Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,932
- Points
- 1,160
NavyShooter said:
A real warship has 68lb cannonades on the bow, and some 24lbers along each side 8)
Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
A real warship has 68lb cannonades on the bow, and some 24lbers along each side 8)
- Reaction score
- 2,083
- Points
- 1,160
Well, maybe once Australia starts to retire its Hunter class in 2045 we can just buy them used. They cut steel today on the first one: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/12/australias-hunter-class-frigate-program-enters-prototyping-phase/
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,932
- Points
- 1,160
Since AAW is one of the roles envisioned for the CSC, this article on the Type 45 current and future armament should be useful https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/imp...G91EGR82pgbC9U4hcLh7dbmxztcYlcrmuzYwTmgskn3lM
- Reaction score
- 5,969
- Points
- 1,090
They will likely co-exist for a while. CSC is a 20-year build so we're going to have to keep some frigates around for at least 15 years after delivery of the first one. So expect at least a few of the frigates to be around for 25 more years. I'm assuming that they'll retire the worst off ones first and then steal parts to keep the others going.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
Well, HURON had been out of service for more than 15 years by the time the retirement of the class was announced. I don't think she was part of the equation anymore - so it's a one for one replacement of the frigates plus the three IRO's in service at the time the decision to build replacements was made.
- Reaction score
- 2,083
- Points
- 1,160
More huffing and puffing over the lifetime cost of the program. Government and RCN need to stand firm. We either have a navy or we don’t.
I think we, as a country, need to find a way to start holding the media a lot more accountable.
How can the mainstream media be allowed to CONSTANTLY mislead people by sharing half a story, or sensationalizing a story, and not have any sort of accountability once so ever?
It doesn't matter what ships we build, they will need crews. Those crews need services such as food, etc. The ships require fuel. Those things are a constant no matter what platform we get.
Trying to stir up controversy where there isn't any. 0.002
How can the mainstream media be allowed to CONSTANTLY mislead people by sharing half a story, or sensationalizing a story, and not have any sort of accountability once so ever?
It doesn't matter what ships we build, they will need crews. Those crews need services such as food, etc. The ships require fuel. Those things are a constant no matter what platform we get.
Trying to stir up controversy where there isn't any. 0.002
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,864
- Points
- 1,210
It 5.5 Billion per year, if you cost it out over 40 years.
How much of that money is returned to the crown in the form of income taxes, sales tax, new infrastructure? And we get a modern capable navy to contribute to the international construct and freedom of the seas to ensure your 90 inch 4K TV being built by slave labour gets to Best Buy in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost!
How much of that money is returned to the crown in the form of income taxes, sales tax, new infrastructure? And we get a modern capable navy to contribute to the international construct and freedom of the seas to ensure your 90 inch 4K TV being built by slave labour gets to Best Buy in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost!
- Reaction score
- 2,083
- Points
- 1,160
Well that can’t be much more of a cost than it is today. The author of that report factored in everything from winch grease to cruise missiles. I’m not picking on Brewster, he didn’t write the report he simply wrote up a report on it. The CBC editors simply torqued the story but the RCN saw this coming apparently last fall.
Where it will get interesting is costing a very strategically necessary AIP submarine program because it will cost as much and we need more ( 6 or 8) subs. That’s why I think we should be signing cash and carry turn key deals with existing Japan, or Australia or some Euro sub design/ producers for their next gen subs. They provide the sub, the sensors, the weapons and all of the training and the first 10 years of dock maintenance in Canada and all lifetime refits in their yards. Let’s just be quiet users/ operators and not pretend to be innovators In submarines because we simply are not.
Where it will get interesting is costing a very strategically necessary AIP submarine program because it will cost as much and we need more ( 6 or 8) subs. That’s why I think we should be signing cash and carry turn key deals with existing Japan, or Australia or some Euro sub design/ producers for their next gen subs. They provide the sub, the sensors, the weapons and all of the training and the first 10 years of dock maintenance in Canada and all lifetime refits in their yards. Let’s just be quiet users/ operators and not pretend to be innovators In submarines because we simply are not.
- Reaction score
- 18,779
- Points
- 1,280
B-but the Facebook comment crowd says that we should make everything! Bring back the Arrow!
