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

[Guest Derek L]

The DDX class hasn't been cancelled, it's been scaled back in order to cut costs. Other nations aren't cancelling their ships, and it's likely that we'll follow their example.

Between, the DDX & CGX programs, there was suppose to be ~60 hulls put into the water…a 95% cut to the program can hardly be called a successful production run……..One of the major reasons the GAO slammed the entire project was for the (lack of) technology that you purport.

What gives you reason to believe we’ll suddenly follow the Italians/French/Danish example of naval manning over the United States/United Kingdom/Australia?

[Smallc]

What gives you reason to believe we’ll suddenly follow the Italians/French/Danish example of naval manning over the United States/United Kingdom/Australia?

Because the Australians are also following that model with the purchase of the F105 class and the Juan Carlos class from Spain.

[Guest Derek L]

Because the Australians are also following that model with the purchase of the F105 class and the Juan Carlos class from Spain.

The Hobarts will have a larger crew than our 330s

The Canberra's are a "ferry", not a warship.......our AOR replacements will have a reduced crew also.....So?

[Smallc]

The Hobarts will have a larger crew than our 330s

That isn't true from what I've seen. The Alvaro de Bazan class has a larger crew than the 330s, but due to automation, the Hobarts will have a crew of under 200. The new Arleigh Burke class will also have a smaller crew than the current ships.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

That isn't true from what I've seen. The Alvaro de Bazan class has a larger crew than the 330s, but due to automation, the Hobarts will have a crew of under 200. The new Arleigh Burke class will also have a smaller crew than the current ships.

The Hobarts will be under 200.....without helicopters and Flag Staff......The Burkes currently sit at ~270 in the same configuration (320+ with)........the 280s around 240-250(280+ with)…….The Hobarts also cost more than a Burke……One Burke is the size of a WWI Battleship and more capable then the entire 280 class (With Huron) combined.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Derek L

[Smallc]

Yes, and? The idea isn't to have the most capable ship, but the ability to deploy at least one of them on a moments notice. You can't do that with one ship. We could buy an AEGIS class ship like the one that Norway has. They built five ships, each larger than a Halifax class, for about $4B. We could could build and crew at least 18 of them. There is also the classes used by the Dutch and the Danes, both good ships (or supposed to be in the latter case). We have many designs to choose from, but the AB probably won't be one of them, nore will the F105.

With the 280, their old radar is their weakness.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Smallc

[Battletoads]

Like what, exactly?

4 years of right wing nuts having control of the government, and the 4 years of bad ideas that are going to come with it (such as the op's idea of outsourcing shipbuilding)

[Smallc]

4 years of right wing nuts having control of the government, and the 4 years of bad ideas that are going to come with it (such as the op's idea of outsourcing shipbuilding)

Except that the Conservatives are doing the exact opposite of what the OP suggest they do, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, and? The idea isn't to have the most capable ship, but the ability to deploy at least one of them on a moments notice. You can't do that with one ship. We could buy an AEGIS class ship like the one that Norway has. They built five ships, each larger than a Halifax class, for about $4B. We could could build and crew at least 18 of them. There is also the classes used by the Dutch and the Danes, both good ships (or supposed to be in the latter case). We have many designs to choose from, but the AB probably won't be one of them, nore will the F105.

With the 280, their old radar is their weakness.

I didn’t suggest purchasing a single Burke, I said a one for one replacement.

The Norwegian Nansen class are patrol frigates, we need area air defense replacements for the 280s…..something like the Nansen would be fine for the 330 replacements today, not so much in the 2020s.

The Danish ships are built to commercial standards and with diesel power plants, the Dutch (and German) ships are equipped with APAR as opposed to AEGIS….AEGIS has the greater potential for growth.

Also, I’ve never stated that we will build/buy Burkes, but that we should….

What will likely happen is that we will allow Canadian industry to create an over priced, poorly built, obsolete when complete, warship that will be equipped with a hodge-podge of foreign equipment (That was the cheapest)…….much like the 330s.

As for the 280s weakness, you're wrong, it was TRUMP.

