New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Edward Campbell]

I'm drifting waaaay out of my lanes, but, in Hong Kong, in waters full of junk and debris, these vessels go back and forth to/from Macau at very high speeds, day and night.

 

 

 

[Cyrius007]

These "wings" boat are the next big thing in the naval architecture industry. I'm pretty sure we'll see them in military marine quite soon. Fast, manoeuverable, less exposed to underwater threat... but I think they can carry less weight.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Nice pics ERC.

The one in the middle is one of those Boeing "jetfoils" that made the Seattle-Victoria run.

The danger is not junk and debris generally, which is now found everywhere in the world, but something quite particular to the West coast of Canada inside Vancouver Island: Deadheads and logs.

Basically, on the West coast, the logging industry works this way: They cut the trees on the slopes of the coast and float them by attaching them together to form huge rafts pulled by tugs to the sawmills. These tugs (famous for their high speeds of two knots ) are out in all sort of weather and many logs fall off along the route and drift all over the place. Ever heard of the "Beachcomber"? It was a show based on a real job out West. People in small boat comb the beaches and waters to find some of those lost logs and bring them in the sawmills for good money. These logs, over time, become water logged and float just under the surface or, worse, tip so that they become vertical and only show a little bit of their tip at the surface (deadheads). They can be from 2 to 5-6 feet in diameter and 50 to 60 feet long, weighing tons, especially when water logged. Merchant ships don't mind them, but anything smaller, including thin hulled warships, must always be on the look out for them because they can severely damage your hull, even sink you. The YAGS and old sweepers, with their wooden hulls, were particularly at risk and we often came very close to disaster.

Those are the "things" that the Jetfoils hit a few times on the coast and it shredded their foils while at speed. Not a pretty sight.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

These "wings" boat are the next big thing in the naval architecture industry. I'm pretty sure we'll see them in military marine quite soon. Fast, manoeuverable, less exposed to underwater threat... but I think they can carry less weight.

Nah!

They have been around for a while and never made their mark as military vessels.

The American had the Pegasus class, and they  ended up doing drug interdiction in the Gulf of Mexico - nothing else. Never found an effective use for them, not even special forces.

The Italians probably have the largest force of them, the Sparviero's, and they use them as defensive fast attack crafts, but they only carry two missiles each and one 76mm gun with very limited ammunition (basically what fits in the ready use racks, that's it).

Besides, contrary to what has been mentioned above on the reason for not developing HMCS BRAS D'OR further, lack of capability in ice was one of the minor reason. The most important one was fuel consumption combined with the arrival of an alternative.

BRAS D'OR was conceived in the late 50's as one of the potential answers to the high underwater speeds of nuclear submarines, that could easily outperform surface ships of the time. As the Allies searched for answers, these hydrofoils were one of the potential avenues. Their advantage over current ships: speed and stealth. Their disadvantages: much shorter legs and near impossibility to refuel at sea and even more important, to resupply in torpedoes once the six in tubes were gone. In the end, the first oil crisis pushing price of fuel way up and the arrival of a new kid on the block killed the project. The new kid: Shipborne, nearly all weather heavy AS helicopter (the sea King). Again, though, it was  a Canadian inovation.

 

[cphansen]

These "wings" boat are the next big thing in the naval architecture industry. I'm pretty sure we'll see them in military marine quite soon. Fast, manoeuverable, less exposed to underwater threat... but I think they can carry less weight.

When you're talking about Winged boats, are you talking about hydrofoils or GEV / WIG vessels like the proposed Boeing Pelician or thr Russian Kaspian Monster?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'm drifting waaaay out of my lanes, but, in Hong Kong, in waters full of junk and debris, these vessels go back and forth to/from Macau at very high speeds, day and night.

Not an uncommon view, when we say the debris is 2' most people think it's that long, we say no it's that wide, at least....

A picture of the Fraser river debris trap meant to reduce a bit of the debris.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Wow!    Yes, that makes the debris floating in the Zhujiang River Estuary look pretty tame.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

People try to flag the worse ones

Publicworks used to run snag boats on the river

 

[mad dog 2020]

Just saw this and recall earlier the size and capacity of the Davie Shipbuilding.
Maybe we should built some of theses for India.

