- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
AlexanderM said:
So you expect one of us to go through it for you and direct you the right page?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, and the answer to your question is:
Yes
New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
- Thread starter GAP
- Start date
So you expect one of us to go through it for you and direct you the right page?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, and the answer to your question is:
Yes
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
Actually, I thought someone might have some information at their fingertips.E.R. Campbell said:
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
AlexanderM said:
"Someone" probably does, but a warship project ~ defining requirements, budgeting, designing, building and bringing into service ~ is a hideously complex business, well above my pay and skill levels (when I still had a pay grade). "Somoeone" may have some inside information, but until the Chief of the Naval Staff himself (eventually herself) joins Navy.ca we are likely to find out the "real" information when most other Canadians do.
Until then here is "someone's" idea:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
Yes, I do understand this, was hoping to get lucky with some information, and yes it is a bit early to say the least, as the designs take time. I am constantly searching the net looking for any hint of the designs, I did find one link but it was not something I could access. It will be interesting to see if we come up with our own design or license one of the existing designs. The one posted above is the Halifax Class with the extended hull, and thank you very much for posting the design.E.R. Campbell said:"Someone" probably does, but a warship project ~ defining requirements, budgeting, designing, building and bringing into service ~ is a hideously complex business, well above my pay and skill levels (when I still had a pay grade). "Somoeone" may have some inside information, but until the Chief of the Naval Staff himself (eventually herself) joins Navy.ca we are likely to find out the "real" information when most other Canadians do.
Until then here is "someone's" idea:
I love the streamlined look of the FREMM but the systems are all wrong, then I also very much like the De Zeven Provincien which has the systems we will likely use. If we do our own design, I hope that it doesn't turn out to be overly expensive, as I understand the desire to show that we can still produce our own ship, but for the next 20 years or so, cheaper is going to be better as countries aren't going to have money for expensive warships, they are going to want quality at a very good price. So, if we produce something that is very costly, thinking it will allow us to compete globally in the warship building market, it will likely just end up costing us alot of money. As other countries just aren't going to be interested, given the current financial conditions that will likely be around for a long time. So I'm hoping that we just build ourselves some good ships and not worry too much about other considerations.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
My, very limited, experience in all this involved working for the former Captain of the (now defunct) Naval Drawing Office) and former Project Manager CPF when he moved on to bigger things. He had four concerns in warship design, in no particular order:
1. Sea keeping ~ how well does it sail?
2. Habitability ~ are the sailors "fit to fight" when needed?
3. Armour and armament ~ can it survive and win a fight?
4. Cost ~ can we afford it?
I can guarantee that he agonized over those four criteria; to him a "beautiful" ship was one that could stay at sea, in the wild North Atlantic, and win a fight there - at a price that we could afford without denying the Army and Air Force the kit they need, too. Ugly equalled unaffordable.
1. Sea keeping ~ how well does it sail?
2. Habitability ~ are the sailors "fit to fight" when needed?
3. Armour and armament ~ can it survive and win a fight?
4. Cost ~ can we afford it?
I can guarantee that he agonized over those four criteria; to him a "beautiful" ship was one that could stay at sea, in the wild North Atlantic, and win a fight there - at a price that we could afford without denying the Army and Air Force the kit they need, too. Ugly equalled unaffordable.
ironduke57
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 230
As a side note:milnews.ca said:
On the 17.4. our third AOR BONN (A1413) was christened.
Pix:
(Guard of honour of the city of Bonn.)
Regards,
ironduke57
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,936
- Points
- 1,160
E.R. Campbell said:
Funny thing about ships, generally if it does not look "right" it generally is not. I remember showing my girlfriend the (then) recently launched 500 Class Cutters for the CCG. She took one look and said "Aren't they top heavy?" She was bang on and could not tell a dingy from a Cruise ship.
Navy destroyers will be retired before replacements arrive, documents reveal
By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News June 20, 2012
Article Link
OTTAWA — Canada's navy will have to do more with less in a few years as internal documents and Defence Department insiders have confirmed the country's aging fleet of destroyers will be retired before replacements are ready.
