New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Flavus101]

To tell you the truth I really think the only reason why the ship is on time and they are pulling out all the stops to possibility deliver early is to make the other yards look bad and to get more of the pie. If Davie was the prime yard, we would still be seeing what we are seeing now.

Is that not the benefit of capitalism? Constantly having to meet targets, innovate, become more efficient, etc. that is how our society progresses.

Not having "too big to fail" corporate entities that simply reap the benefits of those who succeed through their determination, knowledge and effort.

This is why I wish that we held people/corporations more accountable for their actions and be more blunt in our assessments of performance rather than spending time finding creative ways to say someone did a shite job.

 

[FSTO]

In the end, I don't give a frig why they're doing it.  They're doing it and that is more than the other two can say, especially ISI. 

I'll add, that Davies doesn't make ISI, look and deliver like crap.  They do that all their own.  I'll leave Sea Span out of it as I'm an East Coast guy and cannot comment on the West Coast yard as I don't have any experience there.

While not perfect (nobody is) Seaspan produces a quality product that is head and shoulders above anything Irving does. One of the reasons is that they lease the graving dock area they work in (in Victoria) and time is money. Repairs have to be done quickly and right the first time, especially with the number of cruise liners they get in to work on. If they were screwing things up the cruise industry would just go somewhere else.

 

[Underway]

While not perfect (nobody is) Seaspan produces a quality product that is head and shoulders above anything Irving does. One of the reasons is that they lease the graving dock area they work in (in Victoria) and time is money. Repairs have to be done quickly and right the first time, especially with the number of cruise liners they get in to work on. If they were screwing things up the cruise industry would just go somewhere else.

They are also involved with that Kiwi Ship upgrade I believe as well as Lockheed Martin Canada got the contract and are subcontracting to Vic Ships (from memory... might have got some details wrong there) for a lot of the cable work etc...

 

[Cloud Cover]

In the end, I don't give a frig why they're doing it.  They're doing it and that is more than the other two can say, especially ISI. 

Well, I agree to a point (about Davie). I agree 100% about ISI. Davie has turned itself into a competitive, innovative, motivated ship yard. How un-Canadian is that for military procurement.

This thread is 71/2 years old. No steel cut for CSC, I'm not aware of even a design, just requirements. There are other older threads for other ships (ASLC/JSS) going back 14 years, still no steel cut even though the class of ship has been selected.

Many of you will be long retired before new ships are scheduled to arrive, how much of a proportion of the Navy will actually never serve an entire career (say 25 years) without a new combat ship built and delivered. (I'm not sure how the Resolve is characterized).

But on the other point made - that if Davie was in the shoes of ISI, would they act any differently? That a fair question.  As noted previously by another poster, the CSC seems to be more of a process than a product anyway. Reputationally, I would like to think that the new Davie management would be quite careful about being dragged down like that, but money in the 10's of billions changes a lot of things. Its not as if there is not a lot of work going on because there is, but it seems to be paper by the tonne, not steel. Shame.

 

[dapaterson]

Some of this speaks to incentives - Davie sees no money until they deliver a product; the other two shipyards have received significant up-front payments.  I suspect if ISI or Seaspan weren't seeing payment until hulls hit the water, there might be an increased sense of urgency there as well - and more of a push on their part to get DND to clearly define their deliverables.

 

[jmt18325]

Well, I agree to a point (about Davie). I agree 100% about ISI. Davie has turned itself into a competitive, innovative, motivated ship yard. How un-Canadian is that for military procurement.

This thread is 71/2 years old. No steel cut for CSC, I'm not aware of even a design, just requirements.

That is currently under selection.  We'll know sometime by next spring.  It's too bad it's taken so long, but at least there's light in the tunnel now.

 

[NavyShooter]

Maybe.  Maybe we'll see something by spring on the CSC.

I'm not holding my breath.

I have 8 years remaining before I plan to retire.  In that time, I do not honestly anticipate seeing another class of warship arrive that will replace the Frigates. 

NS

 

[MilEME09]

Maybe.  Maybe we'll see something by spring on the CSC.

I'm not holding my breath.

