New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

Is Davie wrong on the costing of Canadian ships?  I don't think anybody here would disagree with them.

With respect to supplying ships in the short term - there is always the Charter route.  That might make sense for the Coast Guard's ice breakers, and also for Joint Support Ships.

The Cragside is a converted RoRo that is used as a floating base by the USSOC.  It is a chartered civilian ferry, similar to the Point Class RoRos supporting the RFA and the RN, that was converted by Maersk. 

http://nextnavy.com/the-coming-fight-over-the-navys-fighting-ferries/

I was curious to read that Irving's loan from the Government of Nova Scotia, the one they used to finance the rebuild of their yard, is not repayable if they generate enough jobs.  Meanwhile Seaspan financed their yard construction themselves.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Is Davie wrong on the costing of Canadian ships?  I don't think anybody here would disagree with them.

With respect to supplying ships in the short term - there is always the Charter route.  That might make sense for the Coast Guard's ice breakers, and also for Joint Support Ships.

The Cragside is a converted RoRo that is used as a floating base by the USSOC.  It is a chartered civilian ferry, similar to the Point Class RoRos supporting the RFA and the RN, that was converted by Maersk. 

http://nextnavy.com/the-coming-fight-over-the-navys-fighting-ferries/

I was curious to read that Irving's loan from the Government of Nova Scotia, the one they used to finance the rebuild of their yard, is not repayable if they generate enough jobs.  Meanwhile Seaspan financed their yard construction themselves.

I don't like the idea of chartering civilian vessels after the GTS Katie debacle.  Things go south for some reason and we're held hostage requiring further actions.  Better to be self sufficient.  As a potential end user, I don't give a shit where the equipment comes from per se.  I am tired of all the yanking and wanking that goes with our procurement as a pork barrel opportunity for the various parties involved (politicians, industry and special interest groups) whilst being mismanaged by PWGCS (whom are the real enemy, AFAIK).

 

[Kirkhill]

JJT - the difference between Katie and Cragside is the crew.

Cragside is a bare bones charter.  She is operated by Americans. That qualifies as 9 points of the law.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I have no existential anguish attached to the long term lease and operation of civilian ro-ro ships by either Navy or CFAV personnel. The real question, however, is what would we need them for? When was the last time large amounts of Army gear had to be shipped somewhere or back from somewhere?

Keep in mind that is what ro-ro would be used for, not as cheap/stop-gap amphibs.

If we are going to entertain employing the services of Davie, my personal choice would be to acquire the rights to the plans for the "improved" Mistral (the ones developed for the Russians, that are already modified for Arctic operations and ice rated) or for the Dutch "Rotterdam", I meant "Johan de Wit"  class, and turn those over to Davie for a two-ship build.
 

 

[CougarKing]

More on Davie's unsolicited proposal.

An ex-RCN commander's response to Davie's description of the NSPS as "bizarre".

CBC

Retired navy commander critiques Davie shipyard's shipbuilding strategy view
'It comes from a frame of reference which is not Canadian,' says Ken Hansen, now a university researcher
By Natalie Dobbin, CBC News Posted: Mar 18, 2016 6:00 AM AT

A retired navy commander in Halifax says Davie shipyard's critique of the national shipbuilding strategy is flawed.

    "I think that principally, it comes from a frame of reference which is not Canadian," Ken Hansen told CBC Mainstreet Thursday

    The 32-year veteran is now a resident research fellow at Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies.

    Davie shipyard's CEO, Alex Vicefield, told CBC News earlier this week that the strategy is "bizarre" and "an international embarrassment." He called the prices "exorbitant" and criticized the program for producing no ships in five years.

(...SIPPED)

 

[Cloud Cover]

This thread started almost 7 years ago. The JSS/AOR thread 12 years go. Steel has not been cut. With a whopping big federal budget deficit on the way, it will be easy to not spend on things that are not started, even if there are penalties. The idea that any of these projects will actually come to fruition is slipping away. 

And for all their faults, the CEO of Davie is correct about 1 thing- this is an international embarrassment if only for the fact that we have 3 oceans, probably one for each ship that is eventually built. The optics in the international community through the lens of a national defence "capacity building" will not look good if the Liberals do not carry through with the program, but it is not the international community that elects them.

