• 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

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
333
Points
880
G2G:

UMIAK and NUNAVIK are very rare ships that are meant to operate year round in the lower Arctic (they don't go North of the northernmost point in the Labrador peninsula), whereas the HDW's are meant to operate in the Arctic waters from shortly before the navigation season starts to shortly after it closes. They don't need to face the rigours of the full Arctic winter.



And by the way, it is Mighty Ships, not  Mega Ships. You may have made a crossover show with Mega Transports.  ;)
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,388
Points
1,060
Ah the joy of figuring out Ice Class and their international equivalents

Easy reading
http://www.engr.mun.ca/~cdaley/8074/Ice%20Class%20Rules_CD.pdf

More indepth
https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/migrated/tp12260e.pdf

 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,910
Points
1,360
Oldgateboatdriver said:
G2G:

UMIAK and NUNAVIK are very rare ships that are meant to operate year round in the lower Arctic (they don't go North of the northernmost point in the Labrador peninsula), whereas the HDW's are meant to operate in the Arctic waters from shortly before the navigation season starts to shortly after it closes. They don't need to face the rigours of the full Arctic winter.



And by the way, it is Mighty Ships, not  Mega Ships. You may have made a crossover show with Mega Transports.  ;)

OGBD, they were impressive ships indeed.  Yes, Mighty Ships it is.  Mega Planes is the other Man show. ;)

For full duty would
It take something like PC 3 or better, then?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,371
Points
1,040
CCGS Diefenbaker is forecasted to be PC 2 (with PC 1 being the highest). Apparently some of the arctic/antarctic cruise ships are PC 2.

The EU had planned to build a PC 1 research vessel (the Aurora Borealis) but that got shelved about a decade ago.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
130
Points
710
Uzlu said:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/oldest-ship-in-canadian-coast-guard-fleet-out-of-action-until-2020-1.5154930

Well, maybe August or September:

Oldest Canadian Coast Guard ship to return to service after lengthy refit
The 57-year old Hudson is expected to stay in service until 2024 and it is due to be replaced

The oldest ship in the Canadian Coast Guard fleet will return to service next month after spending three of the last four years in refit.

The 57-year old CCGS Hudson is days away from completing a vessel-life extension and is now expected to remain in service until its 2024 retirement date.

A replacement oceanographic science vessel is supposed to be delivered to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by the Seaspan shipyard in Vancouver at that time [OOSV, built between the two JSS, good luck].

Hudson is set to leave the Newdock shipyard in St. John's this week and to resume science missions in the Atlantic Ocean in August or September...

With the ship unavailable over several seasons, the coast guard scrambled to charter vessels, at a cost of millions of dollars, to carry out at-sea science in the Atlantic.

Even so, missions were scrubbed as refits ran late or suitable charters could not be found, which interrupted studies of how ocean conditions change over time...

Hudson is completing the second phase of its life extension.

The original budget for this project was $10 million, but with extra work the cost has nearly doubled to $19.6 million.

It was in the shipyard twice as long as originally scheduled
[emphasis added].

Hudson entered Newdock in February 2019 and was expected out in July 2019.

But lead paint and asbestos were discovered when the ship was opened up. There were also unexpected heating and ventilation problems.

Finding replacement parts took time.

More money, more problems

Newdock is finishing a major maintenance program that began at Heddle Marine in Hamilton several years earlier.

That $4-million project also ran into unexpected problems and delays
[emphasis added].

The showstopper was the discovery of a cracked stern tube carrying the ship's propeller, which added weeks to the job.

Faced with ongoing delays in October 2017, the federal government towed Hudson out of Heddle with the refit unfinished because it was feared the ship would be trapped by winter ice.

Despite the problems, that's when federal officials explored the idea of keeping Hudson in service for at least five additional years and as many as 10.

Hudson replacement first promised by 2014

The ship was supposed to be replaced as early as 2014 as part of the national shipbuilding strategy.

The latest update estimates delivery of a new vessel in 2024...

By 2013, coast guard officials were predicting a replacement would be sailing in 2017. The cost then was estimated at $144 million.

In a 2018 federal government update, the new vessel was expected in service by late 2021 or early 2022 with an estimated budget of $341 million.

