Author Topic: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy  (Read 835729 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2725 on: June 11, 2019, 15:38:46 »
Davie is also doing the conversions on the VIKINGS for the CCG, so I guess they can claim with some legitimacy that they are the go to yard for ice breakers. I’ll be happy if it happens soon.

They can but so can any number of yards that's done refits on ice breakers. What their PA have said they are the only yard with ice breaker building experience. They clearly didnt  build any . 
"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 Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 157
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2726 on: June 11, 2019, 15:46:41 »
They can but so can any number of yards that's done refits on ice breakers. What their PA have said they are the only yard with ice breaker building experience. They clearly didnt  build any .

That’s a fair point.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2727 on: June 11, 2019, 15:54:20 »
Davie is also doing the conversions on the VIKINGS for the CCG, so I guess they can claim with some legitimacy that they are the go to yard for ice breakers. I’ll be happy if it happens soon.

From what I understood, they weren't doing anything special for the icebreakers that really goes above and beyond typical docking work anyway (repairs, replacing systems with updated versions, etc).

Interested to see if they roll Davie into the NSS fully, as that will include a requirement for them to modernize their yard (to Target State) and meet a number of other policy requirements (Value Proposition and Industrial Technological Benefits) that don't apply to the other projects they've done (because of the dollar value threshold they kick in at).  Those are all pretty significant, and would require a few years lead time to put in place. Maybe that'll be the next governments problem?  Seems like they are doing something similar to what they complained the Cons did and squeezing in a major policy change before the election (seeing as we're about to hit summer break, then it will be full campaign season).

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 345
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2728 on: June 11, 2019, 16:36:16 »
Well Davie did build 1 3/4 to 2 1/4 of the following offered to the government following order falling through

https://www.davie.ca/news/davie-launches-ship-717/

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 23,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 961
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2729 on: June 11, 2019, 17:58:47 »
They can but so can any number of yards that's done refits on ice breakers. What their PA have said they are the only yard with ice breaker building experience. They clearly didnt  build any .

I think one could easily argue that ISI has more icebreaking "building" experience at this point than Davie.

Not that it really matters.  There is more than enough work for low intensity shipbuilding in three yards for the next 20-30 years. The coast guard, fisheries and oceans and the RCN all need vessels.  And by the time they are done they can start again on the replacement vessels because the others will be 20-30 years old by then...

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 66
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2730 on: June 11, 2019, 19:05:00 »
Excuse me to post this link. Will not be nice to anybody, and I particularly believe it's clearly biased against CSC offseting some aspects as job creation, technology transfers and the effort to level the shipbuilding cycles. Yet the article has some reason...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/203273/canada%E2%80%99s-naval-shipbuilding%3A-double-the-cost-for-half-the-performance.html

Mention to Cyclone (at least)  is not accurate, nor should be listed as another fiasco.

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 197
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2731 on: June 11, 2019, 20:56:06 »
Excuse me to post this link. Will not be nice to anybody, and I particularly believe it's clearly biased against CSC offseting some aspects as job creation, technology transfers and the effort to level the shipbuilding cycles. Yet the article has some reason...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/203273/canada%E2%80%99s-naval-shipbuilding%3A-double-the-cost-for-half-the-performance.html
Subsidies!  Subsidies!  Subsidies!  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/no-subsidies-for-shipbuilding-industry-says-tobin-1.270095

And maybe also different accounting practices—e.g., including the cost of upgrading a jetty to the price of the Protecteurs.  There are errors in that article that you linked to.
Quote
That increase, officials said at the time, will notably allow the government to order 15 new Canadian Surface Combatants, whose estimated cost more than doubled to C$60 billion compared to the previous estimate of C$26 billion, without any clear explanation.
Wrong.  The explanation for the increase: https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf

Quote
At the conclusion of a competition to select a new frigate – and for which a joint offer by Fincantieri and Naval Group was disqualified for late filing – Canadian Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough announced on Feb 8, 2019 that the Canadian government had awarded Lockheed Martin Canada a C$185 million contract to design a fleet of 15 warships based on the Type 26, with a total program cost of C$58 billion to C$60 billion.
Wrong.  It was disqualified, because there was no formal bid.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2732 on: June 12, 2019, 09:43:44 »
I knew missiles were expensive, but 2.1 million each? That makes guided projectiles quite appealing at a mere $150,000-500,000 each.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2733 on: June 12, 2019, 10:56:20 »
I knew missiles were expensive, but 2.1 million each? That makes guided projectiles quite appealing at a mere $150,000-500,000 each.

On the other hand, cost doesn't really impact choice of missile or missile capability.  All of them are in the 2 to 3 MCAD price range.  So cost isn't a key determinant in deciding whether or not to swap air defence for land attack.

The sole exception in ABM but even at 5 MCAD for the SM6 you are looking at a marginal cost increase of 2 to 3 MCAD per missile.  A 6 pack on each CSC would still be a low cost adder to achieve a massive strategic and political advantage.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2734 on: June 12, 2019, 11:52:00 »
The problem is that any missile based war is going to be short as you use up stock faster than can be bought/made and you will be reluctant to stockpile that many both at the initial cost, maintenance and life span.

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 197
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2735 on: June 12, 2019, 14:10:38 »
Quote
Feds cut heavy-icebreaker order from Vancouver shipyard

OTTAWA — The federal government has taken construction of the coast guard's next heavy icebreaker away from a Vancouver shipyard, the latest in a string of changes to Canada's multibillion-dollar shipbuilding strategy.

Seaspan Shipbuilding was tapped in 2011 to build the icebreaker, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, as part of a larger order that also included four science vessels for the coast guard and two navy supply ships.

But Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson's office says the icebreaker has been removed from Seaspan's order book and replaced with 16 smaller vessels that the government announced it was buying last month.

Wilkinson's office says no decision has been made on where the Diefenbaker will be built but some believe Seaspan's bitter rival in Quebec, Davie Shipbuilding, will get the contract.

Davie has been lobbying the federal government for the icebreaker since 2013 and a spokesman for the shipyard says he thinks it is a foregone conclusion that the vessel will be built there.

The Canadian Coast Guard's existing heavy icebreaker, the 53-year-old CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, which the Diefenbaker will replace, is currently in drydock at Davie.
https://www.delta-optimist.com/feds-cut-heavy-icebreaker-order-from-vancouver-shipyard-1.23853389

Online FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,830
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2736 on: June 12, 2019, 14:27:21 »

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2737 on: June 12, 2019, 15:21:45 »
I don't think that Seaspan is a bitter rival of Davie. Pretty sure that title goes to Irving.

Its funny you say that but Davie's PR guy Frederik Boisvert seems to have a real beef with both Seaspan and Irving. He's on a page I frequent and is ranting all the time in regards to those yards.
"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
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2738 on: June 12, 2019, 15:23:22 »
Davie has lobbied a bit to hard, slagging Seaspan when their real target was Irving. They created some bad blood and are going to have to find a way to walk back from that

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 487,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,397
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2739 on: June 14, 2019, 08:42:13 »
...

Interested to see if they roll Davie into the NSS fully, as that will include a requirement for them to modernize their yard (to Target State) and meet a number of other policy requirements (Value Proposition and Industrial Technological Benefits) that don't apply to the other projects they've done (because of the dollar value threshold they kick in at).  Those are all pretty significant, and would require a few years lead time to put in place. Maybe that'll be the next governments problem?  Seems like they are doing something similar to what they complained the Cons did and squeezing in a major policy change before the election (seeing as we're about to hit summer break, then it will be full campaign season).


The NSS is ten years old; it's time for another 'tiger team' of very senior civil servants to review it and, perhaps, make adjustments IF they are needed and warranted ... and, after ten years most programmes do need some fine-tuning, at least.
 
