Author Topic: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy  (Read 707848 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 129
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2275 on: July 11, 2018, 21:38:55 »
Seems to me the industrial capacity needs as much work as the political capacity. Example: this thread is nearly 10 years old- first ship yet to be launched. The JSS AOR thread is 14 years old, no new AOR except for a lease.  There are many things dysfunctional in Canada, this must be near the top?

Spot on.
How long did it take to begin receiving replacements for the sea-kings? And we are not done receiving them yet....over 25 yrs from when Mulroney signed the original contract.

I understand the difference of having the capacity to build the ships is completely separate from how many ships we actually build. My original question was why ships over planes? Why not planes over ships? Why not both? We used to do both. So far I’ve only had one person attempt to answer my question. That we are an island, therefore we need to continue to have the ability to build ships. Is that it? Is that the answer?

Offline serger989

  • New Member
  • **
  • 690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 26
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2276 on: July 12, 2018, 02:07:15 »
Spot on.
How long did it take to begin receiving replacements for the sea-kings? And we are not done receiving them yet....over 25 yrs from when Mulroney signed the original contract.

I understand the difference of having the capacity to build the ships is completely separate from how many ships we actually build. My original question was why ships over planes? Why not planes over ships? Why not both? We used to do both. So far I’ve only had one person attempt to answer my question. That we are an island, therefore we need to continue to have the ability to build ships. Is that it? Is that the answer?

I think that the only way Canada would gain more aerospace industry capability would be if Airbus/BAE/Dassault or SAAB allow us to manufacture their products (Gripen/Typhoon/C295 etc etc) in conjunction with Bombardier. I really don't see it happening any other way politically. If for instance we ignore the Lockheed and Boeing bids in our fighter jet competition and instead go European, I could see an agreement where we can build in Canada. It's not out of the realm of possibility, but it would never happen on our own, at least I don't think so.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 647
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2277 on: July 12, 2018, 04:35:25 »
I believe Dassault had already suggested we could build Rafale under license & even suggested full technology transfer.  So it's definitely within the realm of possibility if we decided to go down that road...but that's a discussion for another thread.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 21,587
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 300
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2278 on: July 12, 2018, 10:40:12 »
Spot on.
How long did it take to begin receiving replacements for the sea-kings? And we are not done receiving them yet....over 25 yrs from when Mulroney signed the original contract.

I understand the difference of having the capacity to build the ships is completely separate from how many ships we actually build. My original question was why ships over planes? Why not planes over ships? Why not both? We used to do both. So far I’ve only had one person attempt to answer my question. That we are an island, therefore we need to continue to have the ability to build ships. Is that it? Is that the answer?

Canada isn't in the buisness of designing ships, we are shopping for foreign designs and then building them. We may decide on a fighter than can be built in Canada under license just like the ships are.

Canadian companies are part of the F-35 build process and we haven't even decided to buy the aircraft, so there is already a Canadian aeorspace industry that is competing on the international stage. Canada also has a sucessful land systems industry, small arms industry, and small arms ammunition indusrty to name a few other things we do in Canada beyond ships.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,585
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2279 on: July 12, 2018, 15:35:29 »
I’m pretty certain that Canada has designed most if not all of the ships that it has built since 1950 with the exception of the aircraft carriers and submarines. For this go-around, a more accurate statement would be that Canada is looking to adopt a design and then build from there.

Canadian aero-tech companies receive F35 contractual work not just on the merits of their abilities but because the feds contribute dollars to the development of the aircraft in exchange for industrial benefits and therefore some work must flow back to Canada.

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2280 on: July 12, 2018, 16:32:13 »
I’m pretty certain that Canada has designed most if not all of the ships that it has built since 1950 with the exception of the aircraft carriers and submarines.
Yes.  The St. Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie, Annapolis, and Iroquois-class ships were all, if I am not mistaken, designed by Canadians in Canada.  Perhaps also the Halifax class.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 126,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,401
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2281 on: July 12, 2018, 16:51:32 »
Correct on all counts, Uzlu - even for the Halifax's.

In fact, we were going to design the next class too under the NSBS, but then the Liberals took power and thought they could save time and money (by reducing uncertainty) by using an already developed design. It hasn't worked yet and is unlikely to work in the end because, as I have explained before, everything is packed so tight in a warship that, as soon as you change one little thing somewhere in the design, it snowballs all the way down to everything else and ends up being a new design anyway. That's the truth they are in the process of rediscovering now, and with the delays to go with it - and which the French builders, by offering the FREMM's built their way but in Canada wanted to avoid and save Canada money.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 417,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,762
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2282 on: July 12, 2018, 17:03:36 »
The RCAF learned / was forced to learn that lesson - somehow, we avoided a long procurement cycle and delays by buying Herc Js and C17s right off the line - about the only Canadianization is the roundel.