That date was pushed back when the oceanographic science vessel lost its place in line to the navy and a new supply ship was built first
[emphasis added].
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ccgs-hudson-resuming-service-2020-1.5645743

Acquisition malpractice. If OOSV bought abroad would be much cheaper, in service years ago.

Mark
Ottawa
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
333
Points
880
The last time the GoC overspent on a refit by about 9 millions to extend a ship's expected lifetime by about 15 years, she was scrapped a year later.

Cough! Cough! BONAVENTURE. Cough!
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
125
Points
580
MarkOttawa said:
Well, maybe August or September:

Acquisition malpractice. If OOSV bought abroad would be much cheaper, in service years ago.

Mark
Ottawa

Atrocious. $20MM refit for a 57 yr old ship to sail 4 more years... Who is in charge here?? I really don't care if this was the cheapest option, this was not the way it should have gone.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,035
Points
1,090
Same bunch of people who decided to buy 25 used Hornets from Australia, only to have them need to be upgraded once they get here...

Or $860M dollars to upgrade 36 of our Hornets with Aim-9X and AESA radars -- which should be done right around the time replacements are supposed to be coming online.


Idiots.  Seriously.  Idiots. 
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,910
Points
1,360
CBH99 said:
Same bunch of people who decided to buy 25 used Hornets from Australia, only to have them need to be upgraded once they get here...

Or $860M dollars to upgrade 36 of our Hornets with Aim-9X and AESA radars -- which should be done right around the time replacements are supposed to be coming online.


Idiots.  Seriously.  Idiots.

I don’t think they’re Idiots, CBH99, in the case of the Hornets.  It was a rather cunning, but disingenuous effort to distract and create an alternate to the clear requirement to get on with addressing the Future Fighter Capability Project in light of the campaigning Liberals’ promise to not buy the F-35.  They got into power, reviewed the file, and realized that withers was in fact a solid and economically and capability balanced case for proceeding with the F-35, then built a narrative to dismiss that reality. The specious ‘capability gap’ and the subsequent money squandered on buying yet even more decades old used Australian fighters to provide a fleet size for which the RCAF doesn’t even have enough pilots to fly, is one of the more expensive politically driven that Canadians have seen in a long time.

:2c:
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,035
Points
1,090
Sooooooooooo...incredibly cunning idiots??  I think is what your sarcastically saying?  (Or am I totally off?)


I was referring to the idiocy of the money wasted.  The $860M to upgrade the 36 Hornets, and the money spent to purchase the Australian hornets -- all of that money could have just been put towards new planes.  :dunno:



But in regards to what Mark was referencing about the $20M refit to a 57yo ship -- perhaps idiots was presumptive of me.  Obviously if we had a longstanding shipbuilding program prior to the one we have now, this particular issue wouldn't exist.  And that isn't the fault of any of the Ministers or bureaucrats that are currently in government, so I do take that comment back as it's probably unfair.

Just seems like we spend a lot of money to get minimal returns sometimes.  (Where's the person who saw the opportunity to buy the 9 VH-71's for $164M, after the US Navy paid like $4.5B??  We could use another of them!)
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,388
Points
1,060
CBH99 said:
Sooooooooooo...incredibly cunning idiots??  I think is what your sarcastically saying?  (Or am I totally off?)


I was referring to the idiocy of the money wasted.  The $860M to upgrade the 36 Hornets, and the money spent to purchase the Australian hornets -- all of that money could have just been put towards new planes.  :dunno:



But in regards to what Mark was referencing about the $20M refit to a 57yo ship -- perhaps idiots was presumptive of me.  Obviously if we had a longstanding shipbuilding program prior to the one we have now, this particular issue wouldn't exist.  And that isn't the fault of any of the Ministers or bureaucrats that are currently in government, so I do take that comment back as it's probably unfair.

Just seems like we spend a lot of money to get minimal returns sometimes.  (Where's the person who saw the opportunity to buy the 9 VH-71's for $164M, after the US Navy paid like $4.5B??  We could use another of them!)

