AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Kirkhill]

Not yet, as far as I know.  The shipyard on the west coast had to take care of a large upgrade to its facilities in order to be able to handle the JSS and other ships awarded.  I'm not sure if they're done that yet or not.

Complete as of 6 November, 2014.

http://www.seaspan.com/shipyard-modernization-project

Construction of the OFSVs is already under way

http://www.seaspan.com/seaspans-vancouver-shipyards-starts-construction-on-second-offshore-fisheries-science-vessel-ofsv

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think Seaspan will stick pretty close to the schedule now they are off and running.

 

[MarkOttawa]

JSS construction still some way off:

"...
Award of Implementation Contract Fall 2017
..."
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2016-status-report-on-transformational-and-major-crown-projects.page#P14

Seaspan has to build three CCG Offshore Fisheries Research Vessels first (and maybe the CCG Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel):
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/mark-collins-canadian-coast-guard-vessel-acquisitions-sliding-right/

Two of the OFSVs are now under construction:
http://www.seaspan.com/seaspans-vancouver-shipyards-starts-construction-on-second-offshore-fisheries-science-vessel-ofsv

Also from Seaspan:

What are we building?
http://www.seaspan.com/building

Mark
Ottawa

 

[jmt18325]

Maybe to the OOSV?  It's being built first, and is larger than the OFSVs.

 

[Kirkhill]

For Immediate Release – March 29, 2016

Vancouver, BC – Brian Carter, President – Seaspan Shipyards, announced today the start of construction on Seaspan’s second National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) ship, the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG)’s second Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel (OFSV).

“Seaspan is now full-steam ahead on the production and delivery of its first two National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) vessels, and we are re-writing shipbuilding history in Canada in the process for generations to come,” said Brian Carter. “Today not only marks a proud moment for the progress and success of the NSS, it also serves as a testament to the hard work and tireless commitment of our world-class team of experts at Vancouver Shipyards (VSY) in readying us for this milestone.”

With production of the second OFSV now underway, significant progress continues on the first OFSV with 35 of 37 blocks currently under construction. The two CCG ships are part of VSY’s three vessel, incentive-based build contract for the construction of three OFSVs, which will be delivered under a ceiling price contract before the end of 2017. Work on the third OFSV is scheduled to begin later this year.

Seaspan’s cutting of steel on the second OFSV also follows the recent announcement (March 14, 2016) of two new NSS contracts valued at more than $65.4 million, which will help pave the way for future construction of the CCG’s Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel (OOSV) and the Royal Canadian Navy’s Joint Support Ships (JSS) at VSY.

To date, Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards has awarded over $400 million in contracts to suppliers in Canada, with more than 160 Canadian companies having already benefited from these investments. It is estimated that Seaspan’s NSS work will create more than 2300 direct, indirect and induced jobs annually, produce almost $290 million per year in GDP for Canada’s economy, and mean thousands of people will get the opportunity for an exciting new career in shipbuilding.

http://www.seaspan.com/seaspans-vancouver-shipyards-starts-construction-on-second-offshore-fisheries-science-vessel-ofsv

 

[FSTO]

I was just chatting with one of the MS here. We have both served on PRO and PRE.
We were discussing the names of the replacement ships and how there is little to no naval connection with the names (There was a bit of amphibious action at Queenston Heights but that was by the Americans)

We were thinking that since PROVIDER, PROTECTEUR and PRESERVER were all gone now, why don't we recycle the names? Makes sense to me.
What do the rest of you think?

 

[jollyjacktar]

I was just chatting with one of the MS here. We have both served on PRO and PRE.
We were discussing the names of the replacement ships and how there is little to no naval connection with the names (There was a bit of amphibious action at Queenston Heights but that was by the Americans)

We were thinking that since PROVIDER, PROTECTEUR and PRESERVER were all gone now, why don't we recycle the names? Makes sense to me.
What do the rest of you think?

PRE is still in service, albeit alongside.

I suggested PROVIDER and PROTECTEUR and was slapped down as it's too soon.  Shame, as I don't like the 1812 names that the previous GoC was obsessed with.

 

[FSTO]

PRE is still in service, albeit alongside.

I suggested PROVIDER and PROTECTEUR and was slapped down as it's too soon.  Shame, as I don't like the 1812 names that the previous GoC was obsessed with.