I think that way back when, ten years ago  :whistle:, Davie was on the verge of bankruptcy, mostly due to bad management that was allowed, even encouraged to thrive under the rules of 'Quebec Inc,' and the policy decision to exclude it from the NSS made good sense. I suspect that Davie is, now, a much better company and might deserve to be part of the NSS.

I also wonder if there might be some merit in looking at small vessels ~ < 1,000 tons? <2,500 tone? ~ as a separate issue which would allow for a similar (to the NSS) programme to help rebuild some of the inland (Great Lakes), St Lawrence basin and smaller coastal yards. (I'm reminded that, in 1939, Canada could not build a warship at all ... not one of our yards was capable. But the corvettes, based on a North Atlantic whale-hunter of < 1,000 tons, were able to be built by several Canadian yards and Canada produced well over 100 of them before the war ended. Each took about a year to build and required a few months of sea trials and training before entering combat service.) Minor combatants might be important again and there is, I think, a worldwide market for them.

Anyway ... it's about time to revisit the NSS and, maybe, to incorporate at least one more yard.
   
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2740 on: June 14, 2019, 16:17:31 »

The NSS is ten years old; it's time for another 'tiger team' of very senior civil servants to review it and, perhaps, make adjustments IF they are needed and warranted ... and, after ten years most programmes do need some fine-tuning, at least.
 
I think that way back when, ten years ago  :whistle:, Davie was on the verge of bankruptcy, mostly due to bad management that was allowed, even encouraged to thrive under the rules of 'Quebec Inc,' and the policy decision to exclude it from the NSS made good sense. I suspect that Davie is, now, a much better company and might deserve to be part of the NSS.

I also wonder if there might be some merit in looking at small vessels ~ < 1,000 tons? <2,500 tone? ~ as a separate issue which would allow for a similar (to the NSS) programme to help rebuild some of the inland (Great Lakes), St Lawrence basin and smaller coastal yards. (I'm reminded that, in 1939, Canada could not build a warship at all ... not one of our yards was capable. But the corvettes, based on a North Atlantic whale-hunter of < 1,000 tons, were able to be built by several Canadian yards and Canada produced well over 100 of them before the war ended. Each took about a year to build and required a few months of sea trials and training before entering combat service.) Minor combatants might be important again and there is, I think, a worldwide market for them.

Anyway ... it's about time to revisit the NSS and, maybe, to incorporate at least one more yard.
 

That has been ongoing for a while; it's been referenced in the media a few times as the 'NSS refresh'.  Also, with the oversight committees that includes ADM and DM level meetings, its's constantly being monitored and reviewed for progress and to see if adjustments are required.

Also, it's a misconception that Davie was excluded from the NSS; they completed the prequalification process and submitted a bid, but were not successful in winning either of the two bundles (combat and non-combat).

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 66
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2741 on: June 15, 2019, 06:00:49 »
Would it mean that a third package should be in place for Davie to enter the NSS? Then the package might be or seems to be the "ice-breakers" pack.

In such a case ... who would be in charge of the MCDVs replacement? If considered as combatants, then Irving would be the one, but they won't have capacity until begining of the 2040s, right? Too late, I believe.

Anyone has any idea of who and when will the MCDVs start to be replaced?
Thanks.

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • New Member
  • *
  • 2,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2742 on: June 15, 2019, 11:32:28 »
Would it mean that a third package should be in place for Davie to enter the NSS? Then the package might be or seems to be the "ice-breakers" pack.

In such a case ... who would be in charge of the MCDVs replacement? If considered as combatants, then Irving would be the one, but they won't have capacity until begining of the 2040s, right? Too late, I believe.

Anyone has any idea of who and when will the MCDVs start to be replaced?
Thanks.

Irving could be in charge of the design and be the prime contractor for the MCDV, but contract the work out.  Of course, some fairness rules/audit would have to be in place to make sure that if Davie won the contract they would actually win the contract.

