New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Colin Parkinson]

Not sure if you can see this , from Facebook, first OSFV is moved onto the floating drydock for launching https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156915314433242&set=pcb.2084994318378590&type=3&theater&ifg=1

 

[Kirkhill]

And now she (he?) floats....

https://www.facebook.com/CanadianCoastGuard/photos/pcb.317881172027981/317881122027986/?type=3

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There should 2-3 vessels launched next year

 

[MarkOttawa]

Paper by peacenik Prof. Michael Byers (one-time federal NDP candidate) with whom I almost always disagree--but his critique of the shipuilding "strategy" is, I think, almost completely bang on target.  I wonder about recommendation 2 (p. 14) on CSC--how horribly long a delay might a "re-launch" entail and does "off-the-shelf" mean no "Canadianization"?  That would seem impossible: 

Onto the Rocks: With disaster looming, National Shipbuilding Strategy needs urgent change of course
http://byers.typepad.com/files/byers-shipbuilding-report-embargoed.pdf

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Uzlu]

Paper by peacenik Prof. Michael Byers (one-time federal NDP candidate) with whom I almost always disagree--but his critique of the shipuilding "strategy" is, I think, almost completely bang on target.  I wonder about recommendation 2 (p. 14) on CSC--how horribly long a delay might a "re-launch" entail and does "off-the-shelf" mean no "Canadianization"?  That would seem impossible:

Another strange claim is made by Byers in that paper. 

“The latest deadline of 30 November 2017 passed with only three bids reportedly received—from a total of 12 pre-approved bidders.  Three out of twelve does not constitute a respectable submission rate for an ostensibly competitive process involving $60 billion in taxpayer-funded work.”

There were only seven pre-approved bidders in the warship-designer role.  Does this not mean a maximum of seven—not twelve—bids could have been received?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Perhaps he has misunderstood what the term "bidder" means in the context of the  CSC program portion of the NSS.  Anyway, I doubt there is very much for him to add than what was already addressed in the attached document ("audit report template")

Speaking of which, and maybe this could be a new thread, the configuration of assets that comprise a Canadian Naval Task Group.

"Preliminary SOR. The preliminary SOR will continually evolve into the early 2020s. Since 2008, several significant changes have been made to the CSC requirements, which are now well substantiated by extensive operational research, as shown in the most recent SOR. However, there is no definition of the size of the naval task group, which is the fundamental tactical formation for the RCN. As the design of the CSC evolves, this definition will be a key consideration in determining the size of the CSC fleet. It is recommended that C Navy revise the SOR to address the various sizes and compositions of naval task groups as the capability of the CSC evolves.

"Naval task group size, a major factor in determining the  number of CSC required, is not specifically addressed in the project SOR." 

There is currently a definition of a Naval task group in Leadmark 2050, but the RCN is currently without all of the assets to wholly and reliably meet that definition. It seems to me that the functional variants of the CSC (GP, ASW, AAW) will re-establish the missing pieces, together with the JSS if any of those are ever delivered.   

 

[Underway]

Another strange claim is made by Byers in that paper. 

“The latest deadline of 30 November 2017 passed with only three bids reportedly received—from a total of 12 pre-approved bidders.  Three out of twelve does not constitute a respectable submission rate for an ostensibly competitive process involving $60 billion in taxpayer-funded work.”

There were only seven pre-approved bidders in the warship-designer role.  Does this not mean a maximum of seven—not twelve—bids could have been received?

Again Prof Byers does sloppy work. Even the most basic of research would show that seven shipbuilders were preapproved and some of them (three if memory serves) were also approved as the combat systems integrators, there was never going to be 12 bids.  Ever.  There was also a few combat systems integrators that were approved that don't build ships (Saab Australia, Lockheed Canada, etc...).  With the change part way through the bidding process to the requirement to pick a single design then these separate bidders (builders and integrators) were essentially forced to team up with each other.  Lockheed with BAE, Saab with Navinata, Atlas with Alion. 

Further, the amalgamation of Naval Group and Fincantieri was created due to outside influences (Fincantieri buying some french yards, both owning FREMM and deciding to compete their joint ships together on the market etc etc...).  Out of the total 6 (as two amalgamated) possible teams (max though I believe that some teams were 3 bidders together) 4 bid.  The Danish and German shipyards did not bid.  There might be a number of reasons for that (couldn't get combat integration partners, their ships were similar in design to the Alion bid etc...).

Not to mention, I expect a PhD who does military research to actually read the contract requirements and not CBC new releases to understand what OGBD has most eloquently posted earlier that the savings of the FREMM offer would only be maybe 15 billion at most, which is a savings of approx 25% and given what Prof Byers states in his own document a savings of 20% would be ok to ignore.