Somehow, the lessons learned of lower cost, faster delivery and easier sustainment haven't made their way into the National Irving Bailout Strategy.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 571
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2283 on: July 12, 2018, 17:58:36 »
The RCAF learned / was forced to learn that lesson - somehow, we avoided a long procurement cycle and delays by buying Herc Js and C17s right off the line - about the only Canadianization is the roundel.

Somehow, the lessons learned of lower cost, faster delivery and easier sustainment haven't made their way into the National Irving Bailout Strategy.

You can do that with airplanes because the OEM supports the model right off the line through it's life.  You can't do that with ships because there is no OEM.

If you look at the Fincantieri hail mary, the $30B was for the cost of just the ships.  If you read the Defence Watch article where he interviewed Mr. Finn a month or so ago, he broke down the project costs into where it went.  About 50% went to the hulls, so if you do the math, we're in the same boat. Plus we don't have to pay for them to redo all the production engineering to build in Canada, or update the design to meet newer safety standards, or re-engineer things like the domestic power supply (from 220 V 50Hz to NA power).  And they aren't dumb; they know there will be a bunch of arisings, and we'd pay through the nose, so it was all a bit of a bullshit stunt. Would have been sweet to go spend a year or two in Italy for the first few crews for training, but then who cares about the costs of hundreds of full moves overseas?

Oh, and the supply chain would all be whatever the existing was is, so sure it would have been fun to try and get parts sent over from Europe and not result in major delays, TRANREQs out the rear, and other shenanigans for basic consumables once in service.


Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 120,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,598
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2284 on: August 10, 2018, 15:34:52 »

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 62,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,031
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2285 on: August 10, 2018, 16:35:53 »
What ships might Davie build? One big icebreaker for CCG? Other big breakers? CCG Offshore Patrol Vessels from Seaspan planned for late 2020s? Big Honking Amphib with humanitarian also in mind?

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 440
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2286 on: August 10, 2018, 17:06:50 »
What ships might Davie build? One big icebreaker for CCG? Other big breakers? CCG Offshore Patrol Vessels from Seaspan planned for late 2020s? Big Honking Amphib with humanitarian also in mind?

Mark
Ottawa
Depends on what it means when it says, from the article, "But Parliamentary Secretary for Procurement Steven MacKinnon announced Ottawa will reopen the shipbuilding procurement agreement at a news conference Friday."


Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 126,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,401
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2287 on: August 10, 2018, 18:02:04 »
What ships might Davie build? One big icebreaker for CCG? Other big breakers? CCG Offshore Patrol Vessels from Seaspan planned for late 2020s? Big Honking Amphib with humanitarian also in mind?

Mark
Ottawa

Just looking at Ocean's Canada side, including the Coast Guard, here are ships in dire need of a replacement plan outside the ones currently under the Strategy: Five to six new River icebreakers, eight new Multi-task vessels, two ocean research vessels, two survey ships, four river survey ships, two ocean SAR vessels. Add to that the BH Amphib you mention as a possibility and there is enough extra work to keep all three yards busy for fifteen year, especially if the government wakes up to the increase need for defence spending to satisfy our Southern neighbour, which might entice them to get three to five more surface combatants and perhaps a third full-fledged AOR, so we might contribute two ships at all times to the new NATO "thirty ships" rapid deployment force that is coming up.

If you look at our defence needs closely, you can see that smaller inshore patrol vessels for the RCN to provide back-up support to potential anti-terrorist ops by other government departments (as we had to do for the Oka crisis with PBL ACADIAN, but have no capability to do today) and possibly better Offshore patrol vessels in the 1200-1500 tons  / 25 Kts capable range to supplement the AOPS in the South could also be nice to have ships in view of the threat in our current world.
 
+300

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 120,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,598
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2288 on: August 10, 2018, 19:05:11 »
Now your sounding like a bloody Aussie naval officer, highly un-Canadian to actually fill a defense need.  8)

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 194,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,179
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2289 on: August 10, 2018, 19:25:11 »
Just looking at Ocean's Canada side, including the Coast Guard, here are ships in dire need of a replacement plan outside the ones currently under the Strategy: Five to six new River icebreakers, eight new Multi-task vessels, two ocean research vessels, two survey ships, four river survey ships, two ocean SAR vessels. Add to that the BH Amphib you mention as a possibility and there is enough extra work to keep all three yards busy for fifteen year, especially if the government wakes up to the increase need for defence spending to satisfy our Southern neighbour, which might entice them to get three to five more surface combatants and perhaps a third full-fledged AOR, so we might contribute two ships at all times to the new NATO "thirty ships" rapid deployment force that is coming up.