I have 8 years remaining before I plan to retire.  In that time, I do not honestly anticipate seeing another class of warship arrive that will replace the Frigates. 

NS

Atleast youll get Resolve in your career

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[MarkOttawa]

To remind, note timeline for construction start at end:

Irving extends bidding deadline

Ottawa says the building of Canada’s new fleet of warships is still on schedule, even though it’s given a two-month extension to the 12 firms pre-qualified for bidding.

Public Services and Procurement Canada announced this week it will now take bids to supply the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships until June 22. The deadline was April.

According to a news release issued by the department, the extension was granted at the request of industry.

The government said that in order to meet the navy’s requirements, as well as to provide economic benefits to Canada, it is important to ensure it receives the maximum number of bids possible.

“At this point, based on feedback from industry, an extension is the best course of action,” the release read.

“It is not unusual for bidding periods to be extended, particularly for complex initiatives such as this one, which is the most complex procurement project in recent history.”

The department also said the 12 pre-qualified firms — among them industry giants like Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, ThyssenKrupp, Navantia and DCNS — have submitted a total of 164 questions about the procurement, and received 88 responses.

The request for proposal for a pre-existing warship design and combat systems integrator for the Royal Canadian Navy, to be built at Irving Shipyards in Halifax, was released on Oct. 27 after extensive consultation with industry.

That release also came several months later than planned — in August Lisa Campbell, Assistant Deputy Minister of Defence and Marine Procurement at Public Services and Procurement Canada said the final request for proposal would be issued by the end of the summer.

But the government maintains that even with this extension the program remains on track. The release states that completion of the procurement process remains the fall of 2017, with ship construction starting in the early 2020s [emphasis added--that could extend to 2022-23!]...
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1442727-irving-extends-bidding-deadline

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

164 questions.

88 answers.

 

[GR66]

164 questions.

88 answers.

I guess technically that's a passing grade. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Seaspan has a new set of pictures up of the 3 Fisheries vessels under construction https://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries

 

[GAP]

A TALL SHIPS TALE, INDEED
http://www.bourque.com/
Interesting that the local press in Halifax has a perfunctory piece about the latest & greatest from Irving & Co. But that Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) program has certainly turned into a head-scratcher. For starters, is it true the Canadian program is $3.5 billion for 6 ships = $583m per ship in Canadian dollars, which in US Dollars is $ 429m per ship ? And what did other countries pay for EXACTLY the same design ? Well, is this true: Norway = US$100m to design and build an entire AOPS design, Denmark = spent US$105m to then build two ships of the same design Ireland = spent US$125m to also built two entire ships of the same design ? Is it true the average price abroad is USD $57.5m (not including Norway because the design was also included in that price of USD $100m) ? If so, can it be that Irving's cost to build the AOPS is approx. 746% of the cost of the average price to build abroad ? Worse, is it true that Irving got paid US$ 288m just to design an already designed ship ? Where is Treasury Board Prez Scott Brison, Nova Scotia's favourite banana, on all of this ?

 

[CBH99]

I remember a few years ago now (I think?) when it was front page news in the media...and scouring the forums here, reading everything I could about it.

How does it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to design an already designed ship? 

 

[Stoker]

A TALL SHIPS TALE, INDEED
http://www.bourque.com/
Interesting that the local press in Halifax has a perfunctory piece about the latest & greatest from Irving & Co. But that Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) program has certainly turned into a head-scratcher. For starters, is it true the Canadian program is $3.5 billion for 6 ships = $583m per ship in Canadian dollars, which in US Dollars is $ 429m per ship ? And what did other countries pay for EXACTLY the same design ? Well, is this true: Norway = US$100m to design and build an entire AOPS design, Denmark = spent US$105m to then build two ships of the same design Ireland = spent US$125m to also built two entire ships of the same design ? Is it true the average price abroad is USD $57.5m (not including Norway because the design was also included in that price of USD $100m) ? If so, can it be that Irving's cost to build the AOPS is approx. 746% of the cost of the average price to build abroad ? Worse, is it true that Irving got paid US$ 288m just to design an already designed ship ? Where is Treasury Board Prez Scott Brison, Nova Scotia's favourite banana, on all of this ?

