Little Honking Ships......

[Stoker]

First thing of all governments do not have the political will to buy offshore, so that's out. Once the unions and Canadian shipyards get their piece of the pie, the ships will cost much more than we have budgeted. Having ships to go in harms way with a mix of military/civilian specs is fine on paper and the ship may make it to its destination,but all bets are off if they get into a fight.
If and when when we get these ships, who are going to crew them and pay for their operating costs? We are hemorrhaging people from the Navy and can't afford to keep MCDV's to sea for Pete's sake, by far the most economical ships we have.
At the end of the day we'll get a few overpriced ships built but will we be able to crew them or even maintain them. I'm all for the big, little honking ships but I think what we need to focus on what we exactly need to protect out shorelines, including the arctic and maintain our overseas commitments. These ships need to last a long time and be economical to operate and maintain.

 

[AlexanderM]

That's similar to the rationale used when we acquired the Upholder class submarines. The Victoria class issues and resultant political fallout are one reason why we're not likely to purchase second-hand vessels - of any type - any time soon.

I wasn't talking about purchasing second hand vessels.  Either the De Zeven Provincien or the Iver Huitfeldt could be purchased for under $1 billion each and that would likely be with $100-200 million per ship in upgrades, such as better steel, etc.

 

[Stoker]

I wasn't talking about purchasing second hand vessels.  Either the De Zeven Provincien or the Iver Huitfeldt could be purchased for under $1 billion each and that would likely be with $100-200 million per ship in upgrades, such as better steel, etc.

I don't think anyone is disputing your idea, which for bang for buck is the best deal for the navy. Its the political fallout to build offshore. Buying used, surface ships yes, submarines not so much.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I wasn't talking about purchasing second hand vessels.  Either the De Zeven Provincien or the Iver Huitfeldt could be purchased for under $1 billion each and that would likely be with $100-200 million per ship in upgrades, such as better steel, etc.

Okay, but you are missing the whole point of the NSPS. We are building an industry-it's a gamble and as the Navy is the first 'bet'. the cost is inflated. The hope is, as OGBD says, for a generational change in optics so that 30-40 years from now instead of us looking at current German/Dutch/US designs (which are fantastic designs by the way), it will be them looking to us. We have the second largest coastline in the world and a miniscule shipbuilding industry.  Something is REALLY wrong here.
If the government uses NSPS as a job creation and skill creation tool, so be it but we need to be part of it or sit back and watch the world go by. I saw a quote in someone's sig block the other day that sort of fits here: "You can lead, you can follow or you can get run over". Your right A, we could have a world class Navy of 100% foreign design and build within 5 years...but long term...? What is the goal of NSPS? It definitely is NOT that I say.

 

[Kirkhill]

This business of price/cost/value....

Buying a piece of kit from an offshore supplier is different than buying the same piece of kit from a domestic supplier.  I'm sure this point has been made before.

If I pay a foreigner for a ship that money is "found money" for their economy.  It is new money that reduces the demands on the exchequer of the vending country's economy.  Those demands are present on the economy regardless of whether or not they ever sell a nut or a bolt outside of their borders.  Specifically the demands are to keep the populace content.  That is achieved by keeping them out of the labour market (more time spent in school, conscription, short work weeks, long vacations, generous disability plans, early retirement), by supplying "government jobs" under very generous working conditions and/or by supplying private sector jobs.

All countries use combinations of all of the above to ensure Peace, Order and Good Governance.

The issue of how much something costs then becomes a matter of book-keeping.

In the European, state-sponsored model, they are more inclined to transfer costs from the manufacturers in the "private sector" and claim them on government ledgers.  Consequently the European cost of production is quite low.  R&D, apprenticeships, over-manning, even marketing are all directly, and without shame, subsidized by the governments.

In the American, free-enterprise model, all costs are routed through the "private sector" manufacturers, even those costs that are directly subsidized by the US government.  Consequently the US cost of production is very high.  All costs are apparently borne by the manufacturer. But given that all defense products are purchased by the US government then the government is effectively subsidizing the US economy in exactly the same manner as the Europeans.