If you look at our defence needs closely, you can see that smaller inshore patrol vessels for the RCN to provide back-up support to potential anti-terrorist ops by other government departments (as we had to do for the Oka crisis with PBL ACADIAN, but have no capability to do today) and possibly better Offshore patrol vessels in the 1200-1500 tons  / 25 Kts capable range to supplement the AOPS in the South could also be nice to have ships in view of the threat in our current world.
 

And if the moratorium/ban on tankers on the west coast were lifted then there would be need enough for Norwegian style support vessels (Barentshav, Harstad, Alesund and Nornen) that would supply work for SeaSpan, Victoria and Vancouver, jobs, and dollars - all paid out of Alberta oil and gas revenues.



"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 473,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,268
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2290 on: August 11, 2018, 07:51:41 »
And if the moratorium/ban on tankers on the west coast were lifted then there would be need enough for Norwegian style support vessels (Barentshav, Harstad, Alesund and Nornen) that would supply work for SeaSpan, Victoria and Vancouver, jobs, and dollars - all paid out of Alberta oil and gas revenues.


I guess it's a question of just how far one might be able to stretch the national security loophole in international trade law ~ something about which OGBD will know far more than I. It seems to me that almost anything related to the military, a coast guard and government research will qualify ... it seems to me that if it's painted white or grey (or RCMP blue) and crewed by people paid by the government then it probably qualifies.

The aim of the NSPS is to rebuild (some of) our shipyards by allowing them to retool using government contracts and then have government work to provide a base upon which they can survive when they cannot get enough civil work. The actual needs of the Navy and Coast Guard are secondary, even tertiary concerns.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 194,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,179
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2291 on: August 11, 2018, 13:40:49 »

I guess it's a question of just how far one might be able to stretch the national security loophole in international trade law ~ something about which OGBD will know far more than I. It seems to me that almost anything related to the military, a coast guard and government research will qualify ... it seems to me that if it's painted white or grey (or RCMP blue) and crewed by people paid by the government then it probably qualifies.

The aim of the NSPS is to rebuild (some of) our shipyards by allowing them to retool using government contracts and then have government work to provide a base upon which they can survive when they cannot get enough civil work. The actual needs of the Navy and Coast Guard are secondary, even tertiary concerns.

If the vessels were "fitted for not with", as some of the Norwegian fleet is, then that security loophole probably grows pretty wide.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 571
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2292 on: August 12, 2018, 14:04:25 »

The aim of the NSPS is to rebuild (some of) our shipyards by allowing them to retool using government contracts and then have government work to provide a base upon which they can survive when they cannot get enough civil work. The actual needs of the Navy and Coast Guard are secondary, even tertiary concerns.

That's not really accurate; the Navy was the one that was pushing for the NSPS, as having shipyards in Canada with a load leveled schedule means that we have that strategic capacity to build, and makes it more likely we'll actually replace our ships before they completely fall apart.  Short and medium term means the first few ships are loss leaders, but long term means we've got similar capabilities to our allies (RAN, RN, etc) at a strategic level.  I hate politics in general, but this does make it more likely that we'll at least think of getting funding to build something after CSC, and maybe even consider doing something similar to our allies and selling off the first batch of CSC (rather than an MLR) and build a replacement flight.
+300

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2293 on: August 13, 2018, 20:34:32 »
I am assuming Davie is going to be building mostly icebreakers.  But Irving and Seaspan better build high-quality ships on time and on budget.
Quote
Halifax Shipyard seeks confirmation from the Federal Government regarding the National Shipbuilding Strategy

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, Aug. 13, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The following is a statement from Irving Shipbuilding seeking confirmation from the Federal Government regarding the National Shipbuilding Strategy:

On Friday, August 10th, Steven MacKinnon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Service and Procurement Canada and Member of Parliament (Gatineau, Quebec) stated that Davie Shipyard in Levis, Quebec will have opportunities to bid and win work under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS).  Mr. MacKinnon also described Davie as a solid partner in the NSS, effectively equating Davie to Irving Shipbuilding and Vancouver Shipyards which were both selected in a national competition in 2011 for the exclusive right to build Canada’s future Coast Guard ships and future Navy combatants and auxiliary ships.

In developing the framework for the NSS, Canada acknowledged that there was not enough future large ship construction required for the Navy and Coast Guard to sustain more than two shipyards and their skilled workforce.  It was through a fully transparent and competitive process that Irving Shipbuilding and Vancouver Shipyards were selected as Centers of Excellence to build Canada’s future fleets. Davie Shipyard lost the competition in 2011.

