New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

Actually OGBD - no arguments with your rant.

I was referring to the internal debate on these fora, wherein the argument has been made that we can afford to do more. 

I agree that the argument externally has not been made - if by that we mean that we have been unable to convince our fellow countrymen of the need or the ability to support the cost. 

On the other hand, what if there is just no interest in hearing the argument?  I can agree that tactically a bunch of things could have been, and could in the future be, done better/differently.  But I know from my own very extended Franco-Canadian family that there is just no interest in hearing the arguments in support of the position.  Most folks would rather discuss hockey or else just willingly accept the "No War" mantra.  I was bombarded with it on Facebook during the last election, to the point I just shut down.  It wasn't worth the aggro of getting into a fight.  And it is not just a Franco thing.  It crosses all Canadian nationalities, religions and cultures - and political affiliations.

I honestly believe that getting defence dollars out of the Canadian public and politicians is like fishing for trout on a low test line.  You are always in danger of the line breaking and losing any chance at landing the catch.  You have to let them strip the line when they run away. You can't drag them in when they are actively opposing you.  You have to wait for the opportunities to gently reel in that spent line and bring them back to you.

It is a lousy method of planning your next meal but it is the only real opportunity available.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Concur.

Love the fly fishing analogy, for those who understand it. 

 

[CougarKing]

Another issue regarding Vancouver shipyards as well as the Canadian Coast Guard:

CBC

Design of Coast Guard's fisheries ships led to fears of capsizing
Discovery of possible flaw results in longer, heavier vessels to make them seaworthy

By James Cudmore, CBC News Posted: Dec 04, 2015 5:09 PM ET Last Updated: Dec 04, 2015 5:31 PM ET

The government's plans for the Coast Guard's new fisheries and science vessels produced a ship some engineers considered so unstable it was unseaworthy and if sailed on the open ocean would capsize in heavy seas, CBC News has learned.

The issue was discovered in 2012 once the blueprints of the government-ordered design were sent to Vancouver Shipyards, where three of the ships are being built under the government's shipbuilding strategy.

Engineers there uncovered what they believed to be a fault, which led to a re-design of the vessel and the addition of 8.4 metres to the ship's 55-metre length.

The changes increased the displacement of the ship by 610 tonnes, or roughly 24 per cent. Government literature about the vessels also suggests the ships will now travel half a knot more slowly.

fficials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which oversees the Canadian Coast Guard, had previously admitted to CBC News there were design changes, but played down their significance.

"Some early underlying assumptions and calculation of weights and centres of gravity required changes," Frank Stanek, manager of media relations for DFO, said in a statement in 2014.

"The issue was satisfactorily addressed by the shipyard engineering team in close consultation with the government."

But CBC News has learned the design problem was considered so severe by the shipbuilders it was thought it would be unsafe to build and sail the vessels.

(...SNIPPED)

Program hit by delays

These are not the first stormy seas the Offshore Fisheries and Science Vessel (OFSV) program has weathered.

The program has been beset by delays and spending increases. The original plans set the budget at $244 million for three hulls and established a final delivery date of 2014.

Last week, CBC News reported government ministers had been warned the program's costs have grown $687 million.
(...SNIPPED)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Serious I think every vessel the government built in the 90's was top heavy, the torpedo recovery vessels and the Class 500 cutters come to mind.

 

[cavalryman]

Serious I think every vessel the government built in the 90's was top heavy, the torpedo recovery vessels and the Class 500 cutters come to mind.

We do have a very top heavy military... [

 

[Underway]

So what you're saying is that Seaspan is doing their job properly by checking the designs they are asked to build?  Good job Seaspan!  Glad to see that the P Eng's at the shipyard aren't just a rubber stamp and take their designation seriously.

Extra cost and time is bad, but ships that flip over and kill people are way worse.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't know what the fuss was all about.  There is always room for another cabin(boy) aboard a government ship...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So what you're saying is that Seaspan is doing their job properly by checking the designs they are asked to build?  Good job Seaspan!  Glad to see that the P Eng's at the shipyard aren't just a rubber stamp and take their designation seriously.

Extra cost and time is bad, but ships that flip over and kill people are way worse.

Believe me I am glad they caught it. I know Robbie Allen fairly well, the story he told me about dealing with Coast Guard while trying to design the 500 class showed me what the problem is, a vessel built by comittee, each adding a bit here and bit there without anyone considering the consequence of that. Plus trying to do it on the cheap and not helped by the shipyard of the day substituting carbon fibre pipe for steel pipe for mast monitors. Among other fails. My girlfriend of the time said: "isn't it top heavy and to short?" From the mouth of babes as she knew squat about ships, but nailed the issues in one glance. Allen had started out with a proven hull design, the problem was with the client. 

