New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[FSTO]

I really really hope that this entire project signals the last time we rebuild a warship building industry from scratch. Because if this one falls apart then I doubt that the general public, the government and the Navy will have the appitite to do this for the 6th time (WWII, Cold War, the Tribals and AOR's (granted there was a residual industry when they were built), CPF's and now the NSP) within 100 years. I also hope that we build the hulls nice and solid but the innards (machinery and electronics) can be easily upgraded without TB's sticky fingers getting involved.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I also hope that we build the hulls nice and solid but the innards (machinery and electronics) can be easily upgraded without TB's sticky fingers getting involved.

I think it would be a lot more effective if they built the hulls to wear out at the same time as the combat fit, and just built more ships.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I will see if I can find it when I am back at work tomorrow but I remember a quote I stumbled upon when I was in Ottawa working on the CSC Project. It was from an American Admiral involved in the PD side of the AB class back in the late 90s. It was something along the lines of 'We go to great strides and expend countless resources determining a hull's ELE (estimated life expectancy) but then end up retiring ships long before the platform itself is worn out because it is not financial feasible to upgrade the combat/weapons suites and/or control systems"
I had done a BN on other Navy's ships of a similar class and the RCN was the exception (of developed nations) keeping ships beyond 25 years. Surprisingly, the longest I found was a USN ship. You may have heard of her: USS Lexington (CV 16) at 48 years! If you think about it, the first of the Halifax class would be getting decommissioned and scrapped/sold in many other Navies.

 

[Baz]

Not quite the same type of ship but USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was in Commission 1962-2012 (plus her defuelling has been delayed by Sequestration, so her engineering systems are still manned).

I agree with the point, however; and would take it one step further.  Everyone knows that each ship is different, so accept it.  Make each one slightly better, and build them at a low rate.  Say one every 18 months, and keep them 18 years, would give a fleet size of 12 ships.  For the AOR and "Amphib," say one every four years or so...  Build 'em, ride em hard, and retire them!  You could keep them available more becuase you wouldn't need to worry about them lasting so long.  And no major upgrades either.

This would give the advantage of actually keeping the Canadian Shipbuilding industry relevant (it is important by the way, maybe even more important than if we have the "best" ship).  It would also mean each ship is slightly better than the last.  And never do two major system upgrades in one ship.  Change the hull in one, then maybe the combat system a couple down stream, and then maybe propulsion a couple after that... keep each change managable.

You could even keep the last cycle in Reserve for 10-20 years, to give us a surge capability... or maybe sell 'em off while they're still relevant (and you can get some money for them).

I also think we should do the same with aircraft.  The benefits of fleet commonality are way overated in my opinion.  Air Canada doesn't try to service every route with a triple 7 or a Dash-8, and don't seem to have problems with small buys... why can't we.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I wonder if anyone has seriously done the math on your theory, Baz?

You raise an interesting point about the real costs of keeping ships for 40 years...

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I agree with the point, however; and would take it one step further.  Everyone knows that each ship is different, so accept it.  Make each one slightly better, and build them at a low rate.  Say one every 18 months, and keep them 18 years, would give a fleet size of 12 ships.  For the AOR and "Amphib," say one every four years or so...  Build 'em, ride em hard, and retire them!  You could keep them available more becuase you wouldn't need to worry about them lasting so long.  And no major upgrades either.

The problem as I see it is that then you would have 12 different ships with different weapon systems/capabilities. Trying to train crew for these ships would be be pretty difficult.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Never seen 2 ships in a class that were exactly the same anyways.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

Never seen 2 ships in a class that were exactly the same anyways.

No, but I see the point being made. This is the impetus behind the plan to have the two CSC versions having common equipment (propulsion, deck gear, DC etc). With the exception of HAL herself, most Halifax class are pretty close but some do get/(retain) mission fits.

I recall though the initial confusion in engineering systems (more the location of specific equipment/valves) between what I will call the sub-classes of the St Laurents (STL, RES, IRE, ANN). Somebody on board GAT blew up a Reserve Feed Tank in 1987 because the Boiler Room Feed pump discharge valve on board GAT was in the same place as the Reserve filling valve on board NIP. 715 psi water discharge pressure through a 6" line doesn't take long to fill an 8.5 ton water tank!!

 

[AlexanderM]

I'd go with 15 ships, all the same hull, built at a faster pace.  Use the Ivar Huitfeldt-class design, as they are flexible, with the midship missle bay being able to have different configurations.  Build the Destroyers to carry more missles for air defence, have the command and control capabilities, 150-155mm guns with the extended range shells, etc, etc.  Then build the Frigates to carry less missles and more mission modules, better ASW capabilities, better multi-mission capabilities.

