Author Topic: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy  (Read 533337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,069
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1925 on: April 11, 2017, 10:54:23 »
Well, I agree to a point (about Davie). I agree 100% about ISI. Davie has turned itself into a competitive, innovative, motivated ship yard. How un-Canadian is that for military procurement.

This thread is 71/2 years old. No steel cut for CSC, I'm not aware of even a design, just requirements.

That is currently under selection.  We'll know sometime by next spring.  It's too bad it's taken so long, but at least there's light in the tunnel now.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 170,466
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,679
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1926 on: April 11, 2017, 10:58:26 »
Maybe.  Maybe we'll see something by spring on the CSC.

I'm not holding my breath.

I have 8 years remaining before I plan to retire.  In that time, I do not honestly anticipate seeing another class of warship arrive that will replace the Frigates. 

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 31,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,368
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1927 on: April 11, 2017, 11:13:32 »
Maybe.  Maybe we'll see something by spring on the CSC.

I'm not holding my breath.

I have 8 years remaining before I plan to retire.  In that time, I do not honestly anticipate seeing another class of warship arrive that will replace the Frigates. 

NS
Atleast youll get Resolve in your career

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 52,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,450
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1928 on: April 11, 2017, 11:37:42 »
To remind, note timeline for construction start at end:

Quote
Irving extends bidding deadline

Ottawa says the building of Canada’s new fleet of warships is still on schedule, even though it’s given a two-month extension to the 12 firms pre-qualified for bidding.

Public Services and Procurement Canada announced this week it will now take bids to supply the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships until June 22. The deadline was April.

According to a news release issued by the department, the extension was granted at the request of industry.

The government said that in order to meet the navy’s requirements, as well as to provide economic benefits to Canada, it is important to ensure it receives the maximum number of bids possible.

“At this point, based on feedback from industry, an extension is the best course of action,” the release read.

“It is not unusual for bidding periods to be extended, particularly for complex initiatives such as this one, which is the most complex procurement project in recent history.”

The department also said the 12 pre-qualified firms — among them industry giants like Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, ThyssenKrupp, Navantia and DCNS — have submitted a total of 164 questions about the procurement, and received 88 responses.

The request for proposal for a pre-existing warship design and combat systems integrator for the Royal Canadian Navy, to be built at Irving Shipyards in Halifax, was released on Oct. 27 after extensive consultation with industry.

That release also came several months later than planned — in August Lisa Campbell, Assistant Deputy Minister of Defence and Marine Procurement at Public Services and Procurement Canada said the final request for proposal would be issued by the end of the summer.

But the government maintains that even with this extension the program remains on track. The release states that completion of the procurement process remains the fall of 2017, with ship construction starting in the early 2020s [emphasis added--that could extend to 2022-23!]...
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1442727-irving-extends-bidding-deadline

Mark
Ottawa

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 182,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,673
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1929 on: April 11, 2017, 12:07:30 »
164 questions.

88 answers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 45,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 535
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1930 on: April 11, 2017, 15:56:55 »
164 questions.

88 answers.

I guess technically that's a passing grade.   :P

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1931 on: May 04, 2017, 13:33:31 »
Seaspan has a new set of pictures up of the 3 Fisheries vessels under construction https://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries


Online GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,837
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1932 on: May 19, 2017, 13:13:01 »
A TALL SHIPS TALE, INDEED
http://www.bourque.com/
Interesting that the local press in Halifax has a perfunctory piece about the latest & greatest from Irving & Co. But that Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) program has certainly turned into a head-scratcher. For starters, is it true the Canadian program is $3.5 billion for 6 ships = $583m per ship in Canadian dollars, which in US Dollars is $ 429m per ship ? And what did other countries pay for EXACTLY the same design ? Well, is this true: Norway = US$100m to design and build an entire AOPS design, Denmark = spent US$105m to then build two ships of the same design Ireland = spent US$125m to also built two entire ships of the same design ? Is it true the average price abroad is USD $57.5m (not including Norway because the design was also included in that price of USD $100m) ? If so, can it be that Irving's cost to build the AOPS is approx. 746% of the cost of the average price to build abroad ? Worse, is it true that Irving got paid US$ 288m just to design an already designed ship ? Where is Treasury Board Prez Scott Brison, Nova Scotia's favourite banana, on all of this ?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 540
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1933 on: May 19, 2017, 13:43:36 »
I remember a few years ago now (I think?) when it was front page news in the media...and scouring the forums here, reading everything I could about it.