The F-35 programme gives a great example of that.  The domestic cost of the F-35 is considerably higher than the export, fly-away cost.  The fly-away cost is broadly competitive with the European competitors.

The issue for Canada is whether or not the government can make the case for subsidizing the Canadian economy through the US model, in which case the CF budget needs to be increased to manage the necessary cash flow, or the European model, in which case the subsidies are funneled through Human Resources, DFAIT, Industry Canada and every other department known to Ottawa.

You can't run a US modeled defence procurement plan on a European budget.

Arguably the Europeans are spending much more on "defence" than the 1 or 2% that they claim.  They simply prefer not to show the "real" value on their books.

And that doesn't include the impact of the large domestic security, and paramilitary operations that they maintain that contribute to defence writ large but also are not shown on the books.

I don't think that Canadians are going to accept a US style defence budget anytime soon.  Given the predilection for European solutions I suggest that the Government, even though it is a Conservative one, if it wants to sell defence to Canadians, is going to have to reduce the direct costs and channel the subsidies necessary to maintain the capabilities through The Rest of Government.

 

[AlexanderM]

Okay, but you are missing the whole point of the NSPS. We are building an industry-it's a gamble and as the Navy is the first 'bet'. the cost is inflated. The hope is, as OGBD says, for a generational change in optics so that 30-40 years from now instead of us looking at current German/Dutch/US designs (which are fantastic designs by the way), it will be them looking to us. We have the second largest coastline in the world and a miniscule shipbuilding industry.  Something is REALLY wrong here.
If the government uses NSPS as a job creation and skill creation tool, so be it but we need to be part of it or sit back and watch the world go by. I saw a quote in someone's sig block the other day that sort of fits here: "You can lead, you can follow or you can get run over". Your right A, we could have a world class Navy of 100% foreign design and build within 5 years...but long term...? What is the goal of NSPS? It definitely is NOT that I say.

I don't see it as being in any way realistic.  We are going to pour a huge amount of money into the ships and still not be competitive.  Now, if we were working with the Davie Yard I might have a different opinion, as they have a different approach than Irving.  I'm also wondering what might happen if the Liberals get elected?

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I met the new 'Boss' at Irving just before Christmas at a Dinner. I think you (and others) might be surprised.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Lately with the PCs I think we have been taking 1 step forward and 4 back; if the Liberals get in, it may be 1 forward and 8 back. :/

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I met the new 'Boss' at Irving just before Christmas at a Dinner. I think you (and others) might be surprised.

As in the CDS?

 

[Pat in Halifax]

No, Irving's new boss; Kevin McCoy.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Sadly I don't think myself or many of my peers are too optimistic we will see new and for that matter capable hulls hitting the water from Irving or Seaspan anytime soon.

 

[GR66]

Is the Canadian market big enough to support a shipbuilding industry with DND as it's major customer?  Realistically that's what we're looking at as far as I can see (at least in terms of military vessels).  The US and European countries (and South Korea for that matter) already have established industries and their governments aren't going to cut off their own companies by buying from Canadian shipyards.  Is it a good idea to try and build an industry that is dependent on DND's very occasional orders? 

Unless we have a miracle change of policy which sees a steady stream of ships coming off the lines to keep modernizing the RCN and CG on a regular basis then we will probably end up with an industry which will rely on government life support in order to produce over-priced ships for domestic use.  Is that the best way to spend our money?  Would we be better off paying less for foreign warships upfront and using those savings to support industries that might have better long-term export potential?  Or maybe there is a market for a niche subset of the shipbuilding industry where exports are a more likely possibility...like ice strengthened hulls?  No idea.  But this industrial strategy seems much more focused on short-term regional political gains than on real, viable, long-term industrial strategy.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

As much as I would like to support a Canadian shipbuilding industry, the sad fact is there are too many fingers in the pie to make it viable. Its a sad state of affair when it almost takes decades to get a hull designed, built and to the fleet when other countries it can take less then 5 years.