The Liberals really have two roads to choose to create good paying blue collar jobs in the east coast- (and that's what this is all about, the Navy is secondary, almost tertiary) - one road is building combatant warships at tremendous cost to taxpayers,and the second road is Energy East, which is a private funded project that will actually drive royalties and revenues for the government, create thousands of refinery jobs on the coast, require harbour upgrades to export products from refineries, and possibly create some modest employment in the shipping industry. This would make off-shoring the building of warships to FR or IT or NL (or wherever- Germany?), a much easier pill to swallow even if there is bitterness in the shipyards. 

The fact that Minster Morneau is requesting costs and apparently not receiving reliable answers is troublesome- makes it too easy to delay and pass this one off (again) and focus on some other job creating strategy. At worst, dollars will be committed but not released if the idea of some other scheme to create jobs takes hold. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Walking and chewing gum is possible.  If you can afford the gum.

The existing Irving-Seaspan plan to build up an industry is possible. 

It is also possible to concurrently build up the navy and the coast guard at a more rapid pace by outsourcing, by Davie's type conversions, by bare bones charters.  And none of that needs to impact the Irving - Seaspan contracts or the long term plan.

By the time the plan has reached completion any ships "rushed" into service just now would be due for replacement in any event.

But, as has been pointed out numerous times before, that would mean spending more money faster than any government has demonstrated a desire to spend.  (Or convincing the builders to build them for less or convincing the Navy and the Coast Guard to ask for a different mix of ships.)

 

[jmt18325]

This thread started almost 7 years ago. The JSS/AOR thread 12 years go. Steel has not been cut.

There are two ships under construction.  A third will start construction next quarter.  The first will finish by the end of the year.  There's finally progress.  Now is the wrong time to stop.

 

[PuckChaser]

There are two ships under construction.  A third will start construction next quarter.  The first will finish by the end of the year.  There's finally progress.  Now is the wrong time to stop.

OSFV and AOPS have started construction. Cancel everything else and build it offshore. We'll have CSC and JSS completed before the last OSFV and AOPS rolls out of Canadian yards. The Liberals have proven time and time again they're willing to spend billions in cancellation fees for political goals, the only reason we won't see this get canned as Atlantic regions went Red, and if they cancel the Irving deal, they'll get shut out of Nova Scotia in the next election.

 

[jmt18325]

OSFV and AOPS have started construction. Cancel everything else and build it offshore.

And have the money leave the economy forever.

We'll have CSC and JSS completed before the last OSFV and AOPS rolls out of Canadian yards.

The last AOPS will roll out in about 2.5 years.  I highly doubt we'd have anything by them.

The Liberals have proven time and time again they're willing to spend billions in cancellation fees for political goals

I can only think of one time, and it wasn't billions.

the only reason we won't see this get canned as Atlantic regions went Red, and if they cancel the Irving deal, they'll get shut out of Nova Scotia in the next election.

They made a commitment to shipbuilding and the RCN.

I'm all for buying ships now that Davie is offering - if they fit with what we need.

 

[PuckChaser]

What's more important, a properly built, modern military at a reasonable cost in reasonable timeframe, or money dumped into industries that are not capable of building military warships after NSPS is done, because they are unable to compete internationally? We're flushing money down the toilet with Seaspan and Irving, and getting half of what we should get for twice the price. You want to boost the economy? Fine. Do it with non-combatant ships. Don't continually screw the CAF over with pork barrel politics with questionable effect on the economy.

 

[jmt18325]

What's more important, a properly built, modern military at a reasonable cost in reasonable timeframe, or money dumped into industries that are not capable of building military warships after NSPS is done, because they are unable to compete internationally?

Well, the point of the NSPS is that it never ends, but, as government's primary purpose is to serve the populace, I'd argue that both are equally important. 

We're flushing money down the toilet with Seaspan and Irving, and getting half of what we should get for twice the price. You want to boost the economy? Fine. Do it with non-combatant ships. Don't continually screw the CAF over with pork barrel politics with questionable effect on the economy.

I wonder if building offshore is really cheaper when opportunity costs are considered?

 

[AlexanderM]

OSFV and AOPS have started construction. Cancel everything else and build it offshore. We'll have CSC and JSS completed before the last OSFV and AOPS rolls out of Canadian yards. The Liberals have proven time and time again they're willing to spend billions in cancellation fees for political goals, the only reason we won't see this get canned as Atlantic regions went Red, and if they cancel the Irving deal, they'll get shut out of Nova Scotia in the next election.