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,795
- Points
- 1,210
Except we cant build everything local, I also highly doubt anyone will buy naval vessels from us given the cost we pay for the NSS. When South Korea can build AORs for less then 600 million each vs our 1.2 billion each and climbing. It shows were arent competitive on the open market. As it stands the only customers for warships in Canadian yards will be canada, and we pay what ever Irving or Seaspan want because they know they just have to compete with each other, not international groups.B-but the Facebook comment crowd says that we should make everything! Bring back the Arrow!
- Reaction score
- 18,779
- Points
- 1,280
I know that, and you know that. It's the misinformed/un-informed social media commenters who think that we can just start building warships like the corvettes in WWII.
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,518
- Points
- 1,140
The savings buying offshore would be immense, and we could re-invest that potential expense back into viable, sustainable Canadian industry, or reduce the deficit. (yes I know, dreaming in technicolor.)
The government (of all stripes) has no interest in being competitive, or altruistic. They all share one overriding goal, being re-elected. 170 seats is the only number they pay attention to, and anything that supports their efforts, including how your money is spent across all sectors, to get as close to or surpass that magic number is all that matters.
Canadian governments haven't had a strategic outlook since the late 70's. Rather, it has been a domestic exercise to disseminate favors/largesse to where they think it will bring them the largest return ITO votes/seats. Defence spending has been included in that calculus.
- Reaction score
- 6,283
- Points
- 1,040
Sigh...
I hear that arguement a lot, and having looked into it fairly intensly, have found it to be unfounded BS, once you consider the economic impact and look at what is actually included in any of these project costs. A big part of the cost is labour, and you can ballpark about 30% of that coming directly back to the government in taxes. So while an experienced yard is more efficient (ie uses less labour hours) at building something then a brand new yard, doesn't take much for that tax offset to even things out.
Sure, there is a learning curve that we're paying for, but there is a really good reason why pretty much the entire G20 has some kind of domestic shipbuilding policy for their Navy; it just makes sense to A) have that strategic capability and B) invest that money in your own economy. We knew all that stuff going into it, so it wasn't an uninformed decision.
If we did a straight commercial contract at an existing yard, there would be zero economic impact, and we'd have increased project management costs for dealing with an international yard. Also, we'd still have to pay for project staff, parts, infrastructure, training and all the other stuff that is included in the project outside the hull, so there would be no real change there. And that approach would not be an apples to apples comparison to the NSS projects anyway, as the contract terms would be totally different.
In the last NSS report, the GDP impact was estimated at $4.1 billion for 2019 (they are based on calendar years, so the 2020 one should be out late spring). Plus this way the gear fitted on it will generally have a Canadian supply chain, which can be a big advantage during actual operation. Even if there were no IRBs or value proposition included, there would still be a big GDP offset by default because they are doing the build in Canada.
For something more complicated like the subs, or specialized like the high speed open ocean ferries, makes perfect sense to look overseas when no one in Canada has the facilities to do it. That's why the 'Build in Canada' policy that has been around since the 60s allows for applications on a project by project basis to do it.
This is specifically a STRATEGIC project meant to create/sustain a combat and a non-combat shipbuilding yard. Sure, it's the distributed economic benefits is a big selling point and all a lot of politicians hear, but it was very deliberately framed and approved by the Canadian government with that in mind, even if that has been lost over time with senior staff turnover.
So does it cost more to build them in Canada? Possibly, but it's impossible to put a number to it (we tried pretty hard), and it's easy to argue that it might cost less once you consider the direct/indirect benefits and spinoffs. That's not even looking at any in service savings/benefits from having a Canadian supply chain.
/endrant
Had this argument many times with bureaucrats from Finance and other departments, and none of them were able to provide actual facts or numbers to back up that it would be cheaper. If you want to get an idea of how hard it is, there was an audit by either the PBO or AG that effectively gave up when trying to find an apples to apples cost comparison on the AOPs.
We include a tonne of stuff in our project costs that no one else does, and have a tonne of extra contract clauses that are unique, so it's almost impossible to get a fair comparison with any publically available project information on any other ship on the planet.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,932
- Points
- 1,160
Also the only way for yards to stay viable and capable of doing repairs is to get contracts for new builds that allow them to re-capitalize to re-new their equipment to be able to keep up with new technologies. That being said, not all the vessels need to be built here, the subs certainly not and if we opted for a couple of Canberra class or Mistrals then it might make sense to have the majority of the work done in yards that have already built them and perhaps do finally fitting out over here.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,078
- Points
- 810
With regards to the ship building program being a strategic project, this seems to be something that most people miss, but I also think its something that we have not really defined. By that I mean is it a strategic project to have Canada being capable of building our own warships or building a hull that we integrate US or European weapons and sensors onto. The two things are not the same and there is nothing wrong with either but we need to be honest with what we are trying to achieve in terms of strategic independence.
