• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAP
  • Start date Start date
Funny thing about both the Davie and Irving proposals - Effectively they are buying cheap hulls overseas and locally fitting out to need.  At a fraction of the time and money.

Seems to be a winning strategy. Wonder why nobody else does that......... (sarcasm alert).
 
Chris Pook: Sarcasm fully justified. With extra snark:

The Extravagant Lunacy of Building RCN and Canadian Coast Guard Vessels in Canada
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/mark-collins-the-extravagant-lunacy-of-building-rcn-and-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-in-canada/

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Politics! Politics! Politics!  All parties.

Mark
Ottawa
 
What building?  There are a few AOPS in the build cycle right now, but JSS and CSC are years away from steel cutting.
 
Journeyman said:
Agreed.  But if both parties are going to pork-barrel anyway, why not keep up a low-rate, constant build?
I understand that Irving is saying that slow build on the CSC will make them more costly, so quicken the build to get the price down and don't make me go looking for the source on that, read it somewhere about a week ago or so.
 
Here is one article on building the ships faster. I saw a quote somewhere regarding the Liberals wanting to bring the costs down and Irving saying, then build the ships faster, so I'm thinking this may be a product of that approach.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/government-changes-course-on-26-billion-warship-program-in-hopes-vessels-will-be-delivered-sooner

This one still does not have the quote I'm looking for, but is about reducing costs. I've included the quote about $2 billion per ship if it was designed in Canada, so end cost will hopefully be below that, which wouldn't be that bad as I believe Irving had their sights set on the $3 billion that the Hobarts are costing, which is ridiculous.

https://www.localxpress.ca/local-news/liberals-make-announcement-refining-navys-frigate-replacement-plan-316072

But McCoy said that the industry average for a combat ship designed from scratch is about $2 billion. With shipbuilding inflation rising at four to five per cent per year, that’s a potential cost savings of 10 per cent if construction starts two years sooner.

“It essentially takes two years of time and two years of cost out of a very complex process,” he said. “Think about the effort it takes to design a warship from scratch. Canada won’t have to go through that.”
 
These are all good points, but for some reason the ship somehow rings as desirable for me, not the least of which is the fact that other than AOPS and Resolve, no other ships are being built/converted. It may be that Canada could do well with building a small, versatile non-combat "utility fleet" and if thats the case, I will reverse my earlier statements and say this should be an RCN function, otherwise with this government do we not run the risk of their being no RCN at all?

Oldgateboatdriver said:
The MRNSV adopts a missionized-payload approach to provide
a multi-role platform for navies and coast guards to perform a
wide variety of functions including:
> Border Patrol and Search & Rescue
It could be useful for the Coast Guard as supplementary asset in that function, but many resources already exist. The RCN could deploy this asset for these functions overseas. As I understand it, the CCG has a domestic-territorial mandate, the RCN has the authority and the ability to intervene or provide assistance elsewhere
> Humanitarian and Disaster Relief (HaDR)
At 16 knots, it would take a lot of time to deploy - and which coast would you select for basing? Moreover, how frequently would it be required? Such a ship would have been useful for the Swissair disaster, but how often can we expect such thing. We had a nice deep sea diving support capability with CORMORANT before, but in a tight budget environment, she was decommissioned instead of refitted because the overall requirement did not justify the expense. Permanently forward deploy to a region of the world where transit time is short and there is a base to operate from. {Italy, Cyprus, Crete etc.)
> Forward Ship Maintenance and Repair
I could see that, but again, how often would we need such capability? No idea.
> Submarine Rescue
We have not had a specific submarine rescue capability since CORMORANT was retired in 1997. There has been no pressure to replace that capability and I don't think there will be any in the future unless we greatly increase the number of submarines we operate. No chance whatsoever of increasing the sub fleet, and even if we did those subs would be built long after these ships were razor blades.
> Scientific Research
I could see that, especially in the Arctic, but it is not a naval responsibility nor our area of expertise. That belong in the old Oceans and Fisheries purview (whatever they are called these days). Containerized ELINT suites??
> Coastal Resupply
Not sure what they mean here. I don't see fuelling masts, so we are not talking RAS. If they mean re-supplying coastal towns, I think that is a TC responsibility. If they mean they could go to coastal bays and harbours, take frigates and destroyers alongside and resupply them in fuel and food, etc., I could see that being useful, but really only for Arctic deployment. Such vessel could certainly provide a great support function to the AOPS when deployed up North by combining the shop/coastal supply functions and linking St John's with Inuvik in that capacity and would reduce the pressure to build infrastructure in the North. Agreed. And they could deliver humanitarian supplies but I also do not see a RAS structure, or the room for fuel tanks to perform that function.
> Training (target launch and CQC)
Can't see that one, we already have coastal CFAV's that are much smaller, more economical to run and have only a handful of personnel required to carry that function. The ship proposed here would be overkill.[/i]  The UK SBS utilizes the decommissioned Sir Tristam for commando training. There may be a role for that with the enhanced NBP, training of divers and special forces.

