at Vard Tulcea in Romania_ [emphasis added].
> 
> To be built to replace the aging Nordkapp-class coast guard vessels, the new ships are developed for worldwide operations in all weather and sea conditions, both inshore and offshore. Specially designed to withstand operations in demanding arctic areas, the _new coast guard vessels will have an ice-strengthened hull and ice-class notation. With a length of 136 meters and a beam of 22 meters, the vessels feature strong ocean-going_ [emphasis added] capacities for long-distance transits, search-and-rescue operations, surveillance, and oil recovery.
> 
> Vard, a subsidiary of Fincantieri, has based its offer on the reference design developed by LMG Marin on behalf of Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency (NDMA).
> 
> Commenting on the recently signed contract, Mette Sørfonden, Director General of NDMA, said: “Due to national security interests, the Norwegian government decided that the competition should be restricted to Norwegian yards only [_with shipyards in Romania_]. Vard Group with its Vard Langsten yard was the provider that overall satisfied the defined requirements for solution and the navy and the coast guard’s needs in the best manner.”
> 
> Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency (NDMA) / Forsvarsmateriell (FMA) is an agency directly subordinate to the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Defence and its main task is to develop and modernize the Norwegian armed forces.
> 
> *https://navaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2017-04-03-js-0225-t5900516e-m800-x0qrvjq39-320x214.jpg*
> https://navaltoday.com/2018/06/25/vard-inks-nok-5bn-deal-for-3-norwegian-coast-guard-vessels/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

In post above ( https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1571415.html#msg1571415 ) ship at top left might be Medium Endurance Multi-Tasked Vessel and one at top right an Offshore Patrol Vessel--in 2013 Conservative gov't said CCG to get up to 5 of each ( https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2013/10/vancouver-shipyards-build-medium-endurance-multi-tasked-vessels-offshore-patrol-vessels-canadian-coast-guard.html ) to be built some distant day by Seaspan--pix of current ones built late 1960s:

1) Multi-tasked:






2) Offshore Patrol:






Our governments really seem to have little interest in effectively carrying out core federal responsibilities--i.e, CAF, CCG, RCMP.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

On the other hand CCG helicopters can be got (effectively sole-sourced), under Conservatives, from Bell Helicopters in Montreal in by our standards warp speed and with almost no political or media fall-out:

Canadian Coast Guard’s New Medium-Lift Helos Sole-Sourced to Bell Helicopter Canada
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2015/04/11/mark-collins-canadian-coast-guards-new-medium-lift-helos-sole-sourced-to-bell-canada/

Bell Rung: All 15 Canadian Coast Guard Light Helos Delivered 
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/mark-collins-bell-rung-all-15-canadian-coast-guard-light-helos-delivered/

But boy it sure helps when you have (US-owned) company actually making the dang things and selling them around the world at a profit. Rather than, one way or another, paying the shipbuilding companies to build the shipyards actually necessary for the work they've been promised. And getting the vessels some sunny never never land day. At least bloody very late. 

FUBAR.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

OFSV coming along






as is the JSS


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I didn't know if I should put this in this thread or in the Canadian Politics forum (seeing as there is an election coming   ):

This went totally unnoticed in the English Canadian press yesterday (probably because the end of steel and aluminum tariff was greater news), but minister Garneau was in Quebec City and announced that Davie has been retained by the G. of C. for a contract for two new ferries of about 130 meters  in length, under a program where a sole bidder that qualifies can be selected. Any other potential bidder (watch out for Irving!!!) who believes it could bid on the work now has 15 days to make its case - otherwise, the government negotiates the details of the contract with the sole bidder. (I believe this was the rule used by the Conservatives to acquire the C-17's)

The two ferries to be replaced are the MV Madeleine and MV Holiday Island, both operating in the Gulf of St-Lawrence from P.E.I.

The reference below is to the Journal de Quebec, it's in French sorry - but you can always use Google translate.

https://www.journaldequebec.com/2019/05/17/ottawa-confie-la-construction-de-deux-traversiers-au-chantier-davie


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I didn't know if I should put this in this thread or in the Canadian Politics forum (seeing as there is an election coming   ):
> 
> This went totally unnoticed in the English Canadian press yesterday (probably because the end of steel and aluminum tariff was greater news), but minister Garneau was in Quebec City and announced that Davie has been retained by the G. of C. for a contract for two new ferries of about 130 meters  in length, under a program where a sole bidder that qualifies can be selected. Any other potential bidder (watch out for Irving!!!) who believes it could bid on the work now has 15 days to make its case - otherwise, the government negotiates the details of the contract with the sole bidder. (I believe this was the rule used by the Conservatives to acquire the C-17's)
> 
> The two ferries to be replaced are the MV Madeleine and MV Holiday Island, both operating in the Gulf of St-Lawrence from P.E.I.
> 
> The reference below is to the Journal de Quebec, it's in French sorry - but you can always use Google translate.
> 
> https://www.journaldequebec.com/2019/05/17/ottawa-confie-la-construction-de-deux-traversiers-au-chantier-davie



Oh the hypocrisy of it all. We are open and fair, unless it actually has to get done. But if the previous government goes sole source its evil and bad but if we do it we are doing it for the good of the country. Next government comes in and they rinse and repeat!


----------



## MarkOttawa

The very crafty and often pernicious Prof. Michael Byers actually does know his stuff pretty well (esp. on Arctic) and makes pretty good sense here:



> Mark Norman has been vindicated – but the navy-procurement crisis ticks on
> 
> _Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia._
> 
> The truth about Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is finally coming out, with his breach-of-trust charge over allegedly leaking cabinet secrets to affect the leasing of a supply ship having been stayed. His trial has been spiked; the focus is now on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who reportedly initiated the request for an RCMP investigation in 2015, a highly unusual ask that he denies making. He also publicly predicted a trial, even before any charges were laid.
> 
> But this affair is about more than injustice and allegations of political interference. At its root, it is about a procurement system that left the Royal Canadian Navy unable to operate freely overseas – and that problem remains nearly as acute now as it was before.
> 
> A strong navy needs supply ships to enable warships to undertake long deployments without stopping in foreign ports or relying on allies. During an armed conflict, a supply ship can be the difference between victory and defeat. But Canada’s Navy lost both its supply ships in 2015 after a fire on one and serious corrosion on the other. All of a sudden, it could no longer form a task force – an independently deployable group of warships – despite this ability being central to its function as a blue-water navy, that is to say, a force that can operate across the deep and open oceans.
> 
> The Navy had foreseen a need for new supply ships before that, however. In 2004, it persuaded Paul Martin’s Liberal government to initiate a procurement process. But the projected costs quickly exceeded the assigned budget, and Stephen Harper’s Conservative government halted the process before restarting it one year later and then rolling it into the 2011 National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS). By 2015, it was apparent that the NSS was broken, and that the new supply ships would take a decade or more to arrive.
> 
> Enter Vice-Adm. Norman, appointed as commander of the Navy in 2013, who saw a solution to the intractable process: converting a second-hand container ship into a refuelling vessel.
> 
> However, this idea put the entire NSS at risk, and with it, entire careers. The NSS has grown into a complex institution with procedures, committees, personnel slots and budget lines involving three different government departments, and a workaround threatened overturning the cart. The conversion would also imperil decades of profits at Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax and Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver. In 2011, the two companies had been selected to build all of Canada’s large ships because Davie Shipbuilding in Lévis, Que., was under creditor protection at the time. But by 2015, Davie was back, with the facilities, workforce and experience needed to build large ships. It even had a container ship, the MV Asterix, ready for conversion.
> 
> Mr. Harper understood that urgent measures were needed. So he gave Vice-Adm. Norman the authority to deal directly with Davie and get the job done. It was an unusual move that sidelined the rest of the bureaucracy, but the prime minister had Vice-Adm. Norman’s back – that is, until he was no longer prime minister.
> 
> Mr. Trudeau became a particularly easy mark for senior civil servants, especially given their propensity to always try and take advantage of new governments. It might not have been too hard to wind Mr. Trudeau up about Vice-Adm. Norman’s dealings with Davie, which included allegedly “leaking” cabinet information concerning the new government’s doubts about the deal Mr. Harper had struck on MV Asterix.
> 
> We don’t know whether Mr. Trudeau’s behaviour amounted to political interference in the justice system. What we do know for the moment, though, is that Vice-Adm. Norman’s legal fight against the breach-of-trust charge came at a heavy handicap. Someone told the media that the RCMP were searching Vice-Adm. Norman’s home in 2017. The Department of National Defence refused Vice-Adm. Norman’s request for government assistance on legal fees, even though doing so is normal practice. Thousands of documents were withheld, some of which would have revealed what a former Conservative cabinet minister later confirmed: that Vice-Adm. Norman was reporting directly to Mr. Harper.
> 
> Chief of the Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance was particularly unhelpful, suspending and then replacing Vice-Adm, Norman while publicly expressing a lack of confidence in him. He must go: At best, he failed to protect Vice-Adm. Norman, and at worst, he set him up.
> 
> But none of that deals with the actual problem at the core of this affair: The Navy has only one supply ship, the one that Vice-Adm. Norman secured. And this country’s geography demands supply ships on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, as well as a third ship to stand in during maintenance and refits.
> 
> Seaspan will not be able to deliver new supply ships any time soon, even though it recently rearranged its construction schedule so as to start one but not both of the vessels before several Coast Guard builds. The firm ran into serious problems with the first ship built under the NSS, a Coast Guard fisheries science vessel, including faulty welds that had to be redone last year, and a damaging collision with a breakwater during a Seaspan-conducted trial earlier this year.
> 
> Fortunately, no full construction contract for the new supply ships has yet been signed. There is still time to cancel the planned second ship at Seaspan and to have Davie refit another container ship instead.
> 
> But this assumes rational decision-making, unaffected by interests and bureaucracy. Yes, Vice-Adm. Norman was vindicated – but don’t expect this government to change course.
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-mark-norman-has-been-vindicated-but-the-navy-procurement-crisis/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I am not a big fan of professor Byers, but must admit that this opinion piece of his is bang on.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Cancel and get another conversion ship?  Yeah, super good idea, then when they reach the end of their life in 15 years we can go back to square one, and lose the hundreds of millions we've already spent on JSS with nothing to show for it.

It was called the shipbuilding *STRATEGY* because it was intended to build a *STRATEGIC ABILITY TO BUILD SHIPS IN CANADA* in modern facilities. The first few years was redoing the shipyards from scratch to world class facilities.  And guess what, it takes a long time to get actual experience when you do things, and a lot of these activities (like test and trials) they are only doing for the first time now.

It was always going to be a long lead to get set up, but if we can stop being a bunch of shortsighted whinging idiots and stick tot he plan maybe it'll turn out okay. Nothing wrong with checking it out and making sure it still makes sense, but torpedoing it without a fundamental understanding of what it was supposed to do is dumb.  The whole thing is bound up in masses of red tape (none of which applied to the Asterix project) that add complications, delays and expenses, so if you want to fundamentally change it, quit messing around with bespoke ships, value proposition, massive oversight etc and get into a straight commercial relationship.  Our contracts are rubbish, and it's because the people that draft them never actually work on projects or have any accountability for ships actually showing up, so they play silly games to meet some random ancilliary department deliverable that has nothing to do with DND or CCG having capable vessels in a reasonable time at a good value for the taxpayers.

Would love to pile on the shipyards, but from where I sat most of the problems are caused by Canada.  Aside from DND, PSPC and CCG, there are all kinds of fingers in the pie, and central agencies like to occasionally run around popping everyone's balloons.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am not a big fan of professor Byers, but must admit that this opinion piece of his is bang on.



I almost agree with everything.  At least his analysis of what happened.

As for a second conversion, I don't think we need it yet.  Just getting back from a NATO showed me once again that we have plenty of access to allied AOR's in the Med and North Sea.  As well as plenty of access to good ports to refuel and restore.  There's _no emergency_.

Asterix is going to do the job until we get the new capability.


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:
			
		

> I almost agree with everything.  At least his analysis of what happened.
> 
> As for a second conversion, I don't think we need it yet.  Just getting back from a NATO showed me once again that we have plenty of access to allied AOR's in the Med and North Sea.  As well as plenty of access to good ports to refuel and restore.  There's _no emergency_.
> 
> Asterix is going to do the job until we get the new capability.


Probably why Asterix seems to be plying most of her trade in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:
			
		

> Probably why Asterix seems to be plying most of her trade in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.



As per Admiral Baine's comments on the issue, that's exactly why.  Less traditional allies, bigger ocean.  Asterix will probably end up being the swing AOR.


----------



## Kirkhill

"...At its root, it is about a procurement system that left the Royal Canadian Navy unable to operate freely overseas..."

Per Dr. Byers.

Refreshed

"...At its root, it is about a procurement system that left the Royal Canadian Navy Government of Canada unable to operate freely overseas..."

The RCN offers the Government of Canada to ability to support its interests on the high seas and overseas.  One way in which it does that is providing security for transiting vessels. And ultimately that security comes courtesy of the Navy's ability kill and destroy with the sanction of the only authority licensed to permit that:  an internationally recognized national government.

But the Government needs more than just killing power to influence events.  In wars of the people, in this era of hybrid warfare and insurgent political parties, it is more important than ever to make friends and making friends is not just about killing people. Champlain made friends with the Huron by killing Iroquois.  His diplomatic efforts with the Iroquois were less successful.



> "I almost agree with everything.  At least his analysis of what happened.
> 
> As for a second conversion, I don't think we need it yet.  Just getting back from a NATO showed me once again that we have plenty of access to allied AOR's in the Med and North Sea.  As well as plenty of access to good ports to refuel and restore.  There's no emergency.
> 
> Asterix is going to do the job until we get the new capability."
> 
> "Probably why Asterix seems to be plying most of her trade in the Pacific and Indian Oceans."



A fleet of support vessels (or even a large flotilla), a combination of Asterix AORs and Point Class type RoRo conversions - owned by, or at least operated on behalf of, the Government of Canada - would leave the Government a much greater opportunity to influence events while winning friends.

The vessels could obviously put at the service of the RCN but also at the service of the DND, at the service of Other Government Departments, of the Provinces, of other nations armed forces or their civil authorities, or even the United Nations. 

If a Government of Canada really wanted to engage with the world, to earn a seat on the UN Security Council, to influence debates, then it could consider taking a good portion of the 0.7% of GDP (or GNI) nominally committed to international aid and development and committing it to building such a support fleet.  Given that the current DND budget is 1.2% of GDP then an increased allocation of 0.35% of GDP would be equivalent to a 25% increase in the Defence Budget and concurrently a 140% increase in Overseas Development Aid (ODA).  That ODA increase would still leave us under the target of 0.7% by 0.1%.  Even doing that we would be 14% short of our ODA target and 40% short of our NATO defence target.

And buying a flotilla like that would give the RCN more reasons to have capable ships --- to protect the support flotilla.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Look at timelines, when the new JSS is launched and deemed fit for service and the crew trained up, Asterix is going to need a major refit. If we ordered a 2nd Resolve class and continued with the JSS as well, you end up with 4 AOR's, which likley one will be in refit at any one time. Keeping the two Resolve class manned with a split crew reducing manning issues for the RCN, while doubling RAS ability. Beyond the navy needs, it means Canada can contribute an AOR to US or Allied missions around the world, which is a good way to earn those international brownie points with limited political risk. They also provide an excellent resource for training Canadian civilian deck officers, which means they can get deep sea time and experience to write higher tickets, becoming a source for Ship Pilots and other senior merchant marine jobs, all critical to Canada's trade.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Look at timelines, when the new JSS is launched and deemed fit for service and the crew trained up, Asterix is going to need a major refit. If we ordered a 2nd Resolve class and continued with the JSS as well, you end up with 4 AOR's, which likley one will be in refit at any one time. Keeping the two Resolve class manned with a split crew reducing manning issues for the RCN, while doubling RAS ability. Beyond the navy needs, it means Canada can contribute an AOR to US or Allied missions around the world, which is a good way to earn those international brownie points with limited political risk. They also provide an excellent resource for training Canadian civilian deck officers, which means they can get deep sea time and experience to write higher tickets, becoming a source for Ship Pilots and other senior merchant marine jobs, all critical to Canada's trade.



Still looking for a bit more lift for beans and bandages (and occasionally bullets) and more room for aerial and seagoing connectors.  At least a couple of flat top RoRo conversions.


----------



## Harrigan

I personally have no heartache with an incoming government reviewing an eleventh-hour sole-source contract by an outgoing government, and in a government-held riding threatened in an impending election, (and seemingly at odds with the oft-touted genius of the NSS).  Certainly if / when the Liberals do exactly that in the next couple of months, we will be very quick to criticise, and will want those contracts to be reviewed by a Scheer government.  But I am happy that review was a) short, and b) resulting in continuing the programme so that the RCN gets the ship.  And I have no quibble with Byers on the need for supply ships, as I think we can all agree that we would rather have the Asterix in service than not.  

But I will admit that I am very confused by all of this at the moment, and there are a few questions that have been gnawing at me for some time - particularly since the recent revelation that has "vindicated" Adm.Norman:

1. If the three former cabinet ministers have known all along that Norman had been operating under their direct orders, why did they wait until now to say so?  Why didn't they tell everyone at the start of all this and not put Norman through it?

2. Does it not seem odd that a government would give orders to a subordinate officer and not to CDS?  

3. Did CDS know that Norman was under such orders?  If he did know, then he appears to be hanging Norman out to dry (that seems to be Byers' assertion).  But if he didn't know, and Norman didn't tell him, then Norman would effectively be taking orders from outside his chain of command, and behind CDS's back.  

4. We are all up in arms on this site about Irving's influence with the Liberal cabinet.  But I am not sure I understand the difference between their influence to get the project reviewed, and Davies influence on the previous government to get the project started in the first place.  My simple mind sees both of them as industry influence on cabinet.  What am I missing?

I don't know the answers to those questions above, and the various reporting out there seems to very quickly line up with their particular partisan leanings, so of limited value.  But either way, it seems to me that an egrigious failure of the chain of command has been committed - I just can't figure out by whom.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well Micheal Byers is no friend of the CPC and the fact that this government is shedding Cabinet Ministers and MP's should be telling. 

For #1, the former Ministers were likely unaware of the exact nature of the charge or the evidence for it. They may have not connected all of the dots. Also it would be the PCO, MND and RCMP to ensure there was enough evidence before requesting charges and laying them. 

#2 & #3 The CDS has a military to run, Norman was the senior Naval Officer and this was a crisis for the navy. Harper was aware of the mess that is our procurement system and the critical need of an AOR for the RCN. Therefore likely he directed Norman to spearhead the replacement. i don't doubt that Vance and Norman discussed the direction from the PM and since it was a direct order from the PM (as I recall) Vance would have said "Carry on".

#4 Irving influence over everything in Eastern Canada is a major concern for a democracy and the CPC have no love for them. Plus Irving Shipyards had their hands full. Davie had pulled up their socks by themselves and it was an opportunity. Harper had already seen the value of single source contracts that actually deliver and had a history of unorthodox (for Canada) solution to military crisis needs (leased Leos and Mi17 helicopters). So likely the Davie solution appealed to him and also likely had some political benefit.


----------



## Harrigan

I am not sure I buy the argument that its all just a happy coincidence....

On #1 - I find it hard to believe that three former cabinet ministers didn't understand the nature of the charge against Norman, particularly if they knew the background.  And surely when Norman's name was being dragged into the mud, they would have been happy to have offered up the information to the RCMP to put things straight.  But they waited over two years, despite it being a very highly visible (and coincidentally politically advantageous) story.

On #2 & #3 - I don't recall the government in 2015 admitting that the NSS was a mess, and that it wasn't going to deliver what was promised, so suggesting that this was all just a noble endeavour that just happened to have "some political benefit" is a bit of a leap of faith is it not?  Would we be so glib if (when) the Liberals do it?  And what of the clear circumvention of the chain of command?  While you are certain Vance and Norman discussed this direction from the PM (or at least, from cabinet ministers) and were both ok with it, Vance's firing of Norman would seem to suggest that was not the case.  

On #4 - Irving/McCain in Eastern Canada, Hydro-Quebec/Powercorp/Quebecor/SNC-Lavalin in Quebec, Mosaic in Saskatchewan, Oil Companies in Alberta, etc etc.  No differences there - if it is major concern for democracy, they are ALL a major concern for democracy.....  Does the fact that Irving does have a lot of influence in Atlantic Canada justify circumventing the procurement process?  

I apologise if it just looks like I am out to shoot down any response.  It it not intended to be that way.  I am very happy that we have an extra AOR.  But the analysis of this whole mess cannot be as simplistic as CPC=Good, Liberal=Bad, as much as many of us on the site wish it were so.  The procurement process is fairly clearly laid out.  If you or I are ordered by our CO to circumvent financial and/or procurement regulations - which are in place specifically to halt corruption and fraud - I would hope we would tell the CO to pound sand.  (I know I have had to do exactly that in the past).  So what makes this different?  Is it OK if the PM orders it?  Would it be OK if Trudeau ordered it?

In a way, I think that the media frenzy over the political damage this issue is doing to the Liberals (not undeserved) is obscuring some bigger underlying issues around how things were done in the waning days of the previous government and the early days of the current one.  Of course, that suits some just fine.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I can't think of any company out west that has the influence Irving has back East, not even in the days of Mac-Blo. The two shipyards at the time had their hands full, Seaspan was busy creating a new yard and planning 4 vessels. Irving was busy upgrading it's yard, busy completing a bunch of smaller vessels and planning the AOPS. There was no way they could deliver as fast as Davie could, who already had a almost new ship in their hands to convert. 

It's very possible they let Norman swing for political purposes, but it's also possible they didn't understand the information that led to the charge, for all we now they might have assumed that the PCO was aware of Normans role with the previous government and that the charge was based on something else. Had a proper review been done prior to laying the charges, likely Normans orders would have come to light and no charges would have been made. This government rushed to find a head for a stake that the PM wanted and they picked the wrong man.


----------



## FSTO

The latest lean from Liberal Operatives on Twitter is now to bring out the "circumvention of procurement process rules" as a reason why Norman was charged. This loops back to the idea from some in government that procurement rules are sacrosanct and came down from the mount etched in stone. That is complete baloney, rules and procedures are constantly in flux because nothing is perfect and an entity that is married to dogma is doomed to failure. 

Also there is no bloody way in hell that Vance (nor Lawson before him) was in the dark about CRCN dealing directly with Davie (allegedly) under orders from the PM. If Ottawa is as leaky as everyone says it is (and it is!) then he would have heard about it. But the process of acquiring the iAOR would have been part of the briefing package the CDS routinely reviews.


----------



## Kirkhill

I would be fine with Trudeau ordering the circumvention of the procurement rules if it resulted in new frigates, new support ships, new transport ships, new coast guard ships, new helicopters, new trucks, new flight suits, new boots....


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I too, am fine with the PM (any PM) circumventing contracting and procurement rules. At the end of the day, he is the final arbtrar of those rules and wears the results- good or bad.


----------



## Spencer100

As posted in the A/OPS thread.  Irving should get on the marketing and sell one to New Zeeland and then tell them they have a good deal on T-26's to replace their ANZAC's.  Lockheed Canada did sell them them the CMS330 and upgraded their ships.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

JT Stated today that Seasspan gets 16 new CCG vessels to build and Davie is also going to get contracts.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouvers-seaspan-to-build-up-to-16-new-coast-guard-ships-trudeau-announces?fbclid=IwAR3Rw4d16rB0XnOoyPDBKPDIlp9x80taS4MbDXuX9bP3whQnHLy2mkulQY0


Meanwhile, this is the first news on the OOSV I have heard of in a while.
https://twitter.com/MoreThanShips/status/1116778596050378752


----------



## JMCanada

From my point of view the best part of PM's statement yesterday is the open door for Davie to come into the NSS. With both Seaspan and Irving busy on their allocated vessels for two or three decades, I dare to foresee the replacement for MCDVs would come from Davie. That might be done within the next decade, I mean, deliveries might be planned to start from about 2026 onwards, to replace the old ones at their thirties. Or should we expect to replace them at the age of 40?

No need to say, as for what i have learnt here, the MCDVs are precious tools for the RCN and their replacement should be already taken into consideration by the NSS planning.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oh the irony--Seaspan understands realities, buys vessels abroad for its ferry line while building them at Vancouver for stupid Canadian gov't:


> Seaspan Orders Two LNG Battery Hybrids
> 
> Canada's Seaspan Ferries will add two new Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) - battery hybrid ferries to its fleet in 2021.
> 
> The _vessels will be constructed by Damen Shipyards Gorinchem B.V. at their Mangalia Shipyard in Romania, said a press release from the marine transportation services provider.
> 
> With construction scheduled to begin in 2019, the vessels are expected to go into operation in 2021_ [emphasis added]. They will join the Seaspan Swift and the Seaspan Reliant, the company’s first hybrid ferries, commissioned just over two years ago.
> 
> Since introducing these vessels to their fleet, Seaspan Ferries has been able to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while maintaining a high level of performance and reliability for its drop-trailer service between its Mainland terminals and Vancouver Island.
> 
> Damen Shipyards won the bid to build the new ferries thanks to their excellent reputation, commitment to quality, and proven infrastructure at the Mangalia Shipyard.
> 
> The two companies have been working closely to ensure that the new vessels meet the strict safety, performance and operational standards required to provide optimal service to Seaspan Ferries’ customers.
> 
> Frank Butzelaar, CEO Seaspan Marine Transportation said: "Within their first two years of service, our existing LNG hybrid vessels have operated with emission reductions of over 50% compared to traditional vessels; a large part of which is directly linked to the use of LNG fuel. These types of results truly reflect Seaspan’s commitment to our core value of Care for the Environment."
> 
> Frank added: "Expanding our fleet of LNG vessels will allow us to further expand our service offering and reduce emissions at the same time. It’s the right decision for the business and for the environment.”
> 
> “We’ve been very happy with the construction and performance of our LNG vessels and are excited to welcome the new ferries to our fleet in 2021. The entire Seaspan Ferries team has been extremely dedicated to the integration of the LNG vessels over the past two years, and we are excited to be working with Damen Shipyards in Romania to continue to grow our fleet,” said Harly Penner, Director, Fleet Engineering & Vessel Development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.marinelink.com/news/seaspan-orders-two-lng-battery-hybrids-466526



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Currently Seaspan does not have a work gap, if they did i would be happy to point out that they should look closer to home for customers.


----------



## Navy_Pete

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Oh the irony--Seaspan understands realities, buys vessels abroad for its ferry line while building them at Vancouver for stupid Canadian gov't:
> Mark
> Ottawa



The ferries are too large for them to build at the VSY location. They couldn't build them there if they wanted to (which they don't because the order books are full anyway).  Get this looks bad, but makes perfect sense if you understand the context.

Modern shipyards are set up like car plants, and specialized for specific types of cars. There is usually a hard size limit, but may vary between the size of the modules, size of the launch, weight limits etc.  Ferry modules are really big, have some tricky construction and can have some other oddities, so you need to have a shipyard built for it and it's a steep learning curve.  There are shipyards that specialize in that kind of thing, and just makes no sense to make the massive infrastructure investments required in upgrades to build a one off. Would take at least 4-6 to get over the learning curve, so just makes no sense.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Navy_Pete, I disagree with a good deal of your post.

First, the part I agree with: Seaspan's books are full.

That's it.

IMHO, the rest is wrong. Seaspan is building AOR's (or JSS, call it what you may) and an Arctic ice breaker which are both much larger and with larger size block that he contemplated ferries, so there is no size problem at the shipyard. And while some shipyard specialize for cost reasons, they do so simply because their books are sufficiently full to go that route. Otherwise, like most shipyards, they would take whatever comes their way.

There is one aspect overlooked here, however: The vessels are to be LNG-Battery hybrids. That is a very specialized and complex recent technology. And there is only one shipyard in Canada with experience with that technology - but Seaspan is not about to mandate its competitor Davie with building ships for it, isn't it?.

Even then, Davie has built one such ferry for the Government of Quebec, and is in the process of building a second one (mired in a court case), and has experienced all the teething problems associated with delivering such a new product. It does make Davie one of the few yards in North America with that technological knowledge and, if and when the court case is over and the early problems are resolved, it may well pay off and generate more local sales - especially as G.H.G emissions standards become tighter and tighter. Only the future will tell.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Size is the not the issue, the Spirit Class were built out here by several shipyards doing different modules and then combining them. Part of the issue is that other yards can undercut Canadian labour cost.


----------



## Uzlu

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Seaspan is building AOR's (or JSS, call it what you may) and an Arctic ice breaker


This says that the shipbuilder for the future CCGS _John G. Diefenbaker_ is to be determined.  I think, therefore, it might be Davie.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Don't believe everything the Government puts out  .

Seriously, though, the Diefenbaker is on the actual list of vessels in the original group of vessels attributed to Seaspan under the NSS. It is possible that the government wishes to change this, but to do so, they would have to negotiate a withdrawal with Seaspan. I suspect that may be the intent of (1) changing status to non-determined, paired with (2) assigning Seaspan 16 more vessels right now. But Seaspan could insist on respect of the contract.

I note here that, the government web site you refer to also lists the Large Naval Tug project as TBD, yet it has been awarded weeks ago to Ocean Group of Isle-aux-Coudres:

https://www.groupocean.com/en/contrat-ocean-industries-naval_construction-national_defence-canada/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Plus we may have new government by October.


----------



## NavyShooter

Colin P said:
			
		

> Plus we may have new government by October.




THERE...right there...THAT is the crux of the problem.


The whole thing is a political theatre...a sham of partisan politics.  


ERC said a while back that the NSPS is a jobs program where the ships are a somewhat useful byproduct.  

Looking at it from that perspective, you can understand the NSPS.


It's never been about the ships, or the capabilities.  Ever.


It's all been about which yard gets the porkbarrel, and which party gets the votes.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Matt Gurney on Justin Trudeau's super-cynical announcement of new vessels for CCG--other that the Irving A/OPS (not what CCG needs) which should arrive fairly soon, the 16 ones from Seaspan are in some 2030s never never land if the shipyard builds the two JSS and the polar icebreaker first:



> The Navy's not our only fleet crippled by government incompetence
> _The Coast Guard is in equally bad shape, perhaps worse, and the plan to save it sounds all too familiar, in the most dispiriting way_
> 
> It takes a particular kind of incompetence to let a fleet of ocean-going vessels rust out. Canada is remarkably close to doing so twice.
> 
> Long-time readers of mine will know that a topic I’ve returned to frequently, to absolutely no evident effect, is the chronic underfunding of the Canadian military. In recent years, the problem has become particularly acute for the Royal Canadian Navy. The fleet lost both its last destroyers and their unique capabilities, and its supply ships. The two kinds of ships, vastly different in their capabilities, both dated back to around 1970, and both simply had run out of useful life by the second decade of this century. The Navy’s dozen frigates are in good shape, having recently been modernized, and the four submarines have at long last come up to speed. The converted civilian ship Asterix is functioning as an interim supply vessel. But the loss of the destroyers and supply ships, retired without replacement due to incompetence and neglect by Liberals and Tories alike, undeniably badly hurt the Navy.
> 
> Hmm, what’s that you say? The Coast Guard is a disaster, too? Gee, how could that have happened?
> 
> Yes, sadly, it turns out that the Navy wasn’t the only fleet rusting out. The _Coast Guard is in equally bad shape, perhaps worse — and it’s all been happening most out of sight and out of mind.
> 
> I don’t exclude myself from that_ [emphasis added]. I don’t know the organization well, as it falls a bit outside my primary interests. The Coast Guard isn’t a military force in Canada. Its ships sail unarmed. The Coast Guard isn’t even a police force, per se. Law enforcement on Canadian seas is tasked to the RCMP, which may assign officers to Coast Guard vessels as needed. But the Coast Guard is a separate service, tasked with patrol but not enforcement, scientific research and search and rescue. In this sense, it’s actually fascinating — a special agency within the government providing services to many other departments and initiatives. But _it’s a little off my radar, no pun intended, and I think that’s true for most Canadians_ [emphasis added, only so sadly true--and our media and politicians largely ignore it because it is not controversial like the CAF which might once in a while kill people].
> 
> But the one thing I did know about the Coast Guard is that its fleet is old. Very old. Its largest icebreaker was launched in 1966. It has two other heavy icebreakers, the younger of which was launched in April of 1983, just a few months after I was born. All told, the Coast Guard’s fleet is stretched beyond its effective limit: documents obtained by The Canadian Press last month showed that fully a third of the fleet’s large vessels were already past their expected service lives and unlikely to be replaced before rusting out.
> 
> It’s all very familiar, in the most dispiriting way. So is the government’s response.
> 
> Much like with the Navy, now that the fleet is literally about to fall apart, the government has shown up with a plan. Justin Trudeau announced in Vancouver on Wednesday that the Coast Guard would receive 18 new ships. Two would be of the same class of Arctic patrol ships that the Navy will soon take into service. Sixteen will be a mid-sized multi-purpose ship that only exists right now as a gleam in a procurement ministry bureaucrat’s eye. The budget is a shade under $16 billion, but considering that the vast majority of the ships haven’t even been designed yet, let alone constructed, that number is barely a placeholder.
> 
> There’s a column to be written about the decision to build two more Arctic patrol ships and give them to the Coast Guard. The patrol ships are military vessels — lightly armed, but warships nonetheless [_not really, they're for "constabulary" duties_]. They’ll have the advantage of youth, relative to the rest of the Coast Guard fleet, but that’s it — they’re not suited to its specific needs. The only reason they’re being given to the Coast Guard is to keep the shipyard that builds them humming during an election year. The last thing the Liberals need in the months before an election when they’re down in the polls is to have Irving laying off a bunch of workers in the Maritimes. This is no way to run a Coast Guard, yet here we are.
> 
> And the prime minister is barely pretending otherwise. When announcing the new ships, he couldn’t stop gushing about all the jobs it would create. So many new jobs, in fact, that Canada will need to bring a third shipyard into the national shipbuilding program — Quebec’s Davie shipyard, of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman trial fame, seems to be in line for some sizeable federal contracts. Preserving the Coast Guard’s operational capabilities is a bonus — a meaningful one, even, but no more than that. It’s really about the jobs.
> 
> It’s all very familiar, like I said: an asset vital to Canada being allowed to quite literally rust away without replacements because our government can’t get its act together. The solution is familiar, too: a jobs-creation program masquerading as a procurement effort. And there’s one more part of this that’s also familiar: the nagging sense that this will all get very badly screwed up somehow, and the Coast Guard will end up getting either much fewer ships than expected, or conceivably, none at all. It is, sadly, the Canadian way.
> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-the-navys-not-our-only-fleet-crippled-by-government-incompetence?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1558720599



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

CCG currently has seven high endurance multi-tasked vessels and six offshore patrol vessels. These thirteen are surely the ones to be replaced by the "up to 16 Multi-Purpose Vessels" Trudeau announced on May 22. But why 16 rather than 13? 

Also Trudeau announced "new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ship" (no numbers, clearly for Davie), which presumably would replace the current three medium endurance multi-tasked vessels.

Note that almost all the current multi-tasked vessels of both types were built in the 1980s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Canadian_Coast_Guard
https://inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fdat/vessels?status=1&search=close
https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet

But in 2013 (!!!) the Conservative gov't announced that Seaspan would build (after everything through the last ship planned, the polar icebreaker) up to five offshore patrol vessels and up to five medium endurance multi-tasked vessels:



> Canadian Coast Guard Shocker – Ten (maybe) New Serious Vessels
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/mark-collins-canadian-coast-guard-shocker-ten-maybe-new-serious-vessels/
> 
> [2013 news release:
> https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2013/10/vancouver-shipyards-build-medium-endurance-multi-tasked-vessels-offshore-patrol-vessels-canadian-coast-guard.html]



Why in 2013 were the medium-endurance replacements considered a higher priority than the high-endurance ones the gov't now seems to be more definite about? Though if Davie gets the mediums they almost certainly will show up long before Seaspan's highs.

All most confusingly political, what? And the gov't and CCG give no time-frames in which those various types of vessels will be bought and no detailed rationale for what is being procured when and why.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> But why 16 rather than 13?


Sixteen sounds better than thirteen if you are going to lose the future CCGS _John G. Diefenbaker_ to Davie.  Sixteen rather than thirteen, because the Liberals are trailing the Conservatives in the polls.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> But why 16 rather than 13?



Thirteen is bad luck.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Frankly I don't trust to much of the advice given by senior CCG management, they have lied to governments at least twice that I know of and the examples I have seen out here were not stellar. We have many fine ship Captains, but that's where it seems to end.


----------



## Uzlu

> Coast guard fleet renewal plan unlikely to yield promised deals before the election
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pledged billions of dollars for a renewal of the Canadian Coast Guard fleet, but while work to hammer out new shipbuilding deals will start shortly, it’s unlikely any new contracts or agreements will be signed before the fall election.
> 
> Global News has learned federal officials do not expect to award contracts for any of the promised 18 new coast guard vessels or sign a deal to bring a third shipyard into the National Shipbuilding Strategy before Canadians head to the polls in October.
> 
> But the work to begin those processes will get underway in the coming weeks and months amid political uncertainty around Liberal fortunes in Quebec.
> 
> According to one official, the government aims to get to an umbrella agreement with that third shipyard similar to what it has with Irving and Seaspan, the other two shipyards currently involved in the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
> 
> Those umbrella agreements lay out the rules and terms of negotiation over work bid on by the shipyard under the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
> 
> However, the umbrella agreements are not contracts for work, and in the case of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, a copy of one of the original agreements obtained by Global News makes it clear that a shipyard under an umbrella agreement is not guaranteed any of the contracts that may result under the strategy.
> 
> The agreement also states the government is free to add or remove non-contracted work from the plates of individual shipyards as it sees fit.
> 
> Those terms could be significant if a third shipyard comes into play under the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
> 
> Sources both within and outside the government say there is no other viable candidate that could qualify to be that third shipyard other than Chantier Davie.
> 
> Based in Levis, Que., the shipyard is just across the river from Quebec City and is part of a region where the Liberals hold two of roughly 10 available seats and will need to either hold or gain across the province to maintain their majority government.
> 
> Liberal MP Joel Lightbound represents the Quebec City riding of Louis-Hébert while Minister of Families, Children and Social Development Jean-Yves Duclos holds the nearby riding of Quebec.
> 
> Duclos won his riding by just two percentage points ahead of the NDP candidate while Lightbound won by roughly seven per cent ahead of the Conservative.
> 
> The nearby riding of Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles elected Conservative Pierre Paul-Hus by roughly 20 per cent in 2015, and apart from briefly flipping to the NDP during the Orange Wave, the riding has been held by either the Conservatives or the Bloc Quebecois for decades.
> 
> Louis-Saint-Laurent, the riding held by Conservative Gerard Deltell, elected him by more than 50 per cent of the vote after narrowly electing an NDP candidate in 2011 following years of sending Conservatives to Parliament Hill. Conservative Jacques Gourd also won Lévis—Lotbinière by more than 50 per cent in 2015.
> 
> The actual riding where the Davie shipyard is located, Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Lévis, has elected Conservative Steven Blaney with between 44 and 51 per cent of the vote since 2006.
> 
> People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier, formerly a Conservative, has won his nearby riding of Beauce with more than 50 per cent of the vote since 2006, which was when the Liberals lost control of it after holding it since 1997.
> 
> But several of the Conservatives in the area also won their ridings by much smaller margins, raising questions about whether their seats could swing given the right circumstances.
> 
> Conservative Alupa Clarke won Beauport-Limoilou with 30 per cent of the vote compared to the Liberal candidate and the NDP candidate, who separately garnered 25 per cent each, while Conservative Sylvie Boucher won Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix by roughly seven per cent.
> 
> Boucher’s closest competitor was a Liberal.
> 
> Apart from 2011, when Clarke’s riding of Beauport-Limoilou went to the NDP, it has jumped back and forth by single-digit margins between the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois with the Liberals trailing in third place.
> 
> While the Liberals had roughly 38 per cent of the support in Quebec during an Ipsos poll for Global News in March, both the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois were polling at 25 and 23 per cent, respectively, with the latter poised to potentially capitalize on collapsing NDP support in the province.
> 
> Those shifting dynamics up the pressure on the government to shore up support in the region and across the province, with one shipbuilding source suggesting the government would be wise to head into the election with a deal under their belts that can garner some goodwill in the region.
> 
> While a federal source acknowledged the goal is to work quickly, they were skeptical that the work needed to award those deals could be processed in time.
> 
> Chantier Davie estimates that allowing it into the National Shipbuilding Strategy would create about 2,000 new jobs in the region.


https://globalnews.ca/news/5308231/national-shipbuilding-strategy-coast-guard-renewal/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My guess is that the CPC will allude or commit to a similar promise and can point to the Astreix as being a CPC started project. In fact I suspect that the Libs in the area will be reluctant to talk in detail about ships, a it will lead to the Norman affair.


----------



## Uzlu

> New momentum on the west coast [CS19D2]
> 
> Seaspan's three-ship Offshore Fisheries and Science Vessel construction programme is also proceeding apace. The first two ships are slated to be delivered later this year and the third is under construction. Company officials say Seaspan continues to build efficiencies as the initiative progresses. These include a 27 per cent productivity increase on the second ship and a further 30 per cent on the third.
> 
> This provides great news both on the jobs and regional benefits fronts. Seaspan officials claim to have awarded more than C$870 million in contracts to 540 Canadian suppliers across the country, to have trained more than 200 apprentices and coached 75 intern engineers, architects, programme managers, finance analysts and estimators, and ships' planners during the past year.
> 
> Yet Seaspan officials are far from satisfied. The company continues to invest in its Vancouver shipyard to build capacity for current and anticipated future work.
> 
> Seaspan officials also worry about the potential effects of Trudeau's announcement that the government is introducing a third shipyard - presumably Davie Shipbuilding of Levis, Quebec - into its national strategy.
> 
> Canada's joint support ship programme remains Seaspan's biggest hope. Company officials said it has begun work on 18 blocks on the programme and is planning to start work on a further 27.
> 
> However the real action will only begin once a formal contract is signed, which Seaspan officials hope will take place in the spring of 2020.


https://www.janes.com/article/88929/new-momentum-on-the-west-coast-cs19d2


----------



## Spencer100

Potatoes for Ships? or something like that.  Cavendish Farms for IRB's

So much here....The press is starting to smell blood.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-government-alerted-irving-family-about-globe-story/?fbclid=IwAR3tTRkMSXywcGIdXrQxct4kH1PhYavPvLuhxtNEwyyy-4pp1bKALg_1v2Y

Plus National Post reporter in the news.  (I'm assuming this is OK as he is the news in the competitive paper)


----------



## Spencer100

more

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/05/30/federal-procurement-minister-wishes-irving-hadnt-threatened-reporters-3/#.XPACKBZKiUl


----------



## MarkOttawa

Now this from shipping interests in both Canada and US (only Davie could build in reasonable future):



> Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Shipping: We need Icebreakers
> 
> The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence shipping industry is calling for at least five new icebreakers to be part of the federal government’s recent announcement of $15.7 billion for Canadian Coast Guard fleet renewal.
> 
> Chamber of Marine Commerce President Bruce Burrows will be in attendance as the Coast Guard dedicates the Captain Molly Kool into service at its home port of St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. The Captain Molly Kool was recently retrofitted to provide services along the East Coast.
> 
> However, this asset along with two other acquired icebreakers currently being retrofitted will not be adding any extra capacity but take the place of other vessels that will be out of service for major repairs.
> 
> Canadian and U.S. Coast Guard crews worked tirelessly during the Great Lakes spring break-out, but were hampered by the age and condition of the fleets at their disposal. Two U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers were out of service in March and a Canadian icebreaker assigned to Lake Superior was only able to operate at 60 per cent of capability and was idled in April due to mechanical issues.
> 
> Ice build-ups in the St. Lawrence River during January also led to eight container ships being stuck at the Port of Montreal and 10 others at other Quebec ports.
> 
> In the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region, the cost to the Canadian economy of a Canadian vessel being delayed impacting cargo delivery is estimated at over $500,000/day.
> 
> Overall, ships transport more than 230 million metric tons of goods worth over $100 billion on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River waterway, generating more than $60 billion in economic activity and supporting 329,000 jobs in Canada and the U.S.
> 
> That economic contribution is only set to increase as ports and their customers invest in increasing the capacity of the waterway as well as looking at options like lengthening the navigation season of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
> https://www.marinelink.com/news/great-lakesst-lawrence-shipping-need-466714



More from Chamber of Marine Commerce:
https://www.marinedelivers.com/media_release/great-lakes-st-lawrence-shipping-industry-calls-for-new-icebreaking-assets-as-part-of-canadian-coast-guard-ship-building-program/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> only Davie could build in reasonable future


Which designs are ready?  The only one that I am aware of is for the future CCGS _John G. Diefenbaker_.  Five _Diefenbaker_s to be operational no later than about 2030?  I do not think Canada has enough competent politicians for that to happen.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nor a competent pay system to pay those sailors.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu: The Chamber of Marine Commerce shippers are not concerned about the Arctic and polar-class icebreakers. They want ships to keep Great Lakes/St. Lawrence as clear as possible which recently CCG has been unable to do--hence acquisition of Molly Kool and two more (hardly new) conversions from Davie.

If Davie can't build something new in good order than reasonable and cheap thing to do is buy abroad--shouldn't be hard to find a suitable design in production. But no Canadian gov't will have the guts to do the right thing--compare with Aussies having Damen of Netherlands build them a 25,500 tonnes serious Antarctic icebreaker in Romania, in fairly short order:



> Australia's new Antarctic icebreaker - RSV Nuyina[/color
> http://www.antarctica.gov.au/
> ...
> About the ship
> http://www.antarctica.gov.au/icebreaker/about-the-ship
> ...
> Construction updates:
> http://www.antarctica.gov.au/icebreaker/updates




Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The Chamber of Marine Commerce shippers are not concerned about the Arctic and polar-class icebreakers.


This is my point.  I do not think there are any designs for smaller icebreakers that are ready to be built in a Canadian yard.  Does anyone here know of a design for a Polar Class 3 or Polar Class 4 icebreaker that is ready to be built by a Canadian yard?  The National Shipbuilding Strategy was started in 2010.  Nine years later, the design for the Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel is still not ready.  

I do not think Canada can afford to wait ten or more years until the Canadian Coast Guard decides on designs for Polar Class 3 and Polar Class 4 icebreakers.  Maybe the solution is to ask the Canadian Coast Guard what it is that they want and then have Davie and the naval architects decide on the designs.  But the problem with this is that it might take some time before the designs are ready.





> "We have every intention of submitting a world-class proposal together with global leaders in icebreaker design."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/davie-coast-guard-icebreakers-canada-vicefield-byers-gagnon-1.4730332


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Quite a few designs out there already, picking a design is not hard, jumping through our procurement system is very hard.


----------



## YZT580

Colin P said:
			
		

> Quite a few designs out there already, picking a design is not hard, jumping through our procurement system is very hard.


\Isn't Irving mass producing them now?  The AORs are class 4.  Buy another 2 or 3 or perhaps repaint the current ones in white and red.  Problem solved


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile Irving and fries with everything--more of our shipbuilding (and other defence procurements) lunacy:



> Critics question Canadian defence industrial benefits policy
> 
> The federal government is coming under fire for allowing Irving Shipbuilding to claim an Alberta French fry plant as an industrial benefit of a contract to build warships for the Canadian navy.
> 
> Under the Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) policy – later renamed the Industrial and Technological Benefits policy – the federal government requires prime contractors of defence procurements to undertake business activity in Canada equal to 100 per cent of the value of the contracts they are awarded. Key objectives of this policy are to support the sustainability and growth of Canada’s defence sector and boost innovation through research and development.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding Inc. has more than $3-billion of IRB obligations arising from the contract it was awarded by Ottawa to build Arctic and offshore patrol ships. According to the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the company has fulfilled more than $1.4-billion of these obligations and has more than $353-million “in progress,” with another $1.3-billion yet to be identified.
> 
> As The Globe and Mail reported earlier this week, after Cavendish Farms, another company in the Irving business empire, invested $425-million in a frozen-potato processing plant in Lethbridge, Alta [_clearly a bitter civil frozen frie war with the McCains, the other [über-capitalist rulers in the Maritimes_]--., Irving Shipbuilding earned a credit of approximately $40-million toward its IRB obligations under the Arctic vessel contract.
> 
> Opposition critics and defence analysts said they don’t fault Irving, which complied with the rules to receive the IRB credit. But, they say, a frozen-potato processing plant is not really the ideal outcome of a policy intended to ensure that defence procurement supports the economic development of Canada’s defence industry.
> 
> “The last time I checked we have not fought a war using French fries,” said NDP MP Charlie Angus, who added the rules need to be tightened so that companies cannot claim frozen-food plants for industrial and regional benefit obligations.
> 
> Michael Byers, a University of British Columbia political science professor, said the IRB policy should be limited to creating business activity in defence-related fields.
> 
> “I see no evidence that Irving has done anything wrong here,” Mr. Byers said. “But the Canadian government has made at least two serious mistakes: Designating the Canadian shipyards as prime contractors and then not restricting the allowable IRBs to directly defence-related investments.”
> 
> Stephen Saideman, a political scientist at Carleton University, said that while the French fry plant may fit the criteria established by Ottawa for defence contractors to meet their obligations to generate economic spinoffs, it’s not what the policy was really intended to spur.
> 
> “Does it advance Canadian innovation and knowledge transfer in defence? No. Does it employ Canadians? Yes. Is this kind of economic benefit IRBs are supposed to yield? Not what was intended, certainly,” Prof. Saideman said...
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-critics-question-canadian-defence-industrial-benefits-policy/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

Could claim defense related if those potateos end up in IMPs


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Or a more serious question here: Does the use of IRB defence dollars to put up a French fries plant in Alberta contravenes the Defence policy of encouraging healthy lifestyle ???





I jest!  ;D


----------



## Patski

OMG....you guys never heard of potato cannons?  :rofl:


----------



## Dale Denton

What's so wrong with any company doing so?

If General Dynamics invests more $ in a mcgoober plant in Upper Nowhere, then why wouldn't that count as a Regional Industrial Benefit? They are a giant company with hands in everything, so they can invest and build up smaller sectors than our defence industry. Narrowing it down to Defence-industry-only IRB's would be severely limiting. IRB's soley exist for the country-at-large's benefit, not our defence industry sector alone.


----------



## Stoker

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> What's so wrong with any company doing so?
> 
> If General Dynamics invests more $ in a mcgoober plant in Upper Nowhere, then why wouldn't that count as a Regional Industrial Benefit? They are a giant company with hands in everything, so they can invest and build up smaller sectors than our defence industry. Narrowing it down to Defence-industry-only IRB's would be severely limiting. IRB's soley exist for the country-at-large's benefit, not our defence industry sector alone.



There's nothing wrong with it. When Canada bought the Leopard tanks, the Germans bought Canadian Wheat. I bet if you looked at other purchases through the years you would see the same.


----------



## Navy_Pete

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> What's so wrong with any company doing so?
> 
> If General Dynamics invests more $ in a mcgoober plant in Upper Nowhere, then why wouldn't that count as a Regional Industrial Benefit? They are a giant company with hands in everything, so they can invest and build up smaller sectors than our defence industry. Narrowing it down to Defence-industry-only IRB's would be severely limiting. IRB's soley exist for the country-at-large's benefit, not our defence industry sector alone.



IRBs and the Value Proposition attached to the NSS are specifically meant to result in growth in shipbuilding and the marine industry. Both policies are supposed to encourage a Canadian supply chain and development of new related small industries, and come with a cost (which we can't quantify, because they don't even really look at the options to use existing supply chains for a lot of stuff because there are penalities involved in not meeting the obligations). It's common sense to see though that it's easier to use existing, proven suppliers than try and develop new ones though, and that development time and the risk both have costs.

They limit project options, take extra time, and add a lot of overhead, all of which are paid for by Defence.  Which is fine if it's recognized, but it's not, so you end up cutting capabilities to fund job growth and other similar things that are important to Canadians, but add absolutely no capability to the ships.  The project money is specifically approved to provide said capabilities.

The old 'cost to build in Canada' is a nightmare arguement that has been on the go since the 'Build in Canada' policy got put in place in the 60s,, but stuff like this has arseclowns from TBS and Finance howling for the whole NSS to be scrapped, or to put in additional oversight (which adds more delays and overhead costs while building redundant red tape empires for some wanna be mandarin).

None of this would be a big deal if there was a Minister in overall charge of the whole thing with branches of DND, ISED, PSPC etc reporting to them and authority to back the other central agencies off, but there is a bakers dozen of useless MPs at the top of the whole mess, so it's a lot of defferred decisions, lower level marking time, and escalating costs due to all the BS (resulting in even more capability cuts when all this stuff bloats the budget).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Can we clone CD Howe?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

just heard they are launching the next OFSV next week. Be nice if they did it publicly and announced it.


----------



## Uzlu

> Seaspan launches second Coast Guard ship
> 
> *Shipyard ceremony marks 90% completion of vessel Capt. Jacques Cartier*
> 
> Flags flew, the national anthem was sung and spray from a ceremonial bottle of champagne misted politicians and dignitaries Wednesday as Seaspan Shipyards celebrated the launch of its second Coast Guard fisheries vessel Wednesday, the Capt. Jacques Cartier.
> 
> “This is a historic fleet renewal,” said Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Jonathan Wilkinson, MP for North Vancouver. “It’s time we put in place the resources to commit to renewal of the fleet.”
> 
> The Jacques Cartier is the second of three offshore fisheries vessels being built by Seaspan for the Coast Guard under a $687-million fixed-price contract to replace existing ships that are nearing the end of their lifespan.
> 
> Like the other fisheries vessels, the 63-metre Jacques Cartier will work on monitoring of fish stocks and the impact of climate change as well as being equipped for emergency environmental response and search and rescue missions. Each ship will have four on-board labs for use in scientific research along with modern acoustic survey equipment.
> 
> At 90 per cent complete, the Jacques Cartier was to be floated out of the shipyard Wednesday night and taken to Seaspan’s nearby Vancouver Drydock where finishing work on the ship will take place. The ship will be delivered to the Coast Guard this winter, following sea trials, according to Seaspan.
> 
> Later this month, the first Coast Guard ship built at Seaspan, the Sir John Franklin, will also be delivered to the government, 18 months after a similar official launch.
> 
> Construction of the first ship was marked by a steep learning curve, including hull welding defects that had to be corrected. That ship was completed both late and over budget – a cost that Seaspan absorbed under the terms of its contract.
> 
> “No shipbuilding program is without its challenges and we’ve had ours,” CEO Mark Lamarre – who joined Seaspan Shipyards as its chief executive officer in July – told the crowd.
> 
> But Seaspan officials said the company has learned from its early mistakes.
> 
> The federal government’s announcement last month that 16 more Coast Guard ships will be built at Seaspan at a cost of $15.7 billion is “a clear vote of confidence in our shipbuilders, in our supply chain and in our company,” said Tim Page, vice-president of government relations, adding that the Coast Guard is Seaspan’s “most important long-term customer.”
> 
> The announcement of the 16 additional ships provides an important message, said Lamarre. “A commitment to predictable future work is also necessary for us to invest in our people, infrastructure and technology,” he said Wednesday.
> 
> Seaspan is the largest manufacturing employer in the Lower Mainland, noted B.C. Labour Minister Harry Bains, and a critical driver for skilled jobs and economic activity in the marine industrial sector.
> 
> Those comments come as the federal government has announced plans to open up the national shipbuilding program to a third shipyard – generally expected to be Davie Shipyard in Quebec - and the possibility that shipyard may get some work previously promised to Seaspan.


https://www.nsnews.com/news/seaspan-launches-second-coast-guard-ship-1.23846221#standardArticleCarousel


----------



## MarkOttawa

Thank goodness for the _North Shore News_ and good local media reporting (how much longer?)--and basically bye bye to the shipbuilding "strategy".  Poor Canadian shipbuilding realities and politics are bringing it down hard. Then there's the failure of this and previous Conservative government really to give a damn about replacing RCN and CCG ships in any timely fashion (pity we couldn't buy that polar icebreaker abroad, as Australia is doing for Antarctic, big 25,500 t. ship http://www.antarctica.gov.au/icebreaker/about-the-ship):



> Addition of third federal shipyard could impact work at Seaspan
> _16 more Coast Guard vessels to be built here, icebreaker may go to Quebec_
> 
> For local shipbuilders, there’s good news and there’s bad news.
> 
> The good news: the first two Coast Guard vessels built by Seaspan are nearing completion and Ottawa recently announced Seaspan will be tapped to build 16 more.
> 
> The bad news: in the same announcement, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Ottawa is opening up the national shipbuilding program to a potential third shipbuilder, likely Davie Shipyard in Quebec. And that shipyard is likely in the running to build an icebreaker previously promised to Seaspan.
> 
> Following the announcement in Vancouver, the Coast Guard confirmed it is substituting the 80- to 90-metre multi-purpose vessels for a polar icebreaker in the government’s order book with Seaspan.
> 
> “The non-combat package is a challenging program of work, compounded by the construction of the large, one-off polar icebreaker,” a spokesman for the Coast Guard wrote in an email. “Therefore, Canada made the decision to substitute the one polar icebreaker with a long run of 16 multi-purpose vessels. Given the importance of icebreaking capacity, the government is exploring other options to ensure the polar (icebreaker) is built in the most efficient manner, but no decisions have been taken.”
> 
> North Vancouver MP Jonathan Wilkinson, who is also minister of fisheries and oceans, said local shipbuilders shouldn’t be concerned that Ottawa is substituting one project for another.
> 
> The ships being built by Seaspan will still be “the core of the future fleet of the Coast Guard,” said Wilkinson.
> 
> He said it makes a lot more sense for Seaspan to build multiple ships of a similar design than to build “one-off” ships like the icebreaker.
> 
> Wilkinson didn’t comment directly on whether the icebreaker will be built by Davie. “What we have said is there is a third shipyard that will be brought into the mix,” he said. “We haven’t delineated what that shipyard will work on.”
> 
> In an email to the North Shore News, a Coast Guard spokesman said a third shipyard is needed because current work will keep both Seaspan and Irving busy for the next 15 to 20 years and “their facilities cannot concurrently begin other construction projects. The government has pressing marine requirements and needs additional ships to be delivered in an earlier timeframe.”
> 
> Those changes shouldn’t be surprising, said Chris Madsen, a North Vancouver resident and professor at Canadian Forces College in Toronto, whose research includes shipbuilding and naval procurement.
> 
> “Davie is in a much better position to build (an icebreaker) on time,” he said. Icebreakers are the specialty of the Quebec shipyard and the ships cost less because their labour costs are much lower, he said.
> 
> “They are a very competitive shipyard.”
> 
> Davie has already provided Ottawa with an interim naval supply ship – which it is leasing to the government – while the government waits for Seaspan to build the massive joint support ships.
> 
> The Quebec shipyard has also been awarded a $610-million contract to build three “interim icebreakers” for the Coast Guard. The first of those was delivered May 30.
> 
> With a federal election looming, politics will also likely play a part in which shipyard builds the icebreaker, said Madsen. “Shipbuilding is a major employer in that part of Quebec, he said, noting about 2,500 people work at Davie.
> 
> Tim Page, vice-president of government relations for Seaspan, called Ottawa’s decision to open the shipbuilding program to a third shipyard “an unexpected and disappointing development.”
> 
> Page said that “effectively changes the playing field and rules of engagement” under which Seaspan and Irving Shipyards in Halifax were awarded agreements by Ottawa in 2011.
> 
> Page said the shipyard still needs to discuss the issue with Ottawa “on an urgent basis.”
> 
> On May 29, B.C.-based Seaspan also announced the opening of an Ottawa office as “evidence of Seaspan’s commitment to strengthen relationships with its government customers.”
> https://www.nsnews.com/news/addition-of-third-federal-shipyard-could-impact-work-at-seaspan-1.23847618



Bah! Humbug! FUBAR! Not a serious federal government, Conservative or Liberal, in dealing with its core responsibilities.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> pity we couldn't buy that polar icebreaker abroad


If it is a level playing field, buying that polar icebreaker abroad might look less attractive.





> The report said the main problem facing the industry is that foreign governments heavily subsidize their shipyards, leaving Canadians unable to compete.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/no-subsidies-for-shipbuilding-industry-says-tobin-1.270095

That article goes on to state that “more frequent purchasing of ships by the navy” is seen as a solution.  And, I am assuming, also more frequent purchasing of ships by the coast guard is another solution.  This is why we cannot buy that polar icebreaker abroad.  This is why the National Shipbuilding Strategy was established—to buy ships in Canada instead of to buy ships abroad.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ouch....


“To date, Davie has not been notified by Public Services and Procurement Canada, Innovation Canada or the Department of National Defence about any media inquiries,” said Frederik Boisvert, vice-president of public affairs at Davie.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-davie-says-ottawa-never-told-it-about-journalist-queries-about/?fbclid=IwAR0e4EwMFMt1TQFewRdbZwnhAfXzfnf2e8RF_2OT63eAeTKG6g--pOW8syM


----------



## MarkOttawa

There will be plenty of CCG work for Davie, given ancient fleet and Seaspan already full up, without the polar icebreaker--just get it built abroad, much cheaper and probably within three/four years ( https://www.damen.com/en/news/2016/05/australian_icebreaker_operated_by_dms_maritime_to_be_constructed_by_damen ):



> Ottawa to turn to a third shipyard to build Canada’s polar icebreaker
> 
> The federal government intends to turn to a third Canadian shipyard for the construction of its long-awaited polar ice breaker, according to officials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which oversees the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> Under Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy, Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards and Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax had received the lion’s share of shipbuilding contracts for the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy.
> 
> That included the construction at Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards of the future polar icebreaker CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, named after Canada’s 13th prime minister.
> 
> However, given the importance of icebreaking capacity for Canada, Ottawa “is exploring other options to ensure the polar icebreaker is built in the most efficient manner, but no decisions have been taken,” said in an email to Radio Canada International Jocelyn Lubczuk, the press secretary of Fisheries and Oceans Minister Jonathan Wilkinson.
> 
> “To support future shipbuilding needs, and attract more talent and good jobs to communities through the country, the Government of Canada intends to add a third Canadian shipyard as a partner under the National Shipbuilding Strategy,” Lubczuk said.
> 
> *Full order book for Seaspan and Irving*
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in May that the federal government plans to spend $15.7 billion over the coming years to completely renew the coast guard’s ageing fleet and provide it with 18 new ships – 16 built by Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards and two civilian versions of the navy’s Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) built by Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax.
> 
> Ottawa commits to complete fleet renewal for Canada’s Coast Guard
> Ice-capable Canadian Coast Guard ships could be both ‘a blessing and a curse’: expert
> 
> The _current work packages will keep both Irving Shipbuilding Inc. and Seaspan Vancouver Shipyards working to capacity until the late 2030s-2040s and their facilities cannot concurrently begin other construction projects, Lubczuk said_ [emphasis added].
> 
> “The government has pressing marine requirements and needs additional ships to be delivered in an earlier timeframe,” Lubczuk said.
> 
> “To help support these additional requirements, the Government of Canada is launching a _competitive process_[emphasis added--REALLY?] to add a third Canadian shipyard as a strategic source of supply to help ensure the timely delivery of additional vessels to the federal fleet.”
> 
> With the construction of the two non-combat Joint Supply Ships (JSS) for the navy and the 16 Multi-Purpose Vessels (MPVs) for the coast guard, the federal government has essentially given Seaspan enough business to keep it busy for 20 years, Lubczuk said.
> 
> “Coast Guard’s future plans include the polar icebreaker to ensure continued delivery of its Arctic program,” Lubczuk said. “We have the design completed and are confident that when it is built, the new polar icebreaker will be a great addition to the fleet in support of Arctic sovereignty and northern science research.”
> 
> Officials at Seaspan could not be reached in time for publication.
> 
> *Good news for Davie?*
> 
> Experts and industry insiders who spoke to Radio Canada International said they expected the contract for the construction of the future polar icebreaker to go to the Davie Shipyard in Quebec.
> 
> While making the announcement on the construction of 18 new ships for the coast guard, Trudeau also alluded to the fact that the workload at Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyard and Irving’s Halifax Shipyard is “an opportunity for Davie to apply to become that third shipbuilding facility [_see at end for other vessels for Davie_].”
> 
> Frédérik Boisvert, vice-president of public affairs at Davie, said the company has not heard anything official from Ottawa regarding changes in the government’s plans for the construction of a heavy polar icebreaker.
> 
> “However, it’s no secret that we’ve got a tremendous expertise in building ships on time and on budget but especially, we’ve got a real expertise in building icebreakers,” Boisvert said.
> 
> “In 2013, we made an unsolicited proposal to build Canada’s future polar icebreakers because everyone within the industry was aware that it could not be achieved under the original National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy,” Boisvert added.
> 
> If the government had accepted it back then, Canada would already have a new polar icebreaker, he said.
> 
> *Refitting medium icebreakers for the Coast Guard*
> 
> “Obviously, as the third shipyard of the National Shipbuilding Strategy we’re willing to partner with the government on whatever key projects they want us to be involved in,” Boisvert said.
> 
> Last year, Davie signed a $610-million contract with the federal government to acquire and convert three medium icebreakers to renew the Canadian Coast Guard’s ageing fleet.
> 
> These icebreakers will carry out icebreaking duties in Atlantic Canada, the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes and Arctic regions.
> 
> One of these icebreakers, CCGS Captain Molly Kool, was delivered to the coast guard in December of 2018, the two remaining icebreakers will be delivered in late 2019 and early 2020, Boisvert said.
> 
> “But it’s far from over, Canada needs to renew its entire fleet of icebreakers,” he said.
> 
> “_As well as the polar icebreakers (of which two are required), there are approximately 10 other medium and heavy icebreakers required by the Canadian Coast Guard which are not included in the existing umbrella agreements and we believe these ships will be included in Davie’s Large Ship Package_ [emphasis added].”
> 
> Timothy Choi, a maritime strategy expert at the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies, said awarding the contract to Davie would make a lot of sense for the Liberal government.
> 
> “It’s actually a pretty clever way to do two things that had up until now been contradictory,” Choi said.
> 
> It allows the federal government to ensure steady work at Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyard, avoiding the boom-bust-cycle of the shipbuilding industry, while also ensuring that the coast guard will get its polar icebreaker much sooner than under the original construction schedule, Choi said.
> 
> It’s also a shrewd political move with upcoming federal election in October, Choi added.
> http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/06/10/davie-shipyard-canada-polar-icebreaker/



These are the other vessels that should keep Davie pretty busy for a while:



> ...
> The Government of Canada will also proceed through a competitive process with the design of a new class of smaller ships, the new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ship, which would complement the work of the large fleet in shallow areas and deliver mid-shore science activities...
> https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Stoker

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> There will be plenty of CCG work for Davie, given ancient fleet and Seaspan already full up, without the polar icebreaker--just get it built abroad, much cheaper and probably within three/four years ( https://www.damen.com/en/news/2016/05/australian_icebreaker_operated_by_dms_maritime_to_be_constructed_by_damen ):
> 
> These are the other vessels that should keep Davie pretty busy for a while:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I was wondering how they all of a sudden got a "expertise" in building ice breakers when all they really did was do some light conversion work of existing ice breakers. The only mention online is the one heavy ice breaker and now according to Davie is a further package of ten, is this true or is it Davie self promoting themselves again?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They just did a major refit on the Louie St Laurent, so technically they have more 'current" experience than anyone. Although it may be a case of the one eyed man in the land of the blind.


----------



## Uzlu

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I was wondering how they all of a sudden got a "expertise" in building ice breakers when all they really did was do some light conversion work of existing ice breakers. The only mention online is the one heavy ice breaker and now according to Davie is a further package of ten, is this true or is it Davie self promoting themselves again?





> “As well as the polar icebreakers (of which two are required), there are approximately 10 other medium and heavy icebreakers required by the Canadian Coast Guard which are not included in the existing umbrella agreements and we believe these ships will be included in Davie’s Large Ship Package.”


http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/06/10/davie-shipyard-canada-polar-icebreaker/

There are sixteen icebreakers, soon to perhaps go up to eighteen old icebreakers.  So Davie might just be saying that a large number of icebreakers are going to have to be built in a hurry.  I suppose we just have to wait until the contracts are signed and steel is cut.  No Canadian yard has expertise building icebreakers.  

I blame the incompetent politicians for allowing this to happen.  What should have happened is that all the political parties agree to a continuous-build strategy for naval and coast-guard ships.  One yard, for example, could have built sixteen icebreakers ordered at a rate of one every eighteen months.  But, again, it takes competent politicians for something like this to have happened.


----------



## Kirkhill

Which of Canada's yards have experience building the hulls they are currently building?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Part of the blame lies with the CCG management and with the voters who don't think beyond their own neighbourhood. Politicians pander to the voter.


----------



## Stoker

Uzlu said:
			
		

> http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/06/10/davie-shipyard-canada-polar-icebreaker/
> 
> There are sixteen icebreakers, soon to perhaps go up to eighteen old icebreakers.  So Davie might just be saying that a large number of icebreakers are going to have to be built in a hurry.  I suppose we just have to wait until the contracts are signed and steel is cut.  No Canadian yard has expertise building icebreakers.
> 
> I blame the incompetent politicians for allowing this to happen.  What should have happened is that all the political parties agree to a continuous-build strategy for naval and coast-guard ships.  One yard, for example, could have built sixteen icebreakers ordered at a rate of one every eighteen months.  But, again, it takes competent politicians for something like this to have happened.



We all know they need to built. All I'm saying Davie tend to embellish sometimes, as far as I can tell the contract will be for one Ice breaker. Its sad that the contract probably won't be signed until after the election.


----------



## Good2Golf

Just Davie embellishes?

Wouldn’t any company that says they can do something (inclusive of schedule) then not be able to do it, embellish?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Just Davie embellishes?
> 
> Wouldn’t any company that says they can do something (inclusive of schedule) then not be able to do it, embellish?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Well they did say they are the only company in Canada with ice breaker building experience, not really true and I find it funny they are expecting a large 10 ship plus ice breaking contract when there is no mention of that fact anywhere. The guy that is saying all these "facts" is their PA person. Yes all yards embellish.


----------



## NavyShooter

ISI embellishes their ability to complete work...and to be competent...the west coast option embellished their ship's trials crew skills and had a little 'bump'...

They all lie.  Perfect politicians!


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> ISI embellishes their ability to complete work...and to be competent...the west coast option embellished their ship's trials crew skills and had a little 'bump'...
> 
> They all lie.  Perfect politicians!



I agree they all lie.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Davie is also doing the conversions on the VIKINGS for the CCG, so I guess they can claim with some legitimacy that they are the go to yard for ice breakers. I’ll be happy if it happens soon.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Davie is also doing the conversions on the VIKINGS for the CCG, so I guess they can claim with some legitimacy that they are the go to yard for ice breakers. I’ll be happy if it happens soon.



They can but so can any number of yards that's done refits on ice breakers. What their PA have said they are the only yard with ice breaker building experience. They clearly didnt  build any .


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> They can but so can any number of yards that's done refits on ice breakers. What their PA have said they are the only yard with ice breaker building experience. They clearly didnt  build any .



That’s a fair point.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Davie is also doing the conversions on the VIKINGS for the CCG, so I guess they can claim with some legitimacy that they are the go to yard for ice breakers. I’ll be happy if it happens soon.



From what I understood, they weren't doing anything special for the icebreakers that really goes above and beyond typical docking work anyway (repairs, replacing systems with updated versions, etc).

Interested to see if they roll Davie into the NSS fully, as that will include a requirement for them to modernize their yard (to Target State) and meet a number of other policy requirements (Value Proposition and Industrial Technological Benefits) that don't apply to the other projects they've done (because of the dollar value threshold they kick in at).  Those are all pretty significant, and would require a few years lead time to put in place. Maybe that'll be the next governments problem?  Seems like they are doing something similar to what they complained the Cons did and squeezing in a major policy change before the election (seeing as we're about to hit summer break, then it will be full campaign season).


----------



## suffolkowner

Well Davie did build 1 3/4 to 2 1/4 of the following offered to the government following order falling through

https://www.davie.ca/news/davie-launches-ship-717/


----------



## Underway

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> They can but so can any number of yards that's done refits on ice breakers. What their PA have said they are the only yard with ice breaker building experience. They clearly didnt  build any .



I think one could easily argue that ISI has more icebreaking "building" experience at this point than Davie.

Not that it really matters.  There is more than enough work for low intensity shipbuilding in three yards for the next 20-30 years. The coast guard, fisheries and oceans and the RCN all need vessels.  And by the time they are done they can start again on the replacement vessels because the others will be 20-30 years old by then...


----------



## JMCanada

Excuse me to post this link. Will not be nice to anybody, and I particularly believe it's clearly biased against CSC offseting some aspects as job creation, technology transfers and the effort to level the shipbuilding cycles. Yet the article has some reason... 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/203273/canada%E2%80%99s-naval-shipbuilding%3A-double-the-cost-for-half-the-performance.html

Mention to Cyclone (at least)  is not accurate, nor should be listed as another fiasco.


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Excuse me to post this link. Will not be nice to anybody, and I particularly believe it's clearly biased against CSC offseting some aspects as job creation, technology transfers and the effort to level the shipbuilding cycles. Yet the article has some reason...
> 
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/203273/canada%E2%80%99s-naval-shipbuilding%3A-double-the-cost-for-half-the-performance.html


Subsidies!  Subsidies!  Subsidies!  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/no-subsidies-for-shipbuilding-industry-says-tobin-1.270095

And maybe also different accounting practices—e.g., including the cost of upgrading a jetty to the price of the Protecteurs.  There are errors in that article that you linked to. 


> That increase, officials said at the time, will notably allow the government to order 15 new Canadian Surface Combatants, whose estimated cost more than doubled to C$60 billion compared to the previous estimate of C$26 billion, without any clear explanation.


Wrong.  The explanation for the increase: https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf



> At the conclusion of a competition to select a new frigate – and for which a joint offer by Fincantieri and Naval Group was disqualified for late filing – Canadian Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough announced on Feb 8, 2019 that the Canadian government had awarded Lockheed Martin Canada a C$185 million contract to design a fleet of 15 warships based on the Type 26, with a total program cost of C$58 billion to C$60 billion.


Wrong.  It was disqualified, because there was no formal bid.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I knew missiles were expensive, but 2.1 million each? That makes guided projectiles quite appealing at a mere $150,000-500,000 each.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> I knew missiles were expensive, but 2.1 million each? That makes guided projectiles quite appealing at a mere $150,000-500,000 each.



On the other hand, cost doesn't really impact choice of missile or missile capability.  All of them are in the 2 to 3 MCAD price range.  So cost isn't a key determinant in deciding whether or not to swap air defence for land attack.

The sole exception in ABM but even at 5 MCAD for the SM6 you are looking at a marginal cost increase of 2 to 3 MCAD per missile.  A 6 pack on each CSC would still be a low cost adder to achieve a massive strategic and political advantage.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The problem is that any missile based war is going to be short as you use up stock faster than can be bought/made and you will be reluctant to stockpile that many both at the initial cost, maintenance and life span.


----------



## Uzlu

> Feds cut heavy-icebreaker order from Vancouver shipyard
> 
> OTTAWA — The federal government has taken construction of the coast guard's next heavy icebreaker away from a Vancouver shipyard, the latest in a string of changes to Canada's multibillion-dollar shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> Seaspan Shipbuilding was tapped in 2011 to build the icebreaker, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, as part of a larger order that also included four science vessels for the coast guard and two navy supply ships.
> 
> But Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson's office says the icebreaker has been removed from Seaspan's order book and replaced with 16 smaller vessels that the government announced it was buying last month.
> 
> Wilkinson's office says no decision has been made on where the Diefenbaker will be built but some believe Seaspan's bitter rival in Quebec, Davie Shipbuilding, will get the contract.
> 
> Davie has been lobbying the federal government for the icebreaker since 2013 and a spokesman for the shipyard says he thinks it is a foregone conclusion that the vessel will be built there.
> 
> The Canadian Coast Guard's existing heavy icebreaker, the 53-year-old CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, which the Diefenbaker will replace, is currently in drydock at Davie.


https://www.delta-optimist.com/feds-cut-heavy-icebreaker-order-from-vancouver-shipyard-1.23853389


----------



## FSTO

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.delta-optimist.com/feds-cut-heavy-icebreaker-order-from-vancouver-shipyard-1.23853389



I don't think that Seaspan is a bitter rival of Davie. Pretty sure that title goes to Irving.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> I don't think that Seaspan is a bitter rival of Davie. Pretty sure that title goes to Irving.



Its funny you say that but Davie's PR guy Frederik Boisvert seems to have a real beef with both Seaspan and Irving. He's on a page I frequent and is ranting all the time in regards to those yards.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Davie has lobbied a bit to hard, slagging Seaspan when their real target was Irving. They created some bad blood and are going to have to find a way to walk back from that


----------



## Edward Campbell

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Interested to see if they roll Davie into the NSS fully, as that will include a requirement for them to modernize their yard (to Target State) and meet a number of other policy requirements (Value Proposition and Industrial Technological Benefits) that don't apply to the other projects they've done (because of the dollar value threshold they kick in at).  Those are all pretty significant, and would require a few years lead time to put in place. Maybe that'll be the next governments problem?  Seems like they are doing something similar to what they complained the Cons did and squeezing in a major policy change before the election (seeing as we're about to hit summer break, then it will be full campaign season).




The NSS is ten years old; it's time for another 'tiger team' of very senior civil servants to review it and, perhaps, make adjustments IF they are needed and warranted ... and, after ten years most programmes do need some fine-tuning, at least.

I think that way back when, ten years ago  , Davie was on the verge of bankruptcy, mostly due to bad management that was allowed, even encouraged to thrive under the rules of '_Quebec Inc_,' and the policy decision to exclude it from the NSS made good sense. I suspect that Davie is, now, a much better company and might deserve to be part of the NSS. 

I also wonder if there might be some merit in looking at small vessels ~ < 1,000 tons? <2,500 tone? ~ as a separate issue which would allow for a similar (to the NSS) programme to help rebuild some of the inland (Great Lakes), St Lawrence basin and smaller coastal yards. (I'm reminded that, in 1939, Canada could not build a warship at all ... not one of our yards was capable. But the corvettes, based on a North Atlantic whale-hunter of < 1,000 tons, were able to be built by several Canadian yards and Canada produced well over 100 of them before the war ended. Each took about a year to build and required a few months of sea trials and training before entering combat service.) Minor combatants might be important again and there is, I think, a worldwide market for them.

Anyway ... it's about time to revisit the NSS and, _*maybe*_, to incorporate at least one more yard.


----------



## Navy_Pete

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The NSS is ten years old; it's time for another 'tiger team' of very senior civil servants to review it and, perhaps, make adjustments IF they are needed and warranted ... and, after ten years most programmes do need some fine-tuning, at least.
> 
> I think that way back when, ten years ago  , Davie was on the verge of bankruptcy, mostly due to bad management that was allowed, even encouraged to thrive under the rules of '_Quebec Inc_,' and the policy decision to exclude it from the NSS made good sense. I suspect that Davie is, now, a much better company and might deserve to be part of the NSS.
> 
> I also wonder if there might be some merit in looking at small vessels ~ < 1,000 tons? <2,500 tone? ~ as a separate issue which would allow for a similar (to the NSS) programme to help rebuild some of the inland (Great Lakes), St Lawrence basin and smaller coastal yards. (I'm reminded that, in 1939, Canada could not build a warship at all ... not one of our yards was capable. But the corvettes, based on a North Atlantic whale-hunter of < 1,000 tons, were able to be built by several Canadian yards and Canada produced well over 100 of them before the war ended. Each took about a year to build and required a few months of sea trials and training before entering combat service.) Minor combatants might be important again and there is, I think, a worldwide market for them.
> 
> Anyway ... it's about time to revisit the NSS and, _*maybe*_, to incorporate at least one more yard.



That has been ongoing for a while; it's been referenced in the media a few times as the 'NSS refresh'.  Also, with the oversight committees that includes ADM and DM level meetings, its's constantly being monitored and reviewed for progress and to see if adjustments are required.

Also, it's a misconception that Davie was excluded from the NSS; they completed the prequalification process and submitted a bid, but were not successful in winning either of the two bundles (combat and non-combat).


----------



## JMCanada

Would it mean that a third package should be in place for Davie to enter the NSS? Then the package might be or seems to be the "ice-breakers" pack. 

In such a case ... who would be in charge of the MCDVs replacement? If considered as combatants, then Irving would be the one, but they won't have capacity until begining of the 2040s, right? Too late, I believe.

Anyone has any idea of who and when will the MCDVs start to be replaced?
Thanks.


----------



## MTShaw

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Would it mean that a third package should be in place for Davie to enter the NSS? Then the package might be or seems to be the "ice-breakers" pack.
> 
> In such a case ... who would be in charge of the MCDVs replacement? If considered as combatants, then Irving would be the one, but they won't have capacity until begining of the 2040s, right? Too late, I believe.
> 
> Anyone has any idea of who and when will the MCDVs start to be replaced?
> Thanks.



Irving could be in charge of the design and be the prime contractor for the MCDV, but contract the work out.  Of course, some fairness rules/audit would have to be in place to make sure that if Davie won the contract they would actually win the contract.

Call me optimistic.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That's what happened to the CCG 47' Lifeboats, I think but not sure SNC Lavilan got the initial contract and then sub contracted to a "yard" in Kingston to build them. The first boat was so bad that PWGC yanked the contract from them and eventually gave it to Nanimo shipyards. I was in Kingston a year or so later, saw bits of the 47' lying in the yard, talked to the manager and he admitted they had never built a proper boat prior to that contract, only aluminium docks, ramps and few pontoon boats.


----------



## Stoker

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Would it mean that a third package should be in place for Davie to enter the NSS? Then the package might be or seems to be the "ice-breakers" pack.
> 
> In such a case ... who would be in charge of the MCDVs replacement? If considered as combatants, then Irving would be the one, but they won't have capacity until begining of the 2040s, right? Too late, I believe.
> 
> Anyone has any idea of who and when will the MCDVs start to be replaced?
> Thanks.



Considering they are developing new payloads for them to carry I would would say they'll be around for at least another 10 years. They are in pretty good shape.


----------



## Navy_Pete

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Would it mean that a third package should be in place for Davie to enter the NSS? Then the package might be or seems to be the "ice-breakers" pack.
> 
> In such a case ... who would be in charge of the MCDVs replacement? If considered as combatants, then Irving would be the one, but they won't have capacity until begining of the 2040s, right? Too late, I believe.
> 
> Anyone has any idea of who and when will the MCDVs start to be replaced?
> Thanks.



Depends on the tonnage for the replacement; the NSS yards are excluded from anything beneath 1000 tonnes, so the MCDVs could be a standalone project if below the threshold.  Basically anything paid for by the GoC that floats is getting lumped into the NSS umbrella when they put out the annual reports, but there were a wider variety of small shipyards so that chunk was intentionally cut out to spread some of the love around.  

The MCDVs are grouped with non-combatants at the moment, so unless their replacements had significantly different would probably be the same.  AOPs is as well, but was intentionally put in the combat package to give the shipyard time to build up the experience before jumping into CSC.  Ideally they would have done the same with the non-combat package, as the three OFSVs aren't really enough, and the rest of the one offs of bespoke ships make it impossible for any yard to get efficient at it. Carving out the polar icebreaker and dropping in a long run of ships should help seaspan get over all the efficiency drop offs that happen every time you build a new class and actually make some profit.


----------



## Spencer100

Would we want glass fiber reinforced plastic hulls?  I see some European countries do build countermine ships like that.   Would fiberglass fall out of the national shipbuilding scope?


----------



## Spencer100

PS as an aside seeing Feadships in Fort Lauderdale, they are beautiful with glass hulls. www.feadship.nl


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Would we want glass fiber reinforced plastic hulls?  I see some European countries do build countermine ships like that.   Would fiberglass fall out of the national shipbuilding scope?



Fibreglass hulls a specialized skill set that neither yard has experience in.  Probably would be best to farm it out to someone that already knew what they were doing if we went that route.  Aside from the tonnage, the dollar value for an MCDV replacement would still push it into the major project side with similar oversight. Sure it would still get rolled up into the NSS annual report, which also includes all the smaller CCG, DND and other boat/ship projects.

(see here for the annual reports; https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/rapport-report-eng.html )


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Would we want glass fiber reinforced plastic hulls?  I see some European countries do build countermine ships like that.   Would fiberglass fall out of the national shipbuilding scope?



Which ones.  I don't personally have a lot of faith that some of the alternative material ships would survive the kind of oceanic punishment that exists right outside of Halifax Hbr, or outside the Straits of Juan de Fuca.  Baltic, Black Sea and coastal patrols only for many of those types.  Our "mine warfare vessels" regularly sail to the arctic, the Grand Banks and Africa.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Our shipbuilding mess continues, CCGS Hudson section:



> Lead paint to delay refit of Canada’s oldest coast guard vessel by 6 months
> 
> A $10-million refit of Canada’s oldest coast guard vessel will be delayed by up to six months to remove lead paint found inside the ocean science ship Hudson.
> -Advertisement-
> 
> Repair work on the storied 56-year old ship was expected to last until this fall at the NewDock shipyard in St. John’s.
> 
> But NewDock told the coast guard this week that safely dealing with lead paint discovered inside CCGS Hudson will delay the refit.
> 
> “Six months is the worst-case scenario that we have from the shipyard,” said Gary Ivany, the coast guard’s assistant commissioner, in an interview from Ottawa.
> 
> Hudson arrived at NewDock in February and was taken out of the water to replace steel and various areas of the vessel’s decks and tanks.
> 
> *How the lead paint was found*
> 
> The _coast guard is trying to keep the ship at sea until 2024, which is when a replacement is scheduled to be in service_ [emphasis added, see below].
> 
> In late April, suspected lead paint buried under newer paint layers was discovered when coatings were removed.
> 
> Sixteen unionized coast guard crew and officers were given blood tests after it was confirmed the paint contained lead.
> 
> The test results are pending.
> 
> Shipyard workers and their family doctors were also informed, the coast guard said.
> 
> *Area sealed off*
> 
> The area was sealed off and work has yet to resume in those spaces, but work continues in areas that have been cleared and identified as safe for workers, such as the bridge deck, boat deck, engine room and motor room.
> 
> The Public Service Alliance of Canada, which is the union representing 10 coast guard crewmen, says the paint was detected in a water tank inside the ship and workers will not go back until they know the area is safe.
> 
> In the meantime, the coast guard wants to move up work that was planned for after the refit and carry it out while the ship is still out of the water in St. John’s.
> 
> That work, which includes engine maintenance and installing science equipment like winches, was supposed to take place dockside when the Hudson returned to her home base in Dartmouth, N.S., in the fall.
> 
> The _coast guard still intends to have the Hudson back in service by April 2020_ [emphasis added] and available for at-sea science missions.
> 
> Ivany said Public Services and Procurement Canada will tell the coast guard in the coming weeks what this means for the project’s budget.
> 
> The NewDock contract was for $10 million, while a contract for alongside work planned for Dartmouth has not been awarded.
> 
> “Extending the ship there longer will have an impact on cost, but we’re hoping that it’s well within the contingencies of the work they were planning to do,” said Ivany.
> 
> The refit at NewDock is Phase 2 of a life extension for CCGS Hudson.
> 
> *Troubled repair history*
> 
> Phase 1 was carried out in 2017 by Heddle Marine in Hamilton.
> 
> The $4-million refit was five months behind schedule and still unfinished when the government towed the Hudson out of the shipyard rather than risk having it trapped for months by the winter closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
> 
> The delay forced DFO to spend $2.5 million chartering vessels to carry out science missions on the East Coast of Canada because Hudson was unavailable.
> 
> The ship has a storied past. In 1970, it became the first ship to sail around North and South America.
> Hudson was supposed to be replaced 5 years ago
> 
> *Hudson was supposed to be replaced 5 years ago*
> 
> The Hudson was supposed to be replaced as early as 2014 as part of the national shipbuilding strategy, but the project to build a new offshore oceanographic science vessel at Vancouver’s Seaspan shipyard is behind schedule as the yard works on two navy supply ships.
> 
> _Earlier this year, Global News reported that the Davie Shipyard in Quebec told the federal government it would not bid on the latest life extension refit job, saying the Hudson was beyond repair_ [emphasis added].
> http://easternontarionetwork.com/2019/06/22/lead-paint-to-delay-refit-of-canadas-oldest-coast-guard-vessel-by-6-months/



It was announced in Feb. this year that the (one only) new CCG offshore oceanographic science vessel will now be built by Seaspan after first RCN JSS, not before as had been planned:
https://www.nsnews.com/news/joint-support-ship-next-for-seaspan-shipyard-1.23627335

Now do these dates on gov't website make sense? OOSV one year after first JSS and second JSS one year after that?



> ...
> *Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel*
> ...
> *Project budget:*
> Under review [STILL CAN'T GIVE A FIGURE! After all the years]
> *Estimated delivery*:
> 2024
> ...
> *Joint Support Ships*
> ...
> *Estimated delivery*:
> JSS 1: 2023
> JSS 2: 2025
> ...
> https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/projets-projects-eng.html#s9



Bets on all those dates being met?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

JSS 1 is moving along, I suspect they have it launched by sometime in 2023, but will take more time before acceptance.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Good thing they aren't trying to build an aircraft carrier, you might see it in 2050.


----------



## MTShaw

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Good thing they aren't trying to build an aircraft carrier, you might see it in 2050.



Seaspan is building the USS Ford?


----------



## Cloud Cover

You’d think they were with the amount of time taken.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I remind you that Seaspan cannot build the JSS, or any other government vessel for that matter, without a contract being in place. Seaspan has actually managed to get permission from said government to begin pre-building some of the sections of JSS 1 before the contract is actually let out. That is amazing in itself and will save time down the line - but I blame the government for not having managed to negotiate the contract for JSS 1 yet - after all these years and so long after selecting the winning design.

I don't blame Seaspan at all for delays in this matter.


----------



## Uzlu

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I remind you that Seaspan cannot build the JSS, or any other government vessel for that matter, without a contract being in place. Seaspan has actually managed to get permission from said government to begin pre-building some of the sections of JSS 1 before the contract is actually let out. That is amazing in itself and will save time down the line - but I blame the government for not having managed to negotiate the contract for JSS 1 yet - after all these years and so long after selecting the winning design.
> 
> I don't blame Seaspan at all for delays in this matter.





> On completion of the work, a vessel design ready for full production and construction will be delivered.


https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/rapport-report-2018-8-eng.html#a5

No contract, because the design is not ready.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting, PWGC shows the Polar Icebreaker to be built at Seaspan, but Seaspan has wiped their webpage of it.


----------



## Uzlu

> Seaspan a hive of shipbuilding activity on heels of first delivery to Canadian Coast Guard
> 
> *After growing pains, the North Vancouver shipyard has been buoyed by the award of 16 new vessels under the National Shipbuilding Program.*
> 
> Seaspan Shipyards will deliver its first ship under the multibillion-dollar National Shipbuilding Program to the Canadian Coast Guard on June 27, two years behind its initial schedule after production problems and the growing pains of rebuilding an industry.
> 
> “We haven’t arrived at this alone,” Seaspan CEO Mark Lamarre was careful to point out, talking about the growing pains that the yard has had ramping up a rebuild of the West Coast’s shipbuilding industry in just a few years.
> 
> Lamarre argued that the federal government has had to relearn just as much about how to specify what it wants in new ships and order them as Seaspan has had to about building them and it is all “a work in progress.”
> 
> “(However) I couldn’t be more pleased with what we’ve demonstrated with the (following) ships,” Lamarre said.
> 
> As Seaspan hands over the first vessel, the 64-metre CCGS Sir John Franklin in Victoria, there is no rest at the company’s North Vancouver shipyard. There, some 1,200 shipfitters, welders, machinists and other trades are busily assembling modules of the third coast guard ship being built under the contract (the second, another fisheries research vessel, was launched June 5 to undergo completion work and sea trials).
> 
> And they’re now deep into building components for the fourth ship, the first of two joint-support vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy, the construction of which was accelerated under the program.
> 
> In 2011, Seaspan won what was then an $8-billion contract to build ships for the coast guard and non-combatant supply vessels for the Navy under the program.
> 
> A bigger contract to build combat vessels for the Navy went to Irving Shipbuilding in Nova Scotia.
> 
> However, budgets for the program have ballooned and timelines extended, which Lamarre, a third-generation shipbuilder with 35-years’ experience in the industry, said isn’t unexpected.
> 
> “Original schedules and budgets are almost all the time wrong and optimistic,” Lamarre said, when a government embarks on an ambitious plan to commission new naval and coast guard ships after decades of inactivity in the sector. Critics have questioned why Canada would spend increasing amounts of tax dollars to rejuvenate domestic shipbuilding when they could save money by buying ships virtually off-the-shelf from allies overseas.
> 
> In 2017, for instance, an Italian-French consortium offered an unsolicited bid to build 15 new naval frigates for Canada at a fixed cost of $30 billion, versus a now-anticipated $60 billion cost for the program in Canada. Lamarre, however, argued that Seaspan is trying to position itself to be cost-competitive enough to enter the export market itself while building a “sovereign capability” for Canada.
> 
> The CEO is a relative newcomer to the program having arrived at Seaspan just under a year ago with a team of experienced senior managers with between 30 and 40 ship completions under their belts to shepherd the program through its next phase.
> 
> Lamarre himself has 24 years at a shipbuilding subsidiary of U.S. defence contractor General Dynamics. And he led the Australian firm ASC through a similar program.
> 
> “The similarities to Australia here are so stark,” Lamarre said. “We’re using basically the same game plan.”
> 
> Seaspan has an “enthusiastic, young, highly skilled workforce,” Lamarre said, but “you only get three-ships worth of experience after you build three ships.”
> 
> And while Seaspan is trying to set international benchmarks for ship construction, “the people who are going to get there the fastest are the people who have seen 30 to 40 ships.”
> 
> Economically speaking, besides the thousand or so jobs that the program has created, which now makes Seaspan B.C.’s biggest manufacturer, Lamarre said Canada is starting to experience a boost within the supply chain the shipyard has established to feed its operations. Steel for the Navy’s joint-support vessels now regularly rolls into North Van from Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie, Ont.
> 
> In total, Lamarre said Seaspan has spent $935 million with some 630 different suppliers across Canada, with $405 million staying with 472 companies in B.C.
> 
> Earlier this month, The Canadian Press reported that the federal government had removed construction of a heavy icebreaker for the coast guard, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker from Seaspan’s contract. Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson was quoted as saying that government was “exploring other options to ensure the (icebreaker) is built in the most efficient manner,” though no decisions have been made.
> 
> On Wednesday, Lamarre said Seaspan is still in discussions over the ship, but looks to another decision to award Seaspan an additional 16 multipurpose vessels for the coast guard as a vote of confidence in the program.


https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/seaspan-a-hive-of-shipbuilding-activity-on-heels-of-first-delivery-to-canadian-coast-guard


----------



## Harrigan

FSTO said:
			
		

> The latest lean from Liberal Operatives on Twitter is now to bring out the "circumvention of procurement process rules" as a reason why Norman was charged. This loops back to the idea from some in government that procurement rules are sacrosanct and came down from the mount etched in stone. That is complete baloney, rules and procedures are constantly in flux because nothing is perfect and an entity that is married to dogma is doomed to failure.
> 
> Also there is no bloody way in hell that Vance (nor Lawson before him) was in the dark about CRCN dealing directly with Davie (allegedly) under orders from the PM. If Ottawa is as leaky as everyone says it is (and it is!) then he would have heard about it. But the process of acquiring the iAOR would have been part of the briefing package the CDS routinely reviews.



I agree that rules nad procedures and constantly in flux, but changes to those rules must be done transparently with a clear understanding by everyone (including the public) as to why the rules are being ignored.  They are there to prevent fraud and corruption.  Clearly in this case, ignoring the rules was not done transparently, and thus there was a risk of fraud and corruption.  Should it not have been investigated by an incoming government?

Is there any proof that CDS knew about it, or was briefed on it, or just a "gut feel"?  The question I have is:  If everyone in the CF Chain of Command was well aware of it, then why would the successor government be going after Norman?  Surely if the Liberals knew that the previous government had ordered Norman to deal directly with Davie (allegedly), they would have gone after the Conservatives for circumventing procurement rules, not an Admiral.  It makes no sense at all to go after Norman if "everybody would have known" that he was under orders.

The way this played out suggests that the Liberals did not know that the Conservative government had given Norman that direction (allegedly)


----------



## Harrigan

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I too, am fine with the PM (any PM) circumventing contracting and procurement rules. At the end of the day, he is the final arbtrar of those rules and wears the results- good or bad.



I will admit that I am surprised at these responses.  I would have thought that we would have expected our senior leaders to follow the same rules that we must operate under.  Apparently not.  

If "ends justifty the means", which is what you are saying, then I look forward to seeing the responses should the Liberal government announce that they have decided to do away with any selection process for a new fighter that would include the F-35, and just directly buy a hundred more old F-18's, or some more second-hand jets from somewhere that might benefit them politically.  op:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I will admit that I am surprised at these responses.  I would have thought that we would have expected our senior leaders to follow the same rules that we must operate under.  Apparently not.
> 
> If "ends justifty the means", which is what you are saying, then I look forward to seeing the responses should the Liberal government announce that they have decided to do away with any selection process for a new fighter that would include the F-35, and just directly buy a hundred more old F-18's, or some more second-hand jets from somewhere that might benefit them politically.  op:



My point is: the buck ultimately stops with the PM. Much (most?) of procurement rules in Canada are not "law". They are departmental procedure. Much of it is designed to give cover for bureaucrats, so no one gets blamed.

If the Governor in Council decides Canada needs to buy something (anything really) urgently enough, somebody in PSPC is going to say...what, exactly?

Sure, there may almost certainly be a price to be paid, politically (but not always. See: sole sourcing of C17s).

I stand by my original statement- if the PM and cabinet (of any political stripe) decide something needs to be bought urgently enough, PSPC rules are now to be damned.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The "buck", under the Westminster system, should not stop with the PM but rather the Governor-in-Council, i.e. the cabinet.  But over the last forty years or so our actually-existing system has in fact become _de facto_ presidential though without the checks and balances that, at least normally (Trump), function within the US system. 

In real terms the PCO/PMO is much more powerful/effective than the White House staff in controlling the day-to-day functioning as a whole and in detail of the respective governments.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> My point is: the buck ultimately stops with the PM. Much (most?) of procurement rules in Canada are not "law". They are departmental procedure. Much of it is designed to give cover for bureaucrats, so no one gets blamed.
> 
> If the Governor in Council decides Canada needs to buy something (anything really) urgently enough, somebody in PSPC is going to say...what, exactly?
> 
> Sure, there may almost certainly be a price to be paid, politically (but not always. See: sole sourcing of C17s).
> 
> I stand by my original statement- if the PM and cabinet (of any political stripe) decide something needs to be bought urgently enough, PSPC rules are now to be damned.



I agree, look at the leopard 2 or C17 purchase, if the system wants to move quickly it can. It's protecting peoples kingdoms,and justifying jobs by dragging things out even longer then necessary. As an example a friend pointed out to me, us and the British started a project to replace our service pistols at the same time. Two years later they had new pistols, and we are apparently 10 years away from new ones.


----------



## Navy_Pete

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I stand by my original statement- if the PM and cabinet (of any political stripe) decide something needs to be bought urgently enough, PSPC rules are now to be damned.



There are actually rules for emergency procurement that basically bypasses the standard contracting process, but needs the right level of approval and circumstances. They fast tracked stuff for Afghanistan, but there is a separate procedure for an actual emergency where they can direct the contract and get work started before the details are finalized (ie the tow of ATH back in 2015 when it got stuck on a reef of Cape Breton).

All the Cons did for the Davie contract is adjust one of the exceptions to the normal rules at the Cabinet level and make it happen.  There was a huge amount of staff work that went into the background of that, but it was all according to the rules of the day.

Not really rocket surgery why they went after Norman; it was pure politics. Absolutely greasy dirty pool, and sounds like they selectively held back critical information that would have exonerated him, while the investigators put the blinders on and didn't chase threads to their obvious conclusions.

On the plus side, when it became apparent they had gotten sand bagged, the crown stayed the charges, but BS that it took years for that to come out.

Personally had a lot of respect for VAdm Norman, and he was someone that made me think that maybe it's not just koolaid. Watching him get run killed any vestige of loyalty to the institution, so just making things better for the sailors that keeps it from just being a job where you punch the clock.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> There are actually rules for emergency procurement that basically bypasses the standard contracting process, but needs the right level of approval and circumstances. They fast tracked stuff for Afghanistan, but there is a separate procedure for an actual emergency where they can direct the contract and get work started before the details are finalized (ie the tow of ATH back in 2015 when it got stuck on a reef of Cape Breton).
> 
> All the Cons did for the Davie contract is adjust one of the exceptions to the normal rules at the Cabinet level and make it happen.  There was a huge amount of staff work that went into the background of that, but it was all according to the rules of the day.
> 
> Not really rocket surgery why they went after Norman; it was pure politics. Absolutely greasy dirty pool, and sounds like they selectively held back critical information that would have exonerated him, while the investigators put the blinders on and didn't chase threads to their obvious conclusions.
> 
> On the plus side, when it became apparent they had gotten sand bagged, the crown stayed the charges, but BS that it took years for that to come out.
> 
> Personally had a lot of respect for VAdm Norman, and he was someone that made me think that maybe it's not just koolaid. Watching him get run killed any vestige of loyalty to the institution, so just making things better for the sailors that keeps it from just being a job where you punch the clock.



Oh... the Davie Clause! Section 3.1 (G) of the GCR... Where if you need an urgent "Interim" capability, you can get something outside of the normal process.

Hmmm, urgent requirement to address a capability gap... "Interim" capability... where have I heard that before?


----------



## Navy_Pete

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> Oh... the Davie Clause! Section 3.1 (G) of the GCR... Where if you need an urgent "Interim" capability, you can get something outside of the normal process.
> 
> Hmmm, urgent requirement to address a capability gap... "Interim" capability... where have I heard that before?



I honestly am not really sure what you are getting at.

In context of the times, we went from two old AORs to zero very quickly when PRO had the fire and PRE was found to be rusted out and unseaworthy.

The Asterix is filling in while the JSS project is running through as part of the NSS, and only provides a portion of the full capability, so it is an interim capability.  It's a long time scale, but lets us get gas at sea while the project trickles it's way through the GoC process.  They've got the design mostly done, and are actively building portions of it, so unless we do something genius like cancel the project (and pay full ship cost for no ship) just playing the hurry up and wait game until we finally have an AOR of our own. We've already signed the ISSC for that as well, so given that we've bought the design, the steel, major systems, spare parts and a 20+ year maintenance/training plan, it's not exactly a pipe dream anymore.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I honestly am not really sure what you are getting at.
> 
> In context of the times, we went from two old AORs to zero very quickly when PRO had the fire and PRE was found to be rusted out and unseaworthy...



^this :nod:

There is not even a fine line between:

AOR: 3 > 2 > 0 (with an extant cadre of AOR-skilled sailors to operate one or more vessels of type)

...and...

CF-188: 138 > 85 > 73 > 60-ish?  (with a shortage of pilots and techs to fully operate and sustain the current fleet)

Regards 
G2G


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I honestly am not really sure what you are getting at.
> 
> In context of the times, we went from two old AORs to zero very quickly when PRO had the fire and PRE was found to be rusted out and unseaworthy.
> 
> The Asterix is filling in while the JSS project is running through as part of the NSS, and only provides a portion of the full capability, so it is an interim capability.  It's a long time scale, but lets us get gas at sea while the project trickles it's way through the GoC process.  They've got the design mostly done, and are actively building portions of it, so unless we do something genius like cancel the project (and pay full ship cost for no ship) just playing the hurry up and wait game until we finally have an AOR of our own. We've already signed the ISSC for that as well, so given that we've bought the design, the steel, major systems, spare parts and a 20+ year maintenance/training plan, it's not exactly a pipe dream anymore.



I always wondered in regards to the Asterix exactly what were the requirements from the RCN in the first place, we have over the top cabins, gyms, multi-configurable spaces etc that seems not in the list of requirements for the RCN or way over the requirements for an interim vessel.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://gcaptain.com/seaspan-delivers-first-large-vessel-built-under-canadas-national-shipbuilding-strategy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29


----------



## HB_Pencil

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I honestly am not really sure what you are getting at.
> 
> In context of the times, we went from two old AORs to zero very quickly when PRO had the fire and PRE was found to be rusted out and unseaworthy.
> 
> The Asterix is filling in while the JSS project is running through as part of the NSS, and only provides a portion of the full capability, so it is an interim capability.  It's a long time scale, but lets us get gas at sea while the project trickles it's way through the GoC process.  They've got the design mostly done, and are actively building portions of it, so unless we do something genius like cancel the project (and pay full ship cost for no ship) just playing the hurry up and wait game until we finally have an AOR of our own. We've already signed the ISSC for that as well, so given that we've bought the design, the steel, major systems, spare parts and a 20+ year maintenance/training plan, it's not exactly a pipe dream anymore.



I think you've misread what I was trying to say here Pete, I didn't have a problem with the Asterix or how it was pushed through, although the story of how it came about still has a lot of pork sausage ground in than is generally understood in the public. Rather I find it funny how the Davie Clause was the method several years later to justify the purchase of a capability that was far more damaging to the RCAF and the military as a whole, in regards to the Super Hornet.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Maybe I'm just a bit sleep deprived, but I'm going to need a map to get from that point A to B and the link to the Superhornet (which I thought was shelved?).  They can use the same justification for anything that fits; whether or not the outcome makes the most sense is a different issue all together.

The JSS project is something like 40 years old and this is attempt no 3, so there were a whole lot of balls dropped before now that led to the AORs self retiring. Probably a common theme amongst most equipment where we replace it well after it's due for whatever reason, and sometimes it falls apart beforehand to leave us in with a big capability gap. There was a bunch of work beforehand when the two AORs were winding down and JSS was delayed by the failed procurement then  pushed right, but then we lost both AORs three or four years earlier than planned, so it got bumped up the priority list and got pretty quick approval from Cabinet.


----------



## Underway

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I always wondered in regards to the Asterix exactly what were the requirements from the RCN in the first place, we have over the top cabins, gyms, multi-configurable spaces etc that seems not in the list of requirements for the RCN or way over the requirements for an interim vessel.



From what I understood it was essentially a list of only a few things.  RAS capability for DFO, JP5, Heavy Jackstay (for food, frozen and fresh).  VERTREP (flight deck) might have been on that list for the added transfer capability.  Everything else were add ons that Davie did on their own.  The cabins etc... were because those are the minimum standard for merchant marine.  The navy folks were wondering how they were going to get sailors off of the ASterix because the conditions were so plush, and the civilian Capt was wondering how he was going to retain civilian crew because the conditions were so primitive (no hot tub?  blasphemy!)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CCG prefers the term "Hypothermia rewarming treatment device" to Hot Tub.  8)


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The JSS project is something like 40 years old and this is attempt no 3, so there were a whole lot of balls dropped before now that led to the AORs _*self retiring*_.



That's a keeper  :nod:


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> From what I understood it was essentially a list of only a few things.  RAS capability for DFO, JP5, Heavy Jackstay (for food, frozen and fresh).  VERTREP (flight deck) might have been on that list for the added transfer capability.  Everything else were add ons that Davie did on their own.  The cabins etc... were because those are the minimum standard for merchant marine.  The navy folks were wondering how they were going to get sailors off of the ASterix because the conditions were so plush, and the civilian Capt was wondering how he was going to retain civilian crew because the conditions were so primitive (no hot tub?  blasphemy!)



Would it be reasonable to assume that Davie tricked the ship out in order to make it more appealing for a potential international buyer after the lease term is up with the RCN? It’s really also a floating showcase for Davie as well as gas and groceries for the Navy, right?


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Would it be reasonable to assume that Davie tricked the ship out in order to make it more appealing for a potential international buyer after the lease term is up with the RCN? It’s really also a floating showcase for Davie as well as gas and groceries for the Navy, right?



I was on the ship for an extensive tour just before it was unveiled to the public. Much was made of the accommodations with the Hudson bay blankets on the beds, the gym, wi-fi, laundry service and everything else. Much of it was over the top it seems as already mentioned. It was part of an aggressive marking campaign to sell the sister ship to the RCN and sell the ships to other countries like you said. Seeing what the PR rep for Davie is posting on other military forums, they expect the RCN to buy the ship. I can't really blame them I suppose. I also find it interesting that so far no landing craft was purchased for the ship yet, I assume the RCN looks to the ship to be only a floating gas can.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It would actually be good for Canada if people started buying our naval ship designs and if retention is a problem, having a comfortable ship is not exactly a curse.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I was on the ship for an extensive tour just before it was unveiled to the public. Much was made of the accommodations with the Hudson bay blankets on the beds, the gym, wi-fi, laundry service and everything else. Much of it was over the top it seems as already mentioned. It was part of an aggressive marking campaign to sell the sister ship to the RCN and sell the ships to other countries like you said. Seeing what the PR rep for Davie is posting on other military forums, they expect the RCN to buy the ship. I can't really blame them I suppose. I also find it interesting that so far no landing craft was purchased for the ship yet, I assume the RCN looks to the ship to be only a floating gas can.



It’s too bad they haven’t gotten around to the auxiliary craft for the ASTERIX. Between the landing craft and mexiflote options, I think they’re missing the boat (ha!) on a great HADR capacity. Maybe they’ll go that way when the JSS come online, if they retain ASTERIX.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> It would actually be good for Canada if people started buying our naval ship designs and if retention is a problem, having a comfortable ship is not exactly a curse.



Actually the comfort piece on Asterix is becoming a problem especially when young sailors rotate back to the fleet. The Asterix wasn't never going to be an export item with cheaper options out there with greater redundancy.


----------



## Uzlu

> Vancouver shipyard used one new coast guard vessel to repair, deliver another
> 
> *Repairs follow collision with another vessel*
> 
> A Vancouver shipyard delivered the first of the Canadian Coast Guard's three new science vessels last week by cannibalizing parts from one of the other ships for repairs, new documents show.
> 
> The repairs by Seaspan Shipyards followed the CCGS Sir John Franklin's collision with the Ogden Point breakwater near Victoria in March, which damaged its rudder and main propeller shaft.
> 
> The vessel, which will be used by federal scientists to conduct research on fish stocks, was returning from its first day of sea trials when the collision occurred and there were fears the incident would further delay its delivery.
> 
> The coast guard was to take ownership of the vessel in 2017 but that was before welding defects were discovered, forcing it back in for more work.
> 
> The three science vessels together are to cost $687 million.
> 
> *Confusion after collision*
> 
> Internal emails obtained by The Canadian Press through access-to-information law show senior coast guard officials scrambling for answers after the collision, whose cause still has not been revealed.
> 
> Pictures taken by a bystander and circulated by Canadian Coast Guard commissioner Jeffery Hutchinson, deputy commissioner Andy Smith and others showed a large dent in the Franklin.
> 
> A few weeks later, Smith emailed Hutchinson and Timothy Sargent, the top bureaucrat in the federal Fisheries Department, with an update that the Franklin's rudder and propeller shaft were "twisted."
> 
> The solution? Seaspan planned to use parts from the third science vessel, the CCGS John Cabot, to fix the Franklin and get it back in the water, Smith reported.
> 
> "Ship 3 will be the donor patient to get Franklin to sea in immediate term," Smith wrote. "Will have to source replacement parts for ship 3 in due course."
> 
> Seaspan Shipyards officially handed the Franklin over to the coast guard in a ceremony on June 27 that included Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson and dozens of coast guard and industry officials.
> 
> *Multibillion-dollar shipbuilding plan*
> 
> It is the first vessel delivered under the federal government's multibillion-dollar shipbuilding plan, which was launched in 2011.
> 
> The government has said it expects to receive the second and third so-called offshore fisheries science vessels, the CCGS Capt. Jacques Cartier and the Cabot, in late 2019 and summer 2020, respectively.
> 
> Seaspan has also been tapped to build the navy's two new support ships as well as 16 "multipurpose vessels" for the coast guard.
> 
> Construction is largely sequential, meaning a delay in the fisheries vessels could affect the rest.
> 
> Seaspan spokesman James Mitchell said the decision to use parts from the Cabot to fix the Franklin would not delay delivery of the third vessel, saying it would be handed over "as per the agreed schedule and contract requirements."
> 
> Mitchell did not say how Seaspan plans to replace the rudder and propeller shaft, but coast guard spokesman Benoit Mayrand said there were "no financial implications" for the government.
> 
> Taking existing parts from the Cabot helps explain the surprisingly quick repairs on the Franklin, said Timothy Choi, an expert on shipbuilding at the University of Calgary's Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies.
> 
> "One of the things that would be interesting to know would be just how damaged the original shaft and posts were," he added in an email. "Could they still be repaired?"
> 
> Either way, Choi said the rudder and propeller are often some of the last parts installed on a vessel's stern section and, because they are vulnerable to damage over a ship's lifespan, are generally easier to remove and re-install.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-shipyard-used-one-new-coast-guard-vessel-to-repair-deliver-another-1.5202786


----------



## Spencer100

All three get a contract.   1.5 Billion for Halifax class for 20 years

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/07/16/ministers-making-announcements-at-davie-seaspan-shipyards-today-2/#.XS2OOutKiUl

Is there an election around the corner or something.  

And

Who's losing their job this time?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> All three get a contract ...


Couldn't resist  ;D


----------



## Spencer100

More

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-awarding-military-contract-to-davie-shipyard-weeks-before/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> All three get a contract.   1.5 Billion for Halifax class for 20 years
> 
> https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/07/16/ministers-making-announcements-at-davie-seaspan-shipyards-today-2/#.XS2OOutKiUl
> 
> Is there an election around the corner or something.
> 
> And
> 
> Who's losing their job this time?



No one for a bit......


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> More
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-awarding-military-contract-to-davie-shipyard-weeks-before/



Can't get to it behind the paywall; from the brief assuming this is the announcement of this RFP (https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-FX-011-27044.  It's to spread the work for all remaining frigate refits to yards, so you don't have to go for bids each time when there are basically only the three yards in play anyway.  Not sure how they are going to ensure the rate is competitive, but given the staff work involved in putting together an RFP, that's a non trivial savings.  Lets the teams focus on running them out to end of life, which is going to be a massive effort on its own to put together the work packages and try and identify the major repairs ahead of time and get it all done within the fairly overprogrammed operational schedule.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Esquimalt navy base to receive four steel barges  https://www.naval-technology.com/news/canadas-esquimalt-navy-base-to-receive-four-steel-barges/?fbclid=IwAR209l0QI6kvZDWkrHouJqe4lZ4CA1DbZEcnXKvy8mmO_qU9x9vFMPCOy2g


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> Esquimalt navy base to receive four steel barges  https://www.naval-technology.com/news/canadas-esquimalt-navy-base-to-receive-four-steel-barges/?fbclid=IwAR209l0QI6kvZDWkrHouJqe4lZ4CA1DbZEcnXKvy8mmO_qU9x9vFMPCOy2g



I'm trying to think what 6 wooden barges they are talking about.  Maybe these are for the Small Boat Floats?

I love how the Defence Minister makes this announcement. It's apparent that he has zero clue what these things are for.  :facepalm: :rofl:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Squeezing the fruit hard for elections


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting upgrade that could work for both the AOP's and the Kingstons as well as the Halifax's

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/16/royal-navy-trials-new-missile-target-small-boats-wake-tensions/


----------



## quadrapiper

FSTO said:
			
		

> I'm trying to think what 6 wooden barges they are talking about.  Maybe these are for the Small Boat Floats?



What are these, over Colwood side?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@48.4402007,-123.4495003,155m/data=!3m1!1e3


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Interesting upgrade that could work for both the AOP's and the Kingstons as well as the Halifax's
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/16/royal-navy-trials-new-missile-target-small-boats-wake-tensions/









Can't help but think that backblast might impose some restrictions on arc.  I wonder how that RHIB in the davits forard might fare if the target were astern.  Or even how the bulkhead and gun might fare if launched directly outboard.


----------



## Navy_Pete

They say they are riding a guidance laser, which presumably is linked into some kind of combat suite and radar.  Neither AOPs nor the Kingston class are intended to be anywhere with combat, so unlikely they would get some kind of CCS and radar upgrade.  Would be kind of fun to strap onto some kind of drone RHIB and have a few of those out running a screen, with the warship doing the aiming.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

yep and we never get involved in a ground war in Central Asia either.....Historically we have always gone into a fight poorly prepared and paid for it the hard way. 

I can see the AOPs for sure getting some sort of unmanned vehicle for scouting/targeting, perhaps the Kingston's as well, although at this point I would be happy to see them get the same armament as the AOP's main gun.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> yep and we never get involved in a ground war in Central Asia either.....Historically we have always gone into a fight poorly prepared and paid for it the hard way.
> 
> I can see the AOPs for sure getting some sort of unmanned vehicle for scouting/targeting, perhaps the Kingston's as well, although at this point I would be happy to see them get the same armament as the AOP's main gun.



The Kingston Class is already operating a UAV and so will AOPS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I seen the tests being done, but does each ship now have trained pilots/technicians and the equipment as standard?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Typically the UAVs come with a trained crew, and there may be some training for ship's company to operate with it.  The remote boats are pretty straightforward and usually a few of the crew get the training to operate them.  It's a mission fit though, so not done until it's confirmed so you don't train people that don't deploy.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Further to this June 12 post by Uzlu:



> Feds cut heavy-icebreaker order from Vancouver shipyard
> https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1574224.html#msg1574224



and earlier late May stories:



> Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Shipping: We need Icebreakers
> https://www.marinelink.com/news/great-lakesst-lawrence-shipping-need-466714
> 
> No icebreakers in federal government’s $15.6B plan for new coast-guard ships
> https://cfjctoday.com/2019/05/31/no-icebreakers-in-federal-governments-15-6b-plan-for-new-coast-guard-ships/



Liberal gov't now going to give more shipbuilding to Davie, not because CCG desperately needs new vessels but as porc for Quebec because, well, you know there's a federal election looming and they really need votes in the province. Ever the Canadian political way, eh?



> What’s behind the Liberals’ shipbuilding strategy shift? In short: everything [except as noted long-known needs of CCG]
> 
> The Liberals are set to announce within weeks the start of a contest to allow a third shipbuilder to enter the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
> 
> Global News has learned federal officials do not plan to have an umbrella agreement in place with the winner before the election this fall, which is expected to begin around early or mid-September. But the decision to open up the multi-billion dollar program raises questions about what may have prompted it.
> 
> Documents obtained by Global News through access to information laws show just six months before announcing the plan to open up the program, officials were preparing to insist privately that no such changes were being entertained...
> https://globalnews.ca/news/5654948/liberals-quebec-shipbuilding-chantier-davie/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

The CCG needs the Polar class sooner rather than later, and the medium icebreaker conversions are just a short term fix.

What other option makes sense? Politics helps get the BGHs online, but makes sense to build both of them in the same spot.  They will likely need to do some upgrades to the yard to meet the same 'Target State' goals as the existing NSS yards, and need to finish the Polar design, do the produciton engineering and set up the supply chain.  That's a several year lag, so probably going to be an issue in the 2023 elections too.

Looks more like it will be a large sustained boom spread across the country before a bust, but at least there is a good 15 years of work coming down the pipes at the moment.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The medium icebreaker conversions will end up as a long term fix, because more CCG ships will die of natural causes due to old age.


----------



## Uzlu

Colin P said:
			
		

> The medium icebreaker conversions will end up as a long term fix, because more CCG ships will die of natural causes due to old age.


Yes.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> The medium icebreaker conversions will end up as a long term fix, because more CCG ships will die of natural causes due to old age.



But aren't the coversions already 20 years old?  That give the CCG a bit of breathing room to nail down the project requirements and get it rolling, but sounds like they could keep a yard busy with just building ice breaker replacements for a long time. With how slow our complex project approval/procurement system is, we almost need to factor in a 10-15 year lead time for anything, and start planning for a replacement almost as soon as we get something.

Part of the CCG issue is they don't have an overarching white paper laying; it's a bunch of work, but makes it easier to triage replacements and plan ahead to keep critical capabilities once it's been approved, as you don't need to reinvent the wheel and justify every projects existence from scratch.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Give this man a cookie for spotting what successive governments and senior management missed or swept under the rug for another day. NP you are bang on the issue and it's not going away soon. I always said the NSPS was a good idea 20 years to late.


