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

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAP
  • Start date Start date
Buried in this article, is the date for the first ship to be launched as part of the NSPS program , Dec. 12th from North Vancouver

http://www.timescolonist.com/business/victoria-shipyard-to-continue-busy-refit-schedule-into-2020-1.23094378
 
Interesting writeup from the Brit Chairman of Davie's Shipbuilding apparently in response to some comment from Irving Shipbuilding.

COMMENTARY: Pipe down — Davie’s not eating Irving’s lunch

ALEX VICEFIELD

Published November 14, 2017 - 3:04pm
Last Updated November 14, 2017 - 6:09pm

This is in response to your recent coverage after Quebec’s National Assembly passed a unanimous motion last week that called for Quebec shipyards to be permitted access to future federal shipbuilding programs.

It took less than 48 hours for politicians in Nova Scotia to respond with cries of outrage. The premier came out stating that the shipbuilding monopoly was Nova Scotia’s and then a local member of the federal Liberal caucus quickly jumped on the cause, emphasizing the support that Irving Shipbuilding holds amongst the 32 Atlantic Canadian MPs.

Er, OK, but what does Quebec’s “ask” have to do with Atlantic Canada? The answer is absolutely nothing.

The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy was introduced by the former Conservative government as a sourcing or procurement strategy for a specific (limited) number and type of ships it needed, hence the name. Why the new government decided to take the “P” out of the NSPS (to make it just the “National Shipbuilding Strategy”) is anyone’s guess; though for everyone following the saga, they will know that it is something I have been doing for some time.

So the National Shipbuilding Strategy, as it now is and as grandiose as it sounds, consists solely of two very simple “umbrella agreements” with Irving Shipbuilding and Seaspan Shipyards. They simply state that the government may negotiate with those two shipyards to build a specific number and type of ships. The number and type of ships is defined in the final annex of the umbrella agreement and reflects what has been widely published. For Irving, it’s six offshore patrol ships and 15 surface combatants. For Seaspan, it’s five ships for the Coast Guard and two supply ships for the navy.

It is by no means an all-encompassing strategy to renew the entire federal fleet or bolster the wider domestic shipbuilding industry. Certainly nothing worthy of its new name, which suggests that it is the silver bullet that the shipbuilding industry, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard need it to be.

That’s because it only includes a handful of ships and doesn’t include the many large ships that will be required for a full renewal of the federal fleet. They are not included in the National Shipbuilding Strategy. That is where the opportunity lies for other shipyards in Canada. For everything from innovative programs like our Resolve-class naval support ship to new heavy icebreakers for the coast guard to replace ships that are already rusted out.

Davie has indeed made offers to the federal government to help out, but it has only ever offered to build one of the ships that was already penned for another shipyard under the NSS. That was the polar icebreaker and we offered to build it in 2013, given reports that Seaspan Shipyard would only be able to build ships one at a time, meaning that the coast guard’s polar icebreaker would have wait for a decade before construction was to begin and until after the navy got its supply ships.

That news broke while we were repairing the existing polar icebreaker (CCGS Louis St. Laurent) and it was evident that the coast guard couldn’t wait another decade. So in the original spirit of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, which was meant to see shipyards across the country co-operating, we first offered to build the hull for Seaspan and send it out to them to be finished.

If they had said yes, the Canadian Coast Guard would have had a brand new icebreaker delivered this year. Instead, the door was slammed closed at a meeting we had with them on the west coast. That meant even more disappointment for the men and women of the coast guard who will have to continue operating a 1967-built ship in the most hostile conditions on Earth for the next decade. Just because of greed. In fact, given that Russia now has 11 polar icebreakers, we thought it could be a good idea for Canada to have at least have two of them so it probably wouldn’t have even meant taking work away from Seaspan.

So how have we upset Irving Shipbuilding? Well, we have never offered to, nor even hinted at taking work away from their dwindling coffers, so it can’t be that.

Naturally, they were upset with us when we reopened Davie in 2012 and their A-Team of senior management packed their bags and headed out to our friendly shipyard upriver. I wouldn’t want to speculate on the working atmosphere at the Halifax Shipyard — I understand that receives more than enough coverage in your publication — but needless to say those fine people didn’t need much coaxing. And it’s natural the folks at Irving Shipbuilding may be feeling a bit down when they have to witness Davie delivering on its programs, launching ships and being voted best North American shipyard. But we have never tried to take their work away.

So when Irving goes door-to-door and rounds up the support of all their local politicians to speak up against this political extortionist in Quebec (that’s me) who is supposedly threatening their future, those politicians would do well to actually ask the simple question, “How does this affect Nova Scotia?”

The answer is that it doesn’t and the reality is that we wish Atlantic Canada all the best.

