New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Czech_pivo]

Basically he is saying that constantly improving quality of the product is the main task of the upper management of a company. He had studied the Japanese post war corporate world after all. 

It’s “Kaizen” that you’re referring to.  Something that when I worked in Boston for a large US firm back in the late 90’s was all the rage. ‘Small, constant change for the good.’  Something that I tell my kids to focus on - try for constant small improvements.

 

[Kirkhill]

Kaizen having been learnt by the Japanese from the Americans Deming and Shewhart and then sold back to the Americans by Americans who went to Japan to learn how to build cars the American way.

Thus demonstrating both that nothing gets forgotten and everything gets forgotten.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I only took issue with the hyperbole not the thoughts behind it.  Completely agree that there needs to be a more speedy delivery.  The Halifax Class were designed for 25 years.  We are there now and dealing with massive corrosion issues across the fleet (mostly on the East Coast, mainly due to different deck coverings oddly enough). 

Having Davie fill gaps in the Coast Guard is an excellent idea.  The fleets are so run down there is plenty of work for everyone right now.  As for Kingston replacements those boats are doing rather well.  FMF and the contractors are doing a good job to keep them going.  I haven't heard a single person in the RCN talk about Kingston replacement as a concern (yet), though I have heard talk about sub replacement since Strong Secure Engaged came out (even floating the Australia will be looking for partners discussion).

The MCDV’s are ok for now, as you say, but they’ll likely need replacement prior to either ISI or VSY completing their ongoing projects with AOPS, CSC, all the CCG stuff etc. When that time comes, and the other shipyards are still tied up, it looks like Davie will be in a good spot to get the gig. I wonder, though, about the 1000 tonne and under clause. If all other yards are restricted to building ships under 1000 tonnes, does that not limit the options for an MCDV replacement? I’m aware that as they stand, the KINGSTON’s are under that limit, but I would think the next vessel to take their place may want to include things like a helo pad, for instance. Is there an OPV class out there that can land (but not necessarily hangar) a helo AND weighs less than 1000 tonnes? I don’t believe I’ve seen or heard of one. Anyway, I have an uneasy feeling that caveat may stick in our throats at some point.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Why would we want to operate a helo off a ship that small? Why not just spec it for some sort of UAV right off the bat?

 

[Swampbuggy]

Why would we want to operate a helo off a ship that small? Why not just spec it for some sort of UAV right off the bat?

That’s exactly my point. I’ve heard a million times how small size is one of the main drawbacks of the MCDV.  That and speed. So, one would project that whatever is to replace it, whenever that may be, a larger ship is likely to be favoured. But, that clause of the 1000 tonne limit for any shipyard outside of ISI or VSY means that you will realistically have to wait 20 years for a new patrol ship, or that it will be small again and without the ability to land a helo. I’m not saying it’s a necessity, but certainly the option to use an OPV as a lily pad is appealing. What it boils down to is that the clause limits what we can do, either time wise or capability wise, and I think that may cause problems.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That’s exactly my point. I’ve heard a million times how small size is one of the main drawbacks of the MCDV.  That and speed. So, one would project that whatever is to replace it, whenever that may be, a larger ship is likely to be favoured. But, that clause of the 1000 tonne limit for any shipyard outside of ISI or VSY means that you will realistically have to wait 20 years for a new patrol ship, or that it will be small again and without the ability to land a helo. I’m not saying it’s a necessity, but certainly the option to use an OPV as a lily pad is appealing. What it boils down to is that the clause limits what we can do, either time wise or capability wise, and I think that may cause problems.

My point is that, sometimes the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

Find a nice UAV that we all like and build that into your 1000 tonne limit. Even with the current crop of UAVs on the market, we can get some eye watering sensors and maybe even arm it.

 

[Lumber]

We could go for a Visby-Calass or Hamina-Class, or even a Sa'ar 5. If we wanted to go over the 1000T limiit, we could go with something like a River-Class and you'd get your flight deck.

 

[Kirkhill]

What do you want the ship to do?