How does it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to design an already designed ship?   :(
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Online Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 729,162
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,447
  • Arctic SME
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1934 on: May 19, 2017, 14:00:21 »
A TALL SHIPS TALE, INDEED
http://www.bourque.com/
Interesting that the local press in Halifax has a perfunctory piece about the latest & greatest from Irving & Co. But that Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) program has certainly turned into a head-scratcher. For starters, is it true the Canadian program is $3.5 billion for 6 ships = $583m per ship in Canadian dollars, which in US Dollars is $ 429m per ship ? And what did other countries pay for EXACTLY the same design ? Well, is this true: Norway = US$100m to design and build an entire AOPS design, Denmark = spent US$105m to then build two ships of the same design Ireland = spent US$125m to also built two entire ships of the same design ? Is it true the average price abroad is USD $57.5m (not including Norway because the design was also included in that price of USD $100m) ? If so, can it be that Irving's cost to build the AOPS is approx. 746% of the cost of the average price to build abroad ? Worse, is it true that Irving got paid US$ 288m just to design an already designed ship ? Where is Treasury Board Prez Scott Brison, Nova Scotia's favourite banana, on all of this ?

Ireland and the Danish ships are not the same design if that's what you mean. Its true about the cost to a certain extent, it was 80M ea in 2002 less their radar and helo for the Norwegian ship. The 4.3 billion also factors in in service support for 25 years.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 182,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,673
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1935 on: May 19, 2017, 14:20:37 »
Ireland and the Danish ships are not the same design if that's what you mean. Its true about the cost to a certain extent, it was 80M ea in 2002 less their radar and helo for the Norwegian ship. The 4.3 billion also factors in in service support for 25 years.

With the Chief on this one.

The only valid comparison to the de Wolf's is the Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard, commissioned in 2001 at a cost of 575,000,000 NOK (or about 124 MCAD allowing for current exchange and inflation).  The Svalbard was the original concept vessel. It was the working model of the type.  It was the template. 

A side by side comparison of the Svalbard and the de Wolf bear this out.

The Danish Arctic Patrol Vessels (presumably the Rasmussens) are smaller and not in the same class.
The Irish vessels are both smaller and not ice rated.
Neither one should be compared to the de Wolf at any level.

But it is  fair to ask, in my opinion, why the de Wolf costs 383 MCAD (2.3 BCAD divided by 6 hulls) instead of 124 MCAD.  Why an existing design that was bought and paid for had to be reworked three times at additional cost (10 MCAD to STX, another 10 MCAD to STX and then 250 MCAD to Irving) before the "Contract" was even signed.

The Svalbard went from paper to the water for (at the time) 70 MUSD.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 14:23:45 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 729,162
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,447
  • Arctic SME
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1936 on: May 19, 2017, 14:27:36 »
With the Chief on this one.

The only valid comparison to the de Wolf's is the Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard, commissioned in 2001 at a cost of 575,000,000 NOK (or about 124 MCAD allowing for current exchange and inflation).  The Svalbard was the original concept vessel. It was the working model of the type.  It was the template. 

A side by side comparison of the Svalbard and the de Wolf bear this out.

The Danish Arctic Patrol Vessels (presumably the Rasmussens) are smaller and not in the same class.
The Irish vessels are both smaller and not ice rated.
Neither one should be compared to the de Wolf at any level.

But it is  fair to ask, in my opinion, why the de Wolf costs 383 MCAD (2.3 BCAD divided by 6 hulls) instead of 124 MCAD.  Why an existing design that was bought and paid for had to be reworked three times at additional cost (10 MCAD to STX, another 10 MCAD to STX and then 250 MCAD to Irving) before the "Contract" was even signed.