I suspect we could lease a research ship for less than that till the OSSV is finished.
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
125
Points
580
Quebec shipyard is setting up an Arctic icebreaking research centre
Centre to serve as hub for innovation in Canadian Arctic, Davie Shipyard executive says

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Aug 04, 2020 4:00 AM ET

Describing itself as Canada's polar partner, the Chantier Davie Shipyard in Quebec plans to announce the creation of a national centre on Tuesday focusing on icebreaking in the country's Arctic.

It is, according to a senior executive at the Levis, Que., company, more than just an engineering centre and will encompass the climatic, economic and social factors that will drive the region for the next 30 years and beyond.

"It is a bigger discussion," said Spencer Fraser, the director of business development for the Inosea Group of Companies, which owns the shipyard. "It's not just around icebreaking and shipbuilding in Canada."

The Arctic icebreaking centre is intended to bring together community and business leaders as well as scientists and engineers — from both northern and southern Canada — in a conference later this year.


Good, should've been created years ago.

This program should've brought together design and engineering programs from universities and the industry from the get-go. Partnerships with some Finnish/Norwegian universities/yards for a foundation to start our own design schools, and had one dedicated yard pumping out icebreakers, another yard for warships and orphan specialty ships, and one for corvettes/OPVs and supply ships.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,371
Points
1,040
LoboCanada said:
Atrocious. $20MM refit for a 57 yr old ship to sail 4 more years... Who is in charge here?? I really don't care if this was the cheapest option, this was not the way it should have gone.

What other option do you think they had?  Procurement times make other options worse, and 'things happen' doesn't meet the threshold to bypass most delaying factors under the emergency contracting rules.

It's not like people look at this and think it's a great idea; it's the least worst option to at least have something available. It's a huge pain in the arse and also means they need to try and support it for another 4 years.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,910
Points
1,360
Timelines and the Vote 1 / Vote 5 colour of money issue left little choice.  It’s the nature of the GoC’s system these days. Until capital planning (infrastructure, operational assets, and to a lesser degree institutional structure) is fundamentally revised, it is not going to change.  20MM/4yr (if it only will be 4 years...) looks bad, until it is situated as the opportunity cost necessary to keep a critical capability in play.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,371
Points
1,040
LoboCanada said:
Quebec shipyard is setting up an Arctic icebreaking research centre
Centre to serve as hub for innovation in Canadian Arctic, Davie Shipyard executive says

Weird that this isn't also being touted by the GoC; there are a few similar programs from the other yards as a direct result of how the policies around IRBs and value proposition work, where the shipyards get a big multiplier factor for investment in research like this against their 100% reinvestment goal. It's not a coincidence that the shipyards are doing the same, and you think when a policy actually does what its' intended to the wonks would be happy to have a PR win.
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
125
Points
580
Navy_Pete said:
What other option do you think they had?  Procurement times make other options worse, and 'things happen' doesn't meet the threshold to bypass most delaying factors under the emergency contracting rules.

It's not like people look at this and think it's a great idea; it's the least worst option to at least have something available. It's a huge pain in the arse and also means they need to try and support it for another 4 years.

I was referring to the fact that it got this bad where this was the least terrible option.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
671
Points
1,060
https://www.iheartradio.ca/chom/quebec-shipyard-late-on-delivering-icebreakers-after-pushing-feds-on-purchase-1.13105182

Davie falling behind on delivery schedule on the next 2 icebreakers.

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,388
Points
1,060
Speaking to people in the ship building industry, COVID-19 has had a ripple effect throughout the supply chain, you can't build on time if your not getting the components you need.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
434
Points
930
true, but that should just have affected the third vessel.  Number 2 was supposed to be delivered at the end of 2019: before COVID so that isn't a valid reason.  A full year's delay on a ship that was supposedly seaworthy when it arrived in Canada is a little much. 
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,535
Points
1,090
http://ow.ly/AA5P50AREp0?fbclid=IwAR3uQMckqduQhDhcWQKNHOCX2wREebR4hTwnks2Vs63RSzN-yorCrVAJQDw

Interesting article by the NATO association of Canada. It attempts to make the case, poorly in my opinion of reimagining the battleship to modern warfare in order to boost our fleet. While i think the arguement is barely there, i felt like sharing as a Interesting topic for discussion.
 
Top