• 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
Halifax Tar said:
Yikes

www.cheknews.ca

Top general worries about maintaining Pacific fleet on current budget 'trajectory'

Canada's top soldier says the military's ability to keep funding a "persistent presence" of warships in the western Pacific is facing challenges on the current budget.
www.cheknews.ca www.cheknews.ca
Click to expand...
Nice to see he's speaking to it; the GoC change to increase Pacific deployments coming out about a month after the 'Reconstitution' announcement was essentially a giant FU to what seemed like what was intended to be a genuine attempt at getting to a status quo that would let us actually rebuild, and instead turned it into a punchline.


Guess there is a freedom at the end of your tenure as CDS where you no long worry about the politics bit.
 
Navy_Pete said:
@Colin Parkinson thanks for sharing that; I love seeing this kind of thing, especially after doing a few DWPs. Big job but better then craning it out in pieces anyway.
Click to expand...
I was working at the site the other day. They have a massive amount of blocking inside the gap in the hull. I suspect they will lift, slide and then lower the next engine out. They are being very diligent about waterline checks on the drydock. As they can't afford anything to go wrong with such a large opening in the ship's hull.
 
dapaterson said:
Stay classy, Davie.

nationalpost.com

Davie Shipyard suing Ottawa to prevent any disclosure of shipbuilding strategy deal

The company hopes to stop the government from releasing any of the agreement that made it eligible for billions in federal contracts.
nationalpost.com nationalpost.com
Click to expand...
For a company that has done nothing but complain since coming in third they seem to have missed how GoC contracts work. The UA has already been ATId for both other shipyards and was mostly released, with a few sections that were commercially confidential excised out.

I'm interested in taking a read of it now when they lose their court challenge, but it's probably the same terrible contract language as the other two with some clauses that are so convoluted you can't understand them (and our own lawyer that drafted them couldn't interpret it either). Tried to get them to be updated for plain language but had no luck with that can of worms.
 
Navy_Pete said:
For a company that has done nothing but complain since coming in third they seem to have missed how GoC contracts work. The UA has already been ATId for both other shipyards and was mostly released, with a few sections that were commercially confidential excised out.

I'm interested in taking a read of it now when they lose their court challenge, but it's probably the same terrible contract language as the other two with some clauses that are so convoluted you can't understand them (and our own lawyer that drafted them couldn't interpret it either). Tried to get them to be updated for plain language but had no luck with that can of worms.
Click to expand...
The result of "cut and paste" generation compiling bits and pieces from other contracts, while losing context of the original clause.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
The result of "cut and paste" generation compiling bits and pieces from other contracts, while losing context of the original clause.
Click to expand...
You would think so, but no, this was an older lawyer and a bespoke clause written expressly for the UA. It was just incredibly confusingly written.

We knicknamed it the 'Contracty McContractyface' clause because it used the term every few words, and basically made enforcing the penalty for not meeting Target State difficult if we had to try and enforce it because the contract term was so confusing. If it's still in there and not redacted you will see what I mean.

Also tried to get 'mutatis mutandis' and some other lawyerly terms removed and have those paras rewritten but same can of worms no one wanted to reopen.

I think it was an attempt to make an 'iron clad' clause that had no alternate interpretations that instead resulted in something unenforceable because it was un-interpretable. I'm guessing their lawyer couldn't make heads or tails of it either, but was experienced enough to not argue over a penalty clause that was unenforceable gibberish (in the highly unlikely event we actually tried to enforce it anyway).

Plain language contracts can argueably be more open to interpretation, but I think it's better to have the intent clearly laid out so the actual people working the contract understand it vice being buried behind a wall of legalese. Lawyers will always parse interpretations, so a lot more practical to simply write out what you actually want.

Weirdly there is actually a TBS directive to use plain language communications but nothing for the lawyers. I think some of them resist it as a form of gatekeeping, and miss the fact that the contract is an agreement between two parties who aren't lawyers. No one was asking for it to be dumbed down, but should at least be intelligible to experienced executives on both sides.

One gripe I have with lawyers in the GoC is that a lot of them act like it's their contract, vice actually listening what their client is saying, and then not actually answering the questions they are asked. They tend to give terrible advice or never actually answer the question (but frequently get into your swimlane) and get annoyed when you ignore their bad advice because it isn't actually relevant. Asking for different legal representatives makes friends as well. I really hated that posting.
 