The Danish built the hulls for just over $300 million each, if we can't build them for a reasonable price then we could have the hulls built in Korea for all I care.  I think it is ridiculous that it costs us two or three times what it costs other countries to build the same ships. 

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I'd go with 15 ships, all the same hull, built at a faster pace.  Use the Ivar Huitfeldt-class design, as they are flexible, with the midship missle bay being able to have different configurations.  Build the Destroyers to carry more missles for air defence, have the command and control capabilities, 150-155mm guns with the extended range shells, etc, etc.  Then build the Frigates to carry less missles and more mission modules, better ASW capabilities, better multi-mission capabilities.

The Danish built the hulls for just over $300 million each, if we can't build them for a reasonable price then we could have the hulls built in Korea for all I care.  I think it is ridiculous that it costs us two or three times what it costs other countries to build the same ships.

Believe me, I understand what you are saying and am not alone I am sure in sharing frustrations. Keep in mind, this whole program indirectly falls under the government's EAP so you are employing people rather than paying them social assistance but much more so, we are 'building' a shipbuilding industry-this can be seen as an investment in the future.  By your way of 'black and white' thinking, nothing would ever be 'home-made' because you can always buy it cheaper-whether it be strawberry jam or warships.

Essentially what you are saying in para 1 is exactly the intent...right now...except that the hull will more than likely be "Made in Canada".

 

[AlexanderM]

Pat, I understand the, "we are building a shipbuilding industry" reasoning, but this to me is the part that fails the most, because we aren't going to end up with an industry that will be in any way competitive.  The industry we build will be an overpriced industry that can only cater to overpriced government orders, like the warships.  That industry will not compete with Korea, or any of the other shipbuilding nations who can build these ships for one thrid of our price.  This is why I see it as being money that will be flushed right down the drain, so our tax dollars are wasted.

Perhaps someone could point out with whom our new shipbuilding industry will be able to compete, given that anything built will be much more expensive than the competition. 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Pat, I understand the, "we are building a shipbuilding industry" reasoning, but this to me is the part that fails the most, because we aren't going to end up with an industry that will be in any way competitive.  The industry we build will be an overpriced industry that can only cater to overpriced government orders, like the warships.  That industry will not compete with Korea, or any of the other shipbuilding nations who can build these ships for one thrid of our price.  This is why I see it as being money that will be flushed right down the drain, so our tax dollars are wasted.

Perhaps someone could point out with whom our new shipbuilding industry will be able to compete, given that anything built will be much more expensive than the competition. 

How exactly do you know that?

Are you privy to the shipyard technology investments begin made at each location?


Matthew.

 

[AlexanderM]

Well, we've just paid out $288 million dollars just for design work on the AOPS, which is more than double the cost of similar ships that are already in operation.  We've seen quotes of up to $2 billion dollars a piece for the tankers, when the Berlin Class didn't cost anywhere near that to build.  I've seen quotes of $2.5 billion per Destroyer, which is 3 to 4 times the cost of the ships already built by the Dutch, the Danes, and the Spanish.  They said on the news the other day that the cost of the 15 warships and 6-8 AOPS could be closer to $30-40 billion, rather than the $26 billion budgeted.  Anyone who's paying attention would know all of this.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well, we've just paid out $288 million dollars just for design work on the AOPS, which is more than double the cost of similar ships that are already in operation.  We've seen quotes of up to $2 billion dollars a piece for the tankers, when the Berlin Class didn't cost anywhere near that to build.  I've seen quotes of $2.5 billion per Destroyer, which is 3 to 4 times the cost of the ships already built by the Dutch, the Danes, and the Spanish.  They said on the news the other day that the cost of the 15 warships and 6-8 AOPS could be closer to $30-40 billion, rather than the $26 billion budgeted.  Anyone who's paying attention would know all of this.

Perhaps its time someone explained the public that the reason for the CF's exististance is not to employ people.  Meaning if country X has a platform that meets the needs that we are looking for then we should aquire that platform, especially if it is cost effective and reguardless of the effect on the "Canadian Ship Building Industry". 

I want the best bang of the buck not the best bang to employ people...

