New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[jollyjacktar]

For which?  Davies has, Irving will too, I am sure.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I had a look at their model today.  Weird looking *******.  They have a ton of containers up forward under the weather deck.  Not exactly clear how they get there or out.  :dunno:

Davies on the other hand had a good VR headset where you took a bit of a tour inside and out to a Cyclone and up during a two point RAS.  Their booth while smaller, seemed to want you to come see.  Irving were acting like they owned the place and weren't necessarily wanting uniformed visitors.

Why would they? Uniformed people are not the ones that cut the cheques, and they are more difficult to buy off !!!  [

 

[jollyjacktar]

Why would they? Uniformed people are not the ones that cut the cheques, and they are more difficult to buy off !!!  [

I suppose that's true and we're the ones who bitch (the most) about their shitty products.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Is there a website that has that info?

Can't find a page, but here's a photo shared via the HFX Chronicle-Herald ...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That is actually a photoshopped picture of ship of the same class as the above mentioned MV Cragside. I don't believe that Irving even has that ship acquired yet.

They were a class of six sister ships that were built on order from the British department of defence to be under long term lease that would provide heavy sealift to British forces "on call". When not needed by the RN, they would be operated on the North sea runs by their civilian owners, but subject to recall. They have almost all been released from their lease obligations now. I think there are two of them left on lease, until it runs out in a few years. 

 

[Lumber]

That is actually a photoshopped picture of ship of the same class as the above mentioned MV Cragside. I don't believe that Irving even has that ship acquired yet.

They were a class of six sister ships that were built on order from the British department of defence to be under long term lease that would provide heavy sealift to British forces "on call". When not needed by the RN, they would be operated on the North sea runs by their civilian owners, but subject to recall. They have almost all been released from their lease obligations now. I think there are two of them left on lease, until it runs out in a few years.

Oh sweet! More British hand-me-downs...

 

[FSTO]

Good god, why do we insist on coming up with these hair brained schemes! Spend 20 bucks to save 5 seems to be the mantra of Canada. If we want this type of capability then go get a couple of Mistrals or Canberra's or San Guistos; change our defence doctrine to maximize their capabilities and get on with it!

 

[Bass ackwards]

I wonder how much longer before someone in government decides that auxiliary cruisers are the way to go...

Why go to the bother and expense of building River and Tribal class vessels when you can simply bolt surplus guns to an existing Jervis Bay or Rawalpindi

>

 

[Kirkhill]

That is actually a photoshopped picture of ship of the same class as the above mentioned MV Cragside. I don't believe that Irving even has that ship acquired yet.

They were a class of six sister ships that were built on order from the British department of defence to be under long term lease that would provide heavy sealift to British forces "on call". When not needed by the RN, they would be operated on the North sea runs by their civilian owners, but subject to recall. They have almost all been released from their lease obligations now. I think there are two of them left on lease, until it runs out in a few years.

Actually the Cragside / Ocean Trader is one of half a dozen RoRos built for and operated by Maersk.  The Point class RoRos are a separate class of 6 built in Germany for the RN lease contract.

 

[Kirkhill]

Good god, why do we insist on coming up with these hair brained schemes! Spend 20 bucks to save 5 seems to be the mantra of Canada. If we want this type of capability then go get a couple of Mistrals or Canberra's or San Guistos; change our defence doctrine to maximize their capabilities and get on with it!

I can think of one good reason.

You buy/beg/steal/acquire a basing/transport capability at least cost in capital, operations, maintenance and manpower, and find out if it gets used effectively or if it is just going to rust at the pier side.

One of the arguments against the C17, and the Chinooks, was that there wasn't a plan for their use and the old Chinooks were accused of being under-utilized.  The C17s have since become back-bones of the fleet and, apparently, foreign policy. 

Leasing a Cragside as a floating base/transport would be an interesting experiment.

 

[FSTO]

I can think of one good reason.

You buy/beg/steal/acquire a basing/transport capability at least cost in capital, operations, maintenance and manpower, and find out if it gets used effectively or if it is just going to rust at the pier side.

One of the arguments against the C17, and the Chinooks, was that there wasn't a plan for their use and the old Chinooks were accused of being under-utilized.  The C17s have since become back-bones of the fleet and, apparently, foreign policy. 

Leasing a Cragside as a floating base/transport would be an interesting experiment.

I would think that once we had a Mistral (or similar type) we would be wondering how we ever lived without it.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't disagree.

But apparently a whole bunch of functionaries did.  Just as they balked at the C17s.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Mistrals and the C-17/C130J would/do give future governments all sorts of options for response that did not exist previously.

 

[ringo]

Boeing still has 1 unsold C17 IIRC, that CAF should be purchase to argument current fleet.

Great shame the idiots in Ottawa didn't snap up those Mistral's when they had the chance, could have passed them off as DART ships.

 

[PuckChaser]

I'd say with the current budget cut the CAF doesn't have the money, but if we're going to borrow $30B to pay for campaign promises, whats another $300M CAD?

 

[Michael OLeary]

I'd say with the current budget cut the CAF doesn't have the money, but if we're going to borrow $30B to pay for campaign promises, whats another $300M CAD?

But there's one more detail to consider:

If the proposal is accepted, it would cost the government $300 million for the conversion, a 30-person civilian crew, maintenance and the first five-year lease, and about $25 million a year after.

Cost of ship not included.

 

[Kirkhill]

But there's one more detail to consider:

Cost of ship not included.

Emphasis on a different syllable:

If the proposal is accepted, it would cost the government $300 million for:

the conversion,
a 30-person civilian crew,
maintenance and
the first five-year lease.


and about $25 million a year after.

 

[tomahawk6]

I read this article about the replacement of Canada's surface warships destroyers/frigates.In the article they seemed to favor the French FREMM.Idf this is in the wrong spot please move.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/3996-dcns-confident-its-fremm-is-the-right-solution-for-the-royal-canadian-navy-csc-program.html

 

[Kirkhill]

I read this article about the replacement of Canada's surface warships destroyers/frigates.In the article they seemed to favor the French FREMM.Idf this is in the wrong spot please move.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/3996-dcns-confident-its-fremm-is-the-right-solution-for-the-royal-canadian-navy-csc-program.html

From T6's linked article:

“The crew complement could be adapted as well: The current FREMM was originally expected to have a crew of 108 sailors, the French Navy eventually moved up to around 120 sailors which is a moderate increase. Growth margins of the current design could accommodate a crew of 180 sailors to answer Canadian needs without major modifications.”

For the record, across 15 ships that represents an additional 1080 sailors above the minimum necessary to man the vessels.

How many more vessels could be built if the numbers were reduced?  More CSCs, AORs, Subs, LPDs, Corvettes or AOPSs.  Lumber has pointed out that he with the most ships wins in any given engagement.  More bodies per platform equals more casualties.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'd say with the current budget cut the CAF doesn't have the money, but if we're going to borrow $30B to pay for campaign promises, whats another $300M CAD?

The government had the money and since you unexpectedly lost 3 ships from operations, we had the money and the sailors.