• 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

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,046
Points
1,040
The question was asked in response to a post querying whether we needed more AORs to support the CCG.  It seems the Coast Guard can get by with non-underway replenishment.  I imagine RAS is much more complicated than compatible piping, and that fuel transfer in the Arctic brings a whole host of environmental precautions.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
283
Points
880
lenaitch said:
The question was asked in response to a post querying whether we needed more AORs to support the CCG.  It seems the Coast Guard can get by with non-underway replenishment.  I imagine RAS is much more complicated than compatible piping, and that fuel transfer in the Arctic brings a whole host of environmental precautions.

As a general rule we don't RAS above 60 degrees. Even tying up alongside a CCG ship to get fuel several times on MCDV's I was paranoid of the possibility of a spill.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
130
Points
710
How realistic is this? Can Seaspan do in any reasonable timeframe what with two RCN JSS, CCG OOSV, and then the sixteen more vessels for CCG announced in May1919 (https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet )?

And could Davie in good time build the polar breaker as well as the six other CCG icebreakers it looks almost certain to get ( https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/davie-pre-qualified-as-canada-s-third-strategic-shipbuilding-partner )?

B.C., Ontario shipyards team up to win multibillion-dollar icebreaker contract

Canada's sharply divided shipbuilding industry was dealt a surprise this morning as two competing yards announced plans to team up to win a multibillion-dollar contract to build a new polar icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard.

The surprise agreement between Seaspan Marine in Vancouver and Ontario-based Heddle Shipyards represents the type of co-operation rarely seen within Canada, where shipyards are often competing fiercely for work.

The two companies say they will work together if they are awarded a contract to build the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, the polar-class icebreaker that is slated to become the coast guard's flagship once it is finished

The Diefenbaker was originally supposed to have been built by Seaspan after it was selected as one of two shipyards in the federal government's national shipbuilding strategy in 2011.

But the federal Liberal government took the work away last year when it reshuffled the shipbuilding program and later asked yards across Canada to explain how and why they should get the contract.

Quebec's Chantier Davie shipyard is expected to be the main challenger for the contract after the Liberals commissioned it during the reshuffle to build six medium coast guard icebreakers in what Heddle at the time alleged was a fixed selection process.
https://www.nsnews.com/b-c-ontario-shipyards-team-up-to-win-multibillion-dollar-icebreaker-contract-1.24148984

Mark
Ottawa
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
130
Points
710
More on above, political pressure on gov't:

"Seaspan Shipyards (Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd.) and Heddle Shipyards (Heddle Marine Service Inc.), the largest operator of shipyards on the Great Lakes, have entered into an exclusive teaming agreement for the Canadian Coast Guard’s future Polar Icebreaker, bringing Heddle and Ontario shipyards into the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS). Under the terms of their agreement, if Seaspan Shipyards is awarded the Polar Icebreaker, Heddle will fabricate ship modules at its three Ontario shipyards, creating sustained, predictable and long-term work for Heddle in Hamilton, St. Catharines, and Thunder Bay [emphasis added].

In a climate where the need to leverage federal procurement dollars to support Canadian companies and employees has never been greater, construction of the Polar Icebreaker will support thousands of Canadian jobs over the multi-year life of the program. The strategic relationship will also provide NSS program work for Heddle’s facility in Mount Pearl, Newfoundland [emphasis added].

Seaspan was selected in 2011 as Canada’s NSS strategic partner to build all large non-combat vessels following a comprehensive, open and transparent competitive process. With $185 million in capital infrastructure investments made by the company since the contract award, Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyard was purpose-built for the construction of the Polar Icebreaker. It is the only shipyard in Canada with the workforce, facilities and capacity in place today to deliver the complex vessel by the Coast Guard’s critical 2029 deadline [emphasis added]..."
http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/2877

What about Heddle's planned collaboration with Damen?

...Damen specializes in constructing ships using modules, and that the Dutch company was sending representatives to Heddle's Ontario operations to determine how modules could be constructed at each of them...
https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/heddle-shipyards-shut-out-of-federal-icebreaker-program-2-photos-1981910

Mark
Ottawa
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,036
Points
1,090
Okay.  Stupid question time.  I tried to google this, sorry in advance...I know this is probably a "duh" question.


