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

Not really. 

I not even proposing buying container ships.  My point goes more to the cost of building a vessel to commercial standards that can perform military duties.  Currently that model of procurement includes, in addition to container ships converted to Maritime Prepositioning Vessels:  the entire Dutch and Spanish fleets of AORs and LP(H)(A)(D); the RFA's and RAN's Oilers and LSD(A)s;  the RNZNs MPV Canterbury;  virtually every modern Armed Patrol Vessel operating in the Eastern Atlantic (and around the Falklands); and the Danish Navy's Absalon and Huitfeldt frigates.

These ships are the antithesis of the RN/USN model of procurement.

Bath Ironworks and BAE and Lockheed Martin will produce ships that conform to the pricing assumptions that the PBO identified.  Why wouldn't they?  They built the ships that he used as his sample set.

They're the ones that took a $50,000,000 (HSV-1) car ferry and turned into a $500,000,000 car ferry (LCS2).  They're the ones that build Billion dollar LSDs when the Dutch and Spanish are building functionally equivalent ships for a quarter to half of that price.

If you want to spend money like the USN and DOD then the RCN will end up with 2 Air Defence Frigates and enough spare cash for a dinghy.

Alternately you can choose to spend money like the Dutch.....

 
K, thanks for the clarification.
What you're saying makes perfect sense to me but I'm way out of my depth (no pun intended) on the subject.
 
RC said:
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.
Seaspan is US owned and looking to build an expanding business on a good reputation, but I'm concerned that Irving is just going to suck money out of Canadian taxpayers.  So, I agree.
 
So effectively what this thread has turned into is two employees of maritime industry companies that didn't win big in the NSPS, complaining loudly about what crooks and scoundrels the main winner of the NSPS is, do I have that about right? So riddle me this, gentlemen: if the Irving bid was so over-the-top, why couldn't the consortiums your companies were in under-bid them to win the competition?

To lay my own cards on the table here, my only interest is as someone who's in the RCN who'd like not to see industry lobbying and psyops do to the NSPS what happened to the F-35. So that's my agenda, AlexandreM: what's yours?
 
My only agenda is seeing our troops get good equipment without taxpayers paying through the nose.  And, the concerns are legit, Irving just got a $288 mllion dollar design contract which is more than double the cost of similar, existing AOP ships. It's ridiculous to pay that kind of money for design.  I graduated Cornwallis many, many years ago, course 8109.
 
I share Alexander's concerns. I want to see you and the RCN get at least the vessels the government promised you, the operator, and me, the defended taxpayer.

I design food processing plants and am not involved, currently, in any of the marine industries.

I used to supply food processing plants to the Northwest so I got to know the fishing companies up there and spent some time at sea on their vessels.  I also spent some time around the Vancouver, Victoria and Seattle dockyards installing processing plant on those vessels.

I have also conducted business around the Maritimes.

Cards on the table.

PS - And like you, hamiltongs, I don't want to see this take the flak the F-35 has taken, nor do I want to see the programmes disappear into oblivion like the earlier JSS and FWSAR and MSPS-SMP projects.  Or be downsized like the Hero class coastguard programme.
 
Kirkhill said:
I share Alexander's concerns. I want to see you and the RCN get at least the vessels the government promised you, the operator, and me, the defended taxpayer.
Kirkhill - my mini-rant wasn't directed at you in any way; you're a long-time Milnet.ca contributor on many forums here, and God knows there's plenty to criticize in the way the government does procurement.

One of the industry advocates (RC) has identified himself as such. Good. However, AlexandreM has yet again dodged making a clear statement that he doesn't work for a competitor of Irving's NSPS consortium. He joined Milnet.ca a handful of months ago and in the intervening time has posted only on forums relating to military procurement; the overwhelming majority of these have been NSPS-related. If he is an industry representative, that doesn't make his beliefs or the facts that he's able to back them up with any less legitimate, but it does allow the reader to contextualize what are quite often unsupported opinions. It would be a shame if Milnet.ca were used by the defence industry to try to stir up a debate on a respected CF discussion forum that a passing journalist might mistake for military members themselves complaining about the NSPS, as opposed to what it is: sour grapes.

So again: AlexandreM: do you work for a company that competes with Irving's consortium in the maritime/defence industry?
 
AlexanderM said:
No, I do not work for any such company.
Good enough (though I note the many ways in which someone with something to hide could weasel-word their way around my specific question). That being the case I'd just like to point out, before the conversation drifts that way, that we need to choose our words carefully when making accusations against people and companies, lest we be accused of defamation (my concern isn't with you, it's with the person who would get the lawyer's letter - our host here).
 