Call me optimistic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2743 on: June 15, 2019, 11:57:47 »
That's what happened to the CCG 47' Lifeboats, I think but not sure SNC Lavilan got the initial contract and then sub contracted to a "yard" in Kingston to build them. The first boat was so bad that PWGC yanked the contract from them and eventually gave it to Nanimo shipyards. I was in Kingston a year or so later, saw bits of the 47' lying in the yard, talked to the manager and he admitted they had never built a proper boat prior to that contract, only aluminium docks, ramps and few pontoon boats.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2744 on: June 15, 2019, 13:26:07 »
Would it mean that a third package should be in place for Davie to enter the NSS? Then the package might be or seems to be the "ice-breakers" pack.

In such a case ... who would be in charge of the MCDVs replacement? If considered as combatants, then Irving would be the one, but they won't have capacity until begining of the 2040s, right? Too late, I believe.

Anyone has any idea of who and when will the MCDVs start to be replaced?
Thanks.

Considering they are developing new payloads for them to carry I would would say they'll be around for at least another 10 years. They are in pretty good shape.
"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 Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2745 on: June 15, 2019, 13:51:39 »
Would it mean that a third package should be in place for Davie to enter the NSS? Then the package might be or seems to be the "ice-breakers" pack.

In such a case ... who would be in charge of the MCDVs replacement? If considered as combatants, then Irving would be the one, but they won't have capacity until begining of the 2040s, right? Too late, I believe.

Anyone has any idea of who and when will the MCDVs start to be replaced?
Thanks.

Depends on the tonnage for the replacement; the NSS yards are excluded from anything beneath 1000 tonnes, so the MCDVs could be a standalone project if below the threshold.  Basically anything paid for by the GoC that floats is getting lumped into the NSS umbrella when they put out the annual reports, but there were a wider variety of small shipyards so that chunk was intentionally cut out to spread some of the love around. 

The MCDVs are grouped with non-combatants at the moment, so unless their replacements had significantly different would probably be the same.  AOPs is as well, but was intentionally put in the combat package to give the shipyard time to build up the experience before jumping into CSC.  Ideally they would have done the same with the non-combat package, as the three OFSVs aren't really enough, and the rest of the one offs of bespoke ships make it impossible for any yard to get efficient at it. Carving out the polar icebreaker and dropping in a long run of ships should help seaspan get over all the efficiency drop offs that happen every time you build a new class and actually make some profit.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 452
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2746 on: June 16, 2019, 21:54:51 »
Would we want glass fiber reinforced plastic hulls?  I see some European countries do build countermine ships like that.   Would fiberglass fall out of the national shipbuilding scope?

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 452
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2747 on: June 16, 2019, 21:59:47 »
PS as an aside seeing Feadships in Fort Lauderdale, they are beautiful with glass hulls. www.feadship.nl

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2748 on: June 17, 2019, 08:49:38 »
Would we want glass fiber reinforced plastic hulls?  I see some European countries do build countermine ships like that.   Would fiberglass fall out of the national shipbuilding scope?

Fibreglass hulls a specialized skill set that neither yard has experience in.  Probably would be best to farm it out to someone that already knew what they were doing if we went that route.  Aside from the tonnage, the dollar value for an MCDV replacement would still push it into the major project side with similar oversight. Sure it would still get rolled up into the NSS annual report, which also includes all the smaller CCG, DND and other boat/ship projects.

(see here for the annual reports; https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/rapport-report-eng.html )

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 23,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 961
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2749 on: June 17, 2019, 15:13:22 »
Would we want glass fiber reinforced plastic hulls?  I see some European countries do build countermine ships like that.   Would fiberglass fall out of the national shipbuilding scope?

Which ones.  I don't personally have a lot of faith that some of the alternative material ships would survive the kind of oceanic punishment that exists right outside of Halifax Hbr, or outside the Straits of Juan de Fuca.  Baltic, Black Sea and coastal patrols only for many of those types.  Our "mine warfare vessels" regularly sail to the arctic, the Grand Banks and Africa.