New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Infanteer]

In principle, I'm not opposed to spending more in Canada if it means we revive our shipbuilding industry.  South Korea is cheap because they have an industry - if we hit the easy button and go there, our domestic industry doesn't get a chance.  A bit simplistic, but its a first principle.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In principle, I'm not opposed to spending more in Canada if it means we revive our shipbuilding industry.  South Korea is cheap because they have an industry - if we hit the easy button and go their, our domestic industry doesn't get a chance.  A bit simplistic, but its a first principle.

And that is, in principle, what the New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy is all about: it is an industrial support measure, not a shipbuilding strategy. It defines, in dollar terms, how much the government is willing to invest, over a finite period, to "revive" and (one hopes) sustain a Canadian shipbuilding industrial base ... The fact that some warships and CCG vessels will be produced is coincidental. The government doesn't really care, all that much, what comes out of those yards, as long as jobs are created and maintained. International trade rules allow exemptions to the normal, "open competition" rules for national security and defence and Canada, like most countries, sneaks its coast guard into that definition. (If we were funding an industrial support strategy to build, say, car ferries, we might find ourselves in international trade courts ... on the losing end of the argument.)

The "trick," now, from the perspective of some very senior civil servants, is: how to sustain and/or maintain that industrial (shipbuilding) capability so that, eventually, it can sustain itself? The goal should be to require the RCN and the CCG to develop (and fund) long term "fleet renewal" (shipbuilding) programmes covering, say, 40 to 50 years! But it is hard (impossible?) for government departments, much less the whole of government, to make and manage real, long term "growth" plans.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Hmm:

BAE Shops Type 26 Ship Design to Germany

German plans to acquire a fleet of new combat ships through a European competition have opened the door to a possible sale of the British Royal Navy's Type 26 frigate design, BAE Systems executives said.

The German Ministry of Defense is expected soon to issue invitations to tender to several of Europe's big naval shipyards as it seeks designs for a 7,500-metric-ton multirole combat ship known as the MKS180...

Berlin is looking to open up a defense procurement process that has been battered over the last year or so by criticisms of cost overruns and program delays. Traditionally the German MoD has handed naval contracts to local shipyards like ThyssenKrupp Marine, Lurssen and German Naval Yards, Now, it looks like other European shipbuilders may be given a chance to provide designs.

The German Navy plans to acquire four MKS180s with options for a further two vessels.

BAE's naval ship business, based in Glasgow, Scotland, hopes to take advantage of the more open procurement process in Germany by offering a design based on the Type 26, also known as the global combat ship in export markets...

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/07/25/bae-seeks-new-market--type-26-frigate--germany/30513361/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Harrigan]

And that is, in principle, what the New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy is all about: it is an industrial support measure, not a shipbuilding strategy. It defines, in dollar terms, how much the government is willing to invest, over a finite period, to "revive" and (one hopes) sustain a Canadian shipbuilding industrial base ... The fact that some warships and CCG vessels will be produced is coincidental. The government doesn't really care, all that much, what comes out of those yards, as long as jobs are created and maintained. International trade rules allow exemptions to the normal, "open competition" rules for national security and defence and Canada, like most countries, sneaks its coast guard into that definition. (If we were funding an industrial support strategy to build, say, car ferries, we might find ourselves in international trade courts ... on the losing end of the argument.)

The "trick," now, from the perspective of some very senior civil servants, is: how to sustain and/or maintain that industrial (shipbuilding) capability so that, eventually, it can sustain itself? The goal should be to require the RCN and the CCG to develop (and fund) long term "fleet renewal" (shipbuilding) programmes covering, say, 40 to 50 years! But it is hard (impossible?) for government departments, much less the whole of government, to make and manage real, long term "growth" plans.

I agree this would be ideal, and presumably the "predictable, stable long-term funding" promised in CFDS was supposed to allow this.  But that predictable, stable funding didn't last very long....

 

[Edward Campbell]

My guess is that Conservative spin doctors will say, "the funding is still there, it has just been delayed a wee bit because of economic forces beyond our control." What is, clearly, not there is the number of ships. But, as I said, the shipbuilding strategy isn't about ships, they are incidental; it's an industrial support programme ~ it skates around the normal, accepted rules of international trade because it relates to national security and defence.

It's not a bad idea. Korea did something a wee bit similar (although they just thumbed their noses at trade law because they were, back in the 1970s, still a "developing" country). The Finns did it, too. Neither is an exact match for what the Canadians want to do, but the idea is the same. The Finns used government money (defence/coast guard contracts) to modernize their yards and train workers and managers. Now they compete, head-to-head with e.g. the French, Italians and Spanish for both "piece work" (Finland build the hull, another country "fits up" and finishes the ship) and whole ship contracts ~ like HUGE cruise ships. Labour costs are high in Finland, it's an advanced welfare state. But they can and do compete in a global marketplace.

This is not, I suspect, a Conservative government strategy; I think it's a civil service/bureaucratic startegy that probably had its genesis back about 15 years ago, when Jean Chrétien was PM. It has all the hallmarks of something that some very bright people in Finance and Industry Canada would have developed and then given to the politicians for refinement.