The revelation highlights the pressure the Conservative government and Canadian Forces are under as they race against the clock to start cutting steel on new vessels through their promised $35 billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy.
"It just kind of echoes the same worries that we've had," said Andrew Warden, head of maritime affairs at the Navy League of Canada. "These projects keep being delayed and delayed, and the ships just keep getting older and older."
The navy's Iroquois-class destroyers were built in the early 1970s and underwent a major upgrade in the 1990s so they could provide anti-submarine warfare, anti-aircraft defence as well as command-and-control capabilities for Canadian and allied naval task forces.
Over the decades, the destroyers have participated in missions off Canada's shores and around the world, including in the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Desert Storm, the Indian Ocean after 9/11 and in Haiti following the January 2010 earthquake.
Briefing notes prepared for Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino in May 2011 and obtained by Postmedia News state the destroyers "will reach the end of their planned service life beginning in 2017, at which point they will be over 43 years old."
Yet the notes also say the Iroquois-class "will not be replaced before it is retired," an assessment that was confirmed Wednesday by a senior official within National Defence.
The navy is putting in place plans to ensure the loss of the destroyers won't negatively impact the maritime force's capabilities, and Warden said Canada's 12 Halifax-class frigates can take on many of the tasks currently assigned to the destroyers.
However, the loss of the Iroquois-class "will definitely limit some of our options" in terms of what type of operations the navy can undertake during that period, Warden said, while the key question is exactly how long the gap will last.
Treasury Board, which holds the federal purse strings, reportedly agreed on Tuesday to release several hundred million dollars so the Defence Department could move ahead and begin designing the vessels that will replace the destroyers and frigates.
This is considered a significant step and the hope is that negotiations with Irving Shipyard in Halifax and associated contractors responsible for building the next generation of naval surface combatants will be finished by 2016, with the first ship delivered in the early 2020s.
But Fantino's briefing notes warned that the "critical" $26.6-billion Canadian-surface-combatant (CSC) project to replace the destroyers as well as the frigates would need to enter the design phase in 2011 to ensure the rest of the process — including contract negotiations with industry — moved ahead smoothly.
On top of that, senior naval officers noted at a recent conference there were more than 400 people working directly on the Halifax-class frigate program in the 1980s and another 1,000 contributing in other ways.
In contrast, there are about 30 currently assigned to the project that will replace the frigates and Iroquois-class destroyers, with that number expected to peak at only a couple hundred in the coming years.
"There needs to be an understanding across this community about the relative fragility of the staff capacity that we are seeing," deputy naval commander Rear-Admiral Mark Norman said at the time. "This is not anyone's fault. It's just a reality."
More on link
By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News June 20, 2012
Article Link
OTTAWA — Canada's navy will have to do more with less in a few years as internal documents and Defence Department insiders have confirmed the country's aging fleet of destroyers will be retired before replacements are ready.
The revelation highlights the pressure the Conservative government and Canadian Forces are under as they race against the clock to start cutting steel on new vessels through their promised $35 billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy.
"It just kind of echoes the same worries that we've had," said Andrew Warden, head of maritime affairs at the Navy League of Canada. "These projects keep being delayed and delayed, and the ships just keep getting older and older."
The navy's Iroquois-class destroyers were built in the early 1970s and underwent a major upgrade in the 1990s so they could provide anti-submarine warfare, anti-aircraft defence as well as command-and-control capabilities for Canadian and allied naval task forces.
Over the decades, the destroyers have participated in missions off Canada's shores and around the world, including in the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Desert Storm, the Indian Ocean after 9/11 and in Haiti following the January 2010 earthquake.
Briefing notes prepared for Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino in May 2011 and obtained by Postmedia News state the destroyers "will reach the end of their planned service life beginning in 2017, at which point they will be over 43 years old."
Yet the notes also say the Iroquois-class "will not be replaced before it is retired," an assessment that was confirmed Wednesday by a senior official within National Defence.
The navy is putting in place plans to ensure the loss of the destroyers won't negatively impact the maritime force's capabilities, and Warden said Canada's 12 Halifax-class frigates can take on many of the tasks currently assigned to the destroyers.
