• 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

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,829
Points
1,010
I don't think Mark was referring to the cost. That's not really that crazy. It's the fact it's in Turkmenistan...
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,829
Points
1,010
Meh. My last time posted to Toronto we had an engine room fire, and five hour blackout in the same day. Still managed to get the missile off the next day anyways.

No one hurt is great though. Always a concern even for a small fire.

Fires are like car accidents. Not a problem until it is a problem.
 
Last edited:

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
670
Points
1,060
I don't think Mark was referring to the cost. That's not really that crazy. It's the fact it's in Turkmenistan...
And the Aiviq sits in Tampa still, maybe there really are multiple design flaws as was suggested that are keeping the US and Canada from putting it to work

So we're adding another medium icebreaker to the fleet to add to the 3 Vikings and 4 Pierre Radissons. That seems like a substantial increase in capability, even with the increased time in refits that might be required to keep all the ships going until Davie completes the 6 medium icebreakers they are supposed to build. Speaking of which we're coming up on two years since that announcement and still no official agreement. I know Covid but still?

edit: I guess this newest addition should be classed as a light icebreaker?
 
Last edited:

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,829
Points
1,010
A throw away quote at the bottom of this link. So the PM has made his stance known WRT SSN's

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said Canada has no plans to acquire nuclear submarines of its own and dismissed the deal involving the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom as only being about selling defence hardware."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/indo-pacific-aquilino-warning-1.6257200
This is a fire the PM doesn't want to start with a minority gov't. This is a majority gov't type decision. He's dismissing it so it goes away and he can focus on winning a majority in the face of rising inflation and the US "buy union, buy America" car policies.

Bigger fish to fry. I'll wait out until a decision point is reached regarding the submarines.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,168
Points
1,060
This is a fire the PM doesn't want to start with a minority gov't. This is a majority gov't type decision. He's dismissing it so it goes away and he can focus on winning a majority in the face of rising inflation and the US "buy union, buy America" car policies.

Bigger fish to fry. I'll wait out until a decision point is reached regarding the submarines.

The comment wasn't designed to be accurate. It was designed to bury the issue with the Canadian press and voters.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,829
Points
1,010
Honestly, given there isn't a PMO for Subs just yet, they have stood up an options analysis team to have answers ready. So a competition announcement in a few years?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,168
Points
1,060
Naïve isn't a strong enough word anymore.

🤡

Agreed. This was wilful. And a problem.

Look for “almost a melding of our services” between the allied navies in a remarkable new phase of allied partnership, Campbell said at the US Institute of Peace this morning.

We will have more British sailors serving on our naval vessels, Australians and the like on more of our forward-deployed assets in Australia. This leads to a deeper interconnection and, almost a melding in the new respects of our services and working together on common purpose that we couldn’t have dreamed about five or 10 years ago,” Campbell said.


On the other hand the Blue Suiters have always seemed to exploit the opportunities afforded by working out of sight of their capital cities.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
123
Points
630
Seaspan has added the Polar icebreaker and the Multi-purpose vessel to their website under the heading "Ships Under Contract". That's the first I have heard that contracts have been signed for these vessels, with either Seaspan, or Davie (Polar #2). Some good information here, especially for the Polar.

 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
123
Points
630
Listened in on the Seaspan Industry Day for the Polar Icebreaker, design will be to Polar Class 2 (Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions)
They did mention that there is a possibility that the CCG would use Remotely Piloted Aircraft, but still an if, but they want to be prepared for a yes.
currently in a design check phase with actual construct
Interesting propulsion setup

View attachment 66926
View attachment 66927
View attachment 66928


And here's the bill:

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,377
Points
1,060
The price of vote buying:

The resulting cost is then distributed over the projected lifetime of the polar icebreakers project. We then inflate the distributed costs using the PBO’s projected CPI and shipbuilding-specific inflation and add them to the already incurred expenses of the icebreaker project. Finally, we apply an escalation factor of approximately 41.4 percent in order to account for the inclusion of an additional shipyard.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
74
Points
380
In a perfect world, you'd have both Arctic icebreakers built by the same yard, using the same design, with presumably commensurate savings from doing so. Since it's been determined that either the schedule or perhaps dearth of voting being spread out in the most satisfactory manner (to the G's way of thinking), I wish that they had both been given to Davie and a 3rd AOR had been allotted to Seaspan by way of compensation.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,829
Points
1,010
A throw away quote at the bottom of this link. So the PM has made his stance known WRT SSN's

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said Canada has no plans to acquire nuclear submarines of its own and dismissed the deal involving the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom as only being about selling defence hardware."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/indo-pacific-aquilino-warning-1.6257200
That's the opposite of what it is. It's not really about selling hardware at all. It's about Australia locking in US and UK support as regional defense allies. Australia cannot stand alone against China, and a nuclear deal all but forces the US/UK to stay involved. For the US vice versa. They get an ally that is in the perfect position to always box in China across the Straits of Malaca.

Not a dig at Trudeau though. No politico (even Australian ones) will say those words out loud. To realpolitik and it would set China off. Trudeau is dismissing it in the best way he can as a sound bite.
 
Top