New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[AlexanderM]

My experience is, as a taxpayer, remembering how much we spent for the Halifax Class, which was much higher than the going rate for ships of that class at the time. I remember the day they announced they were giving up on making the stealth technology work, which contributed to the cost.  I had a close friend, who was an LT. on one of the Halifax ships, and we had a tour when almost no one was on the ship. We saw everything, and they are good ships, but were very expensive.

There have already been published reports of estimates of the cost of the new destroyers being above 2 billion each, and upwards of 2.5 billion.  And, I have had a private discussions with someone who is currently working on the program and he confirmed the cost. I have had this discussion with him and I have a pretty good idea what they are thinking.

I also graduated Cornwallis many, many moons ago, and no I am not trolling out of my ****.  I have some fundamental disagreements with what is being said in that article.  Mainly regarding the need to have our own designs, given the cost.

 

[aesop081]

and no I am not trolling out of my ****. 

Your previous post suggest different.

:

 

[Monsoon]

There have already been published reports of estimates of the cost of the new destroyers being above 2 billion each, and upwards of 2.5 billion.  And, I have had a private discussions with someone who is currently working on the program and he confirmed the cost. I have had this discussion with him and I have a pretty good idea what they are thinking.

As we learned during the F-35 kerfluffle, there are costs and then there are "costs". $2.5B is the per-unit accounting cost, including through-life (usually 20 years) expenses for things like crewing, training, maintenance, operating, running a dockyard to house the ships, etc, etc, etc. The crew costs alone for a surface combatant account for a good quarter-bil. The costs quoted for the ship designed by the German consortium or for an AB are construction costs alone - by far the smallest component.

The German shipyard operators know the difference, but crucially they know that the Canadian public (even a greeeeeat many service members and veterans - like you) don't, which is why they've helpfully tipped off the media that they're making this approach to the government to stir up public angst.

How does it feel to be used?

 

[Maxadia]

I also graduated Cornwallis many, many moons ago, and no I am not trolling out of my ****.

That's funny.  You have vast experience and friends "in the know", but you thought Gen. Natynczyk resigned because of the cost of these ships?

Your friend must be very high up.

I have some fundamental disagreements with what is being said in that article.  Mainly regarding the need to have our own designs, given the cost.

Not a Canadian shipbuilder trying to support a family, are you?

 

[AlexanderM]

That's funny.  You have vast experience and friends "in the know", but you thought Gen. Natynczyk resigned because of the cost of these ships?

Your friend must be very high up.

Not a Canadian shipbuilder trying to support a family, are you?

Saying that I thought that was the reason is completely inaccurate, I didn't even look into the matter, I simply knew that there had been a change.  I was venting because I'm ticked off that we always have to pay so much for the ships we build, as compared with other nations.  I also think that the article is completely off base regarding the importance of having our own designs.  What is important, and the only thing that is important, is having capable ships, and we can easily license them and build them in Canada.

Also, in the story they had on the news about the change at the top, they mentioned that the new guys #1 priority was the new Destroyers and Frigates.

 

[aesop081]

we can easily license them and build them in Canada.

Thus increasing the cost as well. Canadian shipyards will require a huge amount of work in order to hire capable workers and equipment necessary to build any warship here at home. Licensing a foreign design and building it here is still not the cheapest option.

 

[AlexanderM]

The problem is, when we design them here, we tend to design them so they are expensive to build.  If one looks at the Spanish F100 Class, or the De Zeven Provincien, which were both built at a very reasonable cost? The question is then, how much more should they cost to build them here?  If it's double, or more, then we should all be shaking our heads.

 

[Good2Golf]

What is important, and the only thing that is important, is having capable ships, and we can easily license them and build them in Canada.

....only thing that is important....?

How much have you read on Canada's priorities regarding capability acquisition in major crown projects in general, and the national shipbuilding strategy in particular?

Might I suggest that your statement regarding importance "only" in having capable ships is both naive and inaccurate.

If you put aside what your influential friends are telling you for just a moment, and take a quick look at what Industry Canada says about the ships, you will find that the taxpayers' money that goes into a complex capital programme does far more than 'provide capability'.  Your priority highlighted in teal, the 'other stuff' which is rather important to the Government of Canada in orange.

Ref: Industry Canada's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy

The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) is an unprecedented long-term, multi-billion dollar commitment to renewing Canada's federal fleet. The NSPS will accomplish this by establishing strategic partnerships with two shipyards, with one building combat vessels and the other non-combat vessels. This strategy will help build and maintain an effective federal fleet for maritime security and services while maximizing economic benefits across the country.

Of the funds identified within fleet renewal plans of the Navy and Coast Guard, only a portion of this amount would go to the two winning shipyards. The rest would flow to the broader marine industry, including the project management design and combat sectors. This approach will create significant opportunity for suppliers across Canada and will facilitate the development of advanced technologies and sustained innovation.

Canada's marine industry is a key economic driver and the lifeblood of many communities across the country. The federal government believes in the strategic importance of this industry and is committed to making its fleet renewal a key contributor to the industry's long-term well-being.

