New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile....

keep the navy (US) out of shipbuilding.

‘Stop trying to control every step’ of shipbuilding, senator tells Navy

Focus less on requirements and more on outcomes, says Montana’s Sheehy, and the entire Pentagon might get on board.

www.defenseone.com

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yes. Montana, of course, is known as a hotbed of shipbuilding.

I think only Russian submarine X.O.'s would have liked to see it.

 

[Nvlgzr]

Yes. Montana, of course, is known as a hotbed of shipbuilding.

I think only Russian submarine X.O.'s would have liked to see it.

Red October…nice.

 

[Swampbuggy]

My numbers include the Martha L. Black-class which while they do work on the Lakes, are much larger than any USCG counterpart vessels and are also extensively used in the Atlantic while also having been sent to the Arctic before as well.

Much of the USCG Lakes fleet is made up of smaller ice strengthened buoy tenders that have much less capability than our own, larger vessels. They have something like 30~ of these ships all together, but they don't have the use cases outside the lakes that we require. Canada has up to 16 Multi-Purpose Icebreakers on order with Seaspan, alongside 6 Mid-shore multi-mission vessels (TBD yard) for coastal lakes work and 6 large Program icebreakers (Davie) as well. There isn't any plans for buy a bunch of smaller vessels like the US does, so they can respectfully pound sand on their complaints.

I would also suggest that the 4 “light” icebreakers of the current MEMTV (RISLEY/GREY/BARTLETT/LAMARSH) should be counted

Yes. Montana, of course, is known as a hotbed of shipbuilding.

I think only Russian submarine X.O.'s would have liked to see it.

And their round American women??

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would also suggest that the 4 “light” icebreakers of the current MEMTV (RISLEY/GREY/BARTLETT/LAMARSH) should be counted

And their round American women??

Bartlett is retired

 

[Navy_Pete]

Yes. Montana, of course, is known as a hotbed of shipbuilding.

I think only Russian submarine X.O.'s would have liked to see it.

Pretty funny to see a former Navy SEAL saying the Navy should butt out of shipbuilding because it doesn't have the expertise it used to, but somehow has more relevant expertise on shipbuilding, contracting and complex project management than NAVSEA to tell them what they should do.

NAVSEA still has a lot of expertise, as does places like Bath Iron Works, but a lot of rules in place are because of things going extremely sideways as well as private companies cutting corners and things happening like ships burning to the waterline.

Similarly the a lot of the requirements output to the yards are based on significant in house expertise on things like combat survivability and other classified information so private industry doesn't actually have any relevant expertise to get the 'outcomes' he is talking about.

You shouldn't need to tell them how to do a weld to get to a certain standard, but you also don't want to let the industry decide for you that a lower standard is acceptable from a commercial perspective when it's all based on things like shock standards or similar that they have no idea about.

That's the big issue with using commercial marine standards; there is a really good reason we use 300 and 450 class hull valves vice the standard commercial 150 ones on warships, and it's not for geting cargo from point A to B so class societies saying we can safely replace that are talking right out of their ass.

 

[Kirkhill]

Pretty funny to see a former Navy SEAL saying the Navy should butt out of shipbuilding because it doesn't have the expertise it used to, but somehow has more relevant expertise on shipbuilding, contracting and complex project management than NAVSEA to tell them what they should do.

NAVSEA still has a lot of expertise, as does places like Bath Iron Works, but a lot of rules in place are because of things going extremely sideways as well as private companies cutting corners and things happening like ships burning to the waterline.

Similarly the a lot of the requirements output to the yards are based on significant in house expertise on things like combat survivability and other classified information so private industry doesn't actually have any relevant expertise to get the 'outcomes' he is talking about.

You shouldn't need to tell them how to do a weld to get to a certain standard, but you also don't want to let the industry decide for you that a lower standard is acceptable from a commercial perspective when it's all based on things like shock standards or similar that they have no idea about.

That's the big issue with using commercial marine standards; there is a really good reason we use 300 and 450 class hull valves vice the standard commercial 150 ones on warships, and it's not for geting cargo from point A to B so class societies saying we can safely replace that are talking right out of their ass.

Congratulations. We now own one exquisitely crafted and lovingly tended vessel that is 30 years out of date, made with technologies that are no longer available, and capable of tasks that are no longer required.

And no budget available to replace her.

Where do we find the compromise?

Armies know that all vehicles are at risk but that not all vehicles can be MBTs. Volkswagen Passats and Ford F150s straight off the assembly line are employed.

And people argue for many pleasurable hours on this forum and elsewhere over when the use of such vehicles is appropriate and where on the sliding scale of Passat to Leo is the sweet spot.