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

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
53
Points
530
Just a little exercise here to have fun with the PBO's method:

Anybody knows what type of warship is the cheapest on a "cost-per-ton" basis, and which one is the most expensive?


Cheapest: Amphibious assault ship (inclusive of the the cost of the landing crafts and all airframes carried on board); closely followed by a classic propulsion aircraft carrier - yep, a carrier - inclusive of the cost of all airplanes on board.

Most expensive: Minehunters.


Funny, ain't it. It's because LHA's and CVA's are very heavy but mostly empty boxes with little self armament or sophisticated sensors and combat control systems as compared to their escorts - for instance.

On the other hand, building large (yes, for that product -large) hulls in glass reinforced plastic and with careful attention to then everything onboard (aluminium main engines -plastic/aluminium furniture and hatches/doors, etc being non-magnetic or having any other noise signature, plus designing sophisticated sonar systems and under water vehicles (non-magnetic also) to deliver explosive charges for remote detonation of mines is very expensive.
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
23
Points
180

Auditor general once again holds nothing back against the ship building program.
Hmmm
“As an example, she noted that the last of the navy’s existing Halifax-class frigates is due to retire in 2047 — only one year before the last of 15 new warships is scheduled to arrive.”

HMCS Ottawa was commissioned in 1996, that would make her 51yrs old in 2047. Anyone want to take the bet here and now that HMCS Ottawa will not be an active warship by that time.....
Pathetic- simply and utterly pathetic.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
107
Points
680
Hmmm
“As an example, she noted that the last of the navy’s existing Halifax-class frigates is due to retire in 2047 — only one year before the last of 15 new warships is scheduled to arrive.”

HMCS Ottawa was commissioned in 1996, that would make her 51yrs old in 2047. Anyone want to take the bet here and now that HMCS Ottawa will not be an active warship by that time.....
Pathetic- simply and utterly pathetic.
I'll take that bet for $5 and a beer of my choice.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
120
Points
680
“I am of the view that the shipbuilding strategy has been, by and large, successful,” Anand said. “I don’t think it is a mistake when you see the contribution to the Canadian economy … and the actual vessels that have been produced.”
So the program got off to a rocky start, but the AG thinks its working now. I guess "Program Working" is a terrible news story.

The report revealed the Vancouver shipyard “sustained significant financial losses” during the construction of those vessels, the last of which was delivered in October, due to a significant underestimation in the time and effort needed to build them.
Oh good it's in the news I can talk about it now. The contract the CCG project office signed with Vancouver SY for those vessels was absolutely criminal (in my personal opinion). I'll let people come to their own conclusions on potential knock-on effects for other shipbuilding contracts/work in the future.

As an example, she noted that the last of the navy’s existing Halifax-class frigates is due to retire in 2047 — only one year before the last of 15 new warships is scheduled to arrive.

Yep, planning for it... Though I suspect when we get to ship 11 or 12 of the CSC the timelines/plan gets fuzzy as you then have a one-for-one replacement. I don't expect us to be rolling in personnel at that time either given current trends so the ship might be there, but there might be no one available to crew her...
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
322
Points
880
Oh good it's in the news I can talk about it now. The contract the CCG project office signed with Vancouver SY for those vessels was absolutely criminal (in my personal opinion). I'll let people come to their own conclusions on potential knock-on effects for other shipbuilding contracts/work in the future.
Well they are fighting for the Polar Icebreaker contract so they still want the work.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
52
Points
530
Just a little exercise here to have fun with the PBO's method:

Anybody knows what type of warship is the cheapest on a "cost-per-ton" basis, and which one is the most expensive?


Cheapest: Amphibious assault ship (inclusive of the the cost of the landing crafts and all airframes carried on board); closely followed by a classic propulsion aircraft carrier - yep, a carrier - inclusive of the cost of all airplanes on board.

Most expensive: Minehunters.


Funny, ain't it. It's because LHA's and CVA's are very heavy but mostly empty boxes with little self armament or sophisticated sensors and combat control systems as compared to their escorts - for instance.

On the other hand, building large (yes, for that product -large) hulls in glass reinforced plastic and with careful attention to then everything onboard (aluminium main engines -plastic/aluminium furniture and hatches/doors, etc being non-magnetic or having any other noise signature, plus designing sophisticated sonar systems and under water vehicles (non-magnetic also) to deliver explosive charges for remote detonation of mines is very expensive.

So, to expand on that thought.....

It is cheap to add an empty box onto a 4000 tonne frigate, extending her hull, increasing her speed and seaworthiness, adding to her cargo carrying capacity and ability to lift pongos, trucks, boats and helicopters.

