New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Swampbuggy]

Looks like a Metalcraft Interceptor 11M, made in Kingston, ON.

G2G

Very cool! Thanks for the link.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Quebec gov't really behind Davie--message to feds:

Government of Québec joins JP Morgan and Anchorage Capital in financing syndicate for Resolve-Class Naval Support Ship

Today, Federal Fleet Services and Davie Shipbuilding announced that as part of its Maritime Strategy Fund through the Quebec Shipbuilding Support Program, the government of Québec joins JP Morgan and Anchorage Capital as part of the financing syndicate in the first Resolve-Class Naval Support Ship, m/v Asterix. The government of Quebec is investing $188m alongside another $300m from investment banks.

Spencer Fraser, CEO of Federal Fleet Services, said "We are very pleased to have the Government of Québec join our financing syndicate alongside our partners JP Morgan and Anchorage Capital, thereby reaffirming their commitment to the marine industry and to Canada's largest shipbuilder. This is a win-win transaction for Davie and the Government of Québec. It frees up some of the cash which was invested into building the ship and will be exclusively reinvested in the shipyard. It also allows the Government to make a profitable, risk-adjusted investment to bolster the province's marine industry which will be fully repaid."

James Davies, president of Davie Shipbuilding added, "The Resolve-Class Naval Support Ship has been a hugely successful program. After delivering on time and to budget, Federal Fleet Services is now operating the ship on a long-term lease to the Royal Canadian Navy. With a stable cashflow coming in from the lease to the Royal Canadian Navy, we have been able to free up the cash used during the construction in order to continue investing in the shipyard as we take on imminent, new projects such as the construction of icebreakers, ferries and the repair and refit of the naval fleet. It is a testament to the vision, forethought and competence of the Province that the Shipbuilding Support Program has been designed, implemented and successfully deployed. This low risk investment program allows Québec to propel its maritime industrial cluster back to the forefront of the shipbuilding industry in the Western hemisphere. We are proud to be part of this success and incredible achievement by the Province."

About Davie
Davie and Federal Fleet Services are part of the Inocea group [head office in Monaco http://www.inocea.com/ ]. While Davie focuses on shipbuilding, Federal Fleet concentrates on obtaining contracts and on vessel rental. Davie is Canada's largest and most experienced shipyard. It is also the highest capacity shipyard in Canada, with 50% of the country's total capacity [emphasis added]...
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-quebec-joins-jp-morgan-and-anchorage-capital-in-financing-syndicate-for-resolve-class-naval-support-ship-687508751.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Fednav wants to build ships in Norway to lease to CCG
( http://www.maritimemag.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=767:fednav-proposal-on-three-ice-breakers-for-canadian-coast-guard&catid=4:news&Itemid=6 )

vice buying the Davie conversions (those three ships built in Norway earlier! Polar icebreaker Aivik that Davie is also pushing for CCG, no deal yet, was built in US http://www.davie.ca/pdf/Aiviq.pdf ):

Politics at play in major shipbuilding contract that could land in Quebec

The federal government is looking to a Quebec company for a major shipbuilding contract, but a competitor is questioning the backroom politics behind who gets the job.

The contract is to convert three used ships from Norway and the United States into icebreakers. Levis’ Davie Shipyards is vying for the contract.

“The only company in the world that can fit all these criteria is Davie,” said the company’s VP of Public Affairs Frederik Boisvert.

However, competing company Fednav, Canada’s largest ocean-going cargo shipper, said it wants to build several brand new icebreakers in Norway, where they said shipbuilding is more efficient.

“It’s about having built an assembly line effectively and perfecting something,” said Fednav CEO Paul Pathy.

Canada’s current fleet of icebreakers is aging and Pathy questioned the federal government’s practice of stretching the ships’ lifespan.

“Right now, there are no heavy icebreakers available because they’re all on layup because they’re so old,” he said. “They keep being renewed and renewed and renewed.”..
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/politics-at-play-in-major-shipbuilding-contract-that-could-land-in-quebec-1.4005945

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Czech_pivo]

Sometimes I’m convinced that we live in a banana republic.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Sometimes I’m convinced that we live in a banana republic.