The Svalbard went from paper to the water for (at the time) 70 MUSD.

Lets be honest as much as love this new capability we're getting, its a cash cow for Irving. The design was reworked to have a less capable propulsion system among some changes, probably to save money. The same was done in the early 90's with the Kingston Class with redesigns as cost cutting measures.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,643
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1937 on: May 19, 2017, 15:56:41 »

Offline Underway

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 469
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1938 on: May 19, 2017, 18:52:27 »
The 4.3 billion also factors in in-service support for 25 years.

If Norway only prices in the sticker price then it's going to be a rather large difference.  But Irving didn't get the in-service support contract I thought.  Didn't that go to Thales?  Or was that a maintenance contract.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 182,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,673
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1939 on: May 19, 2017, 19:11:57 »
My understanding is that Norway paid the current equivalent of 124 MCAD total for a working ship starting from a blank sheet of paper.

We paid 5 MCAD to buy the plans from Norway
10 MCAD to have the plans modified by STX
10 MCAD to have the plans modified again by STX (to get rid of the azipod reversing through ice thingy)
250 MCAD to Irving to have them figure out how to build something broadly similar to the modified plans supplied by STX via the Government
2300 MCAD to Irving to have them actually build 5 hulls (6 if you're really good boys and girls)
1800 MCAD to Thales to supply the In Service Support

(Thales gets a total of 5300 MCAD to supply ISS to both the AOPS and the JSS ships over 35 years)

So my takeaway is that the comparable Canadian budget is 2300 MCAD plus 250 MCAD, or 2550 MCAD, for 5 hulls or 510 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD
Or 2550 MCAD for 6 hulls is 425 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD
Or 2300 MCAD for 6 hulls (deleting the 250 MCAD planning budget) is 383 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD.

Anyway you cut it Norwegian purchasing agents seem to be able to buy 3 or 4 ships for the amount of money that Canadian agents are willing to spend for 1.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 729,162
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,447
  • Arctic SME
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1940 on: May 19, 2017, 20:09:00 »
My understanding is that Norway paid the current equivalent of 124 MCAD total for a working ship starting from a blank sheet of paper.

We paid 5 MCAD to buy the plans from Norway
10 MCAD to have the plans modified by STX
10 MCAD to have the plans modified again by STX (to get rid of the azipod reversing through ice thingy)
250 MCAD to Irving to have them figure out how to build something broadly similar to the modified plans supplied by STX via the Government
2300 MCAD to Irving to have them actually build 5 hulls (6 if you're really good boys and girls)
1800 MCAD to Thales to supply the In Service Support

(Thales gets a total of 5300 MCAD to supply ISS to both the AOPS and the JSS ships over 35 years)

So my takeaway is that the comparable Canadian budget is 2300 MCAD plus 250 MCAD, or 2550 MCAD, for 5 hulls or 510 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD
Or 2550 MCAD for 6 hulls is 425 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD
Or 2300 MCAD for 6 hulls (deleting the 250 MCAD planning budget) is 383 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD.

Anyway you cut it Norwegian purchasing agents seem to be able to buy 3 or 4 ships for the amount of money that Canadian agents are willing to spend for 1.

What I would like to know is what a Norwegian shipyard worker gets paid versus a Irving worker and is the ship at the same standards and same features and equipment as Svalbard.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,069
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1941 on: May 19, 2017, 21:23:06 »
You'd also have to adjust the Norwegian figures for inflation.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 182,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,673
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1942 on: May 20, 2017, 12:57:35 »
What I would like to know is what a Norwegian shipyard worker gets paid versus a Irving worker and is the ship at the same standards and same features and equipment as Svalbard.

Well - let's start with the Svalbard's standards, features and equipment
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,38894.msg325773.html#msg325773



Quote
K/V “Svalbard”

-   Coast Guard Ship From Langsten

The new pride of the Navy, K/V “Svalbard” was taken over from Langsten AS on the 15th of December (2001?). The Coast Guard Ship is the Navy’s only ice-breaker and the largest vessel in the whole force.  This is Langsten’s build number 182.  The ship cost 575 millioner kroner (101 MCAD as of 24 Jan 2006).


