Author Topic: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy  (Read 847742 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 274
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2875 on: September 17, 2019, 08:13:41 »
Well, it looks like adding a third shipbuilder to the National Shipbuilding Strategy cannot come soon enough.  Already the Americans appear to be complaining that the six new icebreakers are not enough.  I am assuming the allusion to Aiviq is an error.https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/4664285-Great-Lakes-icebreaking-yields-frosty-debate

Good, I'm glad that they are calling us out on this.  I hope that they do it my often and more vocal going forward.  Maybe, just maybe someone will hear this and realising that something needs to be done.  Along with the RCN, something needs to happen.

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 204
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2876 on: September 17, 2019, 09:51:14 »
Good, I'm glad that they are calling us out on this.
I, too, am happy that the Americans are calling us out on this.  But does anyone really believe that Trudeau would have announced a third shipbuilder for the National Shipbuilding Strategy if the Liberals were far ahead of the Conservatives in the polls?

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,645
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2877 on: September 20, 2019, 15:44:53 »
Looks like new USCG icebreakers will be roughly similar in cost (but note gov't-furnished equipment includes military systems we do not have)  to CCG's (one only) new polar ship, supposed to cost $1.4 billion but sure to go up:
Quote
Report to Congress on Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter

The following is the Sept. 19, 2019, Congressional Research Service report, Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.
From the report

The Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program is a program to acquire three new heavy polar icebreakers, to be followed years from now by the acquisition of up to three new medium polar icebreakers. The Coast Guard estimates the total procurement costs of the three heavy polar icebreakers as $1,039 million (i.e., about $1.0 billion) for the first ship, $792 million for the second ship, and $788 million for the third ship, for a combined estimated cost of $2,619 million (i.e., about $2.6 billion). Within those figures, the shipbuilder’s portion of the total procurement cost is $746 million for the first ship, $544 million for the second ship, and $535 million for the third ship, for a combined estimated shipbuilder’s cost of $1,825 million (i.e., about $1.8 billion).

On April 23, 2019, the Coast Guard-Navy Integrated Program Office for the PSC program awarded a $745.9 million fixed-price, incentive-firm contract for the detail design and construction (DD&C) of the first PSC to VT Halter Marine of Pascagoula, MS, a shipyard owned by Singapore Technologies (ST) Engineering. VT Halter was the leader of one of three industry teams that competed for the DD&C contract. The first PSC is scheduled to begin construction in 2021 and be delivered in 2024, though the DD&C contract includes financial incentives for earlier delivery.

The DD&C contract includes options for building the second and third PSCs. If these options are exercised, the total value of the contract would increase to $1,942.8 million (i.e., about $1.9 billion). The figures of $745.9 million and $1,942.8 million cover only the shipbuilder’s costs; they do not include the cost of government-furnished equipment (GFE), which is equipment for the ships that the government purchases and then provides to the shipbuilder for incorporation into the ship, or government program-management costs. When GFE and government program-management costs are included, the total estimated procurement cost of the first PSC is between $925 million and $940 million, and the total estimated procurement cost of the three-ship PSC program is about $2.95 billion [or US $1 billion each].

The PSC program has received a total of $1,034.6 million (i.e., about $1.0 billion) in procurement funding through FY2019, including $300 million provided through the Navy’s shipbuilding account in FY2017 and FY2018. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2020 budget requests $35 million in procurement funding for the PSC program, which is enough to cover the PSC program’s FY2020 government program-management costs. The Coast Guard’s FY2019 budget submission had projected that a total of $125 million in procurement funding would be requested for the PSC program in FY2020.

The operational U.S. polar icebreaking fleet currently consists of one heavy polar icebreaker, Polar Star, and one medium polar icebreaker, Healy. In addition to Polar Star, the Coast Guard has a second heavy polar icebreaker, Polar Sea. Polar Sea, however, suffered an engine casualty in June 2010 and has been nonoperational since then. Polar Star and Polar Sea entered service in 1976 and 1978, respectively, and are now well beyond their originally intended 30-year service lives. The Coast Guard is using Polar Sea as a source of spare parts for keeping Polar Star operational.