In fact, we have great confidence in the region, its people and its welcoming attitude to business. That is why we are setting up shop in Halifax and will be homeporting Canada’s next supply ship there, employing mostly Nova Scotian crewmembers and using the wide range of local suppliers. We are proud that we will be bringing 700 jobs and more than $1 billion in economic benefits over the next 10 years to Nova Scotia.

Alex Vicefield is the British chairman of Davie Shipbuilding.

Article Link
 
While I respect the work that Davie did, they have been pretty harsh on the 2 companies so it's not surprising they are met with closed doors. They marketed to hard and now have to deal with that. If Davie gets any part of the NSPS contract it will mean less job years at the other 2. I believe there is a very good argument for 4 AOR's long term and if they started on the 2nd Resolve class now, the first is likely to be ready for a long refit by the time the first Queenston class comes online.

Seaspan will launch their first OFSV next month and I would not be surprised if they managed to finish the next 2 by the end of 2018 or first quarter of 2019, then the OSSV would likely rollout 2020. By that time they likely be cutting steel for the Queenston and working on the first modules.
 
Can someone elaborate as to why Davie was locked out?

It seems questionable at best to restrict the bidding on such a massive project to only (2) shipyards, as there is so much room for collusion/price fixing, and which then gives government negotiators zero leverage.
 
dapaterson said:
Davie was under bankruptcy protection when the NSPS went out.

Does anyone know if they've now cleared the minimum financial stability requirements of the original NSPS spec's?
 
From RUSI Nova Scotia by former member of CCG:

The National Shipbuilding Strategy Needs to be Revamped

In 2003 John Manley, then federal government Minister of Finance, said that shipbuilding in Canada was a “sunset industry” and that Canada could not afford huge subsidies for shipbuilding.  Seven years later, Rona Ambrose, then federal Public Works minister, said that the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) would renew the fleets of the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy.  Quite a turnaround!

Now we are at the end of 2017 and the only operational vessel that we have seen is the Motor Vessel (MV) Asterix, a commercial vessel to be chartered to the RCN as an interim replacement for the Navy’s retired replenishment oilers (in naval terminology, AOR).  And, Asterix was not built by one of the two shipyards named as prime contractors in the NSS!

The two prime contractors, Irving Shipbuilding Incorporated of Halifax, NS, and Seaspan Marine Group of Vancouver, BC, have suffered delays while rebuilding obsolete facilities and awaiting clear direction from the federal government.  Priorities and schedules have changed during that time leaving the needs of the Coast Guard and the Navy unmet, and at the same time diverting already limited funds to refits required to prolong the service lives of vessels that should be replaced.

Refits of older vessels are expensive because of the requirement to conduct steel replacement, and modernize electronics and power amongst other issues.  Life extension projects take the vessel out of service for prolonged periods and incur additional costs through having to source out-of-production parts and equipment or installing new equipment for which those vessels might not have been designed.

Why does Canada have the money to preserve obsolete ships but not to build new ships?  That is not a fair question, however; it isn’t the financial issue that is the problem, it is the fact that Canada does not yet have the willingness to modify the NSS to include more shipyards or to modify vessel requirements.

The Asterix is an example of what could be accomplished with more shipbuilding capacity.  The RCN needs more than one AOR, in fact it needs three (remember the Preserver, Provider and Protecteur?): one on each coast and one to respond to replacement for refits of the other two.  And to take it a bit further, the third one, when available, could be utilized to replenish Coast Guard icebreakers and RCN vessels working in the Arctic during the summer months.

So what is wrong with having Chantier Davie, or another yard, converting two more replenishment vessels on budget and on time as well as at a much reduced cost relative to the Joint Support Ships (JSS), the projected AOR replacements?  And why doesn’t the federal government purchase them as opposed to chartering?  The resulting cost savings could then be used to build the seemingly forgotten JSS or to increase the funding available for the warship replacements which should be a priority.

Canada’s largest icebreaker, CCGS Louis S. St.-Laurent, will be 50 years old in 2019.  Yes, she had a major mid-life refit during which her bow was replaced and she was re-engined from steam turbine to diesel electric.  However, since then she has been to the North Pole three times, and conducted icebreaking in the Arctic and Gulf of St. Lawrence winter and summer over those years.  There was talk of a Polar 10 nuclear icebreaker, later downgraded to a conventionally powered Polar 8 but built to serve all government departments in the Arctic during a nine month operational season.  The Polar 8 was cancelled in 1990 at the last moment and progress on a replacement has proceeded slowly.  The latest development has the new major icebreaker being “bumped” in the production line by the requirement to build two more AOR after three science vessels are completed by Seaspan.  This will result in at least late next decade before a replacement is put in service.  And that is only one icebreaker.  CCGS Terry Fox, Canada’s second most powerful icebreaker, was built in 1983 as a commercial Arctic drilling support vessel for Gulf Canada, was leased by the Coast Guard in 1991 and purchased outright in 1993.  The remaining type 1200 icebreakers were built in the late ‘70s and are approaching replacement requirements.  Costs increase with every delay.  There is no mention of them in the NSS.