----------



## Navy_Pete

To be fair, there were a number of people that had been pushing for an NSPS on and off since the 90s, but never hit critical mass and got support until the mid 2000s.  It was kind of obvious when the CPFs were winding down, and the CCG rust out happened to coincide with navy projects, so got roped in about a decade ago.  Maybe need a 20 year lead on getting a strategy in place as well?

Guess that is the kind of thing that is tracked at a portfolio level, and glad there are people that like that kind of thing so I can stay in the day to day work. 50 year horizon is an interesting thing to chew about over a coffee/pint, but not my cup of tea for a primary duty.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was deeply involved in large infrastructure projects like bridges, dams, etc. When you start speaking of impacts over a 75-200 year timeframe, most of the politicians and most senior management zone out, they just don't care about longterm as they are to wrapped out in the short term and how it effects them.


----------



## Uzlu

> Ottawa officially launches process to bring 3rd shipyard into national strategy
> 
> The process to bring a third shipyard into the National Shipbuilding Strategy is officially getting underway.
> 
> Whichever firm is selected will be tasked with building six newly announced icebreakers that will operate in the Atlantic Ocean and through the St. Lawrence waterways, officials say.
> 
> Fisheries and Oceans Minister Jonathan Wilkinson announced the start of the competitive process from Iqaluit on Friday and stressed that the process will take into account technical, operational and financial considerations from bidders — even if only one shipyard were to apply.
> 
> Global News first reported on July 24 that the process would launch this month.
> 
> The announcement comes after Wilkinson and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged close to $16 billion for a renewal of the aging coast guard fleet; two of the ships will be additional Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships from Irving Shipyard in Halifax while the other 16 will be multi-purpose vessels from Seaspan in Vancouver.
> 
> But just six months before making that announcement in May, officials had been doubling down in private insisting that no such plans were being considered.
> 
> No deal will be signed with a shipyard before the election and the process to select a winner will likely take about a year based on how similar processes unfolded for the other two firms that are part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
> 
> The strategy was created by the former Conservative government in 2011 to bolster the domestic shipbuilding industry, which has historically been subject to the boom-bust cycles of government procurement. But it has faced repeated delays and cost increases over the years.
> 
> There is only one other Canadian shipyard that is not part of the strategy: Quebec’s Chantier Davie.
> 
> That was the firm at the heart of the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman affair after he was accused of leaking in November 2015 a plan by the Liberals to freeze a sole-sourced deal with Davie for interim supply ships negotiated by the former Conservative government just prior to the 2015 election.
> 
> The Crown stayed its case against Norman earlier this year, citing lack of evidence.
> 
> Sources both within and outside the government have told Global News they believe Davie is the only player positioned to benefit from the process.
> 
> The decision to open up the strategy has raised questions from defence industry experts about why it is coming so close to an election.
> 
> Quebec City, where Davie is located, is politically competitive and the two Liberals in the largely blue region only won their seats in 2015 by single-digit margins.
> 
> Davie itself is located in the riding of Conservative MP Steven Blaney.
> 
> It was among five firms that had initially been invited to submit proposals to do the work under the original selection process for the strategy but its bid lost because the shipyard was in bankruptcy protection at the time.
> 
> It has been aggressively pursuing work on retrofit and maintenance contracts ever since but is not part of the official strategy.
> 
> Inclusion in the strategy would open the door to the shipyard being able to bid on a larger range of more lucrative projects.


https://globalnews.ca/news/5718947/national-shipbuilding-strategy-third-shipyard/


----------



## Navy_Pete

Missed this when it was posted a few weeks ago, but John Turner (former ADM(Mat)) has joined the Seaspan team as the VP for government relations.

This position is the go-between for Canada and the NSS operations, so the first POC.  Understand there have been ongoing changes since the new CEO came in last year, so this one is kind of interesting, as the previous VP was one of the last ones left in the executive from the bid. In case anyone is curious, Mr. Turner had no part in the bid eval or shipyard selection (it was all done about five levels down the chain).

https://www.seaspan.com/seaspan-shipyards-welcomes-john-turner-vice-president-government-relations



> Seaspan Shipyards Welcomes John Turner as Vice President, Government Relations
> 
> North Vancouver, BC – Seaspan Shipyards today announced that John Turner will join the company as Vice President, Government Relations on August 19, 2019. Mr. Turner will be based out of Seaspan’s Ottawa office that was recently opened in May of this year and will be responsible for the day-to-day management of Seaspan Shipyards relationships with the federal and B.C. provincial governments.
> 
> Mr. Turner’s appointment follows changes to Seaspan’s senior leadership over the past 12 months, including appointments of Mark Lamarre as Chief Executive Officer, Jari Anttila as Chief Operating Officer, John McCarthy as Chief Program Officer and Tony Winter as Vice President, Project Delivery.
> 
> Mr. Turner joins Seaspan from Newfoundland and Labrador based PAL Aerospace where he has worked since April 2017, first in the role as Vice President Operations and more recently as Senior Vice President Business Development. Prior to that, Mr. Turner served as Associate Deputy Minister (February 2015 to March 2017) and Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) (December 2012 to February 2015) at the Department of National Defence. Mr. Turner holds a Master of Strategic Studies from the US Army War College, a Master of Business Administration from Queen’s University and a Bachelor of Engineering Management from the Royal Military College of Canada.


----------



## Good2Golf

Seaspan will be well-served by John Turner - he’s astute, well connected and a genuinely nice person - congratulations to both him and Seaspan on news of his appointment. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Spencer100

They have to get this one out before the election

https://www.halifaxtoday.ca/local-news/irving-shipbuilding-awarded-500-million-contract-for-work-on-halifax-frigates-1640762


----------



## Navy_Pete

For context, every single east coast DWP has been done at Irving.  Only the 280s, steamers, (and maybe PRE?) did out of area refits in the last 30 years. All this is doing is bundling the same work into a contract.

This is the same RFP that was put out last fall that awarded some work to Davie, and gave the west coast work to Seaspan (in the Victoria yard).

There was too much work on the east coast for either to do on their own (because of the scope growth from aging ships and schedule overlaps) but means they will be competing for the non-guaranteed work.  This is good for the east coast as it means that ISI needs to sharpen the pencils on the refit side and step up it's game, but also should give some more wiggle room if big jobs come up when you start poking around, as there isn't such a domino affect on the ships waiting to come in.

With only 5 ships on the west coast, it's manageable by one yard.

If it didn't get announced soon, would be in limbo until early 2020, so imagine there was probably a bit of pressure to make sure it was signed before election time rolls around.

This is also good news for looking down the road to when AOPs and JSS join the coastal fleets, as we'll have a lot more 3rd line work.  West coast may also need to start looking at another yard (or at least another docking facility) in the next 10 years or so.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Point Hope is building a graving dock that will do the MCDV"s but I think the AOPS  are to big


----------



## Navy_Pete

Will be interesting to see what Point Hope can do; if they have the facilities and labour pool a floating dry dock is always an option as well. There a whole raft of small shipyards on the Island and BC coast that can do something the size of the MCDV/ORCAs, so think that's were they usually end up going.

The port weller dry dock and I think the ones in Davie have cut outs filled with concrete blocks specifically to accomodate the props, sonar etc.  Maybe they've thought ahead and included those features?

AOPS has the stabilizing fins as well, so those are another complication, as there is definitely some docking dependent work there.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Here is a question I have:

With a recession probably coming, does this undermine the National Shipbuilding Strategy or does it strengthen it?  Will we see the Military get a large influx of funding for Capital Projects because JOBS JOBS JOBS or does the Government slash the budget as part of an overall austerity plan?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Flip a coin; the BGHs could spin it either way.

Maybe depends who gets elected and how they do on the coasts.  I would bet any austerity though would like come from trimming scope of the ship capabilities though, or maybe having a bunch of 'fitted for but not with' just because of how the shipyard contracts are set up.  Stuff like spares, ammunitioning etc are probably the easiest to kick down the line and make someone else's problem without having any real job or program impact.  Costs more in the long run, but if you at least run the cables/piping etc during the build part, can always fill the box or mount the gear later.


----------



## Infanteer

In a Keynesian model, it should be good because you ramp up public spending through major projects to stimulate the economy.  However, seeing how the current Ministry deficit spent through the nose during a strong economy, I can't see Keynesian logic applying....


----------



## Cloud Cover

The theories of John Maynard Keyes are exactly the ones relied on and used by Floyd Laughren+ Robert Rae in 1991 to go into deficit 17 billion dollars in a single budget, and the province books have never recovered. The Ontario economy itself did not turn around until the deficit funded 30% tax cuts of 1996, plus some dull version of austerity. “stay alive ‘’til 95” was the mantra of every 20 something looking for a job, house, etc. The province has never really balanced its books since, although they were close in the early 2000’s. The economy of 1995-2008 was the last blue collar manufacturing based economy in the province. 
All that to say- when out of borrowing room, cutting core budgets was not as effective as cutting core taxes and moving deficit spending out of core and into services.  So I would hope the feds don’t cut defence capital spending, as this is a core federal responsibility that is not a service: it’s a key dependency of responsible government.


----------



## Spencer100

I wish Kenyes had never wrote his stuff.   The theory sounds good but the Pols use it pay off the voters.  Plus they never reign in spending in good times.


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I wish Kenyes had never wrote his stuff.   The theory sounds good but the Pols use it pay off the voters.  Plus they never reign in spending in good times.



That stuff was going on loooooong before Kenyes (Romans, Plebians  bread and circuses comes to mind)


----------



## Navy_Pete

The Romans were pretty transparent about the bread and circuses though, and didn't really coat it with much of a veneer of BS. Also, they actually gave bread to the masses and put on triumphs, feasts and circuses that were open to the Roman public.

Keynesian economics continues to be used as a 'trickle down economics theory to transfer riches to the fortunate few under the guise of good for the masses.

The NSS does sustain a lot of jobs; the question of it would be cheaper to buy offshore and invest the delta in something else is really an academic question as that was never an option, as Canada has had a 'Build in Canada' policy since the 60s.  One good thing they did was embed a lot of the data reporting requirements in it.  There is no specific target, but at least they can say the impact of the spending is X, and we get ships as well.

One area that I think is underappreciated for govt investment during economic dips is infrastructure repairs. Roads, bridges, utilities etc. are generally all coming due for their lifetime replacement, and it's something that the govt can direct funds into which will have a positive impact on the country (or at least prevent big issues from the infrastructure failing requiring emergency repairs).  Putting down asphalt, laying pipe (hi-oh!) and pouring concrete aren't sexy, but is one of those things that governments at all level should be making sure is done.  Going to cost a collective fortune, but not going to get better if we go full ostrich for a decade.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> One area that I think is underappreciated for govt investment during economic dips is infrastructure repairs. Roads, bridges, utilities etc. are generally all coming due for their lifetime replacement, and it's something that the govt can direct funds into which will have a positive impact on the country (or at least prevent big issues from the infrastructure failing requiring emergency repairs).  Putting down asphalt, laying pipe (hi-oh!) and pouring concrete aren't sexy, but is one of those things that governments at all level should be making sure is done.  Going to cost a collective fortune, but not going to get better if we go full ostrich for a decade.



Transportation infrastructure investments are generally the best investments a gov't can make at any time.  They continue to create/sustain wealth long after the original jobs are gone.


----------



## dapaterson

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The NSS does sustain a lot of jobs; the question of it would be cheaper to buy offshore and invest the delta in something else is really an academic question as that was never an option, as Canada has had a 'Build in Canada' policy since the 60s.  One good thing they did was embed a lot of the data reporting requirements in it.  There is no specific target, but at least they can say the impact of the spending is X, and we get ships as well.



Warships PLUS the core material to make poutine.

https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/06/05/feds-irving-need-to-clean-up-their-act-and-find-a-better-pr-move-than-threatening-reporters/202839


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Warships PLUS the core material to make poutine.
> 
> https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/06/05/feds-irving-need-to-clean-up-their-act-and-find-a-better-pr-move-than-threatening-reporters/202839



They better be serving Cavendish Golden Cut on those Canadian Warships!


----------



## Kirkhill

> Scottish Government accused of bungling ferry contract as it nationalises last commercial shipyard on the Clyde



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/16/scottish-government-accused-bungling-ferry-contract-nationalises/

Cautionary message to Seaspan and Davie?  Commercial yards and "provincial" ferries resulting in the yards going under?

High tech LNG ferries in Quebec and High tech catamarans in BC.

Meanwhile industry plods along buying low tech stuff that works and cuts their cloth to suit. And occasionally buy up somebody else's vanity project for 10 cents on the dollar.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The fast cats were an attempt to create a niche for West Coast yards as we could not compete with Asian yards on conventional vessels and did not expect to get any federal contract. the risk was worthwhile, but things got screwed up when the politicians from both sides got involved.


----------



## MarkOttawa

feds try to fix the icebreaker shipbuilding fix that is in for Davie (with video):



> Feds amend shipyard search criteria, extend deadline following complaint
> 
> The federal government has amended its search for a third shipyard in line for potentially billions of dollars in work following allegations of bias for Quebec’s Chantier Davie yard, but is standing firm in several other areas.
> 
> Public Service and Procurement Canada said in a statement Monday it had “corrected” an “inconsistency” in the size of vessel that interested shipyards must be able to build to qualify for consideration as the third yard.
> 
> Shipyards will now be required to show they can build vessels that are at least 110 metres in length and 20 metres wide, smaller than the original requirements of 130 metres in length by 24 metres wide.
> 
> The original requirement was one of several flagged by Hamilton-based Heddle Marine in a complaint to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal last week as not legitimate or reasonable — and potentially biased toward Davie.
> 
> READ MORE: What’s behind the Liberals’ shipbuilding strategy shift? In short — everything
> 
> _Not only would the condition have disqualified all Ontario-based shipyards — their vessels must be 23.8 metres or less to traverse the St. Lawrence Seaway — but Heddle said in its complaint that the requirement didn’t make sense.
> 
> That’s because the third shipyard will be building six new Coast Guard icebreakers measuring only 20 metres in width, according to the government. And those ships will be used in the Great Lakes — meaning they must fit through the Seaway_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Public Procurement spokeswoman Stefanie Hamel did not respond to questions Monday about the reason for the original requirement, saying only that it was “inconsistent in the dimensions of the vessels” the third shipyard would build and launch.
> 
> “This inconsistency has been removed to clarify that the required vessel dimensions are 110 meters in length and 20 metres in breadth,” she said in an email.
> 
> WATCH: Scrap, don’t fix, storied Coast Guard ship, shipyard says (Jan. 24, 2019)
> 
> The government also backed off a requirement that shipyards be able to launch vessels year-round, which Heddle had argued against since the St. Lawrence Seaway is closed through much of the winter for repair.
> 
> Heddle, which owns the Thunder Bay shipyards and Port Weller dry docks in Ontario, had noted in its complaint that the government had provided a two-year window for the launch of the first icebreaker.
> 
> The amendment “aligns with the stated requirement that the vessels must be delivered within the timeline … without specific reference to a time period during the year in which they must be delivered,” Hamel said.
> 
> The government also announced it is extending the deadline for shipyards to apply for consideration as a third yard until the end of the week. Shipyards originally had to submit applications on Monday.
> 
> Davie, which has received several federal contracts without a competition in recent years and is located in an area of the country likely to be hotly contested in the fall federal election, declined to comment Monday.
> 
> READ MORE: Federal government awards Irving Shipbuilding Inc. $500M contract to maintain navy fleet
> 
> Yet the government refused to bend on requiring shipyards to have a contract now or recent experience in building a ship weighing more than 1,000 tonnes or integrating a module weighing that much into “an offshore marine structure.”
> 
> That is despite Heddle having complained to the trade tribunal that no shipyard in Canada “is capable of satisfying this requirement except Chantier Davie Canada.”
> 
> In an update to potential bidders, the government said: “Canada is satisfied that meeting anyone of the criteria above (together with other criteria in the process) represent(s) the minimum general experience and capability … to prequalify.”
> 
> Despite the government’s insistence on the latter requirements, Heddle Marine president Shaun Padulo told The Canadian Press he was cautiously optimistic the other changes would lead to a fair selection process for the third yard.
> 
> _Heddle plans to partner with Netherlands-based Damen Shipyards, which operates 36 facilities around the world and which Padulo said should satisfy the requirement shipyards have recent construction experience_ [emphasis added].
> 
> “The whole objective of this national shipbuilding strategy was to rebuild shipbuilding capacity and ship-repair capacity,” he said.
> 
> “What better way to do that than partner with one of the best shipbuilders in the world and have them set up shop at Port Weller with us. So I’m not too worried about the requirement unless they find another way to try and bounce it from us.”
> https://globalnews.ca/news/5815392/federal-shipyard-search-davie-quebec/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100

https://rightof49.ca/the-liberal-old-boys-club-is-alive-and-well/?fbclid=IwAR16ruq4eRlULpChic051gzyrFHlIW9Y6v6oktsdFYiICCkcsLn5pk8v-3Y

A little more political bend here


----------



## Spencer100

More

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/08/26/feds-amend-shipyard-search-following-complaint-about-bias-toward-quebecs-davie/#.XWSQ1h4pAlS


----------



## Navy_Pete

Some real competition would be good, and Heddle partnering with Damen is interesting. If they could bring in their expertise at the start, they could upgrade the Port Weller drydock into a nice modern facility for building smaller ships. That area has been pretty hard hit with all the local industry shuttering, so would be good for the town to have something other than boomers fleeing Toronto for McMansions.

The drydock opens onto part of the Welland canal, and that section actually gets drained during the winter, but shouldn't be rocket surgery to plan around. If they cover the drydock and put in a crane it could easily be a year round build shed.  There are a few built like that with sliding roofs and wall panels so they can lower in the blocks, and lets them do horizontal builds, which means they can start the cable runs earlier and saves a fair bit of labour/schedule time. The lakers have max heights (due to bridges etc on route) so there is a practical limit that they can work around when figuring out clearances for the overhead crane etc.

Lots of expertise in the area as well, so would just need some delta training for shipbuilding for the trades working in the auto/heavy industry sector locally.

Maybe I'm a bit biased having grown up in the area, but hard not to like a location with a cherry/apple orchard across the road and farmer market down the street, so would be a great posting for the det.


----------



## Spencer100

Saewaymax is the size of the ship if you want to get to the ocean.  They are larger ships on the great lakes but can't get to the ocean.

Seawaymax vessels are 740 feet (225.6 m) in length, 78 feet (23.8 m) wide, and have a draft of 26.51 feet (8.08 m) and a height above the waterline of 35.5 metres (116 ft).

Can Heddle handle seawaymax?  

Not too many ships in the CCG or RCN that are larger.


----------



## Dale Denton

Stretching the smaller jobs/vessel work between Davie and Hamilton should be an option instead of picking the two. The Damen partnership being the primary reason, with access to that giant wealth of knowledge and management available in Canada. 

The RCN/CCG presence in Ontario would be a boon to both for the relevance in public opinion down here too. More people seeing RCN and CCG ships here transiting, being built and port visits is a win-win.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Saewaymax is the size of the ship if you want to get to the ocean.  They are larger ships on the great lakes but can't get to the ocean.
> 
> Seawaymax vessels are 740 feet (225.6 m) in length, 78 feet (23.8 m) wide, and have a draft of 26.51 feet (8.08 m) and a height above the waterline of 35.5 metres (116 ft).
> 
> Can Heddle handle seawaymax?
> 
> Not too many ships in the CCG or RCN that are larger.



They were talking about the Port Weller facility, which is specifically built to handle lakers. Getting to and from the lakes is the limiting factor; there is no point in having a facility bigger than that.

The drydock was big enough to do any of the ships in the Navy inventory (including the AORs); the only issue was the max height and the width of the PRE exceeding the canal width. Both could be removed for the refits, but they also have a facility on the east coast they could use for any final installs for the mast top etc. We've done refits to the 280s and the old steamers in Port Weller, and the CCG had an icebreaker and some other ships run through there, so the drydock isn't an issue.

Think the Polar icebreaker spec exceeded that size by a fair bit, so maybe that would be a standalone project if they need to add in a third yard for CCG work. So conceivably Heddle gets the mid sized ice breaker, and Davie could build Polar?  Polar is too big for the ISI yard, and kind of a pain in the arse for Seaspan (unless they do it at the end of the run of patrol ships run of 12-15).

Honestly it's one to consider outsourcing, or maybe considering doing something like jumping onto the USCG heavy icebreakers if that gets going, and having it fitted for/not with the weapon systems. Sure there are probably some existing OTS designs we could buy and have built at an experienced yard and figure out something (final outfitting?) to give it the veneer of being part of the NSS for saving political face. One of the Russian yards joked about building some for us when they recently launched on of their nuclear ships as well...

In general, building a single bespoke ship is really, really expensive and inefficient. If you did it after a run of medium icebreakers, at least the yard would be set up, but still a lot of sunk one time cost in the design and production engineering.  Wish the NSS included a number of ships in a class as well as tonnage etc for criteria, but such is life.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Heddle Marine has acquired Port Weller Dry Dock a few years (last year?) ago. PWDD is seawaymax, so not a problem except for the Diefenbaker, as already noted.

However, neither Heddle, nor Port Weller has actually built a ship other than minor crafts in the last 20 years. That makes them repair yards - not build yards, and as Colin has mentionned before, it is an important distinction. Davie, on the other hand, has built five ships larger than 1,000 tons in the last ten years (in fact, three of those are well above 3,000 tons ships), with two more on the go as we speak.

To my mind, Heddle, which does not meet the "having built 1,000+ tons recently" criteria, would be better to deal with Davie by keeping Davie's feet to its own fire: the Davie clear statements in the past that the NSS was to select the "lead" yards, but that the intent was that they would employ smaller yard to do block builds for delivery to the leads for assembly , the lead yard having overall responsibility. Both Heddle's original yard and Port Weller Dry Dock are located well to perform such function for Davie.

P.S. Before anybody jumps too quickly (Oops! Too late  ;D) on the Heddle/PWDD band wagon, I just offer two words of caution: HMCS HURON and CCCG HUDSON. And those were refits. Just sayin!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Speaking of CCGS HUDSON, if my calculations are correct, she should be coming out / have come out of St John's Dockyard's hands just about now - *if all went according to plan*.

Any body heard anything? Good or bad?

Colin? Not-a-Sig-Op?

Bueller? Bueller?

 ;D


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Heddle Marine has acquired Port Weller Dry Dock a few years (last year?) ago. PWDD is seawaymax, so not a problem except for the Diefenbaker, as already noted.
> 
> However, neither Heddle, nor Port Weller has actually built a ship other than minor crafts in the last 20 years. That makes them repair yards - not build yards, and as Colin has mentionned before, it is an important distinction. Davie, on the other hand, has built five ships larger than 1,000 tons in the last ten years (in fact, three of those are well above 3,000 tons ships), with two more on the go as we speak.
> 
> To my mind, Heddle, which does not meet the "having built 1,000+ tons recently" criteria, would be better to deal with Davie by keeping Davie's feet to its own fire: the Davie clear statements in the past that the NSS was to select the "lead" yards, but that the intent was that they would employ smaller yard to do block builds for delivery to the leads for assembly , the lead yard having overall responsibility. Both Heddle's original yard and Port Weller Dry Dock are located well to perform such function for Davie.
> 
> P.S. Before anybody jumps too quickly (Oops! Too late  ;D) on the Heddle/PWDD band wagon, I just offer two words of caution: HMCS HURON and CCCG HUDSON. And those were refits. Just sayin!



The PWDD facility itself would also require some major upgrades to be able to actually build ships; it's a 1960s era repair yard, and can do a lot (if properly run) but is in no way set up to support modular builds. Not sure if they get the throughput for one of the fancy plasma cutters, but they would need some kind of cut shop, some large welding stations, sections for module assembly etc plus some dedicated cranes.

They have a decent footprint, and the actual dock is good, but would effectively need to bulldoze the yard and start from scratch.

Then you would need a management team that knew how to build ships, experienced designers and production engineers, planners/estimaters etc on top of the trades and line supervisors, so it's a big ask. The existing yards have had to go out of Canada to get a lot of those people, and it's generally a small talent pool with all the countries and commercial yards competing for it.

They are definitely further behind then Davie, but Davie will also have to do some upgrades to the facility and find a bunch of people to do it as well, so not like they can just waltz in and start tomorrow.

Ship repair/conversions is not ship building; the former is like a car mechanic, the latter is like the main factory. Someone needs to do both, but you don't expect the local mechanic to make a car from scratch, or one of the Oshawa plants to rebuild you transmission. They are related but totally different operations that need their own facilities and expertise.


----------



## Underway

As much I would love to see St. Catharines get some love (growing up just down the QEW from there) I very much doubt that PW is even in the running.  Putting aside my regional bias they just can't build without some serious investment ala Irving.  The experience isn't there at all.  Ontario has the capability more than any other place in Canada to rapidly grow a shipyard and PWDD has quite the large footprint, with the potential to grow into the surrounding farmland, and along the eastern face of the canal.  But I just don't see it unless there is some other odd/interesting situation that arises.  On the list of odd would be a submarine yard, but that's just me being fanciful.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Yeah, for comparison purposes think Seaspan invested something north of $140 million, and Irving was $200-300M (maybe more, depends how big the fish got now) in their yard overhauls.

If they focus on smaller ships, PWDD wouldn't be as bad, but think $50-100M probably isn't unreasonable. Don't know if Heddle has that kind of capitol, or would bring in a partner with deep pockets, but it's not an overnight start for sure.

If nothing else, will mean Davie will have to sharpen the pencils and put forward a competitive proposal, so better than a sole source award from that perspective.  That way they won't be able to dodge some of the pretty serious NSS commitments that didn't apply for the Asterix or conversion projects that relate to shipyard improvements and IRBs. Those cost money/time, but forces them to modernize the shipyard practices and helps build the supply chain in Canada, so speeds up the building (long term) and makes maintenance easier.


----------



## MarkOttawa

What the gov't has announced recently about new shipbuilding for the CCG is on reflection truly amazing--and worrying. Effectively out of the blue in May and then August the gov't announced the COMPLETE REPLACEMENT of the entire (and very old) Coast Guard fleet of larger vessels. This gov't had said nothing about this since it was elected and the Harper gov't had only promised a partial renewal of the fleet in 2013 with ten ships to be built by Seaspan in some never never land after all the yard's other work was finished (https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/mark-collins-canadian-coast-guard-shocker-ten-maybe-new-serious-vessels/).

As far as I can see there are no serious timelines for all this new construction and costing is terribly sketchy:

1) For Seaspan (total included the two previously announced and actually costed A/OPVS from Irving):



> Canada to spend $15.7B on new coast guard ships, Trudeau says
> 
> Canada plans to build up to 18 new coast guard ships at a cost of $15.7 billion in an effort to renew Canada's Coast Guard fleet,  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Wednesday [May 22]...
> ]THAT'S CLOSE TO $1 BILLION EACH]
> 
> According to a government statement, the $15.7 billion figure is an "early estimate" of the cost for construction, support, infrastructure, project management and cost overruns, or contingency funding. The costs of each ship will be announced, the government said, after contract negotiations have been completed.
> 
> The 16 multi-purpose vessels will be used for light icebreaking, environmental response and search and rescue [i.e. NOT VERY BIG] while the two new Arctic and offshore patrol ships will perform duties further offshore...
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-coast-guard-ships-building-trudeau-1.5144903



2) In August icebreakers, clearly for Davie--NO COSTING OR TIMELINE:



> Ottawa officially launches process to bring 3rd shipyard into national strategy
> 
> The process to bring a third shipyard into the National Shipbuilding Strategy is officially getting underway.
> 
> Whichever firm is selected will be tasked with building six newly announced icebreakers that will operate in the Atlantic Ocean and through the St. Lawrence waterways, officials say...
> https://globalnews.ca/news/5718947/national-shipbuilding-strategy-third-shipyard/



So a huge shipbuilding program out of nowhere for B.C. and the sudden inclusion (in reality) of Quebec in the government's main shipbuilding "strategy". The only strategy I can see is election politics. And it is striking that the sudden (indeed sloppy) scope, and major expense, of what the gov't says it will do has not received more media attention and analysis.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Ironically, that’s substantially more money than the F-35 purchase was going to be...by a healthy margin!

Nary a peep from any critics...and no real detailed break out of the “early estimate” (which most commonly gets bigger as time passes).

Regards
G2G


----------



## FSTO

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ironically, that’s substantially more money than the F-35 purchase was going to be...by a healthy margin!
> 
> Nary a peep from any critics...and no real detailed break out of the “early estimate” (which most commonly gets bigger as time passes).
> 
> Regards
> G2G


Yes, these developments are rather worrisome. The CSC is at 60 billion, and how much will the CCG build actually cost and not one peep from anyone? 
The Navy and Coast Guard are living a charmed life right now and I fear the party will come to a crashing end after the election.


----------



## MarkOttawa

As for cost, see this based on Defense Industry Daily for cost announced in 2013 for the very notional ten new CCG vessels for Seaspan announced by the Conservatives (whose neglect of the Coast Guard was a bad as the Liberals):



> Just Announced New Canadian Coast Guard Vessels Overpriced by Factor of Five
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/mark-collin-just-announced-new-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-overpriced-by-factor-of-five/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile:



> Haisla Nation and Seaspan awarded LNG Canada escort and harbor tugs contract
> Posted August 27, 2019 & filed under Press Releases.
> 
> 
> Front row L to R: Bart Reynolds, President Seaspan Marine, Crystal Smith, Chief Councillor Haisla Nation, Frank Butzelaar, CEO Seaspan Marine Transportation – Back row: Representatives from Seaspan, the Haisla Nation and union leadership witnessed the signing of the agreement.
> 
> Download PDF
> 
> North Vancouver, B.C. – HaiSea Marine, a joint venture partnership between the Haisla First Nation and Seaspan ULC, today announced the signing of a contract award with LNG Canada to design, build and operate escort tugs and harbor tugs required for LNG Canada’s LNG export facility in Kitimat, British Columbia.
> 
> The value of the contract award is approximately $500 million over 12 years and will result in employment for approximately 70 mariners and six onshore staff, plus other roles for employees of the partner organizations.
> 
> “HaiSea Marine is majority-owned by the Haisla,” says Crystal Smith, Chief Councillor of the Haisla Nation. “Our agreement with Seaspan ensures our members will have access to employment, training and procurement opportunities on the contract with LNG Canada. The opportunity to work locally in the marine industry is of great significance to the Haisla people.”
> 
> Benefits will also be available to the Gitxaala Nation and the Gitga’at Nation through a transit agreement with the Haisla.
> 
> During operations, LNG carriers will require harbour tugs to provide berthing and unberthing assistance in Kitimat. The tugs will also provide transportation of material and personnel, marine emergency response, firefighting and oil pollution response. Escort tugs are required to escort LNG carriers from Triple Island to the facility in Kitimat, approximately 159 nautical miles. The tugs are yet to be constructed and will go into service shortly prior to production commencing, which is estimated before mid-next decade.
> 
> “Seaspan owns a large fleet, has extensive new build experience and has the largest pool of tug masters and engineers in BC, providing us with the scale to train for and operate the project in a cost-efficient manner,” says Frank Butzelaar, CEO Seaspan Marine Transportation. “Our innovative training and safety programs ensure that HaiSea mariners will be well prepared to support the safest project on earth.”
> 
> Vancouver-based Robert Allan Ltd., an independent, privately owned firm of consulting naval architects and marine engineers, has been contracted to design the new vessels.
> 
> “LNG Canada has committed to ensuring benefits from our project accrue to First Nations, local communities and BC businesses, and this contract is part of that commitment,” says Peter Zebedee, CEO of LNG Canada. “The legacy the LNG Canada project will leave, in part, is the long-term, high-skilled jobs for First Nations and local community members. HaiSea was selected because they were able to demonstrate technical capability, operational expertise, and training at world class levels.”
> 
> About HaiSea Marine
> HaiSea Marine is a joint venture partnership between the Haisla First Nation and Seaspan ULC. Both partners have considerable experience and knowledge of operating in Northern British Columbia, making HaiSea a natural choice for providing responsible and dependable marine services in the region.
> 
> About LNG Canada
> The LNG Canada joint venture is building a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility in Kitimat, British Columbia, Canada, which will initially consist of two LNG processing units, referred to as “trains.” LNG Canada is a joint venture comprised of Royal Dutch Shell plc, through its affiliate Shell Canada Energy (40%); PETRONAS, through its wholly-owned entity, North Montney LNG Limited Partnership (25%); PetroChina Company Limited, through its subsidiary PetroChina Canada Limited (15%); Mitsubishi Corporation, through its subsidiary Diamond LNG Canada Ltd. (15%); and Korea Gas Corporation, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Kogas Canada LNG Ltd (5%). It is operated through LNG Canada Development Inc.
> 
> Media contacts:
> 
> Seaspan ULC
> Corinna Bork
> corinna.bork@seaspan.com
> 
> Haisla Nation
> Sarah Artis
> sartis@haisla.ca
> 
> LNG Canada
> media@lngcanada.ca



https://www.seaspan.com/haisla-nation-seaspan-awarded-lng-canada-escort-harbor-tugs-contract

Native owned and operative escorts. Native owned ports.  Native owned pipelines.  BC jobs.

Tanker moratorium being challenged by natives.

I feel the scrum wheeling.


----------



## Navy_Pete

For costing, keep in mind that TBS requires us to include all project costs, so that includes the ships, the design, spares, training, any infrastructure, contingency and some other things, and occasionally artificially inflates everything to end of project year dollars.  That accounts for a good chunk of the bloat, especially when the contingency at the start of the project can be 25+%.  You won't get anything near actual costs until they have finalized requirements, gone through the design spiral and sourced the major bits. A bunch of it is also internal things like SWE for project positions and similar, so massive chunks of this aren't intended to go to the shipyard or even leave govt coffers.

No one else really does reporting like this on defence contracts; the AG report from about 5 years ago on the AOPs budget really highlighted this and why it makes it impossible to do apple to apple comparisons.

Does look pretty good though if you can announce a huge contract before an upcoming election, so would take any of these estimates with a bag of road salt.

As an aside, Seaspan ULC is a separate legal entity from VSY shipyards, and while Seaspan Marine has the same parent company, they are independently operated.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Major milestone for the NSPS few people are talking about, the first ship of the program enters service

https://gcaptain.com/canadas-first-offshore-fisheries-science-vessels-enters-service-with-coast-guard/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29&goal=0_f50174ef03-94c5ebdc26-139922301&mc_cid=94c5ebdc26&mc_eid=c9f44d7f09


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> Major milestone for the NSPS few people are talking about, the first ship of the program enters service
> 
> https://gcaptain.com/canadas-first-offshore-fisheries-science-vessels-enters-service-with-coast-guard/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29&goal=0_f50174ef03-94c5ebdc26-139922301&mc_cid=94c5ebdc26&mc_eid=c9f44d7f09



Wasn't NSPS initiated under the Harper Conservatives? Not cool at all for this Liberal government to be touting that fact!


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:
			
		

> Wasn't NSPS initiated under the Harper Conservatives? Not cool at all for this Liberal government to be touting that fact!



That was the NSPS (Procurement Strategy).  The NSS is the Liberals strategy... or something. It was 'rebranded' after the election, but actually made sense to drop the P, as it was initially only envisioned to get the umbrella agreements in place, but then got rolled into DPS and the whole governance thing became this bureaucratic hydra (maybe Cerberus is a better metaphor?)


----------



## Uzlu

A bit of information on the six new icebreakers.





> On Aug. 2, Public Services and Procurement Canada called for companies interested in bidding on the contract — it could be worth more than a billion dollars when it's awarded in late 2020 — to apply by Aug. 15. Work would likely commence in 2023.


https://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/news-story/9567601-port-weller-dry-docks-owner-hopes-politics-won-t-hurt-bid-on-major-project/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Getting these icebreakers for say $200 million each is nonsense given our shipbuilding costs--see:



> ...
> Canada plans to build up to 18 new coast guard ships at a cost of $15.7 billion in an effort to renew Canada's Coast Guard fleet,  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced...
> 
> According to a government statement, the $15.7 billion figure is an "early estimate" of the cost for construction, support, infrastructure, project management and cost overruns, or contingency funding. The costs of each ship will be announced, the government said, after contract negotiations have been completed.
> 
> The 16 multi-purpose vessels [for Seaspan] will be used for light icebreaking, environmental response and search and rescue while the two new Arctic and offshore patrol ships will perform duties further offshore...
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-coast-guard-ships-building-trudeau-1.5144903



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

As I understand it Seaspan expects to be contracted to supply MEMTVs and OPVs



> Vancouver Shipyards will build the Non-Combat vessels, including the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels (OFSV), Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel (OOSV), Joint Support Ships (JSS), Polar Icebreaker (PI), Medium Endurance Multi-Tasked Vessels (MEMTV), and Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV).



https://www.seaspan.com/nationalshipbuildingstrategy

According to the Coast Guard an MEMTV is:



> A large (approx. 65 metres in length), multitasked, shallow draught vessel.
> Primarily used for aids to navigation, Search and Rescue, science and environmental response; has some icebreaking capability.



While an OPV is:



> A large (approx. 75 metres in length), offshore vessel  that can operate beyond 120 NM including outside the Exclusive Economic Zone; stay at sea for up to six (6) weeks; operate year-round in Canadian waters (except the Arctic archipelago); and transit light ice-infested waters.
> Designed to support law enforcement; primarily used for fisheries enforcement and search and rescue.



http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0013696


There seems to be a lack of congruity in expectations and vocabulary between the Coast Guard and the politicians.


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Getting these icebreakers for say $200 million each is nonsense given our shipbuilding costs


But nowhere in that article does it state or hint at the price of each of these new icebreakers.  Assuming—perhaps a reasonable assumption—that these icebreakers will be Polar Class 3, they will definitely cost a lot more than, say, $200 million each.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu: Article says the contract for six icebreakers "could be worth more than a billion dollars when it's awarded in late 2020".

This is what the new vessels are for, mainly non-Arctic--anyone know the Polar Class of CCG's current medium icebreakers?



> "...
> Coast Guard program icebreakers are essential to Canada’s economy by supporting year-round marine trade in Eastern Canada, the St. Lawrence waterway and the Great Lakes. They enable eastern Canadian ferries to operate during the winter time, and are critical to Canada’s commercial fisheries. The program icebreakers are also used to provide service to Canada’s northern residents by supporting the annual re-supply of goods to Canada’s Arctic communities and their industries..."
> https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/08/six-new-icebreakers-to-be-built-for-canadian-coast-guard/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Perhaps there are some hints here.

https://vardmarine.com/vard-marine-wins-canadian-coast-guard-concept-exploration-contract/


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Article says the contract for six icebreakers "could be worth more than a billion dollars when it's awarded in late 2020".


That is a bit like saying if a Canadian is going to buy a new car—not used car—he could be paying more than $5 000.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

"carrying on with the development of the designs for the Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel"  Hmmm rumour has it that design has some serious flaws, which is why it was delayed.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Are the requirements or equipment selection finalized yet? Also, was this not one of the ones that came with some kind of in house initial design?

Hard to blame this shipyard if our scientists can't make up their mind, and it's starting from the back foot.  Lots of other things to lay at their feet, but this particular project seems like a bit of a unicorn.


----------



## MarkOttawa

How serious people in Canada approach shipbuilding--from Aug. 29:
     


> Fednav celebrates its birthday with a aptly named ship
> 
> _At the Oshima Shipyard in Japan, Fednav Limited took delivery today of the Federal Montreal_ [emphasis added], its newest Great Lakes-suitable handysize vessel. The ceremony was attended by senior management from both Fednav and the shipyard.
> 
> The Federal Montreal is a 34,500 DWT international ice-class bulk carrier, flagged in the Marshall Islands. Built to trade in the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes, the vessel is certified by DNV GL and is equipped with the latest environmental protection technology...
> 
> Celebrating its 75th anniversary this year, Fednav Limited is Canada's largest international bulk shipping company. Its fleet is comprised of close to 125 bulk carriers trading worldwide, 65 of these are owned. From offices on four continents, the company operates the largest fleet of Great Lakes-suitable ocean-going vessels, the largest fleet in the world of ice-class bulk carriers, and _three icebreaking cargo ships that service the Arctic year round_ [emphasis added].
> 
> For more information, please visit www.fednav.com...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.fednav.com/en/media/fednav-celebrates-its-birthday-aptly-named-ship



As for those icebreaking ships, this from 2014:



> The World’s Most Powerful Bulk-Carrying Icebreaker Joins Fednav Fleet
> 
> The most powerful bulk-carrying icebreaker in the world, the MV Nunavik has arrived in Canada.
> 
> Built for Fednav at Japan Marine United’s (JMU) Tsu Shipyard, the ship will be used to export the concentrates produced at the Canadian Royalties owned Nunavik Nickel mine at Deception Bay in northern Quebec. The vessel will also supply the mine with equipment and fuel, year round.
> 
> Rated Polar Class 4, this highly specialized icebreaker is similar in design to the Umiak I, the Fednav ship servicing Vale’s Voisey’s Bay operation in Northern Labrador.
> 
> The _Nunavik will sail unescorted in Arctic regions and will operate in the extreme winter conditions of the Canadian Arctic. It is capable of maintaining continuous progress of 3 knots in 1.5 m of ice.
> 
> The vessel was designed by Fednav and JMU, and will sail between Deception Bay and Northern Europe on a year-round basis_ [emphasis added]. The engine produces 29,600 hp, three times the power of a conventional bulk carrier of the same size. The Nunavik will be supported by Enfotec Technical Services, a Fednav subsidiary to provide up to date information on ice conditions as well as technical support to the inhouse IceNav navigation system.
> 
> “The arrival of this new ship represents Fednav’s commitment to mining development in the Arctic, as well as our dedication to technological development and energy efficiency,” says Paul Pathy, President and Co-CEO of Fednav Limited.
> 
> In naming this new ship Nunavik, Fednav wanted to recognize the inhabitants and the region in which it will operate as well as its project partner, Nunavik Nickel.
> 
> The Nunavik is equipped with the latest environmental technologies, such as a Tier II engine that reduces nitrogen oxide emissions by 20%, and the first ballast treatment system installed on a Canadian-owned vessel.
> 
> fednav, March 21, 2014
> https://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/107200/the-worlds-most-powerful-bulk-carrying-icebreaker-joins-fednav-fleet/



Note how blindingly fast Fednav got the ship:



> ...
> In October 2012, Fednav announced that it had signed a contract with Japan Marine United Corporation for the construction of a new ice-strengthened bulk carrier at the Tsu shipyard in Tsu, Japan...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavik_(ship)#Construction



Also:



> NUNAVIK'S LOG BOOK
> October 17, 2014
> *ARRIVAL AT DESTINATION*
> 
> The MV Nunavik recently completed its historic [UNESCORTED] voyage through the Northwest Passage...
> 
> September 25, 2014
> Longitude:
> -106.91667
> Latitude:
> 74.066950
> 
> Day 7, Starting the Descent 5:13 PM
> ...
> Sometime tomorrow, the Nunavik will be the first commercial ship since the SS Manhattan in 1969, to transit Prince of Wales Strait...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.fednav.com/en/voyage-nunavik



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Next thing you know you'll be telling us that oil and gas can be safely transported through the ice  ;D








> The double acting ship concept has been selected as the main transportation concept for the Yamal LNG project.[28] In July 2013, Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) won the tender for the construction of sixteen Arc7 ice class LNG carriers and the contract for the first vessel, worth 339.3 billion won ($316.4 million), was signed in March 2014.[29] The Arctic LNG carriers, fitted with three 15 MW ABB Azipod propulsion units, are the largest icebreaking vessels in the world with an independent ice-going capability in level ice up to 2.1 metres (6.9 ft) in thickness.[30] The first vessel, Christophe de Margerie, was launched in January 2016.[31]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_acting_ship

https://safety4sea.com/the-worlds-first-icebreaker-condensate-tanker-launched-in-guangzhou/


----------



## suffolkowner

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Uzlu: Article says the contract for six icebreakers "could be worth more than a billion dollars when it's awarded in late 2020".
> 
> This is what the new vessels are for, mainly non-Arctic--anyone know the Polar Class of CCG's current medium icebreakers?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Mark and Uzlu

I think the medium icebreakers(Type 1200) are equivalent to PC4 but there are only 4 of them plus the 3 Davie conversions. So the soon to be 7 to be replaced with 6. I wonder what the plans are for the St. Laurent and Terry Fox?


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think the medium icebreakers(Type 1200) are equivalent to PC4 but there are only 4 of them plus the 3 Davie conversions. So the soon to be 7 to be replaced with 6. I wonder what the plans are for the St. Laurent and Terry Fox?


I think the six new icebreakers are going to replace the medium icebreakers and _Terry Fox_.  I am assuming _Louis S. St-Laurent_ is going to be replaced with the future CCGS _John G. Diefenbaker_.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu:

Surely the CCGS Pierre E. Trudeau if fils wins the election.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

> Trade tribunal investigating allegation of bias in search for third shipyard
> 
> OTTAWA -- A trade tribunal has agreed to investigate the federal government's plan to add a third shipyard to its multibillion-dollar shipbuilding strategy following allegations the process is rigged in favour of a particular Quebec shipyard.
> 
> However, it's unclear how far the Canadian International Trade Tribunal will be able to delve into the case after the federal Liberals recently restricted its ability to review big-ticket government purchases.
> 
> Heddle Marine Services, based in Hamilton, Ont., first asked the tribunal to launch an investigation last month, alleging some requirements needed to qualify for consideration as the third shipyard seemed aimed at disqualifying all contenders except Quebec's Chantier Davie.
> 
> The federal government subsequently amended some of the requirements, including one related to the size of vessel eligible shipyards must be able to build, which Heddle had said would disqualify it from contention.
> 
> But despite the changes, Heddle told the tribunal it still wants the search for a third shipyard suspended pending the results of an investigation into whether the process was biased toward Davie.
> 
> In a letter to Heddle, the tribunal said it "has decided to conduct an inquiry into the complaint." However, it rejected Heddle's request to suspend the shipyard search, saying it expects its investigation to finish before a contract is awarded.
> 
> Heddle president Shaun Padulo welcomed the tribunal's decision, saying in an interview that his shipyard wants a fair chance at winning the right to become the third shipyard, which will be tasked with building six icebreakers for the coast guard.
> 
> Heddle has partnered with Dutch firm Damen Shipyards in its application to be the third yard, which was submitted last week.
> 
> Asked why he is pressing ahead with his complaint despite the changed requirements, Padulo said he wanted the tribunal to "give us an objective view" on the original criteria.
> 
> "At the same time," he added, "even after the amendments, I'm still concerned about what we perceived as a bias toward Davie."
> 
> The federal procurement department did not respond to requests for comment on Tuesday. It is required to respond to Heddle's complaint within 25 days of having received it.
> 
> In a statement, Davie spokesman Frederik Boisvert said the Quebec shipyard is aware of Heddle's complaint to the trade tribunal and is evaluating its options.
> 
> "Complaints to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal should be made solely based upon factual, relevant information and not simply as a forum to launch unsubstantiated and misleading attacks against other companies in the hope of generating some attention," he said.
> 
> Yet even as the tribunal gears up for an investigation, there is the threat it could be shut down at any time.
> 
> That is because the Liberal government in June rewrote the regulations governing the tribunal, whose role is to ensure the government follows proper procurement rules, by making it easier to exempt purchases for national-security reasons.
> 
> The change, which came without warning or consultation with industry, followed previous concerns from the tribunal about an excessive use of national-security exemptions and requests the government invoke such exemptions only when necessary.
> 
> Yet rather than tighten the use of the exemption, government officials can now cite it without any explanation.
> 
> The tribunal in its letter to Heddle couldn't say if the Liberals properly invoked the exemption in launching the search for a third shipyard, but the government can wait until just before a contract is awarded to make such a designation and scuttle any review.
> 
> While he acknowledged the exemption is a "real concern for us," Padulo said: "It's not like this is wartime and we need to build warships to defend our coastline.
> 
> "I think there's a very real need for the coast guard, but for them to invoke national security would be just one more example of them using a mechanism to favour a certain shipyard or supplier. And I hope they don't go that route."


https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trade-tribunal-investigating-allegation-of-bias-in-search-for-third-shipyard-1.4577781


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile Seaspan has been busy

https://www.nsnews.com/news/cruise-ship-retrofit-to-spike-north-van-population-1.23937511?fbclid=IwAR1YCph4JedKxPbU9LlDBdSAQZO9__fAA1sM9zG9tQlMUUN3DxKg-XiLd9A

Outside, the 27,000-tonne ship will have its hull stripped and repainted along with updates to the propulsion system and rudder. Inside, all of the cabins will be gutted.

“New furnishings, new fittings, new carpets, new TV systems, new announcement systems around the ship. All that type of thing,” Hebson said. “Logistically, that’s a lot of work.”

Getting the work done in short order will require just over 2,000 contractors and specialists. To accommodate the temporary population swell, Seaspan has arranged for another cruise ship, the 1,600-passenger Grand Classica, to dock next door to house workers.


----------



## Uzlu

> Opinion: No more time to waste in replacing icebreakers
> 
> Having just returned from the Arctic on board HMCS Ville de Quebec, I was able to witness first-hand how the glaciers are receding and ice patterns are changing. Increased commercial traffic and the race for Arctic sovereignty converged with a heavily aged Coast Guard fleet means there is no time to waste for the replacement of Canada’s icebreaker fleet.
> 
> It is a matter of urgency — for national security, the economy and for the protection of the environment. We can no longer rely on an icebreaker fleet built in the 1960s and 1970s and as building ships takes time, there is no time to waste.
> 
> Fortunately this summer, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau launched a procurement to seek a third national shipbuilder and the deadline for submission just closed.
> 
> Adding the capacity of a third shipyard to the National Shipbuilding Strategy is prudent, responsible and common sense. After eight years and only one ship delivered, it became crystal clear that the program was badly in need of extra capacity. And if we learned anything from the last eight years, it is that building a shipyard to build ships is not a practical, timely or cost-effective solution.
> 
> The past seven years have witnessed a renaissance in shipbuilding in Canada. From LNG- and battery-powered ferries to complex subsea construction vessels, an offshore fisheries science vessel and a naval support ship, Canadian shipbuilders have put our industry back on the map, in several cases earning international applause. Now we need to leverage the existing experience, skills and capacity we have built up to deliver a new fleet of icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> This is particularly the case for the two classes of ship which will be built at Canada’s third national shipbuilder. Six 8,000-tonne heavy icebreakers and one or two 23,000-tonne polar icebreakers. These very large and complex ships are not something that can be built by the inexperienced. They will work in the harshest Arctic and sub-arctic conditions, crucially maintaining our trade routes, protecting the environment and ensuring our national security and sovereignty. We owe it to the men and women of our nation’s Coast Guard to build these vessels to the highest standards in a timely fashion right from the get-go.
> 
> That is why the government’s procurement department has insisted that Canada’s third shipbuilder in the strategy follows the same requirements as were established in the original National Shipbuilding Strategy competition from 2011, most notably that in order to qualify, Canadian shipyards must have at least built a small vessel of just 1,000t. If a shipbuilder can’t meet those basic requirements, then there is no way they would be ready to build the monstrous vessels which are so badly needed by the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> The solution for this is a yard that has the capability, experience and capacity to deliver what the Coast Guard needs and do it quickly and efficiently. We need it to begin work yesterday so the choice the government is faced with is indeed quite limited.
> 
> The government knows that Canada needs a third national shipbuilder which will deliver a timely, quality solution and our members, comprising shipbuilders, shipyards and marine suppliers, stand ready to build and maintain Canada’s future Coast Guard fleet.
> 
> Let’s get it done. The bids are in and while it will be of no surprise to anyone who the winner almost certainly is, we need to get this process moving forward so that our Canadian suppliers can ramp up and rise to the challenge.
> 
> After four years, it is time for the government to act.
> 
> _Colin Cooke is President and CEO, Canadian Marine Industries and Shipbuilding Association (CMISA)._


https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-no-more-time-to-waste-in-procuring-new-icebreakers


----------



## YZT580

No question about who he wants to see get the contract is there?  Interesting that the previous operators in Port Weller designed and built a complete ship by removing the rear end of one vessel and constructing a completely new hull and attached it to the salvaged portion.  Works well and the recipients were quite pleased by the results.  They were supposed to do 5 I believe but they got out bid on the remaining 4 by an off-shore outfit from the east.  But that was just over the ten year mark set by the call for bids, another arbitrary number like the required width to guarantee Davie's victory.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The ship you had in mind, YZT580, is the Algoma Navigator (St. Lawrence Navigator at the time).

They cut her up forward of the superstructure and lenghtened the hull with a  new section and built a new bow with bow truster in it. However, they kept the whole stern section, together with the engine, accommodation and bridge - which is always the more demanding part of the ship. Lengthening the hull at the cargo holds position is just building a block of steel.

Moreover, this was done in *1980*. That was 39 years ago - well over the 10 year period you mention.

http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/fleet/algomanavigator.htm

The last ship built there (from scratch) is the M.V. Jiimaan, one of the Pelee Island ferries in Ontario. She was built in 1992, so 27 years ago, but she is rated at 420 gross tons.


----------



## YZT580

oh my, but time does pass by doesn't it?  I thought that it was only like about 15 years ago.  I withdraw the suggestion


----------



## Stoker

If we wanted to "get it done" we would order offshore from a Nordic yard who actually has experience building these specialized ships. Even with Davie as the third yard we are years away from getting anything from them.


----------



## Uzlu

> Davie to become Canada’s National Icebreaker Builder – Taking Canada to the Top
> 
> LEVIS, Quebec, Sept. 09, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- On Friday August 30 2019, bidding closed to become Canada’s national icebreaker builder. Having cemented its place over the last decade as a world-class shipbuilder and specialist in the construction and conversion of complex, mission-critical vessels for harsh environments, Davie is the only qualified and experienced shipbuilder capable of delivering the required vessels.
> 
> Pierre Drapeau, Vice President of the Davie Suppliers Association commented, “Though we have not yet received confirmation from the company nor the government, due to the fact that the original NSPS requirement criteria from 2011 was maintained, it is clear that Davie was the only compliant bidder. According to company officials, we expect to receive official confirmation anytime now.”
> 
> Drapeau went on to say, “Over the past decade, Davie has brought the Canadian shipbuilding industry back on the world map delivering a wide variety of large, complex vessels for mission-critical operations. Davie has demonstrated that it takes more than just having a shipyard to build ships. You have to be a shipbuilder. You need the people, the experience, the systems, the equipment and most importantly for our association, the working relationship with the suppliers. Today 1,079 suppliers across Canada rely on Davie’s business so this impending announcement cannot come soon enough.”
> 
> Richard Tremblay from Char-Pol, a key supplier to Davie added, “What Davie has done over the past decade has not only been good for suppliers like us, it has delivered results for the Canadian Coast Guard, Navy and Canadian taxpayers. Selecting Davie to build Canada’s next fleet of icebreakers should have happened five years ago when they first proposed to the government to build CCGS Diefenbaker. If that had happened, we would have new icebreakers on the water today and we would likely already be working on ships for export.”
> 
> Though details of the full work package are expected to be finalized in the coming months, it is expected that the initial order will consist of six heavy icebreakers of 8,000 tonnes and up to two 23,000 tonne polar icebreakers.
> 
> As Canada’s National Icebreaker Builder, Davie and its 1079 suppliers will be taking Canada to the top. Quite literally.
> 
> Source : Davie Suppliers Association  - Association des fournisseurs de Chantier Davie Canada (afcdc.ca)
> 
> *About Davie Suppliers Association*
> 
> Davie Suppliers Association represents the interests of the 1079 suppliers, 879 of which are located in Quebec.


http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/09/09/1912895/0/en/Davie-to-become-Canada-s-National-Icebreaker-Builder-Taking-Canada-to-the-Top.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile at the UK's shipbuilding "strategy" for the Royal Navy--start of major piece:



> Britain’s shipbuilding strategy has not gone according to plan — and industry is noticing
> 
> Confronted with the dilemma of maintaining a naval industrial base after the completion of two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, the British government two years ago launched a national shipbuilding strategy aimed at building an efficient sector, and thus keeping skills and capacity alive.
> 
> But the strategy has failed to work out exactly as planned. Two yards closed this year and a third was rescued by nationalization. Meanwhile in the supply chain, the Ministry of Defence had to act quickly on ordering the motor for the Type 26 frigate to prevent the contractor from moving its capabilities to France.
> 
> Former shipyard boss Peter Parker, who authored the original shipbuilding strategy, delivered a review of the strategy’s status to the MoD, but the update remains under wraps, with no firm timing announced for its publication.
> 
> One key element of the strategy included procurement of five general-purpose frigates for the Royal Navy to be competed for by local shipyards in an effort to end BAE Systems’ maritime monopoly in Britain. Another included an international competition for up to three 40,000-ton fleet solid support ships. Both programs have subsequently run into stormy waters.
> 
> Paul Everitt, the chief executive of ADS, the lobby group that represents British defense, aerospace and security companies, said it’s important to continue to support the strategy, even as some of the impetus has been lost.
> 
> “We need to stick with the national shipbuilding strategy. It marks a significant shift in the MoD’s approach to procurement. The area that has been challenging, though, is that progress has been hindered by the political uncertainty around Brexit and the future size of MoD budgets,” Everitt said, referring to Britain’s exit from the European Union.
> 
> “Some of the decisions that would help to give industry the longer-term certainty they require to invest or hang in there aren’t being made,” he added. “Where do we go next ? It is really about the MoD creating certainty around a pipeline of work from all the key programs, all of which should offer significant amounts of work to U.K. industry over the next 15 years.”..
> https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/09/08/britains-shipbuilding-strategy-has-not-gone-according-to-plan-and-industry-is-noticing/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

> Tribunal looking into Heddle shipbuilding contract concerns
> 
> *Port Weller dry docks owner bidding on chance to provide icebreakers to Coast Guard*
> 
> Heddle Marine Services hopes one small victory — convincing a federal tribunal to investigate concerns over a major federal shipbuilding contract — will lead to a bigger win later on.
> 
> The Port Weller dry docks' parent company is bidding to construct six icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> The work would likely be worth more than a billion dollars over the long term for whichever company is selected. That firm would become the third partner in the National Shipbuilding Strategy along with Irving Shipbuilding in Nova Scotia and Seaspan Shipyards in British Columbia.
> 
> But Heddle has publicly questioned the procurement process, saying it appears to favour Quebec-based Chantier Davie Shipyard.
> 
> The Canadian International Trade Tribunal agreed to investigate Heddle's complaint. On Friday, though, Public Works and Government Services Canada sought to have the complaint dismissed based on national security.
> 
> "Our lawyers are looking into it now," said Heddle president Shaun Padulo. "I can't comment too much on it right now because it's a legal issue."
> 
> He said he wants to learn more about the reasoning behind it, adding, "I found it a bit concerning. I didn't realize this was an issue of national security."
> 
> In an emailed response Monday, a spokeswoman for the tribunal said it does not comment on ongoing cases.
> 
> "As it does in all matters, the tribunal will be seeking the views from the complainant, and any comments by (Public Works and Government Services Canada) on any such views, before deliberating and providing a decision on PWGSC's motion in due course," said Melanie Lalonde.
> 
> In June, rules governing the tribunal were changed to allow the federal government to claim exemptions based on national security.
> 
> After Heddle first complained, PWGSC made some adjustments to procurement specifications, including extending the deadline for firms to apply by a week, until Aug. 30.
> 
> On Monday, Padulo said he continued to press for the tribunal to investigate because Heddle's other concerns hadn't been addressed.
> 
> He said he had also heard whispers — unconfirmed — that the Liberal government hoped to award the shipbuilding contract prior to the Oct. 21 federal election.
> 
> "I was concerned in general with the entire process. So I wanted a judicial review … to get an objective opinion," said Padulo.
> 
> "They could come back to us and say everything was above ground, and it would give me comfort. I just wanted to get someone to take a look at it based on the initial concerns I had."
> 
> Last month, St. Catharines MP Chris Bittle said the Liberal government is not taking sides as companies compete to win the contract.
> 
> "We're not a government that pits one region of the country against each other," he said. "That's why there is an appeal process for these types of issues."
> 
> Meanwhile, Heddle — it is partnering in its bid with Netherlands-based Damen Shipyards — will wait to see if it is shortlisted for the federal project.
> 
> "It's very possible a lot of my concerns will be alleviated if they say, 'You made it through to the next round,'" said Padulo.
> 
> "But until we have feedback on our submission, I'm going to be cautiously optimistic."


https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/news-story/9588315-tribunal-looking-into-heddle-shipbuilding-contract-concerns/


----------



## Uzlu

There are some individuals that believe that the National Shipbuilding Strategy is a bad idea: all of Canada’s large ships for the navy and coast guard should be built overseas; it is faster and less expensive.  Here is an example of building fast and inexpensive gone wrong.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Here’s another one: RFA Tidespring: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/rfa-tidespring-another-refit-behind-schedule/


----------



## Sub_Guy

Uzlu said:
			
		

> There are some individuals that believe that the National Shipbuilding Strategy is a bad idea: all of Canada’s large ships for the navy and coast guard should be built overseas; it is faster and less expensive.  Here is an example of building fast and inexpensive gone wrong.



I believe it is a bad idea.  I think if we can save billions by building overseas, then we should.  I believe the savings should be funnelled into other programs, like making university more affordable for everyone (free?) or improving our 3rd world healthcare system.  Perhaps some of the savings could go towards ensuring that every Canadian has access to drinkable water.

Bringing up an example or two doesn't really mean anything, I can bring up plenty of issues that our yards have caused.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I believe it is a bad idea.  I think if we can save billions by building overseas, then we should.  I believe the savings should be funnelled into other programs, like making university more affordable for everyone (free?) or improving our 3rd world healthcare system.  Perhaps some of the savings could go towards ensuring that every Canadian has access to drinkable water.
> 
> Bringing up an example or two doesn't really mean anything, I can bring up plenty of issues that our yards have caused.



While we are at it, why not give everyone a free house as well.


----------



## Good2Golf

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I believe it is a bad idea.  I think if we can save billions by building overseas, then we should.  I believe the savings should be funnelled into other programs, like making university more affordable for everyone (free?) or improving our 3rd world healthcare system.  Perhaps some of the savings could go towards ensuring that every Canadian has access to drinkable water.
> 
> Bringing up an example or two doesn't really mean anything, I can bring up plenty of issues that our yards have caused.



The examples also had very poor programmatic oversight by the buying agency. To save large money requires investing in the oversight of the builder with more dedication/commitment than was the case.


----------



## Uzlu

Well, it looks like adding a third shipbuilder to the National Shipbuilding Strategy cannot come soon enough.  Already the Americans appear to be complaining that the six new icebreakers are not enough.  I am assuming the allusion to _Aiviq_ is an error.





> Burrows spoke after the Chamber announced in August that Canada was already funding and taking requests for bid on a half dozen new icebreakers. The timeline put the first new arrivals within eight years of completion — ahead of the U.S. curve.


https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/4664285-Great-Lakes-icebreaking-yields-frosty-debate


----------



## Czech_pivo

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Well, it looks like adding a third shipbuilder to the National Shipbuilding Strategy cannot come soon enough.  Already the Americans appear to be complaining that the six new icebreakers are not enough.  I am assuming the allusion to _Aiviq_ is an error.https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/4664285-Great-Lakes-icebreaking-yields-frosty-debate



Good, I'm glad that they are calling us out on this.  I hope that they do it my often and more vocal going forward.  Maybe, just maybe someone will hear this and realising that something needs to be done.  Along with the RCN, something needs to happen.


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Good, I'm glad that they are calling us out on this.


I, too, am happy that the Americans are calling us out on this.  But does anyone really believe that Trudeau would have announced a third shipbuilder for the National Shipbuilding Strategy if the Liberals were far ahead of the Conservatives in the polls?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Looks like new USCG icebreakers will be roughly similar in cost (but note gov't-furnished equipment includes military systems we do not have)  to CCG's (one only) new polar ship, supposed to cost $1.4 billion but sure to go up:


> Report to Congress on Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter
> 
> The following is the Sept. 19, 2019, Congressional Research Service report, Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.
> From the report
> 
> The Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program is a program to acquire three new heavy polar icebreakers, to be followed years from now by the acquisition of up to three new medium polar icebreakers. The Coast Guard estimates the total procurement costs of the three heavy polar icebreakers as $1,039 million (i.e., about $1.0 billion) for the first ship, $792 million for the second ship, and $788 million for the third ship, for a combined estimated cost of $2,619 million (i.e., about $2.6 billion). Within those figures, the shipbuilder’s portion of the total procurement cost is $746 million for the first ship, $544 million for the second ship, and $535 million for the third ship, for a combined estimated shipbuilder’s cost of $1,825 million (i.e., about $1.8 billion).
> 
> On April 23, 2019, the Coast Guard-Navy Integrated Program Office for the PSC program awarded a $745.9 million fixed-price, incentive-firm contract for the detail design and construction (DD&C) of the first PSC to VT Halter Marine of Pascagoula, MS, a shipyard owned by Singapore Technologies (ST) Engineering. VT Halter was the leader of one of three industry teams that competed for the DD&C contract. The first PSC is scheduled to begin construction in 2021 and be delivered in 2024, though the DD&C contract includes financial incentives for earlier delivery.
> 
> The DD&C contract includes options for building the second and third PSCs. If these options are exercised, the total value of the contract would increase to $1,942.8 million (i.e., about $1.9 billion). The figures of $745.9 million and $1,942.8 million cover only the shipbuilder’s costs; they do not include the cost of government-furnished equipment (GFE), which is equipment for the ships that the government purchases and then provides to the shipbuilder for incorporation into the ship, or government program-management costs. _When GFE and government program-management costs are included, the total estimated procurement cost of the first PSC is between $925 million and $940 million, and the total estimated procurement cost of the three-ship PSC program is about $2.95 billion [or US $1 billion each]_.
> 
> The PSC program has received a total of $1,034.6 million (i.e., about $1.0 billion) in procurement funding through FY2019, including $300 million provided through the Navy’s shipbuilding account in FY2017 and FY2018. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2020 budget requests $35 million in procurement funding for the PSC program, which is enough to cover the PSC program’s FY2020 government program-management costs. The Coast Guard’s FY2019 budget submission had projected that a total of $125 million in procurement funding would be requested for the PSC program in FY2020.
> 
> The operational U.S. polar icebreaking fleet currently consists of one heavy polar icebreaker, Polar Star, and one medium polar icebreaker, Healy. In addition to Polar Star, the Coast Guard has a second heavy polar icebreaker, Polar Sea. Polar Sea, however, suffered an engine casualty in June 2010 and has been nonoperational since then. Polar Star and Polar Sea entered service in 1976 and 1978, respectively, and are now well beyond their originally intended 30-year service lives. The Coast Guard is using Polar Sea as a source of spare parts for keeping Polar Star operational.
> 
> Issues for Congress for the PSC program include, inter alia, whether to approve, reject, or modify the Coast Guard’s FY2020 procurement funding request for the program; whether to use a contract with options or a block buy contract to procure the ships; whether to continue providing at least some of the procurement funding for the PSC program through the Navy’s shipbuilding account; technical, schedule, and cost risk in the PSC program; and whether to procure heavy and medium polar icebreakers to a common basic design...
> https://news.usni.org/2019/09/20/report-to-congress-on-coast-guard-polar-security-cutter-3



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

> Shipping lobby group says Lake Superior needs more icebreaking capacity
> 
> *The Chamber of Maritime Commerce sees hope in a new federal procurement program*
> 
> THUNDER BAY — A lobby group for the shipping industry wants the federal government to improve icebreaking capacity on Lake Superior and the rest of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
> 
> The Ottawa-based Chamber of Maritime Commerce says there are currently only two icebreakers permanently based on the Great Lakes.
> 
> "There are deficiencies on both sides of the Canada/U.S. border," said Bruce Burrows, president of the chamber.
> 
> This year, he told tbnewswatch.com, "We had a very tough spring, a lot of heavy ice including up your way, and both fleets combined were basically incapable of addressing needs."
> 
> Burrows said his group has been telling the Canadian Coast Guard for the past couple of years that it needs additional assets.
> 
> He added he's encouraged by recently-announced federal plans to upgrade the Coast Guard fleet including the procurement of six new icebreakers to replace aging vessels.
> 
> Burrows noted it will take up to eight years before any new boats are commissioned, and that officially, they are currently designated for deployment on the east coast and in the Arctic.
> 
> But he said the potential benefit for the Great Lakes is "to cascade some older vessels which are still in good shape, to the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes."
> 
> Burrows said the Chamber of Maritime Commerce is also advocating for a total of five new Coast Guard icebreakers, in addition to the ones to be constructed as replacements.
> 
> "We still feel strongly we need one additional icebreaker for the upper Great Lakes, which would include Lake Superior and Thunder Bay, one for the lower lakes, a 'rover' that could stretch anywhere from the Seaway to Thunder Bay in the event of a severe ice season such as we saw this past season, and two assets for lower down in the St. Lawrence and the Gulf."
> 
> Burrows conceded that the government is focused on just the replacement program for now, but he said that, as an interim measure, "let's try to get at least one of the cascaded boats positioned up into the lakes initially, which would give access for coverage up into Lake Superior."
> 
> Last year, the Coast Guard bought three used icebreakers from Sweden.
> 
> According to Burrows, they are allocated to service on the east coast, but he feels they give the Coast Guard opportunity to shuffle older but still serviceable vessels into other areas.
> 
> "I'm optimistic that in the next few years we should have regular access to an asset. Where it will be home-ported is debatable. In the end, as long as we have regular access to an additional vessel, we should be happy with that."


https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/shipping-lobby-group-says-lake-superior-needs-more-icebreaking-capacity-1700113


----------



## Uzlu

> Ontario shipyard withdraws complaint alleging federal favouritism toward Davie
> 
> An Ontario shipyard is ending its bid to have a trade tribunal determine whether the federal government’s plan to add a third shipyard to Canada’s multibillion-dollar shipbuilding strategy has been rigged in favour of a Quebec company.
> 
> Last month, Hamilton-based Heddle Marine asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to launch an investigation, alleging some of the requirements needed to qualify for consideration as the third yard seemed aimed at disqualifying all contenders except Quebec’s Chantier Davie.
> 
> The federal procurement department subsequently amended some of the requirements, but Heddle asked the tribunal to press ahead with its probe.
> 
> The government then invoked a national-security exception that prevents such investigations.
> 
> The tribunal was still weighing how to respond to the government when a lawyer for Heddle notified it last week that the Ontario shipyard was withdrawing its complaint, without providing a reason.
> 
> The third shipyard will be tasked with building at least six new icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard, whose own icebreaker fleet is on its last legs.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-shipyard-withdraws-complaint-alleging-federal-favouritism-2/


----------



## Uzlu

> Ontario shipyard withdraws complaint alleging federal favouritism toward Davie
> 
> OTTAWA — An Ontario shipyard has dropped a request for an investigation into whether the federal government tried to rig its plan to add a third yard to its multibillion-dollar shipbuilding strategy in favour of Quebec rival Chantier Davie.
> 
> The move by Hamilton-based Heddle Marine comes only a few weeks after the government invoked a controversial national-security exception that prevents such investigations by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
> 
> The tribunal’s role is to ensure the government follows proper procurement rules, including adhering to Canada’s obligations under international trade law and free-trade agreements.
> 
> In an interview, Heddle Marine president Shaun Padulo said his company decided to drop its complaint after lawyers determined there was no point in continuing after the exception was invoked.
> 
> The tribunal was still formulating an official response to the government’s use of the exception, which the Liberal government quietly expanded over the summer without any consultation with industry or experts.
> 
> “What we were advised is that based on the law, that national-security exception, there’s nothing that we could really do to fight it,” Padulo told The Canadian Press.
> 
> “They said that this would not be a fight that we could win and it would not accomplish anything to protest the national-security exception. So our best bet is to wait to see what the government’s next steps are.”
> 
> The federal government launched its high-stakes search for a third yard to join Halifax’s Irving Shipbuilding and Seaspan Marine in Vancouver in Canada’s so-called national shipbuilding strategy in August.
> 
> The winning yard could be awarded billions of dollars in work associated with building at least six new icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard and stands to gain much more in future work as well.
> 
> Heddle alleged in its complaint that many of the requirements the government said shipyards must meet to qualify for consideration were not legitimate or reasonable — and would disqualify virtually every yard but Davie, which is across the St. Lawrence River from Quebec City.
> 
> The federal procurement department subsequently amended some of the requirements, but Heddle asked the tribunal to press ahead with its probe.
> 
> It was at that point that the government invoked the national-security exception. In June, the government had rewritten regulations so it could invoke the exception without having to give a justification.
> 
> That change came without warning or consultation with industry — and despite previous concerns from the tribunal about an excessive use of such exemptions as well as requests the government limit their use.
> 
> While the government did not lay out to the tribunal why the exception was invoked in this case, Fisheries and Oceans Canada spokeswoman Ashley Jackson said it was to ensure the protection of Canada’s “national-security interests.”
> 
> “The ships will be used for a wide variety of security-related work such as supporting law-enforcement activities, national and international fisheries patrols, Arctic sovereignty, and maritime-domain awareness,” Jackson said.
> 
> “In the past, the coast guard has applied the national-security exception to the projects acquiring the polar icebreaker, medium icebreakers and helicopters.”
> 
> Heddle’s complaint aside, the changes to the exception should be a concern to all Canadians given how much the government spends on goods and services each year, said Christopher McLeod, the head of commercial litigation at Mann Lawyers in Ottawa.
> 
> “Having an open, fair and transparent system for the government to procure those goods and services is fundamentally important,” said McLeod, who successfully challenged the exception in a previous case in 2016.
> 
> That challenge prompted the trade tribunal to begin more closely scrutinizing the government’s reasons for invoking the exception — until the new rules came in saying the government doesn’t have to give any.
> 
> “The regulations introduced this summer are a giant step backwards when it comes to fairness, openness and transparency,” McLeod said.
> 
> “It’s not like the federal government is simply ignoring a loophole that allows unfairness, they have actually gone back and re-opened a loophole that the (trade tribunal) has previously tried to close.”


https://www.reddeeradvocate.com/business/ontario-shipyard-withdraws-complaint-alleging-federal-favouritism-toward-davie/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just following up on my post of August 27: It's now been a month since CCGS HUDSON should have come out of the hands of St.John's Shipyard, according to the contract schedule.

Anybody seen her or heard anything about the refit being done and over with?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AIS reports here moored in St Johns Harbour

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/shipid:382941/zoom:14


----------



## Uzlu

https://www.cgai.ca/a_third_nss_shipyard


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks Uzlu  - really interesting read.



> Ian Mack (Rear-Admiral Retired) served for a decade (2007-2017) as the Director-General in the Department of National Defence responsible for the conception, shaping and support of the launch and subsequent implementation of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, and for guiding the DND project managers for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, the Joint Support Ships and the Canadian Surface Combatants. He also had responsibility for four vehicle projects for the Canadian Army until 2015





> From past observations, it is my assessment our coast guard has been faced with tremendous challenges in determining needs and priorities. I liken this to having an ancient house and being unable to determine whether the roof, the flooring, the basement and foundation cracks, the questionable antique appliances or the creaking front steps need priority attention for the one handyman you have in town and who is new to the business. Where you focus your effort is likely to change, and if many things fail catastrophically, the one handyman will be overwhelmed trying to deliver all the required repairs ASAP. Therefore, the capacity of the two NSPS shipyards was adequate if the timelines to fleet renewal were extended, but the need to replace many types of vessels at the same time has rendered the initial assumptions of capacity inadequate.
> 
> To some extent and as mentioned in writing elsewhere, such concerns were considered personally when designing NSPS, based on what turned out to be a mistaken assumption that the two NSPS shipyards could choose to have ships’ hulls built in multiple shipyards in Canada (or abroad) and assembled in the NSPS shipyards. This consideration came into play with the realization that, in those early days, there were two ships competing for VSY attention in one period – the Joint Support Ships for the Royal Canadian Navy and the CCG’s Polar Icebreaker. My assumption turned out to be false – VSY did not develop its new facilities and capacity to cater to such an approach. As a result, a significant analysis and decision-making process had to be used to determine the sequencing of these two ships for VSY attention.



Curious

The highlighted text begs for some additional investigation as it seems to suggest that the Project's management was conscious of at least the possibility of buying 3rd party hulls, both locally and offshore, and then outfitting them in the prime yards.   The approach that Damen and Vard/Fincantieri and others have exploited so successfully.

Was this a Washington Group - Seaspan - VSY decision?



> The Washington Companies
> The Washington Companies is a general inclusive term referring to the association of separate independently operated business entities in which Montana businessman Dennis R. Washington holds a significant ownership position. The Washington Companies are headquartered throughout the United States and western Canada and conduct business internationally. They are involved in rail transportation, marine transportation, construction and mining, heavy equipment sales, aviation technology, and real estate development.


https://www.seaspan.com/washington-companies



> Seaspan Corporation (NYSE:SSW) is one of the world’s leading independent containership owners, owning and managing ships which are chartered long-term to major container line companies. A Washington interest based in Vancouver, British Columbia, the company owns a modern fleet of 69 vessels, including some of the largest ever built.



https://www.washingtoncompanies.com/companies.php

I am pretty sure that none of Seaspan's hulls were built in BC (or the States).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NSPS companies should have their sister companies obligated to have X number of hulls built in country. Hearing companies complain of gaps in ship building and expecting the government to fill them, while purchasing hulls overseas at the same time is not kosher.


----------



## Spencer100

Colin P said:
			
		

> NSPS companies should have their sister companies obligated to have X number of hulls built in country. Hearing companies complain of gaps in ship building and expecting the government to fill them, while purchasing hulls overseas at the same time is not kosher.



Colin I understand your frustration.  But the two shipyards greater corporate brothers will never buy from the Canadian yards.  The whole ship building program was set up to build expensive, high margin ships for the government the end.  The federal government at that.  As the provinces are buying their ferry overseas.   This is a labour favor, job making and vote buy plan.  That the end products are ships are just a very lucky byproduct.  The sister companies buy their offshore because most ships are built at cost or below the already low cost in Asia or Europe.  Look at the three big Korean builders they are basically insolvent and merging.  The PRC builders are subsidized or a out growth of the PLAN.   Europe subsidizes their builders too.  So if you are a buyer of ships do you buy ships twice (x3?) as expensive from your own yard or a yard that someone puts dollar bills on the hull.   As a business person the answer is very easy.  Plus you have a government contract to fill your yard with nice cost plus builds.  An if you need that yard to fix your own ship it is there with trained people.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> NSPS companies should have their sister companies obligated to have X number of hulls built in country. Hearing companies complain of gaps in ship building and expecting the government to fill them, while purchasing hulls overseas at the same time is not kosher.



If we were building pipelines then we could afford to build a Norwegian style coastguard fleet of these  (Barentshav, Harstad, Alesund, Nornen)



















Put more Vancouver and Victoria residents to work.
Create more berths for native and non-native sailors.
Make the seas generally more safe for everybody, including tourists and salmon fishers.
Permit the export of hydrocarbons safely.

Oh, and add tax dollars to BC coffers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Colin I understand your frustration.  But the two shipyards greater corporate brothers will never buy from the Canadian yards.  The whole ship building program was set up to build expensive, high margin ships for the government the end.  The federal government at that.  As the provinces are buying their ferry overseas.   This is a labour favor, job making and vote buy plan.  That the end products are ships are just a very lucky byproduct.  The sister companies buy their offshore because most ships are built at cost or below the already low cost in Asia or Europe.  Look at the three big Korean builders they are basically insolvent and merging.  The PRC builders are subsidized or a out growth of the PLAN.   Europe subsidizes their builders too.  So if you are a buyer of ships do you buy ships twice (x3?) as expensive from your own yard or a yard that someone puts dollar bills on the hull.   As a business person the answer is very easy.  Plus you have a government contract to fill your yard with nice cost plus builds.  An if you need that yard to fix your own ship it is there with trained people.



You can put extra import duties on any vessel that can be shown as capable of being built in our yards. So a cable laying ship would be exempt, but dumb barges would not, nor smaller tugs.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> You can put extra import duties on any vessel that can be shown as capable of being built in our yards. So a cable laying ship would be exempt, but dumb barges would not, nor smaller tugs.



Probably why the NSPS has no mention of submarines, we can't build them, so it is not popular for the politicians


----------



## Spencer100

The government had import duties on ships for years.  They removed them so the provinces and business could buy ships cheaper.  Plus in most cases with Seaspan and Irving (as buyer and builder) they would just say our yards can't build those types of ships we build gov ships lol.  So your selective tax by type wouldn't work either.  And we have trade agreements with many of the ship building nations ie South Korea and EU. 

So the best thing we can hope for is to get the yards up and building and hope that they can sell something to others.  I would think maybe give them an incentive to sell something to other countries or  companies may have a small change at working.  IE An AOPS to New Zealand. or a Ice Breaker to someone else.  

One of the thoughts is sell New Zealand on a T-26 let the three building counties compete on build and combat system.  You would have Irving/Lockheed vs BAE AUS/Saab vs BAE Britain.  BAE would be paid the design rights but each county would complete for the build.  It would take a ton of negotiation.  It maybe to hard but there will be three hot lines building it.  There maybe more customers waiting in the wings for the first one in the water too.


----------



## Spencer100

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> If we were building pipelines then we could afford to build a Norwegian style coastguard fleet of these  (Barentshav, Harstad, Alesund, Nornen)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put more Vancouver and Victoria residents to work.
> Create more berths for native and non-native sailors.
> 
> 
> Make the seas generally more safe for everybody, including tourists and salmon fishers.
> Permit the export of hydrocarbons safely.
> 
> Oh, and add tax dollars to BC coffers.



The way the election is going there we no pipelines ever!  Even with those protection ships built in Canada.  The environment movement wants to shutdown oil transportation so as to stop oil production in Canada.  Canada is to become one great big giant nature preserve that is true end goal.  I live in Ontario if I was in the west I would totally be thinking about ways around it.  Move the oil north to Valdez. 

But I guess that is any other thread lol


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Test shipments of granular bitumen have already gone to Prince Rupert. Containerisation of previously bulk products such as Hydrocarbons and grains is really taking off and Prince Rupert is working hard to make that happen.

Absolutely BS that we can't build ferries here, I get that yards are busy, but with sub contracting to the smaller yard the vessels can be built at the same time. What the client like BC ferries need to do is planning the long term replacement of their ship, so perhaps work begins on a hull as the shipyard finds a lull in the rhythm of the NSPS contracts, such as your cutting shop or welders are underutilized, they can be working on parts of the ferry. once the hull has reached X point, smaller yards like Point Hope can work on the superstructure, accommodations and then ship it for assembly, which is how we built the Spirit Class.


----------



## MarkOttawa

After third OFSV built still an RCN Joint Support Ship, one CCG Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel and another supply ship to be built before Seaspan can--likely in later 2020s--get to the other 16 ships Justin Trudeau has promised for CCG (_in effect complete replacement, along with the six new icebreakers plus the polar one almost certainly for Davie, of whole fleet of large CCG vessels_, our media don't yet seem to realize this: 1) https://globalnews.ca/news/5302516/justin-trudea-canadian-coast-guard-renewal/ 2) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-shipyard-withdraws-complaint-alleging-federal-favouritism-2/):



> Seaspan-Built CCG Ship Heads for Sea Trials
> 
> The future Capt. Jacques Cartier, the second of three Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels (OFSV) to be designed and built by Seaspan at its Vancouver Shipyards (VSY), began sea trials on October 10, 2019 from Seaspan’s Vancouver Drydock where final outfitting, set to work and commissioning has taken place since its launch in June.
> 
> “With the future Capt. Jacques Cartier headed out to sea today, excitement in our NSS program is growing,” said Mark Lamarre, CEO, Seaspan Shipyards. I” want to thank all our employees, partners and most especially our Coast Guard community for your teamwork and dedication in achieving this major milestone. We are looking forward to delivering this second vessel to the Coast Guard later this year, which will enable them to do their critical work focused on the protection, preservation and conservation of Canada’s coastal waters.”
> 
> This milestone on the second OFSV follows her launch on June 5 and the delivery of the first OFSV, the CCGS Sir John Franklin, on June 27. The CCGS Sir John Franklin is the first large vessel to be built and delivered under the National Shipbuilding Strategy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The future Capt. Jacques Cartier, the second of three Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels (OFSV) to be designed and built by Seaspan at its Vancouver Shipyards (VSY), began sea trials on October 10, 2019. Photo: Seaspan Shipyard_
> https://www.marinelink.com/news/seaspanbuilt-ccg-ship-heads-sea-trials-471627



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Would have loved to gotten advance notice of the launch so we could get some of our Cadets to attend. How do you interest young people if you don't give them a chance to celebrate significant events like this?


----------



## Cloud Cover

That’s a stocky looking ship, lots of tonnage for her length.


----------



## JMCanada

Colin P said:
			
		

> Would have loved to gotten advance notice of the launch (...)
> How do you interest young people if you don't give them a chance to celebrate significant events like this?



Fully agree. Good leaders care for their pupils.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Would have loved to gotten advance notice of the launch so we could get some of our Cadets to attend. How do you interest young people if you don't give them a chance to celebrate significant events like this?



You should send them a note to request a trip for the kids. Shame them as much as possible, of course


----------



## MarkOttawa

BC Ferries, along with almost all non-federal buyers in Canada, does smart thing (along with Damen which builds these in Romania):



> Damen Snags Ferry Order from B.C. Ferries
> 
> Damen Shipyards Group has won a repeat order from B.C. Ferries for four additional Damen Road Ferries 8117 E3, also known as the “Island Class vessels”. The diesel-electric hybrid ferries follow two such vessels that the client ordered from Damen in 2017. The four new vessels will provide inter-island ferry services between Vancouver and Vancouver Island.
> 
> “The fact that Damen had designed the original two island class ferries for BC Ferries, positioned us well to start building very quickly," said Leo Postma, Sales Manager, Damen. "Also, having very nearly completed the construction of the first order at the time of the award of contract, we had personnel ready and experienced in the building of this type of ferry.”
> 
> BC Ferries is standardizing its fleet, and Damen specializes in the standardization of ships.
> 
> The Damen Road Ferry 8117 E3 is 81 m long, able to carry 300 passengers and crew as well as a minimum of 47 cars. The vessels’ hybrid fuel arrangement assists BC Ferries in its goal of improving environmental performance and, with the plan of evolving to full electric in the future, reduced operations costs.
> 
> The _first two vessels are being transported aboard a semi-submersible heavy-lift vessel from Damen Shipyards Galati in Romania and are due to arrive in Canada end December_ [emphasis added].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Artist impression courtesy Damen._
> 
> https://www.marinelink.com/news/damen-snags-ferry-order-bc-ferries-472736



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Still a bit more slippage for first A/OPS:



> Delivery date for Canada’s first Arctic patrol ship pushed back again
> 
> The delivery date for the first Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) built at the Irving Shipbuilding facility in Halifax has been pushed back once again, according to government officials.
> 
> The original delivery date was late 2018. In August, the Department of National Defence said it was hopeful its first vessel, HMCS Harry DeWolf, would be delivered by the end of 2019.
> 
> “It is now anticipated that delivery will occur in winter 2020, acknowledging that there remains some uncertainty,” said a statement from Andrew McKelvey, a spokesperson for the Department of National Defence.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding was selected in 2011 to build two new types of ships for Canada — the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessels, and the larger Canadian Surface Combatants.
> 
> In February 2017, Kevin McCoy, the president of Irving Shipbuilding, spoke before a House of Commons standing committee and told government officials: “We expect to deliver the first AOPS, the future HMCS Harry DeWolf, at the end of 2018.”
> 
> _Irving Shipbuilding now confirms the delivery will happen sometime in the first three months of 2020_ [emphasis added].
> 
> “With the need to re-establish a supply chain, a new ship design, a new shipyard, and a new and growing workforce, there was always the intent to revisit lead ship dates in partnership with out customer throughout construction,” said a statement from Sean Lewis, communications director for Irving Shipbuilding.
> New ships, new challenges
> 
> The government agrees that some of the issues have been the result of this being the first ship of its class.
> 
> “While there have been delays in the process, the shipbuilder has learned lessons from the build of the first ship that will help ensure efficiencies in the construction of subsequent ships,” said Jessica Lamirande, a spokesperson with the Defence Department.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding is scheduled to deliver six patrol vessels, roughly one per year over the next few years. The government is not certain how the other ships’ schedules will be affected.
> 
> However, the _government anticipates Irving will be able to catch up to its original schedule and deliver the sixth ship on time.
> 
> Two additional ships, based on the AOPS design, will be built for the Canadian Coast Guard after the initial six-ship fleet is completed_ [emphasis added--have not yet seen schedule for CCG vessels].
> 
> *Overlapping build process*
> 
> Even though the first ship has yet to be delivered, work is already underway on the second, third and fourth ships.
> 
> Irving launched the second ship, the future HMCS Margaret Brooke, into the Bedford Basin over the weekend. Like HMCS Harry DeWolf, there is still lots of work to do after the official launch.
> 
> Once each build is complete, Irving will send the ship for sea trials. It then will offer the ship to the government to do acceptance trials. Once the government is satisfied, the ship is officially considered delivered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The future HMCS Harry DeWolf, seen alongside the Irving Shipbuilding facility in Halifax. The ship was launched in September 2018 but won’t be complete and delivered to the Canadian government until sometime next year. (Brett Ruskin/CBC)_
> 
> https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2019/11/12/irving-arctic-patrol-ship-delivery-halifax-ship-aops/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Thanks Uzlu  - really interesting read.
> 
> Curious
> 
> The highlighted text begs for some additional investigation as it seems to suggest that the Project's management was conscious of at least the possibility of buying 3rd party hulls, both locally and offshore, and then outfitting them in the prime yards.   The approach that Damen and Vard/Fincantieri and others have exploited so successfully.
> 
> Was this a Washington Group - Seaspan - VSY decision?
> https://www.seaspan.com/washington-companies
> 
> https://www.washingtoncompanies.com/companies.php
> 
> I am pretty sure that none of Seaspan's hulls were built in BC (or the States).



One thing to keep in mind is that there are competing factors when they look at options like this. The big one that has nothing to do with technical or feasibility is the IRB and Value Proposition requirements baked in for the Canadian content bit. Basically the would pay penalties for doing anything outside Canada, and it's pretty significant. With accuracy control requirements too not sure if there were any small yards in the BC area that could have done the basic outfitting at the module level, so that also significantly increases the LOE requirement if you do the outfitting later on by something like a factor of 5-7 times the labour (ie mega module or finished hull). 

Didn't apply to Davie as those requirements weren't part of the AOR contract (but will under the NSS third shipyard requirements).

It's an interesting case study in how essentially politically driven contract requirements (that are wholly the responsibility of Industry Canada) can affect things like PM decisions, supply chain, etc.


----------



## Uzlu

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's now been a month since CCGS HUDSON should have come out of the hands of St.John's Shipyard, according to the contract schedule.
> 
> Anybody seen her or heard anything about the refit being done and over with?





> The missions are usually carried out on board CCGS Hudson, but Fisheries and Oceans Canada said the 56-year old ship will be out of service until April 2020.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/oldest-ship-in-canadian-coast-guard-fleet-out-of-action-until-2020-1.5154930


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ANOTHER WAY TO BUY FRIGATES by Ian Mack

Any thoughts on this article https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cdfai/pages/4307/attachments/original/1573602733/Another_Way_to_Buy_Frigates.pdf?1573602733


----------



## Uzlu

Trudeau needs to quickly name the third shipbuilder and have them start building icebreakers as soon as possible.  And it looks like six 8 000 tonne icebreakers is not going to be enough.  Earlier, the Chamber of Maritime Commerce recommended an additional five icebreakers on top of these six.  Now it looks like the Lake Carriers’ Association might be suggesting the same thing.





> LAKE CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT ADEQUATE ICEBREAKING
> 
> *Concerns Mount About Adequate Icebreaking from both Coast Guards*
> 
> CLEVELAND, OHIO  December 5, 2019  (LSN)  With the Lake temperatures falling and significant ice formation imminent, the U.S. economy is facing potential job losses and serious financial implications with binational icebreaking assets that continue to age and seem frozen in time.
> 
> “The nation’s economy depends on reliable and predictable icebreaking on the Great Lakes.  Last year, when cargoes carried on U.S. Great Lakes ships were delayed or cancelled because of inadequate icebreaking, 5,000 jobs were lost and the economy took a $1 billion hit,” said Jim Weakley, President of the U.S.-based Lake Carriers’ Association (LCA).
> 
> The reliability and number of U.S. and Canadian icebreaking assets on the Great Lakes is critical for the flow of cargoes to freshwater ports during the winter and spring commercial shipping seasons.
> 
> “Compounding the recurring severe ice conditions are record high water levels across the Great Lakes and connecting channels.  Annual ice jams at places like Algonac, East China and Marine City in the St Clair River, cause flooding of properties and damage to sea walls.  Icebreaking is essential to minimizing damaging impacts to shoreline communities from ice,” stated Justin Westmiller, Director of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for St. Clair County, Michigan.
> 
> Unfortunately the outlook is not good for reliable icebreaking on the Great Lakes.  In fact, the number of U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers today is just 60 percent of what they were in the 1980s and 1990s for a system that has more shoreline than the entire U.S. east coast.
> 
> The U.S. Coast Guard has only 11 icebreakers in service, down from 19. During the ice season, as many as five have been sidelined with engine failures and other age-related problems.   The Canadian Coast Guard has only two icebreakers, down from seven.   Six of the U.S. Great Lakes icebreakers are 40 years-old and the Canadian’s two icebreakers are 50 and 35 years-old.
> 
> “We continue to voice our concerns that both the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards need to take this seriously and put more icebreaking resources in the Great Lakes and repower the current aging assets to ensure they can continue to break ice.  However, the response has been slow as molasses in winter and insufficient for the decrepit fleet of icebreakers.  We are at a critical juncture, just to keep the small number of icebreaking ships operating is an ongoing challenge,” said Weakley.
> 
> Last year, three U.S. icebreakers were out of action during the ice season with significant engine problems.  The Canadians also suffered engine failures that kept them from joining the effort in eastern Lake Superior and the St. Mary’s River where dozens of idled commercial ships were stranded for days.  Icebreaking assets were stretched thin with boats stuck in Lake Erie, Lake Superior and the St Mary’s River.
> 
> This lack of adequate icebreaking on the Lakes continues to have far-reaching national implications.  Jobs across the country are being lost as Great Lakes shipping companies struggle to move the vital building blocks of America during the ice season. “Our industry requires efficient deliveries this winter which customers depend on to keep their operations uninterrupted,” stated Mark Pietrocarlo, LCA Board Chairman. Dave Groh, President of VanEnkevort Tug and Barge added, “We are hopeful that cargo will move this winter, it is critical to keeping the steel mills and power stations operating and people employed.”


https://lakesuperiornews.com/Shipping-News/lake-carriers-association-serious-concerns-about-adequate-icebreaking


----------



## suffolkowner

Uzlu, there was talk of an interim icebreaker(leased?) for the St Lawrence this year but I'm not sure what progress was made.

https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/131029.0.html

 The three Davie conversions should be ready by next year. The Molly Kool in service already and the Jean Goodwill maybe for this season. I'm not sure where they are planned to be used though


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ontario's Heddle Marine (partnered with Netherland's Damen) says still in fight vs. Davie to be third gov't shipbuilder, to build icebreakers for CCG:



> Heddle shipyard floats plan for expansion
> _Looking for Region’s support in bid for federal ship-building contracts_
> 
> Heddle Shipyards have invited Niagara regional councillors on board as the company looks to expand its Port Weller operations.
> 
> Heddle wants to be the third shipyard in a National Shipbuilding Strategy that already includes Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax and Seaspan Marine in Vancouver
> 
> Company president Shaun Padulo told the Region's planning and economic development committee Wednesday the federal shipbuilding plan is a "huge" opportunity for the drydocks, St. Catharines and all of Niagara.
> 
> The federal strategy aims to supply the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard with new ships.
> 
> "The next phase of the program is to add a third shipyard to the National Shipbuilding Strategy," Padulo said. "At present, there are two shipyards, one in Halifax and one on the west coast in Vancouver.
> 
> "We have the opportunity in this region to ask the government of Canada to come and build six icebreakers for the coast guard."
> 
> Padulo told the committee about Port Weller's history, which includes building one of the largest icebreakers in Canadian history, the MV Arctic, in the 1970s.
> 
> Hamilton-based Heddle made news earlier this year after requesting an investigation into whether the federal government was trying to rig the plan to add a third yard to its multibillion-dollar shipbuilding strategy in favour of Quebec rival Chantier Davie.
> 
> The government responded by invoking a controversial national-security exception that prevents investigations by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
> 
> The tribunal's role is to ensure the government follows proper procurement rules, including adhering to Canada's obligations under international trade law and free-trade agreements.
> 
> Heddle ended up dropping its complaint in August after its lawyers determined there was no point in continuing after the government invoked the exception [more here: https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1584384.html#msg1584384].
> 
> Padulo said Heddle acquired and reopened the Port Weller dry docks in 2017 and can handle the work.
> 
> "We took over the operations of the shipyard after it had been shuttered for quite some time," he said.
> 
> "Our goal, outside of the national shipbuilding strategy, is to get up to 150 employees, from 50 employees, in the next two years. If we became the third shipyard in the national shipbuilding strategy, we would create 400 net new jobs.
> 
> "We wouldn't be back to the days of 1,500 people, but it is not a kick in the pants either. It's a significant opportunity."
> 
> Padulo said when Heddle took over Port Weller, everything had been auctioned off. They had to start from the ground up.
> 
> The first day they walked into the facility, company officials learned water had been left on during the winter and pipes had burst. The electrical system was also down.
> 
> He said the company has sunk more $1 million of capital expenditures into the facilities and is committed to spending another half-million dollars each year for the foreseeable future to get that facility back up where it needs to be.
> 
> "We are here to inform you of what we are doing, and we are also asking for your help. The yards that are taking part in the National Shipbuilding Strategy all had the support of local government.
> 
> "I believe we should be given an opportunity to at least bid, and with the help and support of the Region I think we have a real good shot at this."
> https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/news-story/9765425-heddle-shipyard-floats-plan-for-expansion/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Start out like Davie and Seaspan and get local contracts for repair and small builds. If your looking for government handouts at the beginning, your model is unsustainable.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> ANOTHER WAY TO BUY FRIGATES by Ian Mack
> 
> Any thoughts on this article https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cdfai/pages/4307/attachments/original/1573602733/Another_Way_to_Buy_Frigates.pdf?1573602733



Every time I contemplate our national procurement processes I'm amazed that I don't act on my first instinctual need to begin a campaign of self-harming....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://nss.seaspan.com/featured-news/seaspan-shipyards-delivers-its-second-state-of-the-art-offshore-fisheries-science-vessel-to-the-canadian-coast-guard/

Seaspan Shipyards (Seaspan) and its 2,700 employees have completed Delivery of CCGS Capt. Jacques Cartier, the Canadian Coast Guard’s newest state-of-the-art Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel (OFSV), the second OFSV delivered by Seaspan. This ultimate milestone in the shipbuilding process took place exactly five months and two days after the delivery of her sister ship, the CCGS Sir John Franklin. These two ships are the first large vessels delivered under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, the Government of Canada’s plan to renew the federal fleet with ships built in Canada for Canadians.


----------



## CBH99

Obviously it's great to see high quality ships in the water!!  

I really wish they would stop with the "first 2 large ships built under the National Shipbuilding Strategy" lines tho...pretty sure AOPS can be considered pretty big, especially compared to these OFSV.


Great news!  Just could do without the nonsense statement after


----------



## dapaterson

No AOPS has been delivered yet.  Built - yes.  Delivered and under RCN command - no.


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Obviously it's great to see high quality ships in the water!!
> 
> I really wish they would stop with the "first 2 large ships built under the National Shipbuilding Strategy" lines tho...pretty sure AOPS can be considered pretty big, especially compared to these OFSV.
> 
> 
> Great news!  Just could do without the nonsense statement after



It has more displacement than the RCN’s River-class DDEs...I’d see that as big enough to call ‘large’... :dunno:


----------



## CBH99

Fair enough.

It's just at approx. 3200 tons, compared to the AOPS approx. 6600 tons -- the continued statement of "first 2 large ships built under the shipbuilding program" seemed slightly self congratulating considering there is an AOPS in the water & another soon to be launched that are more than 2x as big.


Wasn't trying to nitpick, just the repeated statements about "first 2 large ships" kinda threw me off.  Glad to see the boats though, they look good


----------



## tomahawk6

Canada needs to be able to project some power. I like the Japaness/Italian concept of helicopter destroyers that can also operate F35B vstol jets.

https://www.militaryq.com/2019/11/29/leaked-photo-general-atomics-offers-possible-japenese-helicopter-destroyer-conversion-into-aircraft-carrier/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Bridge of the new OFSV
https://twitter.com/MoreThanShips/status/1204425048016048129


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Just arrived in my inbox from Seaspan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyX8bhFvkuo&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Czech_pivo

Australia - a template for us and our issues?

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-new-frigates-will-be-fit-for-the-future-our-submarines-should-be-too/

"BAE took a distinctive and smart approach to building flexibility into the core design of the frigate. This was smart because the painful history of large-scale redesigns of platforms to retrofit significant new capabilities fills the archives of various countries’ auditors of big defence projects. It is much harder and much more costly to do a major redesign than to incorporate flexibility early on."

"That’s why the Hunter-class frigate has a large multi-mission bay. The integrated mission bay and hangar will be ‘capable of supporting multiple helicopters, UUVs [unmanned underwater vehicles], boats, mission loads and disaster relief stores. A launcher can be provided for fixed-wing UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] operation’. The designers have allowed for the ship’s systems to generate extra power for whatever is operated from the mission bay, and the ship’s centre of gravity has been set to allow new systems to be carried in the bay without affecting overall ship performance.

This means that the frigate is very likely to be able to launch, recover and operate with a wide range of types, sizes and configurations of armed and unarmed UAVs (drones), unmanned surface vessels and even unmanned underwater vessels. Some may well be launched from the missile cells near the bow."

"We already know that a key element in the new submarine’s design philosophy is to only have capabilities that are already ‘proven at sea’ in the design for the first boat. That has led to the program office staying with lead–acid batteries, which have powered submarines since World War I, for now, even as other navies and even Naval Group, the submarine’s designer, say that new battery types are ready for safe operation in its submarines already, let alone by the 2030s."

"the Swedes have taken the design that became our navy’s current Collins-class submarine and ‘evolved’ it by doing things like fitting a new section into the hull so it can launch missiles from large vertical tubes. And they’re bidding to build an evolved ‘Son of Collins’ for the Dutch, with the first submarine to be launched in the late 2020s. Modularity is key to the Swedes’ approach."

"The big vertical launch tubes will allow the Swedish design to launch and recover lots of different configurations of missiles, UAVs and UUVs. And, if it turns out that missiles are less valuable than other unmanned systems, it’ll be much easier to use this vertical launch space as a flexible launch bay than to try to contort weapons into torpedo-shaped items.

On top of this, the Swedes are fitting air-independent propulsion to allow the submarine to operate without surfacing for long periods of time. They’re also designing in a ‘multi-mission portal’ next to the torpedo tubes in the nose of the boat which will be large enough for the launch and retrieval of diverse mission payloads, from special-forces divers to manned and unmanned vehicles."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Announcement at Davie forthcoming

https://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2019/12/19/chantier-davie-finalement-incluse-dans-la-strategie-navale-dottawa-1?fbclid=IwAR2mRxUglPn34n1LWfvQzdwkdYh7zvtLbahrJqLbvicrta7Tswao5MuWpb8


----------



## Uzlu

> Quebec shipyard at the heart of the Mark Norman case poised to become federal builder
> 
> *Procurement Minister Anita Anand said move is 'a critical milestone' for the National Shipbuilding Strategy*
> 
> A Quebec shipyard that was once at the centre of the now-dropped criminal case against former Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is now formally in line to become the federal government's third go-to shipbuilder.
> 
> Public Services and Procurement Canada announced Thursday that Chantier Davie, located in Levis, Que., has pre-qualified for the position and could potentially join Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax, N.S., and Seaspan Shipyards, of Vancouver.
> 
> The department, in a statement, said the company will now be asked to answer a request for proposal and that will be followed by an evaluation phase, which will include an assessment of the yard's infrastructure.
> 
> Public Services and Procurement Minister Anita Anand said the announcement is "a critical milestone" for the National Shipbuilding Strategy and its ability to adapt to meet the federal government's needs.
> 
> A formal agreement is not expected to be signed until the end of next year.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/davie-shipyard-norman-1.5402285


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good grief! Davie to take 20 years to build six icebreakers for CCG?  



> ...
> C’est un contrat [when actually signed] de plusieurs milliards $ qui doit assurer du travail à l’entreprise lévisienne pendant au moins les 20 prochaines années, a affirmé le ministre Duclos...
> https://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2019/12/19/chantier-davie-finalement-incluse-dans-la-strategie-navale-dottawa-1



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Good grief! Davie to take 20 years to build six icebreakers for CCG?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Well, they did say that the agreement won't be in place until late 2020 and then they have to decide upon the requirements/specs as nothing along those lines has been discussed in any great details, so that will be 2022/3 and then figure 2/5yrs per ship because God knows that we can't have 2 ships being built at the exact sametime/pace here in Canada, and viola, 20yrs has gone by.


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Good grief! Davie to take 20 years to build six icebreakers for CCG?


I assumed for at least the next twenty years, because it is going to be a lot more than six 8 000-tonne icebreakers.  There might be one or two _Diefenbaker_-class icebreakers, additional 8 000-tonne icebreakers after the initial six, and smaller icebreakers to replace the eight light icebreakers currently in the fleet. 

And if Davie is going to be named as the third shipbuilder to build large ships for the coast guard, I think it is safe to assume that the government of Canada is going to try very hard to give Davie a steady stream of contracts to avoid the boom-or-bust cycles.  This probably means, like for Irving and Seaspan, contracts to keep Davie busy for about twenty to thirty years.


----------



## Good2Golf

20-years is the generally accepted life-cycle period, so building a capability set over 20 years achieved the stability to constant(-ish) production throughout that NSS intended to establish. It’s not about the ships, it’s about the shipbuilding.  I don’t say that tongue in cheek, but pragmatically, having (begrudgingly) read the NSS documents through to understand what is being established.  I long ago accepted that physical systems to a government department (defence, coast guard, fisheries, etc.) are but one output, and not always the one at the forefront in politicians’ and bureaucrats’ minds. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## JMCanada

Another guess: 5-6 years to have the first one delivered, then seven icebreakers, one per year (which might be delayed a little bit), plus , after that, planned maintenance, again one per year. We arrive again to the forecasted  20-years.

My question now is ... where do you think new submarines would, eventually, be built?


----------



## MarkOttawa

I think light icebreakers (CCG Type 1100) are to go to Seaspan as part of announcement this May: 



> ...up to 16 Multi-Purpose Vessels to support a variety of missions, including light icebreaking, environmental response, and offshore search and rescue. These ships will be built by Vancouver Shipyards...



Plus these one assumes for Davie: 



> ...competitive process with the design of a new class of smaller ships, the new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ship, which would complement the work of the large fleet in shallow areas and deliver mid-shore science activities [to replace CCG's Type 1050/1100]...
> https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet



If Davie also gets the polar icebreaker lord knows how long at that will take. Surely for reasons of expedition and cost the gov't could justify getting that one ship from abroad. It was announced by Harper in 2008 for service in 2017 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/new-arctic-icebreaker-to-be-named-after-diefenbaker-1.772716). Now, maybe mid-2020s? And CCGS Louis St. Laurent has just turned 53 years old (https://www.atlanticresource.org/aora/site-area/blog/louis-s-st-laurent).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> And CCGS Louis St. Laurent has just turned 53 years old (https://www.atlanticresource.org/aora/site-area/blog/louis-s-st-laurent).
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Anyone want to take bets that Louis St. Laurent qualifies for CPP before it retires?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Well, one can get CPP at 60 with reduced benefits--but unless we buy abroad I can't see a new polar ship before CCGS Louis St. Laurent is eligible for that.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Well, one can get CPP at 60 with reduced benefits--but unless we buy abroad I can't see a new polar ship before CCGS Louis St. Laurent is eligible for that.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Any thoughts on putting a SMR (small modular reactor) in our yet to be built heavy icebreaker?


----------



## The Bread Guy

The official word from the info-machine ...


> The Government of Canada is delivering for Canadians by equipping the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy with the ships they need in order to serve Canadians.
> 
> The National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) is a long-term, multibillion-dollar program to renew the Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Navy fleets, creating good middle-class jobs across the country while revitalizing Canada’s marine industry.
> 
> Today, the Government of Canada announced Chantier Davie has pre-qualified to become the third strategic partner under the Strategy. The NSS’s third yard will build six program icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard. This shipyard has demonstrated it meets initial requirements related to experience, capability and capacity, as defined in the Invitation to Qualify issued on August 2, 2019.
> 
> Chantier Davie will now move to the next stage in the selection process, the Request for Proposal and evaluation stage. This will include a third-party assessment of the shipyard’s infrastructure, submission of a formal proposal, and a due diligence process to ensure the shipyard is financially capable of performing the work and making any necessary upgrades to its infrastructure. This assessment is similar to the process previously undertaken in 2011 to select Irving Shipbuilding Inc. and Seaspan Shipyards as strategic partners under the NSS.
> 
> Once this phase is completed, the Government of Canada will begin negotiations for an umbrella agreement, which is expected to be put in place in late 2020.
> 
> *Quotes*
> 
> “Through the National Shipbuilding Strategy, the Government of Canada is proud to support the members of the Canadian Coast Guard, and provide jobs and economic opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Today’s announcement is a critical milestone in how we are able to adapt the strategy to meet Canada’s evolving federal shipbuilding needs, all while ensuring the members of the Coast Guard have the equipment they need to do their important work.”
> 
> The Honourable Anita Anand
> Minister of Public Services and Procurement
> 
> “I’m happy to see that the process for the fleet renewal and new program icebreakers continues to move ahead under the National Shipbuilding Strategy. The women and men of the Canadian Coast Guard save lives, keep our economy moving and protect our environment. This renewal will ensure they can continue to deliver critical services on the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence waterway, the East Coast, and in the Arctic.”
> 
> The Honourable Bernadette Jordan
> Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard
> 
> “The National Shipbuilding Strategy will ensure that Canada has a strong, effective fleet of ships to serve and protect Canadians for years to come. Today’s announcement will not only see the revitalization of the Canadian Coast Guard fleet, but will also deliver economic benefits and create highly skilled jobs right across the country. Our government is committed to ensuring that, as we move forward with the NSS, Canadians will continue to see the economic benefits from this important industry.”
> 
> The Honourable Navdeep Bains
> Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry
> 
> *Quick facts*
> 
> On May 22, 2019, the Government of Canada announced its intention to add a third Canadian shipyard as a partner under the NSS, and on August 2, 2019, Canada launched the competitive process to select the new shipyard.
> 
> The third shipyard will be responsible for building six new program icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> Coast Guard icebreakers are essential to Canada’s economy, supporting year-round marine trade in eastern Canada, the St. Lawrence waterway and the Great Lakes. They provide critical icebreaking services to ensure commercial ships have access to Canadian ports during the winter, and support summer resupply activities to Canada’s Arctic communities and their industries. They are also important platforms for search and rescue and environmental response operations ...


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Another guess: 5-6 years to have the first one delivered, then seven icebreakers, one per year (which might be delayed a little bit), plus , after that, planned maintenance, again one per year. We arrive again to the forecasted  20-years.


Better would be to have Davie go all out building icebreakers.  When the icebreaking fleet is in fairly good shape, slow the rate of procurement to a more manageable rate.





			
				Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Any thoughts on putting a SMR (small modular reactor) in our yet to be built heavy icebreaker?


And further delay building the icebreaker _and_ freak out the anti-nuclear activists?


----------



## YZT580

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> I think light icebreakers (CCG Type 1100) are to go to Seaspan as part of announcement this May:
> 
> Don't forget Heddle.  They will be there somewhere picking up smaller build contracts.  After half a century of totally ignoring ship construction we have alot of catching up to do.  It will keep all existing yards busy for the next 2 decades and by that time it will be time to replace the first built ones.  As for new subs we have no capacity left to build them and they are a specialty item.  My guess is that Australia is going to rue the day they didn't purchase and build off-shore.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not sure which yard gets to build them https://www.bairdmaritime.com/work-boat-world/specialised-fields/marine-research-and-training/robert-allan-ltd-to-design-new-fishery-research-vessels-for-canadian-coast-guard/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good, endless, never never land grief. Just buy the flipping ship abroad (take part in USCG's polar cutter program?), Davie has six icebreakers anyway and all our three big yards will be busy for a couple of decades:



> Missing heavy icebreaker back on drawing board: Coast Guard
> 
> Call it the case of the missing icebreaker.
> 
> The fate of the Canadian Coast Guard's next heavy icebreaker has been wrapped in mystery since the federal government quietly removed the $1.3-billion project from Vancouver shipyard Seaspan's order book in May.
> 
> But Canadian Coast Guard Commissioner Mario Pelletier says plans to build the icebreaker, which was first promised by Stephen Harper's Conservative government more than a decade ago, have not been cancelled.
> 
> Rather, Pelletier tells The Canadian Press that the icebreaker is back on the drawing board as the Coast Guard looks to update the original design to account for changes in technology and the government's requirements.
> 
> Exactly when and where the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, as the icebreaker is to be named, will be built — and how much it will ultimately cost — remains up in the air.
> 
> But Pelletier says he is confident the icebreaker it is expected to replace, the 53-year-old CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, will be able to continue operating through to the late 2020s thanks to various upgrades.
> 
> The Diefenbaker was originally supposed to replace the St-Laurent in 2017 [and was announced by PM Harper in 2008!].
> https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/12/20/missing-heavy-icebreaker-back-on-drawing-board-coast-guard/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile see what the Dutch are building--bets that first Seaspan JSS (delivery scheduled 2023 https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/interarmees-joint-eng.html#a3) will beat delivery of this ship?



> Royal Netherlands Navy Closer to Get its new Combat Support Ship Zr. Ms Den Helder from Damen
> 
> The construction of the new Combat Support Ship (CSS) Zr. Ms Den Helder should start soon. An agreement has been reached between the Dutch MoD and Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding on the construction and delivery of a CSS. State Secretary Barbara Visser sent the last required document (D letter) to the Lower House on December 19.
> 
> With an additional supply vessel, the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) will have a combat support capability that is almost permanently available thanks to two vessels: The future Den Helder CSS would then supplement the existing Joint Support Ship (JSS) Zr. Ms Karel Doorman.
> 
> With more supply capacity, maritime operations at sea, both nationally and internationally, can be sustained for longer according to the Dutch MoD. This increases the effectiveness of both national and combined operations and helps the armed forces to perform their tasks. The ship can be used worldwide and, protected by frigates, can operate under high threat.
> 
> In addition, it can be used in the fight against drug trafficking, controlling refugee flows and provide disaster relief.
> 
> *CSS made in the Netherlands*
> 
> The Zr. Ms Den Helder design is largely based on Zr.Ms. Karel Doorman. The CSS may not resemble the JSS on the outside, but much is reused on the inside. The CSS is also functionally comparable to the Joint Support Ship. The functions of strategic sea transport and logistical support from the sea (sea basing) are an exception. The CSS is lacking an amphibious warfare capability because its main role is solely replenishment at sea
> 
> The fabrication contract is not contracted out in Europe. The Dutch MoD wants to keep the knowledge and skills of designing and building naval ships in the Netherlands. The armed forces thus invoked Article 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It states that Member States may protect essential security interests. This also relates to the production of defense equipment.
> 
> *Den Helder CSS Specifications*
> 
> The nearly 200-meter-long ship will have a 75-person crew and can also take an additional 75 people on board. The design can accommodate several helicopters and around 20 ISO containers. The construction cost of 375 million Euros is almost € 50 million higher than previously calculated. This is partly due to new standard requirements and developments in marine construction, energy, the environment and safety.
> 
> For example, the design has now explicitly looked at fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. The combination of diesel engines, hull shape and propeller design reduces fuel consumption by around 6 percent compared to the Karel Doorman JSS.
> 
> Delivery of the Den Helder is scheduled for the 2nd quarter of 2024. A year later, in the 2nd quarter of 2025, the CSS must be ready for duty with the RNLN
> 
> During NEDS 2019, Damen was showcasing a scale model of the CSS (pictures above) featuring the following dimensions:
> 
> Length over all: 179.3 meters
> Beam: 26.4 meters
> Displacement: 22,400 tonnes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Artist impression of the Combat Support Ship. © Ministerie van Defensie_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Karel Doorman JSS. The design of the Den Helder is largely based on that of this ship. _
> 
> https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/12/royal-netherlands-navy-closer-to-get-its-new-combat-support-ship-zr-ms-den-helder-from-damen/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

> Rather, Pelletier tells The Canadian Press that the icebreaker is back on the drawing board as the Coast Guard looks to update the original design to account for changes in technology and the government's requirements.


Wikipedia says that STX Canada Marine was awarded the contract to design the icebreaker in early February of 2011.  Update an eight-year-old design?  Hell yeah.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Look what even Germans are doing--and first new frigate for 2027, CSC when? And wonder what's included in seemingly lowish cost.



> Damen, Luerssen to Build German Warships
> 
> Germany has awarded Dutch shipyard Damen a contract to construct at least _four new multi-role warships worth nearly 6 billion euros ($6.7 billion)_ [emphasis added] in an alliance with its Bremen-based partner Luerssen, the armed forces and budget lawmakers said on Tuesday.
> 
> The ship tender is one of Germany's biggest arms projects, along with a contract for the MEADS missile defence system and the new Franco-German fighter jet (FCAS), underlining Berlin's efforts to increase its military capabilities.
> 
> The first warship is expected to be delivered in 2027, the Bundeswehr armed forces said in a statement, confirming a Reuters report from Monday. The contract includes an option to build two additional MKS 180 warships.
> 
> Lawmakers told Reuters that _about two-thirds of the production will take place at Luerssen's shipyards and other sites in northern Germany_ [emphasis added].
> 
> "The decision for the MKS 180 to be mainly built by the Luerssen Group and thus in Germany is a good decision which strengthens Germany as a marine and shipyard location," said Eckhardt Rehberg, chief budget lawmaker from Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives.
> 
> Germany's _new warships will be able to attack targets on land and under water, and provide air cover for other vessels_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Other companies interested in the MKS 180 warship tender were ThyssenKrupp and German Naval Yards.
> 
> Damen said in a statement that its alliance also included Hamburg-based Blohm+Voss shipyard and France's Thales. It _estimated that about 80% of the tender's net investment would remain in Germany_ [emphasis added].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Image: BAAINBw/MTG Marinetechnik_
> https://www.marinelink.com/news/damen-luerssen-build-german-warships-474591



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I can imagine in the meetings for the German ships: "Shall we make a list?" says the builder, Deutsche Marine rep screams "Do not say that word, we do not want free list again!!!"