 

[GK .Dundas]

  It's interesting it's beginning to look like we will be lucky to get ten ships as opposed to fifteen. I find this interesting because the Navy since the mid 70's has always stated that they(the navy) need an absolute minimum of twenty four Frigate / Destroyer sized ships to fulfill it's basic duties .
Now every time naval technology has taken a leap that would allow a lesser number  of vessels the government has stepped in a basically increased the number of those assigned duties. As a result that minimum  has never dropped  of course we never managed to get to that number since the early eighties .
My question is what do we do if we find ourselves in a situation where need those twenty four Frigates and Destroyers ? I suspect this a question the current Government hopes nobody asks  or worse find themselves in.

 

[jollyjacktar]

My question is what do we do if we find ourselves in a situation where need those twenty four Frigates and Destroyers ? I suspect this a question the current Government hopes nobody asks  or worse find themselves in.

We start getting curb stomped and can only hope and pray that a big brother hears the fracus and can come to our aid.  We won't have the luxury of a build up of capability as we enjoyed 70 years ago.  Warships are too expensive, too complex to just whip together, parts are sourced from outCan OEM more often than not and we might not be able to reproduce them for that matter.  The OEMs might just come from the state we're having issues with as well to compound matters.  As Gwynn Dyer stated "the next war will be a come-as-you-are, war."

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

  It's interesting it's beginning to look like we will be lucky to get ten ships as opposed to fifteen. I find this interesting because the Navy since the mid 70's has always stated that they(the navy) need an absolute minimum of twenty four Frigate / Destroyer sized ships to fulfill it's basic duties .

That is not quite what the statement, or corresponding situation, was.

In the mid-to late sixties, NATO reviewed its requirements to fight the next "battle of the Atlantic" and as a result, in the very early seventies, assigned tasks to various members. Canada's alliance obligations under that scheme was to provide four escort groups. Each groups were to be six ships, thus Canada had an obligation to NATO to have 24 ships available.

That is where the number 24 came from: fulfilling NATO obligations, not fulfilling our "basic" duties. That is also the reason why, after the IRO's came into service, we retained SAINT-LAURENT, ST. CROIX, CHAUDIÈRE and COLUMBIA  "in reserve". They were in pretty bad shape and useless, but it let us claim that we met our 24 destroyers obligation to NATO.

This requirement died with the end of the cold war.

As to what minimum number of frigates/destroyers we need, it again gets back to what do we want the Navy to be able to do. And to answer that question we need to have the government get on with its "open and transparent" process of coming up with a new White Paper on defence that conforms to todays' defence challenges.

And Jollyjacktar, here is a little secret: every single war in the history of the planet has been "come as you are". When war breaks out , you have what you have - on both sides, but then you can start to build up/mass produce war materiel. If you were a bit prescient (and in most cases, wars don't just breakout, there is a period of tension where both sides see what might happen and start preparations), you can implement urgent production programs before it actually breaks out - like the corvettes of WWII which were implemented before the war began as an emergency program.

The "Come as you are war" concept of the 60's and 70's what premised on something different: that the next war with the Soviets would not give us time after the beginning of the war to build up resources because it would escalate into a nuclear conflict as soon as things start to go bad for one side, and that nuclear conflict would resolve the matter once and for all. I personally don't believe that the next war will necessarily "go nuclear" right away, so things are not totally going to be crystallized with what you have at the beginning.

 

[jollyjacktar]

And Jollyjacktar, here is a little secret: every single war in the history of the planet has been "come as you are". When war breaks out , you have what you have - on both sides, but then you can start to build up/mass produce war materiel. If you were a bit prescient (and in most cases, wars don't just breakout, there is a period of tension where both sides see what might happen and start preparations), you can implement urgent production programs before it actually breaks out - like the corvettes of WWII which were implemented before the war began as an emergency program.

The "Come as you are war" concept of the 60's and 70's what premised on something different: that the next war with the Soviets would not give us time after the beginning of the war to build up resources because it would escalate into a nuclear conflict as soon as things start to go bad for one side, and that nuclear conflict would resolve the matter once and for all. I personally don't believe that the next war will necessarily "go nuclear" right away, so things are not totally going to be crystallized with what you have at the beginning.

Seen.  But seeing as a warship or aircraft of today are not the same kettle of fish as a Corvette or Spitfire I don't believe we will be able to ramp up if a major shitshow errupts as it will be moving quickly and the tools of today are leaps and bounds ahead of then.  They were knocking off a Corvette in about 100 days were they not?  Unless we started to build a cheap but nasty type of vessel we're not going to get what we need in speed and numbers to meet with a major outbreak.  While there can be signs of things going west that might give one a chance to get dressed and buy some survival gear before the storm hits, will we be so lucky or able??