It would be considered corruption if it wasn't an accepted practice by rank and file Canadians but it is so you can't call it corruption and it wouldn't be perceived as such by our politicans or constituents  8)

 

[Czech_pivo]

Let me ask this question, in all my layman's ignorance.  Why is it that its deemed a 'national security matter' for us to be able to retain our ability to build frigates and coastal defense vessels (and nothing larger than that) but its not a 'national security matter' for us to be able to build any sort of advanced fighter jet, military cargo or search and rescue plane?
I keep hearing again and again and again, how difficult it is to build a modern warship but yet I hear nothing, nothing about Canada being able to build a fighter jet and retaining (recreating is a better word) this 'ability' for our 'national security'.  I'm sure that if we poured as much money into our aerospace industry (Bombardier) as we are currently doing for Irving and Seaspan (and soon to be Davie), that we'd be able to build something comparable to what the Swedes, Brits and French are capable of. Is it because our aerospace industry is overwhelmingly based in Ontario and Quebec that we are not doing this?  Because these two provinces are the most populated, most developed and wealthiest? That they don't need the work, but the East Coast does?
Its a huge game of smoke and mirrors that is being played out.  On one hand building ships in Canada and overpaying for them and waiting decades and decades for them to be built here is deemed 'good for Canada'.  It means taxpayers dollars are kept in Canada, Canadian workers have jobs and Canada retains a 'national security' ability - but - on the other hand, being able to defend our skies, the approaches to our coasts and project Canadian 'power' (?) by building Canadian fighter jets or Canadian cargo planes or Canadian search and rescue planes, is not deemed a priority, not a 'national security' requirement. Who cares if Canadian taxpayers money is shipped off to the US, who cares if Canadian aerospace workers are lost, if their skills are shipped off down south.
I look forward to comments on this.  I look forward to being 'educated' on why building warships in Canada is good but building fighter jets or military cargo planes or search and rescue planes in Canada is bad.  I look forward to hearing from all of you. 
I love this country, but its so hard to do sometimes.

 

[AlexanderM]

Let me ask this question, in all my layman's ignorance.  Why is it that its deemed a 'national security matter' for us to be able to retain our ability to build frigates and coastal defense vessels (and nothing larger than that) but its not a 'national security matter' for us to be able to build any sort of advanced fighter jet, military cargo or search and rescue plane?

It's my understanding that after the Arrow was cancelled the American president made an arrangement with the Canadian Prime Minister which essentially lead to the formation of the North American Defense Industry. We stopped building fighters and Canadian companies were then able to bid on US defense contracts, as the US wanted to project one unified industry for North America. I used to be able to find a source for this, and am not strong on the details, so if anyone has a source please provide a link. In my mind it would have been better if we had built the Arrow and not gone down this road.

 

[Dale Denton]

First, your love wavers depending on how many planes we build?

Don't forget the love that Bombardier got in federal and provincial $ all of these years. But no, they haven't received the blank chq to build a fighter, something that we haven't built in...I can't even remember. Consider how competitive the fighter/aircraft market is now, between knowledgeable and capable companies. Griffons were built here, whose to say some other non-advanced aircraft variant won't be built under licence here (fingers crossed for Venoms)? The Avro era is dead, how many industries can we afford to rebuild? 60 C-Series were just sold today, the industry seems just capable enough and not as dead as the shipbuilding industry was before NSPS.

The NSPS (of whatever it's called now) is a great idea for Canada, considering our short-sighted history of procurement. Imagine if it only called for the cheapest building practices, and we built most of everything offshore. The same people who advocate for that now would be advocating building and keeping the money here if reversed. Its a long-term strategy to rebuild the RCN and CCG, expensive yes, but long term its smarter.

Can a taxpayer remember how much it cost to build the expensive Halifax's, Tribals in Canada? Will they remember better that we spent so much extra on building an entire industry here or that we could've spent money on ships built in Europe and outfitted here? Or would we remember how much better for the local communities it would've been to build at home, and not in Romania?