Issues for Congress for the PSC program include, inter alia, whether to approve, reject, or modify the Coast Guard’s FY2020 procurement funding request for the program; whether to use a contract with options or a block buy contract to procure the ships; whether to continue providing at least some of the procurement funding for the PSC program through the Navy’s shipbuilding account; technical, schedule, and cost risk in the PSC program; and whether to procure heavy and medium polar icebreakers to a common basic design...
https://news.usni.org/2019/09/20/report-to-congress-on-coast-guard-polar-security-cutter-3

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 204
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2878 on: September 21, 2019, 08:02:34 »
Quote
Shipping lobby group says Lake Superior needs more icebreaking capacity

The Chamber of Maritime Commerce sees hope in a new federal procurement program

THUNDER BAY — A lobby group for the shipping industry wants the federal government to improve icebreaking capacity on Lake Superior and the rest of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

The Ottawa-based Chamber of Maritime Commerce says there are currently only two icebreakers permanently based on the Great Lakes.

"There are deficiencies on both sides of the Canada/U.S. border," said Bruce Burrows, president of the chamber.

This year, he told tbnewswatch.com, "We had a very tough spring, a lot of heavy ice including up your way, and both fleets combined were basically incapable of addressing needs."

Burrows said his group has been telling the Canadian Coast Guard for the past couple of years that it needs additional assets.

He added he's encouraged by recently-announced federal plans to upgrade the Coast Guard fleet including the procurement of six new icebreakers to replace aging vessels.

Burrows noted it will take up to eight years before any new boats are commissioned, and that officially, they are currently designated for deployment on the east coast and in the Arctic.

But he said the potential benefit for the Great Lakes is "to cascade some older vessels which are still in good shape, to the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes."

Burrows said the Chamber of Maritime Commerce is also advocating for a total of five new Coast Guard icebreakers, in addition to the ones to be constructed as replacements.

"We still feel strongly we need one additional icebreaker for the upper Great Lakes, which would include Lake Superior and Thunder Bay, one for the lower lakes, a 'rover' that could stretch anywhere from the Seaway to Thunder Bay in the event of a severe ice season such as we saw this past season, and two assets for lower down in the St. Lawrence and the Gulf."

Burrows conceded that the government is focused on just the replacement program for now, but he said that, as an interim measure, "let's try to get at least one of the cascaded boats positioned up into the lakes initially, which would give access for coverage up into Lake Superior."

Last year, the Coast Guard bought three used icebreakers from Sweden.

According to Burrows, they are allocated to service on the east coast, but he feels they give the Coast Guard opportunity to shuffle older but still serviceable vessels into other areas.

"I'm optimistic that in the next few years we should have regular access to an asset. Where it will be home-ported is debatable. In the end, as long as we have regular access to an additional vessel, we should be happy with that."
https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/shipping-lobby-group-says-lake-superior-needs-more-icebreaking-capacity-1700113

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 204
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2879 on: September 24, 2019, 13:47:47 »
Quote
Ontario shipyard withdraws complaint alleging federal favouritism toward Davie

An Ontario shipyard is ending its bid to have a trade tribunal determine whether the federal government’s plan to add a third shipyard to Canada’s multibillion-dollar shipbuilding strategy has been rigged in favour of a Quebec company.

Last month, Hamilton-based Heddle Marine asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to launch an investigation, alleging some of the requirements needed to qualify for consideration as the third yard seemed aimed at disqualifying all contenders except Quebec’s Chantier Davie.

The federal procurement department subsequently amended some of the requirements, but Heddle asked the tribunal to press ahead with its probe.

The government then invoked a national-security exception that prevents such investigations.

The tribunal was still weighing how to respond to the government when a lawyer for Heddle notified it last week that the Ontario shipyard was withdrawing its complaint, without providing a reason.