In fairness many of the criticisms are valid.  In particular there is some concern regarding Quebec and Montreal being cut off.  Also the guaranteed profit by the shipyards is stupid IMHO. But the sloppy research and complete ignorance of certain facts or any depth to his analysis, or balance in his research,  taint the entire article and makes me wonder about the validity of the other comments regarding issues that I am not as familiar with.  A proper paper takes its opposing arguments and deconstructs them with logic and fact.  He examined few to no opposing arguments and just presented his own opinion.

 

[Underway]

Speaking of which, and maybe this could be a new thread, the configuration of assets that comprise a Canadian Naval Task Group.

Head on over to this thread.  That seems as good as place as any to discuss strategic direction of the RCN, task group sizes and such.

 

[MTShaw]

I'm perplexed about the number of ships Canada is building. Fo

 

[ModlrMike]

I'm perplexed about the number of ships Canada is building. Fo

So, apparently is the government.

 

[Underway]

I'm perplexed about the number of ships Canada is building. Fo

What perplexes you?  All the ships or the navy ships specifically.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I'm perplexed about the number of ships Canada is building. Fo

Then read this:

http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/sacred/The_Guide_for_the_Perplexed.pdf

/SARC OFF.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Interesting article, I'm sure that our current government won't do much about this.

https://maritime-executive.com/oped/an-out-of-the-blue-icebreaker-opportunity

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I'm perplexed about the number of ships Canada is building. Fo

What's perplexing about it?

For what it's worth, I wouldn't call the NSPS a failure.  I actually think it's a long overdue strategy that is gong to benefit this country long term.  We've also achieved cross-party consensus on it as well!

I would say, so far the program is a moderate success considering this was our shipbuilding industry just a few years ago:

It was a capital crime that Saint John Shipbuilding was ever allowed to wither and die as it could have easily sustained the NSPS alone.

But we've got two greatly expanded shipyards out of this that are actually producing ships!

As a supposed maritime nation, it's great that we are finally starting to act like one.

 

[Czech_pivo]

If you say so.
Both of these yards just seem to be small in scale when compared to Saint Johns Shipyard and Davie. They are barely going to be turning out 1 ship per year each.  The timeline to complete 15 CSC is 16+ years once they cut steel on the first ship. It looks as though Irving can only work on 2 ships at a time, as demonstrated by the fact the the 3rd AOPS only had steel cut once the 1st AOPS was completely assembled (though not dropped in the water). I'm willing to bet the Seaspan won't have the space to be working jointly on the new JSS (which won't have steel cut on them for what, another 4yrs?) ships, but will have to substantially complete one before steel can be cut on the other.
If I dare to look out to the 2032 time frame, its safe to say the Irving won't have a chance in global warmed hell in winning any bid to replace our 4 subs (if we do decide to continue to have subs....) as they'll only be halfway done (maybe, hopefully, fingers crossed) the build out of the 15 CSC's. That effectively means the Seaspan will get this contract by default - unless Davie manages to holdout another 15yrs doing odds and sods jobs - but will Seaspan even have this capacity to do so as they'll be just starting the build of the icebreaker they've been promised, let along the 10 coastal defense ships that they are supposed to build..... So, who builds the subs in the 2032-34 time frame......

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

If you say so.
Both of these yards just seem to be small in scale when compared to Saint Johns Shipyard and Davie. They are barely going to be turning out 1 ship per year each.  The timeline to complete 15 CSC is 16+ years once they cut steel on the first ship. It looks as though Irving can only work on 2 ships at a time, as demonstrated by the fact the the 3rd AOPS only had steel cut once the 1st AOPS was completely assembled (though not dropped in the water). I'm willing to bet the Seaspan won't have the space to be working jointly on the new JSS (which won't have steel cut on them for what, another 4yrs?) ships, but will have to substantially complete one before steel can be cut on the other.
If I dare to look out to the 2032 time frame, its safe to say the Irving won't have a chance in global warmed hell in winning any bid to replace our 4 subs (if we do decide to continue to have subs....) as they'll only be halfway done (maybe, hopefully, fingers crossed) the build out of the 15 CSC's. That effectively means the Seaspan will get this contract by default - unless Davie manages to holdout another 15yrs doing odds and sods jobs - but will Seaspan even have this capacity to do so as they'll be just starting the build of the icebreaker they've been promised, let along the 10 coastal defense ships that they are supposed to build..... So, who builds the subs in the 2032-34 time frame......

The problem with the Saint John Yard was that it was too big for a country like Canada.  In other words, we had too much supply without the demand.  The whole point of the NSPS is to create a Shipbuilding Industry that meets the needs of the government but is..... also sustainable.  It's a strategic industry and it's very important we have one.

You'll note that the Saint John Shipyard is still there.  The Indoor facilities have been converted in to an Irving Wallboard Plant while all the Drydocks still remain.  Irving has left those Drydock's in place for a reason, should the demand arise, they can be reopened.