I am a complete outsider to the navy -- so my opinion is what it is. But I am a firm believer that quality products sell themselves, and that we should get value for the money we spend. Value, to me, means that we spend taxpayer's money and get equivalent firepower in return. If your factory, shipyard, boot company or rucksack sewing consortium makes a quality product, then it sells itself. If you make a substandard product, then it doesn't matter where we make it, or how many jobs it creates, it's still a substandard product.

Danes and Brits are walking around in harm's way right now with rifles made in Kitchener. Saudis are driving around in vehicles made in London. So I have no fundamental objections if the next generation of RCN warships is made in, for example, Wisconsin.

If Canadian shipyards are building high quality warships (AOPS, JSS and SCSC) then great. And we should also be selling them worldwide. I notice that nobody else in the world bought a Halifax class. I wonder why no one extended the production line after 1996? Canada alone is a pretty small market, and if made in Canada vessels are not going to be marketable in the world market, maybe we should just be buying off the shelf?
 
Quality has little to do with it, most countries with active navies also have a ship building industry and politicians and they balk just as loudly at billions going overseas that could garner jobs and votes back at home.
 
jollyjacktar said:
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.

JJT:

I wanted to take my time getting back to you because I don't feel comfortable challenging those that have the T-shirts.  I respect and appreciate the answers that those of that ilk supply. 

On the other hand I continue to try to understand the difference between the operating conditions of the Navy vice my limited knowledge and experience of the Civilian world.

I can understand the need for hands when things go pear-shaped, and trained hands at that.  It makes sense to me that a Combat vessel will require more bodies than a "ruddy great barge".  Equally it makes sense to me that sonar, radar, comms and weapons systems will all require spares, repairs and maintenance, as well as operators.  Those also will drive manning upwards.

What I am wondering though resolves itself into two questions:

What is the minimum number of personnel necessary to operate a vessel?
What number or personnel are necessary to supply redundancy over and above that minimum?

My intent is to discover, for my own interest, if it is possible and desirable to design and operate large ships with small crews safely.  The civilian world seems to supply examples of success in that regard. 

The Maersk ships operate with crews of 13 to 19 while at sea for 270 days out of the year and only in port while trans-shipping loads.  Those ships have a design life of 25 to 30 years. 

At the other end of the spectrum are factory trawlers displacing 5000 to 10000 tonnes, recovering 150 tonne bags of fish over the stern 2 to 3 times a day and dumping them into wet holds (fish tanks).  That is done in some pretty high seas 24/7 for weeks, if not months, at a time. The wheelhouse, engine room and deck crews in total number on the order of 20 to 30 people.  Everybody else is down below cutting up fish.  Those ships are very gear intensive: from the nav and comms systems, to the fish finding sonar that can see a halibut on a sand bottom, to the cameras that can see the nets, to the trawl winches that allow the fish master to fly a net as wide as a 747 a mile or so behind him and control the location and shape of its mouth.  And I haven't addressed my part of ship:  all the conveyors and pumps and fish filleting machines; the fish meal and oil plants and the surimi (japanese fish paste) systems; the RO water systems.  Those systems keep another 70 or so "passengers" employed 24/7, again for weeks and months at a time.

The desire for the small crew comes from: my sense that recruiting sailors, especially engineers, is a challenge; that those that are available are a valuable commodity; that small crews permit the available personnel to be spread across a larger fleet that can be in more places simultaneously and be performing more tasks;  and finally, that small crews reduce the number of lives that are put at risk on any one platform.

Corollaries to the last are that small crews can be evacuated more easily, are less likely to suffer casualties when distributed around a large volume than compressed into a small volume and additional vessels means that rescue is more likely to be close at hand.

At least so it seems to me.
 
The question you've posed Kirkhill is more akin to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".  Each class of vessel will have it's own unique requirements for manpower and equipment as per it's mission statement and design.

With future ships I have no doubt that the requirements for manpower if it came down to brass tacks will have to reduce as you will be able to do more with less.  The civilian ships you're compairing with are; however, built to civilian specifications for civilian uses and requirements.  I suppose for me it's a trust issue.  I don't "trust" present systems to the point where I would trust my life to their flawless operation.

Things fail, break and default on a regular basis.  But then, ships are like new cars.  They all work just fine when new, but as they get older they nickle and dime you to death and the friggin things have major breakdowns when you least need and expect it.  Murphy is a bitch.

