Army.ca Forums

Navy.ca => Ships & Vessels => Topic started by: GAP on December 08, 2009, 10:30:01

Title: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on December 08, 2009, 10:30:01
 B.C. shipbuilders seek share of $40 billion in federal funding
 By SCOTT SIMPSON, VANCOUVER SUNDecember 7, 2009
Article Link (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/shipbuilders+seek+share+billion+federal+funding/2314125/story.html)

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
Title: Re: B.C. shipbuilders seek share of $40 billion in federal funding
Post by: Sapperian on December 08, 2009, 10:57:41
About time if you ask me.
Title: Re: B.C. shipbuilders seek share of $40 billion in federal funding
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 08, 2009, 13:41:36
Wait until the shipyards get the contracts and the first keels laid down...
Title: Re: B.C. shipbuilders seek share of $40 billion in federal funding
Post by: VIChris on December 17, 2009, 16:23:38
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.
Title: Re: B.C. shipbuilders seek share of $40 billion in federal funding
Post by: Spectrum on December 18, 2009, 20:53:17
So are we ever getting any damn replacements for the 280's?

Title: Re: B.C. shipbuilders seek share of $40 billion in federal funding
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 20, 2009, 19:48:35
So are we ever getting any damn replacements for the 280's?



Discussed time and time again.
Title: Re: B.C. shipbuilders seek share of $40 billion in federal funding
Post by: NavyShooter on January 05, 2010, 19:04:45
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....
Title: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 17, 2010, 09:03:32
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 17, 2010, 11:47:37
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.

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on May 17, 2010, 12:14:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 17, 2010, 12:46:01
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RumRunner on May 17, 2010, 23:18:13
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Kat Stevens on May 17, 2010, 23:46:50
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on May 18, 2010, 00:37:32
I will applaude it when the first CPF and 280 replacement actually comes off the slips. See I am not holding my breath.  :salute:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Infanteer on May 18, 2010, 22:21:55
Oldgateboatdriver, you will be my Minister of the Navy when I am Ruler of Canada.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Nuggs on May 18, 2010, 22:25:03
Oldgateboatdriver, you will be my Minister of the Navy when I am Ruler of Canada.

The man who would be Queen? :P
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: je suis prest on June 02, 2010, 18:46:12
News items indicate the new ship-building policy will be announced tomorrow at the CANSEC 2010 conference.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 02, 2010, 21:29:01
We have a ship building strategy ???? :rofl:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: je suis prest on June 03, 2010, 11:58:41
There's always a first time.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: ettibebs on June 03, 2010, 13:49:31
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 03, 2010, 15:33:25
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 03, 2010, 16:02:07
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 03, 2010, 16:41:41
(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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: 57Chevy on June 03, 2010, 19:33:17
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: donaldk on June 03, 2010, 22:49:25
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...  >:D
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Antoine on June 04, 2010, 00:49:42
From the point of view of an applicant for the NAVY (me), it is encouraging but , hey, I am still naive !
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on June 04, 2010, 06:26:53
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 04, 2010, 07:38:28
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

Quote
...
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on June 04, 2010, 08:15:30
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....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: captloadie on June 04, 2010, 08:38:35
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on June 04, 2010, 09:53:57
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...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 04, 2010, 09:56:21
I'll be dead and buried  before this comes to pass in full, if at all. :2c:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 04, 2010, 10:31:27
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

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

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 04, 2010, 11:13:53
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on June 04, 2010, 11:45:14
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Rifleman62 on June 04, 2010, 11:48:59
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on June 04, 2010, 11:52:15
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....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 04, 2010, 12:03:16
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 04, 2010, 12:16:36
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).
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 04, 2010, 12:22:51
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on June 04, 2010, 12:29:57
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Rifleman62 on June 04, 2010, 12:30:33
Thanks for the answer.

The last:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on June 04, 2010, 12:34:15
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 04, 2010, 12:41:57
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 04, 2010, 12:50:31
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on June 04, 2010, 13:00:55
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on June 04, 2010, 13:03:27
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Rifleman62 on June 04, 2010, 13:35:23
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 04, 2010, 13:56:37
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 04, 2010, 15:51:31
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. ;)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 04, 2010, 16:02:31
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 04, 2010, 16:34:38
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 04, 2010, 16:50:53
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 04, 2010, 19:02:12
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: karl28 on June 04, 2010, 19:30:13
             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 .
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Spectrum on June 04, 2010, 20:06:50
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 04, 2010, 20:12:26
             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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: 57Chevy on June 04, 2010, 20:21:45
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: gcclarke on June 04, 2010, 21:46:15
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: karl28 on June 04, 2010, 22:28:54
Ex-Dragoon

               Thanks for that eplenation makes sense to me .

Cheers Karl
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on June 05, 2010, 05:01:48
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on June 05, 2010, 05:19:12
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on June 05, 2010, 18:55:32
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: gcclarke on June 05, 2010, 19:19:57
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 05, 2010, 19:49:54
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Infanteer on June 06, 2010, 01:42:08
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on June 06, 2010, 04:18:20
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mikhar1 on June 07, 2010, 20:50:11
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


Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 07, 2010, 22:07:23
::) Lets wait till we actually get the ships before we worry what we are going to call them...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: northernboy_24 on June 07, 2010, 22:28:04
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: gcclarke on June 07, 2010, 22:37:52
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Spectrum on June 07, 2010, 22:39:01
It's Orwellian in nature.

Decreasing the fleet but saying it is being tripled!

Double Plus Good!  ;D
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mikhar1 on June 07, 2010, 23:11:02
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:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: ekpiper on June 08, 2010, 00:41:53
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:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on June 08, 2010, 11:48:19
Don't forget the Flower class, HMS Pansy  :nod:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 08, 2010, 11:54:07
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Kat Stevens on June 08, 2010, 11:55:50
Or even a Compass Rose?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 08, 2010, 12:10:13
If names really matter then there is a good list here (http://www.naval-museum.mb.ca/ships/rollcall.htm). 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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MARS on June 08, 2010, 13:00:45
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. 

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford_class_aircraft_carrier) 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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on June 08, 2010, 13:10:21
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on June 08, 2010, 13:43:57
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: N. McKay on June 08, 2010, 14:57:33
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Mortar guy on June 08, 2010, 16:05:22
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mikhar1 on June 09, 2010, 00:38:02
Great post N. McKay I totally agree.  The naming of communities is inspiring!
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Sailorwest on June 09, 2010, 10:53:26
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mikhar1 on June 09, 2010, 23:05:20
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.  :salute:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on June 09, 2010, 23:13:31
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: karl28 on June 09, 2010, 23:19:38
          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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 10, 2010, 00:11:35
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.  :salute:

There was a Flower class corvette named HMCS Barrie during World War 2.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: 57Chevy on June 10, 2010, 12:57:32
What about.....and lets not forget about our own Canadian Hockey Legends:

                         HMCS Maurice Richard
 
                         HMCS Bobby Orr

                         HMCS Guy Lafleur

                         Etc....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 10, 2010, 15:46:36
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: 57Chevy on June 10, 2010, 16:39:44
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mikhar1 on June 12, 2010, 15:10:38
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: aesop081 on June 12, 2010, 15:34:34
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.........
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on June 12, 2010, 16:20:06
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: NavyShooter on June 12, 2010, 16:45:08
When they start cutting steel, I'll start getting interested.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on June 12, 2010, 17:28:56
If they ever build the AOPS, i'd like to see the first of class called the HMCS Labrador.

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 12, 2010, 18:26:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mikhar1 on June 14, 2010, 19:54:04
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!

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 14, 2010, 22:22:37
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!
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on June 15, 2010, 00:25:05
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 15, 2010, 10:27:50
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 :)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 15, 2010, 17:50:39
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.  >:D
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 18, 2010, 13:37:16
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/index.php?topic=78466.msg888125#msg888125

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on July 05, 2010, 06:56:35
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/index.php?topic=78466.msg888125#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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mikhar1 on August 23, 2010, 23:18:07
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Varius on August 23, 2010, 23:19:31
Just before the mods get angry, you should tidy up your post a little!
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 24, 2010, 17:01:35
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: N. McKay on August 24, 2010, 22:50:04
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.)