 

[AlexanderM]

I'm with you 100% Tar, we could probably purchase 15 of the De Zeven Provincien Class, with HSLA 80 or 100 steel, all in for under $1.2 Billion each or get the Danish design built where ever for the same price and we'd have outstanding ships, right on budget, even a little under.  And, that would be with the new Smart-l with extended range and full anti-ballistic capabilities.  The Danish design is so flexible it would be perfect for our needs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Perhaps its time someone explained the public that the reason for the CF's exististance is not to employ people.  Meaning if country X has a platform that meets the needs that we are looking for then we should aquire that platform, especially if it is cost effective and reguardless of the effect on the "Canadian Ship Building Industry". 

I want the best bang of the buck not the best bang to employ people...

Except that's not how many (I'm guessing most) politicians and most (I'm certain of that) Canadians see it: they see billions of dollars and they want that money spent in Canada, "buying Canadian,' even if it does "waste" some oh the money.  And this is nothing new: it has been this way, in America, Britain and Canada, for centuries. It is part of the political reality.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Except that's not how many (I'm guessing most) politicians and most (I'm certain of that) Canadians see it: they see billions of dollars and they want that money spent in Canada, "buying Canadian,' even if it does "waste" some oh the money.  And this is nothing new: it has been this way, in America, Britain and Canada, for centuries. It is part of the political reality.

You are right of course.  I was living in that purple sky place again...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I could be wrong here, but merely wonder if some (a lot?) of the price difference between home built and foreign built ships has anything to do with our accounting methods (à la F-35) whereby the full cost of parts, maintenance, upgrades and new support facilities is included in the price of home built ships but on the other hand we only see the actual unit cost in other countries. Just speculating here - any one out there with the answer?

Also, it is important to remember that for anything short of a nuclear war, a country with a serious navy (and we are one of those) that feels it has a role to play on the world scene needs to be able to provide its own ships and their upgrade and upkeep. It is a strategic necessity. Should there be increased tensions or open warfare requiring a building program, other similarly minded nations with shipyards may not be willing to accommodate our needs until theirs have been filed - and then it may be too late. Weapons systems and C4I systems are easier and faster to acquire than the lead time required for the hulls and machinery to be put together.

I wholeheartedly agree, however, with two concepts described above: (1) The N.C.S.S. must not be another failure, which means that it must get the industry on a self perpetuating track. And (2) the best way to achieve this is to continually build, by deciding the fleet levels we wish to maintain together with a reasonable expected service life calculation, then add a small  "ships-in-reserve" factor (say for instance expected service life: 25 years; expected "in-reserve" life: 10 years; fleet requirements of 25 ships, with 10 to 12 more in reserve at all time = one new built commissioned every year in perpetuity).

There is, by the way, a happy medium between the "constant improvement" from ship to ship proposed above and the "all-similar" single class. It is the (real) batch system: four to six ships built to the same standard until the next iteration of the "same class" but upgraded next batch comes up or the next design comes on line after a "class' is altogether due for replacement. After all, while combat systems and weapons change quite fast, hulls and machinery do not evolve as fast. It combines most of the advantages of "single-class" for training, maintenance and retention of knowledge while permitting a constant mix of older/newer combat systems/weapons to face any threat. In a "perpetual plan" like the one I described above, this would mean that, at any given time, the fleet may consist of one or two class of ships (which would happen in any transition between classes) made of two or three different batches, the more recent ones being updated versions of the older batches.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think your on to something about the "continuous build" strategy.

Some of the European yards have been in business since they were hiring carvers for Dragons on the long boats.  They have continually improved and upgraded as they responded to, and created, new technologies.

Canada has no such tradition.

I still would prefer that that cost of building the industry were borne by the HRDC and Industry Canada and not DND.

 

[Lineman]

As a civilian of this country I will endeavor to "stay in my lane" regarding the ships themselves. However I do have a vested interest in how and where our government spends the dollars I hand over.
I'll make this clear to begin with; I am a supporter of our military and want nothing but the best for the defense of our country and to enable our men and women, when asked, to overwhelmingly destroy our enemies with as little as loss of life and limbs as possible. Procuring the means to do this however must not be at the expense of becoming reliant on foreign manufacturers and most importantly not when we can have the means to build them ourselves. Our military has a duty to defend this country, our government has a duty to defend it's economy, those duties must find a balance.
Yes, I know it will cost 4 or 5 times more than a foreign procurement, but having workers on each coast employed and spending their money here as opposed to Danes or Dutch spending Canadian dollars "over there" is a no-brainer. I also realize not all the money spent building these ships in Canada will stay here but it's better than none of it.
That being said, I am in agreement and concerned that this whole process is seemingly slowing to a crawl (yet again). I understand the need to budget but shouldn't  appropriate inflationary influences have been built into it?

I'll now retreat back to my position as observer