From my experience as I've experienced it we are continually doing mostly corrective maintenance, rarely get a chance to do planned maintenance as scheduled on top of all the other hoops we need to jump through on a daily basis.  Perhaps your merchantmen are more basic in design and loadout and thus don't have the requirements our present fleet have in minders.  I also suspect that many of your civilian crews are also geared towards just sailing to the next port and don't have a great deal of concurrent activity until it's time to unload cargo and take on new stores/cargo.  It is also entirely possible that we are even so in some departments heavier than we need to be if you really push it.  I cannot and won't speak for the other departments, but for mine it seems as if there's never enough to go around to do all we need to do.  Lastly, we do have the built in (to the system) requirement for redundancy more often than not.

But at the end of the day, I'm just at the coal face so to speak.  The big picture is not part of my viewplane and the decisions of future fleet requirements are far above my pay grade and for every one you ask you'll no doubt get a different answer.  Or, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  Your question is nevertheless a good one and I'm sure someone, somewhere, is giving it serious consideration.
 
I thought I would add some detail to the factory trawlers I was familiar with.

These were designed by Guido Perla for Norwegian clients operating out of Seattle:

Northern Hawk
Northern Jaeger
Northern Eagle
Alaska Ocean

Here is the Ulstein Group's information on the Hawk, Eagle and Ocean as well as another vessel I know, American Dynasty

Alaska Ocean
Northern Hawk
Northern Eagle
American Dynasty

A similar vessel, the American Monarch, was built in the late 90s at a fully outfitted cost of $68,000,000
 
hamiltongs said:
Good enough (though I note the many ways in which someone with something to hide could weasel-word their way around my specific question). That being the case I'd just like to point out, before the conversation drifts that way, that we need to choose our words carefully when making accusations against people and companies, lest we be accused of defamation (my concern isn't with you, it's with the person who would get the lawyer's letter - our host here).

Hopefully my comments did not come off as anything more than idle speculation as that's all that they are.  I find it presumptuous of you to assume that they are in any way sour grapes.  I do have an interest in AOPS, but it is finished now and my comments derive from the fact that I would really like to see the program be successful, not because I compete with Irving in any way; i don't.  Quite frankly, i take offense to your insinuation that I'm taking cheap shots at them to advance my own interests.  I'm giving my opinion on a topic that interests me and that
I know something about, nothing more.

Is this not a thread for discussing NSPS?  My interest, as it seems is others, is to see good ships get built.  I'll add that I certainly do want to see them built in Canada provided it makes sense to do so.  The theory behind NSPS was to make it make sense to do so, but in opinion, Irving is not marching to that beat and does not seem interested in doing so.  I don't want to lobby against them, I don't want to see them fail.  Quite the opposite.  I want to see them be wildly successful and build eight AOPS, followed by a successful CSC program and build a successful maritime industry, but I fear that this will not be the case given the current direction.

Ok, rant over.  I see what you are saying about psyops/lobbying wreaking havoc on a program and that is not my intent by posting my opinion on an anonymous message board.  Sorry if it came off that way.
 
Kirkhill said:
I can understand the need for hands when things go pear-shaped, and trained hands at that.  It makes sense to me that a Combat vessel will require more bodies than a "ruddy great barge".  Equally it makes sense to me that sonar, radar, comms and weapons systems will all require spares, repairs and maintenance, as well as operators.  Those also will drive manning upwards.

What I am wondering though resolves itself into two questions:

What is the minimum number of personnel necessary to operate a vessel?
What number or personnel are necessary to supply redundancy over and above that minimum?

My intent is to discover, for my own interest, if it is possible and desirable to design and operate large ships with small crews safely.  The civilian world seems to supply examples of success in that regard. 

Kirkhill, i'm no expert in military manning either, but my understanding of the difference is that the navy has two fundamental requirements that civvy ships don't have:

One is that everything works as intended all the time.  On a merchant ship you do failure mode analysis and build redundancy into systems and crewing to make sure that you keep running, but at any one time, you might have a number of things that are broken.  That's fine as long as the broken bits friends are still up and running.  On a Navy ship, that's not an option.  You need to constantly have the redundancy available.  So if something breaks it needs to be fixed right away to ensure that if its partner subsequently breaks the ship isn't placed in danger.  In short, on a civilian ship, redundancy is there to be used, but on a navy ship it is there as life insurance and must always be available.  A civilian ship will fly in a tech from shore to fix things after a week, but a navy must do it themselves and do it right now.