Do you want the ship to be a patrol vessel - in which case a small vessel with a lot of launchers and missiles, including UAVs (ranging in size from Scan Eagles to "Flying Peanuts") are viable options.

Or do you want to increase the functionality and operational area of the helicopter fleet - allowing it to be deployed and sustained for longer periods in remote locations - in which case adding lily-pads to every suitable vessel makes sense.

A suitable vessel?  Anything that costs a lot of money should have a lily pad.    Small vessels should not cost a lot of money and thus should not necessarily have lily pads.

Conversely lily pads do not need to cost a lot of money even when large lily pads.  They only end up costing a lot of money when militarized.  Civil lily pads could be large and cheap - except when flying the Maple Leaf.

 

[Swampbuggy]

My point is that, sometimes the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

Find a nice UAV that we all like and build that into your 1000 tonne limit. Even with the current crop of UAVs on the market, we can get some eye watering sensors and maybe even arm it.

I get that, I’m just a bit worried that a sheet of paper effectively ties the hands of the RCN in choosing what and when it gets a replacement for the MCDV. I understand completely that UAV’s are likely to take over many roles that were traditionally tasked to a helo. But, they can’t do everything, like personnel transfer for example. And with a deck you can perhaps refuel a chopper and increase time on station or range. At any rate, I was just using the helo deck as an example of how the choices could be limited. There are others as well. Maybe ice strengthening vs armament or sensor packages could be another area where the options get limited by the build restrictions on tonnage. For myself, I’m ok with something fast, simple and relatively small. Something like an ARMIDALE with 2 good RHIB’s and a UAV would be well under a 1000 tonnes and very useful for the RCN. Hey, maybe we can get OZ to throw them in with the used F-18’s and we can have Davie refit them!

 

[Dale Denton]

We could go for a Visby-Calass or Hamina-Class, or even a Sa'ar 5. If we wanted to go over the 1000T limiit, we could go with something like a River-Class and you'd get your flight deck.

Wow that Hamina-Class is impressive. Only 250T? Maybe get the propulsion of the MCDVs, stretch it for a light (CCG) helicopter or UAV. Maybe then it'll be an expensive-enough to Canadianize it. Just day-dreaming...

 

[Swampbuggy]

We could go for a Visby-Calass or Hamina-Class, or even a Sa'ar 5. If we wanted to go over the 1000T limiit, we could go with something like a River-Class and you'd get your flight deck.

Sure, but that gets you back to waiting in line for VSY and ISI to finish their queues. Maybe you could pull the CCG OPV’s from VSY and give them to Davie, if they’re going to be less than 1000 tonnes, and then in turn get VSY to build some 1500-2000 tonne RCN OPV’s. That would be a bit quicker than waiting for 20+ years and it fulfills the contract stipulations.

 

[Underway]

We could go for a Visby-Calass or Hamina-Class, or even a Sa'ar 5. If we wanted to go over the 1000T limiit, we could go with something like a River-Class and you'd get your flight deck.

I shudder when thinking about what happens to the crew and equipment on those tiny Baltic ships on the Grand Banks.  River class is more the type I would like for an MCDV replacement.  Small crew, limited weapons, Helo/UAV pad, good seakeeping, decent legs and speed.  A suitable gun or two.  But that's only for Offshore patrol.  If you want minehunting then you need to be a bit more creative, as MCDV's are near the top of size for minehunting platforms.  Most minehunting platforms are about 500 tons or so and would really suffer in open waters off the east coast.

 

[Uzlu]

Sure, but that gets you back to waiting in line for VSY and ISI to finish their queues. Maybe you could pull the CCG OPV’s from VSY and give them to Davie, if they’re going to be less than 1000 tonnes, and then in turn get VSY to build some 1500-2000 tonne RCN OPV’s. That would be a bit quicker than waiting for 20+ years and it fulfills the contract stipulations.

If Davie is allowed to build large ships for the coast guard and navy, there is no need to wait for Seaspan to finish its queue.  The Seaspan offshore patrol vessels will be more than 1000 tonnes—that is why Seaspan will be building them.  If the navy wants offshore patrol vessels—not more Harry DeWolfs—it might make sense to build them for the coast guard and navy—one design and lots of ships to drive down the cost per ship.

