New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
- Thread starter GAP
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
MTShaw said:
It is not generally realized that Seaspan is US-controlled:
Mark Ottawa
Underway said:
If there is anything we can really learn from US procurement in the last 10 years or so, is that concurrency is a BAD THING. A VERY BAD THING!!
Ford class, F-35, etc...
I can only imagine being a fly on the wall of your office, Underway, chuckling away as the yards design & build at the same time :threat:
- Reaction score
- 5,938
- Points
- 1,090
CBH99 said:
Since my office is in my house you are under threat from my fly eating cat (who also likes to try and sleep on my keyboard). But yes, "industry standard" is to design and build at the same time. And waiting until the ship was fully designed for AOPS and JSS made the costs a significant risk. Any cost that we add due to design and build now pale in comparison with waiting 4 years and then building. It also created risk that the projects themselves would never get off the ground.
As we say in my team when things are frustrating and not going exactly how we would like "The best ship is the one you have." And we will have ships. Ergo they will be the best. :nod:
I think most of us can say - and I'll happily admit - that I did not know ANYTHING about shipbuilding prior to this thread. And I still don't, but I'm learning as I can.
When I read the options are "Class A", or "Class B", or "Class C" -- I assumed that the ships were already a final product in terms of their design. Their propulsion systems, hull, electronic capacities, etc etc were already well known.
I'm realizing over the last few months of following this thread, especially the build of the 1st and 2ns AOPS - how much more complicated shipbuilding actually is.
I've learned a LOT from your posts Underway :cheers:
When I read the options are "Class A", or "Class B", or "Class C" -- I assumed that the ships were already a final product in terms of their design. Their propulsion systems, hull, electronic capacities, etc etc were already well known.
I'm realizing over the last few months of following this thread, especially the build of the 1st and 2ns AOPS - how much more complicated shipbuilding actually is.
I've learned a LOT from your posts Underway :cheers:
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Spreading the political pork (but curious no fed pol there)--and maybe Seaspan needs help to make schedules for RCN JSS, CCG OOSV?
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 6,275
- Points
- 1,040
MarkOttawa said:
Sounds like they are acting as just a subcontractor here for Seaspan. Good news for Heddle, but anyone with the capabilities can put in a bid to supply the bits and pieces like this, so it's not necessarily accurate to say they are part of the NSS as a shipyard.
If it works out and they have a good working relationship, probably makes sense business wise to maintain it as timely delivery and quality are of huge importance when you are doing just in time modular construction like this.
- Reaction score
- 6,275
- Points
- 1,040
Good2Golf said:
No, but right now they are building things like ladders, railings etc (generally lumped together as 'outfitting'). These can be pretty big chunks of steel, but nothing terribly complicated.
Aside from the actual ship blocks, the modular construction scales down to things like pipe nests, skid mounted equipment and other components, so there is lots of opportunity to do that off site, so probably just a question of shipping costs on whether or not it's worth it. For example, some designs have entire cabins built off site, then the box gets dropped in to the module and attached. That's a lot of sheet metal so usually companies that specialize in that (but may not strictly do marine).
- Reaction score
- 6,275
- Points
- 1,040
I think that was a proposal, but don't remember seeing that being contracted for. They have the larger yard on the East coast in partnership with Damen, so they could easily split the work between the two and rail/barge modules over, but there is probably a point where schedule gains doesn't make up for the transport cost. Theoretically though they could be subcontracted by any of the main yards for this kind of furnishing and outfittings work.
For the larger ship modules accuracy is critical, so takes a bit to build up the skillset accuracy to do the surveying etc for it. You have to make allowances for expansion during the fit up, correct for heat distortion, etc to prevent misalignment, so it's a bit more then taking some laser measurements and calling it a day. That's why the first few ships will be slower, as they need to build up the database of these kind of things for their specific equipment, processes and arrangements as well as build up the expertise. All that stuff is expensive reword and delays, so part of the learning curve is learning how all this works together and building it into the manufacturing instructions. Established shipyards will have a lot of this in place, but if they do something with a new grade of steel or something they would have a bit of learning to do as well.