However, the loss of the Iroquois-class "will definitely limit some of our options" in terms of what type of operations the navy can undertake during that period, Warden said, while the key question is exactly how long the gap will last.
Treasury Board, which holds the federal purse strings, reportedly agreed on Tuesday to release several hundred million dollars so the Defence Department could move ahead and begin designing the vessels that will replace the destroyers and frigates.
This is considered a significant step and the hope is that negotiations with Irving Shipyard in Halifax and associated contractors responsible for building the next generation of naval surface combatants will be finished by 2016, with the first ship delivered in the early 2020s.
But Fantino's briefing notes warned that the "critical" $26.6-billion Canadian-surface-combatant (CSC) project to replace the destroyers as well as the frigates would need to enter the design phase in 2011 to ensure the rest of the process — including contract negotiations with industry — moved ahead smoothly.
On top of that, senior naval officers noted at a recent conference there were more than 400 people working directly on the Halifax-class frigate program in the 1980s and another 1,000 contributing in other ways.
In contrast, there are about 30 currently assigned to the project that will replace the frigates and Iroquois-class destroyers, with that number expected to peak at only a couple hundred in the coming years.
"There needs to be an understanding across this community about the relative fragility of the staff capacity that we are seeing," deputy naval commander Rear-Admiral Mark Norman said at the time. "This is not anyone's fault. It's just a reality."
More on link
Well, if things don't go rapidly enough we could always do what the Aussie's are doing......
The Spanish Test Drive
Article Link
July 16, 2012
Desperate to cut costs, and already facing fewer days at sea, the Spanish Navy is leasing one of its supply ships (the 19,500 ton Cantabria) to Australia for ten months next year. The Spanish Navy will continue to pay the crew (180 sailors), but Australia will pick up all other expenses, including the costs of Cantabria steaming from Spain to Australia and back.
Cantabria is a two year old ship of modern design. It carries fuel (diesel and aviation), fresh water other supplies for supported ships as well as a ten bed medical and dental clinic. Called an AOR, these ships are basically tankers that also carry other supplies (food, water, spare parts) needed to keep ships at sea for long periods.
Cantabria is being sent south because the Spanish Navy has to cut costs (because of shrinking government budgets and a major recession) and Australia needs another supply ship for naval exercises next year. Australia is also seeking to buy a new supply ship and the Cantabria class is one of the contenders. This gives Australia an opportunity to check out the Spanish ship under realistic conditions.
Neither country would reveal what the deal would save Spain, and cost Australia, but operating a ship like this costs at least $500,000 a month (not counting crew pay.) So it's going to cost Australia over $5 million, and save the Spanish somewhat less (as Cantabria was only scheduled to be at sea 40 days next year if it stayed in Spain). Australia plans to work Cantabria much harder.
end
The Spanish Test Drive
Article Link
July 16, 2012
Desperate to cut costs, and already facing fewer days at sea, the Spanish Navy is leasing one of its supply ships (the 19,500 ton Cantabria) to Australia for ten months next year. The Spanish Navy will continue to pay the crew (180 sailors), but Australia will pick up all other expenses, including the costs of Cantabria steaming from Spain to Australia and back.
Cantabria is a two year old ship of modern design. It carries fuel (diesel and aviation), fresh water other supplies for supported ships as well as a ten bed medical and dental clinic. Called an AOR, these ships are basically tankers that also carry other supplies (food, water, spare parts) needed to keep ships at sea for long periods.
Cantabria is being sent south because the Spanish Navy has to cut costs (because of shrinking government budgets and a major recession) and Australia needs another supply ship for naval exercises next year. Australia is also seeking to buy a new supply ship and the Cantabria class is one of the contenders. This gives Australia an opportunity to check out the Spanish ship under realistic conditions.
