Shipbuilding bonanza: We aren’t entitled; we have to earn it

[Army Guy]

There is more money for the frigates and destroyers than you're getting. The combat build is for $25B. There has been said to be ample money available. Also, the amphibious ships are not part of any current plans.

Not according to the link i provided, and not according to the Militaries defnse plan 2030...Those figures are is what is on the Navy wish list,not mine...And according to the Navy they are still 4.5 bil short to cover the list...

Out of the 35 bil if those figures are correct, which they should as they have come from the navy only 14.5 bil has been alotted to the navys wish list....unless you can provide another source.

As for the Amphibous ship, they have been looking at this for years, even conducted serveral trails with the LSD-17 ships...perhaps you have another source you can provide.

[Army Guy]

I don't agree. We're setting aside almost $1.5B for each of the Canadian Surface Combatant class ships.

Maybe my link is outdated or perhaps my math is bad, but 15 ships at 1.5 bil adds up to more than the alloted funds given out for navy projects, my links have them at 1.5 for the AAD and 700 mil to replace frigs....

Irving seems to think that they can do it with little difficulty.

with 35 Bil at stake i'd being saying the same thing , however you did read the Navies Chief constructor why does he think other wise.

The repair and build large ships all of time, even if the ones they build aren't war fighting ships.

At the Top of the link i provided is a list of all the major ship building yards in the nation, and it lists what they are building now, nothing even close to a modern warship....and you can not compare them...it's not the same..

Even our own navy guys, are saying if we build in Canada it is going to be an uphill battle from day one, mostly due to the fact we as a nation have turned a blind eye and watched our ship building industry turn to dust....And i think Dave is right if we are to turn that around it is going to take some governmantal infussion, not only to moderize our building yards, but to bring in the skill and expertise that has dried up, on both sides military and civilian side....not to mention purchasing or developing all the wpns systems needed to put inside....which is a huge task....

If we are going to develope our ship building skills let them start small but wait a minute....the JSS was a small project, sarted when again, and they still do not have a working design, let alone a proto type...dangling a bigger carrot in front of them is not going to solve the issue...

[Guest Derek L]

Here, generally, is what the navy has on its 'wish list':

I think your numbers are off, below is what is on the Navy's wish list i count atleast 7, not counting AopS, which i'm assuming will be a requirement within the next 10 years....notice the list does not include any sub modernization but has been mentioned costing 1.5 Bil

Four destroyers - $4 B;

Two amphibious landing ships with well decks - $2 B;

Three joint support ships - $2.1 B;

Eight arctic offshore patrol vessels - $2.8 B; and

Twelve frigates - $9 B.

The total for this plan amounts to $19.9 B; $4.5 B has to be removed from the list or more money has got to be found!

And while the Ship building plan has been spread out over the next 30 years, the Navy needs hulls now, and if the JSS project is any indication of problems with building with our borders it may be more than 10 years before we even get out of the starting blocks and steel is laid....

Quite simply, the government will meet funding shortfalls by doing the following:

-No Amphibs

-No Destroyers

-2 AORs

-6 AOPS

-12 Frigates

-No Sub replacement

Any further cost overruns will come at the expense of the frigate force….

It’s been done before.

The British went from a planned order of 12 Type 45s to 8 and now settled on 6, they’ve cut the Type 23 fleet by 1/3, and the Type 22 will go without replacement.

The Australians are only now replacing the Adams destroyers with the Hobarts, they’ve cut their OHP frigates from 6 down to 4 and the remaining 4 will go when the Hobart enter service….9 ships down to 3.

The Dutch replaced the two Tromp class frigates with the current 4 De Zeven Provinciën ships, but in doing so, they cut the 8 ship Karel Doorman class (similar to our 330s) down to 2.

Then the Americans….wooo…where to start, the entire Knox class (46 down to 0), the Spruance class destroyers (minus 31) and cut the OHP class frigates down from 51 ships to 19 (plus ~10 in reserve), with only a few dozen additional Burkes built and 50+ LCS planned……This says nothing of entire classes of nuclear and non nuclear guided missile cruisers (non AEGIS) retired without replacement and one could even add the four Battleships.

Anyone who thinks our numbers and capabilities won’t be affected (remember Huron is already gone) during the coming decades is delusional.

