New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Furniture]

Thanks, I was pretty sure it did, as I thought that's where I remembered seeing PRE up on blocks.

That's when I learned what the term 'allision' means. A collision is two ships that are moving, an allision is when a ship hits something stationary.

Yet another BOI buried via overclassification with any lessons learned forgotten.

From what I remember, we settled with ISI for the damage to the floating dock, which they had previously sunk alongside by accident anyway. It didn't totally sink because of the draft there, but wasn't much of the casings left about the water line. I think it was mostly okay, as most of the areas that flooded were meant to be flooded to sink it down, but some areas that were supposed to be dry weren't.

You're framing it the wrong way, lessons weren't forgotten, it's just that the wrong lesson was learned.

If the RCN buries BOI results, they can't be brought up embarrassingly in the media...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I argue that Canada's "East Coast" begins at Black's Harbour and Passamaquoddy Bay in New Brunswick and ends in the Yukon just north of Old Crow or something on the order of 4000 sea miles =/- 1000. The actual coastline to be patrolled is 217,317 km.

The "West Coast" extends from Victoria to Langara Island off of Prince Rupert - a bit more than 500 sea miles although it has a coastline of 25,725 km.

The "West Coast" is similar in extent to Canada's "Great Lakes Coast" from Thunder Bay to Kingston.
The St Lawrence Seaway from Kingston to Anticosti is 500 to 600 sea miles.

In terms of coastal and inshore assets it makes sense for the entire Arctic capable fleet to be based out of Halifax but with support facilities at St John's, Rigolet, Iqaluit, Resolute, Cambridge Bay and Tuktoyaktuk as well as Churchill.

Your quite wrong on that. In general Resolute/Peel Sound seems to be the rough dividing line, certainly it is for the CCG, but ships will cross that if required.

 

[FSTO]

Yes we should……….but that would mean a government is taking arctic security seriously.

I'm a retired army guy and closest that I've been to the navy is living in Juno Towers in Halifax while on TD.

This is an earnest question, shouldn't the RCN operate as a three coast Navy with the Arctic being the third coast? I understand winter conditions in the north will require the need for an icebreaker (1 or 2 at least) or submarines capable of breaking through arctic ice.

 

[FSTO]

Yet another BOI buried via overclassification with any lessons learned forgotten.

A recent podcast where it is mentioned that our security classification system is 49 years behind our 5 Eyes older siblings.

 

[Kirkhill]

Your quite wrong on that. In general Resolute/Peel Sound seems to be the rough dividing line, certainly it is for the CCG, but ships will cross that if required.

But ...

You can transit from Passamaquoddy to the MacKenzie without ever leaving Canadian territorial waters. The same for Victoria to Rupert. To get from Rupert to the MacKenzie you have to transit US waters and the High Seas.

 

[Underway]

I still don't understand how the government is okay with giving Irving all this morning to upgrade the shipyard, when the bidding for the CSC Irving had to be capable of building the ships without government aid. This money to Irving, one of the wealthiest families and companies in Canada, is a slap in the face of tax payers and our procurement system because a non-compliant bid won, and we are paying for it now. Irving should be getting penalized for delays not handed more money.

Irving didn't bid on CSC. Iriving bid on being the producer of the combat vessels for the RCN. Lockheed/BAE etc... bid on the CSC project. And in the original bidding there was nothing there on "without government aid". The entire project was to get the shipyards back and the bids were compliant.

As far as delays, what delays? CSC is on schedule. Are you refering to AOPS (which is behind sched a bit, but catching up).

As far as Irving being rich and building themselves, taxpayer dollars etc... well I'm not to happy about it but we have to argue the facts as they stand. Unfortunately no shipyard in Canada could have built these without loans and gov't money. I would have to dig into the contracts for the shipyard themselves and how they organized things.

 

[Underway]

A recent podcast where it is mentioned that our security classification system is 49 years behind our 5 Eyes older siblings.