Neither country would reveal what the deal would save Spain, and cost Australia, but operating a ship like this costs at least $500,000 a month (not counting crew pay.) So it's going to cost Australia over $5 million, and save the Spanish somewhat less (as Cantabria was only scheduled to be at sea 40 days next year if it stayed in Spain). Australia plans to work Cantabria much harder.
end
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,936
- Points
- 1,160
It's actually a great idea, you get to test drive the ship and see what they are really like.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Canadian shipbuilders fear navy will buy German vessels
CBC News
Last Updated: Aug 31, 2012 10:20 ET
German industry has made a pitch to the Canadian government to supply designs for frigates, destroyers and new submarines CBC
Some Canadian shipbuilders are concerned a German design could be the leading contender to replace the navy's aging sea support ships.
Replenishment ships, like the Preserver and the Protecteur, help the Canadian navy stay at sea for long periods of time, but at 40 years old, they'll soon need replacements.
Sources have told the CBC that a German-designed ship called the Berlin class could win the $3-billion contract.
Since the Second World War, Canada has designed and built its own warships. However, in recent years, the German industry has lobbied the Canadian government to supply designs for frigates, destroyers and new submarines.
Peter Cairns, president of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, said buying an existing foreign design means the Canadian industry loses out.
"You can get vessels off the shelf cheaper," he said.
"[There's] no Canadian input with the exception of the odd piece of pipe."
Cairns said he's concerned the sea support ship contract could signal the demise of a decades-old Canadian design industry.
"This Berlin class is going to come with German radars, German engines, German this, German that, and German the rest of it."
The federal government has promised to build new arctic patrol vessels and navy combat ships in Halifax over the next 30 years.
CBC News
Last Updated: Aug 31, 2012 10:20 ET
German industry has made a pitch to the Canadian government to supply designs for frigates, destroyers and new submarines CBC
Some Canadian shipbuilders are concerned a German design could be the leading contender to replace the navy's aging sea support ships.
Replenishment ships, like the Preserver and the Protecteur, help the Canadian navy stay at sea for long periods of time, but at 40 years old, they'll soon need replacements.
Sources have told the CBC that a German-designed ship called the Berlin class could win the $3-billion contract.
Since the Second World War, Canada has designed and built its own warships. However, in recent years, the German industry has lobbied the Canadian government to supply designs for frigates, destroyers and new submarines.
Peter Cairns, president of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, said buying an existing foreign design means the Canadian industry loses out.
"You can get vessels off the shelf cheaper," he said.
"[There's] no Canadian input with the exception of the odd piece of pipe."
Cairns said he's concerned the sea support ship contract could signal the demise of a decades-old Canadian design industry.
"This Berlin class is going to come with German radars, German engines, German this, German that, and German the rest of it."
The federal government has promised to build new arctic patrol vessels and navy combat ships in Halifax over the next 30 years.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
Look, I am all for giving the military good equipment, however, licensing existing designs is the way to go. Other countries can build very capable new destroyers for around 1 billion dollars, but our military wants to spend double that or more, simply to preserve our design role. I hope that this is what our top General resigned over recently, and the new guy will have been brought in the use licensed designs.
Canada has been a partner in the APAR system for some time now, and we will be using the Smart-L/APAR radar. After that it's just off the shelf weapons systems, the VLS launchers, the bofors or other main gun, the point defence systems, we don't have to redesign the wheel here, it will only cost a huge amount of money.
Canada has been a partner in the APAR system for some time now, and we will be using the Smart-L/APAR radar. After that it's just off the shelf weapons systems, the VLS launchers, the bofors or other main gun, the point defence systems, we don't have to redesign the wheel here, it will only cost a huge amount of money.
- Reaction score
- 4,272
- Points
- 1,260
A bit of an oversimplification, given politicians also want regional industrial benefits, but fixed that for you - I don't think the military generally wants to spend more at any given time on hardware than they have to.AlexanderM said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
The designs would be licensed and then built in Canada, so the construction would be done here, that has not been an issue. However, the navy has been talking something in the range of 2.5 billion per destroyer, which is ridiculous. That's more expensive than a Burke.
A
aesop081
Guest
AlexanderM said:
The military does not make the decisions on where things are built, by whom or who designs it.
You should watch the news a bunch more.
It will not be the new guy's decision either.
Similar threads
