New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Navy_Pete]

Honestly Irving engineering and partners knew full well when they bid on the RFP what was going to happen with the ship being larger. But they went forward. Which is typical of government bidding. That was one of the major concerns with Seaspan was their lack of expansion capabilities of their facilities. Or so was mentioned.
The entire process needs accountability from the start and we have not witnessed this at all. Weill we see 15 ships, I doubt it. The costs are already through the roof and the expectations of even the first ship are years aways. But money will be funneled until it gets cancelled due to cost over runs. the players know this.

How would Iriving know that Canada would select a bunch of kit that would require a bigger ship?

Even if they suspected it, they met the terms of the contract.

And who would you propose to hold accountable? There is something like 5 DGs from 4 departments regularly involved, and about a dozen departments, the PCO, PMO, TBS etc all involved in the various DPS approval gates. There are so many fingers in the pie if you held an individual responsible they would be a sacrificial goat.

 

[dapaterson]

There are so many fingers in the pie if you held an individual responsible they would be a sacrificial goat.

So you're volunteering then?

 

[Navy_Pete]

So you're volunteering then?

lol, been there, done that at a lower level. Had more real authority/responsibility as a subbie, and would have been better respected as a juniour public servant straight out of school than an Navy engineer with over a decade of experience, including time doing docking work periods. Nothing like having some polisci right out of university tell you that ship repair is the same as shipbuilding, even though they've never done either.

I was volunterring for CFTPOs left, right and center but they kept taking army reservists. That posting message to a new job was my favourite so far.

 

[childs56]

How would Iriving know that Canada would select a bunch of kit that would require a bigger ship?

Because they were the primary contractor who worked with the Government.

Even if they suspected it, they met the terms of the contract.

Ok

And who would you propose to hold accountable? There is something like 5 DGs from 4 departments regularly involved, and about a dozen departments, the PCO, PMO, TBS etc all involved in the various DPS approval gates. There are so many fingers in the pie if you held an individual responsible they would be a sacrificial goat.

Again passing the buck around to fill the pot. The primary was involved pretty much from the beginning and redosing phase. So they should be primarily responsible. I use to like cost plus projects, Government Contractors love them.

 

[YZT580]

Because they were the primary contractor who worked with the Government.

Ok

Again passing the buck around to fill the pot. The primary was involved pretty much from the beginning and redosing phase. So they should be primarily responsible. I use to like cost plus projects, Government Contractors love them.

know nothing about building ships but I do know that if I put a bid in on a contract and include a ton of extras to cover future planning that incidentally have to be paid for and another outfit puts in the barebones that covers all issues in the contract but is lower than mine, guess what; I lose. Irving could have might have known exactly what extras were going to be required but writing them in would have guaranteed a win for Davies

 

[suffolkowner]

my favourite icebreaker is back from Australia after 2 seasons of work and wondering if the US is going to finally pull the trigger

Forget the Aiviq: Give the Polar Sea Another Chance

Revitalizing the USCGC Polar Sea (WAGB-11) is a better option for the Coast Guard than purchasing the Aiviq.

www.usni.org

Juneau-based private icebreaker remains in Coast Guard’s plans as needs grow | Juneau Empire

Officials now say up to nine vessels needed for polar areas, but first may not be ready until 2028

www.juneauempire.com

the estimate cost seem low to me
"Nobody knows how much it will cost to refit the Aiviq. There is some precedent, though. The Canadian Coast Guard recently bought and converted three Norwegian icebreakers that were slightly smaller than the Aiviq. The program cost roughly $615 million in U.S. dollars ($205 million per vessel), and delivery was delayed up to three years. These ships are a full 85 feet shorter than the Aiviq and also needed “substantial refit.” Scaling acquisition cost to vessel length, the Aiviq could cost up to $260 million to acquire and put into service."

Budgeted 125M for purchase not 150M though.

 

[Fabius]

Honestly Irving engineering and partners knew full well when they bid on the RFP what was going to happen with the ship being larger. But they went forward. Which is typical of government bidding. That was one of the major concerns with Seaspan was their lack of expansion capabilities of their facilities. Or so was mentioned.
The entire process needs accountability from the start and we have not witnessed this at all. Weill we see 15 ships, I doubt it. The costs are already through the roof and the expectations of even the first ship are years aways. But money will be funneled until it gets cancelled due to cost over runs. the players know this.