The men and women of the Halifax Shipyard are concerned that these remarks signal the possible redirection of shipbuilding work out of Atlantic Canada.  These are well-paying, good jobs, won fairly through a competitive process.

We call upon the Federal Government to confirm to Irving Shipbuilding, our shipbuilders and their families, the Province of Nova Scotia, and all Atlantic Canadians that the National Shipbuilding Strategy remains intact and, therefore, construction of the ships for Canada’s Navy and Coast Guard will be done exclusively by Irving Shipbuilding and Vancouver Shipyards.

While we have no interest in getting into a public squabble with our valued government customer, this issue is too important to the long term strategic success of our shipyard and the economic wellbeing of our shipbuilders, and all Atlantic Canadians, to leave ambiguous and unsettled.
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/08/13/1551188/0/en/Halifax-Shipyard-seeks-confirmation-from-the-Federal-Government-regarding-the-National-Shipbuilding-Strategy.html

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 770
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2294 on: August 13, 2018, 20:36:20 »
That's not really accurate; the Navy was the one that was pushing for the NSPS, as having shipyards in Canada with a load leveled schedule means that we have that strategic capacity to build, and makes it more likely we'll actually replace our ships before they completely fall apart.  Short and medium term means the first few ships are loss leaders, but long term means we've got similar capabilities to our allies (RAN, RN, etc) at a strategic level.  I hate politics in general, but this does make it more likely that we'll at least think of getting funding to build something after CSC, and maybe even consider doing something similar to our allies and selling off the first batch of CSC (rather than an MLR) and build a replacement flight.
Completely true.  Maritime Command developed and sold the government on a continuous build program.  NSPS is the end result after years of mutation within the halls of power.  Our own little military industrial complex.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,499
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2295 on: August 13, 2018, 20:41:03 »
Completely true.  Maritime Command developed and sold the government on a continuous build program.  NSPS is the end result after years of mutation within the halls of power.  Our own little military industrial complex.

Give Irving and Davie a flight of CSC's to build, who ever delivers the best product on time and on budget gets a second flight, by the time CSC's are done, have a Kingston replacement ready to build
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2296 on: August 13, 2018, 21:00:29 »
Give Irving and Davie a flight of CSC's to build, who ever delivers the best product on time and on budget gets a second flight, by the time CSC's are done, have a Kingston replacement ready to build
Another possibility is to give Irving a contract for one surface combatant and to give Davie a contract for one surface combatant.  The shipbuilder than comes closest to the ideal of building a high-quality warship on time and on budget gets to build half of the modules of the remaining thirteen surface combatants and final assembly of the completed modules.  And a similar competition for the replacement of the Kingstons.

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2297 on: August 13, 2018, 21:19:50 »
Quote
In a press conference Monday, Parliamentary Secretary for Procurement Steven MacKinnon answered by asserting that "Davie [has had] and will continue to have opportunities under the national shipbuilding strategy to bid, to win work."
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/canada-buys-commercial-icebreakers-for-its-coast-guard

Offline LoboCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 63
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2298 on: August 14, 2018, 11:34:16 »
Another possibility is to give Irving a contract for one surface combatant and to give Davie a contract for one surface combatant.  The shipbuilder than comes closest to the ideal of building a high-quality warship on time and on budget gets to build half of the modules of the remaining thirteen surface combatants and final assembly of the completed modules.  And a similar competition for the replacement of the Kingstons.

But you know in reality that it'll turn into a race, and quality will be thrown aside for speed of delivery.

Wouldn't you wanna be the shipyard that could have the first of class ceremony and press? Who is really gonna cover the fact that the welds sucked or the HVAC didnt work 2 months after acceptance? Unless you wrote in that both would be launched at the same time regardless, and that the ship that completed shakedown best would be made Flagship.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 606
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2299 on: August 14, 2018, 12:20:57 »
There is such a thing as a contract you know.  For better or for worse we entered a legitimate agreement with Irving and Seaspan.  Yes both companies have profited from the agreement but both companies have installed massive infrastructure that would never have been there otherwise.  Just because a third company wants a piece of the action is no reason to go back on our agreements: only non-delivery or bad quality control would entitle us to do that.  From what I gather much of the delay in Seaspan has been a result of faulty plans that had to be revised: plans that Seaspan had no part in initiating.  Irving seems to be on track now that they have gotten their act together so what is the beef?  there are lots of ships still to be procured that will come on line outside of the national policy agreements or that neither Seaspan nor Irving will be able to deliver when required (after all, there are only so many man years and so much construction space at the yards): let Davies bid on them and they can compete with the other two at that time. 
+300