Canadian Ship Building Deal Reached

[Smallc]

Canada's shipbuilders have agreed to a radical change in the way contracts will be doled out by the federal government.

The government plans to spend $40 billion over the next 30 years to build as many as 50 large ships, in addition to 70 ships under 1,000 tonnes that have been earmarked for revamps.

"There is going to be enough work with 50 ships on order for every shipyard in the country to be going full steam, and that's good news in terms of the economy," said Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

The government wanted to avoid a repeat of situations last year, when the construction of three navy supply ships and some coastal patrol boats was shelved because of problems with meeting the specifications at the government's budget.

CBC News

This government has made a big step towards redeeming themselves in my eyes.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

CBC News

This government has made a big step towards redeeming themselves in my eyes.

Not that I am complaining but those really aren't very big those are quite small.

[Smallc]

What isn't very big? There are 70 ships under 1000 tons and up to 50 to replace the largest ships in the Navy and Coast Guard fleet. This is big. I hope that subsequent government stick to this plan. This means supply ships, patrol ships, the new surface combatants, new ice breakers, new coast guard patrol ships...not only is it big, it's huge....and it's sustainable.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Smallc

[Guest TrueMetis]

Finally they're actually doing something. Wonder how long it's gonna take to build the new ships and upgrade the old ships.

[Smallc]

It will probably take a long time at first, but that's ok. Our fleet will now be staggered in age and we will have a sustainable policy and industry. We won't get what we wnt right away, but we'll always be current.

[Alta4ever]

What isn't very big? There are 70 ships under 1000 tons and up to 50 to replace the largest ships in the Navy and Coast Guard fleet. This is big. I hope that subsequent government stick to this plan. This means supply ships, patrol ships, the new surface combatants, new ice breakers, new coast guard patrol ships...not only is it big, it's huge....and it's sustainable.

Sorry the way I read it was that all were going to be under 1000 tonnes.

[Smallc]

No, it's 50 large ships and 70 smaller ones. This is the replacement of almost all government ships over the next 3 decades. It's extremely exciting.

[Guest TrueMetis]

No, it's 50 large ships and 70 smaller ones. This is the replacement of almost all government ships over the next 3 decades. It's extremely exciting.

The 70 smaller are revamps though but at least there will be some progress.

[Alta4ever]

No, it's 50 large ships and 70 smaller ones. This is the replacement of almost all government ships over the next 3 decades. It's extremely exciting.

Then you are right this is very huge, and very wonderful.

[Smallc]

The 70 smaller are revamps though but at least there will be some progress.

revamps can be big things though. You can make an old ship like new again. The coast guard fleet doesn't need to be as new as the naval fleet, and so refitting the ships is a good idea.

[Argus]

CBC News

This government has made a big step towards redeeming themselves in my eyes.

Call me cynical, but I don't see the government ordering up 50 "large" ships.

In my books, "large" is something reserved for something the size of a frigate or a large icebreaker. Entirely replacing all the frigates, destroyers, and supply ships in the navy along with every large cutter would still not bring us anywhere near 50 ships.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Call me cynical, but I don't see the government ordering up 50 "large" ships.

In my books, "large" is something reserved for something the size of a frigate or a large icebreaker. Entirely replacing all the frigates, destroyers, and supply ships in the navy along with every large cutter would still not bring us anywhere near 50 ships.

According to the Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms a large ship is anything over 137m long. You can decide for yourself whether you think that's large.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/large+ship

Edited July 29, 2009 by TrueMetis

[M.Dancer]

Call me cynical, but I don't see the government ordering up 50 "large" ships.

In my books, "large" is something reserved for something the size of a frigate or a large icebreaker. Entirely replacing all the frigates, destroyers, and supply ships in the navy along with every large cutter would still not bring us anywhere near 50 ships.

Well in addition to replacing...there adding an extra supply ship bringing the number to 3 and the arctic patrol vessels as well as replacing the destroyers....so your right...maybe they are adding 15 ships of unknown type?

[Smallc]

Call me cynical, but I don't see the government ordering up 50 "large" ships.

It says up to. There will be between 24 and 30 ships for the Navy and it seems that the largest in the Coast Guard fleet will be replaced. There will need to be 3 - 4 supply ships, 15 surface combatants, 6 - 8 all water patrol ships, and many coast guard ships (there are many ships in the CG that could be considered large. The ice breakers, the patrol ships, the multi role vessels, etc) there is at least 50 that can be replaced in that time. The program may even need to be expanded eventually. The thing I like is that we can probably afford the $1.33 per year.

[Smallc]

The frigates will be replaced after the other ships. The frigates and destroyers will all be the same design but will contain different modular weapons systems....or so is the plan. The patrol ships we have now will probably either be sunk or transferred to the CG.

