• 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

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAP
  • Start date Start date
Totally unsurprising news.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.

Exclusive
Cost to build navy's new warships more than doubles to $30B

Independent analysis suggests Canada will have to accept fewer ships — or spend a lot more money

By James Cudmore, CBC News Posted: Dec 01, 2015 4:00 PM ET| Last Updated: Dec 01, 2015 4:00 PM ET

The price of 15 new warships for the navy has more than doubled, from $14 billion initially set aside for construction to more than $30 billion, says an independent analysis of the largest military procurement in Canadian history.

That takes the total cost to upgrade Canada's navy to $42 billion — $16 billion more than the $26.2-billion approved by the government for the Canadian Surface Combatant program.

That would make the warships component alone more expensive than the approved budget for the entire national shipbuilding program, which also includes supply ships, coast guard ships and Arctic vessels.

The cost analysis was conducted by the firm A.T. Kearney earlier this year.  Kearney was asked to provide a qualitative analysis that examines "the relationship between the draft requirements and the feasibility and affordability of delivering a solution that achieves full mission performance."

The report has not been released, but CBC News has learned the blunt answer is that it would be impossible to deliver the ships the navy asked for at the price the Defence Department had set.

Budget too low?

The project budget was set years ago at $26.2 billion. Of that, $14 billion was to be spent on the design and construction of warships.

The rest of the budget is for the provision for ammunition, infrastructure costs such as jetties, spare equipment and support.

It's the cost for the design and construction that has been found to have more than doubled.

Those costs were confirmed to CBC News by officials and staff of the former Conservative government, some of whom had been briefed on the report's contents.

One of those sources said the navy had specified requirements for its new warships that would make them "the most capable ships in the world."

The former official said the navy's requirements would make the vessels among the fastest single hull warships in operation.

Some capabilities don't yet exist

Many of those requirements are also said to be developmental, in other words a capability that does not yet exist or requires further work before it's ready for production.

Developmental costs are hugely expensive and difficult to peg, industry sources say. It's impossible to know exactly how much it will cost to develop the technology to make a requirement feasible.

That level of complexity — and the budget uncertainty it produced — angered one former Conservative official, who said the navy was demanding a warship beyond Canada's needs.

"Why do we need to be better than the Brits and the Americans," the official wondered. "We're a middle power."

The Kearney report is controversial within government. It was paid for by Irving Shipbuilding Inc., the company selected to build combat ships for the navy.

The audit was tendered with the approval of Conservative government officials, who after recognizing increasing budget problems in the $39-billion National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy were anxious to see an independent assessment of what the Defence Department's demands would actually cost.

Liberals warned about growing costs

Some allege the Defence Department tried to keep the Kearney report under wraps, claiming the information was protected by regulation.

The tension between Defence and other actors in the procurement system has been high since former public works minister Rona Ambrose forced a reset of the controversial process to replace the CF-18 fighter jets.

That file became problematic once it was learned the full cost to own and operate the preferred F-35s was in the neighbourhood of $25 billion — far more than the $9-billion purchase price Defence had once advertised.

There's a similar discussion underway with ships. The full cost of 15 of those new warships, including personnel, operating and maintenance costs over 30 years, was set at more than $90 billion.

With the production cost increases pegged by Kearney, the full warship budget grows to more than $106 billion.

The trouble might not end there.

Could costs grow?

Others in the industry expect production costs to grow even further.

They point to Australia's current experience with the Hobart-class warship, which is a rough equivalent in air-defence capability to what is proposed for three of Canada's 15 new warships.

Australia's Hobart-class is over budget and projected to cost nearly $3 billion per ship. If that trend holds for Canada, costs could climb yet again.

It's this reality the new federal cabinet was briefed about earlier this month.

Last week, CBC News reported Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Public Services Minister Judy Foote were warned the shipbuilding strategy is in need of repair, with costs for some projects soaring by as much as 181 per cent and others on the cusp of being cancelled.

A briefing to the ministers called for an "action plan" to get the program back on track.

Tradeoff: Cost vs. capability

Put simply, the government will have to decide how much capability is appropriate for the Canadian navy and at what cost.

Dave Perry, a defence analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said there is a significant funding issue that could affect capability.

"It's a question of what the government actually wants to do. Do they want to maximize on the numbers? Do they want to maximize on the capability?"

Perry agreed officials have underestimated the true cost of each ship.