For things like ladders etc those are pretty standard and the accuracy tolerances is usually only relevant for a few attachment points and overall dimensions, so it's easy enough to make them off site and bolt them on.
For the larger ship modules accuracy is critical, so takes a bit to build up the skillset accuracy to do the surveying etc for it. You have to make allowances for expansion during the fit up, correct for heat distortion, etc to prevent misalignment, so it's a bit more then taking some laser measurements and calling it a day. That's why the first few ships will be slower, as they need to build up the database of these kind of things for their specific equipment, processes and arrangements as well as build up the expertise. All that stuff is expensive reword and delays, so part of the learning curve is learning how all this works together and building it into the manufacturing instructions. Established shipyards will have a lot of this in place, but if they do something with a new grade of steel or something they would have a bit of learning to do as well.
For things like ladders etc those are pretty standard and the accuracy tolerances is usually only relevant for a few attachment points and overall dimensions, so it's easy enough to make them off site and bolt them on.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
From story above:
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 6,275
- Points
- 1,040
MarkOttawa said:
For reference, 'modules' can means anything from building strucutural blocks of the hull to doing equipment modules (i.e. fitting an equipment assembly on a skid that gets dropped in and welded into place). Really depends what you are talking about, and normally the people that understand the nuance aren't talking to reporters.
Dimensional accuracy control of a ship module coming from Hamilton to Vancouver is a big risk, so makes sense to start small with easy stuff. Would be neat to see bits of the Polar class made in my hometown and shipped out to the west coast, but don't think they are at that stage yet on Polar to see if that makes sense.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Navy_Pete said:
Then-PM Harper in April 2008:
Now looks like the Louis, almost certain to have further life extension by Davie ( https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-canada-issues-advance-contract-award-notice-for-vessel-life-extension-of-canada-s-largest-icebreaker-842206560.html ), will break on until around 2030 at over 60 years old. How long can this nonsense go on?
Mark
Ottawa
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,873
- Points
- 1,160
Well we could be following the USCG example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Smilax_(WLIC-315)#:~:text=USCGC%20Smilax%20(WAGL%2FWLIC%2D,commissioned%20U.S.%20Coast%20Guard%20cutter.
Speaking of modules, the entire upperworks of Astreix was built offshore and transported over
Speaking of modules, the entire upperworks of Astreix was built offshore and transported over
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Sleight of words--Asterix was a modification, not shipbuilding, deal as publicized so...But if real "shipbuilding" contract? One doubts.
As for USCG, they will have very likely three polar class and three medium breakers on fairly short shipbuilding notice and long before the CCG ever sees its one only polar or the other ones:
https://news.usni.org/2020/06/16/report-to-congress-on-coast-guard-polar-security-cutter-7
Mark
Ottawa
As for USCG, they will have very likely three polar class and three medium breakers on fairly short shipbuilding notice and long before the CCG ever sees its one only polar or the other ones:
https://news.usni.org/2020/06/16/report-to-congress-on-coast-guard-polar-security-cutter-7
Mark
Ottawa
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,253
- Points
- 1,010
MarkOttawa said:
Why? The Italians built the Cavour in two halves at different yards, to be brought together in one ship. Two full halves sections. The British had the Queen Elizabeth class built with modules of varying sizes built at more than half a dozen yards and brought in to the lead yard for assembly. Heck! Before going into bankruptcy protection at the time of the Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy inception, Davie itself had been building modules for the US Navy's Nimitz class aircraft carriers, which were barged to Newport News yard for incorporation to the main work. In fact, modular construction of warship is seemingly picking up everywhere - except at ISL where they don't share anything once they have their grubby hands on it.
Davie itself has indicated that they intend to outsource modules to other, smaller Canadian shipyards for the build of the new icebreakers, and in particular for the Diefenbaker should they get the contract.
P.S.: I hope Heedle's deal with Seaspan is not exclusive because they are most favourably situated to build modules for Davie should this happen. You could then be looking at fairly large modules because they could be barged to Quebec city fairly easily, in much better environmental conditions and calmer sea states (or no sea state at all on the River
) than for any other yard they may want to do this for.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Oldgateboatdriver--my "one doubts" was only about building major parts of ships abroad.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 2,024
- Points
- 1,160
Similar threads