 

[Stoker]

As some has already stated a replacement for the Kingston Class is not being looked at right now. I would say we could easily get another 10 to 15 years out of the class and they"re being modernized all the time. In fact I just spent the last month on one of them in the high Arctic and they are in pretty good shape. The problem is that the class is being asked to do two roles, one as a mine warfare type utility ship and that of a patrol ship. I can't see the RCN going with a fast patrol ship as a Kingston Class replacement. To replace the class we need two classes of ships not one.

 

[Swampbuggy]

If Davie is allowed to build large ships for the coast guard and navy, there is no need to wait for Seaspan to finish its queue.  The Seaspan offshore patrol vessels will be more than 1000 tonnes—that is why Seaspan will be building them.  If the navy wants offshore patrol vessels—not more Harry DeWolfs—it might make sense to build them for the coast guard and navy—one design and lots of ships to drive down the cost per ship.

That’s the problem, nobody (outside of Seaspan and Irving)  can “build” large ships, Davie included, if they’re over 1000t. That’s a stipulation of the NSS. That’s why ISI started going sideways when the G said a refresher might be in the works for NSS. They’re worried that clauses like this one may get “reworked” and allow Davie to horn in on their action.

 

[Cloud Cover]

.... but what of the above ships would take on the mine counter measures role? Can you do sensibly that from a corvette or an OPV? A specially constructed and treated hull is required, or at least was required before the Kingston class seemed to ditch that idea for better or for worse. I'm not aware of anything that changes the requirement for a special materials hull, even remote underwater equipment.  Of all the capabilities the RCN might be requested or forced to give up, I would think the ability to clear our harbours of mines might be one worth enhancing?

 

[Stoker]

.... but what of the above ships would take on the mine counter measures role? Can you do sensibly that from a corvette or an OPV? A specially constructed and treated hull is required, or at least was required before the Kingston class seemed to ditch that idea for better or for worse. I'm not aware of anything that changes the requirement for a special materials hull, even remote underwater equipment.  Of all the capabilities the RCN might be requested or forced to give up, I would think the ability to clear our harbours of mines might be one worth enhancing?

The Kingston Class operates Auv's now for mine warfare including the standard route survey and divers. Most of this takes place outside the mine danger zone.

 

[Swampbuggy]

As some has already stated a replacement for the Kingston Class is not being looked at right now. I would say we could easily get another 10 to 15 years out of the class and they"re being modernized all the time. In fact I just spent the last month on one of them in the high Arctic and they are in pretty good shape. The problem is that the class is being asked to do two roles, one as a mine warfare type utility ship and that of a patrol ship. I can't see the RCN going with a fast patrol ship as a Kingston Class replacement. To replace the class we need two classes of ships not one.

10-15 years more of the MCDV is good news. But, is it realistic to expect another 20-25? Maybe if 6-8 were kept/refit as MCM only vessels, does it seem likely. If AOPS and some other OPV/corvette (6-8) were to take on the patrol portion of their current taskings, then possibly you keep the mine warfare and get your under 1000t ships.

 

[Stoker]

10-15 years more of the MCDV is good news. But, is it realistic to expect another 20-25? Maybe if 6-8 were kept/refit as MCM only vessels, does it seem likely. If AOPS and some other OPV/corvette (6-8) were to take on the patrol portion of their current taskings, then possibly you keep the mine warfare and get your under 1000t ships.

Original design life for the Kingston Class was 25 yrs, I doubt if they will be using them for another 25 yrs but who knows. As for taking over their patrol duties, they don't patrol exclusively except for OP Caribbe or fisheries which we don't do anymore but as in all RCN vessels all the time they are at sea for whatever they are patrolling. MCM is a very small part of what they do.

 

[dapaterson]

Ideally, the RCN would have two dozen minor combatants, with a new one joining the fleet each year, and a dozen or so major combatants, with a new one joining the fleet every two years.  But that would require a dedicated, long term plan that would survive more that one CRCN and more than one government...