I note that there is one possible use for such ship that is not mentioned or even hinted at (and here I know I will please my friend Chris): Such ship would make one hell of a nice forward deployed offshore base for special forces.  :nod:  Fully agreed. Counter terrorism, hostage rescue, etc. Needs better helo set up though. {more helo's- Griffons, Chinooks and stripped down Cyclones); larger RHIB that are armed with crew served weapons but can also be dropped/recovered by Chinook. An JT seems to understand and endorse the use of special forces. This may the golden answer.
 
AlexanderM said:
Here is one article on building the ships faster. I saw a quote somewhere regarding the Liberals wanting to bring the costs down and Irving saying, then build the ships faster, so I'm thinking this may be a product of that approach.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/government-changes-course-on-26-billion-warship-program-in-hopes-vessels-will-be-delivered-sooner

This one still does not have the quote I'm looking for, but is about reducing costs. I've included the quote about $2 billion per ship if it was designed in Canada, so end cost will hopefully be below that, which wouldn't be that bad as I believe Irving had their sights set on the $3 billion that the Hobarts are costing, which is ridiculous.

https://www.localxpress.ca/local-news/liberals-make-announcement-refining-navys-frigate-replacement-plan-316072

But McCoy said that the industry average for a combat ship designed from scratch is about $2 billion. With shipbuilding inflation rising at four to five per cent per year, that’s a potential cost savings of 10 per cent if construction starts two years sooner.

“It essentially takes two years of time and two years of cost out of a very complex process,” he said. “Think about the effort it takes to design a warship from scratch. Canada won’t have to go through that.”

Somewhere in this thread is a source that says India, which is insisting most of its ships now be built in India, suffered a 30 percent per year inflation rate in domestic builds because their shipyards lack the permanent expertise that other countries have. It will take an entire working generation to change that in Canada provided tat there is enough build activity to fuel 2 or more workforce generations (i.e. 50 years of continuous shipbuilding). 
 
The expertise that shipyard get, translates into other industries, out here they were making the complex piping for small hydro power houses as they were the only ones that could weld the type of steel and complex curves.
 
If, Godhelpme, if the government could be persuaded to take defence seriously, and finance it appropriately, and following on from Cloud Cover's commentary....

A (Royal) Canadian Fleet Auxiliary / Auxiliary Fleet Services Canada?

Created on the Davie/FedNav model
Militarized civilian vessels (like the RFA)
Built in Canadian yards
Manned by Canadians
Jobbed out to other nations for both humanitarian and fleet support duties

Meanwhile the RCN gets to focus on providing escorts and patrols to allow free passage.

That requires combat vessels but because our yards are full then the combat vessels can be purchased off shore.

Meanwhile the yards, building expertise in civilian vessels, not just the Auxilliaries but also the Coast Guard vessels necessary to provide the support required to escort tankers at tidewater, to monitor the EEZ, to keep shipping lanes clear of ice, to survey and research, to supply tug and environmental response services, the yards get a chance to find out if they can be come competitive with foreign builders.