The third shipyard will be tasked with building at least six new icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard, whose own icebreaker fleet is on its last legs.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-shipyard-withdraws-complaint-alleging-federal-favouritism-2/

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 204
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2880 on: September 25, 2019, 09:24:28 »
Quote
Ontario shipyard withdraws complaint alleging federal favouritism toward Davie

OTTAWA — An Ontario shipyard has dropped a request for an investigation into whether the federal government tried to rig its plan to add a third yard to its multibillion-dollar shipbuilding strategy in favour of Quebec rival Chantier Davie.

The move by Hamilton-based Heddle Marine comes only a few weeks after the government invoked a controversial national-security exception that prevents such investigations by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

The tribunal’s role is to ensure the government follows proper procurement rules, including adhering to Canada’s obligations under international trade law and free-trade agreements.

In an interview, Heddle Marine president Shaun Padulo said his company decided to drop its complaint after lawyers determined there was no point in continuing after the exception was invoked.

The tribunal was still formulating an official response to the government’s use of the exception, which the Liberal government quietly expanded over the summer without any consultation with industry or experts.

“What we were advised is that based on the law, that national-security exception, there’s nothing that we could really do to fight it,” Padulo told The Canadian Press.

“They said that this would not be a fight that we could win and it would not accomplish anything to protest the national-security exception. So our best bet is to wait to see what the government’s next steps are.”

The federal government launched its high-stakes search for a third yard to join Halifax’s Irving Shipbuilding and Seaspan Marine in Vancouver in Canada’s so-called national shipbuilding strategy in August.

The winning yard could be awarded billions of dollars in work associated with building at least six new icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard and stands to gain much more in future work as well.

Heddle alleged in its complaint that many of the requirements the government said shipyards must meet to qualify for consideration were not legitimate or reasonable — and would disqualify virtually every yard but Davie, which is across the St. Lawrence River from Quebec City.

The federal procurement department subsequently amended some of the requirements, but Heddle asked the tribunal to press ahead with its probe.

It was at that point that the government invoked the national-security exception. In June, the government had rewritten regulations so it could invoke the exception without having to give a justification.

That change came without warning or consultation with industry — and despite previous concerns from the tribunal about an excessive use of such exemptions as well as requests the government limit their use.

While the government did not lay out to the tribunal why the exception was invoked in this case, Fisheries and Oceans Canada spokeswoman Ashley Jackson said it was to ensure the protection of Canada’s “national-security interests.”

“The ships will be used for a wide variety of security-related work such as supporting law-enforcement activities, national and international fisheries patrols, Arctic sovereignty, and maritime-domain awareness,” Jackson said.

“In the past, the coast guard has applied the national-security exception to the projects acquiring the polar icebreaker, medium icebreakers and helicopters.”

Heddle’s complaint aside, the changes to the exception should be a concern to all Canadians given how much the government spends on goods and services each year, said Christopher McLeod, the head of commercial litigation at Mann Lawyers in Ottawa.

“Having an open, fair and transparent system for the government to procure those goods and services is fundamentally important,” said McLeod, who successfully challenged the exception in a previous case in 2016.

That challenge prompted the trade tribunal to begin more closely scrutinizing the government’s reasons for invoking the exception — until the new rules came in saying the government doesn’t have to give any.

“The regulations introduced this summer are a giant step backwards when it comes to fairness, openness and transparency,” McLeod said.

“It’s not like the federal government is simply ignoring a loophole that allows unfairness, they have actually gone back and re-opened a loophole that the (trade tribunal) has previously tried to close.”
https://www.reddeeradvocate.com/business/ontario-shipyard-withdraws-complaint-alleging-federal-favouritism-toward-davie/

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,693
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2881 on: September 28, 2019, 15:29:17 »
Just following up on my post of August 27: It's now been a month since CCGS HUDSON should have come out of the hands of St.John's Shipyard, according to the contract schedule.

