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

[Guest Derek L]

The main cost will be the CSC, which has over $1B per ship available.

One Hobart will cost ~2.5 billion, the Type 45 about the same….What will we get for ~$ 1 billion? Not 15 first class surface combatants……

We don't know if they'll replace all of them, actually.

There are simply not enough crews for both (Not enough for the 12 now) and the Kingston's mid-life refit was binned.....we'll see, perhaps not replacing the 280s might save the Kingstons....

That's actually not a cut, given that we currently have 2. I never did hear that there would be more than 3, 4 was just a number that Senator Kenny wanted.

They were suppose to also replace HMCS Provider......hence a cut.........the 4 ship number is what is preferred, three is workable, and two is unsustainable.

[dre]

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.

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.

Thats true but the VAST majority of what our airforce does is fly routine patrols. I doesnt seem unthinkable that we could build something capable of doing that.

[Guest Derek L]

That's for the entire project. Our project numbers that you're quoting don't include 20 years of maintenance. There is $15B allowed for that.

The Australian program doesn't include life cycle costs...$ 11 Billion for the three Hobarts and two Canberra's as built.

[Smallc]

One Hobart will cost ~2.5 billion, the Type 45 about the same….What will we get for ~$ 1 billion? Not 15 first class surface combatants……

We aren't buying 15 AAD.

There are simply not enough crews for both (Not enough for the 12 now) and the Kingston's mid-life refit was binned.....we'll see, perhaps not replacing the 280s might save the Kingstons....

First, with the new designs, there will be enough crew. Second, we still have a commitment to mine sweeping in the North Sea, so we can't decommission all of the Kingstons.

They were suppose to also replace HMCS Provider......hence a cut.........the 4 ship number is what is preferred, three is workable, and two is unsustainable.

Two is what we have now. It means we'll often work as part of a multinational force, which we'd be doing anyway. If the ship design we choose isn't cost prohibitive, we'll have 3, otherwise, we'll have 2. I still think all of this worry is much ado about nothing.

[Smallc]

The Australian program doesn't include life cycle costs...$ 11 Billion for the three Hobarts and two Canberra's as built.

I didn't realize that. There's still more money in the budget than we need given what ships like the FREMM or the De whatever it's called cost.

[Guest Derek L]

We aren't buying 15 AAD.

But we are buying 15 common hulls, with three(?) being earmarked for air defense….go look at pictures of all superstructures & masts of all the ships we’ve spoke about…..Modern warships are designed around their fire control/radars, not the other way around…..We’ll be building three ships tailored to air defense, and the balance in GP configuration with likely a cheaper fire control/radar suite….in essence, the common surface combatant becomes two classes.

First, with the new designs, there will be enough crew. Second, we still have a commitment to mine sweeping in the North Sea, so we can't decommission all of the Kingstons.

There currently isn’ enough regular & reserve force members to crew all 12 Kingstons, both the Kingstons and AOPS will have similar size crew….

Second, we have no such commitment to the North Sea.

Third, mechanical minesweeping is going the way of the Battleship, the future is unmanned under water vehicles…..For what it’s worth, the Kingstons are a very poor design for mine sweeping, and the British aside, most other NATO navies have seriously neglected mine warfare.

Two is what we have now. It means we'll often work as part of a multinational force, which we'd be doing anyway. If the ship design we choose isn't cost prohibitive, we'll have 3, otherwise, we'll have 2. I still think all of this worry is much ado about nothing.

Two is what we have due to defence cuts......The prospect of the loss of a single AOR currently is a serious worry to staff officers in MARCOM…….We currently have the ability to deploy an independent task groups (couple 330s, a 280 and a tanker), without air defense we can still deploy into benign environments, without a tanker we can’t deploy…..The task group is the cornerstone of the Navy’s doctrine…….without Tankers and Air defense, why do we need “Patrol frigates”? The navy could revert to a coast guard, and purchase a fleet of USCG national security cutters to meet any possible objectives.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Derek L

[Jack Weber]

Why should we send this money somewhere else? We have at least 3 shipyards here that are capable of the work, let them do it. That does not, btw, mean that we won't purchase foreign designs, such as the FREMM or FM 400.

Correct!!!

The thing the free marketeers don't seem to understand about shipbuilding globally is that in almost every industrialized country,the industry is heavily subsidized..