If Seaspan is in BC, how does constructing modules for ships in Ontario make any sense?  Does Seaspan also have a shipyard/construction facility in the Great Lakes also?  Out east?    :dunno:
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,535
Points
1,090
They are using Heddle has a subsidiary essentially, Seaspan is providing the Capital, and Heddle builds it. This way Seaspan gets the work it lost back, and gets back that sweet sweet government money.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
100
Points
530
MarkOttawa said:
How realistic is this?
It might be very realistic if all or most of the designs are modular.  This is the way I would have preferred all large Canadian ships to be built—modular construction with modules built by Irving, Seaspan, Davie, and Heddle and all four shipbuilders perhaps taking turns in final assembly of the completed modules.
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
125
Points
580
MilEME09 said:
They are using Heddle has a subsidiary essentially, Seaspan is providing the Capital, and Heddle builds it. This way Seaspan gets the work it lost back, and gets back that sweet sweet government money.

And Heddle gets the cash flow and co-sign of one of the biggest yards. This way a 4th yard would technically be apart of the 3 yard Strategy giving the gov't the break of having to expand the NSP again.

Would be great PR to assemble/build some RCN/CCG ships off the great lakes.

There is enough work to spread the cash around the country. Maybe the industry will get a boost to orders in the NSP to boost the industry.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,535
Points
1,090
Strategically block building in the Great lakes makes sense, though logistically Davie would of been a better partner, block build in the great lakes, final assembly in Montreal.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
100
Points
530
MilEME09 said:
Strategically block building in the Great lakes makes sense, though logistically Davie would of been a better partner, block build in the great lakes, final assembly in Montreal.
I think you might have meant to write Lévis.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,371
Points
1,040
CBH99 said:
Okay.  Stupid question time.  I tried to google this, sorry in advance...I know this is probably a "duh" question.


If Seaspan is in BC, how does constructing modules for ships in Ontario make any sense?  Does Seaspan also have a shipyard/construction facility in the Great Lakes also?  Out east?    :dunno:

I'm assuming they would design it so that there were a lot of modules that could be shipped by rail and do the assembly into blocks in Vancouver. Alternately they may do a bunch of big blocks and ship it around on the big platform ships, but that seems really expensive and logistically difficult (those ships are booked years in advance).

Not sure if that kind of thing would be competitive price wise, as it takes a lot to get up to the level of accuracy control required at one year (let alone 4) but would be interesting to see. Also, the last thing we want is a non-competitive award to Davie for that kind of thing. It may just be a clever negotiation leverage to get replacement work for the Polar class, but who knows.

As an aside, ISI already does this at it's Woodside facility; but obviously it's either going across the harbour or loaded on a truck, so lot shorter transport distances.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,535
Points
1,090
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/surprise-alliance-of-b-c-and-ontario-shipyards-teams-up-bids-for-multibillion-dollar-icebreaker-contract?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1591730162

According to this, all three of heddle's  yards on the Great lakes will be used to create the blocks. This could be a boom for Ontario. Logistics still seem to boggle the mind of finishing at Seaspan. Could they  assemble in Ontario, then float the hull to Seaspan to finish?
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
100
Points
530
MilEME09 said:
Could they  assemble in Ontario, then float the hull to Seaspan to finish?
The future CCGS John G. Diefenbaker has a beam of 28 metres.  Ships must have a beam of 23.8 metres or less to traverse the St. Lawrence Seaway.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,842
Points
1,010
It could be possible.  Many of the blocks themselves are not any bigger then ISO container.  Build them, put them on a laker, sail it around and then assemble into megablocks at VSY.  It would certainly speed up the process.

VSY had to do something to move the schedule up.  A competitive advantage for Davie (aside from the geographic one) was the schedule.  This probably evens that particular criterion out.
 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
233
Points
530
If the blocks are that small they could make the trip by rail. Boeing does that with 737 fuselages and they are quite long. If the blocks were designed to be long and narrow they could make special cars to transport them on.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,371
Points
1,040
Dana381 said:
If the blocks are that small they could make the trip by rail. Boeing does that with 737 fuselages and they are quite long. If the blocks were designed to be long and narrow they could make special cars to transport them on.