 

[Cloud Cover]

I'm pretty certain some assembly of the CF-18 was done in Toronto (MD plant in Malton). A whack of CF5 were built in Quebec in the 1970's.  I think the larger issue is military aircraft design, research and development. Other than throwing money at the F35,  the country seems to be largely absent from that since the Arrow in terms of fighter aircraft.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Let me ask this question, in all my layman's ignorance.  Why is it that its deemed a 'national security matter' for us to be able to retain our ability to build frigates and coastal defense vessels (and nothing larger than that) but its not a 'national security matter' for us to be able to build any sort of advanced fighter jet, military cargo or search and rescue plane?
I keep hearing again and again and again, how difficult it is to build a modern warship but yet I hear nothing, nothing about Canada being able to build a fighter jet and retaining (recreating is a better word) this 'ability' for our 'national security'.  I'm sure that if we poured as much money into our aerospace industry (Bombardier) as we are currently doing for Irving and Seaspan (and soon to be Davie), that we'd be able to build something comparable to what the Swedes, Brits and French are capable of. Is it because our aerospace industry is overwhelmingly based in Ontario and Quebec that we are not doing this?  Because these two provinces are the most populated, most developed and wealthiest? That they don't need the work, but the East Coast does?
Its a huge game of smoke and mirrors that is being played out.  On one hand building ships in Canada and overpaying for them and waiting decades and decades for them to be built here is deemed 'good for Canada'.  It means taxpayers dollars are kept in Canada, Canadian workers have jobs and Canada retains a 'national security' ability - but - on the other hand, being able to defend our skies, the approaches to our coasts and project Canadian 'power' (?) by building Canadian fighter jets or Canadian cargo planes or Canadian search and rescue planes, is not deemed a priority, not a 'national security' requirement. Who cares if Canadian taxpayers money is shipped off to the US, who cares if Canadian aerospace workers are lost, if their skills are shipped off down south.
I look forward to comments on this.  I look forward to being 'educated' on why building warships in Canada is good but building fighter jets or military cargo planes or search and rescue planes in Canada is bad.  I look forward to hearing from all of you. 
I love this country, but its so hard to do sometimes.

You basically just answered your own question.  What do I mean by this?

The aerospace industry in Canada is sustainable because it has a large commercial upside to it that makes it viable with or without government contracts.  The shipbuilding industry is not the same and Canadian Shipbuilding would wither and die without government contracts. 

It's a National Security Issue because Canada is essentially an island whose security is dependent on our ability to project power in to the Maritime Domain.  There is a large logistical aspect to this that is overlooked because the vast majority of Canadians don't live on the ocean and don't see the effects first hand but these pictures should tell you all you need to know:

There are limits to airpower, even with modern jets.  The ocean is very big and even with modern air power, you can't cover convoys trying to cross the ocean indefinitely.

Not to mention, most commercial shipping is owned by foreign companies, who builds our logistic tail for us if we have no shipbuilding industry?

 

[Czech_pivo]

So you are saying that the right choice is being made, retaining ship building over fighter/cargo/search & rescue planes ability.
If that is the case, that we are an island and must have the ability to defend our island, then why so few ships? Why less than Australia? Less than Spain and Italy, which are not islands?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

So you are saying that the right choice is being made, retaining ship building over fighter/cargo/search & rescue planes ability.
If that is the case, that we are an island and must have the ability to defend our island, then why so few ships? Why less than Australia? Less than Spain and Italy, which are not islands?

The purpose of the National Shipbuilding Strategy is to have the capacity to build ships, the fact we get some warships out of that is a plus but not the fundamental purpose of the Program it self. 

You are conflating two issues.  Military ships and the industry of shipbuilding itself.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Humphrey Bogart:

You are conflating two issues. Military ships and the industry of shipbuilding itself.

Hardly. In terms of building large ships Canadian shipyards are completely uncompetitive; so naval/coast guard contracts are all there is.  From 2010:

Shipping industry gets tariff break

Imported cargo ships, tankers and large ferries will no longer be subject to a 25 per cent tariff, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced Friday.

The measure is aimed at making it cheaper for Canadian shipowners to replace aging fleets with more modern and more efficient vessels.

Waiving the tariff will save the industry $25 million a year for the next 10 years, the government estimates.

