• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAP
  • Start date Start date
USN looks pretty certain to get some of its new FFG(X) frigates, a young official project, well before RCN gets first CSC:
Here’s the timeline for the US Navy’s next-generation frigate

The Navy is expected to buy its first next-generation frigate in the coming months, so here’s what the next few years are going to look like in FFG(X)-land, according to budget documents released Monday.

The Navy plans to award the frigate design and construction award to one of the competitors in July, the documents say.

The competitors for FFG(X) are Fincantieri’s FREMM design; General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and Navantia’s F-100 variant, which is roughly equivalent to a small Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

Many observers think Huntington Ingalls Industries will offer an up-gunned version of the National Security Cutter; and Austal USA’s frigate version of its aluminum-hulled Independence-class littoral combat ship.

Lockheed Martin’s version of the FFG(X), an up-gunned, twin-screw variant of its Freedom-class LCS, was pulled from the competition in May.

The Navy is planing for it to take six years to complete design and construction of the ship, which should be finished in 2026.

Once construction begins, however, planners anticipate it will take only 48 months to build.

The second frigate is expected to be ordered in April 2021, and from there it should be delivered about 5 ½ years after the award date.

That means that the first ship should be delivered to the fleet in July of 2026, and the second about three months later
[emphasis added].

The FFG(X) is supposed to be a small, multi-mission ship with a modified version of Raytheon’s SPY-6 radar destined for the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, Lockheed Martin’s Aegis Combat System, as well as some point defense systems and 32 vertical launch cells for about half the cost of a DDG.

Of course, without knowing which ship the Navy intends to buy and what the final detailed designs look like, firm price estimates are impossible, but the Pentagon has some projections.

The first ship ordered in 2020 is expected to cost 1.28 billion, according to budget documents, with the next ship in 2021 dropping to $1.05 billion.

The third ship, ordered in 2022, should see the price drop below $1 billion.

The whole program should cost $19.81 billion
[emphasis added], the Navy estimates.

The buy was supposed to be one ship in FY20, then two vessels every year until the full 20-ship buy [emphasis added] was complete. But the Navy wanted to make sure it staggered the buy more responsibly, said Rear Adm. Randy Crites, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for budget.

"The frigate, we don’t want to have a repeat of some of the lessons of LCS where we got going too fast,” Crites said. "As it is, we’re going to have eight frigates under construction when we deliver the first one in 2026.

“Right now we’ll award one later this year, we’ll award one next year, and the plan is for one next year but that will get looked at. Then we’ll ramp up to two to three, with nine in the [future-year defense program].”
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/02/11/heres-the-timeline-for-the-us-navys-next-generation-frigate/

And here's the CSC timeline:

...

3. Definition

    Project approval for phase 1: June 19, 2012
    Phase 1 revised: December 11, 2014
    Request for proposals launch: October 27, 2016
    Project approval for phase 2A – Initial Design Review: June 8, 2017
    Request for proposal close: November 30, 2017
    Selection of the warship design and design team and contract award: February 7, 2019
    Revised project approval for design and production engineering: May 30, 2019
...

4. Implementation

    Implementation project approval: Early 2020s
    Construction contract award: Early 2020s
    First delivery: Mid 2020s
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/canadian-surface-combatant.html

Good flipping luck with that mid-20s first delivery--Irving still has four A/OPS to launch for RCN, then two more for CCG:

...
Ship 1 delivery: winter 2020
Ship 2 delivery: late 2020
Cut steel for ship 6: 2020
Initial operational capability: 2020
Ship 3 delivery: 2021
Ship 4 delivery: 2022
Ship 5 delivery: 2023
Ship 6 delivery: 2024
Full operational capability: 2025
...
November 2019

The second Arctic and Offshore Patrol ship, the future HMCS Margaret Brooke, was successfully launched in Halifax. Builder trials for the first Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship, the future HMCS Harry DeWolf were held in late-November...
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.html

As for the two CCG ships:

...
First vessel to be delivered
    To be determined
...
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/arctique-coastgd-eng.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
It's almost like once you have established shipyards with warship experience that regularly get work, you can get new warships (based on an existing hull) quicker. (ie the longterm strategy part of the NSS)
 
MarkOttawa said:
USN looks pretty certain to get some of its new FFG(X) frigates, a young official project, well before RCN gets first CSC:
And here's the CSC timeline:

Good flipping luck with that mid-20s first delivery--Irving still has four A/OPS to launch for RCN, then two more for CCG:

As for the two CCG ships:

Mark
Ottawa

Why should we be surprised by any of this?