…..Minister of Defence Kristin Krohn Devold, with …. Kjell Inge Rokke and other dignitaries ringside.  (Rokke owns Aker which in turn owns Langsten).  It has taken eight years to realise this vessel, from when the project was begun at SFK in August 1993 to this day. So this was a big day, to have the ship handed over.  In 1993 it was intended that the new Coast Guard Vessel should be ready in 1997, but suddenly in 1995 production was stopped. That was a lack of money.  Then the force planning guidance de-prioritized the ship and from 1996 until 1998 it was uncertain if the ship would be completed at all.  But in 1999 it was put back into the plan again, and in December of that year contracts were let with Langsten.  Langsten has a solid tradition of building modern marine vessels. Amongst others the spy ship “Marjata” was built here.

The hull of “Svalbard” was built by Tangen Yards.  It is built in special steel and comprises at least 50,000 pieces and 40 sections.  By the 17th of February (2000?) the hull was launched and towed to Tomrefjorden in Romsdal, where Langsten finished the vessel.

K/V “Svalbard” is a gigantic vessel with a displacement of some 6300 tonnes, a length of 103 meters and a breadth of over 19 meters making it the Navy’s largest for the foreseeable future.

…….

The Coast Guard

……

K/V “Svalbard” is classified as a Polar 10 Icebreaker by DNV (Det Norske Veritas), the highest polar ice class defined in DNV’s regulations and the most powerful icebreaker ever built in Norway.  The vessel is specially built for sailing in ice infested waters, and be able to operate in multi-year (year old?) polar ice with a thickness of up to one meter.  The northern Barents Sea, especially in winter time, will be the vessel’s primary area of operation.  The ship can also break ice ridges, back up and “screw guard (?)” about four metes deep.  (Not clear on this – may have to do with the azipod drive and the ability of similarly designed, double-ended ice-breaking tankers, to turn around and drive through ice backwards).

The vessel has also a De-Ice class notation, being equipped with an anti-icing system with a capacity of 1500 kW.  She has got 17 km of heating cable in all outside decks and the front of the boat to this purpose.  This prevents icing which can be a great problem in arctic (operations?).

K/V “Svalbard” has a helicopter deck and hangar and will have a helicopter on board when the vessel is out on patrol.  In the hangar there is room for two helicopters. The advantage of helicopters is that they can operate freely and relatively far from the vessel.  In addition to supervision and control of the fishery violations the helicopter is a really important resource for search, rescue and assistance.

The ship will bring to the Coast Guard many useful capabilities including ice-breaker, towing vessel and helicopter platform.  The vessel has really good capacity in search and rescue and can carry through “clean-up” (?) of polluted environments in the extremity (?)  (might also just mean that it can continue to operate in a very harsh environment).

Dimensions

Length overall      103.7 m
Length post to post        89.0 m
Greatest width         19.1 m
Draught (KVL)          6.5 m

Tank capacity is about 500 tonnes of fuel oil and 200 tonnes of fresh water.  That is enough for 127 persons.

Class: DNV *1A1, Icebreaker Polar 10, RPS, F-A, E0, HELDK-SH, De-Ice, FiFi1.

Machinery

The ship is diesel-electric with a power plant of four Bergen Diesel BRG-8 engines, producing around 13,020 kW altogether.  Propulsion is provided by two Azipods, each of 5000 kW, which are classified Icebreaker Polar 10.  In addition ABB “provided” (?) a conventional Azipod of about 15 MW power output to obtain this classification.  RPS in the class notation means that the ship has “redundant propulsion separated”.


The vessel is also outfitted with a Brunvoll bow-thruster (?). Harbour power generation consists of a Volvo Penta diesel engine of 1071 kW which drives a Stamford generator of 1339 kVa.  The pumping system is from Ing. Per Gjerdrum AS, the separators from Westfalia and the compressors from Sperre.  Heat exchangers are manufactured by APV and supplied by AS Norco Oslo.