Quote
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.)
Title: Re: B.C. shipbuilders seek share of $40 billion in federal funding
Post by: GK .Dundas on August 25, 2010, 14:33:42
Discussed time and time again.
and still being discussed
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mikhar1 on August 29, 2010, 19:12:56
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.

 
 
 
 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: aesop081 on August 29, 2010, 19:45:05
*snicker* We will have to take them on an exercise just to listen to the Greeks or Turks try and pronounce those names.  >:D

Meh.........its all JNAP anyways......
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on August 30, 2010, 04:43:42
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 30, 2010, 16:01:45
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: 57Chevy on September 01, 2010, 13:07:06
I found a little something of interest.
Nordic Nations Eye Joint High North Patrols  (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4070496)

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)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 03, 2010, 19:56:39
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.
Title: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: milnews.ca on September 21, 2010, 10:20:59
".... 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. (http://is.gd/fleLL) 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 (http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/ltgn-wplv-eng.html).
Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 21, 2010, 16:45:59
As Yoda would say: "To qualify for selection good is, to large ships build even better is". :)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on February 09, 2011, 18:32:59
I hear rumours that there has been another delay in the process.  Any news?

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 09, 2011, 21:02:29
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

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marinelog.com%2FIMAGESMMIX%2Fcandamen.jpg&hash=18bcac2246aa05c32552c7cf904c771a)

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/index.php/topic,99004.msg1017397.html#msg1017397

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on February 10, 2011, 11:01:02
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 10, 2011, 11:18:24
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 10, 2011, 12:11:02
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Redeye on February 10, 2011, 13:29:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on February 10, 2011, 13:56:56
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 10, 2011, 19:16:12
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.   :salute:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 11, 2011, 10:55:50
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 11, 2011, 15:32:24

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 11, 2011, 16:31:00
I for one, am pleased that we are naming ships after our Fallen. It is about time.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on February 11, 2011, 18:55:40
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Not a Sig Op on February 11, 2011, 20:04:52
Most of the existing coast guard ships have already been named for historical and noteworthy Canadians... glad to see they're continuing this...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: canuck101 on April 01, 2011, 07:08:48
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 (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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on June 02, 2011, 07:35:12
This (http://bit.ly/kjVgYr) from the Canadian Press:
Quote
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 ....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Strike on June 02, 2011, 08:42:10
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
Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 21, 2011, 16:18:19
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.
Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: milnews.ca on July 21, 2011, 16:22:30
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 (http://twitter.com/steve_rennie/statuses/94122874654306305), a briefing on the Big Honkin' Shipbuilding Strategy appears to be under way right now.
Quote
Senior officials from National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy Secretariat briefing reporters now in Ottawa.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on July 25, 2011, 21:29:45
Quote
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 (http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2011/07/seaspan-shipbuilding-bid-gets-boost-to-land-jobs-in-bc.html)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on July 26, 2011, 15:14:11
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/
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on July 29, 2011, 08:39:34
Davie's in....
Quote
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 (http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/acs-acb-eng.html) - more from the Montreal Gazette here (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Davie+Yards+approved+Ottawa/5173277/story.html).
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on July 29, 2011, 10:22:06
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!!
Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: Dan Fielding on September 13, 2011, 19:15:50
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.
Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: cupper on September 13, 2011, 19:48:43
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.

Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 14, 2011, 07:46:50
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!
Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: mad dog 2020 on September 14, 2011, 08:11:55
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. 
Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 14, 2011, 17:56:09
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.
Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: cupper on September 14, 2011, 19:56:46
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.
Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 14, 2011, 22:54:56
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...
Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 14, 2011, 22:58:28
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.
Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: cupper on September 14, 2011, 23:03:05
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
Title: Re: MERX: Who's Interested in Building Some Big Ships?
Post by: AJFitzpatrick on September 14, 2011, 23:36:26
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 ?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: FSTO on October 15, 2011, 18:11:27
With a decision coming this week who do you think are the shipyards that should win and will win the contracts?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: cupper on October 15, 2011, 18:15:20
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on October 15, 2011, 18:17:44
Whoever wins means alot of pers are going to get out and go to work for the shipyards.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: PuckChaser on October 15, 2011, 18:26:18
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: gcclarke on October 15, 2011, 19:12:06
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Bass ackwards on October 15, 2011, 19:27:45
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 ?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on October 15, 2011, 19:33:59
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 15, 2011, 19:35:05
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 crap 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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on October 15, 2011, 19:37:27

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 15, 2011, 20:05:48
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Bass ackwards on October 15, 2011, 20:20:36
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 ?   
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navalsnipr on October 15, 2011, 20:22:41
I would imagine that all three shipyard (BC, NS & QC) will get a piece of the pie.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on October 15, 2011, 20:59:57
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Bass ackwards on October 15, 2011, 21:14:52
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: cupper on October 15, 2011, 21:21:46
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: PuckChaser on October 15, 2011, 22:04:38
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: cupper on October 15, 2011, 22:20:05
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MightyIndustry on October 16, 2011, 02:31:57
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MightyIndustry on October 16, 2011, 02:36:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: recceguy on October 16, 2011, 03:04:31
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: cupper on October 16, 2011, 05:33:57
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Baden Guy on October 16, 2011, 07:24:21
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.  ;)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 16, 2011, 09:37:55
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 16, 2011, 09:50:12
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: PuckChaser on October 16, 2011, 10:05:23
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on October 16, 2011, 10:08:17
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on October 16, 2011, 10:14:15
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Occam on October 16, 2011, 10:37:26
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).

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 16, 2011, 10:51:32
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on October 16, 2011, 10:58:03
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on October 16, 2011, 11:00:20
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 16, 2011, 11:10:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Haletown on October 16, 2011, 12:16:10
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 16, 2011, 14:08:19
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MSEng314 on October 16, 2011, 14:25:34
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MightyIndustry on October 17, 2011, 01:27:02
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MightyIndustry on October 17, 2011, 02:03:09
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 17, 2011, 09:55:35
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Occam on October 17, 2011, 10:51:42
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 17, 2011, 11:15:15
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: dapaterson on October 17, 2011, 11:26:42
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 17, 2011, 12:07:26
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.
 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Occam on October 17, 2011, 12:16:52
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..."
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 17, 2011, 12:26:44
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Occam on October 17, 2011, 13:34:00
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.   ;)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: STONEY on October 17, 2011, 13:49:26
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Occam on October 17, 2011, 14:03:04
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 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/16/pol-vp-weston-shipbuilding.html)

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Journeyman on October 17, 2011, 14:24:21
The most funny, and sadly telling, line in the whole article:
"The whole bidding process has been unprecedented," said the senior government official. "Everything has been done to ensure there is a fair result."
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on October 17, 2011, 19:15:24
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...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MARS on October 17, 2011, 21:18:26
Shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act from today's Globe and Mail

Article Link (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harpers-team-keeps-hands-off-35-billion-shipbuilding-hot-potato/article2203643/)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Infanteer on October 17, 2011, 21:52:25
Wow, a decision being made without political interference.  Could such a thing be true?!?   :dunno:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: cupper on October 17, 2011, 21:54:07
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: I, Citizen on October 17, 2011, 22:51:23

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on October 18, 2011, 10:07:40
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 18, 2011, 10:40:25
Local lad having some fun with the "ships start here" campaign of Dexter.  http://starshipsstarthere.ca/
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Haletown on October 18, 2011, 10:47:09
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.

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Haletown on October 18, 2011, 10:54:09
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
"
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 18, 2011, 14:41:06
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 18, 2011, 15:14:14
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...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on October 18, 2011, 15:52:29
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: northernboy_24 on October 18, 2011, 16:07:18
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on October 19, 2011, 08:08:24
Decision day!
Anyone know what time and how they are making the announcement?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on October 19, 2011, 08:21:44
Decision day!
Anyone know what time and how they are making the announcement?
According to QMI/Sun Media (http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2011/10/18/18843951.html).....
Quote
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.....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on October 19, 2011, 11:00:38
$35B Tory ship project hits snag
Article Link (http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/19/35b-tory-ship-project-hits-snag/)
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 -
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 19, 2011, 11:27:39
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on October 19, 2011, 11:37:16
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on October 19, 2011, 11:55:44
The projected cost is for 2 Cantabrias or Berlins, and they're still having trouble getting it done.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 19, 2011, 12:03:31
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on October 19, 2011, 12:27:45
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on October 19, 2011, 12:36:15
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: canuck101 on October 19, 2011, 15:33:56
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Privateer on October 19, 2011, 17:19:04
Irving (Halifax) gets combat.  Vancouver gets non-combat.  Davie is out.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Haletown on October 19, 2011, 17:26:25
Good news all around . . .  of that $25b for Halifax, how much will end up in the Ottawa-Montreal-Toronto high tech sector?

