Author Topic: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy  (Read 937678 times)

AlexanderM and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 26,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 693
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #850 on: July 26, 2015, 14:53:05 »
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???

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,976
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #851 on: July 26, 2015, 15:10:40 »
Quote
I have no idea how to force them, though???

Pay them lots more......oh? we're doing that anyway?   :facepalm:
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 491,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,432
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #852 on: July 26, 2015, 15:23:59 »
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???
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 26,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 693
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #853 on: July 26, 2015, 15:33:55 »
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...

Offline STONEY

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 198
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #854 on: July 26, 2015, 15:48:05 »
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.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 491,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,432
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #855 on: July 26, 2015, 16:23:14 »
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.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 384
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #856 on: July 26, 2015, 17:40:07 »
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?

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 216,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,977
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #857 on: July 27, 2015, 00:37:52 »
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 147,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #858 on: July 27, 2015, 08:26:28 »
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).

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.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 491,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,432
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #859 on: July 27, 2015, 08:46:08 »
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.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 194,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,661
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #860 on: July 27, 2015, 11:12:18 »
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.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 147,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #861 on: July 27, 2015, 11:31:02 »
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 

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 195,506
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,322
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #862 on: July 27, 2015, 13:07:17 »
Shades of the Lewis gun?

[/size]
Quote
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)
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 254,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,002
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #863 on: July 27, 2015, 13:48:31 »

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

  • Guest
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #864 on: July 27, 2015, 17:45:50 »
Well, they are in Squadrons.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 195,506
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,322
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #865 on: July 27, 2015, 17:46:35 »
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
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 207,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,026
  • Living the staff life
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #866 on: July 27, 2015, 17:57:21 »
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?
“If you run into an a-hole in the morning, you ran into an a-hole. If you run into a-holes all day, you're the a-hole.”

- Raylan Givens, Justified (cleaned up for content)

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 195,506
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,322
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #867 on: July 27, 2015, 18:09:24 »
This was the 'planned' 30 foot extension.  (This was considered for the last 6 ships but not actioned.)


Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #868 on: July 27, 2015, 19:37:57 »
jollyjacktar:

Quote
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Eland2

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 99
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #869 on: July 27, 2015, 20:37:08 »
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).

 

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 147,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #870 on: July 27, 2015, 20:46:13 »
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

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,289
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #871 on: July 28, 2015, 10:32:53 »
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  :) 

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 63,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 704
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #872 on: July 28, 2015, 12:53:55 »
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. 

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,289
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #874 on: August 04, 2015, 16:56:41 »
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.