[Smallc]

I didn’t suggest purchasing a single Burke, I said a one for one replacement.

That would be far too expensive and man intensive.

The Norwegian Nansen class are patrol frigates, we need area air defense replacements for the 280s…..something like the Nansen would be fine for the 330 replacements today, not so much in the 2020s.

It's a multi roll ship with AEGIS. It has excellent air defence capabilities. That said, I doubt we'll go with it because....

The Danish ships are built to commercial standards and with diesel power plants, the Dutch (and German) ships are equipped with APAR as opposed to AEGIS….AEGIS has the greater potential for growth.

APAR is our technolog (we helped develop it) so I imagine that we'll probably go with that. It was to be included in the FELEX program, but was dropped because of weight and cost. APAR is being used by many European countries.

What will likely happen is that we will allow Canadian industry to create an over priced, poorly built, obsolete when complete, warship that will be equipped with a hodge-podge of foreign equipment (That was the cheapest)…….much like the 330s.

First, I haven't heard many complaints about the 330s, they're excellent patrol frigates, and second, the same strategy is not in any way being used here.

[Smallc]

As for the 280s weakness, you're wrong, it was TRUMP.

Trump was never meant to keep these ships in service past 2010, but the need to balance the budget took a huge bite out of federal spending.

[Guest Derek L]

That would be far too expensive and man intensive.

The difference in crewing is minimal (240-250 vs 275), as for costing, as mentioned earlier, the three Hobarts are going to run $8 billion plus, three off the shelf Burkes about $5-6 billion

It's a multi roll ship with AEGIS. It has excellent air defence capabilities. That said, I doubt we'll go with it because....

There’s a big difference between self defense and area defense….one ship can defend itself, the other, the fleet……we need the later

APAR is our technolog (we helped develop it) so I imagine that we'll probably go with that. It was to be included in the FELEX program, but was dropped because of weight and cost. APAR is being used by many European countries.

Yes, I know we helped develop APAR....We also developed the Arrow and Ross Rifle, doesn't mean it was a good idea.

I suggest you look-up how many APAR ship there are, then how many Non-US AEGIS ships.......Then How many AEGIS ship are currently building or planned vs APAR (and through in SAMPSON)......there is a reason.

First, I haven't heard many complaints about the 330s, they're excellent patrol frigates, and second, the same strategy is not in any way being used here.

Their main weapons platform will be twenty years late……….the 330s we’re arguably the second best ASW platform ever designed (after the Type 23), but their intended role has a greatly diminished need…….Other NATO navies gutted their frigate fleets when the Wall fell and pawned them off to the third world…….our’s became “Patrol Frigates”.

Today, without going deeply into specifics, their ability to defend themselves from asymmetrical & symmetric threats is greatly in question.

Trump was never meant to keep these ships in service past 2010, but the need to balance the budget took a huge bite out of federal spending.

TRUMP was a mistake from beginning to end, and a complete waste of money…..We’d have been better off buying the Kidd class cheap.

[Smallc]

The difference in crewing is minimal (240-250 vs 275), as for costing, as mentioned earlier, the three Hobarts are going to run $8 billion plus, three off the shelf Burkes about $5-6 billion

It's likely that we aren't buying either. Also, $8B is the entire project cost. I doubt the $5B includes everything.

There’s a big difference between self defense and area defense….one ship can defend itself, the other, the fleet……we need the later

Yes, we may, I'm just throwing ideas out. I still expect FREMM or a similar design.

Yes, I know we helped develop APAR....We also developed the Arrow and Ross Rifle, doesn't mean it was a good idea.

There's a bit of a difference here in that APAR is actually in use with the Dutch and the Germans and will be with the Danes. AEGIS isn't really in the wide of use outside of the US (Spain, Norway, Japan, Australia).

Today, without going deeply into specifics, their ability to defend themselves from asymmetrical & symmetric threats is greatly in question.

We probably won't have to find out, but, they are still capable warships for their purpose.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

It's likely that we aren't buying either. Also, $8B is the entire project cost. I doubt the $5B includes everything.

