- Reaction score
- 3,931
- Points
- 1,120
OGBD,
That sounds like a perfectly reasonable plan, which is why it won't happen.
![Smile :-) :-)](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png)
NS
That sounds like a perfectly reasonable plan, which is why it won't happen.
![Smile :-) :-)](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png)
NS
dapaterson said: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.
NavyShooter said: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.
Spencer100 said:
I don't see a problem, there are a number of excellent designs out there, I'm partial to the Iver Huitfeldt-class myself.Underway said: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.
Chris Pook said: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.
$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
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
Send money........