New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Colin Parkinson]

The Liberals are masters at announcing a new initiative and then only funding it for the honeymoon period and then pulling the funding for something new. They rarely shut things down, preferring to leave empty shells lying around that can be funded as PR issues arise. They don't care that much about the lower level funding struggles.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I never understood why such program's costs were never calculated 'net of Canadian Income Taxes collected' as that would be a much better comparison to the cost of purchasing from foreign shipyards.

 

[Karel Doorman]

The Liberals are masters at announcing a new initiative and then only funding it for the honeymoon period and then pulling the funding for something new. They rarely shut things down, preferring to leave empty shells lying around that can be funded as PR issues arise. They don't care that much about the lower level funding struggles.

So basically spending/wasting a lot of money(tax money might i add)funding"new"projects" and never seeing them through till the end.All in the name of being able to say"we're on it" :

I think it's time that the defence department or the Canadian people for that matter are prepared to give the politicians a good kick in the bollocks.

Every time they start up a new project(for replacing the "old" ships)and not seeing it through means that next time it will cost even more,in the meantime Canada has to do with ships which are actually in need of replacement.(and might i add ,getting less and less for your money,playing the waiting game.) [:'(

gr,Walter

 

[Good2Golf]

...I think it's time that the defence department or the Canadian people for that matter are prepared to give the politicians a good kick in the bollocks...

In the theoretical abstraction of democratic representation, the politicians are the people.  Until the people want a more focused defence expenditure/investment, in place of the industries supported (read injecting money into them) in the people's 'back yard', Defence will just have to live with what the people feel like given it.  People shouldn't hate the player (Defence), but rather the game (politics) which they, whether they like it or not, of which they are a significant portion.  :nod:

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Kirkhill]

G2G -

Democracy: Government of, for and BY the people.  Right? 

Even if that means they decide not to decide and leave it up to proxies.

 

[Cloud Cover]

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.

Actually Mr. Pook,  I am coming around to a different outlook than previous. 15 new CSC ships? Forget it, never going to happen. 10-12 mediocre half ass ships? Why even bother?  Three or four 8-9000 ton destroyers. Yes, I think that might be the better and more pragmatic future blue water RCN (plus auxiliaries like tankers etc.).  Does this mean less ships per coast or only 1 combat ship* per coast with one in refit/workups etc? yes- so what?> i mean really, what difference will it really make to have fewer ships? When the RCN had 24 frigates and destroyers plus X number of wooden hull minesweepers, there were still not enough to meet commitments and political expectations. With only 5 (or less) ships that are actually very capable, there may be more merit in having ships that can actually take the fight to the enemy at sea, below the surface, in the air and ashore. Further, I don't think it would ever be possible to shrink the RCN from that low base in numbers. The next logical step would be to back off from the high seas, something I do not think even the most rainbow-unicorn- sun shine driven government would attempt.

* i am purposely discounting the AOPS as a combat vessel. The class may be many things to many people, but it is most certainly not a combat ship. Hors de combat...

 

[jmt18325]

I would say that 6 would be the minimum.  We'd then need 12 more capable ships to replace the Kingston class.  With a logistics ship, I think we might have a winning formula.

 

[CBH99]

I am hoping that pressure from our NATO allies, the US in the form of NORAD (Remember, NORAD now covers the maritime environment) - and the general public as a whole - that the government will acquire enough ships to secure both a domestic & expeditionary role simultaneously.

4 or 5 large, highly capable combatants might make for a great blue water force to be reckoned with.  Combine that with the 2 tankers, and air assets, and that sounds like a highly capable battle-group.

But we have the largest coastline in the world, on 3 sides of the country.  Having 1 ship available on each coast is pathetic, even by our politicians standards.  Plus, with NORAD now encompassing the maritime environment, I don't think the US would be too happy about the "gigantic 3-ocean coastline to the north with no ships around".  And I really dont think the US wants to pick up the slack, as their naval assets are stretched thin as it is.

15 state-of-the-art CSC ships?  I agree, I don't believe it is going to happen anymore.  Too much time wasted on stupid crap that any competent government should have thought through before the project was even launched.  I'm thinking 12 will be the magic number we end up with (based on nothing more than a gut feeling.)