How so. I don't think it is. Its NATO standard. Or are you refering to what we classify. If that's the case then we are likely actually following the rules where the UK and US leak stuff like a sieve.

 

[Kirkhill]

Irving didn't bid on CSC. Iriving bid on being the producer of the combat vessels for the RCN. Lockheed/BAE etc... bid on the CSC project. And in the original bidding there was nothing there on "without government aid". The entire project was to get the shipyards back and the bids were compliant.

As far as delays, what delays? CSC is on schedule. Are you refering to AOPS (which is behind sched a bit, but catching up).

As far as Irving being rich and building themselves, taxpayer dollars etc... well I'm not to happy about it but we have to argue the facts as they stand. Unfortunately no shipyard in Canada could have built these without loans and gov't money. I would have to dig into the contracts for the shipyard themselves and how they organized things.

Relying on memory is a dangerous thing and it is getting more dangerous as I get older, but...

It seems to me that the original terms of reference were that the yards were supposed to bring themselves to a state that would allow them to build the ships of the National Shipbuilding Strategy. Davie was too far behind the curve to be able to make it to the starting line. Seaspan met the terms by private financing of its yard expansion. Irving got a public subsidy from the province of Nova Scotia.

It seems fair to note that Seaspan and Irving are both now benefiting from the terms of their contracts which, to this layman, seem exorbitantly well padded but I can't help feeling a degree of sympathy for Seaspan given the special treatment that Irving and Davie have been getting since then.

Up to and including having to split their business with Davie and having their arctic expertise transferred to Halifax.

 

[Navy_Pete]

A recent podcast where it is mentioned that our security classification system is 49 years behind our 5 Eyes older siblings.

Really doesn't have anything to do with the classification system, anyone can overclassify something and then bury it by severely limiting distribution.

HMAS Westralia report immediately comes to mind as something really well done for a BOI; explained the full sequence of events, looked at systematic things that led to the fire that killed people, and was detailed enough that you could understand why people made the decisions they did at the time, so all the lesssons learned with the full context can be well understood. All they did was remove the names of individuals and use the names of the positions, which made it easier to understand anyway IMHO (find reading the USN reports that use people's names it can be a confusing cast of characters so need an index to keep track of who they are).

The TSB reports and other marine safety boards do the same thing; here's a pretty good example;

Marine Transportation Safety Investigation Report M20P0320 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada

We instead never release the report, and if there are LL or aciton items, they are broken out into a summary letter. Some of the ones from the PRO were applied to JSS, except they didn't actually make sense anymore because the actual design was totally different., so we ended up with an additional fitted system that will likely never be used, because the way the design works renders it redundant, and possibly totally ineffective anyway. Some of the other ones were never implemented either, because solutions to them aren't actually possible, and also not required if you follow the actual SOPs. Lot of wasted time and effort over a decade, while the actual root cause behind the fire is widely prevalent in every CPF, because all of that got lost in the chaff because people can't see the details.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Relying on memory is a dangerous thing and it is getting more dangerous as I get older, but...

It seems to me that the original terms of reference were that the yards were supposed to bring themselves to a state that would allow them to build the ships of the National Shipbuilding Strategy. Davie was too far behind the curve to be able to make it to the starting line. Seaspan met the terms by private financing of its yard expansion. Irving got a public subsidy from the province of Nova Scotia.

It seems fair to note that Seaspan and Irving are both now benefiting from the terms of their contracts which, to this layman, seem exorbitantly well padded but I can't help feeling a degree of sympathy for Seaspan given the special treatment that Irving and Davie have been getting since then.

Up to and including having to split their business with Davie and having their arctic expertise transferred to Halifax.

