Author Topic: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy  (Read 764363 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 128
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2450 on: December 11, 2018, 09:58:58 »
What about the "NSS Shakeup"? Maybe bump that number up by 800-1000 tonnes?

Build a few Visby's, or Sa'ar classes.

If I were a betting man, I’d say there would be some sort of heavy cash penalty in making that sort of change to the program. Not too mention the stink storm of publicity the other two shipyards would unleash. That clause is unbelievably defining of who does what in warships in Canada. You may even call it a structural regulation and I doubt the other two yards would take that lying down.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,556
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2451 on: December 11, 2018, 10:32:58 »
Why fuss with the surface fleet? Pretty essy pill to swallow that the victoria replacement would need to be off shore built
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,167
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2452 on: December 11, 2018, 10:37:04 »
Why not move the inevitable replacement of the Kingston's forward and if there is a large enough gap as a result of more Gov't ineptitude.  Look to replace them them roughly 10 Corvettes, split the work between Irving and Davie. Possibly 2 to Irving and the other 8 to Davie. Look to use an existing 1,200 - 1,600 ton design with light armament (reuse the 4 '76's off the Iroquois's for the first 4, great way to save money, besides WTF are the 76's doing anyways right now, and then start to cycle the 57's for the remaining 4-6 as the Halifax's on offline ) and add some light ASW and give them a speed around 22-24kn's.

Many have said that the Kingtons' aren't going anywhere soon, but the reality is that they will need to be put down eventually, why not start doing so in 4-5yrs from now. The oldest Kingston (HMCS Kingston) will be 29yrs old by then, not exactly a young girl, more like someone thinking about taking early CPP payments.....

It would make sense to have a Kingston Class replacement in the wings for any perceived gap, they can be built as a gap appears and the oldest vessel can be placed in reserve/retired/sold

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,888
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2453 on: December 11, 2018, 10:40:19 »
If I were a betting man, I’d say there would be some sort of heavy cash penalty in making that sort of change to the program. Not too mention the stink storm of publicity the other two shipyards would unleash. That clause is unbelievably defining of who does what in warships in Canada. You may even call it a structural regulation and I doubt the other two yards would take that lying down.

Well I certainly hope the gov do not take opportunity* to pay a fine and reset the program to Day 0. However, that does seem to be the tradition.

* after the October election, of course.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 449
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2454 on: December 11, 2018, 10:51:34 »
What about the "NSS Shakeup"? Maybe bump that number up by 800-1000 tonnes?

Or do a more extensive shakeup and reconsider the FREMM offer, give some Corvettes to Irving. Did the Liberals not say they were going to fix the procurement system, or am I remembering wrong? So difficult to get things done in this country.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2018, 12:16:55 by AlexanderM »

Offline JMCanada

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2455 on: December 11, 2018, 10:53:43 »
It would make sense to have a Kingston Class replacement in the wings for any perceived gap, they can be built as a gap appears (...)

Quite sensible, indeed.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,082
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,929
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2456 on: December 11, 2018, 10:54:52 »
Why not move the inevitable replacement of the Kingston's forward and if there is a large enough gap as a result of more Gov't ineptitude.  Look to replace them them roughly 10 Corvettes, split the work between Irving and Davie. Possibly 2 to Irving and the other 8 to Davie. Look to use an existing 1,200 - 1,600 ton design with light armament (reuse the 4 '76's off the Iroquois's for the first 4, great way to save money, besides WTF are the 76's doing anyways right now, and then start to cycle the 57's for the remaining 4-6 as the Halifax's on offline ) and add some light ASW and give them a speed around 22-24kn's.

Many have said that the Kingtons' aren't going anywhere soon, but the reality is that they will need to be put down eventually, why not start doing so in 4-5yrs from now. The oldest Kingston (HMCS Kingston) will be 29yrs old by then, not exactly a young girl, more like someone thinking about taking early CPP payments.....