12 CSC & a replacement of the Kingston class with something a bit faster would give us a great combination of domestic ships that can travel a bit faster than the Kingston, and a respectable blue water force.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I am hoping that pressure from our NATO allies, the US in the form of NORAD (Remember, NORAD now covers the maritime environment) - and the general public as a whole - that the government will acquire enough ships to secure both a domestic & expeditionary role simultaneously.

4 or 5 large, highly capable combatants might make for a great blue water force to be reckoned with.  Combine that with the 2 tankers, and air assets, and that sounds like a highly capable battle-group.

But we have the largest coastline in the world, on 3 sides of the country.  Having 1 ship available on each coast is pathetic, even by our politicians standards.  Plus, with NORAD now encompassing the maritime environment, I don't think the US would be too happy about the "gigantic 3-ocean coastline to the north with no ships around".  And I really dont think the US wants to pick up the slack, as their naval assets are stretched thin as it is.

15 state-of-the-art CSC ships?  I agree, I don't believe it is going to happen anymore.  Too much time wasted on stupid crap that any competent government should have thought through before the project was even launched.  I'm thinking 12 will be the magic number we end up with (based on nothing more than a gut feeling.)

12 CSC & a replacement of the Kingston class with something a bit faster would give us a great combination of domestic ships that can travel a bit faster than the Kingston, and a respectable blue water force.

If there are 12 ships, that would be the worst outcome because they will certainly be of mediocre, compromised capability. And while we may have the longest coastline, it has been the case for some time that the RCN has not been capable of defending it with any degree of seriousness since the 1960's. So what does coast line actually matter in the equation? It really counts for nothing in the long run, even with the Arctic opening up this country is really not mentally and politically capable of equipping the RCN for doing anything about it.

Ironically, using a mediocre 4-6000 ton CSC surface ship for coastal patrol is overkill, and a waste of tonnage by about 4000 tons. 

A smaller fleet of 12 or less purpose built coastal patrol ships armed (1500-2000 tons) with a lethality calculus that includes more than only chain guns, and fully equipped with some very serious surveillance and detection equipment (radar, sonar etc) plus a helo deck (probably not a hangar) would be a modest attempt but still a highly unlikely outcome for the RCN.  Again, on a one for one basis, I have doubts that the MCDV, if they are replaced at all, will be at a 1:1 level. Realistically, it will be 1:2 or 1:3 ratio.  This is Canada, not Australia, so people really need to lower all of their expectations.  Perhaps using a light version of the Freedom class LCS. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Cloud Cover:

1) There is no basis whatsoever to support a claim that if 12 CSC's are built they will be either mediocre or of compromised capability.

2) There is no indication of the CSC's being in the 4000-6000 range. In fact all indications to date are in the 6000-8000 range.

3) There is nothing in your background to indicate a knowledge base from which to make informed views on the topic.

4) The RCN has been defending Canadian coasts successfully for the last 70 years.

5) The RCN doesn't "patrol" the coasts of Canada, no more than the Army patrols the streets of Toronto. It's not our mission - never has been -never will be unless some Bozo turns the RCN into a coast-guard. When you people that try and comment on the composition of the RCN from your Army/Air Forces perspective finally understand what the mission of Navies is and how they go about executing that mission, you may finally understand that point.

6) There are currently no plans to replace the MCDVs. You can be sure however, that when the time comes there is absolutely no basis to conclude that the ratio of replacement will be anything other than 1 for 1 (that was the case for the MCDV's that replaced the 12 minor warships: 7 PB's (Fort Steele is the 7th if you wonder) and 5 YNG's).

7) What's your beef with wood ??? Nothing wrong with the old wood and aluminium minesweepers. They did great service to the country.

