New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Swampbuggy]

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.

Weren’t Heddle and Seaspan working together in some sort of joint capacity? Maybe they have in mind some sort of arrangement where Heddle assembles modules from VSY or vice versa…though, that’s one hell of trip from BC to the lake…

 

[Halifax Tar]

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.

You and I would be a dangerous tandem.

The RCNs inability to grasp the primacy of operations; but the supremacy of maintenance and logistics has come home to roost.

 

[Navy_Pete]

You and I would be a dangerous tandem.

The RCNs inability to grasp the primacy of operations; but the supremacy of maintenance and logistics has come home to roost.

Learned the hard way can't engineer fixes without log support on ship, and always had great supply managers as an LCMM, so have tried to learn a lot about that side of things to make sure they can feed the process beast and make things happen.

Big picture though, the combo of not doing maintenance, not having enough support in support, and the twin liver punches of the crazy bureaucracy and not enough people in the log side to work through it has been getting worse my whole career, and you can see a lot of this coming since at least 2010. Being in an out of trade job working with Army/ Airforce is great, I needed a break from the slow motion train wreck on the Navy.

 

[Nvlgzr]

Weren’t Heddle and Seaspan working together in some sort of joint capacity? Maybe they have in mind some sort of arrangement where Heddle assembles modules from VSY or vice versa…though, that’s one hell of trip from BC to the lake…

I think that may have been for the Polar 2 icebreaker when priorities for Seaspan were being shifted by the government for the 2nd or 3rd time and Davie was trying to get in on the action. Agreed , it would require moving modules halfway around the world; makes little sense. I suspect that Heddle sees there is so much money thrown around for NSS that why not get a piece of it.

 

[Underway]

You and I would be a dangerous tandem.

The RCNs inability to grasp the primacy of operations; but the supremacy of maintenance and logistics has come home to roost.

My list of most important people on the ship:

-pay clerk, so my wife is happy
-cooks, so I'm happy
-supply, so I can get my parts!

All three.. LOG dept.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Most people don't realize that a Navy is an industrial undertaking. Dockyards, stores and engineering are the basis from which something that, ultimately, can fight at sea come from. That, BTW, is why Admirals make great administrators as opposed to "leaders". They understand the administration and logistics that goes on behind the scene and are good at maximizing their efficiency.

 

[YZT580]

Heddle does fabrication of small assemblies such as ladders: anything that will fit onto a transport for shipping. They evidently have an excellent fabrication shop.

Weren’t Heddle and Seaspan working together in some sort of joint capacity? Maybe they have in mind some sort of arrangement where Heddle assembles modules from VSY or vice versa…though, that’s one hell of trip from BC to the lake…

 

[dapaterson]

Most people don't realize that a Navy is an industrial undertaking. Dockyards, stores and engineering are the basis from which something that, ultimately, can fight at sea come from. That, BTW, is why Admirals make great administrators as opposed to "leaders". They understand the administration and logistics that goes on behind the scene and are good at maximizing their efficiency.

Not the majority of Admirals I have met. Except the MARE ones...

 

[Halifax Tar]

Most people don't realize that a Navy is an industrial undertaking. Dockyards, stores and engineering are the basis from which something that, ultimately, can fight at sea come from. That, BTW, is why Admirals make great administrators as opposed to "leaders". They understand the administration and logistics that goes on behind the scene and are good at maximizing their efficiency.

Can I have what you're smoking ?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Then the Navy has changed from my days (pre 2000). We used to have a saying in those days: When it comes to choosing a CDS, the government had three choices: If it wanted good leadership, pick a General, good administration, pick an Admiral, and good politics, pick an Air Force general.

I guess things have changed, but I recall General Hillier (then retired) telling me that the description above was right in so many ways that I probably didn't even know myself when I told him in person.

 

[Underway]

Then the Navy has changed from my days (pre 2000). We used to have a saying in those days: When it comes to choosing a CDS, the government had three choices: If it wanted good leadership, pick a General, good administration, pick an Admiral, and good politics, pick an Air Force general.

I guess things have changed, but I recall General Hillier (then retired) telling me that the description above was right in so many ways that I probably didn't even know myself when I told him in person.

Its degenerated into a thread on bashing the navy, so don't expect to much agreement. I don't think you are wrong, its a generalization that is accurate enough. There is a reason in Ottawa when a Navy Log LCdr talks people listen, but when an Army/Airforce Maj Log talks people ignore.

My experience is that the Army has a poor understanding of what its log branch or maintenance branch does. The Navy has a poor understanding (or perhaps respect) of what its maintenance branch does (Log branch they are pretty good), and the airforce only does what the maintenance branch says is ok.

 

[dapaterson]

Admirals are red pen specialists accomplishing little.

The legal name for a Corporal of the Sea is still Leading Seaman, nearly five years after an Admiral announced otherwise. Making such a change is a purely administrative function.