Frankly,it's about time the federal gov't righted the grievous wrong the Mulroney gov't started to do to the industry in this country in the late '80's.

This is a good start,however,I'd like to see that money extended to the merchant fleet as well...That's where the real money is and our fleet is aging and needs to be replaced...

[Smallc]

Second, we have no such commitment to the North Sea.

We go every single year.

The navy could revert to a coast guard, and purchase a fleet of USCG national security cutters to meet any possible objectives.

Ummm, no. We use our patrol frigates without task groups all of the time. They're more heavily armed than a USCG ship, and they have enough range on their own to join any international operation.

[Smallc]

We’ll be building three ships tailored to air defense, and the balance in GP configuration with likely a cheaper fire control/radar suite….in essence, the common surface combatant becomes two classes.

They are to be modular designes, with modules that can be changed easily with upgrades. Also, as for cost, yes, the AAD ships will be expensive. The other frigates don't have to be though. The Norwegian frigate is a less capable Alvaro de Bazan class, after all, and 5 of them only cost about $4B.

[Guest Derek L]

We go every single year.

Do you know where the North Sea is? We don't go to the North Sea with the Kingstons......are you talking about the Arctic?

Ummm, no. We use our patrol frigates without task groups all of the time. They're more heavily armed than a USCG ship, and they have enough range on their own to join any international operation.

Yes, I’m aware that we deploy with other NATO members and have been integrated within US carrier battle groups(I’ve stayed at a Holiday Inn once or twice during RIMPAC)…….With the majority of our recent deployments, a cutter would have been just as effective…..Do you know off hand what the distance is from Halifax to the Persian Gulf? Check it out when you look up the North Sea……Simple question, if the fleet doesn’t need AORs, why build them and retire the ones we’ve got?

They are to be modular designes, with modules that can be changed easily with upgrades. Also, as for cost, yes, the AAD ships will be expensive. The other frigates don't have to be though. The Norwegian frigate is a less capable Alvaro de Bazan class, after all, and 5 of them only cost about $4B.

Modular design? Go learn up on the US LCS program and see how that’s working out for them……..Also, none of the classes you’ve mentioned, incorporate a modular design, so again, we’re back to square one…..As I’ve said earlier, the Nansen class would have been ideal replacements for the 330s today, not in the late 2020s…….As for the Spanish ship, again, see the Australian example…….Do you yet see the reasoning in splitting the requirements for the replacements of the 280s & 330s? One is in need today, the other in the later part of next decade…..

[Smallc]

Do you know where the North Sea is? We don't go to the North Sea with the Kingstons......are you talking about the Arctic?

Last I checked, it was off of the UK...unless the navy is lying:

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/4/4-a_eng.asp?category=16&id=263

Yes, I’m aware that we deploy with other NATO members and have been integrated within US carrier battle groups(I’ve stayed at a Holiday Inn once or twice during RIMPAC)…….With the majority of our recent deployments, a cutter would have been just as effective…..Do you know off hand what the distance is from Halifax to the Persian Gulf? Check it out when you look up the North Sea……Simple question, if the fleet doesn’t need AORs, why build them and retire the ones we’ve got?

I didn't say that we don't need them. I said we don't always need to deploy task groups, and that we can operate in international groups without them. I wish we could afford 4, but the money just isn't there right now for any extra spending anywhere. The DND budget is actually being spared almost every cut that the others are geting.

Modular design? Go learn up on the US LCS program and see how that’s working out for them

Then go look up FREMM and MEKO. That's what I'm talking about there, not the failed LCS.

……..Also, none of the classes you’ve mentioned, incorporate a modular design, so again, we’re back to square one…..As I’ve said earlier, the Nansen class would have been ideal replacements for the 330s today, not in the late 2020s

I'm not saying that we should get those ships, I'm saying that you can build large, capable, multiroll ships on a budget. AAD...not so much.

…….As for the Spanish ship, again, see the Australian example…….Do you yet see the reasoning in splitting the requirements for the replacements of the 280s & 330s? One is in need today, the other in the later part of next decade…..

That's the point of a continuous build. You have one hull, and multiple (in this case, 3) configurations. You have the AAD ships first, then the first batch of multiroll ships, and then the second. The navy has talked about this, and provided the funding stays, they're excited. With each batch, you can include new technology that you wouldn't otherwise be able to. Because of the batches and the modularity, you don't need to lock in early as had to be done with the Halifax class.

[Guest Derek L]

Last I checked, it was off of the UK...unless the navy is lying:

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/4/4-a_eng.asp?category=16&id=263

Didn't know that, learn something everyday, sure wouldn't want to be aboard them during the trip across.....

I didn't say that we don't need them. I said we don't always need to deploy task groups, and that we can operate in international groups without them. I wish we could afford 4, but the money just isn't there right now for any extra spending anywhere. The DND budget is actually being spared almost every cut that the others are geting.

The money isn’t there because the initial design was an abortion…….Three is workable, and hopefully now that the requirements have been brought down to reality, we’ll be able to afford them……..but comparing tankers and warships is like apples & lawn chairs…..We could buy three from a South Korean yard and they’d be in service in under two years…

Then go look up FREMM and MEKO. That's what I'm talking about there, not the failed LCS.

Both will be dated designs 15-20 years from now when the 330s start going…..

'm not saying that we should get those ships, I'm saying that you can build large, capable, multiroll ships on a budget. AAD...not so much.

Exactly, that’s why I’ve been arguing that the 280s should be replaced with Burkes, a design that is proven and has a known price, and for the 330s, we should seek a partnership with other allies that will have the same requirements in that timeframe (Australia/United Kingdom/Singapore/New Zealand)………..In that timeframe, our yards will have the corporate knowledge rekindled with the experience gained in building the tankers and coast guard/DFO vessels.

[Smallc]

Both will be dated designs 15-20 years from now when the 330s start going…..

This iteration of both will be yes, but they are designs that are meant to change and adapt.

Exactly, that’s why I’ve been arguing that the 280s should be replaced with Burkes, a design that is proven and has a known price, and for the 330s, we should seek a partnership with other allies that will have the same requirements in that timeframe (Australia/United Kingdom/Singapore/New Zealand)………..In that timeframe, our yards will have the corporate knowledge rekindled with the experience gained in building the tankers and coast guard/DFO vessels.

I think there are several options for AADs, and I don't think we should limit ourselves to the US design. The Horizon class, for example, or the F105, the F125, or the Dutch design. I'm still thinking that we'll buy something European, but I could be wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Burkes, I'm just not expecting that we'll get them.

[Guest Derek L]

I think there are several options for AADs, and I don't think we should limit ourselves to the US design. The Horizon class, for example, or the F105, the F125, or the Dutch design. I'm still thinking that we'll buy something European, but I could be wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Burkes, I'm just not expecting that we'll get them.

Most European(French/UK) designs won’t be selected, since they require European Fire control/radars/weapons…….That leaves APAR vs AEGIS……

[Smallc]

Most European(French/UK) designs won’t be selected, since they require European Fire control/radars/weapons…….That leaves APAR vs AEGIS……

You're probably right, despite the fact that I find FREMM to be an attractive option. It will be up to the selection process, I suppose. It's actually already been going on for almost 4 years.

[Guest Derek L]

You're probably right, despite the fact that I find FREMM to be an attractive option. It will be up to the selection process, I suppose. It's actually already been going on for almost 4 years.

As I said earlier, and I’ve nothing directly against APAR, AEGIS is the superior system and will continually be upgraded by the United States……Any future development cost to APAR with be spread between the Dutch, German’s and possibly the Danes, were AEGIS will be upgraded by the US alone, as needed.

Another factor to look at is the Pacific Rim…With the growing importance of Asia to the world, the rapid growth of the Chinese navy, we’d best focus on seamless integration with our allies in the region….United States, Australia, Japan, and South Korea all use AEGIS.

[Smallc]

Like I said, I'll be very surprised if we go with AEGIS. Of course, the fact that LM is very interested in designing the ships, or at least helping to, certainly says that I could be wrong.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

As I said earlier, and I’ve nothing directly against APAR, AEGIS is the superior system and will continually be upgraded by the United States……Any future development cost to APAR with be spread between the Dutch, German’s and possibly the Danes, were AEGIS will be upgraded by the US alone, as needed.

This is a good point, but as we have seen with slow adoption of Link 16 / Link 11 modem compatibility for several Canadian airframes, it is unclear that such forward compatibility is a high priority. Better stated, cost considerations can/will push the selection to a good enough, not best solution.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canadian-cf18s-finally-get-link-16-while-h92s-get-link-11-01720/

[Guest Derek L]

Like I said, I'll be very surprised if we go with AEGIS. Of course, the fact that LM is very interested in designing the ships, or at least helping to, certainly says that I could be wrong.

