New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[SeaKingTacco]

In this case, lets assume we are buying/ordering from a shipyard.

Then, no. Not an FMS case.

 

[Navy_Pete]

You would still have to license the design from the US DoD and go through all the ITAR and other security clearance, so may take a while, and they would probably laugh in Freedom units at our contract terms for IP, training and a few others, and straight up tell us to get lost with the Canadian offset/ IRB/ VP terms.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You would still have to license the design from the US DoD and go through all the ITAR and other security clearance, so may take a while, and they would probably laugh in Freedom units at our contract terms for IP, training and a few others, and straight up tell us to get lost with the Canadian offset/ IRB/ VP terms.

That wasn’t the question.

 

[Spencer100]

You would still have to license the design from the US DoD and go through all the ITAR and other security clearance, so may take a while, and they would probably laugh in Freedom units at our contract terms for IP, training and a few others, and straight up tell us to get lost with the Canadian offset/ IRB/ VP terms.

Or go to Naval (which did offer it) and get the parent French design or go to Fincantieri and get their base design.

And then go though the same process that was done with the T-26 for the RCN. LOL.

OZ is going to learn again that the saving will be nothing....cut the Hunter class to 6 and use the saving to build a "cheaper" Tier 2 frigates/corvette. Oh and cut the in production OPS in half and send them to Border Force or something. By the time the cut Hunter class is done the costs will be more per ship and the new corvette will be way over budget and behind schedule.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Resulting from this new plan, there’s no change in the contract price to build 6 vs 9 Hunter class.
This seems to indicate the project costs jumped quite a bit in the past year.

 

[Spencer100]

Resulting from this new plan, there’s no change in the contract price to build 6 vs 9 Hunter class.
This seems to indicate the project costs jumped quite a bit in the past year.

I suspect many in Ottawa are looking at this plan right now. But with a different eye to it. At least Canberra takes the situation as serious. They still want frontline tier 1 and tier 2 combatants plus more VLS's. But need something cheaper...so this plan. I just think the Tier 2 ships will be just as expensive or close too it as the Hunters in the end.

The OPS cut....I don't know...that kind of ship looks to be very useful in all the day to day missions that are not full armed response. But if they send them to Border Force, etc and the RAN is to focus on "real" navy stuff I guess that is good.

But in the Canada context, there will be many people going see we need to do the same thing...but without the serious part of real combat tier 2 ships and many many missiles in unmanned missile ships. (my inner Honorverse fan loves this idea....HMAS Hunter and his "missile pods" lol)

 

[Navy_Pete]

That wasn’t the question.

At the NSS when the option of foreign shipyards was discussed by other departments not part of the core 3 they expected that Canada would still impose all of our normal contract terms and conditions that we would apply to a Canadian shipyard under the NSS, which would be the case if we contracted with a US yard.

They were politely told by some external consultants with expertise in the shipbuilding industry that was highly optimistic (I think I was less polite when I reflexively laughed until I realized they were serious). I think numerous PBO audits also pointed out that we would have to have commercial T&Cs for that, and a lot of shipyards are busy enough they would walk away first than try and figure out our really high LOE demands. There is also no way they would agree to things like the 100% Canadian offset for the contract value, which the domestic builders meet 90+% of by default just by doing the work in Canada.

building foreign is an option, as long as you recognize upfront that we aren't dictating anything, our GoC contracts won't work and there will be zero % Canadian content (unless they happen to pick things from a Canadian supplier because we specify something that is specific to NA)

 

[KevinB]

Are warships built in the US and sold to other countries subject to the 30% FMS surcharge?

FMS isn’t a set 30% surcharge. Some programs are a 5% (some less than that but require volume), some are “over 30%” but a lot of the “over 10%” isn’t truly a ‘fact’.

How items are provisioned down here can drastically alter the FMS process, as @SeaKingTacco mentioned above a lot of items are not apples to apples, as there is GFM or GFE supplied to the OEM that isn’t reflected in the ‘cost’ of the product.

It also can be difficult to cost due to spares, as a lot of nations will also (oddly I know right ) want spare parts included with the order so they can support their systems, and not need more export permits etc when it comes to maintaining them.