In other news, the keel laying ceremony resulted in a nice coin being embedded on the new JSS. I have a picture not sure if I can share it.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Gov't on JSS:



> ...
> *Current status*
> 
> *Construction of large segments of the ship, known as early blocks, commenced in June 2018 to improve the schedule and mitigate a production gap within the shipyard
> *In early 2019, the Government of Canada made a decision to re-sequence construction of the JSS and the offshore oceanographic science vessel (OOSV) at Vancouver Shipyards, in order to build on the momentum underway with the construction of the JSS early blocks
> *Under the revised sequencing, Vancouver Shipyards will complete construction on JSS 1, followed by construction of the OOSV and then JSS 2. Work on JSS 1 continues, and the vessel is expected to be delivered in 2023
> ...
> https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/interarmees-joint-eng.html#a3



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Trudeau needs to quickly name the third shipbuilder and have them start building icebreakers as soon as possible.  And it looks like six 8 000 tonne icebreakers is not going to be enough.  Earlier, the Chamber of Maritime Commerce recommended an additional five icebreakers on top of these six.  Now it looks like the Lake Carriers’ Association might be suggesting the same thing.https://lakesuperiornews.com/Shipping-News/lake-carriers-association-serious-concerns-about-adequate-icebreaking



US Lake Carriers' Association at it again:



> Lake Carrier's Association calling for a new icebreaker
> 
> NEGAUNEE TOWNSHIP, Mich. (WLUC) - The President of the Lake Carriers' Association says he'd like to see more icebreaker ships available on the Great Lakes. Last year no icebreakers were out on Lake Superior, giving some companies a later start to the shipping season.
> 
> The Lake Carriers' Association hired an economist to determine the economic impact of that late start due to the ice. The estimate is about a billion dollars lost to the U.S. economy. President of the Lake Carriers' Association, Jim Weakley says he's working to get at least one 240-foot long icebreaker.
> 
> "God bless the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard. They do the best they can, but they don't have the number of vessels that they need to do their job properly. We're working hard to get them the ships they need and currently what we think we need is an additional heavy icebreaker, a twin to the Mackinaw," said Weakley.
> 
> Back in 1979, between the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard there were 20 icebreaker vessels for the Great Lakes. Now that number is down to just 11.
> https://www.uppermichiganssource.com/content/news/Lake-Carriers-Association-calling-for-a-new-icebreaker-567086241.html



Plus:


> Rising Great Lakes prompt calls for more icebreakers
> 
> The shipping industry and Michigan businesses are urging Congress to increase the number of icebreaking ships in the Great Lakes as water levels have surged to record highs in most of the lakes and connecting waterways.
> 
> In the past few winters, higher water levels have created greater ice hazards for ships, hindering the movement of goods and last year costing an estimated 5,421 jobs and $1 billion to the U.S. economy, according to an industry-backed study. It also resulted in an estimated $172,000 in lost state and federal tax revenue.
> 
> The losses resulted from steel that wasn't made and power that wasn't generated by coal and iron ore that U.S.-flag ships couldn't move, according to a report by Martin Associates that used industry-provided numbers on lost hours and tonnage. The cargo moved on Great Lakes waterways include iron ore, coal, limestone, grain, salt, fuel and oil.
> 
> Freezing temperatures and winter storms in higher water create more opportunities for the formation of ice floes — large sheets of ice that can damage hulls — and ice jams, which clog waterways and cause flooding. They are creating a growing problem to keep the shipping channels and harbors open from December to as late as April, said Jim Weakley, president of the Lake Carriers Association, which represents shipping companies operating on the lakes.
> 
> "We've been complaining about this for years," Weakley said. "And now with the high water, we think the problems are going to be even worse, not just an economic loss to the laker fleet, but an economic loss to the steel companies that we provide support for."
> 
> Sen. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, has been working for five years to get funding for a new heavy ice cutter, but the Coast Guard has not created a plan to do so. He recently got $2 million in the latest budget agreement to jump-start the process.
> 
> “The Great Lakes are in desperate need of a new heavy icebreaker because Michigan businesses must be able to rely on shipping to move their goods and materials year-round," Peters said in a statement. "Increasing our icebreaking capacity will not only help support maritime commerce, but will also protect our Northern border.”
> 
> The U.S. Coast Guard operates nine icebreaking ships on the Great Lakes — two to three fewer than it had in the 1990s. Canada has two. There are eight U.S. ice breakers currently because one cutter is in the Coast Guard yard in Maryland for repairs to extend its service life.
> 
> Some business groups said Congress and the Trump administration urgently need to address the issue. Shipping by water is a critical part of the supply chain for businesses for all sizes, said Brian Calley, president ofthe Small Business Association of Michigan.
> 
> "The situation is more critical than ever this year because of historically high water levels," said Calley, the former lieutenant governor of Michigan. "There is an aging fleet of icebreakers that have dwindled in numbers over the past few decades. That presents an unnecessary risk to moving commerce and homes/businesses along the coastlines.”
> 
> The U.S. Coast Guard would love more resources to add to the existing nine icebreakers, a spokesman said. But the Coast Guard is on top of the ice problem 95% of the time, he said.
> 
> "If we have a terribly harsh winter, there's probably going to be more challenges for the Coast Guard as well as the industry to move their ships through the ice, but as a government agency, we can't resource for the worst-case winter on a regular basis," said Lorne Thomas, the external affairs officer for the Coast Guard based in Cleveland.
> 
> *More money, but no cutter*
> 
> The Coast Guard received a small boost for Great Lakes ice clearing from the latest federal government funding package.
> 
> _The budget agreement signed in late December provides $4 million for the Coast Guard — money obtained by Peters. About $2 million is targeted at "program support' so the guard can run and maintain icebreakers longer in bad weather, while another $2 million is supposed to create a major acquisition office that might result in another icebreaker for the Great Lakes.
> 
> Buying a new cutter could range from $175 million to $300 million, depending on what kind of capabilities are designed for the vessel, according to a rough estimate by the Congressional Research Service. Half of the $4 million is targeted at initiating Coast Guard planning for an icebreaker at least as large as the USCGC Mackinaw — a 240-foot heavy cutter, according to congressional staff.
> 
> Peters and U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, have gotten authority for a new Coast Guard icebreaker at different times during the last five years, but have never received the funding. For national security reasons, the Coast Guard has been seeking money to buy three large polar ice cutters and three medium ones, which wouldn't operate in the Great Lakes but in the Arctic and Antarctica_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Record-low temperatures last winter helped cause ice problems on the lakes and connecting waterways. Last year, two ships were forced aground due to ice floes, Weakley said.
> 
> But this winter is expected to be more moderate.
> 
> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecasts 47% of the five Great Lakes will be frozen by late February, below the 56% long-term average.
> 
> Over 5% of the five Great Lakes were covered with ice on Jan. 15, according to the federal Great Lakes research lab in Ann Arbor.
> 
> The number of icebreaking cutters has fluctuated during the past 30 years.
> 
> There were 11 to 12 cutters in the Great Lakes during the 1990s, depending on the year, the Coast Guard confirmed. Three of them technically could break ice, but they instead were used to aid navigation, according to the Coast Guard.
> 
> In 2000, the number fell to eight cutters, officials said, and has since risen...[lots more]
> https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/01/17/rising-great-lakes-prompt-calls-more-icebreakers/4410987002/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

"Rising Great Lakes Levels"....

"Great Lakes water levels drop" 2007 https://www.thespec.com/news-story/2136234-great-lakes-water-levels-drop/

"Rising temperatures could lower water levels in the lakes," 2017  https://www.cleveland.com/weather/blog/2017/08/how_is_climate_change_affectin.html

"Water Levels of the Great Lakes Are Declining" Jan 2019  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/water-levels-of-the-great-lakes-are-declining/

"It appears 2020 won't bring relief from high Great Lakes water levels – and they could be even higher than this past record-shattering spring and summer." Oct 2019
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/11/great-lakes-water-levels-even-higher-2020/3941750002/

"Great Lakes water levels have swung from record lows to record highs. Here’s why." Nov 2019 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/11/08/great-lakes-water-levels-have-swung-record-lows-record-highs-heres-why/

Roll Up! Roll Up! Roll Up! Place your bets Ladies and Gentlemen! You pays your money and you takes your chances!


----------



## MarkOttawa

USN looks pretty certain to get some of its new FFG(X) frigates, a young official project, well before RCN gets first CSC:


> Here’s the timeline for the US Navy’s next-generation frigate
> 
> The Navy is expected to buy its first next-generation frigate in the coming months, so here’s what the next few years are going to look like in FFG(X)-land, according to budget documents released Monday.
> 
> The Navy plans to award the frigate design and construction award to one of the competitors in July, the documents say.
> 
> The competitors for FFG(X) are Fincantieri’s FREMM design; General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and Navantia’s F-100 variant, which is roughly equivalent to a small Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.
> 
> Many observers think Huntington Ingalls Industries will offer an up-gunned version of the National Security Cutter; and Austal USA’s frigate version of its aluminum-hulled Independence-class littoral combat ship.
> 
> Lockheed Martin’s version of the FFG(X), an up-gunned, twin-screw variant of its Freedom-class LCS, was pulled from the competition in May.
> 
> The Navy is planing for it to take six years to complete design and construction of the ship, which should be finished in 2026.
> 
> Once construction begins, however, planners anticipate it will take only 48 months to build.
> 
> The _second frigate is expected to be ordered in April 2021, and from there it should be delivered about 5 ½ years after the award date.
> 
> That means that the first ship should be delivered to the fleet in July of 2026, and the second about three months later_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The FFG(X) is supposed to be a small, multi-mission ship with a modified version of Raytheon’s SPY-6 radar destined for the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, Lockheed Martin’s Aegis Combat System, as well as some point defense systems and 32 vertical launch cells for about half the cost of a DDG.
> 
> Of course, without knowing which ship the Navy intends to buy and what the final detailed designs look like, firm price estimates are impossible, but the Pentagon has some projections.
> 
> The _first ship ordered in 2020 is expected to cost 1.28 billion, according to budget documents, with the next ship in 2021 dropping to $1.05 billion.
> 
> The third ship, ordered in 2022, should see the price drop below $1 billion.
> 
> The whole program should cost $19.81 billion_ [emphasis added], the Navy estimates.
> 
> The buy was supposed to be one ship in FY20, then two vessels every year until the _full 20-ship buy_ [emphasis added] was complete. But the Navy wanted to make sure it staggered the buy more responsibly, said Rear Adm. Randy Crites, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for budget.
> 
> "The frigate, we don’t want to have a repeat of some of the lessons of LCS where we got going too fast,” Crites said. "As it is, we’re going to have eight frigates under construction when we deliver the first one in 2026.
> 
> “Right now we’ll award one later this year, we’ll award one next year, and the plan is for one next year but that will get looked at. Then we’ll ramp up to two to three, with nine in the [future-year defense program].”
> https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/02/11/heres-the-timeline-for-the-us-navys-next-generation-frigate/



And here's the CSC timeline:



> ...
> 
> 3. Definition
> 
> Project approval for phase 1: June 19, 2012
> Phase 1 revised: December 11, 2014
> Request for proposals launch: October 27, 2016
> Project approval for phase 2A – Initial Design Review: June 8, 2017
> Request for proposal close: November 30, 2017
> Selection of the warship design and design team and contract award: February 7, 2019
> Revised project approval for design and production engineering: May 30, 2019
> ...
> 
> 4. Implementation
> 
> Implementation project approval: Early 2020s
> Construction contract award: Early 2020s
> First delivery: Mid 2020s
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/canadian-surface-combatant.html



Good flipping luck with that mid-20s first delivery--Irving still has four A/OPS to launch for RCN, then two more for CCG:



> ...
> Ship 1 delivery: winter 2020
> Ship 2 delivery: late 2020
> Cut steel for ship 6: 2020
> Initial operational capability: 2020
> Ship 3 delivery: 2021
> Ship 4 delivery: 2022
> Ship 5 delivery: 2023
> Ship 6 delivery: 2024
> Full operational capability: 2025
> ...
> November 2019
> 
> The second Arctic and Offshore Patrol ship, the future HMCS Margaret Brooke, was successfully launched in Halifax. Builder trials for the first Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship, the future HMCS Harry DeWolf were held in late-November...
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.html



As for the two CCG ships:



> ...
> First vessel to be delivered
> To be determined
> ...
> https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/arctique-coastgd-eng.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

It's almost like once you have established shipyards with warship experience that regularly get work, you can get new warships (based on an existing hull) quicker. (ie the longterm strategy part of the NSS)


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> USN looks pretty certain to get some of its new FFG(X) frigates, a young official project, well before RCN gets first CSC:
> And here's the CSC timeline:
> 
> Good flipping luck with that mid-20s first delivery--Irving still has four A/OPS to launch for RCN, then two more for CCG:
> 
> As for the two CCG ships:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Why should we be surprised by any of this?

It's embarrassing on how pathetic we've become on delivering anything at all.  There's zero accountability, no one is going to lose their job over missed timelines or deliverable's.  

Irving is 4 ships into the 8 they have to deliver - they were laid down on 11 March, 2016. 29 May, 2017, 5 December 2018 and 4 May 2019 - the rough timelines from when a ship has been 'laid down' to when its been launched (based on the first 2 AOPS) has been 30 months - so its a fair assumption that AOPS #3 will be launched in April 2021 and AOPS #4 Oct 2021 - 
If AOPS #5 is laid down in the spring/summer of 2020, it should be launched winter/spring of 2022, with the last AOPS being launched in 2025 or 2026. 

Best guess is that the first CSC will touch water in 2027 at the earliest - but I'm willing to bet that its 2028 - that's in the water, not Commissioned.

That would put HMCS Halifax at 36yrs old from when she was Commissioned (or 41yrs old from when she was laid down). 
I'm willing to bet that we lose having 12 Frigates on the operational charts before we get 12 new CSC's up and running.  The age of the Halifax's will be too old to wait for the CSC's to come online before we have a pay them off.

Yes, I'm a non-military person - but I know how to run projects and look at the timelines and I can say with 100% accuracy that these timelines are crap.


----------



## MarkOttawa

By the way USN's FFG(X) program was officially launched in July, 2017:
https://news.usni.org/2017/07/10/navy-releases-details-of-new-ffgx-guided-missile-frigate-program-in-request-to-industry

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It's almost like once you have established shipyards with warship experience that regularly get work, you can get new warships (based on an existing hull) quicker. (ie the longterm strategy part of the NSS)



Other things really reduce your timeframes.  The FFG(X) are benefiting from a very large amount of GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) which means that the USN already has that stuff in their inventory.  It also means there is no competition or design work for things like close-in air defence, electronic warfare, radar, navigation system, etc...

It reduces the cost for the program (as it comes out of other budgets), and there is no requirement to order some long-lead items/parts. 
Its amazing how much faster things are done when you tell industry the equipment they are being provided and that they need to fit it in instead of providing requirements, wait for their solution and then approve or reject that solution.

The other thing is the US can afford to spend the money/time to get the design done faster, with a large number of USN staff working on the project.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:
			
		

> The other thing is the US can afford to spend the money/time to get the design done faster, with a large number of USN staff working on the project.



But can we really afford to have less than 12 frigates/CSC available in the future before the 15 CSC are built?
The reality is we’ll have less than 12 frigates/CSC available under these timelines.  The existing Halifax’s will be over 40+yrs old before we have 12 CSC’s commissioned. Probably right around the time the AOPS’s will be going under the mid-life refits.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

2nd CCG ship on her way to the east coast  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGnsrnBEBRw&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1Phrd_PJxRZgiV4_xk-gZveMim0OEcWM_exwCfUIcHxA-YE43zBLuJMFc


----------



## Spencer100

Hey they get a nice stop in Florida  :cold:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Seeing as Seaspan and Irving will not have space or time to build the polar icebreaker, and probably not Davie either with new CCG work it looks certain to get, does this mean gov't might now be willing to have one of our shipyards partner with a builder abroad to build the hull and most metal bashing (a lot more cheaply than can be done here) and then finish off in Canada (or just do design work here as Dutch Damen is doing with this big icebreaker all built in Romania for Australia [antarctic https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/a-look-inside-australia-s-new-icebreaker]):



> Feds ask shipyards to make their cases for building missing heavy icebreaker
> 
> There is a new lead in the case of the missing icebreaker, though exactly how the story will end remains to be seen.
> 
> The fate of the Canadian Coast Guard's next heavy icebreaker has been wrapped in mystery since the federal Liberal government quietly removed the $1.3-billion project from Vancouver shipyard Seaspan's order book in May.
> 
> The ship was first promised by Stephen Harper's Conservative government more than a decade ago.
> 
> Now the government is asking Canadian shipyards to essentially make their case for building the vessel, which the Harper government dubbed the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker.
> 
> Public Procurement Minister Anita Anand says the aim is to have the vessel built as quickly as possible as the Diefenbaker is expected to replace the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, which has been in service since 1969.
> 
> The Diefenbaker, whose $1.3-billion budget is under review, was supposed to replace the St-Laurent in 2017.
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/feds-ask-shipyards-to-make-their-cases-for-building-missing-heavy-icebreaker-1.4831934



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100

The Case of the Missing Icebreaker!  :waiting: :Tin-Foil-Hat: :facepalm: 

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2020/02/28/feds-ask-shipyards-to-make-their-cases-for-building-missing-heavy-icebreaker-2/#.XlljtEBFyUl


----------



## YZT580

Why wouldn't Davies or Seaspan simply enter into an agreement with Heddle in St. Catharines to subcontract several of the smaller vessels under license and undertake the Diefenbaker themselves.  That way they keep both projects in house without taking up their existing space/time.


----------



## Czech_pivo

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't Davies or Seaspan simply enter into an agreement with Heddle in St. Catharines to subcontract several of the smaller vessels under license and undertake the Diefenbaker themselves.  That way they keep both projects in house without taking up their existing space/time.



I thought that Davie is the largest facility in Canada.  Why can't they build the Dief as well as the other breakers?  Is it because of a lack of skilled manpower? 

I could see an election campaign promise made by Mackay (assuming he wins the Connie leadership race) to have Davie get that work to Davie in order to make headway against the BQ and Liberals


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I thought that Davie is the largest facility in Canada.  Why can't they build the Dief as well as the other breakers?


Davie has, in the past, claimed that they have the capacity of Seaspan and Irving combined.  If true, they should be able to very easily build a couple of Diefenbakers along with a minimum of six 8 000 tonne icebreakers.  Asking, however, for Davie, Seaspan, and Irving to submit bids for one or two Diefenbakers is a good idea: make Davie take nothing for granted.


----------



## Underway

Honestly, I thought that the Heavy Ice Breaker was to be built between the two JSS.  If it's been removed it's for project management reasons I assume, not for the fact Seaspan is losing out.  Pure speculation on my part however.


----------



## Spencer100

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> The Case of the Missing Icebreaker!  :waiting: :Tin-Foil-Hat: :facepalm:
> 
> https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2020/02/28/feds-ask-shipyards-to-make-their-cases-for-building-missing-heavy-icebreaker-2/#.XlljtEBFyUl



The end of the article says they may source overseas.  That could be much cheaper but no minority government would go there.  I don't understand the problem.  Are the liberals to paid off by the Irvings? And is that more than Trudeau's wanting to do stuff for Quebec. Or real tin hat does the government really not want any industry in the country.....it  is starting to feel that way.


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:
			
		

> Honestly, I thought that the Heavy Ice Breaker was to be built between the two JSS.  If it's been removed it's for project management reasons I assume, not for the fact Seaspan is losing out.  Pure speculation on my part however.



I believe that the OOSV is to be built between the two AOR/JSS.
I don't see how Irving or Seaspan can handle the Polar Icebreaker with ships already on order. 
The Polar Icebreaker has always seemed like a vanity project to me. Building an icebreaker 50% bigger than any we have and 300% bigger than the majority of the fleet we have now/proposed and at the expense of larger numbers of icebreakers


----------



## Underway

It might be a case of the press having no idea how the project's work within the Government and the minority Government being tight with messaging.  The Heavy Ice breaker is also between at least 4 years due to JSS/OOSV build happening anyways.  If they need it sooner well then other options could be looked at, but they risk running out of work for VSY... which is counter to the NSS one of the few true "Nation Building" projects we actually have.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:
			
		

> It might be a case of the press having no idea how the project's work within the Government and the minority Government being tight with messaging.  The Heavy Ice breaker is also between at least 4 years due to JSS/OOSV build happening anyways.  If they need it sooner well then other options could be looked at, but they risk running out of work for VSY... which is counter to the NSS one of the few true "Nation Building" projects we actually have.



Running out of work for VSY? What about the replacing of the Kingston’s, they are already 24yrs old and by 2026 when the last JSS is done they will be 30yrs old.  Increase the size of the Kingston’s to 1,600 tons at 12-14 and there’s a lot of work there.


----------



## suffolkowner

I don't see how Seaspan can be running out of work. Were they not given an additional 15 multi purpose ships to build? Otherwise build another one each of JSS/OFSV/OOSV


----------



## MarkOttawa

VSY and  16 more CCG ships:
https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet

Davie and six smaller icebreakers:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/quebec-s-chantier-davie-only-shipyard-to-qualify-for-icebreaker-work-feds-1.4737254

Plus surely Davie will get a lot of these vessels:



> Government of Canada will also proceed through a competitive process with the design of a new class of smaller ships, the new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ship, which would complement the work of the large fleet in shallow areas and deliver mid-shore science activities.


https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Running out of work for VSY? What about the replacing of the Kingston’s, they are already 24yrs old and by 2026 when the last JSS is done they will be 30yrs old.  Increase the size of the Kingston’s to 1,600 tons at 12-14 and there’s a lot of work there.



If that were the case the project would have been opened years ago.  There is literally no appetite for MCDV replacement right now.  The focus is on JSS, CSC and AOPS. The plate is quite full.  Perhaps once AOPS has run its course, but I suspect (hope) then money will go towards submarines.  Kingston class has another 15 years easy on those hulls.  They haven't even had a midlife refit, they don't need one.



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't see how Seaspan can be running out of work. Were they not given an additional 15 multi purpose ships to build?



Wasn't there news a while ago that those ships were removed from the list of builds in order to move them to a third shipbuilder (aka Davie)?


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:
			
		

> Wasn't there news a while ago that those ships were removed from the list of builds in order to move them to a third shipbuilder (aka Davie)?


No.  Seaspan is going to build up to sixteen of these ships.  https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/multi-polyvalents-eng.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

And as I said:



> Plus surely Davie will get a lot of these vessels:
> 
> Quote
> 
> Government of Canada will also proceed through a competitive process with the design of a new class of smaller ships, the new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ship, which would complement the work of the large fleet in shallow areas and deliver mid-shore science activities.
> 
> https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



The gov't this spring suddenly decided essentially to replace the whole fleet of large CCG ships.


----------



## MarkOttawa

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> CCG currently has seven high endurance multi-tasked vessels and six offshore patrol vessels. These thirteen are surely the ones to be replaced by the "up to 16 Multi-Purpose Vessels" Trudeau announced on May 22. But why 16 rather than 13?
> 
> Also Trudeau announced "new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ship" (no numbers, clearly for Davie), which presumably would replace the current three medium endurance multi-tasked vessels.
> 
> Note that almost all the current multi-tasked vessels of both types were built in the 1980s:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Canadian_Coast_Guard
> https://inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fdat/vessels?status=1&search=close
> https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet
> 
> But in 2013 (!!!) the Conservative gov't announced that Seaspan would build (after everything through the last ship planned, the polar icebreaker) up to five offshore patrol vessels and up to five medium endurance multi-tasked vessels:
> 
> Why in 2013 were the medium-endurance replacements considered a higher priority than the high-endurance ones the gov't now seems to be more definite about? Though if Davie gets the mediums they almost certainly will show up long before Seaspan's highs.
> 
> All most confusingly political, what? And the gov't and CCG give no time-frames in which those various types of vessels will be bought and no detailed rationale for what is being procured when and why.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Now this refit for a high endurance multi-tasked vessel, ship probably won't be replaced by Seaspan one until 2030s:



> Ottawa spending $12 million to refurbish Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Edward Cornwallis
> 
> The coast guard is announcing it will spend $12.1 million refurbishing a light icebreaker at a shipyard on Nova Scotia’s south shore.
> 
> Fisheries Minister Bernadette Jordan was in Shelburne, N.S., Monday to say the government will be funding repair work on the Canadian Coast Guard ship Edward Cornwallis, supporting 55 jobs at the Irving-owned Shelburne Ship Repair.
> 
> The work is expected to begin in April and last until January 2021.
> 
> A release says the _repairs include the replacement of main engines, a new heavy-lift crane, a new bow thruster and hull coating.
> 
> The vessel will also undergo regulatory work such as inspecting the tail shafts, seals, stern tubes, propellers and rudder_ [emphasis added].
> 
> _The 34-year-old icebreaker_ [emphasis added] was launched in 1986 after being built by Marine Industries in Tracy, Que.
> 
> Under the national shipbuilding strategy, more than $7.5 billion in contracts has been awarded under the repair, refit and maintenance program.
> https://globalnews.ca/news/6618609/coast-guard-icebreaker-edward-cornwallis/



CCGS Edward Cornwallis:



> https://inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fdat/vessels/vessel-details/59



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GR66

Interesting article in Forbes magazine about concerns over the US Navy shifting to larger numbers of smaller warships.  This could possibly relate to some of the suggestions that have been made to increase the size of our own fleet by adding in Corvette type ships to the CSCs.  Thoughts?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2020/02/29/the-us-navys-future-fleet-will-run-aground-in-heavy-weather/#7afbc7797053


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Now this refit for a high endurance multi-tasked vessel, ship probably won't be replaced by Seaspan one until 2030s:
> 
> CCGS Edward Cornwallis:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



The 1100's are decent vessels and do well for the day to day work of the CCG, particularly light icebreaking and buoytending. A modernized version of the same ship might be a good design choice.


----------



## Spencer100

GR66 said:
			
		

> Interesting article in Forbes magazine about concerns over the US Navy shifting to larger numbers of smaller warships.  This could possibly relate to some of the suggestions that have been made to increase the size of our own fleet by adding in Corvette type ships to the CSCs.  Thoughts?
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2020/02/29/the-us-navys-future-fleet-will-run-aground-in-heavy-weather/#7afbc7797053



The "smaller" ships the USN are looking at like the FFX are 6000 tons plus bigger than destroy of a few years ago.  The min man ships of 2000 tons are bigger than some WWII destroyers that fought the Battle of the Atlantic.


----------



## GR66

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> The "smaller" ships the USN are looking at like the FFX are 6000 tons plus bigger than destroy of a few years ago.  The min man ships of 2000 tons are bigger than some WWII destroyers that fought the Battle of the Atlantic.



No clue on this which is why I posted the article for comment by those that understand these things.  I know corvettes, frigates and destroyers are substantially larger now than in WWII, but I wonder if comparisons to the Battle of the Atlantic are apples to apples comparisons.

What kind of effects do high sea states have on the ability of modern radars to detect and maintain contact with sea-skimming missiles, etc.  Does heavy weather impact the ability to launch missiles?  

Obviously, escorting nuclear powered carriers requires significant speed (which is more of an issue for the USN than the RCN), but does significant weather make keeping up with nuclear sub targets difficult/impossible?  Would a CSC-sized ship fare significantly better in maintaining combat effectiveness than a smaller "corvette" sized vessel (probably equal in size to a WWII destroyer?)


----------



## Uzlu

GR66 said:
			
		

> Would a CSC-sized ship fare significantly better in maintaining combat effectiveness than a smaller "corvette" sized vessel (probably equal in size to a WWII destroyer?)


A larger hull helps with speed, therefore improving combat effectiveness.  (More on size of hull and its relationship to speed.)  “A small ship always needs more horsepower per ton than a large ship for a given speed.  A small hull has limited room to put in large amounts of horsepower.”   

So for a small hull to maintain the same speed as a large hull, there is a huge decrease in the amount of room for things like sensors, weapons, computers, electronics, etc.—placing a greater limit on combat effectiveness compared to a larger hull.  

And bigger ships generally have fewer seakeeping problems—again, obviously, better in maintaining combat effectiveness compared to smaller ships.  So I can see why the Royal Canadian Navy would prefer fifteen surface combatants of about 8 800 tonnes instead of, say, four large surface combatants and, say, sixteen 3 500 tonne corvettes.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu said:
			
		

> A larger hull helps with speed, therefore improving combat effectiveness.  (More on size of hull and its relationship to speed.)  “A small ship always needs more horsepower per ton than a large ship for a given speed.  A small hull has limited room to put in large amounts of horsepower.”
> 
> So for a small hull to maintain the same speed as a large hull, there is a huge decrease in the amount of room for things like sensors, weapons, computers, electronics, etc.—placing a greater limit on combat effectiveness compared to a larger hull.



Note specs for RCN's WW II Tribal-class destroyers:



> ...
> Displacement	1,883 tons (2,559 full complement) BRT
> Length	377 feet (oa)
> Complement	190 (Cossack, Afridi, Somali and Tartar 219) men
> Armament	8 4.7" guns (4x2)
> 4 x 2pdr AA (1x4)
> 8 0.5" MG AA (4x2)
> 4 21" torpedo tubes (1x4)
> _Max speed	36 knots_ [emphasis added]
> Engines	Geared turbines, 2 shafts
> Power	44000 HP
> ...
> https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class/1.html



But clearly a lot less "sensors, weapons, computers, electronics".

More specs here, gives "2,800 tons full load":
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/postwar/tribww2/

And RAN specs here:
https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-arunta-i

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Batch 2 River Class look like a good replacement for half the Kingston's, have the other half dedicated mine hunters

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel


----------



## Lumber

For comparison, here's the Russian Buyan-M class corvette, which has the same displacemetn as the Kingston Class, and half the displacement of the River-class batch-2's mentioend above:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyan-class_corvette



> Armament:
> Buyan-M:
> 1 × 100 mm A-190-01 naval gun[3]
> 2 × 30 mm AK-630-M2 CIWS
> 1 × Pantsir-M CIWS (Stavropol)
> 2 × 4 UKSK VLS cells for Kalibr (SS-N-27/SS-N-30) or Oniks (SS-N-26) anti-ship cruise missiles
> 2 × 4 Komar surface-to-air missiles[5]
> 1 × DP-65 anti-saboteur grenade launcher
> 2 × 14.5 mm KPV type


----------



## Colin Parkinson

At the expense of range. The UK had to build a ship to patrol the Falklands, likley a better choice for us. The Russian ship is more a littoral fighter.


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin P said:
			
		

> Batch 2 River Class look like a good replacement for half the Kingston's, have the other half dedicated mine hunters
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel



Just slowly build 12 out of Heddle Yard. Pull the life out of the Kingstons over then next 15 yrs and use them for niche or MCM roles.

Also this:

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/enhancing-the-royal-navys-batch-ii-opvs/


----------



## suffolkowner

http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/162

from the article, has anyone heard this about two polar icebreakers before?

On December 19, 2019, the federal government announced that Davie Shipbuilding (Chantier Davie) of Levis, Quebec would become the third shipyard to participate in NSS, along with Irving and Seaspan. Although the details of Davie’s role are still being negotiated with Ottawa, the yard will be building six heavy (8,000 tonnes) and two polar (23,000 tonnes) icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard. In 2017, the company completed converting the commercial ship MV Asterix to serve as the Royal Canadian Navy’s auxiliary supply ship.


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> has anyone heard this about two polar icebreakers before?





> it is expected that the initial order will consist of six heavy icebreakers of 8,000 tonnes and up to two 23,000 tonne polar icebreakers.


https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/09/09/1912995/0/en/UPDATE-Davie-to-become-Canada-s-National-Icebreaker-Builder-Taking-Canada-to-the-Top.html


----------



## JMCanada

Colin P said:
			
		

> Batch 2 River Class look like a good replacement for half the Kingston's, have the other half dedicated mine hunters



French new POM would be an updated MCDV: 1300 tons, limited crew (30), small gun and not even lillypad for helicopter.
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrouilleur_Outre-mer

Instead, if we are looking for true corvettes, six of these might be useful and would provide commonalities with allies (reduced costs).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The French is interesting, although does not appear to state if built to military/Civil or a hybrid of the classes like the River Class is. Picture here https://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2019/december/The_President_of_the_French_Republic_announces_order_of_6_patrollers_overseas_925_001.jpg

For the corvettes, the big issue is trying to convince politicians and TB that these are different than the CSC's. However I think the Kingstons fit a good niche, which even the River Class might be to big for.


----------



## Underway

The RCN isn't going to want corvettes.  We need ships that can go into the fire and get out alive when it comes to combatants.  Corvette's legs are short, too small of a damage control capability and their combat systems are almost as expensive as frigates combat systems with less survivability.  Corvette's as they are currently constructed is a poor man's frigate for tight waters, and missions close to home.  

However, MCDV replacement is an entirely different conversation.  What are the missions MCDV's are currently doing, how do they fit into a fleet structure that the RCN believes it needs and what requirements are necessary for their replacement?

I think we can put MDCV jobs into three large categories: Mine countermeasures, Offshore Patrol, Interdiction Operations

*Mine countermeasures* - both minesweeping (large scale removal of mines) and minehunting (targeted detection and removal of mines) are a job that is important.
-need to have the ability to embark and operate the types UUV's that will do both of these jobs (clearing and hunting)
-embark Clearance Diving Teams to operate these UUV's
-embark appropriate dive stores (e.g. hyperbaric chamber) 
-high maneuverability, dynamic station keeping, low signature (acoustic, pressure, magnetic)
-basic armament (NRWS, .50 cal)
-decent comms, maybe Link 16/22 capability though that might not be required

*Offshore Patrol*- range, good sensors (EOIR, good surface/limited air radar, perhaps sonar)
-UAV capability, short-duration Cyclone capability (therefore a flight deck and air landing equipment)
-good comms, full Link capability
-25 to 40mm gun and NRWS
-half-decent speed (20+ knots seems about right)
-good seakeeping

*Interdiction* - all the same stuff as Offshore patrol with the added requirement boarding capability, so good ships boats

Depending on how the AOPS turn out the patrol/interdiction jobs might be done by them, or partially by them.
The mine countermeasures job, however, requires IMHO a specialized build. Doing this modularly is not going to work properly.  Given the current shortfall in RCN numbers I would think that 8 MM's, 4 per coast would make sense.  Not as fun to talk about as the sexy Corvette concept but an extremely valuable role and fits a requirement for the RCN.

As for Offshore Patrol/Interdiction, a ship like the River Class would probably do quite fine.  I'm not sure there would be an appetite for them on top of the AOPs however.


----------



## Swampbuggy

The Aussies are replacing several ship classes with the ARAFURA class, including the HUON's. The capabilities and design would seem to check off all the boxes Underway mentioned above.


----------



## GR66

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> The Aussies are replacing several ship classes with the ARAFURA class, including the HUON's. The capabilities and design would seem to check off all the boxes Underway mentioned above.



I've seen it mentioned several times on these forums that a very large part of the cost of a new vessel is in the design, the electronics and the weapon systems.

Instead of adding a completely new class of ship to the fleet would there be any benefit to simply adding a few more CSC hulls but fitting them with a less sophisticated electronics suite more in line with an OPV-type ship and a reduced weapon system (maybe a 40mm RWS in place of the main gun?).

It would have the benefit of commonality of parts and crew training requirements.  It would be a larger vessel with good weather handling that could act as a "lilly pad" for helicopter operations, a flex deck for various purposes, room for embarked personnel, etc.

Would such an option be able to be safely manned by a small enough crew and would the standardization benefits be sufficient to make it a worthwhile option?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The MCDV's can get into places the larger ships can't, the AOP's will fill some of the current roles the MCDV's do, but their eventually replacement may require two different hulls, but you can have common systems aboard.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Except for a couple of AOPs and Asterix, none of the warships have been delivered, and won’t be for years/decades to come.* So adding ships to be built adds to the problem.  Really, and this is sad, but buying somebody else’s existing, already built and in use ship, might be the better way to go.  

* I will go so far as to ***guess*** that some of the existing frigates will receive one more substantial upgrade before being struck.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> The MCDV's can get into places the larger ships can't, the AOP's will fill some of the current roles the MCDV's do, but their eventually replacement may require two different hulls, but you can have common systems aboard.



lolz, I see your common sense plan for common equipment, and raise you PWGSC's protests that you are supposed to just set requirements and not sole source or direct them to buy specific equipment.

Case in point; 6 AOPs and 2 JSS don't have common equipment because 2 different ship yards are selecting equipment based on the unique requirements. On the flip side, the ISSC for both will be done by Thales, and includes provisions for them to seek opportunities to streamline things by doing things like suggesting common equipment for replacements. It was super stupid, as we could have had the same IPMS or whatever on both classes, but will probably have to wait 15 years until it becomes obsolete.

Wish we did it with more GFE like the USN or other navies do; it would simplify things a lot.


----------



## FSTO

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Except for a couple of AOPs and Asterix, none of the warships have been delivered, and won’t be for years/decades to come.* So adding ships to be built adds to the problem.  Really, and this is sad, but buying somebody else’s existing, already built and in use ship, might be the better way to go.
> 
> * I will go so far as to ***guess*** that some of the existing frigates will receive one more substantial upgrade before being struck.


Are you old enough to remember the Harbour Training Ships Columbia and St Croix? Some of our frigates are in such poor shape that they'll be regulated to that role or just hulks to be stripped down of all usable equipment to keep their sister ships viable.


----------



## Spencer100

Canada does have some first class and high tech shipbuilding or in case design skills.  

https://www.porttechnology.org/news/abu-dhabi-continues-smart-port-transformation-with-autonomous-tugboat/?mod=djemlogistics_h

I would think this is the future.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:
			
		

> Are you old enough to remember the Harbour Training Ships Columbia and St Croix? Some of our frigates are in such poor shape that they'll be regulated to that role or just hulks to be stripped down of all usable equipment to keep their sister ships viable.



Did they also not do that to Huron for a bit before she was decommisioned?  From what I understand they were able to run through things like flashup and ran the trainees through maintenance under supervision while she was alongside (rather then use training aids ashore or walk through it).


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:
			
		

> Are you old enough to remember the Harbour Training Ships Columbia and St Croix? Some of our frigates are in such poor shape that they'll be regulated to that role or just hulks to be stripped down of all usable equipment to keep their sister ships viable.



I'm sure some will be sold.  For places like Chile, they would be considered almost new.


----------



## CBH99

FSTO said:
			
		

> Are you old enough to remember the Harbour Training Ships Columbia and St Croix? Some of our frigates are in such poor shape that they'll be regulated to that role or just hulks to be stripped down of all usable equipment to keep their sister ships viable.




I don't have any exposure to the fleet.  Is this actually true though?

Aren't the Halifax's fairly fresh from their midlife refits?  Is this simply a maintenance issue?  Why are some ships in better shape than others?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Underway said:
			
		

> I'm sure some will be sold.  For places like Chile, they would be considered almost new.



Cheap--in fact Chile's frigates are roughly same vintage as RCN's--and not long ago we had to rent an AOR from them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_ships_of_the_Chilean_Navy

Cool website too:
https://www.armada.cl/armada/site/tax/port/all/taxport_29_29__1.html

AOR:
https://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/chile-chili/highlights-faits/2015/2015-07-PetroleroDeArmada.aspx?lang=eng

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I don't have any exposure to the fleet.  Is this actually true though?
> 
> Aren't the Halifax's fairly fresh from their midlife refits?  Is this simply a maintenance issue?  Why are some ships in better shape than others?



The refit concentrated on systems instead of structure. These ships have been run HARD and were not built as well as the old steamers and 280's. They were designed for 25 years but we are hoping for 40 and may get around 32 years out of them. If I had a magic wand, we would have foregone the refit and concentrated on getting the CSC's out the door 5 years ago. At 25 years, sell the ships to 2nd world nations and have new ships ready to work.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FSTO said:
			
		

> The refit concentrated on systems instead of structure. These ships have been run HARD and were not built as well as the old steamers and 280's. They were designed for 25 years but we are hoping for 40 and may get around 32 years out of them. If I had a magic wand, we would have foregone the refit and concentrated on getting the CSC's out the door 5 years ago. At 25 years, sell the ships to 2nd world nations and have new ships ready to work.



Bingo. Midlife refits are a waste of time and money. Warships have a fleet life of about 20-25 years: after that the maintenance curve goes through the roof. So, do a docking work period with system updates every 5 years and ditch the ship (scrap or sell) after the 4th one and before the 5th becomes necessary.


----------



## Cloud Cover

FSTO said:
			
		

> Are you old enough to remember the Harbour Training Ships Columbia and St Croix? Some of our frigates are in such poor shape that they'll be regulated to that role or just hulks to be stripped down of all usable equipment to keep their sister ships viable.



Lol; I chipped paint on the Colombia before the first CPF keel was laid. Yes that’s what I’m thinking the RCN is headed for. Look at the cost of these programs and look at what the country is getting for the money. It’s insane. You really have to hope like hell that the egg heads in Ottawa have it right.


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Bingo. Midlife refits are a waste of time and money. Warships have a fleet life of about 20-25 years: after that the maintenance curve goes through the roof. So, do a docking work period with system updates every 5 years and ditch the ship (scrap or sell) after the 4th one and before the 5th becomes necessary.



Can you enlighten some of us that would like to know why a ship is only viable for 25 years? I reckon it may have to do with the constant exposure to salt water?

My Niner Domsestic got a briefing on the Disney Magic, which will be retired from the Disney Fleet after 25 years service....say.....there may be an opportunity.... I jest of course.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

3 ships of the NSPS together


----------



## Spencer100

Colin P said:
			
		

> 3 ships of the NSPS together



Nice trip around the continent!


----------



## FSTO

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Can you enlighten some of us that would like to know why a ship is only viable for 25 years? I reckon it may have to do with the constant exposure to salt water?
> 
> My Niner Domsestic got a briefing on the Disney Magic, which will be retired from the Disney Fleet after 25 years service....say.....there may be an opportunity.... I jest of course.



I think the 25 year lifespan is somewhat arbitrary but when you look at the process of getting a warship from the nav architects to the builders and then to the actual officers and sailors you are already looking at 10-15 years before the ship actually touches salt water. So in reality the building of a warship is kind of a crystal ball thing, will there be massive changes in hull form, propulsion, sensors and weapons systems in that decade and a half? Are we purchasing the right components? 
Then when that ship is delivered to the Navy we drive it like we stole it. So unlike a container ship going one speed with minimal course changes, the warship is roaring around in circles, slamming on the breaks, going into dangerous waters and like it or not bumping into things. Then we decide at 20 to 25 years to open up the old girl and add and or take off things and cover up as best we can the underlying structural problems.
And then shutting down and rebuilding an entire shipbuilding industry every generation doesn't help with the lessons learned thingy at all.

Better to build the ships in batches of 4, incorporate improvements in the next couple of batches and then when batch 4 (for 16 ships) is being built already have a new design ready to begin building at the completion of ship 16 and ships 1-4 are ready to retire for scrap or if someone is interested sold off to get a few more years out of her.


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Aren't the Halifax's fairly fresh from their midlife refits?  Is this simply a maintenance issue?  Why are some ships in better shape than others?



Yes, they are but the refit focused almost exclusively on updating the combat suite. The hull and marine systems were not updated.  Freddy's recent docking work period replaced almost 20m of steel amidships due to rust out and metal fatigue.

Some of the problems stem from maintenance.  The common complaint from the engineering side is that the NWO types don't understand maintenance routines, and these are the first to go when operational requirements call. There is, of course, a balance in all things and its swinging back to the engineers. 

Part of that is due to fixing another problem the fleet had.  An ability to inspect and baseline equipment/parts/hull structures.  Translating that information into money, and lost hours for the ship operating is forcing the NWO's to re-evaluate maintenance (a pinch of prevention saves a pound of cure).  The other part was the flat out loss of the 280's due to not planning maintenance, refits and overuse.

As far as why some ships are in better shape, it often has to do with operational tempo and sometimes luck.  HMCS Toronto and HMCS Fredriction were worked very hard during the OP APOLLO and OP ATHENA years. Toronto did multiple back to back deployments.  VDQ was doing much less overseas deployments.  VDQ is currently in amazing shape, where as Toronto and Freddy require much more work to keep going.


----------



## NavyShooter

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Nice trip around the continent!



I find it notable that the one ship not built by the yard visible is the one ship that's actually sailing...and is capable of sailing around a continent.

As for the Halifax Class - there was a LOT of steel returned by the RCN post MLR that ISI ran out of time/money to install on the hulls.  That was steel which was surveyed as requiring replacement before the ships went into the MLR...and wasn't done...so how much worse has it gotten since then?  

The MLR was not a re-fit, it was a combat-systems reconfiguration.  The MAR ENG world either had or let their major 'big ticket' items get pushed out of the MLR - DG replacement, Chiller replacements, etc.   Can't blame them.


----------



## newfin

Colin P said:
			
		

> 3 ships of the NSPS together



Very cool photo.  Unfortunately it has been recently reported that both of the two hulls tied up at Irving are going to be late, again.  I am sure that Irving is doing whatever they can to milk extra money out of the Federal Government.  Several months from now we will be forced to listen to an executive brag about how once again, they've delivered ships on time and under budget.  :rofl:


----------



## OldSolduer

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I find it notable that the one ship not built by the yard visible is the one ship that's actually sailing...and is capable of sailing around a continent.
> 
> As for the Halifax Class - there was a LOT of steel returned by the RCN post MLR that ISI ran out of time/money to install on the hulls.  That was steel which was surveyed as requiring replacement before the ships went into the MLR...and wasn't done...so how much worse has it gotten since then?
> 
> The MLR was not a re-fit, it was a combat-systems reconfiguration.  The MAR ENG world either had or let their major 'big ticket' items get pushed out of the MLR - DG replacement, Chiller replacements, etc.   Can't blame them.



Something rotten in the state of Denmark perhaps?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Underway said:
			
		

> Yes, they are but the refit focused almost exclusively on updating the combat suite. The hull and marine systems were not updated.  Freddy's recent docking work period replaced almost 20m of steel amidships due to rust out and metal fatigue...



CP story:



> Navy’s aging warships getting harder to repair: Defence report
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy’s maintenance facilities are having an increasingly tougher time fixing Canada’s warships because of staff shortages, lack of spare parts and the age of the fleet, according to an internal Defence Department study.
> 
> The navy was also found to be critically short of sonar and sensor operators for its frigates while ongoing challenges in getting Canada’s submarines into the water are hurting the navy’s ability to train new submariners to crew them.
> 
> The study’s findings were written last year but only published by the Defence Department this week. The Canadian Press recently reported on navy and Canadian Coast Guard needing hundreds more sailors between them to get up to strength.
> 
> The study found the navy was able to conduct nearly all of its overseas missions despite the challenges, in part by moving people and equipment around to where they were needed most. The exception was Canada’s trouble-plagued submarines.
> 
> Navy officials also told those conducting the study that they were working on plans to address the underlying problems, including putting more money and staff into the fleet maintenance facilities in Victoria and Halifax.
> 
> The findings nonetheless reiterate the importance of addressing those personnel shortfalls both in terms of sailors and maintenance staff while underscoring the importance of preventing any further delays in the long-running effort to replace Canada’s warship fleets.
> 
> The difficulties facing the maintenance facilities figured prominently in the study findings, which said the facilities “have been increasingly challenged to sustain the aging platforms and increasingly obsolete systems of the Halifax-class frigates and Victoria-class submarines.”
> 
> The challenges were even found to extend to some systems only recently installed aboard the 1980s-era frigates as part of a major upgrade that is intended to keep them operating until new warships arrive, which is currently expected to happen in the late 2020s and early in the next decade.
> 
> In the meantime, “the obsolescence of certain parts and systems, including some recently installed (Halifax-class modernization) systems, and the growing age of the platforms themselves, remain significant issues,” the study found.
> 
> The maintenance facilities were also found to have lost about 10 per cent of their staff over the past few years even as the demand for repairs steadily increased. The study did not say why staff were leaving.
> 
> Complicating matters was availability of spare parts, again part due to the age of the ships. In some cases, parts had to be taken from one ship or submarine that was docked in extended maintenance periods and put in another needing less work to get it out the door faster...
> https://www.mromagazine.com/2020/03/09/navys-aging-warships-getting-harder-to-repair-defence-report/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

While RCN and CCG wait and wait and wait for their fleets of new vessels, Aussies are now building first of 12 OPVs, based on PV80 design of Germany's Lürssen (https://www.luerssen-defence.com/opv-80/):



> Australia officialy starts construction of first Arafura class Offshore Patrol Vessel
> 
> The Government’s $90 billion Continuous Naval Shipbuilding Program has reached a new milestone with construction on the first Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) to be built in Western Australia commencing.
> 
> This will be the third of twelve Arafura class OPVs, and the first to be built at the Civmec shipyard in Henderson, Western Australia. The twelve Australian vessels are based on the PV80 design with the first two vessels to be built at ASC's Osborne shipyard in South Australia before production moves to Civmec's Henderson shipyard in Western Australia.
> 
> The program will replace and improve upon the capability delivered by the Armidale Class and Cape Class Patrol Boats which entered service in 2005.
> 
> The Arafura class offshore patrol vessels (OPV) are being built for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). The new OPVs are intended to replace the existing Armidale class and Cape class patrol boats, Huon class coastal minehunters, and Leeuwin class survey ships in service with the RAN.
> 
> The OPVs in the class _will be able to perform maritime patrol, response duties, and constabulary missions. The vessels can be customized to perform mine hunting, hydrographic survey, fisheries patrol, disaster relief, and unmanned aerial system (UAS) missions_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The new OPVs will be 80 meters in length with a displacement of 1700 tonnes [like many WW II destroyers] and a draught of 4 meters. They will be fitted with a 40 mm gun for self-protection, three 8.4 m sea boats, state of the art sensors as well as command and communication systems [top speed 22 knots].
> 
> The vessels are able to embark unmanned aerial (UAV), underwater (UUV) and surface vehicles (USV) and can operate larger sea boats which are essential for boarding operations.
> 
> The _first two vessels are already under construction by Luerssen Australia and ASC in Adelaide_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The remaining ten vessels will be constructed by Luerssen Australia and Civmec at Henderson in Western Australia under the SEA1180 OPV program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/march/8213-australia-officialy-starts-construction-of-first-arafura-class-offshore-patrol-vessel.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

The Aussie's are a nation of chancers.  There is no Canadian equivalent of Two-Up.

Canadians want to know the outcome of the game before they'll place a bet.

The Aussie's are more willing to lose a dollar so they can move when there is a greater level of uncertainty and deliver projects faster.


----------



## MTShaw

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> While RCN and CCG wait and wait and wait for their fleets of new vessels, Aussies are now building first of 12 OPVs, based on PV80 design of Germany's Lürssen (https://www.luerssen-defence.com/opv-80/):
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Thank you for bad mouthing all of the builders at Irving and Seaspan who, in your opinion, are not working fast enough.

Get a grip, Mark.

HMG of both parties have bungled the start of the shipbuilding process. However, that process is underway, and I will reserve judgement until we are well in to it.

Michael


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Warts and all I am in favour of the NSPS, I just wished they started 20 years earlier. Regardless of party, I don't see how they could not involve Irving.


----------



## Dale Denton

I agree with you Colin. With the addition that specialized designs and classes be farmed out of Canada with partnerships between our yards and foreign yards. Maintenance of foreign built designs be used as a lesson-building in Canada.

I've been down a rabbit-hole of LPDs and LSDs, how useful they would be - especially in times like these. The French Navy has been using their Mistral Class (such a shame) to transport and treat virus patients in their overseas territories with much success. If the RCN had one, we could be using them to do the same in smaller coastal areas off the east or west coast and in short time northern communities as well. Use as medical treatment/hospital ships, HaDR, either overseas or off our own coasts, a light amphibious role, AOR or vehicular transport for our NATO missions and the ability to train on similar ships within NATO or RAN.

Procuring one of these ships should be added somewhere in the Policy. The need was already identified in the recent past as the purpose behind the Big Honkin' Ship and the entire JSS project - so gov't isn't entirely against the idea and need (or was convinced at some point). Building a ship of this size would be comparable in size (breadth, length and displacement) to the new Protecteur Class, so our yards are capable (complexity aside) of building the hulls. Newer designs like the HNLMS Karel Doorman and the RAN/RN Bay-Class (and other Enforcer-ship derivatives) provide the niche capability while being on the recently designed and built side.

On the existing and less-expensive side are many examples and possibilities. The USMC and USN move to smaller amphibious ship designs like the LX(R) class replacement to building the large, expensive, and highly capable San-Antonio classes allow for the possibility for Canada to join in the program. This continental program would allow us to learn from Huntington Ingalls Industries' experience in the design and building of these vessels, giving a boost to our industry in line with our own Policy, while splitting the costs and unknowns of building domestically. A diplomatic boon to any US gov't who can promote the export of a largely american design. With the first LX(R) coming online in approximately 2027, the chance to buy-in to the the line of ships is possible, as opposed to paying to restart a yards build of an existing class of ships. On the even-less expensive avenue of buying an LPD or LSD is available as early as 2027. The LX(R) will be replacing 2 classes of LSDs currently in service with the USN, the Harpers Ferry-class and Whidbey Island Class (12 total built), both of which share designs. The Harpers Ferry-class being the cargo-oriented version and the Whidbey Island class being the more amphibious. With the Whidbey Island-class USS Fort McHenry being the first ship to be replaced by the LX(R) in 2027 offer the possibility to cheaply procure a NATO allies LSD and Canadianize it. Although these classes were first commissioned in the late-80s, 8 of the 12 built will be refitted to remain in service until 2038. The class staying in service until such a time would secure parts-availability should at least one of them be purchased.


----------



## MarkOttawa

With the stupendous costs and debts stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic one wonders how much stomach our government (whatever party) will have for continuing apace with the planned very large defence expenditures, e.g. new RCAF fighter, new RCN CSC frigates.

Heck, they've also got a whole fleet of almost ancient CCG large vessels to replace.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am fully onboard with that, the Mistrals could be built in France with cooperation from one of our yards and finally fitting out over here for minor stuff and landing craft for them built here. Base crew is less than a 280 had and had we got the two Russian ones they could have been taken over by the stranded crews of the 280 and AOR's who had been left without ships. Plus as they were ice strengthened , with support they could operate in the summer Arctic. It would take some interesting out of the box thinking to maximise their potentiel within the current forces framework, but I think that such a thing would actually invigorate a lot of people, not to mention a chance to serve on a new and new type of ship for the Forces.


Mark
I can sees the AOPS, AOR's and CSC continuing as they mean a lot of jobs. I foresee the fighter replacement getting kicked down the road for at least two more election cycles.


----------



## blacktriangle

I will be surprised if 15 capable CSC hit the water. I'd expect either numbers cut to 12, or 15 hulls with watered down capabilities. Anyone want to place a friendly wager?


----------



## MTShaw

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> I will be surprised if 15 capable CSC hit the water. I'd expect either numbers cut to 12, or 15 hulls with watered down capabilities. Anyone want to place a friendly wager?



The government will be borrowing money for quite some time.  They may have to raise taxes.  It would be political suicide in those regions were the Grits on Tories decide to gut high paying jobs.

Just a thought.

Michael


----------



## blacktriangle

True, but it's not political suicide to gut military capabilities.


----------



## Good2Golf

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> True, but it's not political suicide to gut military capabilities.



Since military capabilities only rate secondary (or tertiary) consideration, the prime factor remains jobs in favourable constituencies.

[/cynicism]


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Since military capabilities only rate secondary (or tertiary) consideration, the prime factor remains jobs in favourable constituencies.
> 
> [/cynicism]



I'm sorry, I can't make out your message on the TCCCS radio I have here...


----------



## MilEME09

If anything I say this is an opportunity to use defense projects to get the country back to work, bring back canadian steel foundries, involve smaller ship builders to get jobs going, massive infrastructure building not just for the navy but the whole CAF, sure buy a mistral from the french or two. This is a chance for our capabilities to be greatly expanded and generate thousands of high paying jobs while we are at it.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am fully onboard with that, the Mistrals could be built in France with cooperation from one of our yards and finally fitting out over here for minor stuff and landing craft for them built here. Base crew is less than a 280 had and had we got the two Russian ones they could have been taken over by the stranded crews of the 280 and AOR's who had been left without ships. Plus as they were ice strengthened , with support they could operate in the summer Arctic. It would take some interesting out of the box thinking to maximise their potentiel within the current forces framework, but I think that such a thing would actually invigorate a lot of people, not to mention a chance to serve on a new and new type of ship for the Forces.
> 
> 
> Mark
> I can sees the AOPS, AOR's and CSC continuing as they mean a lot of jobs. I foresee the fighter replacement getting kicked down the road for at least two more election cycles.



The 280 and AOR crews went over to the frigates and MCDVs, and we're also taking on the crewing of the AOPS. We don't have enough folks for the current fleet, the Mistrals would be another great big gap to fill.

I'm all for the NSPS, but it should have included a recruitment program that brought in the hard sea trades that you need to get off the wall.  Even with the reduced crewing on the new ships, we're still short a lot of bodies, and doing things like shutting down the METTP program in St. Johns didn't help.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I be guessing the Mistals would actually be a favourable posting, interesting deployments and enough room to get away from each other for a bit. I think the AOP's will also provide some favorable accommodation as well. You won't have the mould issues or the close quarters, higher tempo ops of the Halifax's. I think the MCDV will be doing fewer overseas patrols as well.


----------



## Spencer100

There will be a lot cheap cruise ships coming up for sale!  Lol.  Some of them are over 100,000 tons and have room for 6000.  Paint it gray. Slap a helicopter pad over the pool. Instant very big honking ship!


----------



## MilEME09

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> There will be a lot cheap cruise ships coming up for sale!  Lol.  Some of them are over 100,000 tons and have room for 6000.  Paint it gray. Slap a helicopter pad over the pool. Instant very big honking ship!



You really think they will give up the pool?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> I be guessing the Mistals would actually be a favourable posting, interesting deployments and enough room to get away from each other for a bit. I think the AOP's will also provide some favorable accommodation as well. You won't have the mould issues or the close quarters, higher tempo ops of the Halifax's. I think the MCDV will be doing fewer overseas patrols as well.



Okay but if it creates more jetty hopping that's the kind of thing that drives people out. It's been happening for years and will only get worse as you add more ships. If we don't have enough people currently, you can't add more ships without sorting the crewing out first.  Stupid to buy ships for billions and then tie them up alongside because you are short bodies.

One challenge for the Mistrals is the French Navy crewing concept they are designed to has a higher baseline of training and experience for the crew (ie mostly MS and up). USN ships are similarly challenging, as they have a lot of bodies to do basic/specialized tasks. Makes a massive difference when you are looking at buying an off the shelf design, but why RN, RNZN, RAN and some other NATO navy ships work well.

Agree it would be useful, but it's not as easy as just picking up a ship when we are already stretched for qualified, experience crews.


----------



## MilEME09

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Agree it would be useful, but it's not as easy as just picking up a ship when we are already stretched for qualified, experience crews.



Well coincidentally there seems to be a growing population of job seekers in this country, if I was working recruiting right now I would be figuring out how to pull bodies in once we start up again. I fully believe we can do it, but I can honestly say I haven't seen anything for recruiting in years, perhaps a more aggressive approach is in order?

Edit to fix quote syntax.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Okay but if it creates more jetty hopping that's the kind of thing that drives people out. It's been happening for years and will only get worse as you add more ships. If we don't have enough people currently, you can't add more ships without sorting the crewing out first.  Stupid to buy ships for billions and then tie them up alongside because you are short bodies.
> 
> One challenge for the Mistrals is the French Navy crewing concept they are designed to has a higher baseline of training and experience for the crew (ie mostly MS and up). USN ships are similarly challenging, as they have a lot of bodies to do basic/specialized tasks. Makes a massive difference when you are looking at buying an off the shelf design, but why RN, RNZN, RAN and some other NATO navy ships work well.
> 
> Agree it would be useful, but it's not as easy as just picking up a ship when we are already stretched for qualified, experience crews.



So what your saying is the crew stays longer on the same ship in the French navy? Jetty hooping I assume means come back from deployment, a few days off and then back to sea again? Yes that would suck. It sounds like the senior staff says yes to more things than the ships and crews can handle. I wonder if the dual crew system would work for the navy, say 48 days at sea/onboard and 48 off? You need about 2.5 crews for that per ship though, to allow for training, extended leave, medical, family etc.


----------



## garb811

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well coincidentally there seems to be a growing population of job seekers in this country, if I was working recruiting right now I would be figuring out how to pull bodies in once we start up again. I fully believe we can do it, but I can honestly say I haven't seen anything for recruiting in years, perhaps a more aggressive approach is in order?
> 
> Edit to fix quote syntax.


Recruiting isn't the problem (for the vast majority of MOS), the problem is throughput of the schools and retaining trained pers.


----------



## quadrapiper

garb811 said:
			
		

> Recruiting isn't the problem (for the vast majority of MOS), the problem is throughput of the schools and retaining trained pers.


Are the hard-sea-trade schools operating at physical capacity - i.e., is it "just" a matter of funding more instructors and consumables?


----------



## MilEME09

garb811 said:
			
		

> Recruiting isn't the problem (for the vast majority of MOS), the problem is throughput of the schools and retaining trained pers.



Do we need to slow our operational tempo so more people can be diverted to be instructors?


----------



## NavyShooter

The various schools were amalgamated into "Campuses" about 4 years ago.  That was an outstanding success.  

It was such a success that when I found out I was posted out of there, I was exceedingly joyful.

Consider, a section that previously had 12 instructors including a Senior Instructor, plus a Standards cell to support it, is now down to 5 personnel including the SI, and the SI is assigned the role of being "standards" as well.  

Where a SI previously had the depth of field to assign 2 instructors per course for 4 courses in house (1x QL5, 3x QL3) which is required for safety purposes when working on electronic/electrical gear, with 3 other instructors that could be cycled in to cover off leave, illness, MATA/PATA, or sending one off to a ship to fill an empty spot.   That flexibility is now gone - there's 4 instructors - plus the SI.  You can run 2x classes, and have to call in a favour if one of your instructors is sick, has a car accident, etc.  The loss of the depth of field is...a concern.  I was told that we would CFTPO instructors up from the fleet if we were short.  I almost kept a straight face when I was told that.  

As for bad mouthing the workers at local shipyards...well, based upon my experience, I use the words "incompetence", "thievery", "unsafe", and "wilful deliberate sabotage."

If you want the specific examples, I can sit down over a coffee and detail the multiple ships I brought out of the 'local' yard and the myriad of problems with them.  

When I was offered a job at said certain local shipyard, I responded to the person who headhunted me the following:

 "I have too much pride in myself, and value my name to dear to see it on the same business card as the word "XXXXXX".

There are a few problems with the Navy, and our training system, and our support/maintenance system, and our procurement system.  In the end, the sailors who are boots on the deckplates will do the things necessary to keep our ships at sea.  As they've always done.

NS


----------



## MTShaw

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> As for bad mouthing the workers at local shipyards...well, based upon my experience, I use the words "incompetence", "thievery", "unsafe", and "wilful deliberate sabotage."
> 
> If you want the specific examples, I can sit down over a coffee and detail the multiple ships I brought out of the 'local' yard and the myriad of problems with them.



My local yard is Seaspan.  I have confidence in their ability to build quality ships. Perhaps Irving’s shit reputation is warranted. I’m to young and too late in the game to have that cynicism yet. If they’re if they’re still struggling with the fitting-out of ship three, I’ll say right here that Irving sucks.

Thanks NS for your input.  Like I said, I most certainly don’t have the history and I do appreciate the mild correction.

Michael


----------



## MilEME09

MTShaw said:
			
		

> My local yard is Seaspan.  I have confidence in their ability to build quality ships. Perhaps Irving’s crap reputation is warranted. I’m to young and too late in the game to have that cynicism yet. If they’re if they’re still struggling with the fitting-out of ship three, I’ll say right here that Irving sucks.
> 
> Thanks NS for your input.  Like I said, I most certainly don’t have the history and I do appreciate the mild correction.
> 
> Michael



Friend of mine worked out in the yards on the west coast years ago, do not know if it was seaspan, however his opinion was that the employees and the unions were more concerned with keeping their pay cheque's then they were about doing the job right, and that's putting it mildly, exact same stuff Navyshooter mentioned was going on.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> So what your saying is the crew stays longer on the same ship in the French navy? Jetty hooping I assume means come back from deployment, a few days off and then back to sea again? Yes that would suck. It sounds like the senior staff says yes to more things than the ships and crews can handle. I wonder if the dual crew system would work for the navy, say 48 days at sea/onboard and 48 off? You need about 2.5 crews for that per ship though, to allow for training, extended leave, medical, family etc.



No, I mean they have less junior people. Maybe it was lost in translation when I was talking to a counterpart in the French Navy, but my understanding was they don't have any killicks or below on the Mistrals, and their general crewing philosophy is different. I think they funnel in from a training fleet (or maybe smaller patrol ships).  Think it may be a lot closer (for at least the engineering side) to civilian qualifications where they roll in fully qualified to their level, whereas we do a lot of OJT.  We could make it work, but it means you are pulling folks off the current fleet where they are needed to go to sea.


----------



## MTShaw

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Friend of mine worked out in the yards on the west coast years ago, do not know if it was seaspan, however his opinion was that the employees and the unions were more concerned with keeping their pay cheque's then they were about doing the job right, and that's putting it mildly, exact same stuff Navyshooter mentioned was going on.



And going back to Mark’s idealizing Australia’s program: I’m sure they have the same problems. Look at their AWD program. And I’m almost certain the American’s have the same problem.

But because of the Jobs they provide, and because Lockheed’s spreading a lot of the work on the CSC around Canada, we’ve created a self-licKing ice cream cone.

I guess I want ships that work, even if it takes longer.

Michael


----------



## NavyShooter

MTShaw said:
			
		

> My local yard is Seaspan.  I have confidence in their ability to build quality ships. Perhaps Irving’s shit reputation is warranted. I’m to young and too late in the game to have that cynicism yet. If they’re if they’re still struggling with the fitting-out of ship three, I’ll say right here that Irving sucks.
> 
> Thanks NS for your input.  Like I said, I most certainly don’t have the history and I do appreciate the mild correction.
> 
> Michael




Wilful deliberate sabotage is not mild.


The decades of history here in the East Coast are not solely reflective of one yard - all of the yards seem to be more concerned about getting their money rather than producing quality.  


When a ship that's supposed to need 20,000 hours of work to re-activate needs over 100,000 - there's more than just a minor problem.


When you have to put padlocks on unoccupied compartments during the refit so that workers don't go to hide and have naps, that's more than just a minor problem.


When you have over 1000 form 1148's outstanding when you leave a 'yard, that's more than just a minor problem.


When you have two ships in a row who's blackwater system has been blocked in exactly the same spot, with welding rods and bolts hammered into the pipe...that's more than a minor problem.

When you have a crew that spends 4 months de-storing ship to the point that you're stripping every piece of visible brass, from lazy-rod covers to fire-hoses, because if you don't they'll be stolen or cut-off and stolen...that's more than a minor problem.  (Scrap brass values apparently made this worthwhile to do by someone in a certain yard.)  


The mild correction is more than just mild.  I'm hoping that perhaps the experiences I've had on multiple ships is not reflective of every shipyard in Canada, but I think their only concern is getting money from the government...not fixing our ships properly.


NS


----------



## MilEME09

Unfortunately its political suicide to take the work off shore


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if we need some "Marine Gurkha's" (Not actual Gurkha's), the British army recently got 10,000 applications for 420 positions, they managed to do their selection in Nepal in short order to select the 420 candidates who all passed their basic training. Perhaps offer X number of seagoing positions to a friendly developing country. Selections are done in that country and the prospective sailors come here for basic and trade training. After a 10 years service they can immigrate to Canada with their families (counting against immigration numbers as a whole). We get committed and motivated people. This does not address the short fall in trained people, but could quickly beef up the number of sailors available to sail, giving some space for people to take courses. Start with a small number and slowly build it up.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> I wonder if we need some "Marine Gurkha's" (Not actual Gurkha's), the British army recently got 10,000 applications for 420 positions, they managed to do their selection in Nepal in short order to select the 420 candidates who all passed their basic training. Perhaps offer X number of seagoing positions to a friendly developing country. Selections are done in that country and the prospective sailors come here for basic and trade training. After a 10 years service they can immigrate to Canada with their families (counting against immigration numbers as a whole). We get committed and motivated people. This does not address the short fall in trained people, but could quickly beef up the number of sailors available to sail, giving some space for people to take courses. Start with a small number and slowly build it up.



Being an immigrant nation why are we not offering citizenship in exchange for service like other nations do?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Because Canadian values and all that.



Military service is not valued by Canadians or its governments.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sadly sums up a lot of our problems and way solutions fail.


----------



## OldSolduer

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Because Canadian values and all that.
> 
> 
> 
> Military service is not valued by Canadians or its governments.



You, sir, just won the Internet.

At best, the CAF is viewed by most as a domestic fire brigade and at worst a bunch of thieving miscreants.

Thank you to "liberal" historians who actually think that the military's traditional role is "peacekeeping" and continue to perpetuate that myth. Cyprus is over.

Peacekeeping is something the CAF is good at - or was - because of its reputation coming out of WWII and Korea.


----------



## dimsum

MTShaw said:
			
		

> And going back to Mark’s idealizing Australia’s program: I’m sure they have the same problems. Look at their AWD program.



And their Attack-class subs, which haven't even had steel cut yet.  And before that, the Collins-class subs.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-australias-attack-class-submarine-program-trouble-135452

https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/australias-collins-class-submarines-enter-a-20th-year-of-trouble/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Dimsum said:
			
		

> And their Attack-class subs, which haven't even had steel cut yet.  And before that, the Collins-class subs.
> 
> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-australias-attack-class-submarine-program-trouble-135452
> 
> https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/australias-collins-class-submarines-enter-a-20th-year-of-trouble/



Not "idealizing" Aussies but at least they actually move their programs forward and much earlier than we do by comparison. Also willing to buy some things abroad--85% for HMAS Canberra from Navantia (https://www.navantia.es/en/news/press-releases/hmas-canberra-handed-over-to-the-royal-australian-navy/) and new icebreaker for Antarctic built by Damen in Romania (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/icebreaker)--it's when they insist on building in Oz that they have problems perhaps similar to ours.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RDBZ

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Not "idealizing" Aussies but at least they actually move their programs forward and much earlier than we do by comparison. Also willing to buy some things abroad--85% for HMAS Canberra from Navantia (https://www.navantia.es/en/news/press-releases/hmas-canberra-handed-over-to-the-royal-australian-navy/) and new icebreaker for Antarctic built by Damen in Romania (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/icebreaker)--it's when they insist on building in Oz that they have problems perhaps similar to ours.
> 
> Mark
> Ottaw



The work completed in Spain on the LHDs and construction of the icebreaker Nuyina has been comparatively simple, though.  Building the Hobart class was an order of magnitude more complex, with the Collins class being yet another order of magnitude more difficult.


----------



## Uzlu

Why the National Shipbuilding Strategy?  Canada could get less expensive ships more quickly if they are all built overseas.





> One of the critical arguments against a homegrown national security industrial strategy has been the cost. It's an argument familiar from the shipbuilding context: taxpayers pay a premium when we task Canadian industry with delivering solutions, instead of turning to cheaper foreign manufacturers.
> 
> Elinor Sloan, a defence policy expert at Carleton University, said she believes the crisis will focus the public's attention on securing the critical industries and supplies the country needs in a global crisis.
> 
> "The trade-off, as we know, is that it can be more costly to build or produce at home," she said. "This crisis may engender a perspective among the public that the extra cost is worth it."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pandemic-covid-coronavirus-procurement-masks-ventilators-1.5525373


----------



## MTShaw

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Why the National Shipbuilding Strategy?  Canada could get less expensive ships more quickly if they are all built overseas.https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pandemic-covid-coronavirus-procurement-masks-ventilators-1.5525373



As we have all learned through the Coronavirus is that many strategic things as possible should be built in Canada.

Strategic assets are not commodities but necessary for a nation’s survival. For reference see oil and the Middle East. Weapons are just as important.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Plus all is not rosy with oversea builds, just ask STQ about their new Ferry and seems some overseas warships have not fared so well when the poop hits the fan (or reinforced bow). 

My guess is that with the new tugs, AOR, AOPS under construction, the CSC grinding through the design stage, that the next focus of the NSPS will be all Coast Guard. The MCDV's and Orca will have to solider on for sometime before replacement.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P.: And the Liberals may prefer (and see political benefit) in focusing on the warm and fuzzy, non-military, CCG.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder what power capabilities our AOP's and MCDV to fit small lasers and dazzlers would be? Possibly a capacitor bank to allow x number of shots. I can imagine laser dazzlers not only to discourage boats from getting to close, but also defeat/deflect optically guided weapons and non-state actor drones.

https://news.usni.org/2020/05/22/video-uss-portland-fires-laser-weapon-downs-drone-in-first-at-sea-test?fbclid=IwAR3hO_dlFAVBEv_ylpGkoYg2toSln9DZyHWwo9--NW_DQtzTfrFlUlqWkoI


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thoughts on LNG as a fuel for naval vessels? https://www.seaspan.com/seaspan-responds-government-british-columbias-announcement-regarding-support-liquefied-natural-gas-lng-bunkering


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Thoughts on LNG as a fuel for naval vessels? https://www.seaspan.com/seaspan-responds-government-british-columbias-announcement-regarding-support-liquefied-natural-gas-lng-bunkering



We have a lot of it, cheap too, we would need to move quickly to do it though. Be a hard sell to the RCN if we didn't have the infrastructure to produce enough and transport for the fleet. Good luck convincing the government though.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No to LNG for the fleet until you can figure out a way to get it everywhere and to transfer it at sea while underway.


----------



## Kirkhill

Diesel is a whole lot more compact and stable.


----------



## Kirkhill

On the other hand Coast Guard vessels for the coasts make all the sense in the world


----------



## chrisf

[Sorry, duplicate post]


----------



## chrisf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> On the other hand Coast Guard vessels for the coasts make all the sense in the world



Only if the infrastructure exists for fueling.

Coast Guard vessels often end up refueling by truck to remain in their SAR areas.

Saw road diesel delivered to the vessel more than once.


----------



## MilEME09

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Only if the infrastructure exists for fueling.
> 
> Coast Guard vessels often end up refueling by truck to remain in their SAR areas.
> 
> Saw road diesel delivered to the vessel more than once.



So does the RCN need more AORs to help fuel the coast guard as well?


----------



## lenaitch

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> So does the RCN need more AORs to help fuel the coast guard as well?



Are Coast Guard ships or, for that matter, MCDVs and AOPSs equipped to do RAS?


----------



## Stoker

lenaitch said:
			
		

> Are Coast Guard ships or, for that matter, MCDVs and AOPSs equipped to do RAS?



AOPS can RAS. MCDV's and CCG cannot. In the Arctic CCG ships can fuel from commercial tanker while at anchor.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

lenaitch said:
			
		

> Are Coast Guard ships or, for that matter, MCDVs and AOPSs equipped to do RAS?



The buoy tenders actually end up being the "tanker" for a lot of the lighthouses and even for smaller government ships. We would put fuel bladders in workboats or use a steel landing craft with tanks to move the fuel to the beach and them pump it up to the lighthouse, which can be quite the challenge for some of them. This summer the CCG refueled the vessel RV David Thompson supporting Parks Canada research on the Franklin ships in the Arctic. The 1100 class have fuel manifold compartment on the Welldeck, with some modification they could accept RAS equipment, mainly the coupling point and piping and adding some of the rigging points, but there is no real need. Likely they would look for safe anchorage and come alongside the AOR.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I seem to remember watching a documentary about HMCS GOOSE BAY doing an Arctic tour and being refueled at sea by CCGS PIERRE RADISSON.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I seem to remember watching a documentary about HMCS GOOSE BAY doing an Arctic tour and being refueled at sea by CCGS PIERRE RADISSON.



I recall seeing pictures of RCN ships alongside a CCG ship picking up fuel, but the CCG ship is at anchor, a RAS I believe considered a at sea where both ships are underway?


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> I recall seeing pictures of RCN ships alongside a CCG ship picking up fuel, but the CCG ship is at anchor, a RAS I believe considered a at sea where both ships are underway?


Generally yes.  That was an MCDV IIRC, refueling from a CCG.

As for LNG fuel, no.  We can't even use cheaper aircraft fuels because of explosive hazards.  If the explosive vapor point is to low its a no go.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We had barrels of Jet B on the deck of the Pearkes on our arctic trip.


----------



## lenaitch

The question was asked in response to a post querying whether we needed more AORs to support the CCG.  It seems the Coast Guard can get by with non-underway replenishment.  I imagine RAS is much more complicated than compatible piping, and that fuel transfer in the Arctic brings a whole host of environmental precautions.


----------



## Stoker

lenaitch said:
			
		

> The question was asked in response to a post querying whether we needed more AORs to support the CCG.  It seems the Coast Guard can get by with non-underway replenishment.  I imagine RAS is much more complicated than compatible piping, and that fuel transfer in the Arctic brings a whole host of environmental precautions.



As a general rule we don't RAS above 60 degrees. Even tying up alongside a CCG ship to get fuel several times on MCDV's I was paranoid of the possibility of a spill.


----------



## MarkOttawa

How realistic is this? Can Seaspan do in any reasonable timeframe what with two RCN JSS, CCG OOSV, and then the sixteen more vessels for CCG announced in May1919 (https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet )? 

And could Davie in good time build the polar breaker as well as the six other CCG icebreakers it looks almost certain to get ( https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/davie-pre-qualified-as-canada-s-third-strategic-shipbuilding-partner )?



> B.C., Ontario shipyards team up to win multibillion-dollar icebreaker contract
> 
> Canada's sharply divided shipbuilding industry was dealt a surprise this morning as two competing yards announced plans to team up to win a multibillion-dollar contract to build a new polar icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> The surprise agreement between Seaspan Marine in Vancouver and Ontario-based Heddle Shipyards represents the type of co-operation rarely seen within Canada, where shipyards are often competing fiercely for work.
> 
> The two companies say they will work together if they are awarded a contract to build the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, the polar-class icebreaker that is slated to become the coast guard's flagship once it is finished
> 
> The Diefenbaker was originally supposed to have been built by Seaspan after it was selected as one of two shipyards in the federal government's national shipbuilding strategy in 2011.
> 
> But the federal Liberal government took the work away last year when it reshuffled the shipbuilding program and later asked yards across Canada to explain how and why they should get the contract.
> 
> Quebec's Chantier Davie shipyard is expected to be the main challenger for the contract after the Liberals commissioned it during the reshuffle to build six medium coast guard icebreakers in what Heddle at the time alleged was a fixed selection process.
> https://www.nsnews.com/b-c-ontario-shipyards-team-up-to-win-multibillion-dollar-icebreaker-contract-1.24148984



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on above, political pressure on gov't:



> "Seaspan Shipyards (Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd.) and Heddle Shipyards (Heddle Marine Service Inc.), the largest operator of shipyards on the Great Lakes, have entered into an exclusive teaming agreement for the Canadian Coast Guard’s future Polar Icebreaker, bringing Heddle and Ontario shipyards into the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS). Under the terms of their agreement, if Seaspan Shipyards is awarded the Polar Icebreaker, _Heddle will fabricate ship modules at its three Ontario shipyards, creating sustained, predictable and long-term work for Heddle in Hamilton, St. Catharines, and Thunder Bay_ [emphasis added].
> 
> In a climate where the need to leverage federal procurement dollars to support Canadian companies and employees has never been greater, construction of the Polar Icebreaker will support thousands of Canadian jobs over the multi-year life of the program. The strategic relationship _will also provide NSS program work for Heddle’s facility in Mount Pearl, Newfoundland_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Seaspan was selected in 2011 as Canada’s NSS strategic partner to build all large non-combat vessels following a comprehensive, open and transparent competitive process. With $185 million in capital infrastructure investments made by the company since the contract award, Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyard was purpose-built for the construction of the Polar Icebreaker. It is _the only shipyard in Canada with the workforce, facilities and capacity in place today to deliver the complex vessel by the Coast Guard’s critical 2029 deadline_ [emphasis added]..."
> http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/2877



What about Heddle's planned collaboration with Damen?



> ...Damen specializes in constructing ships using modules, and that the Dutch company was sending representatives to Heddle's Ontario operations to determine how modules could be constructed at each of them...
> https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/heddle-shipyards-shut-out-of-federal-icebreaker-program-2-photos-1981910



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

Okay.  Stupid question time.  I tried to google this, sorry in advance...I know this is probably a "duh" question.


If Seaspan is in BC, how does constructing modules for ships in Ontario make any sense?  Does Seaspan also have a shipyard/construction facility in the Great Lakes also?  Out east?    :dunno:


----------



## MilEME09

They are using Heddle has a subsidiary essentially, Seaspan is providing the Capital, and Heddle builds it. This way Seaspan gets the work it lost back, and gets back that sweet sweet government money.


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> How realistic is this?


It might be very realistic if all or most of the designs are modular.  This is the way I would have preferred all large Canadian ships to be built—modular construction with modules built by Irving, Seaspan, Davie, and Heddle and all four shipbuilders perhaps taking turns in final assembly of the completed modules.


----------



## Dale Denton

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> They are using Heddle has a subsidiary essentially, Seaspan is providing the Capital, and Heddle builds it. This way Seaspan gets the work it lost back, and gets back that sweet sweet government money.



And Heddle gets the cash flow and co-sign of one of the biggest yards. This way a 4th yard would technically be apart of the 3 yard Strategy giving the gov't the break of having to expand the NSP again.

Would be great PR to assemble/build some RCN/CCG ships off the great lakes. 

There is enough work to spread the cash around the country. Maybe the industry will get a boost to orders in the NSP to boost the industry.


----------



## MilEME09

Strategically block building in the Great lakes makes sense, though logistically Davie would of been a better partner, block build in the great lakes, final assembly in Montreal.


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Strategically block building in the Great lakes makes sense, though logistically Davie would of been a better partner, block build in the great lakes, final assembly in Montreal.


I think you might have meant to write _Lévis_.


----------



## Navy_Pete

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Okay.  Stupid question time.  I tried to google this, sorry in advance...I know this is probably a "duh" question.
> 
> 
> If Seaspan is in BC, how does constructing modules for ships in Ontario make any sense?  Does Seaspan also have a shipyard/construction facility in the Great Lakes also?  Out east?    :dunno:



I'm assuming they would design it so that there were a lot of modules that could be shipped by rail and do the assembly into blocks in Vancouver. Alternately they may do a bunch of big blocks and ship it around on the big platform ships, but that seems really expensive and logistically difficult (those ships are booked years in advance). 

Not sure if that kind of thing would be competitive price wise, as it takes a lot to get up to the level of accuracy control required at one year (let alone 4) but would be interesting to see. Also, the last thing we want is a non-competitive award to Davie for that kind of thing. It may just be a clever negotiation leverage to get replacement work for the Polar class, but who knows.

As an aside, ISI already does this at it's Woodside facility; but obviously it's either going across the harbour or loaded on a truck, so lot shorter transport distances.


----------



## MilEME09

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/surprise-alliance-of-b-c-and-ontario-shipyards-teams-up-bids-for-multibillion-dollar-icebreaker-contract?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1591730162

According to this, all three of heddle's  yards on the Great lakes will be used to create the blocks. This could be a boom for Ontario. Logistics still seem to boggle the mind of finishing at Seaspan. Could they  assemble in Ontario, then float the hull to Seaspan to finish?


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Could they  assemble in Ontario, then float the hull to Seaspan to finish?


The future CCGS John G. Diefenbaker has a beam of 28 metres.  Ships must have a beam of 23.8 metres or less to traverse the St. Lawrence Seaway.


----------



## Underway

It could be possible.  Many of the blocks themselves are not any bigger then ISO container.  Build them, put them on a laker, sail it around and then assemble into megablocks at VSY.  It would certainly speed up the process.

VSY had to do something to move the schedule up.  A competitive advantage for Davie (aside from the geographic one) was the schedule.  This probably evens that particular criterion out.


----------



## Dana381

If the blocks are that small they could make the trip by rail. Boeing does that with 737 fuselages and they are quite long. If the blocks were designed to be long and narrow they could make special cars to transport them on.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Dana381 said:
			
		

> If the blocks are that small they could make the trip by rail. Boeing does that with 737 fuselages and they are quite long. If the blocks were designed to be long and narrow they could make special cars to transport them on.



Aside from the actual hull parts, there are also equipment modules and similar which are fully wired, piped bits that are meant to fit on a few pallets and be plug and play. They normally get moved around the yard on trucks, so would just mean a longer trip in a container or on a pallet strapped down. Would be pretty straightforward to include in the build plan to have some things fit in a standard footprint to be containerized.  That stuff is a bit easier as the connection points are discrete bolt/pipe connections, vice having a plate in the right plane +/- a mm or so. Usually the pipes hook up to flex joints (to go between shock mounted gear and fixed piping) so there is more room for play, and you don't need the same accuracy controls to get the footings in the right place (or maybe weld those on in situ).

That adds a lot of overhead though, but I guess they would get points for work spread over Canada. Schedule gains have their own cost offsets though, so maybe it's a wash.


----------



## MTShaw

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Aside from the actual hull parts, there are also equipment modules and similar which are fully wired, piped bits that are meant to fit on a few pallets and be plug and play. They normally get moved around the yard on trucks, so would just mean a longer trip in a container or on a pallet strapped down. Would be pretty straightforward to include in the build plan to have some things fit in a standard footprint to be containerized.  That stuff is a bit easier as the connection points are discrete bolt/pipe connections, vice having a plate in the right plane +/- a mm or so. Usually the pipes hook up to flex joints (to go between shock mounted gear and fixed piping) so there is more room for play, and you don't need the same accuracy controls to get the footings in the right place (or maybe weld those on in situ).
> 
> That adds a lot of overhead though, but I guess they would get points for work spread over Canada. Schedule gains have their own cost offsets though, so maybe it's a wash.



If it’s palletized or containerized it can be sent by rail too.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Even Davie had the entire superstructure for Astrex done overseas and shipped over from Finland.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Yeah, sorry, that's what I mean, rail would make the most sense. It would be easy to include that in the design and stick it on a train. Suspect that's more cost effective then shipping it via a ship, and lets you send it in discrete packs so it can go into the production queue. Shipping it all at once in a big ship would create it's own problems for sorting and warehousing on the other end. Typically the bits that are done offsite are coordinated so that they are done in sequence and show up when they are needed for the production schedule. There is some storage/lay down areas to give you flex and allow for shipping delays, but it's minimized because real estate and storage are expensive, and you can't just make something and leave it sitting for a year without having to do some maintenance on it or do rework on the mating surfaces, paint etc.

Not quite just-in-time that they do with car manufacturing, but the whole point of going modular is to allow flexibility and not having to have all the capacity on site. The manufacturing spots are designed so the work stations are really efficient at doing specific work on a specific footprint, whereas a one-size fits all site has a lot of compromises to give you the range of capability. That's why there was a massive capitol expenditure to upgrade both shipyards under the NSS (which Davie would also have to do).

Davie was able to do it with Asterix overseas because the IRBs didn't apply, but it's the same idea.  Heddle and Damen have been doing that already for offshore repair work, so this is an interesting extension of that. I think under the NSS they would just be a major subcontractor, but conceptually no difference then the other subcontractors that do the things like outfitting and furnishings that come in a plug and play box that gets craned into the module. Pretty bold though; like it.


----------



## MTShaw

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Yeah, sorry, that's what I mean, rail would make the most sense. It would be easy to include that in the design and stick it on a train. Suspect that's more cost effective then shipping it via a ship, and lets you send it in discrete packs so it can go into the production queue. Shipping it all at once in a big ship would create it's own problems for sorting and warehousing on the other end. Typically the bits that are done offsite are coordinated so that they are done in sequence and show up when they are needed for the production schedule. There is some storage/lay down areas to give you flex and allow for shipping delays, but it's minimized because real estate and storage are expensive, and you can't just make something and leave it sitting for a year without having to do some maintenance on it or do rework on the mating surfaces, paint etc.
> 
> Not quite just-in-time that they do with car manufacturing, but the whole point of going modular is to allow flexibility and not having to have all the capacity on site. The manufacturing spots are designed so the work stations are really efficient at doing specific work on a specific footprint, whereas a one-size fits all site has a lot of compromises to give you the range of capability. That's why there was a massive capitol expenditure to upgrade both shipyards under the NSS (which Davie would also have to do).
> 
> Davie was able to do it with Asterix overseas because the IRBs didn't apply, but it's the same idea.  Heddle and Damen have been doing that already for offshore repair work, so this is an interesting extension of that. I think under the NSS they would just be a major subcontractor, but conceptually no difference then the other subcontractors that do the things like outfitting and furnishings that come in a plug and play box that gets craned into the module. Pretty bold though; like it.



I have this thought of Damen buying Seaspan from the Washington Group. Quite the catalogue to choose from.

One can only dream.


----------



## Kirkhill

It is common place for industries of all types to build modules that will fit in ISO container footprints.


----------



## YZT580

Why build parts of one ship here there and everywhere when Seaspan could sub-contract a couple of the multitude of coast guard ships say one complete design to Heddle allowing them the economies of scale and focus on the Dief. in Vancouver.  Same result, less freight.  Heddle can barge modules between Thunder Bay, Hamilton and St. Catharines quite easily and St. Catharines already has a hall in place big enough for just about any size module you can think of.


----------



## Navy_Pete

The issue there is the size of the Polar exceeds the max size for the St. Lawrence locks. They could build it, but not get it out of the Great Lakes.  I suppose they could do final assembly somewhere on the East Coast, but the NSS contract is specifically for the Vancouver shipyard (with subcontractor support across Canada).

For context, 'modules' is a really generic term. It can be anything from a pallet with a piece of kit on it to the whole bow. Both shipyards already have a bunch of stuff fabricated off site, so the only unique thing here is that this may be a bit more integrated then what they do right now for overall scope, and also that Heddle was specifically shut out of bidding on this by the requirements from the GoC.

Didn't see this coming at all, but probably guarantees that they can't sole source it to Davie without facing a big legal challenge. Even if Davie gets it eventually, probably means they will have to sharpen their pencils and do more of the NSS yard upgrades then planned so it's an apple-to-apple comparison against Seaspan.

Would be great if Damen was onboard generally though; sure that would benefit Seaspan as well.


----------



## MilEME09

What does Damen bring to the table for Seaspan?


----------



## Kirkhill

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Why build parts of one ship here there and everywhere when Seaspan could sub-contract a couple of the multitude of coast guard ships say one complete design to Heddle allowing them the economies of scale and focus on the Dief. in Vancouver.  Same result, less freight.  Heddle can barge modules between Thunder Bay, Hamilton and St. Catharines quite easily and St. Catharines already has a hall in place big enough for just about any size module you can think of.



Not a bad plan either.

Be nice it we could have a plan and stick to it.  There was a plan.  One that would have had Seaspan built an icebreaker.

The issue has never been one of capacity.  The issue was entirely one of politics and money.  Now, with the printing presses being replaced by electrons in no f**king way is money a credible issue anymore - for good or ill.

The only remaining factor is politics.  And these days politics is all about personalities.

F**kemall!


----------



## MTShaw

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> What does Damen bring to the table for Seaspan?



Build and repair in the east pacific. As a builder and an engineering company, they are stuck around Europe.


----------



## Good2Golf

Waiting for Davie to collaborate with SNC Lavelin...


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... collaborate with SNC Lavelin...



Just need to sort out the bribe structure first.    :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *Government of Canada awards contract to support Halifax-class ship maintenance*
> 
> June 29, 2020
> 
> As outlined in Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, the Government of Canada is committed to equipping the Canadian Armed Forces with modern and capable equipment needed to support its operations. This includes supporting the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) fleet of combat vessels to ensure they remain operationally effective and capable until the transition to its future fleet is complete.
> 
> Today, the Government of Canada announced the award of an in-service support contract to Fleetway Inc. of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Valued at $72.6 million for the first six years, with options to extend for up to 22 years, this contract will provide a full range of technical data management and systems engineering support services for the RCN’s fleet of Halifax-class ships. This contract will secure an expert team to store and manage thousands of critical ship documents, in addition to producing complex designs to support the installation of new equipment on board the ships. Their specialized knowledge and skills will make sure key information is up-to-date to support maintenance teams, and will enable the maintenance of the Halifax-class operational capability in support of CAF missions.
> 
> Awarded as part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, this contract will ensure that the RCN and supporting shipyards continue to have the technical data required to support ongoing ship maintenance during planned docking work periods, while also providing local economic benefits. Work for the contract began in April 2020, and will continue until the fleet is retired in the early 2040s. This contract is expected to sustain an estimated 140 Canadian jobs.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/06/government-of-canada-awards-contract-to-support-halifax-class-ship-maintenance.html


----------



## Navy_Pete

For context, Fleetway has been doing this for ages, and also used to do this for the 280s and tankers. Amongst other things, they maintain the technical data package and drawings for each ship, as well as do up engineering changes and other similar engineering things on a task basis.

Each ship has it's own set of drawings for the most part, and there is a lot of work to put together the info packages for things like the docking work packages. They fall under Irving corporation, but are more of a small engineering firm with the HQ in Ottawa and satellites in both coasts. From my personal experience, they do a good job, and for stuff like this it's good to have the same people responsible for the files, as there is a lot of background history to keep track of.

For AOPs and JSS, this work is part of the AJISS contract, and the same kind of stuff for MCDVs and auxiliary boats is under that ISSC (and think Babcock does it for the subs). Bringing back in house would probably need a few hundred extra people in MEPM and the coasts, and we'd still need to contract some expertise for specific design tasks anyway. Plus would mean yet another change to the role of LCMMs, so would probably need more of them as well for the extra work (and most are covering a few extra slots already).

Probably arguments both ways if it's good value, but this was a decision made back in the 90s so not something we could easily roll back.


----------



## don3wing

Seaspan has launched the 3rd Coast Guard OFSV:


DR. BONNIE HENRY OFFICIALLY LAUNCHES THE FUTURE COAST GUARD VESSEL CCGS JOHN CABOT AT SEASPAN SHIPYARDS IN VANCOUVER
THIRD OFFSHORE FISHERIES SCIENCE VESSEL BUILT AT SEASPAN SHIPYARDS ENTERS THE WATER AT 97% COMPLETE, EXCEEDING INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKS FOR COMPLETION AT LAUNCH AND REFLECTING EXCEPTIONAL AND INNOVATIVE SHIPBUILDING DURING GLOBAL PANDEMIC.
North Vancouver, BC – On Friday, July 3, under strict COVID-19 public health requirements and protocols, Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia’s Provincial Health Officer, joined a small number of Seaspan Shipyards employees and special guests to break the customary bottle of champagne against the bow of the future CCGS John Cabot, officially launching the third state-of-the-art Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel (OFSV) for the Canadian Coast Guard.

The July launch of the future CCGS John Cabot is a particularly impressive achievement given that construction was completed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Seaspan Shipyards significantly adapted its normal operations to continue building the ship while ensuring the health and well-being of employees, customers, partners and the community.

The traditional public celebration was scaled back to a skeleton launch party including Dr. Henry, Tsleil-Waututh elder Margaret George, representatives from the Canadian Coast Guard, and the handful of employees needed to launch the vessel.

Dr. Henry, who began her career as a medical officer with the Royal Canadian Navy, was invited by Seaspan to officially launch the vessel in recognition of her exceptional leadership and tireless efforts to keep British Columbians safe during the COVID-19 pandemic and to slow the spread of the virus in Canada. Video of Dr. Henry officially launching the ship, along with special messages from several government representatives and the Canadian Coast Guard, was released today.



More than 1,200 Seaspan Shipyards employees and more than 400 Canadian small and medium-sized companies and their thousands of employees across the country contributed to the construction of this world-class vessel, which entered the water on July 3 at 97% complete, a rare accomplishment and a high-water mark for the best shipbuilders in the world.

The CCGS John Cabot, the CCGS Capt Jacques Cartier and the CCGS Sir John Franklin are the first class of ships built under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), the Government of Canada’s strategy to renew the fleets of the Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Navy. Two ships have been delivered and the third launched from Seaspan’s Vancouver shipyard in just 13 months.

Consistent with the social and economic objectives of the NSS, Seaspan Shipyards has become a growing economic engine for the domestic marine industry. With more than $1.5 billion contributed to date to Canada’s GDP (Source: Deloitte Socio-economic Impact Study, February 2020), Seaspan Shipyards is rebuilding a marine industrial sector on Canada’s West Coast and generating economic impact across Canada through job creation and contracts with hundreds of small and medium-sized businesses. As a result of the NSS, Seaspan Shipyards has become one of the most modern shipyards in North America, with a skilled 2,700-person shipbuilding team and the shipyard capacity and purpose-built infrastructure to deliver Canada’s non-combat fleet.

QUOTES
“Congratulations to Seaspan on the launch of the future CCGS John Cabot, the third Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel for the Canadian Coast Guard. Today’s launch marks an important milestone in the renewal of our Coast Guard fleet. Together, we’re ensuring that Canada has the ships we need to continue to keep mariners safe, protect our marine environment and provide a state-of-the-art platform for critical scientific research.”
– The Honourable Bernadette Jordan, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard

“This is a critical step and milestone in the process of delivering this vessel to the Canadian Coast Guard. The three Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels, which were specifically designed and built in British Columbia, will enable Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard to continue conducting and supporting critically important scientific and research work, including gaining more data on the impacts of climate change on our waters and marine environments.”
– The Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of Public Services and Procurement

“The Seaspan Shipyards team is incredibly proud to launch the future CCGS John Cabot, our third Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel. It is a great honour to have such an exceptional leader as Dr. Bonnie Henry help launch this ship. Her leadership and clarity gave us the confidence, in an unprecedented climate, to continue our operations safely, which led to today’s successful launch.”
– Mark Lamarre, Chief Executive Officer, Seaspan Shipyards

“It is an honour to be part of the launch of the CCGS John Cabot Canadian Coast Guard vessel, on which important research to protect our oceans will be undertaken for many years to come. For the Seaspan team to complete the construction in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, with all protective measures in place, is a testament to how British Columbians have done all they can to protect our province, while working to keep many important aspects of our economy going.”
– Dr. Bonnie Henry, Provincial Health Officer, Province of British Columbia

QUICK FACTS: CCGS JOHN CABOT
Measuring 63.4 metres, the CCGS John Cabot will be one of the most advanced and capable ships of its size and type in the world.
CCGS John Cabot is the third Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel (OFSV) built and launched by Seaspan Shipyards under the National Shipbuilding Strategy. Her sister ships, the CCGS Sir John Franklin, now stationed in Victoria, British Columbia, and the CCGS Capt Jacques Cartier, stationed in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, are already in service.
Following sea trials and upon delivery to the Coast Guard, anticipated later this summer, the CCGS John Cabot will be based in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The OFSV is fully equipped to support Fisheries and Oceans scientists in the collection and analysis of data on Canada’s marine ecosystems and the impacts of climate change. This floating laboratory features a full suite of state-of-the-art systems, including a deployable sensor-laden drop keel, high-tech fishing trawls and four science labs — a wet lab, a dry lab, an ocean lab and a control lab.
The OFSVs support scientific research through work such as:
performing fishing and acoustic surveys of fish and invertebrates;
collecting information on the abundance and distribution of marine species; and
collecting data on marine ecosystems and the impacts of human activity on fisheries resources and ecosystem health.
The OFSVs, although primarily focused on science and research, also have the capability to support search and rescue, and environmental response and operations as required.

https://nss.seaspan.com/featured-news/dr-bonnie-henry-officially-launches-the-future-coast-guard-vessel-ccgs-john-cabot-at-seaspan-shipyards-in-vancouver/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=ofsv3july2020


----------



## Spencer100

https://www.facebook.com/IrvingShipbuildingInc/photos/a.2783053615083158/3097384726983377/?type=3&eid=ARC8NaKKIFb1MRc40LmOXmiB9jkgKG-B05ohUS7RmsYb4zBOcHfUjK2fRnc2fY_2pQg3rBHlzIXG5cOF&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARDcxFBn-kiVD7BLyh_UFhi-FqrDkDLaWWJ4uitq7WAl2LqywlGmz0d4ct2LRc32DuwD9M62YJHkhdjvJq_lWQco2B6ClLPRsGWVIUcB3tAzjJ50qZGk-tkz8JmlCaVqPOcBPTuRaPBNAaAeaxbzd8nqrYhYTIvDNdLjehzds_yOJGOspt3Z13WAo1bMkyMqSAE0WEBzdzZ9LlNOatJv4UknUUHLXD1T3J-IG0FoQcrjqJMJ6Oja9vxr2yR62qr4rCfTs7ucCBJFSZW407ogL4R7ky5MJeL6WJYFbPlPngJCUnkN2vgce74JNhSCu_D0pO-PLRrVJf00pMdasTs9BEVf5A&__tn__=EHH-R

She out and about on the last tryout.


----------



## Spencer100

Question in the picture of the HMCS HDW they have a orange enclosed lifeboat.  Is because it is manufactured to civilian standards?  I think I had read it was getting a Lloyds cert but not 100% sure.  But it is a full military ship and it is not required. Right? (not arguing that it should not have it for safety)

The MV Asterix is a civilian owned an operated so I get that it has the two on each side.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting discussion with someone involved with the JSS build. Seaspan has faced delays as the manufacturers could not get raw materials to produce sub components on time to be delivered so the blocks could stay on schedule. This is due to COVID-19 impacts all along the supply chain. Some of the blocks are missing pieces that have been delayed that will have to be fitted later.


----------



## Stoker

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Question in the picture of the HMCS HDW they have a orange enclosed lifeboat.  Is because it is manufactured to civilian standards?  I think I had read it was getting a Lloyds cert but not 100% sure.  But it is a full military ship and it is not required. Right? (not arguing that it should not have it for safety)
> 
> The MV Asterix is a civilian owned an operated so I get that it has the two on each side.



Yes she's getting a Lloyd's certification much as same as the Kingston Class, its a quasi civilian standard/military standard ship.


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Question in the picture of the HMCS HDW they have a orange enclosed lifeboat.  Is because it is manufactured to civilian standards?  I think I had read it was getting a Lloyds cert but not 100% sure.  But it is a full military ship and it is not required. Right? (not arguing that it should not have it for safety)
> 
> The MV Asterix is a civilian owned an operated so I get that it has the two on each side.





			
				Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Yes she's getting a Lloyd's certification much as same as the Kingston Class, its a quasi civilian standard/military standard ship.



Also arctic...


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> Also arctic...



She'll get a Polar Code correct?


----------



## Underway

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> She'll get a Polar Code correct?



That was the plan.  Well see when it all washes out,  not as close the project as I once was.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> She'll get a Polar Code correct?



PC 5 advertised, no?

Interesting that there are a number of Canadian commercial vessels that exceed that rating...I saw Discovery TV’s _Mega Ships_ episode on FedNav’s UMIAK and followed up to see her sister ship NUNAVIK was built and certified to PC 4.  I see the HDW doesn’t have an ice guard rudder configuration.


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> PC 5 advertised, no?
> 
> Interesting that there are a number of Canadian commercial vessels that exceed that rating...I saw Discovery TV’s _Mega Ships_ episode on FedNav’s UMIAK and followed up to see her sister ship NUNAVIK was built and certified to PC 4.  I see the HDW doesn’t have an ice guard rudder configuration.



PC4 bow and PC5 hull. 120cm of first year ice.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

G2G:

UMIAK and NUNAVIK are very rare ships that are meant to operate year round in the lower Arctic (they don't go North of the northernmost point in the Labrador peninsula), whereas the HDW's are meant to operate in the Arctic waters from shortly before the navigation season starts to shortly after it closes. They don't need to face the rigours of the full Arctic winter.



And by the way, it is Mighty Ships, not  Mega Ships. You may have made a crossover show with Mega Transports.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ah the joy of figuring out Ice Class and their international equivalents

Easy reading 
 http://www.engr.mun.ca/~cdaley/8074/Ice%20Class%20Rules_CD.pdf

More indepth
https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/migrated/tp12260e.pdf


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> G2G:
> 
> UMIAK and NUNAVIK are very rare ships that are meant to operate year round in the lower Arctic (they don't go North of the northernmost point in the Labrador peninsula), whereas the HDW's are meant to operate in the Arctic waters from shortly before the navigation season starts to shortly after it closes. They don't need to face the rigours of the full Arctic winter.
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way, it is Mighty Ships, not  Mega Ships. You may have made a crossover show with Mega Transports.



OGBD, they were impressive ships indeed.  Yes, _Mighty Ships_ it is.  Mega Planes is the other Man show. 

For full duty would
It take something like PC 3 or better, then?


----------



## Navy_Pete

CCGS Diefenbaker is forecasted to be PC 2 (with PC 1 being the highest). Apparently some of the arctic/antarctic cruise ships are PC 2.

The EU had planned to build a PC 1 research vessel (the Aurora Borealis) but that got shelved about a decade ago.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/oldest-ship-in-canadian-coast-guard-fleet-out-of-action-until-2020-1.5154930



Well, maybe August or September:



> Oldest Canadian Coast Guard ship to return to service after lengthy refit
> _The 57-year old Hudson is expected to stay in service until 2024 and it is due to be replaced_
> 
> The oldest ship in the Canadian Coast Guard fleet will return to service next month after spending three of the last four years in refit.
> 
> The 57-year old CCGS Hudson is days away from completing a vessel-life extension and is now expected to remain in service until its 2024 retirement date.
> 
> A replacement oceanographic science vessel is supposed to be delivered to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by the Seaspan shipyard in Vancouver at that time [OOSV, built between the two JSS, good luck].
> 
> Hudson is set to leave the Newdock shipyard in St. John's this week and to resume science missions in the Atlantic Ocean in August or September...
> 
> With the ship unavailable over several seasons, the coast guard scrambled to charter vessels, at a cost of millions of dollars, to carry out at-sea science in the Atlantic.
> 
> Even so, missions were scrubbed as refits ran late or suitable charters could not be found, which interrupted studies of how ocean conditions change over time...
> 
> Hudson is completing the second phase of its life extension.
> 
> The _original budget for this project was $10 million, but with extra work the cost has nearly doubled to $19.6 million.
> 
> It was in the shipyard twice as long as originally scheduled_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Hudson entered Newdock in February 2019 and was expected out in July 2019.
> 
> But lead paint and asbestos were discovered when the ship was opened up. There were also unexpected heating and ventilation problems.
> 
> Finding replacement parts took time.
> 
> *More money, more problems*
> 
> _Newdock is finishing a major maintenance program that began at Heddle Marine in Hamilton several years earlier.
> 
> That $4-million project also ran into unexpected problems and delays_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The showstopper was the discovery of a cracked stern tube carrying the ship's propeller, which added weeks to the job.
> 
> Faced with ongoing delays in October 2017, the federal government towed Hudson out of Heddle with the refit unfinished because it was feared the ship would be trapped by winter ice.
> 
> Despite the problems, that's when federal officials explored the idea of keeping Hudson in service for at least five additional years and as many as 10.
> 
> Hudson replacement first promised by 2014
> 
> The ship was supposed to be replaced as early as 2014 as part of the national shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> The latest update estimates delivery of a new vessel in 2024...
> 
> By 2013, coast guard officials were predicting a replacement would be sailing in 2017. The cost then was estimated at $144 million.
> 
> In a _2018 federal government update, the new vessel was expected in service by late 2021 or early 2022 with an estimated budget of $341 million.
> 
> That date was pushed back when the oceanographic science vessel lost its place in line to the navy and a new supply ship was built first_ [emphasis added].
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ccgs-hudson-resuming-service-2020-1.5645743



Acquisition malpractice. If OOSV bought abroad would be much cheaper, in service years ago.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The last time the GoC overspent on a refit by about 9 millions to extend a ship's expected lifetime by about 15 years, she was scrapped a year later.

Cough! Cough! BONAVENTURE. Cough!


----------



## Dale Denton

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Well, maybe August or September:
> 
> Acquisition malpractice. If OOSV bought abroad would be much cheaper, in service years ago.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Atrocious. $20MM refit for a 57 yr old ship to sail 4 more years... Who is in charge here?? I really don't care if this was the cheapest option, this was not the way it should have gone.


----------



## CBH99

Same bunch of people who decided to buy 25 used Hornets from Australia, only to have them need to be upgraded once they get here...

Or $860M dollars to upgrade 36 of our Hornets with Aim-9X and AESA radars -- which should be done right around the time replacements are supposed to be coming online.


Idiots.  Seriously.  Idiots.


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Same bunch of people who decided to buy 25 used Hornets from Australia, only to have them need to be upgraded once they get here...
> 
> Or $860M dollars to upgrade 36 of our Hornets with Aim-9X and AESA radars -- which should be done right around the time replacements are supposed to be coming online.
> 
> 
> Idiots.  Seriously.  Idiots.



I don’t think they’re Idiots, CBH99, in the case of the Hornets.  It was a rather cunning, but disingenuous effort to distract and create an alternate to the clear requirement to get on with addressing the Future Fighter Capability Project in light of the campaigning Liberals’ promise to not buy the F-35.  They got into power, reviewed the file, and realized that withers was in fact a solid and economically and capability balanced case for proceeding with the F-35, then built a narrative to dismiss that reality. The specious ‘capability gap’ and the subsequent money squandered on buying yet even more decades old used Australian fighters to provide a fleet size for which the RCAF doesn’t even have enough pilots to fly, is one of the more expensive politically driven that Canadians have seen in a long time. 

:2c:


----------



## CBH99

Sooooooooooo...incredibly cunning idiots??   I think is what your sarcastically saying?  (Or am I totally off?)


I was referring to the idiocy of the money wasted.  The $860M to upgrade the 36 Hornets, and the money spent to purchase the Australian hornets -- all of that money could have just been put towards new planes.   :dunno:



But in regards to what Mark was referencing about the $20M refit to a 57yo ship -- perhaps idiots was presumptive of me.  Obviously if we had a longstanding shipbuilding program prior to the one we have now, this particular issue wouldn't exist.  And that isn't the fault of any of the Ministers or bureaucrats that are currently in government, so I do take that comment back as it's probably unfair.

Just seems like we spend a lot of money to get minimal returns sometimes.  (Where's the person who saw the opportunity to buy the 9 VH-71's for $164M, after the US Navy paid like $4.5B??  We could use another of them!)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Sooooooooooo...incredibly cunning idiots??   I think is what your sarcastically saying?  (Or am I totally off?)
> 
> 
> I was referring to the idiocy of the money wasted.  The $860M to upgrade the 36 Hornets, and the money spent to purchase the Australian hornets -- all of that money could have just been put towards new planes.   :dunno:
> 
> 
> 
> But in regards to what Mark was referencing about the $20M refit to a 57yo ship -- perhaps idiots was presumptive of me.  Obviously if we had a longstanding shipbuilding program prior to the one we have now, this particular issue wouldn't exist.  And that isn't the fault of any of the Ministers or bureaucrats that are currently in government, so I do take that comment back as it's probably unfair.
> 
> Just seems like we spend a lot of money to get minimal returns sometimes.  (Where's the person who saw the opportunity to buy the 9 VH-71's for $164M, after the US Navy paid like $4.5B??  We could use another of them!)



I suspect we could lease a research ship for less than that till the OSSV is finished.


----------



## Dale Denton

*Quebec shipyard is setting up an Arctic icebreaking research centre*
Centre to serve as hub for innovation in Canadian Arctic, Davie Shipyard executive says

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Aug 04, 2020 4:00 AM ET



> Describing itself as Canada's polar partner, the Chantier Davie Shipyard in Quebec plans to announce the creation of a national centre on Tuesday focusing on icebreaking in the country's Arctic.
> 
> It is, according to a senior executive at the Levis, Que., company, more than just an engineering centre and will encompass the climatic, economic and social factors that will drive the region for the next 30 years and beyond.
> 
> "It is a bigger discussion," said Spencer Fraser, the director of business development for the Inosea Group of Companies, which owns the shipyard. "It's not just around icebreaking and shipbuilding in Canada."
> 
> The Arctic icebreaking centre is intended to bring together community and business leaders as well as scientists and engineers — from both northern and southern Canada — in a conference later this year.




Good, should've been created years ago. 

This program should've brought together design and engineering programs from universities and the industry from the get-go. Partnerships with some Finnish/Norwegian universities/yards for a foundation to start our own design schools, and had one dedicated yard pumping out icebreakers, another yard for warships and orphan specialty ships, and one for corvettes/OPVs and supply ships.


----------



## Navy_Pete

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Atrocious. $20MM refit for a 57 yr old ship to sail 4 more years... Who is in charge here?? I really don't care if this was the cheapest option, this was not the way it should have gone.



What other option do you think they had?  Procurement times make other options worse, and 'things happen' doesn't meet the threshold to bypass most delaying factors under the emergency contracting rules.

It's not like people look at this and think it's a great idea; it's the least worst option to at least have something available. It's a huge pain in the arse and also means they need to try and support it for another 4 years.


----------



## Good2Golf

Timelines and the Vote 1 / Vote 5 colour of money issue left little choice.  It’s the nature of the GoC’s system these days. Until capital planning (infrastructure, operational assets, and to a lesser degree institutional structure) is fundamentally revised, it is not going to change.  20MM/4yr (if it only will be 4 years...) looks bad, until it is situated as the opportunity cost necessary to keep a critical capability in play. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Navy_Pete

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> *Quebec shipyard is setting up an Arctic icebreaking research centre*
> Centre to serve as hub for innovation in Canadian Arctic, Davie Shipyard executive says



Weird that this isn't also being touted by the GoC; there are a few similar programs from the other yards as a direct result of how the policies around IRBs and value proposition work, where the shipyards get a big multiplier factor for investment in research like this against their 100% reinvestment goal. It's not a coincidence that the shipyards are doing the same, and you think when a policy actually does what its' intended to the wonks would be happy to have a PR win.


----------



## Dale Denton

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> What other option do you think they had?  Procurement times make other options worse, and 'things happen' doesn't meet the threshold to bypass most delaying factors under the emergency contracting rules.
> 
> It's not like people look at this and think it's a great idea; it's the least worst option to at least have something available. It's a huge pain in the arse and also means they need to try and support it for another 4 years.



I was referring to the fact that it got this bad where this was the least terrible option.


----------



## suffolkowner

https://www.iheartradio.ca/chom/quebec-shipyard-late-on-delivering-icebreakers-after-pushing-feds-on-purchase-1.13105182

Davie falling behind on delivery schedule on the next 2 icebreakers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Speaking to people in the ship building industry, COVID-19 has had a ripple effect throughout the supply chain, you can't build on time if your not getting the components you need.


----------



## YZT580

true, but that should just have affected the third vessel.  Number 2 was supposed to be delivered at the end of 2019: before COVID so that isn't a valid reason.  A full year's delay on a ship that was supposedly seaworthy when it arrived in Canada is a little much.


----------



## MilEME09

http://ow.ly/AA5P50AREp0?fbclid=IwAR3uQMckqduQhDhcWQKNHOCX2wREebR4hTwnks2Vs63RSzN-yorCrVAJQDw

Interesting article by the NATO association of Canada. It attempts to make the case, poorly in my opinion of reimagining the battleship to modern warfare in order to boost our fleet. While i think the arguement is barely there, i felt like sharing as a Interesting topic for discussion.


----------



## suffolkowner

YZT580 said:
			
		

> true, but that should just have affected the third vessel.  Number 2 was supposed to be delivered at the end of 2019: before COVID so that isn't a valid reason.  A full year's delay on a ship that was supposedly seaworthy when it arrived in Canada is a little much.



The articles I read all seemed to suggest that the 2nd and 3rd vessel were undergoing more extensive modifications than the first one. Why? Who knows? Did they rush the first one into service without the modifications due to need or did it not require them?


----------



## Spencer100

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> http://ow.ly/AA5P50AREp0?fbclid=IwAR3uQMckqduQhDhcWQKNHOCX2wREebR4hTwnks2Vs63RSzN-yorCrVAJQDw
> 
> Interesting article by the NATO association of Canada. It attempts to make the case, poorly in my opinion of reimagining the battleship to modern warfare in order to boost our fleet. While i think the arguement is barely there, i felt like sharing as a Interesting topic for discussion.



I don't think he knows what he is talking about.


----------



## GR66

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I don't think he knows what he is talking about.



Nice looking mock-up of the guns though...I hope he got a good mark on his science fair project.  I wonder if his dad helped him though....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You could do a modern battleship, using the lessons learned on armour from WWII. I suspect that guns in the 11" range would suffice and allow for a lot of capability for guidance and range. Two twin turrets forward with automated loading systems to reduce crew. Modern propulsion system. Likely 2 76mm gun systems as secondary on each side, a number of smaller gun weapon systems. Close in missile system for AD, VLS tubes for cruise missiles, AD/Anti-ship and ballistic defense, fittings to mount future laser systems, helicopter deck and hanger for two Cyclone sized helicopters. Also some torpedo counter measures. 

The ship would have three roles. One to provide a strong AD umbrella to the carrier task force, secondary to provide any shore bombardment roles and to provide a significant threat to surface threats and force them to have to expend significant resources to attempt to defeat it. The main threat is subs and it would have to work with ASW ships. You would basically need about 1 per every two carriers, as they don't have to accompany every carrier task force.


----------



## Dale Denton

Modern Battleships have been talked about alot in similar forums and blogs, to the general effect that they aren't worth it.

Would a new CG/Ticonderoga not do the same job? Or do we just miss doing broadsides and having the prestige of a giant ship?

You'd have to use up valuable ASW resources just to protect it, and likely require a small protection group/Task Group just to supply and protect it. Plus, its a lot of money to invest in something that you can only have 1 of.

Would you build 1 big ship for $4B or 3 frigates for the same price?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well we have DD's (not counting Japanese DD) at around 10,000 DWT, the Scharnhorst-class battleships were about 48,000, a lot of that armoured top weight would not be needed, so you could likley build a 4 gun ship as mentioned for about 35-38,000 tons. The USS San Antonio LPD is 25,000 ton as a comparison. I suspect a heavily armed and armoured ship would be an asset in Pacific. 
When you start to read up on BB's in WWII, you realize that they certainly were not as vulnerable as people think and the amount of damage BB took is quite remarkable and the role they played is far greater than most understand. anyways this is a whole "what if" thread onto itself. Of course if we suggest they build us two BB one for each coast and being built by Irving and Davie, they might consider it just on the job stuff alone  8) Not to mention after that request, asking for new subs will look much more doable.


----------



## quadrapiper

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Modern Battleships have been talked about alot in similar forums and blogs, to the general effect that they aren't worth it.
> 
> Would a new CG/Ticonderoga not do the same job? Or do we just miss doing broadsides and having the prestige of a giant ship?


Not an expert, but enjoy the debates: the more apparently feasible notions seem to end up circling around CG territory with larger/more numerous guns, or veering off into arsenal ships.

Might be a projectile cost question more than anything else: if you can deliver a given value of explosive where needed more cheaply/reliably using something large and gun-like than as a missile or from a plane, and you see yourself needing to blow up other people's coastlines on a routine basis, then it might be worth the hassle of a dedicated large ship.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Missiles are sexy, the cost of a loadout is eye-watering and I personally fear that a drawn out conflict is going to deplete the missile stocks and force navies to prioritize their use and the navy with the most large guns is still going to be in the fight , whereas the missile only ships are just unarmed targets.


----------



## blacktriangle

I think I'd spend the money on more subs, smaller missile armed craft, adequate stocks of guided weapons, and the ability to reload at sea more effectively. Or you can build a couple massive targets for the bad guys...


----------



## Kirkhill

USS Zumwalt - 7,800,000,000 USD
Tomahawk Missile - 1,000,000 USD

Number of Tomahawks for a Zumwalt - 7800.

Other missiles are cheaper.

I would sooner have 7800 Tomahawks (Or even NSMs) than a Zumwalt.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What is the lifespan of a missile in storage and what maintenance is required? How are you going to transport those missiles to the reload point. Does a task force have enough ships to allow a portion to withdraw to a safe harbour to reload and return?

If China adopts a regional focused slow burn conflict to wear down the USN over Taiwan, I am not sure the USN could sustain that sort of fight. A vessel that can sustain damage and stay in the fight might be very valuable.


----------



## quadrapiper

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> USS Zumwalt - 7,800,000,000 USD


Not sure the flatiron's a great example, given (being hyperbolic, but) that the USN managed to somehow spend eight billion to acquire something which, bar the inoperative guns, doesn't seem overly impressive compared to the Ticonderogas: rather, somewhat similar to a T26.

Doing a very cursory Wikipedia cross-check, I'm also curious about what she's doing with an extra 5000ish tons of displacement compared to Bunker Hill - logically that and the extra 30' of beam are for stability, but not sure.

Definitely rather spendy for something spec'd as a sort of fast monitor.


----------



## Spencer100

And the guns don't work.  No ammo.  They cancel the shell development.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect they could easily develop conventional ammunition for it. It would meaning pulling the barrels and replacing them with conventional twist rifled barrels. The ammunition feed is designed for two part ammunition, so the current casings could be used possibly with minor modifications to fit conventional 155 rounds. 

A new barrel is quite technically doable without major cost (well for anyone but the USN) But i suspect that the real issue is that the guns have become a pariah and no one wants to touch them for fear of being connected to them if anymore failure points appears. So political, budget and careerism I suspect are the reason nothing happens.


----------



## FJAG

That gun thing is a new one on me. Holy crap. The design specification was for a $35,000 per round 155mm but with the ship volume reduction would be closer to $800,000 to $1,000,000 per round. No wonder they cancelled it. Basically a long range RAP with an HE warhead

That's about the cost for a HIMARS or an MLRS ATACMS which has a lot longer range and a hell of a lot more terminal effects. Here's an article suggesting the switch out. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting, but at the very least they should convert one turret to the new 127mm gun system so they have direct fire shortrange system as well.


