• 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
"According to a June economic forecast published by ATB Financial, Alberta is still leading the country in economic growth, job creation and in-migration from other provinces.

"And it is expected to lead in all of those categories through the rest of 2026 and all of 2027.

"Doesn’t sound to me like separatist talk (and that’s all it is for now — talk) is killing the province’s economy."


If you build it they will come.

I thought Halifax and Nova Scotia wanted more reasons to attract taxpayers?
 
Lots of valid points..

But Irving has been building AOPS for 10yrs in Halifax, surely the adding of 4-600 jobs in the sub pens can’t have them this worried. Maybe our subs should be based in St John’s or perhaps Saint John so as to not further strain Irving and its ability to meet existing timelines?

Can Halifax, the city and Halifax the harbour handle another 6 subs, the maintenance facility, all the crew/workers? What if we do get 16-20 ‘Minifaxs’? Can the city/harbour accommodate another 8-10 ships/crew/maintenance workers/support staff?

Maybe the 8-10 ‘Minifaxs’ should be based in St John’s or Saint John as well? Start with the subs and their maintenance facility and add the Minifaxs as well.
As you may be aware, Halifax is already Canada's Atlantic Fleet base. It currently supports the Halifax Class, AOPV's, Subs, visiting NATO warships, AOR's, Coast Guard vessels, FMF, Bedford mag, naval schools, dockyards, Sea Training, MARLANT headquarters, and thousands of military and civilian personnel. The idea that six additional submarines would somehow overwhelm the harbour is laughable. Halifax handled far larger naval traffic during both world wars and remains one of the largest and most capable natural harbours in the world.

I assume your joking, as for moving submarines to Saint John or St. John's, that sounds great on paper until you realize you would need to build virtually everything from scratch. New jetties. New maintenance facilities. New ammunition infrastructure. New training facilities. New security systems. New housing. New support contracts. New supply chains. New emergency response capability. Billions of dollars spent recreating capabilities Halifax already possesses. I sincerely doubt this will happen in any meaningful way.

The labour argument is equally weak. Irving isn't worried about the harbour running out of water. They're worried about losing skilled workers. Those are two completely different issues. If a future submarine maintenance contractor can attract welders, electricians, pipefitters, planners, and engineers away from Irving, that's called competition. It happens in every industry. The solution isn't to scatter naval assets around Atlantic Canada because one company doesn't like competing for labour.

If Canada eventually fields the CDC, the question isn't whether Halifax Harbour can physically fit them. It can. The question is whether the Navy, dockyard, maintenance organizations, and support infrastructure expand accordingly. Its activately being looked at, with extras jettys, facilities being planned overtime. Every major navy in the world grows infrastructure alongside fleets. They don't start building duplicate naval bases hundreds of kilometres away because someone is nervous about hiring.

The harbour isn't the problem. The workforce isn't the problem. The real issue is that some people seem to think Canada's naval strategy should be dictated by the hiring concerns of a single shipyard.
 
Lots of valid points..

But Irving has been building AOPS for 10yrs in Halifax, surely the adding of 4-600 jobs in the sub pens can’t have them this worried. Maybe our subs should be based in St John’s or perhaps Saint John so as to not further strain Irving and its ability to meet existing timelines?

Can Halifax, the city and Halifax the harbour handle another 6 subs, the maintenance facility, all the crew/workers? What if we do get 16-20 ‘Minifaxs’? Can the city/harbour accommodate another 8-10 ships/crew/maintenance workers/support staff?

Maybe the 8-10 ‘Minifaxs’ should be based in St John’s or Saint John as well? Start with the subs and their maintenance facility and add the Minifaxs as well.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought that the recent purchase of “Halifax Gate” was to support fleet expansion including the subs?
 
Everything is inspected. You looked at a cell phone photo. It stretches credibility.
You’ll see the same poor workmanship in the video with the coin being welded in place. Using a grinder to prepare a surface for welding is normal. Using a grinder post welding is not. Inspected is not the same as acceptable.
 
You’ll see the same poor workmanship in the video with the coin being welded in place. Using a grinder to prepare a surface for welding is normal. Using a grinder post welding is not. Inspected is not the same as acceptable.
Your original comment was, "Not the best photo resolution but wow the fit up and welding are brutal. Reminds me of some of the photos of Harry DeWolf first blocks that were out by inches."

Think about what you're actually claiming there. You acknowledge the photo resolution is poor, yet in the very next breath you're making definitive judgments about fit up, weld quality, alignment, and drawing comparisons to alleged AOPS block issues from years ago which are all anecdotal. If the image quality is insufficient to properly assess the details, then it is also insufficient to support those conclusions.

More importantly, you're conflating completely different things. Even if there were alignment issues on some early Harry DeWolf blocks during construction, that does not automatically mean the same thing is happening here. Shipbuilding involves thousands of welds, numerous assembly stages, temporary attachments, fairing, and checks throughout construction. A single low res photograph captures none of that.

The reality is that nobody can determine whether a weld is acceptable, whether fit up is within tolerance, or whether a module is dimensionally correct from a grainy social media image. That's why shipyards use QA, NDT, class society oversight, and CA teams. If the evidence isn't good enough to accurately identify the condition, it certainly isn't good enough to support sweeping claims about the quality of an entire shipbuilding program.
 