[M.Dancer]

The frigates will be replaced after the other ships. The frigates and destroyers will all be the same design but will contain different modular weapons systems....or so is the plan. The patrol ships we have now will probably either be sunk or transferred to the CG.

There is a rather large size difference bewteen a frigate and a destroyer. You need all the extra real estate on a destroyer in order to:

Carry the sensor suites for Air, surface and below.

Anti aircraft missile batteries

Anti Surface missile batteries

Anti Sub Torpedoes

Helocopters

Command and control centre.

[Smallc]

There is a rather large size difference bewteen a frigate and a destroyer.

Our current destroyer is about the same size as our current frigate and is in fact slightly smaller.

[Smallc]

BTW, both our frigates and destroyers have all of the equipment you listed. The destroyers have one more helicopter and are equipped with a vertical launch system for area air defence.

[M.Dancer]

BTW, both our frigates and destroyers have all of the equipment you listed. The destroyers have one more helicopter and are equipped with a vertical launch system for area air defence.

Yes indeed...in much smalled capabilities than destroyers (modern ones that is). I believe our frigate have max 6 harpoons while a modern destroyer may have 12. And of course if the destroyers role is to be an anti aircraft picket, then it must have multiple missile cells.

[Smallc]

Yes, that's right. The plan is to build a single class surface combatant and outfit 12 of them with one type of weapon system and 3 of them with a different type of weapon system. There's even a wiki article for it as well as other pages.

[Argus]

It says up to. There will be between 24 and 30 ships for the Navy and it seems that the largest in the Coast Guard fleet will be replaced. There will need to be 3 - 4 supply ships, 15 surface combatants, 6 - 8 all water patrol ships, and many coast guard ships (there are many ships in the CG that could be considered large. The ice breakers, the patrol ships, the multi role vessels, etc) there is at least 50 that can be replaced in that time. The program may even need to be expanded eventually. The thing I like is that we can probably afford the $1.33 per year.

If you say so. But I don't see any new icebreakers being built - or designed. I don't see any new supply ships being built - or designed. I don't see any large patrol ships even being contemplated.

If the government wanted to do something about stability for the navy it would set up a proper building slip and build one ship per year. That would let us have about 20 ships and replace one every year or so - after about 20-25 years of service.

Instead it lets them all rust out, then goes on a building splurge which requires the shipbuilders to hire all sorts of newcomers, train them, set up new facilities for the projects, design the ships, work out the kinks, and then build them. After that, everything is allowed to go to pot, all those newly skilled shipbuilders are laid off, the facilities mothballed, and we wait another thirty years until the next shipbuilding splurge. Of course, the associated costs mean every ship is twice as expensive as it needs to be, maybe three times as expensive, but when has the government ever been sane about military purchases?

And this government is not going to be in power for 30 years. Guaranteed no Liberal government will be building any warships so long as the existing ones don't leave a trail of rust in their wakes everywhere they go. Their finance critic let the cat out of the bag in the last election - secretly, because he didn't know outsiders were taping him - and outright said they would get money for their new arts program by cutting from the military budget. And that was in the middle of a war. What do you think they'll do to the military budget when we're not fighting in Afghanistan?

Remember, this is the party which can canceled the third order of 6 frigates we were supposed to receive despite promising them for years. They canceled it after an election, of course.

[Smallc]

If you say so. But I don't see any new icebreakers being built - or designed. I don't see any new supply ships being built - or designed. I don't see any large patrol ships even being contemplated.

If the government wanted to do something about stability for the navy it would set up a proper building slip and build one ship per year. That would let us have about 20 ships and replace one every year or so - after about 20-25 years of service.

Well all those things you don't see are about to happen...and your suggestion is what will happen (though it will not all happen at one ship yard). 4 ships a year will have to be built or refitted. It's sustainable and it's reasonable.

[Argus]

Well all those things you don't see are about to happen...and your suggestion is what will happen (though it will not all happen at one ship yard). 4 ships a year will have to be built or refitted. It's sustainable and it's reasonable.

I'll believe it when the contracts are signed.

Even then the Liberals might cancel them, like they did the helicopter contract.

[M.Dancer]

Yes, that's right. The plan is to build a single class surface combatant and outfit 12 of them with one type of weapon system and 3 of them with a different type of weapon system. There's even a wiki article for it as well as other pages.

Oh..then they are making a huge mistake.

[Smallc]

I'm not really sure that they are making a mistake. We don't have a terrible amount of money to put into a design project for just 3 destroyers. If the ships can share a single hull, and simply be outfitted for different roles, it should work. Maybe the 15 ships will all be frigates, who knows?