Aside from the actual hull parts, there are also equipment modules and similar which are fully wired, piped bits that are meant to fit on a few pallets and be plug and play. They normally get moved around the yard on trucks, so would just mean a longer trip in a container or on a pallet strapped down. Would be pretty straightforward to include in the build plan to have some things fit in a standard footprint to be containerized.  That stuff is a bit easier as the connection points are discrete bolt/pipe connections, vice having a plate in the right plane +/- a mm or so. Usually the pipes hook up to flex joints (to go between shock mounted gear and fixed piping) so there is more room for play, and you don't need the same accuracy controls to get the footings in the right place (or maybe weld those on in situ).

That adds a lot of overhead though, but I guess they would get points for work spread over Canada. Schedule gains have their own cost offsets though, so maybe it's a wash.
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
36
Points
430
Navy_Pete said:
Aside from the actual hull parts, there are also equipment modules and similar which are fully wired, piped bits that are meant to fit on a few pallets and be plug and play. They normally get moved around the yard on trucks, so would just mean a longer trip in a container or on a pallet strapped down. Would be pretty straightforward to include in the build plan to have some things fit in a standard footprint to be containerized.  That stuff is a bit easier as the connection points are discrete bolt/pipe connections, vice having a plate in the right plane +/- a mm or so. Usually the pipes hook up to flex joints (to go between shock mounted gear and fixed piping) so there is more room for play, and you don't need the same accuracy controls to get the footings in the right place (or maybe weld those on in situ).

That adds a lot of overhead though, but I guess they would get points for work spread over Canada. Schedule gains have their own cost offsets though, so maybe it's a wash.

If it’s palletized or containerized it can be sent by rail too.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,371
Points
1,040
Yeah, sorry, that's what I mean, rail would make the most sense. It would be easy to include that in the design and stick it on a train. Suspect that's more cost effective then shipping it via a ship, and lets you send it in discrete packs so it can go into the production queue. Shipping it all at once in a big ship would create it's own problems for sorting and warehousing on the other end. Typically the bits that are done offsite are coordinated so that they are done in sequence and show up when they are needed for the production schedule. There is some storage/lay down areas to give you flex and allow for shipping delays, but it's minimized because real estate and storage are expensive, and you can't just make something and leave it sitting for a year without having to do some maintenance on it or do rework on the mating surfaces, paint etc.

Not quite just-in-time that they do with car manufacturing, but the whole point of going modular is to allow flexibility and not having to have all the capacity on site. The manufacturing spots are designed so the work stations are really efficient at doing specific work on a specific footprint, whereas a one-size fits all site has a lot of compromises to give you the range of capability. That's why there was a massive capitol expenditure to upgrade both shipyards under the NSS (which Davie would also have to do).

Davie was able to do it with Asterix overseas because the IRBs didn't apply, but it's the same idea.  Heddle and Damen have been doing that already for offshore repair work, so this is an interesting extension of that. I think under the NSS they would just be a major subcontractor, but conceptually no difference then the other subcontractors that do the things like outfitting and furnishings that come in a plug and play box that gets craned into the module. Pretty bold though; like it.
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
36
Points
430
Navy_Pete said:
Yeah, sorry, that's what I mean, rail would make the most sense. It would be easy to include that in the design and stick it on a train. Suspect that's more cost effective then shipping it via a ship, and lets you send it in discrete packs so it can go into the production queue. Shipping it all at once in a big ship would create it's own problems for sorting and warehousing on the other end. Typically the bits that are done offsite are coordinated so that they are done in sequence and show up when they are needed for the production schedule. There is some storage/lay down areas to give you flex and allow for shipping delays, but it's minimized because real estate and storage are expensive, and you can't just make something and leave it sitting for a year without having to do some maintenance on it or do rework on the mating surfaces, paint etc.

Not quite just-in-time that they do with car manufacturing, but the whole point of going modular is to allow flexibility and not having to have all the capacity on site. The manufacturing spots are designed so the work stations are really efficient at doing specific work on a specific footprint, whereas a one-size fits all site has a lot of compromises to give you the range of capability. That's why there was a massive capitol expenditure to upgrade both shipyards under the NSS (which Davie would also have to do).

Davie was able to do it with Asterix overseas because the IRBs didn't apply, but it's the same idea.  Heddle and Damen have been doing that already for offshore repair work, so this is an interesting extension of that. I think under the NSS they would just be a major subcontractor, but conceptually no difference then the other subcontractors that do the things like outfitting and furnishings that come in a plug and play box that gets craned into the module. Pretty bold though; like it.

I have this thought of Damen buying Seaspan from the Washington Group. Quite the catalogue to choose from.

One can only dream.
 
Top