• 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

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
293
Points
880
The problem in stepping up the pace is finding enough skilled labour to fill the shifts and the extra days. B teams are frequently less efficient and output drops while expenses increase particularly for shifts that do not match Circadian rhythms.

The same happens when you start increasing hours per day and days per week for a given worker as you start having a loss of efficiency output per unit of time worked as workers become tired while at the same time you are paying overtime rates thereby dramatically escalating costs.

🍻
Not to mention that Davie will be on the hunt for workers in their ramp up for their facility.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,922
Points
1,040
Let's go one further, rotating shifts, 2 shifts per day, 7 days a week. With overlap, that's 14-15 hours of production per day. Could get us back on track I bet.
Delays are not caused by the yard necessarily. It's suppliers and subcontractors who are behind. Getting cabling if you aren't making it yourself takes 80 weeks. Which is about double it was before COVID. Milspec cable is only approved to be made in certain places and with specific industrial techniques which means you just can't order it from anywhere or make it yourself.

And don't even get me started on the gong show that is ITAR, and security certificate compliance. Relies on 6 months to a year lead time in hopes the US approves the equipment/information can go to the contractor Canada hired to do the work. And of course, there is something wrong with the paperwork, COVID delay, need to add another contractor which pushes the process back.

Then there is Gov't furnished equipment or information which is our own bureaucratic nightmare that ties into what I stated above, as we can't just give the "plans" to the weapon system to any contractor so they can integrate their navigation feed into it. That requires paperwork. Or our sigs section sends the "non-compliant" chummy to the contractor who now has to return it and wait for our super responsive bureaucratic process to send them the correct one so they can finish building whatever they are hired to build, putting them back on the contract.

Triple the staff at the shipyard all you want, and quadruple their overtime. They'll just end up waiting around for crap to be delivered by someone else.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,560
Points
1,140
So are you insinuating that the yards responsible for the NSP will use Covid and the global interruption to the supply chain as an excuse to delay the projects and intentionally drive up costs or do you think these things do not exist?

Building a ship and building cars are a bit different don't you think? Do you really think workers will stand for working 6 days a week in such a job regardless of their unions. Its hard enough to now to get skilled labour let alone bring on extra shifts or mandatory overtime.

Do you know something I don't in regards to the Halifax Class lasting until we start to take delivery of the CSC? That's a pretty bold statement saying that all 12 ships will be written off before we have 12 operational CSC's. What do you base that on?
I am basing it on age and past precedent with the Iroquois destroyers on when they ultimately gave up the ghost. The Halifax’s are being pushed hard, their operational tempo is going full tilt and this won’t stop until they rust out.

When do you believe the 12th CSC will be delivered? What year? What will be the age of the 12th Halifax at this point? Will it be fully operational at this point?

Before Covid hit were the AOPS still on schedule? There was all this talk about there being a ‘gap’ between the 6th AOPS and the 1st CSC that it necessitated the ‘need’ for 2 CCGS AOPS. Now there is zero talk about those two ships and lots of talk about delays to the finishing of the 6 AOPS and the start of the first CSC. Why did this occur? Was it Covid related or did it happen before Covid. It happened before Covid and now Covid is the natural scape goat.

I’d like to be wrong but I’ve not seen anything over the last 8yrs in closely watching how our military procurement or delivery mechanisms work to think otherwise. There are no examples, on this scale, to think otherwise. Would I like to be wrong, you bet, but I’m sticking with me statements, whether they are bold or not, ‘uninformed’ or not. But if I, a proud and vocal supporter of the CAF cannot be convinced, with all the reading and trying to become as informed as I possibly can, why would you think that the average CDN would care or think otherwise?

I’m sticking with my statement, the 12th Halifax will be retired before the 12 CSC is accepted and operationally accepted by the RCN.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,510
Points
1,090
Given the current state of personnel of the fleet, the RCN could retire a third of the FFGs today and still be unable to man the remainder until the CSCs start to come on line.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,555
Points
1,090
Given the current state of personnel of the fleet, the RCN could retire a third of the FFGs today and still be unable to man the remainder until the CSCs start to come on line.
Two years of Covid compounded our retention problem, it is now at critical levels for a lot of trades. Reg and reserve, I have seen a dramatic drop in recruitment, but an increase in those leaving, I'm loosing a third of my platoon to release and transfers over the coming months. Our recruiting strategy is in need of an overhaul it seems. These delays on ship building my be a blessing to give us time to actually rebuild our personal, if we can recruit them.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,560
Points
1,140
Here’s one source, of many.