"I certainly think that [the cost is] at least $2 billion for a fully capable ship, the ones they're talking about with sophisticated air defence capability, as well as the ability to lead in a task group function," he said. "And potentially more, depending on exactly what goes into it and when they're built."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nsps-naval-ship-procurement-costs-1.3345435

 
How many AAW variants?
How many Cmd variants?
How many GP variants?
How many fitted "for not with" Stanflex variants?

Gap is between Navy's "want" and Government's "purse".  "Need" is unknown and variable.
 
Just cancel the contract with Irving already and go a different direction, or inform Irving that we will not be signing the contract, as it has not yet been signed.
 
Cost to build navy's new warships more than doubles to $30B

Well, gee, that's surprising.....hmmm....maybe this made in Canada thingy isn't gonna work......might be time to check out other suppliers worldwide to either wholly or partially do the job at a reasonable price

After all, this is a new government with a whole new mandate......
 
GAP said:
Well, gee, that's surprising.....hmmm....maybe this made in Canada thingy isn't gonna work......might be time to check out other suppliers worldwide to either wholly or partially do the job at a reasonable price

After all, this is a new government with a whole new mandate......

And destroy the current political power they have in Atlantic Canada (and western Canada if Seaspan's contracts don't go ahead)?  Not a chance.
 
Dimsum said:
And destroy the current political power they have in Atlantic Canada (and western Canada if Seaspan's contracts don't go ahead)?  Not a chance.
They don't have to cancel the Seaspan contract, they could have them build 1-2 more large Icebreakers and then have the AOR's built in Korea, like the Brits and we'd still save money.  Then give Davie a chance to bid on the CSC, Irving still gets the AOP's.
 
PS

Did anybody ever ask for 15 Hobarts or AAW equivalents?
 
The exact quote was 3 of the 15 ships will be equivalent of the Hobarts.

The Gov't will spend the money.  Atlantic Canada votes beckon.  That and it won't even be this government that gets to decide on the final cost, it will be the one 8 years from now that gets to cancel the last few ships because of cost.
 
Underway said:
The exact quote was 3 of the 15 ships will be equivalent of the Hobarts.

The Gov't will spend the money.  Atlantic Canada votes beckon.  That and it won't even be this government that gets to decide on the final cost, it will be the one 8 years from now that gets to cancel the last few ships because of cost.


Or gets to make a silk purse from a sow's ear by s t r e t c h i n g the procurement into three "batches" (interspersed with one life extension of the already life extended Halifaxes and two batches of small combatants) thus giving us a real viable, long term shipbuilding programme.
 
Underway said:
The exact quote was 3 of the 15 ships will be equivalent of the Hobarts.

Thanks for that..... I am afraid a bit of a red film clouded my vision momentarily.  Need to work on that blood pressure thingy.
 
There are two clips attached to this story.  V/Adm Norman and Rosemay Barton coming off the top ropes on the Liberals in the political panel discussion.  As a sure sign it's the end times, the Dippers are saying we need to build more ships etc.  The Liberals look as if they're going to bail to some degree.  Not so easy now that they're in the driver's seat...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/warships-30-billion-navy-mark-norman-1.3347145
 
jollyjacktar said:
There are two clips attached to this story.  V/Adm Norman and Rosemay Barton coming off the top ropes on the Liberals in the political panel discussion.  As a sure sign it's the end times, the Dippers are saying we need to build more ships etc.  The Liberals look as if they're going to bail to some degree.  Not so easy now that they're in the driver's seat...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/warships-30-billion-navy-mark-norman-1.3347145


From the CBC News story:

          ""I will say that [any number] that's in a single digit is inadequate to Canada's needs," Norman said."

The initial plan was for 15 ... suppose we go for, say, 18, but only nine (single digits) are major surface combatants (destroyer/frigate at, nominally, 5,000+ tons) while the other nine (still a single digit) are small combatants, still ocean going warships but less than, say, 2,500 tons and less than 25% the capital, cost of a major combatant and less than 20% of the costs to crew and operate, day-by-day, but able to do more than 65% of the tasks.

I know, I know ...  :deadhorse:

 
A guy I worked with questioned yesterday "why we even need a Navy?"

If a Major in the CAF says that, imagine what joe blow is saying on the street?  This is what we are dealing with folks, idiocy of the highest level.  It's up to us, through guys like Admiral Norman, to educate the uneducated!
 
Yes, ERC, you are beating a dead horse!

