New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[NavyShooter]

OGBD,

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable plan, which is why it won't happen.



NS

 

[dapaterson]

Steel has been cut and assmely begun of the first of the AOPS.  Scrapping the platform right now would mean the loss of that work, and delays in gettings ships in the water. (And probably layoffs at Irving until the next ones are ready).

While I suspect the AOPS schedule is aggressive and likely will be a little delayed; changing horses midstream would further delay things.  Perfect is the enemy of good enough; I think, for now, AOPS is good enough.

 

[Kirkhill]

Steel has been cut and assmely begun of the first of the AOPS.  Scrapping the platform right now would mean the loss of that work, and delays in gettings ships in the water. (And probably layoffs at Irving until the next ones are ready).

While I suspect the AOPS schedule is aggressive and likely will be a little delayed; changing horses midstream would further delay things.  Perfect is the enemy of good enough; I think, for now, AOPS is good enough.

Agreed.  Something is better than nothing.  My issue is with the costing of all the projects.  Frankly, I don't believe any of the numbers.

 

[GR66]

Just shifting ships around from one shipyard to another may help speed up delivery of badly needed hulls, but it won't reduce the overall cost of the program which is what the government really needs to happen.  Any changes really will likely require a change in WHAT is being produced in addition to changes in WHERE they are being produced.

Perhaps IF Project Resolve (and perhaps a 2nd sister ship?) plus ONE new JSS could be built by Davie at about half the cost of the current JSS program and IF those three ships are enough to meet the RCN's minumum supply ship needs then maybe the JSS build could be pulled from Seaspan and given to Davie and Seaspan instead build TWO ice breakers for the CCG.  Good politics in Quebec, limited damage to Seaspan, and more ice breakers for the CCG (and faster).  This change still though would likely be cost neutral, so cost savings will still have to come from somewhere else in the NSPS (realistically the CSC portion).

If the cost savings from the program will have to come from the CSC portion then what are the options?  Fewer hulls?  Drop the AAD version?  A cheaper GP design?

 

[NavyShooter]

I seem to recall discussion about the 'Canadianization' of the AOPS design costing us around $270 million dollars.

If we expand that complexity to a full-blown warship in the CSC, then the cost of the 'Canadianized' design for it will run closer to a billion dollars.

If we literally buy a set of suitable plans and skip most of the 'Canadianization' then we stand to save most of that billion dollars....or so.

That's some real money.  If we were REALLY smart and just bought the completed hulls overseas, we'd get them for literally pennies on the dollar, fit them out here with the whiz-bang high-tech gear, and go from there.

The biggest problem I see with the NSPS is that it's making a non-competitive set of shipyards even less competitive, because they're only selling one product to one entity, and there is no-one else in the world that'll buy from them.  The only way these yards stay open, and the workers employed is if there is continued government of Canada input and purchase from the yards.  We do not have a big enough fleet to require all of these yards, because if they all built all the ships all at once, we'd have returned to the boom/bust production cycle, and the yards would all close in 15 years, and we'd have to re-do this process all over again in 25 years.

 

[Kirkhill]

I seem to recall discussion about the 'Canadianization' of the AOPS design costing us around $270 million dollars.

If we expand that complexity to a full-blown warship in the CSC, then the cost of the 'Canadianized' design for it will run closer to a billion dollars.

If we literally buy a set of suitable plans and skip most of the 'Canadianization' then we stand to save most of that billion dollars....or so.

That's some real money.  If we were REALLY smart and just bought the completed hulls overseas, we'd get them for literally pennies on the dollar, fit them out here with the whiz-bang high-tech gear, and go from there.

The biggest problem I see with the NSPS is that it's making a non-competitive set of shipyards even less competitive, because they're only selling one product to one entity, and there is no-one else in the world that'll buy from them.  The only way these yards stay open, and the workers employed is if there is continued government of Canada input and purchase from the yards.  We do not have a big enough fleet to require all of these yards, because if they all built all the ships all at once, we'd have returned to the boom/bust production cycle, and the yards would all close in 15 years, and we'd have to re-do this process all over again in 25 years.

NS I believe you are on the very low side.

If Svalbard plans had just been sent to a Canadian yard for construction it would have been easy to compare the chain of events that resulted in Irving charging 2300 MCAD for 5 boats, maybe 6 if we get lucky which the Norwegian yard could have been expected to produce at 350 MCAD to 500 MCAD for 5 boats.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/irving-reaches-shipbuilding-deal-with-federal-government-1.2912429
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ottawa-signs-288m-contract-for-design-of-arctic-ships-1.1312194
http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/AOPS_EN.pdf
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html

According to the PBO the estimates are generated by Yankee software.  Apparently not by talking to yards that are actually building comparable ships.

 

[Underway]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/171597/canada-alters-course-on-frigate-replacement%3B-opts-for-foreign-design.html

How did everyone just skip by this article?  If this is true then its basically code for "we give up" or "no inovation" and we will get a ship designed for 15 years ago.  Unless the Type 45 is on the table (which was only designed for 10 years ago).  I was kinda hoping for a domestic design to showcase a made in Canada solution and perhaps with a lead into developing a foreign sales market but why dream big when you can dream Canadian. 