 

[Kirkhill]

But do you realize that the intent is not to push ships through at a rapid pace, but to string the construction out as long as possible to keep the yards open, the skilled employees employed, and way to funnel federal funds through the regions? From the very beginning, this wasn't about building ships for the CAF or the CCG, it was about rebuilding and retaining a ship building capacity.

The down side is it will always be more expensive than foreign ship yards, which means there will never be international demand to build in our yards.

Which brings us to @FJAG 's plaintive cry: What about surge? (Apologies FJAG - I know you have other words to wail but that is my take on your mobilization arguments).

Without the NSPS then we would have had no shipbuilding capability. Now we are asking for more shipbuilding capability, faster.

....

And is welding steel plates still the best/fastest/onliest method of getting hulls in the water? We've gone from oak, to riveted steel, to welded steel, to steel modules. We have has side trips to cedar, spruce, aluminum, Glass Reinforced Plastic, carbon fibre and foams.

WW2 saw concrete ships built and the Navy outfitted with whalers which were upgraded and modified. It also saw wooden launches.

...

What does it take to get missiles to sea in mass quantities?

 

[Kirkhill]

That's the infuriating part. And that we have had people screaming that this is coming for decades, and no one cared.

Keep in mind that Justin's Dad was leaning towards Tito's Yugoslavia and India in the Non-Aligned Movement before Willy Brandt grabbed him by the lapels and dragged him back to NATO.

 

[Kirkhill]

There would have only been two ways for us to develop a stronger military. There would have had to of been a direct threat to our nation, ie someone is coming across our borders (not an existential threat to our sovereignty) or we were going to be a credible expeditionary force putting our nose in other peoples business.

Even today with all the talk of becoming the 51st state, is anyone out there suggesting to the public we need to increase our military capacity?

Yes. But not to address the actual threat.

2-5% of GDP on defence is on the table. But nobody is talking about generating a force capable of defending ourselves from the only country making noises about our sovereignty.

 

[Kirkhill]

The only "military" card I see us having in hand is to ask if we are supposed to continue with NORAD or join JEF?

If Trump is serious about focusing on the Pacific (as he seems to be - U.S., Japan reaffirm commitment to peace across Taiwan Strait - Focus Taiwan )
And if Trump believes that he can't support Europe at the same time
Then he needs the Europeans to step up and the only sufficiently bellicose organization I see is JEF.

But JEF includes Denmark which owns Greenland which Trump wants for North American security.

And JEF/Nordics have already reached out to Canada.

....

He is coming to terms with Denmark over Greenland.

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/24/denmark-greenland-defense-spending-trump-us-control-comments?ref=upstract.com

...

From the CIA World Factbook

Exports​

$1.147 billion (2021 est.)
$1.108 billion (2020 est.)
$1.23 billion (2019 est.)

Exports - partners​

Denmark 49%, China 24%, UK 6%, Japan 5%, Taiwan 3% (2022)

Exports - commodities​

fish, shellfish, processed crustaceans, precious stones, animal products (2022)

I doubt Trump is worried about shrimp to China.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes. There is a need to cost the lifecycle. And to effectively communicate the difference between acquisition cost and lifecycle cost.

There is a need to cost the lifecycle of the capability. And annualize it.

If there is a need to supply a fight response capability is that tied to a particular fighter? Or is it an enduring capability like the CBC? If it is an enduring capability then tying it to the life time of a particular fighter, or transmitter, makes no sense. The fighter is just another piece of hardware that, like a CBC transmitter, wears out and needs upgrading from time to time.

The cost of replacing the transmitter may be Capexed because of the cost but in essence it is an Opex. Similarly replacing old fighters with new fighters is also an Opex.

Now, buying things that supply a new capability, that is something else again entirely.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

We would still have Victoria, Vancouver, Quebec and Halifax for larger displacement ships.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

To be fair, you could have said much the same about Seaspan when they got their award. They bought their expertise from the Koreans (Daewoo I believe) and from Vard's precursors (STX, Aker, Kvaerner).

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Boy, Kirkhill, you really like to talk to yourself, don't you.

Just kidding!

I want to see those MCDV replacements. i want to see them fast, and I want them to be very much non-USA dependent.

Here's my dream:

Made in Canada Corvete (or light frigate - your choice of denomination) 2,000 to 2,400 tons displacement, 120 meters approx. length with: 32 CAMM-MR, 76 mm Leonardo main gun, 2x 35 mm remote controlled gun, SMART-S Mk 2, CANTASS, 2x French SLAT anti-torpedo system, CANTASS, hangar for one Merlin ASW helicopter, CCS330. Size of purchase: 12 but not, repeat not, at the expense of any of the RCD's.

However, bought as an emergency program, with the Halifax's being brought home from oversea deployment as training ships to get these ready for front line employment.