Engine room isolation is by R&M Industries AS and the ventilation is by ABB Miljo.  …. is from Pyro and tank monitoring systems by ABB.  The engine room is fire-protected with the Argonite system from Heien-Larssen and an alarm system from Autronica.

Deck

The ship is notably outfitted with a helicopter deck and a hangar with room for two helicopters.  Also installed onboard is a helifuel-system, with outfitting for refuelling of each helicopter together with other types, both on the heli-deck and in the air.  The vessel can therefore function as a mobile platform at sea (and re-provisioning island?) for military and other helicopters on operations that would otherwise not be possible.  The advanced foam monitor system on the heli-deck is supplied by Heien-Larssen, but the Fi-Fi system is from Kvaerner Eureka.  The heli-deck is also equipped with gyro-stabilised in-flight reference system (light) and contour lighting,  “virtually making manning free operations (?)”.  Flight Centre has also been instrumented with a datalink to the Norwegian Meteorolgical Institute to supply weather reports.

The deck gear, including hatches, deck machinery such as anchor, vessel and towing winches are supplied by Hydrakraft.  The anchor and….is from Erling Haug, windows and light ports from Marine Aluminium, water tight doors from Winell and fire doors from Nor-Pro.  Davits from MOB-baten.  Deck and Navigation lights?  are from Tranberg, searchlight? From Norselight.  The ship is instrumented by a system from International Maling.

Interior and Miscellaneous.

The vessel is for a crew of 20 officers and 28 other ranks, with a four-man helidet. In addition the the ship has accommodation for more than 75 persons.

The interior is held “secure” as there is a gas citadel / over-pressure ventilation system where all incoming ship’s air will be scrubbed for radio-active, bacteriological and chemical contamination.

Interior work spaces are outfitted by R&M Industries.  TeamTech supplied the incinerator and Evac vacuum toilet system.  Electro-technicals consultant was Skan-El, but ABB Installations AS supplied the electric installation.  E0-system is the ABB Advant Station 500 series.

The electronic outfit was installed by Electronicon AS.  The outfit includes advanced instrumentation with air and surface radar, colour-, black/white and IR cameras, sonar …. for over and under water communication.  The system has the capability to record, store and present all this information real-time and time-delay (?), with “intention” (?) of documenting and evaluating incidents.  This gives the vessel a good capacity in the role of Command Vessel in large operations in connection with rescue, pollution and sovereignty operations.

Chief - you will know better than me how that stacks up against the de Wolfs but, from what I can glean from open source materials the displacement, length, beam and power plants are dead ringers.

As to what Norwegian workers get paid  - according to the OECD the average wage in 2015 was 50,908 USD while in Canada it was 47,843 USD. 

https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/average-wages.htm

Curiously Norwegian workers were  62% more productive than Canadian workers, according to the OECD, generating 78.7 USD of Gross Domestic Product for each hour worked while Canadians only generated 48.6 USD of GDP for each hour worked.  We do less with more.

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV

As to the relative costs of the vessels

Again I will go back to the published purchase price for the Norwegian ship of 575,000,000 Norwegian Krone in July 2001.

According to this calculator the inflation rate in Norway from July 2001 to July 2015, when Irving got the Build contract, was a total of 22.35 29.33%

That raises the price from 575,000,000 NOK to 587,851,250 743,636,950 NOK.

According to this page the exchange rate from NOK to Canadian Dollars in July 2015 was 6.2765 NOK per CAD

Conversion of 587,851,250 743,636,950 NOK in July 2015 to CAD results in an inflated, converted value of 93,659,085 118,479,558 CAD.

Meanwhile, leaving aside the preliminary design work but including the 250 MCAD design contract and the 2300 MCAD build contract then Irving is receiving 2,550,000,000 CAD to design and build 5 or 6 de Wolfs.

2,550,000,000 divided by 5 = 510,000,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 118,479,558 CAD = 5.445 4.304 Svalbards per de Wolf
2,550,000,000 divided by 6 = 425,000,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 CAD 118,479,558 = 4.538 3.587 Svalbards per de Wolf
2,550,000,000 divided by 8 = 318,750,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 CAD 118,479,558 = 3.403 2.690 Svalbards per de Wolf

And the deckgun on the Svalbard is the same 57mm Bofors mounted on the Halifax.