She will be gone long before the second AOR is even close to being built. With the change of government maybe there will be a change in heart. They don't seem to mind changing other things about the conservatives. ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Too bad you don't wear cap tallies anymore.  Think of the fun you could have constantly changing names.  >

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

As someone for whom PRO will always be dear and close to my heart, I completely agree on re-using these names.

And JJT, I don't know why time has to matter: OTTAWA was recycled from a "River" class to a "City" class in less than four years between decommissioning of the third and commissioning of the fourth.

 

[jollyjacktar]

As someone for whom PRO will always be dear and close to my heart, I completely agree on re-using these names.

And JJT, I don't know why time has to matter: OTTAWA was recycled from a "River" class to a "City" class in less than four years between decommissioning of the third and commissioning of the fourth.

I totally agree.  (with the exception of the hearts and flowers for PRO... they were the opposition, PRE all the way    did a trip on Provider too) 

 

[George Wallace]

As we are looking at replacing our AOR's and at the same time Australia has just announced that it needs supply ships in a hurry, and will be looking to them being built overseas; this may be good timing in which to kick-start our shipbuilding yards and vie for that contract.....or is that way beyond our capabilities?

 

[jmt18325]

Seaspan already won the exclusive right to negotiate the AOR contract.

 

[CBH99]

GW,

One of the reasons the Australians are looking to have them built overseas is because it was too expensive & time consuming to have them built in Australia.  (They are also in the process of renewing their fleet, similar to our situation.)

There is no way that Canadian yards would have been remotely competitive, when compared to the yards in Spain, South Korea, etc.

As you are probably well aware, we - as in the Canadian taxpayer - will be paying anywhere from 3x to 4x the cost for a Berlin class AOR to be built here, compared to overseas.  And quite frankly, in my own personal opinion, the work will be sub-par when compared to the work done by overseas yards.

We couldn't have lobbied for that contract.  With the exception of Davies, we have some of the most non-competitive yards in the world. 

 

[Kirkhill]

If I take George correctly he was wondering if Seaspan could have bid on the Aussie job.  I think it would have been quite educational for all parties if they had entered a bid into that competition.  Who knows, Seaspan might have found a way to win the bid.

Watching their supplier compete on the "open" market would certainly provide useful information to our government purchasing agents.

Might be kind of interesting to see if Seaspan, who has a good reputation commercially, could come up with a better price for the Aussies than the Canadians could negotiate.  Or if they would go the Bombardier route, who just sold their C-Series to Delta at 33% of list price (contract at list price 5.6 BCAD, actual contract approximately 1.9 BCAD) while looking for a 1 BCAD subsidy from the taxpayer.

Two sources pegged the discount closer to two-thirds off the nominal list price of $71.8 million.

Commercial jets typically sell for roughly half of their catalog prices before adjustments for inflation, according to those familiar with the business. 

|

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKCN0XP19I

 

[jmt18325]

33% of list prices is a very typical amount for an aircraft sale.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yep.  So I gather. Which means the list price is Bullsh*t and the entire negotiation strategy is a fraud. 

 

[jmt18325]

Yep.  So I gather. Which means the list price is Bullsh*t and the entire negotiation strategy is a fraud.

I think the hope is that you won't have to discount that much for every sale.  Of course, there are sales like that of the Boeing 73G to United at 76% off list price.  That was done to ensure that Bombardier didn't get the sale.

 

[Kirkhill]

So if that is the norm in civilian practice - how much faith do you have in a budgeting system for defence products that rely on similar practices when determining the cost of supply?

F35s at list minus 75% anyone?

CSCs at list minus 66%?

AORs at list minus 50%?

If that is the standard then the game is best played by us building for the Aussies, the Aussies building for the Spaniards and the Spaniards building for Canada.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

So if that is the norm in civilian practice - how much faith do you have in a budgeting system for defence products that rely on similar practices when determining the cost of supply?

F35s at list minus 75% anyone?

CSCs at list minus 66%?

AORs at list minus 50%?

If that is the standard then the game is best played by us building for the Aussies, the Aussies building for the Spaniards and the Spaniards building for Canada.

Now that is an interesting suggestion!

Or as they say: we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume! Or in this case: by government "x": we lose money on every ship sold to another country (because of the subsidies we give our yards), but make it up on every of our ships we purchase abroad (and benefit from the subsidies their government give their shipyards).