One slightly tangential but related factor: we have a skills shortage that I know has been bothering some senior officials since the 1980s. We have a surplus of "Women's Studies" graduates and a real, measurable shortage of tool and die makers, machinists, welders, electricians, plumbers and carpenters and so on and so forth. A successful industrial strategy must, somehow or other, restore the lustre to the skilled trades. That's a social, not a monetary issue: many skilled trades already command much higher salaries than are available to a sociology or social work graduates, even with an advanced degree.

 

[GR66]

While the shipbuilding strategy might be about rebuilding industrial capacity rather than building ships...that industrial capacity will wither without actual ships to build.  We had the industrial capacity when we build the Halifax-class frigates...but without any orders beyond that the industry withered and the industrial capacity was lost.  We might be spreading it out a bit more this time with multiple ship classes being built this time around (AOPS, CSC, JSS, CCG Icebreaker, etc.) but is there really much hope that this time will be much different in the long run?

Maybe, if as Edward has suggested, we had a truly long-term fleet renewal plan...a new corvette/frigate sized combattant every "X" number of years, a new AOPS every "Y" years, a new CCG vessel every "Z" years then we'd have the ability to maintain our industrial capacity without a complete industrial renewal required every generation or two.

 

[jollyjacktar]

If they want to keep the capacity alive, then they should do as some other countries do and replace the fleet on a continual, rotational basis.  That way the fleet gets renewed on a regular basis, new technology can be incorporated as it evolves and the skills and yards are kept alive.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If they want to keep the capacity alive, then they should do as some other countries do and replace the fleet on a continual, rotational basis.  That way the fleet gets renewed on a regular basis, new technology can be incorporated as it evolves and the skills and yards are kept alive.

I think that both GR66 and jollyjacktar are talking about a programme involving a large number of classes of ships, each class with only a few vessels. Thus, the current surface combatant project should consist of three or even four classes, each of, say, four ships (like our Tribals in the 1970s). To do that one must, I suspect, first life extend some of the current Halifax class FFHs.

 

[Infanteer]

The last time we created a domestic warship building industry from nothing, the St Laurent hull, with 20 ships, was released in four batches (St Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie, Annapolis).  Perhaps the CSC (or whatever it is called today) needs to be planned the same?

 

[Edward Campbell]

The last time we created a domestic warship building industry from nothing, the St Laurent hull, with 20 ships, was released in four batches (St Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie, Annapolis).  Perhaps the CSC (or whatever it is called today) needs to be planned the same?

I don't know what's practical. I'm reasonably confident that I understand the strategy and the policy drivers behind it, but I'm really not sure how that industrial support strategy might be made into a useful tactical plan to actually build warships.  :dunno:

 

[Baz]

The last time we created a domestic warship building industry from nothing, the St Laurent hull, with 20 ships, was released in four batches (St Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie, Annapolis).  Perhaps the CSC (or whatever it is called today) needs to be planned the same?

My opinion is yes; I'll go one step further.  Within a few years each of the ships is different in large part anyway, so let's just incrementally change them as we go along?

Plus, maybe have less ships, ride them hard for twenty years, put them in reserve for ten (so we have a surge capability) and then sell them off... Never do a mid-life at all.  Of course, we need to build the capability up to do that first.

I also think that the ships must be built in Canada for National reasons.  We must also insist they are as good as we can reasonably make them, for National reasons.  Irving should be *forced* to do it right, and transfer that knowledge into the economy.  I have no idea how to force them, though???

 

[GAP]

I have no idea how to force them, though???

Pay them lots more......oh? we're doing that anyway?  :facepalm:

 

[Edward Campbell]

My opinion is yes; I'll go one step further.  Within a few years each of the ships is different in large part anyway, so let's just incrementally change them as we go along?

Plus, maybe have less ships, ride them hard for twenty years, put them in reserve for ten (so we have a surge capability) and then sell them off... Never do a mid-life at all.  Of course, we need to build the capability up to do that first.

I also think that the ships must be built in Canada for National reasons.  ✔  The government, both the elected, political one and the "real" on in the civil service agrees with you.  We must also insist they are as good as we can reasonably make them, for National reasons. ✔   I'm pretty sure the RCN agrees ... not so sure about any one else.  Irving should be *forced* to do it right, and transfer that knowledge into the economy. ✘  I suspect Industry Canada and the ministers from Atlantic Canada disagree. I have no idea how to force them, though???

 

[Baz]

Irving should be *forced* to do it right, and transfer that knowledge into the economy. ✘  I suspect Industry Canada and the ministers from Atlantic Canada disagree. I have no idea how to force them, though???

Absolutely, so let me expound on *forced* (the use of the stars).

In a perfect world, it would just be understood it is a symbiotic relationship.  Canada supports the shipyard, gives it a reasonable expectation of on ongoing effort, treats it as a partner (not as those damn workers up at that 'civie' shipyard), and understands we are a capitalist society and Irving needs to make a reasonable profit.  In return, the Irving puts the crews second (obviously after making a profit as that is their reason for existence), spends the money wisely, advises the government intelligently, flows down the benefits to Canadian society, treats the crown as a partner, and generally does the best they can in the interest of Canada.

