New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Colin Parkinson]

A little bit of infomercial on the Offshore Science Vessel

 

[Underway]

Vancouver, Quebec shipyards to each get new heavy icebreaker, cost remains a mystery

I can't decide if this is good, bad, or just a thing. An extra icebreaker... good. Throwing money around to avoid election issues, probably bad but normal government behavior. Adding another shipyard to NSPS is probably bad... see frigate build and issues with VDQ.

I think I'll glass is half full on this. Another heavy icebreaker is good news. Multiple places lobbying to build ships is good, though I don't think Canada can long term support three shipyards.

 

[CBH99]

That's unexpected good news. Employs more people, we get another ship, a shipyard gets experience building something they may not have otherwise been able to build, etc.

More expensive? Yes. (Does money really even matter anymore, at the federal level? Not kidding, but I'll save it for a different thread)

Move to buy votes? Ofcourse.

Keeping a good chunk of the money inside Canada, and employers a nice little chunk of people for a while? This it does, and a lot of us will need these opportunities once Covid isn't the main thing going on.


Good news indeed

 

[newfin]

Vancouver, Quebec shipyards to each get new heavy icebreaker, cost remains a mystery

I can't decide if this is good, bad, or just a thing. An extra icebreaker... good. Throwing money around to avoid election issues, probably bad but normal government behavior. Adding another shipyard to NSPS is probably bad... see frigate build and issues with VDQ.

I think I'll glass is half full on this. Another heavy icebreaker is good news. Multiple places lobbying to build ships is good, though I don't think Canada can long term support three shipyards.

I agree that long-term, 3 yards are probably one too many. However, the reality is we need ships now and this helps get them faster. And throwing money around because of election politics is as old as the country itself. What's different about this scenario is that this time the money is being spent on something useful.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Also believe that this is good thing.
Anyone have any thoughts on where both ships will be homeported? St. John's for both, split between Ville de Quebec and St. John's or one in St. John's and the other somewhere on the west coast?
Will these ships be capable of over-wintering in a place like Tuktoyaktuk if needed?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, if you consider the lead time before either one hits the water, adding a second one right away is not a bad move: By that time Terry Fox would be getting pretty old too and need replacement soon (not a s old as the Louis, but which ship in Canada is???)

And Czech_pivo: Yes, they could overwinter in the Arctic, no problem.

 

[Kirkhill]

In early February 2011, STX Canada Marine (now Vard Marine Inc) was awarded the contract to design the new icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard. Although the majority of the design work will take place in the Vancouver offices of STX Canada (now Vard Marine Inc), the design team will also include the Finnish engineering company Aker Arctic.[7] The work was initially planned to be complete by the end of 2013. The project was then allocated to Seaspan/Vancouver Shipyards to build the ship at Vancouver after the company completed work on the Joint Support Ship project. However, the latter project was significantly delayed and in 2019 John G. Diefenbaker was removed from the Seaspan yard but in 2021 at least one ship of an expanded class of two vessels was reallocated to the yard. A second ship was now planned to be built at the Davie Yard, pending the successful conclusion of an umbrella agreement between the Government of Canada and Davie Shipbuilding.

For reference - Vard, STX Canada, Aker, Kvaerner is the same team that designed the AOPS, the Svalbard and the Double Acting tankers and freighters used in the Baltic and the Norwegian arctic.

It is obvious that those hulls are much better supplied by Quebec and Nova Scotia yards 4 time zones away from the design teams.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Vancouver, Quebec shipyards to each get new heavy icebreaker, cost remains a mystery

I can't decide if this is good, bad, or just a thing. An extra icebreaker... good. Throwing money around to avoid election issues, probably bad but normal government behavior. Adding another shipyard to NSPS is probably bad... see frigate build and issues with VDQ.

I think I'll glass is half full on this. Another heavy icebreaker is good news. Multiple places lobbying to build ships is good, though I don't think Canada can long term support three shipyards.

Irving is going to have it's hands full with the CSC program foe quite awhile. Vancouver is going to be well placed as it will have built the largest ship in the navy by the time the design gets to them, so the people and equipment are already in place to take this on.