Indian Navy would have 200 warships in another 10 years, with three aircraft carriers in each of the three naval commands, for which orders have already been given to various docks in the country, a senior official said on board the INS Satpura today.

"Right now, we have 136 ships and we are targeting 200 in the next 10 years. All our docks in our country are full of orders," Rear Admiral Atul Kumar Jain, Flag Officer Commanding in Chief, Eastern Naval Command told reporters.

The Navy was looking at making destroyers and frigates, he said. "Right now, we have only one Landing Platform Dock (LPD) INS Jalashwa. We are going for four more LPDs." ....

NDTV, 13 Nov 13

Mod edit to change source in accordance with Milnet.ca policy.

 

[MilEME09]

Government’s $38-billion shipbuilding plan doesn’t have enough money, auditor general to report

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/2013-budget/Government+billion+shipbuilding+plan+doesn+have+enough/9177011/story.html

OTTAWA — Canada’s auditor general has found that the billions of dollars set aside for the federal government’s shipbuilding plan won’t be enough to get the navy the vessels it was promised, or needs.

Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s report on the national shipbuilding procurement strategy won’t be released until Nov. 26, but several sources who have seen versions of the report have told Postmedia News that it shows the current plan is untenable.

The report has the potential to put the Conservative government in a significant bind and undermine the government’s boast that the $38-billion shipbuilding plan is an unmitigated success story.

In particular, the government will be warned that it must either increase the amount of money it is willing to spend on the new ships, or scale the projects back — which in some cases would render them pale imitations of what was originally envisaged.

Some will point to the auditor general’s report as further proof of incompetence within the Department of National Defence, especially after the controversy that has swirled around the F-35 stealth fighter project in recent years.

In fact, some military officials have indicated concern that the auditor general’s report could cause a reaction on a par with Ferguson’s April 2012 report on the F-35, which became a political lightning rod for the government and severely damaged the defence department’s reputation.

But the auditor general is expected to finger a flawed procurement process and politics as the main issues this time around.

The report will note the government took what were supposed to be initial estimates for new frigates, destroyers and resupply ships and locked them in as the actual project budgets.

This was before any real design work had started, and before the government rolled the projects all into one industrial plan aimed at turning Canada into a world-class shipbuilder, all of which has rendered those initial estimates obsolete.

The auditor general’s findings will come as no surprise to many analysts and experts who have studied or otherwise been following the shipbuilding plan over the years, and have been warning of just such a problem.

But the government has until this point shown little if any flexibility, and instead told officials to make do with what they’ve been given.

Defence officials already admitted in February that they have reduced how fast the navy’s yet-to-be-built armed Arctic vessels can sail to keep the project within its $3.1-billion budget, and warned about other potential “trade-offs.”

Exactly how the government will respond to the auditor general’s report is unclear, but the shipbuilding strategy’s success or failure has wide implications.

It is vital for the navy and the coast guard, both of which operate fleets of destroyers, icebreakers, frigates and other vessels that are nearing the end of their lifespans and must be replaced.

It is huge for Halifax and Vancouver, which were selected in October 2011 as the main production centres and are expecting to see hundreds of jobs created.

And it is important to the Conservative government’s reputation as both strong fiscal managers and supporters of Canada’s military.

That reputation has taken a knock in recent years following problems with the F-35 stealth fighter, search-and-rescue aircraft and other military procurement projects.

While it will likely face criticism from some corners for doing so, the possibility that the government will invest more money into the shipbuilding strategy can’t be ruled out.

Last week, the coast guard revealed that its new icebreaker will cost $1.3 billion to build — nearly double the $720 million originally estimated when the project was first announced in 2007.

A coast guard spokeswoman said the original figure was based on old estimates and the budget was revised upward following a more comprehensive assessment, and to ensure the icebreaker Diefenbaker was able to perform the tasks required of it when it comes hits the water.