But given we don't live in a perfect world, then we contractually try to *force* that relationship.  However, every time we try I don't see us succeeding.

So, my use of the term *forced* is what I would like to see with my perfect world glasses, but I have absolutely no idea how we would reasonably accomplish that...

 

[STONEY]

If the NDP win the next election will we see an end to this shipbuilding strategy and another black period for the Forces in general.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If the NDP win the next election will we see an end to this shipbuilding strategy and another black period for the Forces in general.

If, and it's still a Big IF, they form a government it will not be good times for the CF, but the NDP may not be as anti-military as you assume. Remember that political ideology is, in government, always offset by the practicalities of both politics (jobs in the shipbuilding industry, for example) and policy (the civil service (the Mandarins) has (the Mandarins have) a lot of influence and they will not, by and large, want to see any sharp left turns in any policy, especially not in foreign and defence policies. Finally, all indications are that M Mulcair is a centrist and, as we have seen in the past decades, the PM is a very, very powerful man: his ideas prevail. Yes, there are some anti-military loony lefties in the NDP, a few will be in cabinet, but M Mulcair's views will matter more than any or even all of theirs.

 

[quadrapiper]

Re: the NDP - the prospect of good union jobs might help, within the party, counterbalance the distaste for military spending.

As far as the renewal aspect, would a "block" or "mark" approach be easier to sell than a new class every x years? "We" currently need a massive replacement project; could you then more readily build x "improved CSCs" every so often, without having to go through a keel-up design process? Or is that design process also a capability that needs exercising lest it wither?

 

[Kirkhill]

Keep in mind modularity as well

I think that might help with block obsolescence and mid life refits as well.

It would also have a considerable impact on lifetime costs.

Swap a gun bucket for a laser bucket.  Port lasers from old hull to new hull.  Change sensors on integratedmission mast.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The last time we created a domestic warship building industry from nothing, the St Laurent hull, with 20 ships, was released in four batches (St Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie, Annapolis).  Perhaps the CSC (or whatever it is called today) needs to be planned the same?

Infanteer, the last time we created a domestic warship industry from nothing was  for the HALIFAX class frigates. We built a nice brand new yard for the Irving's, and then paid them to close it down after the last ship came out and no follow on plans were in place.

As for the SAINT-LAURENT's, we did not develop a domestic warship industry from nothing with them. They were the first large warship fully designed by Canadian yards, but were built by an industry that was barely 5 years out of building hundreds of them for WWII and thus, still had all the technological knowledge, qualified manpower and effective yards (SAINT-LAURENT was laid down less than five years after the end of the war).

Re: the NDP - the prospect of good union jobs might help, within the party, counterbalance the distaste for military spending.

As far as the renewal aspect, would a "block" or "mark" approach be easier to sell than a new class every x years? "We" currently need a massive replacement project; could you then more readily build x "improved CSCs" every so often, without having to go through a keel-up design process? Or is that design process also a capability that needs exercising lest it wither?

That is actually the idea with the CSC's.

The plan is to build them at a rate that will not become "boom-and-bust" so that, a first batch can be put out and gain some experience with the design, leading to lessons learned that will then be incorporated into the second batch, finally leading to a third batch sufficiently late enough to then incorporate new technology appearing in the meantime to become what would otherwise have been elements to incorporate into a "mid-life" refit of the original batch.

The hope is that by the time these "final" evolutions of the design and technology appear in the fleet, they would then serve as the departure point for the next "single-class" design to be selected to start the process of replacing the earliest CSC's to hit the water … and the cycle would begin again.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Infanteer, the last time we created a domestic warship industry from nothing was  for the HALIFAX class frigates. We built a nice brand new yard for the Irving's, and then paid them to close it down after the last ship came out and no follow on plans were in place.

As for the SAINT-LAURENT's, we did not develop a domestic warship industry from nothing with them. They were the first large warship fully designed by Canadian yards, but were built by an industry that was barely 5 years out of building hundreds of them for WWII and thus, still had all the technological knowledge, qualified manpower and effective yards (SAINT-LAURENT was laid down less than five years after the end of the war).

That is actually the idea with the CSC's.

The plan is to build them at a rate that will not become "boom-and-bust" so that, a first batch can be put out and gain some experience with the design, leading to lessons learned that will then be incorporated into the second batch, finally leading to a third batch sufficiently late enough to then incorporate new technology appearing in the meantime to become what would otherwise have been elements to incorporate into a "mid-life" refit of the original batch.

The hope is that by the time these "final" evolutions of the design and technology appear in the fleet, they would then serve as the departure point for the next "single-class" design to be selected to start the process of replacing the earliest CSC's to hit the water … and the cycle would begin again.

Thanks, OGBD, "batch" is the word I was looking for (and Infanteer, too, I suspect). We don't necessarily need many classes of ships, a few classes, with "batches" with each, and each batch being a slightly improved version, is the idea for which I was searching.