 

[Underway]

If you say so.
Both of these yards just seem to be small in scale when compared to Saint Johns Shipyard and Davie. They are barely going to be turning out 1 ship per year each.  The timeline to complete 15 CSC is 16+ years once they cut steel on the first ship. It looks as though Irving can only work on 2 ships at a time, as demonstrated by the fact the the 3rd AOPS only had steel cut once the 1st AOPS was completely assembled (though not dropped in the water). I'm willing to bet the Seaspan won't have the space to be working jointly on the new JSS (which won't have steel cut on them for what, another 4yrs?) ships, but will have to substantially complete one before steel can be cut on the other.
If I dare to look out to the 2032 time frame, its safe to say the Irving won't have a chance in global warmed hell in winning any bid to replace our 4 subs (if we do decide to continue to have subs....) as they'll only be halfway done (maybe, hopefully, fingers crossed) the build out of the 15 CSC's. That effectively means the Seaspan will get this contract by default - unless Davie manages to holdout another 15yrs doing odds and sods jobs - but will Seaspan even have this capacity to do so as they'll be just starting the build of the icebreaker they've been promised, let along the 10 coastal defense ships that they are supposed to build..... So, who builds the subs in the 2032-34 time frame......

Taking a long time to build the ships is actually the plan.  You don't want to build...(takes off shoes to count) 21 ships at Irving in 10 years.  Then lay off everyone and lose the industry.  You want to take 21 years to build the 21 ships at a steady pace of one per year.  Then at year 22 you build the AOPS replacement instead of dealing with expensive old ship maintenance and an expensive midlife refit.  Its actually much cheaper for the gov't to do this then trying to keep ships floating for 30+ years.  Delays in starting the building is not the plan however so I'll give you that, but once the building starts its supposed to go on for a long time.

St. Johns shipbuilding is partially so large because that's the old way to build ships.  The Irving yard is currently building 3 ships of larger tonnage then the CPF's in a third of the space, while refitting the Freddy at the same time, because of new technology and systems such as block building.  New techniques are much more space efficient.

Finally, only an idiot would build submarines in Canada.  It requires a shipyard designed from the ground up as submarines are a very specific build type. The head of Davie was asked point blank at a Fed Committee meeting on shipbuilding whether Canada should build its own submarines and he stated "No, that would be a mistake.  Submarines are a very specific build type with very specific skill sets and shipyards." (note: paraphrased from memory)  You can't just build a sub in any old shipyard.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Taking a long time to build the ships is actually the plan.  You don't want to build...(takes off shoes to count) 21 ships at Irving in 10 years.  Then lay off everyone and lose the industry.  You want to take 21 years to build the 21 ships at a steady pace of one per year.  Then at year 22 you build the AOPS replacement instead of dealing with expensive old ship maintenance and an expensive midlife refit.  Its actually much cheaper for the gov't to do this then trying to keep ships floating for 30+ years.  Delays in starting the building is not the plan however so I'll give you that, but once the building starts its supposed to go on for a long time.

St. Johns shipbuilding is partially so large because that's the old way to build ships.  The Irving yard is currently building 3 ships of larger tonnage then the CPF's in a third of the space, while refitting the Freddy at the same time, because of new technology and systems such as block building.  New techniques are much more space efficient.

Finally, only an idiot would build submarines in Canada.  It requires a shipyard designed from the ground up as submarines are a very specific build type. The head of Davie was asked point blank at a Fed Committee meeting on shipbuilding whether Canada should build its own submarines and he stated "No, that would be a mistake.  Submarines are a very specific build type with very specific skill sets and shipyards." (note: paraphrased from memory)  You can't just build a sub in any old shipyard.

Australia's purpose built submarine facility.  It may become useful in the future to have this capability in Canada, especially if the NW Passage becomes a viable shipping route.  If we decide to go this route, we are better placed with the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy than we would be without it.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Thanks for the lesson on Sub-building and the need for specialised yards.  :nod:
So the Aussie's won't be using their yards to build their new subs? Are they looking at completely building a new yard specific for their subs?  Will the France build the shells back in France and the Aussie's just complete the insides?
So, the belief is that we won't have sailing around the world in 30+yr old ships in the future, but building new ones around the 25yr mark going forward?

 

[MilEME09]

Taking a long time to build the ships is actually the plan.  You don't want to build...(takes off shoes to count) 21 ships at Irving in 10 years.  Then lay off everyone and lose the industry.  You want to take 21 years to build the 21 ships at a steady pace of one per year.  Then at year 22 you build the AOPS replacement instead of dealing with expensive old ship maintenance and an expensive midlife refit.  Its actually much cheaper for the gov't to do this then trying to keep ships floating for 30+ years.  Delays in starting the building is not the plan however so I'll give you that, but once the building starts its supposed to go on for a long time.

Smart Strategy, it's just came very late so now is the pains for years as we catch up. Once it's all caught up in 20 years, then hopefully governments will keep sending contracts so that no ship ever retires without replacement again.