----------



## Spencer100

I had read somewhere the USN is waiting for rail guns and/or lasers.  But I think the DGG 1000's are going to be "technology demonstrators" and hope everyone forgets about them. 

In the same vane the first 6 LCS are being decommissioned.  The newest being just 6 years old and the first being 12 years.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> What is the lifespan of a missile in storage and what maintenance is required? How are you going to transport those missiles to the reload point. Does a task force have enough ships to allow a portion to withdraw to a safe harbour to reload and return?
> 
> If China adopts a regional focused slow burn conflict to wear down the USN over Taiwan, I am not sure the USN could sustain that sort of fight. A vessel that can sustain damage and stay in the fight might be very valuable.



See you and raise you!   ;D

What is the cost of building, operating, maintaining, upgrading and destroying any warship? 

How are you going to transport those missiles to the reload point. By Air?  And while we are at it why not take them direct to the launch point? 

Does a task force have enough ships to allow a portion to withdraw to a safe harbour to reload and return?  If the ships were big and cheap (and low in the water) and the crews were small - and the ships were only occasionally for volley fire.


----------



## Karel Doorman

OH-OOW here we go again(not good)

PBO to examine $60 billion price tag of new warships and compare to other less expensive foreign programs

[link removed by staff to comply with Site Guidelines]

Can i give a suggestion?

Maybe join the Dutch/Belgian replacement M-class(sorry just joking)


Ps i thought the Fremm design was kicked out due to not following procedures(or am i wrong in thinking that?)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> OH-OOW here we go again(not good)
> 
> PBO to examine $60 billion price tag of new warships and compare to other less expensive foreign programs



At this point I don't think any Canadian gov't would dare try to change the arrangement with Irving (other than ship numbers), and delay the program again for lord knows how much longer.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Karel Doorman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> At this point I don't think any Canadian gov't would dare try to change the arrangement with Irving (other than ship numbers), and delay the program again for lord knows how much longer.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Hope so,for you all in Canada,your navy needs new ships(and fast,i might add   )

we also need new ships,but at least contract is signed for the new oiler,contract will be signed shortly for the M-replacement(hopefully the Walrus replacement will follow soon after that)


----------



## Underway

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> OH-OOW here we go again(not good)
> 
> PBO to examine $60 billion price tag of new warships and compare to other less expensive foreign programs
> 
> [link removed by staff to comply with Site Guidelines]
> 
> Can i give a suggestion?
> 
> Maybe join the Dutch/Belgian replacement M-class(sorry just joking)
> 
> 
> Ps i thought the Fremm design was kicked out due to not following procedures(or am i wrong in thinking that?)



Honestly that's a bit of a joke.  Type 31 program is a significantly less effective vessel with self defence capacity equal or lower then one of our current frigates (particularly in the underwater domain).  The FREMM is cheaper because of the government subsidization of the shipyards in other aspects.  I don't think the PBO has the capacity to understand these issues.  They are pretty black and white.


----------



## Navy_Pete

If you look at both the AG/PBO audits to date, they have all generally found that the costs are not crazy given the policy/programmatic restrictions for the NSS. There has also been a lot of work done on the validation of the IRB/VP program with all the economic spinoffs, and once you include those offsets (like $0.30 of every dollar of labour going directly back to the GoC as taxes) it's kind of a no-brainer. A big chunk of the estimate is also contingency, so it's not like the $60B is a big check to Irving. Taxes alone on that is billions.

The FREMM bid was cheaper because it left off a lot, with basically every dollar spent leaving Canada, and resulted in zero strategic shipbuilding capability. We still would have spent billions more on infrastructure, training, infrastructure etc, had to negotiate for all the IP/TDP and other critical things. It was a pretty cheap publicity tactic and hope someone high up in GoC told them to piss off after that stunt.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Some more details on the Type 26 with a mention of Canadian content in regards to the boat/cargo handling system.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-1-design-and-development/?fbclid=IwAR2BfwRXSiP0uZPdpivrNYYQzIh91iRi3NV4r8rQJU6gefWVT89EiWqNFtI


----------



## Spencer100

Colin P said:
			
		

> Some more details on the Type 26 with a mention of Canadian content in regards to the boat/cargo handling system.
> 
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-1-design-and-development/?fbclid=IwAR2BfwRXSiP0uZPdpivrNYYQzIh91iRi3NV4r8rQJU6gefWVT89EiWqNFtI



I that pic you see the Merlin in the background.  What is the size difference between the Merlin and Cyclone?  I think they are in the same class of helicopter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Merlin has a folding tailrotor I don't believe the Cyclone does?

Cyclone 
Length: 56 ft 2 in (17.12 m) fuselage S-92
Width: 17 ft 3 in (5.26 m) fuselage
Height: 15 ft 5 in (4.70 m) S-92

Merlin
Length: 19.53 m (64 ft 1 in) fuselage (can't find the folded length)
Height: 6.62 m (21 ft 9 in)
Empty weight: 10,500 kg (23,149 lb)


----------



## Cloud Cover

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I that pic you see the Merlin in the background.  What is the size difference between the Merlin and Cyclone?  I think they are in the same class of helicopter.



Is that pic of the Merlin in the hangar or the container storage space aft of the mission bay.


----------



## Cloud Cover

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Doing a very cursory Wikipedia cross-check, I'm also curious about what she's doing with an extra 5000ish tons of displacement compared to Bunker Hill - logically that and the extra 30' of beam are for stability, but not sure.



Staterooms for everybody?  A lot of that forward space was actually for the machinery for the two guns in between the 8 x 10 cell PVLS, so I figure they have quite the cross fit gym built in there now. 
Some good cross section diagrams and an outline of her very bulky superstructure compared to the DDG: https://www.bluebird-electric.net/aircraft_carriers/Zumwalt_Stealth_Destroyer_Raytheon_21st_Century_Northrop_Grumman_General_Dynamics.htm

Edit: the span from just aft of A mount to just forward of B mount is 260 feet!


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Merlin has a folding tailrotor I don't believe the Cyclone does?
> 
> Cyclone
> Length: 56 ft 2 in (17.12 m) fuselage S-92
> Width: 17 ft 3 in (5.26 m) fuselage
> Height: 15 ft 5 in (4.70 m) S-92
> 
> Merlin
> Length: 19.53 m (64 ft 1 in) fuselage (can't find the folded length)
> Height: 6.62 m (21 ft 9 in)
> Empty weight: 10,500 kg (23,149 lb)



Cyclone does have a folding tail.  The Merlin is quite the choncky boy compared to the Cyclone.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well it seems the US Coastguard is in the same boat as well are https://www.marinelink.com/news/us-icebreaker-suffers-fire-engine-failure-481220?utm_source=MR-ENews-Weekdays-2020-08-26&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MR-ENews


----------



## Uzlu

> Newfoundland design company enters teaming agreement on Arctic icebreaker shipbuilding pitch
> 
> A Newfoundland and Labrador design company whose growth has been fueled by the federal government's National Shipbuilding Strategy hopes to soon get another opportunity to make an impression.
> 
> Seaspan Shipyards and Genoa Design announced a teaming agreement in a news release issued Wednesday. Seaspan, based in Vancouver, B.C., is building non-combat vessels for government as part of the national strategy. The company is close to completing its third offshore fisheries science vessel and is also working on an offshore oceanographic science vessel, joint support ships, medium endurance multi-tasked vessels and offshore patrol vessels.
> 
> The new teaming agreement with Genoa Design for 3D modeling and production design services concerns Seaspan's bid to regain the contract to replace Canadian Coast Guard Ship (CCGS) Louis S. St-Laurent — the only ship in the Canadian fleet capable of year-round operations in the Arctic. That job was initially part of the deal when government named Seaspan an initial strategic partner in 2011 for the multibillion-dollar strategy alongside Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax. The latter company was tasked to build six Arctic and offshore patrol ships (AOPS) and 15 new warships for the navy in Nova Scotia.
> 
> Last year, Ottawa decided it would re-open bidding to replace the icebreaker. In December, Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) announced Chantier Davie Canada, a shipbuilder in Quebec, had been pre-qualified to become the third strategic partner for the strategy in order to build six program icebreakers. That company has also publically expressed its interest in the contract to replace CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent with the eventual CCGS John G. Diefenbaker.
> 
> *Vote of confidence*
> 
> Gina Pecore, CEO for Genoa Design, said the teaming agreement and vote of confidence from Seaspan means a lot to her company, which has grown from 20 employees to more than 220 since joining the shipbuilder's supply chain in 2014. Genoa has designed five vessels for Seaspan.
> 
> "This signifies the next step in an ongoing, very strong relationship with Seaspan," Pecore told The Telegram. "Seaspan has been extremely conscientious in working with Genoa to support our maturity in this program, and it opened the door to what's next. And what's next for us is that polar icebreaker."
> 
> Seaspan has invested $185 million in its shipyard. In the new release, the company stated it was "purpose-built" to deliver the polar icebreaker, adding its workforce, facilities and capacity make it the only shipyard in Canada capable of meeting the 2029 deadline to deliver CCGS John G. Diefenbaker.
> 
> "I would say we have a very high degree of confidence that we are the right partner for government," said Seaspan CEO Mark Lamarre. "And with respect to delivering (the icebreaker) on time and to the Canadian requirements, irrespective of what other companies' marketing claims might be, I would say I can explain what it takes to be successful in meeting this challenge.
> 
> “You need a modern shipyard that meets the Government of Canada's target state requirements and a level of investment. We need a continued investment in the shipyard to ensure that we are up to date with current technologies and that our work force is trained. We need a hot production line ... we're delivering our third ship and working on our fourth."
> 
> He pointed to a third-party study on capacity at the shipyard as proof it can handle everything already on its plate while also working to complete the polar icebreaker.
> 
> "We're the only shipyard in Canada that has the work force capabilities, capacity, pan-Canadian supply chain and we're the only shipyard that can build the icebreaker entirely in Canada by Canadians on the Canadian Coast Guard's urgent timeline," Lamarre said.
> 
> *Newfoundland connections*
> 
> Seaspan announced in June another team player for the polar icebreaker pitch with ties to Newfoundland and Labrador. Heddle Shipyards has a teaming agreement with Seaspan to fabricate ship modules at its three Ontario shipyards. The agreement would provide some work related to the strategy program to Heddle's site in Mount Pearl, where Genoa Design is also based.
> 
> Lamarre characterized his company's relationship with Genoa Design as a trusted partnership.
> 
> "I would say we share common interests in investment and technology and our approaches to management," he said, adding Genoa's project-specific capabilities make the company a good fit for working on the polar icebreaker. Genoa is also a sub-contractor for the United States' Polar Security Program.
> 
> Pecore said continuing to build on its relationship with Seaspan is not only important to the company's growth in Newfoundland and Labrador, but also to fellow sub-contractors in the province that have built their businesses up through work with the offshore oil and gas sector.
> 
> "There's a lot of capacity and a lot of expertise that fits here in terms of supply chain and ice expertise," Pecore said. "We've proven, over the past, almost a decade now, that we've been able to grow through some pretty difficult times by building close partnerships with our customers, and in particular with Seaspan, and then leverage that to more export potential. It's so important to us that we have long-term relationships with our customers in this way."
> 
> PSPC issued a request for information in February for the polar icebreaker build. Lamarre said everything is in place to start design work early next year if Seaspan is successful.


https://www.journalpioneer.com/business/regional-business/newfoundland-design-company-enters-teaming-agreement-on-arctic-icebreaker-shipbuilding-pitch-497504/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.journalpioneer.com/business/regional-business/newfoundland-design-company-enters-teaming-agreement-on-arctic-icebreaker-shipbuilding-pitch-497504/





> Seaspan still trying to win back CCG polar icebreaker contract by spreading work around in politically useful places:
> 
> 'We felt that we won': Vancouver shipyard fights second icebreaker battle
> 
> Mark Lamarre is making his latest pitch for why Ottawa should choose Seaspan ULC to build the Canadian Coast Guard’s next flagship, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker.
> 
> The pitch involves an arrangement in which, if the Vancouver shipbuilder gets the contract to build the polar icebreaker, it will hire Newfoundland-based Genoa Design International to do part of the work.
> 
> The aim of Lamarre’s presentation is to highlight both Genoa’s potential and how giving the contract to Seaspan, which announced a similar deal with Ontario-based Heddle Marine in June, will benefit different parts of the country.
> 
> Yet there is something else to his spiel, an underlying frustration over the fact he is having to sell his yard as the best place to build the desperately needed polar icebreaker. The source of that frustration: Seaspan already won the work once before.
> 
> "I just want to underscore again that this is work that we felt that we won," Lamarre tells The Canadian Press before repeating the point less than a minute later. "This is work that we believe we've won."
> 
> The Diefenbaker was first announced by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2008 and awarded to Seaspan in October 2011, one of seven ships to be built by the Vancouver shipyard through Ottawa’s multibillion-dollar shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> The plan at the time was for the entire deal, valued at $8 billion for all seven ships, to usher in a new era of stability and prosperity for shipbuilding on Canada’s West Coast while delivering much-needed vessels for the Coast Guard and Navy.
> 
> The Diefenbaker was arguably the crown jewel of the package. Originally budgeted at $721 million, the polar icebreaker was supposed to be delivered by 2017 and replace the Coast Guard’s flagship, the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent.
> 
> But scheduling conflicts, technical problems and other issues scuttled the timeline and budget — which was increased to $1.3 billion in 2013 and is now under review again — before the government lifted the ship from Seaspan’s order book in August 2019.
> 
> Ottawa asked shipyards in March to explain how and why they should get the contract. Seaspan and Quebec rival Chantier Davie, which lost out of the competition that saw Seaspan get the Diefenbaker in 2011, were among the respondents.
> 
> Still, it’s clear Lamarre doesn’t think there should be any question about which yard should be tasked with building the vessel.
> 
> "As I said, we competed for the work in 2011 and won the right to the non-combat vessels," he said. "Since then, we've invested into the one of the most modern shipyards in North America."
> 
> The company says those investments have totalled $185 million over the past nine years and were specifically made for the purpose of building the icebreaker — and Lamarre says not winning the contract "changes our economic outlook."
> 
> "We are a profitable business now," he says. "And we have a program of work in front of us, but I just want to underscore again that this is work that we felt that we won.... And it's what we based our decision-making on for investing in this program."
> 
> Asked whether Seaspan would sue the government if it didn’t get the contract, Lamarre says: "It’s too early for that."
> 
> The government has not provided much of an explanation for why it took the Diefenbaker away from Seaspan, substituting in 16 smaller vessels that the Vancouver shipyard argues were already promised to it by the previous Conservative government.
> 
> Ottawa has said it wants to make sure the icebreaker is built "in the most efficient manner," noting the increasing age of the Coast Guard’s entire icebreaker fleet. It has not said when a decision might be made.
> 
> Davie is considered Seaspan’s chief competitor for the Diefenbaker. After losing out of the competition for work in 2011, the rival yard has since charged back and is now in line to build six medium icebreakers for the Coast Guard.
> 
> Yet even as Seaspan has faced continuing difficulty delivering on its schedule, Davie still hasn’t delivered two of three second-hand icebreakers it pushed the Liberal government to buy two years ago.
> 
> The Quebec company nonetheless insists it — not Seaspan — is best placed to build the Diefenbaker, particularly given it is already in line to build the other six icebreakers.
> 
> "As the national icebreaker centre, we will consolidate experience, expertise and skills at Canada’s largest and highest capacity shipyard to create world-class icebreakers in a competitive and sustainable manner," Davie spokesman Frederick Boisvert said in a statement.
> 
> "As has always been the case, Davie is the only shipbuilder capable of delivering the polar icebreaker."
> 
> Lamarre argues that with the investments made in its Vancouver shipyard and its new partnership with Genoa, Seaspan is ready to start work on the Diefenbaker now — and that Ottawa should stop wasting time and just move ahead with its original plan.
> 
> "I don't know why you would give it to anyone else other than Seaspan," he said.
> https://www.timescolonist.com/we-felt-that-we-won-vancouver-shipyard-fights-second-icebreaker-battle-1.24206468



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

All I hear is delays, they better put penalties in for delays to construction, etc..


----------



## Uzlu

> Shipbuilding industry pushes back as federal government shops for used icebreaker
> 
> *Shipbuilding association says the domestic industry needs the work*
> 
> The federal government is in the market for another used icebreaker that could be converted for use by the Canadian Coast Guard on the Great Lakes — much to the dismay of shipbuilders across the country.
> 
> A request for proposals to acquire an existing light icebreaker was posted on the government's procurement website in mid-September.
> 
> The timing is interesting. Federal decision-makers have known for five years that the coast guard needs such a vessel for the region.
> 
> The request for proposals — which closes at the end of October — was posted as U.S. lawmakers began to push bipartisan legislation through Congress to strengthen the U.S. Coast Guard's capacity to break ice and keep commerce flowing on the Great Lakes.
> 
> The plan for Canada to buy a used icebreaker follows a separate decision by Transport Canada to purchase a used ferry from Spain on an emergency basis.
> 
> *Build them here, says industry*
> 
> The Canadian Marine Industry and Shipbuilding Association (CMISA), which represents most of the marine suppliers and shipyards across the country, said both decisions represent a loss of domestic jobs and at least $250 million in federal spending that could have gone into a Canadian economy hard hit by the coronavirus.
> 
> "We're of the strong belief that vessels such as light icebreakers can and should be built in Canada," said Colin Cooke, president and chief executive officer of the shipbuilding association.
> 
> "We have the capacity. We have the skilled trades. We have the expertise, the technical expertise. We have the shipyards. And that was what the point of the National Shipbuilding Strategy was all about."
> 
> That shipbuilding strategy is supposed to direct government work to Canadian shipyards. Cooke said the plan to purchase an existing icebreaker and the deal to acquire a former Spanish ferry would both be unacceptable in normal times — but they're even less acceptable now.
> 
> "We are in a COVID time when we're looking for all sorts of ways to make sure that people are employed, that businesses are able to survive — I won't say thrive, I will say survive — through the lockdowns caused by this pandemic," he said.
> 
> Public Services and Procurement Canada was asked for comment last Thursday but did not respond.
> 
> The tender for the light icebreaker, posted online Sept. 18, describes the purchase as a necessary interim step for the coast guard to "bridge the gap while awaiting the delivery of dedicated new vessels."
> 
> Significantly, the request for proposals noted that the need for such a ship was identified five years ago — around the same time a comprehensive analysis warned that the coast guard icebreaking fleet was in dire straits and in need of immediate replacement.
> 
> "In 2015-16 the CCG identified a requirement for interim icebreaking capabilities to fill gaps in capacity resulting from ships being temporarily withdrawn from service" for refit and life extension, said the tender.
> 
> Two years ago, the Liberal government concluded a deal worth $827 million with Chantier Davie of Levis, Que., which operates the Davie shipyard, to refit three medium-sized commercial icebreakers for the coast guard.
> 
> *Used icebreakers could be scarce*
> 
> Tim Choi, a University of Calgary shipbuilding expert, said this recent tender suggests the federal government is operating on the flawed assumption that there is an abundance of used icebreakers on the market.
> 
> The deal with the Davie shipyard was an anomaly and federal officials "got lucky" last time because there happened to be three vessels available, he said.
> 
> Choi said he believes the federal government isn't likely to be so fortunate this time: his research suggests there may be only one light icebreaker out there that would fit in the bill — in Finland — and it's not clear the Finns are ready to part with it.
> 
> "There are very few requirements for a vessel like that outside of Canada and the United States in the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence region," said Choi. "It's not like there's a used car lot where you can just go out and buy these things."
> 
> The shipbuilding association said it can make a strong case for a fast-track build in Canada. Choi said he believes procurement services may be forced in that direction anyway because of market conditions.
> 
> In mid-September, three U.S. senators — Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Todd Young (R-IN) and Gary Peters (D-MI) — introduced the Great Lakes Winter Commerce Act.
> 
> The bipartisan legislation is expected to codify the U.S. Coast Guard's icebreaking operations on the Great Lakes and, more importantly, increase the size of its fleet.
> 
> "Inadequate icebreaking capacity in the Great Lakes is costing us thousands of American jobs and millions in business revenue," said Baldwin in a statement. "We must boost our icebreaking capacity in the Great Lakes to keep our maritime commerce moving."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-icebreaker-coast-guard-great-lakes-1.5751143


----------



## MilEME09

Yes build here  even though our order books are full for 10 years, but the coast guard can wait right?

We are at max capacity pretty much, any additional vessels should go off shore. I am sure south Korea could build us a sizable ice breaker fleet at a good price before a single Canadian one.


----------



## suffolkowner

It's probably not helping that Davie is behind schedule on the other two icebreaker conversions. Covid probably a bit of a factor and then there's this

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/lead-paint-icebreakers-coast-guard-davie-1.5748295


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Covid impacts the supply chain that supports the shipyard. Need a valve to finish a module? Do you wait for that valve that's been delayed or add the module and work around installing the valve later even if it's harder?


----------



## dapaterson

Threaten to lay off all your workforce, increase fixed price contracts, and deliver arguably substandard product seems to work for ISI.


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Yes build here  even though our order books are full for 10 years, but the coast guard can wait right?
> 
> We are at max capacity pretty much, any additional vessels should go off shore. I am sure south Korea could build us a sizable ice breaker fleet at a good price before a single Canadian one.



Yeah, and at a better price and better capacity.........pfffftt that idea is doomed.


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin P said:
			
		

> Covid impacts the supply chain that supports the shipyard. Need a valve to finish a module? Do you wait for that valve that's been delayed or add the module and work around installing the valve later even if it's harder?



For sure although I think the one ship was supposed to be done before Covid. My son is pricing a building out in steel right now partially because the price of wood is 2.5x more, apparently due to the mills shutting down because they thought there would be no demand(?) I'm not sure if that's an Ontario thing or what but it shows the extent of the impact


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> For sure although I think the one ship was supposed to be done before Covid. My son is pricing a building out in steel right now partially because the price of wood is 2.5x more, apparently due to the mills shutting down because they thought there would be no demand(?) I'm not sure if that's an Ontario thing or what but it shows the extent of the impact



I can't speak to the mills shutting down but wood went into super high demand as all those people who were going to spend money on holidays spent it on home reno's instead (guilty as charged).  The wood prices are crazy and the wood itself in the yards is still wet, hasn't been dried properly after pressure treating.  Garbage stuff.  So I set up a jury rigged drying shed (read tarp over stacked wood with enough room for airflow).

As for supply lines there are plenty of things that are on backorder.  You can't get a modem for wifi, certain chemicals are in short supply, and the list goes on.  And of course the manufacturing base had to adjust their processes to account for social distancing etc... which effects efficiency.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Even before Covid, the pressure treated wood they were trying to sell was garbage, knots everywhere and already badly twisted in the yard. You could not use it to build a deck or a shed.


----------



## Halifax Tar

You guys must be buying from Irving eh ? lol bahahaha


----------



## Cloud Cover

All 7 mills in North Okanagan are running at full capacity. That includes the 3 that were scheduled to close.  The problem is logs- they are shipping way too many raw logs to China and the US mills.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Meanwhile, on the west coast:

Last of three new coast guard vessels handed over in Victoria

Seaspan Shipyards officially handed over CCGS John Cabot — the last of three offshore fisheries science vessels the shipyard has built — to the Canadian Coast Guard in Victoria on Friday.

The vessel, designed specifically for the coast guard and scientists from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, joins CCGS Capt. Jacques Cartier and CCGS Sir John Franklin, which are already in service.

https://www.timescolonist.com/business/last-of-three-new-coast-guard-vessels-handed-over-in-victoria-1.24218579


----------



## Navy_Pete

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Yes build here  even though our order books are full for 10 years, but the coast guard can wait right?
> 
> We are at max capacity pretty much, any additional vessels should go off shore. I am sure south Korea could build us a sizable ice breaker fleet at a good price before a single Canadian one.



Canada has had a 'Build in Canada' shipbuilding policy in place since the 1960s with a process to go offshore if certain conditions are met. If we have a yard with the facilities to build something, we generally need to at least look at trying to build it here first. When 30-40% of all wages paid out to a Canadian yard go right back to the GoC, it's pretty hard to make the economic argument, as no foreign yard will want to touch the economic offsets for what is a relatively small project. An open bid with no IRBs or anything else would be the only true comparison, but that's a political hand grenade that no one will touch. Even without those clauses, you would be able to get some Canadian spinoffs and calculate that for bonus points, but those big S. Korean yards probably won't touch anything that isn't standard commercial terms as their order books are full and it costs money to put together a bid.

Given the amount of inter-departmental BS happening, and the general lack of political will for longterm projects, surprised the NSS is still rolling along, but probably has enough momentum it's not going to stop. For some projects (like the high speed ferry), makes total sense to go offhore as there isn't a Canadian yard capable of handling a ship that size, but for something like the Polar class icebreaker that was already part of the NSS bid, can't see that being done outside Canada.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The biggest problem with the NSS, is it was started 20 years to late, so we have yet another panic situation where the hulls won't let the politicians delay any longer. We almost lost an icebreaker a couple of years ago to corrosion and wear.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with the NSS, is it was started 20 years to late, so we have yet another panic situation where the hulls won't let the politicians delay any longer. We almost lost an icebreaker a couple of years ago to corrosion and wear.



Fully agree, but it did take 10-15 years to get enough support to get approved.

'Urgent operational requirements' can lead to interim fixes, or additional funding for unforeseen major repairs, but generally aren't a good enough reason on their own for a waiver from the 'Build in Canada' policy. JSS is a good example, as that project has been in the works in some form or another since the late 80s, and we could have gotten them built abroad at any time in the last 20 years no problem with a waiver and some other policy coverage on the different contracting terms and other related project details. Things like outsourcing our QC would be a big one, but the whole procurement/selection process for all the bits and bobs inside the hull would be quite different on standard commercial terms.

Personally think building outside of Canada would come with it's own big set of challenges (aside from politics), but agree a new imperfect ship would probably still be better then no ship, or keeping an old one limping along safely. But I think if we do build outside the country, we'll probably try and enforce all kinds of insane IRB equivalencies and make them go with equipment bids (as opposed to just let the shipyard select equipment to meet the spec using known suppliers they have good relationships with) so we would never get the actual benefits of going with an established yard (with an established supply chain) but have the drawbacks of trying to remotely manage something being built on the other side of the planet by a company with no real allegiance. We may have issues with the exisiting NSS yards having some political leverage, but not sure a foreign yard where we are just a demanding customer would be a better relationship.


----------



## YZT580

wasn't Irving saying that they needed more work to avoid layoffs in between the AOP and the frigate?  I know for a fact that Heddle could start cutting steel by early spring and produce modules at each of their yards with assembly in St. Catharines or, under license with assembly in Vancouver provided they had the design.  Wouldn't interfere with the schedule at all: just provide long term and skilled jobs in another province.  So buy an off  the shelf design from one of the Baltic companies limit your changes to electrical instead of trying to Canadianize everything and just get it done.


----------



## MilEME09

YZT580 said:
			
		

> wasn't Irving saying that they needed more work to avoid layoffs in between the AOR and the frigate?  I know for a fact that Heddle could start cutting steel by early spring and produce modules at each of their yards with assembly in St. Catharines or, under license with assembly in Vancouver provided they had the design.  Wouldn't interfere with the schedule at all: just provide long term and skilled jobs in another province.  So buy an off  the shelf design from one of the Baltic companies limit your changes to electrical instead of trying to Canadianize everything and just get it done.



Maybe to avoid lay offs lets bump up the Type 26/CSC schedule?


----------



## YZT580

can do both.  Better long term results than just giving cash away as we are doing now.


----------



## Uzlu

YZT580 said:
			
		

> wasn't Irving saying that they needed more work to avoid layoffs in between the AOR and the frigate?


Yes.  That is why Irving is going to build an additional two modified _Harry DeWolf_s after the first six _Harry DeWolf_s.  I think you wanted to write _AOPS_.


----------



## YZT580

whoops engage brain before putting fingers in gear.


----------



## Navy_Pete

YZT580 said:
			
		

> wasn't Irving saying that they needed more work to avoid layoffs in between the AOP and the frigate?  I know for a fact that Heddle could start cutting steel by early spring and produce modules at each of their yards with assembly in St. Catharines or, under license with assembly in Vancouver provided they had the design.  Wouldn't interfere with the schedule at all: just provide long term and skilled jobs in another province.  So buy an off  the shelf design from one of the Baltic companies limit your changes to electrical instead of trying to Canadianize everything and just get it done.



Lead time in a lot of equipment is measured in years, and you still need to do up a production design specific to the yard equipment (specifically available tonnage of the cranes and working area). You also usually have to update the design to reflect changes to SOLAS and class society rules. If it was just as easy as licensing a design and building it then none of the three shipyards would be behind schedule.


----------



## Harris

YZT580 said:
			
		

> wasn't Irving saying that they needed more work to avoid layoffs in between the AOP and the frigate?  I know for a fact that Heddle could start cutting steel by early spring and produce modules at each of their yards with assembly in St. Catharines or, under license with assembly in Vancouver provided they had the design.  Wouldn't interfere with the schedule at all: just provide long term and skilled jobs in another province.  So buy an off  the shelf design from one of the Baltic companies limit your changes to electrical instead of trying to Canadianize everything and just get it done.



But nothing is ever off-the-shelf.  For example Canada has different health and safety requirements so there has to be some modifications to any item of this size and scope.  It's the amount that makes the difference.


----------



## YZT580

granted but the same design revisions will be required whether built here or elsewhere.  Hang it out and have a look, it won't delay anything.  The facilities for a lake-built breaker are available right on the lakes and have been underused for the last decade or more: as said earlier, provide the design and they can start.  If they were building a fleet then there would be a need for establishing an assembly line style facility but this is a one off.


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Maybe to avoid lay offs lets bump up the Type 26/CSC schedule?



Please no.  I don't mind the random extra AOPS as their layoff protection.  CSC needs to be designed before the build.  Avoids the initial AOPS and JSS problems where the yard is building AND designing at the same time.  So many headaches...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well Irving can do what the yards in BC did, go look for international work.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well Irving can do what the yards in BC did, go look for international work.



That would mean they would have to be competitive on the world stage


----------



## Colin Parkinson

BC did it in the repair business to keep themselves alive, when there were no government contracts.


----------



## MTShaw

Colin P said:
			
		

> BC did it in the repair business to keep themselves alive, when there were no government contracts.



And their own ferry business.  They’re very entrepreneurial.


----------



## MarkOttawa

MTShaw said:
			
		

> And their own ferry business.  They’re very entrepreneurial.



It is not generally realized that Seaspan is US-controlled:



> The Washington Companies
> The Washington Way®
> 
> The Washington Companies is a general inclusive term referring to the association of separate independently operated business entities in which Montana businessman Dennis R. Washington holds a significant ownership position. The Washington Companies are headquartered throughout the United States and western Canada and conduct business internationally. They are involved in rail transportation, marine transportation, construction and mining, heavy equipment sales, aviation technology, and real estate development.
> 
> Visit the Washington Companies
> https://www.seaspan.com/washington-companies



Mark Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:
			
		

> Please no.  I don't mind the random extra AOPS as their layoff protection.  CSC needs to be designed before the build.  Avoids the initial AOPS and JSS problems where the yard is building AND designing at the same time.  So many headaches...




If there is anything we can really learn from US procurement in the last 10 years or so, is that concurrency is a BAD THING.  A VERY BAD THING!!  

Ford class, F-35, etc...


I can only imagine being a fly on the wall of your office, Underway, chuckling away as the yards design & build at the same time   :threat:


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I can only imagine being a fly on the wall of your office, Underway, chuckling away as the yards design & build at the same time.



Since my office is in my house you are under threat from my fly eating cat (who also likes to try and sleep on my keyboard).  But yes, "industry standard" is to design and build at the same time.  And waiting until the ship was fully designed for AOPS and JSS made the costs a significant risk.  Any cost that we add due to design and build now pale in comparison with waiting 4 years and then building.  It also created risk that the projects themselves would never get off the ground.

As we say in my team when things are frustrating and not going exactly how we would like "The best ship is the one you have." And we will have ships. Ergo they will be the best.   :nod:


----------



## CBH99

I think most of us can say - and I'll happily admit - that I did not know ANYTHING about shipbuilding prior to this thread.  And I still don't, but I'm learning as I can.

When I read the options are "Class A", or "Class B", or "Class C" -- I assumed that the ships were already a final product in terms of their design.  Their propulsion systems, hull, electronic capacities, etc etc were already well known.



I'm realizing over the last few months of following this thread, especially the build of the 1st and 2ns AOPS - how much more complicated shipbuilding actually is.  

I've learned a LOT from your posts Underway   :cheers:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Spreading the political pork (but curious no fed pol there)--and maybe Seaspan needs help to make schedules for RCN JSS, CCG OOSV?



> Hamilton’s Heddle Shipyards lands big contract
> 
> Premier Doug Ford, Economic Development Minister Vic Fideli, Finance Minister Rod Philipps and Flamborough-Glanbrook MPP Donna Skelly were on hand in Hamilton today to congratulate Heddle Shipyards on their new long-term agreement with Vancouver-based shipyard Seaspan to fabricate Ontario-made ship components under the National Shipbuilding Strategy. The Joint Support Ship (JSS) project will deliver two new ships, as outlined in Strong, Secured, Engaged, Canada’s defence policy. These Joint Support Ships are being built for the RCN under the National Shipbuilding Strategy and will replace the auxiliary oiler replenishment (AOR) vessels that reached the end of their operational lives..
> 
> “I want to congratulate Heddle Shipyards on this long-term agreement, as it cements Ontario’s position as one of the best places in the country for major manufacturers to compete, succeed, and grow,” said Premier Ford. “This historic partnership with Seaspan will create highly skilled, well-paying jobs in communities across the province, contribute to the construction of quality, Ontario-made components for these ships, and reinforce Hamilton’s status as a critical transportation hub in the province.”
> 
> Shipbuilding in Canada has tended to be a closed shop with contracts being sole-sourced in many cases, especially to Quebec based shipbuilders. Shaun Padulo, President of Heddle Shipyards, credited Premier Ford with advocating for the Ontario shipbuilding industry which has struggled in past.
> 
> _Over the next decade, Heddle Shipyards will be the primary supplier for ladders, gratings and handrails for the JSS 1 (currently under construction), JSS 2, and an Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel. These components will be manufactured at their facilities in Hamilton, St. Catharine’s, and Thunder Bay, creating jobs across Ontario’s advanced manufacturing supply chain. These projects will generate tens of millions of dollars in economic activity in Ontario, employ at least 50 workers, and create the potential for additional opportunities, such as supplying larger ship modules in the future.
> 
> Seaspan and Heddle have also partnered to bid on the construction of the Polar Icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard. If won, Heddle will support the construction through its modular fabrication program_ [emphasis added]...
> https://bayobserver.ca/2020/11/12/hamiltons-heddle-shipyards-lands-big-contract/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Spreading the political pork (but curious no fed pol there)--and maybe Seaspan needs help to make schedules for RCN JSS, CCG OOSV?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Sounds like they are acting as just a subcontractor here for Seaspan. Good news for Heddle, but anyone with the capabilities can put in a bid to supply the bits and pieces like this, so it's not necessarily accurate to say they are part of the NSS as a shipyard.

If it works out and they have a good working relationship, probably makes sense business wise to maintain it as timely delivery and quality are of huge importance when you are doing just in time modular construction like this.


----------



## Good2Golf

Are hull building blocks considered ‘bits and pieces?’ ???


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Are hull building blocks considered ‘bits and pieces?’ ???



No, but right now they are building things like ladders, railings etc (generally lumped together as 'outfitting'). These can be pretty big chunks of steel, but nothing terribly complicated.

Aside from the actual ship blocks, the modular construction scales down to things like pipe nests, skid mounted equipment and other components, so there is lots of opportunity to do that off site, so probably just a question of shipping costs on whether or not it's worth it. For example, some designs have entire cabins built off site, then the box gets dropped in to the module and attached. That's a lot of sheet metal so usually companies that specialize in that (but may not strictly do marine).


----------



## Good2Golf

I had understood, perhaps incorrectly, that Heddle would be manufacturing rail-transportable modules of some type?  I’ll try to find the reference. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think that was a proposal, but don't remember seeing that being contracted for. They have the larger yard on the East coast in partnership with Damen, so they could easily split the work between the two and rail/barge modules over, but there is probably a point where schedule gains doesn't make up for the transport cost. Theoretically though they could be subcontracted by any of the main yards for this kind of furnishing and outfittings work.

For the larger ship modules accuracy is critical, so takes a bit to build up the skillset accuracy to do the surveying etc for it. You have to make allowances for expansion during the fit up, correct for heat distortion, etc to prevent misalignment, so it's a bit more then taking some laser measurements and calling it a day. That's why the first few ships will be slower, as they need to build up the database of these kind of things for their specific equipment, processes and arrangements as well as build up the expertise. All that stuff is expensive reword and delays, so part of the learning curve is learning how all this works together and building it into the manufacturing instructions. Established shipyards will have a lot of this in place, but if they do something with a new grade of steel or something they would have a bit of learning to do as well.

For things like ladders etc those are pretty standard and the accuracy tolerances is usually only relevant for a few attachment points and overall dimensions, so it's easy enough to make them off site and bolt them on.


----------



## MarkOttawa

From story above:



> Seaspan and Heddle have also partnered to bid on the construction of the Polar Icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard. If won, Heddle will support the construction through its modular fabrication program.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> From story above:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



For reference, 'modules' can means anything from building strucutural blocks of the hull to doing equipment modules (i.e. fitting an equipment assembly on a skid that gets dropped in and welded into place). Really depends what you are talking about, and normally the people that understand the nuance aren't talking to reporters.

Dimensional accuracy control of a ship module coming from Hamilton to Vancouver is a big risk, so makes sense to start small with easy stuff. Would be neat to see bits of the Polar class made in my hometown and shipped out to the west coast, but don't think they are at that stage yet on Polar to see if that makes sense.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> For reference, 'modules' can means anything from building strucutural blocks of the hull to doing equipment modules (i.e. fitting an equipment assembly on a skid that gets dropped in and welded into place). Really depends what you are talking about, and normally the people that understand the nuance aren't talking to reporters.
> 
> Dimensional accuracy control of a ship module coming from Hamilton to Vancouver is a big risk, so makes sense to start small with easy stuff. Would be neat to see bits of the Polar class made in my hometown and shipped out to the west coast, but don't think they are at that stage yet on Polar to see if that makes sense.



Then-PM Harper in April 2008:



> "...
> "Today I am pleased to formally announce the commencement of a national Arctic sovereignty project – the building of Canada's new Polar Class icebreaker, the largest, most powerful icebreaker Canada has ever owned," said the Prime Minister. "We are going to harness the energy and expertise of Government, the Coast Guard, the Canadian Navy, Canadian shipbuilders, and all the communities that support these institutions to this project. I can think of no better name for this project, for this ship, than the name of the man who spoke a few meters away from where I am standing today: John George Diefenbaker."
> 
> The new John G. Diefenbaker Polar class icebreaker will possess greater icebreaking capabilities than any other vessel currently in the Canadian fleet. When completed, this $720 million project will replace the Louis S. St. Laurent, which is expected to be decommissioned in 2017...'
> https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2008/08/pm-announces-new-polar-class-icebreaker-project-named-after-former-pm-john-g-diefenbaker.html



Now looks like the Louis, almost certain to have further life extension by Davie ( https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-canada-issues-advance-contract-award-notice-for-vessel-life-extension-of-canada-s-largest-icebreaker-842206560.html ), will break on until around 2030 at over 60 years old. How long can this nonsense go on?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well we could be following the USCG example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Smilax_(WLIC-315)#:~:text=USCGC%20Smilax%20(WAGL%2FWLIC%2D,commissioned%20U.S.%20Coast%20Guard%20cutter.

Speaking of modules, the entire upperworks of Astreix was built offshore and transported over


----------



## MarkOttawa

Sleight of words--Asterix was a modification, not shipbuilding, deal as publicized so...But if real "shipbuilding" contract? One doubts.

As for USCG, they will have very likely three polar class and three medium breakers on fairly short shipbuilding notice and long before the CCG ever sees its one only polar or the other ones:
https://news.usni.org/2020/06/16/report-to-congress-on-coast-guard-polar-security-cutter-7

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> One doubts.



Why? The Italians built the Cavour in two halves at different yards, to be brought together in one ship. Two full halves sections. The British had the Queen Elizabeth class built with modules of varying sizes built at more than half a dozen yards and brought in to the lead yard for assembly. Heck! Before going into bankruptcy protection at the time of the Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy inception, Davie itself had been building modules for the US Navy's Nimitz class aircraft carriers, which were barged to Newport News yard for incorporation to the main work. In fact, modular construction of warship is seemingly picking up everywhere - except at ISL where they don't share anything once they have their grubby hands on it.

Davie itself has indicated that they intend to outsource modules to other, smaller Canadian shipyards for the build of the new icebreakers, and in particular for the Diefenbaker should they get the contract.

P.S.: I hope Heedle's deal with Seaspan is not exclusive because they are most favourably situated to build modules for Davie should this happen. You could then be looking at fairly large modules because they could be barged to Quebec city fairly easily, in much better environmental conditions and calmer sea states (or no sea state at all on the River   ) than for any other yard they may want to do this for.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oldgateboatdriver--my "one doubts" was only about building major parts of ships abroad.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

Saw this image this morning taken by Combat Camera.  Speaks volumes about what you will experience at sea. Well done!


----------



## Pelorus

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Saw this image this morning taken by Combat Camera.  Speaks volumes about what you will experience at sea. Well done!



Great shot.

The difference between how rough seas feel onboard a frigate-sized vessel versus in a RHIB or Zodiac is something that many people (even in the Navy) do not fully appreciate.


----------



## Cloud Cover

At least it wasn't taken through a periscope sight.


----------



## suffolkowner

With respect to the Polar icebreaker project what is the point or need for this one ship? Is it really just a leftover vanity project? It seems to me as an outsider without knowing the basis of the requirements that this is the case, and that we would be better served with a longer run of more of the "medium" icebreakers


----------



## PuckChaser

If we want to be a real player in the Arctic Ocean, we need the right toys to contribute. We probably could use a few more than forecasted as well.


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> With respect to the Polar icebreaker project what is the point or need for this one ship?


It might be two.  I am in favour of a minimum of six.  With global warming, more ships are going to be up north.  That means a greater risk of a ship in distress, breaking up, and spilling oil.  Yeah, icebreakers are expensive.  But oil spills are also expensive.  Having enough heavy icebreakers around to tow a ship to safety might be a good idea.


----------



## suffolkowner

Uzlu said:
			
		

> It might be two.  I am in favour of a minimum of six.  With global warming, more ships are going to be up north.  That means a greater risk of a ship in distress, breaking up, and spilling oil.  Yeah, icebreakers are expensive.  But oil spills are also expensive.  Having enough heavy icebreakers around to tow a ship to safety might be a good idea.



I am not really questioning the need for icebreakers but rather the distribution of sizes/types. At this point Davie is suppossedly going to be building six medium icebreakers. And we currently have two "heavy" icebreakers including the Terry Fox which is not a large ship and 4 of the type 1200 class medium icebreakers. Plus 3 of the Viking conversions by Davie coming online

for comparison

Louis St. Laurent  119.8m Length  24.4m Beam   15324 tonnes displacement
Terry Fox              88m   length     17.8m beam     7000 tonnes
type 1200             98.3m length    19.5m beam     8000 tonnes
Vikings                 83.7m length     18m   beam     6800 tonnes
Aiviq                     110m length     24.4m beam    13000 tonnes
Diefenbaker           150m length     28m   beam     23500 tonnes

numbers via internet so shake some salt on them


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Iran has bested ups by combining the CSC, AOPS and AOR roles into one vessel, we must not have a Joint Everything Gap!  https://twitter.com/PressTV/status/1329347554069393408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1329347554069393408%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.almasdarnews.com%2Farticle%2Firan-launches-massive-oceangoing-warship-with-cutting-edge-missiles-photos%2F


----------



## Cloud Cover

Why does the ski ramp head into the bridge superstructure? Painful.


----------



## CBH99

If you scroll down a little bit, there is video of a C-Ram doing it's thing.  Wherever the video is being shot from, looks really nice to be honest   :nod:


----------



## Spencer100

Davie is still working the lobbying hard

https://www.insidelogistics.ca/procurement/navy-may-buy-converted-cargo-ships-173624/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newcom&utm_campaign=MMandD&utm_content=2020112091832


----------



## newfin

Good news for the Coast Guard.  It took a long time but they finally have their lines on the CCGS Jean Goodwill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRI2mlstTyU


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Davie is still working the lobbying hard
> 
> https://www.insidelogistics.ca/procurement/navy-may-buy-converted-cargo-ships-173624/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newcom&utm_campaign=MMandD&utm_content=2020112091832


Once the two JSS are in commission, offer to buy the Astreix and run her under a new Federal Fleet Service contract that`s more favourable to DND.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> Once the two JSS are in commission, offer to buy the Astreix and run her under a new Federal Fleet Service contract that`s more favourable to DND.



Sigh... these budget reviews always gloss over that the project cost estimates include a lot for things like infrastructure upgrades, training, spares etc (about $1B in the PBO report when you dig into it) plus 20-30% contingency.

If you included similar infrastructure upgrades to also support Asterix and Obelix with jetties, spares, training, IP rights etc it's suddenly a lot more then the $1.4 billion quoted, and that's for ships that would be almost 20 years old at the time and less capable. Not really what I'd call a deal.


----------



## Cloud Cover

It’s also pretty hard to justify 4 over 2 when for 10 years the RCN will get by with 0 owned, 1 leased.


----------



## MilEME09

CloudCover said:
			
		

> It’s also pretty hard to justify 4 over 2 when for 10 years the RCN will get by with 0 owned, 1 leased.



Get by, but barely, 1 ship limits us to supporting one coast at a time. The other has to rely on our allies.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I guess the political response would be thats what allies are for. To help Canada, not the other way around ...


----------



## JMCanada

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Davie is still working the lobbying hard



More on Davie and the CCG's icebreakers:
http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/3024

There is a statement there I don't fully understand

" This includes the first fully converted icebreaker CCGS Jean Goodwill which, along with the delivery of CCGS Captain Molly Kool, represents Canada's biggest addition of icebreaking capacity in a generation."

Being sister ships, being converted into (I assume) same lines and standards, ... why Jean Goodwill is said to be the FIRST FULLY converted icebreaker if Molly Kool was delivered first?
I only may supposse that due to their different careers, Jean had a tougher life and had to undergone major mid-life overhaul and upgrade.


----------



## Spencer100

JMCanada said:
			
		

> More on Davie and the CCG's icebreakers:
> http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/3024
> 
> There is a statement there I don't fully understand
> 
> " This includes the first fully converted icebreaker CCGS Jean Goodwill which, along with the delivery of CCGS Captain Molly Kool, represents Canada's biggest addition of icebreaking capacity in a generation."
> 
> Being sister ships, being converted into (I assume) same lines and standards, ... why Jean Goodwill is said to be the FIRST FULLY converted icebreaker if Molly Kool was delivered first?
> 
> 
> only may supposse that due to their different careers, Jean had a tougher life and had to undergone major mid-life overhaul and upgrade.



Molly Kool, was just basically painted and put to service.  Jean Goodwill is customized.  I think the plan is to put the third one in service after converted then go back and redo the Molly Kool.


----------



## CBH99

CloudCover said:
			
		

> It’s also pretty hard to justify 4 over 2 when for 10 years the RCN will get by with 0 owned, 1 leased.




Hey, at least we aren't relying on Chile to lend us a ship.  Things are getting better


----------



## Uzlu

> Federal cabinet, provinces engage in tug-of-war over polar icebreaker contract
> 
> *B.C.'s Seaspan is seen as the leading candidate — but Quebec wants the work for the Davie shipyard*
> 
> Ottawa's efforts to build a massive icebreaker have become the focus of a heated interprovincial political battle over a plan to send the work to a B.C.-based firm instead of a Quebec shipyard.
> 
> Federal and industry sources say the Vancouver-based Seaspan Shipyard is back in hunt for the contract, more than a year after the federal government rescinded the order for the vessel. Sources estimate that the contract, which had an estimated value of $1.3 billion in 2013, is now worth close to $2 billion.
> 
> The sources said a plan to award the contract to Seaspan was presented recently to the cabinet committee on the economy and the environment, strongly suggesting the company is now seen as the leading candidate for the job.
> 
> The sources said federal ministers from Quebec — fearing that the Bloc Québécois would benefit politically from a decision to send the work to another province — have been trying to bring the Lévis-based Davie shipyard back into the process. That campaign is being led by Liberal House Leader Pablo Rodriguez, who was named Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Quebec lieutenant after the 2019 general election.
> 
> Davie, located just across the St. Lawrence River from Quebec City, is frequently depicted in Quebec politics and media as a victim of unfair treatment at the hands of the federal government.
> 
> When Ottawa formally launched its national shipbuilding strategy in 2011, Seaspan and the Irving shipyard in Halifax were the only facilities qualified to build vessels for the Canadian Navy and federal agencies such as the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> At the time, Davie was facing financial problems and was left out of the federal shipbuilding process entirely.
> 
> Plans to build a new polar icebreaker — to be named the John G. Diefenbaker — were announced in 2008 by the Harper government. Seaspan was awarded the work in 2011, but the federal government rescinded that order in June of last year.
> 
> "Canada made the decision to substitute the one polar icebreaker with a long run of 16 multipurpose vessels (MPVs)," said Marc-André Charbonneau, a spokesperson for Public Services and Procurement Canada.
> 
> "Given the importance of icebreaking capacity, the government is exploring options to ensure the polar is built in the most efficient manner, but no decisions have been [made] yet."
> 
> In 2011, the government was working to bring Davie in as an official member of the shipbuilding program. Because its shipyard is much bigger than Seaspan's, many observers suggested the work on the polar icebreaker would go to Quebec.
> 
> Negotiations to bring Davie into the fold continue to this day. As part of those talks, Davie expects to be asked to build six smaller icebreakers.
> 
> While both Seaspan and Davie have a number of firm or potential orders lined up, the Diefenbaker project remains their ultimate goal.
> 
> In February, the federal government approached all major shipyards in the country and asked them to provide information about their ability to build a polar icebreaker.
> 
> In recent months, Seaspan has been talking publicly about the regional benefits that would flow to other parts of the country if it gets the contract. It has entered into partnerships with Ontario's Heddle shipyards and Newfoundland's Genoa Design International.
> 
> Ontario Premier Doug Ford and B.C. Premier John Horgan have both called for the allocation of federal shipbuilding work to Seaspan.
> 
> Quebec Premier François Legault, meanwhile, wrote to Trudeau in October to privately support Davie's bid for the polar icebreaker. On Wednesday, he urged the federal government via his Twitter account "to quickly confirm that the contract will be awarded to Davie."
> 
> Sources said the polar icebreaker file is still the subject of intense discussions in Ottawa and that the matter has yet to be debated in front of the full cabinet. The government is expected to issue an update on the project over the coming weeks.
> 
> "No final decision has been taken on where any potential icebreaker will be built," said James Fitz-Morris, a spokesperson for Public Services and Procurement Minister Anita Anand.
> 
> The Diefenbaker will be the biggest ship ever built by the Canadian government. It will replace the Louis S. St-Laurent, which first came into service in 1969. According to the initial plan, Seaspan was supposed to have built the vessel by 2017.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/polar-icebreaker-shipbuilding-seaspan-davie-1.5834290


----------



## Navy_Pete

Some facts for context; the Seaspan yard was specifically upgraded designed to accommodate all ships in the non-combat package, which included the Polar icebreaker.

Davie was also allowed to bid and not excluded as reported repeatedly; they lost.  :dunno:

Given that it's 2020 and we still don't have requirements finalized for Polar, also pretty unfair to blame Seaspan for it not being ready. That 2017 date was a pipedream, and not even a fully operational experienced yard could have designed, built and delivered that package in that time. There was about a two year period to overhaul/upgrade the shipyards once they were awarded the NSS contracts, and Davie would have had to do the exact same kind of thing to get their facilities up to the NSS required standard. They still do AFAIK so not like they would cut steel tomorrow if they got the contract today.

Not saying it wouldn't make sense to shift Polar & some other icebreakers to Davie if the MPVs go ahead and fill Seaspan's order books for the next twenty years or whatever, but CBC and others really need to get their facts right and stop parroting Davie's PR folks BS.


----------



## Stoker

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/polar-icebreaker-shipbuilding-seaspan-davie-1.5834290



Probably the reason why they released this, straight from their propaganda arm.

https://www.facebook.com/afcdcan/videos/3581536445255836

Might have to move the "national icebreaker center" to Vancouver.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Davie was also allowed to bid and not excluded as reported repeatedly; they lost.  :dunno:



Just a small correction, here, Navy_Pete: In last ditch effort just as it got out of Creditor protection under the Bankruptcy Act with new (foreign, BTW) owners, Davie managed to get a chance at putting together a bid for the non-combat part of the NSS (same as the one Seaspan got), and after getting a short extension of deadline, did put in a bid.

However, they did not "lose", they were declared non-compliant because during the protection period, the collective agreement had expired and they did not have a chance to have a new one in place. A collective agreement covering the first five (I believe, or at least four) years from the day the bid went in was a requirement and Davie didn't have one.

I don't call that losing since the technical part of their bid was not even reviewed or considered.

P.S. I used to practice law at the Montreal law firm who handled that for Davie, though not at the time, but I still have good contacts.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just a small correction, here, Navy_Pete: In last ditch effort just as it got out of Creditor protection under the Bankruptcy Act with new (foreign, BTW) owners, Davie managed to get a chance at putting together a bid for the non-combat part of the NSS (same as the one Seaspan got), and after getting a short extension of deadline, did put in a bid.
> 
> However, they did not "lose", they were declared non-compliant because during the protection period, the collective agreement had expired and they did not have a chance to have a new one in place. A collective agreement covering the first five (I believe, or at least four) years from the day the bid went in was a requirement and Davie didn't have one.
> 
> I don't call that losing since the technical part of their bid was not even reviewed or considered.
> 
> P.S. I used to practice law at the Montreal law firm who handled that for Davie, though not at the time, but I still have good contacts.



That's not true at all; their bid was accepted, evaluated and scored. That included a full technical evaluation, cost review, IRB review/scoring etc.  I spent weeks of my life reviewing all three bids and the evals, not sure what else to tell you. Davie was allowed to bid, was scored, and was an unsuccessful bid because the other two were scored higher. They've spent years trying to control the narrative and make it sound like they would have won but for some pesky bureaucratic loophole, but the fact is they were outbid by both other shipyards. Not sure what else to tell you, but your winger is wrong. :dunno:

Here's a link to a CBC story and a CTV news story about the announcement; you'll notice both include Davie as a bidder and indicate they weren't selected; can't pull up any GoC press releases prior to 2015. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/halifax-b-c-yards-win-shipbuilding-work-1.1000979
https://www.ctvnews.ca/halifax-wins-25-billion-shipbuilding-contract-1.713515


----------



## JMCanada

A good feature of both Japanese and Korean shipbuilding structure for their respective Navies is that the two companies do build same ship-classes (and boats): Mitsubishi/Kawasaki heavy industries or Daewoo/Hyundai.

The fact is that we're talking about only one Polar icebreaker, but if we talked about two, it might be of interest to award one to Seaspan and the other to Davie. It would allow (i guess) to make some kind of competition for efficiency and on-time delivery.


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> The fact is that we're talking about only one Polar icebreaker, but if we talked about two, it might be of interest to award one to Seaspan and the other to Davie.


It might be two.  If it is two, another possibility, if it is a modular design, is to ask Seaspan, Davie, and Heddle to each build a third of the modules with final assembly of one icebreaker at Seaspan and final assembly of one icebreaker at Davie.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Odds on first CSC being launched in 2027?



> Irving Shipbuilding one step closer to completing 3rd Arctic patrol ship​...
> "In November we are planning to launch the third ship and deliver it to the navy in 2022,"..
> 
> The first blocks of the fourth AOPS vessel, the future HMCS William Hall, are now being assembled and painted, the official keel laying will be coming soon. McCoy said the first steel on the fifth AOPS vessel is also not far away...
> 
> The ship builds started two years later than originally scheduled. Six Arctic patrol ships will be built as well as two more for the Canadian Coast Guard in the next few years...





> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/irving-shipbuilding-one-step-closer-to-completing-3rd-arctic-patrol-ship-1.5882285



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Weinie

MarkOttawa said:


> Odds on first CSC being launched in 2027?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Launched, or started? Launched 10-1. Started 1-1. After all, there is a contract in place that has deliverables.............


----------



## Czech_pivo

Weinie said:


> Launched, or started? Launched 10-1. Started 1-1. After all, there is a contract in place that has deliverables.............


0%


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile back in the UK, the future HMCS Glasgow is getting her bow attached, quite a few good photo's at this twitter feed https://twitter.com/hashtag/HMSGLASGOW?src=hashtag_click


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> Meanwhile back in the UK, the future HMCS Glasgow is getting her bow attached, quite a few good photo's at this twitter feed https://twitter.com/hashtag/HMSGLASGOW?src=hashtag_click


Are we naming one of ours Glasgow as well? 😉


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Are we naming one of ours Glasgow as well? 😉


Close. We are naming a ship HMCS ClassGrow, in an effort to generate sp of middle earners.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:


> Are we naming one of ours Glasgow as well? 😉


Lead ship of the class, important to us and Australia


----------



## lenaitch

So if Scotland breaks away, do they get proprietary ownership?


----------



## newfin

How about we name it in honour of Justin Trudeau and name it HMCS GRASSGROW?


----------



## Uzlu

Seaspan Shipyards Wins Contract To Build Oceanographic Vessel For Canadian Coast Guard 

Today, the Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of Public Services and Procurement, and the Honourable Bernadette Jordan, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, announced that the Government of Canada has awarded a contract of $453.8 million (taxes included) to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards to enable the company to transition the offshore oceanographic science vessel (OOSV) project from the design phase to full construction.

Construction of the OOSV will begin in spring 2021, with delivery expected in 2024.









						Seaspan Shipyards Wins Contract to Build Oceanographic Vessel for Canadian Coast Guard - Naval News
					

The Government of Canada has awarded a contract of $453.8 million (taxes included) to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards for construction of the offshore oceanographic science vessel (OOSV)...




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu said:


> Seaspan Shipyards Wins Contract To Build Oceanographic Vessel For Canadian Coast Guard
> 
> Today, the Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of Public Services and Procurement, and the Honourable Bernadette Jordan, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, announced that the Government of Canada has awarded a contract of $453.8 million (taxes included) to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards to enable the company to transition the offshore oceanographic science vessel (OOSV) project from the design phase to full construction.
> 
> Construction of the OOSV will begin in spring 2021, with delivery expected in 2024.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaspan Shipyards Wins Contract to Build Oceanographic Vessel for Canadian Coast Guard - Naval News
> 
> 
> The Government of Canada has awarded a contract of $453.8 million (taxes included) to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards for construction of the offshore oceanographic science vessel (OOSV)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com


Cost has tripled, insane--2016 story:



> Budget for building oceanographic research ship inadequate, cabinet told​...
> The Canadian Press has learned that federal bureaucrats have warned the Liberals that the current $144 million budget for the offshore oceanographic science vessel is inadequate and will need to be topped up in order to complete the vessel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Budget for building oceanographic research ship inadequate, cabinet told
> 
> 
> Cabinet will soon be asked to pump more money into one of the key civilian projects under the national shipbuilding strategy in what's expected to be the first test of the Trudeau government's commitment to stick with the Conservative-era program.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca




And 2015-16 gov't report:



> ...
> Delivery of Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel: 2017-18
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We couldn't find that Web page (Error 404) - Government of Canada Web Usability theme / Nous ne pouvons trouver cette page Web (Erreur 404) - Thème de la facilité d’emploi Web du gouvernement du Canada
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca



Now 2024. Nuts.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

so why the delay issuing the build order?  There was no competition issues to resolve so the whole thing must have been tied up in developing the blueprints which in turn implies that planning has been ricocheting back and forth between Seaspan and the coast guard trying to reconcile what was reasonable and what was a dream.  Probably not the fault of Seaspan as they would be drafting what was asked for.  I can't see hull or propulsion design ever being a drag but rather the little bits and pieces.  Every science team afterall would want their dream lab.  Goodness knows they have waited long enough to receive a purpose-built platform.


----------



## Uzlu

YZT580 said:


> so why the delay issuing the build order?





> Sources within the coast guard and the defence industry have said that the design and project coordination for the fisheries science vessel is not as far advanced as the navy supply ship program and that is an important factor in the federal government's timing decision.





			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-supply-ships-seaspan-1.5006785


----------



## YZT580

Uzlu said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-supply-ships-seaspan-1.5006785


so no problems that can be attached to the NSS concept per se.  Perhaps it is simply attributed to our lack of practice in actually accomplishing something


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Uzlu said:


> Seaspan Shipyards Wins Contract To Build Oceanographic Vessel For Canadian Coast Guard
> 
> Today, the Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of Public Services and Procurement, and the Honourable Bernadette Jordan, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, announced that the Government of Canada has awarded a contract of $453.8 million (taxes included) to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards to enable the company to transition the offshore oceanographic science vessel (OOSV) project from the design phase to full construction.
> 
> Construction of the OOSV will begin in spring 2021, with delivery expected in 2024.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaspan Shipyards Wins Contract to Build Oceanographic Vessel for Canadian Coast Guard - Naval News
> 
> 
> The Government of Canada has awarded a contract of $453.8 million (taxes included) to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards for construction of the offshore oceanographic science vessel (OOSV)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com


"Re-announcing" the art of repeating your promise just before an election.


----------



## CBH99

I've done some digging on Google, but haven't found what I would consider a reliable number.

Does anybody know how much has been spent on this Oceanographic Vessel in total?  (Including the $453.8 million just announced?)


----------



## Blackadder1916

CBH99 said:


> I've done some digging on Google, but haven't found what I would consider a reliable number.
> 
> Does anybody know how much has been spent on this Oceanographic Vessel in total?  (Including the $453.8 million just announced?)








						Offshore oceanographic science vessel - Large vessel shipbuilding projects – Shipbuilding projects to equip the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard – National Shipbuilding Strategy – Defence and marine procurement – Buying and Selling – 
					

Information about the procurement of the offshore oceanographic science vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard.




					www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
				




*Project budget  *$966.5 million


----------



## Underway

YZT580 said:


> so why the delay issuing the build order?



No delay, it's just the way these things are done from a contracting perspective.  We are now in the correct financial year where the money budgeted to go to the project is available, the design is basically done so Canada can now award the build contract and free up that money.  It's basically a gateway for funding.

It sounds weird I know.  But that's how contracting works apparently. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## MarkOttawa

Soon we'll be talking real money--$1 billion to build a 4,500 ton civilian ship in Canada that is years late is acquisition malpractice/lunacy:



> Cost of Coast Guard ship balloons to nearly $1B as questions mount over federal shipbuilding plan​
> The federal government has quietly revealed that it plans to pay nearly $1 billion to build a new ocean research vessel for the Canadian Coast Guard whose original cost was supposed to be one-tenth that amount.
> 
> The new cost estimate for the offshore oceanographic science vessel represents the latest blow to Ottawa’s multibillion-dollar plan to build new ships for the Royal Canadian Navy and Coast Guard, first revealed more than a decade ago and beset by problems ever since.
> 
> It also sets the stage for what is likely to be a difficult week for the government as Parliament’s budget watchdog and the federal auditor general prepare to release separate, highly-anticipated reports on the plan’s actual costs and problems [CSCs].
> 
> The federal procurement department revealed the new $966-million price tag for the science vessel on Friday, quietly posting the new cost online on the same day it officially awarded Vancouver-based Seaspan Shipyards a contract to build the ship.
> 
> That represents a nearly tenfold increase over the original plan to spend $108 million to replace the Coast Guard’s oldest and largest research ship, the CCGS Hudson, when the project was launched in 2008.
> 
> It is also three times the government’s most recent estimate in 2016, when Ottawa predicted the vessel would cost $331 million. Coast Guard spokesman Barre Campbell said officials knew at that time that the agency would need more money.
> 
> “As the project has progressed and moved closer to construction, the estimated project cost has been updated to reflect the value of negotiated contracts and actual costs incurred, and has been reviewed independently by expert third parties,” Campbell said in an e-mail.
> 
> In addition to cost overruns, the project has been plagued by delays. The vessel was supposed to have been delivered by 2017-18, but design and technical problems have pushed that date back until at least 2024.
> 
> In the meantime, Ottawa has been forced to sink more money into the Hudson to ensure the Coast Guard has an ocean research ship...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cost of Coast Guard ship balloons to nearly $1B as questions mount over federal shipbuilding plan
> 
> 
> The original cost for the offshore oceanographic science vessel was supposed to be one-tenth that amount
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

The cost over runs on these projects is getting ridiculous, but they are to big to fail.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Is this another case of "all in costs"?


----------



## CBH99

$1 billion to build one science ship seems absurdly stupid on the preface... but the project budget was $966 million, so I'm assuming (aka hoping) that there is a lot more included in that amount than just the ship.

Obviously labour & materials since we are building locally, so a decent chunk of those costs will be returned to government coffers via income taxes, collecting GST, etc etc.  

I'm curious to see if this is the 'all in costs' as Colin P asks above also.  

It's a bit different to see these costs compared to the CSC as it's just one ship, not many ships built over a decade.


----------



## Underway

It's all-in costs.  It's the way the Fed gov't does accounting since Harper.  I don't understand why but I assume it's for more accountability.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> It's all-in costs.  It's the way the Fed gov't does accounting since Harper.  I don't understand why but I assume it's for more accountability.


It’s for full program cost transparency. No surprises, and full impact to the government’s fiscal framework is seen and acknowledged.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It`s a recipe for problems if they don`t break down the costing though. Frankly I don`t think it`s a worthwhile exercise unless it's a brand new capability. Your already running a similar sized ship, unless there is either a massive savings or a massive increase in costs, it just makes Canada look bad and makes it near impossible to sell ships overseas.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin Parkinson said:


> It`s a recipe for problems if they don`t break down the costing though. Frankly I don`t think it`s a worthwhile exercise unless it's a brand new capability. Your already running a similar sized ship, unless there is either a massive savings or a massive increase in costs, it just makes Canada look bad and makes it near impossible to sell ships overseas.


Key thing is apparent ten-fold increase in cost estimate from 2008, then three-fold increase from 2016 (less than five years ago) , with no ship for several more years. Not a Good Look.

And I doubt that any ship types made under the shipbuilding strategy will ever be sold abroad, for evident cost reasons. In any event Irving and Seaspan will have no available building capacity for around a couple of decades even to try to sell abroad--and Davie?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The problem is that these figures get quoted without context and it damages every Canadian shipyard and associated companies reputations and builds in a obstacle that needs to be overcome in a tight market. Canadian Naval Architects are successfully selling designs around the world, as well as marine technology companies. At one point we were the world leaders in commercial/tourist submarines, both in sales and technology. We do a crappy job of marketing ourselves and politicians will throw industries under the bus for a few votes.


----------



## Underway

The NSPS goal was never to sell ships abroad.  That's a difficult thing for even heavily subsidized yards like the French/Italian ones.  Very few yards are doing this.  And if they do there are aften national geopolitical connections (France sells discounted to Algeria etc...) Either way, I expect ISI to be fully busy with CSC for the next 20 years building Canadian ships.  There isn't much excess capacity in their yard for the injection of other contracts (unless its an AOPS at the end of the current run).  VSY is similarly backed up for a while.  

Canada also doesn't have any geopolitical allies that we might want to discount sell to.  This is classic security capacity-building politics, sell a cheap patrol boat to a Carib nation to build their capacity.  We did this to get rid of all our legacy armoured vehicles, donate/sell cheap to African nations on peacekeeping missions.  I can perhaps see that as an option, but only if we pay for it somehow.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Irving strikes again I wonder? This is the 2nd Hero Class completely out of service, although the first one was due to sabotage and not related to the build. Also surprised they have no soft patch designed in.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova...q3LMO5gum0K85VjVgHuZm3FMOd4bd-NbFcXNCrh-gznU8


----------



## YZT580

They don't make the engines and it was an internal failure due to perhaps poor maintenance.  The question in my mind is who has the contract for service


----------



## MTShaw

YZT580 said:


> They don't make the engines and it was an internal failure due to perhaps poor maintenance.  The question in my mind is who has the contract for service


Given the other problems with the class, I’d say poor design.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile at Seaspan:



> Seaspan to cut steel on offshore science ship this month​Federal government signs $453-million contract with North Vancouver shipyard to build science ship with floating lab
> 
> Workers at Seaspan’s North Vancouver shipyard will be cutting steel on a new offshore ocean science vessel this month, following the recent signing of a contract with the federal government to build the ship for $454 million.
> 
> Seaspan expects to cut steel to begin building the ship by the end of March, said Amy MacLeod, vice-president of corporate affairs and external communications for Seaspan.
> 
> Delivery of the ship is expected in 2024.
> 
> The offshore ocean science vessel is the third type of ship being built at the local shipyard under the federal government’s national shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> The new ship will replace the current Canadian Coast Guard vessel Hudson, its oldest and largest science vessel. The ship will be capable of conducting multiple tasks, including oceanographic, geological and hydrographic survey missions.
> 
> Science ship will include a floating lab​
> “It's not just a vessel. It has a full high-end research laboratory on it as well, so it’s quite a sophisticated ship,” said MacLeod.
> 
> At about 88 metres in length, the ship will be about 30 per cent larger than the earlier three fisheries ships built at Seaspan.
> 
> Work on the ocean science vessel will start while construction on the first massive navy joint support ship is still ongoing at Seaspan.
> 
> Work on that ship is “well advanced,” said MacLeod. “It’s an imposing ship. You can’t miss it.”
> 
> The first joint support ship is scheduled for completion in 2023. The second joint support ship is to be finished in 2025, one year after the ocean science vessel.
> 
> Federal ships keep 1,300 people working at Seaspan​
> The ships are expected to keep approximately 1,300 people working at Seaspan. “The goal is continuous employment,” said MacLeod.
> 
> With a total budget of $966.5 million, the ocean science vessel is now expected to cost almost over six times more to build than the $144 million originally projected over a decade ago.
> 
> 
> “Today, we've got a much, much more robust and reliable understanding of the time and effort and expenditure to build these vessels and also to design them,” said MacLeod.
> 
> “Those early estimates, they might not have been as informed as they could have been.”
> 
> The federal government has already paid Seaspan to work on the design and engineering of the ocean science vessel under another contract.
> 
> MacLeod added that not all of the project budget is for the design and building of the ship...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaspan to cut steel on offshore science ship this month
> 
> 
> Federal government signs $453-million contract with North Vancouver shipyard to build science ship with floating lab
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nsnews.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

As someone said way way waaayyyyy upthread - we are only 3 or 4 years into about a 40 year plan, and each government department seems to use it's own unique accounting methods, so the numbers are rarely accurate.

However, just from my own "VERY UNINFORMED" opinion - based on chat here on the forum, communications put out by the yard's PR team, and the ships that are slowly coming online.  Seaspan seems to be finding it's groove.

Even just to hear them acknowledge something as simple as "This is a new kind of ship, and today we have a much better understanding of the timing & costs involved in designing a ship.  So early estimates probably weren't as well informed as they could be, etc etc" - gives me hope, as it seems like there was a learning curve (which wasn't their fault at all) and with that experience is coming more efficient ways of doing things as we move forwards.


I'm not a fan of Irving.  Wasn't really specifically a fan of Seaspan either.  (As an Alberta guy, I just haven't really been exposed to shipbuilding at all.)  But over the course of the NSS gaining it's momentum, Seaspan seems to be finding it's groove.  (And to be fair, Irving too, as they are putting AOPS in the water faster than I anticipated.)  


0.02


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am not a really big fan of the Hero Class, they give up to much for speed and don't really suit the CCG mission well, I call then R Class 2.0 (Showing my age the R class went out of service in the 90's) but they are just a bit of an improvement on what that class did.


----------



## CBH99

True.  And they did have some pretty embarrassing problems when they first entered service.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> Irving strikes again I wonder? This is the 2nd Hero Class completely out of service, although the first one was due to sabotage and not related to the build. Also surprised they have no soft patch designed in.
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova...q3LMO5gum0K85VjVgHuZm3FMOd4bd-NbFcXNCrh-gznU8


Is the soft patch they have just not big enough and in the right spot for a direct removal?  Usually they are generally in a bad spot to open it up and get a crane directly onto, or you have to remove some of the various things that are all bolted on top so the block can ride the rail and be pivoted out the soft patch. Even broken down with the ones where you can split the block it's a big job.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Haven't been aboard them, but from the pictures I have seen, it's a very cramped design with some poor choices like hatches that can't open fully to allow stretchers through. So I expect that things like engine room access was an after thought.
https://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Untitled.gif


----------



## Underway

@CBH99 not to rain on your parade but wait until the ships that Vancouver Ship Yards (not to be confused with Seaspan which is the parent company) have built are floating around.  You'll then get the rage from the operator/maintainers on things they don't like or don't work. 

Case in point the CCG made a video of the OFSV where they are trying to recover the rescue boat while it's rapidly filling up with hot water from the cooling system.  Vancouver Ship Yards put a discharge above the rescue boat recovery position.  I don't know how that's being rectified but moving a discharge is not cheap or easy after the ship is built.  To me, that's a mistake from a noob shipyard and a noob Project Management Office in Ottawa.  Reputations are built and earned over time.  We will see where VSY ends up.

 Irving has a history so they've had a chance to build up the animosity over the years, and almost all of that animosity is from the refit side of their operation.  It seems a bit unfair to paint the shipbuilding side with the same brush until they get going.  And AOPS will be very different from CSC.  CSC has Lockheed and BAE as the design authority which is very different than with AOPS where Irving was the design authority.  BAE knows how to build ships and Lockheed though expensive know their stuff as well. Irving will have to execute on what is by and large the Lockheed/BAE plan.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> CSC has Lockheed and BAE as the design authority which is very different than with AOPS where Irving was the design authority.  BAE knows how to build ships and Lockheed though expensive know their stuff as well. Irving will have to execute on what is by and large the Lockheed/BAE plan.



I just hope that it’s not the case of having a car designed/engineered by Mercedes but built by Chrysler, to use as an example.


----------



## RangerRay

Czech_pivo said:


> I just hope that it’s not the case of having a car designed/engineered by Mercedes but built by Chrysler, to use as an example.


Or having a light off-road vehicle designed/engineered by Volkswagen but built by Bombardier...?


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> I just hope that it’s not the case of having a car designed/engineered by Mercedes but built by Chrysler, to use as an example.


The first ship will be bad.  The third ship will be good.  Ship six will be hitting all the marks.

HMCS Halifax was in terrible shape.  HMCS Montreal (ship 6) was basically ready to go right out of the gate.

HMCS Harry DeWolf was in bad shape.  The next AOPS are already in significantly better shape to start with. 

Remember that when Protecteur hits the water and when CSC 1 does as well.  They will need rework fixes to be ready for the fleet.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> The first ship will be bad.  The third ship will be good.  Ship six will be hitting all the marks.
> 
> HMCS Halifax was in terrible shape.  HMCS Montreal (ship 6) was basically ready to go right out of the gate.
> 
> HMCS Harry DeWolf was in bad shape.  The next AOPS are already in significantly better shape to start with.
> 
> Remember that when Protecteur hits the water and when CSC 1 does as well.  They will need rework fixes to be ready for the fleet.


Makes total sense. I remember my days working for Chrysler as a University student back at Plant 3 making the mini-van.  After the 2 week shut-down, retooling for the new model year in mid-July it certainly took a number of weeks before quality improved and everyone got into a new routine with the new process.


----------



## Spencer100

Czech_pivo said:


> Makes total sense. I remember my days working for Chrysler as a University student back at Plant 3 making the mini-van.  After the 2 week shut-down, retooling for the new model year in mid-July it certainly took a number of weeks before quality improved and everyone got into a new routine with the new process.


You're old calling it Plant 3........LOL


----------



## Spencer100

Czech_pivo said:


> I just hope that it’s not the case of having a car designed/engineered by Mercedes but built by Chrysler, to use as an example.


 
In that case it would be OK.  I would take that car.  (and in the 90's you could lol) Being in the automotive business and working with both companies believe it or not MB's manufacturing is not all its cracked up to be.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Spencer100 said:


> You're old calling it Plant 3........LOL


Lol - I don't think that I'm that old.  My Dad spent 42yrs with Chrysler in the accounting dept. across the street from Plant 3, in the Admin Building.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Couple of pictures I took today of one of the 1100's getting shafts redone, she getting new engines next year. CCG would be happy with a updated version of these buoytender/icebreakers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

hmm won't let me add the other image. when I was down at Vancouver Dry Dock today they had two large fishing vessels, 3 large barges and the icebreaker up for repairs, that is only one part of the whole Vancouver Shipyards.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:


> In that case it would be OK.  I would take that car.  (and in the 90's you could lol) Being in the automotive business and working with both companies believe it or not MB's manufacturing is not all its cracked up to be.


Years ago I was at the car show in Toronto with my dad and there was a Maserati with part of the hood cut away to show off the engine. He looked at it and then started loudly critiquing the weld quality and finish (there was a lot of spatter and similar) and how that wouldn't have passed inspection where he worked. The salesman quickly tried to shuffle him off to the side, it was pretty funny at the time.

Nuts though that you would pay that much for a car and not get good quality work. Since then realized how much people will pay for a name and the perception of quality, regardless of the actual product.


----------



## blacktriangle

Navy_Pete said:


> Years ago I was at the car show in Toronto with my dad and there was a Maserati with part of the hood cut away to show off the engine. He looked at it and then started loudly critiquing the weld quality and finish (there was a lot of spatter and similar) and how that wouldn't have passed inspection where he worked. The salesman quickly tried to shuffle him off to the side, it was pretty funny at the time.
> 
> Nuts though that you would pay that much for a car and not get good quality work. Since then realized how much people will pay for a name and the perception of quality, regardless of the actual product.


Tesla has major QC issues and yet still manages to sell loads of cars every month. I guess they are still a young company, and there will be growing pains...but still. You're right that people seem willing to overlook reality in the name of brand recognition.

What's that method called? Six Sigma? Isn't that supposed to be applied in manufacturing to seriously reduce defects?

In what way was the first AOPS "bad"? Was it design issues not being realized until production, or just poor workmanship due to inexperience (or because someone knew they could get away with it) ?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

VDC was showing me their new pipe welding robot, does beautiful work and every weld is video recorded and temperature/type of rod/wire used is logged as well. If there is a failure they can go back and pull up that weld. Also cuts the time to do the pipe by 1/3rd over manual welding.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin Parkinson said:


> VDC was showing me their new pipe welding robot, does beautiful work and every weld is video recorded and temperature/type of rod/wire used is logged as well. If there is a failure they can go back and pull up that weld. Also cuts the time to do the pipe by 1/3rd over manual welding.


That is seriously cool. What a marvellous modern age we live in.


----------



## Navy_Pete

reveng said:


> Tesla has major QC issues and yet still manages to sell loads of cars every month. I guess they are still a young company, and there will be growing pains...but still. You're right that people seem willing to overlook reality in the name of brand recognition.
> 
> What's that method called? Six Sigma? Isn't that supposed to be applied in manufacturing to seriously reduce defects?
> 
> In what way was the first AOPS "bad"? Was it design issues not being realized until production, or just poor workmanship due to inexperience (or because someone knew they could get away with it) ?


Was actually a commentary on Mercedes Benz; sidetracked from the main topic and wasn't speaking directly to anything on AOPS.

For the welding defects the inspection is normal quality control; it starts by a visual inspection, but then there are also all kinds of non-destructive testing options. Part of the modernization process is building up a big database of the weld effects on different types of steel and different welds with the automatic machines. Aside from the quality they also track stuff like weld distortion so they can eliminate/minimize corrections afterwards when they are assembling things into the modules. It's pretty neat to see the difference, or how much a giant I beam can bend when it runs through an automatic welder with too much heat on it.

My dad's specific issue was that no self respecting welder at his workplace would have left it like that, let alone have it passed an QC checks. For context it looked like someone was only learning with a lot of spatter and some obvious defects in the weld, and there was even a bit of weld wire stuck to the frame that had been painted over. That was on the frame in the engine compartment, which doesn't really give a great deal of confidence for all the welds on the frame that you can't see (especially when they usually set up the lines to make it as easy as possible for the welders access wise). Pretty hard to sell it as still being proudly hand made when the welds are really poorly done. When stuff like that is automated the quality is usually really high (once they get everything dialed in).

Both shipyards have incorporated Lean Six Sigma, which is similar name but is more of an industrial engineering practice looking at the overall processes and eliminating/reducing unecessary steps to minimize the time something takes to make something (and improving the overall efficiency that way).

I think the original Six sigma is more for making widgets where you have a high output and looking at minimizing the number of units with defects. General idea for all of them is comparable, but always have to keep in mind that they are targetting whatever is a 'good enough' quality in a repeatable manner, not necessarily a high quality. That's why you can buy something from an ISO certified shop and have it still be a piece of garbage, as all it means is that they can repeatedly make the same piece of garbage while documenting it for traceability.


----------



## Underway

Six Sigma is a quality control process where you try and get the number defects in a product to the "sixth standard deviation" (sigma representing the greek letter for standard deviation) or in other words, 0.00044% of parts are defect-free.   From my industrial processes class ( 6 years ago now) it's best applied to large throughput items where you can accurately measure deviations over large sample sizes of the same item. (it was developed by Motorola to improve cell phone quality for example).

Lean Six Sigma looks to reduce waste in the manufacturing process.  I think that's the difference.  We aren't manufacturing a ship, we're constructing one.  The very description implies more one-off methods and craftsmanship vs industrial processes.  I'm sure some of the procedures can be applied to AOPS (the pipe shop or steel cutting for example), but a holistic look at the entire process shows other QC methods are better in many cases.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> Six Sigma is a quality control process where you try and get the number defects in a product to the "sixth standard deviation" (sigma representing the greek letter for standard deviation) or in other words, 0.00044% of parts are defect-free.   From my industrial processes class ( 6 years ago now) it's best applied to large throughput items where you can accurately measure deviations over large sample sizes of the same item. (it was developed by Motorola to improve cell phone quality for example).
> 
> Lean Six Sigma looks to reduce waste in the manufacturing process.  I think that's the difference.  We aren't manufacturing a ship, we're constructing one.  The very description implies more one-off methods and craftsmanship vs industrial processes.  I'm sure some of the procedures can be applied to AOPS (the pipe shop or steel cutting for example), but a holistic look at the entire process shows other QC methods are better in many cases.


Lean six sigma is being used in the manufacturing side on the work order level; even though the specifics are different the overall process is the same, and it's about cutting down your margins and looking at ways to reduce re-work. With modular construction the idea is to break down one 1000 lb marshmallow into the smallest unit and build up from there, so the construction process repeats the same kind of manufacturing processes hundreds of times with different specifics, and you can easily apply it.

Both shipyards have small teams of green and yellow belts, and I believe one or two black belts. A few do it full time on specific projects when issues are identified, but part of the shipyard modernizing including updating their process and approach, so there are a number of supervisors/managers familiar with Lean Six Sigma and similar industrial engineering improvement approaches as well. All of that is part of the 'Target State', which builds in mechanisms like that for continuous improvement so they can get to comparable productivity levels as more experienced, modern shipyards.


----------



## JMCanada

A bit off-topic, but just read a story on Total Quality Management (which turns into a leadership story) in SRUA, later FMF Cape Scott in Halifax , MEJ spring 2021, pages 22-24.
Wish you like it.






						Maritime Engineering Journal - Canada.ca
					

The Maritime Engineering Journal (MEJ) has been the principal publication of the Naval Technical Community since 1982. Instituted as part of the MARE “Get Well” program in 1982, it intended to instill a professional pride and esprit du corps among the Naval Technical Community.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A video graphic of the 3D design process for the 00SV engine room block, steel to be cut shortly on this ship.


----------



## MarkOttawa

First-rate descriptive paper by Dave Perry of CGAI at Naval Association of Canada on origins and development of National Shipbuilding Strategy, as seen by insiders:



> *A Narrative History of  the NSS from Conception to the CSC RFP*
> 
> 
> https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSS-History-NAC-Perry.pdf



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We are not alone in things going sideways......


----------



## Underway

Honestly I think things going sideways in warship procurement is generally the SOP.  It's the most complicated engineering and construction endeavor that modern society can do.

You have a ship, with all the hotel and mobility services, attach to that complicated sensors, communications, and weapons.  Insane when you think about it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was told recently that for Vancouver Shipyards OFSV acceptance trails Hull #1 took 4 weeks and Hull #3 only 10 days, that shows the learning curve on a new design and ship for the builder and customer.


----------



## dapaterson

Is the builder getting better, or the client accepting more faults and deviations?


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> Is the builder getting better, or the client accepting more faults and deviations?


Builder is getting better, trials themselves get improved (with more stuff being done alongside if possible, or done concurrently) and we're also getting more experience as a client. If there were any first of class trials those would also be cut out.

But that kind of massive learning curve at the start is typical and what was predicted about 15 years ago during NSS development. It slows down as you get better and goes to more incremental improvements, but at the very start the improvements are huge. 

A good example is if you have to put together 4 ikea chairs; the first one you spend time scratching your head with the directions, second one is better and by the fourth you barely need the directions and is much faster. I guess there are way less hex keys involved with shipbuilding, but it's the same idea with learning curve. So when you switch to a table, even though it's different, your previous experience at assembling the chairs and following the directions is relevant, so it goes faster than if you had gone right to it. Same things happen between changing classes of ship; there is a productivity drop off, but it's not as bad as when you first started.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Construction starts on the new Science Vessel

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1376539718058397698


----------



## MilEME09

Williams: Under this plan, Canada's new warships will never be built
					

DND’s position is unequivocal – and deeply flawed. The department will neither entertain a new design nor undertake a new procurement process.




					ottawacitizen.com
				




Yet another opinion piece, though I think we would be out if our minds to restart the process. I do agree however there needs to be penalties for late delivery and delays.


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> Is the builder getting better, or the client accepting more faults and deviations?


In every projects life (not just shipbuilding) there comes a time when change costs more than any deficiencies in the design/build.  Perfect is the enemy of good enough.  This means at some point, the CCG and RCN will just accept a ship and deal with any issues after build because its cheaper to have FMF do it or its identified as a first docked work period job (or even midlife refit job).

The politicos in power, RCN/CCG and builder will hail it a success, while the project and life cycle folks carry on in the background to fix whatever they don't like.  Critics and the opposition will call it a waste or mistake.  History will decide whether the ship was a success.

It's as predictable as porn.


----------



## suffolkowner

Yeah, I'm not buying the restarting line of reasoning. While you could argue it's a large ship and a suitable,smaller, and comparabley equipped ship similar to the Halifax Class might have been a better path to follow, I fail to see how changing paths now would save any money. Plus there is the added time lost. We've been over the cost differences on naval shipbuilding a number of times on here, enough to know that it's a bit of a fools errand


----------



## YZT580

According to his report, Williams has added another 200 odd billion in the price for life-cycle costs.  All the figures I have seen quoted include life cycle costs in the 77 billion quoted.  Which is correct?


----------



## Navy_Pete

YZT580 said:


> According to his report, Williams has added another 200 odd billion in the price for life-cycle costs.  All the figures I have seen quoted include life cycle costs in the 77 billion quoted.  Which is correct?



Who knows where he got it. That's about $5 billion a year every year over the life of CSC. Even if you add in fuel, food, maintenance and salaries that is pretty extreme. Most of that comes out of different budgets then the maintenance anyway, so it's not part of the $240B pot (which he should be fully aware of as a former ADM(Mat). 

Maybe if you had 15 ships fully crewed and added in all the maintenance and support costs from all the different budgets you might start sneaking up on $500M - 1B for operating costs, with some kind of mid life blip for capital upgrades. The biggest single line item is crewing, but if you have 2500-3000 sailors for the crews, we are talking maybe $200-250M? We'll probably be well below that for people anyway, so his numbers are insane.

Conveniently he now offers procurement advice from his company. Seems like a pretty blatant pull for work as a consultant, but this is the kind of BS that wastes a lot of peoples time in ballparking real costs over the life of the ship, and trying to predict the price of marine diesel in 30 years, or figure out how much the disposal costs will be in 2070 whatever before the ship is even designed. His consulting group address is a gmail contact, so seems like a pretty desparate cry for work. Betting his 'consulting group' is him, and maybe another random winger he can call in to take notes.

Hopefully the BGHs and MPs recognize this and fire his letter into the trash, but some arseclown will probably jump on this and use it as another opportunity to try and derail the project. I absolutely hate this kind of stuff, and that it gets published with zero fact checking.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> It's as predictable as porn.



Someone always gets fu<ked?


----------



## Edward Campbell

With all due respect, Alan Williams is so full of 💩 his eyes are brown.

Something in the range of $5B per ship, over full their life-cycle, is consistent with what the government was told in the late 1980s/very early '90s when the first _guesstimate_ for the replacement fleet was made back when the  _Halifax_ class frigates were just starting to be delivered. In fact, allowing for inflation, it is probably a bit low.

A 25 ship fleet was deemed affordable then, to a Liberal government that was intent on cutting the deficit/debt, and it is affordable now, to one that spends like a drunken sailor. That some politicians ~ and their _running dogs_, like Alan Williams, if I can quote a Chinese diplomat ~ say it is not is a matter of their partisan opinions, nothing more. 

The costs ought not to be surprising. I've been told, by people who _I believe_ actually know what's going on, that:

1. The $(US)1.2 billion per ship that he says the US will pay is the "sail away" cost, not the life-cycle cost; and
2. The _Fincantieri_ $30B 'offer' was nothing but a public elations gesture aimed at muddying the waters when they knew that they were not going to be selected and bowed out in an attempt to save face.


----------



## Underway

Edward Campbell said:


> 1. The $(US)1.2 billion per ship that he says the US will pay is the "sail away" cost, not the life-cycle cost; and
> 2. The _Fincantieri_ $30B 'offer' was nothing but a public elations gesture aimed at muddying the waters when they knew that they were not going to be selected and bowed out in an attempt to save face.



The $1.2 billion is just the construction and some procurement costs.  The US do not include things like ammo or communications in their calculations because that is Government Furnished Equipment and comes from a different budget.  Like many things US military the true cost is obfuscated behind layers of bureaucracy.

The recent auditors' report into ship costs costed out the Fincantieri bid with full life cycle costs and saved a massive 4 billion or so. So yeah, their bid was political and didn't include life cycle properly either.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> The $1.2 billion is just the construction and some procurement costs.  The US do not include things like ammo or communications in their calculations because that is Government Furnished Equipment and comes from a different budget.  Like many things US military the true cost is obfuscated behind layers of bureaucracy.
> 
> The recent auditors' report into ship costs costed out the Fincantieri bid with full life cycle costs and saved a massive 4 billion or so. So yeah, their bid was political and didn't include life cycle properly either.


The USN provides the entire combat suite and weapon systems as GSM so isn't part of the build cost. Their price is just for build, all the propulsion and hotel equipment, and some basic electronics for things like navigation radar and propulsion control system, and all the wiring and hookups for the provided equipment. That delta is the multi-billion dollar gap.

The CSC budget is about 50% for the ships, with a 25% contingency and the rest is for ammo, training, infrastructure, IP, spares, etc. None of those were in the Fincantieri bid, and also didn't meet all the other NSS requirements around things like the IRBs, which drive a lot of restrictions. Every delay we get adds a whack to the project in inflation costs, so gets worse any time we take a pause to look at stuff like this (again).


----------



## Uzlu

Navy_Pete said:


> Conveniently he now offers procurement advice from his company.


“Mr. Williams has worked as a consultant for various companies involved in the Canadian Surface Combatant project. These include Alion, Leonardo DRS, Leonardo Defence Systems, and Raytheon.”

Lockheed Martin won the competition for the Canadian Surface Combatants.  Alion was a failed bidder.  The Canadian Surface Combatants will use SPY-7 from Lockheed Martin.  The Canadian Surface Combatants will not use AN/SPY-6 from Raytheon.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Uzlu said:


> “Mr. Williams has worked as a consultant for various companies involved in the Canadian Surface Combatant project. These include Alion, Leonardo DRS, Leonardo Defence Systems, and Raytheon.”
> 
> Lockheed Martin won the competition for the Canadian Surface Combatants.  Alion was a failed bidder.  The Canadian Surface Combatants will use SPY-7 from Lockheed Martin.  The Canadian Surface Combatants will not use AN/SPY-6 from Raytheon.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> View attachment 64803


Also from the guy who physically signed Canada up to the F-35 JSF Program, yet years later tried to convince many that “it didn’t mean we had to buy the aircraft itself...”


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A little bit of infomercial on the Offshore Science Vessel


----------



## Underway

Vancouver, Quebec shipyards to each get new heavy icebreaker, cost remains a mystery

I can't decide if this is good, bad, or just a thing.  An extra icebreaker... good.  Throwing money around to avoid election issues, probably bad but normal government behavior.   Adding another shipyard to NSPS is probably bad... see frigate build and issues with VDQ.

I think I'll glass is half full on this.  Another heavy icebreaker is good news.  Multiple places lobbying to build ships is good, though I don't think Canada can long term support three shipyards.


----------



## CBH99

That's unexpected good news.  Employs more people, we get another ship, a shipyard gets experience building something they may not have otherwise been able to build, etc.

More expensive?  Yes.  (Does money really even matter anymore, at the federal level?  Not kidding, but I'll save it for a different thread)

Move to buy votes?  Ofcourse.

Keeping a good chunk of the money inside Canada, and employers a nice little chunk of people for a while?  This it does, and a lot of us will need these opportunities once Covid isn't the main thing going on.


Good news indeed


----------



## newfin

Underway said:


> Vancouver, Quebec shipyards to each get new heavy icebreaker, cost remains a mystery
> 
> I can't decide if this is good, bad, or just a thing.  An extra icebreaker... good.  Throwing money around to avoid election issues, probably bad but normal government behavior.   Adding another shipyard to NSPS is probably bad... see frigate build and issues with VDQ.
> 
> I think I'll glass is half full on this.  Another heavy icebreaker is good news.  Multiple places lobbying to build ships is good, though I don't think Canada can long term support three shipyards.


I agree that long-term, 3 yards are probably one too many.  However, the reality is we need ships now and this helps get them faster.  And throwing money around because of election politics is as old as the country itself.  What's different about this scenario is that this time the money is being spent on something useful.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Also believe that this is good thing.  
Anyone have any thoughts on where both ships will be homeported?  St. John's for both, split between Ville de Quebec and St. John's or one in St. John's and the other somewhere on the west coast? 
Will these ships be capable of over-wintering in a place like Tuktoyaktuk if needed?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, if you consider the lead time before either one hits the water, adding a second one right away is not a bad move: By that time Terry Fox would be getting pretty old too and need replacement soon (not a s old as the Louis, but which ship in Canada is???)

And Czech_pivo: Yes, they could overwinter in the Arctic, no problem.


----------



## Kirkhill

> In early February 2011, STX Canada Marine (now Vard Marine Inc) was awarded the contract to design the new icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard. Although the majority of the design work will take place in the Vancouver offices of STX Canada (now Vard Marine Inc), the design team will also include the Finnish engineering company Aker Arctic.[7] The work was initially planned to be complete by the end of 2013. The project was then allocated to Seaspan/Vancouver Shipyards to build the ship at Vancouver after the company completed work on the Joint Support Ship project. However, the latter project was significantly delayed and in 2019 _John G. Diefenbaker_ was removed from the Seaspan yard but in 2021 at least one ship of an expanded class of two vessels was reallocated to the yard. A second ship was now planned to be built at the Davie Yard, pending the successful conclusion of an umbrella agreement between the Government of Canada and Davie Shipbuilding.



For reference - Vard, STX Canada, Aker, Kvaerner is the same team that designed the AOPS, the Svalbard and the Double Acting tankers and freighters used in the Baltic and the Norwegian arctic.

It is obvious that those hulls are much better supplied by Quebec and Nova Scotia yards 4 time zones away from the design teams.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Vancouver, Quebec shipyards to each get new heavy icebreaker, cost remains a mystery
> 
> I can't decide if this is good, bad, or just a thing.  An extra icebreaker... good.  Throwing money around to avoid election issues, probably bad but normal government behavior.   Adding another shipyard to NSPS is probably bad... see frigate build and issues with VDQ.
> 
> I think I'll glass is half full on this.  Another heavy icebreaker is good news.  Multiple places lobbying to build ships is good, though I don't think Canada can long term support three shipyards.


Irving is going to have it's hands full with the CSC program foe quite awhile. Vancouver is going to be well placed as it will have built the largest ship in the navy by the time the design gets to them, so the people and equipment are already in place to take this on.


----------



## YZT580

so two yards will simultaneously make the same errors instead of learning from the first to save on the second.


----------



## MilEME09

Its also a test of the two yards, same design, two yards, if one goes grossly over time and budget, questions will come up.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hopefully they set aside their differences and work cooperatively.


----------



## Navy_Pete

YZT580 said:


> so two yards will simultaneously make the same errors instead of learning from the first to save on the second.


Don't forget we'll pay for production engineering, test plan development etc twice. All those things that need to be built around the specific yard capabilities, SOPs and processes need to be partiularized so they actually work.


----------



## Underway

Is it going to be the same design?  It could easily be two different designs particularized for different requirements.  Perhaps one heavy icebreaker specialized for scientific work.  The other for the safety of navigation.  

Which of course means @Navy_Pete is correct in that we pay twice.  But hey!  We get two ships and the government gets to porkbarrel!


----------



## JMCanada

Uzlu said:


> It might be two.  If it is two, another possibility, if it is a modular design, is to ask Seaspan, Davie, and Heddle to each build a third of the modules with final assembly of one icebreaker at Seaspan and final assembly of one icebreaker at Davie.



So... Uzlu guessed it!  but not about modular design, which might have been a good option.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> Is it going to be the same design?  It could easily be two different designs particularized for different requirements.  Perhaps one heavy icebreaker specialized for scientific work.  The other for the safety of navigation.
> 
> Which of course means @Navy_Pete is correct in that we pay twice.  But hey!  We get two ships and the government gets to porkbarrel!


Even if it's identical design the entire production engineering needs to be looked at from the point of cutting steel up to megablock assembly. All of that is driven by the limitations of the shipyard facilities. Best case is they have similar enough they can use the same approach. Worse case is they have considerably different choke points and may need to take totally different build approaches (different block sizes, assembly order etc). Probably somewhere in between the two,  but like YZT mentioned, it means there is no efficiency gains between the two, and for a first of class can be a 20-30% drop for the second of class for labour hours.

Anyway, if that's what the big giant heads want to do, best of luck. Curious to hear what upgrades Davies will need to make to join the NSS though, as their bid included tens of millions in shipyard updates to come up to the required standard of the original RFP.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would much rather see Davie get a contract for another Resolve class AOR, so we can 4 AOR's and have 1 of each type on each coast. That would give our navy some very long legs and the government a lot of options to gain international brownie points by supporting oversea missions while still being able to support ops and training closer to home. not to mention coverage for refits, etc.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin Parkinson said:


> I would much rather see Davie get a contract for another Resolve class AOR, so we can 4 AOR's and have 1 of each type on each coast. That would give our navy some very long legs and the government a lot of options to gain international brownie points by supporting oversea missions while still being able to support ops and training closer to home. not to mention coverage for refits, etc.


But that would be smart, we don't do that here


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> I would much rather see Davie get a contract for another Resolve class AOR, so we can 4 AOR's and have 1 of each type on each coast. That would give our navy some very long legs and the government a lot of options to gain international brownie points by supporting oversea missions while still being able to support ops and training closer to home. not to mention coverage for refits, etc.


The RCN requirements are for 3 AOR.  I'm just hoping that Asterix stays for a while.  Keeping the expectations low... l


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The thing about having 4 with two mostly manned by fleet auxiliary is that it gives you the opportunity to take part in multiple Allied ops and exercises in an important role earning those brownie points, with minimal political risks and the benefits of being able to provide the much vaunted humanitarian aid roles quite effectively, plus provide valuable political points and jobs in Canada. You would think the Libs would be all over that?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Colin Parkinson said:


> The thing about having 4 with two mostly manned by fleet auxiliary is that it gives you the opportunity to take part in multiple Allied ops and exercises in an important role earning those brownie points, with minimal political risks and the benefits of being able to provide the much vaunted humanitarian aid roles quite effectively, plus provide valuable political points and jobs in Canada. You would think the Libs would be all over that?


I will repeat something I was told many years ago,by a naval officer.
That what the Navy really could use was six AORs  as one way of guaranteeing keeping a task group at sea and doing the biz.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Looks like Ontario's Heddle Shipyards will get some work on Seaspan's polar icebreaker. Seaspan says they will design their own ship--will Davie's have the same design?

1) Heddle:



> Thunder Bay shipyard could supply components for polar icebreaker construction job​Heddle Shipyards' partnership with Vancouver's Seaspan may bring spinoffs to northwestern Ontario
> 
> A Thunder Bay shipyard has at least a foot in the door with an opportunity to take part in the multi-million-dollar construction of a new icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada announced May 6 that Vancouver's Seaspan Shipyards will build one of two new polar icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard over the next ten years.
> 
> Heddle Shipyards, owners of a ship repair facility in Thunder Bay's north end, is part of a strategic partnership with Seaspan on this project.
> 
> In a statement, Heddle called the announcement a "welcome development" for the company, and Heddle president Shaun Padulo called it a "significant milestone" for Ontario's shipbuilding industry.
> 
> "Seaspan's truly pan-Canadian approach to shipbuilding will support thousands of jobs across the country and support the continued growth of Ontario's shipyards. At Heddle Shipyards, we are so proud to work alongside Seaspan Shipyards, Genoa Design, and hundreds of other Canadian suppliers to deliver the urgently needed Polar Icebreaker to the Canadian Coast Guard."
> 
> Heddle is the largest Canadian ship repair and construction company on the Great Lakes running facilities in Thunder Bay, Hamilton, Port Weller, in Newfoundland-Labrador and Nova Scotia.
> 
> How much work heads to Thunder Bay remains to be seen...





> Thunder Bay shipyard could supply components for polar icebreaker construction job
> 
> 
> Heddle Shipyards' partnership with Vancouver's Seaspan may bring spinoffs to northwestern Ontario
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.northernontariobusiness.com



2) Design--from Seaspan:



> ...
> *North Vancouver, BC *– As part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), the Government of Canada has announced that Seaspan Shipyards (Seaspan) will design and build a Polar Icebreaker, the flagship of the Canadian Coast Guard’s icebreaking fleet...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaspan Shipyards to build Polar Icebreaker for Canadian Coast Guard - Seaspan
> 
> 
> New ship construction program will sustain more than 2,800 jobs across Canada North Vancouver, BC – As part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), the Government of Canada has announced that Seaspan Shipyards (Seaspan) will design and build a Polar Icebreaker, the flagship of the Canadian...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.seaspan.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Dale Denton

Won't happen, but buying a couple LSDs would be a cheap way to build an expeditionary or amphibious capability, or even convert to a permanent hospital ship. Could throw a little scratch at Davie for a conversion/refit. Run them for 10/15 years until a new Big Honkin Ship is built.


----------



## Navy_Pete

LoboCanada said:


> Won't happen, but buying a couple LSDs would be a cheap way to build an expeditionary or amphibious capability, or even convert to a permanent hospital ship. Could throw a little scratch at Davie for a conversion/refit. Run them for 10/15 years until a new Big Honkin Ship is built.
> 
> 
> View attachment 65235


Sure, if we crew it with civilians. We are already short of sailors, doing something like that would break us even more.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, if we crew it with civilians. We are already short of sailors, doing something like that would break us even more.


I am not so sure the Henry J Kaisers are in great shape. Canada had to cover the Mid-Pac oiler duties in 2014 out of Hawaii with PRO because, even then, the USN dod not have a serviceable tanker on the west coast.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, if we crew it with civilians. We are already short of sailors, doing something like that would break us even more.


That's the rub isn't it. We have a bunch of great ideas for a fleet mix but it doesn't matter if there are no sailors to sail them.  I would love to have 6 subs.  I don' think we could crew them.  I'm not sure how other navies are dealing with the situation.  How does Australia manage all their ships with a smaller population? Maybe its easier when the majority of your population is based on ocean fronting realestate.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well with 6 more modern subs we would likely have 3 ready to go at any one time, so it might not change crewing that much in that area. When the Mistrals were a strong possibility, we had just had 1-2 ships unable to operate any longer and the base crewing of the Mistrals was the same as the Tribals, so they would have not added to much of a burden, plus life aboard a vessel that big might be more comfortable. The civy side (and CCG) is also suffering from lack of crews, as people don`t want to be sailors anymore. However Covid likely has changed things with less demand for domestic shipping and less jobs on civy street, leaving the navy right now might not be a good idea. I can see swapping out crews more often as the way forward, that brings up the challenge of having enough experienced Department heads to have more than one crew per ship (about 2.5 crew per ship). But it would mean that sailors can do more long term life planning, which might help retention.


----------



## quadrapiper

SeaKingTacco said:


> I am not so sure the Henry J Kaisers are in great shape. Canada had to cover the Mid-Pac oiler duties in 2014 out of Hawaii with PRO because, even then, the USN dod not have a serviceable tanker on the west coast.


Given the size of their fleet and budget, that makes Canada look amazingly squared away in some ways. No LCSs or Zumwalts, either.


----------



## JLB50

Since the topic of recruitment has basically come up in this thread, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe I read somewhere that in the early 1960s Canada had more than 125,000 in the armed forces.  That was back when our population was a lot smaller and before women were really welcome to serve.  If so, why is Canada having such problems with recruitment?  Yes, I understand that ships, planes, vehicles, weapons systems, logistics, etc. are much more technical nowadays and require a decent education to master them.  But the same is true of many other things in the civilian world.  Maybe it’s a complicated answer but is a career or even a brief stint in the CAF something that most Canadians would never even begin to consider?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The government sets the number of people the military is allowed to have, people are expensive, as you have to also think about medical costs, pension costs, training, housing, food.


----------



## STONEY

Colin Parkinson said:


> A little bit of infomercial on the Offshore Science Vessel


The video doesn't  give a very good idea of the size of the ship.  Is it 2000 or 10,000 tons is it 150 or 350 ft.  A bit more info would be helpfull.


Colin Parkinson said:


> The government sets the number of people the military is allowed to have, people are expensive, as you have to also think about medical costs, pension costs, training, housing, food.





MarkOttawa said:


> Looks like Ontario's Heddle Shipyards will get some work on Seaspan's polar icebreaker. Seaspan says they will design their own ship--will Davie's have the same design?
> 
> 1) Heddle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Design--from Seaspan:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


The ofsv Jacques Cartier delivered to Coast Guard by Seaspan 18 months ago is still not operational having experienced many equipment breakdowns  and unable to complete its trials. So not everything goes smoothly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

STONEY said:


> The video doesn't  give a very good idea of the size of the ship.  Is it 2000 or 10,000 tons is it 150 or 350 ft.  A bit more info would be helpfull.
> 
> 
> 
> The ofsv Jacques Cartier delivered to Coast Guard by Seaspan 18 months ago is still not operational having experienced many equipment breakdowns  and unable to complete its trials. So not everything goes smoothly.


I was reading that, seems a lot of the issues are with the Trawl winches which is likley a supplier problem. Plus the need to "calibrate" the fishing gear with an existing set on a ship that is currently in refit, plus throw in Covid. My guess is DFO does not want to adapt it's methods of calibration. Seems the ship is quite capable of sailing.


----------



## medic5

JLB50 said:


> Since the topic of recruitment has basically come up in this thread, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe I read somewhere that in the early 1960s Canada had more than 125,000 in the armed forces.  That was back when our population was a lot smaller and before women were really welcome to serve.  If so, why is Canada having such problems with recruitment?  Yes, I understand that ships, planes, vehicles, weapons systems, logistics, etc. are much more technical nowadays and require a decent education to master them.  But the same is true of many other things in the civilian world.  Maybe it’s a complicated answer but is a career or even a brief stint in the CAF something that most Canadians would never even begin to consider?


I don't have any concrete data, but from my conversation with friends and classmates the CAF never even crosses their mind, not even going into the reserves. Most just don't care, some people think it pays too little, others don't even know Canada has a military. Keep in mind I live in Toronto, so things are probably different in rural areas. 

I personally feel that having recruiters in schools would be the best solution, having them at university or job fairs tells people that the CAF is an actual option. Not quite sure how politically viable that is today, though. I already hear the cries of "militarization of our schools".


----------



## YZT580

medic5 said:


> I don't have any concrete data, but from my conversation with friends and classmates the CAF never even crosses their mind, not even going into the reserves. Most just don't care, some people think it pays too little, others don't even know Canada has a military. Keep in mind I live in Toronto, so things are probably different in rural areas.
> 
> I personally feel that having recruiters in schools would be the best solution, having them at university or job fairs tells people that the CAF is an actual option. Not quite sure how politically viable that is today, though. I already hear the cries of "militarization of our schools".


In the 60's many high schools provided a home for the local cadet group.  The schools I attended had teachers who were vets.  The guidance office had materiel available on the rack in as prominent position as those from McGill or U of T.   None of those options are available now and the guidance folks are often anti-military.  Having a mobile team visiting schools or, if they won't give permission, a nearby street corner and introducing  the CAF as a viable career alternative is probably the only way these days.


----------



## medic5

Interestingly, I learned about the CAF through a friend who's brother is in the reserves, who in turn learned about it through a school recruiter. I think sending a few guys in uniform to schools would do wonders for recruitment, especially if they can start applications right then and there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

YZT580 said:


> In the 60's many high schools provided a home for the local cadet group.  The schools I attended had teachers who were vets.  The guidance office had materiel available on the rack in as prominent position as those from McGill or U of T.   None of those options are available now and the guidance folks are often anti-military.  Having a mobile team visiting schools or, if they won't give permission, a nearby street corner and introducing  the CAF as a viable career alternative is probably the only way these days.


You should have seen the looks on teachers faces when i said our plan was to get my daughter into RMC, do her CF service, get out with a whack of money and useful experience. Sadly diabetes put paid to that plan. Now it's home schooling, TRU and federal job with good healthcare.


----------



## CBH99

when I was working as a unit recruiter, I actually did quite a few presentations in high schools and colleges.  The reception was always great, and we got some really good folks out of those. 

That was back in the day when Afghanistan was in full effect, and our time from “application to offer” was about a month.  (Somehow we’ve gone backwards on processing times 🤷🏼‍♂️)


----------



## medic5

Any idea why they suddenly stopped? I've never heard of anything related in the last few years in any of the schools in my area.


----------



## CBH99

No idea.  Once my stint as a recruiter was finished, I left the CAF for a position in provincial law enforcement.  (Ironically enough while I was attending a career fair as a recruiter, I ended up being recruited.)

I think by doing some presentations at schools about what the CAF does, possible careers, and how it can be a stepping stone for careers in all kinds of things, it would really boost the CAF image & interest.  

Would help with recruiting numbers, community connection, and over time could help boost our image - and now is a good time for us to think about doing that kind of stuff again.  

0.02


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

medic5 said:


> Interestingly, I learned about the CAF through a friend who's brother is in the reserves, who in turn learned about it through a school recruiter. I think sending a few guys in uniform to schools would do wonders for recruitment, especially if they can start applications right then and there.


The CAF is out of sight of most Canadians and the demographics of the CAF aren't representative of the Country.  For instance, a disproportionate percentage of the Armed Forces is from Atlantic Canada, despite Atlantic Canada making up less than 2% of the National population.  There is no actual stats on this but from my experience, Military Service in Canada is overwhelmingly an affair conducted by a small pool of people that come from areas of the Country with cultural, familial and heritage connections to Military Service.  It's a case of, their fathers and grandfathers did it and now they are doing it.  

My family definitely fits in to this category.  Both my grandfathers served in the Military and their brothers and fathers before them all served in the wars.  My grandfather was a Naval Officer, his brother served on Corvettes in WWII and , my other great uncle was an Infanteer in WWII and participated in the entire European campaign, my other great Uncle was a member of the Canadian Guards and ended his career as a Sergeant Major.  Both my Great grandfathers served in WWI.  All of them eventually left the Military and went on to other careers but their 20s were spent doing their time in the Armed Forces.  

My brother is now in the Armed Forces along with myself.  I was an Infantry Officer and am now a Naval Officer.  Military Service is just something my family does.  We don't spend our entire lives doing it but we do our time and believe in the service and are patriotic.  

The Royal Canadian Navy is even more skewed because it's overwhelmingly filled with Old-Canada Anglo-Saxons from smaller Maritime Regions.  The Navy also suffers from poor capture of areas with a Maritime tradition as it hasn't set itself up to take advantage of these groups of people.

Take for example the spread of Naval Reserve Divisions in this Country:  There are more Naval Reserve Divisions in the Prairies than there are in Atlantic Canada.  I grew up on the water, I have family that are heavily involved in Commercial Fisheries with actual experience working on the water.  A few of my cousins own their own Commercial Vessels and make great money in that industry.  

They would all make great Naval Reservists if they actually had access to an NRD but the nearest one if 400 miles away.  You could probably even have them available for deployments when they aren't in season.  It would be a better alternarive than collecting EI. New Brunswick only has one NRD and it's in Saint John, NB.  The 250,000 Acadians that literally all live on the Coast and mostly make their money in the commercial fishing industry don't even have access to a French NRD they can call their own.  

The Navy's real problem is Canada isn't really a maritime nation.  It's a country that is surrounded by water on three sides but the Ocean is far from most peoples minds.  Especially in Central Canada, where most of the population hasn't even seen the Ocean before.


----------



## FSTO

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The CAF is out of sight of most Canadians and the demographics of the CAF aren't representative of the Country.  For instance, a disproportionate percentage of the Armed Forces is from Atlantic Canada, despite Atlantic Canada making up less than 2% of the National population.  There is no actual stats on this but from my experience, Military Service in Canada is overwhelmingly an affair conducted by a small pool of people that come from areas of the Country with cultural, familial and heritage connections to Military Service.  It's a case of, their fathers and grandfathers did it and now they are doing it.
> 
> My family definitely fits in to this category.  Both my grandfathers served in the Military and their brothers and fathers before them all served in the wars.  My grandfather was a Naval Officer, his brother served on Corvettes in WWII and , my other great uncle was an Infanteer in WWII and participated in the entire European campaign, my other great Uncle was a member of the Canadian Guards and ended his career as a Sergeant Major.  Both my Great grandfathers served in WWI.  All of them eventually left the Military and went on to other careers but their 20s were spent doing their time in the Armed Forces.
> 
> My brother is now in the Armed Forces along with myself.  I was an Infantry Officer and am now a Naval Officer.  Military Service is just something my family does.  We don't spend our entire lives doing it but we do our time and believe in the service and are patriotic.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy is even more skewed because it's overwhelmingly filled with Old-Canada Anglo-Saxons from smaller Maritime Regions.  The Navy also suffers from poor capture of areas with a Maritime tradition as it hasn't set itself up to take advantage of these groups of people.
> 
> Take for example the spread of Naval Reserve Divisions in this Country:  There are more Naval Reserve Divisions in the Prairies than there are in Atlantic Canada.  I grew up on the water, I have family that are heavily involved in Commercial Fisheries with actual experience working on the water.  A few of my cousins own their own Commercial Vessels and make great money in that industry.
> 
> They would all make great Naval Reservists if they actually had access to an NRD but the nearest one if 400 miles away.  You could probably even have them available for deployments when they aren't in season.  It would be a better alternarive than collecting EI. New Brunswick only has one NRD and it's in Saint John, NB.  The 250,000 Acadians that literally all live on the Coast and mostly make their money in the commercial fishing industry don't even have access to a French NRD they can call their own.
> 
> The Navy's real problem is Canada isn't really a maritime nation.  It's a country that is surrounded by water on three sides but the Ocean is far from most peoples minds.  Especially in Central Canada, where most of the population hasn't even seen the Ocean before.


My dad was an Air Cadet during the war, but sadly he passed away when I was really young. I had an uncle who served in the RCAF during WWII and his son had 35 year career as well. I grew up reading Naval history books and loved the look of a naval uniform so that was my reason for joining. LOL!

Agree with you on the lack of knowledge of Canadians about our maritime needs. I can't recall how many times I heard from people "We have a Navy?!?"

I don't see that improving at all any time soon.


----------



## JLB50

With recruitment being such a problem I hate to think what things will be like for Canada if the current cold war with a certain unnamed nation (not to mention China by name) heats up.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The CAF is out of sight of most Canadians and the demographics of the CAF aren't representative of the Country.  For instance, a disproportionate percentage of the Armed Forces is from Atlantic Canada, despite Atlantic Canada making up less than 2% of the National population.  There is no actual stats on this but from my experience, Military Service in Canada is overwhelmingly an affair conducted by a small pool of people that come from areas of the Country with cultural, familial and heritage connections to Military Service.  It's a case of, their fathers and grandfathers did it and now they are doing it.
> 
> My family definitely fits in to this category.  Both my grandfathers served in the Military and their brothers and fathers before them all served in the wars.  My grandfather was a Naval Officer, his brother served on Corvettes in WWII and , my other great uncle was an Infanteer in WWII and participated in the entire European campaign, my other great Uncle was a member of the Canadian Guards and ended his career as a Sergeant Major.  Both my Great grandfathers served in WWI.  All of them eventually left the Military and went on to other careers but their 20s were spent doing their time in the Armed Forces.
> 
> My brother is now in the Armed Forces along with myself.  I was an Infantry Officer and am now a Naval Officer.  Military Service is just something my family does.  We don't spend our entire lives doing it but we do our time and believe in the service and are patriotic.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy is even more skewed because it's overwhelmingly filled with Old-Canada Anglo-Saxons from smaller Maritime Regions.  The Navy also suffers from poor capture of areas with a Maritime tradition as it hasn't set itself up to take advantage of these groups of people.
> 
> Take for example the spread of Naval Reserve Divisions in this Country:  There are more Naval Reserve Divisions in the Prairies than there are in Atlantic Canada.  I grew up on the water, I have family that are heavily involved in Commercial Fisheries with actual experience working on the water.  A few of my cousins own their own Commercial Vessels and make great money in that industry.
> 
> They would all make great Naval Reservists if they actually had access to an NRD but the nearest one if 400 miles away.  You could probably even have them available for deployments when they aren't in season.  It would be a better alternarive than collecting EI. New Brunswick only has one NRD and it's in Saint John, NB.  The 250,000 Acadians that literally all live on the Coast and mostly make their money in the commercial fishing industry don't even have access to a French NRD they can call their own.
> 
> The Navy's real problem is Canada isn't really a maritime nation.  It's a country that is surrounded by water on three sides but the Ocean is far from most peoples minds.  Especially in Central Canada, where most of the population hasn't even seen the Ocean before.


A lot of people both in the CCG and commercial fleet started out in Navy league/Sea Cadets if you want to start building a presence, there is a good place to start.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

JLB50 said:


> With recruitment being such a problem I hate to think what things will be like for Canada if the current cold war with a certain unnamed nation (not to mention China by name) heats up.


Recruitment is the least of our worries.  Our fleet has fallen so far behind the rest of the World we are basically never going to catch up.  One Arleigh Burke has more firepower in missiles than basically our entire West Coast fleet combined.  

We aren't playing in the same league anymore as most of our Allies.


----------



## MilEME09

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Recruitment is the least of our worries.  Our fleet has fallen so far behind the rest of the World we are basically never going to catch up.  One Arleigh Burke has more firepower in missiles than basically our entire West Coast fleet combined.
> 
> We aren't playing in the same league anymore as most of our Allies.


Hopefully once we get the type 26 joining the fleet that will help. I personally don't think for a maritime trade heavy nation that our navy is as big as it should be but to correct it would take a new top to bottom strategy to ensure the expansion and long term viability of the RCN


----------



## medic5

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The CAF is out of sight of most Canadians and the demographics of the CAF aren't representative of the Country.  For instance, a disproportionate percentage of the Armed Forces is from Atlantic Canada, despite Atlantic Canada making up less than 2% of the National population.  There is no actual stats on this but from my experience, Military Service in Canada is overwhelmingly an affair conducted by a small pool of people that come from areas of the Country with cultural, familial and heritage connections to Military Service.  It's a case of, their fathers and grandfathers did it and now they are doing it.