Building the Arctic Offshore and Patrol Vessels (Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship project) is delaying yard capacity for building the frigate replacements.  As an outsider, the AOPV appear to be designed neither as actual icebreakers nor as interdiction vessels.  At best, they may fulfill a role as ice-strengthened training vessels or Kingston-class (Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel project) replacements.  Perhaps the production should be limited to three vessels with the resultant savings being reassigned to the frigate replacement project.  And, in order to speed up that project, Canada should speed of the process of looking seriously at warships used by allied nations that respond to the 80% rule of meeting our identified needs.  The design cost savings and inter-changeability of units with allies could prove invaluable in meeting Canada’s NATO commitments.  We have done that successfully with other military acquisitions.  Those savings might also mean that we could build some larger warships as command units to augment the RCN’s capability.

The NSS should be realigned to meet the changed needs of Canada’s marine departments.  A third shipbuilding yard is an absolute necessity, and the changing requirements of the Coast Guard and Navy need to be addressed.

Jim Calvesbert is a retired Canadian Coast Guard officer, having served at sea and ashore.  He is a graduate of the Canadian Coast Guard College and holds a B.Ed. from the Université de Moncton, a Masters degree in Marine Management from Dalhousie University, and is a member of the Master Mariners of Canada.  As a consultant, he has worked nationally and internationally in the marine field.  This work is the sole opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Canadian Department of National Defence, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Coast Guard or the Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia.  The author may be contacted by email at: RUSINovaScotia@gmail.com.

Mark
Ottawa

https://rusi-ns.ca/national-shipbuilding-strategy/

 
The problem with to much capacity is that it's unlikely the government would replace any of these new vessels for the next 25-30 years so you end up with yards lying people off and going bankrupt. If we can find a way to keep more civilian hull builds here in Canada through taxes on foreign new builds, while at the same time ensuring our yards don't get lazy due to to much protection. 
 
Colin P:

...If we can find a way to keep more civilian hull builds here in Canada through taxes on foreign new builds...

That approach was abandoned seven years ago--Canadian shipping lines just could not afford build-in-Canada:

Canada waives 25 pct import tariff on ships

OTTAWA, Oct 1--The Canadian government said on Friday it would waive a 25 percent tariff on imports of large cargo ships, tankers and ferries to help lower costs for the shipping industry.

Ottawa estimates the measure, retroactive to Jan. 1, will save the industry C$25 million ($24.5 million) a year over the next decade.

Currently imported ships are subject to a 25 percent tariff, the highest rate of duty for imported goods. ($1 = $1.02 Canadian [those good old days!])
https://uk.reuters.com/article/canada-economy-flaherty/rpt-canada-waives-25-pct-import-tariff-on-ships-idUKTOR00783120101001

And the RCN and CCG can't afford build-in-Canada either with NSS as now constituted.

Mark
Ottawa
 
I would stick with "chartering" rather than "buying", based on track record.

When chartering the tendency seems to be to work with what is available.  That is, the charterer acquires the best available technology.  Heavy emphasis on "available".  It is on the water and floating.

When buying the tendency seem to constantly search for not just the best available technology but the best technology available 40 years down the line. 

It becomes not just an argument of the "best" and the "good enough" but between the "might be" and the "good enough".

If industry can successfully charter the services from independent suppliers like Federal then why can't the Government - and put Coast Guard employees on board along with the private mariners?
 
Without new builds we won't have any shipyards to do the repair work or the ones we have left use 40 year old+ equipment. The key for things like ferries is to make the taxes high enough that domestic yards look better and not so high that they get lazy and stupid. I doubt that that there are many yards overseas that are not heavily subsidized one way or another.
 
I'm not arguing for off-shore build necessarily. 

My point goes more to the specification of the vessels.  I am coming to believe that a lot of the delays and price increases are occasioned by the convoluted debating societies involved in writing up the specs and the need to have all the deliberations in writing.

Industry doesn't do things the same way government does... because they have to face a time imperative. 

If Canadian yards were offered contracts with a one to two year delivery horizon I think, as Davie has demonstrated (and so has Seaspan) then I think they could maintain a profitable business.  But if they are going to have to wait 10 years for specs to be drawn up and then be held to a production rate of one obsolescent hull per year 20 years later they will never make a dime.
 