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Scott on October 19, 2011, 17:46:30
Wow, this is going to be very positive for a lot of folks I know.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 19, 2011, 17:52:18
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on October 19, 2011, 17:52:47
From the official announcement (http://bit.ly/piVfVy):
Quote
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 ....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on October 19, 2011, 18:33:49
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...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 19, 2011, 19:07:18
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on October 19, 2011, 19:32:00
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 19, 2011, 19:50:55
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: cupper on October 19, 2011, 19:57:38
Anybody know if Irving can (or intends to) split the work between Halifax and Saint John?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 19, 2011, 20:03:15
They dismantled the St John operations after the contract was completed for the CPF, IIRC.  So in a nutshell, no.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Haletown on October 19, 2011, 20:05:46
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Privateer on October 19, 2011, 20:06:54
"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."

The JSS-type ships are in the non-combat package.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Haletown on October 19, 2011, 20:14:02
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: 57Chevy on October 19, 2011, 21:34:01
                             Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

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


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...

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on October 20, 2011, 11:38:12
Merged both Big Honkin' Ship threads, and adding the latest from the Defence Minister (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3965):
Quote
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.”
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MightyIndustry on October 20, 2011, 16:57:17
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.

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Haletown on October 20, 2011, 17:23:05
the USN operates under ice these days . . .  much easiie than breaking it.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on October 20, 2011, 19:33:15
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 20, 2011, 19:52:42
...unless you're primarily interested in what's happening on the surface and in the air.

That's what satellites are for.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on October 20, 2011, 22:36:45
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: cupper on October 20, 2011, 22:54:54
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:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 21, 2011, 08:38:59
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daviddarling.info%2Fimages%2Fgeostationary_orbit.jpg&hash=199d2ab8bf26bb9925645d80eed3e078)

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

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.factmonster.com%2Fimages%2FESCI189ORBITS001.gif&hash=a1e483af154228541e7520628ea94a38)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on October 21, 2011, 10:16:31
Ottawa can take over defaulting shipyards, $33-billion deal states
steven chase  Globe and Mail Thursday, Oct. 20, 2011
Article Link (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-can-take-over-defaulting-shipyards-33-billion-deal-states/article2208631/?cmpid=nl-news1)

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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 21, 2011, 11:08:24
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.  :salute:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Haletown on October 21, 2011, 11:52:49
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.  :salute:

start here

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

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on October 21, 2011, 17:15:29
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: recceguy on October 21, 2011, 17:28:39
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on October 21, 2011, 18:32:05
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.....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on October 22, 2011, 16:30:08
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on October 22, 2011, 16:39:50
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on October 23, 2011, 10:53:28
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 23, 2011, 19:28:22
I could be wrong

Don't think you are.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: cupper on October 23, 2011, 19:49:50
Most of the news reports I've read say 2013 before steel starts getting cut.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mad dog 2020 on November 01, 2011, 21:55:11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vREFipmBqNA
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on January 11, 2012, 22:59:41
Some word coming from the PM tomorrow (with him logging big Air Miles in between coast-to-coast announcements)?
Quote
.... 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 ....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: WEng on January 12, 2012, 10:01:43
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RangerRay on January 12, 2012, 10:18:10
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/

Quote
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.
Title: PM: Canada-Irving agreement-in-principle for big honkin' ships
Post by: milnews.ca on January 12, 2012, 10:32:31
Quote
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 (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=4576)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Journeyman on January 12, 2012, 10:53:16
A Tempest In a D-Cup
I wonder how long he's been waiting to use that line?   :not-again:




Edit: typo
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RangerRay on January 12, 2012, 11:05:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on January 12, 2012, 22:33:30
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
Title: Now, for the other bookend
Post by: milnews.ca on January 12, 2012, 22:50:19
Quote
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 (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=4578)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 13, 2012, 10:10:43
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

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.


Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on January 13, 2012, 13:10:09
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on January 13, 2012, 13:33:10
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.

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 13, 2012, 14:35:47
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on January 13, 2012, 15:34:00
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 14, 2012, 00:02:43
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on January 14, 2012, 15:04:16
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 14, 2012, 16:33:42
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....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 14, 2012, 16:44:32
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on January 14, 2012, 17:03:18
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 14, 2012, 17:15:45
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 14, 2012, 17:25:10
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 19, 2012, 16:34:00
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.
   
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on January 22, 2012, 23:15:11
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 23, 2012, 09:12:05
...
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.

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on January 23, 2012, 13:03:00
Quote
"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  (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Harper+heralds+shipbuilding+Halifax/5984305/story.html) article.....Now, about your delivery times  >:D
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Thucydides on January 23, 2012, 17:55:09
Now, about your delivery times  >:D

Quote
40 or 50 years

I'm pretty sure your answer is right there...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Haletown on January 31, 2012, 15:10:33
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jim7966 on January 31, 2012, 15:45:55
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: ekpiper on January 31, 2012, 22:32:01
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 :p.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 01, 2012, 07:43:29
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on February 01, 2012, 08:54:53
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 (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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 01, 2012, 09:38:24
I am not at liberty to provide more but start at: http://maritime.mil.ca/english/dgmfd/dmrs/Sections/dmrs_07/intro.asp (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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on February 03, 2012, 01:17:48
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 03, 2012, 10:57:35
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 03, 2012, 11:24:34
Because the West is mostly ready to go, whereas ISI need to do prep work to be ready to cut steel.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on February 03, 2012, 11:36:45
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 03, 2012, 12:54:58
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:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Not a Sig Op on February 03, 2012, 12:59:29
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on February 03, 2012, 15:07:08
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: cupper on February 03, 2012, 22:18:40
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: ekpiper on February 03, 2012, 23:01:02
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! :p

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 05, 2012, 13:03:30
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Haletown on February 08, 2012, 17:45:07
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/
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on February 08, 2012, 18:06:03
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....
Quote
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 (http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/warship/blohm-voss-naval/pressship-design-study-contract.html)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on May 03, 2012, 20:53:50
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on May 03, 2012, 21:32:15
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on May 03, 2012, 21:50:32
.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on May 03, 2012, 22:17:43

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on May 03, 2012, 22:35:44
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:

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hazegray.org%2Fnavhist%2Fcanada%2Fcurrent%2Ffuturddg%2Fprovince1.jpg&hash=44f037a304e3f9b4cd0c7b73413a5397)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on May 03, 2012, 23:05:39

"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:

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hazegray.org%2Fnavhist%2Fcanada%2Fcurrent%2Ffuturddg%2Fprovince1.jpg&hash=44f037a304e3f9b4cd0c7b73413a5397)
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on May 03, 2012, 23:15:43
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: ironduke57 on May 04, 2012, 13:09:48
Quote
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 (http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/warship/blohm-voss-naval/pressship-design-study-contract.html)
As a side note:

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

Pix:
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fh11.abload.de%2Fimg%2F6944292680_ec13888e4acgk19.jpg&hash=b5fd4f6bb8abf3576be69b12b2b74187)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fh11.abload.de%2Fimg%2F6944292650_4dfb2b9184q8jq5.jpg&hash=f3eb05e9103f1fbfcc1ed198b6503d7c)
(Guard of honour of the city of Bonn.)

Regards,
ironduke57
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on May 04, 2012, 13:20:35
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on June 21, 2012, 10:30:04
Navy destroyers will be retired before replacements arrive, documents reveal
 By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News June 20, 2012
Article Link (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Navy+destroyers+will+retired+before+replacements+arrive+documents/6814616/story.html)
 
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Virtuoso on June 25, 2012, 20:11:55
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on July 16, 2012, 19:46:55
Well, if things don't go rapidly enough we could always do what the Aussie's are doing......