The target state was very specific about the ship dimensions for both the combat and noncombat packages, because it has to be, and the provisional size and tonnage specs were built into what they committed to contractually to meet under the NSS umbrella agreements, which include outlines of things like the module sizes as well as the overall assembly plan and how they would launch the ship. That also included the civil engineering bit showing the concrete was strong enough for the expected loads, so a lot of work went into that (particularly for the Seaspan yard with Big Blue crane and their final assembly area for the mega modules outside).

Canada selecting a MOTs design and making it much bigger meant that ISI had met their actual contractual commitment, so if Canada wants them to build something bigger then that's on us for any new infrastructure needed, because we changed the requirements significantly compared to what was in NSS. I'm happy to kick ISI when they deserve it, but if we had stayed within the envelope no upgrades would be needed.

Btw, Davie put in a technically compliant bid that went through the full evaluation, they just finished 3rd with 2 work packages available. Doesn't matter how many times they repeat that story, it's not true.

 

[FSTO]

A recent podcast where it is mentioned that our security classification system is 49 years behind our 5 Eyes older siblings.

Silly me, I didn't put in the link

Enhancing ASW via Digital Transformation - Canadian Global Affairs Institute

 

[Kirkhill]

Canada selecting a MOTs design and making it much bigger meant that ISI had met their actual contractual commitment, so if Canada wants them to build something bigger then that's on us for any new infrastructure needed, because we changed the requirements significantly compared to what was in NSS. I'm happy to kick ISI when they deserve it, but if we had stayed within the envelope no upgrades would be needed.

No argument on that one. If our government changed the ask after the bid had been accepted then that is definitely on them.

I can't help but wonder though, what would have happened with a shorter time line and a more rigid adherence to available, off the shelf designs.
The RCN could already be sailing Arrowheads and west coast Svalbards.

 

[Good2Golf]

Silly me, I didn't put in the link

Enhancing ASW via Digital Transformation - Canadian Global Affairs Institute

CGAI’s Defence Deconstructed podcasts are always very informative.

 

[Navy_Pete]

No argument on that one. If our government changed the ask after the bid had been accepted then that is definitely on them.

I can't help but wonder though, what would have happened with a shorter time line and a more rigid adherence to available, off the shelf designs.
The RCN could already be sailing Arrowheads and west coast Svalbards.

And maybe JSS; that was updated and changed too.

Some were to bring it up to current code due to time lag, but wasn't actually mandatory for us to do. Would make sense to look at it and consider it though, because those code changes are usually because of some kind of disaster with loss of life or major costs.

A lot were kind of dumb, and then we can't get changes made to bring it within our current helo operating requirements because they don't want to make design changes, so at the moment looks like it's being delivered with a red deck.

 

[Kirkhill]

And maybe JSS; that was updated and changed too.

Some were to bring it up to current code due to time lag, but wasn't actually mandatory for us to do. Would make sense to look at it and consider it though, because those code changes are usually because of some kind of disaster with loss of life or major costs.

A lot were kind of dumb, and then we can't get changes made to bring it within our current helo operating requirements because they don't want to make design changes, so at the moment looks like it's being delivered with a red deck.

A "red deck"? Would that be like the Asterix?

 

[Navy_Pete]

A "red deck"? Would that be like the Asterix?

No, shorthand for 'not allowed to do helo ops'. Green deck is the other shorthand for 'certified for helo ops'.

Not to be confused with the paint scheme, where it used to actually be painted green, but is now a dark grey colour for the non-skid. There is a whole air worthiness process on all that.

 

[Kirkhill]

No, shorthand for 'not allowed to do helo ops'. Green deck is the other shorthand for 'certified for helo ops'.

Not to be confused with the paint scheme, where it used to actually be painted green, but is now a dark grey colour for the non-skid. There is a whole air worthiness process on all that.

Thanks. Appreciated.

Wouldn't that kind of diminish the value of the ship?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Thanks. Appreciated.

Wouldn't that kind of diminish the value of the ship?

Yes, given that it is supposed to have embarked helos and the ability to do major maintenance. It's an ongoing issue that is being worked on. AOPs is going through the same.

