- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
The last I heard was that Canada's last major shipbuilding company had closed. Irving Shipbuilding in St John packed it in a couple of years ago because they could not compete with the US companies.
GW
GW
Loss of the 280s
- Thread starter Ex-Dragoon
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Kirkhill,
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I think Canada needs to be more strategic with its military investment and copy the Swedish model to a certain extent. Specific to this case, based on having a 25+ ship navy, we should be able to keep one shipyard running at all times. The problem is not with demand, it's that our planning and procurement vision has been so brutally short-sighted as to have been embarrassing which has literally strangled the infrastructure into non-existence.
My recollection is tax dollars were actually paid Irving to close Irving at a time when any rational person looking at the military could've said: "You know, we should be building some new AOR's in sequence right now, and by 2007 we should shift to the 280-replacements and in 2008 we open a second drydock to do a sequential run of Frigate Upgrades. Then we do a midlife upgrade on the Victorias...etc., etc., etc."
Bottom Line: Our shipyards are uncompetitive because there are no economies of scale because they are forced to run one-off jobs. You give them a 20-year production run guarantee so that the company could make the requisite investment in high technology and there is no reason we could not produce at that same efficiency as the Finns. I would add that once the company has made that investment in the high technology and trained its people, due to the guaranteed revenues you are providing, you now have a world-class company that can compete for other industrial projects. And any additional sales into this new market (in which Canada otherwise would not be competing) provide 100% ROI in terms of the income/corporate taxes collected and EI premiums saved.
JMHO,
Matthew.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I think Canada needs to be more strategic with its military investment and copy the Swedish model to a certain extent. Specific to this case, based on having a 25+ ship navy, we should be able to keep one shipyard running at all times. The problem is not with demand, it's that our planning and procurement vision has been so brutally short-sighted as to have been embarrassing which has literally strangled the infrastructure into non-existence.
My recollection is tax dollars were actually paid Irving to close Irving at a time when any rational person looking at the military could've said: "You know, we should be building some new AOR's in sequence right now, and by 2007 we should shift to the 280-replacements and in 2008 we open a second drydock to do a sequential run of Frigate Upgrades. Then we do a midlife upgrade on the Victorias...etc., etc., etc."
Bottom Line: Our shipyards are uncompetitive because there are no economies of scale because they are forced to run one-off jobs. You give them a 20-year production run guarantee so that the company could make the requisite investment in high technology and there is no reason we could not produce at that same efficiency as the Finns. I would add that once the company has made that investment in the high technology and trained its people, due to the guaranteed revenues you are providing, you now have a world-class company that can compete for other industrial projects. And any additional sales into this new market (in which Canada otherwise would not be competing) provide 100% ROI in terms of the income/corporate taxes collected and EI premiums saved.
JMHO,
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,160
Blackshirt, you are not the only one.
I am a great admirer of the Swedish industrial model. I worked for a Swedish company for 17 years. And I agree entirely that they have got their act together and do a great job of keeping their forces supplied with top of the line kit within a reasonable budget.
But that capability has literally been built up over centuries and is carefully nurtured so that they don't lose it.
Long term it is a great model.
But as some chap name of Keynes apparently said "In the long term everyone is dead".
We don't have the luxury of waiting for the long term on this one. Given the nature of the Canadian public and Canadian politics this is very much a case of striking while the iron is hot.
Cheers.
I am a great admirer of the Swedish industrial model. I worked for a Swedish company for 17 years. And I agree entirely that they have got their act together and do a great job of keeping their forces supplied with top of the line kit within a reasonable budget.
But that capability has literally been built up over centuries and is carefully nurtured so that they don't lose it.
Long term it is a great model.
But as some chap name of Keynes apparently said "In the long term everyone is dead".
We don't have the luxury of waiting for the long term on this one. Given the nature of the Canadian public and Canadian politics this is very much a case of striking while the iron is hot.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,160
By the way one of the things I especially liked about Swedish defence planning was that in addition to the Combat Forces (tanks and combat boats and such) and the Homeguard (Dad with an LMG down at the local power station or harbour) the Swedes also had provision, in the event of an imminent invasion, to provisionally enrole EVERY adult (as far as I could tell) in the Forces - secretaries, managers and factory workers, and issue them with a personal sidearm. Everybody gets a Glock ;D.
My rant will cover a few points previously discussed, and my opinions are based on spending 17yrs in Esquimalt, 6 yrs on 280's
Lets face it, naval shipbuilding in Canada is dead. Sure, some of the smaller yards can churn out MCDVS (Halifax shipbuilding) or torpedo recovery boats (Victoria Shipbuilding) but anything over 3000 tons displacement is going to have to be built/purchased offshore if the navy expects it within 10 years.