The 76's are supposedly no longer in our inventory so you can discount them. There's no plans to build a corvette class and the 57mm's may be destined for AOPS as they are replaced with CSC's.
Right now it appears that and i'm just speculating that when all the AOPS are built, you may see some of the older Kingston Class paid off but a number remaining for the mine warfare role. As a person involved directly with the class and its maintenance they are in great shape and I wouldn't doubt some or all will be around another 10 to 15 years. Eventually they will all be paid off however as far as I know nothing planned on its replacement and they may very likely not be replaced with AOPS taking up the slack.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 138
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2457 on: December 11, 2018, 11:41:03 »
Did the Liberals say they were going to fix the procurement system, or am I remembering wrong?
To fix the procurement system, politics must be removed from it.  That means all the political parties must agree to take politics out of procurement and work together for the good of the Canadian army, navy, and air force.  That means instead of the political party that is currently in power calling all the shots, a committee made up of members from all the political parties gets to decide on procurement.  I do not see this happening anytime soon.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,167
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2458 on: December 11, 2018, 12:45:00 »
I think an "improved" Kingston class would be a good idea, maybe a tad longer with a bit more accommodation and work deck, with AOP's coming on line, I forsee the Kingstons staying closer to home and their replacement will still need some ice ability, at least on par with the current vessel. I don't see it needing a flight deck or fast speed, this is more of a hard working dirty job and maneuverability type vessel, doing jobs ill suited for the bigger ships.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 128
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2459 on: December 11, 2018, 14:52:26 »
If I were a federal politician, I think I’d try to kill a bunch of birds in one shot. So, say a significant gap becomes evident, maybe 2-3 years between AOPS and CSC. I think I’d pull the trigger on 2 more AOPS. Then, just before the federal elections, I’d throw something dandy at Davie to shore up my Quebec votes. That “something” could be a complete refit of 6-8 MCDV to become dedicated MCM vessels. The remaining 4-6 get cleaned up and donated to foreign navies as a goodwill gesture. Maybe to some of the African nations we’ve being visiting these last couple of years.

It’s something for everybody.
-ISI builds 23 ships instead of the 20 it was one year ago.
-Davie is still in the game doing refits until the MCDV needs replacement in 10-12 years. Maybe they become a centre of ingenuity as opposed to the 2 centres of “excellence”. They could do a HADR or Hospital ship conversion too, possibly.
-VSY isn’t spooked by Davie getting another AOR, so they’re happy

Now you have votes secured in three areas.

Also
-MCM capability is secured for the next 10-12 years
-OPV situation is stabilized for the next 25 years, until ISI finishes CSC and can start the whole process over again one ship at a time.
-Canada gains international credibility for fostering defence around the world with the donation of the surplus MCDV’s.
-CSC program picks up right after AOPS 8 without missing s beat.



Online LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 125
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2460 on: December 11, 2018, 15:34:34 »
I like that idea^.

Even better, to plan to donate or sell off (at big discount) all RCN ships as replacements roll in. Send them to developing nations. Its a safe bet as any refit those nations will wanna do will probably be given to a Canadian shipyard.

Selling/donating a CPF to someplace like Ukraine or Africa in 5 yrs would be a local game-changer as soon as a CSC is launched. Would account for a multi-million dollar donation that is safer than say... selling LAVs to a KSA. They would buy us a lot of goodwill cookies.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,082
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,929
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2461 on: December 11, 2018, 15:39:35 »
If I were a federal politician, I think I’d try to kill a bunch of birds in one shot. So, say a significant gap becomes evident, maybe 2-3 years between AOPS and CSC. I think I’d pull the trigger on 2 more AOPS. Then, just before the federal elections, I’d throw something dandy at Davie to shore up my Quebec votes. That “something” could be a complete refit of 6-8 MCDV to become dedicated MCM vessels. The remaining 4-6 get cleaned up and donated to foreign navies as a goodwill gesture. Maybe to some of the African nations we’ve being visiting these last couple of years.

It’s something for everybody.
-ISI builds 23 ships instead of the 20 it was one year ago.
-Davie is still in the game doing refits until the MCDV needs replacement in 10-12 years. Maybe they become a centre of ingenuity as opposed to the 2 centres of “excellence”. They could do a HADR or Hospital ship conversion too, possibly.
-VSY isn’t spooked by Davie getting another AOR, so they’re happy

Now you have votes secured in three areas.