"These were tariffs that don't serve any purpose because … the ships to which they apply are not capable of being made competitively in Canada [emphasis added]," Flaherty told reporters in St. Catharines, Ont.

"There's a big business … in refitting ships and a lot of that happens here and that is not affected by this tariff," he said. "This is one of those tariffs that had outlived its usefulness."

The tariff removal will be retroactive to the start of the year. The measure applies to all general cargo vessels, tankers, and ferries longer than 129 metres...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/shipping-industry-gets-tariff-break-1.902798

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Humphrey Bogart:

Hardly. In terms of building large ships Canadian shipyards are completely uncompetitive; so naval/coast guard contracts are all there is.  From 2010:

Mark
Ottawa

And you also completely miss my point  :nod:

The important thing is having the industrial capacity to build ships, not the ships themselves.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Seems to me the industrial capacity needs as much work as the political capacity. Example: this thread is nearly 10 years old- first ship yet to be launched. The JSS AOR thread is 14 years old, no new AOR except for a lease.  There are many things dysfunctional in Canada, this must be near the top?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Seems to me the industrial capacity needs as much work as the political capacity. Example: this thread is nearly 10 years old- first ship yet to be launched. The JSS AOR thread is 14 years old, no new AOR except for a lease.  There are many things dysfunctional in Canada, this must be near the top?

Spot on.
How long did it take to begin receiving replacements for the sea-kings? And we are not done receiving them yet....over 25 yrs from when Mulroney signed the original contract.

I understand the difference of having the capacity to build the ships is completely separate from how many ships we actually build. My original question was why ships over planes? Why not planes over ships? Why not both? We used to do both. So far I’ve only had one person attempt to answer my question. That we are an island, therefore we need to continue to have the ability to build ships. Is that it? Is that the answer?

 

[serger989]

Spot on.
How long did it take to begin receiving replacements for the sea-kings? And we are not done receiving them yet....over 25 yrs from when Mulroney signed the original contract.

I understand the difference of having the capacity to build the ships is completely separate from how many ships we actually build. My original question was why ships over planes? Why not planes over ships? Why not both? We used to do both. So far I’ve only had one person attempt to answer my question. That we are an island, therefore we need to continue to have the ability to build ships. Is that it? Is that the answer?

I think that the only way Canada would gain more aerospace industry capability would be if Airbus/BAE/Dassault or SAAB allow us to manufacture their products (Gripen/Typhoon/C295 etc etc) in conjunction with Bombardier. I really don't see it happening any other way politically. If for instance we ignore the Lockheed and Boeing bids in our fighter jet competition and instead go European, I could see an agreement where we can build in Canada. It's not out of the realm of possibility, but it would never happen on our own, at least I don't think so.

 

[CBH99]

I believe Dassault had already suggested we could build Rafale under license & even suggested full technology transfer.  So it's definitely within the realm of possibility if we decided to go down that road...but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[Furniture]

Spot on.
How long did it take to begin receiving replacements for the sea-kings? And we are not done receiving them yet....over 25 yrs from when Mulroney signed the original contract.

I understand the difference of having the capacity to build the ships is completely separate from how many ships we actually build. My original question was why ships over planes? Why not planes over ships? Why not both? We used to do both. So far I’ve only had one person attempt to answer my question. That we are an island, therefore we need to continue to have the ability to build ships. Is that it? Is that the answer?

Canada isn't in the buisness of designing ships, we are shopping for foreign designs and then building them. We may decide on a fighter than can be built in Canada under license just like the ships are.

Canadian companies are part of the F-35 build process and we haven't even decided to buy the aircraft, so there is already a Canadian aeorspace industry that is competing on the international stage. Canada also has a sucessful land systems industry, small arms industry, and small arms ammunition indusrty to name a few other things we do in Canada beyond ships.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I’m pretty certain that Canada has designed most if not all of the ships that it has built since 1950 with the exception of the aircraft carriers and submarines. For this go-around, a more accurate statement would be that Canada is looking to adopt a design and then build from there.

Canadian aero-tech companies receive F35 contractual work not just on the merits of their abilities but because the feds contribute dollars to the development of the aircraft in exchange for industrial benefits and therefore some work must flow back to Canada.