 

[Cloud Cover]

1) The basis is obvious: capability costs money, lots of it especially for 12 ships. Historical trends do not favour the RCN obtaining a highly capable combat ship being capable of doing little more than defending itself.  I cannot think of another country equivalent to Canada that is building 12 large surface combatants. Even the Brits stopped at 6 Daring class due to costs. 
2) I have seen 5-7000 ton plans but nothing approaching 8000 tons.
3) I served in the Navy and worked for quite a while with a defence contractor in the weapons and sensor development field.
4) Nobody has attacked the Canadian coast line in the past 70 years, and nobody probably ever will.  Interdicting refugee ships and drug smugglers doesn't count as anything more than support to law enforcement. 
5) Correct on "patrol"- but I have sailed on more than a few up-down the coast trips which the Navy itself has somehow managed to position as Patrol.
6) Correct: there are no plans to replace the MCDV's
7) I fondly remember the sweeps in Esquimalt (along with the gate vessels) 

Cheers.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

My comments in yellow.

1) The basis is obvious: capability costs money, lots of it especially for 12 ships. Historical trends do not favour the RCN obtaining a highly capable combat ship being capable of doing little more than defending itself.
Right. The Annapolis class was more capable than its predecessors, then the 280's were not only much more capable than the steamers, they were also as if not more capable than their contemporary. Then the frigates were a lot more capable than the ships they replaced and again, as capable as their contemporaries. The O boats were superior to the tench they replaced, as the Windsors (for all their faults) are more capable than the O-boats. Yeah! I see the historical trend of having less and less capable ships. /SARC OFF
  I cannot think of another country equivalent to Canada that is building 12 large surface combatants. Even the Brits stopped at 6 Daring class due to costs.
Bull. The Type 45 was planned as class of six and built in full. The frigates replacement program (Type 26) is planned for 13 vessels. The French are building 8 FREMM's, with an option to be exercised in a couple of years for three more - making it a class of 11. Australia is looking at a class of 9 frigates after they receive their Hobarts, to replace their older classes of ships. Together, that makes 12 new ships, three of which are AAD destroyers, which is proportionally  the same as Canada's CSC, which is planned to have three or four in the AAD variant and 11 to twelve in the GP variant. 
2) I have seen 5-7000 ton plans but nothing approaching 8000 tons.
I have not seen anything smaller than 5,800 light load, which is 6,000 really and up to 7,800 light load.
3) I served in the Navy and worked for quite a while with a defence contractor in the weapons and sensor development field.
4) Nobody has attacked the Canadian coast line in the past 70 years, and nobody probably ever will.  Interdicting refugee ships and drug smugglers doesn't count as anything more than support to law enforcement.
Agree. Then will you people stop looking at close to shore patrolling as a Navy "mission". It's not. As for support to law enforcement, we do a little bit of it, when required. But when is that? In 24 years in, the sea time I spent on support of law enforcement can be counted in hours, and not in the high end of it. I think you will agree with me that it cannot be what determines the composition of the Navy. 
5) Correct on "patrol"- but I have sailed on more than a few up-down the coast trips which the Navy itself has somehow managed to position as Patrol.
Agree. Done my fair share of those. But you know as well as I do that we are not looking for anything in particular during those, that there is no systematic and organized patrol plan for the year, and while out on such Sovpat, we still carry out our primary duty which is to train up the crew. The final aim is just to show the flag to anyone we happen to cross and compile the common surface picture.
6) Correct: there are no plans to replace the MCDV's
7) I fondly remember the sweeps in Esquimalt (along with the gate vessels) 

Cheers.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Cloud Cover]

Right. The Annapolis class was more capable than its predecessors, then the 280's were not only much more capable than the steamers, they were also as if not more capable than their contemporary. Then the frigates were a lot more capable than the ships they replaced and again, as capable as their contemporaries. The O boats were superior to the tench they replaced, as the Windsors (for all their faults) are more capable than the O-boats. Yeah! I see the historical trend of having less and less capable ships. /SARC OFF
Sarcasm is good. All of those ships could (potentially) defend themselves from last generations threats and prosecute a submarine contact. The exception being the 280's after refit with the SM missile and better radars all around the fleet. The RCN removed it's capability for NGS, for example (but arguably not needed anyway), with the frigates and to a lesser extent the 76mm on the 280's.   