And here’s another one from 14 months earlier than the first article.


Key sentence -

Production of Arctic ships set to wind down in 2019, creating lull at Halifax shipyard before next project​


We are about to wind down on 2021 and we are not close to ‘winding down’ on the first 6 ships, let alone the 2 extra for the CCG.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,555
Points
1,090
And here’s another one from 14 months earlier than the first article.


Key sentence -

Production of Arctic ships set to wind down in 2019, creating lull at Halifax shipyard before next project​


We are about to wind down on 2021 and we are not close to ‘winding down’ on the first 6 ships, let alone the 2 extra for the CCG.
Which if I recall sparked the conversation here of why they can't speed up the timeline of the CSC which came down to you can't speed up design work much.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,200
Points
1,060
Given the current state of personnel of the fleet, the RCN could retire a third of the FFGs today and still be unable to man the remainder until the CSCs start to come on line.

So tell me again why we are building ships that we intend to supply with larger crews than our allies. Why aren't we accepting our recruiting limitations and exploiting available technologies in design?
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
676
Points
1,060
Steel was cut for the 5th AOPS in May 2021 and is scheduled for the 6th in May of 2022. Can they not begin steel cutting for the first CSC in May 2023. Pretty much another year and a half for design finalization. The broad strokes have got to be pretty similar to the UK and AUS right?
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
100
Points
530
So tell me again why we are building ships that we intend to supply with larger crews than our allies.
The Canadian surface combatants are air defence and anti-submarine. The Type 26 and Hunter class, however, are biased toward anti-submarine.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,200
Points
1,060
The Canadian surface combatants are air defence and anti-submarine. The Type 26 and Hunter class, however, are biased toward anti-submarine.
I think the point remains that you are planning on more bodies per hull, and more hulls, therefore more bodies. And you can't recruit the smaller number of bodies you need today.

What's going to happen if you can't recruit to the numbers needed? Build the ships and keep them tied up? Send them to sea and only operate them as AAD or ASW ships? Reduce patrols? Build them and sell them off at 10 cents on the dollar? Don't build them?

Or accept that you will need to figure out how to run them with only 50% of the planned crew?
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
293
Points
880
I am basing it on age and past precedent with the Iroquois destroyers on when they ultimately gave up the ghost. The Halifax’s are being pushed hard, their operational tempo is going full tilt and this won’t stop until they rust out.

Actually our operational tempo is very light compared to what it used to be so its not going "full tilt". One 280 was laid up due to personnel shortages and was ultimately decided to be paid off, one because of an accident and the other two did have corrosion issues but were sailing up until they stood them down. There were all kinds of issues with these ships due to botched refits and issues after TRUMP conversion also keep in mind lack of personnel and we still had 12 CFPs to sail. Hard decisions were made so you say all the 280's gave up the ghost was factually wrong. Also keep in mind we know have the imperative to keep these ships going, this the reason why Davie now does half the refit work and more money is being being spent on maintenance. As a civilian you have no idea the plans to keep these ships sailing other than stating they're going to rust out.

When do you believe the 12th CSC will be delivered? What year? What will be the age of the 12th Halifax at this point? Will it be fully operational at this point?

I have no idea but I do know they will do everything in their power to keep these ships sailing.

Before Covid hit were the AOPS still on schedule? There was all this talk about there being a ‘gap’ between the 6th AOPS and the 1st CSC that it necessitated the ‘need’ for 2 CCGS AOPS. Now there is zero talk about those two ships and lots of talk about delays to the finishing of the 6 AOPS and the start of the first CSC. Why did this occur? Was it Covid related or did it happen before Covid. It happened before Covid and now Covid is the natural scape goat.

As far as I know the CCG AOPV's are still going to be built, the fact that YOU never heard anything means nothing really.

I’d like to be wrong but I’ve not seen anything over the last 8yrs in closely watching how our military procurement or delivery mechanisms work to think otherwise. There are no examples, on this scale, to think otherwise. Would I like to be wrong, you bet, but I’m sticking with me statements, whether they are bold or not, ‘uninformed’ or not. But if I, a proud and vocal supporter of the CAF cannot be convinced, with all the reading and trying to become as informed as I possibly can, why would you think that the average CDN would care or think otherwise?
Nothing on this scale works both ways, nothis disprove either.