Interestingly enough, I'm a second gen immigrant from China with no family military background. Then again I am spending my Saturday reading army.ca, so I suppose I'm the exception rather than the rule.

This sort of thing happens in the US too, where military service is mostly comprised of those who's family has also served, leading to small communities that provide a massive amount of recruits proportionality. Can't seem to find the article that backs up what I'm saying, so correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Recruitment is the least of our worries.  Our fleet has fallen so far behind the rest of the World we are basically never going to catch up.  One Arleigh Burke has more firepower in missiles than basically our entire West Coast fleet combined.
> 
> We aren't playing in the same league anymore as most of our Allies.


The CSC will be a major game changer if built and equipped as planned and the RCN will move to Middle Power status with them, now throw in 4 AOR's, new subs and new patrol aircraft, Canada could kick some serious butt on the ocean if it had to.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> The CSC will be a major game changer if built and equipped as planned and the RCN will move to Middle Power status with them, now throw in 4 AOR's, new subs and new patrol aircraft, Canada could kick some serious butt on the ocean if it had to.


I agree.  If we can get the two task group concept working it will be amazing.  

All the numbers and planning are pointing in that direction and if it works it will be a significant step in making Canada credible on the naval world stage.  We need a minimum of 3 AOR's to make it work, though four would be great.  We haven't had a fleet mix sidetrack in a while so...

Each task group consists of 1 _Protecteur_ Class AOR, 4x major surface combatant (CSC/Halifax class mix to start).  Optional additions are 1 x submarine and MPA's.  All the ships would be carrying their full complement of Cyclones.  Which means 6x helicopters.

IF we could pull that off for 6 months of a year (normal operations, not emergency) it would be amazing.  I've been on Standing NATO Maritime Groups with significantly less capability than that would have.


----------



## MilEME09

Only thing missing now would be an LHD


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:


> Only thing missing now would be an LHD



For what purpose?  I'm not disagreeing but what's the end goal here.  Amphibious operations or helicopter/UAS carrier to enhance the task group?


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:


> For what purpose?  I'm not disagreeing but what's the end goal here.  Amphibious operations or helicopter/UAS carrier to enhance the task group?


We don't have the equipment for the Army to do amphibious operations, but a helicopter/UAS carrier would give a lot of flexibility to respond to various situations, give it enhanced maintenance facilities as well to better maintain the fleets helicopters.

Example, CAF is experimenting with 3D printing parts, if this can be done safely a ship like can LHD becomes a floating maintenance depot for the fleet.


----------



## FJAG

Humphrey Bogart said:


> ... They would all make great Naval Reservists if they actually had access to an NRD but the nearest one if 400 miles away.  You could probably even have them available for deployments when they aren't in season.  It would be a better alternarive than collecting EI. New Brunswick only has one NRD and it's in Saint John, NB.  The 250,000 Acadians that literally all live on the Coast and mostly make their money in the commercial fishing industry don't even have access to a French NRD they can call their own.
> 
> The Navy's real problem is Canada isn't really a maritime nation.  It's a country that is surrounded by water on three sides but the Ocean is far from most peoples minds.  Especially in Central Canada, where most of the population hasn't even seen the Ocean before.


On the other hand you really don't need an ocean for a naval reserve unit. There are fairly large urban centres all along the St Lawrence and Great Lakes many with naval reserve divisions (13 in fact). Transfer a couple of training vessels into the Great Lakes for the summer and have at it. No reason one couldn't bring a frigate or two onto the Great Lakes with a skeleton training crew and run courses all summer long during the APS. 

If the Navy wanted to. 

If the Navy thought it important enough. 







🍻


----------



## Underway

FJAG said:


> On the other hand you really don't need an ocean for a naval reserve unit. There are fairly large urban centres all along the St Lawrence and Great Lakes many with naval reserve divisions (13 in fact). Transfer a couple of training vessels into the Great Lakes for the summer and have at it. No reason one couldn't bring a frigate or two onto the Great Lakes with a skeleton training crew and run courses all summer long during the APS.
> 
> If the Navy wanted to.
> 
> If the Navy thought it important enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻


The navy has done that in the past.  During the Great Lakes deployments, usually, run in the summer.  Smaller core crew but they load up on PRes who are looking to get tickets as engineers, watch time etc...  They also often take Sea Cadets along to learn deck work and seamanship skills.  It's not as formal as you have put it however.  It's more of a PR trip with the added reservists to round out the crew.


----------



## FJAG

Underway said:


> The navy has done that in the past.  During the Great Lakes deployments, usually, run in the summer.  Smaller core crew but they load up on PRes who are looking to get tickets as engineers, watch time etc...  They also often take Sea Cadets along to learn deck work and seamanship skills.  It's not as formal as you have put it however.  It's more of a PR trip with the added reservists to round out the crew.


Good that they do. That's the one neat things about ships. You don't need to move the trainees to the training facility; you can bring the facility to the trainees. 

😉


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:


> We don't have the equipment for the Army to do amphibious operations, but a helicopter/UAS carrier would give a lot of flexibility to respond to various situations, give it enhanced maintenance facilities as well to better maintain the fleets helicopters.
> 
> Example, CAF is experimenting with 3D printing parts, if this can be done safely a ship like can LHD becomes a floating maintenance depot for the fleet.


Van Doos practised amphip ops off of the French Mistral using LAV's so it can be done with existing kit. The bigger issue is having enough helicopters to fly off them. Mind you we could operate it like an AOR support allied navies using their forces and helicopters. I give up a CSC and two AOP's for two of the ice strengthened Mistrals. Would also make a good task force command ship/mother ship for anti-piracy patrols.


----------



## Underway

I'm a bit romantic about NAM _Atlântico_.  At least in the way, the Brazilians plan to use her. Less commando's more aircraft.  I always like escort carriers and this strikes me as something similar.   JS Ise is perhaps a better example.  Getting into the helicopter destroyer game would be amazing.

I have no idea if this is even a good idea or not but I can certainly see the advantages.  RMP is one, as is the ability to really double down on the zone ASW due to a larger number of helicopters.  It could easily be a hub for UAS operations and certainly would be the flagship when it was sailing.

*edit:  oddly enough this sort of thing hamstrings your fleet a little. When this sort of ship sails she usually sails with an escort so it costs two ships to operate one.


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:


> I'm a bit romantic about NAM _Atlântico_.  At least in the way, the Brazilians plan to use her. Less commando's more aircraft.  I always like escort carriers and this strikes me as something similar.   JS Ise is perhaps a better example.  Getting into the helicopter destroyer game would be amazing.
> 
> I have no idea if this is even a good idea or not but I can certainly see the advantages.  RMP is one, as is the ability to really double down on the zone ASW due to a larger number of helicopters.  It could easily be a hub for UAS operations and certainly would be the flagship when it was sailing.
> 
> *edit:  oddly enough this sort of thing hamstrings your fleet a little. When this sort of ship sails she usually sails with an escort so it costs two ships to operate one.


Something like the Hyuga class would work, especially if we use it more royal navy style  IE use it as a way to deploy and support commando operations. JTF/CANSOF operating off a ship like that could do alot of damage since the Hyuga's have VLS, commandos go in, paint a target for the fleet to strike.


----------



## Gorgo

FJAG said:


> On the other hand you really don't need an ocean for a naval reserve unit. There are fairly large urban centres all along the St Lawrence and Great Lakes many with naval reserve divisions (13 in fact). Transfer a couple of training vessels into the Great Lakes for the summer and have at it. No reason one couldn't bring a frigate or two onto the Great Lakes with a skeleton training crew and run courses all summer long during the APS.
> 
> If the Navy wanted to.
> 
> If the Navy thought it important enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻



Whoa!  Whoa!  Whoa!  _Brunswicker_ has a tender in MONCTON?!  When did this happen?!


----------



## FJAG

Gorgo said:


> Whoa!  Whoa!  Whoa!  _Brunswicker_ has a tender in MONCTON?!  When did this happen?!


Apparently 6 June 2019

HMCS Brunswicker - Wikipedia

🍻


----------



## suffolkowner

Always been a fan of the Bay Class LPD or looking to the future the MRSS









						Ellida – The future Multi Role Support Ship?
					

ELLIDA is a multi-role support and logistics vessel that can transport and deliver troops, vehicles, equipment and supplies.




					ukdefencejournal.org.uk
				












						In focus: the BMT ELLIDA multi-role and logistics vessel concept | Navy Lookout
					






					www.navylookout.com


----------



## Navy_Pete

JLB50 said:


> With recruitment being such a problem I hate to think what things will be like for Canada if the current cold war with a certain unnamed nation (not to mention China by name) heats up.


When has Canada ever gone into a unilateral war? We would just do whatever we could with what we had if something happened, but we'd be a nuisance at best if push came to shove if we tried going it alone. That would just be dumb.

Thinking we need to fight alone, as opposed to trying to figure out how we can contribute to a coalition force, is a waste of time IMHO.


----------



## JLB50

I don't see Canada fighting alone.  I was, however, suggesting that if or when push comes to shove we are not pulling our weight with respect to most of our allies.  Some of the procurements currently in the works are promising but action should have occurred years ago.  And recruitment levels should be much higher.  Pipe dream? Perhaps.  Unfortunately the general public seems to have little awareness of the dangers posed by China.  If they did, then perhaps the government of the day would do more to strengthen the CAF.


----------



## MilEME09

Navy_Pete said:


> When has Canada ever gone into a unilateral war? We would just do whatever we could with what we had if something happened, but we'd be a nuisance at best if push came to shove if we tried going it alone. That would just be dumb.
> 
> Thinking we need to fight alone, as opposed to trying to figure out how we can contribute to a coalition force, is a waste of time IMHO.


True but we also shouldn't be dependent on coalition elements for things like RAS for example or air defense on land....


----------



## Navy_Pete

MilEME09 said:


> True but we also shouldn't be dependent on coalition elements for things like RAS for example or air defense on land....


For sure but seems  a bit over optimistic to want to field a full task group; having a RAS capability is good but there are only a few countries that can do that. We aren't anywhere near that tier, and we can't afford to maintain that kind of capability, and don't have the people to do it. No point buying a ship if we can't pay to keep it running or have the crew to actually fight it.


----------



## MilEME09

Navy_Pete said:


> For sure but seems  a bit over optimistic to want to field a full task group; having a RAS capability is good but there are only a few countries that can do that. We aren't anywhere near that tier, and we can't afford to maintain that kind of capability, and don't have the people to do it. No point buying a ship if we can't pay to keep it running or have the crew to actually fight it.


That goes more to our empire building in DND than anything else. Our bureaucracy consumes everything


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> When has Canada ever gone into a unilateral war? We would just do whatever we could with what we had if something happened, but we'd be a nuisance at best if push came to shove if we tried going it alone. That would just be dumb.
> 
> Thinking we need to fight alone, as opposed to trying to figure out how we can contribute to a coalition force, is a waste of time IMHO.


All the big brains at NDHQ agree with you (because obviously, they read your posts here    ).  Leadmark 2050 spells it out pretty clear with the return of great power competition and Canada working within alliances like we normally do.  

However, the task group concept, which is what the entire NSS is built upon can work either way.  You know as well as I do how our first OP Apollo TG was received by the US when we showed up with an AOR, AAW Destroyer, and two GP Frigates.  A modernized version of that is as plug-and-play as it gets.  When you show up with a worked-up TG that includes an AOR everyone is your friend.

It behoves us to be able to operate on our own, as that makes you a valuable ally.  Which of course means you can operate on your own in Canadian interests when you have to.  The RCN needs to be able to present that option to the gov't.  Because when great power competition rears its head Lord Palmerston comes to mind:

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is our duty to follow."


----------



## Navy_Pete

MilEME09 said:


> That goes more to our empire building in DND than anything else. Our bureaucracy consumes everything


Not really; our FMFs don't have the capacity to maintain our existing fleet, we don't have enough sailors to do the 1st line maintenance coming out of the gate from a DWP, and we aren't paying for things to be fixed in DWPs because of budget constraints. Sure, bureaucracy slows down the response for getting things done, but we simple don't have the personnel/financial resources to fix what needs fixed, and maintain it properly (so it doesn't break down as much).

Even with ISSCs for the majority of the ships we can't keep up with the CPFs, so with all the fancy whizbangs on FELEX with almost no mid life major repairs to things like piping and other mechanical systems they are like a  crappy old tempo someone bought for $500 with a big stereo, ground effects and a spoiler. Sounds okay just don't poke anything on the body or lift up the flooring. They wouldn't even leave the wall if they were to a class standard in a lot of cases, but we excel at pretending that there is no issue, and not even bothering to follow our own risk management process by simply ignoring the defects.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Complement of 60, mostly RFA types, brings a lot to the table and would assist in maintaining the rest of the fleet when abroad. 








						RFA Cardigan Bay (L3009) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MilEME09 said:


> Something like the Hyuga class would work, especially if we use it more royal navy style  IE use it as a way to deploy and support commando operations. JTF/CANSOF operating off a ship like that could do alot of damage since the Hyuga's have VLS, commandos go in, paint a target for the fleet to strike.


The Hyuga is too big for Canada as is the Mistral unfortunately.  Ideally, we would possess something like the Karel Doorman or Rotterdam class that could be used by the Navy as a Command Platform and for Commando Operations.  It would not be able to operate though or be acquired without a joint approach to how it would be employed and would require buy-in from the Army, Air Force and SOF.  

I would want two of them and for both of them to be stationed on the East Coast.  I don't see any need in having them on the West Coast and think it would be a waste having one there.  My conceptualization of how they could be used would for an OP HESTIA or OP HALO type operation.  It would be useful as an HVU, humanitarian response, NEO or commando operations.  Have a SOTF pack up kit permanently embarked on it with the ability to operate CH47s, CH148s and CH149s from the flight deck.


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:


> Always been a fan of the Bay Class LPD or looking to the future the MRSS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ellida – The future Multi Role Support Ship?
> 
> 
> ELLIDA is a multi-role support and logistics vessel that can transport and deliver troops, vehicles, equipment and supplies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ukdefencejournal.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In focus: the BMT ELLIDA multi-role and logistics vessel concept | Navy Lookout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navylookout.com




Ellida looks an awful lot like Asterix and the ships proposed by Davie/Federal Marine Services










2x AOR-JSS and 3x AOR-MRSS as the core elements in a 5 TF navy?


----------



## Underway

Ellida:


Asterix:


They don't look alike at all.


----------



## CBH99

Navy_Pete said:


> Not really; our FMFs don't have the capacity to maintain our existing fleet, we don't have enough sailors to do the 1st line maintenance coming out of the gate from a DWP, and we aren't paying for things to be fixed in DWPs because of budget constraints. Sure, bureaucracy slows down the response for getting things done, but we simple don't have the personnel/financial resources to fix what needs fixed, and maintain it properly (so it doesn't break down as much).
> 
> Even with ISSCs for the majority of the ships we can't keep up with the CPFs, so with all the fancy whizbangs on FELEX with almost no mid life major repairs to things like piping and other mechanical systems they are like a  crappy old tempo someone bought for $500 with a big stereo, ground effects and a spoiler. Sounds okay just don't poke anything on the body or lift up the flooring. They wouldn't even leave the wall if they were to a class standard in a lot of cases, but we excel at pretending that there is no issue, and not even bothering to follow our own risk management process by simply ignoring the defects.


Question in regards to what you mentioned about not having the proper budget to maintain the ships properly, or fix what needs to be fixed.

_Is this a matter of DND not receiving enough funding?  Or somehow not able to use money to accomplish this?_  I ask because for a long time (I'm not sure if still the case) DND was returning around $1B to $2B annually to the government, that DND was unable to spend.  

_Was crew compliment a large consideration when deciding what ships will replace the CPF?_


As much as I obviously support a well funded military, DND and TB need to simplify and smooth things out...how can we ask for more money, when we aren't able to spend the money we have?  And basic things like maintaining a ship at a basic level isn't being done because of self-created obstacles?



And with the FELEX program, I know a lot of the PR stuff was on systems enhancement & 'mid life upgrades'.  That honestly didn't include walking around the ship, inspecting some pipes or joints that are prone to maintenance, and at least patching some things up to 'spruce up the ship'?  (I've realized here in my adult life that I don't know very much, about very much.  So what seems simple to me, is inevitable more complicated once someone explains it who actually has experience with the subject matter.  Maintaining piping on warships is probably a lot more complicated than just putting a ring-thing on it & it's done.)

I would think that lowering the crew requirement per ship would be one of the foundational factors into the decision being made, as that alone would ease a lot of stress off of the Navy?


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> Ellida:
> View attachment 65277
> 
> Asterix:
> View attachment 65278
> 
> They don't look alike at all.


 I'm surrounded by pedants.


----------



## newfin

I’m not sure if Kirkhill is supporting that those two vessels are similar or not.  But to me they look very similar.  Move the  main bridge structure forward and remove a RAS station and you are left with a ship with a larger flight deck. Even the rake of the bow is similar.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Our problem is that we hold onto ships far to long, we be better off selling them early and letting our allies who buy them deal with the wear and tear issues. If we rebuild the Fleet Maintenance and Hull tech trades and add new ships, we might be able to get ahead of the curve for a bit. Going by what Navyshooter says, I can see the AOP's being called on to do far more than envisioned till the CSC's come in to service and the wear and tear is minimised on the Halifax's.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:


> I'm surrounded by pedants.



Don't you use big words I can't understand...








newfin said:


> I’m not sure if Kirkhill is supporting that those two vessels are similar or not.  But to me they look very similar.  Move the  main bridge structure forward and remove a RAS station and you are left with a ship with a larger flight deck. Even the rake of the bow is similar.


Military ships (fighting) generally have superstructures in the middle.  Working/civilian ships generally have superstructures aft or forward to allow for the working/storage space to be as big as possible. 

To my eye, it's very different.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Slowly, slowly:



> Pandemic throwing wrench in construction of new navy, coast guard ships: officials​COVID-19 has thrown yet another wrench in the long overdue construction of new ships for the navy and coast guard, say top military and procurement officials, adding the full scope of the damage won't be known until after the pandemic.
> 
> The federal government has invested billions of dollars over the past decade into replacing Canada's aging navy and coast guard fleets with dozens of new ships, including icebreakers, warships and support vessels.
> 
> Yet the effort has been plagued with numerous cost overruns and delays, which federal procurement department deputy minister Bill Matthews on Tuesday blamed on overly optimistic planning at the outset of the multibillion-dollar project.
> 
> "The initial schedules way back when were indeed not realistic," he told the House of Commons public accounts committee. "As time marched on and people realized that those initial schedules just weren't going to hold, there were adjustments made."
> 
> Those shortcomings were recently flagged in a damning report from Canada's auditor general, who warned in February that the problems could leave the navy and coast guard without ships as older vessels are retired before replacements arrive.
> 
> That report was produced before COVID-19, and Defence Department deputy minister Jody Thomas told the committee that work on all of the new vessels has since been further delayed to various degrees by the pandemic.
> 
> While Thomas suggested the government has since started to make up some of the lost ground, she added: "We cannot yet know the full impacts of COVID on shipbuilding timelines."
> 
> "This is another difficult reality of COVID. Until we are over the pandemic we will not have a complete and accurate picture of what the full impact has been, including anticipated delays on major procurement," she said.
> 
> Officials insisted the navy and coast guard are taking measures to ensure their existing ships can remain in the water until replacements arrive, including refits and upgrades to vessels that are in some cases already more than 50 years old.
> 
> The bureaucrats could not immediately say how much money was being invested in the different coast guard and navy fleets to keep them floating.
> 
> But Matthews acknowledged that doing so will in many cases result in "substantial" additional costs to the government, even as officials acknowledged that further delays to the construction of new vessels adds to their price tags.
> 
> "Across the board, the older the ships get, the (greater the) increase in maintenance costs," he said. "And it's quite substantial."
> 
> The _officials also revealed that 10 years after they were tapped to build the new vessels, neither Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver nor Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding have yet improved their facilities to the point where they meet international standards_ [emphasis added].
> 
> That is despite the federal government having required achievement of such a "target state" as a condition for winning the work.
> 
> Public Services and Procurement Canada assistant deputy minister Simon Page said the government is working on "corrective action plans" to get the two shipyards to the required state.
> 
> Officials went on to suggest that failure is contributing to the delay in finalizing Quebec-based Chantier Davie's addition as the third yard in the shipbuilding strategy, as the government wants to make sure it can meet the requirement...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pandemic throwing wrench in construction of new navy, coast guard ships: officials
> 
> 
> OTTAWA — COVID-19 has thrown yet another wrench in the long overdue construction of new ships for the navy and coast guard, say top military and procurement officials, adding the full scope of the damage won't be known until after the pandemic. The federal government has invested billions of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ca.finance.yahoo.com



Shipbuilding strategy seemed like a great idea at the time. Two mononoply shipyards that had to be completely remade.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> Don't you use big words I can't understand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military ships (fighting) generally have superstructures in the middle.  Working/civilian ships generally have superstructures aft or forward to allow for the working/storage space to be as big as possible.
> 
> To my eye, it's very different.


I agree.   From a watchkeeper's point of view, on the bridge, they look very dissimilar.  

However, from a functional point of view I find a lot of commonality.  

Veering.

As I look at these ships I see a few elements that make me think of a lost class of vessels:  the coastal trader.  Small to mid-size vessels capable of carrying mixed cargoes to austere ports and transferring wet and dry cargo ship to shore by lighter, gangway, crane and pump.  Its a class that has disappeared in North American ports.  Do they show up in other parts of the world?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Coastal traders are still common in the world, but most of our small ports our gone so the smallest you see generally is a Handymax sized ship. In a slight reversal on this coast we now have this ship doing bunkering in Vancouver.






Most of the coastal traffic has been replaced by pusher tugs, to get around manning requirements






This was the last proper coastal freighter on this coast



			http://www.whitepassfan.net/images/f34_12_040_nv_frank_h_brown.jpg


----------



## Kirkhill

Chicken and Egg time.

Did the ports disappear for want of transport?  Or did the transport disappear for want of ports?  Either way we lost a lot of trained sailors and a lot of economic activity.  Part of the same set of problems the Labrador and the Arctic (to include Northern Ontario and Quebec) experience.  

There is a place for government intervention.  Just as there is in railroads, highways, airports and utilities.


----------



## Pelorus

Colin Parkinson said:


> Most of the coastal traffic has been replaced by pusher tugs, to get around manning requirements



Can you elaborate? This is a sector I don't know too much about.

I always just assumed that the popularity of pushing tugs in the internal waters of BC was more that the environmentals could support it, and it allowed flexibility to quickly (relatively speaking) change loads and get underway again while the port staff worked on unloading the original barge.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

At one time everything on the coast had to come by sea and there was actually a bigger population in some areas than today. But then technology replaced most of the cannery workers and as fish stock plummeted, so did the canneries, so a lot of the traffic was lost there. There was also quite a few mines and they all shut down eventually as well.
Currently for ports on the coast (not counting Vancouver Island and Lower mainland) You have Sechlet, Powell River, Bella Coola, Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Stewart. Prince Rupert is doing very well, but constrained by geography.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

boot12 said:


> Can you elaborate? This is sector I don't know too much about.
> 
> I always just assumed that the popularity of pushing tugs in the internal waters of BC was more that the environmentals could support it, and it allowed flexibility to quickly (relatively speaking) change loads and get underway again while the port staff worked on unloading the original barge.


It wasn't environmental, but mostly to cut manning costs which is a big topic right now as the tonnage rules are implicated in several recent fatal accidents.
Tugboat tragedy raises questions about safety on B.C. coast


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> At one time everything on the coast had to come by sea and there was actually a bigger population in some areas than today. But then technology replaced most of the cannery workers and as fish stock plummeted, so did the canneries, so a lot of the traffic was lost there. There was also quite a few mines and they all shut down eventually as well.
> Currently for ports on the coast (not counting Vancouver Island and Lower mainland) You have Sechlet, Powell River, Bella Coola, Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Stewart. Prince Rupert is doing very well, but constrained by geography.



There's a line of reasoning that suggests that the Age of Enlightenment started with something called The Invisible College which arose in the 1640s.  Just prior to the British Civil Wars.

The Invisible College led to something called the Republic of Letters which tied together all the printing presses of Europe and America by the 1670s.  The Invisible College and the Republic of Letters constituted the early internet.  And caused the hierarchy of the day no end of grief due to not being able to settle the truth of things.   Causing things like licencing presses, stamp taxes and paper taxes and prosecutions for slander, libel and sedition - and any other method to restrict  the flow of ideas.

The Royal Mail was established as a private courier service for the crown in 1512 by Henry VIII.  One of his many useful innovations.  It tied all towns in England by requiring them to maintain a horse at the ready for a royal courier.  Day or Night.   Speeding up communications and allowing Henry to expand his control north of the Trent-Severn line.  1603 the Scotsman Jimmy the Sixth expanded the Royal Mail, still as a private service of the Crown, into Scotland (or at least Edinburgh). 

In 1635 Jimmy's son Charlie, always notoriously short of the ready saw an opportunity to make a bit of cash.  He opened up his courier service to the public for profit.  It was that communication system that Ashmole, Boyle and the Royal Society exploited to create their Invisible College and the Republic of Letters, and the Freemasons,  that led to the free exchange of ideas and the Enlightenment.

Not necessarily a new idea.  Comms and empire have gone hand in hand at least since the era of Darius's royal highways.

But yet another example of "If you build it they will come".

And add in freeports (Royal Burghs, Freistadts or what have you) and you have a time tested recipe for economic development. 

And the basis of a developing Navy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One can argue that the decline in government docks for coastal communities has hurt development and industry. The docks were often essential for a lot of small businesses but beyond their means to build and maintain. Transport Canada and DFO have been divesting them with a pot of money, but when that runs out, it's often beyond the means of these small communities to maintain them. Considering the total lack of other Federal and provincial services in these communities, they don't get much for their tax dollar.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Not really sure, but tried to answer some items below.


CBH99 said:


> Question in regards to what you mentioned about not having the proper budget to maintain the ships properly, or fix what needs to be fixed.
> 
> _Is this a matter of DND not receiving enough funding?  Or somehow not able to use money to accomplish this?_  I ask because for a long time (I'm not sure if still the case) DND was returning around $1B to $2B annually to the government, that DND was unable to spend.


Different types of fundig (NP/Capitol/SWE) plus a general lack of people available to replace everyone that retired under the last sweep, and is currently retiring. People with 20 years experience are being replaced with people with a few years of experience, so also takes longer to work through things as people are learning.

For the FMFs, they could keep up with just PM, but normally a 5 hour PM routine turns into a 50 hour corrective maintenance. Also the fleet sched sends out a bunch of ships for a TG exercise, then schedules everyone for the same time for work periods, so it's a feast/famine. Top that off by the ship staff not being fully crewed, and pulled in other directions as well, the lack of 1st line PM leads to increased 2nd/3rd line CM, and the ships are 30 years old. Not a simple answer, but it's a bit of a bow wave of issues that have aggregated to make the personnel shortage more critical


CBH99 said:


> _Was crew compliment a large consideration when deciding what ships will replace the CPF?_
> 
> As much as I obviously support a well funded military, DND and TB need to simplify and smooth things out...how can we ask for more money, when we aren't able to spend the money we have?  And basic things like maintaining a ship at a basic level isn't being done because of self-created obstacles?


Crews keep getting smaller with increased automation, but you reach a point where you still need a sailor to do something. Damage control while fighting the battle is pretty labour intensive, as experience shows that you might need to keep doing it with normal systems down. But all that automation also needs maintenance, so it's a bit of a balancing act. Our sailors all wear a lot of hats, so that helps but at the end of the day we can only reduce the crew down so much and still be effective.

Looking at some options for that from the commercial side, but it's pretty slow. Probably will trial them on the frigates and if they work, fit them onto later flights of the CSC, but yeah.



CBH99 said:


> And with the FELEX program, I know a lot of the PR stuff was on systems enhancement & 'mid life upgrades'.  That honestly didn't include walking around the ship, inspecting some pipes or joints that are prone to maintenance, and at least patching some things up to 'spruce up the ship'?  (I've realized here in my adult life that I don't know very much, about very much.  So what seems simple to me, is inevitable more complicated once someone explains it who actually has experience with the subject matter.  Maintaining piping on warships is probably a lot more complicated than just putting a ring-thing on it & it's done.)
> 
> I would think that lowering the crew requirement per ship would be one of the foundational factors into the decision being made, as that alone would ease a lot of stress off of the Navy?


Pre-CPFs, we used to do baseline refits, which included full replacement of piping (ie a third of a big system each DWP). We went to 'conditional based maintenance', which is supposed to be less expensive because you don't replace items with life left, but didn't do the kind of extensive pipe surveys necessary to support that at MLR.  The 280s had those baseline refits up until TRUMP, so they actually had newer firemains at retirement then most CPFs have now.

Replacing sea water, blackwater, freshwater piping etc isn't sexy, and isn't capitol money so didn't get a lot of attention. It is now, but it's such an extensive, expensive issue at this point that we have to triage. That stuff got cut to have more whizbangs. Also most valves etc are obsolete, so there is also a massive load on the LCMMs to replace them (ps; we're short of LCMMs, and a lot of experienced ones retired within the last 5 years).  Get that there isn't much point of a warship with obsolete gear in a shooting match, but also no point of having high tech gear that can't leave the wall because the ship is barely running.

Like any 1000 lb marshmallow, we can only tackle it one bite at a time. If the RCN had taken some kind of operational pause during COVID that would have helped (for both the sailors and the maintenance) but they are pressing on regardless. 

Lot of people are working on it, and it's a bit of a disaster, but if we can get through this without anyone getting killed or maimed I'd consider it a win. There are a lot of former sailors working on it as civilians going way above and beyond because they don't want anyone getting, so optimistic, but would be easier if the RCN was actually honestly assessing the actual material state of the ships before sending them to sea, instead of talking it until it's yellow, and pretending we've actually implemented any of the on-paper mitigations in the risk assessments.


----------



## MarkOttawa

At CDA Institute, also deals with the now-planned two new CCG polar icebreakers:



> TIMOTHY CHOI: WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM THE NEW CANADIAN SURFACE COMBATANT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timothy Choi: What can we Expect from the New Canadian Surface Combatant? | CDA Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cdainstitute.ca



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile in the UK they just shaved 12 months off their first Type 26 build









						HMS Glasgow to enter service 12 months sooner than planned
					

The Type 26 team forecast achieving the in-service date for ship one 12 months sooner than forecast.




					ukdefencejournal.org.uk


----------



## Maxman1

From what I've heard, their version is actually less capable than ours will be.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> Meanwhile in the UK they just shaved 12 months off their first Type 26 build
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HMS Glasgow to enter service 12 months sooner than planned
> 
> 
> The Type 26 team forecast achieving the in-service date for ship one 12 months sooner than forecast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ukdefencejournal.org.uk


I saw that as well.  There is some funny business with the schedule (pushed back delivery and then suddenly ahead of schedule) but generally, they are doing great!  It's amazing what happens when you have an established shipyard and experienced employees. 



Maxman1 said:


> From what I've heard, their version is actually less capable than ours will be.


It likely will be.  Theirs is a more focused approach for a GP frigate.  Ours needs to be able to do Area Air Warfare as well as GP.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maxman1 said:


> From what I've heard, their version is actually less capable than ours will be.


They are splitting the roles between the Type 26, 45 and 31's. We are opting to make each ship multi-role.


----------



## Good2Golf

So we’ll have a Type 34*

*Tavg= [26+31+45]/3=34


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> So we’ll have a Type 34*
> 
> *Tavg= [26+31+45]/3=34


But we will call it a trente-quatre. (So as to confuse our peer adversaries)


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:


> I saw that as well.  There is some funny business with the schedule (pushed back delivery and then suddenly ahead of schedule) but generally, they are doing great!  It's amazing what happens when you have an established shipyard and experienced employees.
> 
> 
> It likely will be.  Theirs is a more focused approach for a GP frigate.  Ours needs to be able to do Area Air Warfare as well as GP.



I've read on Navy Lookout (save the royal navy) a few times that the type 26 build/schedule was slowed down purposefully, maybe to spread the costs out(?)


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:


> I've read on Navy Lookout (save the royal navy) a few times that the type 26 build/schedule was slowed down purposefully, maybe to spread the costs out(?)


Projects are weird sometimes.  

Payment milestones are set up for when the shipyard reach certain milestones.  The problem is that the project office asks the treasury for money on the timing of those milestones.  If the payment is delayed (not meeting the milestone) past the end of the fiscal year, that money goes back into general revenues and the project has to ask the government for that block of money again. In the next budget.  It's essentially "lost".

Spreading the project out may have been to readjust those milestone payments to be further away from the end of the fiscal year, in the event of a schedule slip.


----------



## dapaterson

That's only the case with A base spending, not accrual spending.


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:


> Williams: Under this plan, Canada's new warships will never be built
> 
> 
> DND’s position is unequivocal – and deeply flawed. The department will neither entertain a new design nor undertake a new procurement process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ottawacitizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another opinion piece, though I think we would be out if our minds to restart the process. I do agree however there needs to be penalties for late delivery and delays.


An excellent rebuttal of Williams by Timothy Choi:  Strategic and Operational Considerations for Canadian Naval Shipbuilding


----------



## Underway

> For a maritime nation dependent directly and indirectly on seaborne trade and where most military threats will be overseas, spending a third of the defence budget throughout the lifespan of the navy's only major surface warships would seem far from excessive. If anything, Canadian strategic priorities should see the navy occupy a greater proportion of the budget compared to the other branches


The above is quoted directly from the article.   Which is excellent. 

I've been saying the same for years.  The navy is the first line of defence and the first to respond in almost all circumstances.

I also appreciate his deconstruction of the costs involved with shipbuilding, in particular how expensive "less capable ships" are for the long term.

And also really like the three ships discussion. His analysis really hits home at the two small navy problems and why our ships are generally built in multiples of three.  And one of the reasons the RCN really wished for a third JSS.


----------



## Underway

I feel like we talked about this before on this thread but here's another article about the program and weight of the ship.  We're getting into Burke tonnages now full load.









						Canada’s new frigate is getting heavier and more expensive
					

The Canadian government is seeing a bigger price tag than expected for its Type 26-derivative next-generation frigate.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Weinie

Underway said:


> I feel like we talked about this before on this thread but here's another article about the program and weight of the ship.  We're getting into Burke tonnages now full load.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada’s new frigate is getting heavier and more expensive
> 
> 
> The Canadian government is seeing a bigger price tag than expected for its Type 26-derivative next-generation frigate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com


Does that have an impact on top speed? I would think so, but rely on your expertise.


----------



## Good2Golf

Weinie said:


> Does that have an impact on top speed? I would think so, but rely on your expertise.


Not if you turn the engines up to 11!


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> Does that have an impact on top speed? I would think so, but rely on your expertise.


Max speed calculation is:  hull speed in *knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet* (HS = 1.34 x √LWL).  Longships are faster than stubby ones (physics!).  Of course, there are sea-keeping characteristics involved which is why we don't have pencil-shaped ships.

All that being said moving a big object requires power.  More weight requires more power for the same speed. I don't believe the CSC will have the power to reach its max speed for its hull form.   I suspect not as Halifax classes are listed to be faster with a shorter hull.  Given more weight, it would make sense all other things being equal the ship would have a lower max speed, definitely lower acceleration.

I would think a CSC hull form given enough power could go 30+ knots before it tops out as they are a similar size to an Arleigh Burke, which uses four GT's to make 30+ knots.  Burkes can outrace a CPF over longer distances. (CPF's have them in the sprint though as their acceleration is significantly higher).

However, CSC just needs to reach the min speed of the requirements 27 knots and doesn't require the massive power to go faster.  At some point, you just have diminishing returns as the fuel is burned away at a ridiculous rate.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> Max speed calculation is:  hull speed in *knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet* (HS = 1.34 x √LWL).  Longships are faster than stubby ones (physics!).  Of course, there are sea-keeping characteristics involved which is why we don't have pencil-shaped ships.
> 
> All that being said moving a big object requires power.  More weight requires more power for the same speed. I don't believe the CSC will have the power to reach its max speed for its hull form.   I suspect not as Halifax classes are listed to be faster with a shorter hull.  Given more weight, it would make sense all other things being equal the ship would have a lower max speed, definitely lower acceleration.
> 
> I would think a CSC hull form given enough power could go 30+ knots before it tops out as they are a similar size to an Arleigh Burke, which uses four GT's to make 30+ knots.  Burkes can outrace a CPF over longer distances. (CPF's have them in the sprint though as their acceleration is significantly higher).
> 
> However, CSC just needs to reach the min speed of the requirements 27 knots and doesn't require the massive power to go faster.  At some point, you just have diminishing returns as the fuel is burned away at a ridiculous rate.


'Full power' is a bit of a moving target and completely depends on the environmental conditions. There are a bunch of limiting conditions and sometimes you hit 'full power' well below 'top speed' (ie when it's hot outside you exhaust gas temp is a problem, and you lose efficiency because the intake air is less dense). Alternately, on a nicely cold day with flat conditions you can exceed 'top speed' with a bit of room to spare on the engine parameters. Usually that's when everyone in the MCR gets kind of giddy, the trial becomes a GT nerd-fest, and the team figures out how to tweak the engines manually to go even faster.

The effective ship length changes as well with the displacement, so it's a bit of black magic to figure all that out.

I'm sure whatever the top speed is the ship will have a bit of a power margin above that if it's a deliverable, but they'll be watching the design margins to make sure they can safely make it.

Pretty crazy though when you are running in that area; doubling your power will only get you a few extra knots, and it goes up exponentially from there.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> 'Full power' is a bit of a moving target and completely depends on the environmental conditions. There are a bunch of limiting conditions and sometimes you hit 'full power' well below 'top speed' (ie when it's hot outside you exhaust gas temp is a problem, and you lose efficiency because the intake air is less dense). Alternately, on a nicely cold day with flat conditions you can exceed 'top speed' with a bit of room to spare on the engine parameters. Usually that's when everyone in the MCR gets kind of giddy, the trial becomes a GT nerd-fest, and the team figures out how to tweak the engines manually to go even faster.
> 
> The effective ship length changes as well with the displacement, so it's a bit of black magic to figure all that out.
> 
> I'm sure whatever the top speed is the ship will have a bit of a power margin above that if it's a deliverable, but they'll be watching the design margins to make sure they can safely make it.
> 
> Pretty crazy though when you are running in that area; doubling your power will only get you a few extra knots, and it goes up exponentially from there.


Haha GT nerdfest made me laugh.  The whole ship cheers on the MCR in their efforts.  Gotta go faster than Freddie, break the record!

The best way I ever saw this doubling of power math was on the MCDV's.  8 knots = 1 Diesel alternator.  12 knots = 2DA, 14 knots = 3 DA, 15 knots = 4DA.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> Haha GT nerdfest made me laugh.  The whole ship cheers on the MCR in their efforts.  Gotta go faster than Freddie, break the record!
> 
> The best way I ever saw this doubling of power math was on the MCDV's.  8 knots = 1 Diesel alternator.  12 knots = 2DA, 14 knots = 3 DA, 15 knots = 4DA.


If it's not a state secret...what was Freddie's record??? 

With reference to doubling engine power, there's also the Ivar Huitfeldt vs Absalon example. It took exactly twice the engines and commensurately twice the power to make the hull go from a 24kt top end to 30 kts. I think that's fascinating.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> Haha GT nerdfest made me laugh.  The whole ship cheers on the MCR in their efforts.  Gotta go faster than Freddie, break the record!
> 
> The best way I ever saw this doubling of power math was on the MCDV's.  8 knots = 1 Diesel alternator.  12 knots = 2DA, 14 knots = 3 DA, 15 knots = 4DA.


It was pretty funny to be in the MCR when we were doing it on the 280s; they had these stupid little joysticks that would snap off at the drop of a hat for a manual input, so in the manual remote mode you'd have a bunch of old school stokers crowded around with one person trying to get another few hundred RPM in. It's was pretty fun, and we managed to hit 28.1 knots on IMCS (with an astern wind for help on an almost mirror flat day), but you could literally watch the analogue fuel gauges drop on the service tanks. Think I still have a page print somewhere in my ph6 package.

Far less dramatic on the CPFs as the LM2500s have a lot more safeties built into the controller. With the 280s if you went full local there was a knob to turn that was connected directly to the throttle via a cable. Aside from the on-engine fuel controls, there wasn't anything really in place, so the pucker factor was a lot higher.


----------



## Dana381

I heard lots of stories like this when I lived in P.E.I. The fisherman there had a horsepower race. You would hear of guys removing a 150HP Perkins engine and putting a 400+ HP Cat engine with new bigger props and all and only gaining 1-2 knots max speed. The hull has a limit that is near impossible to best, especially in a wooden lobster boat. All they accomplished was lightening their wallets to pay the much bigger fuel bills.


----------



## FJAG

Underway said:


> Max speed calculation is:  hull speed in *knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet* (HS = 1.34 x √LWL).  Longships are faster than stubby ones (physics!).  Of course, there are sea-keeping characteristics involved which is why we don't have pencil-shaped ships.
> 
> All that being said moving a big object requires power.  More weight requires more power for the same speed. I don't believe the CSC will have the power to reach its max speed for its hull form.   I suspect not as Halifax classes are listed to be faster with a shorter hull.  Given more weight, it would make sense all other things being equal the ship would have a lower max speed, definitely lower acceleration.
> 
> I would think a CSC hull form given enough power could go 30+ knots before it tops out as they are a similar size to an Arleigh Burke, which uses four GT's to make 30+ knots.  Burkes can outrace a CPF over longer distances. (CPF's have them in the sprint though as their acceleration is significantly higher).
> 
> However, CSC just needs to reach the min speed of the requirements 27 knots and doesn't require the massive power to go faster.  At some point, you just have diminishing returns as the fuel is burned away at a ridiculous rate.


So Scotty recalibrating the dilithium crystals in the warp drive to get beyond warp factor 9.99 is a real thing, eh?

😉


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> If it's not a state secret...what was Freddie's record??


30+ knots  



FJAG said:


> So Scotty recalibrating the dilithium crystals in the warp drive to get beyond warp factor 9.99 is a real thing, eh?


No, because USS Enterprise NCC-1701 maxed out at warp 8.0 unless acted upon by some external phenomenon.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Dana381 said:


> I heard lots of stories like this when I lived in P.E.I. The fisherman there had a horsepower race. You would hear of guys removing a 150HP Perkins engine and putting a 400+ HP Cat engine with new bigger props and all and only gaining 1-2 knots max speed. The hull has a limit that is near impossible to best, especially in a wooden lobster boat. All they accomplished was lightening their wallets to pay the much bigger fuel bills.


There are a series of tug boat races in various spots that get up to blistering speeds like 8, and maybe even 9 knots.... pretty funny to see, but I love to see them work and just spin around on a dime.


----------



## Grimey

Navy_Pete said:


> It was pretty funny to be in the MCR when we were doing it on the 280s; they had these stupid little joysticks that would snap off at the drop of a hat for a manual input, so in the manual remote mode you'd have a bunch of old school stokers crowded around with one person trying to get another few hundred RPM in. It's was pretty fun, and we managed to hit 28.1 knots on IMCS (with an astern wind for help on an almost mirror flat day), but you could literally watch the analogue fuel gauges drop on the service tanks. Think I still have a page print somewhere in my ph6 package.
> 
> Far less dramatic on the CPFs as the LM2500s have a lot more safeties built into the controller. With the 280s if you went full local there was a knob to turn that was connected directly to the throttle via a cable. Aside from the on-engine fuel controls, there wasn't anything really in place, so the pucker factor was a lot higher.


Not quite true.  The knob (really a glorified reostat) on the LOP provided an analogue signal to the servo stepping motor directly above the LOP.  The back of the servo had a gear wheel that had the PLA cable attached to it.  The servo had a handle that, with the electric brake released, gave you full mechanical input to the GT.  On HUR in the late 90s, the servos were plagued with ground faults which often caused engine trips.  Solution during specials was to throttle the GT completely in hand.  Left Singapore like that in ‘97 with the opposite shaft locked.  Pucker factor?  You have no idea🤪🤪🤪


----------



## FJAG

Underway said:


> 30+ knots
> 
> 
> No, because USS Enterprise NCC-1701 maxed out at warp 8.0 unless acted upon by some external phenomenon.
> 
> View attachment 65823


I humbly stand corrected. It seems it wasn't until the NCC-1701E that one exceeds the 9.99 barrier. So that would be Geordi doing that.

Is the Orville really faster than the USS Enterprise? - Science vs Hollywood

Warp drive - Wikipedia

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) - Wikipedia

🤨


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> There are a series of tug boat races in various spots that get up to blistering speeds like 8, and maybe even 9 knots.... pretty funny to see, but I love to see them work and just spin around on a dime.


The Netherlands has an annual tugboat regatta, and the best part is the bollard pull competition…not speed. 👍🏼


----------



## Navy_Pete

Grimey said:


> Not quite true.  The knob (really a glorified reostat) on the LOP provided an analogue signal to the servo stepping motor directly above the LOP.  The back of the servo had a gear wheel that had the PLA cable attached to it.  The servo had a handle that, with the electric brake released, gave you full mechanical input to the GT.  On HUR in the late 90s, the servos were plagued with ground faults which often caused engine trips.  Solution during specials was to throttle the GT completely in hand.  Left Singapore like that in ‘97 with the opposite shaft locked.  Pucker factor?  You have no idea🤪🤪🤪


Thanks! Was a bit fuzzy on the specifics after a few years. Those ground fault trips were nuts, there was an intermittent one on ATH that would randomly trip on the the mains. The IMCS tech finally managed to catch it come in and fix it, think it was on a fuel valve indicator switch or something, but took over a year. Hard to track down a fault that will ruin your day then disappear.


----------



## suffolkowner

Cost of used icebreakers Ottawa is purchasing from Quebec shipyard nears $1B mark  | Globalnews.ca
					

The most recent cash infusion came last week as the government handed Davie another $68.9 million to continue converting and upgrading the icebreakers.




					globalnews.ca
				




another $68.9M increase for the 3 Viking refits, from $610M original to $912M. 

Still wish they would pull the trigger on the Aiviq



			http://www.davie.ca/pdf/Aiviq.pdf
		










						Trump Administration May Lease Icebreakers for U.S. Coast Guard
					

The Trump administration is considering options for leasing one or more foreign-built commercial ice...




					www.maritime-executive.com
				












						Trump administration may hire private ship to fill Arctic ‘icebreaker gap’ by year’s end
					

The Trump White House is racing to lease an icebreaker, and one of the candidates is a ship with a notorious Alaska past owned by a Republican mega-donor.  Sen. Dan Sullivan said he spoke to the White House national security advisor and learned the administration is considering leasing a medium-wei



					www.rcinet.ca
				












						Aiviq: Pride of Shell’s Alaskan drilling fleet - Professional Mariner
					

2013 Ship of the Year




					www.professionalmariner.com


----------



## Good2Golf

You know when your gensets are 3512s, you’re big kid on the block… 👍🏼


----------



## Stoker

suffolkowner said:


> Cost of used icebreakers Ottawa is purchasing from Quebec shipyard nears $1B mark  | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The most recent cash infusion came last week as the government handed Davie another $68.9 million to continue converting and upgrading the icebreakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another $68.9M increase for the 3 Viking refits, from $610M original to $912M.
> 
> Still wish they would pull the trigger on the Aiviq
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.davie.ca/pdf/Aiviq.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Administration May Lease Icebreakers for U.S. Coast Guard
> 
> 
> The Trump administration is considering options for leasing one or more foreign-built commercial ice...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.maritime-executive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump administration may hire private ship to fill Arctic ‘icebreaker gap’ by year’s end
> 
> 
> The Trump White House is racing to lease an icebreaker, and one of the candidates is a ship with a notorious Alaska past owned by a Republican mega-donor.  Sen. Dan Sullivan said he spoke to the White House national security advisor and learned the administration is considering leasing a medium-wei
> 
> 
> 
> www.rcinet.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aiviq: Pride of Shell’s Alaskan drilling fleet - Professional Mariner
> 
> 
> 2013 Ship of the Year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.professionalmariner.com


Its impressive but only breaks 1M of ice.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Stoker said:


> Its impressive but only breaks 1M of ice.



Which is exactly the same capability as the Coast Guard medium icebreakers (class 1200 - or  Pierre Radisson class, as you wish to call them) they are meant to replace while they go into very extensive refits or retirement. It is also a higher ice class than the AOPS.


----------



## Weinie

Stoker said:


> Its impressive but only breaks 1M of ice.


Stoker, I have the signed 5/500 of your avatar that was given to me by Silvia Pecota, signed by her and Kate Steen(the model). I met Kate on several occasions, she is gorgeous.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Which is exactly the same capability as the Coast Guard medium icebreakers (class 1200 - or  Pierre Radisson class, as you wish to call them) they are meant to replace while they go into very extensive refits or retirement. It is also a higher ice class than the AOPS.


AOPS will break 1.2M compared to 1M for Aiviq. That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## suffolkowner

Stoker said:


> AOPS will break 1.2M compared to 1M for Aiviq. That's what I'm talking about.


That does seem strange, is it a purposeful design thing as far as actual icebreaking versus I don't know ice cruising or maybe just downplaying that function? Maybe it does more than 1m in actuality?

Davie originally wanted to do the Aiviq and the three Vikings but Aiviq was not approved, probably because someone thought that the Louis St Laurent and Terry Fox could soldier on forever and that the Diefenbaker would be coming online as well.



			http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Project-Resolute_Briefing-Presentation.pdf
		


What ever happened with the river icebreaker we were looking at leasing?

 Also I am going to have to google your avatar now


----------



## suffolkowner

Weinie said:


> Stoker, I have the signed 5/500 of your avatar that was given to me by Silvia Pecota, signed by her and Kate Steen(the model). I met Kate on several occasions, she is gorgeous.


Yep so I'm off to learn how to play guitar and I guess I have to give up my cows. Maybe she has a daddy fetish?






						Kate Steen – Canada’s Top Model
					






					katesteen.ca


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Lets clear up a few things: First, there is a difference between a ship's ice rating and what it can actually do. The article about the Davie contract "nearing 1b$" is actually about the three river icebreakers: Those are the three Vikings icebreakers. The government bought them outright instead of leasing them from Davie. Two of them are now in service, with the third nearing completion - which is what the additional $64M is for. They are rated a Arctic class 4, like the class 1200 they replace, and yes that rating means 3 knots continuous through 1 m of *multi-year ice, *which the AOPS as class 5 are not rated to do. The AOPS are rated to do 1 m in first year ice with some inclusion. They can do better, but that is their rating. The Vikings, like the type 1200 can actually do a lot better, up to almost 2 meters in first year ice (I've seen the Radisson do just that in front of Quebec city to clear an ice dam).

As for Aivik, she is rated as Arctic class 3 -  same as Louis-St-Laurent and Terry-Fox - a rating that means it can achieve 3 knots continuous in 1.8 meters of multi year ice.

There is noting unimpressive about any of those vessels.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Lets clear up a few things: First, there is a difference between a ship's ice rating and what it can actually do. The article about the Davie contract "nearing 1b$" is actually about the three river icebreakers: Those are the three Vikings icebreakers. The government bought them outright instead of leasing them from Davie. Two of them are now in service, with the third nearing completion - which is what the additional $64M is for. They are rated a Arctic class 4, like the class 1200 they replace, and yes that rating means 3 knots continuous through 1 m of *multi-year ice, *which the AOPS as class 5 are not rated to do. The AOPS are rated to do 1 m in first year ice with some inclusion. They can do better, but that is their rating. The Vikings, like the type 1200 can actually do a lot better, up to almost 2 meters in first year ice (I've seen the Radisson do just that in front of Quebec city to clear an ice dam).
> 
> As for Aivik, she is rated as Arctic class 3 -  same as Louis-St-Laurent and Terry-Fox - a rating that means it can achieve 3 knots continuous in 1.8 meters of multi year ice.
> 
> There is noting unimpressive about any of those vessels.


Actually AOPS has a _PC4 i_cebreaking bow allowing them to officially break 1.2M of first year ice with old ice inclusions. As mentioned they break more ice than _1.2M_ as demonstrated in their ice trials. but yes officially she is a PC5.


----------



## suffolkowner

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Lets clear up a few things: First, there is a difference between a ship's ice rating and what it can actually do. The article about the Davie contract "nearing 1b$" is actually about the three river icebreakers: Those are the three Vikings icebreakers. The government bought them outright instead of leasing them from Davie. Two of them are now in service, with the third nearing completion - which is what the additional $64M is for. They are rated a Arctic class 4, like the class 1200 they replace, and yes that rating means 3 knots continuous through 1 m of *multi-year ice, *which the AOPS as class 5 are not rated to do. The AOPS are rated to do 1 m in first year ice with some inclusion. They can do better, but that is their rating. The Vikings, like the type 1200 can actually do a lot better, up to almost 2 meters in first year ice (I've seen the Radisson do just that in front of Quebec city to clear an ice dam).
> 
> As for Aivik, she is rated as Arctic class 3 -  same as Louis-St-Laurent and Terry-Fox - a rating that means it can achieve 3 knots continuous in 1.8 meters of multi year ice.
> 
> There is noting unimpressive about any of those vessels.


Thanks OGBD thats what I thought. That the ships were decently capable.

So is that the purchase of the Vikings has supplanted the previous plan to lease a river icebreaker? And what is the difference between a river icebreaker and a lake icebreaker and an ocean icebreaker?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

First, let me be clear: When I said "Nothing unimpressive about any of these vessels", I meant "any" of these vessels, which includes the AOPS. I am quite impressed with what has been delivered in terms of ice capability, which is definitely not  a mere "slush breaker".

Now, Suffolkowner, the answer is yes, the purchase of the Vikings did supplant the leasing of them, which was the original offer of  Davie.

As to the designation lake/river icebreaker, it is not a term of art but merely a description that the Canadian Coast Guard uses to indicate the primary area where they are intended to operate. The great lakes do not (or extremely rarely) freeze up completely and the ice is usually found around the perimeters where it seldom gets as thick as a meter, so class 5 icebreakers are quite sufficient for the task. Those are the class 1100 multi-task vessels of the Coast Guard (and a few even smaller) and they are generally referred to as "light icebreakers". On the St-Lawrence River, in the Gulf and around Newfoundland, the Coast Guard usually employ class 4 icebreakers (the type 1200, and now the Vikings) and they are referred to as "medium icebreakers". They are however quite capable of operating in the Arctic, and in fact do so for the summer season when the River and gulf are clear of ice, with some type 1200 (Amundsen in particular) some times over-wintering in the Arctic as a fixed base stuck in ice for research purposes.


----------



## suffolkowner

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> First, let me be clear: When I said "Nothing unimpressive about any of these vessels", I meant "any" of these vessels, which includes the AOPS. I am quite impressed with what has been delivered in terms of ice capability, which is definitely not  a mere "slush breaker".
> 
> Now, Suffolkowner, the answer is yes, the purchase of the Vikings did supplant the leasing of them, which was the original offer of  Davie.
> 
> As to the designation lake/river icebreaker, it is not a term of art but merely a description that the Canadian Coast Guard uses to indicate the primary area where they are intended to operate. The great lakes do not (or extremely rarely) freeze up completely and the ice is usually found around the perimeters where it seldom gets as thick as a meter, so class 5 icebreakers are quite sufficient for the task. Those are the class 1100 multi-task vessels of the Coast Guard (and a few even smaller) and they are generally referred to as "light icebreakers". On the St-Lawrence River, in the Gulf and around Newfoundland, the Coast Guard usually employ class 4 icebreakers (the type 1200, and now the Vikings) and they are referred to as "medium icebreakers". They are however quite capable of operating in the Arctic, and in fact do so for the summer season when the River and gulf are clear of ice, with some type 1200 (Amundsen in particular) some times over-wintering in the Arctic as a fixed base stuck in ice for research purposes.



Thanks OGBD but I was actually referring to this









						Canada Looking For 4th Icebuster
					

There are a few second had breakers on the market but DND needs to move quickly.   https://navaltoday.com/2019/02/19/canada-looking-to-buy-fourth-second-hand-icebreaker/  https://commercial.apolloduck.com/boats-for-sale/commercial/ice-breaker




					milnet.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My understanding is that the River Class icebreakers are built with more longitudinal strength and stiffness as they are expected push through much heavier ice that is moving/can move in one direction. Whereas the Arctic Class also deals with crush resistance caused by wind driven pack ice. We were trying to get home to the West Coast in the Pearkes (1100 Class, CASPPR Arctic Class 2) and had the Raddison follow us to Pt Barrow to help us through the pack ice.

This helps explain the ice classes

https://www.engr.mun.ca/~cdaley/8074/Ice Class Rules_CD.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seems even the Germans are going down the ballistic missile defense road.









						Germany readies frigates for ballistic missile defense missions
					

The German Navy plans to equip its Sachsen-class frigates with new radars that expand the vessels’ capabilities into the field of ballistic missile defense.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Seems even the Germans are going down the ballistic missile defense road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany readies frigates for ballistic missile defense missions
> 
> 
> The German Navy plans to equip its Sachsen-class frigates with new radars that expand the vessels’ capabilities into the field of ballistic missile defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com


This is interesting. I was under the impression that the ship already had a theoretical ballistic missile defense capability currently. If I'm not mistaken, the radar suite (APAR and SMART-L) is essentially the same as on the Dutch DZP frigates. IIRC the Dutch ship TROMP conducted an exercise with the USN where it proved capable of BMD.


----------



## Karel Doorman

True,but don't know wheter the German ships allready got the SMART_LMM (Multi Mission)version,which has a vieuw range of about 2000 kms.









						Royal Netherlands Navy’s HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën Frigate Tracks Ballistic Missile - Naval News
					

The Royal Netherlands Navy announced that the SMART-L Multi Mission/Naval radar aboard HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën was used to eliminate a ballistic missile, marking a first in Europe. This was carried out during exercise Formidable Shield 2021.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## Underway

BMD and shooting down a BM are not necessarily the same thing.  I've made that same mistake on this forum before.  You could easily shoot down a BM if it was aimed at your ship, its just another missile.  BMD is an entirely different ball of wax.


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:


> BMD and shooting down a BM are not necessarily the same thing.  I've made that same mistake on this forum before.  You could easily shoot down a BM if it was aimed at your ship, its just another missile.  BMD is an entirely different ball of wax.


That’s a solid point I hadn’t thought of before, or separated the 2 scenarios in my mind before.  

🤨👍🏻


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Some of you may be interested in this. A link to register for a talk from Seaspan on the new CCG heavy Icebreaker.



			Seaspan Shipyards


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seaspan marks 10 years of the NSS









						Building Ships - Seaspan
					






					nss.seaspan.com
				




*October 19, 2021*_ *– North Vancouver, BC *– Seaspan Shipyards (Seaspan) is proudly celebrating ten years of building ships for Canada under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS).

On this day in 2011, Seaspan was selected as Canada’s long-term strategic shipbuilding partner to construct large, non-combat vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Navy.

As a result of the NSS and the certainty it provides, for ten years now, Seaspan has invested in its infrastructure and its people, helping rebuild a sustainable, competitive marine industry; built its cross-Canada supply chain; and renewed the federal fleet with ships built in Canada by Canadians.

Seaspan invested more than $185 million to transform its shipyard into one of the most modern in North America, with a purpose-built infrastructure to deliver much-needed ships for Canada’s federal fleets. Seaspan’s NSS program of work includes three Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels (OFSVs), one Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel (OOSV), 16 Multi-Purpose Vessels (MPVs), and one Polar Icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard as well as two Joint Support Ships (JSSs) for the Royal Canadian Navy. These vessels will play a vital role in ensuring Canadian sovereignty; conducting climate and ocean research; and protecting the world’s longest coastline, including our fragile Arctic waterways.

Seaspan’s team has now delivered to the Coast Guard all three world-class OFSVs—completing the first full class of large vessels delivered under the NSS. Several other vessels are under construction and in design.

Seaspan also released today a new socioeconomic impact study, conducted by Deloitte, which highlights the significant economic and job creation engine that the NSS and Seaspan have become. Over the period from 2012 to 2021, Seaspan contributed $2.6 billion to Canada’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) through its NSS-related activities alone (and an additional $1.4 billion through its repair, refit and maintenance activities). Seaspan has awarded more than $1.8 billion in NSS-related contracts to more than 660 Canadian suppliers from coast to coast, many of which are small and medium-sized businesses. They, in turn, have been able to grow; develop advanced technologies; reinvest in R&D, infrastructure, and skills development; and leverage new opportunities at home and abroad.

Over the past decade, Seaspan has also grown its workforce into a team of approximately 2,700 engineers, naval architects, procurement specialists, and highly skilled tradespeople – from welders, pipefitters, shipfitters, electricians and mechanics to millwrights, machinists, riggers, joiners, and painters. In the process, Seaspan has become a major employer in British Columbia and a workplace of choice not only for its employees and new graduates but also for hundreds of apprentices and interns. Seaspan is also a significant contributor to training and skills development initiatives across the region that will help ensure a pipeline of top marine talent for generations to come.

Watch Seaspan Shipyards’ 10-year anniversary video._


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Listened in on the Seaspan Industry Day for the Polar Icebreaker, design will be to Polar Class 2 (Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions)
They did mention that there is a possibility that the CCG would use Remotely Piloted Aircraft, but still an if, but they want to be prepared for a yes.
currently in a design check phase with actual construct 
Interesting  propulsion setup


----------



## Underway

Not only is this a really good catch, but its a great way to show why military vessels don't break ice... look at that hull form!

Also the range on that thing is crazy amazing.  Moon pool.  Very interesting.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin Parkinson said:


> Listened in on the Seaspan Industry Day for the Polar Icebreaker, design will be to Polar Class 2 (Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions)
> They did mention that there is a possibility that the CCG would use Remotely Piloted Aircraft, but still an if, but they want to be prepared for a yes.
> currently in a design check phase with actual construct
> Interesting  propulsion setup
> 
> View attachment 66926
> View attachment 66927
> View attachment 66928


Interesting that its got a faster speed than the AOPS and less crew.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin Parkinson said:


> Listened in on the Seaspan Industry Day for the Polar Icebreaker, design will be to Polar Class 2 (Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions)
> They did mention that there is a possibility that the CCG would use Remotely Piloted Aircraft, but still an if, but they want to be prepared for a yes.
> currently in a design check phase with actual construct
> Interesting  propulsion setup
> 
> View attachment 66926
> View attachment 66927
> View attachment 66928


Does this mean that Davie will be building the exact same specs? 

If so, is Seaspan working with Davie in the identifying and engaging of the systems integrators, equipment suppliers and 'other' supplies or, will each of them be doing this in complete silo's wasting time/effort and good will?

Looking to me that this is a potential disaster waiting to happen....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Not only is this a really good catch, but its a great way to show why military vessels don't break ice... look at that hull form!
> 
> Also the range on that thing is crazy amazing.  Moon pool.  Very interesting.


Yes the moon pool will allow instrumentation and ROV work while in ice, without the need to cut through the ice. It will be interesting how they do it, not sure there is any other heavy ice breaker out there with one?


----------



## Kirkhill

Also interesting is the "belt and braces" approach to propulsion - using both "conventional" twin shafts and the "Duel Acting" Azipod along with the bow thrusters.

That should leave lots of options in the ice.


----------



## Nvlgzr

Colin Parkinson said:


> Yes the moon pool will allow instrumentation and ROV work while in ice, without the need to cut through the ice. It will be interesting how they do it, not sure there is any other heavy ice breaker out there with one?


Amundsen had a moon pool installed during conversion. Davie built 2 deepsea ships about 5 or 6 years ago with moonpools.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Kirkhill said:


> Also interesting is the "belt and braces" approach to propulsion - using both "conventional" twin shafts and the "Duel Acting" Azipod along with the bow thrusters.
> 
> That should leave lots of options in the ice.



The azipod is your rudder. You could call it an "active rudder", as that concept is used at slow speed on minehunters.


----------



## JMCanada

Meanwhile in Oz, since the Hunter frigates program is not delivering combatants until next decade, some analysts start claiming for a second batch of Hobarts.









						Delivering a stronger navy, faster | The Strategist
					

Serious risks are being realised in the Royal Australian Navy’s twin transitions in its surface combatant and submarine fleets. As Australia’s strategic circumstances become more dangerous, Defence needs to adopt hedging measures to actively address ...




					www.aspistrategist.org.au


----------



## Navy_Pete

JMCanada said:


> Meanwhile in Oz, since the Hunter frigates program is not delivering combatants until next decade, some analysts start claiming for a second batch of Hobarts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delivering a stronger navy, faster | The Strategist
> 
> 
> Serious risks are being realised in the Royal Australian Navy’s twin transitions in its surface combatant and submarine fleets. As Australia’s strategic circumstances become more dangerous, Defence needs to adopt hedging measures to actively address ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aspistrategist.org.au


Forunately they'll be getting their new French Subs at any point....

We seem to be trading experts; we've imported some of their folks to tell us how to build ships while they are using some of our folks to advise them. If only we had just listed to our own people when they were in the fold, but for some reason no one believes you unless you have a separate letterhead.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> The azipod is your rudder. You could call it an "active rudder", as that concept is used at slow speed on minehunters.









So those are active rudders and not propulsors?


----------



## Underway

Both are correct.  All cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats.


----------



## Dana381

Kirkhill said:


> So those are active rudders and not propulsors?



In this picture are the azipods set for forward sailing I.E. the props pulling rather than pushing? Videos I have seen of azipods on other ships they would point the other way for forward I.E. pushing. I wonder if there is some advantage to mounting the props pulling like this.


----------



## Kirkhill

Dana381 said:


> In this picture are the azipods set for forward sailing I.E. the props pulling rather than pushing? Videos I have seen of azipods on other ships they would point the other way for forward I.E. pushing. I wonder if there is some advantage to mounting the props pulling like this.


I understand that with the electric drive the props could pull and push equally effectively.

Also the Double Acting Hull form refers to the fact that the hull was intended to move forward in open water but in ice it was actually intended that it could travel in reverse. 

In reverse the propellers pointing forwards would be shielded from the ice. 

But.

At the same time the propellers, suitably hardened, could be rotated aft, so that they faced into the oncoming ice and could be used to chew their way through it, adding to the ability of the ship to ride up onto the ice.


----------



## Kirkhill

From the waayback machine

Interesting that the Svalbard only cost the Norwegians 100 MCAD for a one-of-a-kind custom design-build.









						Naval Icebreakers
					

I'd like the navy to have its own icebreaker that way we would not have to go through the red tape of using CCG assets. Give it a light gun armament, 2 embarked helicopters and light crago capacity and we could help supply the northern communites while conducting patrols.  Waaay back in November...




					www.army.ca
				






> K/V “Svalbard”
> 
> - Coast Guard Ship From Langsten
> 
> The new pride of the Navy, K/V “Svalbard” was taken over from Langsten AS on the 15th of December (2001?). The Coast Guard Ship is the Navy’s only ice-breaker and the largest vessel in the whole force.  This is Langsten’s build number 182.  The ship cost 575 millioner kroner (101 MCAD as of 24 Jan 2006).
> 
> 
> …..Minister of Defence Kristin Krohn Devold, with …. Kjell Inge Rokke and other dignitaries ringside.  (Rokke owns Aker which in turn owns Langsten).  It has taken eight years to realise this vessel, from when the project was begun at SFK in August 1993 to this day. So this was a big day, to have the ship handed over.  In 1993 it was intended that the new Coast Guard Vessel should be ready in 1997, but suddenly in 1995 production was stopped. That was a lack of money.  Then the force planning guidance de-prioritized the ship and from 1996 until 1998 it was uncertain if the ship would be completed at all.  But in 1999 it was put back into the plan again, and in December of that year contracts were let with Langsten.  Langsten has a solid tradition of building modern marine vessels. Amongst others the spy ship “Marjata” was built here.
> 
> The hull of “Svalbard” was built by Tangen Yards.  It is built in special steel and comprises at least 50,000 pieces and 40 sections.  By the 17th of February (2000?) the hull was launched and towed to Tomrefjorden in Romsdal, where Langsten finished the vessel.
> 
> K/V “Svalbard” is a gigantic vessel with a displacement of some 6300 tonnes, a length of 103 meters and a breadth of over 19 meters making it the Navy’s largest for the foreseeable future.
> 
> …….
> 
> The Coast Guard
> 
> ……
> 
> *K/V “Svalbard” is classified as a Polar 10 Icebreaker by DNV (Det Norske Veritas), the highest polar ice class defined in DNV’s regulations and the most powerful icebreaker ever built in Norway.  The vessel is specially built for sailing in ice infested waters, and be able to operate in multi-year (year old?) polar ice with a thickness of up to one meter.  The northern Barents Sea, especially in winter time, will be the vessel’s primary area of operation.  The ship can also break ice ridges, back up and “screw guard (?)” about four metes deep. (Not clear on this – may have to do with the azipod drive and the ability of similarly designed, double-ended ice-breaking tankers, to turn around and drive through ice backwards).*
> 
> The vessel has also a De-Ice class notation, being equipped with an anti-icing system with a capacity of 1500 kW.  She has got 17 km of heating cable in all outside decks and the front of the boat to this purpose.  This prevents icing which can be a great problem in arctic (operations?).
> 
> K/V “Svalbard” has a helicopter deck and hangar and will have a helicopter on board when the vessel is out on patrol.  In the hangar there is room for two helicopters. The advantage of helicopters is that they can operate freely and relatively far from the vessel.  In addition to supervision and control of the fishery violations the helicopter is a really important resource for search, rescue and assistance.
> 
> The ship will bring to the Coast Guard many useful capabilities including ice-breaker, towing vessel and helicopter platform.  The vessel has really good capacity in search and rescue and can carry through “clean-up” (?) of polluted environments in the extremity (?)  (might also just mean that it can continue to operate in a very harsh environment).
> 
> Dimensions
> 
> Length overall 103.7 m
> Length post to post   89.0 m
> Greatest width   19.1 m
> Draught (KVL)     6.5 m
> 
> Tank capacity is about 500 tonnes of fuel oil and 200 tonnes of fresh water.  That is enough for 127 persons.
> 
> Class: DNV *1A1, Icebreaker Polar 10, RPS, F-A, E0, HELDK-SH, De-Ice, FiFi1.
> 
> Machinery
> 
> The ship is diesel-electric with a power plant of four Bergen Diesel BRG-8 engines, producing around 13,020 kW altogether.  Propulsion is provided by two Azipods, each of 5000 kW, which are classified Icebreaker Polar 10.  In addition ABB “provided” (?) a conventional Azipod of about 15 MW power output to obtain this classification.  RPS in the class notation means that the ship has “redundant propulsion separated”.
> 
> 
> The vessel is also outfitted with a Brunvoll bow-thruster (?). Harbour power generation consists of a Volvo Penta diesel engine of 1071 kW which drives a Stamford generator of 1339 kVa.  The pumping system is from Ing. Per Gjerdrum AS, the separators from Westfalia and the compressors from Sperre.  Heat exchangers are manufactured by APV and supplied by AS Norco Oslo.
> 
> Engine room isolation is by R&M Industries AS and the ventilation is by ABB Miljo.  …. is from Pyro and tank monitoring systems by ABB.  The engine room is fire-protected with the Argonite system from Heien-Larssen and an alarm system from Autronica.
> 
> Deck
> 
> The ship is notably outfitted with a helicopter deck and a hangar with room for two helicopters.  Also installed onboard is a helifuel-system, with outfitting for refuelling of each helicopter together with other types, both on the heli-deck and in the air.  The vessel can therefore function as a mobile platform at sea (and re-provisioning island?) for military and other helicopters on operations that would otherwise not be possible.  The advanced foam monitor system on the heli-deck is supplied by Heien-Larssen, but the Fi-Fi system is from Kvaerner Eureka.  The heli-deck is also equipped with gyro-stabilised in-flight reference system (light) and contour lighting,  “virtually making manning free operations (?)”.  Flight Centre has also been instrumented with a datalink to the Norwegian Meteorolgical Institute to supply weather reports.
> 
> The deck gear, including hatches, deck machinery such as anchor, vessel and towing winches are supplied by Hydrakraft.  The anchor and….is from Erling Haug, windows and light ports from Marine Aluminium, water tight doors from Winell and fire doors from Nor-Pro.  Davits from MOB-baten.  Deck and Navigation lights?  are from Tranberg, searchlight? From Norselight.  The ship is instrumented by a system from International Maling.
> 
> Interior and Miscellaneous.
> 
> The vessel is for a crew of 20 officers and 28 other ranks, with a four-man helidet. In addition the the ship has accommodation for more than 75 persons.
> 
> The interior is held “secure” as there is a gas citadel / over-pressure ventilation system where all incoming ship’s air will be scrubbed for radio-active, bacteriological and chemical contamination.
> 
> Interior work spaces are outfitted by R&M Industries.  TeamTech supplied the incinerator and Evac vacuum toilet system.  Electro-technicals consultant was Skan-El, but ABB Installations AS supplied the electric installation.  E0-system is the ABB Advant Station 500 series.
> 
> The electronic outfit was installed by Electronicon AS.  The outfit includes advanced instrumentation with air and surface radar, colour-, black/white and IR cameras, sonar …. for over and under water communication.  The system has the capability to record, store and present all this information real-time and time-delay (?), with “intention” (?) of documenting and evaluating incidents.  This gives the vessel a good capacity in the role of Command Vessel in large operations in connection with rescue, pollution and sovereignty operations.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NSS benefits all of Canada. The CCG ship he mentions is getting a major overhaul at Allied shipyard, not far from my house and this crane in the video arrived last week as I recall. Near the end you can see the boat launching davit that i believe is being prototyped for the CSC.


----------



## Stoker

Kirkhill said:


> From the waayback machine
> 
> Interesting that the Svalbard only cost the Norwegians 100 MCAD for a one-of-a-kind custom design-build.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naval Icebreakers
> 
> 
> I'd like the navy to have its own icebreaker that way we would not have to go through the red tape of using CCG assets. Give it a light gun armament, 2 embarked helicopters and light crago capacity and we could help supply the northern communites while conducting patrols.  Waaay back in November...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.army.ca


The cost was actually much higher.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Scraping the bottom of the hull?



> Canadian Coast Guard announces an addition to the southern icebreaking fleet with the purchase of light icebreaker from Atlantic Towing Limited​Ensuring that the members of the Canadian Coast Guard have the equipment they need to keep Canada's waterways navigable and safe is a key priority for the Canadian Coast Guard. In support of this priority, the Coast Guard maintains a fleet of icebreakers that operate across Canada, keeping major waterways open to allow for the free movement of people and goods throughout the winter months, ensuring that Canada's economy remains open and strong.
> 
> Today, following a competitive process, the Canadian Coast Guard is announcing the purchase of a commercial light icebreaker from New Brunswick-based Atlantic Towing Limited. This vessel will ensure that the Coast Guard retains its icebreaking capacity to keep vital shipping lanes open when the existing fleet enters planned maintenance periods.
> 
> The vessel is expected to arrive before the end of the year at its temporary home in Canada at Coast Guard's Prescott base in Ontario. Upon its arrival, CCG will undertake inspection and design work to prepare for the conversion of the vessel in order for it to join the Coast Guard's icebreaking fleet. Public Services and Procurement Canada will issue a public tender for the refit work in early 2022.
> 
> Upon joining the Coast Guard fleet, this vessel will perform icebreaking duties as well as tend the Coast Guard's navigational buoys in the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence, and Atlantic regions. In addition, the vessel will be available for search and rescue duties when needed.
> 
> Today's announcement represents yet another step forward in the Coast Guard's ongoing fleet renewal planning, and will allow for important services to continue uninterrupted while Coast Guard vessels receive necessary maintenance work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Coast Guard announces an addition to the southern icebreaking fleet with the purchase of light icebreaker from Atlantic Towing Limited
> 
> 
> Ensuring that the members of the Canadian Coast Guard have the equipment they need to keep Canada's waterways navigable and safe is a key priority for the Canadian Coast Guard. In support of this priority, the Coast Guard maintains a fleet of icebreakers that operate across Canada, keeping major...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.yahoo.com



Apparently an earlier incarnation of the vessel--see p. 4 PDF here:


> https://akerarctic.fi/app/uploads/2018/08/arctic_passion_news_1_2010_0.pdf


----------



## MarkOttawa

MarkOttawa said:


> Scraping the bottom of the hull?
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently an earlier incarnation of the vessel--see p. 4 PDF here:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67079


Embarrassing headline of the day:



> Canadian Coast Guard buys light icebreaker for Great Lakes; vessel currently in Turkmenistan​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Coast Guard buys light icebreaker for Great Lakes; vessel currently in Turkmenistan
> 
> 
> Government pays $45 million for vessel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wellandtribune.ca



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:


> Embarrassing headline of the day:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


How the heck does one get a ship from the Caspian Sea to Welland Ontario? Up the Volga to Stalingrad and then some canal to the Don and down the Don to the Black Sea?
Lol, I wonder if someone from CCG is actively cruising Lake Victoria in Africa on the lookout for a used buoy tender that will somehow end up in the Queen Charlotte Islands eventually.


----------



## MilEME09

Czech_pivo said:


> How the heck does one get a ship from the Caspian Sea to Welland Ontario? Up the Volga to Stalingrad and then some canal to the Don and down the Don to the Black Sea?
> Lol, I wonder if someone from CCG is actively cruising Lake Victoria in Africa on the lookout for a used buoy tender that will somehow end up in the Queen Charlotte Islands eventually.


The Caspian sea actually has a canal to the black sea, it's how Russia moves its Caspian flotilla.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> The Caspian sea actually has a canal to the black sea, it's how Russia moves its Caspian flotilla.



And there's always a work around...

Russia, Iran again promote alternative to Suez Canal​
Russia and Iran are back to promoting the International North-South Transport Corridor as an alternative future option to the Suez Canal after a giant container ship went aground in the canal last month, disrupting global trade traffic for a week.


Read more: Russia, Iran again promote alternative to Suez Canal


----------



## MarkOttawa

MarkOttawa said:


> Scraping the bottom of the hull?
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently an earlier incarnation of the vessel--see p. 4 PDF here:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67079


Now 42-year old CCGS Amundsen to be kept going--how long? End of decade before replaced by new icebreaker, presumably built by Davie:



> Heddle Shipyards Wins CCGS Amundsen Life Extension Contract​Heddle Shipyards said it has been awarded the vessel life extension of the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker CCGS Amundsen.
> 
> This week, the CCGS Amundsen will arrive at the Port Weller Dry Docks in Canada, the St. Catharines, Ontario, where it will stay through June 2022. The eight-month refit valued at approximately $12,000,000 CAD will sustain over 100 direct jobs and support subcontractors and suppliers across the Niagara Region, Ontario, and Canada.
> 
> Heddle Shipyards noted it has also secured the dry docking of a seaway max laker at its Port Weller facility, ensuring a busy 2022 winter work season.
> 
> Heddle Shipyards said it will be hiring upwards of one hundred people across all positions to support the single largest project executed by the Port Weller Dry Docks under Heddle Shipyards’ management.
> 
> “It is a truly exciting time for us,” said Heddle president Shaun Padulo. “Projects like the CCGS Amundsen help reduce the boom and bust cycle of the ship repair and construction industry in Ontario and will allow us to continue to grow and strengthen our team. We are extremely grateful to the Canadian Coast Guard and the Government of Canada for a project that will support the revitalization of the shipbuilding industry in Ontario.”
> 
> CCGS Amundsen is a Pierre Radisson-class icebreaker and Arctic research vessel operated by the Canadian Coast Guard. Built by Burrard Dry Dock in North Vancouver, the vessel entered service in 1979 as Franklin and was renamed Sir John Franklin in 1980 and served as such until 1996. Declared surplus, the vessel was used as an accommodation ship in Labrador in 1996 and placed in reserve in 2000. In 2003, the ship was reactivated and underwent conversion to an Arctic research vessel. The ship recommissioned as Amundsen.
> 
> CCGS Des Groseilliers, sister ship to the CCGS Amundsen, was constructed at Port Weller in the early 1980s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heddle Shipyards Wins CCGS Amundsen Life Extension Contract
> 
> 
> Heddle Shipyards said it has been awarded the vessel life extension of the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker CCGS Amundsen.This week…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.marinelink.com





Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Stoker

MarkOttawa said:


> Now 42-year old CCGS Amundsen to be kept going--how long? End of decade before replaced by new icebreaker, presumably built by Davie:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67215
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


I wonder did Davie bid on it?


----------



## Underway

Heddle was out in full force on local media today to try hire 100 people for the refit.  I have a few friends who were considering it.


----------



## OldSolduer

MarkOttawa said:


> Embarrassing headline of the day:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


You made this up didn't you....oh never mind..... 45 million???? 

This has the potential to become a Monty Python skit


----------



## Underway

I don't think Mark was referring to the cost.  That's not really that crazy.  It's the fact it's in Turkmenistan...


----------



## Czech_pivo

Not sure if this belongs here, but not sure where to post it.

No injuries reported after Canadian frigate catches fire at sea​HMCS Fredericton's crew members doused the fire before taking the vessel into a Norwegian port for repairs​


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-fire-norway-nato-1.6254012


----------



## Underway

Meh.  My last time posted to Toronto we had an engine room fire, and five hour blackout in the same day.  Still managed to get the missile off the next day anyways. 

No one hurt is great though.  Always a concern even for a small fire.

Fires are like car accidents.  Not a problem until it is a problem.


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:


> I don't think Mark was referring to the cost.  That's not really that crazy.  It's the fact it's in Turkmenistan...


And the Aiviq sits in Tampa still, maybe there really are multiple design flaws as was suggested that are keeping the US and Canada from putting it to work

So we're adding another medium icebreaker to the fleet to add to the 3 Vikings and 4 Pierre Radissons. That seems like a substantial increase in capability, even with the increased time in refits that might be required to keep all the ships going until Davie completes the 6 medium icebreakers they are supposed to build. Speaking of which we're coming up on two years since that announcement and still no official agreement. I know Covid but still?

edit: I guess this newest addition should be classed as a light icebreaker?


----------



## Weinie

A throw away quote at the bottom of this link. So the PM has made his stance known WRT SSN's

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said Canada has no plans to acquire nuclear submarines of its own and dismissed the deal involving the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom as only being about selling defence hardware."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/indo-pacific-aquilino-warning-1.6257200


----------



## FJAG

Naïve isn't a strong enough word anymore.

🤡


----------



## don3wing

FJAG,
            How fast we forget previous governments:



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/no-nuclear-sub-buy-planned-mackay-affirms-1.1043181


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> A throw away quote at the bottom of this link. So the PM has made his stance known WRT SSN's
> 
> "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said Canada has no plans to acquire nuclear submarines of its own and dismissed the deal involving the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom as only being about selling defence hardware."
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/indo-pacific-aquilino-warning-1.6257200


This is a fire the PM doesn't want to start with a minority gov't.  This is a majority gov't type decision.  He's dismissing it so it goes away and he can focus on winning a majority in the face of rising inflation and the US "buy union, buy America" car policies.

Bigger fish to fry. I'll wait out until a decision point is reached regarding the submarines.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> This is a fire the PM doesn't want to start with a minority gov't.  This is a majority gov't type decision.  He's dismissing it so it goes away and he can focus on winning a majority in the face of rising inflation and the US "buy union, buy America" car policies.
> 
> Bigger fish to fry. I'll wait out until a decision point is reached regarding the submarines.



The comment wasn't designed to be accurate.  It was designed to bury the issue with the Canadian press and voters.


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:


> Bigger fish to fry. I'll wait out until a decision point is reached regarding the submarines.


So another 20 years?


----------



## Underway

Honestly, given there isn't a PMO for Subs just yet, they have stood up an options analysis team to have answers ready. So a competition announcement in a few years?


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> Naïve isn't a strong enough word anymore.
> 
> 🤡



Agreed.  This was wilful.  And a problem.



> Look for “almost* a melding of our service*s” between the allied navies in a remarkable new phase of allied partnership, Campbell said at the US Institute of Peace this morning.
> 
> “*We will have more British sailors serving on our naval vessels, Australians and the like on more of our forward-deployed assets in Australia. This leads to a deeper interconnection and, almost a melding in the new respects of our services and working togethe*r on common purpose that we couldn’t have dreamed about five or 10 years ago,” Campbell said.











						'Almost a melding' of US, UK, Aussie services coming: NSC's Kurt Campbell - Breaking Defense
					

The context for President Biden's almost four-hour discussion Monday night with President Xi Jinpeng, Kurt Campbell said, is "that the United States is here to stay in the Indo-Pacific, and we're going to defend and support the operating system that has been so good for so many of us for many...




					breakingdefense.com
				




On the other hand the Blue Suiters have always seemed to exploit the opportunities afforded by working out of sight of their capital cities.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Vancouver Dry Docks is just one part of Seaspan


----------



## calculus

Seaspan has added the Polar icebreaker and the Multi-purpose vessel to their website under the heading "Ships Under Contract". That's the first I have heard that contracts have been signed for these vessels, with either Seaspan, or Davie (Polar #2). Some good information here, especially for the Polar.









						Building Ships - Seaspan
					






					nss.seaspan.com


----------



## calculus

Colin Parkinson said:


> Listened in on the Seaspan Industry Day for the Polar Icebreaker, design will be to Polar Class 2 (Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions)
> They did mention that there is a possibility that the CCG would use Remotely Piloted Aircraft, but still an if, but they want to be prepared for a yes.
> currently in a design check phase with actual construct
> Interesting  propulsion setup
> 
> View attachment 66926
> View attachment 66927
> View attachment 66928




And here's the bill: 





__





						The Polar Icebreaker Project: A Fiscal Analysis
					

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) provides independent analysis to Canadian Parliament on the state of the nation's finances, the government's ...




					www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca


----------



## Spencer100

Price is skyrocketing.  



			Skyrocketing shipbuilding costs continue as estimate puts icebreaker price at $7.25B


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The price of vote buying:

_ The resulting cost is then distributed over the projected lifetime of the polar icebreakers project. We then inflate the distributed costs using the PBO’s projected CPI and shipbuilding-specific inflation and add them to the already incurred expenses of the icebreaker project. *Finally, we apply an escalation factor of approximately 41.4 percent in order to account for the inclusion of an additional shipyard.*_


----------



## MilEME09

Spencer100 said:


> Price is skyrocketing.
> 
> 
> 
> Skyrocketing shipbuilding costs continue as estimate puts icebreaker price at $7.25B


So over $3 billion each for an ice breaker, the fact no one will bat an eye lash over accountability for the project is scary, and dangerous.


----------



## Swampbuggy

In a perfect world, you'd have both Arctic icebreakers built by the same yard, using the same design, with presumably commensurate savings from doing so. Since it's been determined that either the schedule or perhaps dearth of voting being spread out in the most satisfactory manner (to the G's way of thinking), I wish that they had both been given to Davie and a 3rd AOR had been allotted to Seaspan by way of compensation.


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> A throw away quote at the bottom of this link. So the PM has made his stance known WRT SSN's
> 
> "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said Canada has no plans to acquire nuclear submarines of its own and dismissed the deal involving the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom as only being about selling defence hardware."
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/indo-pacific-aquilino-warning-1.6257200


That's the opposite of what it is.  It's not really about selling hardware at all.  It's about Australia locking in US and UK support as regional defense allies.  Australia cannot stand alone against China, and a nuclear deal all but forces the US/UK to stay involved.  For the US vice versa.  They get an ally that is in the perfect position to always box in China across the Straits of Malaca.

Not a dig at Trudeau though.  No politico (even Australian ones) will say those words out loud.  To realpolitik and it would set China off.  Trudeau is dismissing it in the best way he can as a sound bite.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Swampbuggy said:


> In a perfect world, you'd have both Arctic icebreakers built by the same yard, using the same design, with presumably commensurate savings from doing so. Since it's been determined that either the schedule or perhaps dearth of voting being spread out in the most satisfactory manner (to the G's way of thinking), I wish that they had both been given to Davie and a 3rd AOR had been allotted to Seaspan by way of compensation.


Doing it in both yards definitely increases costs; even with the same design they have to redo all the detailed planning and manufacturing engineering to suit the specific facilities/processes used at Davie, so we're paying for the same thing to be done twice for each location. Additionally they haven't actually built anything there yet, so there is a huge efficiency penalty as part of that learning curve, and there may be some redesign required if the facilities don't allow for the same kind of block size as VSY.

Plus Davie had tens of millions in facility upgrades needed to come up to the 2010 NSS shipyard standard, so there will be a lag time to do all that. Those facilities wouldn't have been needed for their current work, so unless they did it anyway will be a while before they are ready to go.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Keeping the old CCG fleet floating and going as we wait...and wait...and wait for all those replacements Seaspan supposed to build somehow as it has the two JSS, the OOSV and one polar icebreaker also (somehow the "up to 16 Multi-Purpose Vessels to support a variety of missions, including light icebreaking, environmental response, and offshore search and rescue. These ships will be built by Vancouver Shipyards" Prime Minister announces renewal of Canadian Coast Guard fleet now seem to have been reduced to ten https://www.seaspan.com/building--have seen no official announcement):

1) "Canadian Coast Guard announces over $28 million in vessel maintenance contracts to shipyards across Canada"








						Canadian Coast Guard announces over $28 million in vessel maintenance contracts to shipyards across Canada
					

Ensuring that the members of the Canadian Coast Guard have the equipment they need to keep Canada's waterways navigable and safe is a key priority for the Government of Canada. To help ensure that Canada's waterways remain open to allow for the free movement of people and goods, the Coast...




					finance.yahoo.com
				




2) "Coast guard ship maintenance work coming to two B.C. shipyards"








						Coast guard ship maintenance work coming to two B.C. shipyards
					






					www.timescolonist.com
				




Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

The Amundsen is already in drydock for its major.  That was announced months ago.  Seems they try to take credit for doing something more than once rather than actually doing something new.


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:


> …Seems they try to take credit for doing something more than once rather than actually doing something new.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

YZT580 said:


> The Amundsen is already in drydock for its major.  That was announced months ago.  Seems they try to take credit for doing something more than once rather than actually doing something new.


rinse and repeat as required, have to wring every vote out of every dollar.


----------



## Swampbuggy

YZT580 said:


> The Amundsen is already in drydock for its major.  That was announced months ago.  Seems they try to take credit for doing something more than once rather than actually doing something new.


I saw her at Welland a few weeks back. Came upon her by chance and I'm looking forward to getting a better look next time I go through there. First time I've seen one of that class in person. Impressive.


----------



## Czech_pivo

No surprises here.  The first story of what I fully expect to be of many.

Military shipbuilding facing fresh delays as a result of COVID-19: procurement chief​
"warning of fresh delays in the delivery of already overdue warships"
"The shipbuilding projects ... are the ones where we probably are going to see cumulatively the largest impacts," he said, adding: "There's going to have to be a schedule adjustment."
"predicted a one-year delay in delivery of 15 new warships for the navy would add $2.3 billion to his current estimated cost of $77 billion, while a two-year delay would result in the fleet costing $4.8 billion more."









						Ottawa's talks with Quebec shipyard to build much-needed icebreakers shrouded in fog
					

Questions are swirling over yet another delay in Ottawa's nearly $100-billion plan to rebuild the fleets of Canada's navy and coast guard -- only this time the delay isn't due to the stalled construction of a ship.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				





There's a relatively easy solution to all of this (besides the Pandemic ending) and its implementing a 6 day work week and/or mandatory overtime in order to begin to get the schedule back on track.  That is what is done in the business world (think auto industry as a prime example, prime example is Chrysler's old 'Plant 3' facility for years and years operated on a 6 day week scedule) and it does address the issue of meeting timelines and holding budgets. I highly doubt it will be done, the Unions have too much clout, management/government doesn't have the testicular fortitude to enforce it and the gravy train will continue and our navy will continue to rust out.

I've plainly laid out on here previously the reality of the impossible existing timelines and age of the Halifax's and the fact that our 12 Halifax's will NOT retire one a 1 to 1 ratio of a new CSC coming online.  The 12 of them will be written off well before there will be 12 new operational CSC's.


----------



## suffolkowner

Czech_pivo said:


> No surprises here.  The first story of what I fully expect to be of many.
> 
> Military shipbuilding facing fresh delays as a result of COVID-19: procurement chief​
> "warning of fresh delays in the delivery of already overdue warships"
> "The shipbuilding projects ... are the ones where we probably are going to see cumulatively the largest impacts," he said, adding: "There's going to have to be a schedule adjustment."
> "predicted a one-year delay in delivery of 15 new warships for the navy would add $2.3 billion to his current estimated cost of $77 billion, while a two-year delay would result in the fleet costing $4.8 billion more."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ottawa's talks with Quebec shipyard to build much-needed icebreakers shrouded in fog
> 
> 
> Questions are swirling over yet another delay in Ottawa's nearly $100-billion plan to rebuild the fleets of Canada's navy and coast guard -- only this time the delay isn't due to the stalled construction of a ship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a relatively easy solution to all of this (besides the Pandemic ending) and its implementing a 6 day work week and/or mandatory overtime in order to begin to get the schedule back on track.  That is what is done in the business world (think auto industry as a prime example, prime example is Chrysler's old 'Plant 3' facility for years and years operated on a 6 day week scedule) and it does address the issue of meeting timelines and holding budgets. I highly doubt it will be done, the Unions have too much clout, management/government doesn't have the testicular fortitude to enforce it and the gravy train will continue and our navy will continue to rust out.
> 
> I've plainly laid out on here previously the reality of the impossible existing timelines and age of the Halifax's and the fact that our 12 Halifax's will NOT retire one a 1 to 1 ratio of a new CSC coming online.  The 12 of them will be written off well before there will be 12 new operational CSC's.


The shipyards only work 5 days a week?

I find it hard to believe that we are even at the stage where the CSC is being delayed by 1 year or that it would cost $2.3B. Years ago I warned about the dangers of inflation eating away at the CSC budget but that is ridiculous. They can and have been ordering some long lead time items and there is lots of time to in the work schedule before they are too even start construction.

It wouldn't surprise me that there will be some serious management issues with the Halifax replacement or that we end up with only 12 CSC, although if we manage to get into some sort of continual build process that can be mitigated.  We are paying the price for decades of mismanagement but at least there looks to be a light at the end of the tunnel here and the Made in Canada hopefully guarantees some continuation.

Still would have preferred that Seaspan built the third AOR/JSS and Davie the two Polar icebreakers as others have noted


----------



## dapaterson

I think the forecast of $2.3B is lifetime, inflated, not NPV.


----------



## suffolkowner

It looks like my favorite icebreaker project has finally found a new job, wonder if this is a long term thing, a trial run or just as needed? A long way to go from Tampa to Antartica but another case of the limited icebreaker capacity out there

"Two charter ships will support RSV Nuyina over the summer, the ice-strengthened heavy cargo ship Happy Dragon and a smaller icebreaker* Aiviq*."



			Antarctic icebreaker launched in Hobart
		


_"Aiviq _(Alaskan Inuit for 'walrus'), currently in Hobart, is a 110-metre US icebreaking tug and supply vessel to provide additional icebreaking capability and undertake station refuelling."










						New icebreaker RSV Nuyina heads south
					

RSV Nuyina departs Hobart on first voyage to Antarctica




					www.antarctica.gov.au


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It would be neat if one of our AOP's took part in a summer expedition to the Antarctic.


----------



## MilEME09

Czech_pivo said:


> No surprises here.  The first story of what I fully expect to be of many.
> 
> Military shipbuilding facing fresh delays as a result of COVID-19: procurement chief​
> "warning of fresh delays in the delivery of already overdue warships"
> "The shipbuilding projects ... are the ones where we probably are going to see cumulatively the largest impacts," he said, adding: "There's going to have to be a schedule adjustment."
> "predicted a one-year delay in delivery of 15 new warships for the navy would add $2.3 billion to his current estimated cost of $77 billion, while a two-year delay would result in the fleet costing $4.8 billion more."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ottawa's talks with Quebec shipyard to build much-needed icebreakers shrouded in fog
> 
> 
> Questions are swirling over yet another delay in Ottawa's nearly $100-billion plan to rebuild the fleets of Canada's navy and coast guard -- only this time the delay isn't due to the stalled construction of a ship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a relatively easy solution to all of this (besides the Pandemic ending) and its implementing a 6 day work week and/or mandatory overtime in order to begin to get the schedule back on track.  That is what is done in the business world (think auto industry as a prime example, prime example is Chrysler's old 'Plant 3' facility for years and years operated on a 6 day week scedule) and it does address the issue of meeting timelines and holding budgets. I highly doubt it will be done, the Unions have too much clout, management/government doesn't have the testicular fortitude to enforce it and the gravy train will continue and our navy will continue to rust out.
> 
> I've plainly laid out on here previously the reality of the impossible existing timelines and age of the Halifax's and the fact that our 12 Halifax's will NOT retire one a 1 to 1 ratio of a new CSC coming online.  The 12 of them will be written off well before there will be 12 new operational CSC's.



Let's go one further, rotating shifts, 2 shifts per day, 7 days a week. With overlap, that's 14-15 hours of production per day. Could get us back on track I bet.


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> Let's go one further, rotating shifts, 2 shifts per day, 7 days a week. With overlap, that's 14-15 hours of production per day. Could get us back on track I bet.


2 shifts a day
7 days a week
14 shifts per week

Current staffing
5 shifts per week

Where are you going to get/train the extra  9 to 10 shifts per week?  A 200% increase in trained payroll.


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> 2 shifts a day
> 7 days a week
> 14 shifts per week
> 
> Current staffing
> 5 shifts per week
> 
> Where are you going to get/train the extra  9 to 10 shifts per week?  A 200% increase in trained payroll.


Well we have a lot of time till the CSC cuts steel,  let's just start ramping up. Add some OT in the short term as well. Over all a 7 day schedule may seem like war time levels of production, but we could then roll into CSC, a Kingston replacement, refit, and start the cycle again.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Kirkhill said:


> 2 shifts a day
> 7 days a week
> 14 shifts per week
> 
> Current staffing
> 5 shifts per week
> 
> Where are you going to get/train the extra  9 to 10 shifts per week?  A 200% increase in trained payroll.


Moving from 5 days a week to 6 is a 20% increase, easy to implement and cost effective.


----------



## dapaterson

Other than labour laws, you're set.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:


> Other than labour laws, you're set.


In what regard? By labour code you are actually only entitled to one 24 hour period off in a 7 days period of continuous work.


----------



## dapaterson

I stand corrected; NS Labour Code does include that provision (https://novascotia.ca/lae/employmentrights/docs/labourstandardscodeguide.pdf).

And it appears Irving tries to keep copies of their collective agreements off the internet.  (The only thing I could find that alleges to be one appears to be a JavaScript file).

Any radical restructure of the normal work would require negotiation with their unions, and Irving's recurrent threats to lay off most of their workforce if they aren't provided sufficient federal contracts suggest that they're happy to stretch things out.

Almost as if the shipbuilding strategy is more of a regional economic support program with a potential side effect of possibly getting the CAF ships.


----------



## FJAG

The problem in stepping up the pace is finding enough skilled labour to fill the shifts and the extra days. B teams are frequently less efficient and output drops while expenses increase particularly for shifts that do not match Circadian rhythms.

The same happens when you start increasing hours per day and days per week for a given worker as you start having a loss of efficiency output per unit of time worked as workers become tired while at the same time you are paying overtime rates thereby dramatically escalating costs.

🍻


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> No surprises here.  The first story of what I fully expect to be of many.
> 
> Military shipbuilding facing fresh delays as a result of COVID-19: procurement chief​
> "warning of fresh delays in the delivery of already overdue warships"
> "The shipbuilding projects ... are the ones where we probably are going to see cumulatively the largest impacts," he said, adding: "There's going to have to be a schedule adjustment."
> "predicted a one-year delay in delivery of 15 new warships for the navy would add $2.3 billion to his current estimated cost of $77 billion, while a two-year delay would result in the fleet costing $4.8 billion more."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ottawa's talks with Quebec shipyard to build much-needed icebreakers shrouded in fog
> 
> 
> Questions are swirling over yet another delay in Ottawa's nearly $100-billion plan to rebuild the fleets of Canada's navy and coast guard -- only this time the delay isn't due to the stalled construction of a ship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a relatively easy solution to all of this (besides the Pandemic ending) and its implementing a 6 day work week and/or mandatory overtime in order to begin to get the schedule back on track.  That is what is done in the business world (think auto industry as a prime example, prime example is Chrysler's old 'Plant 3' facility for years and years operated on a 6 day week scedule) and it does address the issue of meeting timelines and holding budgets. I highly doubt it will be done, the Unions have too much clout, management/government doesn't have the testicular fortitude to enforce it and the gravy train will continue and our navy will continue to rust out.
> 
> I've plainly laid out on here previously the reality of the impossible existing timelines and age of the Halifax's and the fact that our 12 Halifax's will NOT retire one a 1 to 1 ratio of a new CSC coming online.  The 12 of them will be written off well before there will be 12 new operational CSC's.


So are you insinuating that the yards responsible for the NSP will use Covid and the global interruption to the supply chain as an excuse to delay the projects and intentionally drive up costs or do you think these things do not exist?

Building a ship and building cars are a bit different don't you think? Do you really think workers will stand for working 6 days a week in such a job regardless of their unions. Its hard enough to now to get skilled labour let alone bring on extra shifts or mandatory overtime.

Do you know something I don't in regards to the Halifax Class lasting until we start to take delivery of the CSC? That's a pretty bold statement saying that all 12 ships will be written off before we have 12 operational CSC's. What do you base that on?


----------



## Stoker

FJAG said:


> The problem in stepping up the pace is finding enough skilled labour to fill the shifts and the extra days. B teams are frequently less efficient and output drops while expenses increase particularly for shifts that do not match Circadian rhythms.
> 
> The same happens when you start increasing hours per day and days per week for a given worker as you start having a loss of efficiency output per unit of time worked as workers become tired while at the same time you are paying overtime rates thereby dramatically escalating costs.
> 
> 🍻


Not to mention that Davie will be on the hunt for workers in their ramp up for their facility.


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:


> Let's go one further, rotating shifts, 2 shifts per day, 7 days a week. With overlap, that's 14-15 hours of production per day. Could get us back on track I bet.


Delays are not caused by the yard necessarily.  It's suppliers and subcontractors who are behind.  Getting cabling if you aren't making it yourself takes 80 weeks. Which is about double it was before COVID. Milspec cable is only approved to be made in certain places and with specific industrial techniques which means you just can't order it from anywhere or make it yourself.

And don't even get me started on the gong show that is ITAR, and security certificate compliance.  Relies on 6 months to a year lead time in hopes the US approves the equipment/information can go to the contractor Canada hired to do the work.  And of course, there is something wrong with the paperwork, COVID delay, need to add another contractor which pushes the process back.

Then there is Gov't furnished equipment or information which is our own bureaucratic nightmare that ties into what I stated above, as we can't just give the "plans" to the weapon system to any contractor so they can integrate their navigation feed into it.  That requires paperwork.  Or our sigs section sends the "non-compliant" chummy to the contractor who now has to return it and wait for our super responsive bureaucratic process to send them the correct one so they can finish building whatever they are hired to build, putting them back on the contract.

Triple the staff at the shipyard all you want, and quadruple their overtime.  They'll just end up waiting around for crap to be delivered by someone else.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Stoker said:


> So are you insinuating that the yards responsible for the NSP will use Covid and the global interruption to the supply chain as an excuse to delay the projects and intentionally drive up costs or do you think these things do not exist?
> 
> Building a ship and building cars are a bit different don't you think? Do you really think workers will stand for working 6 days a week in such a job regardless of their unions. Its hard enough to now to get skilled labour let alone bring on extra shifts or mandatory overtime.
> 
> Do you know something I don't in regards to the Halifax Class lasting until we start to take delivery of the CSC? That's a pretty bold statement saying that all 12 ships will be written off before we have 12 operational CSC's. What do you base that on?


I am basing it on age and past precedent with the Iroquois destroyers on when they ultimately gave up the ghost. The Halifax’s are being pushed hard, their operational tempo is going full tilt and this won’t stop until they rust out.

When do you believe the 12th CSC will be delivered? What year? What will be the age of the 12th Halifax at this point? Will it be fully operational at this point? 

Before Covid hit were the AOPS still on schedule? There was all this talk about there being a ‘gap’ between the 6th AOPS and the 1st CSC that it necessitated the ‘need’ for 2 CCGS AOPS. Now there is zero talk about those two ships and lots of talk about delays to the finishing of the 6 AOPS and the start of the first CSC. Why did this occur? Was it Covid related or did it happen before Covid. It happened before Covid and now Covid is the natural scape goat.

I’d like to be wrong but I’ve not seen anything over the last 8yrs in closely watching how our military procurement or delivery mechanisms work to think otherwise. There are no examples, on this scale, to think otherwise. Would I like to be wrong, you bet, but I’m sticking with me statements, whether they are bold or not, ‘uninformed’ or not. But if I, a proud and vocal supporter of the CAF cannot be convinced, with all the reading and trying to become as informed as I possibly can, why would you think that the average CDN would care or think otherwise?

 I’m sticking with my statement, the 12th Halifax will be retired before the 12 CSC is accepted and operationally accepted by the RCN.


----------



## dapaterson

Given the current state of personnel of the fleet, the RCN could retire a third of the FFGs today and still be unable to man the remainder until the CSCs start to come on line.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:


> Given the current state of personnel of the fleet, the RCN could retire a third of the FFGs today and still be unable to man the remainder until the CSCs start to come on line.


Two years of Covid compounded our retention problem, it is now at critical levels for a lot of trades. Reg and reserve, I have seen a dramatic drop in recruitment, but an increase in those leaving, I'm loosing a third of my platoon to release and transfers over the coming months. Our recruiting strategy is in need of an overhaul it seems. These delays on ship building my be a blessing to give us time to actually rebuild our personal, if we can recruit them.


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:


> There was all this talk about there being a ‘gap’ between the 6th AOPS and the 1st CSC that it necessitated the ‘need’ for 2 CCGS AOPS.


There is no gap?  Source?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Uzlu said:


> There is no gap?  Source?


Here’s one source, of many.









						Government worries about 18-month gap between construction of navy ships, considers more work for Irving shipyard
					

The navy is helping to promote the AOPS to international customers in the hopes of drumming up more work to shrink the size of the construction gap




					nationalpost.com


----------



## Czech_pivo

Czech_pivo said:


> Here’s one source, of many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government worries about 18-month gap between construction of navy ships, considers more work for Irving shipyard
> 
> 
> The navy is helping to promote the AOPS to international customers in the hopes of drumming up more work to shrink the size of the construction gap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com



And here’s another one from 14 months earlier than the first article.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-ships-icebreakers-aops-coast-guard-1.4044679
		


Key sentence -
Production of Arctic ships set to wind down in 2019, creating lull at Halifax shipyard before next project​
We are about to wind down on 2021 and we are not close to ‘winding down’ on the first 6 ships, let alone the 2 extra for the CCG.


----------



## MilEME09

Czech_pivo said:


> And here’s another one from 14 months earlier than the first article.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-ships-icebreakers-aops-coast-guard-1.4044679
> 
> 
> 
> Key sentence -
> Production of Arctic ships set to wind down in 2019, creating lull at Halifax shipyard before next project​
> We are about to wind down on 2021 and we are not close to ‘winding down’ on the first 6 ships, let alone the 2 extra for the CCG.


Which if I recall sparked the conversation here of why they can't speed up the timeline of the CSC which came down to you can't speed up design work much.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:


> Given the current state of personnel of the fleet, the RCN could retire a third of the FFGs today and still be unable to man the remainder until the CSCs start to come on line.



So tell me again why we are building ships that we intend to supply with larger crews than our allies.  Why aren't we accepting our recruiting limitations and exploiting available technologies in design?


----------



## suffolkowner

Steel was cut for the 5th AOPS in May 2021 and is scheduled for the 6th in May of 2022. Can they not begin steel cutting for the first CSC in May 2023. Pretty much another year and a half for design finalization. The broad strokes have got to be pretty similar to the UK and AUS right?


----------



## Uzlu

Kirkhill said:


> So tell me again why we are building ships that we intend to supply with larger crews than our allies.


The Canadian surface combatants are air defence and anti-submarine.  The Type 26 and_ Hunter _class, however, are biased toward anti-submarine.


----------



## Kirkhill

Uzlu said:


> The Canadian surface combatants are air defence and anti-submarine.  The Type 26 and_ Hunter _class, however, are biased toward anti-submarine.


I think the point remains that you are planning on more bodies per hull, and more hulls, therefore more bodies.  And you can't recruit the smaller number of bodies you need today.

What's going to happen if you can't recruit to the numbers needed?  Build the ships and keep them tied up?  Send them to sea and only operate them as AAD or ASW ships?  Reduce patrols?  Build them and sell them off at 10 cents on the dollar?  Don't build them?

Or accept that you will need to figure out how to run them with only 50% of the planned crew?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> I am basing it on age and past precedent with the Iroquois destroyers on when they ultimately gave up the ghost. The Halifax’s are being pushed hard, their operational tempo is going full tilt and this won’t stop until they rust out.
> 
> Actually our operational tempo is very light compared to what it used to be so its not going "full tilt". One 280 was laid up due to personnel shortages and was ultimately decided to be paid off, one because of an accident and the other two did have corrosion issues but were sailing up until they stood them down. There were all kinds of issues with these ships due to botched refits and issues after TRUMP conversion also keep in mind lack of personnel and we still had 12 CFPs to sail. Hard decisions were made so you say all the 280's gave up the ghost was factually wrong. Also keep in mind we know have the imperative to keep these ships going, this the reason why Davie now does half the refit work and more money is being being spent on maintenance. As a civilian you have no idea the plans to keep these ships sailing other than stating they're going to rust out.
> 
> When do you believe the 12th CSC will be delivered? What year? What will be the age of the 12th Halifax at this point? Will it be fully operational at this point?
> 
> I have no idea but I do know they will do everything in their power to keep these ships sailing.
> 
> Before Covid hit were the AOPS still on schedule? There was all this talk about there being a ‘gap’ between the 6th AOPS and the 1st CSC that it necessitated the ‘need’ for 2 CCGS AOPS. Now there is zero talk about those two ships and lots of talk about delays to the finishing of the 6 AOPS and the start of the first CSC. Why did this occur? Was it Covid related or did it happen before Covid. It happened before Covid and now Covid is the natural scape goat.
> 
> As far as I know the CCG AOPV's are still going to be built, the fact that YOU never heard anything means nothing really.
> 
> I’d like to be wrong but I’ve not seen anything over the last 8yrs in closely watching how our military procurement or delivery mechanisms work to think otherwise. There are no examples, on this scale, to think otherwise. Would I like to be wrong, you bet, but I’m sticking with me statements, whether they are bold or not, ‘uninformed’ or not. But if I, a proud and vocal supporter of the CAF cannot be convinced, with all the reading and trying to become as informed as I possibly can, why would you think that the average CDN would care or think otherwise?
> Nothing on this scale works both ways, nothis disprove either.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sticking with my statement, the 12th Halifax will be retired before the 12 CSC is accepted and operationally accepted by the RCN.





suffolkowner said:


> Steel was cut for the 5th AOPS in May 2021 and is scheduled for the 6th in May of 2022. Can they not begin steel cutting for the first CSC in May 2023. Pretty much another year and a half for design finalization. The broad strokes have got to be pretty similar to the UK and AUS right?


I know there are plans to expand the assembly hall to accomidate the scope of the project. Not sure if that will prevent them from cutting steel


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I much prefers the ships are designed to easily accommodate a bigger crew, including berths, hotel services, food storage, water and sewage. then build in systems to run it with minimal crew. At the end of the day the larger crew means more rest and more bodies for Damage Control and firefighting.


----------



## NavyShooter

Underway said:


> Delays are not caused by the yard necessarily.  It's suppliers and subcontractors who are behind.  Getting cabling if you aren't making it yourself takes 80 weeks. Which is about double it was before COVID. Milspec cable is only approved to be made in certain places and with specific industrial techniques which means you just can't order it from anywhere or make it yourself.


Ah, but you're assuming that the contractor was actually using MILSPEC cable....

I can speak with much personal experience about cabling and the HCM project.  Several million dollars in cable returned to DND by a certain Halifax entity, and when much of it was compared to the information in the Catalogue, most of it was found to be non-compliant, and did not match the CGCS reference information.  I know that still have a 100% inspection requirement on all cable entering and leaving our warehouse to ensure that we're sending out the 'right stuff'.  

The question that has not officially been asked (that I'm aware of) is whether or not that non-compliant cabling was installed on the ships (seeing as we have remnant rolls of cable...the answer is almost certainly YES) and whether or not that non-compliant cabling needs to be corrected, and which entity (DND or the contractor) should be responsible for rectifying this...


----------



## MilEME09

NavyShooter said:


> Ah, but you're assuming that the contractor was actually using MILSPEC cable....
> 
> I can speak with much personal experience about cabling and the HCM project.  Several million dollars in cable returned to DND by a certain Halifax entity, and when much of it was compared to the information in the Catalogue, most of it was found to be non-compliant, and did not match the CGCS reference information.  I know that still have a 100% inspection requirement on all cable entering and leaving our warehouse to ensure that we're sending out the 'right stuff'.
> 
> The question that has not officially been asked (that I'm aware of) is whether or not that non-compliant cabling was installed on the ships (seeing as we have remnant rolls of cable...the answer is almost certainly YES) and whether or not that non-compliant cabling needs to be corrected, and which entity (DND or the contractor) should be responsible for rectifying this...


Seems to me like it should be the contractor fixing it, it also makes me wonder if more inspections and oversight are needed by DND of these vessels to ensure compliance, and fines laid out for acts of non compliance. If you are installing non-compliant cable, some one made that choice, and the company should be fined.


----------



## daftandbarmy

NavyShooter said:


> Ah, but you're assuming that the contractor was actually using MILSPEC cable....
> 
> I can speak with much personal experience about cabling and the HCM project.  Several million dollars in cable returned to DND by a certain Halifax entity, and when much of it was compared to the information in the Catalogue, most of it was found to be non-compliant, and did not match the CGCS reference information.  I know that still have a 100% inspection requirement on all cable entering and leaving our warehouse to ensure that we're sending out the 'right stuff'.
> 
> The question that has not officially been asked (that I'm aware of) is whether or not that non-compliant cabling was installed on the ships (seeing as we have remnant rolls of cable...the answer is almost certainly YES) and whether or not that non-compliant cabling needs to be corrected, and which entity (DND or the contractor) should be responsible for rectifying this...



Holy crap. That's a big boo boo!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:


> Seems to me like it should be the contractor fixing it, it also makes me wonder if more inspections and oversight are needed by DND of these vessels to ensure compliance, and fines laid out for acts of non compliance. If you are installing non-compliant cable, some one made that choice, and the company should be fined.


You need some political will by senior government and military leadership to hold those contractors to task. When everything is a vote buying exercise, the contractors in a vote rich/vote right area know they will only get a slap on the wrist.


----------



## suffolkowner

Do we not have people that watch the work being done on our ships? A lot of the stories mentioned on here seem fraudulant/negligent. But even on lots of civil work you have subcontractors that are observed by the general


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> I am basing it on age and past precedent with the Iroquois destroyers on when they ultimately gave up the ghost. The Halifax’s are being pushed hard, their operational tempo is going full tilt and this won’t stop until they rust out.



Actually our operational tempo is very light compared to what it used to be so its not going "full tilt" because we don't have the personnel. One 280 was laid up due to personnel shortages and was ultimately decided to be paid off, one because of an accident and the money to repair was deemed too expensive, one had corrosion issues and was paid off immediately and the other sailed right up she was paid off and she had corrosion issues as well not to the degree as the other. These all gas turbine ships were driven hard over the years going into crazy sea states that we typically don't do too much of now. There were also all kinds of issues with these ships due to botched refits and issues after TRUMP conversion also keep in mind lack of personnel and we still had 12 CFPs to sail. Hard decisions were made so when you say all the 280's gave up the ghost was factually wrong. Also keep in mind we now have the imperative to keep these ships going, this the reason why Davie now does half the refit work and more money is being being spent on maintenance. As a civilian you have no idea the plans to keep these ships sailing other than stating they're going to rust out based on the 280's, apples and oranges but if you want a good comparison we ran the steamers for almost 40 years.


Czech_pivo said:


> When do you believe the 12th CSC will be delivered? What year? What will be the age of the 12th Halifax at this point? Will it be fully operational at this point?


I saw the proposed timelines and I have no idea if they maintain these as we are talking years away but I do know they will do everything in their power to keep these ships sailing. We will see some ships more than likely stay alongside at some point but all 12 won't be getting paid off.


Czech_pivo said:


> Before Covid hit were the AOPS still on schedule? There was all this talk about there being a ‘gap’ between the 6th AOPS and the 1st CSC that it necessitated the ‘need’ for 2 CCGS AOPS. Now there is zero talk about those two ships and lots of talk about delays to the finishing of the 6 AOPS and the start of the first CSC. Why did this occur? Was it Covid related or did it happen before Covid. It happened before Covid and now Covid is the natural scape goat.


Of course not all kinds of delays, some contractor, some navy, some beyond everyone's control. Ship building programs always have delays and some were expected and remember these ships were built to get the yard to build the skills and processes needed to build the CSC. You talk there is some type of conspiracy here, as of last month the 2 CCG APOV's are still being built. That being said it could very well that these ships could be given to Davie if the gap is no longer there.


Czech_pivo said:


> I’d like to be wrong but I’ve not seen anything over the last 8yrs in closely watching how our military procurement or delivery mechanisms work to think otherwise. There are no examples, on this scale, to think otherwise. Would I like to be wrong, you bet, but I’m sticking with me statements, whether they are bold or not, ‘uninformed’ or not. But if I, a proud and vocal supporter of the CAF cannot be convinced, with all the reading and trying to become as informed as I possibly can, why would you think that the average CDN would care or think otherwise?


Procurement is broken and everyone knows that, no political will to fix it. I know you try and keep yourself informed but generally most of what you state is refuted by SME's who try and explain it to you. You are not an SME and there is many moving parts that you are not privy to.


Czech_pivo said:


> I’m sticking with my statement, the 12th Halifax will be retired before the 12 CSC is accepted and operationally accepted by the RCN.


Fill your boots, I think your wrong. There are many people in Ottawa and the fleet looking for solutions to keep these ships running, it is in the realm of possibility.


----------



## MilEME09

China’s well-oiled military machine launches three warships in one day
					

Two vessels destined for Thailand and Pakistan while a third built to bolster PLA fleet.




					amp.scmp.com
				




Meanwhile by comparison, full steam ahead for the PLAN


----------



## Stoker

MilEME09 said:


> China’s well-oiled military machine launches three warships in one day
> 
> 
> Two vessels destined for Thailand and Pakistan while a third built to bolster PLA fleet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amp.scmp.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile by comparison, full steam ahead for the PLAN


Command economy and a totalitarian government will do that for you.


----------



## Dale Denton

Why not depoliticise procurement altogether? Start with a "Canadian Shipbuilding Commission", a Commission of public/private body of strategists/highly experienced strategists to dictate RCN, CCG key capabilities. Capabilities that must be studied, released, independantly strutinzed to X degree and worked until no longer feasable.  Then funded proposals for the fleet compositions to accomplish these tasks, and appropriately release to public the costs.

*Purpose*: Takes away the perception that military contracts are fishy based on price/cost, and should redirect the scrutiny at...

*Why*: "Why is X worth this much?, and if so, how could it benefit Canada local/NATO friendly industry?"

*How*: Funds an independant military civilian commission of retired/seconded Canadian GOFOs/industry/academics to determine procurement risk thresolds and capability strengths/gaps to fill/maintain.
*Career benefit:* A new public/private partnership career path for strategists and articulators within gov't to secure funding in key industry sectors (Warships, Aircraft, Firearms. Munitions/Missiles?). This is all for the benefit of Canadians Defence, Security, and Piggy Bank/Billions$$$. This also removes the question of the gov't having to make the decision on specific capabilities that are expensive. This just makes it so the gov't can just say the budget stays at X% GDP, the experts do the rest.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NSS was sort of meant to reduce the politics and ensure ships got built. the idea was quite good, but about 20 years late.