Two, I think you touched on, but if things go bad on a civilian ship (severe fire, flood), you abandon the ship, no question about it.  The opposite is true on a navy ship.  Thus, the crew numbers must be there to ensure that if things go bad and in some cases, really, really bad, they keep on fighting to save the ship until they just can't anymore.

I'm not quite clear if you are trying to rationalize the crewing requirements of a large civilian ship, or the cost differential of the hull for large civilian ships vs. naval ships, but in either case, the two differences above account for most of the delta as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, I had an interesting discussion with one of the designers of the FREMM about why they had gone with a more civilian style hull on those ships.  His argument was that weapons have developed to the point that the hull has little role in protecting the ship.  If you get hit you are finished.  Thus, it makes sense to save money on the hull and invest it in other defensive measures that prevent you from being hit in the first place.  His opinion seems to be that naval hull design is outmoded by weapons technology, so you may be on to something if he is right.
 
RC said:
.....

I'm not quite clear if you are trying to rationalize the crewing requirements of a large civilian ship, or the cost differential of the hull for large civilian ships vs. naval ships, but in either case, the two differences above account for most of the delta as far as I can tell.

.....

I think I am just trying to understand the future requirement for a naval vessel, both with respect to the nature of a suitable platform for specific roles as well as the size of the crew necessary.  My understanding is that two of the limiting factors in fleet design are available manpower and the associated costs as well as the classification of the builds.  As I looked for information I saw what I perceived as a significant delta growing between the USN and its practices and the Europeans and their practices in the time frame since Canada built the CPFs.  The RN seems to be straddling the divide but even it is moving towards the Europeans and away from the USN.  The Aussies and the Kiwis?  They always do things differently anyways - I think it comes from standing on their heads.  :)

 
Thanks for the link Pat.

51 pages will take a bit of going through.

It is interesting to note that the opening comment makes reference to the need for 12,000 PYs to man the RNs two CVFs on the grounds that that is how the USN mans their CVNs.  CVN-77 apparently has a ships crew of about 3200 and an air wing of an additional 2400 or so, depending on source.

The RNs CVFs will have total accommodation for about 1600 to 1800 with a ships crew of 600 or so.  The rest are for the air wing and for C2 staff.
 
RC said:
Kirkhill, i'm no expert in military manning either, but my understanding of the difference is that the navy has two fundamental requirements that civvy ships don't have:

One is that everything works as intended all the time.  On a merchant ship you do failure mode analysis and build redundancy into systems and crewing to make sure that you keep running, but at any one time, you might have a number of things that are broken.  That's fine as long as the broken bits friends are still up and running.  On a Navy ship, that's not an option.  You need to constantly have the redundancy available.  So if something breaks it needs to be fixed right away to ensure that if its partner subsequently breaks the ship isn't placed in danger.  In short, on a civilian ship, redundancy is there to be used, but on a navy ship it is there as life insurance and must always be available.  A civilian ship will fly in a tech from shore to fix things after a week, but a navy must do it themselves and do it right now.

Two, I think you touched on, but if things go bad on a civilian ship (severe fire, flood), you abandon the ship, no question about it.  The opposite is true on a navy ship.  Thus, the crew numbers must be there to ensure that if things go bad and in some cases, really, really bad, they keep on fighting to save the ship until they just can't anymore.

I'm not quite clear if you are trying to rationalize the crewing requirements of a large civilian ship, or the cost differential of the hull for large civilian ships vs. naval ships, but in either case, the two differences above account for most of the delta as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, I had an interesting discussion with one of the designers of the FREMM about why they had gone with a more civilian style hull on those ships.  His argument was that weapons have developed to the point that the hull has little role in protecting the ship.  If you get hit you are finished.  Thus, it makes sense to save money on the hull and invest it in other defensive measures that prevent you from being hit in the first place.  His opinion seems to be that naval hull design is outmoded by weapons technology, so you may be on to something if he is right.

As I recall many of our naval ships suffered complete failures of their main gun armament, include HMCS Restigouche 3"/70 turret being jammed while arresting the drug boat. I have to wonder at the limited amount of armament on our ships compared to what you would see on a similar Soviet ship. As for the hull not counting for much, I guess that depends on what hits you, a torpedo under the keel will ruin most ships days, but lesser munitions can be contained by compartmentalization and good damage control systems. I often wondered how a Tiger class cruiser would have fared against Exocet's in the Falklands 
 
Back
Top