New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

Er, Ikea anyone?

Mark
Ottawa

:facepalm: Forest for the trees.

 

[MilEME09]

Rick nails it again,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCDlmYivjb8

 

[MarkOttawa]

Further to this 2016 post,

Irving Halifax Has Lead Evaluating RCN Canadian Surface Combatant Design/Weapons Systems Bids
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/mark-collins-irving-halifax-has-lead-evaluating-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-designweapons-systems-bids/

rather a "hmm" here:

U.S.-only the rule for some Irving navy contract jobs

A subcontractor for Irving Shipbuilding is hiring engineers and specialists in Halifax for work on Canada’s next fleet of warships, but there’s a catch — some applicants must be U.S. citizens.

Gibbs & Cox is a U.S. naval architecture and engineering firm that has been retained by Irving to support engineering and design on the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) and Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) Programs.

The company’s website is currently advertising about 20 jobs, some co-based in both Halifax and Arlington, Va., where Gibbs & Cox is headquartered, and others based solely in Halifax.

Approximately half of these jobs require U.S. citizenship, while the other half require U.S. Secret Security Clearance.

Listings for both a combat systems interfaces lead and a combat support systems manager, which appear to be related to work on the CSC design, specify the jobs are based solely out of Halifax. Both positions require U.S. citizenship.

The job description for the systems manager, in part, reads: “Serve as the manager for 5-10 individuals and be responsible for the shipyard design integration of combat systems support systems for a naval combatant design.”

Other listings for a naval marine systems engineer, auxiliary systems engineer, and cybersecurity lead are also based solely in Halifax, and are only open to U.S. citizens.

A number of other listings, again some based solely in Halifax and others based in both in Halifax and Arlington, do not require U.S. citizenship, but require U.S. Secret Security Clearance.

Some examples of listings based solely in Halifax and requiring U.S. Secret Security Clearance include a lead supportability/software engineer and a hardware systems safety engineer. Both positions specify work on navy ship designs.

According to the U.S. Department of State website, U.S. citizenship is generally required to gain security clearance, except under specific circumstances where limited access to can be granted to someone who “possess a special expertise that is needed for specific programs, projects, contracts, licenses, certificates, or grants.”

Irving, the prime contractor for the combat portion of the government’s multi-billion-dollar National Shipbuilding Strategy, is building six Harry DeWolf Class Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, with the first to be delivered in 2018 and the navy’s new fleet of up to 15 Canadian Surface Combatants starting in the 2020s.

Jobs for Canadians has been billed by government as one of the main benefits of the program...

On security requirements, Lewis said Irving requires Gibbs & Cox employees working at their shipyard to have a clearance that is “at least equivalent to Canadian Secret Security Clearance.”

“Given that Gibbs & Cox does significant U.S. naval work, it is not surprising that they would seek U.S. Secret Security Clearance and citizenship.”

But well-placed industry sources told The Chronicle Herald that the fact that U.S. Secret Security Clearance alone is specified — not Canadian, NATO or Five Eyes security classification — combined with the fact that many of the job postings are for combat systems work seems to point to a preference for certain U.S. systems on Canada’s new fleet of warships.

Retired navy commander and defence analyst Ken Hansen shares this assessment.

The federal Department of Public Services and Procurement is currently soliciting combined bids from 12 pre-qualified firms for both a pre-existing warship design and combat systems integrator — the company that will make sure all the ship’s systems work together.

Hansen said it’s likely Irving is betting a large portion of the CSC’s systems will have U.S. technology.

“This is all about the CSC program and what they perceive to be the most likely outcome, which would be a design that would have a significant amount of U.S. material content.” he said.

Given Canada and the U.S. are allies, their companies work together on defence projects and navies at times conduct joint operations, it’s logical Hansen said that many key pieces of technology will come from the U.S. This could include voice and data communications, encryption, and data display equipment.

Hansen said it’s not surprising, then, that U.S. Secret Security Clearance or citizenship is required for many of the Gibbs & Cox positions given the engineers could be working with sensitive U.S. technology.

But Hansen said those requirements could also potentially favour U.S. companies when it comes to the huge combat systems integrator contract. A likely candidate is Lockheed Martin, which has a long history with Canada, including the recently-completed Halifax-class frigate modernization...
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1447901-u.s.-only-the-rule-for-some-irving-navy-contract-jobs

Mark
Ottawa

 

[jollyjacktar]

Saw that this morning,  very disappointed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For some of the very sensitive software and equipment that is ITAR controlled, I can see people being brought in. I can see a specialist being brought in to oversee and manage the placement and hookup of particular propulsion units and gear boxes. I can see a few specialist being brought in to oversee and manage things like this individual modular hotel setup which is fairly new to us. However the people doing the work should be Canadians who then learn how to do this stuff, making the shipyard more viable for future contracts.

 

[Kirkhill]

Result:

Zumwalt pricing instead of Absalon pricing.

Must protect the US shipbuilding margin......