Ireland and the Danish ships are not the same design if that's what you mean. Its true about the cost to a certain extent, it was 80M ea in 2002 less their radar and helo for the Norwegian ship. The 4.3 billion also factors in in service support for 25 years.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ireland and the Danish ships are not the same design if that's what you mean. Its true about the cost to a certain extent, it was 80M ea in 2002 less their radar and helo for the Norwegian ship. The 4.3 billion also factors in in service support for 25 years.

With the Chief on this one.

The only valid comparison to the de Wolf's is the Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard, commissioned in 2001 at a cost of 575,000,000 NOK (or about 124 MCAD allowing for current exchange and inflation).  The Svalbard was the original concept vessel. It was the working model of the type.  It was the template. 

A side by side comparison of the Svalbard and the de Wolf bear this out.

The Danish Arctic Patrol Vessels (presumably the Rasmussens) are smaller and not in the same class.
The Irish vessels are both smaller and not ice rated.
Neither one should be compared to the de Wolf at any level.

But it is  fair to ask, in my opinion, why the de Wolf costs 383 MCAD (2.3 BCAD divided by 6 hulls) instead of 124 MCAD.  Why an existing design that was bought and paid for had to be reworked three times at additional cost (10 MCAD to STX, another 10 MCAD to STX and then 250 MCAD to Irving) before the "Contract" was even signed.

The Svalbard went from paper to the water for (at the time) 70 MUSD.

 

[Stoker]

With the Chief on this one.

The only valid comparison to the de Wolf's is the Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard, commissioned in 2001 at a cost of 575,000,000 NOK (or about 124 MCAD allowing for current exchange and inflation).  The Svalbard was the original concept vessel. It was the working model of the type.  It was the template. 

A side by side comparison of the Svalbard and the de Wolf bear this out.

The Danish Arctic Patrol Vessels (presumably the Rasmussens) are smaller and not in the same class.
The Irish vessels are both smaller and not ice rated.
Neither one should be compared to the de Wolf at any level.

But it is  fair to ask, in my opinion, why the de Wolf costs 383 MCAD (2.3 BCAD divided by 6 hulls) instead of 124 MCAD.  Why an existing design that was bought and paid for had to be reworked three times at additional cost (10 MCAD to STX, another 10 MCAD to STX and then 250 MCAD to Irving) before the "Contract" was even signed.

The Svalbard went from paper to the water for (at the time) 70 MUSD.

Lets be honest as much as love this new capability we're getting, its a cash cow for Irving. The design was reworked to have a less capable propulsion system among some changes, probably to save money. The same was done in the early 90's with the Kingston Class with redesigns as cost cutting measures.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Irving took exception to Bourgue's take on the issue http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-contract-holds-250m-mystery-1.1300816

 

[Underway]

The 4.3 billion also factors in in-service support for 25 years.

If Norway only prices in the sticker price then it's going to be a rather large difference.  But Irving didn't get the in-service support contract I thought.  Didn't that go to Thales?  Or was that a maintenance contract.

 

[Kirkhill]

My understanding is that Norway paid the current equivalent of 124 MCAD total for a working ship starting from a blank sheet of paper.

We paid 5 MCAD to buy the plans from Norway
10 MCAD to have the plans modified by STX
10 MCAD to have the plans modified again by STX (to get rid of the azipod reversing through ice thingy)
250 MCAD to Irving to have them figure out how to build something broadly similar to the modified plans supplied by STX via the Government
2300 MCAD to Irving to have them actually build 5 hulls (6 if you're really good boys and girls)
1800 MCAD to Thales to supply the In Service Support

(Thales gets a total of 5300 MCAD to supply ISS to both the AOPS and the JSS ships over 35 years)

So my takeaway is that the comparable Canadian budget is 2300 MCAD plus 250 MCAD, or 2550 MCAD, for 5 hulls or 510 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD
Or 2550 MCAD for 6 hulls is 425 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD
Or 2300 MCAD for 6 hulls (deleting the 250 MCAD planning budget) is 383 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD.

Anyway you cut it Norwegian purchasing agents seem to be able to buy 3 or 4 ships for the amount of money that Canadian agents are willing to spend for 1.