Additionally while I agree this is a strategic project, its success while only be established IF the government begins designing the next ship class / flight what have you, 75%ish of the way through the CSC build program and that the next class's construction begins immediately after the last CSC hits the water.
If strategic shipbuilding capability is left to whither as it was once the last Halifax Class was finished, then the extra money we have spent was not worth it. That is something that we will have to wait and see where the future takes us but if we judge from history and comments surrounding the next submarine replacement timelines etc. I am not sure we are sitting at anything better than 50/50 that this program will actually result in an enduring strategic industrial capability for Canada and the RCN.
Lets hope the odds are better than I think.
Additionally while I agree this is a strategic project, its success while only be established IF the government begins designing the next ship class / flight what have you, 75%ish of the way through the CSC build program and that the next class's construction begins immediately after the last CSC hits the water.
If strategic shipbuilding capability is left to whither as it was once the last Halifax Class was finished, then the extra money we have spent was not worth it. That is something that we will have to wait and see where the future takes us but if we judge from history and comments surrounding the next submarine replacement timelines etc. I am not sure we are sitting at anything better than 50/50 that this program will actually result in an enduring strategic industrial capability for Canada and the RCN.
Lets hope the odds are better than I think.
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,518
- Points
- 1,140
Sigh,
"I hear that argument a lot, and having looked into it fairly intensely, have found it to be unfounded BS, once you consider the economic impact and look at what is actually included in any of these project costs. A big part of the cost is labour, and you can ballpark about 30% of that coming directly back to the government in taxes." Yes you can, in Canada.
"Sure, there is a learning curve that we're paying for, but there is a really good reason why pretty much the entire G20 has some kind of domestic shipbuilding policy for their Navy; it just makes sense to A) have that strategic capability and B) invest that money in your own economy. We knew all that stuff going into it, so it wasn't an uninformed decision." Most G20 nations do not buy their ships domestically, AFAIK, only the UK has a legislated buy in the UK mandate. US recently bought FREMM variant for latest frigates.
If we did a straight commercial contract at an existing yard, there would be zero economic impact, and we'd have increased project management costs for dealing with an international yard. Also, we'd still have to pay for project staff, parts, infrastructure, training and all the other stuff that is included in the project outside the hull, so there would be no real change there. And that approach would not be an apples to apples comparison to the NSS projects anyway, as the contract terms would be totally different. So if a Korean shipyard built the ships at $600M,, at a cost savings of $600M, you are stating that $600M would be swallowed in sp. I call BS, or someone is being vastly overpaid.
In the last NSS report, the GDP impact was estimated at $4.1 billion for 2019 (they are based on calendar years, so the 2020 one should be out late spring). Plus this way the gear fitted on it will generally have a Canadian supply chain, which can be a big advantage during actual operation. Even if there were no IRBs or value proposition included, there would still be a big GDP offset by default because they are doing the build in Canada. "GDP impact" and value for dollar smart spending are two completely dichotomous ideals.
This is specifically a STRATEGIC project meant to create/sustain a combat and a non-combat shipbuilding yard. Sure, it's the distributed economic benefits is a big selling point and all a lot of politicians hear, but it was very deliberately framed and approved by the Canadian government with that in mind, even if that has been lost over time with senior staff turnover. No, it is not a Goc Strategic project. There is no strategic capability derived here. Irving and Saint John Shipyard are a permanent fixture only because they have been supported for the last 40 years, without GoC support, the penny-pinchers at Irving would have shut them down a long time ago.
Had this argument many times with bureaucrats from Finance and other departments, and none of them were able to provide actual facts or numbers to back up that it would be cheaper. If you want to get an idea of how hard it is, there was an audit by either the PBO or AG that effectively gave up when trying to find an apples to apples cost comparison on the AOPs.
Well Danish Rasmussen class cost considerably less, and is considerably more capable than AOPS. Apples to Audi maybe
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,932
- Points
- 1,160
Weine I have to challenge you on that, the AOPs is much bigger, twice the range, higher ice class, has a hanger. The only place it falls short in is armament.