The Spanish Test Drive
Article Link (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlog/20120716.aspx)
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on July 17, 2012, 12:12:14
It's actually a great idea, you get to test drive the ship and see what they are really like.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mad dog 2020 on September 02, 2012, 21:15:11

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 03, 2012, 12:11:59
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Infanteer on September 03, 2012, 12:36:26
The 'top general' retired.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on September 03, 2012, 12:51:26
The 'top general' retired.

Yeah, but that wouldn't fit the rant now would it.....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on September 03, 2012, 12:55:53
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 03, 2012, 13:12:39
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: aesop081 on September 03, 2012, 13:21:51
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.

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

You should watch the news a bunch more.

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

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

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RDJP on September 03, 2012, 14:16:29
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 ***?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 03, 2012, 14:52:46
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: aesop081 on September 03, 2012, 14:59:25
and no I am not trolling out of my ****. 

Your previous post suggest different.

 ::)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on September 03, 2012, 20:14:02
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RDJP on September 03, 2012, 20:30:56

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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 03, 2012, 22:26:17

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: aesop081 on September 03, 2012, 22:32:06
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 03, 2012, 22:55:15
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on September 03, 2012, 23:37:33
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  (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/sim-cnmi.nsf/eng/uv00050.html)

Quote
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.


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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 04, 2012, 00:00:33
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.


Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on September 04, 2012, 00:04:38
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 04, 2012, 00:19:51
Yes! Agreed!
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on September 04, 2012, 14:21:40
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 22, 2012, 07:53:11
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?

(https://farm9.static.flickr.com/8334/8108182439_03858e8222.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on October 22, 2012, 09:01:21
lowest bid?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 22, 2012, 09:05:22
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 22, 2012, 09:06:30
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...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 22, 2012, 09:08:54
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 22, 2012, 09:23:36

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Occam on October 22, 2012, 09:47:39

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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on October 22, 2012, 18:09:01
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on October 22, 2012, 18:20:15
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on October 23, 2012, 12:42:06
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on October 26, 2012, 08:47:15
Bump with an update from MERX (http://bit.ly/TjZ1b5) on one of the Big Honkin' Ship projects.....
Quote
.... 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 (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 (http://www.materiel.forces.gc.ca/en/cscp.page)

A little more detail in the MERX package (7 page PDF) here (http://bit.ly/P7UhoB).
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on October 26, 2012, 14:12:59
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on October 26, 2012, 15:29:30
I can't wait to see some designs! How many vls cells for the destroyers, how many for the frigates?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 30, 2012, 15:39:49
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...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on October 30, 2012, 17:13:33
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: ArmyRick on October 30, 2012, 19:07:53
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: FutureSailor on November 12, 2012, 17:24:49
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...  >:D

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..
Title: The latest from all kinds of Ministers ....
Post by: milnews.ca on November 15, 2012, 17:50:54
..... on Canadian Surface Combatant "industry engagement", via the PWGSC Info-machine (http://bit.ly/SPMZDg):
Quote
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.” ....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on November 16, 2012, 12:53:27
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 18, 2012, 13:24:57
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on November 21, 2012, 17:33:43
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 21, 2012, 18:36:41
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on November 21, 2012, 19:07:07
Quote
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".
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on November 21, 2012, 20:10:44
If only they would work on "gear that works".
No crap.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 21, 2012, 21:37:03
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 21, 2012, 21:44:26
.....

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.  :)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 21, 2012, 22:21:51
OK!
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 22, 2012, 00:00:10
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 22, 2012, 01:00:31
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 22, 2012, 01:09:23
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Occam on November 22, 2012, 01:59:03
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 22, 2012, 02:52:27
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on November 22, 2012, 06:07:59
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 22, 2012, 10:38:38
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on November 22, 2012, 10:52:10
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 22, 2012, 11:43:58
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on November 22, 2012, 13:04:51
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 22, 2012, 13:41:41
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/
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 22, 2012, 13:59:28
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 22, 2012, 14:04:17
I expect by the time our ships hit the water these systems will be standard.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Haletown on November 22, 2012, 15:37:38
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/

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on November 23, 2012, 19:29:16
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 26, 2012, 11:43:00
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on November 26, 2012, 11:47:36
It would probably be cheaper to just build new ships when the new technologies come online and are debugged.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 26, 2012, 13:31:34
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/
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on November 26, 2012, 13:40:01
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on November 26, 2012, 13:56:50
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on November 26, 2012, 14:02:23
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on November 26, 2012, 14:57:55
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 26, 2012, 15:08:50
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 26, 2012, 15:11:37
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 26, 2012, 15:13:54
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on November 26, 2012, 15:21:30
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on November 26, 2012, 15:42:06
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 26, 2012, 17:44:16
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 26, 2012, 17:59:04
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 26, 2012, 18:21:19
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 26, 2012, 19:13:28
.... 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?  :)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 26, 2012, 19:39:38
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on November 27, 2012, 12:27:27
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 27, 2012, 12:46:50
If Blackbeard got alongside you with grenadoes and cutlasses you would still have a problem today.  Some things never go out of fashion.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Occam on November 27, 2012, 13:17:54
Anti-ship missles that travel at ridiculous speeds

I won't get terribly worried until they reach ludicrous speed.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atlasfrontiers.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F05%2Fludicrous-speed.jpg&hash=f31dfcc651bfae67d0d04b32100baddc)

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 27, 2012, 13:41:14
Yes, ludicrous speed would be right over the top.  lol
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on December 02, 2012, 11:26:17
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on December 02, 2012, 13:24:00
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on December 02, 2012, 13:26:56
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on December 02, 2012, 15:51:36
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on December 02, 2012, 16:00:57
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on December 02, 2012, 16:10:17
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on December 02, 2012, 16:35:36
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  :o 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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on December 02, 2012, 16:57:27
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on December 02, 2012, 21:09:46
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Journeyman on December 02, 2012, 21:38:14
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:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on December 02, 2012, 21:43:50
You do know that the plasma continues to carry the current, right?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on December 02, 2012, 22:02:28
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.)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on December 02, 2012, 23:51:56
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on December 03, 2012, 05:46:24
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!
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on December 03, 2012, 17:22:27
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on December 04, 2012, 14:22:31
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on December 10, 2012, 20:26:46
Bigger picture stuff - seems Canada's now seeking MORE outside help (http://bit.ly/TQhXiI) ....
Quote
.... 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 (http://bit.ly/YV1i1t).
Title: More engagement
Post by: milnews.ca on February 19, 2013, 17:34:14
From the PWGSC Info-machine (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=721439&crtr.tp1D=1)....
Quote
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 (http://bit.ly/YxHjB6), 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 (http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/snacn-nsps-eng.html).

A few more details in the attached MERX document.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 21, 2013, 17:53:03
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"?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on February 23, 2013, 08:59:27
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 (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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on February 27, 2013, 14:45:58
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.
Title: Government, PBO on JSS
Post by: milnews.ca on February 28, 2013, 11:42:42
1)   Parliamentary Budget Officer (http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/files/files/JSS_EN.pdf) (69 page PDF)
Quote
…. 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 (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=723029&crtr.tp1D=1)
Quote
.... 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 ....
Title: Re: Government, PBO on JSS
Post by: Journeyman on February 28, 2013, 11:53:19
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 crap together and hope the blueprints are close"?