Edited for failure to properly use the inflation calculator I referenced. 

Now it is only 2 to 4 Svalbards per de Wolf.


















« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 15:02:08 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 729,162
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,447
  • Arctic SME
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1943 on: May 21, 2017, 08:36:00 »
Well - let's start with the Svalbard's standards, features and equipment
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,38894.msg325773.html#msg325773



Chief - you will know better than me how that stacks up against the de Wolfs but, from what I can glean from open source materials the displacement, length, beam and power plants are dead ringers.

As to what Norwegian workers get paid  - according to the OECD the average wage in 2015 was 50,908 USD while in Canada it was 47,843 USD. 

https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/average-wages.htm

Curiously Norwegian workers were  62% more productive than Canadian workers, according to the OECD, generating 78.7 USD of Gross Domestic Product for each hour worked while Canadians only generated 48.6 USD of GDP for each hour worked.  We do less with more.

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV

As to the relative costs of the vessels

Again I will go back to the published purchase price for the Norwegian ship of 575,000,000 Norwegian Krone in July 2001.

According to this calculator the inflation rate in Norway from July 2001 to July 2015, when Irving got the Build contract, was a total of 22.35 29.33%

That raises the price from 575,000,000 NOK to 587,851,250 743,636,950 NOK.

According to this page the exchange rate from NOK to Canadian Dollars in July 2015 was 6.2765 NOK per CAD

Conversion of 587,851,250 743,636,950 NOK in July 2015 to CAD results in an inflated, converted value of 93,659,085 118,479,558 CAD.

Meanwhile, leaving aside the preliminary design work but including the 250 MCAD design contract and the 2300 MCAD build contract then Irving is receiving 2,550,000,000 CAD to design and build 5 or 6 de Wolfs.

2,550,000,000 divided by 5 = 510,000,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 118,479,558 CAD = 5.445 4.304 Svalbards per de Wolf
2,550,000,000 divided by 6 = 425,000,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 CAD 118,479,558 = 4.538 3.587 Svalbards per de Wolf
2,550,000,000 divided by 8 = 318,750,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 CAD 118,479,558 = 3.403 2.690 Svalbards per de Wolf

And the deckgun on the Svalbard is the same 57mm Bofors mounted on the Halifax.

Edited for failure to properly use the inflation calculator I referenced. 

Now it is only 2 to 4 Svalbards per de Wolf.

I wasn't able to find any general characteristic drawings for the Svalbard online to compare with my drawings of the DeWolf Class, interestingly enough the Russians have drawings of their new Arctic patrol ship online. Without getting into any details the DeWolf Class seem to be built extremely well from what I can see. Where I work we will be the organization that will be conducting readiness exercises with the ships as they come out so overtime I'll know more and more about their features. I suspect we have features that the Svalbard  doesn't have and probably different electronics, I don't know how much a difference in price that will make.

The ships are expensive there is doubt about that and i'm sure the government knew that when they signed the contract, the simple reality is building ships in Canada will always be more expensive than building offshore but that was never an option.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 182,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,673
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1944 on: May 21, 2017, 11:59:31 »
Seen Chief, and agreed on the cost issue. 

I have trouble wrapping my head around the "quality" issue.  That is always problematical on any project.

For example, quality is often offset against life expectancy.  I don't know what life the Norwegians are expecting out of the Svalbard but she was launched and commissioned in 2001.  She has already given 16 years of service and, according to this article, she is expected to serve for at least the same amount of time again.

Let's just say, now that steel has been not just cut, but also welded, I would really like the Auditor General to do a side by side analysis of the Svalbard and the de Wolf.   Just like I would really like a side by side of the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels and a modern trawler like Havfisk's Gadus Neptun.  Or, like I would really like a side by side of the Resolve and the Queenstons.

