New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[MilEME09]

big concern with any light frigate offer is the take away from the Rivers and the NSS is limiting on the tonnage. Maybe Heddle can build modules for Davie or Seaspan and they assemble?

the other concern is the state of the Halifax's and how to baby them until their replacement comes online. But that could be 20 yrs from now
We already are catching flack for our capabilities

What do we do?

1. Build another JSS/AOR
2. continue to and commit to fast tracking SSK purchase
3. warship gap ???

if the CMMC program keeps evolving like it is, it will be a heavy Corvette but small enough that Heddle could build it. which looking ahead we will need that program to build sooner then later to take up some of the smaller missions from the Halifax class as we start retiring them, because lets face it we can't keep them all in the waters until the late 40s. A handful of heavy corvettes that are quick to build and we can pump out quickly would be able to supplement a limited River fleet in the early years before we reach full replacement.

 

[Czech_pivo]

if the CMMC program keeps evolving like it is, it will be a heavy Corvette but small enough that Heddle could build it. which looking ahead we will need that program to build sooner then later to take up some of the smaller missions from the Halifax class as we start retiring them, because lets face it we can't keep them all in the waters until the late 40s. A handful of heavy corvettes that are quick to build and we can pump out quickly would be able to supplement a limited River fleet in the early years before we reach full replacement

So it is written so it shall be!

 

[Stoker]

It makes little sense to me to spend tens of billions of entirely taxpayers dollars to create a nationally run shipyard when we've just spend untold years and billions of dollars to bring Seaspan and Irving back up to capacity. Unless you start actively taking away work from Seaspan, Davie and Irving to eventually give to this yard when it is up and running in a decade, this yard will have nothing to do and will close just like the original Irving yard in NB within short order. If you start splitting work away from the other existing yards, you put them at risk when we've just got done spending billions in bringing those yards up to snuff themselves. If the NSS had wanted to do this, they should have done it years ago. This makes little sense to pivot to now, too many yards and not enough work for them to survive.


There is a need but there is no realistic way to get that increase without undercutting the shipbuilding industry that we've spent over a decade and billions of dollars to redevelop. All of our programs are already underway, the RCN needs to prioritize keeping their shit together while it gets delivered. Pivoting away from these timelines is far more damaging than sticking to them.


Seems like a good way to introduce another platform into the RCN and potentially put the overall River class numbers at risk when some idiot politician looks and says "this is good enough, you guys are getting these instead!"


There is two big issues with CMMC.

1.) The RCN hasn't even progressed the program past the identification stage, it might as well not exist and isn't funded in the slightest.
2.) The current NSS terminology limits any ships built by a yard that isn't Irving, Davie and Seaspan must be 1,000t light load or smaller, this significantly undermines the viability of the platform for no reason and makes the ideas of a "small combatant" increasingly unlikely when the roles of the Kingston need replacement as well.

It seems to me that the new perceived threat to Canada from the US, current fleet rust out, mismanagement from existing yards and lack of capacity warrant such a yard. A government owned yard could be used to surge builds if needed, build modules for other yards, repair ships etc. Right now we don't exactly have a lot of drydocking and repair capacity for the RCN. If times get lean we mothball it and have it available if we need it. If yards can't deliver on time, its not undercutting.

 

[Czech_pivo]

It seems to me that the new perceived threat to Canada from the US, current fleet rust out, mismanagement from existing yards and lack of capacity warrant such a yard. A government owned yard could be used to surge builds if needed, build modules for other yards, repair ships etc. Right now we don't exactly have a lot of drydocking and repair capacity for the RCN. If times get lean we mothball it and have it available if we need it. If yards can't deliver on time, its not undercutting.

So, do we build this from scratch - or takeover the old site in Saint John - or build brand new?
Anything on the GL (like Heddle) would limit our ability to build anything over X beam in width or depth due to lock limitations.

 

[calculus]

So, do we build this from scratch - or takeover the old site in Saint John - or build brand new?
Anything on the GL (like Heddle) would limit our ability to build anything over X beam in width or depth due to lock limitations.

Seawaymax beam is 23.8m, so no issue there for a Corvette size vessel.

Seawaymax - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Czech_pivo]

Seawaymax beam is 23.8m, so no issue there for a Corvette size vessel.

Seawaymax - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes - but we need to think towards the future - we do not want to sandbox ourselves into NOT having the ability to build anything short of a Nimitz class carrier at this facility. If, the need ever happened, that we had to build a QE sized carrier, this facility, in conjunction with other facilities, should be able to handle that size of a ship.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Seawaymax beam is 23.8m, so no issue there for a Corvette size vessel.

Seawaymax - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The River class destroyers have a draft of 8m so right off the bat they would not be eligible

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm very, very old, but: consistent life-cycle-costing and 'management' ( and the word consistent - across gov't, not just within the military - matters Hugely) is the ONLY sensible way to plan. Things like 'bathtub curves are very real and everyone needs to understand them and plan for them.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I'm very, very old, but: consistent life-cycle-costing and 'management' ( and the word consistent - across gov't, not just within the military - matters Hugely) is the ONLY sensible way to plan. Things like 'bathtub curves are very real and everyone needs to understand them and plan for them.

