35 Billion for shipbuilders

[Topaz]

The government is spending up to $35 Billion for new ships for Canada and there are three shipbiulders in Canada but only TWO contracts are need. Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, but who will lose out? I think N.S. will get one and not sure on the second. BTW, where are the Tories getting all this money for the military? http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/09/don-martin-b-c-shipbuilder-fears-eastern-bias-in-35b-deal/

[Smallc]

The government is spending up to $35 Billion for new ships for Canada and there are three shipbiulders in Canada but only TWO contracts are need.

There are 5 shipyards competing for the two spots: Washington Marine (Vancouver, BC), Seaway Marine (St. Catherine's, Ontario), Davies (Levis, Quebec), Irving (Halifax, NS), and Kewit (Marystown, N+L). The shipyards that don't win can bid on the 100 small vessels as well as repairs and refit. The government cannot be all things to all people.

This money for the military did not come mainly from the Conservatives, but rather from Paul Martin's Liberal government. The Conservatives added to it, and set out a framework going forward to after 2020. This is all part of that budget. There is really no new (unbudgeted) spending here.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Smallc

[William Ashley]

It really (emo) pisses me off to see this junk when there are no plans for national exploitation in the artic regions. Here the public is paying for toys for private companies. Canada already sold years ago exploration rights to the artic... what exactly is the tax payer paying for here? To guard US oil companies?

I still stand by my approach.

1. that ice breakers be built with fees from companies using the ice breakers services.

2. that a merchant marine is formed with a modular base - based on commercial contract inputs able to pay off the ships in 10 years.

3. that the government develope and exploit the natural resources in the north via a crown corporation rather than leaving it to private American companies.

35 billion is probably WAY over billed like big time a frigate should only cost a few million.

For what is being priced here it is PREPOSTERIOUSLY OVER BID.. also if it is in the tender stage why is there a price tag on it?

35 billion is a MASSIVE amount of cash.. I MEAN MASSIVE for the number of ships listed.. the tax payers are clearly being fleeced.

I'm all for a ship building program 100% support that.. but this is nonsense from the stuff I see.

To put this in perspective you must see the "hidden costs" of crew, fuel etc...

...

For estimated 5 billion

-----------------------------

5 x 47ft Motor Lifeboats (MLB)

2011

maybe 200-500k - 50ft lifeboats for more than 100k a piece would have me wonder what is adding to the cost.

------------------

3 x Near-Shore Fisheries Research Vessels

2011

9 x Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels (MSPV)

2011 – 2015

3 x Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel (OFSV)

2013 – 2015

1 x Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel (OOSV)

2013

1 x Polar Icebreaker (Polar) <---- how the hell is this boat costing half a billion to a billion dollars.

2017

I don't see 5 billion in this.

Someone enlighten me on how 5 billion comes from 20 small ships.

What sells me on this is having businessess sign on to pay for these things in their areas of operation.

Sponsor to own.

Having patrol boats up there is almost 99.9% redundant, and there should be someone to pay the tab for the research they conduct - if it has no monetary value what does it matter?

thats about $250 out of every tax payers pockets to have 40 boats or $1500 to have the full thing.

Its not per se a lot but you have to understand that Canada is running large deficit after large deficit. This is money that has to be ontop of current taxes at some point - and these things increase operations expenses unless they are put into a business model - one we don't see.

A war model will only yet again cost even more, and comprise increased waste spending.

I want to see a business model on these.

True the actual cost is more like 25 to 30 billion, but I honestly don't get why these things are so damn expensive. Boats should only cost 10 to 100 million tops. not 500 million.

Edited November 11, 2010 by William Ashley

[Jack Weber]

On the 35th anniversary of the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald,this topic is fairly salient...

I can state from personal knowledge that any vessel the Navy deems "battle ready" will be built on the coasts...The smaller supply vessels will be built elsewhere.So much money has gone into the Davy yard in Quebec that I would not be shocked if they are'nt the first choice for that.Personally,I'm hoping for Seaway Marine and Industrial (The former Port Weller Dry Docks)to get som of this because it would be a huge shot in the arm for employment in Niagara,not to mention it'll be alot of work for alot of skilled trades...

I'll say this that the Conservatives have seen a problem and are trying to do something about it in a fashion that will help multiple areas of the country.However,the military construction is only one component to the shipbuilding necessity in this country.The other component is the merchant fleet that trades,not only on the Great Lakes,but on the East coast of North America.This country still does not have a coherent shipbuilding policy,such as the Jones Act in the U.S.Personally,I would like to see something like that,as it relates to the bidding process.We have a 30 to 35 year old merchant fleet that is in dire need of replacing.It would be nice to see the Canadian yards get forst shot at that work...

Edited November 11, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Smallc]

Personally,I'm hoping for Seaway Marine and Industrial (The former Port Weller Dry Docks)to get som of this because it would be a huge shot in the arm for employment in Niagara,not to mention it'll be alot of work for alot of skilled trades...