But seriously, I believe there are many things people in these forums who are non-naval types (or are only merchant navy types) don't seem to fully appreciate.

First of all: The largest part of the cost of a warship is not the hull and machinery (which is all of the cost in merchant ships), its in the weapons systems/sensors/communication gear and combat systems integration. So, the main point in reducing cost is not to reduce the size of the ship, but rather to cut down on weapons systems and combat systems integration.

Second of all: Saying a ship can do 40% or 60% or 100% of the tasks is meaningless in naval terms. Each ship must be able to carry out 100% of the tasks it is equipped to do and, when sent on a task alone (or in a task group), it (they) must be able to do 100% of the task it is (they are) sent to do. The only relevant question for a warship is "what threat am I going to face and what capability must I have to face it successfully?"

Thirdly: I'll say it again - the defence of Canada's coast is carried out at thousands of Nautical miles from it - so only a deep sea ships can do that.

Finally, when selecting the weapons and equipment fit of future warships, it is important to remember that you are starting a process that takes ten t fifteen years before the first ship joins the fleet, where that ship is expected to serve for thirty to forty years. So you have to ask yourself, from the start, what developments in weaponry and threat can I expect to face in the next twenty to thirty years and what provision can I make now for the ship being upgradable at its mid-life?. 
 
Humphrey Bogart said:
A guy I worked with questioned yesterday "why we even need a Navy?"

If a Major in the CAF says that, imagine what joe blow is saying on the street?  This is what we are dealing with folks, idiocy of the highest level.  It's up to us, through guys like Admiral Norman, to educate the uneducated!

I think that is what Admiral Norman is suggesting: a public debate where he can explain the facts of life to Canadians (A First Sea Lord of the Cold War era once said: "Navies are expensive, but a damn sight cheaper than not having them").

As of your friend, you can always ask him "what do we even need C-17's for?". Also you can tell him he can diss the Navy when the airforce starts having real cargo capability (over 40,000 tons per trip) and when all of the world's cargo planes start carrying more than 5% of the world's trade  ;D. Remind him that currently, 90% of that trade goes by sea.
 
This blow up in costs shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, it's been talked about since day one. There are no cost controls on Irving and Seaspan and every day that the project is delayed inflation eats into the budget. It is interesting that all 3 parties remain committed to a blue water navy built in Canada. Like OGBD pointed out in the CSC thread I was under the impression that $26B was for the construction of the ships not $14B! I would work different numbers though say $3.5B x 4 AAD = $14B, that's just going off Australia's numbers from a slightly more mature shipbuilding industry and that dreaded inflation again. It would not surprise me to see $4B per AAD. What that leaves to fill out the fleet is anyone's guess, but like ERC I think we should be looking at a mixed fleet of combatants.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I think that is what Admiral Norman is suggesting: a public debate where he can explain the facts of life to Canadians (A First Sea Lord of the Cold War era once said: "Navies are expensive, but a damn sight cheaper than not having them").

As of your friend, you can always ask him "what do we even need C-17's for?". Also you can tell him he can diss the Navy when the airforce starts having real cargo capability (over 40,000 tons per trip) and when all of the world's cargo planes start carrying more than 5% of the world's trade  ;D. Remind him that currently, 90% of that trade goes by sea.

when I ask people how their TV's and toys got to the store, many of them said "by train?" I said "From China?" and they still thought it came by train. Most people are in total ignorance of the infrastructure web around them, until a piece breaks.
 
Colin P said:
when I ask people how their TV's and toys got to the store, many of them said "by train?" I said "From China?" and they still thought it came by train. Most people are in total ignorance of the infrastructure web around them, until a piece breaks.


But, and it's a HUGE BUT, even if you manage to convince the "ordinary Canadian," the taxpaying voter, that the sea lines of communications are vital to his or her comfort and security it will be a real, major stretch to convince her/him that the navy, especially our Navy is, somehow, connected; if (s)he does understand that navies keep the SLOC open, keep commerce flowing, etc, (s)he is most likely to think it is the US Navy's job ... because the US is the biggest beneficiary of global trade and commerce.

This is a political problem about how much money "we," the nation, spend on one industrial sector to create and keep the "jobs! Jobs!! JOBS!!!"

I know, still a  :deadhorse: ... but it's not about warships, for ships of any kind, it's all about industrial support and subsidies and "regional development," and so on.
 
I'm not sure protecting commercial shipping from pirates is a good reason to defend a $4B capital purchase.
 
Back
Top