Now we're talking! The Brits are building their AOR's in Korea I believe, we could do the same for the AOR's and the CSC but as you say, it won't happen.

 

[airwin]

I have no problem with spreading out the program over a long period of time, or spending more money to build the ships locally.  Creates well paying, long term employment for thousands of families. Canadian companies and employees will be contributing a percentage of that cost right back into the coffers through income tax, and small business owners in those communities will see their restaurants and retail stores full.  There are obviously some issues with the processes as highlighted in the recent report (things like profit being a percentage of overall project cost), and it would probably be best to finally get down to brass tacks on the CSC segment of the project.

 

[PuckChaser]

 
I wonder if building offshore is really cheaper when opportunity costs are considered?

What opportunity costs? If we get the ships for half the price, that's more money to go into infrastructure, or buy other stuff DND needs. The latest Berlin AOR was roughly $500M. We're getting less half a ship for that, and it was only a few years ago it was built. We're well over $1.3b CAD for estimates on the surface combatant. A FREMM for the French Navy cost $960m CAD less than 2 years ago. Buying Canadian costs more, for negligible benefit. Look at the HLVW, LSVW as examples of failed stimulus using DND procurement.

Should we now (using a Sigs example), build a radio manufacture industry capable of making Type 1 encrypted radios, solely designed, researched and built in Canada? That $40k USD 117G radio is now costing us $200k because we're propping up companies with no other buyer other than the CAF. At a certain point, admit we only have certain commercially viable industries that can build military products, and give them first crack. Everyone else can use their own corporate funds to show us what they can do, not the other way around.

 

[jmt18325]

What opportunity costs?

It's not like buying trucks or planes. We have the people and facilities to build the ships (now).  If we buy offshore, the money and skill is pretty much gone (unless we're getting 100% irb return). 

 

[Kirkhill]

....  If we buy offshore, the money and skill is pretty much gone (unless we're getting 100% irb return).

Or we could sell them something they really need.

They sell us oil.  We sell them LAVs.

They sell us F35s.  We sell them softwood lumber.

They sell us t-shirts and Nikes.  We sell them coal.

It can work.  It has been known to work in the past.

 

[CougarKing]

In anticipation of the current govt.'s upcoming new budget: Let's see if this current govt. will put the money where their mouth is when it comes to promises of naval spending:

Globe and Mail

Ottawa to face decisions on navy’s frigate replacement program

Murray Brewster

OTTAWA — The Canadian Press

Published Sunday, Mar. 20, 2016 9:15PM EDT

Last updated Sunday, Mar. 20, 2016 9:17PM EDT

The federal cabinet will soon be asked to make an initial down payment on the navy’s $104-billion frigate replacement program with an approval that will lay the groundwork for the new fleet, The Canadian Press has learned.

It will be asked not only to approve requirements for the new warships and cost tradeoffs, but also first-stage funding, which will allow defence planners to get the ball rolling.

But getting a revised cost estimate before the Liberal government has proven to be a painful exercise and budget planners at National Defence and the Finance Department engaged in a tug-of-war over projections ahead of Tuesday’s federal budget, several defence and government sources say.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CBH99]

I think the $104B was a typo...or, despite following this subject matter closely, I missed something huge.    :-\

 

[Kirkhill]

No. It isn't a typo.  And you didn't miss anything.

They have included the costs of hiring sailors and buying ammunition for weapons that haven't been invented 30 years from now.  The 28 Bn has been deemed insufficient and booted upwards to 40 Bn and an additional 64 Bn has been added in for personnel and distillate to make the number look as scary, and as meaningless, as the F35 costing.

When is the last CSC supposed to be delivered - somewhere around 2040?  What price the oil you will be buying to power the lasers and rail guns that will be replacing your Harpoons and SR76s?

And how many sailors will be on board?

It is all a crapshoot.  The only thing you can know for sure is the contract you sign for delivery next week.  A 30 year estimate is meaningless. 

What capabilities will there be on board Chinooks and B52s in 2040?  They's still be flying 100 years after they were built.  Should we make our projections 100 years out?

What about our truck fleets?  How many times will we have to renew the fleet over 100 years and what will trucks look like and what will they cost?