Given the whole rationale for the NSS is to avoid the boom bust model and develop and maintain a sustainable strategic industrial capability would not reducing the program from 15 ships to say 12, put at risk the entire project?

Given the objective should there not be a plan to basically have both ship yards constantly building and the cost of a major combatant ship every year or two would become a minor cost relative to the recapitalization costs if we allow the yards to go dormant even for a year or two.

We already have a precedent in the CCG AOP orders.

 

[quadrapiper]

Given the whole rationale for the NSS is to avoid the boom bust model and develop and maintain a sustainable strategic industrial capability would not reducing the program from 15 ships to say 12, put at risk the entire project?

Wonder what else might be due for replacement by the time CSC 12 clears the ways.

 

[Underway]

Given the whole rationale for the NSS is to avoid the boom bust model and develop and maintain a sustainable strategic industrial capability would not reducing the program from 15 ships to say 12, put at risk the entire project?

Given the objective should there not be a plan to basically have both ship yards constantly building and the cost of a major combatant ship every year or two would become a minor cost relative to the recapitalization costs if we allow the yards to go dormant even for a year or two.

We already have a precedent in the CCG AOP orders.

Well maybe, the boom bust comes from stopping shipbuilding. If the Gov't decides that we don't want 15 CSC instead wants 12 but follows that up with a different ship class being built then NSPS is working.

The entire point is continuous build. And its cheaper than restarting a shipbuilding insdustry every 20 years, or paying for rusting out ships as they get older then 20 years.

I expect that even if they cancel say 3 ships, they'll just replace them with a different ship class and break up the budget.

 

[Kirkhill]

Given the whole rationale for the NSS is to avoid the boom bust model and develop and maintain a sustainable strategic industrial capability would not reducing the program from 15 ships to say 12, put at risk the entire project?

Given the objective should there not be a plan to basically have both ship yards constantly building and the cost of a major combatant ship every year or two would become a minor cost relative to the recapitalization costs if we allow the yards to go dormant even for a year or two.

We already have a precedent in the CCG AOP orders.

Shouldn't that mean that each yard should always have two ships building, one in final design and one or more in backlog?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Well maybe, the boom bust comes from stopping shipbuilding. If the Gov't decides that we don't want 15 CSC instead wants 12 but follows that up with a different ship class being built then NSPS is working.

The entire point is continuous build. And its cheaper than restarting a shipbuilding insdustry every 20 years, or paying for rusting out ships as they get older then 20 years.

I expect that even if they cancel say 3 ships, they'll just replace them with a different ship class and break up the budget.

By the time they actually build 12 or 15 or even only 10 CSC's, the AOPS will be very long in the tooth and will be at end of life and need to be scrapped and replacements built.

 

[Underway]

By the time they actually build 12 or 15 or even only 10 CSC's, the AOPS will be very long in the tooth and will be at end of life and need to be scrapped and replacements built.

Maybe. We'll have to see how they age. Sounds like a problem for 25 years from now!
But remember there are two shipyards in this program (and now a third sort of). Seaspan could easilyl build an AOP's replacement.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Also by the 12th CSC, Canada may opt for another design or for a heavily modified version of it as the situation changes.

 

[Rainbow1910]

By the time they actually build 12 or 15 or even only 10 CSC's, the AOPS will be very long in the tooth and will be at end of life and need to be scrapped and replacements built.

As far as I am aware, the AOPS have an expected lifespan of 25 years. It is also something to keep in mind that the AOPS are ice strengthened ships with reinforced hulls in comparison to the average civilian or even some military vessels, so that should also assist in their longevity. That would mean Harry DeWolf would be at the end of its on-paper lifespan in 2046 as the oldest in class vessel. Seems like more than enough time to have another yard work on a replacement.

Wonder what else might be due for replacement by the time CSC 12 clears the ways.

MCDV's are going to be the main concern I think alongside submarines, but the submarine procurement feasibility is up for debate. The American Bureau of Shipping did a survey of the hulls awhile ago and found they have about a decades worth of service left in them. CCG fleet is basically going to be completely new throughout this period too between Seaspan and Davie's construction.

 

[Kirkhill]

As Australia weighs future fleet, international shipbuilders make their pitches - Breaking Defense

Four companies have so far announced options for what could be a larger fleet of smaller vessels.

breakingdefense.com

CANBERRA — As Australia awaits a critical review of its naval posture, international shipbuilding firms are already lining up their pitches to help build any new warships Canberra might deem necessary for its future fleet.