The NSPS will provide a framework to promote continuous improvement in the industry, while enabling significant cost savings from a long-term, steady work flow. The Strategy will help the industry avoid the boom and bust cycle that has characterized industry activity in the past. Communities across the country will benefit because this strategy creates and sustains highly skilled jobs for Canadian companies, including small and medium-sized enterprises.

As you can now see, there is a LOT more to a programme than simply the "most capable" ship.

Also, in the story they had on the news about the change at the top, they mentioned that the new guys #1 priority was the new Destroyers and Frigates.

Ahhhh...you mean the reporter said the "new guy's #1 priority" was the new Destroyers and Frigates.  Have you actually heard Gen Lawson say, "My #1 priority for the CF is procuring the Navy's new ships?"


Short of any of the forum members here actually working in the Directorate of Maritime Requirements, the majority of others inform themselves through a balance of academic, journalistic and official government sources on the issue as well as studying what other options and vessel designs are available that would meet not only the operational requirements, but also achieve the other goals the Government of Canada has stated formally as being important elements of the overall procurement plan.

Regards
G2G

 

[AlexanderM]

It is my arguement that pretty much everything you have just said and quoted is a complete fallicy, and here is why.

When it comes to warships, we have the Americans and then Europe. On one side, we have the Aegis system and it's compatible vls systems and missles. On the other side, we have the Smart-L/APAR combination, which is likely what Canada will use, as they are compatible with American missles. Then, we have the American and EU missles, of which we will use the American. Beyond this, we have the choices for the main guns and then the point defence systems. Then, we pick our ASW systems and our helicopters. 

All of the state of the art systems are essentially available, off the shelf, at this point.  So, we don't need to re-invent the wheel, we just pick our systems, and make certain that the ship designs are built to be upgraded, and can carry some mission modules.  Then, we should be picking future programs to invest in, making us a partner with the other developing nations, like we have done with APAR.  I take it that you're aware of this program.  This is exactly what we should be doing.

Now, at a time when pretty much every nation on earth is in financial trouble, the idea that building grossly overexpensive warships is going to make us more competitive is where the fallicy comes in.  It doesn't make us more competitive.  Other nations will look at the cost of what we've done and say, good luck with that.  When it comes to shipbuilding, we can't compete with Korea or other nations who can build what we build for half the cost.  the idea that one can put a fancy arguement on paper that really shows us that it's OK, doesn't help.

 

[Good2Golf]

You're not arguing with me, you're arguing against what the Government of Canada says its own priorities are.  Have fun with that....odds are you won't convince the Government to change its mind, but by all means enjoy trying.

G2G

 

[AlexanderM]

Yes! Agreed!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

When it comes to building frigate-destroyer sized naval vessels, Canada actually has a decent track record , despite the stop and start nature of the programs. If Canada can come up with a winning design that is adaptable to US and other tech, then our design teams have a marketable skill regardless of the cost of building them here.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is an interesting development, I think: RFA Fort Victoria is in drydock in Dubai. Are there no shipyards with capacity in UK? Do UK workers not need jobs? Is money that tight?

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ugborough_exile/8108182439/
This photo was taken on October 21, 2012 in Al Mina, Dubai, Dubai, AE.

My questions are serious; I thought shipbuilding/repair, especially of warships, is (was?) always done domestically.

 

[GAP]

lowest bid?

 

[Edward Campbell]

lowest bid?

That certainly addresses my third question (tight budgets).

I guess it's good for the Philippines since, I think, most 'workers' in the Gulf states are foreigners, often Pakistanis and Bangladeshis for lower skill jobs and Filipinos for higher skill ones.

 

[jollyjacktar]

It might depend upon the circumstance of the work being done.  We've had foreign yards to work on our ships when overseas and needs must.  From what I've heard they are fast, low cost and efficient.  Something Irving has no idea of...

 

[Edward Campbell]

It might depend upon the circumstance of the work being done.  We've had foreign yards to work on our ships when overseas and needs must.  From what I've heard they are fast, low cost and efficient.  Something Irving has no idea of...

So this might be urgent repairs rather than any sort of refit?

 

[jollyjacktar]

So this might be urgent repairs rather than any sort of refit?

Yes, that's very possible.  I know of for instance major equipment changeouts being done overseas when things have died.  Diesel generators, gas turbines etc, IIRC.  There was with a CPF in Japan such a job that was done in a matter of days vs weeks as back home.  The person who told me about it was in awe of the process, (again IIRC).

Things can and do happen when you're deployed and vessels like the RFA oilers can stay on station for extended periods of time as the mission requires.  While I was in Puerto Rico some years ago on the Tanker we had to have a backyard mechanic fabricate a fix for us so we could make it home, it was about $15K and was quite creative and MacGyver-ish too.

 

[Occam]

So this might be urgent repairs rather than any sort of refit?

I would venture it's a scheduled refit, judging by the fact that all of her antennas and mast have been removed, and most of the superstructure is covered in scaffolding - see more photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ugborough_exile/with/8108182407/#photo_8108182407

 

[Colin Parkinson]

RFA, they might be at sea when a Quadrennial inspection comes due, so to continue to sail they might need to pull shafts or something.