 

[YZT580]

so two yards will simultaneously make the same errors instead of learning from the first to save on the second.

 

[MilEME09]

Its also a test of the two yards, same design, two yards, if one goes grossly over time and budget, questions will come up.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hopefully they set aside their differences and work cooperatively.

 

[Navy_Pete]

so two yards will simultaneously make the same errors instead of learning from the first to save on the second.

Don't forget we'll pay for production engineering, test plan development etc twice. All those things that need to be built around the specific yard capabilities, SOPs and processes need to be partiularized so they actually work.

 

[Underway]

Is it going to be the same design? It could easily be two different designs particularized for different requirements. Perhaps one heavy icebreaker specialized for scientific work. The other for the safety of navigation.

Which of course means @Navy_Pete is correct in that we pay twice. But hey! We get two ships and the government gets to porkbarrel!

 

[JMCanada]

It might be two. If it is two, another possibility, if it is a modular design, is to ask Seaspan, Davie, and Heddle to each build a third of the modules with final assembly of one icebreaker at Seaspan and final assembly of one icebreaker at Davie.

So... Uzlu guessed it! but not about modular design, which might have been a good option.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Is it going to be the same design? It could easily be two different designs particularized for different requirements. Perhaps one heavy icebreaker specialized for scientific work. The other for the safety of navigation.

Which of course means @Navy_Pete is correct in that we pay twice. But hey! We get two ships and the government gets to porkbarrel!

Even if it's identical design the entire production engineering needs to be looked at from the point of cutting steel up to megablock assembly. All of that is driven by the limitations of the shipyard facilities. Best case is they have similar enough they can use the same approach. Worse case is they have considerably different choke points and may need to take totally different build approaches (different block sizes, assembly order etc). Probably somewhere in between the two, but like YZT mentioned, it means there is no efficiency gains between the two, and for a first of class can be a 20-30% drop for the second of class for labour hours.

Anyway, if that's what the big giant heads want to do, best of luck. Curious to hear what upgrades Davies will need to make to join the NSS though, as their bid included tens of millions in shipyard updates to come up to the required standard of the original RFP.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would much rather see Davie get a contract for another Resolve class AOR, so we can 4 AOR's and have 1 of each type on each coast. That would give our navy some very long legs and the government a lot of options to gain international brownie points by supporting oversea missions while still being able to support ops and training closer to home. not to mention coverage for refits, etc.

 

[MilEME09]

I would much rather see Davie get a contract for another Resolve class AOR, so we can 4 AOR's and have 1 of each type on each coast. That would give our navy some very long legs and the government a lot of options to gain international brownie points by supporting oversea missions while still being able to support ops and training closer to home. not to mention coverage for refits, etc.

But that would be smart, we don't do that here

 

[Underway]

I would much rather see Davie get a contract for another Resolve class AOR, so we can 4 AOR's and have 1 of each type on each coast. That would give our navy some very long legs and the government a lot of options to gain international brownie points by supporting oversea missions while still being able to support ops and training closer to home. not to mention coverage for refits, etc.

The RCN requirements are for 3 AOR. I'm just hoping that Asterix stays for a while. Keeping the expectations low... l

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The thing about having 4 with two mostly manned by fleet auxiliary is that it gives you the opportunity to take part in multiple Allied ops and exercises in an important role earning those brownie points, with minimal political risks and the benefits of being able to provide the much vaunted humanitarian aid roles quite effectively, plus provide valuable political points and jobs in Canada. You would think the Libs would be all over that?

 

[GK .Dundas]

The thing about having 4 with two mostly manned by fleet auxiliary is that it gives you the opportunity to take part in multiple Allied ops and exercises in an important role earning those brownie points, with minimal political risks and the benefits of being able to provide the much vaunted humanitarian aid roles quite effectively, plus provide valuable political points and jobs in Canada. You would think the Libs would be all over that?

I will repeat something I was told many years ago,by a naval officer.
That what the Navy really could use was six AORs as one way of guaranteeing keeping a task group at sea and doing the biz.