It is expensive to start filling up the empty box with the permanent attachment of every weapon and sensor known to the world's navies, just because it is possible.

NB - and in the process slow her down unless adding bigger, more expensive engines.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
101
Points
630
Oh good it's in the news I can talk about it now. The contract the CCG project office signed with Vancouver SY for those vessels was absolutely criminal (in my personal opinion). I'll let people come to their own conclusions on potential knock-on effects for other shipbuilding contracts/work in the future.
Care to expand, even if it's just the basic nuts & bolts? Genuinely curious
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
366
Points
880
I know that many with far more knowledge than I have posted about costing for the CSC. I am a long-time CAF member, and believe that we should get the best equipment possible for our folks. But my mind boggles at the thought that each of these ships will cost us in excess of $5 billion.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
313
Points
980
Want to take a guess on the life-cycle cost of a C-17? 😉
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
776
Points
910
I know that many with far more knowledge than I have posted about costing for the CSC. I am a long-time CAF member, and believe that we should get the best equipment possible for our folks. But my mind boggles at the thought that each of these ships will cost us in excess of $5 billion.

And, yet, we can't seem to make a pair of boots that doesn't cause more casualties than the enemy :)
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
120
Points
680
Care to expand, even if it's just the basic nuts & bolts? Genuinely curious

Well here is my personal opinion. I have no major inside information as I haven't worked on that project but have talked to some about it. Some of this is supposition.

I believe the CCG project office significantly underestimated the cost and then more or less told the shipyard what they were going to pay. Not wanting to lose the follow-on work the shipyard said yes with some misgivings.

Then the design that was bought for the CCG project needed some engineering rework. I believe that extra cost was not captured in the contract. Hence the shipyard lost a lot of money.

The JSS project likely saved them, as moving that project forward allowed them to get some money in the door.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
120
Points
680
I know that many with far more knowledge than I have posted about costing for the CSC. I am a long-time CAF member, and believe that we should get the best equipment possible for our folks. But my mind boggles at the thought that each of these ships will cost us in excess of $5 billion.

Ammunition, spares, fuel, salaries, maintenance. The sail away cost is likely 2 billion. The 25-year cost of ownership gets expensive.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
313
Points
980
Ammunition, spares, fuel, salaries, maintenance. The sail away cost is likely 2 billion. The 25-year cost of ownership gets expensive.
Not a surprise to those familiar with defence procurement and life-cycle costing inclusion in contemporary acquisitions. In-service support costs over 20-ish years being 2-3 times capital acquisition is entirely expected.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
366
Points
880
Not a surprise to those familiar with defence procurement and life-cycle costing inclusion in contemporary acquisitions. In-service support costs over 20-ish years being 2-3 times capital acquisition is entirely expected.
Yeah, to me it is sticker shock, compounded by the Rolls Royce cost of maintenance.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
296
Points
880
Not a surprise to those familiar with defence procurement and life-cycle costing inclusion in contemporary acquisitions. In-service support costs over 20-ish years being 2-3 times capital acquisition is entirely expected.
You know that, I know that, we all here know that. Why in heaven's name do we not publish the costs as a breakdown of costs so that the general public understands that. I saw DND's response to the PBO's estimates and it was just "While we recognize the differences in our calculations, we are confident in our current estimate of $56 billion to $60 billion (before taxes)". Jeezus Louise. Why didn't that include the breakdown. At that rate the average Joe thinks each ship will cost $4 billion. A recent Mail article on the Queen Elizabeth calls her their 3 billion pound carrier. That makes it appear that their aircraft carrier's cost is the same as one of our frigates which we all know it isn't.

If you break out the costs and the press then refuses to publish the details you can still post it on the Forces websites and issue more pointed press releases. Where's our information campaign (other than making up stories about wolves in Nova Scotia.) Let's face it folks we're in an info war within our own country and we're loosing big time.

Seems to me that we may have too many info officers and not enough info.

Rant ends.

🍻
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
322
Points
880
Well here is my personal opinion. I have no major inside information as I haven't worked on that project but have talked to some about it. Some of this is supposition.

I believe the CCG project office significantly underestimated the cost and then more or less told the shipyard what they were going to pay. Not wanting to lose the follow-on work the shipyard said yes with some misgivings.

Then the design that was bought for the CCG project needed some engineering rework. I believe that extra cost was not captured in the contract. Hence the shipyard lost a lot of money.

The JSS project likely saved them, as moving that project forward allowed them to get some money in the door.
The group has 3 shipyards, the repair drydock facility in Vancouver is always busy and Washington Group has a whole bunch of other things going on as well
 
Top