Correction: we HAD a ship-building industry that for 30 years we failed to utilize, in fact, the yard closed when the last ship was launched because there was no NSS. Whatever you may think of the additional costs and delays and frustrations, we desperately need the jobs here.
Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
If it is better to order frigates from foreign countries than to build them in Canada, which countries do this? Which countries had an ability to build their own frigates, decided it was better to have them built in foreign countries, and no longer builds their own frigates? I do not know of even one country that gave up their ability to build their own frigates in order to have them built by foreign countries. Spend tens of billions of dollars to support a foreign country’s shipbuilding industry instead of Canada’s shipbuilding industry? Good luck with that one.
- Reaction score
- 6,283
- Points
- 1,040
As an aside, EVERY SINGLE TIME this comes up within government, it actively slows down the current process as we engage in yet another round of navel gazing (har har punny) and put off decisions while we 'gather data'. Usually results in a number of third party studies, internal work and the conclusion that there are a lot of tangible benefits to building ships in Canada. The only people that benefit are the consultants, and honestly even they get tired of rehashing the same thing to prove repeatedly why pretty much every G20 country builds their own warships.
There is a really good reason we've had a 'Build in Canada' policy since the 60s, and it allows for exceptions where it doesn't make sense, but no one was able to make that case for the 280s, MCDVs, ORCAS, CPFs etc, and it still doesn't make sense for CSC. You would think after 60 years of a proven approach that people would stop fighting it so hard, but when we look at this every time we build something, and still come to the same conclusion every time, maybe we have a clue what we're talking about?
Honestly have thought about getting into politics and taking a run at being an MP just to call out the various factions within the GoC that keep throwing up barriers based on BS assumptions and a total lack of understanding of shipbuilding who know better than DND, CCG and numerous international third parties.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
Because it's really all about themselves and feeling important and having power. The end result is meaningless to them as they will not be around and no one they know will serve on them.
- Reaction score
- 6,283
- Points
- 1,040
Yeah, it was really frustrating. Not really sure of a fix; I think a standalone defence procurement ministry would at least have a single boss and executive chain, but it really takes someone with enough clout to stand up to the various mandarins at TBS and FIN and the like that enjoy cutting your knees out when they have no skin in the game for the program output.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
I can't say that a "Bastille day" for TBS didn't cross my mind on occasion, along with some French Revolutionary justice.
Quick question. And I apologize if it’s been asked upthread. Hoping someone here in the know can help answer this.
What Canadian “modifications” are going into our CSC, compared to the British version and the Australian version? And why does it require a redesign that seems to be a pretty heavy undertaking?
I’m not asking in a critical way. Genuinely curious.
One of the reasons I thought we were only looking at ships in service with another country was specifically so we could get a design & start building when their slot came up. (I understand that they will be ready to build when their slot comes up after the AOPS)
But what is it about “our” version of the Type 26 that requires all this design work? Or is this normal, and the Aussies had to do something similar?
What Canadian “modifications” are going into our CSC, compared to the British version and the Australian version? And why does it require a redesign that seems to be a pretty heavy undertaking?
I’m not asking in a critical way. Genuinely curious.
One of the reasons I thought we were only looking at ships in service with another country was specifically so we could get a design & start building when their slot came up. (I understand that they will be ready to build when their slot comes up after the AOPS)
But what is it about “our” version of the Type 26 that requires all this design work? Or is this normal, and the Aussies had to do something similar?
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,518
- Points
- 1,140
Although many folks on here will likely chime in, the main differences I can see (and that will be domestically contracted/procured) are radars, armaments, propulsion system, comms systems, multi-mission bays, as well as (of course) the helo that will fly off them, which may increase costs. As well, ASW and AAW versions require different configs. Once all of those have been determined, it may change size/tonnage, which can increase/decrease cost.
The link below gives a fairly thorough breakdown of each countries requirements/aspirations. Bear in mind that some info is dated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate
Last edited:
I've realized as the threads for CSC and AOPS have progressed how little I know about shipbuilding, as I've never really been exposed to the industry, and my only exposure to ship is "Oooohhhh, coooool" as I see one when travelling.
Here I thought we could just pick what radar we wanted, weapons capabilities, etc - plug it all into a central 'combat management system', and boom. Canadianized.
If only things were that simple...
Here I thought we could just pick what radar we wanted, weapons capabilities, etc - plug it all into a central 'combat management system', and boom. Canadianized.
If only things were that simple...