 

[Spencer100]

FMS isn’t a set 30% surcharge. Some programs are a 5% (some less than that but require volume), some are “over 30%” but a lot of the “over 10%” isn’t truly a ‘fact’.

How items are provisioned down here can drastically alter the FMS process, as @SeaKingTacco mentioned above a lot of items are not apples to apples, as there is GFM or GFE supplied to the OEM that isn’t reflected in the ‘cost’ of the product.

It also can be difficult to cost due to spares, as a lot of nations will also (oddly I know right ) want spare parts included with the order so they can support their systems, and not need more export permits etc when it comes to maintaining them.

Plus to add the US shipbuilding yards have some would say less than zero extra capacity to build anything for anyone other than the US government. They are working on more capacity but it sounds like a long way away. I bet if we ordered a Constitution it would be a long time before we see would it. A Burke would be impossible. You could get something small like from Austal or something like that. RAN is betting the farm that they can get them a few subs.

 

[KevinB]

Plus to add the US shipbuilding yards have some would say less than zero extra capacity to build anything for anyone other than the US government. They are working on more capacity but it sounds like a long way away. I bet if we ordered a Constitution it would be a long time before we see would it. A Burke would be impossible. You could get something small like from Austal or something like that. RAN is betting the farm that they can get them a few subs.

Probably more likely to get an AB before the Connie’s, as the AB builds are getting better for times now that the orders are firmed up.

But I don’t see a point in the AB’s for Canada unless the budget jumps and recruitment and throughput is drastically improved.

 

[Navy_Pete]

FMS isn’t a set 30% surcharge. Some programs are a 5% (some less than that but require volume), some are “over 30%” but a lot of the “over 10%” isn’t truly a ‘fact’.

How items are provisioned down here can drastically alter the FMS process, as @SeaKingTacco mentioned above a lot of items are not apples to apples, as there is GFM or GFE supplied to the OEM that isn’t reflected in the ‘cost’ of the product.

It also can be difficult to cost due to spares, as a lot of nations will also (oddly I know right ) want spare parts included with the order so they can support their systems, and not need more export permits etc when it comes to maintaining them.

Long term sparing and full initial provisioning is for suckers and that's not how we roll.

CSC looks better, but the spares coming with JSS and AOPs is... sparse. They went with '6 months worth' (ie enough for initial PM checks) and a few insurance spares on long lead items, but don't have things like spare valves, pumps, motors, gauges or rebuild kits for all the small things that will break within those 6 months. They also flag a lot of stuff as GFE, but didn't tell the people that are supposed to supply it. I don't know that we have AFFF for the two JSSs for example.

I think it's insane, but what do I know? We provided feedback in the ILS meetings from our experience on the in service side, and I think all we managed to convince them to add was a $50 bucket of something.

I'm sure nothing will break during set to works, sea trials and other IOC tests though so will be fine, and we won't be robbing ship 2 to repair ship 1 for JSS.

Edit: Yes, as far as I can tell the initial sparing plan assumes nothing will break if the MTBF is more than 6 months from the OEM and is relying totally on the OEM LSAR for PM items (o-rings, gaskets, POL etc).

 

[Spencer100]

Probably more likely to get an AB before the Connie’s, as the AB builds are getting better for times now that the orders are firmed up.

But I don’t see a point in the AB’s for Canada unless the budget jumps and recruitment and throughput is drastically improved.

Yes of course. I was just using it as an example of an in production ship. But I was under the impression that BIW and HHI has zero capacity to produce anymore than what is on order now.

The repair yards are backup to sky too.

 

[calculus]

Long term sparing and full initial provisioning is for suckers and that's not how we roll.

CSC looks better, but the spares coming with JSS and AOPs is... sparse. They went with '6 months worth' (ie enough for initial PM checks) and a few insurance spares on long lead items, but don't have things like spare valves, pumps, motors, gauges or rebuild kits for all the small things that will break within those 6 months. They also flag a lot of stuff as GFE, but didn't tell the people that are supposed to supply it. I don't know that we have AFFF for the two JSSs for example.