Anybody seen her or heard anything about the refit being done and over with?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,645
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2882 on: September 28, 2019, 15:42:25 »
AIS reports here moored in St Johns Harbour

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/shipid:382941/zoom:14

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 204
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2883 on: October 09, 2019, 07:56:24 »

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,785
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2884 on: October 09, 2019, 10:37:14 »
Thanks Uzlu  - really interesting read.

Quote
Ian Mack (Rear-Admiral Retired) served for a decade (2007-2017) as the Director-General in the Department of National Defence responsible for the conception, shaping and support of the launch and subsequent implementation of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, and for guiding the DND project managers for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, the Joint Support Ships and the Canadian Surface Combatants. He also had responsibility for four vehicle projects for the Canadian Army until 2015

Quote
From past observations, it is my assessment our coast guard has been faced with tremendous challenges in determining needs and priorities. I liken this to having an ancient house and being unable to determine whether the roof, the flooring, the basement and foundation cracks, the questionable antique appliances or the creaking front steps need priority attention for the one handyman you have in town and who is new to the business. Where you focus your effort is likely to change, and if many things fail catastrophically, the one handyman will be overwhelmed trying to deliver all the required repairs ASAP. Therefore, the capacity of the two NSPS shipyards was adequate if the timelines to fleet renewal were extended, but the need to replace many types of vessels at the same time has rendered the initial assumptions of capacity inadequate.

To some extent and as mentioned in writing elsewhere, such concerns were considered personally when designing NSPS, based on what turned out to be a mistaken assumption that the two NSPS shipyards could choose to have ships’ hulls built in multiple shipyards in Canada (or abroad) and assembled in the NSPS shipyards. This consideration came into play with the realization that, in those early days, there were two ships competing for VSY attention in one period – the Joint Support Ships for the Royal Canadian Navy and the CCG’s Polar Icebreaker. My assumption turned out to be false – VSY did not develop its new facilities and capacity to cater to such an approach. As a result, a significant analysis and decision-making process had to be used to determine the sequencing of these two ships for VSY attention.

Curious

The highlighted text begs for some additional investigation as it seems to suggest that the Project's management was conscious of at least the possibility of buying 3rd party hulls, both locally and offshore, and then outfitting them in the prime yards.   The approach that Damen and Vard/Fincantieri and others have exploited so successfully.

Was this a Washington Group - Seaspan - VSY decision?

Quote
The Washington Companies
The Washington Companies is a general inclusive term referring to the association of separate independently operated business entities in which Montana businessman Dennis R. Washington holds a significant ownership position. The Washington Companies are headquartered throughout the United States and western Canada and conduct business internationally. They are involved in rail transportation, marine transportation, construction and mining, heavy equipment sales, aviation technology, and real estate development.
https://www.seaspan.com/washington-companies

Quote
Seaspan Corporation (NYSE:SSW) is one of the world’s leading independent containership owners, owning and managing ships which are chartered long-term to major container line companies. A Washington interest based in Vancouver, British Columbia, the company owns a modern fleet of 69 vessels, including some of the largest ever built.

https://www.washingtoncompanies.com/companies.php

I am pretty sure that none of Seaspan's hulls were built in BC (or the States).


"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

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

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,645
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2885 on: October 09, 2019, 12:44:48 »
NSPS companies should have their sister companies obligated to have X number of hulls built in country. Hearing companies complain of gaps in ship building and expecting the government to fill them, while purchasing hulls overseas at the same time is not kosher.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 466
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2886 on: October 09, 2019, 14:21:55 »
NSPS companies should have their sister companies obligated to have X number of hulls built in country. Hearing companies complain of gaps in ship building and expecting the government to fill them, while purchasing hulls overseas at the same time is not kosher.