----------



## Halifax Tar

LoboCanada said:


> Why not depoliticise procurement altogether? Start with a "Canadian Shipbuilding Commission", a Commission of public/private body of strategists/highly experienced strategists to dictate RCN, CCG key capabilities. Capabilities that must be studied, released, independantly strutinzed to X degree and worked until no longer feasable.  Then funded proposals for the fleet compositions to accomplish these tasks, and appropriately release to public the costs.
> 
> *Purpose*: Takes away the perception that military contracts are fishy based on price/cost, and should redirect the scrutiny at...
> 
> *Why*: "Why is X worth this much?, and if so, how could it benefit Canada local/NATO friendly industry?"
> 
> *How*: Funds an independant military civilian commission of retired/seconded Canadian GOFOs/industry/academics to determine procurement risk thresolds and capability strengths/gaps to fill/maintain.
> *Career benefit:* A new public/private partnership career path for strategists and articulators within gov't to secure funding in key industry sectors (Warships, Aircraft, Firearms. Munitions/Missiles?). This is all for the benefit of Canadians Defence, Security, and Piggy Bank/Billions$$$. This also removes the question of the gov't having to make the decision on specific capabilities that are expensive. This just makes it so the gov't can just say the budget stays at X% GDP, the experts do the rest.



Yes more government, more patronized positions for GO/FOs as Public Servants will fix this.  Huzaah!  

What will fix this is an engagement by the Canadian public.  Sadly I know thats a bridge too far..


----------



## Underway

NavyShooter said:


> Ah, but you're assuming that the contractor was actually using MILSPEC cable....
> 
> I can speak with much personal experience about cabling and the HCM project.  Several million dollars in cable returned to DND by a certain Halifax entity, and when much of it was compared to the information in the Catalogue, most of it was found to be non-compliant, and did not match the CGCS reference information.  I know that still have a 100% inspection requirement on all cable entering and leaving our warehouse to ensure that we're sending out the 'right stuff'.
> 
> The question that has not officially been asked (that I'm aware of) is whether or not that non-compliant cabling was installed on the ships (seeing as we have remnant rolls of cable...the answer is almost certainly YES) and whether or not that non-compliant cabling needs to be corrected, and which entity (DND or the contractor) should be responsible for rectifying this...


Current ship projects can only have cable delivered by specific subcontractors that are approved or built by the yard where mil-spec isn't an issue.  Also, every system has to undergo a Tempest Test and that includes the cabling. If that's failed then the cable is pulled or not installed.  Also, there are two shipyards building ships for Canada.  One of them isn't trying to cheat.  Cut corners yes but their methods are much less nefarious (and more inexperienced) so far.


----------



## Underway

Stoker said:


> Actually our operational tempo is very light compared to what it used to be so its not going "full tilt" because we don't have the personnel. One 280 was laid up due to personnel shortages and was ultimately decided to be paid off, one because of an accident and the money to repair was deemed too expensive, one had corrosion issues and was paid off immediately and the other sailed right up she was paid off and she had corrosion issues as well not to the degree as the other. These all gas turbine ships were driven hard over the years going into crazy sea states that we typically don't do too much of now.


I have no inside info but I would not be surprised in the least if at least one east coast frigate was put into "reserve" this next calendar year.  And it wouldn't be surprising if one wasn't either.  Feels like they could go both ways.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A lesson for Canada--Aussies signed contract for big Antarctic icebreaker with Dutch firm Damen in 2016--build mainly in Romania, now on first operational voyage (official website here, 25,500 tonnes About Nuyina ). PM Harper announced new Canadian polar breaker in 2018; we'll be lucky to get first of (now) two by 2030. GO FIGURE:



> Australia’s New Antarctic Icebreaker Begins First Voyage​Australia’s new Antarctic icebreaker RSV Nuyina departed Hobart Thursday on its first voyage south.
> 
> There are 67 expeditioners and crew onboard for the five week voyage to refuel Casey research station and transport helicopters to Davis station...
> 
> This summer RSV Nuyina is supported by two other chartered vessels in Antarctica to ensure all the commissioning work required can be undertaken.
> 
> _Aiviq (Alaskan Inuit for 'walrus'), currently in Hobart, is a 110-metre US icebreaking tug and supply vessel to provide additional icebreaking capability and undertake station refueling_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Happy Dragon is a 157-metre Dutch-flagged ice-strengthened heavy cargo vessel that will help resupply Casey and Davis research stations this summer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia’s New Antarctic Icebreaker Begins First Voyage
> 
> 
> Australia’s new Antarctic icebreaker RSV Nuyina departed Hobart Thursday on its first voyage south.There are 67 expeditioners and…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.marinelink.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

This article talks about why Canada (and some others), pay up to double the costs for mass transit compared to a number of other countries. It’s boils down to Politics. 
Whether it’s mass transit projects or shipbuilding, pork barrel politics is killing this country (some would say that it has been since day one). The downward spiral shows no signs of letting up.









						Politics driving up costs of transit projects
					

OTTAWA – In early September, Conservative candidate Jennifer McAndrew stood outside a suburban Ottawa transit hub in the battleground riding of Kanata-Carleton to make a major campaign promise.



					www.winnipegfreepress.com


----------



## Edward Campbell

LoboCanada said:


> Why not depoliticise procurement altogether? Start with a "Canadian Shipbuilding Commission", a Commission of public/private body of strategists/highly experienced strategists to dictate RCN, CCG key capabilities. Capabilities that must be studied, released, independantly strutinzed to X degree and worked until no longer feasable.  Then funded proposals for the fleet compositions to accomplish these tasks, and appropriately release to public the costs.
> 
> *Purpose*: Takes away the perception that military contracts are fishy based on price/cost, and should redirect the scrutiny at...
> 
> *Why*: "Why is X worth this much?, and if so, how could it benefit Canada local/NATO friendly industry?"
> 
> *How*: Funds an independant military civilian commission of retired/seconded Canadian GOFOs/industry/academics to determine procurement risk thresolds and capability strengths/gaps to fill/maintain.
> *Career benefit:* A new public/private partnership career path for strategists and articulators within gov't to secure funding in key industry sectors (Warships, Aircraft, Firearms. Munitions/Missiles?). This is all for the benefit of Canadians Defence, Security, and Piggy Bank/Billions$$$. This also removes the question of the gov't having to make the decision on specific capabilities that are expensive. This just makes it so the gov't can just say the budget stays at X% GDP, the experts do the rest.



The Brits started down this path circa 1990 when they formed a (short-lived) thing called the Procurement Executive. God managers were brought in from the private sector and from gov't, too, but the thing began to fail almost immediately because defence procurement is, almost always, a "big buck" issue and voters didn't want those high cost decisions being made by the "hired help." UK voters literally wanted 'political interference' which they, very correctly, understood to be gov't ministers doing their jobs. The whole thing collapsed about 18 months after the initial fanfare and the (proper, in my opinion) role of ministers was reintroduced and even strengthened: "Buy British," etc, etc. In my view the defence procurement issue played an outsized role in Brexit because the 'Leave' side "British ships made in British yards" etc.


----------



## MilEME09

Edward Campbell said:


> The Brits started down this path circa 1990 when they formed a (short-lived) thing called the Procurement Executive. God managers were brought in from the private sector and from gov't, too, but the thing began to fail almost immediately because defence procurement is, almost always, a "big buck" issue and voters didn't want those high cost decisions being made by the "hired help." UK voters literally wanted 'political interference' which they, very correctly, understood to be gov't ministers doing their jobs. The whole thing collapsed about 18 months after the initial fanfare and the (proper, in my opinion) role of ministers was reintroduced and even strengthened: "Buy British," etc, etc. In my view the defence procurement issue played an outsized role in Brexit because the 'Leave' side "British ships made in British yards" etc.


You are right we need someone elected to do their job, but under that minister I wonder if bringing in some business types would help. The massive input of public dollars, versus what the output is just screams inefficient.


----------



## Navy_Pete

> As a civilian you have no idea the plans to keep these ships sailing other than stating they're going to rust out based on the 280's, apples and oranges but if you want a good comparison we ran the steamers for almost 40 years.



I think if we're going to do a full comparison we should also consider that the steamers had full refits for most of their life span, and the 280s similarly had full refits for the first 20 odd years, which includes a much more extensive suite of repairs on the mechanical side. Even though the 280s went to condition based maintenance a lot of the piping was only 15-20 years when they were paid off.

We're now dealing with 25-30 years of condition based maintenance on the CPFs and all the items that couldn't really be surveyed so it's not really comparable. The CPFs were also built using different design methods that has a lot less beef built into them so the hulls and structure have less material to lose before things go wrong.

It's doable but there is a good reason the DWPs are running out to 18 months and still not getting everything fixed. For ref the CPF repair hours are currently about 3 times what we were putting into the 280s at end of life.


----------



## MTShaw

Navy_Pete said:


> I think if we're going to do a full comparison we should also consider that the steamers had full refits for most of their life span, and the 280s similarly had full refits for the first 20 odd years, which includes a much more extensive suite of repairs on the mechanical side. Even though the 280s went to condition based maintenance a lot of the piping was only 15-20 years when they were paid off.
> 
> We're now dealing with 25-30 years of condition based maintenance on the CPFs and all the items that couldn't really be surveyed so it's not really comparable. The CPFs were also built using different design methods that has a lot less beef built into them so the hulls and structure have less material to lose before things go wrong.
> 
> It's doable but there is a good reason the DWPs are running out to 18 months and still not getting everything fixed. For ref the CPF repair hours are currently about 3 times what we were putting into the 280s at end of life.


Hopefully the CSC will again at least ameliorate that problem.

One problem that puzzles me is having the CPFs change coasts where the environment calls for far less salt and has less salt in the air.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MTShaw said:


> One problem that puzzles me is having the CPFs change coasts where the environment calls for far less salt and has less salt in the air.


That's what the CCG did, sent all there crapped out ships to the Westcoast in exchange for our well cared for ships.


----------



## MTShaw

Colin Parkinson said:


> That's what the CCG did, sent all there crapped out ships to the Westcoast in exchange for our well cared for ships.


I was thinking rotation.


----------



## Stoker

MTShaw said:


> I was thinking rotation.


As far as I know that's not planned.


----------



## Navy_Pete

MTShaw said:


> Hopefully the CSC will again at least ameliorate that problem.
> 
> One problem that puzzles me is having the CPFs change coasts where the environment calls for far less salt and has less salt in the air.


Not as such, but we're at least starting to recognize we can get better at condition based maintenance and what gear is required to meet SOLAS. All really depends if we'll actually pay to do the surveys/repairs early on, or actually complete PM. When we're hitting 25% or less PM completion not really rocket surgery why the equipment has significant failures. CSC gives us a chance to reset the clock but if we don't properly fund it, or schedule things to allow time for the maintenance won't sort out the underlying problems.

Really frustrating to have to hire a class society inspector to produce a report saying what we already know (and told them what to put in) before the RCN listens to the tech folks, but eventually they'll either listen or ignore them as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MTShaw said:


> I was thinking rotation.


That would be optimal, but seems to be a one way trip for the CCG, unless of course we get a new ship , then we might get one of the old ones back again as they send the new one back east.


----------



## suffolkowner

MarkOttawa said:


> A lesson for Canada--Aussies signed contract for big Antarctic icebreaker with Dutch firm Damen in 2016--build mainly in Romania, now on first operational voyage (official website here, 25,500 tonnes About Nuyina ). PM Harper announced new Canadian polar breaker in 2018; we'll be lucky to get first of (now) two by 2030. GO FIGURE:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


$529M cost and all in $1.9B over 30 years


----------



## MarkOttawa

MarkOttawa said:


> A lesson for Canada--Aussies signed contract for big Antarctic icebreaker with Dutch firm Damen in 2016--build mainly in Romania, now on first operational voyage (official website here, 25,500 tonnes About Nuyina ). PM Harper announced new Canadian polar breaker in 2018; we'll be lucky to get first of (now) two by 2030. GO FIGURE:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Oops! Harper announced new breaker in 2008!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

suffolkowner said:


> $529M cost and all in $1.9B over 30 years


Oops! Harper announced new breaker in 2008!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

MarkOttawa said:


> Oops! Harper announced new breaker in 2008!
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


There hasn't been a contract signed with Davie or Seaspan yet has there?


----------



## Stoker

suffolkowner said:


> There hasn't been a contract signed with Davie or Seaspan yet has there?


Not as of yet, Davie is still upgrading their yard to be in compliance with the NSP.  Davie still haven't finished all the CCG conversions yet.


----------



## Stoker

MarkOttawa said:


> A lesson for Canada--Aussies signed contract for big Antarctic icebreaker with Dutch firm Damen in 2016--build mainly in Romania, now on first operational voyage (official website here, 25,500 tonnes About Nuyina ). PM Harper announced new Canadian polar breaker in 2018; we'll be lucky to get first of (now) two by 2030. GO FIGURE:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


I looked at the specs for this ship. Its more of a cargo vessel than a Coast Guard icebreaker vessel isn't it?


----------



## suffolkowner

Stoker said:


> Not as of yet, Davie is still upgrading their yard to be in compliance with the NSP.  Davie still haven't finished all the CCG conversions yet.


So Davie is actually doing upgrades to their facilities? Thats good to know.  I see that the CCGS Molly Kool is the only one listed as in service. The other two aren't ready yet?


----------



## Stoker

suffolkowner said:


> So Davie is actually doing upgrades to their facilities? Thats good to know.  I see that the CCGS Molly Kool is the only one listed as in service. The other two aren't ready yet?


They have to upgrade to meet the base requirements to be the 3rd NSP yard. There was something in the news some time ago about it the delays to the conversions, in fact they been pretty quiet about it. Go figure.


----------



## suffolkowner

Stoker said:


> No there was something in the news some time ago about it, in fact they been pretty quiet about it. Go figure.


I remember there was a lead paint issue


----------



## MilEME09

Stoker said:


> Not as of yet, Davie is still upgrading their yard to be in compliance with the NSP.  Davie still haven't finished all the CCG conversions yet.


Unfortunately they have been quiet on those upgrades, heck December has been rather quiet for the NSS, though a quick Twitter search shows the bow of HMCS Protecteur was finished Nov 30th.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When I do my rounds at VDC/WG I see they are getting in a lot of the sub components for the JSS which are stored away in various buildings awaiting their installation, so a lot is happening on that front.


----------



## Dana381

Colin Parkinson said:


> When I do my rounds at VDC/WG I see they are getting in a lot of the sub components for the JSS which are stored away in various buildings awaiting their installation, so a lot is happening on that front.


That is great to hear, any more progress pictures?


----------



## MilEME09

Dana381 said:


> That is great to hear, any more progress pictures?





From the season twitter of the bow being finished Nov 30


----------



## Dana381

That's awesome. Thanks. Great to see her progressing.  I'm also geeking out on the crane. That is a very complicated lift. I wonder what the piece weighs


----------



## Underway

Edward Campbell said:


> The Brits started down this path circa 1990 when they formed a (short-lived) thing called the Procurement Executive. God managers were brought in from the private sector and from gov't, too, but the thing began to fail almost immediately because defence procurement is, almost always, a "big buck" issue and voters didn't want those high cost decisions being made by the "hired help." UK voters literally wanted 'political interference' which they, very correctly, understood to be gov't ministers doing their jobs. The whole thing collapsed about 18 months after the initial fanfare and the (proper, in my opinion) role of ministers was reintroduced and even strengthened: "Buy British," etc, etc. In my view the defence procurement issue played an outsized role in Brexit because the 'Leave' side "British ships made in British yards" etc.


So which minister in Canada does this? Innovation and Industry minister, defense minister, public service and procurement minister, labour minister, fisheries/oceans and coast guard minister, finance minister?

This is at the end of the day a Cabinet thing with only one minister that matters.  Prime Minister.  Ever since Cretien all roads lead through the PM.
Which means civil servants doing the project management and no political accountability by any minister.


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> So which minister in Canada does this? Innovation and Industry minister, defense minister, public service and procurement minister, labour minister, fisheries/oceans and coast guard minister, finance minister?
> 
> This is at the end of the day a Cabinet thing with only one minister that matters.  Prime Minister.  Ever since Cretien all roads lead through the PM.
> Which means civil servants doing the project management and no political accountability by any minister.


I would suggest that is our governments largest failing the breakdown of ministerial power and responsibility.  With everything in the hands of the PMO.  It effects everything not just procurement.


----------



## Dale Denton

Halifax Tar said:


> Yes more government, more patronized positions for GO/FOs as Public Servants will fix this.  Huzaah!
> 
> What will fix this is an engagement by the Canadian public.  Sadly I know thats a bridge too far..



I'll defend,

Lets stop waiting for the solution to our procurement woes rely on:

A majority of Canadians becoming highly interested in the state of the CF in levels unseen since...WW2?
We can organise a centralized body charged with efficiently and apolitically controlling procurement that will not require any organisational infrastructure or humans to run it.
Gov't will wake up tomorrow and push through a whole-sale redesign of the CAF org structure, fix an arguably broken leadership culture, rebuild the entire Reserves, ease recruiting and retention issues.

The best of the best GOFOs can get hired as expert advisors/board members by the gov't commission/agency. In order to control and properly observe something is to have the right eyes on. We have a complicated system. Hire-out an expensive Canadian accounting firm to organise and set corporate governance for this new body in order to save us $Billions, years, and cuts into contracts. This external gov't body would be assigned to reorg procurement in a setting that limit the number of hands in the pie, keep projects apolitical. Move the focus from politically-motivated purchases to an arms-length independant body.

Trial this body to only handle the NSS file, and make future determinations on building what the RCN/CCG needs, if they can be built reasonably in Canada, what MOTS design, and which yard is best-timed to build it.

We have a glut of GO/FOs that's well documented. Sub-delegate these existing positions to lower ranks until you're happy. Reorg their staff/infrastructure as needed. Move the now surplus GOFOs into cushy academia positions before they to retire. They can share their expertise with academia and our allies or perhaps offered cash to retire.

Heck, public opinion would side with any gov't looking to dramatically shake-up the DND/CF at the expense of these GOFOs in the name of efficiency. If any pushback occurs, simply compare the number of GOFOs to the numbers our friends have.


----------



## Edward Campbell

LoboCanada said:


> I'll defend,
> 
> Lets stop waiting for the solution to our procurement woes rely on:
> 
> A majority of Canadians becoming highly interested in the state of the CF in levels unseen since...WW2?
> We can organise a centralized body charged with efficiently and apolitically controlling procurement that will not require any organisational infrastructure or humans to run it.
> Gov't will wake up tomorrow and push through a whole-sale redesign of the CAF org structure, fix an arguably broken leadership culture, rebuild the entire Reserves, ease recruiting and retention issues.
> 
> The best of the best GOFOs can get hired as expert advisors/board members by the gov't commission/agency. In order to control and properly observe something is to have the right eyes on. We have a complicated system. Hire-out an expensive Canadian accounting firm to organise and set corporate governance for this new body in order to save us $Billions, years, and cuts into contracts. This external gov't body would be assigned to reorg procurement in a setting that limit the number of hands in the pie, keep projects apolitical. Move the focus from politically-motivated purchases to an arms-length independant body.
> 
> Trial this body to only handle the NSS file, and make future determinations on building what the RCN/CCG needs, if they can be built reasonably in Canada, what MOTS design, and which yard is best-timed to build it.
> 
> We have a glut of GO/FOs that's well documented. Sub-delegate these existing positions to lower ranks until you're happy. Reorg their staff/infrastructure as needed. Move the now surplus GOFOs into cushy academia positions before they to retire. They can share their expertise with academia and our allies or perhaps offered cash to retire.
> 
> Heck, public opinion would side with any gov't looking to dramatically shake-up the DND/CF at the expense of these GOFOs in the name of efficiency. If any pushback occurs, simply compare the number of GOFOs to the numbers our friends have.



One would hope that "the best of the best GOFOs" would care enough about Canada's sovereignty and security to have found ways to make the case, in the media, to the Canadian people, that they, the people, need to make better political choices.

I don't blame Prime Minister Trudeau for the mess we're in. His father, 50+ years ago, told Canadians that they didn't need defences; that the military was an Anglophilic waste of effort; that we needed to look after our own petty, provincial concerns and let the "big guys" sort out global geopolitics. I don't really blame PET, either.  I blame my fellow citizens, then and now, for believing that line, for abandoning Louis St Laurent's vision of Canada as a leading middle power. And I blame "the best of the best GOFOs" for going along to get along, for, with rare and notable exceptions, putting careers ~ in uniform and, later, in the defence industry ~ ahead of their duty to their country.

Prime Ministers Trudeau, Chrétien and Trudeau just did what the people wanted. The people want butter, not guns. That's what they have.


----------



## Underway

Edward Campbell said:


> One would hope that "the best of the best GOFOs" would care enough about Canada's sovereignty and security to have found ways to make the case, in the media, to the Canadian people, that they, the people, need to make better political choices.
> 
> I don't blame Prime Minister Trudeau for the mess we're in. His father, 50+ years ago, told Canadians that they didn't need defences; that the military was an Anglophilic waste of effort; that we needed to look after our own petty, provincial concerns and let the "big guys" sort out global geopolitics. I don't really blame PET, either.  I blame my fellow citizens, then and now, for believing that line, for abandoning Louis St Laurent's vision of Canada as a leading middle power. And I blame "the best of the best GOFOs" for going along to get along, for, with rare and notable exceptions, putting careers ~ in uniform and, later, in the defence industry ~ ahead of their duty to their country.
> 
> Prime Ministers Trudeau, Chrétien and Trudeau just did what the people wanted. The people want butter, not guns. That's what they have.


Harper and Mulroney did the exact same thing.  Put the navy back in blue (black actually) and gave us an executive curl and our proper commands back (RCN is back, executive curl and everything) but it's just military green washing.

The geopolitical reality of Canada is that our greatest threat is internal and/or the US.  Has been and always will be.  We can't outclass the US in military so we decided to basically be a parasite.  Louis St. Laurent vision was wrong and didn't take into account the Quiet Revolution (because it didn't exist when he was PM).  He didn't take into account the growth of the West.  He didn't understand that our geography drives us apart instead of bringing us together.  There is no grand cultural flow across Canada, all things flow north to south not east to west.  There is no natural river or transport system like the Mississipi that forces us together.  And where one sort of exists language keeps us apart.


The fact we exist at all is an anomaly.  If it wasn't for the US digesting the frontier they would have digested us instead.  And by the time they finished they were full. This is the reality of Canada. I love it and I'm happy that we make it work despite the unnatural way we have formed and the extra work it takes to keep us together.

Until there is a real existential external threat that only we can deal with with no US help we will never invest strongly into the military.  We don't need to.  And there is only one direction an existential external threat is going to come from.  The south.

So that means the voters are correct if short sighted.


----------



## MilEME09

Canadian navy needs to recruit 1,000 sailors to crew new warships: Commander
					

The commander of the Royal Canadian Navy is sounding the alarm over a shortage of sailors, saying he needs about 1,000 additional mariners to crew Canada's warships.



					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Well we are running out if time on the people front as two possibly 3 AOPS's will be delivered the RCN in 2022, the hurt of people is going to be felt. Tough choices need to be made, especially for covid mitigation in order to get sailors trained.


----------



## Dale Denton

Heck, maybe a frigate will have to be early retired (as 5 RCN ships have already) and it'll free up even more people. Problem solved.

No input from anyone on how to fix recruitment and retention, just the same excuses ('rona, misconduct). Nothing on making the CF a better place to work for families or 'sexy' new equipment.


----------



## suffolkowner

There's already been talk here that the Halifax class will require some deeper structural overhauls to keep them going. That combined with manning issues suggests that the RCN should be taking one out of service on each coast for that purpose. 


We've got a long road ahead. Depending on when the CSC gets started and how quickly they can be built and the learning process. Below is my own creation just going off of some RN and RAN examples. Can Irving get the build process down to 5 yrs? Is that reasonable? Are any of the following guesses even in the ballpark?


CSC/Halifax transitionagelaid downconstruction yrsHalifax199220313920238Vancouver199320334020258Toronto199320344120277Regina199320354220296Quebec199420364220306Montreal199420374320316Fredricton199420384420326Calgary199520394420336Charlottetown199520404520346Winnipeg199620414520356St John's199620424620366Ottawa199620434720376


----------



## Czech_pivo

Stoker said:


> Actually our operational tempo is very light compared to what it used to be so its not going "full tilt" because we don't have the personnel. One 280 was laid up due to personnel shortages and was ultimately decided to be paid off, one because of an accident and the money to repair was deemed too expensive, one had corrosion issues and was paid off immediately and the other sailed right up she was paid off and she had corrosion issues as well not to the degree as the other. These all gas turbine ships were driven hard over the years going into crazy sea states that we typically don't do too much of now. There were also all kinds of issues with these ships due to botched refits and issues after TRUMP conversion also keep in mind lack of personnel and we still had 12 CFPs to sail. Hard decisions were made so when you say all the 280's gave up the ghost was factually wrong. Also keep in mind we now have the imperative to keep these ships going, this the reason why Davie now does half the refit work and more money is being being spent on maintenance. As a civilian you have no idea the plans to keep these ships sailing other than stating they're going to rust out based on the 280's, apples and oranges but if you want a good comparison we ran the steamers for almost 40 years.
> 
> I saw the proposed timelines and I have no idea if they maintain these as we are talking years away but I do know they will do everything in their power to keep these ships sailing. We will see some ships more than likely stay alongside at some point but all 12 won't be getting paid off.
> 
> Of course not all kinds of delays, some contractor, some navy, some beyond everyone's control. Ship building programs always have delays and some were expected and remember these ships were built to get the yard to build the skills and processes needed to build the CSC. You talk there is some type of conspiracy here, as of last month the 2 CCG APOV's are still being built. That being said it could very well that these ships could be given to Davie if the gap is no longer there.
> 
> Procurement is broken and everyone knows that, no political will to fix it. I know you try and keep yourself informed but generally most of what you state is refuted by SME's who try and explain it to you. You are not an SME and there is many moving parts that you are not privy to.
> 
> Fill your boots, I think your wrong. There are many people in Ottawa and the fleet looking for solutions to keep these ships running, it is in the realm of possibility.





suffolkowner said:


> There's already been talk here that the Halifax class will require some deeper structural overhauls to keep them going. That combined with manning issues suggests that the RCN should be taking one out of service on each coast for that purpose.
> 
> 
> We've got a long road ahead. Depending on when the CSC gets started and how quickly they can be built and the learning process. Below is my own creation just going off of some RN and RAN examples. Can Irving get the build process down to 5 yrs? Is that reasonable? Are any of the following guesses even in the ballpark?
> 
> 
> CSC/Halifax transitionagelaid downconstruction yrsHalifax199220313920238Vancouver199320334020258Toronto199320344120277Regina199320354220296Quebec199420364220306Montreal199420374320316Fredricton199420384420326Calgary199520394420336Charlottetown199520404520346Winnipeg199620414520356St John's199620424620366Ottawa199620434720376


Well, that looks a lot like the exercise I’ve tried before, in laying out the facts of age plus reality.
Thanks for doing this.


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:


> Are any of the following guesses even in the ballpark?
> 
> 
> CSC/Halifax transitionagelaid downconstruction yrsHalifax199220313920238Vancouver199320334020258Toronto199320344120277Regina199320354220296Quebec199420364220306Montreal199420374320316Fredricton199420384420326Calgary199520394420336Charlottetown199520404520346Winnipeg199620414520356St John's199620424620366Ottawa199620434720376


The first three surface combatants will not replace the _Iroquois_-class destroyers?  The government of Canada website still claims that close out is in the late 2040s.  So the last surface combatant might be delivered in around 2049 and might commission in around 2050.  Canadian surface combatant - Canada.ca


----------



## suffolkowner

Uzlu said:


> The first three surface combatants will not replace the _Iroquois_-class destroyers?  The government of Canada website still claims that close out is in the late 2040s.  So the last surface combatant might be delivered in around 2049 and might commission in around 2050.  Canadian surface combatant - Canada.ca


I wasn't really concerned with ships that aren't in service anymore, more what is the length of time that we require out of the Halifax class. So I have the first 12 CSC's replacing the Halifax's one for one. CSC 13,14,15 if continued would come online in 2044,2045,2046 so looks like my schedule is a little optimistic


----------



## MilEME09

Uzlu said:


> The first three surface combatants will not replace the _Iroquois_-class destroyers?  The government of Canada website still claims that close out is in the late 2040s.  So the last surface combatant might be delivered in around 2049 and might commission in around 2050.  Canadian surface combatant - Canada.ca


Assuming we still get 15, yes late 40s, maybe even early 50s depending on delays.


----------



## dapaterson

Close out for the project will likely be 3-4 years after last delivery.  There will be sparing, training materials, reconciliations, audit and evaluation and other activities ongoing even after the last ship is delivered.  By the book close out is supposed to be within six months of final operational capability, but for a project of this size, it will be longer.


----------



## Stoker

suffolkowner said:


> There's already been talk here that the Halifax class will require some deeper structural overhauls to keep them going. That combined with manning issues suggests that the RCN should be taking one out of service on each coast for that purpose.
> 
> 
> We've got a long road ahead. Depending on when the CSC gets started and how quickly they can be built and the learning process. Below is my own creation just going off of some RN and RAN examples. Can Irving get the build process down to 5 yrs? Is that reasonable? Are any of the following guesses even in the ballpark?
> 
> 
> CSC/Halifax transitionagelaid downconstruction yrsHalifax199220313920238Vancouver199320334020258Toronto199320344120277Regina199320354220296Quebec199420364220306Montreal199420374320316Fredricton199420384420326Calgary199520394420336Charlottetown199520404520346Winnipeg199620414520356St John's199620424620366Ottawa199620434720376


Well all the yards are sharing information on the building processes so that will help and I wouldn't be surprised we have people imbedded at those yards. Just before Christmas I had the opportunity of a conference about the Halifax Class and expected build times for the ships. It was 7 years for the first one, the next 3 to 4 is 19 months apiece and 12 months for the rest. I'm sure there will be delays but that's the timing I saw. 

If we did take them out of service there would still be crew to conduct maintenance and the idea would be to reactivate down the road. I don't think the intent is to scrap them. Don't be surprised you may see other platforms doing our NATO commitments.


----------



## Dale Denton

Well, RCN could cheaply fulfill our commitment to NATO by lending out some of our AORs/JSSs if some of the Halifax's get retired early...oh wait.

More pragmatically


we bump up the timelines (with the inherent risk and $$$) by having the first CSC Block in the water as fast as possible (as opposed to whatever we're doing now?). 
Or add more ships (take your pick) to the NSS portfolio to show allies we are less useful 2025-2035 but we will be a good friend sometime later.
Announcing we're buying a fleet of Subs would pull attention away from our shortage of CPFs.
Build a good number of JSSs and Asterix-type refitted AORs and offer them up for allies Task Groups, offer to ship the US war machine over the pacific with a free fleet of ships (thinking WW2 merchant navy).


Less work and its stuff we might do anyways, plus we're pros at announcing stuff to cover our failings.


----------



## MilEME09

LoboCanada said:


> Well, RCN could cheaply fulfill our commitment to NATO by lending out some of our AORs/JSSs if some of the Halifax's get retired early...oh wait.
> 
> More pragmatically
> 
> 
> we bump up the timelines (with the inherent risk and $$$) by having the first CSC Block in the water as fast as possible (as opposed to whatever we're doing now?).
> Or add more ships (take your pick) to the NSS portfolio to show allies we are less useful 2025-2035 but we will be a good friend sometime later.
> Announcing we're buying a fleet of Subs would pull attention away from our shortage of CPFs.
> Build a good number of JSSs and Asterix-type refitted AORs and offer them up for allies Task Groups, offer to ship the US war machine over the pacific with a free fleet of ships (thinking WW2 merchant navy).
> 
> 
> Less work and its stuff we might do anyways, plus we're pros at announcing stuff to cover our failings.


Buy subs off shore, get Davie to convert Astrix's sister ship. Start working in the Kingston replacement at either Davie or a 4th yard in the great lakes. However if you increase any time lines, we need a massive reworking if our recruiting process, tell NATO we need a short break so we cab pull people back and get pumping bodies through the schools. We can build all the vessels in the world but it will be useless without crews.


----------



## Stoker

Its been talked about how can we move up the start time of the CSC. I was told its been looked at however it won't work. Currently the design is not finished and we are building AOPS. Is even stopping the AOPS even possible at this point and pivot into the CSC ? I know the assembly building may need to be upgraded at Irving so there's that. Perhaps giving another yard or cancelling the CCG version of the AOPs will speed things up.

Crewing is another big problem and you just can't start pumping them through the schools because they don't have the throughput and to train those numbers of sailors even for FF/DC would mean to double the size of our current DC/FF schools.


----------



## Dale Denton

MilEME09 said:


> Buy subs off shore, get Davie to convert Astrix's sister ship. Start working in the Kingston replacement at either Davie or a 4th yard in the great lakes. However if you increase any time lines, we need a massive reworking if our recruiting process, tell NATO we need a short break so we cab pull people back and get pumping bodies through the schools. We can build all the vessels in the world but it will be useless without crews.



Mothball a tiny handful of Kingstons as CSCs come out to save on people. Push out a great family benefits package to help with recruit/retention as a new re-org is done to allow for the extra time-off/leave accesses. Shell out for a fancy recruitment campaign, remind Canada it has a Navy.

Cancel the CCG AOPS to move up CSC in the timeline. It would work to all yards' benefits.

Placate Seaspan with extra CCG MPVs or another Polar Class for the CCG. Show long-term commitment to all yards.

Davie gets a contract to convert a new fleet of 6-10 or so IAOR (all oceans+2 ice-strengthened), and retire/sell them off after 10 years of heavy use and refit/build new ones on a cycle. Davie gets work forever.

Irving gets a promise to build all 15 CSCs and a couple Kingston Class replacements to slowly churn out.


----------



## dapaterson

Mothballing half the Kingstons (assuming they are fully crewed) might get you sufficient crew for two CSCs.


----------



## suffolkowner

Stoker said:


> Well all the yards are sharing information on the building processes so that will help and I wouldn't be surprised we have people imbedded at those yards. Just before Christmas I had the opportunity of a conference about the Halifax Class and expected build times for the ships. It was 7 years for the first one, the next 3 to 4 is 19 months apiece and 12 months for the rest. I'm sure there will be delays but that's the timing I saw.
> 
> If we did take them out of service there would still be crew to conduct maintenance and the idea would be to reactivate down the road. I don't think the intent is to scrap them. Don't be surprised you may see other platforms doing our NATO commitments.


Sorry, I wasn't clear I didn't mean scrap/pay off just have them get the deeper maintenance that they require


Stoker said:


> Its been talked about how can we move up the start time of the CSC. I was told its been looked at however it won't work. Currently the design is not finished and we are building AOPS. Is even stopping the AOPS even possible at this point and pivot into the CSC ? I know the assembly building may need to be upgraded at Irving so there's that. Perhaps giving another yard or cancelling the CCG version of the AOPs will speed things up.
> 
> Crewing is another big problem and you just can't start pumping them through the schools because they don't have the throughput and to train those numbers of sailors even for FF/DC would mean to double the size of our current DC/FF schools.


In my "plan" above I already cancelled the CCG AOPS


----------



## Stoker

suffolkowner said:


> Sorry, I wasn't clear I didn't mean scrap/pay off just have them get the deeper maintenance that they require
> 
> In my "plan" above I already cancelled the CCG AOPS


That's why I think we need an "Op pause". Get all the ship surveys done, get the fleet maintained, get sailors on all the courses they need. Unfu*k the schools and increase facilities for training. We can still use the other smaller platforms to keep a presence.


----------



## Navy_Pete

suffolkowner said:


> Sorry, I wasn't clear I didn't mean scrap/pay off just have them get the deeper maintenance that they require
> 
> In my "plan" above I already cancelled the CCG AOPS


Part of having the CCG AOPs is to prevent a production gap between the two projects. All the backend steel cutting and similar work starts a year or more before the ship is launched, so even if the last AOPs isn't delivered there are still a bunch of people sitting idle if the CSC isn't ready to go.

They need to figure out how to actually build it as well, so once the critical equipment is chosen and the design is finalized, they still need to figure out how to construct it at ISI, and set up the QC, set to work and trials. All that production engineering takes a few years, so we aren't gaining anything by scrapping the CCG AOPs.


----------



## suffolkowner

Navy_Pete said:


> Part of having the CCG AOPs is to prevent a production gap between the two projects. All the backend steel cutting and similar work starts a year or more before the ship is launched, so even if the last AOPs isn't delivered there are still a bunch of people sitting idle if the CSC isn't ready to go.
> 
> They need to figure out how to actually build it as well, so once the critical equipment is chosen and the design is finalized, they still need to figure out how to construct it at ISI, and set up the QC, set to work and trials. All that production engineering takes a few years, so we aren't gaining anything by scrapping the CCG AOPs.


I get that but my *hope *was that they were further along in the design process and that another 1.5 to 2 years would be enough time to finish the design of a ship class that will already be in construction in the UK and Aus. Systems integration by LM/BAE/ and Irving was prioritized to make this process easier as well. If they need 3 to 4 years more to finish the design work then so be it, I guess


----------



## Swampbuggy

Navy_Pete said:


> Part of having the CCG AOPs is to prevent a production gap between the two projects. All the backend steel cutting and similar work starts a year or more before the ship is launched, so even if the last AOPs isn't delivered there are still a bunch of people sitting idle if the CSC isn't ready to go.
> 
> They need to figure out how to actually build it as well, so once the critical equipment is chosen and the design is finalized, they still need to figure out how to construct it at ISI, and set up the QC, set to work and trials. All that production engineering takes a few years, so we aren't gaining anything by scrapping the CCG AOPs.


Maybe an unpopular thought, but it might make some sense to build the extra 2 AOPS, and keep them with the Navy. If it appears that we'll be short of ships for missions in the next 5-10 years, flexible vessels like the HDW class, may be useful, particularly with their lower demands on crewing. I get that they're not replacements for frigates, but they are a better match for longer deployments than an MCDV.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and likley sell them later to Chile or another country. I like to see an expansion of the Fleet Auxiliary combining the Federal Fleet Services, including some contracted helicopters to partly man the AOR's, perhaps make it more like the RFA. Use it also as a pipeline to train up more Merchant Marine deck officers and deck crew. Some of the money to cover the training element can come from outside of DND.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin Parkinson said:


> and likley sell them later to Chile or another country. I like to see an expansion of the Fleet Auxiliary combining the Federal Fleet Services, including some contracted helicopters to partly man the AOR's, perhaps make it more like the RFA. Use it also as a pipeline to train up more Merchant Marine deck officers and deck crew. Some of the money to cover the training element can come from outside of DND.


Turn it into a P3? End goal being more merchant marine crews, both FFS and the private sector would benefit


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's your merchant marine that generates the mandatory Ships Pilots, without them, most merchant ships would not be allowed to enter or a lot more marine accidents. It takes roughly 20 years to develop a Ship Pilot. Two of my Deck Officers and one of my deckhand buddies have become Pilots, it's an incredibly hard course. Not sure how many naval officers have become Ship Pilots?


----------



## MilEME09

Full steam ahead: Why Canada's shipbuilding program oughtn't to be abandoned or cut | Macdonald-Laurier Institute
					

Richard Shimooka examines how the Canadian Surface Combatant program emerged, what its progress has been to date and why the outcomes are reasonable.




					www.macdonaldlaurier.ca
				




An interesting read, essentially saying we are past the point of no return on the CSC so we might as well go full steam ahead.


----------



## suffolkowner

Swampbuggy said:


> Maybe an unpopular thought, but it might make some sense to build the extra 2 AOPS, and keep them with the Navy. If it appears that we'll be short of ships for missions in the next 5-10 years, flexible vessels like the HDW class, may be useful, particularly with their lower demands on crewing. I get that they're not replacements for frigates, but they are a better match for longer deployments than an MCDV.


The next 10 yrs should be ok ship wise if they manage things well but I can see the 10 after that getting rough. So on the surface we have some time to fix the neverending recruitment/training/retention issues. I think there will no doubt be some ship availability issues in the 30's and we will probably have to deal with lower ship numbers through the transition period just like we have dealt with the lack of AAD and AOR. 

My initial reaction to your AOPS proposal was not great but I can see the value in it


----------



## Swampbuggy

suffolkowner said:


> The next 10 yrs should be ok ship wise if they manage things well but I can see the 10 after that getting rough. So on the surface we have some time to fix the neverending recruitment/training/retention issues. I think there will no doubt be some ship availability issues in the 30's and we will probably have to deal with lower ship numbers through the transition period just like we have dealt with the lack of AAD and AOR.
> 
> My initial reaction to your AOPS proposal was not great but I can see the value in it


I agree, it's not the ideal fix, and there might be a certain "throwing good money after bad" angle to it. But, I think there is likely to be a time, some point soon, where quantity of hulls, particularly with low crew requirements, is going to bring a quality all its own.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:


> Full steam ahead: Why Canada's shipbuilding program oughtn't to be abandoned or cut | Macdonald-Laurier Institute
> 
> 
> Richard Shimooka examines how the Canadian Surface Combatant program emerged, what its progress has been to date and why the outcomes are reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.macdonaldlaurier.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting read, essentially saying we are past the point of no return on the CSC so we might as well go full steam ahead.


I found this paragraph, among a few others, to be very interesting.  I know that the SPY-7 radar has been talked about here before but I just wanted to capture this information:

_"As noted earlier, the initial CSC concept was to commission three specialized AAW destroyers that were to complement 12 multi-purpose warships. However, by 2016 this concept had been scrapped in favour of consolidating all the ships under one design. This decision meant *that all the CSC ships* would require a highly capable radar system *to undertake air defence*, which would be complemented by a suite of surface-to-air missiles. To accommodate these changes, the Global Combat Ship design was extended by two metres and about a thousand more tons was added to the ship’s unloaded weight (Naval Technology Undated)."_  From pg. 34


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> I found this paragraph, among a few others, to be very interesting.  I know that the SPY-7 radar has been talked about here before but I just wanted to capture this information:
> 
> _"As noted earlier, the initial CSC concept was to commission three specialized AAW destroyers that were to complement 12 multi-purpose warships. However, by 2016 this concept had been scrapped in favour of consolidating all the ships under one design. This decision meant *that all the CSC ships* would require a highly capable radar system *to undertake air defence*, which would be complemented by a suite of surface-to-air missiles. To accommodate these changes, the Global Combat Ship design was extended by two metres and about a thousand more tons was added to the ship’s unloaded weight (Naval Technology Undated)."_  From pg. 34


Your point?, I thought that this was common knowledge and talked about here already....


----------



## Czech_pivo

Stoker said:


> Your point?, I thought that this was common knowledge and talked about here already....


Simply that there seems to been no change of direction in going down this path according to this document. 
Basically building FREMM style frigates, AAW and ASW, except that all 15 of ours will have more powerful AAW radars, whereas our cousins T26's will have less over the horizon capabilities than us.  I can definitely see our ships being much in demand because of this.


----------



## Spencer100

I can't find the piece that talked about this. But it is was British one detailing why the RCN is going with 15 of the same and the better radar.  It was basically Canada has two fleets east and west.  We need all the ships to be able to do all the functions at any given time.  And that the CSC is a once in 2 generation thing we need to get it right.  And that 15 of the mostly same ships will be less costly than the 3 and 12 over the long run.  After I read that it all made super sense to me.  Splitting the but into different classes to save cost may not in the long run.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> Simply that there seems to been no change of direction in going down this path according to this document.
> Basically building FREMM style frigates, AAW and ASW, except that all 15 of ours will have more powerful AAW radars, whereas our cousins T26's will have less over the horizon capabilities than us.  I can definitely see our ships being much in demand because of this.


Sorry I don't get what you mean. Its been common knowledge that all 15 CSC's were always going to have the larger radar, increased size and tonnage resulting in the post powerful CSC of our allies, although with 24 VLS that may be not be the case.


----------



## Spencer100

Stoker said:


> Sorry I don't get what you mean. Its been common knowledge that all 15 CSC's were always going to have the larger radar, increased size and tonnage resulting in the post powerful CSC of our allies, although with 24 VLS that may be not be the case.


So it is 24?


----------



## Stoker

Spencer100 said:


> So it is 24?


I'll put it this way, increased size, larger radar equals more tonnage for a ships propulsion plant that can only go so fast. The plants not changing so where do you think they will cut from? Of course that's only my opinion.


----------



## Spencer100

Stoker said:


> I'll put it this way, increased size, larger radar equals more tonnage for a ships propulsion plant that can only go so fast. The plants not changing so where do you think they will cut from? Of course that's only my opinion.


The biggest thing is the very costly missiles inside.  12 less....money saved!  Beers all around!


----------



## blacktriangle

Spencer100 said:


> The biggest thing is the very costly missiles inside.  12 less....money saved!  Beers all around!


Maybe my math is off and someone can correct me, but wouldn't the loss of 8 Mk 41 cells equate to a potential reduction of up to 32 weapons? (if ESSM) I guess there's always the CAMM in ExLS cells, and it's a trade-off for the better radar. Not surprising really.


----------



## quadrapiper

Spencer100 said:


> The biggest thing is the very costly missiles inside.  12 less....money saved!  Beers all around!


How much does however much of a cell is _permanent _actually cost?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I bet Irving and Seaspan are very happy with the NSPS right now


----------



## MilEME09

Irving doing some PR to start the year, probably needed given the negative press last year about the delays at the yard.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:


> Irving doing some PR to start the year, probably needed given the negative press last year about the delays at the yard.


I heard two dates 2024 and 2040. I hope so.


----------



## Maxman1

Spencer100 said:


> So it is 24?


----------



## calculus

Czech_pivo said:


> I heard two dates 2024 and 2040. I hope so.


The bar chart schedule at page 9 of the presentation at the following link suggests that latter date should be "late forties".



			https://shipsforcanada.ca/images/uploads/ISI_CSC_Virtual-Industry-Day-Presentation_04212021_vFINAL_Online.pdf
		


The interesting takeaway from that schedule is that Irving looks to be planning to build 15 ships in approximately the same time as Australia will take to build 9.


----------



## Navy_Pete

quadrapiper said:


> How much does however much of a cell is _permanent _actually cost?


The actual VLS cell isn't much; basically a metal tube with some interface for the missile and some monitoring, with basic safety related equipment. 

It's a big footprint at an awkward spot though, with a lot of structural reinforcement etc in the area, and you also have to counterballast in the aft end to keep the nose from really digging in when you have the weight of the missiles. Not complicated, but not something you can just add in as an afterthought.

The really expensive parts are the combat systems, fire control systems, and the actual missiles.

For the 280 disposal, the VLS was really only worth the scrap value (minus the cost to remove and demil the electronics). It's all ITAR so really just a pain in the ass.

With the hull size to accomodate the big honking radar, the footprint may be available, but somewhat pointless to speculate I think, especially as we'd probably only buy a few ship sets worth of actual ammo.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This is what happens when you wait to the last moment to replace your ships









						CCGS Hudson - axed
					

The propulsion motor failure on CCGS Hudson  reported here December 17, 2021  has proven fatal to the future of the ship. The Department of...




					shipfax.blogspot.com


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin Parkinson said:


> This is what happens when you wait to the last moment to replace your ships
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CCGS Hudson - axed
> 
> 
> The propulsion motor failure on CCGS Hudson  reported here December 17, 2021  has proven fatal to the future of the ship. The Department of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shipfax.blogspot.com


Sadly you have to wonder if we'll be reading similar stories about the Halifax's in 15yrs or so.


----------



## Journeyman

Maybe we could buy into this program.   https://buff.ly/3jaB0TS


----------



## Uzlu

Colin Parkinson said:


> This is what happens when you wait to the last moment to replace your ships
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CCGS Hudson - axed
> 
> 
> The propulsion motor failure on CCGS Hudson  reported here December 17, 2021  has proven fatal to the future of the ship. The Department of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shipfax.blogspot.com


Anyone surprised?  Storied Coast Guard ship can’t be fixed, shipyard says, highlighting yet again, Canada’s shipbuilding problem  | Globalnews.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am sure Davie has 60 million dollar solution as opposed to the 20 million dollar fix. Sounds like a poker game is underway.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am sure Davie has 60 million dollar solution as opposed to the 20 million dollar fix. Sounds like a poker game is underway.


Honestly I'm less than impressed with their repair work. Some pretty basic things are lacking. Repacking valve stems, limiting the spread of blasting grit etc are all pretty fundamental. I'm not sure they have the horsepower to do that kind of life extension and keep up with the CPF DWP commitments, and one of their buildings burned down recently.

Pretty interesting PR move though, someone really needs to tell them to knock it off. Their NSS ads were funny, but pretty unprofessional, and their track record is widely exaggerated.

Hopefully there are some other shipyards that can take this on (maybe Heddle, with it's partnership with the East Coast site?).


----------



## Spencer100

Navy_Pete said:


> Honestly I'm less than impressed with their repair work. Some pretty basic things are lacking. Repacking valve stems, limiting the spread of blasting grit etc are all pretty fundamental. I'm not sure they have the horsepower to do that kind of life extension and keep up with the CPF DWP commitments, and one of their buildings burned down recently.
> 
> Pretty interesting PR move though, someone really needs to tell them to knock it off. Their NSS ads were funny, but pretty unprofessional, and their track record is widely exaggerated.
> 
> Hopefully there are some other shipyards that can take this on (maybe Heddle, with it's partnership with the East Coast site?).


I don't think Heddle would touch it LOL Been there done that.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/heddle-marine-services-hudson-retrofit-payment-1.4540213


----------



## Spencer100

Spencer100 said:


> I don't think Heddle would touch it LOL Been there done that.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/heddle-marine-services-hudson-retrofit-payment-1.4540213


Also has the Hudson even had much sea time after that disaster?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:


> Also has the Hudson even had much sea time after that disaster?


Right, thanks, forgot about that.

Sounded like a bit of things went bad with some repairs, but also that they kept finding problems after problem after the Heddle repair unrelated to the refit;

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/generator-failure-ccgs-hudson-1.6124822

From personal experience even with detailed surveys you'll get things pop up as you start opening things up, but honestly a $20M price tag is still pretty low for that kind of basic work. A single major steel repair can easily start getting close to a million (or more). If they are doing engine repairs, HVAC work etc plus remediation work for asbestos and lead, that's not a whole lot.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am sure Davie has 60 million dollar solution as opposed to the 20 million dollar fix. Sounds like a poker game is underway.


That article is from a few years ago when Davie was doing some maneuvering trying to be the good guy and get more government work although I'm sure they'll try and use this to their advantage and drop some sort of cheap design or conversion to save the day.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> That article is from a few years ago when Davie was doing some maneuvering trying to be the good guy and get more government work although I'm sure they'll try and use this to their advantage and drop some sort of cheap design or conversion to save the day.


I must be misunderstanding your post, the blog I posted was from Jan 19/22?


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> I must be misunderstanding your post, the blog I posted was from Jan 19/22?


Sorry referring to the article where Davie wouldn't touch the refit for the Hudson the article you quoted was certainly current.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

More bad news for the CCG, Coast Guard icebreaker Pierre Radisson, was struck from behind by the vessel it was escorting through the ice.


----------



## suffolkowner

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/icebreaker-contract-davie-shipyard-quebec-city-1.6323590
		


not much info leaking out about Davie locking down the third shipbuilding spot. In hindsight it looks like they made the right call on the Hudson though


----------



## MarkOttawa

The gangs that couldn't get shipbuilding straight:



> Ottawa’s talks with Quebec shipyard to build much needed icebreakers shrouded in fog​Questions are swirling over yet another delay in Ottawa’s nearly $100-billion plan to rebuild the fleets of Canada’s navy and coast guard — only this time the delay isn’t due to the stalled construction of a ship.
> 
> The federal government announced in December 2019 that Quebec shipyard Chantier Davie was the only company to qualify for a piece of that work, namely the construction of six much-needed icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> Yet while that announcement kicked off negotiations toward an agreement Davie and its supporters in Quebec and Ottawa had long demanded, the subsequent discussions remain shrouded in fog more than two years later.
> 
> The delay is fuelling fears about the Canadian Coast Guard’s aging fleet, which shrunk by another ship this week with the forced retirement of a 59-year-old science vessel, leaving Canada without a dedicated platform for ocean research.
> 
> “You really kind of wonder what’s going on that it’s been this long after having made such a high-profile commitment,” said David Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and one of Canada’s top procurement experts.
> 
> *READ MORE: Cost of used icebreakers Ottawa is purchasing from Quebec shipyard nears $1B mark*
> 
> “And delivery on all the work that falls under them has got to be significantly impacted by not having come to an agreement.”
> 
> Davie was first excluded from the shipbuilding plan following a competition in 2011 that selected Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax to build the navy’s new warships, and Seaspan to build two new naval support ships and the brunt of the coast guard’s new fleet.
> 
> The Quebec shipyard was able to pick up some piecemeal work, including the construction of two federal ferries and the provision of several second-hand ships for the navy and coast guard. Those included a supply vessel for the navy and three used icebreakers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ottawa’s talks with Quebec shipyard to build much needed icebreakers shrouded in fog - Montreal | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The federal government said the Quebec shipyard Chantier Davie was the only company to qualify to construct six much-needed icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca



Meanwhile Finnish yard will build honking big breaker for Russian company in three years. Go figure:



> Finnish shipbuilders contract powerful icebreaker for Russian Arctic​*It is the most powerful icebreaker ever built in Finland.*
> 
> The vessel that is designed for breaking through the sea-ice of the Yenisey River and Kara Sea will be of big importance for Nornickel’s expanded ore shipments from the Taymyr Peninsula.
> 
> It is designed by Aker Arctic and built by the Helsinki Shipyard on a contract with Nornickel, the Russian mining and metallurgy company. It will be able to break through 2 meter thick snow-covered ice.
> 
> The icebreaker’s mission is to escort Nornickel’s Arctic Express bulk carriers, as well as cargo ships with up to 20 000 tons deadweight. It will have facilities for transporting cargo and supporting helicopter operations.
> 
> The ship design has been successfully tested at Aker Arctic’s ice lab in Helsinki and construction is due to start in the coming weeks. The Helsinki Shipyard has already completed purchasing contracts for the main equipment for machinery and propulsion, the partners inform.
> 
> It will have an integrated dual-fuel diesel-electric power plant, which can use both LNG and low-sulphur diesel oil. Emissions  as fuel with good energy efficiency is high and emissions low...
> 
> *Delivery by 2024*
> 
> Ship construction must be completed by the end of 2024,  says Senior Vice President Sergei Dubovitsky...





> Finnish shipbuilders contract powerful icebreaker for Russian Arctic
> 
> 
> It is the most powerful icebreaker ever built in Finland.  The vessel that is designed for breaking through the sea-ice of the Yenisey River and Kara Sea will be of big importance for Nornickel’s expanded ore shipments from the Taymyr Peninsula.  It is designed by Aker Arctic and built by the He
> 
> 
> 
> www.rcinet.ca



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don't recall this being posted earlier, not good for getting other international orders









						B.C. shipyard embroiled in legal battle over New Zealand warship upgrades
					

A legal battle is brewing between two of Canada's largest defence contractors over upgrades to a pair of New Zealand navy warships in British Columbia.




					vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca
				




_But last year, Seaspan's Victoria Shipyards, which was subcontracted by Lockheed to perform the work, filed a civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court alleging that problems with the Lockheed designs were costing the shipyard more than $20 million in delays and workarounds on the first ship alone.

Lockheed Martin Canada responded with a counterclaim, saying the project delays were due to negligence, understaffing and mismanagement at the shipyard._


----------



## Halifax Tar

Might need to start churning these ships out a little faster... 

Now, where did we leave those drawings for the Flower Class...


----------



## FSTO

Colin Parkinson said:


> I don't recall this being posted earlier, not good for getting other international orders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B.C. shipyard embroiled in legal battle over New Zealand warship upgrades
> 
> 
> A legal battle is brewing between two of Canada's largest defence contractors over upgrades to a pair of New Zealand navy warships in British Columbia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _But last year, Seaspan's Victoria Shipyards, which was subcontracted by Lockheed to perform the work, filed a civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court alleging that problems with the Lockheed designs were costing the shipyard more than $20 million in delays and workarounds on the first ship alone.
> 
> Lockheed Martin Canada responded with a counterclaim, saying the project delays were due to negligence, understaffing and mismanagement at the shipyard._


I heard some rumbling from the Kiwi's that they were "unsatisfied" in the work done on their ships. Nothing official though.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin Parkinson said:


> I don't recall this being posted earlier, not good for getting other international orders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B.C. shipyard embroiled in legal battle over New Zealand warship upgrades
> 
> 
> A legal battle is brewing between two of Canada's largest defence contractors over upgrades to a pair of New Zealand navy warships in British Columbia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _But last year, Seaspan's Victoria Shipyards, which was subcontracted by Lockheed to perform the work, filed a civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court alleging that problems with the Lockheed designs were costing the shipyard more than $20 million in delays and workarounds on the first ship alone.
> 
> Lockheed Martin Canada responded with a counterclaim, saying the project delays were due to negligence, understaffing and mismanagement at the shipyard._


Oh boy would that have implications for the NSS if Lockhart wins.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FSTO said:


> I heard some rumbling from the Kiwi's that they were "unsatisfied" in the work done on their ships. Nothing official though.


You mean they weren't happy with the quality of work done by our highly skilled and professional workforce. 😆

Done to the best industry standards I would imagine with excellent craftsmanship 😁


----------



## Czech_pivo

.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You mean they weren't happy with the quality of work done by our highly skilled and professional workforce. 😆
> 
> Done to the best industry standards I would imagine with excellent craftsmanship 😁



We must be approaching the definition of insanity...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We are not the only ones with a NSS  









						Britain sets out shipbuilding plans for next 30 years
					

More than 150 new naval and civil vessels will be built in the UK over the next 30 years. The vessels will include large warships, Border Force cutters, lighthouse vessels and the new National Flagship.




					ukdefencejournal.org.uk


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A bit more, seen the Brits are rethinking some of their previous measures 









						Royal Navy to take control naval base support fleets
					

In December 2022, the Royal Navy will take ownership of a fleet of vessels that currently provide various harbour services at naval bases in Devonport, Faslane and Portsmouth.




					ukdefencejournal.org.uk


----------



## Maxman1

Another "would be nice to have" ship is the Danish Absalon-class frigate/support ship/transport ship/command and control ship/whatever with a roll on/roll off multipurpose deck.


----------



## Underway

Honestly it never thought that ship was a good fit for anyone but the Danes.  There is a reason no one else has bought the same ship with the same sort of loadout.  

That being said the "flex deck" concept has been used by many other nations, it just hadn't been as formalized.


----------



## calculus

Interesting article on the pros and cons of COTS versus bespoke procurements, in a Canadian context:



			If Only Warships Grew on Trees - Canadian Global Affairs Institute


----------



## GK .Dundas

Underway said:


> Honestly it never thought that ship was a good fit for anyone but the Danes.  There is a reason no one else has bought the same ship with the same sort of loadout.
> 
> That being said the "flex deck" concept has been used by many other nations, it just hadn't been as formalized.


Actually the Absolon as a concept is a descendant of the the American APD . It's one of those thing you would only build if you either had no other amphibious capability . Or if you had so much that you afford them as a.sort of luxury.


----------



## Maxman1

They almost seem like miniature versions of the _San Antonio _and _Albion_ class LPDs.

_Mistral_ class amphibious assault ships would far better suit our needs, and seem to provide the same or more capability as the _Albion_ and _San Antonio _classes.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Shipbuilding strategy hard at work--a tweet:

Canadian Coast Guard

@CoastGuardCAN

#CCGProud to announce the arrival of our newly-purchased light icebreaker from New Brunswick-based Atlantic Towing Limited 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








 The vessel travelled almost 6,000 nautical miles from Turkmenistan (Central Asia) to our Sorel, Quebec base.


----------



## Spencer100

MarkOttawa said:


> THIS. IS. INSANE:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark


Irving.


----------



## Dana381

MarkOttawa said:


> THIS. IS. INSANE:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark



Not surprising, with many other indutries jacking up prices why wouldn't Inving do the same? GOC will end up cancelling hulls and everyone will lose in the end.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile back in the US, They have a ice capable (not sure of it' class?)  tanker on call. 









						Crowley Awarded Military Sealift Command Charter for Ice-Class Tanker
					

Crowley has been awarded a charter contract from Military Sealift Command to operate the Stena Polaris, an ice-class tanker serving bulk fuel transportation needs of the U.S. Department of Defense....




					gcaptain.com


----------



## MarkOttawa

Canadian shipping line Fednavy in 2018 ordered Polar Class 4 icebreaking bulk carrier MV Arkvik from Japan,
delivered April 2021--loonies to Timbits it cost a hell of a lot less than $750 million





						Fednav welcomes MV ARVIK I—its newest icebreaking bulk carrier | Fednav
					

FEDNAV WELCOMES THE MV ARVIK I—ITS NEWEST ICEBREAKING BULK CARRIER




					www.fednav.com
				








						Nunavik (ship) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Dale Denton

Maxman1 said:


> They almost seem like miniature versions of the _San Antonio _and _Albion_ class LPDs.
> 
> _Mistral_ class amphibious assault ships would far better suit our needs, and seem to provide the same or more capability as the _Albion_ and _San Antonio _classes.



We've all said that Mistral is a pipe dream but it really is worth keeping in mind for when the RCN is in a better shape to crew them. Imagine if we parked it off Vancouver when it was effectively cut off from Canada. What a win would it be to have had a floating mobile powerplant and a hospital with surgical suite parked off a Canadian city/town for HADR. All things that we will undoubtedly need off a Canadian shore again in the next 10 years. Coupled with a few Federal Fleet RO-RO ships we could do some good with these on the cheap.

Not to mention its ability to transport the CAF and make it a more viable global partner. Build it in France for cheap and Canadianize the hell out of it in a Canadian yard. They made an ice-strengthened version even. Could train in the arctic, with NATO, France, even build an Amphibious Task Group with time.


----------



## NavyShooter

There was a time just before Y2K hit that the RCN had a plan in the works to send a HFX Class ship to each major coastal city that we could reach - with some spare power cabling and the ability to tie into the local grid for emergency power generation.  I'm not sure how far along that plan got, but each ship has 4x 850Kw Generators, and alongside can run off less than 1, and needs about 2 while at sea - so there's lots of 'spare' power available, assuming the generators are functional.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dale Denton said:


> We've all said that Mistral is a pipe dream but it really is worth keeping in mind for when the RCN is in a better shape to crew them. Imagine if we parked it off Vancouver when it was effectively cut off from Canada. What a win would it be to have had a floating mobile powerplant and a hospital with surgical suite parked off a Canadian city/town for HADR. All things that we will undoubtedly need off a Canadian shore again in the next 10 years. Coupled with a few Federal Fleet RO-RO ships we could do some good with these on the cheap.
> 
> Not to mention its ability to transport the CAF and make it a more viable global partner. Build it in France for cheap and Canadianize the hell out of it in a Canadian yard. They made an ice-strengthened version even. Could train in the arctic, with NATO, France, even build an Amphibious Task Group with time.


We came very close to getting the two built for Russia


----------



## MarkOttawa

Now this. INSANE TOO:
Canada could face trouble buying specialized steel for new $7-billion icebreakers​The coast guard hopes to see the first icebreaker delivered in 2030 and the second in 2031.


NavyShooter said:


> There was a time just before Y2K hit that the RCN had a plan in the works to send a HFX Class ship to each major coastal city that we could reach - with some spare power cabling and the ability to tie into the local grid for emergency power generation.  I'm not sure how far along that plan got, but each ship has 4x 850Kw Generators, and alongside can run off less than 1, and needs about 2 while at sea - so there's lots of 'spare' power available, assuming the generators are functional.


During the Great Ice Storm of 1998 the Canadian Coast Guard offered to send its biggest icebreaker, CCGS _Louis S_. _St_-_Laurent_ to power a Quebec city on the St. Lawrence, can't remember which one; not needed in the end. The Louis was then only some 30 years old, now in vessel life extension with Davie with hope to keep her going until 2030--sixty years old!--when first new polar icebreaker from one of Davie or Seaspan is supposed to be ready, sure.








						Canada's 56-Year-Old Heavy Icebreaker Goes for Another Life Extension
					

Canadas largest icebreaker,Louis S. St-Laurent, is set to undergo major repair, refit and maintenanc...




					maritime-executive.com
				




By the way a story today (no link, sorry, rules) indicates those two new breakers may end up costing over even $3.5 billion each. INSANE. Three similar new ships for USCG, to be delivered long before 2030, to cost around $1.1 billion each:








						Report to Congress on Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter - USNI News
					

The following is the Feb. 28, 2021, Congressional Research Service report, Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress. From the report The Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program is a program to acquire three new PSCs (i.e., heavy...




					news.usni.org
				




Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

MarkOttawa said:


> Now this. INSANE TOO:
> Canada could face trouble buying specialized steel for new $7-billion icebreakers​The coast guard hopes to see the first icebreaker delivered in 2030 and the second in 2031.
> 
> During the Great Ice Storm of 1998 the Canadian Coast Guard offered to send its biggest icebreaker, CCGS _Louis S_. _St_-_Laurent_ to power a Quebec city on the St. Lawrence, can't remember which one; not needed in the end. The Louis was then only some 30 years old, now in vessel life extension with Davie with hope to keep her going until 2030--sixty years old!--when first new polar icebreaker from one of Davie or Seaspan is supposed to be ready, sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada's 56-Year-Old Heavy Icebreaker Goes for Another Life Extension
> 
> 
> Canadas largest icebreaker,Louis S. St-Laurent, is set to undergo major repair, refit and maintenanc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maritime-executive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way a story today (no link, sorry, rules) indicates those two new breakers may end up costing over even $3.5 billion each. INSANE. Three similar new ships for USCG, to be delivered long before 2030, to cost around $1.1 billion each:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Report to Congress on Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter - USNI News
> 
> 
> The following is the Feb. 28, 2021, Congressional Research Service report, Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress. From the report The Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program is a program to acquire three new PSCs (i.e., heavy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.usni.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Stelco in Hamilton was the last Canadian producer that was capable of producing the specialty grade of steel plate that I know of domestically; they shut down for a while and have re-opened with some limited capability but are focusing on sheet steel for cars etc.

Kind of crazy to me that we have a lot of raw materials, but the processing is done in different countries to make it useful.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Navy_Pete said:


> Stelco in Hamilton was the last Canadian producer that was capable of producing the specialty grade of steel plate that I know of domestically; they shut down for a while and have re-opened with some limited capability but are focusing on sheet steel for cars etc.
> 
> Kind of crazy to me that we have a lot of raw materials, but the processing is done in different countries to make it useful.


To quote former Finance Minister Michael Wilson, 'Canada is a country of hewers of wood and drawers of water'.  Not much was really change since he said that.


----------



## Spencer100

Navy_Pete said:


> Stelco in Hamilton was the last Canadian producer that was capable of producing the specialty grade of steel plate that I know of domestically; they shut down for a while and have re-opened with some limited capability but are focusing on sheet steel for cars etc.
> 
> Kind of crazy to me that we have a lot of raw materials, but the processing is done in different countries to make it useful.


Unions and Regulations plus energy costs (this one is newer but government policy to raise the price of energy)


----------



## Spencer100

Czech_pivo said:


> To quote former Finance Minister Michael Wilson, 'Canada is a country of hewers of wood and drawers of water'.  Not much was really change since he said that.


In reality the change has been to more of a resource extraction base.  In the last twenty years we have lost manufacturing in this country,  Gone are 4 GM, 1 Ford, 1 Chrysler plus more auto plants.   4 Heavy truck, International, Sterling, Western Star and  Mack. Orion and Blue bird bus production. ElectroMotive Diesel engine and trains. Hundreds of tier 1 and feeder plants.   There is no tractor production, no farm equipment but for one in Winnipeg.  No lift trucks. (Selleck being special units)  Very limited construction equipment, Volvo graders pulled out. 

We have lost our entire telcoms manufacturing base Nortel and Blackberry

Our airspace prime Bombardier imploded.  

Steel production is half what is was 20 years.


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:


> In reality the change has been to more of a resource extraction base.  In the last twenty years we have lost manufacturing in this country,  Gone are 4 GM, 1 Ford, 1 Chrysler plus more auto plants.   4 Heavy truck, International, Sterling, Western Star and  Mack. Orion and Blue bird bus production. ElectroMotive Diesel engine and trains. Hundreds of tier 1 and feeder plants.   There is no tractor production, no farm equipment but for one in Winnipeg.  No lift trucks. (Selleck being special units)  Very limited construction equipment, Volvo graders pulled out.
> 
> We have lost our entire telcoms manufacturing base Nortel and Blackberry
> 
> Our airspace prime Bombardier imploded.
> 
> Steel production is half what is was 20 years.


Yeah, but we’ll hit NetZero 2050 and have free prescriptions and dental care…


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> Yeah, but we’ll hit NetZero 2050 and have free prescriptions and dental care…



We share the same feelings on this but alas Canadians have little foresight.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> We share the same feelings on this but alas Canadians have little foresight.


Canadians on the whole truly are the flitting grasshoppers to the hardworking ant… 😔


----------



## suffolkowner

__





						CCGS Vincent Massey Leaves Davie Drydock - Canadian Defence Review | Canadian Defence Review
					





					www.canadiandefencereview.com
				




The last of the viking icebreakers is finally getting closer and should be ready for the winter season


----------



## Czech_pivo

suffolkowner said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CCGS Vincent Massey Leaves Davie Drydock - Canadian Defence Review | Canadian Defence Review
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canadiandefencereview.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last of the viking icebreakers is finally getting closer and should be ready for the winter season


I noticed that you didn't specify which 'winter season', you are well on the way of being a seasoned Politician,,,,lol.


----------



## Maxman1

Dale Denton said:


> We've all said that Mistral is a pipe dream but it really is worth keeping in mind for when the RCN is in a better shape to crew them. Imagine if we parked it off Vancouver when it was effectively cut off from Canada. What a win would it be to have had a floating mobile powerplant and a hospital with surgical suite parked off a Canadian city/town for HADR. All things that we will undoubtedly need off a Canadian shore again in the next 10 years. Coupled with a few Federal Fleet RO-RO ships we could do some good with these on the cheap.
> 
> Not to mention its ability to transport the CAF and make it a more viable global partner. Build it in France for cheap and Canadianize the hell out of it in a Canadian yard. They made an ice-strengthened version even. Could train in the arctic, with NATO, France, even build an Amphibious Task Group with time.



My pie in the sky idea would be:
1x (preferably 2x) aircraft carrier of the same design as the Italian _Cavour_
2x (preferably 4x) _Mistral_ class amphibious assault ships
12x _Braunschweig _class corvettes to replace the _Kingstons_, with a hangar large enough for a Cyclone/Cormorant and Canadian standard electronics and weapons systems like 25mm Bushmaster Mk 38, Harpoon and ESSM.
Up-gun the AOPS to 76mm. OTO Melara makes a compact version of their 76, the Sovraponte, that is 40% lighter than the standard version and bolts directly to the deck and doesn't require penetrating the deck. This would be perfect for the _Harry DeWolf_ class.
Fast attack craft. Missile boats like the Finnish _Hamino_ class (which are similar in size to the _Orca _training patrol craft but built for combat and stealth) but Canadian-ized. Modernized Elco 80' PT boats with fiberglass, aluminum or steel hulls, Mk 48 torpedoes, a Bushmaster 25mm at the bow, modern engines, radar and food storage. PBRs, same design but with new engines and a C6 and Mk 19 grenade launcher instead of the M60 and Mk 18 launcher.


----------



## Kirkhill

Maxman1 said:


> My pie in the sky idea would be:
> 1x (preferably 2x) aircraft carrier of the same design as the Italian _Cavour_
> 2x (preferably 4x) _Mistral_ class amphibious assault ships
> 12x _Braunschweig _class corvettes to replace the _Kingstons_, with a hangar large enough for a Cyclone/Cormorant and Canadian standard electronics and weapons systems like 25mm Bushmaster Mk 38, Harpoon and ESSM.
> Up-gun the AOPS to 76mm. OTO Melara makes a compact version of their 76, the Sovraponte, that is 40% lighter than the standard version and bolts directly to the deck and doesn't require penetrating the deck. This would be perfect for the _Harry DeWolf_ class.
> Fast attack craft. Missile boats like the Finnish _Hamino_ class (which are similar in size to the _Orca _training patrol craft but built for combat and stealth) but Canadian-ized. Modernized Elco 80' PT boats with fiberglass, aluminum or steel hulls, Mk 48 torpedoes, a Bushmaster 25mm at the bow, modern engines, radar and food storage. PBRs, same design but with new engines and a C6 and Mk 19 grenade launcher instead of the M60 and Mk 18 launcher.



Mine would be

Ditch the carriers - replace with inshore AIP subs (PEM Fuel Cells, Stirlings, Nukes, Mini-Nukes I care not which) - enough to patrol all Canadian choke points.

Ditch the amphibs - replace with ice-strengthened RoRo ferries for Canada's civil fleets. Build more than the civil traffic currently demands an employ on all coasts as a "free" ie government subsidized highway to connect coastal communities.  Excess capacity available for short term charter by DND to lift Canadian assets overseas in times of need.

Leave the AOPS build at 6 for the RCN, 2 for the CCG and 16 of the MPV variant that Seaspan is to build for the CCG as well.

Accelerate the build on the 15 CSCs, with 5 of them equipped with the stern door/flex deck configuration of the Absalons to be able to carry a Combat team.  The remaining 10 to be ABM capable.

Retain the Kingstons for as long as they are serviceable and replace or expand the fleet.

Ditch the FACs and PTs and build Knud Rasmussens for inshore patrol work.  Stanflex modules for 76, SAM and NSMs as well as civvy duties.









						Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




And if there is still money, build more convoy escorts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am hearing a lot of dissatisfaction with reliability and design issues of the 3 Fisheries Vessels built by Seaspan. The engineers are not happy with the design of the engineroom and would like to force the designers to sail in it for awhile and most likely drown them.


----------



## MTShaw

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am hearing a lot of dissatisfaction with reliability and design issues of the 3 Fisheries Vessels built by Seaspan. The engineers are not happy with the design of the engineroom and would like to force the designers to sail in it for awhile and most likely drown them.


Sounds like Canadian naval architects need to shake there heads. Also the winches supplied for the ships either poorly speced or poorly built.


----------



## YZT580

Was Seaspan responsible or did they build according to specs.?  I seem to recall that the last design out of Transport was top heavy.  Perhaps they need to go to sea for a few months and discover the meaning of best practices.


----------



## MTShaw

YZT580 said:


> Was Seaspan responsible or did they build according to specs.?  I seem to recall that the last design out of Transport was top heavy.  Perhaps they need to go to sea for a few months and discover the meaning of best practices.


I don’t know anything about the fisheries being top heavy. I do know that the the hydrographic ship was a sent back from Seaspan to the original designer for being top heavy.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am hearing a lot of dissatisfaction with reliability and design issues of the 3 Fisheries Vessels built by Seaspan. The engineers are not happy with the design of the engineroom and would like to force the designers to sail in it for awhile and most likely drown them.



So we're ready to start building Carriers and Subs then?


----------



## MTShaw

Kirkhill said:


> So we're ready to start building Carriers and Subs then?


Lolololol. To true.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am hearing a lot of dissatisfaction with reliability and design issues of the 3 Fisheries Vessels built by Seaspan. The engineers are not happy with the design of the engineroom and would like to force the designers to sail in it for awhile and most likely drown them.


Some of the shine coming off Seapan now?  I'm not glad, but I'm relieved I don't have to pretend like they are amazing anymore.

They built barges and tugs before.  Lots of learning to do.


----------



## Underway

YZT580 said:


> Was Seaspan responsible or did they build according to specs.?  I seem to recall that the last design out of Transport was top heavy.  Perhaps they need to go to sea for a few months and discover the meaning of best practices.


Seaspan is responsible.  Its their design.  The "specs" only cover the big portions of the ship.  All plumbing, equipment and other systems inside the ship are not part of the "specs".  As responsible engineers, they should check and fix any issues that they find.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am hearing a lot of dissatisfaction with reliability and design issues of the 3 Fisheries Vessels built by Seaspan. The engineers are not happy with the design of the engineroom and would like to force the designers to sail in it for awhile and most likely drown them.


Engineers, like to bitch about everything. Its not like the CG never saw the plans.


----------



## TacticalTea

Spencer100 said:


> Unions and Regulations plus energy costs (this one is newer but government policy to raise the price of energy)


Although Quebec has some of the cheapest energy in the world. That's why it produces energy-intensive aluminium.


Kirkhill said:


> Retain the Kingstons


Even in your wildest dreams?! I'd retire those things right this moment if it were in my power. Granted that's probably shortsighted and why such things aren't in my power, but, you get the point


----------



## Underway

TacticalTea said:


> Even in your wildest dreams?! I'd retire those things right this moment if it were in my power. Granted that's probably shortsighted and why such things aren't in my power, but, you get the point


And we'll keep you from having that power  .  Until there is a program building to replace them MCDV's need to stay.  They are far too useful.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am hearing a lot of dissatisfaction with reliability and design issues of the 3 Fisheries Vessels built by Seaspan. The engineers are not happy with the design of the engineroom and would like to force the designers to sail in it for awhile and most likely drown them.


Here is a CBC report from a couple day ago that looks at the problem:



> Canadian Coast Guard 'monitoring' parts failures in new vessels
> Problems included corrosion, premature wear or mislabelling
> 
> Paul Withers · CBC News · Posted: Mar 28, 2022 6:00 AM AT | Last Updated: March 28
> 
> 
> The Canadian Coast Guard says it is closely monitoring problems affecting components on all three of its new offshore fisheries science vessels.
> 
> Two different components — a propulsion shaft tube and valves controlling seawater intake — have needed repair or replacement on coast guard ships John Franklin, Jacques Cartier and John Cabot.
> The "class-wide" problems included corrosion, premature wear or mislabelling.
> 
> The failure of a third component — a switch that controls motor speed — caused a fire on board the B.C.-based John Franklin and led to a stop-sail order from independent inspectors working on behalf of Transport Canada Marine Safety. The defective controller, known as a variable frequency drive, was found to be an isolated incident.
> 
> The Seaspan Shipyard in Vancouver built the ships at a cost of $788 million as part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy. The ships entered service between 2019 and 2021, providing fisheries science and monitoring in the Pacific and Atlantic.
> 
> "The construction of an entirely new class of vessels is a complex endeavour, and a certain number of challenges with new ships can be expected until they reach and maintain their normal operational service lives," Lindsey McDonald, a spokesperson for the coast guard, said in a statement.
> "The Canadian Coast Guard continues to closely monitor this situation."
> Seaspan statement​In a statement, Seaspan said the ships are a new class of vessel, and are highly complex and capable.
> "And we're proud to see these ships performing well overall," said spokesperson Jo-Anne Dyer.
> "As any new ship enters full operation, there may be some issues that need to be addressed and we continue to work closely with our customer, ready to provide support and assistance if and as required."
> Newer vessels​The forward and aft propulsion shaft stern tube bearings allow the propeller to turn smoothly. The part has been repaired on CCGS Franklin and CCGS Cabot, which is the newest of the fleet and based in St. John's.
> 
> Halifax-based CCGS Cartier will be pulled out of the water next month for a refit. Its propeller shaft tube bearings will be replaced, according to the tender document. The tender closes next week.
> "There are signs of premature bearing wear," said McDonald.
> 
> Seawater piping and valve failures required part replacements on all three ships. That work has been completed.
> 
> There was a report with various potential causes identified, including fluid flow rates, dissimilar metals (galvanic corrosion), and mislabelled valves," McDonald said.
> 
> The ships have a one-year warranty after delivery.
> 
> Only CCGS Cabot was still under warranty when Seaspan repaired its stern tube bearings in January 2022.
> 
> CCGS Franklin was in dry dock for other items last fall and had its stern tube bearings repaired as additional work at a cost of $410,978.53.
> 'Extremely rare and isolated incident'​Although the propulsion variable frequency drives fell under an extended material and workmanship warranty, the failure on CCGS Franklin occurred after that warranty had expired.
> The starboard variable frequency drive was repaired during the $2.4-million refit.
> "An investigation by [Canadian Coast Guard] confirmed this was an extremely rare and isolated incident,' said McDonald.
> 
> A failed disconnect switch caused a fire on board CCGS John Franklin. (Canadian Coast Guard)
> "Upon investigation, it was determined that the mechanism of failure was extremely rare and there was no evidence to suggest that the same issue existed on the other two vessels."
> 
> When the refit was completed in December, the stop-sail order was lifted by the American Bureau of Shipping, which provides regulatory inspections. The ship returned to service in January.
> 
> "Ideally this is the kind of thing that doesn't happen, but it's hard to sometimes know exactly what kind of performance you're going to get out of a piece of equipment or some assembly part until you actually put it into a real operational setting," said Dave Perry, a shipbuilding and ship maintenance analyst and vice-president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
> 'Starting from scratch'​He likened it to a car parts recall and is not surprised these kinds of problems have surfaced.
> "We need to keep in mind with our shipbuilding efforts that we've created this industry and created all of the supply chain going into it basically from scratch," he said.
> 
> "You've got a situation where a whole bunch of companies have to provide parts and systems that go into making these ships, and we're putting that whole team together. Basically the Franklin was the first time that that was done for Seaspan."



Link


----------



## Halifax Tar

TacticalTea said:


> Even in your wildest dreams?! I'd retire those things right this moment if it were in my power. Granted that's probably shortsighted and why such things aren't in my power, but, you get the point



Why so ?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> Engineers, like to bitch about everything. Its not like the CG never saw the plans.


The CCG has a long history of taking proven hull designs and overloading them or having them shorten to save money, with predictable results. An inexperience builder with CCG doing oversight is not a good recipe.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

YZT580 said:


> Was Seaspan responsible or did they build according to specs.?  I seem to recall that the last design out of Transport was top heavy.  Perhaps they need to go to sea for a few months and discover the meaning of best practices.


Weatherships and 500 Class enter chat


----------



## TacticalTea

Halifax Tar said:


> Why so ?


It lacks all four of these: Seakeeping, speed, weaponry, role (since we have the AOPS now).

And I'd have bought the Mistrals in 2015 ;P


----------



## Underway

TacticalTea said:


> It lacks all four of these: Seakeeping, speed, weaponry, role (since we have the AOPS now).
> 
> And I'd have bought the Mistrals in 2015 ;P


Seakeeping is fine. Have a weird roll sometimes but you get used to it.
Weaponry, fine for their role, I've been over this a million times and we don't need up armed MCDV's.
Speed yah this should be better.
Role... still have work to do all the time.  Command development platforms for NWO, route survey, new equipment trials, OP CARIBE, domestic patrol, excellent dive platforms etc...


----------



## FSTO

So at the Defence Committee today, Williams was on his hobby horse again, but Dave Perry from CGAI took the steam out of him by pointing out that you cannot make nation to nation comparisons when it comes to procurement. 
Williams was on the "Build 3 CSC's" (which is bloody stupid, 2 on each coast at a minimum)  and restart the process, "properly" to build the remaining 12 schtick.


----------



## TacticalTea

FSTO said:


> So at the Defence Committee today, Williams was on his hobby horse again, but Dave Perry from CGAI took the steam out of him by pointing out that you cannot make nation to nation comparisons when it comes to procurement.
> Williams was on the "Build 3 CSC's" (which is bloody stupid, 2 on each coast at a minimum)  and restart the process, "properly" to build the remaining 12 schtick.


Who is this Williams person and why does their opinion matter?


----------



## dapaterson

Former Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel in DND.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Former Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel in DND.


So, not credible.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:


> So at the Defence Committee today, Williams was on his hobby horse again, but Dave Perry from CGAI took the steam out of him by pointing out that you cannot make nation to nation comparisons when it comes to procurement.
> Williams was on the "Build 3 CSC's" (which is bloody stupid, 2 on each coast at a minimum)  and restart the process, "properly" to build the remaining 12 schtick.


Bit surprised he's not officially a registered lobbyist, but the small company he works for represents Alion Canada which was one of the losing bidders, so he is hardly neutral. Would be nice to see someone call him on his bias in Parliament.


----------



## Maxman1

Kirkhill said:


> build Knud Rasmussens for inshore patrol work.  Stanflex modules for 76, SAM and NSMs as well as civvy duties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if there is still money, build more convoy escorts.



I forgot about those. I'll add to my list six to twelve of them and possibly a few more for the coast guard, with a hangar if possible.

And the Australian _Attack_ or _Shortfin Barracuda _class subs, but built in France by Naval Group (building them in Australia by shipyards that have never built a submarine was probably the cause of the ballooning costs and long lead times).

And of course this is on top of ships planned, like the CSC and _Protecteur_ class.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Maxman1 said:


> I forgot about those. I'll add to my list six to twelve of them and possibly a few more for the coast guard, with a hangar if possible.
> 
> And the Australian _Attack_ or _Shortfin Barracuda _class subs, but built in France by Naval Group (building them in Australia by shipyards that have never built a submarine was probably the cause of the ballooning costs and long lead times).
> 
> And of course this is on top of ships planned, like the CSC and _Protecteur_ class.


These will look really nice sitting alongside jetties we don't have with crews that don't exist.

The ships are only a part of it, unless we have supporting infrastructure, repair resources etc it's a waste of taxpayers money. We don't have enough for the current fleet and that's just trending downwards, and as the US LCS experiment shows, can't really cut people and still be a useful warship.


----------



## Maxman1

Navy_Pete said:


> These will look really nice sitting alongside jetties we don't have with crews that don't exist.



The_ Knud Rasmussens _have a crew of 18, with accommodations for up to 43. Half the crew requirement of the _Kingstons_.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Maxman1 said:


> The_ Knud Rasmussens _have a crew of 18, with accommodations for up to 43. Half the crew requirement of the _Kingstons_.


They are twice the size though, and the 'core crew' usually means they have enough to leave the harbour, not actually do anything useful. They will still need more jetty space and increased maintenance, espcecially if they come with helo capabilities (for helos we also don't have, and would have their own flight crews etc which we...also don't have).

The MCDVs are being crewed by reg force now, which is making the crew problem on the heavies worse.

In the short term, if we tie up some MCDVs and mothball a few CPFs we might have enough people to actually sail the ships we have safely and be able to do enough maintenance to have them up to the safety standard for basic sailing.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Maxman1 said:


> The_ Knud Rasmussens _have a crew of 18, with accommodations for up to 43. Half the crew requirement of the _Kingstons_.



In home port duty watches alone we'd complicate the F out that 18 people.


----------



## TacticalTea

Navy_Pete said:


> They are twice the size though, and the 'core crew' usually means they have enough to leave the harbour, not actually do anything useful. They will still need more jetty space and increased maintenance, espcecially if they come with helo capabilities (for helos we also don't have, and would have their own flight crews etc which we...also don't have).
> 
> The MCDVs are being crewed by reg force now, which is making the crew problem on the heavies worse.
> 
> In the short term, if we tie up some MCDVs and mothball a few CPFs we might have enough people to actually sail the ships we have safely and be able to do enough maintenance to have them up to the safety standard for basic sailing.


Yeah I'm guessing that's a day crew.

I can't imagine sustainably running that kind of a ship with only 18 people.

I'm a bit perplexed by your assessment that RegF manning of the MCDVs is problematic. Suggesting we should return to the split fleet of yore? 

If anything, I just expect that the MCDVs will be retired as more AOPVs join the fleets, probably none left by the time the first CSC is commissioned. We also have two JSSs to fill (though presumably, some of those bunks would be taken by those coming off the Asterix).


----------



## Stoker

TacticalTea said:


> Yeah I'm guessing that's a day crew.
> 
> I can't imagine sustainably running that kind of a ship with only 18 people.
> 
> I'm a bit perplexed by your assessment that RegF manning of the MCDVs is problematic. Suggesting we should return to the split fleet of yore?
> 
> If anything, I just expect that the MCDVs will be retired as more AOPVs join the fleets, probably none left by the time the first CSC is commissioned. We also have two JSSs to fill (though presumably, some of those bunks would be taken by those coming off the Asterix).


All Kingston Class have been given a structural survey by ABS and are structurally sound for the next 15 years and that's due to the maintenance construct. All Kingston's have been funded for a further 5 years for maintenance and have structural certifications issued for 5 years. After the initial 5 years expect several to be put into low readiness and that will continue each 5 year cycle. Kingston's will probably be sailing in some form for the next 15 years. 

Very cheap to operate and maintain compared to AOPS. AOPS can't replace everything a Kingston Class can do. Expect more reserves to be manning the Kingston's in the near future.


----------



## Maxman1

Navy_Pete said:


> They are twice the size though, and the 'core crew' usually means they have enough to leave the harbour, not actually do anything useful. They will still need more jetty space and increased maintenance, espcecially if they come with helo capabilities (for helos we also don't have, and would have their own flight crews etc which we...also don't have).



They are twice the displacement. But the overall length and beam are only slight more, and still less than the _Harry DeWolf_.
_Kingston _class:
OAL: 181ft
Beam: 37ft
Draft: 11ft

_Knud Rasmussen _class:
OAL: 235ft
Beam: 47ft
Draft: 16ft

_Braunschweig _class (for comparison, since I also suggest that):
OAL: 292ft
Beam: 43ft
Draft: 11ft

_Harry DeWolf class:_
OAL: 340ft
Beam: 62ft
Draft: 21ft

Any jetty that can accommodate the _Harry DeWolf _will handle those ships, and somehow I find it unlikely we would have any jetties that can only _just _accommodate a single _Kingston_ but nothing even slightly larger. And new ships *should* require less maintenance than the older ship it replaces, after shakedown.

We would obviously use our own helicopters, which is unfortunately the Cyclone class. The original design of both the _Knud Rasmussen_ and the _Braunschweig _have a helipad, but no hangar, just like the _Kingstons_. However, the _Braunschweig_ class was modified for Israel as the _Sa'ar 6_ with a hangar for a MH-60, which is related to the Cyclone and slightly longer.


----------



## Good2Golf

Stoker said:


> Very cheap to operate and maintain compared to AOPS. AOPS can't replace everything a Kingston Class can do. Expect more reserves to be manning the Kingston's in the near future.



…sounds like the Navy’s boat equivalent of the Griffon.


----------



## Stoker

TacticalTea said:


> It lacks all four of these: Seakeeping, speed, weaponry, role (since we have the AOPS now).
> 
> And I'd have bought the Mistrals in 2015 ;P


The ships ride fine, its just the risk averse crews we have now. Speed 15.5 compared to 17 knots for AOPS, still gets you where you need to go. Weaponry, made do with .50 cals, seems pretty successful conducting Op Caribe's. For role have a look at conuse and conops for both classes, AOPS was never designed to replace the Kingston's. In fact both will continue to operate doing similar missions.


----------



## TacticalTea

Stoker said:


> The ships ride fine, its just the risk averse crews we have now. Speed 15.5 compared to 17 knots for AOPS, still gets you where you need to go. Weaponry, made do with .50 cals, seems pretty successful conducting Op Caribe's. For role have a look at conuse and conops for both classes, AOPS was never designed to replace the Kingston's. In fact both will continue to operate doing similar missions.


Gotta admit I've never read the MCDV's CONUSE/OPS. 

I get your point; but I try to put myself in the Treasury board's shoes. At the end of the day, they're the ones pulling the strings, not the Navy.

We've got a LOT of new hulls coming out. Something's just gonna have to give.


----------



## Stoker

TacticalTea said:


> Gotta admit I've never read the MCDV's CONUSE/OPS.
> 
> I get your point; but I try to put myself in the Treasury board's shoes. At the end of the day, they're the ones pulling the strings, not the Navy.
> 
> We've got a LOT of new hulls coming out. Something's just gonna have to give.


The RCN still allocates the money for ships and decides what they can do without. I already mentioned that some Kingston's will probably be paid off each 60 month period. 6 AOPS can't replace 12 Kingston Class and there is the MCM piece now that the Kingston's are doing that AOPS can't.
 There is plans to stand up a Kingston Class replacement at some point, and they will be replaced with a class of ship that can go 25 knots, no helo, a light gun and slightly longer than the current class with many of the same features of the Kingstons.
Don't be surprised a CPF or two will be paid off in the near future due to their condition and the crew and maintenance savings will help everyone.


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> …sounds like the Navy’s boat equivalent of the Griffon


Not exactly but I can see a few parallels.

I think it's pretty well established what their limitations are and what their strengths are.  They fill the "cheap and useful" role that the RCN needs when a big ship isn't necessary. 



Navy_Pete said:


> The MCDVs are being crewed by reg force now, which is making the crew problem on the heavies worse.


Since the majority of the MCDV crew switched over to Reg F with the "Big Idea" I'm pretty sure that's not the issue.  And those same Class A and C contract sailors are now sailing with the rest of the fleet instead.  On my last deployment, there were about 13 PRes onboard.

Besides the PRes couldn't crew them anymore entirely anyways.  At least one ship per coast was majority Reg F before they just did the full switch over.


----------



## TacticalTea

Stoker said:


> The RCN still allocates the money for ships and decides what they can do without. I already mentioned that some Kingston's will probably be paid off each 60 month period. 6 AOPS can't replace 12 Kingston Class and there is the MCM piece now that the Kingston's are doing that AOPS can't.
> There is plans to stand up a Kingston Class replacement at some point, and they will be replaced with a class of ship that can go 25 knots, no helo, a light gun and slightly longer than the current class with many of the same features of the Kingstons.
> Don't be surprised a CPF or two will be paid off in the near future due to their condition and the crew and maintenance savings will help everyone.


You're absolutely right on the MCM and 6 for 12 points. 

But as Underway alluded to, given our pers shortage, I just don't see how we can make it work.

So yes, the idea that we'll sacrifice some hulls as you described seems very likely.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> All Kingston Class have been given a structural survey by ABS and are structurally sound for the next 15 years and that's due to the maintenance construct. All Kingston's have been funded for a further 5 years for maintenance and have structural certifications issued for 5 years. After the initial 5 years expect several to be put into low readiness and that will continue each 5 year cycle. Kingston's will probably be sailing in some form for the next 15 years.
> 
> Very cheap to operate and maintain compared to AOPS. AOPS can't replace everything a Kingston Class can do. Expect more reserves to be manning the Kingston's in the near future.


There is a significant shortage of seagoing personal in the public service and commercial as well. The government should be promoting the Naval Reserve as a way to get sea time and certification. If not then in 15 year or so we are going to have critical shortage of ship Pilots to attend in coming and outgoing ships.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> There is a significant shortage of seagoing personal in the public service and commercial as well. The government should be promoting the Naval Reserve as a way to get sea time and certification. If not then in 15 year or so we are going to have critical shortage of ship Pilots to attend in coming and outgoing ships.


The biggest challenge with this is that the RCN relies heavily on simulation to get "virtual experience" whereas the civilian tickets require non-virtual experience.  Pros and cons.

Every hour in a simulator is jam-packed with situations and learning.  I can say from experience the vast majority of my time as a watchkeeper it was feast or famine.   Oh look a contact!  First one in three days!

That being said you can't replicate doing the job with real-life pressures. Practice only takes you so far before gametime.


----------



## Maxman1

Stoker said:


> There is plans to stand up a Kingston Class replacement at some point, and they will be replaced with a class of ship that can go 25 knots, no helo, a light gun and slightly longer than the current class with many of the same features of the Kingstons.



The _Braunschweig _corvettes check all those boxes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's odd, TC Civil Aviation supports simulators and a friend of mine was able to write off 10% of his twin engine time using a approved simulator setup at home on his computer. 10% of your twin engine time pays for a very nice computer by the way. Sadly most of TC Marine is made up of crusty old Merchant Marine deck Officers from nations with less than stellar safety records or care about human resources. The marine colleges and the ships Pilots use simulators all the time as part of training. When I was reviewing large LNG terminals, one of the steps mandated was simulator trials to determine best placement of docks, docking aids, navigation aids and tug procedures.


----------



## Stoker

Maxman1 said:


> The _Braunschweig _corvettes check all those boxes.


Too much stuff we don't need and a 7 day endurance? no thanks. A river class would be closer to what we want. Expect any ship as a replacement for the Kinston Class to be built to Lloyds standards.


----------



## quadrapiper

Stoker said:


> Too much stuff we don't need and a 7 day endurance? no thanks. A river class would be closer to what we want. Expect any ship as a replacement for the Kingston Class to be built to Lloyds standards.


Is there a need for a MCM-specific vessel, something with Z-drives generally, or to stay well under 200'; i.e., _should _there be (setting aside entirely crewing) a (fibreglass?) MCM etc. specialist, an AOPS, _and_ a "patrol" _River_-class-ish vessel?


----------



## Underway

MCM are going the way of motherships for UUV's and USV's.  Need to keep the ship well away from the ordinance if you can and let the robots do their work.  So basically anything with a crane and station keeping could work.  Ideally, you want something slicker though.


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:


> Ideally, you want something slicker though.



Shads in a RHIB?


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> Shads in a RHIB?


Firstly it's SHADs... secondly only if they come from YORK.  (I'm a STAR alumnus so need to get the shots in...)


----------



## dapaterson

I assume SHADs in a RHIB is like Snakes on a Plane?


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> I assume SHADs in a RHIB is like Snakes on a Plane?


More like a bear crapping in the woods.  It's their natural state if they are Class A.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> MCM are going the way of motherships for UUV's and USV's.  Need to keep the ship well away from the ordinance if you can and let the robots do their work.  So basically anything with a crane and station keeping could work.  Ideally, you want something slicker though.


That's what the Kingston Class is currently doing. Operating well outside the mine danger zone operating the REMUS AUV's to find mines and the other Kingston Class in consort utilize the divers to destroy those mines. You are correct anything could theoretically do this, still needs a good degaussing system and be highly maneuverable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Stoker said:


> You are correct anything could theoretically do this, still needs a good degaussing system and be highly maneuverable.



Yikes!  Don't be too vague or the TB and PWGSC folks following this thread will take advantage of that....you never know what you'd end up with!!


----------



## TacticalTea

Stoker said:


> That's what the Kingston Class is currently doing. Operating well outside the mine danger zone operating the REMUS AUV's to find mines and the other Kingston Class in consort utilize the divers to destroy those mines. You are correct anything could theoretically do this, still needs a good degaussing system and be highly maneuverable.


AOPS is definitely manoeuvrable enough but I have no idea about degaussing, and at that point you're risking a lot (our most massive ships, until we get the JSS) for a few mines. MCDVs definitely easier to send them off on such a mission.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If you wanted to do a lot more expeditionary work, a semi-submersible heavy lift ship with decent sized accommodation, workshop, good sized crane(s). You load a bunch of small patrol/mine hunter or landing craft in cradles, send the ship overseas, it acts as transport, depot ship, repair facility.


----------



## Prairie canuck

(From the outside looking in) My impression is that over the last 20 yrs or more of larger deployments the big question is always how do you get there? Landlocked deployments are obviously by air and the C17s have made those possible but for those where there is a port available it seems it's all about hitching a ride or renting a ship. Wouldn't it be a priority to get some sea transport with larger landing craft? A couple *modest* LHDs would add quite a bit of capability whether it's for a combat zone or humanitarian assistance. 10,000 to 13,000 ton Damen Schelde Enforcers series?


----------



## Underway

TacticalTea said:


> AOPS is definitely manoeuvrable enough but I have no idea about degaussing, and at that point you're risking a lot (our most massive ships, until we get the JSS) for a few mines. MCDVs definitely easier to send them off on such a mission.


Mavoeuvrable yes, but can it keep a static station?  I don't think it can unless it goes to anchor.  The "ideal" MCM vessel can stay in one spot while its little minions go and do the work away from the ship.


----------



## YZT580

Prairie canuck said:


> (From the outside looking in) My impression is that over the last 20 yrs or more of larger deployments the big question is always how do you get there? Landlocked deployments are obviously by air and the C17s have made those possible but for those where there is a port available it seems it's all about hitching a ride or renting a ship. Wouldn't it be a priority to get some sea transport with larger landing craft? A couple *modest* LHDs would add quite a bit of capability whether it's for a combat zone or humanitarian assistance. 10,000 to 13,000 ton Damen Schelde Enforcers series?


You must be a young.un.  We have  had relatively good airlift capability since shortly after the war starting with the Yukons.  In fact, transport used to run a fairly comprehensive airline service even domestically.


----------



## Stoker

TacticalTea said:


> AOPS is definitely manoeuvrable enough but I have no idea about degaussing, and at that point you're risking a lot (our most massive ships, until we get the JSS) for a few mines. MCDVs definitely easier to send them off on such a mission.


There is a number of issues with that. First of all AOPS has a massive magnetic signature and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have a degaussing system. As well it has a bow thruster but no Z drives. Kingston Class is highly maneuverable and can stop within the length of itself. AOPS has a massive draft compared with other MCM classes including the Kingston Class.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> Not exactly but I can see a few parallels.
> 
> I think it's pretty well established what their limitations are and what their strengths are.  They fill the "cheap and useful" role that the RCN needs when a big ship isn't necessary.


Thanks for the insight Underway.  👍🏼 

I know you got it, but to make it clear for others tangential to the discussion, is was not saying “like the Griffon” as a slight.  I flew a few (all, less 147D) green helos in my time and I would easily take the Griffon over the Twin Huey, some imperfect characteristics notwithstanding. They (Griffon, MCDV) both are what they are.  Make the most of them, given we have them, vice spending useful energy instead on whining and complaining.


----------



## TacticalTea

Underway said:


> Mavoeuvrable yes, but can it keep a static station?  I don't think it can unless it goes to anchor.  The "ideal" MCM vessel can stay in one spot while its little minions go and do the work away from the ship.


It has a bow thruster. I've had no issue maintaining a position.

Stoker has some good points in his last comment though.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The smaller size of the MCDV gives it a lot of pluses, meaning it can go places neither an AOP's or a frigate can do, but is more seaworthy and more endurance (but slower) than a typical patrol boat. The MCDV's were a great buy, although I have to disagree a bit with Underway and say that they should get the same RWS as the AOP's. Moving forward, their replacement could be split between a slightly bigger and faster vessel and another design that is very similar in size and has an ice strengthen hull like the current MCDV's.


----------



## Navy_Pete

AOPS is an icebreaker; those requirements are fundamentally counter to what you need in an MCM ship. It's also built to commercial standards so isn't intended to take battle damage. 

Both AOPS and MCDVs good for what they are, but the swiss knife approach just means you don't do a lot of things well, and puts people at unnecessary risk.  Probably a lot better at just strapping a few UUVs on to a frigate with a bolt down controller in a mission fit.


----------



## Czech_pivo

suffolkowner said:


> There's already been talk here that the Halifax class will require some deeper structural overhauls to keep them going. That combined with manning issues suggests that the RCN should be taking one out of service on each coast for that purpose.
> 
> 
> We've got a long road ahead. Depending on when the CSC gets started and how quickly they can be built and the learning process. Below is my own creation just going off of some RN and RAN examples. Can Irving get the build process down to 5 yrs? Is that reasonable? Are any of the following guesses even in the ballpark?
> 
> 
> CSC/Halifax transitionagelaid downconstruction yrsHalifax199220313920238Vancouver199320334020258Toronto199320344120277Regina199320354220296Quebec199420364220306Montreal199420374320316Fredricton199420384420326Calgary199520394420336Charlottetown199520404520346Winnipeg199620414520356St John's199620424620366Ottawa19962043472037


As it was stated yesterday, a 1 or 2 of these will most likely be paid off in the near future. 
If we interpret that to mean within 2-3yrs, when the oldest ship will be 31-32yrs old, we're going to be in serious trouble over the next 10+yrs. 

If the first CSC is not available to the RCN until 2031 - 9yrs from now and in 2-3yrs we've already started paying off CPF's in 2024/25, how many CPF's will be usable by 2037 when 5 CSC's are to be built and the youngest CPF is already 41yrs old? 

What is not transparent at all is what will be the strength of the RCN in terms of available CSC/CPF's 10yrs from now, 15yrs, 20yrs, etc?  None of this information is being conveyed. No one is asking the hard questions and holding people/departments/organizations accountable.  Maybe its an SEC issue, don't let our enemies know how weak we will be in 10-15-20-25yrs from now - but anyone with a brain can see this, can understand it. Its plainly evident to anyone who's willing to look for it.  

We read that the RCN is going to be short 1k sailors once all the new CSC's are built, really?  All 15 CSC's are not going to be available for another 20+yrs, during which the 12 CPF's will be long retired.  If 2 CPF's are paid off in the next 3yrs, there's a freeing up of 450 sailors, allocating them to the new AOPS solves that crewing issue (yes training will need to occur, certification, etc, but you have the bodies, it comes down to managing the resources) and the remaining sailors are spread across the remaining 10 CPF's.  If the RCN can't solve a staffing issue when they have a 20yr runway to do so.....well....


----------



## MarkOttawa

Retired AF Guy said:


> Here is a CBC report from a couple day ago that looks at the problem:
> 
> 
> 
> Link


At Maritime Executive, krazy kosts all around, still long time to get most vessels:



> Canadian Coast Guard's Three New Fishery Vessels Drydocked for Repair​The Canadian Coast Guard has found that its new series of marine science vessels have a "class-wide" issue with premature failure of their stern tube bearings, according to CBC, requiring all three hulls to be drydocked and repaired. CCGS _Sir John Franklin_ and CCGS _John Cabot _have already been refitted, and CCGS _Jacques Cartier _is due for a propeller shaft bearing replacement next month.
> 
> "As any new ship enters full operation, there may be some issues that need to be addressed and we continue to work closely with our customer, ready to provide support and assistance if and as required," a spokesperson for the shipbuilder told CBC.
> 
> The vessels were designed and built under Canada's National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), and the need for an early refit is the latest in a string of delays, cost overruns and setbacks for the program.
> 
> The NSS shares contracts among three Canadian shipyards for all government vessel procurement, including the Canadian Surface Combatant, a frigate for the Royal Canadian Navy; an Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessel, for both the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard; a new class of heavy icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard; the Offshore Fishery Science Vessels; and a variety of other support and non-combatant vessels.
> 
> The cost estimate for the frigate has skyrocketed to more than $3 billion per hull, nearly twice the price of a larger _Arleigh Burke_-class destroyer, and the price of the next two Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships for the Canadian Coast Guard has doubled to $600 million each.
> 
> The future icebreaker faces two challenges. The cost for each vessel in the two-hull series has risen to nearly $3 billion, roughly three times the unit cost for the U.S. Coast Guard's Polar Security Cutter heavy icebreaker program.
> 
> In addition, according to the Ottawa Citizen, the shipbuilder may have difficulty in sourcing the specialized LR EH50 high-strength steel specified for the construction of the vessels' hulls. The Canadian Coast Guard listed steel availability at the top of the list of its concerns for the program in response to questions from Canada's House of Commons. The market for structural steel has been stretched thin by demand shocks related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the NYSE Steel Index benchmark price has doubled since 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Coast Guard's Three New Fishery Vessels Drydocked for Repair
> 
> 
> The Canadian Coast Guard has found that its new series of marine science vessels have a class-wide i...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.maritime-executive.com



If our governments were actually interested in acquiring capabilities that are needed (many certainly urgently for CCG), then at least Coast Guard vessels should be bought abroad: CHEAPER. FASTER. MAYBE EVEN BETTER.

Mark
Ottawa           
​


----------



## Navy_Pete

The stern seal bearing would have been class approved, no?

Even with a lot of safeguards in place, oversight, commercial standards etc sometimes things just don't work as expected. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:


> At Maritime Executive, krazy kosts all around, still long time to get most vessels:
> 
> 
> 
> If our governments were actually interested in acquiring capabilities that are needed (many certainly urgently for CCG), then at least Coast Guard vessels should be bought abroad: CHEAPER. FASTER. MAYBE EVEN BETTER.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa
> ​


I saw the Franklin at VDC getting her shaft pulled and thought it was odd to do a shaft pull so soon.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> As it was stated yesterday, a 1 or 2 of these will most likely be paid off in the near future.
> If we interpret that to mean within 2-3yrs, when the oldest ship will be 31-32yrs old, we're going to be in serious trouble over the next 10+yrs.
> 
> If the first CSC is not available to the RCN until 2031 - 9yrs from now and in 2-3yrs we've already started paying off CPF's in 2024/25, how many CPF's will be usable by 2037 when 5 CSC's are to be built and the youngest CPF is already 41yrs old?
> 
> What is not transparent at all is what will be the strength of the RCN in terms of available CSC/CPF's 10yrs from now, 15yrs, 20yrs, etc?  None of this information is being conveyed. No one is asking the hard questions and holding people/departments/organizations accountable.  Maybe its an SEC issue, don't let our enemies know how weak we will be in 10-15-20-25yrs from now - but anyone with a brain can see this, can understand it. Its plainly evident to anyone who's willing to look for it.
> 
> We read that the RCN is going to be short 1k sailors once all the new CSC's are built, really?  All 15 CSC's are not going to be available for another 20+yrs, during which the 12 CPF's will be long retired.  If 2 CPF's are paid off in the next 3yrs, there's a freeing up of 450 sailors, allocating them to the new AOPS solves that crewing issue (yes training will need to occur, certification, etc, but you have the bodies, it comes down to managing the resources) and the remaining sailors are spread across the remaining 10 CPF's.  If the RCN can't solve a staffing issue when they have a 20yr runway to do so.....well....


In the RCN we have a lot of pretty talented people, in fact we have whole organizations who deal with the maintenance of our ships and manage their overall condition and their doing stellar work. They know full well the challenges we will have to face to maintain ships until the first CSC is accepted and anyone in the RCN knows this. There is nothing wrong in asking questions but honestly the RCN and the government doesn't have to provide those answers to you in detail and really there are all kinds of details and plans that you don't know about. It almost seems that you think we're inept or hiding something. So post away with your speculation but rest assured the people who need to know know.


----------



## Maxman1

Navy_Pete said:


> AOPS is an icebreaker; those requirements are fundamentally counter to what you need in an MCM ship. It's also built to commercial standards so isn't intended to take battle damage.
> 
> Both AOPS and MCDVs good for what they are, but the swiss knife approach just means you don't do a lot of things well, and puts people at unnecessary risk.  Probably a lot better at just strapping a few UUVs on to a frigate with a bolt down controller in a mission fit.



Which is why I think a mixture of the _Braunschweig _corvette and _Knud Rasmussen _patrol ship would suit us, particularly as the latter is Polar Class 6, but isn't an icebreaker (which likely accounts for its higher displacement) and is designed around a similar modular mission payload system as the _Kingstons_, the StanFlex system, so we would be able to continue using our existing hardware (unless we wanted to adopt the Danes' StanFlex system, which is basically a glorified sea can anyway).

The former addresses the other shortcomings in speed, size and armament for patrol duties without being excessive or downright ersatz frigates. Both were built to naval standards and are more military robust, rather commercial standards.



MarkOttawa said:


> If our governments were actually interested in acquiring capabilities that are needed (many certainly urgently for CCG), then at least Coast Guard vessels should be bought abroad: CHEAPER. FASTER. MAYBE EVEN BETTER.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



If they have ice strengthened hulls, they would even be Harder, better, faster, stronger.


----------



## Stoker

Maxman1 said:


> Which is why I think a mixture of the _Braunschweig _corvette and _Knud Rasmussen _patrol ship would suit us, particularly as the latter is Polar Class 6, but isn't an icebreaker (which likely accounts for its higher displacement) and is designed around a similar modular mission payload system as the _Kingstons_, the StanFlex system, so we would be able to continue using our existing hardware (unless we wanted to adopt the Danes' StanFlex system, which is basically a glorified sea can anyway).
> 
> The former addresses the other shortcomings in speed, size and armament for patrol duties without being excessive or downright ersatz frigates. Both were built to naval standards and are more military robust, rather commercial standards.
> 
> 
> 
> If they have ice strengthened hulls, they would even be Harder, better, faster, stronger.


Operated with Kund Rasmussen numerous times in the Arctic in the summer and toured her sister ship _Ejnar Mikkelsen_ when she visited Halifax a few years ago.  That ship is built to operate in bay ice and the ice type normally found in their part of the Arctic and the conditions in our part of the Arctic are  very different. No hanger, 1 ROD and 1 shaftline and the endurance is significantly less than a Kingston Class. It is built to operate off the Greenland Coast with heavy shore support.  That being said buy some to operate off our coasts but keep it away from the our Arctic.


----------



## GR66

To be honest, with manning issues likely to continue for the Navy, here's what I would focus on in terms of the future fleet:


2 x Leased AORs to supplement the JSS
Victoria Class replacement with 8-10 AIP subs (I like SSNs but I think the monetary and political cost would end up getting us too few to be as effective as a larger fleet of AIPs)
Eventual replacement of the Kingston-Class.  I see this falling somewhere between an OPV and a Corvette-type vessel.  Must haves to me would be range/endurance to reflect our operating requirements, a flex-deck of some sort, USV/UUV/UAV operations capabilities, a flight deck large enough to re-fuel/rearm the Cyclone/Cormorant, RHIBs and constabulary weaponry.  Like-to-haves in my mind would be a towed-array sonar (integrated or containerized), a hanger to support a larger-class UAV (MQ-8 Fire Scout?) and some limited AAW/ASW/ASuW capability.

For the Kingston-Class replacement I think you'd want to keep the manning well below 100 personnel (60-80 max...preferably closer to the lower end?) which could definitely limit the capabilities wish list (especially on the air ops side).  Between that and the extra manning required for an expanded submarine fleet I think you've likely hit the limit of what the Navy would be able to support even with a major recruiting push and retention efforts.  To my mind that rules out wish-list items such as Aircraft Carriers, Amphibious Assault Ships, etc.

Instead I think any additional focus should be on unmanned platforms - long-endurance/long range USVs, XLUUV's etc. for the RCN and UAVs like the MQ-4C Triton or MQ-9B Sea Guardian for the RCAF to expand our awareness of the Maritime domain.


----------



## suffolkowner

Stoker said:


> In the RCN we have a lot of pretty talented people, in fact we have whole organizations who deal with the maintenance of our ships and manage their overall condition and their doing stellar work. They know full well the challenges we will have to face to maintain ships until the first CSC is accepted and anyone in the RCN knows this. There is nothing wrong in asking questions but honestly the RCN and the government doesn't have to provide those answers to you in detail and really there are all kinds of details and plans that you don't know about. It almost seems that you think we're inept or hiding something. So post away with your speculation but rest assured the people who need to know know.


I don't think its unreasonable for the public that is paying for this to want to know and understand what the plan is. The CAF/DND/government get to hide behind the lack of interest and knowledge from the public more than they should and much more than they would if this was UK/AUS/USA. This is a big reason why support is so shallow for all things military when so little is actually done to encourage support. Usually if you want to find out what we are doing as a military you can find out better from our allies pres releases. If people think that there is an inappropiate amount of ineptness and suppression of information I would suggest that it is merely previous experience that is leading that thought process the result of which is the many posts of markottawa's


----------



## Halifax Tar

MarkOttawa said:


> At Maritime Executive, krazy kosts all around, still long time to get most vessels:
> 
> 
> 
> If our governments were actually interested in acquiring capabilities that are needed (many certainly urgently for CCG), then at least Coast Guard vessels should be bought abroad: CHEAPER. FASTER. MAYBE EVEN BETTER.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa
> ​



I've argued this for years on here.  And for the RCN.  Our commitment to made in Canada is huge problem.


----------



## suffolkowner

Halifax Tar said:


> I've argued this for years on here.  And for the RCN.  Our commitment to made in Canada is huge problem.


Would there be any ships at all if we didn't?


----------



## Stoker

suffolkowner said:


> I don't think its unreasonable for the public that is paying for this to want to know and understand what the plan is. The CAF/DND/government get to hide behind the lack of interest and knowledge from the public more than they should and much more than they would if this was UK/AUS/USA. This is a big reason why support is so shallow for all things military when so little is actually done to encourage support. Usually if you want to find out what we are doing as a military you can find out better from our allies pres releases. If people think that there is an inappropiate amount of ineptness and suppression of information I would suggest that it is merely previous experience that is leading that thought process the result of which is the many posts of markottawa's


Sorry disagree broad stokes perhaps, detailed plan no and regardless of the tax payers argument. If the government wants to release a detailed plan on how we are managing the ships maintenance, budgets, manning etc then that's up to them. If the public or OP wants to speculate and find out the nitty gritty details either get a job in Ottawa or file an access to information request.


----------



## suffolkowner

Stoker said:


> Sorry disagree broad stokes perhaps, detailed plan no and regardless of the tax payers argument. If the government wants to release a detailed plan on how we are managing the ships maintenance, budgets, manning etc then that's up to them. If the public or OP wants to speculate and find out the nitty gritty details either get a job in Ottawa or file an access to information request.


That could be part of the problem as there are precious few defence reporters to go around no doubt a vicious circle with public interest


----------



## Halifax Tar

suffolkowner said:


> Would there be any ships at all if we didn't?



Obviously not with the broken way currently conduct capitol level procurement. 

I am of the minority that believes we should be buying off the shelf from allies.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> I am of the minority that believes we should be buying off the shelf from allies the U.S.


Agree. And we can debate all we want about to whom we should hitch most of our wagons, but we benefit most from our relationship with America’s benevolence.  USN-RCN interoperability and likemindedness, check (SPY-7 on T26 says a lot).  Land/SOF cooperations/collaboration, check (locked down after 9-11).  NORAD cooperation flowing throughout the rest of the globe, check (C-17, C-130J, CH-147F [a thinly-veiled MH-47G], and now F-35). 

$0.02


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> Agree. And we can debate all we want about to whom we should hitch most of our wagons, but we benefit most from our relationship with America’s benevolence.  USN-RCN interoperability and likemindedness, check (SPY-7 on T26 says a lot).  Land/SOF cooperations/collaboration, check (locked down after 9-11).  NORAD cooperation flowing throughout the rest of the globe, check (C-17, C-130J, CH-147F [a thinly-veiled MH-47G], and now F-35).
> 
> $0.02



Absolutely no disagreement from me.  I would give anything to be compatible on all levels with their logistics support.


----------



## suffolkowner

Well instead we have a Norwegian half icebreaker a German AOR and a British frigate. While I tend to be in favour of building our own I also tend to think there should be an explicitly good reason for other than American platforms. The A330MRTT being a good example at present. 

Having said that some considersations for MCDV replacement


Argentinian gowindArafuraBraunshweigknud rasmussenriverdisplacement14501640184017201700length8780897280beam11131314.513.5draft3.343.454speed2122261720range80004000400030005500endurance30217/2121complement3040651830main arnament30mm40mm76mm76mm20mmsecondary arms2x0.525mm2x27mm2x0.5hanger5 tonnosmall uavnonostern rampyesnonoyesno


----------



## Stoker

suffolkowner said:


> Well instead we have a Norwegian half icebreaker a German AOR and a British frigate. While I tend to be in favour of building our own I also tend to think there should be an explicitly good reason for other than American platforms. The A330MRTT being a good example at present.
> 
> Having said that some considersations for MCDV replacement
> 
> 
> Argentinian gowindArafuraBraunshweigknud rasmussenriverdisplacement14501640184017201700length8780897280beam11131314.513.5draft3.343.454speed2122261720range80004000400030005500endurance30217/2121complement3040651830main arnament30mm40mm76mm76mm20mmsecondary arms2x0.525mm2x27mm2x0.5hanger5 tonnosmall uavnonostern rampyesnonoyesno


What I have seen of the statement of requirements for the Kingston Class replacement so far, is a slightly longer ship, small caliber main gun, modular payloads including MCM , drone capability, full size RHIB, good range, 25 knots, small crew size, Lloyds standards. They are taking the original requirements for the Kingston Class and improving upon the deficiencies. It may be an existing design which I favor the River Class or it may be a home grown design and I have seen concept art for it. Remember any replacement will have do the MCM job and be a patroller.


----------



## GR66

Stoker said:


> What I have seen of the statement of requirements for the Kingston Class replacement so far, is a slightly longer ship, small caliber main gun, modular payloads including MCM , drone capability, full size RHIB, good range, 25 knots, small crew size, Lloyds standards. They are taking the original requirements for the Kingston Class and improving upon the deficiencies. It may be an existing design which I favor the River Class or it may be a home grown design and I have seen concept art for it. Remember any replacement will have do the MCM job and be a patroller.


Doesn't sound too far off my "Must Haves"


GR66 said:


> Eventual replacement of the Kingston-Class.  I see this falling somewhere between an OPV and a Corvette-type vessel.  Must haves to me would be range/endurance to reflect our operating requirements✅, a flex-deck of some sort✅, USV/UUV/UAV operations capabilities✅, a flight deck large enough to re-fuel/rearm the Cyclone/Cormorant, RHIBs✅ and constabulary weaponry✅.  Like-to-haves in my mind would be a towed-array sonar (integrated or containerized), a hanger to support a larger-class UAV (MQ-8 Fire Scout?) and some limited AAW/ASW/ASuW capability.
> 
> For the Kingston-Class replacement I think you'd want to keep the manning well below 100 personnel (60-80 max...preferably closer to the lower end✅?) which could definitely limit the capabilities wish list (especially on the air ops side).  Between that and the extra manning required for an expanded submarine fleet I think you've likely hit the limit of what the Navy would be able to support even with a major recruiting push and retention efforts.  To my mind that rules out wish-list items such as Aircraft Carriers, Amphibious Assault Ships, etc.