Also
-MCM capability is secured for the next 10-12 years
-OPV situation is stabilized for the next 25 years, until ISI finishes CSC and can start the whole process over again one ship at a time.
-Canada gains international credibility for fostering defence around the world with the donation of the surplus MCDV’s.
-CSC program picks up right after AOPS 8 without missing s beat.

A few problems, one is to convert the Kingston Class to a dedicated MCM vessel would be cost prohibited, the reason why it wasn't done a few years ago. We already do NCM operations now, with the ship like it is as we moved away for mechanical minesweeping to using AUV's and route survey, a new degausing system was just installed. Giving these ships to an small African nation would be a mistake, first of all they do not have the expertise or facilities to refit these ships. There is a reason why they only operate small boats. I would say the ships would last two years at most before they would be useless and a burden on their small resources.

Not to mention we don't give warships away and that's been the policy for some time now. We would scrap them.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,167
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2462 on: December 11, 2018, 15:44:19 »
I think we get enough AOP's already. Tag Irving to design and build the new MCDV give Davie another AOR, Seaspan is busy enough the next while. The CG 1100's are going to need work/replacement as well. Personally I would just build an improved version as they are great vessels and then you could donate one of the 1100's to Ukraine as well.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,082
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,929
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2463 on: December 11, 2018, 15:47:42 »
I think we get enough AOP's already. Tag Irving to design and build the new MCDV give Davie another AOR, Seaspan is busy enough the next while. The CG 1100's are going to need work/replacement as well. Personally I would just build an improved version as they are great vessels and then you could donate one of the 1100's to Ukraine as well.

I like the idea and a longer hull would support a speed of about 20 knots. I could suggest quite a few improvements.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 128
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2464 on: December 11, 2018, 16:28:54 »
I think we get enough AOP's already. Tag Irving to design and build the new MCDV give Davie another AOR, Seaspan is busy enough the next while. The CG 1100's are going to need work/replacement as well. Personally I would just build an improved version as they are great vessels and then you could donate one of the 1100's to Ukraine as well.

Sure but when can Irving do it? 2038? No way they can design and build a completely new vessel in the type of gap that is likely to happen due to Alion’s complaint. But, the AOPS line is already in full swing. Two more should be a walk in the park. When CSC is close to ending, then your proposal makes a lot of sense. You give Davie another AOR and Seaspan is gonna freak. You give Davie a pile of refit work on MCDVs, even just overhauling as opposed to what I suggested earlier, and it really shouldn’t ruffle any feathers.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 128
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2465 on: December 11, 2018, 16:35:31 »
A few problems, one is to convert the Kingston Class to a dedicated MCM vessel would be cost prohibited, the reason why it wasn't done a few years ago. We already do NCM operations now, with the ship like it is as we moved away for mechanical minesweeping to using AUV's and route survey, a new degausing system was just installed. Giving these ships to an small African nation would be a mistake, first of all they do not have the expertise or facilities to refit these ships. There is a reason why they only operate small boats. I would say the ships would last two years at most before they would be useless and a burden on their small resources.

Not to mention we don't give warships away and that's been the policy for some time now. We would scrap them.

That’s fascinating about not giving warships away, Chief. Is that an actual government policy or just common practice here? I know the USN, RN and RAN have done it in the past and it seemed like a good idea. If they can’t be donated, then however many get paid off go to the scrappers or target practice, maybe.

 As far as the MCDV refit goes, I guess what I would suggest then, is to overhaul whatever needs overhauling and just deploy them primarily in whatever mine warfare role they’re best suited to. Leave the other deployments to AOPS, I suppose.

This is all blue-sky stuff, anyway, as I doubt the Alion court action will create a significant impact on the current timeline.

But I could be wrong.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 319
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2466 on: December 11, 2018, 17:04:39 »
I'm surprised the government wouldn't have Irving build a few more AOPS to fill whatever gap there is an foist them on the CCG

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,082
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,929
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2467 on: December 11, 2018, 17:18:15 »
That’s fascinating about not giving warships away, Chief. Is that an actual government policy or just common practice here? I know the USN, RN and RAN have done it in the past and it seemed like a good idea. If they can’t be donated, then however many get paid off go to the scrappers or target practice, maybe.

