New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[suffolkowner]

You guys are correct, but with the Resolve coming on line, they may bump the icebreaker up front, depending on how much life they just gained for the Louie

This might be an interesting idea but how far along is the icebreaker in the design phase?

 

[jmt18325]

I think we should stick to the plan - yes there will be some short term pain, but if we follow it and build continuously, that shouldn't repeat.

 

[Navy_Pete]

This might be an interesting idea but how far along is the icebreaker in the design phase?

Yeah, we passed that decision point a few years ago; JSS design work is ticking along on track and Polar hasn't really started

 

[Cloud Cover]

Yeah, we passed that decision point a few years ago; JSS design work is ticking along on track and Polar hasn't really started

Agreed with caveats:
a- What can be done to move the plan forward by years without compromising quality and requirements;
b-What can be done in Canada to reduce costs without reducing the number of ships.

If a and b are not an option, what can be leased elsewhere as an interim solution. Pumping additional money into FFG's to life extend them (as will likely be required) as some of these are eventually going to be retired before the new fleet is completed (some of them they may well be 48-50 yrs old at that point). Is it likely the RCN will drop to a fleet of less than 10 operational FFG before Irving is putting ships in the water?

 

[AlexanderM]

Building the ships more quickly is the way to get costs down, and the only sane course of action, other than building the hulls in South Korea. Financing is cheap right now, so finance the back half and pay it off over the 20 years. Get the ships built!

 

[jmt18325]

Building the ships more quickly is the way to get costs down, and the only sane course of action, other than building the hulls in South Korea. Financing is cheap right now, so finance the back half and pay it off over the 20 years. Get the ships built!

Building ships more quickly derails the entire plan set out by the Harper government, and puts us back into the boom/bust cycle that has left us here, unable to build ships economically.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Flew over Seaspan yesterday and would have had a great shot of the OFSV's under construction had I had my camera ready, ggrr dufus!!!

 

[serger989]

Building ships more quickly derails the entire plan set out by the Harper government, and puts us back into the boom/bust cycle that has left us here, unable to build ships economically.

No, that is part of it. They should build quickly, we should also build abroad. Our own shipbuilders should be building up a much larger commercial base for foreign and domestic buyers. If they can't get work outside of government work, they aren't doing things properly. At least, that's how I see it in my opinion. They are more than likely going to experience another boom/bust after this work in 2030+. Are we going to keep ordering a steady flow of ships? I highly doubt it based on Canada's procurement history. If they set themselves up to do only government work for that time period, they aren't going to have a lot of leeway in foreign markets? This NSPS has frustrated me for a while lol

 

[AlexanderM]

No, that is part of it. They should build quickly, we should also build abroad. Our own shipbuilders should be building up a much larger commercial base for foreign and domestic buyers. If they can't get work outside of government work, they aren't doing things properly. At least, that's how I see it in my opinion. They are more than likely going to experience another boom/bust after this work in 2030+. Are we going to keep ordering a steady flow of ships? I highly doubt it based on Canada's procurement history. If they set themselves up to do only government work for that time period, they aren't going to have a lot of leeway in foreign markets? This NSPS has frustrated me for a while lol

Agreed! The idea that building ridiculously expensive ships over a long period of time is somehow going to make us competitive has no connection with reality.

 

[jmt18325]

No, that is part of it. They should build quickly, we should also build abroad. Our own shipbuilders should be building up a much larger commercial base for foreign and domestic buyers. If they can't get work outside of government work, they aren't doing things properly. At least, that's how I see it in my opinion. They are more than likely going to experience another boom/bust after this work in 2030+. Are we going to keep ordering a steady flow of ships? I highly doubt it based on Canada's procurement history.

That's the genius of the plan - some ships will already need replacement by the time that the plan is done.  The first AOPS will be more than 20 years old by the time the last CSC is built in 2041, and the remaining Kingstons will be ancient.  The NSPS was designed to end the boom bust.  Civilian work is irrelevant (but would add an extra layer of protection).  End the boom bust and much of the extra cost is eliminated.

Of course, it will always cost more to build here, but not necessarily in net terms. 

 

[Kirkhill]

No, that is part of it. They should build quickly, we should also build abroad. Our own shipbuilders should be building up a much larger commercial base for foreign and domestic buyers. If they can't get work outside of government work, they aren't doing things properly. At least, that's how I see it in my opinion. They are more than likely going to experience another boom/bust after this work in 2030+. Are we going to keep ordering a steady flow of ships? I highly doubt it based on Canada's procurement history. If they set themselves up to do only government work for that time period, they aren't going to have a lot of leeway in foreign markets? This NSPS has frustrated me for a while lol

:goodpost:

Other countries yards are not just naval yards.  They build cruise liners and specialty hulls like OFSVs, icebreakers, research vessels, patrol vessels, private vessels....  And Korea builds containers and tankers.