      ???
Title: Re: Government, PBO on JSS
Post by: GnyHwy on February 28, 2013, 12:15:11
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2013, 12:37:43
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on February 28, 2013, 12:49:14
.... 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.
Title: Re: Government, PBO on JSS
Post by: FSTO on February 28, 2013, 13:02:58
1)   Parliamentary Budget Officer (http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/files/files/JSS_EN.pdf) (69 page PDF)2)  From the Info-machine (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=723029&crtr.tp1D=1)

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2013, 13:10:38
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?   ???
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: FSTO on February 28, 2013, 13:25:53
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. >:(
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2013, 13:47:11
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):

Quote
   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 (http://paradijsvogel.multiply.com/journal/item/1/Royal-Netherlands-Navy-orders-new-Hr.Ms.Karel-Doorman)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on February 28, 2013, 13:49:58
Quote
.... Total costs € 384 million ....
FYI, that's about CDN $517 million (http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=384&From=EUR&To=CAD)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2013, 14:05:55
FYI, that's about CDN $517 million (http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=384&From=EUR&To=CAD)

And here's the Aviation Week pricing (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:f8724f9c-a245-4dc4-85f0-781818bd1b87) for the Danish Ivar Huitfeldts with APAR, SMART-L and Standard SM-2s

Quote
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsitelife.aviationweek.com%2Fver1.0%2FContent%2Fimages%2Fstore%2F4%2F0%2Fe43135c7-2d3c-43a9-9076-79dbd84746dd.Large.jpg&hash=10528028f39b2c0079b7f3cc66fde9c6)

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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsitelife.aviationweek.com%2Fver1.0%2FContent%2Fimages%2Fstore%2F1%2F1%2F918c8ce2-a602-4843-810e-c9504c3d25d0.Large.jpg&hash=7c1475ad0f2ab394936e6a945f73ef9f)

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 (http://forsvaret.dk/FMT/ENG/POLICIES/Pages/default.aspx)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: dapaterson on February 28, 2013, 14:33:04
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).
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: FSTO on February 28, 2013, 15:06:19
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2013, 15:40:43
PBO's assumptions:  (Page 7)

Quote

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: FSTO on February 28, 2013, 16:17:18
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: dapaterson on February 28, 2013, 16:27:04
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on February 28, 2013, 18:03:06
And here's the Aviation Week pricing (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:f8724f9c-a245-4dc4-85f0-781818bd1b87) 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 (http://forsvaret.dk/FMT/ENG/POLICIES/Pages/default.aspx)
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 09, 2013, 16:25:43
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mad dog 2020 on March 21, 2013, 08:45:47

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 Pugliese, 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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GAP on March 21, 2013, 09:18:13
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..... ::)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 21, 2013, 17:58:44
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:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Baden Guy on March 21, 2013, 18:23:42
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on March 21, 2013, 19:29:46
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Retired AF Guy on March 21, 2013, 20:18:47
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: FSTO on March 22, 2013, 02:53:56
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on March 23, 2013, 22:27:06
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on March 24, 2013, 09:50:30
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Baz on March 25, 2013, 03:12:14
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 25, 2013, 10:40:42
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...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Retired AF Guy on March 25, 2013, 11:13:17

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on March 25, 2013, 11:19:16
Never seen 2 ships in a class that were exactly the same anyways.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on March 25, 2013, 11:29:45
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!!
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on March 25, 2013, 12:00:21
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on March 25, 2013, 13:17:09
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".
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on March 25, 2013, 13:41:20
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 25, 2013, 14:51:38
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on March 25, 2013, 15:06:14
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 25, 2013, 15:32:13
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...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on March 25, 2013, 15:39:31
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 25, 2013, 16:07:32
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 25, 2013, 16:22:48

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...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 25, 2013, 16:58:28
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 25, 2013, 17:17:55
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Lineman on March 25, 2013, 20:03:39
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 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on March 25, 2013, 21:16:17
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on March 26, 2013, 10:22:50
The IRB's would be spread pretty thin in that situation, and we'd have the same block obsolesence problem we have today.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on March 26, 2013, 11:38:54
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 26, 2013, 11:57:18
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on March 26, 2013, 12:13:37
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on March 26, 2013, 12:29:13
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?  ::)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 26, 2013, 13:06:10
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/

Quote
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on March 26, 2013, 13:39:47
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.

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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on March 26, 2013, 14:00:45
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 26, 2013, 14:03:21
: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.


 :off 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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on March 26, 2013, 15:31:15
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on March 26, 2013, 16:26:17
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 26, 2013, 16:52:00
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 26, 2013, 16:52:21
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 26, 2013, 17:08:04
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on March 26, 2013, 17:50:28
I have found nothing that states the shipbuilding budget includes operational costs over time.  If anyone can find references for this please post them.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 26, 2013, 19:13:59
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Bass ackwards on March 26, 2013, 23:03:53
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) ?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on March 27, 2013, 00:15:45
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on March 27, 2013, 00:45:41
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 27, 2013, 10:51:07
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.....

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Bass ackwards on March 27, 2013, 12:23:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on March 27, 2013, 14:01:45
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on March 27, 2013, 16:29:06
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on March 27, 2013, 17:10:10
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 27, 2013, 19:04:46
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on March 27, 2013, 19:27:12
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on March 27, 2013, 19:35:05
No, I do not work for any such company.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on March 27, 2013, 20:00:27
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).
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ostrozac on March 27, 2013, 20:55:44
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on March 28, 2013, 11:59:01
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 28, 2013, 12:42:08
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 28, 2013, 15:47:56
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 *****.

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 28, 2013, 18:35:14
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 (http://www.gpai.com/data/spec_sheets/fv_northern_hawk.pdf)
Northern Jaeger (http://www.gpai.com/data/spec_sheets/fv_northern_jaeger.pdf)
Northern Eagle (http://www.gpai.com/data/spec_sheets/fv_northern_eagle.pdf)
Alaska Ocean (http://www.gpai.com/data/spec_sheets/fv_alaska_ocean.pdf)

Here is the Ulstein Group's information on the Hawk, Eagle and Ocean as well as another vessel I know, American Dynasty

Alaska Ocean (http://www.ulstein.com/Kunder/ulstein/cms66.nsf/pages/reflistd.htm?open&disp_key=E62D1572BE6700FEC12571BC003AB3F8)
Northern Hawk (http://www.ulstein.com/Kunder/ulstein/cms66.nsf/pages/reflistd.htm?open&disp_key=FF60767B91372ADCC12571BC003AB3BA)
Northern Eagle (http://www.ulstein.com/Kunder/ulstein/cms66.nsf/pages/reflistd.htm?open&disp_key=2AB0178380A8E17FC12571BC003AB573)
American Dynasty (http://www.ulstein.com/Kunder/ulstein/cms66.nsf/pages/reflistd.htm?open&disp_key=E8B39B4EF5F7C4ADC12571BC003AAECD)

A similar vessel, the American Monarch, was built in the late 90s at a fully outfitted cost of $68,000,000
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on March 29, 2013, 01:26:51
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: RV on March 29, 2013, 02:35:45

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on March 29, 2013, 09:59:28
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 (http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4334)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 29, 2013, 10:02:46
.....

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.  :)

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 29, 2013, 10:26:22
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on April 02, 2013, 12:52:02
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 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on April 02, 2013, 14:06:19
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).

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on April 02, 2013, 21:01:30
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on April 02, 2013, 21:19:04
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on April 08, 2013, 20:24:33
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/
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Halifax Tar on April 10, 2013, 16:38:38
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...  >:D

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: YZT580 on April 11, 2013, 23:05:31
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on April 12, 2013, 10:52:03
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).
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mad dog 2020 on April 20, 2013, 23:25:18
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on April 21, 2013, 03:21:48
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on April 22, 2013, 16:05:20
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.  :salute:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2013, 21:06:21
And we have a winner in the "who's going to take a second look at NSPS?" sweepstakes! (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=756669&crtr.tp1D=1)
Quote
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.

( .... )
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Acer Syrup on July 27, 2013, 10:30:20
And we have a winner in the "who's going to take a second look at NSPS?" sweepstakes! (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=756669&crtr.tp1D=1)

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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on July 29, 2013, 12:06:31
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on July 29, 2013, 17:27:13
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on August 13, 2013, 23:46:28
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 14, 2013, 14:45:22
Very sexy.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on August 14, 2013, 20:29:40
As an entirely un-Navy guy, I like its looks more than a Type 45.  Do they have the same/similar search radars?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on August 14, 2013, 21:47:07
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on August 15, 2013, 11:12:10
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on August 15, 2013, 11:40:59
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???
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 15, 2013, 12:53:05
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.