At this stage in the development of any enterprise, and I think the establishment of a shipbuilding capacity in Canada, qualifies, it seems appropriate to me to start getting a handle on whether or not our initial planning assumptions are valid and also to start coming to terms with real costs in our actual environment.

We have enough of a basis for a comparison now that I think that should be a priority before we start signing contracts for the CSCs or any other vessels.

Not to mention the impact that the assumptions have on the defence budget and, consequently, defence policy.


« Last Edit: May 21, 2017, 12:03:24 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 729,162
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,447
  • Arctic SME
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1945 on: May 21, 2017, 13:21:21 »
Seen Chief, and agreed on the cost issue. 

I have trouble wrapping my head around the "quality" issue.  That is always problematical on any project.

For example, quality is often offset against life expectancy.  I don't know what life the Norwegians are expecting out of the Svalbard but she was launched and commissioned in 2001.  She has already given 16 years of service and, according to this article, she is expected to serve for at least the same amount of time again.

Let's just say, now that steel has been not just cut, but also welded, I would really like the Auditor General to do a side by side analysis of the Svalbard and the de Wolf.   Just like I would really like a side by side of the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels and a modern trawler like Havfisk's Gadus Neptun.  Or, like I would really like a side by side of the Resolve and the Queenstons.

At this stage in the development of any enterprise, and I think the establishment of a shipbuilding capacity in Canada, qualifies, it seems appropriate to me to start getting a handle on whether or not our initial planning assumptions are valid and also to start coming to terms with real costs in our actual environment.

We have enough of a basis for a comparison now that I think that should be a priority before we start signing contracts for the CSCs or any other vessels.

Not to mention the impact that the assumptions have on the defence budget and, consequently, defence policy.

The Svalbard is used a little differently than we would use the DeWolf Class. According to what I have read the Svalbard is used for quite a bit of fisheries work where we will undoubtedly do some but not a lot. The DeWolfs will deploy pretty much everywhere the Kingston Class currently does in the Arctic, North Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, Europe, Med and Africa. I have no doubt the ships will have a long life in the RCN and bring to the table capabilities that we currently don't have in the Arctic.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 182,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,673
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1946 on: May 21, 2017, 13:31:36 »
See, if I was to usurp "Thucydides" preferred role as King for a Day, way back in 2006, or better 2001, I would have been having another Svalbard built in Norway and charter her for Canadian service to find out what she could do for us.  Kind of like the Resolve project.

Then we wouldn't have to make so many uninformed assumptions - and we would only be out of pocket for 100 MCAD instead of buying pokes of pigs for billions of dollars.

100 MCAD investment to verify the need for the 4300 MCAD invested in the AOPS programme.

100/4300 = 2.3% of the total project budget.

In any business that I have been associated with that would be considered a reasonable investment for risk mitigation.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 729,162
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,447
  • Arctic SME
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1947 on: May 21, 2017, 13:37:22 »
See, if I was to usurp "Thucydides" preferred role as King for a Day, way back in 2006, or better 2001, I would have been having another Svalbard built in Norway and charter her for Canadian service to find out what she could do for us.  Kind of like the Resolve project.

Then we wouldn't have to make so many uninformed assumptions - and we would only be out of pocket for 100 MCAD instead of buying pokes of pigs for billions of dollars.

100 MCAD investment to verify the need for the 4300 MCAD invested in the AOPS programme.

100/4300 = 2.3% of the total project budget.

In any business that I have been associated with that would be considered a reasonable investment for risk mitigation.

Well you're right we should of had purpose built RCN patrol craft in the Arctic for many years now and facilities to service and build them. I guess its all about hindsight.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2017, 13:53:45 by Chief Stoker »
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 182,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,673
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1948 on: May 21, 2017, 13:53:20 »
Well your right we should of had purpose built RCN patrol craft in the Arctic for many years now and facilities to service and build them. I guess its all about hindsight.

Lieutenant Backsight Forethought
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 126,202
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,268
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #1949 on: May 21, 2017, 14:13:43 »
So which dream out of 6 is our present shipbuilding program.  Are we going to be rolled up and overrun or are we going to be successful and turn back the evil hoards?