 As far as the MCDV refit goes, I guess what I would suggest then, is to overhaul whatever needs overhauling and just deploy them primarily in whatever mine warfare role they’re best suited to. Leave the other deployments to AOPS, I suppose.

This is all blue-sky stuff, anyway, as I doubt the Alion court action will create a significant impact on the current timeline.

But I could be wrong.

Put it this way, those ships will not be any condition to be given to another country at the end of their service life in the RCN. We generally wear ships out and then scrap them. The concept of operations has the AOPS doing many of the roles the Kingston Class did, however the Kingston Class will be doing many of the tasks they are doing now including OP Caribbe and the Arctic. The operating cost of a Kingston Class is still way below that of an AOPS.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 128
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2468 on: December 11, 2018, 17:21:12 »
Put it this way, those ships will not be any condition to be given to another country at the end of their service life in the RCN. We generally wear ships out and then scrap them. The concept of operations has the AOPS doing many of the roles the Kingston Class did, however the Kingston Class will be doing many of the tasks they are doing now including OP Caribbe and the Arctic. The operating cost of a Kingston Class is still way below that of an AOPS.

Yes, I imagine it would be. Lugging that 6000+ tonne hull around would use a fair bit of fuel, I’d guess. Not to mention the extra bodies on board, as well.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,167
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2469 on: December 11, 2018, 17:42:08 »
Government can change policy with a stroke of the pen, I have seen Acts totally rewritten and policy completely replaced and if I stick around for another 9 months, will see it again. As for ships, you be surprised at what we consider old, others will consider "broken in" I Just found out a Public Works Dredge built in 1961 and disposed of in 2000 is working now in Malaysia and a Dredge works far harder than any other ship. A smaller vessel like the Kingstons won't "rack" as much as the bigger ships and won't suffer as much from stress cracks. The Mexicans were using WWII vintage vessels until recently. 

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,082
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,929
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2470 on: December 11, 2018, 17:54:53 »
Government can change policy with a stroke of the pen, I have seen Acts totally rewritten and policy completely replaced and if I stick around for another 9 months, will see it again. As for ships, you be surprised at what we consider old, others will consider "broken in" I Just found out a Public Works Dredge built in 1961 and disposed of in 2000 is working now in Malaysia and a Dredge works far harder than any other ship. A smaller vessel like the Kingstons won't "rack" as much as the bigger ships and won't suffer as much from stress cracks. The Mexicans were using WWII vintage vessels until recently.

I'm not going to get into the specifics with you in an open forum but in 10 years the oldest CFP's will be about 40 years old. They won't be going anywhere but the breakers.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline MARS

  • Mentor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 60,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 818
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2471 on: December 11, 2018, 18:08:37 »
I'm not going to get into the specifics with you in an open forum but in 10 years the oldest CFP's will be about 40 years old. They won't be going anywhere but the breakers.

The first ship I sailed in was commissioned under a King...just sayin  :nod:
"Managers do things right; Leaders do the right thing"

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,082
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,929
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2472 on: December 11, 2018, 18:14:16 »
The first ship I sailed in was commissioned under a King...just sayin  :nod:

So did I old timer...... 8)
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Online Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 536,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,876
  • Your example, not your opinion, can cause change
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2473 on: December 11, 2018, 18:15:16 »
The first ship I sailed in was commissioned under a King...just sayin  :nod:
Mackenzie King?   :whistle:
There’s nothing more maddening than debating someone who doesn’t know history, doesn’t read books, and frames their myopia as virtue. The level of unapologetic conjecture I’ve encountered lately isn’t just frustrating, it’s retrogressive, unprecedented, and absolutely terrifying.
~Chris Evans

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,082
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,929
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2474 on: December 11, 2018, 18:18:40 »
Mackenzie King?   :whistle:

HMCS Porte St Jean commissioned 05-Dec-51.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر