• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
Reminds me of when the AOPS ballooned in cost, only to end up being a partial loan/grant money. Sounds like Seaspan now got its free cash. Why not just buy a stake in the company at this point?

$4.1B is a heck of a lot for 2 AORs, I can understand 2 destroyers or something costing that much... Not a very attractive figure in the industry should another country be shopping. The whole NSS was to rebuild the industry but nobody other than us is going to build a ship if our bill is this high.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380
LoboCanada said:
The whole NSS was to rebuild the industry but nobody other than us is going to build a ship if our bill is this high.
If the government of Canada is not going to subsidize its shipbuilding industry to the point it is competitive with foreign yards, you got that right.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
121
Points
430
of the $4.1B cost $1B is for engineering? ie Canadianization of the Berlin class?

an older post about cost discrepancies with the project

https://www.navalreview.ca/2013/11/a-reply-to-jack-granatstein-about-shipbuilding-in-canada/

So is Seaspan only building the 2 Protecteur class ships and maybe the Polar Icebreaker in Victoria and the OOSV and OFSV in Vancouver?
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380
suffolkowner said:
of the $4.1B cost $1B is for engineering? ie Canadianization of the Berlin class?
• Includes all supporting design and production engineering work for the ships, project management and associated contingency costs.
• Also includes historical costs associated with the project leading up to the start of design, including options analysis.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/06/backgrounder---understanding-the-cost-of-the-joint-support-ship-project.html

Because the project started in 2004, we could be talking about a lot of money for the historical costs associated with the project.  And does supporting design and production engineering work for the ships includes things like improvements to jetties?
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
73
Points
560
suffolkowner said:
of the $4.1B cost $1B is for engineering? ie Canadianization of the Berlin class?

an older post about cost discrepancies with the project

https://www.navalreview.ca/2013/11/a-reply-to-jack-granatstein-about-shipbuilding-in-canada/

So is Seaspan only building the 2 Protecteur class ships and maybe the Polar Icebreaker in Victoria and the OOSV and OFSV in Vancouver?

Unlikely Seaspan alone can also build the Polar icebreaker--after second JSS it then has to build the 16 badly-needed CCG vessels that the PM promised in May 2019 ( https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet ). It is expected Davie will get the icebreaker but Seaspan is still trying in proposed collaboration with Ontario's Great Lakes Heddle Shipyards:

B.C., Ontario shipyards team up to seek multibillion-dollar icebreaker contract
https://www.nsnews.com/b-c-ontario-shipyards-team-up-to-seek-multibillion-dollar-icebreaker-contract-1.24148984

Mark
Ottawa
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
588
Points
1,040
Uzlu said:
And does supporting design and production engineering work for the ships includes things like improvements to jetties?

No, all the shipyard improvements were out of their pocket. During the bid, they were planned and costed, based on what they needed to do to achieve this, and scored against the original Target State assessment done by FMI during the bid qualifying process (see link to article by Ian Mack below).

The yards agreed to do all the upgrades etc out of their own pocket and Canada agreed to the full work package of the combat and non-combat program. If Canada cuts the work package from the yard, then we owe them a pro-rated amount of their upgrade costs (which is totally reasonable as they did the upgrades budgeting against profits for the whole work package).

The physical improvements took place in the first two years, and then there are also the process related ones around being proficient at the design/engineering, which takes some experience to build up. In theory, once they've hit target state, they have a modern facility and the know how to plan and build ships at the same level of efficiency as other shipyards.

A lot of their management overhead is actually specific to doing work for the government; if they were just doing commercial work they wouldn't need a lot of those people, and it would also be faster/cheaper for them to buy material as they would just use standard commercial terms.

Feeding the GoC beast is probably costing us hundreds of millions of dollars in the program over the 20+year life just in extra salaries alone, when you add up all the extra shipyard management, the GoC policy people (outside the core project team) as well as the indirect costs relating to the procurement rules and supplier negotiations. Asterix was outside of that, but would expect Davie would also have to do facility/process upgrades and have similar management overhead if they got actual shipbuilding contracts like the new icebreakers.

Ian Mack's article;
https://www.cgai.ca/a_basic_primer_on_naval_shipbuilding
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380
Uzlu said:
And does supporting design and production engineering work for the ships includes things like improvements to jetties?

Navy_Pete said:
No, all the shipyard improvements were out of their pocket.

Other costs have now been added in, including the expense of refashioning the jetties where the ships eventually will dock.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4693088
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
696
Points
990
Just looking for a quick & simple answer, from someone in the know.  I apologize if it's been covered previous in the thread, I skimmed  few pages but couldn't really find what I was looking for definitely.


Question -- what kind of 'design' work is required for a project like this, when the ship selected is already designed & in service elsewhere?  (I suppose this question may be more applicable to the AOPS?)

If a ship is already designed, and was selected as the winner due to that design (amongst other factors) - I've never understood how HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS is required for further design work.


I know absolutely nothing about shipbuilding compared to a lot the folks here, so I am legitimately just curious about additional design work.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,717
Points
1,160
60Hz systems instead of 50Hz for all systems, to begin, I’d think, and although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express, I’m not a naval engineer, so there’s likely for more needed to reasonably adjust the German Navy’s original base design.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380
Good2Golf said:
60Hz systems instead of 50Hz for all systems, to begin, I’d think, and although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express, I’m not a naval engineer, so there’s likely for more needed to reasonably adjust the German Navy’s original base design.
Also a new command management system and lack of experience of the project managers.
 

lenaitch

Sr. Member
Reaction score
424
Points
810
Certainly not in the know but I recall reading that the original design (Danish?) for the AOPS had a cruising bow and an ice-breaking stern (it would reverse into the ice) and we changed that, so a significant hull re-design.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,794
Points
940
Also a change in say, a control station that changes the footprint, which in turn changes the voltage requirements, perhaps heavier cabling, meaning all the cable runs need to be checked for sufficient clearance and watertight glands changed and plans updated to reflect those changes. With changes in Footprint, may require a bulkhead being shifted, which then causes a lot of other changes and others, causing a ripple effect in the design. Enough ripples and then your at almost new design. Not to mention regulation changes since the original design, say operations in the Arctic will require a higher level of sewage treatment, meaning more machinery, piping and cabling. Etc, etc
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
175
Points
680
lenaitch said:
Certainly not in the know but I recall reading that the original design (Danish?) for the AOPS had a cruising bow and an ice-breaking stern (it would reverse into the ice) and we changed that, so a significant hull re-design.