Colin I understand your frustration.  But the two shipyards greater corporate brothers will never buy from the Canadian yards.  The whole ship building program was set up to build expensive, high margin ships for the government the end.  The federal government at that.  As the provinces are buying their ferry overseas.   This is a labour favor, job making and vote buy plan.  That the end products are ships are just a very lucky byproduct.  The sister companies buy their offshore because most ships are built at cost or below the already low cost in Asia or Europe.  Look at the three big Korean builders they are basically insolvent and merging.  The PRC builders are subsidized or a out growth of the PLAN.   Europe subsidizes their builders too.  So if you are a buyer of ships do you buy ships twice (x3?) as expensive from your own yard or a yard that someone puts dollar bills on the hull.   As a business person the answer is very easy.  Plus you have a government contract to fill your yard with nice cost plus builds.  An if you need that yard to fix your own ship it is there with trained people. 
+300

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,785
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2887 on: October 09, 2019, 15:37:24 »
NSPS companies should have their sister companies obligated to have X number of hulls built in country. Hearing companies complain of gaps in ship building and expecting the government to fill them, while purchasing hulls overseas at the same time is not kosher.

If we were building pipelines then we could afford to build a Norwegian style coastguard fleet of these  (Barentshav, Harstad, Alesund, Nornen)






Put more Vancouver and Victoria residents to work.
Create more berths for native and non-native sailors.
Make the seas generally more safe for everybody, including tourists and salmon fishers.
Permit the export of hydrocarbons safely.

Oh, and add tax dollars to BC coffers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

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

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,645
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2888 on: October 09, 2019, 16:27:33 »
Colin I understand your frustration.  But the two shipyards greater corporate brothers will never buy from the Canadian yards.  The whole ship building program was set up to build expensive, high margin ships for the government the end.  The federal government at that.  As the provinces are buying their ferry overseas.   This is a labour favor, job making and vote buy plan.  That the end products are ships are just a very lucky byproduct.  The sister companies buy their offshore because most ships are built at cost or below the already low cost in Asia or Europe.  Look at the three big Korean builders they are basically insolvent and merging.  The PRC builders are subsidized or a out growth of the PLAN.   Europe subsidizes their builders too.  So if you are a buyer of ships do you buy ships twice (x3?) as expensive from your own yard or a yard that someone puts dollar bills on the hull.   As a business person the answer is very easy.  Plus you have a government contract to fill your yard with nice cost plus builds.  An if you need that yard to fix your own ship it is there with trained people.

You can put extra import duties on any vessel that can be shown as capable of being built in our yards. So a cable laying ship would be exempt, but dumb barges would not, nor smaller tugs.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,667
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2889 on: October 09, 2019, 16:43:43 »
You can put extra import duties on any vessel that can be shown as capable of being built in our yards. So a cable laying ship would be exempt, but dumb barges would not, nor smaller tugs.

Probably why the NSPS has no mention of submarines, we can't build them, so it is not popular for the politicians
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 466
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2890 on: October 09, 2019, 16:56:17 »
The government had import duties on ships for years.  They removed them so the provinces and business could buy ships cheaper.  Plus in most cases with Seaspan and Irving (as buyer and builder) they would just say our yards can't build those types of ships we build gov ships lol.  So your selective tax by type wouldn't work either.  And we have trade agreements with many of the ship building nations ie South Korea and EU.

So the best thing we can hope for is to get the yards up and building and hope that they can sell something to others.  I would think maybe give them an incentive to sell something to other countries or  companies may have a small change at working.  IE An AOPS to New Zealand. or a Ice Breaker to someone else. 

One of the thoughts is sell New Zealand on a T-26 let the three building counties compete on build and combat system.  You would have Irving/Lockheed vs BAE AUS/Saab vs BAE Britain.  BAE would be paid the design rights but each county would complete for the build.  It would take a ton of negotiation.  It maybe to hard but there will be three hot lines building it.  There maybe more customers waiting in the wings for the first one in the water too.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 466
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2891 on: October 09, 2019, 17:08:28 »
If we were building pipelines then we could afford to build a Norwegian style coastguard fleet of these  (Barentshav, Harstad, Alesund, Nornen)






Put more Vancouver and Victoria residents to work.
Create more berths for native and non-native sailors.


Make the seas generally more safe for everybody, including tourists and salmon fishers.
Permit the export of hydrocarbons safely.

Oh, and add tax dollars to BC coffers.