Also going to one contract for the ship and the electronics systems cuts a bunch of companies out of the loop unless they start paring up (which they will most likely do), and significantly gives Lockheed an even greater head start over the rest.  I suppose it might matter which "off the shelf" ship that they pick but there are not many out there that match the current tonnage requirements or the ability to do both AAW or GP on the same hull without significant mods.  Unless of course the are using a "based on" model and modifying it.  But that seems unlikely.  The Liberals are terrified of risk.  Navy is as well.  Which is so odd coming from an organization that is supposed to manage risk all the time, we do a very very bad job of it.

 

[PuckChaser]

What do you want, a Canadian version of the Hobart at $8B for 3 ships? Maybe we should design a Canadian-Zumwalt class. Total steal at $4B a ship.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Underway: Foreign design for CSC was public last November; ace media did not notice:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/mark-collins-rcns-canadian-surface-combatant-will-be-foreign-design/

Updated Public Works link:
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/snac-nsps/prequalification-eng.html

Mark Collins

 

[AlexanderM]

How did everyone just skip by this article?  If this is true then its basically code for "we give up" or "no inovation" and we will get a ship designed for 15 years ago.  Unless the Type 45 is on the table (which was only designed for 10 years ago).  I was kinda hoping for a domestic design to showcase a made in Canada solution and perhaps with a lead into developing a foreign sales market but why dream big when you can dream Canadian. 

Also going to one contract for the ship and the electronics systems cuts a bunch of companies out of the loop unless they start paring up (which they will most likely do), and significantly gives Lockheed an even greater head start over the rest.  I suppose it might matter which "off the shelf" ship that they pick but there are not many out there that match the current tonnage requirements or the ability to do both AAW or GP on the same hull without significant mods.  Unless of course the are using a "based on" model and modifying it.  But that seems unlikely.  The Liberals are terrified of risk.  Navy is as well.  Which is so odd coming from an organization that is supposed to manage risk all the time, we do a very very bad job of it.

I don't see a problem, there are a number of excellent designs out there, I'm partial to the Iver Huitfeldt-class myself.

 

[jmt18325]

FREMM...that's all.

 

[Kirkhill]

I said upthread (probably more than once) that I don't trust the project numbers.

European Defence Bureaucrat:  We want an defence force that is well equipped and we want to subsidize our economy. Our citizens don't like big armies and navies but they do like jobs.  We don't want to be seen paying for defence.  We will support our defence industry through the economy by other means that are popular and provide labour, tax and marketing support and limit the defence budget. 

US Defence Bureaucrat: We want a defence force that is well equipped and we want to subsidize our economy.  Our citizens like a big army and navy and they also like jobs. We want to be seen paying for defence. We will support our economy through the defence industry to provide labour, tax and marketing support and inflate the defence budget.

Canadian Defence Bureaucrat:  We don't want a defence force at all.  We want to subsidize our economy but our citzens don't like armies and navies while they do like jobs.  We don't want to be seen paying for defence but our allies insist that we do. We will support our economy by spending our limited European budget on inflated American equipment so as to limit our capabilities.  Then when we get asked to do something we might get lucky and not be able to provide anything useful.

As I said:  I am feeling depressed.

 

[Cloud Cover]

i think that is actually quite accurate, except for when the Canadian citizenry really do want a scrap (and there have been those times), in which case the government still says uh-oh, but still "no." So we have a legacy of governments saying no when the answer should be yes, and a citizen history of saying no and yes depending on the time of day and the weather. (or "whether", depending on which way you feel entitled look at it).

The argument that maintaining an armed force as a critical deterrent against foreign aggression, and a useful and sharp tool in foreign policy comes at the price of social welfare deprivation is false. Most of Canada's greatest social welfare advances occurred during or as a result of conflict, or came into being by the efforts of those who participated in military conflict.
I have yet to see any defence budget (actual or proposed), that would impair, degrade, deprive or otherwise interfere with any social program, give rise to any tax increase,  substantially worsen any deficit, deny any person their Charter Rights, deflect, delay or deny the building of critical infrastructure, and the list goes on....   

The facts are this is not a chickenshit country, but we have been governed for 50 years by chickenshit paranoia and FUD.  The cost of this shipbuilding program, while larger (and it will grow enormously) is really just a drop in the overall bucket, and does not displace any sacred cows.

 

[Kirkhill]

You're not helping.

How about you pour me one of these instead? 

 

[misratah500]

I want two things out of these CSC ships. I want a deck gun over 100mm and large capacity for missiles than 24 CPF or 29 IRO had. God love it if we could get a cruise missile kinda capability.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Heaven knows how many ships (what types?), when and for what money the RCN will sometime get:

$26B for new fleet of warships ‘notional’: Foote [one time a great notion?]
Minister admits original estimate won’t cover cost of building ships 

The government doesn’t know how much its new fleet of warships will cost, how many vessels it will be able to build, or when they will be delivered.