I'm not sure that there's enough room in the Welland Canal for the JSS. I'm thinking that Irving will get the combat project (they want that project) and either Davie or Washington Marine will get the other contract, as they're the only ones big enough really to build multiple ships at once.

[Jack Weber]

I'm not sure that there's enough room in the Welland Canal for the JSS. I'm thinking that Irving will get the combat project (they want that project) and either Davie or Washington Marine will get the other contract, as they're the only ones big enough really to build multiple ships at once.

There's two docks at Seaway that are seperate from each other,and are large enough to build Lake freighters.The Navy also has offices at the shipyard.You'd be surprised how small military vessels really are...Most lake freighters are over 700 feet long.You could build two destroyers in each dock!

I suspect Davie will get a serious look because the Fed's have propped that place up more than once.As I said before,The Navy wants the battle ready vessels built on the coast...But supply vehicles are'nt usually fitted with alot of weaponry and Niagara has a high unemployment rate...

Where Seaway Marine and Industrial is located,the canal is very wide.It's just inside of Lock #1 on the Welland Canal.I've seen freighters tugged out of the drydock and be basically floating across the canal and a freighter could sail by on either side without touching the ship or the shore...

Edited November 11, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

Check it out here...They are doing some refit work for the Coast Guard right now...

http://www.seamind.ca

[G.P. Lehmann]

Is there any doubt Quebec will get one?

[Smallc]

Is there any doubt Quebec will get one?

Yes. The government has nothing to do with the choosing. There is an outside consultant that will do the selection, and a fairness monitor to make sure things are done....fairly.

[Smallc]

Check it out here...They are doing some refit work for the Coast Guard right now...

http://www.seamind.ca

I only say what I did because apparently, the yard could not compete for a supply ship refit contract in the past because the ship could not fit down the canal.

[Jack Weber]

I only say what I did because apparently, the yard could not compete for a supply ship refit contract in the past because the ship could not fit down the canal.

Seems odd that that a supply ship could'nt fit in the Welland Canal when Lake Freighters and Oceangoing vessels do all the time?

[wyly]

It really (emo) pisses me off to see this junk when there are no plans for national exploitation in the artic regions. Here the public is paying for toys for private companies. Canada already sold years ago exploration rights to the artic... what exactly is the tax payer paying for here? To guard US oil companies?

well we should have something up there protect our interests and the environment...invoice the private companies for any services...

1. that ice breakers be built with fees from companies using the ice breakers services.

sure

2. that a merchant marine is formed with a modular base - based on commercial contract inputs able to pay off the ships in 10 years.

okay

3. that the government develope and exploit the natural resources in the north via a crown corporation rather than leaving it to private American companies.

hmmmm, sounds like a money pit...

35 billion is probably WAY over billed like big time a frigate should only cost a few million.

no, a few million will get you a really nice home, a frigate? nope...big dollars

[Smallc]

no, a few million will get you a really nice home, a frigate? nope...big dollars

Yeah....500 - 700M is about the standard rate right now for things like FREMM and F100 class, two very good frigates. There are others too by the Dutch, Danes, and Germans in the same range.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Smallc

[wyly]

Yes. The government has nothing to do with the choosing. There is an outside consultant that will do the selection, and a fairness monitor to make sure things are done....fairly.

doubtful...they'll go through all the motions of a fair process but in the end it will be a political decision...the conservatives aren't about doing the right thing or the fair thing, they're all about saving their butts politically...

the smart political decision would be give contracts to all three...

[Smallc]

the smart political decision would be give contracts to all three...

That can't happen. I still think that the decision will not be political.

[wyly]

That can't happen. I still think that the decision will not be political.

I admire your faith in humanity...my life experiences tell me politicians aren't human...

[G.P. Lehmann]

Yes. The government has nothing to do with the choosing. There is an outside consultant that will do the selection, and a fairness monitor to make sure things are done....fairly.

I support fairness through an apolitical consultant.

[William Ashley]

well we should have something up there protect our interests and the environment...invoice the private companies for any services...

sure

okay

hmmmm, sounds like a money pit...

no, a few million will get you a really nice home, a frigate? nope...big dollars

No there are plenty of nice frigates for under 30 million.

You need to look at what type of operations the things will be used for - Canada could spend 100 million on missiles and be way better off that spending a billion on ship that can be sunk with a 5 million dollar missle salvo.

In all actuality Canada ought to look at where it may actually see ts marine forces active, and what type of equipment it needs to meet those threats up until 2025.

Sadly it appears very redundant and outside of Canada's perspective to even start attempt to making a battle group type ship when its "cruiser" is a frigate. It cannot compete with the big weights on water. It does have a chance to develope coastal rail defence and missle defence though.

What are these things being used for in 5 to 10 years when they are ready

You need to wake up and smell the salts, the fact is Canada is NOT made out to be a power projecting nation. It can't even manage home defence.

A handful of billion dollar frigates ain't gonna do much other than keep the oil costs down.

What is your vision for the boats? I'd like to hear this to resolve why you are spending the price of a battle ship on a frigate.