 

[Fabius]

In order for Canada to maintain a internationally competitive and viable naval ship building capacity we obviously need to constantly be building ships.
This is where I have little confidence in the new NSPS.  Like was pointed out by Oldgateboatdriver, we as a nation have not seen fit to actually maintain an ability to build warships.
There was a 16 year gap between the Cold War fleet ship programs and the Halifax Class. Currently there is a 17 year gap and growing between the Halifax and the CSC. In comparison The Netherlands primary ship yard, Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding has had a warship under construction almost constantly from 1975 onwards. They have only had two 5-6 year gaps, once in the late 80s and again in the late 90s.  During those gaps although they were not actively welding etc, they were busy in the design phase for the next class of major surface combatants.

My concern for the NSPS is that sure we build up our capabilities over the course of the CSC and related projects and then we do what Canada has historically done and cease any further warship development/building for another 2 decades.
Unless that historical trend changes NSPS is not going to succeed in actually creating a viable industry.

This problem has nothing to do with the Navy and everything to do with the Canadian public and our priorities for spending our tax dollars and then by extension the politicians we elect.

 

[NavyShooter]

I met the new 'Boss' at Irving just before Christmas at a Dinner. I think you (and others) might be surprised.

Pat,

To be honest, I fear that based on my personal experience*  that unless they raze the place to the ground, fire the lot of the useless sabotaging slugs that work there right now, and start from scratch, that there will be nothing good coming out of that yard.

*Experiences include things that I have personally seen, on my ship, since we got it back from a certain shipyard.  Unless the wire-snipper fairies have been at work, someone deliberately cut and hid wires/cables.  That, in my books, is sabotage.  We've all seen how we have to strip the brass fittings out of the ships to prevent someone in ISI from stealing it for the scrap value...We had 95% of the PA system on the ship working....until the day after they laid off 300 workers in the fall....the next day we had 65% of the speakers working....again, wire snipper fairies I guess.

This is what I personally have seen, and what I personally feel.

If they have some new guy at the top that can magically fix these saboteurs that work for him...well, more power to him.  I truly wish that a different yard had got the contract.

YMMV, but the new guy at the top has a long, uphill fight to gain any measure of respect back with those of us who have to work for months to get a ship finished and ready to sail even after an 18 month refit.  To put it in perspective, if you got a Leo back from the depot after refurbishment, would you expect to have to swap out the engine pack, finish installing (and wiring) all the radios, install and test the gun computer, then do all of the alignments to make sure it worked before taking it out for it's first test-drive...?

NS

 

[Pat in Halifax]

Oh, don't get me wrong-I too am familiar with some of the mysterious things that happen to systems/equipment and yet when they are reported, no one seems to listen. I know one person will not change things over night but it is a start. Like it or not, Irving has the lion's share of the NSPS (approx. $33.6 B I believe). One can only hope that the prevalent attitude behind those gates changes at some point. He did not change my opinion of the work quality coming out of there but listening to him, gave me a sliver of hope and without getting into it, we have seen the result once already of his no-nonsense approach to issues.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Pat,

To be honest, I fear that based on my personal experience*  that unless they raze the place to the ground, fire the lot of the useless sabotaging slugs that work there right now, and start from scratch, that there will be nothing good coming out of that yard.

*Experiences include things that I have personally seen, on my ship, since we got it back from a certain shipyard.  Unless the wire-snipper fairies have been at work, someone deliberately cut and hid wires/cables.  That, in my books, is sabotage.  We've all seen how we have to strip the brass fittings out of the ships to prevent someone in ISI from stealing it for the scrap value...We had 95% of the PA system on the ship working....until the day after they laid off 300 workers in the fall....the next day we had 65% of the speakers working....again, wire snipper fairies I guess.

This is what I personally have seen, and what I personally feel.