I'm very happy to see you back on here!

 

[Rainbow1910]

It seems to me that the new perceived threat to Canada from the US, current fleet rust out, mismanagement from existing yards and lack of capacity warrant such a yard. A government owned yard could be used to surge builds if needed, build modules for other yards, repair ships etc. Right now we don't exactly have a lot of drydocking and repair capacity for the RCN. If times get lean we mothball it and have it available if we need it. If yards can't deliver on time, its not undercutting.

The logistics of dumping all of that money and effort into a world class shipyard, only to mothball it does not pass the sniff test to me. Where do the staff that man this yard go when its mothballed? It takes significant time to build a skilled labor force for modern shipbuilding, Seaspan, Davie and Irving all taking years to rebuild themselves shows this. These people can't just be put up on a shelf for later, they will leave and go elsewhere, you can't just snap your fingers and summon them when required. Why would you not just put these investments into the currently operating shipyards to make them better, instead of stripping work away from them?

Yards not delivering on time is as much an govt issue as anything else, given the constant juggling of priorities and nonsensical project timelines that don't align with the reality of domestic shipbuilding. No amount of domestic shipbuilding is going to protect Canada from the US, might as well start lighting money on fire in front of Parliament if that is ultimately the goal.

 

[YZT580]

Hamilton and all areas further out to Niagara Falls are all screwed by of the expansion of all day GO train service. More and more people in the Mississauga, Oakville area will move further out to take advantage of the 'cheap' housing and the fact that they only need to go into downtown Toronto 2, maybe 3 days a week now.

But they do have Lakehead as well with the workforce there and they have initiated a significant training programme as well. From the conversations I have had, those commuters are finding that all is not roses and they are regretting having made the move: now they are stuck but those that didn't jump are having second thoughts.

 

[Stoker]

The logistics of dumping all of that money and effort into a world class shipyard, only to mothball it does not pass the sniff test to me. Where do the staff that man this yard go when its mothballed? It takes significant time to build a skilled labor force for modern shipbuilding, Seaspan, Davie and Irving all taking years to rebuild themselves shows this. These people can't just be put up on a shelf for later, they will leave and go elsewhere, you can't just snap your fingers and summon them when required. Why would you not just put these investments into the currently operating shipyards to make them better, instead of stripping work away from them?

Yards not delivering on time is as much an govt issue as anything else, given the constant juggling of priorities and nonsensical project timelines that don't align with the reality of domestic shipbuilding. No amount of domestic shipbuilding is going to protect Canada from the US, might as well start lighting money on fire in front of Parliament if that is ultimately the goal.

Put investments into functioning shipyards? I guess the issue with that is the public outrage it would create. Irving could very well build another shipyard or annex to increase capacity, BAE is doing it right now to increase throughput for the CSC. Irving, Seaspan and Davie are all content with the timelines. Circumstances dictate we try something to increase throughput.

This shipyard could handle all the maintenance and dockings for the military in between builds, that way your maintaining a work force that can shrink or expand as required. That's life in a shipyard. You wouldn't need to mothball everything or get rid of the workforce. Hell I would open a school there to train skilled trades to provide more of these workers.

 

[YZT580]

The River class destroyers have a draft of 8m so right off the bat they would not be eligible

I'm sorry but I don't understand. Seaway Max is 8.08 so why not? Plus I suspect that they could be lightened by removing ballast if necessary to gain an extra meter or so.

 

[YZT580]

The logistics of dumping all of that money and effort into a world class shipyard, only to mothball it does not pass the sniff test to me. Where do the staff that man this yard go when its mothballed? It takes significant time to build a skilled labor force for modern shipbuilding, Seaspan, Davie and Irving all taking years to rebuild themselves shows this. These people can't just be put up on a shelf for later, they will leave and go elsewhere, you can't just snap your fingers and summon them when required. Why would you not just put these investments into the currently operating shipyards to make them better, instead of stripping work away from them?

Yards not delivering on time is as much an govt issue as anything else, given the constant juggling of priorities and nonsensical project timelines that don't align with the reality of domestic shipbuilding. No amount of domestic shipbuilding is going to protect Canada from the US, might as well start lighting money on fire in front of Parliament if that is ultimately the goal.

I understand your viewpoint and if Irving has the capability of initiating another entire assembly line within a year or two at most then go for it. From what I can see, we have contracted one shipyard to build the River Class which will keep them thoroughly occupied for the next several decades by which time they will be starting on the next iteration. Davies was contracted to build icebreakers because it wasn't possible for Seaspan to produce the number of ships that the CG requires plus add to the needed icebreaker fleet plus build the navy's non-combatants. I put Irving in that same position: they just can't do it so find another yard and have them work under contract for Irving if necessary but get them built

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You can purchase large floating drydocks that can be stored when not in use or if you have space ashore, a railway system to move ships around the yard and expand yard space.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'm sorry but I don't understand. Seaway Max is 8.08 so why not? Plus I suspect that they could be lightened by removing ballast if necessary to gain an extra meter or so.