 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on August 15, 2013, 13:07:24
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 15, 2013, 16:19:33
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Underway on August 15, 2013, 16:44:33
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 16, 2013, 18:08:41
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on August 16, 2013, 18:23:17
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on August 16, 2013, 19:41:00

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on August 16, 2013, 20:16:31
 

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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Underway on August 16, 2013, 23:15:38
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Underway on August 22, 2013, 00:18:58
Looked through the thread but didn't see a link to this interesting report from the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute:  NSPS Update (http://cdfai.org/PDF/The%20National%20Shipbuilding%20Procurement%20Strategy%20-%20An%20Update.pdf)

This in particular caught my eye:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Inquisitor on August 22, 2013, 01:11:59
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Inquisitor on August 22, 2013, 01:37:49
Should have included that both the Tribals and Halifax class were well over budget.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on September 17, 2013, 08:08:31
Bumped with the latest suggestion (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/17/ian-brodie-a-new-model-for-defence-procurement/), 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 ....
Quote
.... 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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on September 22, 2013, 17:34:34
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 22, 2013, 21:03:19
My memory is that the Halifax class was very expensive.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Underway on September 22, 2013, 21:42:21
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 22, 2013, 22:57:19
I remember thinking, when they were built, about how expensive they were, wish we could find the actual numbers somewhere.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Halifax Tar on September 29, 2013, 17:13:25
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/26/petrolekas-and-perry-buy-this-ship/

Very interesting...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on September 29, 2013, 17:58:50
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).
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on October 06, 2013, 19:12:15
Stand by for an announcement Monday morning Vancouver time (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=778309&crtr.tp1D=3):
Quote
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 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=department-of-national-defence-technical-briefing/hmfznzux).
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on October 07, 2013, 13:09:43
Stand by for an announcement Monday morning Vancouver time (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=778309&crtr.tp1D=3)
And here it is (http://bit.ly/16ObcGT) ....
Quote
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 ....

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 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=department-of-national-defence-technical-briefing/hmfznzux).
Still have to wait and see....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on October 07, 2013, 13:20:21
So is that before or after they figure out the support ship or icebreaker issue?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on October 07, 2013, 14:14:56
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Privateer on October 11, 2013, 13:52:51
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 (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=780089&crtr.tp1D=1)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on October 11, 2013, 15:00:39
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: yoman on October 11, 2013, 17:18:25
Quote
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/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/11/shipbuilding-scheduling-conflict-means-taxpayers-on-the-hook-for-an-extra-55-million/)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on October 11, 2013, 18:25:34
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MilEME09 on October 11, 2013, 18:31:40
Just out of Curiosity, Can they only build one at a time due to space? or lack of workers?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 11, 2013, 18:46:38
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

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on October 11, 2013, 19:03:27
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.  ::)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 11, 2013, 19:59:57
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MilEME09 on October 11, 2013, 20:09:43
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 11, 2013, 22:42:24
Quote
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/index.php/topic,90990.msg1262825.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


Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 11, 2013, 23:22:28
By the way the JSS project was announced by the Liberal gov't in 2004:

Quote
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

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on October 11, 2013, 23:46:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 12, 2013, 00:01:48
Timely?  See:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,90990.msg1262868.html#msg1262868
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,90990.msg1262881.html#msg1262881

Timely was, has been, and is irrelevant.  All politics, politics, politics--and jobs, jobs, jobs.  And absolutely no reality.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on October 12, 2013, 01:17:00
Timely?  See:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,90990.msg1262868.html#msg1262868
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,90990.msg1262881.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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MilEME09 on October 12, 2013, 15:56:30
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

Quote
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 (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/National+Defence+looks+costs+faces+tough+decisions+future+Canadian/9012387/story.html)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 13, 2013, 14:02:27
From Kirkhill:

Quote
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: NavyShooter on October 14, 2013, 09:27:05
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 14, 2013, 09:57:07
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 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,111619.msg1257085.html#msg1257085).
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on October 14, 2013, 15:37:10
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/11/shipbuilding-scheduling-conflict-means-taxpayers-on-the-hook-for-an-extra-55-million/ (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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 14, 2013, 16:39:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on October 18, 2013, 22:50:25
JJT:

You may have an alternative after all - Davie is making an effort to rise from the dead (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/148703/babcock%2C-chantier-davie-team-for-canadian-market.html).

Quote
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
Quote
...to create a world-class tanker safety system in Canada.
  or Submarines........
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 25, 2013, 20:52:58
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 27, 2013, 09:52:25
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on October 27, 2013, 12:51:40
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mad dog 2020 on October 27, 2013, 12:52:25
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!
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mad dog 2020 on October 27, 2013, 12:57:07
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......
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: NavyShooter on October 27, 2013, 14:25:28
It is a time for Irving to shine......

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
 :irony:
 
 :trainwreck:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on October 27, 2013, 14:43:16
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 27, 2013, 14:52:12

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
 :irony:
 
 :trainwreck:

I wasn't going to hit such an obvious target, but seeing as you've opened the door...

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi61.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh76%2Ftbloggins%2F42fa79c2.gif&hash=dc7352a20933880d300c8e85c83f8399) (http://s61.photobucket.com/user/tbloggins/media/42fa79c2.gif.html)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: YZT580 on November 02, 2013, 13:30:17
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 02, 2013, 15:51:06
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on November 04, 2013, 15:30:20
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Halifax Tar on November 04, 2013, 15:48:09
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)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 04, 2013, 23:33:28
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencetech.technomuses.ca%2Fenglish%2Fcollection%2Fimages%2Finnovation%2Ffig1br1_w400.jpg&hash=6351c1b1e69e9e2caf0df8c610f42d07)

Link (http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/english/collection/innovation02.cfm)
 De Havilland Engineer's Statement (http://www.cntha.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87)

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: FSTO on November 05, 2013, 10:02:32
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 05, 2013, 11:00:07
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on November 05, 2013, 11:04:33
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]
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 05, 2013, 15:12:36
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.hulutrip.com%2F2013%2F0110%2F1357799847846.jpg&hash=a371eebac0b036ab5a3269ffb47ab0f9)   (https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theage.com.au%2Fffximage%2F2008%2F04%2F21%2FHongKongFerry_wideweb__470x287%2C0.jpg&hash=eda484086dae0d754833de4bc9f7a9a0)   (https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cal.io%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fphotos%2FHong_Kong_Macau_Ferry.jpg&hash=199b2dcc82b376c05e5e879d287e6935)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Cyrius007 on November 05, 2013, 15:57:09
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 05, 2013, 16:00:14
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 05, 2013, 16:14:32
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: SherH2A on November 05, 2013, 18:28:01
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on November 06, 2013, 15:01:25
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.250news.com%2Fimages%2FDebris0704MenOnWoodPile%2520%25281%2529.JPG&hash=bdc8b796edc64578e0b114cd1562ab32)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 06, 2013, 15:40:59
Wow!  :o  Yes, that makes the debris floating in the Zhujiang River Estuary look pretty tame.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on November 07, 2013, 15:21:45
People try to flag the worse ones

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnpratt.net%2F2011_files%2Fdead_head2.JPG&hash=67e864eb1680f66161ebafb98488d278)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_MNx1rRYTJZg%2FS-GEAJAtQoI%2FAAAAAAAABTc%2FV1-i1VnPBBk%2Fs400%2FRed%2BBridge%2B017.JPG&hash=e4988b1c9f78acd3ec0363dcca59015f)

Publicworks used to run snag boats on the river
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi168.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu183%2Faostling%2FWTPreston.jpg&hash=cddbc92d90d37155f41b304aa07f6043)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mad dog 2020 on November 15, 2013, 06:37:20
Just saw this and recall earlier the size and capacity of the Davie Shipbuilding.
Maybe we should built some of theses for India.
Quote
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 (http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/indian-navy-to-have-200-warships-in-ten-years-official-445681)

Mod edit to change source in accordance with Milnet.ca policy (http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php?topic=99046.0).
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MilEME09 on November 17, 2013, 17:30:25
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

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 17, 2013, 20:31:58
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..... ::)

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 18, 2013, 07:54:37
Here's the tradeoff:

     
Quote
     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 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/canada-first-defence-strategy.page?), 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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on November 18, 2013, 11:34:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 18, 2013, 11:41:36
I expect that Seaspan is going to do a good job, but I wish we could replace Irving with Davie. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 18, 2013, 11:45:11
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: recceguy on November 18, 2013, 21:04:57
Too bad we couldn't do like Paul Martin and Canada Steamship Lines, buying all our ships overseas. ;)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: dapaterson on November 18, 2013, 21:08:21
And remember to use foreign crews to save more money.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: recceguy on November 18, 2013, 21:17:27
.......and register offshore in weird little countries ;D
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on November 19, 2013, 11:29:05
RNN or RLN (Royal Nigerian Navy or Royal Latvian Navy)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 19, 2013, 14:44:24
Well, look what Fedvav does:

Quote
Look How Fast One Can Get an Icebreaker…
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1599

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 19, 2013, 15:23:24
But Mark .... that ship is built to Civilian standards  >:D

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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 26, 2013, 13:05:11
Summary from the OAG report just out (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201311_03_e_38797.html) - not atrocious remarks on the NSPS, but may have to adjust the # of ships - highlights mine:
Quote
.... 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.