In an interview with The Chronicle Herald on Friday [March 4], Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy Foote confirmed that the $26.2-billion figure announced by the Harper government to deliver up to 15 warships is no longer accurate [quelle surprise!].

“That budget was a notional amount, anybody looking at the numbers would question how you could possibly get up to 15 ships for $26.2 billion,” Foote said…

The price tag for the warships has been fraught with doubt for several years, with experts, industry insiders, and internal documents all stating the program would be considerably over budget — some estimates say the real costs to build the fleet could be as high as $40 billion.

Foote said it’s way too early to put a new cost on the program, but said the government would be transparent about numbers when it reaches that point…

The program is already behind schedule, and too large of a gap between finishing the construction of six Arctic offshore patrol ships — which are also being built in Halifax by prime contractor Irving Shipbuilding — and beginning the warships would cause logistical issues for Irving and likely mean layoffs. And although a successful modernization program has been completed on Canada’s aging Halifax-class frigates, experts say they can only be stretched so far — the navy needs warships sooner rather than later.

During a press tour of the Halifax shipyards on Friday, Irving president Kevin McCoy assured reporters that a ship design would be picked by 2017, and the company would have a contract in hand to begin construction by December 2019 or January 2020.

Foote said while she expects the government to have picked a warship design in about a year, there’s too much uncertainty to have a concrete timeline beyond that [emphasis added].

“We’re not far along to know that at this point. I know we initially talked about 2020s . . . I know that’s what Irving would like, but until we’ve completed the consultation process I don’t think it would be fair for me to be saying, ‘This is the date,’ ” Foote said.

Foote said the single competition off-the-shelf design approach would save some time, but not how much …

The number of ships to be built by Irving has also been uncertain — the original proposal called for construction of “up to 15” warships, but during the election campaign the Conservatives said that number could be as low as 11...
http://thechronicleherald.ca/1346888-26b-for-new-fleet-of-warships-notional-foote

Well they would do that, wouldn't they?

Irving mounts public relations push as questions swirl around frigate program
http://www.timescolonist.com/irving-mounts-public-relations-push-as-questions-swirl-around-frigate-program-1.2190650

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Send money........

 

[safetysOff]

Send money........

Or lower expectations given recent track record

 

[MilEME09]

Or the Canadian way for procurement, both

 

[Karel Doorman]

So i read something on the dutch defence forum,article from a German Naval Magazine about Canadian Procurement.  :facepalm:

The "Canadian Surface Combatant" -Project device in rough seas.
According to Navy planning to 15 new warships old now largely replace already decommissioned destroyer TRIBAL class and long term to replace the frigates HALIFAX class. 2017 fall design decisions about 2022 then begin construction.
The beginnings of the project go back more than ten years back. Originally they wanted to implement it at a cost of a total of less than 10 billion euros. 2008 (skeptical) government added to vigorously and approved a ceiling to be understood as a total amount of about 17 billion euros. Now one expects, however, with up to 28 billion euros.
The Navy leadership sees from the beginning of serious errors in the cost calculation. Already in 2008 approved financial framework was based on totally obsolete data. Lack of professionalism "bureaucrats" and lack of experience of Canadian shipyards have also led to a "mere" estimate of costs that were set far too low under political pressure. Worse than the "ceiling" fixed financial framework have prevented any remedy; there had never been an adaptation to current developments (inflation), and the Navy was a revision of perceived as cost-impulsive tactical- / technical requirements out of the way gone.
Thus, the project "Canadian Surface Combatant" now a "high-risk projects", which not only goes beyond the budget framework and threatens to overwhelm the capabilities of the national shipbuilding industry, but that ultimately the Navy with a considerable time lag inadequate and little future oriented skills could bring. Observers expect that instead of the planned 15 new combat ships only about 10 will be affordable, and this even when their construction is spread over time, the cost is therefore spread over more financial years than planned.


Will provide link;

German article :
http://www.marineforum.info/Aktuelles_Heft/MaaW/maaw.html

Seems like a crazy amount of money for"just" 15 ships,wow. :nod:

"I mean you could buy about 45 Fremm's for that kind of doe.(seems stuff's/building/planning  not going quite right in Canada)" not my remark but a guy from the dutch forum said that and actually he's quite right.

Maybe it's time for Canada to get on speaking terms(designing and building together)with the Dutch ,since "our" M-class will be up for replacing in about the same sort of timescale(2022-ish)and my thought will be that the MPF2(M-class Patrol Frigate 2)will be in the 600 million neighborhood a piece so for Canada (with some additional costs offcourse,since you like those  [ ,sorry couldn't help myself) the whole project(15 ships) could be done for around the 10 Billion figure  (so there's still money,a lot actually, in the "kitty",18 Billion give or take)

Maybe an option?

gr,walter

ps possible to include ice-strengthening right from the start then(designing it with)