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Fair enough, but if you want shipyards that can repair the ship, they will need new builds and the reality is that each country subsidizes their yards one way or another. If we want cheaper ships, by all means get them built overseas, but don’t expect to have the expertise here to maintain them. Canadian yards cannot compete for new builds mainly due to labour, taxation, regulatory  and environmental regs. If we are going to build here and pay a premium price, then I dam well expect that Canadians get about 95% of the jobs, because that is what the premium is for. Irving appears to want to charge us the “Canadian premium experience price” and hire a lot of foreigners for likely a lot less to do it, reducing any positive effects to the Canadian economy, in which case we are getting hosed over twice. 

 

[Underway]

For some of the very sensitive software and equipment that is ITAR controlled, I can see people being brought in. I can see a specialist being brought in to oversee and manage the placement and hookup of particular propulsion units and gear boxes. I can see a few specialist being brought in to oversee and manage things like this individual modular hotel setup which is fairly new to us. However the people doing the work should be Canadians who then learn how to do this stuff, making the shipyard more viable for future contracts.

ITAR is a massive issue and so has to be dealt with properly as you can't teach Canadians some of the stuff fast enough (or may not even be allowed too). Also, there is no replacement for experience in integrating these sorts of systems year over year like they do with the continuous build in the US.  Remember there are a number of systems that the RCN has dictated that must be included in any design no matter the bidder.  Comms, ECM, Harpoons and Torps may be on that list and most likely stay as US tech. Everything else is probably up for other options.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair enough, but if you want shipyards that can repair the ship, they will need new builds and the reality is that each country subsidizes their yards one way or another. If we want cheaper ships, by all means get them built overseas, but don’t expect to have the expertise here to maintain them. Canadian yards cannot compete for new builds mainly due to labour, taxation, regulatory  and environmental regs.

Solution the first - adjust the regulatory environment and get rid of all those impediments
Solution the second - find the subsidization route that countries other than the US employ and employ it
Solution the third - adjust the RCN's expectations

 

[Navy_Pete]

Fair enough, but if you want shipyards that can repair the ship, they will need new builds and the reality is that each country subsidizes their yards one way or another. If we want cheaper ships, by all means get them built overseas, but don’t expect to have the expertise here to maintain them. Canadian yards cannot compete for new builds mainly due to labour, taxation, regulatory  and environmental regs. If we are going to build here and pay a premium price, then I dam well expect that Canadians get about 95% of the jobs, because that is what the premium is for. Irving appears to want to charge us the “Canadian premium experience price” and hire a lot of foreigners for likely a lot less to do it, reducing any positive effects to the Canadian economy, in which case we are getting hosed over twice.

The shipyard setup for repairing vs building is completely different; most of the shipbuilding equipment is useless for repair work.  You can't build/outfit megablocks while repairing existing ships.  The skillsets are similar but you can't take the same facilities to have them change roles.

We have been repairing ships with no build facilities since the frigates came online, and even before that, SJS was never used for repair work.

They are really two different industries; it's like a Ford plant vice the mechanics.

 

[donaldk]

Solution the first - adjust the regulatory environment and get rid of all those impediments
Solution the second - find the subsidization route that countries other than the US employ and employ it
Solution the third - adjust the RCN's expectations

Problem with your Point 1:
Lore of the RCN: No one is allowed to offer thought that would make sense.  You should know this by now.
Lore of DND Budgeting: Can't spend part of that $200M commitment left over yet because the EX04 wants his performance bonus.  If anyone asks about APS 2017 moves, say "we're out of money". (fictitious non NSPS example... )
Lore of government contracting: Ignore the contractual violations by the vendor (because PSPC is going to tell you to STFU anyways and the DND procurement folks enjoy their BBQs), authorize any and all extras expediently - no checking, bend over and take it in the a** when legal threats hit inbound, and leave all the external PR stuff to public affairs (PSYOPS).

A lot of work required for your Point 2:
Given the above, its a shame to think NSPS might actually be headed into a massive roadblock thanks to legal shenanigans over the CSC portion.  AOPS is just a PR game, CSC is where absolute seriousness must exist.  We (as the Canadian public) still haven't been furnished an appropriate explanation as to why our fine former VCDS VAdm Norman was removed from his post  :-X.  The ITAR engineering firm above isn't the only thing ISI is hiring foreign... I have heard enough from Unions 1 and 28 members which are absolutely PISSED off over the foreign skill trades being hired in (i.e. not just the PEs / PEngs who have native US clearance - I am meaning easily Canadian sourced areas like pipe fitters / welders / wood workers, etc).