(....)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 26, 2013, 16:25:33
Kirkhill:

Quote
But Mark .... that ship is built to Civilian standards  >:D
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,90990.msg1270573.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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on November 26, 2013, 19:55:55
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on November 26, 2013, 21:11:05
If we were buying from other countries the budget would be enough.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 26, 2013, 22:25:57
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.   
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on November 27, 2013, 01:33:43
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 27, 2013, 02:02:35
 :goodpost:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on November 27, 2013, 09:22:12
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)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mad dog 2020 on December 16, 2013, 07:50:31
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 16, 2013, 08:38:33
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 (http://www.fin.gc.ca/comment/minfin-eng.asp) and the President of the Treasury Board (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbs-sct/abu-ans/tb-ct/president-eng.asp) get a bigger say about the defence budget than does the Minister of National Defence (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-org-structure/minister-national-defence.page?).

(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).)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: S.M.A. on March 07, 2014, 19:21:01
An update for this thread:

Quote

from: CBC News (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/shipbuilding-memo-shows-more-delays-cost-overruns-213605415.html)
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

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 07, 2014, 19:25:43
An update for this thread:

Here is a useful DND infographic from that CBC report:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiKTkciCUAAZKlU.jpg)

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 07, 2014, 19:56:42
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 08, 2014, 12:40:31
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on March 08, 2014, 14:11:26
Here is a useful DND infographic from that CBC report:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiKTkciCUAAZKlU.jpg)

I wonder how a procurement process is good if there are otherwise problems with: money, capability and people?  ???
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: mad dog 2020 on March 08, 2014, 19:28:57
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.   
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Schindler's Lift on March 08, 2014, 20:36:37
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 08, 2014, 20:44:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Old EO Tech on March 09, 2014, 00:53:46
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on March 09, 2014, 08:59:59
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AirDet on March 09, 2014, 09:44:27
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 09, 2014, 11:22:50
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.


Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 09, 2014, 13:06:23
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:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 09, 2014, 13:16:25
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Schindler's Lift on March 09, 2014, 14:23:27
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: FSTO on March 09, 2014, 14:55:41
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AirDet on March 09, 2014, 15:30:53
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 09, 2014, 16:36:06
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!
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on April 09, 2014, 01:29:39
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on April 10, 2014, 17:01:25
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."  :'(
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 13, 2014, 20:51:08
And then how many years for the Memorandum to Cabinet ;)?

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on May 23, 2014, 18:04:23
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!
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marinelink.com%2Fimages%2Fmaritime%2Fw500h600%2F5-27629.jpg&hash=858feffa89912c0707925afe8383bf00)

Seaspan'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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: milnews.ca on May 26, 2014, 08:43:48
Meanwhile, the sausage machine behind the scenes grinds on (http://bit.ly/1noDDAn) ....
Quote
.... 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:
Quote
.... This RFI is neither a call for tender nor a Request for Proposal (RFP) ....
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on May 26, 2014, 09:07:14
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. 

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 26, 2014, 12:44:06
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.



Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 04, 2014, 12:18:56
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: YZT580 on September 05, 2014, 22:58:13
Those two Mistrals just became available: one for immediate delivery.  France has temporarily suspended the contract. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: S.M.A. on September 05, 2014, 23:58:16
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 (http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,111881.msg1325757.html#msg1325757) of the delivery of the first ship, Vladivostok, till November (http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,88747.msg1325766.html#msg1325766). The 2nd one, Sevastopol, will still be delivered next year.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MilEME09 on September 07, 2014, 07:18:34
http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news.php/news/1564

Quote
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.


Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on September 08, 2014, 13:11:43
As stated in both the other two threads that mentioned the Mistrals, it's only a temporary halting (http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,111881.msg1325757.html#msg1325757) of the delivery of the first ship, Vladivostok, till November (http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,88747.msg1325766.html#msg1325766). 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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on September 19, 2014, 13:15:28
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on September 19, 2014, 20:26:51
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on September 20, 2014, 12:02:10
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.



.
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on September 20, 2014, 12:15:33
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 20, 2014, 13:44:10
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on September 20, 2014, 15:42:22
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

Quote
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.


Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on September 20, 2014, 16:35:56

Quote
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.

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 20, 2014, 19:51:54


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.



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!
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on September 21, 2014, 18:26:50
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....







Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on September 23, 2014, 14:09:04
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

 
Quote
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 ?



Quote
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  :salute:, 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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on September 26, 2014, 23:08:58
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:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: AlexanderM on September 27, 2014, 16:32:32
Does that figure include the cost of the Halifax Shipyard Modernization project ?
I beleive the said program was $300 million and is now complete.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: S.M.A. on October 06, 2014, 03:50:48
For those thinking of the CSC:

Quote
Navantia positions itself for the Canadian Surface Combatant program
FRIDAY OCTOBER 3, 2014 12:09

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defensa.com%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fnoticias%2F2014%2F10%2Fship_ff.jpg&hash=b80a2cc0854d2e949777092a3b1633d3)

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 (http://www.defensa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13442:navantia-se-posiciona-para-el-reemplazo-de-los-buques-de-combate-canadienses&catid=54:espana&Itemid=162) (original article in Spanish)

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on December 19, 2014, 13:47:57
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on December 19, 2014, 18:06:57
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on December 19, 2014, 18:09:32
Been a long time since they had a government new build so they had to survive in the real world.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MilEME09 on January 11, 2015, 17:46:34
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 11, 2015, 18:50:35
They are also putting out feelers for 6B HT's as well.  I'm sure they're looking at other trades too.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on January 11, 2015, 18:58:28
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 11, 2015, 19:10:47
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: NavyShooter on January 11, 2015, 20:48:34
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on January 11, 2015, 21:13:08
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on January 15, 2015, 13:17:54
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 15, 2015, 14:23:58
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.
 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 15, 2015, 15:09:14
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on January 15, 2015, 15:50:02
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 15, 2015, 16:40:14
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: YZT580 on January 15, 2015, 19:13:32
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on January 15, 2015, 19:32:58
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'
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on January 15, 2015, 19:37:37
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"?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on January 15, 2015, 21:54:07
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:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on January 16, 2015, 01:53:17
The decisions that are being made: Are they suitable for porting to the CSC project as standard solutions?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on January 17, 2015, 10:49:54
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/ (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.

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 17, 2015, 11:02:40
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...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on January 17, 2015, 12:25:39
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: donaldk on January 17, 2015, 16:11:02
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 :)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 17, 2015, 17:38:35
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: donaldk on January 17, 2015, 19:47:05
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...
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on January 17, 2015, 21:18:51
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on January 18, 2015, 10:19:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on January 18, 2015, 12:22:18
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 18, 2015, 12:57:41
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 frig 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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on January 19, 2015, 13:51:11
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Blue on January 19, 2015, 15:28:51
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.

 :salute:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Retired AF Guy on January 20, 2015, 21:15:02
Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.

Quote
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  (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/irving-named-prime-contractor-for-canadian-surface-combatant-warships-1.2920071)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Navy_Pete on January 22, 2015, 10:19:50
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.
Title: Canada set to scale back shipbuilding plan, go over budget
Post by: S.M.A. on May 01, 2015, 17:58:36
Scaling back...