Take a look at Fincantieri - https://www.fincantieri.com/en/ or Damen for a smaller national champion - http://www.damen.com/

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The National Shipbuilding Strategy has always been an industrial strategy - not a naval strategy.

The Navy doesn't really care where its ships are built, so long as they fully work and meet all operational criteria.

Thus, if the yards benefiting from the major upgrades in both facilities and training/experience for their manpower cannot turn this into a commercial venture distinct from the government procurement, then the whole strategy is a failure. Unless of course, the government demonstrate that the capacity for Canada to build in country all of its government vessels, military and civilian, is of an essential strategic importance. No such demonstration has been made, nor has the matter even been brought into the public representation of the strategy.

But there is one other aspect no one touched on: Is the government going to let the selected yards sell warships to foreign powers? The government tried with the HALIFAX class but failed. This happened for a very simple reason: the sale pitch was mostly aimed at other NATO countries and most of them already had their own in-country programs they were not about to change just to buy Canadian - no matter how good they were. On the other hand, the government was not willing to let sales out to countries that were less savoury to the Canadian public, like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Egypt, for instances. Since other nations like the French and the Dutch have no such qualms, they get those sales even if they subsidize them, to keep their yards going. If the Canadian government of today is still reluctant to do so (and, judging by the ruckus over sale of mere LAV's to Saudi Arabia, I suspect the government still is), the strategy is not going to work.

Moreover, this very possibility of foreign sales (if the government had ever planned on permitting it) is now forfeited anyway since, instead of designing a home grown Canadian design and product, we have selected foreign designs (Acker for the Berlin and we don't know who yet for the CSC's) and it's unlikely the original designers will let the Canadian yards sell them instead of selling them directly.

Also: I still have a scotch bottle (Glen Breton 2007) bet on the fact that the AOPS will be turned over to the Coast Guard within 5 years of their acquisition  :nod: . So the Navy will need a real offshore surveillance vessel. [

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Building ships more quickly derails the entire plan set out by the Harper government, and puts us back into the boom/bust cycle that has left us here, unable to build ships economically.

jmt18325, I struck out your last bit because we won't be building ships economically with the present plan; however, the point was never to build anything economically.  I think you and I, regardless of whoever we associate with politically can agree that one of the primary roles of the Government is to support the development of Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) either through legal frameworks in the form of legislation or through subsidization and investments, either indirect or direct.

Whether the CAF get 15 ships tomorrow or five years from now, it's more important strategically that we have a shipbuilding industry as part of an overall government CNI plan.  As far as I'm concerned, the shipbuilding plan is a good thing.  Strategically, it's important that we have the capacity to build ships for a variety of reasons as shipbuilding; like aviation, oil, electricity, etc.  Are key industries of national power and should be supported accordingly.

 

[jmt18325]

jmt18325, I struck out your last bit because we won't be building ships economically with the present plan; however, the point was never to build anything economically.  I think you and I, regardless of whoever we associate with politically we can agree that one of the primary roles of the Government is to support the development of Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) either through legal frameworks in the form of legislation or through subsidization and investments, either indirect or direct.

Whether the CAF get 15 ships tomorrow or five years from now, it's more important strategically that we have a shipbuilding industry as part of an overall government CNI plan.  As far as I'm concerned, the shipbuilding plan is a good thing.  Strategically, it's important that we have the capacity to build ships for a variety of reasons as shipbuilding; like aviation, oil, electricity, etc.  Are key industries of national power and should be supported accordingly.

I would agree with you completely.  I think what I was referring to was the money that we've had to spend to rebuild this capacity just to start the construction phase of the NSPS - it was probably close to (if not more than) $1B in terms of infrastructure for the shipyards and training for the shipbuilders.  All of that cost is either directly or indirectly passed on to the government, inflating the costs and the timeline.  The idea of the NSPS is to bring that to an end.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I would agree with you completely.  I think what I was referring to was the money that we've had to spend to rebuild this capacity just to start the construction phase of the NSPS - it was probably close to (if not more than) $1B in terms of infrastructure for the shipyards and training for the shipyards.  All of that cost is either directly or indirectly passed on to the government, inflating the costs and the timeline.  The idea of the NSPS is to bring that to an end.

You and I are in vigorous agreement!

I hear a lot of talk about us buying Korean, sure we would save money up front but here is a military scenario for you, what if South Korea gets invaded?

Is it an acceptable COA to base our entire Naval procurement around the availability of ships from a country in a potentially volatile region with the distinct possibility that if war does breakout, we loose access to our supplier?  I don't think so  8)

 

[Good2Golf]

Ship-building strategy = maritime version of Colt Canada, no?  ???

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Ship-building strategy = maritime version of Colt Canada, no?  ???

My personal opinion is when it comes to CNI, the rule MUST BE 'buy domestic'.  Right now we are commanding a Multinational Battlegroup in an area which for Canada is probably 'Key Terrain' as far as Defence of North America is concerned. 