I should also add that I'm fairly certain Davie used to ATI files from NSS regularly while trying to get into the 3rd shipyard, and wouldn't be surprised if ISI and VSY did the same after contract award.

If anyone is curious here is the list of previously released ATIs on the Umbrella Agreement from the ATI site; I think you can just request previously released ones, even if they are older than the 4 year limit on the standard search tool the downloadable database goes back about 15ish years. There are around 94 other requests just on 'National Shipbuilding'

Completed Access to Information Request Summaries dataset - Completed Access to Information Request Summaries dataset - Open Government Portal

20147A-2014-00164Umbrella agreement documentation/records and amendments regarding the National Shipbuilding Procurem…Documents/dossiers relatifs à une entente-cadre et aux modifications connexes pour le contrat conclu…DP79114pwgsc-tpsgcPublic Services and Procurement Canada | Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada
201212A-2012-00435Umbrella agreement(s) signed with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. under the National Shipbuilding Procureme…Ententes-cadres signées avec Les Chantiers Maritimes Irving Inc. dans le cadre de la Stratégie natio…DP22114pwgsc-tpsgcPublic Services and Procurement Canada | Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada
20134A-2012-00271Umbrella Agreements/Contracts signed between Canada and Irving and Canada Seaspan Shipyards under th…Accords-cadres/contrats signés entre le Canada ainsi que les chantiers Irving et Seaspan dans le cad…DP79114pwgsc-tpsgcPublic Services and Procurement Canada | Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada
20147A-2014-00163Umbrella agreement documentation/records and amendments regarding the National Shipbuilding Procurem…Documents/dossiers relatifs à une entente-cadre et aux modifications connexes pour le contrat conclu…DP79114pwgsc-tpsgcPublic Services and Procurement Canada | Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada
201212A-2012-00466Umbrella agreement signed with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. in February 2012Entente-cadre conclue Les Chantiers Maritimes Irving Inc. en février 2012.DP22114pwgsc-tpsgcPublic Services and Procurement Canada | Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada
20132A-2012-00729Umbrella agreement between Federal Government and Irving Shipbuilding Inc.Accord-cadre entre le gouvernement fédéral et Irving Shipbuilding Inc.DP22114pwgsc-tpsgcPublic Services and Procurement Canada | Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada
20133A-2011-00672Umbrella agreements with Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. (Seaspan Marine) and Irving Shipbuilding Inc.…Accords-cadres avec Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. (Seaspan Marine) et Irving Shipbuilding Inc. pour l…DP79114pwgsc-tpsgcPublic Services and Procurement Canada | Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada
20134A-2012-00440Umbrella agreements signed between the Federal Government and Irving Shipbuilding Inc and Vancouver…Accords-cadres signés entre le gouvernement fédéral ainsi que les entreprises Irving Shipbuilding In…DP79114pwgsc-tpsgcPublic Services and Procurement Canada | Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada
20191A-2018-00664Briefing notes 32039960: Extending Backstop Liability Date of Umbrella Agreement with Vancouver Ship…
 
CRCN, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee gave some interesting information about 2024/2025 milestones/info for the various projects currently undertaken by the RCN in an interview with The Naval Association of Canada last month. Transcript pdf is linked here. I have trimmed up some of the quotes to make things concise but the overall document is a great read.

"We're now seeing the timelines for them to build AOPS are continuing to come down. In fact, they are coming down to the point where it might actually cause a concern, because they might deliver the eighth and final (vessel) for the Coast Guard before we're ready to build a Canadian Surface Combatant. And we want to make sure that we maintain that workforce throughout. So right now we're, we're looking at that (issue). We're trying to figure out is there going to be a production gap there, and what would we do about that if we can. And in my perfect world we would pull the Canadian surface combatants closer to the start…we'd pull it (the program timeline) left and start a little bit earlier. We just have to know, from a design maturity point of view, (if it would be possible) to be able to do stuff like that."

"So AOPS is a success. And in terms of milestones for 2024, that's the delivery of Frederick Rolette, number five and then right after that, in 2025, the delivery of Robert Hampton Gray, the sixth and final AOPS for the Navy. They (Irving Shipyard) have already cut steel and laid the keel for the two AOPS for the Coast Guard. So that program is doing great."

"Meanwhile, we've got the joint support ship out on the West Coast, so the future HMCS PROTECTEUR is fully assembled there, you know, doing all of the, you know, installing all the pipes, pulling all the cables, to make sure that that ship is fitted out and ready to go. The ship will be launched next year. It'll be delivered to the Navy in 2025. We are seeing that that ship could have been built faster if we had a mature design at the beginning of construction. But we're benefiting from all those lessons as we deliver JSS Hull Two. The Coast Guard is benefiting, as they deliver the offshore oceanographic and science vessel in between the two JSS. So, again, that program, a Success. Delivery of JSS1 in 2025 and JSS2 in 2027."

"On the Canadian Surface Combatant project, next year is going to be a big year. We are looking for a Treasury Board Submission that should bring us into implementation contracting for the first batch of three ships. So next year, contracting TB submission into implementation, the first batch of three into delivery and cutting steel on the production test module, looking ahead to 2025. That's when we'll go to full rate production. So, we'll actually start to build the components of that ship that will be part of CSC number one."

"The other big thing we're looking forward to in (20)24, because we're going stop calling it the Canadian Surface Combatant; we're looking forward to getting it a class name. As I've said before, it will be a destroyer. It needs to have a name so that we can start to really take pride in the future of that class."

"CSC number one is going to be less than the capability we deliver…(with) CSC number 15. We're deliberately going to build the first batch of three, just to make sure we gain the efficiencies, and the certainty of building three, because just the length of time it takes to build them. You know, by the time we deliver number one, we've got to have already started building number (two and) three and we’re well advanced. Beyond that, we are exploring what makes the most sense from the point of view of batches and flights. So batches, more ships of the same type, same general, sort of capability. (Whereas) flight (is) where we see an improvement in capability. Across the 15 Canadian surface combatants I'd say it's a safe bet to say we're probably going to wind up with two flights to them.

"I have lots of thoughts on that (MCDV replacement). It would be great to have something, some form of high-end Corvette…they can take some of the burden off of the Halifax class and the future Canadian Surface Combatants all the way down to know what do we really need…and if the mission is just understanding what's happening on and under the waters and more of a constabulary role, then we can replace them (major warships) with something that's a lot like what they are right now, (the MCDV) which is a relatively simple ship, not heavily armed."

"Maybe it is, like I said, a high-end Corvette or a frigate of some sort that really can be an adjunct in battle to the Canadian Surface Combatant. We're not sure. We really want to make sure we take the time to try to find that requirement as best we can. And maybe the answer is not a single platform. Maybe the answer is a couple of different things. The other thing that we know that the future of the Navy is likely to evolve… 24 vertical launch cells is not enough on the Surface Combatant to do everything that we need that ship to do in future warfare. But the solution may not be adding more cells to that ship. The solution might be creating ships, you know, small ships that are effectively built around the idea of a 24, 36, or 48 cell, vertical launch system. They don't have all the sophisticated combat system to, you know, to fire those missiles, but they can respond to the orders from the Canadian Surface Combatant or another combatant to, to engage when required."

"Another thing, looking ahead to 2024, that we're looking for, some clarity on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project. A memorandum to the Cabinet, to Government, providing them with options that they can look at to decide what is it (we) need in terms of a submarine capability going forward to replace the Victoria class. And finally, to deliver on the promise that we made in 1999 when we delivered the Upholders, as the Victoria class, to say, “Hey, look, we're buying this to tide us over until we can deliver the submarine that Canada really needs.” (I’m) looking forward to a lot of movement on that front next year, as we define what exactly will that look like."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Retired AF Guy
    • Like
Departmental Results Report 2022-2023
Replies
2
Views
8K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
GR66
    • Insightful
Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) Taiwan Wargames
Replies
0
Views
9K
GR66
GR66
dimsum
MND Mandate Letter 2021
2
Replies
25
Views
39K
FJAG
FJAG
Kirkhill
    • Like
    • Insightful
The Decline of the Liberal Party- Swerved Into a Confederation Topic
26 27 28
Replies
558
Views
219K
Fishbone Jones
Fishbone Jones
Retired AF Guy
  • Article Article
V-Adm Art McDonald new Canadian CDS (Jan-Feb 2021)
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
142K
brihard
B
Back
Top