Author Topic: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy  (Read 933819 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 45,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,077
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3075 on: June 10, 2020, 11:56:35 »
If the blocks are that small they could make the trip by rail. Boeing does that with 737 fuselages and they are quite long. If the blocks were designed to be long and narrow they could make special cars to transport them on.

Aside from the actual hull parts, there are also equipment modules and similar which are fully wired, piped bits that are meant to fit on a few pallets and be plug and play. They normally get moved around the yard on trucks, so would just mean a longer trip in a container or on a pallet strapped down. Would be pretty straightforward to include in the build plan to have some things fit in a standard footprint to be containerized.  That stuff is a bit easier as the connection points are discrete bolt/pipe connections, vice having a plate in the right plane +/- a mm or so. Usually the pipes hook up to flex joints (to go between shock mounted gear and fixed piping) so there is more room for play, and you don't need the same accuracy controls to get the footings in the right place (or maybe weld those on in situ).

That adds a lot of overhead though, but I guess they would get points for work spread over Canada. Schedule gains have their own cost offsets though, so maybe it's a wash.

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • 3,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 77
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3076 on: June 10, 2020, 12:52:39 »
Aside from the actual hull parts, there are also equipment modules and similar which are fully wired, piped bits that are meant to fit on a few pallets and be plug and play. They normally get moved around the yard on trucks, so would just mean a longer trip in a container or on a pallet strapped down. Would be pretty straightforward to include in the build plan to have some things fit in a standard footprint to be containerized.  That stuff is a bit easier as the connection points are discrete bolt/pipe connections, vice having a plate in the right plane +/- a mm or so. Usually the pipes hook up to flex joints (to go between shock mounted gear and fixed piping) so there is more room for play, and you don't need the same accuracy controls to get the footings in the right place (or maybe weld those on in situ).

That adds a lot of overhead though, but I guess they would get points for work spread over Canada. Schedule gains have their own cost offsets though, so maybe it's a wash.

If it’s palletized or containerized it can be sent by rail too.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,279
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3077 on: June 10, 2020, 12:54:59 »
Even Davie had the entire superstructure for Astrex done overseas and shipped over from Finland.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 45,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,077
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3078 on: June 10, 2020, 13:08:18 »
Yeah, sorry, that's what I mean, rail would make the most sense. It would be easy to include that in the design and stick it on a train. Suspect that's more cost effective then shipping it via a ship, and lets you send it in discrete packs so it can go into the production queue. Shipping it all at once in a big ship would create it's own problems for sorting and warehousing on the other end. Typically the bits that are done offsite are coordinated so that they are done in sequence and show up when they are needed for the production schedule. There is some storage/lay down areas to give you flex and allow for shipping delays, but it's minimized because real estate and storage are expensive, and you can't just make something and leave it sitting for a year without having to do some maintenance on it or do rework on the mating surfaces, paint etc.

Not quite just-in-time that they do with car manufacturing, but the whole point of going modular is to allow flexibility and not having to have all the capacity on site. The manufacturing spots are designed so the work stations are really efficient at doing specific work on a specific footprint, whereas a one-size fits all site has a lot of compromises to give you the range of capability. That's why there was a massive capitol expenditure to upgrade both shipyards under the NSS (which Davie would also have to do).

Davie was able to do it with Asterix overseas because the IRBs didn't apply, but it's the same idea.  Heddle and Damen have been doing that already for offshore repair work, so this is an interesting extension of that. I think under the NSS they would just be a major subcontractor, but conceptually no difference then the other subcontractors that do the things like outfitting and furnishings that come in a plug and play box that gets craned into the module. Pretty bold though; like it.

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • 3,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 77
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3079 on: June 10, 2020, 13:27:20 »
Yeah, sorry, that's what I mean, rail would make the most sense. It would be easy to include that in the design and stick it on a train. Suspect that's more cost effective then shipping it via a ship, and lets you send it in discrete packs so it can go into the production queue. Shipping it all at once in a big ship would create it's own problems for sorting and warehousing on the other end. Typically the bits that are done offsite are coordinated so that they are done in sequence and show up when they are needed for the production schedule. There is some storage/lay down areas to give you flex and allow for shipping delays, but it's minimized because real estate and storage are expensive, and you can't just make something and leave it sitting for a year without having to do some maintenance on it or do rework on the mating surfaces, paint etc.

Not quite just-in-time that they do with car manufacturing, but the whole point of going modular is to allow flexibility and not having to have all the capacity on site. The manufacturing spots are designed so the work stations are really efficient at doing specific work on a specific footprint, whereas a one-size fits all site has a lot of compromises to give you the range of capability. That's why there was a massive capitol expenditure to upgrade both shipyards under the NSS (which Davie would also have to do).

Davie was able to do it with Asterix overseas because the IRBs didn't apply, but it's the same idea.  Heddle and Damen have been doing that already for offshore repair work, so this is an interesting extension of that. I think under the NSS they would just be a major subcontractor, but conceptually no difference then the other subcontractors that do the things like outfitting and furnishings that come in a plug and play box that gets craned into the module. Pretty bold though; like it.

I have this thought of Damen buying Seaspan from the Washington Group. Quite the catalogue to choose from.

One can only dream.