So far, four companies have announced bids, all offering vessels in the corvette, light frigate class or frigate class, with capabilities comparable to the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN’s) 1990s-built Anzac-class frigates.

The potential competition is the result of the Australian Defence Strategic Review (DSR) released in April, which said Australia’s surface fleet should comprise a mix of Tier 1 and Tier 2 vessels combatants “consistent with a strategy of a larger number of smaller surface vessels.”

ANZAC General characteristics as designed
Type	Frigate
Displacement	3,600 t (3,500 long tons; 4,000 short tons) full load displacement
Length	109 m (358 ft) waterline length 118 m (387 ft) length overall
Beam	14.8 m (49 ft)
Draught	4.35 m (14.3 ft) at full load
Speed	27 knots (50 km/h; 31 mph)
Range	6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km; 6,900 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)
Complement	22 officers, 141 sailors and 16 government worker or air crew.
Armament	Anti-air missiles 8-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch System firing 32 quad-packed RIM-162 ESSM Anti-ship missiles 2 × 4-canister Harpoon anti-ship missiles Torpedoes 2 × Mark 32 3-tube torpedo launchers MU90 Impact torpedoes Mark 46 torpedoes Guns 1 × 5-inch 54 calibre Mark 45 dual purpose gun 2 × .50cal machine guns on Mini Typhoon mounts 6 x .50cal machine guns crew served 1 × close-in weapons system (for not with) 2nd 8-cell Mark 41 VLS (for not with)
Aircraft carried	1 helicopter RAN: Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk

Halifax - 4770 tonnes and 134m LOA
Type 31 Arrowhead - 5700 tonnes and 138m LOA
Holland OPV - 3750 tonnes and 108m LOA

Holland-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kirkhill]

The Contestants, So Far

German shipbuilder Luerssen was quick off the mark, proposing its C90 corvette, an Australianized version of the two Multipurpose Modular Patrol Vessels it’s building for Bulgaria.

Navantia Australia, a subsidiary of Navantia of Spain, is proposing an Australianized version of its Alfa 3000, a 3,000-tonne (3,307 ton) 104-meter vessel built wholly in Spain, in Australia or a hybrid of both.

Spain's Navantia Proposing Two New Frigate Designs to the Hellenic Navy - Naval News

Spanish shipbuilder Navantia is proposing two new and modern designs for the Hellenic Navy frigate requirement: The F110 Frigates, currently being designed for the Spanish Navy are part of a wider package offer by the shipbuilder with full support of the Spanish government.

www.navalnews.com

TKMS (Thysenkrupp Marine Systems) is proposing the 2,000-tonne (2,205 ton) 90-meter K130 corvette for Australia. This is a mature and well-armed design, as 10 have been built for the German Navy and four variants for the Israeli Navy.

K130 Braunschweig Class Corvette

In December 2001, Germany placed an order for five K130 corvettes based on the MEKO A design from the Arge…

www.naval-technology.com

Babcock Australasia, a subsidiary of London-based Babcock International Group, is proposing the Type 31 Arrowhead, a frigate under construction for Britain’s Royal Navy, Indonesia and Poland.

 

[Underway]

I've said this plenty of times. You can build a light frigate/corvette with almost the exact same weapons and sensor loadout as the CPF right now.

Heck you could probably take the CPF ones off and install them on a corvette (given most of the sensors and weapons are pretty up to date).

There would be a significantl loss in survivability, range, and air operations. Likely the UWW portion would be reduced in capability as well. But if Tier 2 is a thing, then it would fill the purpose.

Keep CMS 330 going as well, as its designed for ships that size.

 

[FSTO]

^^
So we get 6 off the shelf (Yes I know there is no such thing) corvettes, strip out the gear from the 6 worse shape frigates and hope things work out for the rest as we wait for CSC's?

Now that is out of the box thinking, right?

 

[dapaterson]

^^
So we get 6 off the shelf (Yes I know there is no such thing) corvettes, strip out the gear from the 6 worse shape frigates and hope things work out for the rest as we wait for CSC's?

Now that is out of the box thinking, right?

Engineering is overrated.

 

[FSTO]

Engineering is overrated.

Harpoons are bolt on, 57 mm gun, CIWIS, are pretty much bolt on as well. (I'm talking out of my ass here but I'm sure the engineers will back up my MARS confident statement?
Have you seen the cost estimates to keep the Frigates going?