Look at the CPF's. Initial design studies started in '77 and the last one (Ottawa) was delivered 20 years later. The first of class is now 15 years old and IMHO these ships will not last 30 without a massive investment in dollars and manhours. I've sat in on several meetings wrt the FELEX program for the CPF's. and the work package gets smaller and less ambitious in scope every time. Here in Esquimalt, most of the yard's rescourses are being spent on the Victoriia, with little else keeping the remainder of the fleet runing on a shoe string. Plans prior to the Chicoutimi incident was to have 2 based out west. I don't see how we can manage it.
There are only 3 280's left, with one usually in reft. Huron (the 4th) is a glorified hulk. Her cruise engines where sold back to the manufacturer. The two main engines where kept to provide spares for the other three hulls. Huron will be paid off to crown assets for disposal some time this summer. Skeleton crew on now will be absorbed by Algonquin (engineers, NWT's, NET's) and the rest farmed out to other units.
A shame. I had a lot of good times on that boat.
I agree wrt comments on the Ticos. Ones the USN are paying off are only 10 yrs younger than the 280's. We couldn't man them anyway. Four CPF's with Command and Control fit and VLS is more probable. There's talk of stretching four of em.
Lets face it, naval shipbuilding in Canada is dead. Sure, some of the smaller yards can churn out MCDVS (Halifax shipbuilding) or torpedo recovery boats (Victoria Shipbuilding) but anything over 3000 tons displacement is going to have to be built/purchased offshore if the navy expects it within 10 years.
Look at the CPF's. Initial design studies started in '77 and the last one (Ottawa) was delivered 20 years later. The first of class is now 15 years old and IMHO these ships will not last 30 without a massive investment in dollars and manhours. I've sat in on several meetings wrt the FELEX program for the CPF's. and the work package gets smaller and less ambitious in scope every time. Here in Esquimalt, most of the yard's rescourses are being spent on the Victoriia, with little else keeping the remainder of the fleet runing on a shoe string. Plans prior to the Chicoutimi incident was to have 2 based out west. I don't see how we can manage it.
There are only 3 280's left, with one usually in reft. Huron (the 4th) is a glorified hulk. Her cruise engines where sold back to the manufacturer. The two main engines where kept to provide spares for the other three hulls. Huron will be paid off to crown assets for disposal some time this summer. Skeleton crew on now will be absorbed by Algonquin (engineers, NWT's, NET's) and the rest farmed out to other units.
A shame. I had a lot of good times on that boat.
I agree wrt comments on the Ticos. Ones the USN are paying off are only 10 yrs younger than the 280's. We couldn't man them anyway. Four CPF's with Command and Control fit and VLS is more probable. There's talk of stretching four of em.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
On this coast the talk of stretching the 4 CPFs has been pretty much ruled out so ikt makes you wonder who you can believe these days.
George Wallace said:
The U.S. shipyards have guaranteed orders from their own navy and merchant fleet. It is illegal for U.S. companies to purchase ships from a foreign country. I'm not disputing they are good but they are well protected.l
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,636
- Points
- 1,210
Cdn Blackshirt said:Kirkhill,
My recollection is tax dollars were actually paid Irving to close Irving at a time when any rational person looking at the military could've said: "You know, we should be building some new AOR's in sequence right now, and by 2007 we should shift to the 280-replacements and in 2008 we open a second drydock to do a sequential run of Frigate Upgrades. Then we do a midlife upgrade on the Victorias...etc., etc., etc."
Bottom Line: Our shipyards are uncompetitive because there are no economies of scale because they are forced to run one-off jobs. You give them a 20-year production run guarantee so that the company could make the requisite investment in high technology and there is no reason we could not produce at that same efficiency as the Finns. I would add that once the company has made that investment in the high technology and trained its people, due to the guaranteed revenues you are providing, you now have a world-class company that can compete for other industrial projects. And any additional sales into this new market (in which Canada otherwise would not be competing) provide 100% ROI in terms of the income/corporate taxes collected and EI premiums saved.
JMHO,
Matthew.
I seem to recall Alan Rock (who was making a mess of the Dept of Industry after messing up Health, Justice and everything else he touched) stating that shipbuilding was "Old Technology" and that Canada was into new technology. To bad he never went to the shipyards building cruise liners, tankers, warships etc. There is more new technology in these ships than ever.
There is enough work for a Canadian shipyard to build, refit and maintain the Navy, Coast Guard/DFO forever if we only had a government who had a clue as to what kind of foreign and defense policy we should have.
A
air533
Guest
.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,636
- Points
- 1,210
As of the 31st of March, the HURON will be paid off and disposed of. What an utter waste of money! Due to our idiotic lack of a shipbuilding policy, (or any other policy (foreign, infrastructure, etc.) save the one that gets the Liberals re-elected) we are losing another asset.
Similar threads