There are times when I wonder what it is that Irving seems to have over both major political parties?

You have to remember the primary role for this shipbuilding program is not actually ship building.

It's vote buying and employment.

If we get ships eventually that's secondary or tertiary win.

Lots of valid points..

But Irving has been building AOPS for 10yrs in Halifax, surely the adding of 4-600 jobs in the sub pens can’t have them this worried. Maybe our subs should be based in St John’s or perhaps Saint John so as to not further strain Irving and its ability to meet existing timelines?

Can Halifax, the city and Halifax the harbour handle another 6 subs, the maintenance facility, all the crew/workers? What if we do get 16-20 ‘Minifaxs’? Can the city/harbour accommodate another 8-10 ships/crew/maintenance workers/support staff?

Maybe the 8-10 ‘Minifaxs’ should be based in St John’s or Saint John as well? Start with the subs and their maintenance facility and add the Minifaxs as well.

I think there is merit to spreading out the fleet(s). But I would rather look at options overseas.
 
I know that somewhere in the Caribbean would be loved by all but I would question that location, we won’t be hunting subs off the coast of the DR.
 
I stand by my claim of poor workmanship. If the photos were of higher resolution, I’m sure I could spot more defects. I’m not claiming that this module has been inspected and/or not passed inspection. Maybe it has maybe not. It may in fact be dimensionally correct and fit up with the next module, we will probably never know. You’ve said that shipyards use QA, NDT, class society oversight, and CA teams. Does Irving? If you have insight to Irving procedures and status of the module, please share.
 
I stand by my claim of poor workmanship. If the photos were of higher resolution, I’m sure I could spot more defects. I’m not claiming that this module has been inspected and/or not passed inspection. Maybe it has maybe not. It may in fact be dimensionally correct and fit up with the next module, we will probably never know. You’ve said that shipyards use QA, NDT, class society oversight, and CA teams. Does Irving? If you have insight to Irving procedures and status of the module, please share.

If I hired Irving to do work for me and they produced the same quality for me as they do in shipbuilding I wouldn't hire them again.
 
I stand by my claim of poor workmanship. If the photos were of higher resolution, I’m sure I could spot more defects. I’m not claiming that this module has been inspected and/or not passed inspection. Maybe it has maybe not. It may in fact be dimensionally correct and fit up with the next module, we will probably never know. You’ve said that shipyards use QA, NDT, class society oversight, and CA teams. Does Irving? If you have insight to Irving procedures and status of the module, please share.
The problem is that your conclusion is based on speculation rather than evidence. Saying that a higher resolution photo would probably reveal more defects is no different than someone claiming it would reveal there are none. Looking at a low resolution image and concluding there is systemic poor workmanship, dimensional errors, or project wide quality issues ignores the reality that ship construction is subject to quality assurance programs, non destructive testing, survey verification, customer inspections, and regulatory oversight throughout the build. You are entitled to dislike the appearance of a weld or fit up, but without inspection reports, survey data, NDT results, or documented non conformances, all you really have is an opinion based on a photograph, not evidence of a broader quality problem.
 
The problem is that your conclusion is based on speculation rather than evidence. Saying that a higher resolution photo would probably reveal more defects is no different than someone claiming it would reveal there are none. Looking at a low resolution image and concluding there is systemic poor workmanship, dimensional errors, or project wide quality issues ignores the reality that ship construction is subject to quality assurance programs, non destructive testing, survey verification, customer inspections, and regulatory oversight throughout the build. You are entitled to dislike the appearance of a weld or fit up, but without inspection reports, survey data, NDT results, or documented non conformances, all you really have is an opinion based on a photograph, not evidence of a broader quality problem.
My question is, how does one mate up 2 sections where the dimensions are off by 3 inches and the tolerance for error I assume is low?
 
The problem is that your conclusion is based on speculation rather than evidence. Saying that a higher resolution photo would probably reveal more defects is no different than someone claiming it would reveal there are none. Looking at a low resolution image and concluding there is systemic poor workmanship, dimensional errors, or project wide quality issues ignores the reality that ship construction is subject to quality assurance programs, non destructive testing, survey verification, customer inspections, and regulatory oversight throughout the build. You are entitled to dislike the appearance of a weld or fit up, but without inspection reports, survey data, NDT results, or documented non conformances, all you really have is an opinion based on a photograph, not evidence of a broader quality problem.
But we have been told that this is 3" out and then we have the same issues with blocks from the AOP's and the valve issue?
 
I stand by my claim of poor workmanship. If the photos were of higher resolution, I’m sure I could spot more defects. I’m not claiming that this module has been inspected and/or not passed inspection. Maybe it has maybe not. It may in fact be dimensionally correct and fit up with the next module, we will probably never know. You’ve said that shipyards use QA, NDT, class society oversight, and CA teams. Does Irving? If you have insight to Irving procedures and status of the module, please share.
if they are painting it, does that mean it has been accepted. Paint will cover the welds unless they Xray each one.
 
Back
Top