Would you place your BSA on the FEBA?  So why would you place your warship building capabilities in an area that, if war were to actually break out, would become contested ground?  Our vital ground is most definitely the Atlantic and to a lesser extent the Pacific Oceans so it behoves us to be able to project in to it from a position of strength.

:2c:

 

[serger989]

That's the genius of the plan - some ships will already need replacement by the time that the plan is done.  The first AOPS will be more than 20 years old by the time the last CSC is built in 2041, and the remaining Kingstons will be ancient.  The NSPS was designed to end the boom bust.  Civilian work is irrelevant (but would add an extra layer of protection).  End the boom bust and much of the extra cost is eliminated.

Of course, it will always cost more to build here, but not necessarily in net terms.

Unfortunately there is no genius to this plan. The Kingstons had a $100 million refit cancelled because the AOPS are replacing them. If you look at the defense review that just released, the RCN is only getting 15 AAW/ASW frigates, 2 JSS, 5-6 AOPS, and "modernized" Victoria subs. For the foreseeable future, that's it. Just because they will NEED replacement, doesn't mean they will get replaced (The plan to begin our JSS started in 2004 for example, but ours rusted out before we even had the new ones laid down). There is no binding contract for the unforeseen future. The NSPS guarantees the work listed above + Seaspans CCG work and that is all it does. These companies are responsible themselves for building up their own suppliers and means of distributing the work. Our CNI for shipbuilding is entirely dependent on the success of these yards which has nothing to do with the amount of money we throw at them and everything to do with the capability they posses. Case in point, Saint John shipyard modernized, Irving said frig it and made it a Wallboard facility, moved to Halifax, then begged for a 300 million forgivable loan to modernize, after we paid them 55 million for their Wallboard facility. Also I am still of the opinion that keeping Davie "locked out" of the NSPS was a mistake. We can also sign new contracts for unrelated ships (Project Resolve/Resolute)... So we can have 2 Queenstons and 2 Resolves, the 3rd Queenston was not guaranteed and is dependent on Seaspans own budget currently, as is the 6th AOPS. How can having more yards participate in our own building be detrimental to us, especially when Davie's capacity is unique in that they are the largest in Canada...?

So I ask, when their contract is completed, what then? Will they suddenly be sought after companies for international work after 20+ years of not contributing in foreign markets? Even big international yards have trouble selling just military vessels or specialty ships, competitions are no joke. They are being set up for another boom and bust, but this time, in 20+ years instead of 10+ years. If you give them nothing but government work, and then have their future work basically attached to refitting... Their skill will diminish just like it did and has currently (History shows). They need to step up and go beyond Canadian work. Yes, have Canada buy from Canadian yards, but those same yards can then divide their own work up internationally on some aspects to expedite builds, freeing up their capacity/schedule to then do even more work. You get work by having buyers interested in you, not 1 buyer. We aren't the USN where we have 100+ vessels (and a huge budget) to constantly rotate in and out of refitting and modernizing the fleet.

Sorry if I am wrong on any of this, please kick me in my arse and correct the crap out of me. I am more than anything looking to understand this whole situation. I have to say however, that I love this website because it's one of the only realistic places to have this specific discussion on the whole damned internet lol

 

[Karel Doorman]

:goodpost:

Other countries yards are not just naval yards.  They build cruise liners and specialty hulls like OFSVs, icebreakers, research vessels, patrol vessels, private vessels....  And Korea builds containers and tankers.

Take a look at Fincantieri - https://www.fincantieri.com/en/ or Damen for a smaller national champion - http://www.damen.com/

Btw have you seen on the Damen site what they're planning for the Dutch Navy?

Click on Damen and the Royal Dutch Navy(site),you can see what they're planning for replacement M-class,Walrus-class and the MCM's(Tripartite),click on the arrow to the right. [  (concepts)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Canadian shipbuilders will always struggle due to labour and regulation costs. The one thing that can be fixed is management and Canadian management is not considered the most effective in the world to be polite. (well it’s better than Leylands was)

Seaspan was upgrading itself, before the NSPS and had survived for many years without government contracts, built a global rep for efficient repairs on budget and on time. Davie went through a tough spot, pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and I respect them for that. I suspect there is no legal reason why the NSPS cannot be transferred to Davie if Irving fails to perform. The government needs to hold their feet to the fire, particularly on the quality of build of the AOPs and make the CSC contract dependent on that quality.

AS for CNI, one of my big worries is that that there are only 2 refineries in BC, one at 56,000bbd and the other around 26,000bbd. The smaller one in Prince George is getting quite old, the bigger one is set in an earthquake zone. Currently any excess fuel demand has to be met with US supply for the South Coast, so we are dependent on foreign sources for refined fuels out here if something goes wrong. I would be willing to have the government support the rebuilding of the smaller one and building a new one near the South coast as a back up. The gas companies are not interested in building more refineries as it would increase supply driving the local price of gas down. Gas companies do not have the national interest or even the regional interests at heart.