True, we were just trying to buy a 27' Aluminum crewboat, the companies sent me spec sheets that contained their standard build and options, about 4 pages. PWGSC sent me a typical template to buy a boat, it was 23 pages long for a open topped boat with outboards. Apparently asking that the supplier of said boat is local to the coast is bad. Nothing in the 23 page document limits who can bid, apparently asking for an experienced boat builder is also bad. This is why we get a company that never built a proper boat in it's life gets a contract to build self-righting lifeboats and then when the first piece of shit rolls out, they have to cancel the contract and give it to someone else. I can think 5 different small vessel contracts where this has happened.
 
Damn straight, Colin.

What's the first thing we ask builders in the private sector when we go shopping for something? It's "So, what have you built lately?", usually followed by contacting the last few people who bought from them to go see what they think and what the product looks like.

Of course, in the private sector, we also don't usually issue full specs on what we want. The discussion is more along the line of us contacting a certain number of suppliers whom we know to make the product we are looking for and saying "We need an XYZ to do ABC job with it, what have you got and for how much." Then , they send you their specs for their product for your review, with their price for it (and an expiry date for those prices to stand).

They understand that we will then review specs of everyone and pick the one which fits both our budget and is best in relation to our requirements. They also know we may or may not pick the cheapest one.

If government procurement could only be done along those lines, what a dream it would be.
 
Seaspan photo gallery is updated for this month

http://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries/nss-photo-gallery-ofsv2

152-17-033-1024x682.jpg
 
As the soap opera continues

https://www.lequotidien.com/chroniques/gilbert-lavoie/le-lobby-personnel-de-james-k-irving-63a787220446acd4f68f4f5aa9f31979
 
Lots of truth at this longish piece--the start:

Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy Heading for the Rocks & What Should Be Done

Canada’s most ambitious procurement plan, since shortly after the Second World War, is in peril like so many other procurement projects – past and present.  The National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) is heading towards disaster and the Liberal government is unable to provide the course correction. Seven years ago, the NSS was unveiled by the Harper government and was expected to come to a final conclusion in 2041.  Its announcement was proclaimed with admiration from all sides. But this also meant that the fate of the NSS was to entrusted in the hands of multiple successive governments and that the future of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) and the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) would rest on project responsibility. The unfortunate reality of politics is that the Liberals, as the standing government, cannot concede that they are mishandling an ill-fated project and the Conservatives, the official opposition, cannot concede that the project was already ill-fated under their rule as governing party [emphasis added]. This means that there is a political stalemate as neither party wants to admit anything –  a mutual detente that will only damage the CCG and RCN.  The unfortunate truth is that the NSS has been stalled, and that the costing was not adjusted for these delays and so the quality and quantity of the ships have already been downgraded. This, also, has led to gaps in the build schedule and the prospect of shipbuilding jobs being lost. The very same jobs that the NSS would fated to save and revitalize the industry.

The good news is that the NSS is still in its formative years and the situation has changed. However, the situation changed because it was already seen as dire. The RCN’s supply ships were rightfully decommissioned, but without a backup plan the RCN has been relying on renting out the Chilean supply ship, the Almirante Montt, for the past two years. The RCN was caught without a a backup plan as the construction of the Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment Ship replacement has  yet to begun at the Seaspan shipyard in Vancouver –  a project that was launched in 2004, but then was put under the auspices of the NSS. Nor has any construction work on the single Polar-Class heavy icebreaker, which the delivery is now being estimated to be in 2030. That being said, Canada’s medium-sized icebreakers were commissioned between 1978 and 1987 and there are no plans to replace them, even though they already need to be replaced. An essential requirement as the Canadian government continues to espouse the importance of the Arctic and the possibility of the opening of the North West Passage...
http://defencereport.com/cdns-nat-ship-strategy-heading-for-the-rocks-what-should-be-done/

Mark
Ottawa
 
Two shipyards, Irving Halifax and Seaspan Vancouver, were each awarded a monopoly to build certain types of RCN and CCG vessels with no designs chosen, no realistic cost estimates and no facilities then capable of the shipbuilding-what could possible go wrong?

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
Two shipyards, Irving Halifax and Seaspan Vancouver, were each awarded a monopoly to build certain types of RCN and CCG vessels with no designs chosen, no realistic cost estimates and no facilities then capable of the shipbuilding-what could possible go wrong?

Mark
Ottawa

Everything
 
To be fair to Seaspan, they put together a modern yard faster than the government could sort out their designs. The OFSV needed a redesign as yard noted concerns about stability once given the design. Not surprising, stability has been a major issue with most the large government ship designs. Of the small vessel contracts, almost every one built back east has been a failure (70', 47', 41's, fuel barges, oil spill response lobster boat design). Not sure about the Arun boats, but one has to ask why they chose a old design being replaced by the people that designed it. Sort of like buying the Iltis design as the Germans where getting rid of theirs.
 
Back
Top