RC said:
Sigh.
Here is my response to you spreading this misinformation from the last page:
I notice that to suit you're opinion, you've conveniently ignored that the Damen design for the mid shore patrol vessels doesn't meet half the government's requirements and the decision to accept only previously built designs will leave them with a ship that does not reflect Canadian needs.
You've also failed to mention the CG's FSV fiasco where blindly following the idea that foreign designs are somehow superior and there is no design capability in Canada, the government sole sourced a foreign design that cost the taxpayers 2 million dollars and proved to be useless to their needs.
Canadian designers have no problem with competing internationally as that's what they do on a regular basis and they are quite successful at it, but to suggest that the Canadian government should buy foreign designs because they are somehow better than Canadian designs is simply ignorant and disrespectful to the capability of the Canadian naval architecture and marine engineering community, which is well respected in the rest of the world.
I sincerely hope that you will educate yourself on the contributions of Canadian companies in this domain and cease to spread misleading information that is damaging to national interests.
I know Robbie Allan fairly well, the 500 class cutters did use a proven hull design, but thanks to The CG adding insane amount of requirements, the vessels weight and CG both crept up, to the point that the vessels needed 2 active and one passive measure to reduce roll. Several years later the CG had to run them through a serious weight loss program, it was also discovered that the ship yard had substituted materials that were heavier than specified in the design ( steel pipes for the mast monitors)
Frankly the vessels could have easily been reduced by one deck, which would have made them a much better sea boat. The stern ramp IRIB launching system has some issues, but still far better than what we had previously on the old R class.
At around the same time the yards also built vessels for the navy to be used as torpedo recovery vessels, etc They to suffered stability issues but I am not acquainted with them, but even looking at them made you think “top heavy”. Two other vessels types that bear remembering are the Weather ships, range reduced by the addition of concrete to solve stability issues and the Fisheries vessels Sinclar, a POS that had to spend most of her time hiding from weather.
To balance that out, the 1100 class icebreaker/buoy tenders were an excellent design and good vessels to work and live on. I believe they were a completely domestic design. As for small vessels, regardless of design origins, the quality of shipyard work on our under 100’ fleet was appalling in the late 80’s and 90’s. to name a few
70’ Point class
First of the 41’ class (Rest built by matsumoto were excellent)
Landing barges
RER response boats made in fiberglass
First 2 vessels of the 47’ class, built in Kingston , Ontario. Rest built in BC met requirement.