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 216,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,966
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3080 on: June 10, 2020, 13:34:29 »
It is common place for industries of all types to build modules that will fit in ISO container footprints.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 28,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 824
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3081 on: June 10, 2020, 13:54:06 »
Why build parts of one ship here there and everywhere when Seaspan could sub-contract a couple of the multitude of coast guard ships say one complete design to Heddle allowing them the economies of scale and focus on the Dief. in Vancouver.  Same result, less freight.  Heddle can barge modules between Thunder Bay, Hamilton and St. Catharines quite easily and St. Catharines already has a hall in place big enough for just about any size module you can think of.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 45,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,077
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3082 on: June 10, 2020, 14:09:23 »
The issue there is the size of the Polar exceeds the max size for the St. Lawrence locks. They could build it, but not get it out of the Great Lakes.  I suppose they could do final assembly somewhere on the East Coast, but the NSS contract is specifically for the Vancouver shipyard (with subcontractor support across Canada).

For context, 'modules' is a really generic term. It can be anything from a pallet with a piece of kit on it to the whole bow. Both shipyards already have a bunch of stuff fabricated off site, so the only unique thing here is that this may be a bit more integrated then what they do right now for overall scope, and also that Heddle was specifically shut out of bidding on this by the requirements from the GoC.

Didn't see this coming at all, but probably guarantees that they can't sole source it to Davie without facing a big legal challenge. Even if Davie gets it eventually, probably means they will have to sharpen their pencils and do more of the NSS yard upgrades then planned so it's an apple-to-apple comparison against Seaspan.

Would be great if Damen was onboard generally though; sure that would benefit Seaspan as well.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,186
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3083 on: June 10, 2020, 14:19:10 »
What does Damen bring to the table for Seaspan?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 216,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,966
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3084 on: June 10, 2020, 14:36:48 »
Why build parts of one ship here there and everywhere when Seaspan could sub-contract a couple of the multitude of coast guard ships say one complete design to Heddle allowing them the economies of scale and focus on the Dief. in Vancouver.  Same result, less freight.  Heddle can barge modules between Thunder Bay, Hamilton and St. Catharines quite easily and St. Catharines already has a hall in place big enough for just about any size module you can think of.

Not a bad plan either.

Be nice it we could have a plan and stick to it.  There was a plan.  One that would have had Seaspan built an icebreaker.

The issue has never been one of capacity.  The issue was entirely one of politics and money.  Now, with the printing presses being replaced by electrons in no f**king way is money a credible issue anymore - for good or ill.

The only remaining factor is politics.  And these days politics is all about personalities.

F**kemall!
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • 3,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 77
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3085 on: June 10, 2020, 14:59:55 »
What does Damen bring to the table for Seaspan?

Build and repair in the east pacific. As a builder and an engineering company, they are stuck around Europe.

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 253,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,982
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3086 on: June 11, 2020, 13:49:05 »
Waiting for Davie to collaborate with SNC Lavelin...

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 30,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,129
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3087 on: June 11, 2020, 15:49:17 »
... collaborate with SNC Lavelin...

Just need to sort out the bribe structure first.    :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Offline OceanBonfire

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 33,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 459
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3088 on: June 29, 2020, 15:28:27 »
Quote
Government of Canada awards contract to support Halifax-class ship maintenance

June 29, 2020

As outlined in Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, the Government of Canada is committed to equipping the Canadian Armed Forces with modern and capable equipment needed to support its operations. This includes supporting the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) fleet of combat vessels to ensure they remain operationally effective and capable until the transition to its future fleet is complete.

Today, the Government of Canada announced the award of an in-service support contract to Fleetway Inc. of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Valued at $72.6 million for the first six years, with options to extend for up to 22 years, this contract will provide a full range of technical data management and systems engineering support services for the RCN’s fleet of Halifax-class ships. This contract will secure an expert team to store and manage thousands of critical ship documents, in addition to producing complex designs to support the installation of new equipment on board the ships. Their specialized knowledge and skills will make sure key information is up-to-date to support maintenance teams, and will enable the maintenance of the Halifax-class operational capability in support of CAF missions.

Awarded as part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, this contract will ensure that the RCN and supporting shipyards continue to have the technical data required to support ongoing ship maintenance during planned docking work periods, while also providing local economic benefits. Work for the contract began in April 2020, and will continue until the fleet is retired in the early 2040s. This contract is expected to sustain an estimated 140 Canadian jobs.

...


https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/06/government-of-canada-awards-contract-to-support-halifax-class-ship-maintenance.html
Recruiting Centre: Montreal
Regular/Reserve: Regular Force
Officer/NCM: Officer (DEO)
Occupation choice: Logistics Officer
Current application: March 28, 2017
CFAT: Previously completed in November 2011
Interview: July 11, 2017
Medical: August 2017
Competition list: October/November 2017
Position Offered: May 25, 2018
Swearing In: August 21, 2018
BMOQ: August 25, 2018
BMOQ Graduation: November 16, 2018
OFP: December 2019

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 45,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,077
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #3089 on: June 30, 2020, 08:52:30 »
For context, Fleetway has been doing this for ages, and also used to do this for the 280s and tankers. Amongst other things, they maintain the technical data package and drawings for each ship, as well as do up engineering changes and other similar engineering things on a task basis.

Each ship has it's own set of drawings for the most part, and there is a lot of work to put together the info packages for things like the docking work packages. They fall under Irving corporation, but are more of a small engineering firm with the HQ in Ottawa and satellites in both coasts. From my personal experience, they do a good job, and for stuff like this it's good to have the same people responsible for the files, as there is a lot of background history to keep track of.

For AOPs and JSS, this work is part of the AJISS contract, and the same kind of stuff for MCDVs and auxiliary boats is under that ISSC (and think Babcock does it for the subs). Bringing back in house would probably need a few hundred extra people in MEPM and the coasts, and we'd still need to contract some expertise for specific design tasks anyway. Plus would mean yet another change to the role of LCMMs, so would probably need more of them as well for the extra work (and most are covering a few extra slots already).

Probably arguments both ways if it's good value, but this was a decision made back in the 90s so not something we could easily roll back.