If they have some new guy at the top that can magically fix these saboteurs that work for him...well, more power to him.  I truly wish that a different yard had got the contract.

YMMV, but the new guy at the top has a long, uphill fight to gain any measure of respect back with those of us who have to work for months to get a ship finished and ready to sail even after an 18 month refit.  To put it in perspective, if you got a Leo back from the depot after refurbishment, would you expect to have to swap out the engine pack, finish installing (and wiring) all the radios, install and test the gun computer, then do all of the alignments to make sure it worked before taking it out for it's first test-drive...?

NS

And we had our share of sabotage items too when we came out last year.  3 inch studs inserted into the black water lines, causing major blockages.  Expandable foam down drain scuppers... and on and on.

 

[NavyShooter]

Like I said.  Raze it and start from scratch.  200 gallon internal fuel spill as a result of an ISI assembled transfer valve...

NS

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Watch the tangent fellas.

---Staff---

 

[Kirkhill]

Tangent Break Recceguy - How about "Managing Quality - RCN Style"?

This article is about the USN but directly applies to Pat, JJT and Ex-D's concerns'

Navy Shipbuilding: Opportunities Exist to Improve Practices Affecting Quality


Source: Government Accountability Office


Ref: GAO-14-122


Issued Nov 19, 2013


106 PDF pages


The US Navy has experienced significant quality problems with several ship classes over the past several years. It has focused on reducing the number of serious deficiencies at the time of delivery, and GAO’s analysis shows that the number of deficiencies—particularly “starred” deficiencies designated as the most serious for operational or safety reasons—has generally dropped.

Nonetheless, the Navy continues to accept ships with large numbers of open deficiencies (see figure below as an example; although total deficiencies have declined for this ship class, the last ship still had about 1,000 deficiencies that the shipbuilder was responsible for correcting).

Accepting ships with large numbers of uncorrected deficiencies is a standard practice and GAO found that there are varying interpretations of Navy policy with regard to when the defects should be resolved. In 2009, the Navy organization that oversees ship construction launched the Back to Basics initiative to improve Navy oversight of ship construction. However, a key output of the initiative promoting consistent and adequate quality requirements in Navy contracts has yet to be implemented.

Although the environment in which leading commercial ship buyers and builders operate differs in many ways from the Navy’s, some commercial practices aimed at helping to ensure that ships are delivered with a minimum number of deficiencies may be informative for the Navy. Throughout the course of commercial shipbuilding projects, significant numbers of quality defects and instances of non-conforming work are identified. However, leading commercial ship buyers and shipbuilders make great efforts to ensure that these issues are resolved prior to delivery. Further, commercial ship buyers establish clear lines of accountability and hold their personnel responsible for ensuring the shipbuilder delivers a quality vessel.

While commercial ship buyers focus on regularly witnessing in-process work through roaming patrols and impromptu inspections, Navy processes at the shipyards place less emphasis on in-process work. Moreover, leading commercial shipbuilders have strong quality management processes that track quality problems to the worker or supervisor level. Navy shipbuilding contractors have historically experienced difficulties in holding production workers and supervisors accountable for their work, but some of the shipyards reported they are making progress on increasing worker accountability.

Perhaps you should be buying commercial after all.....

There's a greater chance that the ship keeping you out of the water actually adheres to the standards set.  At least you would know the capabilities of the vessel rather than trusting that you know the capabilities of the vessel.


PS.  I see this on a lot of projects, especially government ones.

People cheap-out on on-site management.  Rather than having their representatives on-site and looking over the shoulders of the contractors so that they can correct deficiencies and conflicts on the spot they rely on an occasional visit by engineers and milestone testing.

The net effect is that problems go unobserved and remediation becomes costly and a matter of dispute.  If your rep is on-site and part of the supervisory team you get to bring the project back on plan, and make necessary compromises, in a timely, cost-effective manner.

No plan survives contact with the enemy?  No plan survives contact with the contractors....