I'm not unmoving in my opinion BUT it does not make sense.

I can't imagine a scenario where they will be useful to spend so much on the things.

If you have the extra money to spend spending big like Saudi Arabia makes sense, Canada is not Saudia Arabia is a country approaching 1 trllion dollar public debt and over 1 trillion dollar private debt. THE MONEY DOES NOT EXIST.

What is important is having room for a helicopter or a few F35's or lift aircraft, and good crew quarters and sensors, a missle system, comm. Done.

What else are you looking for.

Otherwise you need to deck things out.. anti submarine techh..

Leave all that stuff to modular based.

Chinas missle frigates are a good example of good frigate at low cost.

Example --- you want a aircraft carrier make a modular upgradable flat cargo.. since f35's can to vtol.

You want missle system build a modular missle system you want coms etc.. modular.

Have the canadian military build the mods via defence startups train engineers.

The hulls of course need to be built by shipyards no doubt.

but we need merchant ships - it is the only way they wlll be paid for.

It may sound strange but there are tons of cost savings out there.

Ships need to be built to be upgraded as technolgy upgrades.

You need the cargo space. You don't need canons, and if you do you have a nodular slot built in that can take cargo in the meantime.

Sensor systems are constantly upgrading so you don't hardwire.

But you have to look at what canada needs them for.

Someone tell me what types of missions these ships will be used for?

What type of engagements is Canada gonna be able to be involved in?

The biggest war we are up against in 10 years is

THE WAR ON DEBT...

it is a war where government will not be able to keep its citizens alive, where the elderly impoverished increase, where medical funds are stretched to being torn. And in the event of a "REAL WAR" it will be chaos for the people.

THE WAR ON DEBT... needs to be built into our military strategy.

Unless someone can demonstrate why the ships are needed in that form.

I until someone prooves me wrong or presents a working alternative will hold this view, but 35 billion for what is outlined does not have me convinced.

Edited November 11, 2010 by William Ashley

[M.Dancer]

No there are plenty of nice frigates for under 30 million.

You have a list of post cold war frigates under 30M?

[bush_cheney2004]

You have a list of post cold war frigates under 30M?

here ya go.....

http://www.gilligansisle.com/images/minnow_big.jpg

[William Ashley]

You have a list of post cold war frigates under 30M?

When did the cold war end? 1990?

None the less this is secondary

The county class destroyer was around this period on its second batch. 17m sterling.

There are others. The question is not what previous models have been designed but what role Canada is going to take with their navy.

I don't understand why the pricetag is so high. If I had more information I probably wouldn't be whining about this but there is no reason can see that amount of money is going into this for what Canada is. What is it being used for, and why can't a less costly ship replace it. Personally the only reason I say this s because I've researched military equipment somewhat and know there are much cheaper alternatives that are just as effective.

I also don't want a navy that intends to maul small foreign nations - for evil purposes. Home defence is another issue completely. Canada will not be going to war in any real war, it cannot with its current size - other than as a very tiny supplementary force. I can only see the Canadian navy as useful for small scale coastguard operations - what else has it done, act as supply ships.. really what else? How will this role change.

This is why I support a modular based program that can be developed if the role changes and as technology changes.

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/10/10-a_eng.asp?category=24&id=288

Propulsion and hull and crew facilities are all that is important --- it may sound strange but I believe in a modular based design this enhances the task force group by allowing crane operation and system anchoring to enable adaptability of ships otherwise capable of merchant marine operations. IF the marine makes money it allows for more ships and newer modules.

Edited November 11, 2010 by William Ashley

[M.Dancer]

When did the cold war end? 1990?

None the less this is secondary

The county class destroyer was around this period on its second batch. 17m sterling.

So you think a ship that was last built in 1970 would suffice for 2015 and beyond?

If it cost 17M Pounds in 1970, in todays dollars with inflation factored, it would cost $95,707,809.28

There are others.

Equally as obsolete and as expensive?

The question is not what previous models have been designed but what role Canada is going to take with their navy.

Blue sea warfare. Costal warfare. Etc etc etc...

I don't understand why the pricetag is so high.

Agreed.

If I had more information I probably wouldn't be whining about this but there is no reason can see that amount of money is going into this for what Canada is. The information is out there.

What is it being used for, and why can't a less costly ship replace it. Personally the only reason I say this s because I've researched military equipment somewhat and know there are much cheaper alternatives that are just as effective.

You mean like 95 million pouns terling obsolete equipemnt...the cost for the vacuum tubes alone will skyrocket...

I also don't want a navy that intends to maul small foreign nations - for evil purposes.

Maul or be mauled. There is no middle way.

Home defence is another issue completely. Canada will not be going to war in any real war, it cannot with its current size - other than as a very tiny supplementary force. I can only see the Canadian navy as useful for small scale coastguard operations - what else has it done, act as supply ships.. really what else? How will this role change.

If you don't know, given the vast amount of info available on RCN activities...are you sure you want to argue about it?