I’m using the Australian’s as an example, granted unfair, they have more recent experience in building the ANZAC and the substantial rebuild (Waste of money) of their Perry’s.

They, like we will, have to pay to refurbish yards, train workers and I’m sure the Spanish passed on development costs…..Their choice of the Spanish ship came as a large surprise amongst the RAN and was more likely tied with politics……The favorite during the competion was the “Baby Burke”……

As I said, we could by three Burkes, off the self cheaper then designing or purchasing a foreign design, than building it ourselves…….

There are no if, ands or buts, a larger ship has greater future growth potential….steal is cheap and air is free.

There's a bit of a difference here in that APAR is actually in use with the Dutch and the Germans and will be with the Danes. AEGIS isn't really in the wide of use outside of the US (Spain, Norway, Japan, Australia).

And South Korea.......

How many ships with APAR vs AEGIS?.......Now factor in the costing of future upgrades to each system and spread them over ~12 ships & ~100 ships.

We probably won't have to find out, but, they are still capable warships for their purpose.

Tell that to the crews of the Cole, the Israeli warship sunk off Lebanon a few years ago and the Charlottetown.

The Iowa's we're very capable Battleships too....

[Smallc]

You're living in a very cold war world. The government will buy what they determine meets our needs, and in a way that is in the best interests of Canadians (generally, anyway). You're far to pessimistic on our abilities going forward when you don't even have 10% of the picture yet.

[Smallc]

Tell that to the crews of the Cole, the Israeli warship sunk off Lebanon a few years ago and the Charlottetown.

There are many places that rank the Halifax as the best at what they do. I haven't seen any reason to doubt that. Are they meant for heavy warfare? No. Are they likely to face that? No.

[Guest Derek L]

You're living in a very cold war world. The government will buy what they determine meets our needs, and in a way that is in the best interests of Canadians (generally, anyway). You're far to pessimistic on our abilities going forward when you don't even have 10% of the picture yet.

I’m basing my opinion on our potential shipbuilding capabilities, on the achievements of similar western countries, when the costs of a home built design (UK & type 45) and foreign designs built in a different market(Australia and the Hobart) have become extremely cost prohibitive……In both cases, their shipbuilders started each project with only a few years gap between designs…..In our case, we’ll be over a generation.

The more apt question, is why are you so positive? You know the old saying about wishing in one hand….

By all means, build the AOPS and AOR replacement here as a less challenging litmus test before the 330 replacement, but the 280s need to go and the cheapest option, and the one offering the most capability not only in terms of a replacement for the 280s, but also a force multiplier for the existing fleet, is hands down the Burke.

There are many places that rank the Halifax as the best at what they do. I haven't seen any reason to doubt that. Are they meant for heavy warfare? No. Are they likely to face that? No.

The type 23 is quieter and has better sonar, not to mention, a modern air defense destroyer “backing it up”

Where we likely to be fighting in a desert in the near future in august of 2001?

Do you remember the press conference with Gen Hillar and MND Mcallum stating that our Leo’s were a cold war relic and where going to be replaced with the AGS?

Would you have thought it likely at Christmas that we’d be in a war in June with Libya?

[Army Guy]

4 years of right wing nuts having control of the government, and the 4 years of bad ideas that are going to come with it (such as the op's idea of outsourcing shipbuilding)

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.

Providing jobs and rebuilding a non existant industry should not take priority over the main objective which is to provide our Navy with the best ships and equipment to do the job assigned to them.

[Army Guy]

You're living in a very cold war world. The government will buy what they determine meets our needs, and in a way that is in the best interests of Canadians (generally, anyway). You're far to pessimistic on our abilities going forward when you don't even have 10% of the picture yet.

The government does not have a very good track record when coming down to purchasing equipment that meets our needs, instead we plan and purchase for today, and fail to think of tommorrow, and with our purchase record, meaning 20 to 30 years between purchases, we should be perfect at it..one would think....Infact niether is the military who would have guess 25 years ago we would consider getting rid of tanks, or fighting an enemy with no uniform because warfare had changed, were we fail is warfare is always changing and we should always prepare for the worse case better to be prepared than not have the right equipment when the situation dictates.