It's embarrassing on how pathetic we've become on delivering anything at all.  There's zero accountability, no one is going to lose their job over missed timelines or deliverable's. 

Irving is 4 ships into the 8 they have to deliver - they were laid down on 11 March, 2016. 29 May, 2017, 5 December 2018 and 4 May 2019 - the rough timelines from when a ship has been 'laid down' to when its been launched (based on the first 2 AOPS) has been 30 months - so its a fair assumption that AOPS #3 will be launched in April 2021 and AOPS #4 Oct 2021 -
If AOPS #5 is laid down in the spring/summer of 2020, it should be launched winter/spring of 2022, with the last AOPS being launched in 2025 or 2026.

Best guess is that the first CSC will touch water in 2027 at the earliest - but I'm willing to bet that its 2028 - that's in the water, not Commissioned.

That would put HMCS Halifax at 36yrs old from when she was Commissioned (or 41yrs old from when she was laid down).
I'm willing to bet that we lose having 12 Frigates on the operational charts before we get 12 new CSC's up and running.  The age of the Halifax's will be too old to wait for the CSC's to come online before we have a pay them off.

Yes, I'm a non-military person - but I know how to run projects and look at the timelines and I can say with 100% accuracy that these timelines are crap.
 
By the way USN's FFG(X) program was officially launched in July, 2017:
https://news.usni.org/2017/07/10/navy-releases-details-of-new-ffgx-guided-missile-frigate-program-in-request-to-industry

Mark
Ottawa
 
Navy_Pete said:
It's almost like once you have established shipyards with warship experience that regularly get work, you can get new warships (based on an existing hull) quicker. (ie the longterm strategy part of the NSS)

Other things really reduce your timeframes.  The FFG(X) are benefiting from a very large amount of GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) which means that the USN already has that stuff in their inventory.  It also means there is no competition or design work for things like close-in air defence, electronic warfare, radar, navigation system, etc...

It reduces the cost for the program (as it comes out of other budgets), and there is no requirement to order some long-lead items/parts.
Its amazing how much faster things are done when you tell industry the equipment they are being provided and that they need to fit it in instead of providing requirements, wait for their solution and then approve or reject that solution.

The other thing is the US can afford to spend the money/time to get the design done faster, with a large number of USN staff working on the project.
 
Underway said:
The other thing is the US can afford to spend the money/time to get the design done faster, with a large number of USN staff working on the project.

But can we really afford to have less than 12 frigates/CSC available in the future before the 15 CSC are built?
The reality is we’ll have less than 12 frigates/CSC available under these timelines.  The existing Halifax’s will be over 40+yrs old before we have 12 CSC’s commissioned. Probably right around the time the AOPS’s will be going under the mid-life refits.
 
2nd CCG ship on her way to the east coast  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGnsrnBEBRw&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1Phrd_PJxRZgiV4_xk-gZveMim0OEcWM_exwCfUIcHxA-YE43zBLuJMFc
 
Seeing as Seaspan and Irving will not have space or time to build the polar icebreaker, and probably not Davie either with new CCG work it looks certain to get, does this mean gov't might now be willing to have one of our shipyards partner with a builder abroad to build the hull and most metal bashing (a lot more cheaply than can be done here) and then finish off in Canada (or just do design work here as Dutch Damen is doing with this big icebreaker all built in Romania for Australia [antarctic https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/a-look-inside-australia-s-new-icebreaker]):

Feds ask shipyards to make their cases for building missing heavy icebreaker

There is a new lead in the case of the missing icebreaker, though exactly how the story will end remains to be seen.

The fate of the Canadian Coast Guard's next heavy icebreaker has been wrapped in mystery since the federal Liberal government quietly removed the $1.3-billion project from Vancouver shipyard Seaspan's order book in May.

The ship was first promised by Stephen Harper's Conservative government more than a decade ago.

Now the government is asking Canadian shipyards to essentially make their case for building the vessel, which the Harper government dubbed the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker.

Public Procurement Minister Anita Anand says the aim is to have the vessel built as quickly as possible as the Diefenbaker is expected to replace the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, which has been in service since 1969.

The Diefenbaker, whose $1.3-billion budget is under review, was supposed to replace the St-Laurent in 2017.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/feds-ask-shipyards-to-make-their-cases-for-building-missing-heavy-icebreaker-1.4831934

Mark
Ottawa
 
The Case of the Missing Icebreaker!  :waiting: :Tin-Foil-Hat: :facepalm: :whistle:

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2020/02/28/feds-ask-shipyards-to-make-their-cases-for-building-missing-heavy-icebreaker-2/#.XlljtEBFyUl
 
Why wouldn't Davies or Seaspan simply enter into an agreement with Heddle in St. Catharines to subcontract several of the smaller vessels under license and undertake the Diefenbaker themselves.  That way they keep both projects in house without taking up their existing space/time.
 
YZT580 said:
Why wouldn't Davies or Seaspan simply enter into an agreement with Heddle in St. Catharines to subcontract several of the smaller vessels under license and undertake the Diefenbaker themselves.  That way they keep both projects in house without taking up their existing space/time.

I thought that Davie is the largest facility in Canada.  Why can't they build the Dief as well as the other breakers?  Is it because of a lack of skilled manpower?

I could see an election campaign promise made by Mackay (assuming he wins the Connie leadership race) to have Davie get that work to Davie in order to make headway against the BQ and Liberals
 
Czech_pivo said:
I thought that Davie is the largest facility in Canada.  Why can't they build the Dief as well as the other breakers?
Davie has, in the past, claimed that they have the capacity of Seaspan and Irving combined.  If true, they should be able to very easily build a couple of Diefenbakers along with a minimum of six 8 000 tonne icebreakers.  Asking, however, for Davie, Seaspan, and Irving to submit bids for one or two Diefenbakers is a good idea: make Davie take nothing for granted.
 
Honestly, I thought that the Heavy Ice Breaker was to be built between the two JSS.  If it's been removed it's for project management reasons I assume, not for the fact Seaspan is losing out.  Pure speculation on my part however.
 
Spencer100 said:
The Case of the Missing Icebreaker!  :waiting: :Tin-Foil-Hat: :facepalm: :whistle:

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2020/02/28/feds-ask-shipyards-to-make-their-cases-for-building-missing-heavy-icebreaker-2/#.XlljtEBFyUl

The end of the article says they may source overseas.  That could be much cheaper but no minority government would go there.  I don't understand the problem.  Are the liberals to paid off by the Irvings? And is that more than Trudeau's wanting to do stuff for Quebec. Or real tin hat does the government really not want any industry in the country.....it  is starting to feel that way. 
 
Underway said:
Honestly, I thought that the Heavy Ice Breaker was to be built between the two JSS.  If it's been removed it's for project management reasons I assume, not for the fact Seaspan is losing out.  Pure speculation on my part however.

I believe that the OOSV is to be built between the two AOR/JSS.
I don't see how Irving or Seaspan can handle the Polar Icebreaker with ships already on order.
The Polar Icebreaker has always seemed like a vanity project to me. Building an icebreaker 50% bigger than any we have and 300% bigger than the majority of the fleet we have now/proposed and at the expense of larger numbers of icebreakers
 
It might be a case of the press having no idea how the project's work within the Government and the minority Government being tight with messaging.  The Heavy Ice breaker is also between at least 4 years due to JSS/OOSV build happening anyways.  If they need it sooner well then other options could be looked at, but they risk running out of work for VSY... which is counter to the NSS one of the few true "Nation Building" projects we actually have.
 
Underway said:
It might be a case of the press having no idea how the project's work within the Government and the minority Government being tight with messaging.  The Heavy Ice breaker is also between at least 4 years due to JSS/OOSV build happening anyways.  If they need it sooner well then other options could be looked at, but they risk running out of work for VSY... which is counter to the NSS one of the few true "Nation Building" projects we actually have.

Running out of work for VSY? What about the replacing of the Kingston’s, they are already 24yrs old and by 2026 when the last JSS is done they will be 30yrs old.  Increase the size of the Kingston’s to 1,600 tons at 12-14 and there’s a lot of work there.
 
I don't see how Seaspan can be running out of work. Were they not given an additional 15 multi purpose ships to build? Otherwise build another one each of JSS/OFSV/OOSV
 
VSY and  16 more CCG ships:
https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet

Davie and six smaller icebreakers:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/quebec-s-chantier-davie-only-shipyard-to-qualify-for-icebreaker-work-feds-1.4737254

Plus surely Davie will get a lot of these vessels:

Government of Canada will also proceed through a competitive process with the design of a new class of smaller ships, the new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ship, which would complement the work of the large fleet in shallow areas and deliver mid-shore science activities.
https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet

Mark
Ottawa


 
Back
Top