I’m sticking with my statement, the 12th Halifax will be retired before the 12 CSC is accepted and operationally accepted by the RCN.

Steel was cut for the 5th AOPS in May 2021 and is scheduled for the 6th in May of 2022. Can they not begin steel cutting for the first CSC in May 2023. Pretty much another year and a half for design finalization. The broad strokes have got to be pretty similar to the UK and AUS right?
I know there are plans to expand the assembly hall to accomidate the scope of the project. Not sure if that will prevent them from cutting steel
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,438
Points
1,060
I much prefers the ships are designed to easily accommodate a bigger crew, including berths, hotel services, food storage, water and sewage. then build in systems to run it with minimal crew. At the end of the day the larger crew means more rest and more bodies for Damage Control and firefighting.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,182
Points
1,090
Delays are not caused by the yard necessarily. It's suppliers and subcontractors who are behind. Getting cabling if you aren't making it yourself takes 80 weeks. Which is about double it was before COVID. Milspec cable is only approved to be made in certain places and with specific industrial techniques which means you just can't order it from anywhere or make it yourself.
Ah, but you're assuming that the contractor was actually using MILSPEC cable....

I can speak with much personal experience about cabling and the HCM project. Several million dollars in cable returned to DND by a certain Halifax entity, and when much of it was compared to the information in the Catalogue, most of it was found to be non-compliant, and did not match the CGCS reference information. I know that still have a 100% inspection requirement on all cable entering and leaving our warehouse to ensure that we're sending out the 'right stuff'.

The question that has not officially been asked (that I'm aware of) is whether or not that non-compliant cabling was installed on the ships (seeing as we have remnant rolls of cable...the answer is almost certainly YES) and whether or not that non-compliant cabling needs to be corrected, and which entity (DND or the contractor) should be responsible for rectifying this...
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,555
Points
1,090
Ah, but you're assuming that the contractor was actually using MILSPEC cable....

I can speak with much personal experience about cabling and the HCM project. Several million dollars in cable returned to DND by a certain Halifax entity, and when much of it was compared to the information in the Catalogue, most of it was found to be non-compliant, and did not match the CGCS reference information. I know that still have a 100% inspection requirement on all cable entering and leaving our warehouse to ensure that we're sending out the 'right stuff'.

The question that has not officially been asked (that I'm aware of) is whether or not that non-compliant cabling was installed on the ships (seeing as we have remnant rolls of cable...the answer is almost certainly YES) and whether or not that non-compliant cabling needs to be corrected, and which entity (DND or the contractor) should be responsible for rectifying this...
Seems to me like it should be the contractor fixing it, it also makes me wonder if more inspections and oversight are needed by DND of these vessels to ensure compliance, and fines laid out for acts of non compliance. If you are installing non-compliant cable, some one made that choice, and the company should be fined.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,604
Points
1,160
Ah, but you're assuming that the contractor was actually using MILSPEC cable....

I can speak with much personal experience about cabling and the HCM project. Several million dollars in cable returned to DND by a certain Halifax entity, and when much of it was compared to the information in the Catalogue, most of it was found to be non-compliant, and did not match the CGCS reference information. I know that still have a 100% inspection requirement on all cable entering and leaving our warehouse to ensure that we're sending out the 'right stuff'.

The question that has not officially been asked (that I'm aware of) is whether or not that non-compliant cabling was installed on the ships (seeing as we have remnant rolls of cable...the answer is almost certainly YES) and whether or not that non-compliant cabling needs to be corrected, and which entity (DND or the contractor) should be responsible for rectifying this...

Holy crap. That's a big boo boo!

Boo Boo Pain GIF by FX Networks
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,438
Points
1,060
Seems to me like it should be the contractor fixing it, it also makes me wonder if more inspections and oversight are needed by DND of these vessels to ensure compliance, and fines laid out for acts of non compliance. If you are installing non-compliant cable, some one made that choice, and the company should be fined.
You need some political will by senior government and military leadership to hold those contractors to task. When everything is a vote buying exercise, the contractors in a vote rich/vote right area know they will only get a slap on the wrist.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
676
Points
1,060
Do we not have people that watch the work being done on our ships? A lot of the stories mentioned on here seem fraudulant/negligent. But even on lots of civil work you have subcontractors that are observed by the general
 
Top