Fill the yards with Coast Guard and Fleet Auxiliary orders for logistics vessels.  Buy combat vessels overseas and locally modify/fit out.

It would essentially do for Davie/Irving/Washington what has already been done for Bombardier.

Where would the money come from - from the sale of oil and gas delivered to tidewater and possibly from the sale of ships offshore - or, at very least, from the "social infrastructure" fund.
 
This is, of course, all built on the speculation that the current government will in large part change the role, mission and mandate of the RCN, which I personally think is highly likely not just for the RCN but the entire CAF.  The status quo mandates for the RCN, even if there was any modest rearmament and modernizing, and although not entirely broken, is not working well enough, and is focused on past war(s) and mission(s).

Change is good! If the current government wants to bring unique, useful contributions to coordinated international efforts, then the CF and the RCN require unique, useful, adaptable equipment and perhaps an entirely new force structure.  The bottom line for me is that as long as the changes do not permanently weaken the already minuscule ability to defend some parts of our sovereignty. So that means we do need lethality in the form of some combat aircraft, patrol aircraft, some combat vessels (surface and sub surface) that pack a significant wallop, and some regular force army formations equipped with highly effective equipment.     
 
Cloud Cover - I am not suggesting that the RCN be re-roled.  Just the opposite.

The RCN should continue in its current mission. 

The Government has the opportunity to fill a hole in the market by creating a logistics service that would both service domestic needs and could be a generator of foreign ties if not foreign cash.

Much of the domestic "service support" is actually more in keeping with Coast Guard areas of interest.  The other, more deployable capabilities essentially are long range transport variants.

 
Anything that changes CCG Mandate will be resisted by Senior Management from what I have observed. Certainly they will resist unless those changes are funded and do not impact the current work programs. In the CCG world, ice breaking and Navaid/buoy tending are the primary goals, followed by fish protection, science  and SAR a distant cousin.  Buoy tending/science and Fish can alternate depending on the role of the particular ship.
For years CCG has been cutting back the services it delivers, inshore SAR, inland navaids, coastal navaids, MCTS, SAR related towing. Since the report came out regarding the World Class shipping, they are now upgrading and building new navaids on the routes tankers are likely to take.
 
How would they feel about environmental response, fire, tow, tug and recovery duties?

In other words duties performed by the Norwegian Coast Guard in support of Norway's Oilfields.

Edit:  And tell me again why we are debating if the government's employees will deign to follow directed government policy?  I sense a theme here.
 
Chris Pook said:
Edit:  And tell me again why we are debating if the government's employees will deign to follow directed government policy?  I sense a theme here.

Title for a new movie/documentary?  "Departments Behaving Badly"  ;)
 
Chris Pook said:
How would they feel about environmental response, fire, tow, tug and recovery duties?

In other words duties performed by the Norwegian Coast Guard in support of Norway's Oilfields.

Edit:  And tell me again why we are debating if the government's employees will deign to follow directed government policy?  I sense a theme here.

Environmental response is in their duties, but on the West coast they struggle to get qualified Incident Commanders and enough gear for a large spill. They fulfill the mandate requirements, but just. They use one ship in a spill exercise about once a year.
 
Chris Pook said:
Edit:  And tell me again why we are debating if the government's employees will deign to follow directed government policy?  I sense a theme here.

Because governments think nothing of assigning tasks without the necessary resources to accomplish them.  It is at the lower levels of the organization that deconfliction occurs: If I have the personnel to do two things, and government expects me to do four, which two do I do?
 
I would tend to do four poorly and ask for the resources to do better in next year's review with the evidence in hand of failure to meet the assigned goals.

It isn't my job to decide which of the boss's edicts are priorities.

But - is that the same as people arguing that the assigned task is in conflict with their history and their ethos?
 
Back
Top