The way the election is going there we no pipelines ever!  Even with those protection ships built in Canada.  The environment movement wants to shutdown oil transportation so as to stop oil production in Canada.  Canada is to become one great big giant nature preserve that is true end goal.  I live in Ontario if I was in the west I would totally be thinking about ways around it.  Move the oil north to Valdez.

But I guess that is any other thread lol

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,645
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2892 on: October 09, 2019, 17:28:44 »
Test shipments of granular bitumen have already gone to Prince Rupert. Containerisation of previously bulk products such as Hydrocarbons and grains is really taking off and Prince Rupert is working hard to make that happen.

Absolutely BS that we can't build ferries here, I get that yards are busy, but with sub contracting to the smaller yard the vessels can be built at the same time. What the client like BC ferries need to do is planning the long term replacement of their ship, so perhaps work begins on a hull as the shipyard finds a lull in the rhythm of the NSPS contracts, such as your cutting shop or welders are underutilized, they can be working on parts of the ferry. once the hull has reached X point, smaller yards like Point Hope can work on the superstructure, accommodations and then ship it for assembly, which is how we built the Spirit Class.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,645
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2893 on: October 11, 2019, 15:53:02 »
After third OFSV built still an RCN Joint Support Ship, one CCG Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel and another supply ship to be built before Seaspan can--likely in later 2020s--get to the other 16 ships Justin Trudeau has promised for CCG (in effect complete replacement, along with the six new icebreakers plus the polar one almost certainly for Davie, of whole fleet of large CCG vessels, our media don't yet seem to realize this: 1) https://globalnews.ca/news/5302516/justin-trudea-canadian-coast-guard-renewal/ 2) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-shipyard-withdraws-complaint-alleging-federal-favouritism-2/):

Quote
Seaspan-Built CCG Ship Heads for Sea Trials

The future Capt. Jacques Cartier, the second of three Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels (OFSV) to be designed and built by Seaspan at its Vancouver Shipyards (VSY), began sea trials on October 10, 2019 from Seaspan’s Vancouver Drydock where final outfitting, set to work and commissioning has taken place since its launch in June.

“With the future Capt. Jacques Cartier headed out to sea today, excitement in our NSS program is growing,” said Mark Lamarre, CEO, Seaspan Shipyards. I” want to thank all our employees, partners and most especially our Coast Guard community for your teamwork and dedication in achieving this major milestone. We are looking forward to delivering this second vessel to the Coast Guard later this year, which will enable them to do their critical work focused on the protection, preservation and conservation of Canada’s coastal waters.”

This milestone on the second OFSV follows her launch on June 5 and the delivery of the first OFSV, the CCGS Sir John Franklin, on June 27. The CCGS Sir John Franklin is the first large vessel to be built and delivered under the National Shipbuilding Strategy...


The future Capt. Jacques Cartier, the second of three Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels (OFSV) to be designed and built by Seaspan at its Vancouver Shipyards (VSY), began sea trials on October 10, 2019. Photo: Seaspan Shipyard
https://www.marinelink.com/news/seaspanbuilt-ccg-ship-heads-sea-trials-471627

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,645
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2894 on: October 11, 2019, 19:52:52 »
Would have loved to gotten advance notice of the launch so we could get some of our Cadets to attend. How do you interest young people if you don't give them a chance to celebrate significant events like this?

Online Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 43,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,236
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2895 on: October 11, 2019, 23:07:10 »
That’s a stocky looking ship, lots of tonnage for her length.
Living the lean life

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 71
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2896 on: October 12, 2019, 18:12:19 »
Would have loved to gotten advance notice of the launch (...)
How do you interest young people if you don't give them a chance to celebrate significant events like this?

Fully agree. Good leaders care for their pupils.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 253,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,078
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2897 on: October 12, 2019, 18:21:12 »
Would have loved to gotten advance notice of the launch so we could get some of our Cadets to attend. How do you interest young people if you don't give them a chance to celebrate significant events like this?

You should send them a note to request a trip for the kids. Shame them as much as possible, of course :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon