New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Stoker]

My understanding is that Norway paid the current equivalent of 124 MCAD total for a working ship starting from a blank sheet of paper.

We paid 5 MCAD to buy the plans from Norway
10 MCAD to have the plans modified by STX
10 MCAD to have the plans modified again by STX (to get rid of the azipod reversing through ice thingy)
250 MCAD to Irving to have them figure out how to build something broadly similar to the modified plans supplied by STX via the Government
2300 MCAD to Irving to have them actually build 5 hulls (6 if you're really good boys and girls)
1800 MCAD to Thales to supply the In Service Support

(Thales gets a total of 5300 MCAD to supply ISS to both the AOPS and the JSS ships over 35 years)

So my takeaway is that the comparable Canadian budget is 2300 MCAD plus 250 MCAD, or 2550 MCAD, for 5 hulls or 510 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD
Or 2550 MCAD for 6 hulls is 425 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD
Or 2300 MCAD for 6 hulls (deleting the 250 MCAD planning budget) is 383 MCAD per hull vs 124 MCAD.

Anyway you cut it Norwegian purchasing agents seem to be able to buy 3 or 4 ships for the amount of money that Canadian agents are willing to spend for 1.

What I would like to know is what a Norwegian shipyard worker gets paid versus a Irving worker and is the ship at the same standards and same features and equipment as Svalbard.

 

[jmt18325]

You'd also have to adjust the Norwegian figures for inflation.

 

[Kirkhill]

What I would like to know is what a Norwegian shipyard worker gets paid versus a Irving worker and is the ship at the same standards and same features and equipment as Svalbard.

Well - let's start with the Svalbard's standards, features and equipment
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894/post-325773.html#msg325773

K/V “Svalbard”

-  Coast Guard Ship From Langsten

The new pride of the Navy, K/V “Svalbard” was taken over from Langsten AS on the 15th of December (2001?). The Coast Guard Ship is the Navy’s only ice-breaker and the largest vessel in the whole force.  This is Langsten’s build number 182.  The ship cost 575 millioner kroner (101 MCAD as of 24 Jan 2006).


…..Minister of Defence Kristin Krohn Devold, with …. Kjell Inge Rokke and other dignitaries ringside.  (Rokke owns Aker which in turn owns Langsten).  It has taken eight years to realise this vessel, from when the project was begun at SFK in August 1993 to this day. So this was a big day, to have the ship handed over.  In 1993 it was intended that the new Coast Guard Vessel should be ready in 1997, but suddenly in 1995 production was stopped. That was a lack of money.  Then the force planning guidance de-prioritized the ship and from 1996 until 1998 it was uncertain if the ship would be completed at all.  But in 1999 it was put back into the plan again, and in December of that year contracts were let with Langsten.  Langsten has a solid tradition of building modern marine vessels. Amongst others the spy ship “Marjata” was built here.

The hull of “Svalbard” was built by Tangen Yards.  It is built in special steel and comprises at least 50,000 pieces and 40 sections.  By the 17th of February (2000?) the hull was launched and towed to Tomrefjorden in Romsdal, where Langsten finished the vessel.

K/V “Svalbard” is a gigantic vessel with a displacement of some 6300 tonnes, a length of 103 meters and a breadth of over 19 meters making it the Navy’s largest for the foreseeable future.

…….

The Coast Guard

……

K/V “Svalbard” is classified as a Polar 10 Icebreaker by DNV (Det Norske Veritas), the highest polar ice class defined in DNV’s regulations and the most powerful icebreaker ever built in Norway.  The vessel is specially built for sailing in ice infested waters, and be able to operate in multi-year (year old?) polar ice with a thickness of up to one meter.  The northern Barents Sea, especially in winter time, will be the vessel’s primary area of operation.  The ship can also break ice ridges, back up and “screw guard (?)” about four metes deep.  (Not clear on this – may have to do with the azipod drive and the ability of similarly designed, double-ended ice-breaking tankers, to turn around and drive through ice backwards).

The vessel has also a De-Ice class notation, being equipped with an anti-icing system with a capacity of 1500 kW.  She has got 17 km of heating cable in all outside decks and the front of the boat to this purpose.  This prevents icing which can be a great problem in arctic (operations?).

K/V “Svalbard” has a helicopter deck and hangar and will have a helicopter on board when the vessel is out on patrol.  In the hangar there is room for two helicopters. The advantage of helicopters is that they can operate freely and relatively far from the vessel.  In addition to supervision and control of the fishery violations the helicopter is a really important resource for search, rescue and assistance.

The ship will bring to the Coast Guard many useful capabilities including ice-breaker, towing vessel and helicopter platform.  The vessel has really good capacity in search and rescue and can carry through “clean-up” (?) of polluted environments in the extremity (?)  (might also just mean that it can continue to operate in a very harsh environment).

Dimensions

Length overall      103.7 m
Length post to post        89.0 m
Greatest width        19.1 m
Draught (KVL)          6.5 m

Tank capacity is about 500 tonnes of fuel oil and 200 tonnes of fresh water.  That is enough for 127 persons.

Class: DNV *1A1, Icebreaker Polar 10, RPS, F-A, E0, HELDK-SH, De-Ice, FiFi1.

Machinery

The ship is diesel-electric with a power plant of four Bergen Diesel BRG-8 engines, producing around 13,020 kW altogether.  Propulsion is provided by two Azipods, each of 5000 kW, which are classified Icebreaker Polar 10.  In addition ABB “provided” (?) a conventional Azipod of about 15 MW power output to obtain this classification.  RPS in the class notation means that the ship has “redundant propulsion separated”.


The vessel is also outfitted with a Brunvoll bow-thruster (?). Harbour power generation consists of a Volvo Penta diesel engine of 1071 kW which drives a Stamford generator of 1339 kVa.  The pumping system is from Ing. Per Gjerdrum AS, the separators from Westfalia and the compressors from Sperre.  Heat exchangers are manufactured by APV and supplied by AS Norco Oslo.

Engine room isolation is by R&M Industries AS and the ventilation is by ABB Miljo.  …. is from Pyro and tank monitoring systems by ABB.  The engine room is fire-protected with the Argonite system from Heien-Larssen and an alarm system from Autronica.

Deck

The ship is notably outfitted with a helicopter deck and a hangar with room for two helicopters.  Also installed onboard is a helifuel-system, with outfitting for refuelling of each helicopter together with other types, both on the heli-deck and in the air.  The vessel can therefore function as a mobile platform at sea (and re-provisioning island?) for military and other helicopters on operations that would otherwise not be possible.  The advanced foam monitor system on the heli-deck is supplied by Heien-Larssen, but the Fi-Fi system is from Kvaerner Eureka.  The heli-deck is also equipped with gyro-stabilised in-flight reference system (light) and contour lighting,  “virtually making manning free operations (?)”.  Flight Centre has also been instrumented with a datalink to the Norwegian Meteorolgical Institute to supply weather reports.

The deck gear, including hatches, deck machinery such as anchor, vessel and towing winches are supplied by Hydrakraft.  The anchor and….is from Erling Haug, windows and light ports from Marine Aluminium, water tight doors from Winell and fire doors from Nor-Pro.  Davits from MOB-baten.  Deck and Navigation lights?  are from Tranberg, searchlight? From Norselight.  The ship is instrumented by a system from International Maling.

Interior and Miscellaneous.

The vessel is for a crew of 20 officers and 28 other ranks, with a four-man helidet. In addition the the ship has accommodation for more than 75 persons.

The interior is held “secure” as there is a gas citadel / over-pressure ventilation system where all incoming ship’s air will be scrubbed for radio-active, bacteriological and chemical contamination.

Interior work spaces are outfitted by R&M Industries.  TeamTech supplied the incinerator and Evac vacuum toilet system.  Electro-technicals consultant was Skan-El, but ABB Installations AS supplied the electric installation.  E0-system is the ABB Advant Station 500 series.

The electronic outfit was installed by Electronicon AS.  The outfit includes advanced instrumentation with air and surface radar, colour-, black/white and IR cameras, sonar …. for over and under water communication.  The system has the capability to record, store and present all this information real-time and time-delay (?), with “intention” (?) of documenting and evaluating incidents.  This gives the vessel a good capacity in the role of Command Vessel in large operations in connection with rescue, pollution and sovereignty operations.

Chief - you will know better than me how that stacks up against the de Wolfs but, from what I can glean from open source materials the displacement, length, beam and power plants are dead ringers.

As to what Norwegian workers get paid  - according to the OECD the average wage in 2015 was 50,908 USD while in Canada it was 47,843 USD. 

https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/average-wages.htm

Curiously Norwegian workers were  62% more productive than Canadian workers, according to the OECD, generating 78.7 USD of Gross Domestic Product for each hour worked while Canadians only generated 48.6 USD of GDP for each hour worked.  We do less with more.

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV

As to the relative costs of the vessels

Again I will go back to the published purchase price for the Norwegian ship of 575,000,000 Norwegian Krone in July 2001.

According to this calculator the inflation rate in Norway from July 2001 to July 2015, when Irving got the Build contract, was a total of 22.35 29.33%

That raises the price from 575,000,000 NOK to 587,851,250 743,636,950 NOK.

According to this page the exchange rate from NOK to Canadian Dollars in July 2015 was 6.2765 NOK per CAD

Conversion of 587,851,250 743,636,950 NOK in July 2015 to CAD results in an inflated, converted value of 93,659,085 118,479,558 CAD.

Meanwhile, leaving aside the preliminary design work but including the 250 MCAD design contract and the 2300 MCAD build contract then Irving is receiving 2,550,000,000 CAD to design and build 5 or 6 de Wolfs.

2,550,000,000 divided by 5 = 510,000,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 118,479,558 CAD = 5.445 4.304 Svalbards per de Wolf
2,550,000,000 divided by 6 = 425,000,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 CAD 118,479,558 = 4.538 3.587 Svalbards per de Wolf
2,550,000,000 divided by 8 = 318,750,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 CAD 118,479,558 = 3.403 2.690 Svalbards per de Wolf

And the deckgun on the Svalbard is the same 57mm Bofors mounted on the Halifax.

Edited for failure to properly use the inflation calculator I referenced. 

Now it is only 2 to 4 Svalbards per de Wolf.

 

[Stoker]

Well - let's start with the Svalbard's standards, features and equipment
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894/post-325773.html#msg325773



Chief - you will know better than me how that stacks up against the de Wolfs but, from what I can glean from open source materials the displacement, length, beam and power plants are dead ringers.

As to what Norwegian workers get paid  - according to the OECD the average wage in 2015 was 50,908 USD while in Canada it was 47,843 USD. 

https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/average-wages.htm

Curiously Norwegian workers were  62% more productive than Canadian workers, according to the OECD, generating 78.7 USD of Gross Domestic Product for each hour worked while Canadians only generated 48.6 USD of GDP for each hour worked.  We do less with more.

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV

As to the relative costs of the vessels

Again I will go back to the published purchase price for the Norwegian ship of 575,000,000 Norwegian Krone in July 2001.

According to this calculator the inflation rate in Norway from July 2001 to July 2015, when Irving got the Build contract, was a total of 22.35 29.33%

That raises the price from 575,000,000 NOK to 587,851,250 743,636,950 NOK.

According to this page the exchange rate from NOK to Canadian Dollars in July 2015 was 6.2765 NOK per CAD

Conversion of 587,851,250 743,636,950 NOK in July 2015 to CAD results in an inflated, converted value of 93,659,085 118,479,558 CAD.

Meanwhile, leaving aside the preliminary design work but including the 250 MCAD design contract and the 2300 MCAD build contract then Irving is receiving 2,550,000,000 CAD to design and build 5 or 6 de Wolfs.

2,550,000,000 divided by 5 = 510,000,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 118,479,558 CAD = 5.445 4.304 Svalbards per de Wolf
2,550,000,000 divided by 6 = 425,000,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 CAD 118,479,558 = 4.538 3.587 Svalbards per de Wolf
2,550,000,000 divided by 8 = 318,750,000 CAD per hull vs 93,659,085 CAD 118,479,558 = 3.403 2.690 Svalbards per de Wolf

And the deckgun on the Svalbard is the same 57mm Bofors mounted on the Halifax.

Edited for failure to properly use the inflation calculator I referenced. 

Now it is only 2 to 4 Svalbards per de Wolf.

I wasn't able to find any general characteristic drawings for the Svalbard online to compare with my drawings of the DeWolf Class, interestingly enough the Russians have drawings of their new Arctic patrol ship online. Without getting into any details the DeWolf Class seem to be built extremely well from what I can see. Where I work we will be the organization that will be conducting readiness exercises with the ships as they come out so overtime I'll know more and more about their features. I suspect we have features that the Svalbard  doesn't have and probably different electronics, I don't know how much a difference in price that will make.

The ships are expensive there is doubt about that and i'm sure the government knew that when they signed the contract, the simple reality is building ships in Canada will always be more expensive than building offshore but that was never an option.

 

[Kirkhill]

Seen Chief, and agreed on the cost issue. 

I have trouble wrapping my head around the "quality" issue.  That is always problematical on any project.

For example, quality is often offset against life expectancy.  I don't know what life the Norwegians are expecting out of the Svalbard but she was launched and commissioned in 2001.  She has already given 16 years of service and, according to this article, she is expected to serve for at least the same amount of time again.

Let's just say, now that steel has been not just cut, but also welded, I would really like the Auditor General to do a side by side analysis of the Svalbard and the de Wolf.  Just like I would really like a side by side of the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels and a modern trawler like Havfisk's Gadus Neptun.  Or, like I would really like a side by side of the Resolve and the Queenstons.

At this stage in the development of any enterprise, and I think the establishment of a shipbuilding capacity in Canada, qualifies, it seems appropriate to me to start getting a handle on whether or not our initial planning assumptions are valid and also to start coming to terms with real costs in our actual environment.

We have enough of a basis for a comparison now that I think that should be a priority before we start signing contracts for the CSCs or any other vessels.

Not to mention the impact that the assumptions have on the defence budget and, consequently, defence policy.

 

[Stoker]

Seen Chief, and agreed on the cost issue. 

I have trouble wrapping my head around the "quality" issue.  That is always problematical on any project.

For example, quality is often offset against life expectancy.  I don't know what life the Norwegians are expecting out of the Svalbard but she was launched and commissioned in 2001.  She has already given 16 years of service and, according to this article, she is expected to serve for at least the same amount of time again.

Let's just say, now that steel has been not just cut, but also welded, I would really like the Auditor General to do a side by side analysis of the Svalbard and the de Wolf.  Just like I would really like a side by side of the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels and a modern trawler like Havfisk's Gadus Neptun.  Or, like I would really like a side by side of the Resolve and the Queenstons.

At this stage in the development of any enterprise, and I think the establishment of a shipbuilding capacity in Canada, qualifies, it seems appropriate to me to start getting a handle on whether or not our initial planning assumptions are valid and also to start coming to terms with real costs in our actual environment.

We have enough of a basis for a comparison now that I think that should be a priority before we start signing contracts for the CSCs or any other vessels.

Not to mention the impact that the assumptions have on the defence budget and, consequently, defence policy.

The Svalbard is used a little differently than we would use the DeWolf Class. According to what I have read the Svalbard is used for quite a bit of fisheries work where we will undoubtedly do some but not a lot. The DeWolfs will deploy pretty much everywhere the Kingston Class currently does in the Arctic, North Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, Europe, Med and Africa. I have no doubt the ships will have a long life in the RCN and bring to the table capabilities that we currently don't have in the Arctic.

 

[Kirkhill]

See, if I was to usurp "Thucydides" preferred role as King for a Day, way back in 2006, or better 2001, I would have been having another Svalbard built in Norway and charter her for Canadian service to find out what she could do for us.  Kind of like the Resolve project.

Then we wouldn't have to make so many uninformed assumptions - and we would only be out of pocket for 100 MCAD instead of buying pokes of pigs for billions of dollars.

100 MCAD investment to verify the need for the 4300 MCAD invested in the AOPS programme.

100/4300 = 2.3% of the total project budget.

In any business that I have been associated with that would be considered a reasonable investment for risk mitigation.

 

[Stoker]

See, if I was to usurp "Thucydides" preferred role as King for a Day, way back in 2006, or better 2001, I would have been having another Svalbard built in Norway and charter her for Canadian service to find out what she could do for us.  Kind of like the Resolve project.

Then we wouldn't have to make so many uninformed assumptions - and we would only be out of pocket for 100 MCAD instead of buying pokes of pigs for billions of dollars.

100 MCAD investment to verify the need for the 4300 MCAD invested in the AOPS programme.

100/4300 = 2.3% of the total project budget.

In any business that I have been associated with that would be considered a reasonable investment for risk mitigation.

Well you're right we should of had purpose built RCN patrol craft in the Arctic for many years now and facilities to service and build them. I guess its all about hindsight.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well your right we should of had purpose built RCN patrol craft in the Arctic for many years now and facilities to service and build them. I guess its all about hindsight.

Lieutenant Backsight Forethought

 

[jollyjacktar]

So which dream out of 6 is our present shipbuilding program.  Are we going to be rolled up and overrun or are we going to be successful and turn back the evil hoards?

 

[Kirkhill]

Well, the pessimist in me says that we are on dream 1.  (First AOPS iteration).  The optimist allows as how we might be on dream 3 (OFSVs, Resolve, AOPS).

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's an alternate history.

1 Oooh.  Norwegians have a bright shiny thing. 

2 Ask Norwegians what they plan to do with it.

3 Ask Norwegians if we can put some RCN and Coast Guard types on board for a season to see how they use it.

4 Offer to swap the Svalbard for a Kingston and a Coast Guard breaker during an Operation Nanook cycle to see how their kit performs in our environment and our kit performs their tasks.

5 Arrange a longer term swap if desirable.

6 Have a Canadian company organize a bare-bones charter of a new build Svalbard on a 3 year renewable lease with an option to buy.

7 Write Concept of Operations in conjunction with Statement of Requirements

8 Ask for preliminary tenders

9 Adjust ConOps and SoR to suit

10 Ask for tenders

My sense is we jumped straight to phase 7 before we did all the "low cost" stuff at the beginning.

 

[jmt18325]

To be fair...I don't think that's fair.  The RCN operates in the arctic, as does the CCG.  The RCN also operates in a coastal defence role.  I'm pretty sure we knew what we wanted.

 

[Kirkhill]

We might have known what we wanted but did we know what opportunities and capabilities the Svalbard presented?

It is the reason that I noted that the Statement of Requirement and Concept of Operations have to be written conjointly.

You have to understand both what you are trying to accomplish and, as well, fully understand the capabilities of the tools available.

There is little purpose in writing a Concept of Operations (for example maintaining an under-ice presence) if the tools required do not exist (non-nuke AIP subs) or are not available to you (nukes).

 

[Stoker]

We might have known what we wanted but did we know what opportunities and capabilities the Svalbard presented?

It is the reason that I noted that the Statement of Requirement and Concept of Operations have to be written conjointly.

You have to understand both what you are trying to accomplish and, as well, fully understand the capabilities of the tools available.

There is little purpose in writing a Concept of Operations (for example maintaining an under-ice presence) if the tools required do not exist (non-nuke AIP subs) or are not available to you (nukes).

We have operated in the Arctic for years and have many lessons learned. We have also sent our officers on exchange to other ice breaking ships of other countries and the CCG. Undoubtedly that played into what exactly we wanted out of our Arctic Patrol Ships.

 

[Underway]

We have operated in the Arctic for years and have many lessons learned. We have also sent our officers on exchange to other ice breaking ships of other countries and the CCG. Undoubtedly that played into what exactly we wanted out of our Arctic Patrol Ships.

I'm quite good friends with one of the officers who drafted the initial concept of ops and know they put a lot of effort into it.  Chief Stoker is quite correct in his statement.  There was a large amount of reading of the lessons learned from arctic operations and trying to get a feel for what capabilities the ships needed and what training the sailors needed.  Including (humorously) the fact that the bosn's were not in favor of piggybacking the infantry ashore, so as the infantry wouldn't get frostbite in the first hour of the operation due to wet boots.  Hence there is a covered landing craft requirement.  I don't think the Svalbard has that capability.

 

[Kirkhill]

I get what is being said.  And I respect the effort put in.

My experience on a variety of projects though, suggests to me, that there is a considerable difference in outcome when a product is described in terms of what one expects to encounter as opposed to being presented with a piece of kit and then finding out what you can do with it.

In the first instance I have found that time is consumed debating infinite possibilities.  In the second case 80% of the assigned task is completed with the kit on hand and it is discovered that the available kit allows different tasks to be managed as well.

 

[Stoker]

I'm quite good friends with one of the officers who drafted the initial concept of ops and know they put a lot of effort into it.  Chief Stoker is quite correct in his statement.  There was a large amount of reading of the lessons learned from arctic operations and trying to get a feel for what capabilities the ships needed and what training the sailors needed.  Including (humorously) the fact that the bosn's were not in favor of piggybacking the infantry ashore, so as the infantry wouldn't get frostbite in the first hour of the operation due to wet boots.  Hence there is a covered landing craft requirement.  I don't think the Svalbard has that capability.

Its funny you mentioned that. Several of our trips to the Arctic we had to ferry Infantry ashore in small boats and no doubt they became wet before they got in, getting wet in the Arctic can be disastrous. Even our boats crews with the standard orange floater suits that were great with winter off Halifax were not so great in the Arctic, thus the recommendation went it by us for dry suits and rubber boots for the boats crews.

 

[Kirkhill]

The need to stay dry in the north -  does that mean that the RCN is considering boats more along these lines?

I understand that some experience was had with them when one of the Danish Rasmussens was incorporated on an Operation Nanook exercise.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Not that I have heard.  The only new, small boats coming  I'm aware of are for the MTOG folks.  I haven't seen what they look like as this endeavour is in a sister section at work but your suggestions, Chris, don't appear to be  what would be suitable for boarding parties.