Reuters (http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0NM4ES20150501)

Quote
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)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MilEME09 on May 01, 2015, 19:32:40
By the time the last ship is built it will already be obsolete
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on May 01, 2015, 19:38:34
By the time the last ship is built it will already be obsolete

So what do you base this on?
Title: Re: Canada set to scale back shipbuilding plan, go over budget
Post by: cupper on May 01, 2015, 19:45:06
Scaling back...

Reuters (http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0NM4ES20150501)

And this is why we can't have nice things.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MilEME09 on May 01, 2015, 19:50:20
So what do you base this on?

Quote
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on May 01, 2015, 20:06:20
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MilEME09 on May 01, 2015, 20:13:16
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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on May 01, 2015, 20:57:45
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Monsoon on May 02, 2015, 02:35:28
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).
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on May 02, 2015, 06:21:42
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chief Stoker on May 02, 2015, 07:06:23
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on May 02, 2015, 07:24:09
As always.  Their minds, eyes and senses may be sharpened with the nice new IMPS/BDCS and combat suites, but their bodies are frail.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on May 02, 2015, 13:04:14
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on May 02, 2015, 13:35:43
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on May 02, 2015, 16:35:48
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... ;)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: dapaterson on May 04, 2015, 10:26:43
CBC article on Canadian shipbuilding at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-vast-shipbuilding-plan-still-at-starting-line-1.3058147

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Lumber on May 04, 2015, 12:51:49
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on May 04, 2015, 13:06:02
The solution is to order some hulls from overseas for the stuff we need now, ie the supply ships.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 04, 2015, 13:27:13
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Halifax Tar on May 04, 2015, 15:39:44
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MilEME09 on May 04, 2015, 15:56:04
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Halifax Tar on May 04, 2015, 16:01:34
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 06, 2015, 12:33:42
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.

Quote
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 (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/163406/canada-plans-to-select-warship-designer-by-2017.html)

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on May 07, 2015, 08:29:34
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 07, 2015, 12:59:49
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on May 07, 2015, 15:27:44
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.  :salute:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 07, 2015, 15:52:14
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.antiquemaps-fair.com%2Fimages%2Flarge%2Fi_101%2F18168.jpg&hash=32af7951212261d79c66b358ad4803dd)

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 (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/January/Pages/Game-ChangingLaserCommunicationsReadyForFielding,VendorsSay.aspx)

Fielding of Laser/MMW Combo as civilian cell tower alternative. (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/532346/laser-radio-links-upgrade-the-internet/)

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



Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 07, 2015, 16:54:15
What a coinkydink.  Look at what I found in today's Defense-Aerospace press releases....  Link (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/163456/italy-launches-%E2%82%AC5.8bn-naval-plan.html)

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).

Quote
Fincantieri and Finmeccanica Will Renew the Italian Navy Fleet

(Source: joint Fincantieri/Finmeccanica release; issued May 7, 2015)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defense-aerospace.com%2Fbase%2Futil%2F163456_2F.jpg&hash=73048c89ae462e8a084bb5127689e1bf)

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Underway on May 07, 2015, 23:17:13
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on May 08, 2015, 11:34:59
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 08, 2015, 12:42:22
Italians going for versatility, note also JSS-type vessel:

Quote
Italian Ship Production Deal Signed

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2F-mm-%2F35b885b6d3c3e588aa5b56ff929cdbcd6c56e693%2Fc%3D1575-0-4941-2531%26amp%3Br%3Dx404%26amp%3Bc%3D534x401%2Flocal%2F-%2Fmedia%2F2015%2F05%2F07%2FDefenseNews%2FDefenseNews%2F635665951563873828-DSC-3377c.JPG&hash=1fc1004fe9a138ab8550706cce20b7ee)

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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Pat in Halifax on May 09, 2015, 06:32:24
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: GR66 on May 09, 2015, 15:12:27
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 09, 2015, 18:41:40
.....

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.




Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Underway on May 09, 2015, 21:26:37
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. 


Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on May 10, 2015, 00:27:31
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 10, 2015, 10:54:43
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on May 10, 2015, 11:16:18
 :goodpost:

Nicely put.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on May 10, 2015, 11:40:03

 This is right in the F125, Italian FREMM, Horizon Class, range.  The 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.


Quote
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.



Quote
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.


Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on May 10, 2015, 11:52:53

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.

Quote
Type 26 - 6000

As mentioned earlier, the T26 has experienced significant growth and is almost certainly going to be a +7000 tonnes warship.





Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 10, 2015, 12:55:16
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.



Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 10, 2015, 14:38:17
Oh! Kirkhill, Kirkhill, Kirkhill.

I don't even know where to start!

Here goes (I'll try).

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 :) .
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 10, 2015, 15:01:25
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 10, 2015, 15:14:23
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 10, 2015, 15:45:28
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 10, 2015, 15:52:34
My error the actual quote is:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 10, 2015, 15:59:01
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: FSTO on May 10, 2015, 16:10:06
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 10, 2015, 16:46:58
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.

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 10, 2015, 16:49:24
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 10, 2015, 16:53:02
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 10, 2015, 17:20:02
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. 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Ostrozac on May 10, 2015, 17:55:28

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?
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 10, 2015, 18:42:31
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
 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Baz on May 10, 2015, 19:10:12
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.

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 ;-)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 10, 2015, 19:34:42
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

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwpmedia.o.canada.com%2F2013%2F07%2Fnanook.jpg%3Fw%3D640&hash=b254245b6a5027e93ccfbbc875171338)

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.
 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: FSTO on May 10, 2015, 20:54:47
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: jollyjacktar on May 10, 2015, 21:03:54
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 10, 2015, 21:32:33
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: boot12 on May 10, 2015, 21:41:16
As to the issue of operating frigates in the Eastern Arctic

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwpmedia.o.canada.com%2F2013%2F07%2Fnanook.jpg%3Fw%3D640&hash=b254245b6a5027e93ccfbbc875171338)

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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Good2Golf on May 11, 2015, 09:12:41
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... ;)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 11, 2015, 12:16:11
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
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Underway on May 11, 2015, 12:26:11
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.

Quote
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.

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 11, 2015, 13:13:44
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Underway on May 11, 2015, 13:59:25
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  (http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/a-high-low-future-surface-fleet/)
situation that seems to match what we are discussing here.

In particular this quote:

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  (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/canada-first-defence-strategy.page) list we might not be arguing in a vacuum.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 11, 2015, 14:05:23
@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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Underway on May 11, 2015, 16:17:25
As I'm on a document bender right now here is an Australian perspective (http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/sea-state-future-frigate-contenders/) 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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 12, 2015, 02:26:01
Underway -

One of your finds needs to highlighted.  It was seemingly misfiled

The Future of The German Navy (https://www.aspi.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/26501/Mannhardt-Emerging-trends-in-naval-operations-in-the-Asia-Pacific-slides.pdf)

The key note element is the F125 Stabilization Frigate (https://www.aspi.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/26503/Kamerman-The-German-experience-slides.pdf) - 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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on May 12, 2015, 21:55:51
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. :salute:
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 12, 2015, 22:53:26
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Colin P on May 13, 2015, 11:35:07
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Underway on May 13, 2015, 12:51:19
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Underway on May 13, 2015, 14:23:06

The key note element is the F125 Stabilization Frigate (https://www.aspi.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/26503/Kamerman-The-German-experience-slides.pdf) - 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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 13, 2015, 16:00:38
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarineforum.info%2FDauerbrenner%2FHiTaTa-2015%2Fhitata-2.jpg&hash=d3bd3afa508e2b92d11a7b328845e062)

Quote
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 (http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/1421/Germany-orders-4-new-frigates-and-other-news?page=5#.VVOaUvlVhBc)

Quote
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 (http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/1421/Germany-orders-4-new-frigates-and-other-news?page=5#.VVOaUvlVhBc)
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Underway on May 15, 2015, 10:13:03
Interesting article in Frontline Defence (http://www.frontline-defence.com/contents/15DEF2-3D/index.html) 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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 15, 2015, 11:41:25
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.
 
Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: Spencer100 on May 15, 2015, 12:16:07
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 (http://www.canada.com/shipbuilding+program+headed+trouble/11057727/story.html)

Title: Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
Post by: