New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[AlexanderM]

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

On this overall shipbuilding program we could overspend by as much as $10 billion dollars.  So, if we did buy from other countries we could use the order to get a full free trade deal with the EU, and get value added contracts back, much like we do with the US, all of which would employ Canadians.  Then, take that $10 billion we save and put it into much needed infrastructure programs right across the country, or into other much needed programs that will generate employment.  My guess is, all that combined will employ as many or more Canadians than what we will see out of the planned program. 

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The IRB's would be spread pretty thin in that situation, and we'd have the same block obsolesence problem we have today.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

To defend the shipyards, in particular the Westcoast yards, as I know nothing about the east coast yards. They are quite good at doing repairs and such for the commercial world and have a good rep for doing decent work, quickly. However they need new builds to help recapitalize and renew their infrastructure. This issue goes beyond naval vessels and includes vessels such as ferries, Coast Guard, etc. Otherwise the yards will slowly decay and there will be no domestic yards capable of repairing and maintaining the large naval and Coast Guard ships planned.

 

[Kirkhill]

There has to be a better balance between what the Canadian taxpayer is expected to stump up for vessel and the lifestyle to which the yards, in particular the East Coasters, seem to wish to become accustomed.

A very large hull, complete with mechanicals, navigation aids and communications, and capable of sailing any seas in the world, can be built for $200,000,000.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-daewoo-order-idUSTRE71H0N820110218

That becomes my bottom line.

If all I want is a floating platform from which I can fly a Canadian flag, stow some gear and land a helicopter or two, then my budget is $200,000,000 per platform.

If it is determined that some folks out there don't like the Canadian flag then it is appropriate to buy some useful defensive weapons, under a separate budget, and park them on the platform.

Finally, to deal with those recalcitrants that still don't get the message, it is appropriate to dedicate some hulls to the sole task of carrying weapons.  In those cases the hulls will still cost $200,000,000 - or even significantly less - but the weapons packages will push costs upwards and dwarf the actual cost of the hull.

Patrol Vessels and Transport vessels don't fall into the latter category.  Anti-Air Warfare vessels certainly do, as do submarines.

 

[AlexanderM]

There has to be a better balance between what the Canadian taxpayer is expected to stump up for vessel and the lifestyle to which the yards, in particular the East Coasters, seem to wish to become accustomed.

A very large hull, complete with mechanicals, navigation aids and communications, and capable of sailing any seas in the world, can be built for $200,000,000.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-daewoo-order-idUSTRE71H0N820110218

That becomes my bottom line.

If all I want is a floating platform from which I can fly a Canadian flag, stow some gear and land a helicopter or two, then my budget is $200,000,000 per platform.

If it is determined that some folks out there don't like the Canadian flag then it is appropriate to buy some useful defensive weapons, under a separate budget, and park them on the platform.

Finally, to deal with those recalcitrants that still don't get the message, it is appropriate to dedicate some hulls to the sole task of carrying weapons.  In those cases the hulls will still cost $200,000,000 - or even significantly less - but the weapons packages will push costs upwards and dwarf the actual cost of the hull.

Patrol Vessels and Transport vessels don't fall into the latter category.  Anti-Air Warfare vessels certainly do, as do submarines.

Kirkhill, if this was the case, I'd be very pleased.  I'd even be happy if the hull cost $600 million, becuase we could add $600 million in weapon systems and still be within budget.  This is the part that confuses me, to no end.  When we look at the cost of other warships built by the Dutch and Danes, the cost of the weapon systems are pretty much fixed, and we will pay about the same as they did.  So the only increase in price is the hull.  So if I see a quote for a Canadian destroyer at $2.5 billion, I know the weapons systems are going to cost maybe $600 million, and that's being generous, so where is the balance of the money going?  Are they suggesting that the hull is costing $1.9 billion?  It certainly seems that way.  Same thing with the supply ships.  We've seen an estimate of $2 billion per, so what the heck are we building?  A Berlin Class at $2 billion per is ridiculous.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

There has to be a better balance between what the Canadian taxpayer is expected to stump up for vessel and the lifestyle to which the yards, in particular the East Coasters, seem to wish to become accustomed.

A very large hull, complete with mechanicals, navigation aids and communications, and capable of sailing any seas in the world, can be built for $200,000,000.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-daewoo-order-idUSTRE71H0N820110218

That becomes my bottom line.

That's built to commercial standards, and I'm not aware of a "really big container ship" requirement.

If all I want is a floating platform from which I can fly a Canadian flag, stow some gear and land a helicopter or two, then my budget is $200,000,000 per platform.

No, that's your "buying a really big container ship in volume numbers" bottom line. Adding helo gear and military transport would mean a completely different hull and price. Even buying just one container ship would mean a completely different price.

If it is determined that some folks out there don't like the Canadian flag then it is appropriate to buy some useful defensive weapons, under a separate budget, and park them on the platform.

Umm...right. What could possibly go wrong with that plan?  :

Finally, to deal with those recalcitrants that still don't get the message, it is appropriate to dedicate some hulls to the sole task of carrying weapons.  In those cases the hulls will still cost $200,000,000 - or even significantly less - but the weapons packages will push costs upwards and dwarf the actual cost of the hull.

It would better to give the money to the Air Force. We'd be much more likely to get something useful out of it at the end.

Honestly, this is just a really bad idea.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm going to pour fuel on the fire by noting that the crewing requirement for a "really big hull" (standards bedammed  ;D), operating 24/7, year in and year out, is 19, reducible to 13.

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/1106dp_the_worlds_largest_ship_maersk_triple_e/

Triple-E Spec:
Vessel: Triple-E
Owner: Maersk Line
Manufacturer: Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering
Scheduled for delivery: 2013
Cost: $190 million per vessel
Length: 437.44 yards (400 meters)
Beam (width): 193.57 feet (59 meters)
Height: 79.83 yards (73 meters)
Draught: 47.57 feet (14.5 meters)
Deadweight: 165,000 metric tons
Reefer container capacity: 600
Top speed: 23 knots
Crew: Normal operation 19 (possible to operate with 13)

Read more: http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/1106dp_the_worlds_largest_ship_maersk_triple_e/#ixzz2Of7O9vW5

Now I know that the Navy's requirements are not those of the Civvy world.  But equally it is really obvious that the RCN is doing a pispoor job of explaining and justifying its requirements and the shipyards are doing an equally poor job of explaining why their numbers are so far out of sync with those of the rest of the civilized world (USN and US yards excluded).

By the way, how many ADCAPs or Harpoons do you reckon it would take to put a Triple E on the bottom?  How long would it take 19 crew to make it to the lifeboats?

 

[Monsoon]

So if I see a quote for a Canadian destroyer at $2.5 billion, I know the weapons systems are going to cost maybe $600 million, and that's being generous, so where is the balance of the money going?  Are they suggesting that the hull is costing $1.9 billion?  It certainly seems that way.  Same thing with the supply ships.  We've seen an estimate of $2 billion per, so what the heck are we building?  A Berlin Class at $2 billion per is ridiculous.

:brickwall:
Have we learned nothing from the F-35 saga? When the Canadian government buys things, it applies lifecycle costing. If you see a quote for a Canadian destroyer at $2.5B, that's a price that includes every conceivable cost associated with the project: crewing, operating, maintaining (including upgrading and sustaining maintenance facilities), etc over the whole life (25-35 years) of the ship. The crew costs alone would be over $500M. I know I'm not the first person to say this in this very thread: the costs you see on the web for ships at various shipyards are simply not comparable to the project cost for ships we use in the Canadian government.

Now I know that the Navy's requirements are not those of the Civvy world.  But equally it is really obvious that the RCN is doing a pispoor job of explaining and justifying its requirements and the shipyards are doing an equally poor job of explaining why their numbers are so far out of sync with those of the rest of the civilized world (USN and US yards excluded).

See above.

By the way, how many ADCAPs or Harpoons do you reckon it would take to put a Triple E on the bottom?  How long would it take 19 crew to make it to the lifeboats?

You'd definitely want to know the answer to that question, because it would certainly be the biggest target on the water. But my guess is that one Mk 48 would take it down surprisingly quickly.

 

[AlexanderM]

The current $35 billion over 30 year shipbuilding program is purchase cost only.  It is the budget for 'the shipbuilding program,' nothing more.  Show me documentation specific to the program that states otherwise.

 

[Edward Campbell]

:brickwall:
Have we learned nothing from the F-35 saga? When the Canadian government buys things, it applies lifecycle costing. If you see a quote for a Canadian destroyer at $2.5B, that's a price that includes every conceivable cost associated with the project: crewing, operating, maintaining (including upgrading and sustaining maintenance facilities), etc over the whole life (25-35 years) of the ship. The crew costs alone would be over $500M. I know I'm not the first person to say this in this very thread: the costs you see on the web for ships at various shipyards are simply not comparable to the project cost for ships we use in the Canadian government.
See above.
You'd definitely want to know the answer to that question, because it would certainly be the biggest target on the water. But my guess is that one Mk 48 would take it down surprisingly quickly.

ff topic: follows

But do we, I wonder, understand what lifecycle costing means? It appears to me, after the F-35 saga, that we - meaning the CF, the cabinet, TB, the Librarian of Parliament (the Parliamentary Budget Officer's boss) and the Auditor  General do not, at the very least, agree on what the term means.

It would be helpful if the AG, in a negotiating mode, would tell cabinet that "I intend to apply these lifecycle cost factors to all projects with a value of over $nnn Million and a projected in service life of more than nn months." Cabinet, through the Treasury Board, could respond and, eventually, everyone might at least have a consistent set of rules. That still might not address the problems of understanding the rules and/or obeying them, nor would it address ignorant sensationalism by the media, but it would be a step in the right direction.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

By the way, how many ADCAPs or Harpoons do you reckon it would take to put a Triple E on the bottom?  How long would it take 19 crew to make it to the lifeboats?

Depends on what it's loaded with and how. That's a pretty big ship, if it only has one keel a Mk 48 would snap it in half.

OTOH, both halves may float for a long time, no lifeboats needed.

 

[Monsoon]

The current $35 billion over 30 year shipbuilding program is purchase cost only.  It is the budget for 'the shipbuilding program,' nothing more.  Show me documentation specific to the program that states otherwise.

Actually, I think the onus is on you to supply some evidence to back up what you've just asserted. I'd certainly be very surprised if that's the case, but if you're right I'd also appreciate being corrected on it. But I'm not just going to take your word for it. Are you an "industry insider"?

And if you're going by the name of the NSPS ("Shipbuilding Procurement") alone, I wouldn't put much faith in that: the cost of the F-35 "procurement" is very much driven by the lifecycle operations and maintenance costs.

 

[Navy_Pete]

There has to be a better balance between what the Canadian taxpayer is expected to stump up for vessel and the lifestyle to which the yards, in particular the East Coasters, seem to wish to become accustomed.

A very large hull, complete with mechanicals, navigation aids and communications, and capable of sailing any seas in the world, can be built for $200,000,000.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-daewoo-order-idUSTRE71H0N820110218

That becomes my bottom line.

If all I want is a floating platform from which I can fly a Canadian flag, stow some gear and land a helicopter or two, then my budget is $200,000,000 per platform.

If it is determined that some folks out there don't like the Canadian flag then it is appropriate to buy some useful defensive weapons, under a separate budget, and park them on the platform.

Finally, to deal with those recalcitrants that still don't get the message, it is appropriate to dedicate some hulls to the sole task of carrying weapons.  In those cases the hulls will still cost $200,000,000 - or even significantly less - but the weapons packages will push costs upwards and dwarf the actual cost of the hull.

Patrol Vessels and Transport vessels don't fall into the latter category.  Anti-Air Warfare vessels certainly do, as do submarines.

You do realize that the commercial container ship is much simpler then a navy supply ship that carries fuel, food, ammunition etc to supply a task group?  As soon as you add in the equipment to resupply other ships, apply the navy's damage control reqs, include self defence items for when it goes in harms way and all the other normal stuff navies do that containers hips don't, the costs increase significantly.  Using commercial ships as a benchmark isn't a great idea as they are simply not built to the same standards.  As soon as anything has to be shock/blast resistant, it will cost more.

Canada is part of the nato countries developing the Naval Ship code, an equivalent to the various class societies for warships.  To give you an idea though, for a lot of areas, the minimum threshold starts at or above class society/international regulation (ie SOLAS) requirements and then goes from there.  It's like going from a Ford Ranger with a tow hitch to big dualie when you look at the parts and structure.  Steel is thicker, there is more strucutre, more watertight compartments etc and all that comes with an associated cost.

For the actual warships, costs don't take long to add up when you include ammunition costs with the ship (missiles are millions each, so a 48 or 96 cell launcher system costs a lot to fill).  The launchers themselves costs a lot, then you add in fire control radars, some kind of combat suite, all the other sensors etc warships can easily cost a few billion depending on accounting.

Don't think anyone will be able to know the cost of JSS or AOPs until the design is solidified, then you can do real cost estimates based on the equipment onboard.  Don't doubt the PBO did their homework, but the project could easily cost a lot more or a lot less depedning on the design.  Also, if they include taxes in the costs, it artificially inflates costs to taxpayers as all of that is going right back to the government.  You have to take all these comparisons with a grain of salt as you can't compare costs directly unless you know all the details of what was and wasn't included.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to Mr. Campbell's point - we don't know the numbers.

In all the press releases that I have seen on the JSS, AOPS and CSC projects the reference was to the capital cost of procurement, a murky enough proposition compared to our allies who simply quote the unit price of a vessel, and the cost of supplying In Service Support for a defined period.  That period is usually on the order of 10 to 20 years.  Any projection beyond that would previously have been laughed out of the water.

The F35 horror show has changed that.  It took the projections out far beyond any known business norm and included the cost of pilots and coffee.
None of the numbers supplied on the ships, to my knowledge include the price of hiring and training the crews or of fish fries on the fantail.

That is why, in my modest proposal, I was at pains to set a limit of 1/3 of the project budgets for capital expenditure and then leave 2/3 for ISS and the CFF (Canadian Fudge Factor).

That proposal did not include the cost of hiring crews but it did undertake to supply as many hulls as possible within the manning limits and capital budgets available.

I don't know what is possible with the dollars and crews available but I do know that the publicly available information from our allies doesn't support the types of expenditures projected by Canadian yards and the RCN.

 

[Kirkhill]

You do realize that the commercial container ship is much simpler then a navy supply ship that carries fuel, food, ammunition etc to supply a task group?  As soon as you add in the equipment to resupply other ships, apply the navy's damage control reqs, include self defence items for when it goes in harms way and all the other normal stuff navies do that containers hips don't, the costs increase significantly.  Using commercial ships as a benchmark isn't a great idea as they are simply not built to the same standards.  As soon as anything has to be shock/blast resistant, it will cost more.

Canada is part of the nato countries developing the Naval Ship code, an equivalent to the various class societies for warships.  To give you an idea though, for a lot of areas, the minimum threshold starts at or above class society/international regulation (ie SOLAS) requirements and then goes from there.  It's like going from a Ford Ranger with a tow hitch to big dualie when you look at the parts and structure.  Steel is thicker, there is more strucutre, more watertight compartments etc and all that comes with an associated cost.

For the actual warships, costs don't take long to add up when you include ammunition costs with the ship (missiles are millions each, so a 48 or 96 cell launcher system costs a lot to fill).  The launchers themselves costs a lot, then you add in fire control radars, some kind of combat suite, all the other sensors etc warships can easily cost a few billion depending on accounting.

Don't think anyone will be able to know the cost of JSS or AOPs until the design is solidified, then you can do real cost estimates based on the equipment onboard.  Don't doubt the PBO did their homework, but the project could easily cost a lot more or a lot less depedning on the design.  Also, if they include taxes in the costs, it artificially inflates costs to taxpayers as all of that is going right back to the government.  You have to take all these comparisons with a grain of salt as you can't compare costs directly unless you know all the details of what was and wasn't included.

Yes I do realize that adding bulkheads adds cost.  I do realize that adding pumps adds cost.  I have no problem with adding costs to the project to add capabilities to a hull.  I cited the simple cost of building a ruddy great barge that can drive itself through the water at 25 knots with a crew of 13.  A barge big enough that it requires a pretty big wave to make it rock and the supplies a lot of free deck between a helicopter and the edge of the deck.  I don't see RAST gear on Invincible and she's only a tenth the size of these monsters.

I am not suggesting that we buy monsters (although that would make for an interesting strategy) but I am suggesting that $200,000,000 for a Triple E, or $300,000,000 for a Huitfeldt, or $70,000,000 for a Svalbard, or $400,000,000 for a Doorman does start to suggest an order of magnitude  cost for a simple vessel.  And 1 Billion dollars ain't it.

Yes weapons cost millions.  But the ships don't.  The missiles that we will be using on the CSCs, and possibly even the Mk41 launchers, are in all likelihood the same ones we are using on the Halifaxes and the Iroquois.    The radar and sonar suites will in all likelihood be new but look at the Fridtjofs, the F100s and the 7 Provincien to get a sense of that cost.  Take $200,000,000 for the hull off of the 7 Provinces and that still keeps the weapons and sensor suite at $500,000,000.  In the Fridtjof's case the same suite seems to be under $200,000,000.

I would note, with respect to ship size, that bigger ships are more survivable and that one of the rationales for a skinny crew in Euro ships, according to a US Coast Guard article that I attached in the Modest Proposal thread, was that even 6000 tonne ships were essentially one hit wonders and it wasn't worth planning to handle two strikes simultaneously.

Consequently, my view, Canada is better off putting a large number of relatively large, relatively simple platforms in the water with relatively small crews.

 

[AlexanderM]

I have found nothing that states the shipbuilding budget includes operational costs over time.  If anyone can find references for this please post them.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm going to pour fuel on the fire by noting that the crewing requirement for a "really big hull" (standards bedammed  ;D), operating 24/7, year in and year out, is 19, reducible to 13.

Now I know that the Navy's requirements are not those of the Civvy world.  But equally it is really obvious that the RCN is doing a pispoor job of explaining and justifying its requirements and the shipyards are doing an equally poor job of explaining why their numbers are so far out of sync with those of the rest of the civilized world (USN and US yards excluded).

Sure, it's fine to have a crew of 13.  Until something major breaks at sea or you have an engineering emergency (fire/flood) or you go into action.  You've also neglected to account for daily maintenance of the vessel and it's components.  The various systems (weapons, engineering, logistics) have their requirements in manpower to make it go. 

I'll agree that the IPMS systems being integrated into the HCM refits will (in theory) allow for a reduction in watch personnel to oversee the engineering needs in the MCR and is a reflection of technology marching forwards into the sunny 21st Century.  It is possible that one person could run the whole show from one location, in theory.  I don't know if they could effectively monitor all the systems and pages with one pair of eyes once all the bugs were worked out of the system and she could run as imagined/designed.  I know I damn well couldn't keep up with the necessary pages if all the different bells and whistles started going off at once.

I'm sorry but from my experience and POV, I just don't see the engineering side of the house being covered adequately by what would be a couple of guys full time.  Even if it was 1/3 of the compliment to be the whole engineering department (4.29 sailors) there's no way you'll have all the watches covered 24/7 and do the necessary maintenance (both corrective and planned) and mount an effective damage control team etc etc etc.

I'm sure that others from the different trades here both MSE, Combat and Logistics will be able to give additional input into this conversation.  From a Hull standpoint, I'm not convinced or comfortable with what you're proposing.

 

[Bass ackwards]

Consequently, my view, Canada is better off putting a large number of relatively large, relatively simple platforms in the water with relatively small crews.

Just out of curiosity, are you advocating something along the lines of a modern-day auxiliary cruiser (aka: armed merchant cruiser) ?

 

[RC]

It is worth noting that the $2B price tag for the JSS did not come from the shipyard and there were... inconsistencies in the PBO's approach to pricing a ship.  I price ships for a living and I would be very surprised if the JSS cost this much.

That said, I will make no such comment with respect to the East Coast and the AOPS/CSC.  They have not indicated prices for any of the ships yet either, but my impression is that they will be a black hole into which we will shovel money without ever really knowing when the pain will end.

The plan to renew shipbuilding could be a success on the West Coast.  There is a potential market for local ferries, ice classed vessels, high value added vessels to support Arctic resource extraction that they could tap into to fill the gaps in government contracts.  It's not an easy road, but it's possible.  Keep in mind that Seaspan is a marine operator with many of their own vessels to build and support as well. 

Unfortunately, i don't think Halifax has any intention at all of following that business model.  Hopefully, ill be proven wrong on that point (who knows, maybe they'll come back with a price of $120m per ship for the AOPS...), but I suspect I'm right.  It will be unfortunate if Seaspan's shot at success is ruined as a result.

 

[Monsoon]

I have found nothing that states the shipbuilding budget includes operational costs over time.  If anyone can find references for this please post them.

Here ya go: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/opepubs/tbm_162/gptbs-gppct-eng.pdf - you can start at page 54.

This is the only way that federal government procurement projects are costed, since about the early 2000s.