- Reaction score
- 27,526
- Points
- 1,090
Systems integration with RCAF ASW assets will be a significant cost.
- Reaction score
- 6,283
- Points
- 1,040
Some are simple things; for example the UK uses 220 V 50 Hz for domestic power, so we may have to change over our power outlets for the normal plugs (assuming that's what they went with, but think that's typical for European designs) so we can just plug in things like laptops, vacuums, whatever.
Also, if we have any domestic regulations for environmental considerations or similar that may need to tweak some things. Not aware of anything, but that's the kind of thing they are looking out for.
Overall it will probably look basically the same, with maybe minor differences visible on the mast for different equipment selection, but you still need to make sure all the fiddly bits can fit in the box, and route the cabling, open the cabinets, and everything else that comes with that.
And for Colin, totally sympathize with wanting to storm the TBS. I was joking with my wife that we should make tshirts for the four bureaucratic horseman of the apocalypse for Public service week; there was some debate but we landed on TBS, PSPC, FIN and INAC (or whatever they are called) as the candidates.
Also, if we have any domestic regulations for environmental considerations or similar that may need to tweak some things. Not aware of anything, but that's the kind of thing they are looking out for.
Overall it will probably look basically the same, with maybe minor differences visible on the mast for different equipment selection, but you still need to make sure all the fiddly bits can fit in the box, and route the cabling, open the cabinets, and everything else that comes with that.
And for Colin, totally sympathize with wanting to storm the TBS. I was joking with my wife that we should make tshirts for the four bureaucratic horseman of the apocalypse for Public service week; there was some debate but we landed on TBS, PSPC, FIN and INAC (or whatever they are called) as the candidates.
But that's what I'm curious about. It doesn't matter what radar each country picks, it will need cabling and connecting. Same with weapon systems, etc etc.
I guess maybe a different way to ask this is... are we spending more time & money 'designing' our version of the Type 26 compared to Australia or the UK?
Are we doing anything substantially different with ours, that would cause us to spend more time & money to 'design' our unique version?
Or is the design work we are doing similar to what Australia and the UK have had to do, albeit with the systems we chose?
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,518
- Points
- 1,140
Actually, it does, because each radar has a different weight/height which then messes with the load distribution below it, and hence config. Same with weapons systems.
Think of a canoe, and how you optimally load it. You can compensate, but only so much before you either get wet, or can't carry all the shyte you need to get to your campsite.
- Reaction score
- 27,526
- Points
- 1,090
The easy part of integration is hardware. The hard part is software. "Standards compliant" is always subject to interpretations of the standard by each vendor that are almost but not quite the same, merging and fusing the data.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,078
- Points
- 810
Out of pure curiosity what makes it more important or critical to build our own warships or at least large aspects of a warship than let’s say fighter aircraft, transport aircraft, main battle tanks or artillery?
If there are strategic military reasons they would apply across all systems would it not?
If it’s about jobs and dollars then is it driven more by political imperatives than strategic imperatives?
Do the answers matter?
Canada has really only deliberately, consistently and effectively maintained a completely indigenous small arms manufacturing capacity. Everything else has eroded significantly or disappeared and that has been accepted. Why not warship construction?
I think the answers to those questions is why skepticism about the ship building programs comes up consistently.
If there are strategic military reasons they would apply across all systems would it not?
If it’s about jobs and dollars then is it driven more by political imperatives than strategic imperatives?
Do the answers matter?
Canada has really only deliberately, consistently and effectively maintained a completely indigenous small arms manufacturing capacity. Everything else has eroded significantly or disappeared and that has been accepted. Why not warship construction?
I think the answers to those questions is why skepticism about the ship building programs comes up consistently.
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,518
- Points
- 1,140
I think the dollars involved, and the internecine squabbling that goes in within GoC departments over the allocation of the federal budget, is likely the foundation of the contrived/controlled skepticism.
- Reaction score
- 22,049
- Points
- 1,360
That’s assuming TBS and FIN aren’t acting on orders from PMO.....sorry....I meant...PCO...
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,518
- Points
- 1,140
If we could build green energy powered frigates, with non-collateral damage missiles, that ate carbon as they sailed, and cleaned the ocean, shared across all three major shipyards (and eight or more other current GoC initiatives) we would have the largest Navy in the world.
- Reaction score
- 22,049
- Points
- 1,360
You forgot made GBA+ friendly steel...
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,518
- Points
- 1,140
That may or may not have been included in the other 8 initiatives