----------



## Stoker

GR66 said:


> Doesn't sound too far off my "Must Haves"


You should add the towed array because any replacement will more than likely operate the current TRAPS towed array payload. No hanger or flight deck and crew size around 38 core with 15 to 20 training bunks.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Could the second generation Visby corvette being developed by Sweden be a contender for the MCDV replacement?


----------



## GR66

Stoker said:


> You should add the towed array because any replacement will more than likely operate the current TRAPS towed array payload. No hanger or flight deck and crew size around 38 core with 15 to 20 training bunks.




My preference would be to have a flight deck to be able to extend the range of a Cyclone when teaming with a CSC in an ASW role.  That extra deck space could also be used for a bolt-on missile system to provide some limited self-defence/strike capability if required but of course that may mean some trade-offs in terms of speed/range due to a larger hull size.


----------



## Stoker

GR66 said:


> My preference would be to have a flight deck to be able to extend the range of a Cyclone when teaming with a CSC in an ASW role.  That extra deck space could also be used for a bolt-on missile system to provide some limited self-defence/strike capability if required but of course that may mean some trade-offs in terms of speed/range due to a larger hull size.


Understood but the RCN is probably going to lightly arm this ship and want to keep in simple. So no missiles, no large gun, no helo.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Stoker said:


> Understood but the RCN is probably going to lightly arm this ship and want to keep in simple. So no missiles, no large gun, no helo.



What is our infatuation with small main armaments ?   

Why not the 57s or even modern 40mms.  Both of which are still being produced.


----------



## Swampbuggy

suffolkowner said:


> Well instead we have a Norwegian half icebreaker a German AOR and a British frigate. While I tend to be in favour of building our own I also tend to think there should be an explicitly good reason for other than American platforms. The A330MRTT being a good example at present.
> 
> Having said that some considersations for MCDV replacement
> 
> 
> Argentinian gowindArafuraBraunshweigknud rasmussenriverdisplacement14501640184017201700length8780897280beam11131314.513.5draft3.343.454speed2122261720range80004000400030005500endurance30217/2121complement3040651830main arnament30mm40mm76mm76mm20mmsecondary arms2x0.525mm2x27mm2x0.5hanger5 tonnosmall uavnonostern rampyesnonoyesno


I believe the info quoted here is for a batch 1 RIVER CLASS. The batch 2 has a higher top speed (24kts) and a larger main weapon (30mm) for example. It's a better fit for us than the batch 1.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:


> I believe the info quoted here is for a batch 1 RIVER CLASS. The batch 2 has a higher top speed (24kts) and a larger main weapon (30mm) for example. It's a better fit for us than the batch 1.


That would be my choice or a new design.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:


> What is our infatuation with small main armaments ?
> 
> Why not the 57s or even modern 40mms.  Both of which are still being produced.


What I saw was a 25mm to keep commonality with AOPS.


----------



## TacticalTea

Stoker said:


> Operated with Kund Rasmussen numerous times in the Arctic in the summer and toured her sister ship _Ejnar Mikkelsen_ when she visited Halifax a few years ago.  That ship is built to operate in bay ice and the ice type normally found in their part of the Arctic and the conditions in our part of the Arctic are  very different. No hanger,* 1 ROD and 1 shaftline* and the endurance is significantly less than a Kingston Class. It is built to operate off the Greenland Coast with heavy shore support.  That being said buy some to operate off our coasts but keep it away from the our Arctic.


Yeah that's a no-starter.


----------



## Swampbuggy

It might make some sense to explore having BAE build 6-7 of these for us as hulls and have them brought here for fitting out at ISI or possibly Davie. If CPF availability may be an issue going forward, a RIVER could maybe do a job that's beyond an MCDV tasking, while keeping a HAL free for something that really calls for it.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:


> It might make some sense to explore having BAE build 6-7 of these for us as hulls and have them brought here for fitting out at ISI or possibly Davie. If CPF availability may be an issue going forward, a RIVER could maybe do a job that's beyond an MCDV tasking, while keeping a HAL free for something that really calls for it.


or just give the contract to Heddle, but I do like the take the pressure off the Halifax class idea.


----------



## TacticalTea

Good2Golf said:


> Agree. And we can debate all we want about to whom we should hitch most of our wagons, but we benefit most from our relationship with America’s benevolence.  USN-RCN interoperability and likemindedness, check (SPY-7 on T26 says a lot).  Land/SOF cooperations/collaboration, check (locked down after 9-11).  NORAD cooperation flowing throughout the rest of the globe, check (C-17, C-130J, CH-147F [a thinly-veiled MH-47G], and now F-35).
> 
> $0.02


That's what I've been arguing for as well. We can greatly benefit integration from further integration with our American ally.

That said, we have the NSS now, and I think it's worth maintaining that course for the foreseeable future. When it comes to everything else though, whether it's add-ons like weapons systems, radar and comm suites, or procurement for the army and aviation, I'm all for it.


----------



## GR66

Stoker said:


> That would be my choice or a new design.


The Batch 2 River Class would tick pretty much all my boxes as well, including the flight deck.

I wonder, if both being BAE designs if there might be some commonalities between the general design concepts of the Rivers and the Type 26's which might lead to some commonalities in basic fittings and components?

Also, the RN Rivers might operate in some of the areas where we may deploy our own OPV's which could possibly lead to opportunities for shared logistics support?


----------



## Halifax Tar

What about the Samuel Beckett Class ?









						Samuel Beckett-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Swampbuggy

Halifax Tar said:


> What about the Samuel Beckett Class ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samuel Beckett-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


It's a great design, but the HMNZS OTAGO is an even better derivative of it, as it adds a hangar for real air capability. I believe in both cases they used a Vard Canada design as the baseline for the ship.


----------



## Kirkhill

Stoker said:


> You should add the towed array because any replacement will more than likely operate the current TRAPS towed array payload. No hanger or flight deck and crew size around 38 core with 15 to 20 training bunks.



No boat without a flight deck.  Must have.   Hangar optional.  But an aerial connection to other ships and to land has to be a key element.


----------



## GR66

Halifax Tar said:


> What about the Samuel Beckett Class ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samuel Beckett-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Similar size and performance but maybe a little less flexible?  Missing the flight deck.  Endurance listed as 21 days vs 35 days for the Rivers.  Doesn't have the embarked troop capacity and I _think_ I read somewhere that the Batch 2's can embark 6 x containers (vs 3 for the Samuel Beckett).


----------



## Swampbuggy

GR66 said:


> Similar size and performance but maybe a little less flexible?  Missing the flight deck.  Endurance listed as 21 days vs 35 days for the Rivers.  Doesn't have the embarked troop capacity and I _think_ I read somewhere that the Batch 2's can embark 6 x containers (vs 3 for the Samuel Beckett).


Also, and I know this shouldn't have anything to do with it, but I have to say that the Batch 2 RIVERS are absolutely beautiful looking ships. Gorgeous lines.


----------



## Prairie canuck

YZT580 said:


> You must be a young.un.  We have  had relatively good airlift capability since shortly after the war starting with the Yukons.  In fact, transport used to run a fairly comprehensive airline service even domestically.


Well I'm far from being a "young.un" and I don't care for high horses (phobia of mine). I'm one of those ignorant Canadian public who's here to learn and ask why things are the way they are. Couldn't hurt to have some information to support the CAF when we civvies are discussing things amongst ourselves could it?

I'm fairly certain that until the C17's were purchased Canada had to rely on the US to transport LAV's and Leopards etc. C130's are restricted on size and what they can fly overseas. I don't see the relevance of any post WWII equipment when discussing future procurements.
My inquiry was directed at strategic sealift of which Canada has none. Since obtaining a couple San Antonio's is out of the question then I was curious as to why Canada wouldn't consider something more modest that could still supply sealift and as a bonus humanitarian assistance.

Appreciative of any education that can be provided.


----------



## GR66

Kirkhill said:


> No boat without a flight deck.  Must have.   Hangar optional.  But an aerial connection to other ships and to land has to be a key element.


I think a flight deck is an important capability too and the RCN would be making a big mistake by not including one in the design.  The advantages it gives in HADR missions, SAR, support to the CSC's/Cyclones, CASEVAC, VERTREP, etc. make the vessel much more useful in a wide variety of missions.


----------



## TacticalTea

GR66 said:


> I think a flight deck is an important capability too and the RCN would be making a big mistake by not including one in the design.  The advantages it gives in HADR missions, SAR, support to the CSC's/Cyclones, CASEVAC, VERTREP, etc. make the vessel much more useful in a wide variety of missions.


It's always awkward interacting with air assets from an MCDV. Contrasted with how easily CCG vessels carry out air launch / recovery from their flight decks, hopping on and off as desired... I wish we had a bit more flexibility in that regard. Paralyzing an entire ship just because we need to launch/receive a helo is no way to live...


----------



## Stoker

TacticalTea said:


> It's always awkward interacting with air assets from an MCDV. Contrasted with how easily CCG vessels carry out air launch / recovery from their flight decks, hopping on and off as desired... I wish we had a bit more flexibility in that regard. Paralyzing an entire ship just because we need to launch/receive a helo is no way to live...


Its awkward because the original role of the Kingston Class was to sweep mines with mechanical sweep gear combined with the fact MCM ships are small and do not have flight decks. Pretty hard to have a flight deck when that's where your payload goes.  Any Kingston Class replacement will have to have that space for payloads including towed array's. I'm all about building a relatively cheap platform, cheap to operate and easy to maintain. That's why the Kingston Class is so useful to the RCN just like a Toyota Hilux, it just keeps going.


----------



## GR66

Stoker said:


> Its awkward because the original role of the Kingston Class was to sweep mines with mechanical sweep gear combined with the fact MCM ships are small and do not have flight decks. Pretty hard to have a flight deck when that's where your payload goes.  Any Kingston Class replacement will have to have that space for payloads including towed array's. I'm all about building a relatively cheap platform, cheap to operate and easy to maintain. That's why the Kingston Class is so useful to the RCN just like a Toyota Hilux, it just keeps going.


That works.  Have the flight deck and use it to place your MCM payloads when required, place your containerized towed-array when required, and leave it clear for helicopter operations when required.  Having it gives you flexibility.  Just because it's there doesn't mean you can't use it for other things when you need to.  But not having it loses that capability for you completely.


----------



## Kirkhill

Some alternative base concepts? 









						HMCS Anticosti (MSA 110) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




How about just stretching the Kingstons?  Add another 10 m to the stern.


----------



## Stoker

GR66 said:


> That works.  Have the flight deck and use it to place your MCM payloads when required, place your containerized towed-array when required, and leave it clear for helicopter operations when required.  Having it gives you flexibility.  Just because it's there doesn't mean you can't use it for other things when you need to.  But not having it loses that capability for you completely.


Its not really losing a capability when you never had it to begin with. Something like this VENARI-85 concept would work if you really need a flight deck.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Stoker said:


> Its not really losing a capability when you never had it to begin with. Something like this VENARI-85 concept would work if you really need a flight deck.
> 
> View attachment 69858View attachment 69859


Fairly similar to the OTAGO class set up....


----------



## Good2Golf

Prairie canuck said:


> Well I'm far from being a "young.un" and I don't care for high horses (phobia of mine). I'm one of those ignorant Canadian public who's here to learn and ask why things are the way they are. Couldn't hurt to have some information to support the CAF when we civvies are discussing things amongst ourselves could it?
> 
> I'm fairly certain that until the C17's were purchased Canada had to rely on the US to transport LAV's and Leopards etc. C130's are restricted on size and what they can fly overseas. I don't see the relevance of any post WWII equipment when discussing future procurements.
> My inquiry was directed at strategic sealift of which Canada has none. Since obtaining a couple San Antonio's is out of the question then I was curious as to why Canada wouldn't consider something more modest that could still supply sealift and as a bonus humanitarian assistance.
> 
> Appreciative of any education that can be provided.


Prairie canuck, your assessment is actually quite good. 👍🏼  I would add that our dependency for strat (heavy) airlift (more than a few LD3 containers in a CC-150 Polaris) was not unique to the US; we did a lot of leased lift by An-124 and also to a lesser degree, some freighter support from some commercial freight carriers.

I’ll bow out of strat sealift as I’m less versed in that (other than delivering UN-painted helos for sealift to a port in Montréal for shipping to Haiti).

Regards
G2G


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:


> Prairie canuck, your assessment is actually quite good. 👍🏼  I would add that our dependency for strat (heavy) airlift (more than a few LD3 containers in a CC-150 Polaris) was not unique to the US; we did a lot of leased lift by An-124 and also to a lesser degree, some freighter support from some commercial freight carriers.
> 
> I’ll bow out of strat sealift as I’m less versed in that (other than delivering UN-painted helos for sealift to a port in Montréal for shipping to Haiti).
> 
> Regards
> G2G


My understanding is our sealift is either the US or contractors. I wonder if we can build some ships and have them run by the NAVRES as they wouldn't be needed often


----------



## Prairie canuck

Good2Golf said:


> Prairie canuck, your assessment is actually quite good. 👍🏼  I would add that our dependency for strat (heavy) airlift (more than a few LD3 containers in a CC-150 Polaris) was not unique to the US; we did a lot of leased lift by An-124 and also to a lesser degree, some freighter support from some commercial freight carriers.
> 
> I’ll bow out of strat sealift as I’m less versed in that (other than delivering UN-painted helos for sealift to a port in Montréal for shipping to Haiti).
> 
> Regards
> G2G


I took it for granted that the AN124 was something which went "unspoken" 🥺😁 Same for the katie....
Also we're on par regarding strat sealift but I gotta ask....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

TacticalTea said:


> It's always awkward interacting with air assets from an MCDV. Contrasted with how easily CCG vessels carry out air launch / recovery from their flight decks, hopping on and off as desired... I wish we had a bit more flexibility in that regard. Paralyzing an entire ship just because we need to launch/receive a helo is no way to live...


Keep in mind the CCG has a very limited weather window for launching and receiving helicopters, so a ship may have a helicopter but choose not to use it due to the Sea State. also helicopter ops take precedence for the ship ops when the chopper is flying or slinging.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin Parkinson said:


> Keep in mind the CCG has a very limited weather window for launching and receiving helicopters, so a ship may have a helicopter but choose not to use it due to the Sea State. also helicopter ops take precedence for the ship ops when the chopper is flying or slinging.


I can about guarantee that CCG helo flight ops limits are no more than 2 deg pitch, 4 deg roll…


----------



## Underway

Prairie canuck said:


> Could the second generation Visby corvette being developed by Sweden be a contender for the MCDV replacement?


Visby would last about 10min on the Grand Banks.  It's designed for the Baltics. 



Halifax Tar said:


> What is our infatuation with small main armaments ?
> 
> Why not the 57s or even modern 40mms.  Both of which are still being produced.


Let me flip this comment.  What's our (the websites) infatuation with over-gunning constabulary vessels?  25 or 30mm is enough for their job and commonality with AOPS or CSC is an excellent idea.  57 and 40mm require a fire control system, fire control radar, CMS and the techs to keep them running.  And it keeps costs down.  That stuff really jacks up the price quite a bit. 

The UK have the right of it in my mind, with similar armament on the River Class (20 or 30mm cannons depending on the Batch).



Kirkhill said:


> No boat without a flight deck.  Must have.   Hangar optional.  But an aerial connection to other ships and to land has to be a key element.


I don't agree that it's a must-have as the MCDV's are doing fine without it.  If it were to come down to a sweep deck for payloads vs a flight deck I'll take the former.  Not that I'm against a flightdeck.  I would like to see one but getting one big enough for a Cyclone along with a sweep deck/quarter deck big enough for payloads would be a challenge.  Cyclone needs a lot of space...

I could see a small flight deck like on the VENARI design proposed by @Stoker above.  That would allow for UAS and an area for VERTREP etc... without having to have the helo actually land.  UAS would be very useful in a MCM capacity.

Or perhaps a dual use flightdeck/payload deck.  When you have payloads embarked its a payload deck.  When you don't you clear it a certify it for Flight Ops.  But take it from someone who knows, getting a ship built for RCAF flight operations is a massive pain in the ass and extremely costly. Just the NVG lighting compliance alone is millions of dollars.  A simple NVG compliant 17" computer screen costs around $80 thousand.  You'll need at least four screens between LSO and Flyco.... so there is 1/3 million right there.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> Visby would last about 10min on the Grand Banks.  It's designed for the Baltics.
> 
> 
> Let me flip this comment.  What's our (the websites) infatuation with over-gunning constabulary vessels?  25 or 30mm is enough for their job and commonality with AOPS or CSC is an excellent idea.  57 and 40mm require a fire control system, fire control radar, CMS and the techs to keep them running.  And it keeps costs down.  That stuff really jacks up the price quite a bit.
> 
> The UK have the right of it in my mind, with similar armament on the River Class (20 or 30mm cannons depending on the Batch).
> 
> 
> I don't agree that it's a must-have as the MCDV's are doing fine without it.  If it were to come down to a sweep deck for payloads vs a flight deck I'll take the former.  Not that I'm against a flightdeck.  I would like to see one but getting one big enough for a Cyclone along with a sweep deck/quarter deck big enough for payloads would be a challenge.  Cyclone needs a lot of space...
> 
> I could see a small flight deck like on the VENARI design proposed by @Stoker above.  That would allow for UAS and an area for VERTREP etc... without having to have the helo actually land.  UAS would be very useful in a MCM capacity.
> 
> Or perhaps a dual use flightdeck/payload deck.  When you have payloads embarked its a payload deck.  When you don't you clear it a certify it for Flight Ops.  But take it from someone who knows, getting a ship built for RCAF flight operations is a massive pain in the ass and extremely costly. Just the NVG lighting compliance alone is millions of dollars.  A simple NVG compliant 17" computer screen costs around $80 thousand.  You'll need at least four screens between LSO and Flyco.... so there is 1/3 million right there.



Point taken about the Cyclone.


----------



## Prairie canuck

So, just trying to wrap my head around this replacement vessel's requirements, if the expectation that this new vessel is to patrol the Grand Banks then the size must increase to accommodate those potential sea states correct? Is this not more of a small frigate as opposed to a corvette? This is no longer replacing MCDVs but a whole new class of vessel which still leaves Canada with the problem of replacing The MCDVs with a similar coastal patrol class. Mission creep?
(also the Visby is good for up to sea state 5)


----------



## Stoker

Prairie canuck said:


> So, just trying to wrap my head around this replacement vessel's requirements, if the expectation that this new vessel is to patrol the Grand Banks then the size must increase to accommodate those potential sea states correct? Is this not more of a small frigate as opposed to a corvette? This is no longer replacing MCDVs but a whole new class of vessel which still leaves Canada with the problem of replacing The MCDVs with a similar coastal patrol class. Mission creep?
> (also the Visby is good for up to sea state 5)


Visby was created for littoral waters and can be used offshore however the range is not very good and I suspect the endurance is not what we want either because the class requires heavy shore support. Any ship we buy must be able to cross the Atlantic without refueling or at least get us to the Azores. The ship has 4 gas turbines for sprinting and 2 cruise diesels for economical speeds. If on those gas turbines at all they will use that fuel quickly and drive down its range dramatically.

It seems to me a Corvette or even smaller ship given a proper design can do open ocean, after all Corvettes did a decent job during WW2. I have sailed in MCDV's for 4 cross Atlantic crossings and the highest sea state we hit was 14M, we were fine.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Stoker said:


> Visby was created for littoral waters and can be used offshore however the range is not very good and I suspect the endurance is not what we want either because the class requires heavy shore support. Any ship we buy must be able to cross the Atlantic without refueling or at least get us to the Azores. The ship has 4 gas turbines for sprinting and 2 cruise diesels for economical speeds. If on those gas turbines at all they will use that fuel quickly and drive down its range dramatically.
> 
> It seems to me a Corvette or even smaller ship given a proper design can do open ocean, after all *Corvettes did a decent job during WW2*. I have sailed in MCDV's for 4 cross Atlantic crossings and the highest sea state we hit was 14M, we were fine.
> 
> View attachment 69864


The famous _Flower_ class and later corvettes did what was needed ... because they were cheap and easy to build. But, as early as 1940s British and Canadian admirals, including Murray, were pressing for a bigger, better ship. The result was the _River_ class frigates, 1,500+ tons/almost 300 ft long. They were "improved" and became the Canadian _Prestonian_ class in the 1950s (about the same length but about 2,300 tons). 

_It seems to me_ (an old soldier who's never been to sea) that a useful Canadian "small combatant" vessel ~ smaller and cheaper than our _Type 26_s, call it a corvette if you like, I do ~ will need to displace 2,500+ tons, have a flight deck and hanger and a complement (including for the aircraft) of less than 125 officers and sailors.


----------



## GR66

Prairie canuck said:


> So, just trying to wrap my head around this replacement vessel's requirements, if the expectation that this new vessel is to patrol the Grand Banks then the size must increase to accommodate those potential sea states correct? Is this not more of a small frigate as opposed to a corvette? This is no longer replacing MCDVs but a whole new class of vessel which still leaves Canada with the problem of replacing The MCDVs with a similar coastal patrol class. Mission creep?
> (also the Visby is good for up to sea state 5)


I also wouldn't get too caught up in the naming of ship classes as an indicator of their size.  For example:

WWII Flower Class Corvette:  62.5m
SIGMA Corvette 9113:  91m

WWII River Class Frigate:  91m
Halifax Class Frigate:  131m

WWII Tribal Class Destroyer:  105m
Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer:  160m
Zumwalt Class Destroyer:  190m

So something like the VENARI-85 or New Zealand's Otago (85m)  and the River-Class Batch 2 OPV or Samuel Beckett-Class (90m) are actually the length of a WWII Frigate.

Ships are classified by the role they fill rather than by their size, so as the tools required to complete various jobs (banks of VLT's and magazines for large missiles vs guns, RHIBs, Flex Bays, Flight Decks and Hangers, larger sensors, embarked troops, UAVs/USVs/UUVs, better crew quarters, supplies for greater deployed endurance and the engines to power all the above) have gotten larger, the size of the ships has had to increase as well.


----------



## Stoker

Edward Campbell said:


> The famous _Flower_ class and later corvettes did what was needed ... because they were cheap and easy to build. But, as early as 1940s British and Canadian admirals, including Murray, were pressing for a bigger, better ship. The result was the _River_ class frigates, 1,500+ tons/almost 300 ft long. They were "improved" and became the Canadian _Prestonian_ class in the 1950s (about the same length but about 2,300 tons).
> 
> _It seems to me_ (an old soldier who's never been to sea) that a useful Canadian "small combatant" vessel ~ smaller and cheaper than our _Type 26_s, call it a corvette if you like, I do ~ will need to displace 2,500+ tons, have a flight deck and hanger and a complement (including for the aircraft) of less than 125 officers and sailors.


So what we need as a government or navy to decide if any replacement for the Kingston Class will be dual hatted or not. Dual hatted as in a MCM and offshore Patrol role. Generally speaking NCM ships are around the size of the Kingston Class and sometimes smaller. The requirements I saw was a ship about 20M longer than a Kingston Class a tonnage of around 1200-1400. If we decide to separate the classes then obviously more personnel, more maintenance resources are required. 
Its nice to say more tonnage, more weapons', more capabilities but the feeling I got is something relatively cheap to build and very smart in how that money is spent on those capabilities.


----------



## Kirkhill

Stoker said:


> So what we need as a government or navy to decide if any replacement for the Kingston Class will be dual hatted or not. Dual hatted as in a MCM and offshore Patrol role. Generally speaking NCM ships are around the size of the Kingston Class and sometimes smaller. The requirements I saw was a ship about 20M longer than a Kingston Class a tonnage of around 1200-1400. If we decide to separate the classes then obviously more personnel, more maintenance resources are required.
> Its nice to say more tonnage, more weapons', more capabilities but the feeling I got is something relatively cheap to build and very smart in how that money is spent on those capabilities.



The Kingstons can transit blue water but do they operate there?  I was under the impression that most to their work was done closer to shore in the Littorals.

The reason I ask is related to your points about both size and the ability to work with the Cyclone.  Would a flight deck, without hangar, rated for a Griffon and small UAVs (the VBAT is my current techno-porn fixation) be a worthwhile compromise?   I'm thinking that shore based Griffons could be used to maintain Vertrep linkages with a small craft.


----------



## Stoker

Kirkhill said:


> The Kingstons can transit blue water but do they operate there?  I was under the impression that most to their work was done closer to shore in the Littorals.
> 
> The reason I ask is related to your points about both size and the ability to work with the Cyclone.  Would a flight deck, without hangar, rated for a Griffon and small UAVs (the VBAT is my current techno-porn fixation) be a worthwhile compromise?   I'm thinking that shore based Griffons could be used to maintain Vertrep linkages with a small craft.


Generally they work out to 100 NM and of course it varies depending on mission. I'm not really against a flight deck but still adds a lot of cost. The concept art I saw for the replacement had no flight deck but still could operate drones.


----------



## GR66

There are lots of potential options out there with a range of capabilities depending on what direction you want to go.  My personal opinion is to lean toward a small combatant type ship based on the renewed/escalated conflict with Russia and the growing risk of confrontation with China. 

Just one builder (Fassmer) has three different options (actually lots more) that could fulfill our requirements depending on what we want:

Offshore Patrol? OPV 80 - 80.5m, 1900t, 20+ kn, 12,000 nm range, 30 day endurance, stern ramp, flight deck & hanger, mission deck for 5 x 20' containers, options for additional weapons

Small Combatant? PK 90 - 95m, 2200t, 26+ kn, 6,000 nm range, 30 day endurance, flight deck & hanger, mission deck for 5 x 20' containers, hull mounted sonar, SSMs and SAMs.

Lillypad (for Kirkhill)?  MPV 90 - 91m, 3200t, 20+ kn, 12,000 nm range, 60+ day endurance, 20t flight deck and hanger aft with additional 11t flight deck forward, 500 m2 mission bay, well deck, cargo crane and deck hatch, Ro-Ro ramps.

And that's a selection of the many options from a single builder.  But as Stoker rightly points out a decision has to be made as to what role the Kingston-Class replacement will fill.  MCM?  Patrol?  Small Combatant?  MCM/Patrol?  Patrol/Small Combatant?  MCM/Patrol/Small Combatant?  And of course the more roles (or higher up the capability list you go) the greater the capital cost, the greater the personnel requirements, the greater the maintenance costs, etc. 

I guess you could go with two different classes of ships...6 x MCMs and 6 x Small Combatants, but to my mind that would just make the support and training issues worse than going with a single compromise class of ship.

Get out your crystal ball and guess what the RCN is going to have to face over the next 40 years.  My guess (unfortunately) is that it may end up facing more potential for open conflict than it has for the last 40 years.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Visby would last about 10min on the Grand Banks.  It's designed for the Baltics.
> 
> 
> Let me flip this comment.  What's our (the websites) infatuation with over-gunning constabulary vessels?  25 or 30mm is enough for their job and commonality with AOPS or CSC is an excellent idea.  57 and 40mm require a fire control system, fire control radar, CMS and the techs to keep them running.  And it keeps costs down.  That stuff really jacks up the price quite a bit.
> 
> The UK have the right of it in my mind, with similar armament on the River Class (20 or 30mm cannons depending on the Batch).
> 
> 
> I don't agree that it's a must-have as the MCDV's are doing fine without it.  If it were to come down to a sweep deck for payloads vs a flight deck I'll take the former.  Not that I'm against a flightdeck.  I would like to see one but getting one big enough for a Cyclone along with a sweep deck/quarter deck big enough for payloads would be a challenge.  Cyclone needs a lot of space...
> 
> I could see a small flight deck like on the VENARI design proposed by @Stoker above.  That would allow for UAS and an area for VERTREP etc... without having to have the helo actually land.  UAS would be very useful in a MCM capacity.
> 
> Or perhaps a dual use flightdeck/payload deck.  When you have payloads embarked its a payload deck.  When you don't you clear it a certify it for Flight Ops.  But take it from someone who knows, getting a ship built for RCAF flight operations is a massive pain in the ass and extremely costly. Just the NVG lighting compliance alone is millions of dollars.  A simple NVG compliant 17" computer screen costs around $80 thousand.  You'll need at least four screens between LSO and Flyco.... so there is 1/3 million right there.


For a ship operating more as a Lilypad or an occasional host for helicopter, does it need NVG compliant screens? Unlikely these ships could launch and recover in similar seas states as the Halifax's or even the AOP's? 
Personally I like to see TC Civil Aviation tasked with supplying about 6 Bell 429's painted grey and crew to support RCN domestic and non-military ops related taskings. This would allow the RCN/RCAF to concentrate the Cyclones to the Halifax's and CSC and ensure there is more helicopter capability for the AOP's doing domestic roles. 
I also believe the replacement for the MCDV should be split in two classes of about 7-8 ships each.  one class being more to the River Class Batch 2 or  VENARI-85 type. The other class being very close in size to the existing class, basically an improved MCDV. Having a few more hulls will allow vessels to get proper refits and hopefully DND at some point will pull it's head of it ass on recruiting and personal retention, so we can continue to man ships and other systems.
As for armaments, I said my piece many times, the world is going to be very interesting and not necessarily in a good way for the next 20-30 years. The various conflict points are going to be many and varied. It will be a come as you are and the government of the day my require ships to take part even if they are not the best equipped for the task. Better to have more capability built in, than not. Even if some of the actual guns/launchers are not fitted, but stored ashore. but the design is set up for them and the ship infrastructure is setup for them in regards to electrical draw, cabling, magazines, space for the combat suite, fire, hull/superstructure strengthening, etc.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> For a ship operating more as a Lilypad or an occasional host for helicopter, does it need NVG compliant screens? Unlikely these ships could launch and recover in similar seas states as the Halifax's or even the AOP's?
> Personally I like to see TC Civil Aviation tasked with supplying about 6 Bell 429's painted grey and crew to support RCN domestic and non-military ops related taskings. This would allow the RCN/RCAF to concentrate the Cyclones to the Halifax's and CSC and ensure there is more helicopter capability for the AOP's doing domestic roles.
> I also believe the replacement for the MCDV should be split in two classes of about 7-8 ships each.  one class being more to the River Class Batch 2 or  VENARI-85 type. The other class being very close in size to the existing class, basically an improved MCDV. Having a few more hulls will allow vessels to get proper refits and hopefully DND at some point will pull it's head of it ass on recruiting and personal retention, so we can continue to man ships and other systems.
> As for armaments, I said my piece many times, the world is going to be very interesting and not necessarily in a good way for the next 20-30 years. The various conflict points are going to be many and varied. It will be a come as you are and the government of the day my require ships to take part even if they are not the best equipped for the task. Better to have more capability built in, than not. Even if some of the actual guns/launchers are not fitted, but stored ashore. but the design is set up for them and the ship infrastructure is setup for them in regards to electrical draw, cabling, magazines, space for the combat suite, fire, hull/superstructure strengthening, etc.



Naval reserves with bolt on Air Defence and NSM type systems that can be deployed on both government vessels and civilian cargo vessels?


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> For a ship operating more as a Lilypad or an occasional host for helicopter, does it need NVG compliant screens? Unlikely these ships could launch and recover in similar seas states as the Halifax's or even the AOP's?


Not just NVG compliant screens.  Fully NVG compliant for the whole ship (deck lighting, auto blacking out of hatch lights, running lights, bridge lights, horizon bars, flight deck lighting, etc...) otherwise the RCAF will not certify the ship for helicopter operations.  There is no changing, bending, or otherwise getting around them because they are flight safety requirements.  Not a criticism, just the way it is.

Even the IR cameras that are used on ships to watch various parts of the upper deck for safety at night often use IR floodlights which can wash out NVG's.  The cameras have to be carefully chosen to be sensitive enough not to need the IR floodlight.

I gather it's not pleasant trying to land a helo at night on a pitching deck with NVG's and then someone opens a door and you get blinded by the lighting from inside the ship as it wasn't autoblacked out or NVG compliant.



Colin Parkinson said:


> I also believe the replacement for the MCDV should be split in two classes of about 7-8 ships each.  one class being more to the River Class Batch 2 or  VENARI-85 type. The other class being very close in size to the existing class, basically an improved MCDV. Having a few more hulls will allow vessels to get proper refits and hopefully DND at some point will pull it's head of it ass on recruiting and personal retention, so we can continue to man ships and other systems.



I don't know what the numbers are, but assume that 8 ships minimum if AOPS is doing some of the same tasks.  Leaves East Coast with 8 OPV's (4AOPS and 4MCDV replacements) and West Coast 6 OPV's (2 AOSP and 4 MCDV replacements).   Right now on both coast one MCDV is usually tied up with no crew.  I think that's the minimum.  I have no insight but my own opinion on this one.



Colin Parkinson said:


> As for armaments, I said my piece many times, the world is going to be very interesting and not necessarily in a good way for the next 20-30 years. The various conflict points are going to be many and varied. It will be a come as you are and the government of the day my require ships to take part even if they are not the best equipped for the task. Better to have more capability built in, than not. Even if some of the actual guns/launchers are not fitted, but stored ashore. but the design is set up for them and the ship infrastructure is setup for them in regards to electrical draw, cabling, magazines, space for the combat suite, fire, hull/superstructure strengthening, etc.


I really think a slightly different "River Class Inspired" design would be very good.  It's designed for the same oceans, and with a slight modification to the flight deck to make it a "workdeck" then we are in a good place.  The River Class has space for future upgrades.


----------



## Underway

Prairie canuck said:


> So, just trying to wrap my head around this replacement vessel's requirements, if the expectation that this new vessel is to patrol the Grand Banks then the size must increase to accommodate those potential sea states correct? Is this not more of a small frigate as opposed to a corvette? This is no longer replacing MCDVs but a whole new class of vessel which still leaves Canada with the problem of replacing The MCDVs with a similar coastal patrol class. Mission creep?
> (also the Visby is good for up to sea state 5)


You can hit Sea State 6 in the Halifax Approaches.  Just not the right tool for the job.


----------



## Kirkhill

Another issue to consider is the cost of size.

Generally speaking the longer the hull the greater the cost.  As far as the accountants are concerned.  

But....

I can build a shed the same size as my house for a tenth of the price.  The issue is not the size it is the number of walls (bulkheads), facilities, contents, fit and finish that drive up the cost.

A 6000 tonne Frigate costs a lot more than a 6000 tonne Ferry although, assuming similar hull forms and power plants (and Ice Classes), both would have similar sea keeping abilities.

A 1000 tonne MCDV hull with its azipod is a handy little runabout for doing odd jobs.  A 2000 tonne hull may not be as handy, although azipods and bow thrusters can probably fix that.  On the other hand the extra displacement, increased length and additional deck area, covered or uncovered, may give additional advantages.  

And it doesn't have to be with an exorbitant increase in price.   If all you want is a floating warehouse and a lilypad that can be done cheaply.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> Not just NVG compliant screens. Fully NVG compliant for the whole ship (deck lighting, auto blacking out of hatch lights, running lights, bridge lights, horizon bars, flight deck lighting, etc...) otherwise the RCAF will not certify the ship for helicopter operations. There is no changing, bending, or otherwise getting around them because they are flight safety requirements. Not a criticism, just the way it is.
> 
> Even the IR cameras that are used on ships to watch various parts of the upper deck for safety at night often use IR floodlights which can wash out NVG's. The cameras have to be carefully chosen to be sensitive enough not to need the IR floodlight.
> 
> I gather it's not pleasant trying to land a helo at night on a pitching deck with NVG's and then someone opens a door and you get blinded by the lighting from inside the ship as it wasn't autoblacked out or NVG compliant.


👍🏼 

NVG compatible is a smart move for a number of reasons, including survivability.  Not flooding NVG-equipped helo crews is only one advantage…anyone who thinks ‘tactical red’ light is a smart thing for any platform/installation in a potential threat environment needs to see said ‘tactical’ installations under any NVD (goggles, EO/IR, etc.)…they stick out like beacons…


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> 👍🏼
> 
> NVG compatible is a smart move for a number of reasons, including survivability.  Not flooding NVG-equipped helo crews is only one advantage…anyone who thinks ‘tactical red’ light is a smart thing for any platform/installation in a potential threat environment needs to see said ‘tactical’ installations under any NVD (goggles, EO/IR, etc.)…they stick out like beacons…


This is the reasons green lighting is taking over from red lighting onboard ships in many spaces.  I had an article I read not too long ago about it.  Green is the way to go for IR signature reduction.


----------



## Good2Golf

Yup. 👍🏼 ANVIS Class-A and Class-B compatible lighting (that bluish-green, and slightly yellower-green respectively) due to their narrow-bandwidth specification, are actually fairly night-vision friendly, so the ‘must be red’ to not degrade night vision is not longer a driving factor.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Underway said:


> You can hit Sea State 6 in the Halifax Approaches.  Just not the right tool for the job.


VG understood, thanks.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

MilEME09 said:


> My understanding is our sealift is either the US or contractors. I wonder if we can build some ships and have them run by the NAVRES as they wouldn't be needed often


Or how about picking up a couple USNS  Montford Point class ships the USN is retiring or four Whidbey Island Class and/or Harpers Ferry Class LSDs that will also be retired? 

Full article here.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> Yup. 👍🏼 ANVIS Class-A and Class-B compatible lighting (that bluish-green, and slightly yellower-green respectively) due to their narrow-bandwidth specification, are actually fairly night-vision friendly, so the ‘must be red’ to not degrade night vision is not longer a driving factor.


The interior lighting in the Cyclone helicopter is a nice calming, NVG compatible green. It does not wash out goggles, no matter how bright it is turned up at night. Very pleasant.


----------



## MilEME09

Retired AF Guy said:


> Or how about picking up a couple USNS  Montford Point class ships the USN is retiring or four Whidbey Island Class and/or Harpers Ferry Class LSDs that will also be retired?
> 
> Full article here.


I heard the are cutting the San Antonio's short too, also would be a good buy for us


----------



## Prairie canuck

Retired AF Guy said:


> Or how about picking up a couple USNS  Montford Point class ships the USN is retiring or four Whidbey Island Class and/or Harpers Ferry Class LSDs that will also be retired?
> 
> Full article here.


The Whitbeys and Harpers would need a (major?) refit but then it could keep Davie busy for a while. Get new capability and keep Quebec happy....
only if the LCACs come with them.


----------



## Prairie canuck

MilEME09 said:


> I heard the are cutting the San Antonio's short too, also would be a good buy for us


At over $2 billion per... As a comparison Australia bought the RFA Largs Bay from Britain for about $170 million Canadian $. Not sure on the cost of modifications. (needs a permanent helicopter hangar imo)
But the San Antonio would certainly fit the role of big honkin ship...


----------



## TacticalTea

Prairie canuck said:


> The Whitbeys and Harpers would need a (major?) refit but then it could keep Davie busy for a while. Get new capability *and keep Quebec happy....*
> only if the LCACs come with them.







__





						Distribution of Federal Revenues and Expenditures by Province*
					





					lop.parl.ca
				




Quebec falls below the national average in Federal spending per capita.

Please stop spreading divisive myths. This is not Facebook, nor is it Army.prairies.


----------



## Maxman1

Prairie canuck said:


> At over $2 billion per... As a comparison Australia bought the RFA Largs Bay from Britain for about $170 million Canadian $. Not sure on the cost of modifications. (needs a permanent helicopter hangar imo)
> But the San Antonio would certainly fit the role of big honkin ship...



The _Mistrals_ offer the same or more capabilities at a fraction of the cost and crew requirements. In fact, they approach the capabilities of the _Wasp_ and _America_ class amphibious assault ships.

Even the _Cavour _is cheaper.


----------



## Underway

TacticalTea said:


> View attachment 69873
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Distribution of Federal Revenues and Expenditures by Province*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lop.parl.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quebec falls below the national average in Federal spending per capita.
> 
> Please stop spreading divisive myths. This is not Facebook, nor is it Army.prairies.


Their comment was related to getting votes in Quebec ridings (like all ship building contracts), not regarding fairness/equity of government spending.   Please read the words on the page, not what you think the words on the page said.

Moving on...

Can't just "buy an LPD" with no plan.  there needs to be a plan to develop units for amphibious warfare and to get the equipment they need for that warfare.  That's a 10 year commitment.  And of course if its going to take 10 years why would I buy an old LPD.  Get one a bit newer thanks.


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:


> Their comment was related to getting votes in Quebec ridings, not regarding fairness/equity of government spending.   Please read the words on the page, not what you think the words on the page said.
> 
> Moving on...
> 
> Can't just "buy an LPD" with no plan.  there needs to be a plan to develop units for amphibious warfare and to get the equipment they need for that warfare.  That's a 10 year commitment.  And of course if its going to take 10 years why would I buy an old LPD.  Get one a bit newer thanks.


And we'd need a complete rethink of our foreign and defence policy to justify such a capability. I don't think adjusting our Foreign and Defence policy is in our national wheelhouse right now (if ever).


----------



## Czech_pivo

FSTO said:


> And we'd need a complete rethink of our foreign and defence policy to justify such a capability. I don't think adjusting our Foreign and Defence policy is in our national wheelhouse right now (if ever).


Lol, we can't even define our current set of priorities for Foreign Affairs or Defence, let alone create new ones.


----------



## KevinB

Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




USCG but seems to tick a lot of the boxes, and over 60 built and current production.

Plus it's made down here by your friendly neighbor


----------



## Halifax Tar

KevinB said:


> Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USCG but seems to tick a lot of the boxes, and over 60 built and current production.
> 
> Plus it's made down here by your friendly neighbor



Is the estimated endurance long enough ?


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USCG but seems to tick a lot of the boxes, and over 60 built and current production.
> 
> Plus it's made down here by your friendly neighbor


There are a lot of boats in that size range out on the market.  Certainly lots of options to look at.

Edit: wrote that before I looked at the cutter.  It's 360  tonnes 50m long.  Smaller than the current MCDV's by quite a bit.   The RCN looks like it wants to go bigger (1200-2000 ton range) for seakeeping, range, extra bunks, and diversity of payload.  Which also has a lot of ships in that size range on the market.


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> Is the estimated endurance long enough ?


I don't know enough about Naval matters to say -- it also has a rear entry way which may make a towed array non viable.
   I suspect one could get a bunch of the for the price point though to make them more viable.


----------



## TacticalTea

Underway said:


> Their comment was related to getting votes in Quebec ridings (like all ship building contracts), not regarding fairness/equity of government spending.   Please read the words on the page, not what you think the words on the page said.


Except he specifically said Quebec, not ''Local MP'' or ''Riding this-or-that''. So it seems like you're the one reading too much into this than there really is?

At any rate, the side comment about one of Canada's provinces contributes little and adds to a common discourse bordering on conspiracy theory according to which the federal govt is somehow subservient to Quebec, which I've seen echoed multiple times on this website without any opposition. It seemed appropriate to offer a dissenting voice.


----------



## Weinie

TacticalTea said:


> Except he specifically said Quebec, not ''Local MP'' or ''Riding this-or-that''. So it seems like you're the one reading too much into this than there really is?
> 
> At any rate, the side comment about one of Canada's provinces contributes little and adds to a common discourse bordering on conspiracy theory according to which the federal govt is somehow subservient to Quebec, which I've seen echoed multiple times on this website without any opposition. It seemed appropriate to offer a dissenting voice.


Ummmm. I’m leaning towards giving you some credence on this topic and Underways’ support of an earlier comment. The machinations that Federal governments have undergone in the last 50 years in Canada supports and disputes both of your arguments. Welcome/Bienvenue to/au Canada.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USCG but seems to tick a lot of the boxes, and over 60 built and current production.
> 
> Plus it's made down here by your friendly neighbor


Slightly bigger version of our "Hero Class Coast Guard Cutters" Not the most fun boats to be on in a heavy sea, I served on a 95' cutter and we damm near got laid on our side in a storm south west of the Charlottes during a SAR call, we wondered if she was coming back up.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> There are a lot of boats in that size range out on the market.  Certainly lots of options to look at.
> 
> Edit: wrote that before I looked at the cutter.  It's 360  tonnes 50m long.  Smaller than the current MCDV's by quite a bit.   The RCN looks like it wants to go bigger (1200-2000 ton range) for seakeeping, range, extra bunks, and diversity of payload.  Which also has a lot of ships in that size range on the market.


I believe this is another iteration of the Damen Stan patrol vessel that the HERO class is based on. I'm not certain there's too much appetite for another kick at that can, though as Kevin B points out earlier, they're probably cheap to build and could be produced in big numbers.


----------



## KevinB

Swampbuggy said:


> I believe this is another iteration of the Damen Stan patrol vessel that the HERO class is based on. I'm not certain there's too much appetite for another kick at that can, though as Kevin B points out earlier, they're probably cheap to build and could be produced in big numbers.


It is, it’s a bigger version and a bigger version of the earlier US revision. 

It’s smaller than I would think one might want for some tasks, but 22+2 crew and 28+Kts a 25mm and 4x M2 .50’s it seems fairly decent for patrol armaments


----------



## Maxman1

Basically a larger, armed version of the Orcas.

Another idea would be a steel version of the Elco 80' PT boat, with multiple .50s, side roll-off launchers for the Mark 48, a Bushmaster 25mm on the bow, and either a Bofors 40mm or Mark 32 launcher at the stern. For shorter patrols that don't require a boat that large.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Maxman1 said:


> Basically a larger, armed version of the Orcas.
> 
> Another idea would be a steel version of the Elco 80' PT boat, with multiple .50s, side roll-off launchers for the Mark 48, a Bushmaster 25mm on the bow, and either a Bofors 40mm or Mark 32 launcher at the stern. For shorter patrols that don't require a boat that large.


You do realize that a Mk48 torpedo is a submarine launched torpedo, right? And one does not just “roll it off“ a PT boat doing 40kts?


----------



## GK .Dundas

SeaKingTacco said:


> You do realize that a Mk48 torpedo is a submarine launched torpedo, right? And one does not just “roll it off“ a PT boat doing 40kts?


I'd love to see someone try it though 
Could be rather "entertaining "to watch


----------



## OldSolduer

Just  a question from a crayon eater - red ones please - can we not just contract a US shipyard to build us stuff?

As long as PQ gets to build something - industrial benefits etc - is that viable?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Maxman1 said:


> Basically a larger, armed version of the Orcas.
> 
> Another idea would be a steel version of the Elco 80' PT boat, with multiple .50s, side roll-off launchers for the Mark 48, a Bushmaster 25mm on the bow, and either a Bofors 40mm or Mark 32 launcher at the stern. For shorter patrols that don't require a boat that large.



Minus the fantasy Mk48 torp a whole bunch of those are what's needed to Op Caribe.  MGBs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

OldSolduer said:


> Just  a question from a crayon eater - red ones please - can we not just contract a US shipyard to build us stuff?
> 
> As long as PQ gets to build something - industrial benefits etc - is that viable?


Just requires a waiver from Cabinet to deviate from the (Cabinet level) Build in Canada policy.

Was done recently for some hi speed ferries done overseas because no shipyard in Canada had the facilities big enough to make the modules, and also lacked the experience in using aluminium. There are some built in exceptions, like lack of facilities, operational requirements etc, but it's really political so difficult to justify for small ships, when we have plenty of shipyards that can do that kind of <1000 tonne ship with no major issue.

When 40% of all the salaries you pay comes right back into govt coffers as well the economic spinoffs are pretty big, so hard to make a good economic case (although hasn't stopped the Dept of Finance from trying for the last decade to get NSS torpedoed.)

Adopting a USN design is difficult though; they have a totally different crewing philosophy and we just don't have the same setup (or # of people). RN, RAN, RNZN operate pretty much the same as we do trade wise, so they are much better for compatible designs.

A lot of the complications come from GoC process requirements, so really don't see a big advantage. If we ditch all the IRBs, DPS and other contractual overhead and decision loops and just go with a straight commercial contract, would save a lot of time regardless of where it's built. And if things go sideways no real guarantee our build wouldn't get bumped if the USN needed a sudden build as well.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> Just requires a waiver from Cabinet to deviate from the (Cabinet level) Build in Canada policy.
> 
> Was done recently for some hi speed ferries done overseas because no shipyard in Canada had the facilities big enough to make the modules, and also lacked the experience in using aluminium. There are some built in exceptions, like lack of facilities, operational requirements etc, but it's really political so difficult to justify for small ships, when we have plenty of shipyards that can do that kind of <1000 tonne ship with no major issue.
> 
> When 40% of all the salaries you pay comes right back into govt coffers as well the economic spinoffs are pretty big, so hard to make a good economic case (although hasn't stopped the Dept of Finance from trying for the last decade to get NSS torpedoed.)
> 
> Adopting a USN design is difficult though; they have a totally different crewing philosophy and we just don't have the same setup (or # of people). RN, RAN, RNZN operate pretty much the same as we do trade wise, so they are much better for compatible designs.
> 
> A lot of the complications come from GoC process requirements, so really don't see a big advantage. If we ditch all the IRBs, DPS and other contractual overhead and decision loops and just go with a straight commercial contract, would save a lot of time regardless of where it's built. And if things go sideways no real guarantee our build wouldn't get bumped if the USN needed a sudden build as well.



If we received a quality product at a globally completive price, from Canadian manufacturers, I could tow this line.  

This highlighted mindset has to stop, or we have no one to blame but ourselves.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> If we received a quality product at a globally completive price, from Canadian manufacturers, I could tow this line.
> 
> This highlighted mindset has to stop, or we have no one to blame but ourselves.


But it's reality, and also part of what will be looked at for any build outside of Canada. Similarly, the impact on supply chains (ie no local suppliers), training for the crew, support for equipment all comes into play as well.

Talked to a lot of people in other countries, and they have their own issues with domestic builders, so building foreign doesn't guarantee quality either, or mean you get a functional ship any sooner.

And if we have trouble setting up a det in Halifax or Vancouver, imagine doing it in a different country.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Halifax Tar said:


> Minus the fantasy Mk48 torp a whole bunch of those are what's needed to Op Caribe.  MGBs.


Actually from what I've seen how about an S boat hull or more accurately an R boote hull as a basis?


----------



## Underway

OldSolduer said:


> Just  a question from a crayon eater - red ones please - can we not just contract a US shipyard to build us stuff?
> 
> As long as PQ gets to build something - industrial benefits etc - is that viable?


Like @Navy_Pete stated the Gov't can basically do what they want.  The icebreakers that Davie is upgrading are an example of going outside of (or perhaps differently interpreting) the Build in Canada policy.

But if you want fleet strategic viability you should build your own as much as possible.  Lots of reasons for that but the main one is to develop the talent, own the equipment and facilities needed to keep the ship maintained and to "own the IP of the product" so to speak.  This is what happened with the FREMM bid.  They wanted to own too much of the product themselves.   

It's the same sort of problem bidders have with Colt Canada for army weapon replacement.

For an MCDV replacement, this is really straightforward shipbuilding stuff. Civilian standards, simple weapon system supplied by the RCN with likely an FMF installation, no CMS, no crazy sensors.  Only comms integration and power for whatever containerized systems you want to carry.  With all those similar style designs out there you can pick one that needs minimal modification.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:


> But it's reality, and also part of what will be looked at for any build outside of Canada. Similarly, the impact on supply chains (ie no local suppliers), training for the crew, support for equipment all comes into play as well.
> 
> Talked to a lot of people in other countries, and they have their own issues with domestic builders, so building foreign doesn't guarantee quality either, or mean you get a functional ship any sooner.
> 
> And if we have trouble setting up a det in Halifax or Vancouver, imagine doing it in a different country.


The German leaning tower of Frigate, British tanker that can't sail and the Aussie ampib that broke down completely all come to mind


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> But it's reality, and also part of what will be looked at for any build outside of Canada. Similarly, the impact on supply chains (ie no local suppliers), training for the crew, support for equipment all comes into play as well.
> 
> Talked to a lot of people in other countries, and they have their own issues with domestic builders, so building foreign doesn't guarantee quality either, or mean you get a functional ship any sooner.
> 
> And if we have trouble setting up a det in Halifax or Vancouver, imagine doing it in a different country.



Absolutely its reality.  Quality products should trump Canadian economic benefits.  But I this area I could probably be labeled an idealist.


----------



## Prairie canuck

TacticalTea said:


> View attachment 69873
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Distribution of Federal Revenues and Expenditures by Province*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lop.parl.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quebec falls below the national average in Federal spending per capita.
> 
> Please stop spreading divisive myths. This is not Facebook, nor is it Army.prairies.


Quebec *will* be happy. Why wouldn't they be? If they gave the work to Irving wouldn't NS be happy? Davie is the one large yard looking for work. If I held any preconceived bias against Quebec I would have not suggested Davie.
Army.prairies? gimme a break. Thou doth protest too much, methinks.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> Absolutely its reality.  Quality products should trump Canadian economic benefits.  But I this area I could probably be labeled an idealist.


I don't disagree, but our procurements go to the 'lowest compliant bidder' and then don't have penalties when turns out things don't meet the standard, so really doesn't matter at the component level what the Canadian content is or not. We can't blacklist suppliers that provide crappy quality products, or even commit outright fraud hoping we won't notice. For the NSS for the most part it's existing companies becoming authorized reps for existing international companies, so it's good for them to get a foothold in the market, but the big 'Canadian content' is really a shipyard located in Canada doing the work, so if they happen to have a Canadian supplier of an international product it's all gravy. Once in a while an actual Canadian company will win out compared to a cheaper international version, which I think is great provided you hold everyone to the same quality/time standard.

Weirdly some of the Medium and Small Enterprise rules that are meant to encourage companies to set up outstations actually work against an existing Canadian supplier with an integrated product chain that are too big for the M&SE points, so some quirks in the system.

On normal NP buys have had to go back to scratch for a few procurements because some bellend jobbers underbid legitimate suppliers but provided paperwork that looked okay, so it had to actually show up before we rejected it as non-compliant. Have one or two of those and it's long enough that actual compliant bids are no longer valid (usually time limited to 90 days or so), and sometimes they slip through QAR at the receiving warehouse and get paid for, so we get stuck with them and usually find out when someone goes to install them that there is a problem.

It's the 'buy 10 of NSN x" ones for common things like valves, pumps etc that area  problem, but really makes up about 90% of the ship items. Bane of my existence is to get shock rated hull valves, or sea water pumps.

For bigger items that's where including an ISSC is great, because you can include actual in-service costs, including maintenance, R&O etc. That's what we did with the CPF DGs, and let us balance between really high time between the full R&Os and the initial capital costs. The complicated bids though cost money to put together so even the last place bidder was still putting together a really quality product. But that will also mean a much bigger contract value, so now means a whole extra set of hoops to jump through (SBCA).... it's like bureaucratic groundhog day, where sometimes you stick with it out of spite for the stupidity of the system.

(PS really glad I took a typing class in grade 9, but apologize for the novella; this is one of those things that just drive me crazy. We have a huge amount of decision gates, oversight etc to force things to happen a certain way, with arguably very little measurable benefit but takes more effort over a longer time to just buy even basic stuff if it hits a certain dollar value.)


----------



## Maxman1

SeaKingTacco said:


> You do realize that a Mk48 torpedo is a submarine launched torpedo, right? And one does not just “roll it off“ a PT boat doing 40kts?



Well not with that attitude.

Also most PT boats had torpedo tubes, while some had the roll off launcher.











What about an anti-ship version of the Mark 46 or Mark 54?


Halifax Tar said:


> Minus the fantasy Mk48 torp a whole bunch of those are what's needed to Op Caribe.  MGBs.



_PT-59, _John F. Kennedy's third command after _PT-109 _was sunk, was exactly that. The torpedo launchers were removed and more guns and armour added.




For comparison, the _PT-109_ at the time of its last patrol. A 37mm on the bow and a 20mm at the stern.


----------



## Dana381

Halifax Tar said:


> Absolutely its reality.  Quality products should trump Canadian economic benefits.  But I this area I could probably be labeled an idealist.



Then we need to address the quality issue here at home. NSPS needs proper oversite and more competition. The preselect process gave the two shipyards too much security it will make them lazy and greedy.
There are so many reasons why buying ships overseas is a bad idea. And they have all been gone over here many times.
The NSPS is intended to *Re-build *our ship building industry. It has faults and needs tuning but all the money invested so far will be wasted if we dont see it through. 
As with anything as time goes on quality, speed and cost will improve.


----------



## FJAG

Torpedoes aside that's an interesting picture. If this model is to be believed, that 37mm was an Army M3 anti-tank gun with the wheels off and strapped onto the deck and timbers with ropes.






Who'd have thunk it?

🍻


----------



## Dana381

Desperate times call for desperate measures


----------



## GK .Dundas

FJAG said:


> Torpedoes aside that's an interesting picture. If this model is to be believed, that 37mm was an Army M3 anti-tank gun with the wheels off and strapped onto the deck and timbers with ropes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who'd have thunk it?
> 
> 🍻


A much better weapon was the M4 37 mm belt fed auto cannon.


----------



## YZT580

Dana381 said:


> Then we need to address the quality issue here at home. NSPS needs proper oversite and more competition. The preselect process gave the two shipyards too much security it will make them lazy and greedy.
> There are so many reasons why buying ships overseas is a bad idea. And they have all been gone over here many times.
> The NSPS is intended to *Re-build *our ship building industry. It has faults and needs tuning but all the money invested so far will be wasted if we dont see it through.
> As with anything as time goes on quality, speed and cost will improve.


the whole reason behind the pre-select was allowing the yards to expand and modernize.  That is lost the second it goes out to competition.  Efficiencies gained through development are expensive.  Why not rather go with a guarantee that it is yours until you start giving us the run-around.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Maxman1 said:


> Well not with that attitude.
> 
> Also most PT boats had torpedo tubes, while some had the roll off launcher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about an anti-ship version of the Mark 46 or Mark 54?
> 
> 
> _PT-59, _John F. Kennedy's third command after _PT-109 _was sunk, was exactly that. The torpedo launchers were removed and more guns and armour added.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For comparison, the _PT-109_ at the time of its last patrol. A 37mm on the bow and a 20mm at the stern.


Since you are clearly unaware of how a Mk48 torpedo works (if you did have even a basic understanding of the weapon, you would realize just how ridiculous your proposal is), there is little point in arguing with you.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> Since you are clearly unaware of how a Mk48 torpedo works (if you did have even a basic understanding of the weapon, you would realize just how ridiculous your proposal is), there is little point in arguing with you.


Not only that, but we have these things called missiles now...   Hence why torpedo boats are not a thing but missile boats are.

@Maxman1 there is a reason ships don't carry heavyweight torpedos even redesigned ones that could "roll off".  Because that way of dealing with submarines is essentially trading your ship for their sub, and they have all the advantages.  Airpower trumps subs almost every time.  You want to create an overmatch situation, not a shootout at high noon.


----------



## Underway

Dana381 said:


> Then we need to address the quality issue here at home. NSPS needs proper oversite and more competition. The preselect process gave the two shipyards too much security it will make them lazy and greedy.
> There are so many reasons why buying ships overseas is a bad idea. And they have all been gone over here many times.
> The NSPS is intended to *Re-build *our ship building industry. It has faults and needs tuning but all the money invested so far will be wasted if we dont see it through.
> As with anything as time goes on quality, speed and cost will improve.



Oversite?  If you want to create a Nationalized Shipbuilding Industry then go ahead.  But short of that the yard does what the yard needs to do.  The project approves and inspects.  More oversight risks us telling them what the solutions to problems are instead of us approving their proposed solution.  We don't tell, we approve based on the requirements.  If we have to tell them then we need way more staff.  Because at that point we are doing the engineering work for them. 

I'm dead set against this as the RCN needs the shakeup and to learn how to do things differently.  New tech and new ways of getting the same performance standard from systems are needed.

And then at some point we cross the line to a shadow yard and that's not good for anyones efficiency.


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:


> Not only that, but we have these things called missiles now...   Hence why torpedo boats are not a thing but missile boats are.
> 
> @Maxman1 there is a reason ships don't carry heavyweight torpedos even redesigned ones that could "roll off".  Because that way of dealing with submarines is essentially trading your ship for their sub, and they have all the advantages.  Airpower trumps subs almost every time.  You want to create an overmatch situation, not a shootout at high noon.


Why do we still have torpedo launch tubes in the design of the CSC (If I recall correctly?

For the tanker wankers, do you think we'll continue the Battle Tanker close in ASW training once we get the JSS?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin Parkinson said:


> Slightly bigger version of our "Hero Class Coast Guard Cutters" Not the most fun boats to be on in a heavy sea, I served on a 95' cutter and we damm near got laid on our side in a storm south west of the Charlottes during a SAR call, we wondered if she was coming back up.


I think we should organize an overnight sail out to the West Coast Firing Area in January for all the people suggesting going out there in a crappy little Cutter 😁

I'll bring the buckets 🤮, you bring the gravol and a years worth of saltine crackers 🤣

I mean I do enjoy a good swell, I'll put the seas on the beam so everyone gets a bit of extra enjoyment 😁



SeaKingTacco said:


> Since you are clearly unaware of how a Mk48 torpedo works (if you did have even a basic understanding of the weapon, you would realize just how ridiculous your proposal is), there is little point in arguing with you.



@Maxman1  You're comparing technology from 80 years ago to today, it's not even relevant to this discussion.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I think it's been proven enough in this thread that the replacement for an MCDV, shouldn't be anything smaller than an MCDV, for multiple reasons. Ideally, the replacement would be bigger, faster, have some capacity to land a helo, maybe even a hangar (for uav's more likely). Is there any sense in looking at a Flight 2 KINGSTON? Slightly more hydrodynamic hull form, lengthened to 240-260 ft, but retaining Z drives and adding a bow  thruster with a dynamic station keeping system? The extra length could be used for a pair of those AOPS rhibs on quick release davits (a la ARMIDALE, for ex), a landing pad (maybe a retractable hangar for UAV) and still have space for containerized cargo. I'm no engineer, but I understand the extra length could help increase speed potential as well. It seems to me it's either that or just buy a RIVER or ARAFURA full package, with no extensive changes for Canadianization. As close to "off the shelf" as you could make it.


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:


> Why do we still have torpedo launch tubes in the design of the CSC (If I recall correctly?
> 
> For the tanker wankers, do you think we'll continue the Battle Tanker close in ASW training once we get the JSS?


It provides a minimum standoff for a submarine to get past you to the High-Value Unit (they can't just sail under you, they have to pick a different route), also it's essentially suppression fire to make the submarine have to think about a torp in the water, and finally (my supposition here) it's future-proofing for the eventual Anti-Torpedo Torpedo system that will probably replace the SVTTs.  

SVTT's are essentially defensive, not offensive.



Swampbuggy said:


> I think it's been proven enough in this thread that the replacement for an MCDV, shouldn't be anything smaller than an MCDV, for multiple reasons. Ideally, the replacement would be bigger, faster, have some capacity to land a helo, maybe even a hangar (for uav's more likely). Is there any sense in looking at a Flight 2 KINGSTON? Slightly more hydrodynamic hull form, lengthened to 240-260 ft, but retaining Z drives and adding a bow  thruster with a dynamic station keeping system? The extra length could be used for a pair of those AOPS rhibs on quick release davits (a la ARMIDALE, for ex), a landing pad (maybe a retractable hangar for UAV) and still have space for containerized cargo. I'm no engineer, but I understand the extra length could help increase speed potential as well. It seems to me it's either that or just buy a RIVER or ARAFURA full package, with no extensive changes for Canadianization. As close to "off the shelf" as you could make it.



If you scroll back a bit @Stoker posted the general requirements.  25kts speed, larger (1200-2000 ton ish), no flight deck but a work deck for modular payloads, same gun as on the AOPS, boarding RHIB and zodiac integral.  It's going to do MCM and OPV duties, and perhaps ASW detection work with the TRAPS.

The SOR is still being developed, but those are the basics.  I like the River class with the flight deck changed to a work deck.  Note that a work deck will allow for UAS as well, MCDV's have trialed every single UAS the RCN has used to this point.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> It provides a minimum standoff for a submarine to get past you to the High-Value Unit (they can't just sail under you, they have to pick a different route), also it's essentially suppression fire to make the submarine have to think about a torp in the water, and finally (my supposition here) it's future-proofing for the eventual Anti-Torpedo Torpedo system that will probably replace the SVTTs.
> 
> SVTT's are essentially defensive, not offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> If you scroll back a bit @Stoker posted the general requirements.  25kts speed, larger (1200-2000 ton ish), no flight deck but a work deck for modular payloads, same gun as on the AOPS, boarding RHIB and zodiac integral.  It's going to do MCM and OPV duties, and perhaps ASW detection work with the TRAPS.
> 
> The SOR is still being developed, but those are the basics.  I like the River class with the flight deck changed to a work deck.  Note that a work deck will allow for UAS as well, MCDV's have trialed every single UAS the RCN has used to this point.


I do remember that from earlier. I guess I was just musing on whether that was supposed to be a clean sheet or a variant of the KINGSTON as it exists now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FJAG said:


> Torpedoes aside that's an interesting picture. If this model is to be believed, that 37mm was an Army M3 anti-tank gun with the wheels off and strapped onto the deck and timbers with ropes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who'd have thunk it?
> 
> 🍻


That is correct, the gun had been "liberated" from the Marines/Army.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I foresee AUV's operating from a small coastal ship make life hard for subs in littoral waters, so perhaps in a decade a MCDV or similar can provide coastal ASW protection for areas such as the entrance of the Strait Juan de Fuca. The AUV's can hunt the sub independently either broadcasting it's position to other assets or even having a small warhead itself to attack with. That would free up the CSC/Halifax's for convoy escorts or deep water searches.
I am also a proponent of building up the Naval Reserves to provide harbour protection with their own dedicated lightly armed patrol boats in the 50-75' range that can work with other agencies and also do mine hunting of the harbour approaches with modern multi-beam sonar and ROV's.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Colin Parkinson said:


> That is correct, the gun had been "liberated" from the Marines/Army.


It was utterly amazing as to how firepower some of late war PT boats carried.
I still remember one for her loadout . Starting forward with one 37 mm M4 auto cannon belt fed  , four  5" spin stabilised rockets and two twin 20 mms.  Midships  .50 calibre x 2 in electrical driven turrets and aft a 40 mm before and more spin stabilised rockets.


----------



## Halifax Tar

If youre interested in MGB/MTB history have a read of this book:









						Champagne Navy
					

Champagne Navy book. Read reviews from world’s largest community for readers.



					www.goodreads.com
				




Absolutely incredible read of a little known part of our Naval history.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:


> If youre interested in MGB/MTB history have a read of this book:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Champagne Navy
> 
> 
> Champagne Navy book. Read reviews from world’s largest community for readers.
> 
> 
> 
> www.goodreads.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely incredible read of a little known part of our Naval history.


Those guys were real pirates! What a time to be alive, romping about the Adriatic raising hell and getting paid by the Queen.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> Those guys were real pirates! What a time to be alive, romping about the Adriatic raising hell and getting paid by the Queen.



I have a bit of an infatuation with RCN MGB/MTB ops.  These guys deserve more public awareness and appreciation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Never wear a torn sweater for a photo op, as that will be immortalised by the internet.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin Parkinson said:


> Never wear a torn sweater for a photo op, as that will be immortalised by the internet.



Was that taken on an MCDV a few years ago ? lol


----------



## Dana381

YZT580 said:


> the whole reason behind the pre-select was allowing the yards to expand and modernize.  That is lost the second it goes out to competition.  Efficiencies gained through development are expensive.  Why not rather go with a guarantee that it is yours until you start giving us the run-around.



I understand what the preselected was designed to do and it seemed like a good idea at the time, maybe it still is.  Right now it looks like the yards are using it to get away with astronomical price hikes. There was an article recently where Irving announced the AOPS for the CG will be double the price.


Underway said:


> Oversite?  If you want to create a Nationalized Shipbuilding Industry then go ahead.  But short of that the yard does what the yard needs to do.  The project approves and inspects.  More oversight risks us telling them what the solutions to problems are instead of us approving their proposed solution.  We don't tell, we approve based on the requirements.  If we have to tell them then we need way more staff.  Because at that point we are doing the engineering work for them.
> 
> I'm dead set against this as the RCN needs the shakeup and to learn how to do things differently.  New tech and new ways of getting the same performance standard from systems are needed.
> 
> And then at some point we cross the line to a shadow yard and that's not good for anyones efficiency.



Maybe oversite was the wrong word, accountability is more what I was meaning. Many on here have complained about poor workmanship and deficiencies that the RCN ends up paying to fix. If there are problems that are the shipyards fault they should be held accountable. The compliance should be tracked and be used as a metric in future contracts. Screw up and you pay to fix. Screw up too many times and we don't buy ships from you anymore. Quality would improve quickly.


----------



## Weinie

Dana381 said:


> I understand what the preselected was designed to do and it seemed like a good idea at the time, maybe it still is.  Right now it looks like the yards are using it to get away with astronomical price hikes. There was an article recently where Irving announced the AOPS for the CG will be double the price.
> 
> 
> Maybe oversite was the wrong word, accountability is more what I was meaning. Many on here have complained about poor workmanship and deficiencies that the RCN ends up paying to fix. If there are problems that are the shipyards fault they should be held accountable. The compliance should be tracked and be used as a metric in future contracts. Screw up and you pay to fix. Screw up too many times and we don't buy ships from you anymore. Quality would improve quickly. and several phone calls to the PMO would dampen any criticism/complaints.


FTFY.


----------



## YZT580

Dana381 said:


> I understand what the preselected was designed to do and it seemed like a good idea at the time, maybe it still is.  Right now it looks like the yards are using it to get away with astronomical price hikes. There was an article recently where Irving announced the AOPS for the CG will be double the price.
> 
> 
> Maybe oversite was the wrong word, accountability is more what I was meaning. Many on here have complained about poor workmanship and deficiencies that the RCN ends up paying to fix. If there are problems that are the shipyards fault they should be held accountable. The compliance should be tracked and be used as a metric in future contracts. Screw up and you pay to fix. Screw up too many times and we don't buy ships from you anymore. Quality would improve quickly.


that is what I was trying to say, thanks


----------



## Maxman1

SeaKingTacco said:


> Since you are clearly unaware of how a Mk48 torpedo works (if you did have even a basic understanding of the weapon, you would realize just how ridiculous your proposal is), there is little point in arguing with you.



I was joking when I said "not with that attitude."

Yes, I am now aware of how and why a Mk 48 could not be launched from a surface vessel. I'm an infanteer. So I don't have an intimate knowledge of torpedoes beyond "go in water, hit ship, go boom." So sue me.


Underway said:


> Not only that, but we have these things called missiles now...   Hence why torpedo boats are not a thing but missile boats are.
> 
> @Maxman1 there is a reason ships don't carry heavyweight torpedos even redesigned ones that could "roll off".  Because that way of dealing with submarines is essentially trading your ship for their sub, and they have all the advantages.  Airpower trumps subs almost every time.  You want to create an overmatch situation, not a shootout at high noon.



PT boats were never meant for ASW, nor did I suggest they be an ASW vessel, they were meant to target surface vessels. Use their high speed to get close to an enemy ship, launch a torpedo and run. And most had torpedo tubes, the roll-off "claw" type launcher was for the most part only used on early war models.

The idea being that you could sink multi-million or billion dollar warships with relatively cheap boats.

Theoretically, a software package could be developed to allow the Mk 54 lightweight torpedo to target surface vessels instead of subs, using a single barrel version of the Mk 32 launcher. Or use Harpoons in a single tube version of the Mk 141 launcher, which could be quickly and easily removed for use as a gunboat or motor launch.


----------



## Maxman1

FJAG said:


> Torpedoes aside that's an interesting picture. If this model is to be believed, that 37mm was an Army M3 anti-tank gun with the wheels off and strapped onto the deck and timbers with ropes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who'd have thunk it?
> 
> 🍻





Colin Parkinson said:


> That is correct, the gun had been "liberated" from the Marines/Army.





GK .Dundas said:


> It was utterly amazing as to how firepower some of late war PT boats carried.
> I still remember one for her loadout . Starting forward with one 37 mm M4 auto cannon belt fed  , four  5" spin stabilised rockets and two twin 20 mms.  Midships  .50 calibre x 2 in electrical driven turrets and aft a 40 mm before and more spin stabilised rockets.



The _PT-59 _had a Bofors 40mm fore and aft.


----------



## Underway

Maxman1 said:


> I was joking when I said "not with that attitude."
> 
> Yes, I am now aware of how and why a Mk 48 could not be launched from a surface vessel. I'm an infanteer. So I don't have an intimate knowledge of torpedoes beyond "go in water, hit ship, go boom." So sue me.
> 
> 
> PT boats were never meant for ASW, nor did I suggest they be an ASW vessel, they were meant to target surface vessels. Use their high speed to get close to an enemy ship, launch a torpedo and run. And most had torpedo tubes, the roll-off "claw" type launcher was for the most part only used on early war models.
> 
> The idea being that you could sink multi-million or billion dollar warships with relatively cheap boats.
> 
> Theoretically, a software package could be developed to allow the Mk 54 lightweight torpedo to target surface vessels instead of subs, using a single barrel version of the Mk 32 launcher. Or use Harpoons in a single tube version of the Mk 141 launcher, which could be quickly and easily removed for use as a gunboat or motor launch.


Might need a hardware change as well. The sonar on the Mk54 is optimized to find underwater targets, not surface targets. Surface targets are hard to find with active sonar.  Also a Mk 54 torp on a surface ship would do damage but it wouldn't be enough to take the ship out of the fight generally (barring hitting something important that you couldn't fix quickly).  Not enough explosive power. 

This is where missile boats come in.  They hit harder, faster and have better targeting from further away.  Mk54 has a very short range compared to even small ASM.  Probably the best missile boat out there is the Chinese Type 22.  Very scary piece of kit particularly as it can use aircraft to target for it.


----------



## Maxman1

Underway said:


> Might need a hardware change as well. The sonar on the Mk54 is optimized to find underwater targets, not surface targets. Surface targets are hard to find with active sonar.  Also a Mk 54 torp on a surface ship would do damage but it wouldn't be enough to take the ship out of the fight generally (barring hitting something important that you couldn't fix quickly).  Not enough explosive power.
> 
> This is where missile boats come in.  They hit harder, faster and have better targeting from further away.  Mk54 has a very short range compared to even small ASM.  Probably the best missile boat out there is the Chinese Type 22.  Very scary piece of kit particularly as it can use aircraft to target for it.



I had a feeling it wouldn't be that simple. And it makes sense given the Mk 54 is meant to rupture a pressure hull. Torpedoes do seem to be nonviable for surface combatants in anti-surface warfare.

Another missile boat design is the Finnish Hamina class, which is about the size of the Orca class training boats, but faster and armed and built of aluminum and carbon fiber for stealth. With the original Bofors 57mm (and equipped with Canadian missiles and sensors), it would have the punch of a _Halifax _frigate at a fraction of the size and cost.

An all-steel Elco 80 as a motor gunboat with a 40mm fore and aft, the two twin .50 turrets, plus whatever else (like extra machine guns, 20mm autocannon, mortar, rockets) would be a very versatile boat. Add a version of the Mk 141 Harpoon launcher that can be installed in place of the aft 40mm, angled so the blast is directed entirely over the side, and it would pack a serious punch.


----------



## GR66

Unless we get a mothership to deliver a missile boat to an overseas littoral, what would be the role for a missile boat in the RCN?  What surface fleet is going to come close enough to our coast to be in range of such a craft?


----------



## Maxman1

GR66 said:


> Unless we get a mothership to deliver a missile boat to an overseas littoral



That's how they were transported originally.


----------



## Halifax Tar

GR66 said:


> Unless we get a mothership to deliver a missile boat to an overseas littoral, what would be the role for a missile boat in the RCN?  What surface fleet is going to come close enough to our coast to be in range of such a craft?



HMC Dockyard Turks & Caicos ?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Never never, ever more expensive land:


> More cost overruns, delays coming for new navy, coast guard fleets​
> By Lee Berthiaume The Canadian Press
> 
> Federal bureaucrats are warning that more cost overruns and delays are on the horizon for the delivery of new ships to Canada’s navy and coast guard, as “significant challenges” batter Ottawa’s multibillion-dollar shipbuilding program.
> 
> That includes uncertainty around the cost of building 15 new warships for the navy, which was already slated to be Canada’s largest-ever military procurement with the government’s estimated $60-billion price tag.
> 
> Top procurement, navy and coast officials are blaming the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain problems, labour shortages and rising costs for steel and other material for the latest setbacks, the full impacts of which are still being assessed.
> 
> “Simply put, ships are not being built fast enough and are costing more as a result,” Defence Department procurement chief Troy Crosby told a parliamentary committee in recent testimony.
> 
> The frank assessment comes as the Liberal government faces pressure from the NATO military alliance and others to spend more on defence, raising one possible area for large new investments without having to undertake a significant policy rethink.
> 
> Yet whatever opportunity for increased spending the problems represent will be cold comfort to the navy and coast guard, as each passing day increases the threat another one of their aging ships will join the growing list of vessels forced into retirement before a replacement is ready.
> 
> Extra sunk costs are also growing as more taxpayer dollars are shovelled into projects that have already received billions in additional funding without any commensurate added benefit to Canada.
> 
> Federal officials told the standing committee on government operations and estimates that they are now assessing the specific impacts with Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax and Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver.
> 
> Irving is building six Arctic patrol ships for the navy and coast guard as well as the fleet of 15 new warships that will serve as the navy’s backbone for the next 40 years. Seaspan is building several research vessels for the coast guard and two navy supply ships.
> 
> Every one of those projects had seen delays and cost overruns since the shipyards were selected in 2011 for their respective work packages, which officials blamed on a lack of experience in government and industry.
> 
> While the government and shipyards have since learned many hard-earned lessons, Public Services and Procurement Canada assistant deputy minister Simon Page said the procurement plan is facing “significant challenges.”
> 
> “We now have to deal with the additional costs shipyards are charging and the new schedules,” he said. “We are working closely with third parties to review everything and make sure … the costs are justified. We are working with them to ensure performance.”
> 
> Crosby for the first time acknowledged “uncertainty” in the cost of the navy’s new warship fleet, after having stood by the government’s $60-billion estimate in recent years. That includes having dismissed a $77.3-billion estimate from the parliamentary budget office.
> 
> In fact, Crosby specifically referenced the PBO’s finding last year that a one-year delay in building the vessels represents a $2.2-billion shortfall due to inflation and other escalating costs.
> 
> The coming delays will also add pressure on Canada’s aging navy and coast fleets, each of which has lost several ships in recent years as breakdowns and other issues have forced decades-old vessels into retirement before their replacements are finished.
> 
> Those include the navy’s two support ships and three destroyers, as well as several coast guard vessels.
> 
> Canadian Coast Guard commissioner Mario Pelletier said in a recent interview his agency plans to use charters as it waits for a new ocean research vessel to replace the CCGS Hudson, which was forced to retire after 59 years in service in January.
> 
> The new offshore oceanographic science vessel is one of those projects that has been hit hard by delays and cost overruns, with its original $100-million budget having skyrocketed to almost $1 billion last year.
> 
> At the same time, Pelletier said the *coast guard needs its first of six medium icebreakers in the water by 2030. While the vessels are likely to be built by Chantier Davie, the government has yet to officially add the Quebec-based company to the shipbuilding program* [emphasis added, those ships were promised in 2019, note that "first"--by which time all the current medium ones will be around 50 years old.
> 
> Officials told the parliamentary committee that negotiations with Davie are continuing, but would not say when they would be finished. Davie was selected for addition more than two years ago, but negotiations to finalize the deal have been shrouded in mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cost overruns, delays coming for new navy, coast guard fleets
> 
> 
> OTTAWA - Federal bureaucrats are warning that more cost overruns and delays are on the horizon for the delivery of new ships to Canada’s navy and coas...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thestar.com


And whenever will Seaspan build the "up to 16 Multi-Purpose Vessels to support a variety of missions, including light icebreaking, environmental response, and offshore search and rescue" that PM Trudeau announced in 2015? https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet

What about "new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ship [how many?], which would complement the work of the large fleet in shallow areas and deliver mid-shore science activities" that Davie isalso expected to build? When if busy with medium icebreakers (and one of the two polar ones)? 

Surely a lot of those CCG vessels could be bought abroad quickly and much more cheaply than here (where most will not be built until well into the next decade)--and without the various security, Canadianization etc. concerns that  are deployed to favour RCN shipbuilding in Canada.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

Ah Davie.. .sigh. If only their actual production quality was anywhere near as good as their self promotion.


----------



## dapaterson

Navy_Pete said:


> Ah Davie.. .sigh. If only their actual production quality was anywhere near as good as their self promotion.


So it's the corporate equivalent of a NWO?


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:


> So it's the corporate equivalent of a NWO?


Good thing I identify as MARS.


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:


> Good thing I identify as MARS.


OK whats the difference between MARS and NWO? Remember I am infantreee so short words please


----------



## FSTO

OldSolduer said:


> OK whats the difference between MARS and NWO? Remember I am infantreee so short words please


MARS is classic rock, NWO is techno pop.


----------



## Underway

OldSolduer said:


> OK whats the difference between MARS and NWO? Remember I am infantreee so short words please


NWO is the new trade name to align it with the UK and US names (also to stop being a stupid acronym).  Same trade as MARS.

In meetings I troll the NWOs sometimes, "That sounds like something a MARS officer would say, I thought you were NWO's now. New name new thinking.  Let's try a different approach. ".   It's a cheap shot I know but I get my way a lot... lol


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> NWO is the new trade name to align it with the UK and US names (also to stop being a stupid acronym).  Same trade as MARS.
> 
> In meetings I troll the NWOs sometimes, "That sounds like something a MARS officer would say, I thought you were NWO's now. New name new thinking.  Let's try a different approach. ".   It's a cheap shot I know but I get my way a lot... lol



Because NWO isn't a stupid acronym ?


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:


> Because NWO isn't a stupid acronym ?


NEW WORLD ORDER! NEW WORLD ORDER!!!!!!


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:


> NEW WORLD ORDER! NEW WORLD ORDER!!!!!!


"True Faith" is still one of my favourite new wave earworms, and 'Blue Monday' is always a good one.

Of course, then there is WWF and some Razor Ramone action, plus the whole tin foil hat action, so it's possibly the worst trade acronym ever.

At least people generally like Mars bars, and they are weirdly delicious deepfried, and historically the God of War.... NWO had some cool hair (at the time) I guess.

Edit to add; Completely off topic, but 'Control' was an awesome biopic about Joy Division, but still think '24 hour party people' is a better movie about that whole scene.


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> Because NWO isn't a stupid acronym ?


NWO actually describes what their core job is.  The application and management of violence at sea aka Naval Warfare.  MARS describes every single naval officer that goes to sea as a core part of their trade.

I'll leave "stupid" as a personal opinion.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

OldSolduer said:


> OK whats the difference between MARS and NWO? Remember I am infantreee so short words please



I think it's this...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> NWO actually describes what their core job is.  The application and management of violence at sea aka Naval Warfare.  MARS describes every single naval officer that goes to sea as a core part of their trade.
> 
> I'll leave "stupid" as a personal opinion.



Meah I just think the acronym is as silly as MARS.  Only a Naval officer would be concerned about something as trivial as that. 

Should keep it simple: 

Naval Officer, Combat
Naval Officer, Engineering 
Naval Officer, Combat Engineering 
Naval Officer, Logistics 

Ect ect... 

Stupid was your word.... I was just repeating it.


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> Meah I just think the acronym is as silly as MARS.  Only a Naval officer would be concerned about something as trivial as that.
> 
> Should keep it simple:
> 
> Naval Officer, Combat
> Naval Officer, Engineering
> Naval Officer, Combat Engineering
> Naval Officer, Logistics
> 
> Ect ect...
> 
> Stupid was your word.... I was just repeating it.


That is literally what the names are.

Naval Warfare...Officer
Marine Systems Engineering... Officer
Naval Combat Systems Engineering... Officer
Naval Logistics... Officer


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> That is literally what the names are.
> 
> Naval Warfare...Officer
> Marine Systems Engineering... Officer
> Naval Combat Systems Engineering... Officer
> Naval Logistics... Officer



Right... I just made every one a Naval officer first and your occupation second.  And I got rid of silly acronyms.


----------



## Maxman1

Halifax Tar said:


> HMC Dockyard Turks & Caicos ?


Or rebuild CFB Bermuda. Or both. The old US bases are empty lots, I'm sure the governments of both islands would prefer someone make use of them instead of leaving them as eyesores (the former CFB Bermuda became 9 Beaches resort, but that's apparently permanently closed).

It might help with retention to offer pers tours/taskings/postings in the Caribbean. We might also get more people to go to the arctic by offering a guaranteed posting to the Caribbean afterwards.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Maxman1 said:


> Or rebuild CFB Bermuda. Or both. The old US bases are empty lots, I'm sure the governments of both islands would prefer someone make use of them instead of leaving them as eyesores (the former CFB Bermuda became 9 Beaches resort, but that's apparently permanently closed).
> 
> It might help with retention to offer pers tours/taskings/postings in the Caribbean. We might also get more people to go to the arctic by offering a guaranteed posting to the Caribbean afterwards.


Bermuda is not in the Caribbean.


----------



## YZT580

SeaKingTacco said:


> Bermuda is not in the Caribbean.


true, but they don't have snow plows


----------



## Kirkhill

US Navy’s unmanned vessel plans need improvement, watchdog agency says
					

The sea service plans to spend billions in the coming years on surface and underwater drones.




					www.defensenews.com
				




Maybe the path is not from 6000 sailors and aviators in a Nimitz to 0 sailors in a USV but rather how to exploit those USV technologies to spread those 6000 sailors and aviators over a larger number of hulls.


Edit: After all the origins of the UAV are found in the auto-pilot systems of passenger jets.  The pilot is a supervisor.


----------



## Maxman1

SeaKingTacco said:


> Bermuda is not in the Caribbean.



It's closer to the Caribbean than Halifax. And we do have ties to Bermuda.


----------



## torg003

Bermuda should be welcomed into Confederation as the 11the province.


----------



## Underway

Yes, let's add another place where the richer provinces send transfer payments too, or there are historical issues between a colonial minority and an oppressed majority.  I think we have enough dumpster fires to put out in Canada first.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> Yes, let's add another place where the richer provinces send transfer payments too, or there are historical issues between a colonial minority and an oppressed majority.  I think we have enough dumpster fires to put out in Canada first.



Thank you for being my moral compass. hahaha


----------



## dapaterson

Bermuda as an eleventh province would be popular with Canadian banks trying to compete with London banks and their convenient anti-transparency offshoots in the Channel islands.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> Yes, let's add another place where the richer provinces send transfer payments too, or there are historical issues between a colonial minority and an oppressed majority.  I think we have enough dumpster fires to put out in Canada first.


Yes, but...the amount of money people spend to go to Cuba, Florida, Mexico, Jamaica etc would be spent in "Canada" were the Turks or Bermuda welcomed into the fold. Be nice to go somewhere dandy that requires no passport or currency exchange.


----------



## suffolkowner

If memory serves the Turks and Caicos twice offered themselves to Canada once under Trudeau and again under Mulroney. I believe it was $1B


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> Yes, but...the amount of money people spend to go to Cuba, Florida, Mexico, Jamaica etc would be spent in "Canada" were the Turks or Bermuda welcomed into the fold. Be nice to go somewhere dandy that requires no passport or currency exchange.


I get it.  It would be amazing.  Nova Scotia even volunteered to allow T&C to join it as part of the province so it neatly sidestepped the potential constitutional wrangling.



suffolkowner said:


> If memory serves the Turks and Caicos twice offered themselves to Canada once under Trudeau and again under Mulroney. I believe it was $1B


I don't know if it was so much as offered but the idea was explored.  The UK was looking to get rid of them as a protectorate as well due to the massive amount of corruption their local government was involved in.

Unless Canada sees the Carib and environs as a strategic location that we want to get involved in (I don't think we do), then it's probably not in our best interest.  Perhaps there is a business case to be made.  But I don't see a geopolitical one to be made.


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> I get it.  It would be amazing.  Nova Scotia even volunteered to allow T&C to join it as part of the province so it neatly sidestepped the potential constitutional wrangling.
> 
> 
> I don't know if it was so much as offered but the idea was explored.  The UK was looking to get rid of them as a protectorate as well due to the massive amount of corruption their local government was involved in.
> 
> Unless Canada sees the Carib and environs as a strategic location that we want to get involved in (I don't think we do), then it's probably not in our best interest.  Perhaps there is a business case to be made.  But I don't see a geopolitical one to be made.


I think more of a business case.  Canadian dollars in Canada thing.  But maybe not people would still go to cheaper Mexician or other places.


----------



## Spencer100

But back to Kingston replacement requirements.  The biggest requirement is that it can not look like a frigate.  So small gun, no hanger and no missiles.  I believe this is the first requirement because the question will be asked if you have these grey ships with guns why do you need this very expensive CSC ships?  I feel that is the main reason AOPS are lighty armed. I know the reason is that con ops don't require it.  And I agree with that.  But if you are an Admiral in the RCN your main goal is to get and retain the combat fleet.  There has been the ideas floated put some missiles and bigger guns on the AOPS and buy less CSC. Same thing would happen with Kingston replacement.


----------



## Dana381

Swampbuggy said:


> Yes, but...the amount of money people spend to go to Cuba, Florida, Mexico, Jamaica etc would be spent in "Canada" were the Turks or Bermuda welcomed into the fold. Be nice to go somewhere dandy that requires no passport or currency exchange.



No Canadians would still flock to Cuba, an all inclusive week in Cuba is cheaper than the airfare between most Canadian cities. If Turks became a Canadian province then Canadian taxes would apply and it would be too expensive to travel too


----------



## Dale Denton

I think for the Kingstons, they'll be around for a little longer, so we have some time to debate their warship capabilities and focus on much more pressing projects. This however isn't a great idea since the Halifaxs will be around for quite some time and will be needed for 'higher-end' jobs. The Halifaxs need to be supplemented somehow with a 'light frigate' or OPV in the meantime, something cheap, mature, simple, and easy to maintain. I'd imagine something 'safe' to build in Canada, like River Class Batch 2 that keep getting mentioned. Solid RN international deployments, uparming easy, multirole. I'm partial to the great paintjobs too. 

My idea:

Balance these interim measures to cover until the CSCs come online fast enough to avoid inflation.

Contract a Canadian yard to build 6-10 River Batch 2s, less stress on the Kingstons and Halifaxs (for their lower-end jobs).
Throw on some next-gen containerized towed-away sonars that we've seen pictured on the Kingstons and DeWolfs.
There's an article in NavyLookout about their uparming and it appears to be quite an easy fix in wartime or from baseline. Pick what you want.
Boom, you have a cheap ASW warship the can defend Canada while the Halifax Class can do the higher end jobs.
Build 2 more and rotate them through a leased CFB in the Caribbean (Jamaica/T&C) for Op Projection and Caribb expansions.
To retain experienced crew, 1 tour in the arctic=1 tour in the Caribb. Build a CAF exclusive resort for families to stay.

Subs.

Commit to buying 6 new subs, with a plan to be presented in a year or 2 on the how to operate them in the Arctic and options.
Keep the sub community alive, as they wind down in years by sending crew to NATO/RAN sub schools. Supplement 5YE SSN crew shortages with RCN crews. We'll buy their tech either way. They won't fight Billions of CAD into their SSN programs, AUKUS countries seem to have gotten along well internally.

Global Reach

2 civilian RoRo, both coasts, ice-strengthened.
Fleet of CCG icebreaker/commercial arctic ferry ships for a new Crown Corp to lower transport costs/CoL in the North. Put that "Arctic icebreaker centre of excellence" to work and design a icebreaker and ferry ship.
at least 2 more Protecteurs or 4 more Multi-Role support ships.
1 Mistral or Karel Doorman.

Lots of capability without needing a CSC competitor or another $20 Billion into the Navy.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Dana381 said:


> No Canadians would still flock to Cuba, an all inclusive week in Cuba is cheaper than the airfare between most Canadian cities. If Turks became a Canadian province then Canadian taxes would apply and it would be too expensive to travel too


Maybe, but maybe not. Think of the snowbirds that flock down to Florida. Most of them are paying extra for health insurance in addition to the exchange etc. Life's not a hell of a lot cheaper in Florida then it is here, yet many head down there anyway. The Sun sells and the snowbirds are a fairly big demographic.


----------



## Spencer100

Dale Denton said:


> I think for the Kingstons, they'll be around for a little longer, so we have some time to debate their warship capabilities and focus on much more pressing projects. This however isn't a great idea since the Halifaxs will be around for quite some time and will be needed for 'higher-end' jobs. The Halifaxs need to be supplemented somehow with a 'light frigate' or OPV in the meantime, something cheap, mature, simple, and easy to maintain. I'd imagine something 'safe' to build in Canada, like River Class Batch 2 that keep getting mentioned. Solid RN international deployments, uparming easy, multirole. I'm partial to the great paintjobs too.
> 
> My idea:
> 
> Balance these interim measures to cover until the CSCs come online fast enough to avoid inflation.
> 
> Contract a Canadian yard to build 6-10 River Batch 2s, less stress on the Kingstons and Halifaxs (for their lower-end jobs).
> Throw on some next-gen containerized towed-away sonars that we've seen pictured on the Kingstons and DeWolfs.
> There's an article in NavyLookout about their uparming and it appears to be quite an easy fix in wartime or from baseline. Pick what you want.
> Boom, you have a cheap ASW warship the can defend Canada while the Halifax Class can do the higher end jobs.
> Build 2 more and rotate them through a leased CFB in the Caribbean (Jamaica/T&C) for Op Projection and Caribb expansions.
> To retain experienced crew, 1 tour in the arctic=1 tour in the Caribb. Build a CAF exclusive resort for families to stay.
> 
> Subs.
> 
> Commit to buying 6 new subs, with a plan to be presented in a year or 2 on the how to operate them in the Arctic and options.
> Keep the sub community alive, as they wind down in years by sending crew to NATO/RAN sub schools. Supplement 5YE SSN crew shortages with RCN crews. We'll buy their tech either way. They won't fight Billions of CAD into their SSN programs, AUKUS countries seem to have gotten along well internally.
> 
> Global Reach
> 
> 2 civilian RoRo, both coasts, ice-strengthened.
> Fleet of CCG icebreaker/commercial arctic ferry ships for a new Crown Corp to lower transport costs/CoL in the North. Put that "Arctic icebreaker centre of excellence" to work and design a icebreaker and ferry ship.
> at least 2 more Protecteurs or 4 more Multi-Role support ships.
> 1 Mistral or Karel Doorman.
> 
> Lots of capability without needing a CSC competitor or another $20 Billion into the Navy.


Unarmed Rivers sooner gets you less CSC's. It's  grey and has gun. Prefect some will say.  No big expensive scary warships for you.


----------



## Spencer100

Swampbuggy said:


> Maybe, but maybe not. Think of the snowbirds that flock down to Florida. Most of them are paying extra for health insurance in addition to the exchange etc. Life's not a hell of a lot cheaper in Florida then it is here, yet many head down there anyway. The Sun sells and the snowbirds are a fairly big demographic.


Florida freedom sells 

Just got back this weekend.  One million have moved there to escape other states.  Have many friends thinking of moving their businesses.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Spencer100 said:


> Florida freedom sells
> 
> Just got back this weekend.  One million have moved there to escape other states.  Have many friends thinking of moving their businesses.


Sure, it's the best shot most have right now. But, my point is that the elderly having to pay health insurance to stay in Florida may find it appealing to chase the sun in Canada and skip that bill. Anyways, it's largely a moot point. If Canada added a Caribbean or tropical island to our territory, it would probably instantly depopulate Manitoba, sooo... unlikely to happen.


----------



## Maxman1

Swampbuggy said:


> the elderly having to pay health insurance to stay in Florida



Unless they're gaming the system and live in Canada enough of the year to still have access to Canadian health care...

Anyway, a station in Bermuda and/or Turks & Caicos wouldn't have that issue, though there might be plenty of members lining up to be posted there.

Also, if the government wants to increase our presence in the arctic, we should open a few more stations similar to Alert, such as in Churchill, a deep water arctic seaport, Iqaluit, which is getting there and had a station at one point (CFS Frobisher Bay) and maybe Tuktoyaktuk, which was promised a deep water port by the Conservatives this past election.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

How to make your ship building and repair toxic for Allied naval vessel and guarantee it will never happen again.

Canadian national security concerns delay court battle over New Zealand warship upgrades

A prolonged court battle over upgrades to a pair of New Zealand navy warships in Canada is now facing years of potential delays as the Attorney General of Canada reviews hundreds of thousands of documents in the case over national security concerns.

The New Zealand government inked a deal in 2014 with Lockheed Martin Canada to install new weapons and surveillance systems aboard Her Majesty's New Zealand ships Te Mana and Te Kaha. The two ships make up the entirety of the country's frigate fleet and the upgrades are intended to extend the life of the warships into the mid-2030s.

Lockheed subcontracted part of the work to Seaspan Shipyards in Victoria in 2018. But two years later, the shipyard filed a lawsuit against Lockheed in B.C. Supreme Court, alleging that problems with the company's designs had cost the shipyard more than $20 million in delays and workarounds on the first ship alone.


Lockheed responded with a counterclaim, alleging the delays were due to negligence, understaffing and mismanagement at the Victoria shipyard, and had set the company back tens of millions of dollars.

Both ships were due to return to New Zealand in 2020. The upgraded Te Kaha was returned in December 2020, nine months after its planned completion date, while the Te Mana remains in Victoria, more than eight years after the modernization contract was awarded.

200,000 PAGES, 'ONE HOUR PER PAGE'​In a decision published Thursday, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ordered an amended case plan to allow for delays as the attorney general's office reviews hundreds of thousands of pages of court submissions for potential redactions of sensitive national security information.

"The process often takes a number of years," judge Sandra Wilkinson wrote in her decision. "The COVID-19 pandemic has made examination of the documents by the relevant AGC [Attorney General of Canada] staff and agency members difficult, since the documents cannot be electronically transmitted and review must take place in person."

The review falls under Sec. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, which prevents the disclosure in court of confidential information related to national security and international relations without the consent of the attorney general.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General David Lametti's office has "informed the court that initial review of each document [will] take one hour per page," Wilkinson wrote. "And there are approximately 200,000 pages to examine."

The attorney general has already confirmed that "a number of documents" provided for an initial review "contain injurious information," the judge wrote.

The documents in question are central to the legal claims of both Lockheed and Seaspan Victoria Shipyards, and both parties have been authorized to communicate directly with the attorney general on the Sec. 38 review, according to the court.

Wilkinson also directed the companies to provide quarterly updates on the review process beginning at the end of June.


----------



## lenaitch

Maxman1 said:


> Unless they're gaming the system and live in Canada enough of the year to still have access to Canadian health care...


[/QUOTE]

If Ontario is indicative of all the provinces, Canadian healthcare doesn't cover much of the cost of out-of-country  medical bills, particularly US.  Private insurers will do all in their power to medically evac you back; even with the cost of that, it is generally cheaper than hospital and medical costs in the US.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> How to make your ship building and repair toxic for Allied naval vessel and guarantee it will never happen again.
> 
> Canadian national security concerns delay court battle over New Zealand warship upgrades
> 
> A prolonged court battle over upgrades to a pair of New Zealand navy warships in Canada is now facing years of potential delays as the Attorney General of Canada reviews hundreds of thousands of documents in the case over national security concerns.
> 
> The New Zealand government inked a deal in 2014 with Lockheed Martin Canada to install new weapons and surveillance systems aboard Her Majesty's New Zealand ships Te Mana and Te Kaha. The two ships make up the entirety of the country's frigate fleet and the upgrades are intended to extend the life of the warships into the mid-2030s.
> 
> Lockheed subcontracted part of the work to Seaspan Shipyards in Victoria in 2018. But two years later, the shipyard filed a lawsuit against Lockheed in B.C. Supreme Court, alleging that problems with the company's designs had cost the shipyard more than $20 million in delays and workarounds on the first ship alone.
> 
> 
> Lockheed responded with a counterclaim, alleging the delays were due to negligence, understaffing and mismanagement at the Victoria shipyard, and had set the company back tens of millions of dollars.
> 
> Both ships were due to return to New Zealand in 2020. The upgraded Te Kaha was returned in December 2020, nine months after its planned completion date, while the Te Mana remains in Victoria, more than eight years after the modernization contract was awarded.


Only 9 months delay... during COVID?  That's basically on time.  The second ship though... not the best.

The problem isn't with the ships or the work done, it's between the contractor and their sub.  Who ends up paying for any delay etc...
I think that calling it toxic and will scare people away is a bit much.  Chile's upgrade went on with few issues.  This is a minor drama in the shipbuilding world. 

The program did run over budget by about 30% ($148 million NZD) but that was based on the government's flawed cost estimates of the program (which they took responsibility for).


----------



## Czech_pivo

torg003 said:


> Bermuda should be welcomed into Confederation as the 11the province.


Why would they want to? What tangible benefit would they gain?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oh sure why not...





__





						Halifax shipyard warns warship schedule contingent on more federal funding
					





					www.msn.com


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:


> Oh sure why not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halifax shipyard warns warship schedule contingent on more federal funding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.msn.com


Should they be spending the money to upgrade their shipyard in order to secure the contract?


----------



## Dale Denton

CANSEC is on,  Saab Kockums - Submarine CANSEC


----------



## GK .Dundas

Halifax Tar said:


> Oh sure why not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halifax shipyard warns warship schedule contingent on more federal funding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.msn.com


You can almost hear Eric Idle's voice for some odd reason .
" Nice shipbuilding program you got here, Governor. Be a real shame if something happened to it.... Know what I mean ?"


----------



## MilEME09

GK .Dundas said:


> You can almost hear Eric Idle's voice for some odd reason .
> " Nice shipbuilding program you got here, Governor. Be a real shame if something happened to it.... Know what I mean ?"


Be a shame if we asked someone else to build them....in say the US or south korea


----------



## GK .Dundas

MilEME09 said:


> Be a shame if we asked someone else to build them....in say the US or south korea


Oh you're funny ! 🤣


----------



## OceanBonfire

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534565976179888129





						Government of Canada moves to next stage of third shipyard selection process with Chantier Davie - Canada.ca
					

The National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) is a long-term, multibillion-dollar program to renew the Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Navy fleets, creating good middle-class jobs across the country while revitalizing Canada’s marine industry.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Spencer100

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534565976179888129
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government of Canada moves to next stage of third shipyard selection process with Chantier Davie - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> The National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) is a long-term, multibillion-dollar program to renew the Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Navy fleets, creating good middle-class jobs across the country while revitalizing Canada’s marine industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca


So they are going to build one icebreaker?  I will take bets right now it will be over a 2 billion dollars. 

Will they even be using the same design?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Will be interesting to see if they require them to do similar facility upgrades, but should really be customized for the expected build package. If they are building just icebreakers the previous plan for the CG ships, JSS and Polar from 2010 may no longer make as much sense.

That's still the easy bit; there is a lot of process improvements to QC, design, planning etc to be done, and that's actually much more of a long term item than some new buildings and production lines.


----------



## Underway

Spending money to get things built faster. We're just driving towards two yards being out of work sooner instead of one in the longer term.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Just imagine how much faster and cheaper these ships for CCG would be if purchased abroad (but now Coast Guard spending counts towards that NATO GDP target so maybe gov't likes that high cost)--and over three years just to get an agreement in place before any contracts. How many ships will be delivered before 2030? Bets?



> Government of Canada moves to next stage of third shipyard selection process with Chantier Davie​Canada NewsWire
> 
> GATINEAU, QC, June 8, 2022
> 
> GATINEAU, QC, June 8, 2022 /CNW/ - The National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) is a long-term, multibillion-dollar program to renew the Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Navy fleets, creating good middle-class jobs across the country while revitalizing Canada's marine industry.
> 
> Today, the Government of Canada announced that it will begin negotiations with Chantier Davie of Lévis, Quebec, towards an umbrella agreement, to become the third strategic shipbuilding partner under the NSS. Pending successful negotiations, an agreement is expected to be in place by the end of 2022.
> 
> Chantier Davie submitted a proposal as part of the Request for Proposal process for the selection of a third NSS shipyard. This included a third-party assessment of the shipyard's infrastructure; submission and evaluation of a formal proposal from the shipyard; and a due diligence process to ensure the shipyard is financially capable of performing the work and making any necessary upgrades to its infrastructure.
> 
> The assessment was similar to the process previously undertaken in 2011 to select Irving Shipbuilding Inc. and Seaspan's Vancouver Shipyards as strategic partners under the NSS.
> 
> _Pending successful negotiation of an umbrella agreement, Chantier Davie will build 1 of 2 polar icebreakers and 6 program icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard. Contracts for each project will be negotiated with the shipyard only after the signature of an umbrella agreement_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Quick facts
> 
> 
> On May 22, 2019, the Government of Canada announced its intention to add a third Canadian shipyard as a partner under the NSS, and on August 2, 2019, Canada launched the competitive process to select the new shipyard.
> 
> 
> In May 2021, the Government of Canada announced it was moving forward with the construction of 2 polar icebreakers under the NSS. Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver, British Columbia, will build 1, while the other will be built at Chantier Davie, pending the successful completion of the ongoing selection process.
> 
> 
> On July 14, 2021, the Government of Canada announced it had received Chantier Davie's supporting materials to become the third shipyard under the NSS.
> 
> 
> Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers are essential to Canada's economy, supporting year-round marine trade in eastern Canada, the St. Lawrence waterway and the Great Lakes. They provide critical icebreaking services to ensure commercial ships have access to Canadian ports during the winter, and they support summer resupply activities to Canada's Arctic communities and their industries. They are also important platforms for search and rescue and environmental response operations.
> 
> Related products
> 
> Backgrounder on Canadian Coast Guard's new icebreakers
> Backgrounder on Canada's National Shipbuilding Strategy: Process to add a third shipyard
> Associated links
> 
> National Shipbuilding Strategy
> Prime Minister announces renewal of Canadian Coast Guard fleet
> Government of Canada announces construction of new icebreakers for Canadian Coast Guard
> Canada's National Shipbuilding Strategy: Process to add a third shipyard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government of Canada moves to next stage of third shipyard selection process with Chantier Davie
> 
> 
> Government of Canada moves to next stage of third shipyard selection process with Chantier DavieCanada NewsWireGATINEAU, QC, June 8, 2022GATINEAU, QC, June 8, 2022 /CNW/ - The National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) is a long-term, multibillion-dollar program to renew the Canadian Coast Guard and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> finance.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa








​


----------



## Underway

MarkOttawa said:


> Just imagine how much faster and cheaper these ships for CCG would be if purchased abroad (but now Coast Guard spending counts towards that NATO GDP target so maybe gov't likes that high cost)--and over three years just to get an agreement in place before any contracts. How many ships will be delivered before 2030? Bets?


Three from Seaspan in Vancouver.  2xJSS and the OOSV for sure.  After that no idea.


----------



## Dana381

MarkOttawa said:


> Just imagine how much faster and cheaper these ships for CCG would be if purchased abroad (but now Coast Guard spending counts towards that NATO GDP target so maybe gov't likes that high cost)--and over three years just to get an agreement in place before any contracts. How many ships will be delivered before 2030? Bets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​



How do unarmed ships contribute to defense spending?


----------



## suffolkowner

MarkOttawa said:


> Just imagine how much faster and cheaper these ships for CCG would be if purchased abroad (but now Coast Guard spending counts towards that NATO GDP target so maybe gov't likes that high cost)--and over three years just to get an agreement in place before any contracts. How many ships will be delivered before 2030? Bets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


I hear we can get good prices from the Chinese


----------



## Underway

Dana381 said:


> How do unarmed ships contribute to defense spending?


How do SAR aircraft, or trucks, or C-17's or tugboats for dockyard or the Joint Support ship?  If it comes under the DND budget it's defense spending. Unarmed vessels have important roles to play in defense work.


----------



## Dana381

Underway said:


> How do SAR aircraft, or trucks, or C-17's or tugboats for dockyard or the Joint Support ship?  If it comes under the DND budget it's defense spending. Unarmed vessels have important roles to play in defense work.


All those contribute to the mission of combat arms. Unarmed coast guard vessels not so much. If our coast guard was armed like most other countries then sure.  How will our coast guard help if China attacks...well anywhere? Politely ask them to leave?


----------



## Underway

Dana381 said:


> All those contribute to the mission of combat arms. Unarmed coast guard vessels not so much. If our coast guard was armed like most other countries then sure.  How will our coast guard help if China attacks...well anywhere? Politely ask them to leave?


Oh I get your question. Yah Coast guard are not constabulary.


----------



## Dana381

Underway said:


> Oh I get your question. Yah Coast guard are not constabulary.


If the DND uses coast guard spending in the NATO spending calculation then we are in worse shape then I thought. They should at least strap a .50 cal to the deck and pretend they are armed if they want NATO credit for coast guard dollars.


----------



## MTShaw

Dana381 said:


> If the DND uses coast guard spending in the NATO spending calculation then we are in worse shape then I thought. They should at least strap a .50 cal to the deck and pretend they are armed if they want NATO credit for coast guard dollars.


SAR, environmental protection, fisheries. Many ways to protect people, their livelihoods and their communities without having a 25mm canon.


----------



## suffolkowner

Spencer100 said:


> So they are going to build one icebreaker?  I will take bets right now it will be over a 2 billion dollars.
> 
> Will they even be using the same design?


its already known its over $2B the polar icebreaker is supposed to be one design plus 6 medium icebreakers


Navy_Pete said:


> Will be interesting to see if they require them to do similar facility upgrades, but should really be customized for the expected build package. If they are building just icebreakers the previous plan for the CG ships, JSS and Polar from 2010 may no longer make as much sense.
> 
> That's still the easy bit; there is a lot of process improvements to QC, design, planning etc to be done, and that's actually much more of a long term item than some new buildings and production lines.


What have they been doing the last year or two to get ready? How hard does Davie really need to work to meet the standards of Irving or Seaspan or even BAE in Glasgow?


Underway said:


> Spending money to get things built faster. We're just driving towards two yards being out of work sooner instead of one in the longer term.


3 yards 90 ships 30 years, repeat?


----------



## dapaterson

VAC spending fits within the NATO definition as well.


----------



## Navy_Pete

suffolkowner said:


> What have they been doing the last year or two to get ready? How hard does Davie really need to work to meet the standards of Irving or Seaspan or even BAE in Glasgow?


A lot. Irving and Seaspan both invested several hundred million dollars in infrastructure upgrades and have spent however many years doing the process improvements and building expertise. You can only build expertise in ship building by building ships. Asterix was an overhaul, and the fabrication portion of the new superstructure was done overseas. With the normal IRB/VP rules for 100% Canadian content (which didn't apply to Asterix) that route would need a whack of offsets.

Davie will also need to do shipyard upgrades to be able to do modular shipbuilding better, but there is an entire design/planning/QC aspect that is miles beyond what they've ever had to do to date.  

If Davie comes under the NSS umbrella and is required to meet the same standards as ISI and Seaspan I think it will be a pretty humbling experience. The mythos of Davie's expertise is more due to their PR skills then reality, they have the same issues as everyone else. Generally that means some good work, some bad work that needs redone, and the rest is good enough for the standard. I'm sure they will run into the same delays and price overruns as everyone else has.


----------



## dapaterson

ISI has standards?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu said:


> Anyone surprised?  Storied Coast Guard ship can’t be fixed, shipyard says, highlighting yet again, Canada’s shipbuilding problem  | Globalnews.ca



Bonne flipping chance with that 2025 date. "Acquisition malpractice" a colossal understatement:


> Canada looks to charter research vessel as it awaits $1B replacement ship​CCGS Hudson was retired this year after catastrophic motor failure​
> ...
> Construction of a new offshore oceanographic science vessel for the East Coast has started at the Seaspan shipyard in Vancouver. It is currently estimated to cost $995 million [for 5,000t ship  Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel - Seaspan]...
> 
> Delivery is now expected in 2025...
> 
> Seaspan declined to provide an estimated delivery date for the offshore oceanographic science ship...



Gosh. Wonder why.



> ...It was originally expected to cost $109 million with delivery in 2017...
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canada-looks-for-3-to-5-year-research-vessel-charter-1.6480413


FUBAR.

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Shocking that a 59 year ship suddenly divests itself. We are so good at own goals


----------



## suffolkowner

Canadian Coast Guard Looks to Charter Interim Research Vessel
					

The Canadian Coast Guard has begun a search for a temporary replacement for its now retired Atlantic...




					www.maritime-executive.com
				




Yes completely unexpected

also my favorite icebreaker Aiviq might finally be going back to work after a test run in Australia

"Canada is not alone in seeking charters to bridge delays in its shipbuilding program. Last month, the U.S. Coast Guard also released a request for information seeking to identify U.S.-built commercial icebreakers that might be available for purchase."









						US Coast Guard proposes purchase of existing icebreaker as Arctic 'bridging strategy' - ArcticToday
					

The Biden administration is requesting $125 million in its 2023 budget to purchase an existing privately owned U.S. icebreaker. The funds would cover the estimated cost of buying a “commercially available” icebreaker, including initial modifications, U.S. Coast Guard spokesperson Richard Kolko...




					www.arctictoday.com
				




"The Biden administration is requesting $125 million in its 2023 budget to purchase an existing privately owned U.S. icebreaker."



			https://govtribe.com/opportunity/federal-contract-opportunity/commercial-icebreaker-70z02322icicc2200


----------



## Good2Golf

Interestingly, the USN still uses ALCO 251 engines and you can buy a new 251F-16V from the owners of the ALCO legacy products.









						FM 251F
					

FM | ALCO 251F, ALCO, ALCO Engine




					www.fairbanksmorse.com


----------



## OceanBonfire

Chantier Davie completed CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent's 1/3 series of work ahead of schedule:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542600590915690497


----------



## JMCanada

New article about the flawed procurement process (not just the NSS). Recommended reading.






						The Elephant in the Room | CDA Institute
					






					cdainstitute.ca


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin Parkinson said:


> Shocking that a 59 year ship suddenly divests itself. We are so good at own goals



IIRC, the refit contract went to Marrystown in 2018 after Davie declined to do the work because, in their view, Hudson was unfixable. Davie is a pretty agressive yard when it comes to getting projects in the workbook. Since they declined the work three years ago now, perhaps someone should have clued in then that it was time to send out tenders.


----------



## KevinB

JMCanada said:


> New article about the flawed procurement process (not just the NSS). Recommended reading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Elephant in the Room | CDA Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cdainstitute.ca


I’m not usually a fan of his writings - but he makes some great points in that one.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> IIRC, the refit contract went to Marrystown in 2018 after Davie declined to do the work because, in their view, Hudson was unfixable. Davie is a pretty agressive yard when it comes to getting projects in the workbook. Since they declined the work three years ago now, perhaps someone should have clued in then that it was time to send out tenders.


More on FUBAR shipbuilding in Canada, CCG section--June this year: "new [Seaspan OOSV science] vessel has been ordered...not expected to be delivered until 2025, barring construction delays [tee hee]"








						Canadian Coast Guard Looks to Charter Interim Research Vessel
					

The Canadian Coast Guard has begun a search for a temporary replacement for its now retired Atlantic...




					www.maritime-executive.com
				




And from 2021:



> Cost of Coast Guard ship balloons to nearly $1B as questions mount over federal shipbuilding plan​The federal government has quietly revealed that it plans to pay nearly $1-billion to build a new ocean research vessel for the Canadian Coast Guard whose original cost was supposed to be one-tenth that amount.
> 
> The new cost estimate for the offshore oceanographic science vessel represents the latest blow to Ottawa’s multibillion-dollar plan to build new ships for the Royal Canadian Navy and Coast Guard, first revealed more than a decade ago and beset by problems ever since.
> 
> It also sets the stage for what is likely to be a difficult week for the government as Parliament’s budget watchdog and the federal auditor general prepare to release separate, highly-anticipated reports on the plan’s actual costs and problems.
> 
> The federal procurement department revealed the new $966-million price tag for the science vessel on Friday, quietly posting the new cost online on the same day it officially awarded Vancouver-based Seaspan Shipyards a contract to build the ship.
> 
> That represents a nearly tenfold increase over the original plan to spend $108-million to replace the Coast Guard’s oldest and largest research ship, the CCGS Hudson, when the project was launched in 2008.
> 
> It is also three times the government’s most recent estimate in 2016, when Ottawa predicted the vessel would cost $331-million. Coast Guard spokesman Barre Campbell said officials knew at that time that the agency would need more money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cost of Coast Guard ship balloons to nearly $1B as questions mount over federal shipbuilding plan
> 
> 
> The original cost for the offshore oceanographic science vessel was supposed to be one-tenth that amount
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com



FUBAR forever.

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## JMCanada

KevinB said:


> I’m not usually a fan of his writings - but he makes some great points in that one.


I'm glad my recommendation was worth this time.  🍻


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Here is a nifty ship built by Davie for a Norwegian oil exploration company almost ten years ago. Davie owns the rights to the design and, at some point about seven years ago - in the same era as the Resolve project - Davie offered to modify one for the Navy to operate as a oceanographic research, deep underwater diving, diving support and salvage vessel.

I bet they could still quickly modify one as a research vessel and have it built in three years from get go.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/quebec-s-davie-shipyard-launches-new-ship-cecon-pride-1.2251681


----------



## MTShaw

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Here is a nifty ship built by Davie for a Norwegian oil exploration company almost ten years ago. Davie owns the rights to the design and, at some point about seven years ago - in the same era as the Resolve project - Davie offered to modify one for the Navy to operate as a oceanographic research, deep underwater diving, diving support and salvage vessel.
> 
> I bet they could still quickly modify one as a research vessel and have it built in three years from get go.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/quebec-s-davie-shipyard-launches-new-ship-cecon-pride-1.2251681


It’s is never a simple matter of altering one countries specs  Might as well build a new ship. Davie is really still selling its high margin Federal fleet, and not even canada is buying  I don’t know why some people worship them. 

Also 1bn is lifetime cost.  The GLOBaM author is willfully ignorant at this point.


----------



## don3wing

MarkOttawa said:


> More on FUBAR shipbuilding in Canada, CCG section--June this year: "new [Seaspan OOSV science] vessel has been ordered...not expected to be delivered until 2025, barring construction delays [tee hee]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Coast Guard Looks to Charter Interim Research Vessel
> 
> 
> The Canadian Coast Guard has begun a search for a temporary replacement for its now retired Atlantic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.maritime-executive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And from 2021:
> 
> 
> 
> FUBAR forever.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Mark,
           Here is an update on the OOSV

Three’s a crowd? Not for the OOSV's engine room block.
It's been a busy few months here at Seaspan - we've been going full steam ahead on a number of projects, including commencing engine loadout and integration of the three 23-tonne Marine Diesel Generators for the Canadian Coast Guard's future Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel. The engines were delivered individually to our #NorthVan shipyard by truck before being loaded into the engine room block. With more than 1,100…
tonnes of the vessel’s steel having been cut and more than half of its 38 blocks now under construction, the #OOSV is starting to take shape on the shipyard.
Check out a timelapse of the engine loadout and see what else we've been up to in North Vancouver and Victoria recently 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




http://ow.ly/PIJ050JP4fT
#Shipbuilding #NationalShipbuildingStrategy
See more












+3

3131


3 shares

Like



Comment


Share


----------



## Kirkhill

MTShaw said:


> It’s is never a simple matter of altering one countries specs  Might as well build a new ship. Davie is really still selling its high margin Federal fleet, and not even canada is buying  I don’t know why some people worship them.
> 
> Also 1bn is lifetime cost.  The GLOBaM author is willfully ignorant at this point.



I know this is now and that was then but  this reads a lot more like fitting out the Ukrainians than the RCN.