Bull. The Type 45 was planned as class of six and built in full. The frigates replacement program (Type 26) is planned for 13 vessels. The French are building 8 FREMM's, with an option to be exercised in a couple of years for three more - making it a class of 11. Australia is looking at a class of 9 frigates after they receive their Hobarts, to replace their older classes of ships. Together, that makes 12 new ships, three of which are AAD destroyers, which is proportionally  the same as Canada's CSC, which is planned to have three or four in the AAD variant and 11 to twelve in the GP variant. 
The Type 45 went from 12 to 8 to 6: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ddg-type-45-britains-shrinking-air-defense-04941/
Whatever other navies have planned does not necessarily mean those will be outcomes. If they build them, fine. And again, the RCN has already publicly conceded that 15 ships, while optimal, is not likely to be the outcome. Even with the CSC at 12 ships, the RCN will not realistically be in the same fleet tier category as the French navy and for that matter, the RAN.

Agree. Then will you people stop looking at close to shore patrolling as a Navy "mission". It's not.
What does the P in AOPS stand for? Pusser?  Close to shore patrolling is not a function of Transport Canada and the Coast Guard takes seriously as that entity has slowly devolved into a seaborne construction company. The vaunted "Hero" class is not a proper patrol boat either in a naval sense. That is to say the ship would not be a very convincing or compelling deterrent to an aggressor. But then again, there are no known aggressors potentially looking for a fight, at least since the Spanish navy hung around the Grand Banks a few decades ago.   

Anyway, I'm done with this. I guess we will have to wait and see what actually transpires over the next 15 years, which will be 22 years from when this thread started. 
 
 

 

[Good2Golf]

G2G -

Democracy: Government of, for and BY the people.  Right? 

Even if that means they decide not to decide and leave it up to proxies.

Some say 'cynic', others call them a 'pragmatic realist'....but...yes...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Meanwhile http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/davie-shipyard-union-negotiations-stall-1.3672939



Negotiations for a new collective agreement have stalled at Canada's largest shipyard after workers overwhelmingly rejected their employer's offer.

"The employer tried to convince us of its merits, but workers showed that the offer was ridiculous," said the president of the Davie Shipyard union, Raphaël Jobin.

    Davie shipyard boss calls Canada's national shipbuilding strategy 'bizarre'
    Davie shipyard makes unsolicited bid to build for coast guard

Workers voted down the employer's offer on Sunday morning. The old collective agreement expired on June 30.

The employer's offer included:

    A one per cent pay raise starting July 1,
    A 0.5 per cent signing bonus,
    A renewal of the agreement for 18 months,
    Another one per cent salary increase starting January 2017.

Ninety-one per cent of Davie shipyard workers voted against it. Some 800 employees are represented by the union.

"Our mandate is to demand decent working conditions for workers," said Jobin.
Direct impact on business

Without a collective agreement in place, the shipyard isn't allowed to bid on contracts for the Canadian Coast Guard.

More than 70 employees were laid off in June when two contracts were terminated.

Negotiations between the union and employer will continue this week.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Woah! Woah! Woah! Time out here.

You mean to say that a shipyard cannot bid on government work unless they have a collective agreement in place, but the government can go on for years without an agreement in place with it's own employees!!!!

 

[jollyjacktar]

Woah! Woah! Woah! Time out here.

You mean to say that a shipyard cannot bid on government work unless they have a collective agreement in place, but the government can go on for years without an agreement in place with it's own employees!!!!

..
Or months and months without paying them properly.... Phoenix.  God help us when they roll that shit out on the CF

 

[Ostrozac]

..
Or months and months without paying them properly.... Phoenix.  God help us when they roll that crap out on the CF

Word on the street is that it isn't bad if your pay is absolutely stable month to month, with no variances or adjustments, or so the powers that be are reassuring us, so the military should have no issues with it, because we don't have all that pesky overtime that is such a surprise to the Phoenix system.

It's a good thing that military members don't go the field for Cas LDA, don't jump for Cas Para, never go on operations and don't go on MATA/PATA. Oh, and if you really feel like kicking the Primary Reserve while they're down -- then implement Phoenix for Class A reservists.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am lucky, my pay is boring, so far I am ok, but that could change....

 

[STONEY]

Does this mean that project Resolve could end up late and over budget.  Gee in the promo video put out by Davie all the workers they talked too just loved it there  like money is no object they just working for so great a employer.