• 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
Interesting turn of events, no "Made in Canada" design.

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/02/23/liberals-alter-course-on-frigate-replacement-and-rely-on-foreign-design-2/#.VszvCtCgVC9 (More on link)

Liberals alter course on frigate replacement and rely on foreign design

By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press — Feb 23 2016

OTTAWA — The Trudeau government has quietly revised the framework for the navy's planned frigate replacement program, opting for a proven foreign design over a custom domestic blueprint.

The news was delivered to defence industry contractors meeting in Ottawa on Tuesday.

Lisa Campbell, the assistant deputy minister in the acquisitions branch at Public Services and Procurement Canada, said an evaluation has determined that there are existing warship designs that would meet Canadian needs and deciding to go in that direction "was a big step for us."

Commodore Art MacDonald said the navy has also refined its requirements for the advanced warships, on which Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax is expected to begin construction some time around 2020.

In addition, the federal government will run only one competition for building both the ship and installing the sophisticated electronics, instead of doing it separately, as originally planned.

Campbell said those decisions will help not only speed up the shipbuilding process, which has been proceeding at a glacial pace, but could help control costs down the road.

When originally conceived, the Harper government estimated the cost of building 15 warships would be in the range of $26 billion, but internal documents and published reports last fall suggested the price tag could go as high as $40 billion.

Relying on a proven, off-the-shelf warship design from another country takes a lot of the uncertainty out of the planning process, Campbell said.

"We don't know the actual cost per ship yet," she said in an interview. "We're not talking about a custom build anymore. We're talking about existing designs .... and in our view that is likely to have an impact on diminishing all sorts of risks."

There would be, however, some modifications to the design to suit unique Canadian requirements. The process is not unlike the one followed when the Harper government selected a German design for the navy's soon-to-be-built joint supply ships.
 
Now we can stop living in the dream world, and start listing out some in-service designs we'd like to see...
 
So the Liberals scotched the integrated platform when buying helicopters and opted to go with separate platform and systems integrators.

Now they are scotching the separate platform and systems integrators and buying an integrated platform when buying ships.

I am not criticizing.  I like the "off the shelf designs will work for us". 

I am just amused at how we get there.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Please, please, please, let it be a FREMM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxSsHeiioG0

Seigneur!!!
 
And bonus: You'll get all the pubs in (proper and understandable) French right off the bat - no waiting five years for bad translations where idiots in Ottawa invent new vocabulary.


[My latest beef, which I thought was just weak knowledge of French by an English-Canadian admiral when she came to Montreal, was calling the AOPS "Navire de patrouille extra-côtier et de l'Arctique".  :facepalm:
Certainly sounds like Ottawa bozos: first of all "navire de patrouille" can be summed up in French by the single word "patrouilleur", then the concepts of harbour/inshore/offshore progression exists in French and it is "portuaire/côtier/hauturier". Thus "Patrouilleur Hauturier et Arctique" was all that was ever needed and proper.]
 
Have faith OGBD, you will would likely end up with Italian manuals.
 
PuckChaser:

Foreign design decision for CSC made some months ago:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/mark-collins-rcns-canadian-surface-combatant-will-be-foreign-design/

Mark
Ottawa
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
And bonus: You'll get all the pubs in (proper and understandable) French right off the bat - no waiting five years for bad translations where idiots in Ottawa invent new vocabulary.


[My latest beef, which I thought was just weak knowledge of French by an English-Canadian admiral when she came to Montreal, was calling the AOPS "Navire de patrouille extra-côtier et de l'Arctique".  :facepalm:
Certainly sounds like Ottawa bozos: first of all "navire de patrouille" can be summed up in French by the single word "patrouilleur", then the concepts of harbour/inshore/offshore progression exists in French and it is "portuaire/côtier/hauturier". Thus "Patrouilleur Hauturier et Arctique" was all that was ever needed and proper.]

Pffffft!  That's easy for you to say.  I'm a poor, dumb, bloke.  It might just as well be in Egyptian hieroglyphs for all I could read and understand.  It's all like a Charlie Brown teacher talking, to me.
 
MarkOttawa said:
PuckChaser:

Foreign design decision for CSC made some months ago:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/mark-collins-rcns-canadian-surface-combatant-will-be-foreign-design/

Mark
Ottawa

CP must be just catching up, thanks.
 
If the CSC mix d signs are the Horizon for an AAD destroyer, and FREMM for a frigate, 6 +9 respectively, that would be a very solid and respectable fleet. With the Berlin Class and the Davie conversion, one could then start thinking about 2x 10-12000 tones Enforcer and probably even a Cavour class carrier. 
The that would be a navy on par with the long abandoned Leadmark project.
 
whiskey601 said:
If the CSC mix d signs are the Horizon for an AAD destroyer, and FREMM for a frigate, 6 +9 respectively, that would be a very solid and respectable fleet. With the Berlin Class and the Davie conversion, one could then start thinking about 2x 10-12000 tones Enforcer and probably even a Cavour class carrier
The bit in yellow is what gave it away;  you had a beverage or two after work, didn't you?    ;)
 
whiskey601 said:
If the CSC mix d signs are the Horizon for an AAD destroyer, and FREMM for a frigate, 6 +9 respectively, that would be a very solid and respectable fleet. With the Berlin Class and the Davie conversion, one could then start thinking about 2x 10-12000 tones Enforcer and probably even a Cavour class carrier. 
The that would be a navy on par with the long abandoned Leadmark project.

While the Horizons are great ships  :nod: ,France cancelled the last planned 4(series of 8)so now there are "just" 4 of them in service.
Why? Horizons are very expensive ships much more so then Fremm,so when/if DCNS is chosen it would likely be the Fremm for Canada(also great ships)
Suggestions were made on the dutch defence forum("Defensieforum")to go for these "puppies" for our ASW needs(but likely it will be an own design.)

gr,walter


Shame to see Damen is out,would love to see more then 4 DZP's on the seas or an evolved version,LCF-2; (just saying this as a dutchie)
 
Yes, Karel D, the Horizon are more expensive than the FREMMs, but the cancellation of the last four was only partially due to their cost. It had more to do with the fact that the Horizon's are the air defence destroyers for the French aircraft carriers and so, when France decided to cancel acquisition of the second carrier to complement the Charles de Gaulle, that cut the need for AD destroyers by half.

Now France and the UK have an agreement to operate the carriers as a joint European undertaking, so that, when the two Q.E. are in service, two out of three will always be available to Europe or NATO.
 
Wikipedia asserts that the Italian Horizon class destroyer  Caio Duilio has:

"The handling of wheeled helicopters on the flight deck is guaranteed up to sea state 6 by the semi-automatic Canadian system TC-ASIST[7] of Indal Technologies committing to these operations a single operator."

Bearpaw
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Yes, Karel D, the Horizon are more expensive than the FREMMs, but the cancellation of the last four was only partially due to their cost. It had more to do with the fact that the Horizon's are the air defence destroyers for the French aircraft carriers and so, when France decided to cancel acquisition of the second carrier to complement the Charles de Gaulle, that cut the need for AD destroyers by half.

Now France and the UK have an agreement to operate the carriers as a joint European undertaking, so that, when the two Q.E. are in service, two out of three will always be available to Europe or NATO.

So.....how many aircraft carriers do we have to defend? Surely we can save the entire cost of an AD variant?  Would we need them if we had a few LPDs/LPHs?
 
Back
Top