> *In early 1939*, with the risk of war with Nazi Germany increasing, it was clear to* the Royal Navy that it needed more escort ships* to counter the threat from Kriegsmarine U-boats. One particular concern was the need to protect shipping off the east coast of Britain. What was needed was something larger and faster than trawlers, but still *cheap enough to be built in large numbers, preferably at small merchant shipyards*, as larger yards were already busy. To meet this requirement, the Smiths Dock Company of South Bank -on-Tees, a specialist in the design and build of fishing vessels, *offered a development of its 700-ton, 16 knots (18 mph; 30 km/h) whaler (whale catcher)* _Southern Pride_.[6][7] They were intended as small convoy escort ships that could be produced quickly and cheaply in large numbers. Despite naval planners' intentions that they be deployed for coastal convoys, their long range meant that they became the mainstay of Mid-Ocean Escort Force convoy protection during the first half of the war.
> 
> The Flower class became an essential resource for North Atlantic convoy protection until larger vessels such as destroyer escorts and frigates could be produced in sufficient quantities. *The simple design of the Flower class using parts and techniques (scantlings) common to merchant shipping* meant they could be constructed in small commercial shipyards all over the United Kingdom and Canada, where larger (or more sophisticated) warships[8] could not be built. Additionally, *the use of commercial triple expansion machinery instead of steam turbines meant the largely Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve crews that were manning the corvettes would be familiar with their operation.*





> *The RN ordered 145 Flower-class corvettes in 1939,* the first 26 on 25 July with a further batch of 30 on 31 August, all under the 1939 Pre-War Programme. Following the outbreak of World War II, the British Admiralty ordered another 20 on 19 September (all from Harland & Wolff) under the 1939 War Programme. This was followed by an order for a further ten Flower-class corvettes from other British shipbuilders two days later. Another 18 were ordered on 12 December and an additional two on 15 December, again from British shipbuilders. The RN ordered the last ten vessels (under the 1939 War Programme) from Canadian shipbuilders in January 1940.
> 
> Thus,* by the end of January 1940, a total of 116 ships were building or on order to this initial design.*











						Flower-class corvette - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




266 built in British and Canadian yards.  36 lost.  18 lost to Uboats.  86% Survival Rate - for a commercial design armed as possible.

Funnily enough both my father-in-law and my sister's father-in-law served as stokers in the corvettes.  And one of the fathers of a sister-in-law served in U-boats.

My problem with the procurement system is its incredibly long gestational period and the large number of spontaneous abortions.


----------



## MTShaw

Kirkhill said:


> I know this is now and that was then but  this reads a lot more like fitting out the Ukrainians than the RCN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flower-class corvette - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 266 built in British and Canadian yards.  36 lost.  18 lost to Uboats.  86% Survival Rate - for a commercial design armed as possible.
> 
> Funnily enough both my father-in-law and my sister's father-in-law served as stokers in the corvettes.  And one of the fathers of a sister-in-law served in U-boats.
> 
> My problem with the procurement system is its incredibly long gestational period and the large number of spontaneous abortions.


Me too.

As soon as the F-35 goes ioc, the Air Force should start realistic planning for what comes next. That many not be possible and likely won’t happen. This is military procurement.


----------



## KevinB

MTShaw said:


> Me too.
> 
> As soon as the F-35 goes ioc, the Air Force should start realistic planning for what comes next. That many not be possible and likely won’t happen. This is military procurement.


Why bother, you have 40 years to plan for that right…


----------



## Dana381

MTShaw said:


> Me too.
> 
> As soon as the F-35 goes ioc, the Air Force should start realistic planning for what comes next. That many not be possible and likely won’t happen. This is military procurement.



Canada doesn't know what plane the Americans want us to buy yet. We can't plan for something when we are not allowed to think for ourselves on it.


----------



## Dana381

Dirk Lesko Appointed President of Irving Shipbuilding - Canadian Defence Review | Canadian Defence Review
		


"A 32-year BIW employee and third generation shipbuilder, Mr. Lesko held leadership positions including Vice President DDG 1000 Program"

Just what Irving needs, the guy who ran the Zumwalt program. I guess Irving figures they need professional help bilking Canadian taxpayers out of every last available dime. This ought to take their game up a couple notches. He even looks like he can't be trusted.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Does that really have anything to do with BIW though? The zumwalt program has a long history of shooting for the stars and hitting their own foot, before they ever got near construction.

Also, I don't think Irving needs help bilking the taxpayers; until the politicians grow some intestinal fortitude and stop taking their calls they have us over a barrel.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Halifax Shipyard Land Level Expansion - Canada.ca
					

Home page for the impact assessment of the project - Halifax Shipyard Land Level Expansion




					www.ceaa.gc.ca
				






> Irving Shipbuilding (ISI) is proposing to expand and modify the site and facilities at the Halifax Shipyard. The Halifax Shipyard site expansion will include dredging, marine structures and rock infill behind the structure creating approximately 13 acres of additional yard space.
> 
> The newly expanded area will not extend farther into the channel than the limits of the floating dry dock that was previously located at Halifax Shipyard.
> 
> This project will increase the capacity of the shipyard and support the fabrication, launching, and maintenance of the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) vessels, which are being developed under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS).



This might be old news for some but I recently came across it myself, I found it interesting regardless.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The NSS demolished, in terms of costs per ship and times of construction compared to other countries' efforts, by a Canadian naval architect--the start and conclusion of a piece at _FrontLine Defence_:


> * The National Shipbuilding Shambles*
> 
> 
> Jul 26, 2022
> 
> The House of Commons Committee on Government Operations and Estimates held hearings on the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) from February to June 2022. Video records and transcripts of the sessions can be found at OGGO - Meetings - House of Commons of Canada.
> 
> Some interesting items can be found among the materials – although very little hard data.
> Most of the witnesses were there to promote vested interests and to paint over the cracks in the NSS. As I stated in my own testimony, subsequent to my retirement from a long career in the Canadian marine industry, I am now completely independent of any ties to NSS beneficiaries and gatekeepers, and can thus offer a frank and objective assessment of the status of this important program.
> 
> My unbiased assessment is that NSS has failed, is continuing to fail, and needs to be scrapped in order to prevent irreparable damage to the Canadian Navy and Coast Guard...
> 
> *Where do we go from here?*
> 
> What might the solutions look like? I’m not suggesting we abandon building ships in Canada – we have significant capabilities here, if they are marshalled in the right way. But we also need to be realistic about the limitations of those capabilities, and whether some things, or even whole projects, are better outsourced in the near term in the interests of having a sustainable approach for the longer term.
> 
> For example, it does not seem sensible for two shipyards each to gear up to build a single polar icebreaker, with no similar follow-on work in prospect. It doesn’t require an economist to point out that all economies of scale, even with only two ships are lost when two shipyards gear up to produce a single version of the same vessel.
> 
> The average Canadian can also see that investing hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrading a yard to build CSCs does not make sense if this is not the project that Canada needs.
> 
> At the end of the day, we need to decide what level of premium we are prepared to pay for build-in-Canada solutions – 100%, 125%? I don’t believe that 300-500% is either reasonable or sustainable – nor is it responsible.
> 
> While I understand the case for spin-off benefits, we are living in a world of skills shortages, not jobs shortages. NSS projects are currently absorbing capacity that could probably be used to greater economic effect in other sectors of the economy, without making a meaningful contribution to safety and security.
> 
> I hope this material will encourage objective evaluation of what needs to be done. The timescales for all NSS projects may give the impression that there is still time to solve problems but, in reality, Canadian ship procurement is in a crisis right now, and will only get worse with time.
> 
> We need to put an end to the decade of delusion in Canadian ship procurement.
> 
> ___
> _Andrew Kendrick is a naval architect and ocean engineer who has worked in ship design, research, and regulatory development for over 45 years as an engineer, project manager, and company executive. He retired from full-time employment in late 2020, but continues to be active on projects in Canada and internationally, and volunteering for several professional and technical organizations in the marine sector._








						19348-The-National-Shipbuilding-Shambles| FrontLine Defence
					






					defence.frontline.online
				




Delusion indeed.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The NSS makes sense, it's 20 years late, but it makes sense and is likely as good as it will get considering the politics of this country. The case of the polar icebreaker is more to do with politicians seeking votes and appeasing regions than the NSS itself. If you scrap the NSS, you are still dealing with political favouritism, regionalism and now you have no coherent plan to address the looming crisis. We at least have a flawed plan that is pumping out ships right now.


----------



## Jimbolio

> The average Canadian can also see that investing hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrading a yard to build CSCs does not make sense if this is not the project that Canada needs.


Nowhere in the article does he make this case.  Also, although most of the article complains about NSS, the sentence I've quoted could be interpreted as having an issue with CSC.  It's not clear.  I was looking for a little more insight from someone who claims so much experience.  Other than complaining about NSS, though, no viable alternatives are proposed (except, maybe offshoring, but that's hardly new, and not a goal of NSS).


----------



## Navy_Pete

Any estimates of an NSS premium are an apple/orange comparison; even the PBO couldn't make it work, as countries report completely different info when they cost things, and completely different contract structures.

Some countries have some project costs in the build, others exclude some project/material costs, and Canada tends to include everything tangentially related to the project as well as contingency funding.

There is a lot of 'premium' that is strictly due to our bureaucracy as well, all the shipyards have a whole directorate of people who work just on government reporting and interface.

We could save a lot of time and money by just streaming our oversight/reporting requirements and using standard commercial terms, but then the entire DPS, ISED and other wings of the GoC that have their fingers in the pie would be largely irrelevant. Being clever, we'd probably want to do the same thing even with overseas builds, so would cost even more.


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin Parkinson said:


> The NSS makes sense, it's 20 years late, but it makes sense and is likely as good as it will get considering the politics of this country. The case of the polar icebreaker is more to do with politicians seeking votes and appeasing regions than the NSS itself. If you scrap the NSS, you are still dealing with political favouritism, regionalism and now you have no coherent plan to address the looming crisis. We at least have a flawed plan that is pumping out ships right now.


Something something bathwater...

The failings of the NSS were predictable. Did anyone expect this to go any other way? You can tell how successful a program is based on how little information is available on the NSS at any given time.

Where is the long-term strategy for the RCN? How does it tie-in with NSS? 

My view is that NSS is a long-term commitment to Canadian shipbuilders and their employees/voters. Gov't did not anticipate any delays (or didn't care) and we've been stuck with a less than ideal number of interim ships to pretend to cover these gaps.

We should have partnered with international shipbuilders and leveraged their experiences and processes and slowly adapted them to our needs. But instead, like almost everything else, we chose to do something 100% on our own like our requirements were _that _unique. Our non-combat CCG/RCN yard have been in partnership with say a...South Korean yard for our AORs. A third yard should've been signed from the get-go, to refurb or refit existing vessels as well.

The most important thing they can do is methodically fix NSS shortfall, learn from allies, and taking these lessons into Army/RCAF NSS.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I agree with Colin; the political aim of the NSS was sound, back in 2008/09, when then PM Harper sent a "tiger team" of very senior officials (mostly (all?) deputy ministers) away to find a way to make Canada's shipbuilding industry competitive. I'm not sure the political aim was realistic. I'm not sure that Canada's shipbuilding industry was ever globally or even regionally competitive. But the aim was politically sound. 

I think the NSS was about as good a plan as responsible officials could come up with at the time.

Whether or not it could or can ever work is an open question ... my guess is not. But doing nothing was, and remains, a worse choice.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Dale Denton said:


> Something something bathwater...
> 
> The failings of the NSS were predictable. Did anyone expect this to go any other way? You can tell how successful a program is based on how little information is available on the NSS at any given time.
> 
> Where is the long-term strategy for the RCN? How does it tie-in with NSS?
> 
> My view is that NSS is a long-term commitment to Canadian shipbuilders and their employees/voters. Gov't did not anticipate any delays (or didn't care) and we've been stuck with a less than ideal number of interim ships to pretend to cover these gaps.
> 
> We should have partnered with international shipbuilders and leveraged their experiences and processes and slowly adapted them to our needs. But instead, like almost everything else, we chose to do something 100% on our own like our requirements were _that _unique. Our non-combat CCG/RCN yard have been in partnership with say a...South Korean yard for our AORs. A third yard should've been signed from the get-go, to refurb or refit existing vessels as well.
> 
> The most important thing they can do is methodically fix NSS shortfall, learn from allies, and taking these lessons into Army/RCAF NSS.


The NSS was NEVER about warships or the RCN's or the Coast Guard's requirements. It was ONLY ever about trying to make two or three yards internationally competitive and, therefore, self sufficient. The RCN's role is to provide a cover for pumping government funds into shipyards in a way that is justified under international trade law.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Even the Korean built ships are not without their drama. The hardcore reality is that without new builds and the capital investments that support them, our shipyards will wither away and then we have no ability to to even repair them. We neglected our shipbuilding industry for a long time. Out on the West Coast they survived on building a good rep for good and on time repairs with commercial interests, but new builds were few and far between. I am personally seeing a lot of infrastructure improvements both at Seaspan and at VDC as a result of the NSS and that translates into better quality repairs and projects as new equipment is purchased. Such as this





						About | Welding Automation | Novarc Technologies
					

At Novarc, we provide welding automation solutions to the oil & gas and shipbuilding industries, as well as mechanical contractors and EPCs.




					www.novarctech.com
				




That means more contracts for repairs, generally VDC has 2-3 contracts for refits or repairs at any one time, quite a few of them are foreign or US flagged vessels. This work means a lot of sub contractors get work and I see 8-9 different contractors go through the gate on any one day. We can't compete with Asian or Eastern European yards on labour costs, but we can compete on quality, on time and on budget, with a refit or repair that will be passed by the surveyors. I can't speak for what the East Coast is doing or how well, I let others comment on that. But NSS pumps a lot of money into my region and it is generating work for skilled tradespeople and providing steady work for this new generation of tradespeople and the next generation as well.
Maybe spend more time ripping all of the previous governments for allowing us to get into this crisis which they all knew was coming and did precious little to resolve.


----------



## YZT580

Colin Parkinson said:


> Even the Korean built ships are not without their drama. The hardcore reality is that without new builds and the capital investments that support them, our shipyards will wither away and then we have no ability to to even repair them. We neglected our shipbuilding industry for a long time. Out on the West Coast they survived on building a good rep for good and on time repairs with commercial interests, but new builds were few and far between. I am personally seeing a lot of infrastructure improvements both at Seaspan and at VDC as a result of the NSS and that translates into better quality repairs and projects as new equipment is purchased. Such as this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About | Welding Automation | Novarc Technologies
> 
> 
> At Novarc, we provide welding automation solutions to the oil & gas and shipbuilding industries, as well as mechanical contractors and EPCs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.novarctech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means more contracts for repairs, generally VDC has 2-3 contracts for refits or repairs at any one time, quite a few of them are foreign or US flagged vessels. This work means a lot of sub contractors get work and I see 8-9 different contractors go through the gate on any one day. We can't compete with Asian or Eastern European yards on labour costs, but we can compete on quality, on time and on budget, with a refit or repair that will be passed by the surveyors. I can't speak for what the East Coast is doing or how well, I let others comment on that. But NSS pumps a lot of money into my region and it is generating work for skilled tradespeople and providing steady work for this new generation of tradespeople and the next generation as well.
> Maybe spend more time ripping all of the previous governments for allowing us to get into this crisis which they all knew was coming and did precious little to resolve.


not to mention funding several skills building courses in metallurgy, welding etc.  Its a win-win for those kids lucky enough to obtain a position and there are a number of first nation people who can look forward to a decent career


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> The NSS makes sense, it's 20 years late, but it makes sense and is likely as good as it will get considering the politics of this country. The case of the polar icebreaker is more to do with politicians seeking votes and appeasing regions than the NSS itself. If you scrap the NSS, you are still dealing with political favouritism, regionalism and now you have no coherent plan to address the looming crisis. We at least have a flawed plan that is pumping out ships right now.


Pumping?

Or grrrrrriiiiiinding?


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:


> The NSS was NEVER about warships or the RCN's or the Coast Guard's requirements. It was ONLY ever about trying to make two or three yards internationally competitive and, therefore, self sufficient. The RCN's role is to provide a cover for pumping government funds into shipyards in a way that is justified under international trade law.



In my view the tragedy of the NSS program is that Seaspan was in the process of building a useful local reputation for refit and repair.  It also benefited from the Kvaerner connections that transferred Beaufort sea ice technology to the Baltic and OPV technology to Canada.  Svalbard was a Kvaerner design that was refined, and costed on the West Coast to create the AOPS which was then tossed to the East Coast who then proceeded to redesign it and recost it.

In the meantime it seems that West Coast has caught the same bug infecting the East Coast.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Even the Korean built ships are not without their drama. The hardcore reality is that without new builds and the capital investments that support them, our shipyards will wither away and then we have no ability to to even repair them. We neglected our shipbuilding industry for a long time. Out on the West Coast they survived on building a good rep for good and on time repairs with commercial interests, but new builds were few and far between. I am personally seeing a lot of infrastructure improvements both at Seaspan and at VDC as a result of the NSS and that translates into better quality repairs and projects as new equipment is purchased. Such as this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About | Welding Automation | Novarc Technologies
> 
> 
> At Novarc, we provide welding automation solutions to the oil & gas and shipbuilding industries, as well as mechanical contractors and EPCs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.novarctech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means more contracts for repairs, generally VDC has 2-3 contracts for refits or repairs at any one time, quite a few of them are foreign or US flagged vessels. This work means a lot of sub contractors get work and I see 8-9 different contractors go through the gate on any one day. We can't compete with Asian or Eastern European yards on labour costs, but we can compete on quality, on time and on budget, with a refit or repair that will be passed by the surveyors. I can't speak for what the East Coast is doing or how well, I let others comment on that. But NSS pumps a lot of money into my region and it is generating work for skilled tradespeople and providing steady work for this new generation of tradespeople and the next generation as well.
> Maybe spend more time ripping all of the previous governments for allowing us to get into this crisis which they all knew was coming and did precious little to resolve.


The NSS, as a concept, is an excellent way to develop, expand and sustain both skill sets and human expertise in all of the above mentioned trades. I believe that where it struggles is when it is applied to a situation that needs to replace 30+ highly important vessels in short order. As Colin said, it’s about 20 years too late. And, yes, that’s a failing of every previous government since the 80’s.  The question now is if there are going to be enough ships in the short term to get the job done before the program completes the arguably most important classes (AOR, CSC, Polar Ice Breakers). If not, what are the options that can address the need? Used interim oilers from the USN to supplement ASTERIX or find another Heavy Ice Breaker on the market, etc? The pattern so far has been to find immediate answers outside of the NSS, like ASTERIX or the VIKINGS. I wonder if, when or what the next mad scramble will address?


----------



## FSTO

After WWII we had a fairly mature shipbuilding capability although I'm unsure if any of the Tribals being built in Halifax actually saw action. Then from 1953 to 1972 there was a continual build of RCN ships and we grew from the DDE's to refitted DDE to DDH (Fraser) to DDH from the keel up (Annapolis and Nipigon) to the Tribals with their twin helo's and SAM missiles. We also tossed in 3 AORs (1 refit and 2 purpose built). By 72 we had rid ourselves of the Nav Architect community, the will to build upon previous experience, and a government hell bent on gutting the CAF (willingly or unwillingly). We come to 1985 and we realize that we've wrung the last bit usefulness from the steamers and made the decision to replace them. Did the government actually look at building offshore? I'm not sure but the result was to pour oodles of money and sweat into resurrecting a warship building capability that by 1996 was pumping out frigates at a good rate and with the knowledge that EOL of the TRUMPs and AORs was rapidly approaching. So instead of having the yard pivot to next requirements the decision was made to shut the whole thing down again. And now we find ourselves in the early teens and the entire government fleet is on the verge of falling apart and rightly the PM forced (?) the GoC to come up with the NSS to address the rust out issue of the fleets of the GoC. Any person who had an ounce of experience with government programs knew that there will be cost overruns because that is just the way things work. The NSS is a MASSIVE program, much more complex than the child care or I'd even argue the Medicare system but if we power through there will be a decent payoff in the end. 
The one problem is see in the future is that we've built a whole group of ships in one go and they are not staggered enough and we'll be in the same situation again in 30/40 years. I'm hoping that we decide not to do mid life refits, or do them at year 12 and get rid of them at year 25, instead of refit at year 22 and them sinking on their own at year 45.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin Parkinson said:


> The NSS makes sense, it's 20 years late, but it makes sense and is likely as good as it will get considering the politics of this country. The case of the polar icebreaker is more to do with politicians seeking votes and appeasing regions than the NSS itself. If you scrap the NSS, you are still dealing with political favouritism, regionalism and now you have no coherent plan to address the looming crisis. We at least have a flawed plan that is pumping out ships right now.





OceanBonfire said:


> Chantier Davie completed CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent's 1/3 series of work ahead of schedule:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542600590915690497


CCGS George R. Pearkes will be well into her forties (if not older) when her replacement from Seaspan arrives sometime next decade:



> Hamilton company gets $36.14 million contract to upgrade Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker ship​The Canadian Coast Guard announced Wednesday that it has awarded a $36.14 million vessel life extension contract to Hamilton’s Heddle Shipyards [the company has been lobbying furiously for work on new vessels too].
> 
> The George R. Pearkes will be dry-docked and enter an extended maintenance period designed to increase its operational life. The ship primarily performs light icebreaking and buoy tending and is available for search and rescue and environmental response operations on Canada’s east coast...
> 
> The vessel life extension work includes:
> 
> steel hull reinforcement;
> hull, superstructure, deck and mast recoating;
> galley modernization;
> replacement of the bow thruster, cycloconverter, propulsion generator and internal communication system;
> tail shaft and rudder inspections; and
> domestic and auxiliary system upgrades.
> This contract award falls under the repair, refit, and maintenance pillar of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, created to ensure that Canada has a safe and effective fleet of ships for years to come while providing ongoing opportunities for shipyards and suppliers across the country.
> 
> The George R. Pearkes entered into service in 1986. Stationed in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, the vessel was named for Victoria Cross recipient George Randolph Pearkes.
> 
> While the ship undergoes vessel life extension from Winter 2023 to Spring 2024, the Canadian Coast Guard will reallocate its other maritime resources...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamilton company gets $36.14 million contract to upgrade Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker ship | inTheHammer
> 
> 
> The Canadian Coast Guard announced Wednesday that it has awarded a $36.14 million vessel life extension contract to Hamilton's Heddle Shipyards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.insauga.com





Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Pearkes (served on her) and the Black spent the first decade and a bit of their lives on the West Coast, so they are in much better shape that the East Coast vessels. less harsh weather and better maintenance.


----------



## Underway

I'm glad to see Davie making a good name for themselves in modification, maintenance and repair.  We'll see how well they do when VDQ shows up shortly for her refit.  I'm looking forward to seeing how they deal with the RCN, who are by and large far more... particular (read anal retentive) than the CCG as a general rule.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Where is Davie making a good name for themselves on repair? STJ has been ongoing for a while now, and even allowing for growing pains for a new repair yard (for DND contracts) it hasn't been seemless.

When they used to do refits regularly, we at one point went in and basically restarted a ship (Gatineau?) and sailed her out of there because of their shenanigans.

They were bidder 3 of 3 in the NSS, and from what I've seen on the repair side they are still number 3. Would be number 4 if the yard in St. Catherines was still operating.

Nothing against them; pretty big learning curves and requires a long time to develop the experience, and also relies on DND to have enough experienced people to support the DWP and form the QAR (which we don't have enough of either).

If their performance matched their PR, they could be as good as VSL on the repair side, but requires a lot of learning on some key things like QC, planning etc, and there is no way to do that other than to do it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

French article on the tax structure of Davie Shipyards, translates fine.









						Chantier Davie | D’un paradis fiscal à l’autre pour les propriétaires
					

Les propriétaires du chantier Davie ont discrètement changé la structure de l’entreprise, en 2020, pendant leurs négociations en vue d’obtenir 10 milliards en contrats fédéraux, a appris La Presse. Ils ont transféré la société de contrôle d’un paradis fiscal ultraopaque – les îles Vierges...




					www.lapresse.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting fire fighting tech








						Maersk invests in fleet-wide firefighting tech - Splash247
					

Chastened by statistics from insurers that suggest a major fire takes place on a boxship every 60 days, Danish carrier Maersk has been taking plenty of action on this issue in recent years. Maersk, which has suffered a number of fires across its fleet in recent years, including the deadly blaze...




					splash247.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:


> Where is Davie making a good name for themselves on repair? STJ has been ongoing for a while now, and even allowing for growing pains for a new repair yard (for DND contracts) it hasn't been seemless.
> 
> When they used to do refits regularly, we at one point went in and basically restarted a ship (Gatineau?) and sailed her out of there because of their shenanigans.
> 
> They were bidder 3 of 3 in the NSS, and from what I've seen on the repair side they are still number 3. Would be number 4 if the yard in St. Catherines was still operating.
> 
> Nothing against them; pretty big learning curves and requires a long time to develop the experience, and also relies on DND to have enough experienced people to support the DWP and form the QAR (which we don't have enough of either).
> 
> If their performance matched their PR, they could be as good as VSL on the repair side, but requires a lot of learning on some key things like QC, planning etc, and there is no way to do that other than to do it.


When I do security at VDC, I am listening in on the guys working on my radio. I really get a sense they care about the quality of work they do. The yard is always busy and right now they have a Cruise ship in, before that, 3 barges and freighter, all foreign, I am sure the exchange rates do not hurt either.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> Where is Davie making a good name for themselves on repair? STJ has been ongoing for a while now, and even allowing for growing pains for a new repair yard (for DND contracts) it hasn't been seemless.
> 
> When they used to do refits regularly, we at one point went in and basically restarted a ship (Gatineau?) and sailed her out of there because of their shenanigans.
> 
> They were bidder 3 of 3 in the NSS, and from what I've seen on the repair side they are still number 3. Would be number 4 if the yard in St. Catherines was still operating.
> 
> Nothing against them; pretty big learning curves and requires a long time to develop the experience, and also relies on DND to have enough experienced people to support the DWP and form the QAR (which we don't have enough of either).
> 
> If their performance matched their PR, they could be as good as VSL on the repair side, but requires a lot of learning on some key things like QC, planning etc, and there is no way to do that other than to do it.



From what I have been told STJ has been arising after arising.  Kind of like when I work on my 75 year old house.  I always know when I open a wall that is the first contact my plan always dies at.  Ooooo look more aluminum wiring goody goody.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> From what I have been told STJ has been arising after arising.  Kind of like when I work on my 75 year old house.  I always know when I open a wall that is the first contact my plan always dies at.  Ooooo look more aluminum wiring goody goody.


Yeah, for sure.

Still going through growing pains though on both sides for doing DWPs there, but is similar what we went through when we did the refit in St. Catherines (which was actually in the same company structure as CDCI at the time under Upper Lake Marine). I think it was a lot of overoptimism on both sides, but the piss poor state of our ships doesn't help. I think we've figured some of the big moving parts out, so TOR should be better now that we've started to get a better handle on some QC issues. The reactivation is still going to be painful though, and it's crazy that DND is running with a lot of that vice driving the shipyard to get everything in place for a basin trial.

Just hoping they finish the major work before rushing the ship back to Halifax; she might actually be genuinely seaworthy for the TRP if they do that. If they send it back to Halifax with major repairs outstanding still will be fighting against the rest of the aging fleet and limited resources.


----------



## Underway

Thought this quote was interesting...



> _“The next decade is likely to see a ‘Dreadnought moment’ in relation to war at sea stimulated by radically novel technologies. Despite its massive superiority, the US will have to continue to invest heavily to maintain its lead while other ambitious navies, notably China and Russia are likely to follow closely. The rest will struggle to remain within touching distance, especially as they doggedly persist with traditional ship programmes well into the future. As a result, the world will be divided into countries that can prevail at sea and those that, frankly, need not bother”_ *Rear Admiral Chris Parry, RN Retd.*



The implication is the traditional ship programs are going the way of the dodo and something new will be replacing them.

I'm not sure if he's refering to new technologies or a complete overhaul of the way technologies are being implemented (Dreadnought moment).


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> Thought this quote was interesting...
> 
> 
> 
> The implication is the traditional ship programs are going the way of the dodo and something new will be replacing them.
> 
> I'm not sure if he's refering to new technologies or a complete overhaul of the way technologies are being implemented (Dreadnought moment).


Interesting, I would assume it’s an astronomical leap in automation, to reduce crews, as I’m not seeing any other revolution popping out. 

Sea ‘Drone’ Swarm ?


----------



## Czech_pivo

KevinB said:


> Interesting, I would assume it’s an astronomical leap in automation, to reduce crews, as I’m not seeing any other revolution popping out.
> 
> Sea ‘Drone’ Swarm ?


Totally spitballing here but how realistic is it to think that a small, long-range drone could get along side a ship and drop some sort of chems into the ship's ventilation system and take out some/all of the crew?  If not 1 drone, but how about 5 dozen, 10 dozen?


----------



## KevinB

Czech_pivo said:


> Totally spitballing here but how realistic is it to think that a small, long-range drone could get along side a ship and drop some sort of chems into the ship's ventilation system and take out some/all of the crew?  If not 1 drone, but how about 5 dozen, 10 dozen?


Most ships are NBC proof - so the vent system is most likely not going to "fall for it".    Plus the whole Chemical weapons provisions...
    I'm more curious about something like an E Boat, 100t and 120 ft long - and fairly low profile that are fairly autonomous - no crew quarters, no food, fresh water etc -- just fuel and munitions.


----------



## YZT580

KevinB said:


> Most ships are NBC proof - so the vent system is most likely not going to "fall for it".    Plus the whole Chemical weapons provisions...
> I'm more curious about something like an E Boat, 100t and 120 ft long - and fairly low profile that are fairly autonomous - no crew quarters, no food, fresh water etc -- just fuel and munitions.


sounds like a 21st century fireboat.  Not a new idea by any means.  First recorded use is way back in 413 b.c.  With modern technology i.e. radio control they could be a great inconvenience to a modern navy


----------



## KevinB

YZT580 said:


> sounds like a 21st century fireboat.  Not a new idea by any means.  First recorded use is way back in 413 b.c.  With modern technology i.e. radio control they could be a great inconvenience to a modern navy


I was thinking of stand off munitions etc on them, to greatly increase the range and power of your fleet, not a suicide type Fireboat.  But I am also totally cool with some of those too .


----------



## Underway

All interesting things to think about and worry about.  NBC protection is affored to the crew by a "citadel" which essentially is higher atmospheric pressure in a space so toxins can't come in.  Dropping a NBC item onto a ship would be irritating as hell, but if the crew were prepared for that eventuallity barring actual battle damage to the citadel its something that we train for.  There is also a prewet system that can be activated which sparys the ship and covers it in a slick of seawater, so toxins and particles will automatically be washed away and not find purchase on the hull.

@KevinB one of the reason autonomous ships are not fully a thing now is that they are easily captured by enemy vessels and the technology analyzed.  It's one of the reasons there isn't any AEW UAV's yet, as can you imagine that expensive and top secret radar getting captured because of a software piloting error?  Crazy stuff.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> All interesting things to think about and worry about.  NBC protection is affored to the crew by a "citadel" which essentially is higher atmospheric pressure in a space so toxins can't come in.  Dropping a NBC item onto a ship would be irritating as hell, but if the crew were prepared for that eventuallity barring actual battle damage to the citadel its something that we train for.  There is also a prewet system that can be activated which sparys the ship and covers it in a slick of seawater, so toxins and particles will automatically be washed away and not find purchase on the hull.
> 
> @KevinB one of the reason autonomous ships are not fully a thing now is that they are easily captured by enemy vessels and the technology analyzed.  It's one of the reasons there isn't any AEW UAV's yet, as can you imagine that expensive and top secret radar getting captured because of a software piloting error?  Crazy stuff.


Yeah I’m envisioning then more as a screen around a manned ship - not sure they need that much radar and high end targeting if the ‘command ship’ can run them all, and just use them as remote weapons stations.  

Multiple loyal wingmen as it where.


----------



## Lumber

KevinB said:


> Yeah I’m envisioning then more as a screen around a manned ship - not sure they need that much radar and high end targeting if the ‘command ship’ can run them all, and just use them as remote weapons stations.
> 
> Multiple loyal wingmen as it where.


Just as there are loitering munitions for the army, there are loitering munition in development for the navy. The most common I've seen so far are: ISR platforms, loitering munitions, and off-board jammers.


----------



## Lumber

Underway said:


> Thought this quote was interesting...
> 
> The implication is the traditional ship programs are going the way of the dodo and something new will be replacing them.
> 
> I'm not sure if he's refering to new technologies or a complete overhaul of the way technologies are being implemented (Dreadnought moment).



I don't agree that we are there yet. None of the major navies have demonstrated any significant new naval warfare technologies that would fundamentally change warship design. Lasers are looking promising, but they would just replace existing AA systems, not fundamentally change the way ship's fight/defend themselves. Anti-ship and air-defence missiles are just getting faster and longer ranged. Rail guns seems to be losing steam as they were originally intended for shore bombardment and a lot of focus is being put back onto blue water engagements. So, what exactly is he referring to? Or is it just a "gut" feeling of his? I think "drone swarms" really good be the neck evolutionary step, but no one has so far designed a ship or demonstrated a concept of use that would fundamentally transform the war warships are designed.

Plus, he's forgetting or ignoring a few facts:
1. 99.9% of the time warships are and have been used in a constabulary or support to OGD/diplomatic role. You don't need the most modern designed warships for that;
2. Having a few of the very best is not always better that having a lot of good enough (Sherman tanks, for example).


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:


> I don't agree that we are there yet. None of the major navies have demonstrated any significant new naval warfare technologies that would fundamentally change warship design. *Lasers are looking promising, but they would just replace existing AA systems, not fundamentally change the way ship's fight/defend themselves.* Anti-ship and air-defence missiles are just getting faster and longer ranged. Rail guns seems to be losing steam as they were originally intended for shore bombardment and a lot of focus is being put back onto blue water engagements. So, what exactly is he referring to? Or is it just a "gut" feeling of his? I think "drone swarms" really good be the neck evolutionary step, but no one has so far designed a ship or demonstrated a concept of use that would fundamentally transform the war warships are designed.
> 
> Plus, he's forgetting or ignoring a few facts:
> 1. 99.9% of the time warships are and have been used in a constabulary or support to OGD/diplomatic role. You don't need the most modern designed warships for that;
> 2. Having a few of the very best is not always better that having a lot of good enough (Sherman tanks, for example).



Those lasers.  Any idea what kind of power draw they would have ?  I know nothing about them.  Would it be essentially an endless supply of "ammo" ?


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:


> Those lasers.  Any idea what kind of power draw they would have ?  I know nothing about them.  Would it be essentially an endless supply of "ammo" ?


In theory, yes. It will have unlimited "ammo", but will be limited in: 1. how often it can shoot, 2. how many targets it can engage at a time, and 3. what type of targets it can destroy. The biggest issue is power consumption. If you want to engage multiple inbound targets, you would need multiple lasers. If you want to engage larger and hardended targets, you would need more powerful lasers. Both of these would require more power, and right now, I've only seen testing of a single 30 (ish) kw laser firing against a single target. I have no idea how much power the lasers requires and whether it needs to be "charged up" first (meaning it would have a maximum firing time or "volley" ending once the capacitor runs out) or if it can fire continuously as long as power is being supplied by the ship's electrical system.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Lumber said:


> I don't agree that we are there yet. None of the major navies have demonstrated any significant new naval warfare technologies that would fundamentally change warship design. Lasers are looking promising, but they would just replace existing AA systems, not fundamentally change the way ship's fight/defend themselves. Anti-ship and air-defence missiles are just getting faster and longer ranged. Rail guns seems to be losing steam as they were originally intended for shore bombardment and a lot of focus is being put back onto blue water engagements. So, what exactly is he referring to? Or is it just a "gut" feeling of his? I think "drone swarms" really good be the neck evolutionary step, but no one has so far designed a ship or demonstrated a concept of use that would fundamentally transform the war warships are designed.
> 
> Plus, he's forgetting or ignoring a few facts:
> 1. 99.9% of the time warships are and have been used in a constabulary or support to OGD/diplomatic role. You don't need the most modern designed warships for that;
> 2. _Having a few of the very best is not always better that having a lot of good enough (Sherman tanks, for example)._


Also, arguably, _Flower_ class corvettes in the first years of the Second World War.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:


> In theory, yes. It will have unlimited "ammo", but will be limited in: 1. how often it can shoot, 2. how many targets it can engage at a time, and 3. what type of targets it can destroy. The biggest issue is power consumption. If you want to engage multiple inbound targets, you would need multiple lasers. If you want to engage larger and hardended targets, you would need more powerful lasers. Both of these would require more power, and right now, I've only seen testing of a single 30 (ish) kw laser firing against a single target. I have no idea how much power the lasers requires and whether it needs to be "charged up" first (meaning it would have a maximum firing time or "volley" ending once the capacitor runs out) or if it can fire continuously as long as power is being supplied by the ship's electrical system.



Interesting.  That was my wonder really.  Will the limitation be the ships ability to generate the power needed for sustained contact.


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> Interesting.  That was my wonder really.  Will the limitation be the ships ability to generate the power needed for sustained contact.


Clearly the answer is Nuclear power…


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> Clearly the answer is Nuclear power…


Really more about the short term power demands and things like cooling, not the actual power generation.

The boffins are looking at different options, but really depends on the actual laser power requirements, as well as parallel advances in solid state electronics. Big battery banks are their own risk, and for good reason, some safety issues around them on combatants still need to be figured out.

*Power System and Energy Storage Models for Laser
Integration on Naval Platforms*
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1014946.pdf


----------



## Kirkhill

Lasers seem to be in the same power band as typical industrial motors - 20 to 300 kW.



> The US Army is integrating a 20 kW-class laser weapon system into its new Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) to help soldiers down smaller unmanned aerial systems (UASs), according to the director of the service's Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office Lieutenant General Neil Thurgood.








						US Army outfitting Infantry Squad Vehicle with 20 kW laser, DE M-SHORAD deliveries forthcoming
					

The US Army is integrating a 20 kW-class laser weapon system into its new Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) to help soldiers down smaller unmanned aerial systems (UASs),...



					www.janes.com
				






> The Directed Energy Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (DE M-SHORAD) system is a 50-kilowatt laser weapon mounted on a Stryker infantry carrier vehicle. Instead of a Stinger missile, think of a high powered beam of energy directed at a target.











						The Army is putting lasers on Strykers powerful enough to shoot down drones and helicopters
					

The "L" in "Lethality" stands for "Lasers"




					taskandpurpose.com
				






> There was exciting news for the US Navy last week as it was announced that Lockheed Martin finally delivered the 60+ kW-class high-energy laser with integrated optical-dazzler and surveillance (HELIOS), the first tactical laser weapon system to be integrated into existing ships. The weapon is also capable of providing directed energy capability to the fleet.











						It’s finally here: Lockheed Martin delivers 60+ kW laser to the US Navy
					

Lockheed Martin delivers 60+ kW-class high-energy HELIOS laser to the U.S. Navy




					interestingengineering.com
				






> Giant US defense contractor Lockheed Martin says it has delivered a 300 kW electrically driven laser - the most powerful it has ever produced - for weapons demonstration efforts by the US Army.








						Lockheed Martin delivers 300kW laser to US military
					

Arms firm says that record-breaking laser weapon is ready to be integrated with US Department of Defense demonstrations.




					optics.org
				




Harry De Wolfs have four 3600 kW generators.  25% of that power, 1 generator, would power 12 of the highest energy lasers currently available.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> Lasers seem to be in the same power band as typical industrial motors - 20 to 300 kW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Army outfitting Infantry Squad Vehicle with 20 kW laser, DE M-SHORAD deliveries forthcoming
> 
> 
> The US Army is integrating a 20 kW-class laser weapon system into its new Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) to help soldiers down smaller unmanned aerial systems (UASs),...
> 
> 
> 
> www.janes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Army is putting lasers on Strykers powerful enough to shoot down drones and helicopters
> 
> 
> The "L" in "Lethality" stands for "Lasers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taskandpurpose.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s finally here: Lockheed Martin delivers 60+ kW laser to the US Navy
> 
> 
> Lockheed Martin delivers 60+ kW-class high-energy HELIOS laser to the U.S. Navy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> interestingengineering.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed Martin delivers 300kW laser to US military
> 
> 
> Arms firm says that record-breaking laser weapon is ready to be integrated with US Department of Defense demonstrations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> optics.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry De Wolfs have four 3600 kW generators.  25% of that power, 1 generator, would power 12 of the highest energy lasers currently available.



that would make for some awesome SOVPATs!


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:


> Harry De Wolfs have four 3600 kW generators.  25% of that power, 1 generator, would power 12 of the highest energy lasers currently available.


It's not the power, it's the instantaneous demand requirement and cycle time, which is why they use batteries/capacitors that need recharged. 30 kW delivered in a fraction of a second is completely different than over a few minutes.

You can have the same amount of energy in a bucket of fuel and some explosives, but they each have different applications. Same idea here.


----------



## Lumber

Also, there's a limited window of utility for lasers. Once countries start making the exterior of their missiles and UAVs out of mirrors, the gig is up!


----------



## Kirkhill

Lumber said:


> Also, there's a limited window of utility for lasers. Once countries start making the exterior of their missiles and UAVs out of mirrors, the gig is up!



Like these?









						F-22 Raptor Covered In Mirror-Like Coating Photographed Flying Out Of Nellis AFB
					

An exotic test jet has been spotted wearing a similar coating in the past, but an F-22 wearing it is a major development.




					www.thedrive.com
				












						F-35 And F-117 Spotted Flying With Mysterious Mirror-Like Skin
					

The Air Force's F-117 and the Navy's F-35C join the F-22 and the Model 401 as aircraft that have donned the mysterious metallic-looking coating.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lumber said:


> Also, there's a limited window of utility for lasers. Once countries start making the exterior of their missiles and UAVs out of mirrors, the gig is up!


polished aluminium for the win?


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> polished aluminium for the win?



Might make EO/IR tracking a bit easier for the conventional weapons.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:


> Might make EO/IR tracking a bit easier for the conventional weapons.


So we should tell the enemy not to polish their aircraft as it's unfair to our laser and then whack them with a proximity round.


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:


> Also, there's a limited window of utility for lasers. Once countries start making the exterior of their missiles and UAVs out of mirrors, the gig is up!


Not just that, ceramic coatings would degrade the heating properties of lasers significantly.  Tiles from the space shuttle for would essentially make a target invlunerable to laser damage in that area.  Engineering challenges there for sure though. You'd have to keep sensors free from ceramics (which can block EM quite well), and being tough but brittle their material properties are not ideal for aircraft.



Navy_Pete said:


> It's not the power, it's the instantaneous demand requirement and cycle time, which is why they use batteries/capacitors that need recharged. 30 kW delivered in a fraction of a second is completely different than over a few minutes.
> 
> You can have the same amount of energy in a bucket of fuel and some explosives, but they each have different applications. Same idea here.



Completely agree with this.  The power draw may be much higher then just a continuous load DG can provide. This is one of the flaws of the railgun system, where you needed to charge capacitors before firing, reducing the continuous firing rate.  I wouldn't be surprised in the future if a laser system had its own dedicated DG to keep the load high enough to rapidly charge batteries/capacitors continuously in a combat situation.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin Parkinson said:


> polished aluminium for the win?


That is a bit of myth and does not actually work against a weapons grade laser.


----------



## KevinB

SeaKingTacco said:


> That is a bit of myth and does not actually work against a weapons grade laser.


Shhh 
You’re giving away secrets  

I was looking forward to seeing melted aluminum everywhere.


----------



## Kirkhill

Another eternal truth.



> even the most elegant idea or design is a hypothesis. It remains a hypothesis until reduced to engineering, subjected to rigorous field trials, and vindicated—or not—in the real world. It may suffice once amended to meet the test of reality. Or it may not. Failure is always an option.











						The Navy's DDG(X) Destroyer: We Have a Price Problem
					

The DDG(X) program could for sure be a great success. But with costs coming in way over what was promised, we should be worried.




					www.19fortyfive.com


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:


> Another eternal truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Navy's DDG(X) Destroyer: We Have a Price Problem
> 
> 
> The DDG(X) program could for sure be a great success. But with costs coming in way over what was promised, we should be worried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.19fortyfive.com


Suddenly, CSC doesn’t look so expensive, does it?


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:


> Suddenly, CSC doesn’t look so expensive, does it?



Still wish we had Danish project managers and bookkeepers.



> *The Danish answer: their $340 million, 6,600-ton Iver Huitfeldt “Stanflex” frigate.*
> 
> That’s a lot of ship for the price. But a leading US expert, Bryan Clark, tells us that t*he Danes may be undercounting their costs by about $50 million, since some of the frigates’ weaponry was recycled from older ships going out of service — an economy made possible by the Danish navy’s Stanflex system of interchangeable equipment modules. That would put the frigate at under $400 million, *which is still pretty good compared to LCS or international competitors. The thing is, Clark argued, *the costs to the US would be much higher once the design was upgraded to US Navy standards, fitted with US weapons and electronics, and built in less efficient US yards.*











						Danes Tout $340M Stanflex Frigate For US Navy - But What's Real Cost? - Breaking Defense
					

WASHINGTON: Denmark really wants you to know they have a solution for the US Navy’s frigate problem. Pentagon officials are on the record that they’ll consider foreign designs in their quest for a more powerful small warship than the $450–$550 million, 3,400-ton Littoral Combat Ship. The Danish...




					breakingdefense.com


----------



## MTShaw

Kirkhill said:


> Still wish we had Danish project managers and bookkeepers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danes Tout $340M Stanflex Frigate For US Navy - But What's Real Cost? - Breaking Defense
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: Denmark really wants you to know they have a solution for the US Navy’s frigate problem. Pentagon officials are on the record that they’ll consider foreign designs in their quest for a more powerful small warship than the $450–$550 million, 3,400-ton Littoral Combat Ship. The Danish...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> breakingdefense.com


60 billion for the entire project from 2017 to 2042.  The Type 26 was designed as a warship, while the Iver Huitfeld was not. Tons of compartments take alone takes a lot of time and money to build.

I’ve read that also covers the operating costs of the already built CSC ships but I can’t find a reference right now. It’s only 9 o’clock over here.

Also buying sub standard equipment for sailors makes their s jobs harder and probably hurts retention. Cutting corners is how Canada’s defense to gdp is still probably 1.3%. 

It also makes it look like bunch of feckless bitches. Hopefully Pierre won’t pull a Harper and a Chretien before him decide that war is over forever and cancel the military.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Construction began in September on HMS Venturer, the inaugural vessel for the Royal Navy. *The five (Type 31 - Arrowhead 140 - Iver Huitfeldt) ships* Britain has ordered will *cost £1.25bn, (1.95 BCAD)* meaning they cost about a quarter as much as the more sophisticated type 45 Destroyer.



390 MCAD per hull for the Brits









						UK and Poland in a new Type 31 frigate tie-up
					

The UK and Poland have signed a Statement of Intent to collaborate on the procurement and operation of three Arrowhead-140 frigates.




					www.navaltoday.com
				












						UK: All five Type 31 frigates to be delivered by 2028
					

All five Royal Navy's Type 31 frigates will be delivered by 2028, John Howie, chief corporate affairs officer for Babcock revealed.




					www.navaltoday.com
				












						Poland beefs up its navy with deal to buy British Type 31 frigates
					

Boost for the UK defence industry as Babcock triumphs over rival German bid




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				







> FTSE 250 company Babock will *provide Poland with three frigates based on the **Royal Navy’s Type 31 design*.
> 
> Babcock beat a rival bid from Germany's Thyssenkrupp to lead the *£1.4bn (2.19 BCAD) contract.* The win will come as a relief for Babcock after it lost out on a three-ship contract with Greece to France’s Naval Group.
> 
> The ships will be* built in Nato member Poland’s shipyards with Babcock’s design and will feature combat equipment from Thales and anti-aircraft firepower from missile maker MBDA, which is part-owned by Britain’s BAE Systems.*



730 MCAD per hull for the Poles










						One more country is modernizing its naval fleet with Type 31 frigates
					

Indonesia plans to build two frigates based on the Royal Navy's Type 31 design (marked also as Arrowhead 140) at Indonesian shipyards.




					www.navaltoday.com
				












						Indonesia Bought Two Type 31 Frigates From Babcock
					

Babcock International has signed an Arrowhead 140 (AH140) frigate design licence agreement with state-owned enterprise PT PAL Indonesia. The contract was secured through a design licence agreement …




					www.globaldefensecorp.com
				












						UK wins Indonesian export contract for new frigates
					

Indonesian firms will build two 'Arrowhead 140' frigates in Indonesia with bespoke design modifications for the Indonesian Navy.




					ukdefencejournal.org.uk
				







> A Type 31 or Inspiration-class frigate is a general-purpose, light frigate developed by Team 31, led by Babcock International as a prime contractor. The design of the Type 31 vessel is based on Odense Maritime Technology’s (OMT) Iver Huitfeldt-class hull form, which is currently in service with the Royal Danish Navy.





> The Royal Navy is buying five similar Type 31 frigates, but Babcock says the baseline Arrowhead 140 design can be configured to meet a broad range of operational requirements specifically tailored for Indonesian operations.
> 
> The $720 million deal is a triumph for Jakarta as it looks to benefit from a transfer of technology, not only to build its own military hardware in the future, but to contribute to the economic benefits of developing the country’s shipbuilding industry.



360 MCAD per hull for the Indonesians

2x Absolon
3x Iver Huitfeldt
5x Type 31 (Brit)
3x Type 31 (Pole)
2x Type 31 (Indonesian)

Global fleet of 15 hulls - complete by 2028?


----------



## quadrapiper

Kirkhill said:


> Still wish we had Danish project managers and bookkeepers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danes Tout $340M Stanflex Frigate For US Navy - But What's Real Cost? - Breaking Defense
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: Denmark really wants you to know they have a solution for the US Navy’s frigate problem. Pentagon officials are on the record that they’ll consider foreign designs in their quest for a more powerful small warship than the $450–$550 million, 3,400-ton Littoral Combat Ship. The Danish...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> breakingdefense.com


The comment about "less efficient US yards" is a bit surprising.


----------



## Kirkhill

RN sucking up Danish lessons learned on the Type 31.   Poles tying into the same fount of knowledge.









						UK, Denmark to cooperate on introducing Royal Navy's Type 31 frigates into service - Baird Maritime
					

The Royal Navies of Britain and Denmark have agreed to work side-by-side to bring the UK’s next generation of warships into service. The two allies have agreed to w ..




					www.bairdmaritime.com
				












						UK and Poland in a new Type 31 frigate tie-up
					

The UK and Poland have signed a Statement of Intent to collaborate on the procurement and operation of three Arrowhead-140 frigates.




					www.navaltoday.com
				




Polish set up.



> According to the information revealed by the conference attendants, the Miecznik frigates will be 138.7 meters long, 19.7 meters wide, and 5.5 meters deep, with a displacement of about 7000 tonnes. The frigates will be able to operate at sea for 30 days without replenishment. The maximum speed will be 28 knots, and the range at 18 knots will be more than 6,000 nautical miles. The crew of the ships will be about 100-120 people, but the frigates will be able to accommodate up to 160 people.
> 
> 
> The frigate’s armament appears to be in line with expectations. 4 quad SSM launchers with RBS-15 mk3/mk4 are mounted at various points on the ship. The Arrowhead140PL is equipped with a 32-cell VLS, and according to a March 4 announcement, MBDA will equip the Sea Ceptor air defence system with CAMM family missiles. Considering that one cell can hold four CAMM missiles, the maximum load of the VLS will be 128 CAMM missiles. The illustration also indicates that the new frigates will be armed with a 76-mm gun and a 35- mm gun. The ship will be capable of carrying and launching MU -90 torpedoes against submarine threats.
> 
> There is not much information about the sensor suit, but the image shows that the Miecznik frigate will be equipped with an SM-400 AESA S-band radar supported by an NS -50 rotating radar. The conferees indicate that CAPTAS variable depth sonar and a hull-mounted sonar will be equipped for ASW purposes.











						First Look at Poland's new Miecznik Frigate - Naval News
					

A visualization of Babcock's Arrowhead-140PL design was unveiled last week at a press conference hosted by the consortium PGZ MIECZNIK.




					www.navalnews.com
				




RN set up


General characteristicsNameType 31 frigateBuildersBabcock International[5]Operators





Royal Navy




Indonesian Navy




Polish Navy
Preceded byType 23 frigateCost£268 million (2019)[1] per unit (est.)In service2027[2][3]Planned
10 (Total)[4]
5 (UK)
2 (Indonesia)
3 (Poland)
Building1Completed0TypeGeneral purpose frigateDisplacement5,700 t (5,600 long tons)Length138.7 m (455 ft 1 in)Installed power
4 × Rolls Royce/MTU 20V 8000 M71 (8.2 MW) diesel engines[10]
4 × Rolls Royce/MTU 16V 2000 M41B (900 kW) generators
Propulsion
CODAD propulsion System
MAN Alpha VBS Mk 5 CP propeller
2 Shafts [6]
SpeedIn excess of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph)Endurance9,000 nmi (17,000 km; 10,000 mi)Complement80–100 (accommodation for up to 160)Sensors and
processing systems
TACTICOS combat management system
Thales NS110 3D radar
Raytheon Warship Integrated Navigation and Bridge System
Terma Scanter and Raytheon NSX navigation radars
2 Mirador Mk2 EOS
Viasat Ultrahigh-frequency satellite communications[7]
Sonar 270[8]
Electronic warfare
& decoysVigile-D ESMArmament
_Anti-air missiles_:
Up to 24 cells VLS Sea Ceptor anti-air missiles[9]

_Guns_:
1 × 57 mm Mk 110 main gun
2 × 40 mm Mk 4 secondary guns
4 × 7.62 mm General purpose machine guns
4 × 7.62 mm Miniguns

_For but not with_:
Mark 41 VLS for various missiles including Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon

Aircraft carried
1 × Wildcat, armed with:
4 × Sea Venom anti ship missiles, _or_
2 × Sting Ray anti submarine torpedoes, _or_
20 × Martlet multirole air-surface missiles
Mk 11 depth charges

or
1 × Merlin, armed with:
4 × Sting Ray anti submarine torpedoes

Aviation facilitiesHelicopter hangar and flight deckNotes
Mission bay under flight deck for 6 TEUs
Three boat bays for RHIBs and USVs/UUV


Danish Huitfeld set up


General characteristicsClass overviewBuilders
Odense Staalskibsværft
Baltija Shipbuilding Yard[5]
Loksa Shipyard[5]
Operators



Royal Danish Navy[4]Preceded by_Niels Juel_-class corvette[3]SubclassesType 31 frigateCostUS$325 million per ship[1][2]Built2008–2011In commission2012–presentPlanned3Completed3TypeAir defence frigateDisplacement6,645 t (6,540 long tons) (full load)Length138.7 m (455 ft 1 in)Beam19.75 m (64 ft 10 in)Draft5.3 m (17 ft 5 in)Propulsion
Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8.2 MW each
Two shafts, CODAD[7]
Speed30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)Range9,000 nmi (17,000 km; 10,000 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)[6]Complement165Sensors and
processing systems
1 Thales Nederland SMART-L long-range air and surface surveillance radar
1 Thales Nederland APAR air and surface search, tracking and guidance radar (I band)
1 Terma SCANTER 6000 surveillance and helicopter guidance radar
Atlas ASO 94 hull mounted sonar
2 Saab CEROS 200 fire control radars
ES-3701 Tactical Radar Electronic Support Measures (ESM)
Electronic warfare
& decoys
8 × 6-barrelled Terma MK 137 130 mm decoy launchers
Seagnat Mark 36 SRBOC
Armament
32-cell Mk 41 VLS for up to 32 SM-2 IIIA surface-to-air missiles [5]
24 × Mk 56 VLS with up to 24 RIM-162 ESSM
8–16 × Harpoon Block II SSM
1 × Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm Naval Revolver Gun System CIWS
2 × OTO Melara 76 mm gun
2 × dual MU90 Impact ASW torpedo launchers
Aircraft carried1 × MH-60RAviation facilitiesAft helicopter deck and hangar

Danish Absolon set up


General characteristicsClass overviewBuildersOdense StaalskibsværftOperatorsRoyal Danish NavyPreceded byFalster class minelayerCostDKK2.5bn (total),[1] (~US$189m/ship) excluding weapon modulesBuilt2003–2004In commission2005–presentCompleted2Active2TypeFrigates (formerly support ships)Displacement
4,500 tonnes light,[1]
6,600 tonnes full load[1]
Length137 m (449 ft 6 in)[1]Beam19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)[1]Draft6.3 m (20 ft 8 in)[1]Propulsion
2 × MTU 8000 M70 diesel engines
Two shafts
22,300 bhp (16.6 MW)[1]
Speed24 knots (44 km/h)[1]Range9,000 nmi (17,000 km) at 15 kn (28 km/h)[1]Boats & landing
craft carried2 × RHIBs, 2 × SB90E LCPComplement100, plus aircrew and transients (accommodation for up to 300 in total)Sensors and
processing systems
Thales SMART-S Mk2 3D volume search radar
Terma Scanter 6002 surface search radar
Atlas ASO 94 sonar
3 × Saab CEROS 200 fire control radars
ES-3701 Tactical Radar Electronic Support Measures (ESM)
Electronic warfare
& decoys
4 × 12-barrelled Terma DL-12T 130 mm decoy launchers
2 × 6-barrelled Terma DL-6T 130 mm decoy launchers
Armament
*5 × StanFlex modules*, typically:
3 × 12 RIM-162 ESSM SAM in Mk 48Mod3/ Mk 56 VLS
2 × 8 Harpoon Block II SSM
*Fixed weapons:*
1 × 5"/62 Mk 45 mod 4 gun
2 × Mk32 Mod 14, each with 2 × MU90 torpedoes
2 × Millennium 35 mm CIWS
7 × 12.7 mm M/01 LvSa HMG
Aircraft carried2 × EH-101 helicopters[1] or 2 MH-60R helicoptersAviation facilitiesAft helicopter deck and hangars


----------



## Kirkhill

quadrapiper said:


> The comment about "less efficient US yards" is a bit surprising.



Not to me.   The Europeans are far ahead on productivity across the board.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:


> Still wish we had Danish project managers and bookkeepers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danes Tout $340M Stanflex Frigate For US Navy - But What's Real Cost? - Breaking Defense
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: Denmark really wants you to know they have a solution for the US Navy’s frigate problem. Pentagon officials are on the record that they’ll consider foreign designs in their quest for a more powerful small warship than the $450–$550 million, 3,400-ton Littoral Combat Ship. The Danish...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> breakingdefense.com


They would lose their minds; they are only reporting on a small fraction of what we have to include on our budgets. Add in things like PM staff, training, ammunition, initial sparing, infrastructure, design costs, weapons, comm systems etc and their cost estimates look a lot like ours.  The CSC would be a lot cheaper if the PR cost was just what was the cost paid for getting the hull in the water.

We also include contingency, so at 30% that means about $20 B of the CSC project is 'in case' funds. But things like massive inflation hits, project delays etc all eat into that, so it can turn into real costs pretty quickly (and likely already has) but never something well explained when they do the headlines..


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:


> They would lose their minds; they are only reporting on a small fraction of what we have to include on our budgets. Add in things like PM staff, training, ammunition, initial sparing, infrastructure, design costs, weapons, comm systems etc and their cost estimates look a lot like ours.  The CSC would be a lot cheaper if the PR cost was just what was the cost paid for getting the hull in the water.
> 
> We also include contingency, so at 30% that means about $20 B of the CSC project is 'in case' funds. But things like massive inflation hits, project delays etc all eat into that, so it can turn into real costs pretty quickly (and likely already has) but never something well explained when they do the headlines..



And thus my call for Danish bookkeepers as well as Project Managers.   The problem seems to have roots in the Treasury Board.  

The Danes also have this



> The Danish Ministry of Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organisation* (DALO) is responsible for procurement, supply, maintenance, development and decommission of material capabilities, IT and services for the armed Danish forces and Emergency Agency.*











						Welcome to DALO
					

The Danish Ministry of Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organisation (DALO) is responsible for procurement, supply, maintenance, development and decommission of material capabilities, IT and services for the armed Danish forces and Emergency Agency.




					www.fmi.dk
				









						Danish Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organization - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> And thus my call for Danish bookkeepers as well as Project Managers.   The problem seems to have roots in the Treasury Board.
> 
> The Danes also have this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to DALO
> 
> 
> The Danish Ministry of Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organisation (DALO) is responsible for procurement, supply, maintenance, development and decommission of material capabilities, IT and services for the armed Danish forces and Emergency Agency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fmi.dk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danish Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organization - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Having dealt with DALO, they aren't exactly as fantastic as touted -- mind you they didn't shut down their equivalent of LETE, so there is that...


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Having dealt with DALO, they aren't exactly as fantastic as touted -- mind you they didn't shut down their equivalent of LETE, so there is that...



Are they buying new kit?   There is that...


----------



## Rainbow1910

Kirkhill said:


> Still wish we had Danish project managers and bookkeepers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danes Tout $340M Stanflex Frigate For US Navy - But What's Real Cost? - Breaking Defense
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: Denmark really wants you to know they have a solution for the US Navy’s frigate problem. Pentagon officials are on the record that they’ll consider foreign designs in their quest for a more powerful small warship than the $450–$550 million, 3,400-ton Littoral Combat Ship. The Danish...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> breakingdefense.com


It's even more amusing when you realize that the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates further obfuscate their true cost due to the fact that the Danish government had the hull sections built in Estonia and Lithuania before being moved to Denmark to be assembled.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Kirkhill said:


> And thus my call for Danish bookkeepers as well as Project Managers.   The problem seems to have roots in the Treasury Board.
> 
> The Danes also have this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to DALO
> 
> 
> The Danish Ministry of Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organisation (DALO) is responsible for procurement, supply, maintenance, development and decommission of material capabilities, IT and services for the armed Danish forces and Emergency Agency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fmi.dk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danish Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organization - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


To borrow a few phases, lines from another thread on there - we here in Canada have 'Roman' bookkeepers and PM's and not 'Hanseatic' ones and therein lies the bane of our problems.


----------



## Spencer100

Czech_pivo said:


> To borrow a few phases, lines from another thread on there - we here in Canada have 'Roman' bookkeepers and PM's and not 'Hanseatic' ones and therein lies the bane of our problems.


Yes true!  But then I think the Canadian Private sector has bookkeepers of a small town English storekeeper. 

Also its more of a government/civil service schizophrenic we are cheap and but also spend like crazy!


----------



## Navy_Pete

Czech_pivo said:


> To borrow a few phases, lines from another thread on there - we here in Canada have 'Roman' bookkeepers and PM's and not 'Hanseatic' ones and therein lies the bane of our problems.



It's only really a problem when our own government compares the two costs like they are apples to apples and can't be arsed to even understand the internal rules they make us follow if we want approvals, then complain that the timeline slips and perceived and real costs go up.

On the plus side for our allies, it makes them look like rockstars because their goverments likely don't understand the reports either, so they look like absolute geniuses in comparison, even if they  are paying something comparable in reality, just in different line items that aren't rolled up.


----------



## MilEME09

How about a carrier for us on the cheap?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1582673183454347264


----------



## CBH99

Navy_Pete said:


> They would lose their minds; they are only reporting on a small fraction of what we have to include on our budgets. Add in things like PM staff, training, ammunition, initial sparing, infrastructure, design costs, weapons, comm systems etc and their cost estimates look a lot like ours.  The CSC would be a lot cheaper if the PR cost was just what was the cost paid for getting the hull in the water.
> 
> We also include contingency, so at 30% that means about $20 B of the CSC project is 'in case' funds. But things like massive inflation hits, project delays etc all eat into that, so it can turn into real costs pretty quickly (and likely already has) but never something well explained when they do the headlines..


I know we’ve touched on this previously in other threads, but the CAF & GoC do a horrible job at selling these equipment procurements both to approval boards & the public by either…

a) proposing a procurement that does not not sound financially reasonable, while simultaneously not explaining what all is included in those costs 

(Not explaining that the costs include a 10 year support contract, spare parts, simulators, etc - perhaps even including the estimated costs of the salaries of those expected to operate/maintain it - is doing us no favours at all…)


b) explaining to government it is their policies that slowed things down, which causes the costs to go up substantially, which then causes everybody to re-evaluate the project as a whole.  

Yes DND must show solid stewardship of money allocated to it, and use that money to move projects ahead however it can, while putting the money to good use.  

The current system is designed to ensure good use of taxpayer dollars by having various levels of review prior a project proceeds to its next phase.  The problem is, the current system is also part of what’s causing so many taxpayer dollars to be spent accomplishing literally nothing…


----------



## ringo

How about MV POLAR CIRCLE fresh off cancelled Russian contract, anchored in Bedford Basin, another interim icebreaker.


----------



## Navy_Pete

CBH99 said:


> a) proposing a procurement that does not not sound financially reasonable, while simultaneously not explaining what all is included in those costs



The initial project approval is a ROM cost, and is basically an educated guess based on a market survey, past data and projections, with a lot of contingency built in.

It's not a rectal pluck, and there is usually a detailed estimate somewhere. The cost breakdown in the proposals at all the approval gates is there though.

The problem is the project cost estimate will go from a detailed plan, to a half page summary to maybe a ppt slide with a pie chart, and then to a single number for headlines. But the number of things to include in project costs keeps growing, and that's due to TBS telling people what to include as costs. If they want total cost of ownership for something that takes 15 years to deliver and will run for 40 years it will be eye-watering, but doesn't mean it's not financially reasonable for what the capability is.

Between the DND PMO and TBS there is PSPC and the actual TBS advisor, who is the one that presents the project. There is a weird firewall setup, and if there are any follow on questions it is a slow telephone game, as the people that know the answers are about 5-6 layers of bureaucracy away from the question asker.


----------



## Kirkhill

What is the cost of operating the CN for the next 50 years?  Including sufficient profit to make it a viable investment.

What is the cost of a new engine and 100 cars?


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> What is the cost of operating the CN for the next 50 years?  Including sufficient profit to make it a viable investment.
> 
> What is the cost of a new engine and 100 cars?


I'd say not a relevant factor for the Military...

 You can't run the Military like a business, as there is no tangible benefit.
Sure you can't point to the things they do, and what additional assets will allow to be done (or keep doing) - but they don't have a direct financial reward, so you can't extrapolate from that, or use a business case like above.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> I'd say not a relevant factor for the Military...
> 
> You can't run the Military like a business, as there is no tangible benefit.
> Sure you can't point to the things they do, and what additional assets will allow to be done (or keep doing) - but they don't have a direct financial reward, so you can't extrapolate from that, or use a business case like above.



I'd say a 50 year timeline is not a relevant factor for a military.  And yet those are the timelines to which the CAF is being held.

The military is a business.  It hires people.  It buys equipment.  It provides a serviced.  It uses money.  It requires management.  It is as much a business as a railway, a broadcaster or an insurance company.   It is in every way conceivable a Security Company.   The only question is whether it is a Government Agency, a Crown Corporation, an NGO, a Non-Profit, a publicly listed corporation or a private corporation.

You're right in one sense.  Nobody asks CN or the CBC how much it costs them to supply a service for 50 years.  Because in 50 years everybody knows that all assumptions are completely invalid - environment changes, society changes, competitors change, technology changes.

It is a stretch to get a private company to look at the 7 to 10 year horizon.

Edit - and you are wrong about no tangible benefit 

You are just not understanding the metrics.  Insurance companies and police departments have similar metrics.  They may be ambiguous, amorphous, hard to pin down - but they are demonstrable when absent.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> I'd say not a relevant factor for the Military...
> 
> You can't run the Military like a business, as there is no tangible benefit.
> Sure you can't point to the things they do, and what additional assets will allow to be done (or keep doing) - but they don't have a direct financial reward, so you can't extrapolate from that, or use a business case like above.


We need a better way to communicate costs to the average Canadian/voter so they can be more supportive. You think that would be a good job for our PAO's.......


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> We need a better way to communicate costs to the average Canadian/voter so they can be more supportive. You think that would be a good job for our PAO's.......


Based on my experience it’s not the PAO shop.  They need actual data and information to frame a message.  
    Garbage in = Garbage out…

Same thing happens down here.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> I'd say a 50 year timeline is not a relevant factor for a military.  And yet those are the timelines to which the CAF is being held.
> 
> The military is a business.  It hires people.  It buys equipment.  It provides a serviced.  It uses money.  It requires management.  It is as much a business as a railway, a broadcaster or an insurance company.   It is in every way conceivable a Security Company.   The only question is whether it is a Government Agency, a Crown Corporation, an NGO, a Non-Profit, a publicly listed corporation or a private corporation.
> 
> You're right in one sense.  Nobody asks CN or the CBC how much it costs them to supply a service for 50 years.  Because in 50 years everybody knows that all assumptions are completely invalid - environment changes, society changes, competitors change, technology changes.
> 
> It is a stretch to get a private company to look at the 7 to 10 year horizon.
> 
> Edit - and you are wrong about no tangible benefit
> 
> You are just not understanding the metrics.  Insurance companies and police departments have similar metrics.  They may be ambiguous, amorphous, hard to pin down - but they are demonstrable when absent.


You would be hard pressed to show Canadian society a tangible benefit.  
   Most are intangibles, and yes you could come up with a weighted metric, still most in Canada would shrug and say, not my problem.  

Most Canadians are fine with letting the neighbors do the lifting so they can bitch about how it was done.


----------



## Spencer100

KevinB said:


> You would be hard pressed to show Canadian society a tangible benefit.
> Most are intangibles, and yes you could come up with a weighted metric, still most in Canada would shrug and say, not my problem.
> 
> Most Canadians are fine with letting the neighbors do the lifting so they can bitch about how it was done.



Yes, I have always hated this about my fellow Canadians and their smug anti Americanism.   I have always said to them "fine let's be neutral....but you do understand that going cost more than you can imagine?"  What? they say? No way.  Yes which program transfer program are you going to cut? As I show them different neutral countires around world. I would think the Medicare is the one to cut. Oh and we will have to have national service too.....

After that "grumble grumble, fine....I just the wish Americans wouldn't be so mean"....


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> You would be hard pressed to show Canadian society a tangible benefit.
> Most are intangibles, and yes you could come up with a weighted metric, still most in Canada would shrug and say, not my problem.
> 
> Most Canadians are fine with letting the neighbors do the lifting so they can bitch about how it was done.



No argument on that - but that is a separate discussion.


----------



## quadrapiper

Kirkhill said:


> I'd say a 50 year timeline is not a relevant factor for a military.  And yet those are the timelines to which the CAF is being held.
> Because in 50 years everybody knows that all assumptions are completely invalid - environment changes, society changes, competitors change, technology changes.


I'd say it very much is a valid timeline for some aspects: DND should stop, for example, divesting property because there's not a current-to-twenty-year justification for it. Ditto anything that'll mothball nicely, even if "current needs" don't see it being fielded (see: SPGs, all rifles, guns, any building with life still in it that isn't in the way, ships if they're not "self retiring," etc.), and eat the various costs as national defence insurance.

"How much is it worth to you to not have your backyard full of Russians" has had historical success, and might be worth dusting off.


----------



## suffolkowner

ringo said:


> How about MV POLAR CIRCLE fresh off cancelled Russian contract, anchored in Bedford Basin, another interim icebreaker.


Just in time Davie needs some more work









						Canadian Coast Guard Takes Delivery of Final AHTS Icebreaker
					

The Canadian Coast Guard has taken delivery of its third converted commercial icebreaker, the CCGS Vincent Massey. Vincent Massey is the former offsho...




					www.maritime-executive.com


----------



## Spencer100

suffolkowner said:


> Just in time Davie needs some more work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Coast Guard Takes Delivery of Final AHTS Icebreaker
> 
> 
> The Canadian Coast Guard has taken delivery of its third converted commercial icebreaker, the CCGS Vincent Massey. Vincent Massey is the former offsho...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.maritime-executive.com



Looks much better in red and white than the black and yellow in movie


----------



## TacticalTea

Spencer100 said:


> Looks much better in red and white than the black and yellow in movie


There are a LOT of black and yellow scenes in this trailer, that's very interesting from an artistic perspective. 

Nothing to do with the thread, I know, let me go back into the hole I crawled out of...


----------



## Underway

West Coast Naval Technical Seminar's next week.  Any questions people want me to ask of the project staff?  Be aware I may get only one or two questions as its a seminar and you don't really get to have a proper conversation.

It's also a Technical seminar, so technical questions only.  Nothing budget or PM related.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Can you ask about onboard space for warehousing?  For rations and spares ? 

Maybe not technical.... But I thought I'd ask.


----------



## NavyShooter

How about whether or not they've figured out the problem of classified storage space?  Have they added that as a part of the project this time, or was it forgotten like it was in the HCM project?


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> Can you ask about onboard space for warehousing?  For rations and spares ?
> 
> Maybe not technical.... But I thought I'd ask.


I will ask, hopefully it will be obvious from any ship plans they put in the ppt and I can infer from there.



NavyShooter said:


> How about whether or not they've figured out the problem of classified storage space? Have they added that as a part of the project this time, or was it forgotten like it was in the HCM project?



I can guarantee that security is part of the design, not entirely sure if classified storage is its own space or not. There is a lot of effort going into cyber security etc...  but as above I'll see if it pops up in the blueprints and if not I'll try and ask.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> I will ask, hopefully it will be obvious from any ship plans they put in the ppt and I can infer from there.
> 
> 
> 
> I can guarantee that security is part of the design, not entirely sure if classified storage is its own space or not. There is a lot of effort going into cyber security etc...  but as above I'll see if it pops up in the blueprints and if not I'll try and ask.



Merci beaucoup!


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> Can you ask about onboard space for warehousing?  For rations and spares ?
> 
> Maybe not technical.... But I thought I'd ask.


There is definitely space, but onboard spares, rations etc are still a bit fluid as crew size and equipment selection still needs to get finalized. The preliminary design doesn't get into that level of detail and figuring out what spares are required will be about 5 years down the road.

The Defstans are pretty comprehensive design standards though, and much better in some respects than our CFTOs so it's generally pretty well thought out (until we get at it).


----------



## NavyShooter

Sorry - to be more clear - classified storage space ashore.  When a ship goes into refit, there is considerable footprint required for storage of SCHC K type items, and no-where to put them...and if you have 3-4 ships in refit at the same time, then it's not an inconsiderable amount of space required.


----------



## Navy_Pete

NavyShooter said:


> Sorry - to be more clear - classified storage space ashore.  When a ship goes into refit, there is considerable footprint required for storage of SCHC K type items, and no-where to put them...and if you have 3-4 ships in refit at the same time, then it's not an inconsiderable amount of space required.


I'd be surprised if this is on the radar at all, but understand what you mean completely.

That's likely bundled in 'other peoples problems' for when the ship is in service, but with maybe with all the US systems they will force us to have a plan for DWPs to make sure the ITAR obligations are met as well as the additional level 2/3 requirements.


----------



## suffolkowner

Heddle Shipyards Awarded $135.5M Contract
					

Heddle Shipyards Awarded $135.5M Contract




					www.canadiandefencereview.com
				




Heddle manages to keep their finger in the pie and the Terry Fox continues on and on and on while we await news  on the 2 replacement Polar Icebreakers


----------



## YZT580

suffolkowner said:


> Heddle Shipyards Awarded $135.5M Contract
> 
> 
> Heddle Shipyards Awarded $135.5M Contract
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canadiandefencereview.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heddle manages to keep their finger in the pie and the Terry Fox continues on and on and on while we await news  on the 2 replacement Polar Icebreakers


Interesting 'cause the Terry Fox was just in Heddle a year or so ago.  I thought that Davie was the go-to yard for Ice Breakers so aren't they stealing business away from one of the primaries?  Heddle has also nabbed one of the Quebec city's excursion boats for a re-fit which again I would have thought would have made the trip across the river for work as opposed to venturing up to St. Kits.


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> Merci beaucoup!


Sorry but not much info about logistics I was able to get.  It was a very large hand small map discussion, but the breakout info did speak that Log dept had input in what they wanted to see and much of that has been met.


----------



## Spencer100

John Ivison: While Canada dithers over building warships, exploding drones are devastating the Russian fleet
		


no comment...but the dumb full cost accounting rears its head.


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:


> John Ivison: While Canada dithers over building warships, exploding drones are devastating the Russian fleet
> 
> 
> 
> no comment...but the dumb full cost accounting rears its head.


And the dumbness of not understanding what power projection is.  He might as well be complaining that cheap mines can kill ships.


----------



## dapaterson

Twelve surface warships does not permit power projection.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> Twelve surface warships does not permit power projection.


15 barely gets us into that zone…


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> Twelve surface warships does not permit power projection.


Sure it does.  One warship projects power into enemy waters if not ashore.

You need big ships to go and do the business far from home.  If you want to defend coastal then sure, use your mobile minefield, but don't pretend that USV's are even in the same league as a proper warship.  They aren't.  The inference is just ignorant of the realities and the capabilites a proper warship brings to the fight.

Javlins haven't ended the tank, and USV's won't end the warship.  They are just another threat to plan for.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I still think we should be piggybacking our big ticket items with other allies. How many more years are we going are we going to let companies like Irving and others drive our agenda? Cost and time over runs and they still deliver sub par results.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Fishbone Jones said:


> I still think we should be piggybacking our big ticket items with other allies. How many more years are we going are we going to let companies like Irving and others drive our agenda? Cost and time over runs and they still deliver sub par results.


There is no such thing as an “off the shelf“ ship.

Buying offshore is not cheaper. Everyone lies about price.

If you buy off shore, 100% of your tax dollars go off shore, too. Along with the refit dollars, too.

But go ahead and believe there is an easier way.


----------



## Maxman1

Underway said:


> Sure it does.  One warship projects power into enemy waters if not ashore.
> 
> You need big ships to go and do the business far from home.  If you want to defend coastal then sure, use your mobile minefield, but don't pretend that USV's are even in the same league as a proper warship.  They aren't.  The inference is just ignorant of the realities and the capabilites a proper warship brings to the fight.
> 
> Javlins haven't ended the tank, and USV's won't end the warship.  They are just another threat to plan for.



"John Ivison" was all I needed to see to know it was rubbish.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

SeaKingTacco said:


> There is no such thing as an “off the shelf“ ship.
> 
> Buying offshore is not cheaper. Everyone lies about price.
> 
> If you buy off shore, 100% of your tax dollars go off shore, too. Along with the refit dollars, too.
> 
> But go ahead and believe there is an easier way.


I stand corrected. Thx.

Of the shelf was wrong. I meant and should have said, add on to their their contracts. But you are right.

What do we do with the subpar performance of our internal contractors?

We wouldn't be able to anyway. Someone already sent all of our money off shore.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Fishbone Jones said:


> I stand corrected. Thx.
> 
> Of the shelf was wrong. I meant and should have said, add on to their their contracts. But you are right.
> 
> What do we do with the subpar performance of our internal contractors?
> 
> We wouldn't be able to anyway. Someone already sent all of our money off shore.


Well, the Liberals seem to be buddies with the Irvings. Perhaps they can talk them into not shitting the bed on this.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

SeaKingTacco said:


> *Well, the Liberals seem to be buddies with the Irvings.* Perhaps they can talk them into not shitting the bed on this.


That would be a whole other thread completely. And I've been on here way too much lately. Another time maybe. Thanks for the time.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Fishbone Jones said:


> What do we do with the subpar performance of our internal contractors?


The same thing we would do about subpar performance for an international contractor; probably SFA.

A lot of the times the fault is shared, but even when it's clearly not to spec, we have a hard time getting support from PSPC, especially when things escalate up the chain.


----------



## daftandbarmy




----------



## Colin Parkinson

More progress on the Science Vessel being built at Seaspan

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1594707424270753799


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We are not the only ones with problems









						Replacement ship for Australia's broken icebreaker also breaks
					

An Antarctic expedition ship chartered to replace Australia's broken icebreaker limps back to Hobart due to mechanical problems.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## Colin Parkinson

From the Seaspan FB page


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Also


----------



## newfin

How has the work been progressing on the JSS?  I read in a post a few months ago on here that a strike at Seaspan had halted construction.  HAs the strike been resolved and construction resumed?  Our navy needs that ship desperately.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

newfin said:


> How has the work been progressing on the JSS?  I read in a post a few months ago on here that a strike at Seaspan had halted construction.  HAs the strike been resolved and construction resumed?  Our navy needs that ship desperately.


Strike was resolved awhile back and work continues


----------



## dapaterson

July update indicated 100 of 123 blocks of the first in class were substantially completed, with remaining structure to be complete by the end of the year; outfitting including cabling underway, and steel cut to begin work on the second of the class.


----------



## Spencer100

Colin Parkinson said:


> Also


I hope they are keeping the paint job.


----------



## Spencer100

Colin Parkinson said:


> From the Seaspan FB page


Nice view.  It just doesn't seem that big in that pic.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

That yard is alot bigger than it looks.


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:


> Nice view.  It just doesn't seem that big in that pic.


was going to comment about the long focal length shots compressing the ships and making them look kind of small…


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> Nice view.  It just doesn't seem that big in that pic.


It's cold out...


----------



## Dana381

KevinB said:


> It's cold out...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:


> I hope they are keeping the paint job.









Because that's what's important in a two year docking work period.... with all the inserts it will likely look more like CADPAT.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My guess is the CCG was told to drop their pants, bend over and enjoy it. Going by the article, I guessing these vessels primary role will be science, with minimal fisheries or buoy tending capacity. Not sure how they will be useful for Southern ice ops in the winter?



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/arctic-offshore-patrol-vessels-irving-ottawa-deal-1.6703756


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin Parkinson said:


> My guess is the CCG was told to drop their pants, bend over and enjoy it. Going by the article, I guessing these vessels primary role will be science, with minimal fisheries or buoy tending capacity. Not sure how they will be useful for Southern ice ops in the winter?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/arctic-offshore-patrol-vessels-irving-ottawa-deal-1.6703756



That's what I've been hearing from the CCG.  They aren't too excited.


----------



## KevinB

Why would they pull the weapons off? Those RCN AOPS only are outfitted with CG type weapons anyway.


----------



## GR66

KevinB said:


> Why would they pull the weapons off? Those RCN AOPS only are outfitted with CG *USCG* type weapons anyway.


Fixed that for you


----------



## KevinB

GR66 said:


> Fixed that for you


It’s actually incredibly poorly armed for a USCG vessel.  









						National security cutter
					

The national security cutter is the largest and most technologically advanced of the service's new cutters.



					www.uscg.mil
				









						High endurance cutter
					

Secretary-class cutters are suited for long-range, high-endurance missions, and for fulfilling the maritime security role, which includes drug interdiction, illegal immigrant interception, and



					www.uscg.mil


----------



## Halifax Tar

KevinB said:


> Why would they pull the weapons off? Those RCN AOPS only are outfitted with CG type weapons anyway.



Easy there big fella you're gonna piss people if you actually expected AOPs to be a man-o-war.


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> Easy there big fella you're gonna piss people if you actually expected AOPs to be a man-o-war.


I didn't - I just question it being a RCN Warship, as opposed to a CCG Vessel.


----------



## Halifax Tar

KevinB said:


> I didn't - I just question it being a RCN Warship, as opposed to a CCG Vessel.



Because..........


Some hulls are better than no hulls ? Lol


I dunno it's all I got lol


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> I didn't - I just question it being a RCN Warship, as opposed to a CCG Vessel.


It's because our division of responsibilities and actual employment is completely different; the USCG does things that our warships do (and I'm not sure if any country has an equivalent to the USCG, who will deploy to theatres).

No one in the RCN was asking for AOPs either, it was just what the government of the day decided was needed. I think it will quickly become a white elephant, and we would have been better off with a smaller ship to replace the MCDV and just left the ice breaking to the CCG.

At some point they'll send AOPs on an Op Carribe and realize it has non of the savings of an MCDV while having all the costs of a large ship without the capabilities of a CPF. On the plus side it's a comfortable ride for the crew I guess (when they can eventually leave the wall again).

Hopefully they are useful for the CCG, but I don't think they want them either, and are just trying to shoehorn something useful into a platform that won't do some of the critical functions they actually need.


----------



## FSTO

^^
I think I said the exact thing to many people when this was first proposed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:


> It's because our division of responsibilities and actual employment is completely different; the USCG does things that our warships do (and I'm not sure if any country has an equivalent to the USCG, who will deploy to theatres).
> 
> No one in the RCN was asking for AOPs either, it was just what the government of the day decided was needed. I think it will quickly become a white elephant, and we would have been better off with a smaller ship to replace the MCDV and just left the ice breaking to the CCG.
> 
> At some point they'll send AOPs on an Op Carribe and realize it has non of the savings of an MCDV while having all the costs of a large ship without the capabilities of a CPF. On the plus side it's a comfortable ride for the crew I guess (when they can eventually leave the wall again).
> 
> Hopefully they are useful for the CCG, but I don't think they want them either, and are just trying to shoehorn something useful into a platform that won't do some of the critical functions they actually need.


To be fair to the Government, the North is part of Canada and show of force is a RCN task, not a CCG task. It is likley easier to teach Northern Ops to the RCN, then to change the CCG to a Armed Force. that would require a decade+ of management and command rewiring. The RCN ignored the North, because it was not sexy and did not get them brownie points with the NATO club. However things are changing and the North needs more attention than the CCG or other government services can provide alone.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> To be fair to the Government, the North is part of Canada and show of force is a RCN task, not a CCG task. It is likley easier to teach Northern Ops to the RCN, then to change the CCG to a Armed Force. that would require a decade+ of management and command rewiring. The RCN ignored the North, because it was not sexy and did not get them brownie points with the NATO club. However things are changing and the North needs more attention than the CCG or other government services can provide alone.


I just don't think that AOPs is a show of force. It's technically armed, and I guess it might be intimidating against someone with no weapons, but it's basically useless otherwise. Showing force sort of requires something to back it up.

At least the CCG version will have science instruments to be useful for something.

Bang for our buck would have been better spent on new subs that were more ice capable if we wanted to RCN to have an effective artic presence.


----------



## YZT580

Navy_Pete said:


> I just don't think that AOPs is a show of force. It's technically armed, and I guess it might be intimidating against someone with no weapons, but it's basically useless otherwise. Showing force sort of requires something to back it up.
> 
> At least the CCG version will have science instruments to be useful for something.
> 
> Bang for our buck would have been better spent on new subs that were more ice capable if we wanted to RCN to have an effective artic presence.


Perhaps but no invasion will ever enter the north from the sea.  An increase in the number and duties of the rangers would provide both employment and serve a useful purpose.  Then consider two manned AF bases in the north; one in the Yukon the other in the Hudson's Bay area: or perhaps Iqaluit with patrol aircraft operating out of both and both bases backed up by air to air resources.  Don't think it would cost near what a proper naval presence would entail and they have the benefit of not being iced in for 6 months


----------



## KevinB

YZT580 said:


> Perhaps but no invasion will ever enter the north from the sea.


Never say never. Possession is 9/10th the law. 
  Armed possession is the other 10th…




YZT580 said:


> An increase in the number and duties of the rangers would provide both employment and serve a useful purpose.  Then consider two manned AF bases in the north; one in the Yukon the other in the Hudson's Bay area: or perhaps Iqaluit with patrol aircraft operating out of both and both bases backed up by air to air resources.  Don't think it would cost near what a proper naval presence would entail and they have the benefit of not being iced in for 6 months


If you had real icebreakers then it would t be ice in.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> Never say never. Possession is 9/10th the law.
> Armed possession is the other 10th…
> 
> 
> 
> If you had real icebreakers then it would t be ice in.


Only the Russians have "real Ice breakers" The AOP's is roughly the equivalent of the CCG 1100 class light icebreaker. In fact because they are new they might be better than the much older 1100's now. The government is not buying nuke subs, so you get AOP's, which I think are decent stepping stones to more Northern capabilities and need to be part of a whole of government approach to the North, along with dragging the Army and RCAF into the game as well.
People have laughed at my suggestion that the Chinese/Russians could land a "scientific expedition for the benefit of mankind", lets say Mould Bay and declare it as part of a international land owned by no one and that our claim is not legal. Exactly what are we going to do in that case? The Russians can resupply it with their nuclear ice breakers when all of ours are in the South and since they are "civilian ships" are we (US and Canada) ready to sink them? Eventually we would have to land troops and push them out, with a Oka style standoff. The AOP's gives us a limited abilty to do that, with the helo deck and small landing craft.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Colin Parkinson said:


> Only the Russians have "real Ice breakers" The AOP's is roughly the equivalent of the CCG 1100 class light icebreaker. In fact because they are new they might be better than the much older 1100's now. The government is not buying nuke subs, so you get AOP's, which I think are decent stepping stones to more Northern capabilities and need to be part of a whole of government approach to the North, along with dragging the Army and RCAF into the game as well.
> People have laughed at my suggestion that the Chinese/Russians could land a "scientific expedition for the benefit of mankind", lets say Mould Bay and declare it as part of a international land owned by no one and that our claim is not legal. Exactly what are we going to do in that case? The Russians can resupply it with their nuclear ice breakers when all of ours are in the South and since they are "civilian ships" are we (US and Canada) ready to sink them? Eventually we would have to land troops and push them out, with a Oka style standoff. The AOP's gives us a limited abilty to do that, with the helo deck and small landing craft.


But , but we're Canada...
Conflict is something that happens to "other people." Far away. Far,far far away very far away.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

GK .Dundas said:


> But , but we're Canada...
> Conflict is something that happens to "other people." Far away. Far,far far away very far away.


Imagine if the US had never bought Alaska, we could have ended up with a Canada looking a bit more like Finland. The border of the Yukon and NW BC would be a long line of fortifications.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> Only the Russians have "real Ice breakers" The AOP's is roughly the equivalent of the CCG 1100 class light icebreaker. In fact because they are new they might be better than the much older 1100's now. The government is not buying nuke subs, so you get AOP's, which I think are decent stepping stones to more Northern capabilities and need to be part of a whole of government approach to the North, along with dragging the Army and RCAF into the game as well.
> People have laughed at my suggestion that the Chinese/Russians could land a "scientific expedition for the benefit of mankind", lets say Mould Bay and declare it as part of a international land owned by no one and that our claim is not legal. Exactly what are we going to do in that case? The Russians can resupply it with their nuclear ice breakers when all of ours are in the South and since they are "civilian ships" are we (US and Canada) ready to sink them? Eventually we would have to land troops and push them out, with a Oka style standoff. The AOP's gives us a limited abilty to do that, with the helo deck and small landing craft.


I don't think AOPs is going to do anything with only a 25mm gun, no self defence capabilities (or even monitoring), and a ship not built or crewed for anything other than getting from A to B.

It's still not helo capable and will need some fixes to the design first.

At best it would clear a path for a CPF (assuming we have enough people to get two ships off the wall up north anyway).  But at that point ships alone won't do much, and would take them weeks to get there anyway.

Really not a cost effective thing to do if that's our goal; remote monitoring, planes, some long distance missile batteries or some other combo would do a better job.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I will disagree, you need ice capable ships as part of the mix, fixing the helo thing will happen really fast if they have to and likley in the meantime you can fly smaller helos as well. Don't count on a CFP going that far north with any certainty, ice conditions are always unpredictable, the AOP's may be all you have and it pretty much double our militaries amphibious landing capability, as now you can get quads ashore, which actually is a big thing. The scenario I put out would be more a battle of wills than guns. Air dropping troops with no back up plan or support would be a very bad idea I suspect. Likely also there will be two AOP's up there through a good part of the summer, one in the Western Arctic and one in the Eastern Arctic. Cycling the crews every 28 days or so like the CCG is a good idea. Even if down in Esquimalt at 12 knots that about 11 days to get there.
Eventually the RCN Reserve should base some boats out of communities in the Western and Eastern Arctic. With a mix of locals and Southerners. Perhaps start with a CB 90 type vessel and haul it out in winter.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't think AOPs is going to do anything with only a 25mm gun, no self defence capabilities (or even monitoring), and a ship not built or crewed for anything other than getting from A to B.
> 
> It's still not helo capable and will need some fixes to the design first.
> 
> At best it would clear a path for a CPF (assuming we have enough people to get two ships off the wall up north anyway).  But at that point ships alone won't do much, and would take them weeks to get there anyway.
> 
> Really not a cost effective thing to do if that's our goal; remote monitoring, planes, some long distance missile batteries or some other combo would do a better job.


I keep coming back to this.  Its a security guard not SWAT.  It supports OGD's better then the Coast Guard does for all manner of situations. 

Yes the helo ops need to get there but for all the non-combat roles this is a great ship.  MCM, diving, drone usage, support to platoon sized teams ashore, community outreach, disaster response, law enforcement operations, passive subsurface sensors.  It's already done most of this stuff and proven the capability.

We frankly need to quit fixating on the gun and look at what capabilities it does bring.  It's really useful in the missions that the RCN is often call on to do.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:


> I keep coming back to this.  Its a security guard not SWAT.  It supports OGD's better then the Coast Guard does for all manner of situations.
> 
> Yes the helo ops need to get there but for all the non-combat roles this is a great ship.  MCM, diving, drone usage, support to platoon sized teams ashore, community outreach, disaster response, law enforcement operations, passive subsurface sensors.  It's already done most of this stuff and proven the capability.
> 
> We frankly need to quit fixating on the gun and look at what capabilities it does bring.  It's really useful in the missions that the RCN is often call on to do.


Thanks, Underway. I remain skeptical about putting a "constabulary vessel" in a Navy, especially when we actually have a national constabulary force with a marine division, but your points are very, vert well taken.


----------



## suffolkowner

Thats the thing though isnt it? The RCN also functions as a constabulary force. Im sure the AOPS will be put to good use and will be able to embark all sorts of sexy new capabilities going forward including mine hunting and underwater surveillance. The main thing is it looks like Irving will be kept working until they can transition to the CSC. The RCN and CCG get ships and new ships are progress of a sort whether they are exactly what everyone wants or not


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> I keep coming back to this.  Its a security guard not SWAT.  It supports OGD's better then the Coast Guard does for all manner of situations.
> 
> Yes the helo ops need to get there but for all the non-combat roles this is a great ship.  MCM, diving, drone usage, support to platoon sized teams ashore, community outreach, disaster response, law enforcement operations, passive subsurface sensors.  It's already done most of this stuff and proven the capability.
> 
> We frankly need to quit fixating on the gun and look at what capabilities it does bring.  It's really useful in the missions that the RCN is often call on to do.


And frankly, if they find anything that needs shooting, a CP-140/P-8 or a dozen Hornets/F-35s are only hours away (depending if it is below or above the surface of the water…).


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> I keep coming back to this.  Its a security guard not SWAT.  It supports OGD's better then the Coast Guard does for all manner of situations.
> 
> Yes the helo ops need to get there but for all the non-combat roles this is a great ship.  MCM, diving, drone usage, support to platoon sized teams ashore, community outreach, disaster response, law enforcement operations, passive subsurface sensors.  It's already done most of this stuff and proven the capability.
> 
> We frankly need to quit fixating on the gun and look at what capabilities it does bring.  It's really useful in the missions that the RCN is often call on to do.


100%. I wish I've been in a AOPV for many of the times I been to the Arctic. Once the technical issues are rectified they will be sailing a lot. Would love to see an expansion to the deep water port in Iqaluit to include jetty space and offices and warehouses for a couple of AOPV's and Kingston Class so the response time would be cut down and a spot where contractors could more easily be sent in, crew changes, resupply etc.


----------



## Maxman1

Better yet, a full resurrection of CFS Frobisher Bay (as CFS Iqaluit).


----------



## torg003

Colin Parkinson said:


> Imagine if the US had never bought Alaska, we could have ended up with a Canada looking a bit more like Finland. The border of the Yukon and NW BC would be a long line of fortifications.


Sorry, not trying to be pedantic, but that's not really an accurate assessment.  Russia was abandoning their NA possessions as they were costing too much.  They sold Alaska to the Yanks because they didn't want the Brits to get it.  There was really no chance that the US was going to turn down the Russian offer as they wanted every square inch of NA territory they could get.


----------



## Underway

Edward Campbell said:


> Thanks, Underway. I remain skeptical about putting a "constabulary vessel" in a Navy, especially when we actually have a national constabulary force with a marine division, but your points are very, vert well taken.


Do we?  Coast Guard isn't constabulatory unless perhaps you refer to Fisheries and Oceans.  I feel like I'm missing something here. The RCN is really the only one out there who does constabulatory operations (with embarked policing policing when required).

As for needing a helo, well there are some really cool new things coming out with UAV's that can be a game changer for ships like AOPS.  Perhaps above water isn't their thing, but add on a few things like this that could drop sonobouys and carry torps

This heavy-lift drone could quietly carry a sub-hunting torpedo

Combined with TRAPS.  We would have to see how effective it would be, might be useless might be good but when you have that sort of space and flexibility built into a platform bolt on solutions become interesting options.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> I keep coming back to this.  Its a security guard not SWAT.  It supports OGD's better then the Coast Guard does for all manner of situations.
> 
> Yes the helo ops need to get there but for all the non-combat roles this is a great ship.  MCM, diving, drone usage, support to platoon sized teams ashore, community outreach, disaster response, law enforcement operations, passive subsurface sensors.  It's already done most of this stuff and proven the capability.
> 
> We frankly need to quit fixating on the gun and look at what capabilities it does bring.  It's really useful in the missions that the RCN is often call on to do.


MCM are you kidding?

Trying to do everything with one platform is going to get people killed if we ever have to do it IRL. If we want to do real mine counter measures we should really just get a purpose built ship rather than FAFO.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> MCM are you kidding?
> 
> Trying to do everything with one platform is going to get people killed if we ever have to do it IRL. If we want to do real mine counter measures we should really just get a purpose built ship rather than FAFO.


They can certainly act as a platform for the REMUS although they don't have degaussing. There is talk of sending one overseas to act as a support ship to the Kingston class.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> They can certainly act as a platform for the REMUS although they don't have degaussing. There is talk of sending one overseas to act as a support ship to the Kingston class.


Perfect, lets send two non-combatants into theatre.

We haven't even shaken out all the bugs out of AOPs yet and the ones we know about are pretty fundamental, so of course the RCN is talking about deploying them already.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> Perfect, lets send two non-combatants into theatre.
> 
> We haven't even shaken out all the bugs out of AOPs yet and the ones we know about are pretty fundamental, so of course the RCN is talking about deploying them already.


I assume any overseas deployments will be after the current defects are rectified, they already have done OP Caribbes so they were successful at that. It would be nice to have a AOPV to back up and support the Kingston Class on certain deployments as we usually get poor support.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

torg003 said:


> Sorry, not trying to be pedantic, but that's not really an accurate assessment.  Russia was abandoning their NA possessions as they were costing too much.  They sold Alaska to the Yanks because they didn't want the Brits to get it.  There was really no chance that the US was going to turn down the Russian offer as they wanted every square inch of NA territory they could get.


It's a great alternative history discussion, you could also include the possibility that if they held it, it might become a White Russian enclave.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:


> Do we?  Coast Guard isn't constabulatory unless perhaps you refer to Fisheries and Oceans.  I feel like I'm missing something here. The RCN is really the only one out there who does constabulatory operations (with embarked policing policing when required).
> 
> As for needing a helo, well there are some really cool new things coming out with UAV's that can be a game changer for ships like AOPS.  Perhaps above water isn't their thing, but add on a few things like this that could drop sonobouys and carry torps
> 
> This heavy-lift drone could quietly carry a sub-hunting torpedo
> 
> Combined with TRAPS.  We would have to see how effective it would be, might be useless might be good but when you have that sort of space and flexibility built into a platform bolt on solutions become interesting options.


I was thinking of the RCMP. I know the Marine Division is, now, a small, coastal service, but it was not always that way ... and needn't be.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Stoker said:


> get poor support.



Have a chat with SNC Lavalin.  They are great at engineering, so I hear; and awful at material movements and management, so I experienced.

I spent two years directly supporting deployed Naval units from MLOC and MCDVs are by far the most frustrating, most out of touch with reality, and biggest messes logistically.  Maybe it comes an almost nonexistent footprint from Log on board, maybe its the ISSC, maybe its both.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> MCM are you kidding?
> 
> Trying to do everything with one platform is going to get people killed if we ever have to do it IRL. If we want to do real mine counter measures we should really just get a purpose built ship rather than FAFO.



Does the ship have an ability to launch/recover various UXV's and boats?  Carry clearance divers, carry a hyperbaric chamber? Have a robust comms suite.  Sustain all that for long periods of time? If the answer is yes then its fine.  Modern MCM sails within the range of the minefield and then sends in its robo-minions to do the work.  HDW's only issue _might_ be its inability to dynamic station keep but I'm not even sure that's a problem anymore.

If you are sending a ship into the minefield you're doing it wrong or you're desperate.  With the right loadout HDW can easily be the mothership anchored for various MCM packages or at a minimum carry them to a place of work and stage from there (ashore, barge etc...), or be part of a multi pronged solution (hold the hyperbaric chamber, medical, comms, provide meals to a MCM Det ashore.

That being said various mine types require various solutions.  Deep water torp launching mines require a very different solution to moored mines for example.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> Does the ship have an ability to launch/recover various UXV's and boats?  Carry clearance divers, carry a hyperbaric chamber? Have a robust comms suite.  Sustain all that for long periods of time? If the answer is yes then its fine.  Modern MCM sails within the range of the minefield and then sends in its robo-minions to do the work.  HDW's only issue _might_ be its inability to dynamic station keep but I'm not even sure that's a problem anymore.
> 
> If you are sending a ship into the minefield you're doing it wrong or you're desperate.  With the right loadout HDW can easily be the mothership anchored for various MCM packages or at a minimum carry them to a place of work and stage from there (ashore, barge etc...), or be part of a multi pronged solution (hold the hyperbaric chamber, medical, comms, provide meals to a MCM Det ashore.
> 
> That being said various mine types require various solutions.  Deep water torp launching mines require a very different solution to moored mines for example.


Most of the time its just anchoring and the team deploys from small boats to either deploy the REMUS or divers to investigate and destroy the targets after data processing.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> I keep coming back to this.  Its a security guard not SWAT.  It supports OGD's better then the Coast Guard does for all manner of situations.
> 
> Yes the helo ops need to get there but for all the non-combat roles this is a great ship.  MCM, diving, drone usage, support to platoon sized teams ashore, community outreach, disaster response, law enforcement operations, passive subsurface sensors.  It's already done most of this stuff and proven the capability.
> 
> We frankly need to quit fixating on the gun and look at what capabilities it does bring.  It's really useful in the missions that the RCN is often call on to do.


Sounds like its a better fit for the CCG than the RCN in terms of what capabilities and missions its called to do. If its called to perform anti-narco missions in the Carrib or WC of the US, simply added a pair of 50's to it (like the Kingston's have) and include a RCN detachment to man them and provide a boarding party when needed.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> Sounds like its a better fit for the CCG than the RCN in terms of what capabilities and missions its called to do. If its called to perform anti-narco missions in the Carrib or WC of the US, simply added a pair of 50's to it (like the Kingston's have) and include a RCN detachment to man them and provide a boarding party when needed.


I don't know if you get this but having a CG crew onboard running a CG AOPV for an Op Caribe with a RCN crew manning .50 Cals is not going to happen for all kinds of reasons. We also don't provide a boarding party during Carib's, the MOU with the US utilizes a embarked USCG boarding party for that. AOPS have done Op Caribs successfully.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Stoker said:


> I don't know if you get this but having a CG crew onboard running a CG AOPV for an Op Caribe with a RCN crew manning .50 Cals is not going to happen for all kinds of reasons. We also don't provide a boarding party during Carib's, the MOU with the US utilizes a embarked USCG boarding party for that. AOPS have done Op Caribs successfully.


I'm not seeing the value add in using the AOPS for something like Op Caribe.  Just because a Chrysler minivan can fit a sheet of plywood in the back of it doesn't mean I should treat it like a pickup truck. 
The APOS should be used primarily in the Arctic and in the north atlantic or off the BC coast in the winter months when going out in a Kingston in January off the coast of Labrador would be a stupid idea.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> Sounds like its a better fit for the CCG than the RCN in terms of what capabilities and missions its called to do. If its called to perform anti-narco missions in the Carrib or WC of the US, simply added a pair of 50's to it (like the Kingston's have) and include a RCN detachment to man them and provide a boarding party when needed.


Here's my perspective after sailing with the CCG.  This is not intended as a burn, but I feel like it has some harsh truths in there.

They are very specialized.  They have a very limited equipment ability to be flexible from their defined jobs.  Are they a research vessel?  Then they carry scientists and do research.  Do they do buoy tending?  Then that's what they do.  SAR?  Thats pretty much it.  And the crew are specialized as well.  The crew qualifications generally start and end with their specific equipment and job.  That's it.  Inside their specialty they are amazing and quite competent.  They don't even consider going outside the speciality.

This means there is limited command and control capability in their vessels with little to no capability to change tasks or missions.  The culture is not a mission focused one like the military has.  It has a far more 9-5 lunchpail feel to it.  And the ships are staffed at a level where you can rarely throw people at a problem (unlike on warships you always can find extra people to just do a task).

Is this wrong or bad?  No.  Its perfect for the tasks required of the CCG.

Planning, commmand and control, equipment, comms, people and training to run missions where things change quickly or go sideways are a military thing not a CCG thing.  Which is why the military runs SAR and CCG have a voice.

We really should change the name from CCG to Canadian Coastal Services.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Here's my perspective after sailing with the CCG.  This is not intended as a burn, but I feel like it has some harsh truths in there.
> 
> They are very specialized.  They have a very limited equipment ability to be flexible from their defined jobs.  Are they a research vessel?  Then they carry scientists and do research.  Do they do buoy tending?  Then that's what they do.  SAR?  Thats pretty much it.  And the crew are specialized as well.  The crew qualifications generally start and end with their specific equipment and job.  That's it.  Inside their specialty they are amazing and quite competent.  They don't even consider going outside the speciality.
> 
> This means there is limited command and control capability in their vessels with little to no capability to change tasks or missions.  The culture is not a mission focused one like the military has.  It has a far more 9-5 lunchpail feel to it.  And the ships are staffed at a level where you can rarely throw people at a problem (unlike on warships you always can find extra people to just do a task).
> 
> Is this wrong or bad?  No.  Its perfect for the tasks required of the CCG.
> 
> Planning, commmand and control, equipment, comms, people and training to run missions where things change quickly or go sideways are a military thing not a CCG thing.  Which is why the military runs SAR and CCG have a voice.
> 
> We really should change the name from CCG to Canadian Coastal Services.


It's pretty accurate statement, there is some crossover the science boats will carry minor lamp repair stuff to replace repair lamps and all ships will get to do some science work, the primary buoy tenders are specialised to their task and it keeps them damn busy. You could add .50cals to the big ships and train them how to use them, within the normal crew cycles. But changing the command culture to actually using them effectively would be a massive undertaking. Really a buoy tender is more like a mobile construction crew who is always working. The slackest time is when you leave base with a new set of buoys and your yet to pick up an old one.  CCG came out of the "Department of Marine Services"

I was actually patrolling the Sir Wilfred Grennel last night which gave me some time to look at her. Interesting ship, quite the massive crane on her, accommodations and amenities seem less than the 1100's. One question that popped into my head: "How many seaman become deck officers in the RCN?" In the CCG we have a lot of deckhands who may have Mates and Masters tickets, they might be a deckhand on a few trips, then show up as the 3rd Mate on the next few and then maybe a Master on a small Fisheries patrol vessel next.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> Here's my perspective after sailing with the CCG.  This is not intended as a burn, but I feel like it has some harsh truths in there.
> 
> They are very specialized.  They have a very limited equipment ability to be flexible from their defined jobs.  Are they a research vessel?  Then they carry scientists and do research.  Do they do buoy tending?  Then that's what they do.  SAR?  Thats pretty much it.  And the crew are specialized as well.  The crew qualifications generally start and end with their specific equipment and job.  That's it.  Inside their specialty they are amazing and quite competent.  They don't even consider going outside the speciality.
> 
> This means there is limited command and control capability in their vessels with little to no capability to change tasks or missions.  The culture is not a mission focused one like the military has.  It has a far more 9-5 lunchpail feel to it.  And the ships are staffed at a level where you can rarely throw people at a problem (unlike on warships you always can find extra people to just do a task).
> 
> Is this wrong or bad?  No.  Its perfect for the tasks required of the CCG.
> 
> Planning, commmand and control, equipment, comms, people and training to run missions where things change quickly or go sideways are a military thing not a CCG thing.  Which is why the military runs SAR and CCG have a voice.
> 
> We really should change the name from CCG to Canadian Coastal Services.


The CCG guards many things, like fisheries, environmental disasters and in general people’s livelihoods and well being. There are many ways to guard than with a gun.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> I'm not seeing the value add in using the AOPS for something like Op Caribe.  Just because a Chrysler minivan can fit a sheet of plywood in the back of it doesn't mean I should treat it like a pickup truck.
> The APOS should be used primarily in the Arctic and in the north atlantic or off the BC coast in the winter months when going out in a Kingston in January off the coast of Labrador would be a stupid idea.


So we don't generally limit our ships to a few areas we go places. The ships were designed as Arctic and OFFSHORE patrol vessels and designed to operate in tropical conditions because the RCN has deemed that we may have to operate there. These ships are exactly like a pickup truck and actually quite effective for anti drug patrols, with drones, helos, rhibs, specialized storage for a boarding party and briefing area, not to mention the accommodations for a boarding party. So yes they can do lots of different missions if needed. While the Kingston Class can also do these missions and economically these can do them a sight better as they are designed to embark boarding parties.


----------



## torg003

Underway said:


> We really should change the name from CCG to Canadian Coastal Services.


Actually, they were originally the Marine Service of Canada (Marine, as in pertaining to the ocean).  You could change the name to Marine Services Canada and the only thing that would need to be physically changed, would be the Gov't of Canada shoulder flash.  They would continue on doing the same job.
Then we'd have to decide if we need an armed Coast Guard along with the RCN, or have coast guard duties rolled into the RCN's overall mission.


----------



## Stoker

torg003 said:


> Actually, they were originally the Marine Service of Canada (Marine, as in pertaining to the ocean).  You could change the name to Marine Services Canada and the only thing that would need to be physically changed, would be the Gov't of Canada shoulder flash.  They would continue on doing the same job.
> Then we'd have to decide if we need an armed Coast Guard along with the RCN, or have coast guard duties rolled into the RCN's overall mission.


The public would never accept a paramilitary CCG and the members of the CCG would never go for it.


----------



## Good2Golf

Stoker said:


> The public would never accept a paramilitary CCG and the members of the CCG would never go for it.


I’m not sure the public even cares about a paramilitarized CCG, so long as its yellow helicopters and airplanes keep saving people…


----------



## Spencer100

Stoker said:


> The public would never accept a paramilitary CCG and the members of the CCG would never go for it.


I bet if you asked the average Joe about the CCG he would think it's like the US CG but way smaller and equipment that is just not as new.


----------



## Maxman1

Good2Golf said:


> I’m not sure the public even cares about a paramilitarized CCG, so long as its yellow helicopters and airplanes keep saving people…



Coast Guard members would definitely care. When CBSA was first armed, guys who had been in since it was customs and revenue were against it.


----------



## Maxman1

MTShaw said:


> There are many ways to guard than with a gun.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Stoker said:


> The public would never accept a paramilitary CCG and the members of the CCG would never go for it.


Didn't take much good press to get our border agents armed over the last 10yrs.  Those same border agents do basically the same job as the CCG - they 'guard our borders'.


----------



## lenaitch

The arming of CBSA agents was primarily for self-protection, and the potential use of that force is individualized.  There are still concerns that there is no independent oversight body.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> Didn't take much good press to get our border agents armed over the last 10yrs.  Those same border agents do basically the same job as the CCG - they 'guard our borders'.


The Coast Guard DO NOT GUARD ANYTHING!  Except perhaps life at sea (like a lifeguard).  That's the entire point of my arguement.  Adding "Guarding" is an expansion of their role.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Czech_pivo said:


> Didn't take much good press to get our border agents armed over the last 10yrs.  Those same border agents do basically the same job as the CCG - they 'guard our borders'.



Why not use that effort to expand the existing armed marine service (the RCN) and leave well enough alone with the CCG ?

Perhaps a name change for the CCG is really what's needed.


----------



## torg003

Halifax Tar said:


> Why not use that effort to expand the existing armed marine service (the RCN) and leave well enough alone with the CCG ?
> 
> Perhaps a name change for the CCG is really what's needed.


Exactly!  CCG goes back to being Marine Services Canada and does the same job they do now.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> Perhaps a name change for the CCG is really what's needed.


Canadian Marine Buoy and Navigation Maintenance Service.


----------



## Spencer100

Good2Golf said:


> Canadian Marine Buoy and Navigation Maintenance Service.


If that is all it is contract it out.  Use the savings to the navy or the up the RCMP marine detachment. 

Science work to fisheries and oceans.

I know that will get some people going.  My point being the average Canadian thinks the CCG is like the US CG.  Rescue Drivers and all like in the movies.  You have to go out but you don't have to come back and all that.


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:


> If that is all it is contract it out.  Use the savings to the navy or the up the RCMP marine detachment.
> 
> Science work to fisheries and oceans.
> 
> I know that will get some people going.  My point being the average Canadian thinks the CCG is like the US CG.  Rescue Drivers and all like in the movies.  You have to go out but you don't have to come back and all that.


No argument from me at all, S100!

Heck, Canada contracted out its entire Air Traffic Control and Navigation capability.  


Constabulary role > RCN
Science role > DFO
Maritime Navigation (Buoys and Ice breaking) > contracted
Marine SAR > contracted


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> The Coast Guard DO NOT GUARD ANYTHING!  Except perhaps life at sea (like a lifeguard).  That's the entire point of my arguement.  Adding "Guarding" is an expansion of their role.


Flip the coin over - removing 'Guard' eliminates the falsehood of them actually having to perform a task that is within their very name. 
As its been suggested - CMS - Canadian Marine Services - rings nicely.  Maybe even roll them into Transport Canada and/or into Fisheries and Oceans. 
The RCMP had its role/responsibility of performing the tasks that CSIS performs removed. They had the role/responsibility of what JTF2 now performs removed. They had their arctic nautical role/responsibility that the CCG performs, and RCN is now taking on, removed. 

The point I'm trying to make is that departments/organizations need to be flexible/nimble enough to realise that the world changes around them and that they need to change sometimes with it.


----------



## Spencer100

Czech_pivo said:


> Flip the coin over - removing 'Guard' eliminates the falsehood of them actually having to perform a task that is within their very name.
> As its been suggested - CMS - Canadian Marine Services - rings nicely.  Maybe even roll them into Transport Canada and/or into Fisheries and Oceans.
> The RCMP had its role/responsibility of performing the tasks that CSIS performs removed. They had the role/responsibility of what JTF2 now performs removed. They had their arctic nautical role/responsibility that the CCG performs, and RCN is now taking on, removed.
> 
> The point I'm trying to make is that departments/organizations need to be flexible/nimble enough to realise that the world changes around them and that they need to change sometimes with it.


Also because I can see both sides of coin.   There should also be a "wall" I guess you can call it between civil service and services with "unlimited liability" employment cause.  With the ability of taking a life (e.i. armed) over with the unlimited liability side of the house.  Also things like SAR techs in there too.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:


> I bet if you asked the average Joe about the CCG he would think it's like the US CG but way smaller and equipment that is just not as new.


LOl, quite a few of their ships are older than ours.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:


> No argument from me at all, S100!
> 
> Heck, Canada contracted out its entire Air Traffic Control and Navigation capability.
> 
> 
> 
> Maritime Navigation (Buoys and Ice breaking) > contracted
> Marine SAR > contracted
> 
> View attachment 75843


Ocean Group will be very happy with you and are ready to rape you dry as you bend over the table

You also forgot training the volunteer groups and oil spill response


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> Ocean Group will be very happy with you and are ready to rape you dry as you bend over the table


It’s the Canadian way.  

Turn it into just a money problem, not a money and people problem.  Beside, the Federal Government will look after the associated debt so that we don’t have to. 👍🏼


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect that killing the CCG is going to be a political poison pill, even if your going to follow the Trinity House/RNLI model. The guard was being slowly killed by budget deficits and was cutting back seriously on navaids, to the point that safe navigation on the West Coast was compromised.

The lack of coverage on the coast was a serious issue identified during all the EA's for the LNG and other shipping terminals. The complete lack of salvage tugs was another issue. None of the current CCG are suitable for towing large merchant ships (we tried towing the Exxon San Francisco with an 1100, not working so well). This is current covered by a contract for two ships from a private contractor and is quite expensive. Thanks to all the marine activity, 50 new aids established, new radar coverage for Prince Rupert (PR MCTS was basically doing the Battle of Britain thing with maps and little markers for ships) and more repeaters for VHF.


----------



## Good2Golf

Maybe NavCanada should take over the navaids thing? 🤔


----------



## Spencer100

Colin Parkinson said:


> I suspect that killing the CCG is going to be a political poison pill, even if your going to follow the Trinity House/RNLI model. The guard was being slowly killed by budget deficits and was cutting back seriously on navaids, to the point that safe navigation on the West Coast was compromised.
> 
> The lack of coverage on the coast was a *serious issue identified during all the EA's for the LNG *and other shipping terminals. The complete lack of salvage tugs was another issue. None of the current CCG are suitable for towing large merchant ships (we tried towing the Exxon San Francisco with an 1100, not working so well). This is current covered by a contract for two ships from a private contractor and is quite expensive. Thanks to all the marine activity, 50 new aids established, new radar coverage for Prince Rupert (PR MCTS was basically doing the Battle of Britain thing with maps and little markers for ships) and more repeaters for VHF.


So in other words "success!"  You have look at it with what are are goals.  See no tankers on the west coast we can't do it safely.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:


> So in other words "success!"  You have look at it with what are are goals.  See no tankers on the west coast we can't do it safely.


For now, no oil exports. Lots of coastal tankers, propane carriers and soon to be LNG carriers. Except the next round of oil export terminals have FN groups as their standard bearers and might be harder for the government to quash.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> For now, no oil exports. Lots of coastal tankers, propane carriers and soon to be LNG carriers. Except the next round of oil export terminals have FN groups as their standard bearers and might be harder for the government to quash.


Seems like a no brainer to me; lump it under National Security (energy security) and Reconciliation, fund the solution, put it towards our NATO commitment.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:


> Seems like a no brainer to me; lump it under National Security (energy security) and Reconciliation, fund the solution, put it towards our NATO commitment.


Well that would solve our 2% GDP quest, Petronos LNG proposal was 36 billion some 10 years ago, so a new oil export terminal and pipeline will be in that range as well


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> Well that would solve our 2% GDP quest, Petronos LNG proposal was 36 billion some 10 years ago, so a new oil export terminal and pipeline will be in that range as well


If the 'National Shipbuilding Strategy' includes all repair work, spares, small boat procurements etc under their banner, seems doable.

And given that it would help allies with energy security from a friendly nation (ie not Russia) and the recent example of Germany's reluctance it's not even that much of a stretch.

Much more useful in real terms compared to yet another HQ or an expansion to CJOC.


----------



## Dana381

Underway said:


> The Coast Guard DO NOT GUARD ANYTHING!  Except perhaps life at sea (like a lifeguard).  That's the entire point of my arguement.  Adding "Guarding" is an expansion of their role.



first lines of the CCG website

"The Canadian Coast Guard is a special operating agency within Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We work to ensure the safety of mariners in Canadian waters and protect Canada’s marine environment.

We support Canada’s economic growth through the safe and efficient movement of maritime trade. We help to ensure our country’s sovereignty and security through our presence in Canadian waters."

Just how do they do that exactly? Anybody that wants to threaten our sovereignty and/or security will just ignore the coast guard. What measures can they take to compel bad actors to comply?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dana381 said:


> first lines of the CCG website
> 
> "The Canadian Coast Guard is a special operating agency within Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We work to ensure the safety of mariners in Canadian waters and protect Canada’s marine environment.
> 
> We support Canada’s economic growth through the safe and efficient movement of maritime trade. We help to ensure our country’s sovereignty and security through our presence in Canadian waters."
> 
> Just how do they do that exactly? Anybody that wants to threaten our sovereignty and/or security will just ignore the coast guard. What measures can they take to compel bad actors to comply?


We will unleash a SWL onto them.


----------



## Dana381

The only SWL I am familiar with is "safe working load"


----------



## GR66

Dana381 said:


> The only SWL I am familiar with is "safe working load"


Strongly Worded Letter


----------



## Underway

Part of sovereignty is using the space.  90% of security is being there.  That's why companies hire security guards who just observe and report.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin Parkinson said:


> Ocean Group will be very happy with you and are ready to rape you dry as you bend over the table
> 
> You also forgot training the volunteer groups and oil spill response


WCMR enters the chat…


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:


> WCMR enters the chat…


True they did take over a lot of that work, but still depend a lot on the CCG.


----------