(Ferguson’s report only examines the Royal Canadian Navy projects that fall within the $38-billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy and does not address the coast guard part, though the findings will likely have relevance there as well.)

National Defence also said that while it expects to spend about $26.2 billion on 15 new frigates and destroyers over the next decade, the project “is in the very early days” and the number is a “preliminary acquisition cost estimate, for planning purposes.”

While he hasn’t seen the report, defence analyst David Perry of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute said the issues raised by the auditor general are serious and need to change, not just in shipbuilding but all procurement projects.

“The process we have now forces people to come up with preliminary estimates to get a project moving, which is understandable because you don’t want to cut a blank cheque and say ‘Go buy a navy,’” he said. “But at the same time those things get locked in before you can get any kind of detail and there’s no recourse.”

 

[Kirkhill]

AG's Tame Yanks say that the government can't build good ships for the type of money they are putting on the table.  ie Lockmart and GD WILL NOT see their market value undercut.

Meanwhile Independent 3rd Party Monitor IMC sez the government is overpaying for the ships (AOPS) it is contracting.

......


I have a new hitlist - Accountants, Lawyers, Politicians..... :

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here's the tradeoff:

   

    The auditor general’s findings will come as no surprise to many analysts and experts who have studied or otherwise been following the shipbuilding plan over the years, and have been warning of just such a problem.

    But the government has until this point shown little if any flexibility, and instead told officials to make do with what they’ve been given.

    Defence officials already admitted in February that they have reduced how fast the navy’s yet-to-be-built armed Arctic vessels can sail to keep the project within its $3.1-billion budget, and warned about other potential “trade-offs.”

    Exactly how the government will respond to the auditor general’s report is unclear, but the shipbuilding strategy’s success or failure has wide implications.

    It is vital for the navy and the coast guard, both of which operate fleets of destroyers, icebreakers, frigates and other vessels that are nearing the end of their lifespans and must be replaced.

    It is huge for Halifax and Vancouver, which were selected in October 2011 as the main production centres and are expecting to see hundreds of jobs created.

    And it is important to the Conservative government’s reputation as both strong fiscal managers and supporters of Canada’s military.

    That reputation has taken a knock in recent years following problems with the F-35 stealth fighter, search-and-rescue aircraft and other military procurement projects.

    While it will likely face criticism from some corners for doing so, the possibility that the government will invest more money into the shipbuilding strategy can’t be ruled out.

This government, more than its Liberal predecessors, is caught on the horns of a dilemma of its own making. It talked (and talked and talked) a lot about its support for the military but it, equally, put forth a a fairly detailed plan, which, on closer examination, is wholly inadequate. Now, in any other circumstances, the government of the day would have the option of increasing funding to keep its very public promises but the world is still trapped in the great recession and fiscal prudence is the Conservatives' primary campaign plank.

Of course there are ways to save money and give the CF what the government, itself, needs: buy offshore, for example. The political calculus asks: how many seats - currently held and potentially winnable - will this cost?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Just had a quick chat with a program manger from Seaspan, he said the Polar team really has it's act together and are great to deal with, but the fate of the Polar 8 hangs over their head when they think about the possibility of their vessel being built. He also said the Fisheries vessel team is not well organized and is behind, which is a problem as they wanted to start on a smaller vessel to work the bugs out.

 

[AlexanderM]

I expect that Seaspan is going to do a good job, but I wish we could replace Irving with Davie. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Personally I would have given the AOPS to Seaspan along with the Fisheries boats,  and the JSS (and perhaps the Polar)  to Davie - if Davie had had its act together at the time of the competition.

Davie has the large hull yards and somewhat more current experience.

Irving.... just not sure.  CSC?  Likewise.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Too bad we couldn't do like Paul Martin and Canada Steamship Lines, buying all our ships overseas.

 

[dapaterson]

And remember to use foreign crews to save more money.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

.......and register offshore in weird little countries ;D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

RNN or RLN (Royal Nigerian Navy or Royal Latvian Navy)

 

[MarkOttawa]

Well, look what Fedvav does:

Look How Fast One Can Get an Icebreaker…
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1599

Mark
Ottawa