As to point 3, RCN's expectations could be adjusted to minimize ITAR and force ISI to do the same (the HCM project did this with putting in a Swedish CMS and radar fit), that would mean selecting a non-ITAR engineering firm.  If an engineer has done design work on a ITAR-ed system, any similar designs could be ruled ITAR by the US - Boeing got accused HARD with this on a few occasions during the 777/787 design projects where it was thought their ITAR engineers shared info to their civilian products counterparts.  The only critical ITAR piece I see we need is the encryption framework for the comms and portions of the SATCOM/IT fit (since we often set up links to USAF/USN kit).  Convenient ITAR systems would be the weapons fit - but the US isn't the only game in town... our desire is driven by the fact that American sourced consumables for the weapons systems are plentiful and often sold/leased to us at lucrative pricing as showcased by the Victoria class refit for taking the Mk48 vs the UK's equivalent torpedo system.  MSE systems/hull form in any shape or form do NOT require ITAR systems, and Israel makes absolutely awesome offensive weapons systems, and the Swedes won us over for CMS/Sensors (as per HCM/FELEX wise - except IEWS which is Israeli...).  We do have this thing called a National Security Exception clause with contracting... maybe non-ITAR clause should also be considered in the procurement world (and worded strong enough to survive a NAFTA/WTO challenge).

 

[NavyShooter]

I have calculated that I have 8 years, 2 months left before I'm paying to come to work based on pension rates, cost of bridge fare, parking, etc.

I do not anticipate that I will see a CSC hit the water within that 8 year 2 month period.

E.R. Campbell said it well, if you look at the NSPS as being a means to effectively procure warships for our Navy, then it will be a failure.  If you look at it as a jobs project, with some warships being a useful by-product, then it will be a success.

The recent OUTCAN hiring processes from ISI seem to be putting the lie to the second half though...if the jobs don't go to Canadians, then why are we doing this at all?

I'm not an expert at any of this stuff, but because of the position I'm in, I see how messed up logistics is, and if procurement is as messed up (and I hear it's worse) then I'm not surprised by any of it.

NS

 

[STONEY]

People have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills . Irving has a 96 percent local workforce. I have worked at 5 different shipyards and they have all been staffed by a united nations of workers. Just watched a documentary about a giant shipyard in Korea that is building several large ships and was struck by the large numbers of westerners supervising the work. I think that on any large project of any kind anywhere in the world you would find workers from various locals. Remember its the main job of a union to bitch to justify their existence.


cheers

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I know just the show you are talking about, Stoney.

But it was about the building of the new Maersk Super-E cargo ship. Those Westerners supervising were all Danish engineers from the owner company: Maersk. They were there at all time to oversee all aspects of construction and ensure everything was up to their own standards.

Perhaps if the government of Canada had as many supervising engineers, as well qualified as Maersk's ones, and took that much continual interest in the construction of its vessels at various yards, the products we get would be of much greater quality. But Irving yards may not appreciate  [.

 

[jollyjacktar]

More to the point, OGBD, is if politics didn't come into play with what is delivered by Irving et al. We see shit being done at said yard and forced upon us (having to accept delivery to save face) by the top echelons, all for the sake of appearances.  And to add insult to injury they then turn around and reward these pirates with even more contracts.  It's BS.

 

[MarkOttawa]

We should be so lucky to have only one-year delay with a ship (and cost far, far less than ours--note where built):

A Year Late, UK Receives First Carrier-Support Ship [actually not just for carriers]

The first of four British military tankers being built in South Korea to support operation of the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier force has finally been handed over to the Ministry of Defence, twelve months later than expected.

“Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidespring was accepted off contract earlier this month and is due to arrive in the UK in 2017 for customisation and capability assessment trials before entering service,” an MoD spokesman confirmed to Defense News Jan 17.

RFA Tidespring should have been accepted off contract last January but has been delayed while technical issues have been resolved by the builders, Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME).

“Some technical issues were discovered following RFA Tidespring’s sea trials, and alongside this, new regulations around cable insulation required adjustments to the build schedule. These issues were fully resolved prior to acceptance,” said the spokesman.

The 37,000 tonne tanker was due to have been in service with the RFA, the logistics and operational support arm for the Royal Navy, last September to start replacing single-hulled ships that no longer meet international standards.

Under the original time frame three of the four ships should have been handed over to the British by now with the final tanker scheduled to be accepted this April.

Despite the problems, the spokesman said all four ships are “expected to be in service by the end of 2018, consistent with the original intent.”

The spokesman said the firm-price nature of the contract meant the delays had not resulted in any additional cost to the MoD...

Britain ordered four tankers from DSME in 2012 in a $597 million deal that sparked controversy here over the MoD’s decision to put the program out to international competition, rather than reserving the work for local yards. None of the British yards submitted a bid...
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/a-year-late-uk-receives-first-carrier-support-ship

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Besides looking for workers in Poland and Scotland,
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1476424.html#msg1476424
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1478781.html#msg1478781

Irving is also recruiting in Oz:

http://bourque.com/irvingaussie.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[AlexanderM]

We should be so lucky to have only one-year delay with a ship (and cost far, far less than ours--note where built):

Mark
Ottawa

4 tankers for under $1B Cdn. I wish we had done this and had them build the hulls for the CSC's, could probably have done those for just over $1B each, all in.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

https://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries/nss-photo-gallery-ofsv1

 

[MilEME09]

Besides looking for workers in Poland and Scotland,
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1476424.html#msg1476424
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1478781.html#msg1478781

Irving is also recruiting in Oz:

Mark
Ottawa

Maybe they can get some Australian management instead so we can run a shipbuilding program on time