AOPS is quite different from its Norwegian counterpart internally.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
Colin P said:
Also a change in say, a control station that changes the footprint, which in turn changes the voltage requirements, perhaps heavier cabling, meaning all the cable runs need to be checked for sufficient clearance and watertight glands changed and plans updated to reflect those changes. With changes in Footprint, may require a bulkhead being shifted, which then causes a lot of other changes and others, causing a ripple effect in the design. Enough ripples and then your at almost new design. Not to mention regulation changes since the original design, say operations in the Arctic will require a higher level of sewage treatment, meaning more machinery, piping and cabling. Etc, etc

I'm convinced, that's a lot of work $$$ to redesign.

But $1B worth of design work for an existing 20 year old design? Could we not pay Vard or whomever designed this for something alittle 'fancier' if our design budget was $1B? 3rd ship that could have another role or something?

The price balloon in this project sounds like we've been taken for a ride. Isn't there something, someway we could have stabilized the cost or at least gotten another hull out of this price?
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
716
Points
940
I'd like to see the breakdown of the money, how much is the cost of labor and materials pre build vs steel being cut and the ship being made.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380
MilEME09 said:
I'd like to see the breakdown of the money, how much is the cost of labor and materials pre build vs steel being cut and the ship being made.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, on June 9, unanimously passed a motion to request the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to make a costing analysis of building the Protecteurs and the leasing of MV Asterix. It asked that the report be presented to the committee by October 15.  The PBO is going to do it.  I, too, am looking forward to this report.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
810
Points
1,010
CBH99 said:
Question -- what kind of 'design' work is required for a project like this, when the ship selected is already designed & in service elsewhere?  (I suppose this question may be more applicable to the AOPS?)

If a ship is already designed, and was selected as the winner due to that design (amongst other factors) - I've never understood how HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS is required for further design work.


I know absolutely nothing about shipbuilding compared to a lot the folks here, so I am legitimately just curious about additional design work.

A metric ****ton of design work.  The JSS baseline is the Bohn.  (very important because the Bohn and Berlin though look the same are very different internally).  Everything that can be used from the Bohn plans is used.  But here is a list of the probable differences between the Bohn and the Protecteur just from the differences in Canadian policy:

Combat systems
Communication systems
All emissions security
Radiation Hazards
Everything related to the helicopter
Magazine policies
Navigation requirements
IT security
Power provision
Fuel Spill, HAZMAT policy/cleanup

Here's a list of equipment that is likely different because of the project requirements:
Navigation system
2x CIWS vs 1 CIWS
Warship vice civilian ship
Warship damage control
RCN firefighting equipment
etc...

Then there is the list of equipment that the Bohn had which is either unavailable because they don't make that anymore, or sourced only in Europe which would change Canadian content rules.  Sure you might be able to get it but the Canadian supplier would have to buy it from a German supplier which would mean a 20% markup.

And then there are the 2nd and 3rd order effects of design change (Theoretical example: all this stuff needs power, but the Bohn didn't have all this extra stuff so the power calculations and cabling have to change.  This then changes the cooling of the power plant, which is different because the power plant is Canadian supplied instead of a 10yo German design.  Which changes the weight of the ship, in different places, which changes the ballast, which changes the maximum fuel carried.... etc....)

In summary, unless you are a buying a ship that is currently being built there is no such thing as Military Off the Shelf.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
121
Points
430
Underway said:
A metric ****ton of design work.  The JSS baseline is the Bohn.  (very important because the Bohn and Berlin though look the same are very different internally).  Everything that can be used from the Bohn plans is used.  But here is a list of the probable differences between the Bohn and the Protecteur just from the differences in Canadian policy:

Combat systems
Communication systems
All emissions security
Radiation Hazards
Everything related to the helicopter
Magazine policies
Navigation requirements
IT security
Power provision
Fuel Spill, HAZMAT policy/cleanup

Here's a list of equipment that is likely different because of the project requirements:
Navigation system
2x CIWS vs 1 CIWS
Warship vice civilian ship
Warship damage control
RCN firefighting equipment
etc...

Then there is the list of equipment that the Bohn had which is either unavailable because they don't make that anymore, or sourced only in Europe which would change Canadian content rules.  Sure you might be able to get it but the Canadian supplier would have to buy it from a German supplier which would mean a 20% markup.

And then there are the 2nd and 3rd order effects of design change (Theoretical example: all this stuff needs power, but the Bohn didn't have all this extra stuff so the power calculations and cabling have to change.  This then changes the cooling of the power plant, which is different because the power plant is Canadian supplied instead of a 10yo German design.  Which changes the weight of the ship, in different places, which changes the ballast, which changes the maximum fuel carried.... etc....)

In summary, unless you are a buying a ship that is currently being built there is no such thing as Military Off the Shelf.

Thanks Underway it definitely helps to understand the scale of the process, although $1B still seems like a lot of money. What differences are there between the Berlin and Bohn that resulted in that choice?
 
Top