I think it's insane, but what do I know? We provided feedback in the ILS meetings from our experience on the in service side, and I think all we managed to convince them to add was a $50 bucket of something.

I'm sure nothing will break during set to works, sea trials and other IOC tests though so will be fine, and we won't be robbing ship 2 to repair ship 1 for JSS.

Edit: Yes, as far as I can tell the initial sparing plan assumes nothing will break if the MTBF is more than 6 months from the OEM and is relying totally on the OEM LSAR for PM items (o-rings, gaskets, POL etc).

Government wonks are always saying if we raised the defence budget to 2% of GDP we'd have a hard time spending the money. I think we could spend a goodly portion of that extra money on infrastructure and spares, no problem.

 

[Furniture]

Government wonks are always saying if we raised the defence budget to 2% of GDP we'd have a hard time spending the money. I think we could spend a goodly portion of that extra money on infrastructure and spares, no problem.

As well, any government willing to increase defence spending significantly is likely to change the procurement processes to allow it to be spent.

 

[Halifax Tar]

As well, any government willing to increase defence spending significantly is likely to change the procurement processes to allow it to be spent.

The fight here is with the PS mandarins who have made their careers and fiefdoms out of these "processes" and will defend their fiefdoms to the end. And with a PS that I imagine is largely LPC leaning it will be a long slog.

Any sweeping changes to our procurement policy will require sweeping changes in personnel in the PS as well.

 

[dapaterson]

The fight here is with the PS mandarins who have made their careers and fiefdoms out of these "processes" and will defend their fiefdoms to the end. And with a PS that I imagine is largely LPC leaning it will be a long slog.

Any sweeping changes to our procurement policy will require sweeping changes in personnel in the PS as well.

CAF personnel are equally responsible for problems and delays.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The fight here is with the PS mandarins who have made their careers and fiefdoms out of these "processes" and will defend their fiefdoms to the end. And with a PS that I imagine is largely LPC leaning it will be a long slog.

Any sweeping changes to our procurement policy will require sweeping changes in personnel in the PS as well.

There was a significant amount of PS managers who came to maturity with the CPC in power (and may have started under the cost cutting of Chreatin) and were fiscally prudent. Those were the ones who were quite uncomfortable with current government largess with money, budgets and personal increases.

 

[dapaterson]

The CAF's biggest problem is APS. Loss of knowledge and expertise slows requirements and acquisitions. Change of opinion because a new dude or dudette occupies a position is equally problematic.

Selection and maintenance of the aim, in major projects, too often is a punchline instead of a principle.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The CAF's biggest problem is APS. Loss of knowledge and expertise slows requirements and acquisitions. Change of opinion because a new dude or dudette occupies a position is equally problematic.

Selection and maintenance of the aim, in major projects, too often is a punchline instead of a principle.

There are a lot of Naval Technical Officers (NTOs) in the NSS PMOs, and the entire promotion/succession planning process actively promotes short stints at a wide range of positions to get 'breadth of experience' points.

So on one hand, lots of good reasons to keep people in some of these key posiitons for 3-4 years, and some of these positions are high profile and kept for streamers, but then if they stay in the jobs it actually knocks them off the streaming pretty quickly.

Our whole system is a bit insane when it actively punishes people for job stability. Particularly when for a lot of these jobs, it's a year or more of a learning curve. Someone who does good enough at a bunch of jobs that never actually gets good at them can stream ahead of someone who gets into a job long enough that they genuinely excel because they figure out what is going on.

 

[Furniture]

The CAF's biggest problem is APS. Loss of knowledge and expertise slows requirements and acquisitions. Change of opinion because a new dude or dudette occupies a position is equally problematic.

Selection and maintenance of the aim, in major projects, too often is a punchline instead of a principle.

I point out these two problems to people who have never worked in Ottawa and don't understand how much personalities impact everything.

By virtue of a posting message and an unexpected release, I became the CAF "expert" in all things weather observing and meteorological equipment... Not to say I knew nothing before the posting, but I certainly wouldn't have considered myself the final word on any of it.