Author Topic: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy  (Read 697518 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 119
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
  • *****
  • 19,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 618
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
  • *****
  • 21,012
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 284
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
  • *****
  • 23,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,558
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
  • ***
  • 1,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 57
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
  • *****
  • 123,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,384
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
  • *
  • 412,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,693
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
  • *
  • 14,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 566
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.