[Smallc]

I'm sorry, but that isn't the navies chief constructor, that's a contributor to Defence Watch. As for my figures, they come from the CFDS, and Defence Watch. Also, given that the AADs will be the first of the 15 surface combatants to be replaced, the chance of them being cut is near zero. There is no current plans for amphibious ships, and any shortfall is being made up for with the current operational spending reductions. The plan is very much going ahead.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm sorry, but that isn't the navies chief constructor, that's a contributor to Defence Watch. As for my figures, they come from the CFDS, and Defence Watch. Also, given that the AADs will be the first of the 15 surface combatants to be replaced, the chance of them being cut is near zero. There is no current plans for amphibious ships, and any shortfall is being made up for with the current operational spending reductions. The plan is very much going ahead.

Those same sentiments were held after Bonnie went into her last refit…….”We don’t need her (I find ironic) the new 280s will more than take her place…”

They may produce an anti-air & command variant first, but that doesn’t guarantee the number of ships (15) will be produced…….If there’s more than a year gap between the 280s retiring and their “replacements” being commissioned those numbers will be lost…….

[Jack Weber]

I'm inclined to agree with Army guy. As much as it saddens me, the shipbuilding industry is in fact dead in Canada; to say otherwise is to delude ourselves. The reasons are manifold, and mostly political, but that's neither here nor there. Suffice it to say, we would not be able to sufficiently rebuild the ship building industry in Canada in time to build these ships. Further it would take a significant amount of investment on the part of the government to research, train the necessary personnel to maintain and grow the industry.

The reality is we would be our only customer's at this point which I believe is the essence of what Army guy is trying to get to. We didn't maintain the expertise we had and other countries have long since passed us, we would have a lot of catching up to do, until we got to the quality level that others are already able to produce. Until we get there, we would not be able to expect other countries to buy our product if they can get a higher quality elsewhere. In a global economy this must be the goal, we simply don't have the demand currently to maintain the industry on our own.

I have to agree though; we can't expect to get experience in building modern war ships unless we start building modern warships domestically. However, if we're going to go this route we must be prepared to make significant investments to do so, far more than what is currently planned. As mentioned above we would need to maintain it long enough to build the quality level to compete in the global market. Our best bet is to find a niche that is not yet filled. The US has a wide array of great designs which serve various roles, but there are still many areas they don't really specialize in. The Danes for example have a great support class ship, the Absalon class. In our hay day we built some decent destroyer class ships, perhaps we could go that route again.

Theory-crafting aside we simply don't have the current expertise or infrastructure necessary to build the ships we need. It's easy for those of us sitting at home comfortably to say, we should build them in Canada, even if the quality is subpar when we're not the ones whose lives are depending on the functionality and dependability of this equipment. I can completely see where Armyguy is coming from, I'm sure he's had his share of experience with equipment that wasn't up to snuff. We've given our folks in the Army/Navy/Air Force a job to do; the least we can do is give them the best tools available to do the job. If we can't build it ourselves or are unwilling to invest in the development of the industry long term then we must purchase this from those countries that can build it for us.

That is simply uninformed garbage...

Seaway Industrial and Marine (the former Port Weller Drydocks) has all the modern equipment on site right now.It has two drydocks that are capable of contructing lake freighters...The Navy has offices onsite...It has 3 assmbly shops,one of hich is equipped with two 80 ton cranes with 20 ton auxilliaries...Full service machine shop...Shop 2 has plenty of presses,shears,burning tables,panel line etc...All capable of firing up,like,yesterday...Halifax and Esquimalt could do the same ...The infrastructure for construction is still there inspite of industry being neglected by the federal government for over 25 years...

[Army Guy]

I'm sorry, but that isn't the navies chief constructor, that's a contributor to Defence Watch. As for my figures, they come from the CFDS, and Defence Watch. Also, given that the AADs will be the first of the 15 surface combatants to be replaced, the chance of them being cut is near zero. There is no current plans for amphibious ships, and any shortfall is being made up for with the current operational spending reductions. The plan is very much going ahead.

He seems to be very knowable on the topic, I've check out some what was written and it checks out on the navy web site and ADM MATT site as well i hav'nt check it all out . well both of us can not be write and using the info from the same sites something has to give, not calling you a lair, maybe your info is newer ..it sure would be nice if we shared a link or two.

[Scotty]

How is out sourcing the building of capitol ships a bad idea, when you do not have the industry, experience , or tech to build them here in Canada. would you let a contractor that builds garden sheds for a living build your house.

One presumes that Irving will have on hand a number of experts in the field as advisers. Also, these ships are to be built and put into service over something like 15 years, aren't they? So it seems to me that once you've figured out how to build one succesfully -- well, you now have that experience you're talking about, so building number two and three and four just makes you even more experienced.

[Smallc]

That's right. Before you can build two houses, you have to build one.

The estimated price tage for the CSC, BTW, is between $15 - 20B , so actually we're both right. There isn't a completed budget yet:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/crosscheck-shipbuilding/article2053008/

[Smallc]

Halifax and Esquimalt could do the same

That's right. If Irving doesn't have the technology and equipment, how come they have drydocks and facilities for the Iroquois, Halifax, and Protecteur class refits?

[Army Guy]

That is simply uninformed garbage...

There is a shit ton of ship builders in the country, But can they design and build a war ship, do they have access to the tech that goes into a war ship, i mean i got a garage full of tools but i can't build a canoe....my concern is many experts (not me, real Navy guys)believe our nation has lost those skills and experts, and current ship yards are not ready for major war ship design and construction....all one has to do is look at the litton yard in the US and the problems they had with the LSD-17...and they have a world class yard and everything that goes with that...and while our yards may be ready for the JSS project, the last yard could not even come up with a proper design...

even the US naval yards are running into backlog problems building to many classes in the same yard, and even threaten to put some needed designs on hold , if it was as easy as handing it off to another yard, using the same logic a yard is a yard, and a ship is a ship, why have they simply not used another naval yard.

[RNG]

I know nothing about this situation, ships (hell I'm a freaking stubble-jumper, a small slough is big water to me) But if we have the facilities and workers, can't we contract the expertize to oversee it?

[Smallc]

There is a shit ton of ship builders in the country, But can they design and build a war ship, do they have access to the tech that goes into a war ship,

No one is asking them to design it. That's why they'll partner with DNCS or BAE, or LM, or Navantia.

[Smallc]

I know nothing about this situation, ships (hell I'm a freaking stubble-jumper, a small slough is big water to me) But if we have the facilities and workers, can't we contract the expertize to oversee it?

Yes, we most certainly can. Like I said, this is much handwriting about nothing.

[Smallc]

even the US naval yards are running into backlog problems building to many classes in the same yard, and even threaten to put some needed designs on hold , if it was as easy as handing it off to another yard, using the same logic a yard is a yard, and a ship is a ship, why have they simply not used another naval yard.

Because those yards have the contracts. Besides, these yards will only be building at most two ships at once.

[bush_cheney2004]

....all one has to do is look at the litton yard in the US and the problems they had with the LSD-17...and they have a world class yard and everything that goes with that...and while our yards may be ready for the JSS project, the last yard could not even come up with a proper design...

This is a very good observation....the San Antonio Class (LPD-17) has been an unmitigated disaster. Five years after commissioning, the lead ship it is still having teething problems because of design and builder related issues. Recently, the XO beat a court martial rap based partly on the material condition of the ship and pressure to deploy as combat ready and seaworthy, with problems traceable back to the very poor Avondale yard work.

I spent two+ years in the yards (Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company) for an SSBN overhaul, and when it goes well, it's all hugs and kisses. But when it goes poorly, the long knives come out and lots of things leak!

[Guest Derek L]

No one is asking them to design it. That's why they'll partner with DNCS or BAE, or LM, or Navantia.

All four of those companies are/have experiencing problems in current/recent ship building problems:

BAE = Type 45, Astute

Lockmar t= LCS

Navantia = Hobart

DCNS = Horzin class destroyers, ongoing issues with the Charlie Big Nose,

Again, all those that think the Canadian program will be problem free and or under budget are delusional.

That's right. If Irving doesn't have the technology and equipment, how come they have drydocks and facilities for the Iroquois, Halifax, and Protecteur class refits?

Ship construction and ship maintence are apples and oranges….would you expect the local Jiffy Lube mechanic to be able to produce modern cars from the ground up?

[Smallc]

Again, all those that think the Canadian program will be problem free and or under budget are delusional.

I don't think there's a military project that hasn't had problems ever, anywhere.

Ship construction and ship maintence are apples and oranges….would you expect the local Jiffy Lube mechanic to be able to produce modern cars from the ground up?

Changing oil and actual vehicle servie are apples and oranges also. The Irving shipyard isn't like a Jiffy Lube. They build ships and do extensive maintenance all of the time. Right now, they're refitting a couple of our largest ships.

[Guest Derek L]

This is a very good observation....the San Antonio Class (LPD-17) has been an unmitigated disaster. Five years after commissioning, the lead ship it is still having teething problems because of design and builder related issues. Recently, the XO beat a court martial rap based partly on the material condition of the ship and pressure to deploy as combat ready and seaworthy, with problems traceable back to the very poor Avondale yard work.

I spent two+ years in the yards (Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company) for an SSBN overhaul, and when it goes well, it's all hugs and kisses. But when it goes poorly, the long knives come out and lots of things leak!

I’ve also heard a lot of the same problems are (or have) creeping up in the New Orleans & Mesa Verde…… Avondale is a yard that is constantly building something for DOD, how do you think they’d fair with a 20 year work stoppage?

[Guest Derek L]

I don't think there's a military project that hasn't had problems ever, anywhere.

So you accept that we'll fair the same? What do you expect the end result to be? Project cost increase or cut? Perhaps both?

Changing oil and actual vehicle servie are apples and oranges also. The Irving shipyard isn't like a Jiffy Lube. They build ships and do extensive maintenance all of the time. Right now, they're refitting a couple of our largest ships.

They haven't built a naval vessel since the 90s, hardly "all the time".....refits and construction are completely different things, but well we're on the subject, the Frigate life extension program has been scaled back......why is that

[Smallc]

So you accept that we'll fair the same? What do you expect the end result to be? Project cost increase or cut? Perhaps both?

That depends on the severity of the problems. Right now, I anticipate delays and perhaps cost increases. Since the combat ships are right behind the F-35 at the top of the DND and government wish list, I don't expect cuts.

They haven't built a naval vessel since the 90s, hardly "all the time".....refits and construction are completely different things, but well we're on the subject, the Frigate life extension program has been scaled back......why is that

The program has been scaled back because of A ) weight issues, and B ) a desire to save money for the new ships. Irving has the ability to build 120M ships. They say so themselves. They'll probably need to expand a bit, since they'll be building 140 - 150M ships.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

I’ve also heard a lot of the same problems are (or have) creeping up in the New Orleans & Mesa Verde…… Avondale is a yard that is constantly building something for DOD, how do you think they’d fair with a 20 year work stoppage?

Could go either way...poor management and labor relations will doom any shipbuilding scenario. Newer modular design and fab can help bound the risk, but in general, it takes a yard some start-up time and cost overruns to get it right. Old school WBS project management actually came from the overwhelming complexity of shipbuilding (Henry Gantt).

Newport News had an interesting was of keeping management personally interested in their projects....they had to ride the boat (ship) down to test depth during sea trials.

[Guest Derek L]

That depends on the severity of the problems. Right now, I anticipate delays and perhaps cost increases. Since the combat ships are right behind the F-35 at the top of the DND and government wish list, I don't expect cuts.

I don't doubt something will be built, the question is how many and for how much?

The program has been scaled back because of A ) weight issues, and B ) a desire to save money for the new ships. Irving has the ability to build 120M ships. They say so themselves. They'll probably need to expand a bit, since they'll be building 140 - 150M ships.

So the builder of the ships (Irving) had a problem refitting the ships they designed? Also, DND required saving money(read project went over budget), but not so much now? And now they (Irving) say they'd have the ability to produce more ships?

In communist Russia, ship build you.

[Smallc]

Also, DND required saving money(read project went over budget), but not so much now?

No, they're saving money in some areas so they can spend it in other areas. That happens in both government and business all of the time.

[Guest Derek L]

No, they're saving money in some areas so they can spend it in other areas. That happens in both government and business all of the time.

I thought you said they had money to burn? What if they run into similar problems during construction of the new ships...perhaps the government might choose yet again to redirect spending….