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Even then King and the navy realized they were going to be in a war and tried to build up the navy as much as budget and politics would permit. My opinion of him trying to navigate the political shoals pre-war and during the early part of the war has definitely increased.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That is why I have always said that a proper national shipbuilding strategy for Canada should provide for continual build of destroyers/frigates at the rate of one coming in service every year or 13-14 months max, so that if you "operate" 14 to 15 of them, by the time your ship is 15 years old, it goes into reserve for another 10 to 15 years and you put the most recent in operational service in its stead, the whole on a continual basis, so that you have about 15 in service and after a while, another 15 reasonably still in good shape as a reserve. If anything happens, you can rush the reserve ships in service with a minimal upgrade of sensors and electronics.

That also means you would have an industrial base to expand quickly so that, should the need arise, you can start cranking up these things at double or triple the rate (one new ship every four to six months.)

Finally, you would then be able to have other yards ramp up to produce "cheap and nasty" as required. For instance, if you find yourself in a war that is mostly ASW, you can crank up production of small ships, about 1500 to 2000 tons with a hangar and a bear trap, a tail and one hull mounted sonar, small gun for self-protection and a CWIS/decoy for self protection, capable of 26-28 knots on diesels. We have industrial capacity now in Canada to do something like that quickly if need be (they would look something like the New Zealand Otago class vessels.

 

[jollyjacktar]

That is why I have always said that a proper national shipbuilding strategy for Canada should provide for continual build of destroyers/frigates at the rate of one coming in service every year or 13-14 months max, so that if you "operate" 14 to 15 of them, by the time your ship is 15 years old, it goes into reserve for another 10 to 15 years and you put the most recent in operational service in its stead, the whole on a continual basis, so that you have about 15 in service and after a while, another 15 reasonably still in good shape as a reserve. If anything happens, you can rush the reserve ships in service with a minimal upgrade of sensors and electronics.

That also means you would have an industrial base to expand quickly so that, should the need arise, you can start cranking up these things at double or triple the rate (one new ship every four to six months.)

Finally, you would then be able to have other yards ramp up to produce "cheap and nasty" as required. For instance, if you find yourself in a war that is mostly ASW, you can crank up production of small ships, about 1500 to 2000 tons with a hangar and a bear trap, a tail and one hull mounted sonar, small gun for self-protection and a CWIS/decoy for self protection, capable of 26-28 knots on diesels. We have industrial capacity now in Canada to do something like that quickly if need be (they would look something like the New Zealand Otago class vessels.

Agree 1000%

 

[quadrapiper]

...a tail and one hull mounted sonar, small gun for self-protection and a CWIS/decoy for self protection, capable of 26-28 knots on diesels. We have industrial capacity now in Canada to do something like that quickly if need be (they would look something like the New Zealand Otago class vessels.

Assuming dependent on a certain amount of unavailable-in-Canada kit being available, either at time of build or mothballed against the eventuality?

 

[STONEY]

We have yet to issue a list of requirements. We have yet to issue a request for proposals.
The Pre qualified bidders have yet to submit their proposals. We have yet to pick one of these ship designs.
Despite this we already are wineing that 29 billion is not enough. Seems to be negative thinking like saying you can not
afford to buy a gift before you know what it is.

Cheers

 

[Kirkhill]

Seen.  But seeing as a warship or aircraft of today are not the same kettle of fish as a Corvette or Spitfire I don't believe we will be able to ramp up if a major shitshow errupts as it will be moving quickly and the tools of today are leaps and bounds ahead of then.  They were knocking off a Corvette in about 100 days were they not?  Unless we started to build a cheap but nasty type of vessel we're not going to get what we need in speed and numbers to meet with a major outbreak.  While there can be signs of things going west that might give one a chance to get dressed and buy some survival gear before the storm hits, will we be so lucky or able??

And that is why I continue to bang the drum for buying as many hulls as the government will allow within the budget set and then arm them afterwards.

Put your network in place to manage engineering and navigation and one or two "naval" sensors and weapons - and leave space to plug in more.  Then fill the holes with new systems for deployed ships, old systems for domestic ships and not systems for training ships doing sovereignty patrols. 

And I heard the arguments for every ship always being ready for Pearl Harbor.    I disagree, obviously.  Even the RN disagrees.  Because they have hydrological vessels, cutters, fisheries patrol vessels, logistics ships, even unescorted carriers.  The risk is managed by selecting which ships with which assets sail which waters.

In event of a punch up you can find bullets for old Bofors and 76s.  You can buy bolt on SSMs and SAMs.  You can even load a seacan full of mines on board, and torpedoes.  You can load TASS systems and UAVs and AUVs and all sorts of other technology.  If you have the hulls.

Build the hulls.

The money is there for that. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am with Chris. Build the hills and worry less about the weapon and sensors for now. Having done enough deployments, kit seems to magically appear, if the government wants you someplace bad enough.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I am with Chris. Build the hills and worry less about the weapon and sensors for now. Having done enough deployments, kit seems to magically appear, if the government wants you someplace bad enough.

Are alive with Liberals

Lol. Sorry.  :gottree: