Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Navy_Pete]

Fire suppression is MBS and I assume the ship requires so many working generators to also meet MBS. The cooling problem and whatever else that needs to be repaired will be eventually and the ships will carry on. I'll take your word on the CCG science ships being more complex and you are right its impressive to us as its new gear and its a good go for a young sailor. Regardless of their limitations, issues I'm still pretty impressed with them and they will end of serving us well in the end.

It's not even MBS; the design didn't meet SOLAS. Don't worry though, we're told the experience and oversight of the Class society that signed off on it and certified the ship will keep us safe.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Fire no guns (because they're unserviceable)

Shed no tears (because you've cried yourself dry due to all the shoddy workmanship)

I'm a broken ship stuck to a Halifax Pier.....

You know the rest...

Oh god, the rest of the internet today will pale in comparison to this

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Navy Shooter, we really need someone to tweak the words and put it to music. We can call it the "Irving Privater song". Then post it to Reddit

 

[Halifax Tar]

Navy Shooter, we really need someone to tweak the words and put it to Music. We can call it the "Irving Privater song". Then post it to Reddit

Can I prez of the fan club ?

 

[Kirkhill]

We'll be happy we spent the time and money on them when CSC is built. Lots of experience was gained in that shipyard which will do us well as those get on the line.

Besides some of the modular capability that's coming for those ships is... surprising.

Svalbard - 575 MNOK in 2000 - 78 MCAD each
2007 - Steven Harper asks for a fleet of 8 Svalbards = 8x 78 = 624 MCAD
2007 - AOPS Project - 4,300 MCAD

Canadian Delta = 3,676 MCAD
Overrun = 589%

 

[Navy_Pete]

Svalbard - 575 MNOK in 2000 - 78 MCAD each
2007 - Steven Harper asks for a fleet of 8 Svalbards = 8x 78 = 624 MCAD
2007 - AOPS Project - 4,300 MCAD

Canadian Delta = 3,676 MCAD
Overrun = 589%

As per the AG report, the public Svalbard costs only include a fraction of what we include in ours. The details have been included in this thread and others repeatedly, so not sure why you still default back to the PR lines.

 

[Kirkhill]

As per the AG report, the public Svalbard costs only include a fraction of what we include in ours. The details have been included in this thread and others repeatedly, so not sure why you still default back to the PR lines.

Because beyond the hard costs of the hulls there is a great deal of discretion exercised in the nature of other costs that were apportioned.

Those discretionary decisions ate up dollars which might have been apportioned to the AORs, a prototype CSC or ordnance that would have assisted all three services.

 

[dimsum]

Navy Shooter, we really need someone to tweak the words and put it to music. We can call it the "Irving Privater song". Then post it to Reddit

I eagerly wait the next SCS

 

[NavyShooter]

I have my work cut out for me this evening I guess....

I'll grab a glass of rum, and ponder the next verse...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Because beyond the hard costs of the hulls there is a great deal of discretion exercised in the nature of other costs that were apportioned.

Those discretionary decisions ate up dollars which might have been apportioned to the AORs, a prototype CSC or ordnance that would have assisted all three services.

There needs to be an agreed upon NATO standard for report costs on large projects. So countries can still use their methods internally, but must disclose the NATO Standard costing. That would solve a lot of PR problems down the road for all the NATO members. Plus allow for meaningful discussion on defense spending.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Because beyond the hard costs of the hulls there is a great deal of discretion exercised in the nature of other costs that were apportioned.

Those discretionary decisions ate up dollars which might have been apportioned to the AORs, a prototype CSC or ordnance that would have assisted all three services.

Spare parts, infrastructure, training and TDP/IP aren't discretionary, they just aren't normally reported as part of the ship costs by other countries when they do press releases.

Some countries, like the US, frequently provide a lot of equipment as 'GSM' and is why some of their really expensive ships look really cheap. If you have the combat suite on a completely different project, it looks good.

Don't take my word on it, read the AG report where they tried to compare AOPs and SValbard costs in 2017 ish; they basically admitted it was impossible to do in an apples to apples way and gave up.

 

[Kirkhill]

Spare parts, infrastructure, training and TDP/IP aren't discretionary, they just aren't normally reported as part of the ship costs by other countries when they do press releases.

Some countries, like the US, frequently provide a lot of equipment as 'GSM' and is why some of their really expensive ships look really cheap. If you have the combat suite on a completely different project, it looks good.

Don't take my word on it, read the AG report where they tried to compare AOPs and SValbard costs in 2017 ish; they basically admitted it was impossible to do in an apples to apples way and gave up.

I read it. And giving up sounds like a bloody poor analysis. Jus' sayin'.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I read it. And giving up sounds like a bloody poor analysis. Jus' sayin'.

Thinking you can get a fair comparison from public news releases that use totally different contexts and scope for costs is similarly a waste of time.

When they do parametric analysis for just the ships based on tonnage/class and adjust for inflation (using the industiral indexes, because some things like steel and copper have gone up a lot more than the CPI) it's comparable, and generally within the margin of error and allowances for a learning curve expected of new shipyards.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thinking you can get a fair comparison from public news releases that use totally different contexts and scope for costs is similarly a waste of time.

When they do parametric analysis for just the ships based on tonnage/class and adjust for inflation (using the industiral indexes, because some things like steel and copper have gone up a lot more than the CPI) it's comparable, and generally within the margin of error and allowances for a learning curve expected of new shipyards.

The monkey's chased the weasel on that one long enough.

Cheers.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Don't take my word on it, read the AG report where they tried to compare AOPs and SValbard costs in 2017 ish; they basically admitted it was impossible to do in an apples to apples way and gave up.

I've heard of this report in the past but have been unable to find it. Would you happen to have a link to it? Thanks.

 

[Underway]

Because beyond the hard costs of the hulls there is a great deal of discretion exercised in the nature of other costs that were apportioned.

Those discretionary decisions ate up dollars which might have been apportioned to the AORs, a prototype CSC or ordnance that would have assisted all three services.

Had a good chat with an Snr Australian Officer who works in their own project office. His response when I asked about the Hobarts was "You get what you pay for." They had no spares, no missiles, no ammo and bad workmanship (shockingly bad) which lead to a lot of after acceptance work by the yards. He was surprised to learn our projects always include spares and ammo.

And I'm not even relating the story about how their new (2021) HMAS Supply (II) was almost lost TWICE because of flooding. Once just before acceptance (when it was sailing from Spain to Australia) and the second time at RIMPAC when they had a fuel flood...

I'm not saying we're better, but cheapness isn't the be all and end all of shipbuilding.

 

[Kirkhill]

Had a good chat with an Snr Australian Officer who works in their own project office. His response when I asked about the Hobarts was "You get what you pay for." They had no spares, no missiles, no ammo and bad workmanship (shockingly bad) which lead to a lot of after acceptance work by the yards. He was surprised to learn our projects always include spares and ammo.

And I'm not even relating the story about how their new (2021) HMAS Supply (II) was almost lost TWICE because of flooding. Once just before acceptance (when it was sailing from Spain to Australia) and the second time at RIMPAC when they had a fuel flood...

I'm not saying we're better, but cheapness isn't the be all and end all of shipbuilding.

I'll stipulate all of that. I'll even stipulate that there is merit in evaluating the life-cycle or capability cost.

My issue is that I don't seem to be the only person on the planet that finds it difficult to determine real comparable costs on Canadian projects.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'll stipulate all of that. I'll even stipulate that there is merit in evaluating the life-cycle or capability cost.

My issue is that I don't seem to be the only person on the planet that finds it difficult to determine real comparable costs on Canadian projects.

That's why I suggest a NATO Standard for costing, everyone can do their own thing, but also have to produce a costing using the same standard, so there is a apples to apples comparison.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That's why I suggest a NATO Standard for costing, everyone can do their own thing, but also have to produce a costing using the same standard, so there is a apples to apples comparison.

Nobody wants that.

Literally everyone wants to obfuscate costs, so they can be the ones getting international sales…

 

[KevinB]

Spare parts, infrastructure, training and TDP/IP aren't discretionary, they just aren't normally reported as part of the ship costs by other countries when they do press releases.

Some countries, like the US, frequently provide a lot of equipment as 'GSM' and is why some of their really expensive ships look really cheap. If you have the combat suite on a completely different project, it looks good.

Don't take my word on it, read the AG report where they tried to compare AOPs and SValbard costs in 2017 ish; they basically admitted it was impossible to do in an apples to apples way and gave up.

FWIW, we use GFM/GFE as terms

GFM: Government Furnished Materials
Usually used for consumables (munitions etc) that are either used up in qualifying or testing, or within the first year of use.

GFE: Government Furnished Equipment
Actual permanent items that stay with the item(s) being provided.