im shuddering at the thought of 8cm of clearance

I understand your viewpoint and if Irving has the capability of initiating another entire assembly line within a year or two at most then go for it. From what I can see, we have contracted one shipyard to build the River Class which will keep them thoroughly occupied for the next several decades by which time they will be starting on the next iteration. Davies was contracted to build icebreakers because it wasn't possible for Seaspan to produce the number of ships that the CG requires plus add to the needed icebreaker fleet plus build the navy's non-combatants. I put Irving in that same position: they just can't do it so find another yard and have them work under contract for Irving if necessary but get them built

really Davie doesnt have that much going on from the NSS. One Polar and 6 mediums
if we need Heddle because the others cant do it then bring them in but i have a hard time believing this is going to be under 1000 tonnes

Team Vigilance | Next Generation Naval Vessel

Team Vigilance is a collaboration between Vard Marine, Ontario Shipyards, Thales Canada, SH Defence, and Fincantieri. The Vigilance Next Generation Naval Vessel was launched at CANSEC 2023. It is tailored to the future needs of the Royal Canadian Navy and aims to replace the Kingston Class...

www.teamvigilance.com

 

[calculus]

Unless they upgrade the locks, I think it's safe to assume our Nimitz class size sips will be built on the coasts...

The River class destroyers have a draft of 8m so right off the bat they would not be eligible

Depends. That's the published draft at 8000 tons standard displacement, if Wikipedia is to be believed. The ship coming out of the yard would weigh considerably less, and have a shallower draft, so even a River class could potentially be built in the Great Lakes, I believe.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Proper messaging is also important. Lifecycle costing is important, but should be buried into the documents where the bean counters can find them, but are not in the summary or front pages. If a new ship costs 500 million to build each, then that should be the price clearly stated, not 1.5 billion. The lifecycle costs should also reflect the difference between the new platform and the old. Since we are running CFP's now, the CSC will cost (made up figures) 10% more than a CFP for the first 5 years and then save 10% a year for the cost of retaining a CFP for the next 10-15 years.

Then people will be able to see a real cost benefit of the ship, nobody does what the government does when buying, not even most companies. When I explain them that the price includes toilet paper for the next 20 years, they can't believe it.

This isn't even lifecycle costing; this is the result of 35 years of undermaintaining a class, not scheduling enough maintenance periods to do required repairs and maintenance, and overplanning so that you have to run a ships 5 year docking cycle out to 8 years. We're basically paying butchers bill for neglect.

It should be resulting in some real 'come to Jesus' moments and significant changes to status quo on how they are being run, instead of business as usual. It will actually get worse as the operational demand hasn't dropped, and the number of CPFs will drop as a lot are in extended DWPs because they are so badly worn out (piping failing, hull failing, structure failing, electrical failing etc). It should also result in significant changes to how we'll plan maintenance and DWPs for CSC.

Again, we're doing about 4 times the number of repair hours compared to the 280s that were actually older on basic things like steel, piping and mechanical, and almost none of those costs have anything to do with combat capability; it's basic 'don't let the ship sink' costs.

 

[Nvlgzr]

So you don't consider Heddle's work on a Kingston replacement as in anyway useful? They have the yards and the manpower to start construction dependent only on advance materiel orders. Wouldn't be modern or cutting edge technology but they could produce

other than building a motorized barge, Heddle has little to no ship building experience. As their website says, “…core business is ship repair and maintenance “. There is a huge difference between performing ship maintenance and building ships. I’ve performed repairs to my cars but it doesn’t mean that I could build cars. I would take the Team Vigilance website with a grain of salt; Vard has spent maybe a couple hundred man hours putting together a concept design, 3D model and website . Vard is a company that brings experience to the table but I don’t see that with Heddle.

 

[Nvlgzr]

Here's your new Toyota Tacoma.

List price is $46,995, the options you've bought bring it up to $52,450, with taxes that makes it $60,317, but we're going to let you know up front that it needs an A-Service every 4 months ($150) and a B-service every 6 months ($350), with brake replacement every 40,000km ($600), tires every 30,000km ($1000), and a mandatory undercoating refresh every 2 years ($300)

You're expecting to operate the vehicle for 10 years with an estimated annual mileage of 25,000/year, so that's going to run you an extra $9500 for the basic maintenance A/B service and undercoating over the life of the vehicles. You're going to need $4800 in brakes over that time, plus $8000 in tires. So that'll be another $25,645.

Plus fuel costs, which is estimated at 32,509.75 liters of fuel at a cost of $54,941 at current prices ($1.69)

Add that all up, and the cost to operate a Tacoma for 10 years is $140,903.

If we factor in the cost of paying for a driver for the vehicle for 10 years at $60,000 per year, then we're really looking at a cost of $740K.

We're selling the public the $740K cost...and that's what the media runs with.

Should we sell it as a "$74K/year" cost instead?

If we spread out the $60 Billion (or whatever it is now) for the CSC's over 30 years, that's actually only 2 billion a year, which, is almost reasonable.

Ish.

You need to add insurance at $3000/year (or more).