It's some growing pains between how the CAF operates helos compared to commercial rules in the ships for operating helos, where we have higher standards in some cases, or different requirements like lighting compatible with NVGs. Long story but will get sorted eventually (hopefully before delivery).

 

[Rainbow1910]

No argument on that one. If our government changed the ask after the bid had been accepted then that is definitely on them.

I can't help but wonder though, what would have happened with a shorter time line and a more rigid adherence to available, off the shelf designs.
The RCN could already be sailing Arrowheads and west coast Svalbards.

Definitely could be delivered faster but for this proposed Svalbard build, Irving would still need time to build their yards up to a state where they can start production. It would depend when you put the proposed start date, AOPS had its definition contract and design period start around July of 2012. If we use that as a jumping off point, assume immediate construction and use known/approximate AOPS build times, we get:

AOPS 1 - Commissions on October 16, 2017
AOPS 2 - Commissions on February 17, 2019
AOPS 3 - Commissions on February 21, 2020
AOPS 4 - Commissions on February 18, 2021
AOPS 5 - Commissions on December 12, 2021
AOPS 6 - Commissions on November 24, 2022

Keep in mind these numbers are rough and I'd assume CSC would be smoother sailing and CCG AOPS isn't a thing. If we assume immediate CSC construction (November 25, 2022) with the Iver Huitfeldt design using the Halifax class build times (no yard upgrades to Irving, delays, modification changes), it would look like:

CSC 1 - Commissions on March 7, 2028
CSC 15 - Commissions on June 8, 2032

So taking this incredibly simplified, best case scenario and likely incorrect guesstimate at face value, Canada in this hypothetical would be commissioning their last CSC when we are projected to be commissioning the first of our class. There would likely be significant delays which are impossible to factor in. This is completely ignoring the fact that Svalbard and CSC have been/are being modified to properly fit the roles and operations we require of them and that Type 26 is a fairly heftier design than the Danish frigate.

Interesting thought experiment but I generally think taking the time to properly suit designs to our requirements is worthwhile, albeit a bit slow seemingly.

 

[childs56]

The target state was very specific about the ship dimensions for both the combat and noncombat packages, because it has to be, and the provisional size and tonnage specs were built into what they committed to contractually to meet under the NSS umbrella agreements, which include outlines of things like the module sizes as well as the overall assembly plan and how they would launch the ship. That also included the civil engineering bit showing the concrete was strong enough for the expected loads, so a lot of work went into that (particularly for the Seaspan yard with Big Blue crane and their final assembly area for the mega modules outside).

Canada selecting a MOTs design and making it much bigger meant that ISI had met their actual contractual commitment, so if Canada wants them to build something bigger then that's on us for any new infrastructure needed, because we changed the requirements significantly compared to what was in NSS. I'm happy to kick ISI when they deserve it, but if we had stayed within the envelope no upgrades would be needed.

Btw, Davie put in a technically compliant bid that went through the full evaluation, they just finished 3rd with 2 work packages available. Doesn't matter how many times they repeat that story, it's not true.

Was Irving not involved in the Ship design approval, knew the intent for the ship extension from the start design? They did what they do best and ask for more and more.
How I read it was Seaspan's initial bid, stated they would have to provide significant upgrades to their yard both in Vancouver and Victoria in order to build and maintain the new CSC Ships. They lost based on their probability to be able to provide the required services and site. Where Irving was more then capable to provide the required services and site to build the ships under their own funding.

lets face it, if Irving could have built all the ships AOPS, CSC, Fleet Aux etc they would have all the contracts. The Irvings are heavily in the pockets of many politicians both in Canada and the North Eastern US.

What surprises me is how the money flows with little to no accountability. The CSC build is being treated like a open pocket book by the prime contractor. They know we need the ships, they know we are to far into the process to back out, they know if we do back out they get paid anyways.
We need a better system.