We don't have enough crew for the ships we have.

This is an easy fix hire more sailors, it's not like we are getting these ships tommorrow...this should never be a factor when buying anything...

[Smallc]

This is an easy fix hire more sailors, it's not like we are getting these ships tommorrow...this should never be a factor when buying anything...

That isn't easy. The money is there, and it if way easy, it would have been done by now.

[Smallc]

The more apt question, is why are you so positive? You know the old saying about wishing in one hand….

Why? Why not? It will all turn out. The budget is absolutely huge for the project, and allows for significant cost overruns for what others have paid for designs we're likely to use. We'll probably get the AAD models too late to replace the the 280s, yes, but it's unlikely that we'll face any significant threat in the next few years. 4 Halifax class are being fitted to fill the command and control g0p that will exist, so we're preparing on the level that we can.

The type 23 is quieter and has better sonar, not to mention, a modern air defense destroyer “backing it up”

You mean the one that can't shoot an actual air defence missile?

[Remiel]

The government does not have a very good track record when coming down to purchasing equipment that meets our needs, instead we plan and purchase for today, and fail to think of tommorrow, and with our purchase record, meaning 20 to 30 years between purchases, we should be perfect at it..one would think....

That is exactly the problem, however. The long term consequence of never building anything in Canada is never being able to build anything in Canada. And in the long term, that is unconsciounable. Military technology is only getting more expensive as the years go on. If we always buy from others, we will sending astronomical amounts of money out of the country in perpetuity. And the consequence of that is having less money for equipment, and less money for health. It is a recipe for the poor house.

[Michael Hardner]

If we always buy from others, we will sending astronomical amounts of money out of the country in perpetuity. And the consequence of that is having less money for equipment, and less money for health. It is a recipe for the poor house.

The flip side of this idea, though, is that if everybody thought this way then international trade would be reduced, and countries would be paying more for goods and services that they have no advantage in. Globalization is a fact, and it works economically. The symptoms of Globalization are disruption and readjustment: the same governments that lower trade barriers to (generally) help the economy have a duty to make sure that the transition is well-managed.

[madmax]

Because, unlike the ships, we don't have any companies that are even remotely capable of building a 5th generation fighter, not in their wildest dreams. It would take, at the very least, decades and hundreds of billions of investment, if we wanted to build up one of our domestic aerospace companies to the point that it could compete with the products put out by Lockheed and Boeing. Not only that, we'd need to create entire new university departments to create a new generation of aerospace engineers and we'd need to invest in constant advanced military R&D in the style of the US to keep these people's skills and experience sharp and up to date.

If you think we can just give $16 billion (or whatever) to Bombardier and have them deliver planes comparable to F-35s within a decade, you couldn't be more wrong.

We have been there before and can do it, but the costs are enormous. All the technology is and always will be kept stateside regarding the most vital aspects of the aircraft. Other then that, any American Military Aircraft company could build in Canada.

There is NO Canadian company that I am aware of that builds fighter jets and puts themselves open for bids.

This has left us at the mercy of price gouging by American Military Manufacturers and dependency on the US.

With regards to Military Ships, they can be built here and can build to any spec given.

Whether we want to do that or not is a choice.

Or we can become like those 3rd world countries that really on 1st and 2nd world countries to sell them their military assest... next thing we can is hire Mercenaries just like they do and like the US now does ....

Is that because the Mercenary soldier is better?

Answer me that Army Guy?

[Remiel]

The flip side of this idea, though, is that if everybody thought this way then international trade would be reduced, and countries would be paying more for goods and services that they have no advantage in. Globalization is a fact, and it works economically. The symptoms of Globalization are disruption and readjustment: the same governments that lower trade barriers to (generally) help the economy have a duty to make sure that the transition is well-managed.

Military hardware is not like every trade good, however. It would also be dumb to outsource all of your food production, even if it were cheaper.