Lockmart does indeed have their hands in everything....Jerc, JSF, 330 and Victoria upgrades, you see the trend

[Guest Derek L]

This is a good point, but as we have seen with slow adoption of Link 16 / Link 11 modem compatibility for several Canadian airframes, it is unclear that such forward compatibility is a high priority. Better stated, cost considerations can/will push the selection to a good enough, not best solution.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canadian-cf18s-finally-get-link-16-while-h92s-get-link-11-01720/

Hopefully the pointy heads in government and DND, after experiencing the pains of the Hornet & Halifax upgrades and purchase of the Cyclone helicopter, will learn that staying current is cheaper in the long run. I tend to see the purchase of the F-35 as step in the right direction....good enough would have seen the Rhino.

One can only hope

[Army Guy]

It needs a total of 5 within the next ten years. We'll probably get 11. None of the frigates will be retired before 2020, and the only reason we're getting the AOPS is because they are additional capacity.

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....

Here is article from the Navy's chief Naval construtor. which highlights all the experience and skills we have already lost. and why we may have to look outside our borders to make deadlines.

Has Canada Lost the Ability to Design Warships?

By Dave Pugliese

Moderator’s Note. This commentary was originally published on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 on David Pugliese’s Defence Watch. It is reproduced here with the permission of Mr. Pugliese.

Long-time Defence Watch (DW) reader “Chief Naval Constructor” posted material yesterday that I thought raised some interesting issues about the ability of this country to design its own ships. He was responding to DW reader “Bazza” who raised some issues in an earlier posting and concerns about ship designs. Here is what Chief Naval Constructor writes:

“Bazza, it is suggested the reason why only three have commented on your article is because there are so few knowledgeable and experienced ‘project’ multi-discipline ship systems integration engineering ‘designers’ [led by a qualified post-graduate trained and experienced ‘senior’ Naval Architect] as well as ‘ship project’ managers still active in Canada. As a direct result, a similar situation exists with respect to shipbuilders and shipyards, in fact traditionally the Crown’s procurement authority and shipbuilders depend upon former Naval Engineering members providing services as Procurement Officers, Naval Overseers/QARs, designers, managers et cetera.”

“As CMS Admiral McFadden stated recently, he does not have the hundreds of technically trained bodies to fill the project team of one major ship project let alone several projects implemented during the same time frame. He could have also pointed out even if he did; ‘none’ of them would have previous ‘project’ experience and certainly no experienced ship ‘project mentors’ to lead and direct. This situation can only be resolved by the solution proposed by an astute and experienced WWII Naval Engineering Captain (RCN) Harrison during 1948: with across the board ship design and shipbuilder technology transferred from the UK at the time [including hundreds of experienced ‘designers’ and ‘ship builders’].”

“The rise and fall of Canada's world class ship design, marine industrial & shipbuilding lasted three decades 1948 – 1978, ending with the unexpected, and never explained 28 June 1976 decision by the Navy’s ‘design authority’ DGMEM (Director General Maritime Engineering & Maintenance) to disband what was by then essentially a ‘Canadian’ and, arguably the world’s best, frigate/destroyer & naval auxiliary in-house design team of about 36 multi-disciplined naval engineers, just after they had completed the commissioning of the world’s first all gas turbine DDH 280-class of TG destroyers [‘lead’ ship Iroquois launched 1972] as well as the CPF Preliminary Design and Technical Statement of Requirements (TSOR) under the leadership of Canada’s last Head of Projects Definition, Captain Dale Roushorn, equivalent to what was in 1948 the Director of Naval Construction, formed and led during 1948-56 by Commodore (RCNVR) Sir Roland ‘Rollie’ Baker RCNC (Royal Corps of Naval Constructors).”

“This priceless ‘Canadian’ ship acquisition capability, capacity and corporate memory have now all but disappeared to the point where Canada has not been able to produce a pragmatic TSOR to an operational SOR since about 1986. This was again very evident with the first JSS Project [2005-2008]. For the record, it is submitted that in order to be ensured of producing a pragmatic SOR & TSOR, Canada must have at its disposal an experienced Projects Definition project ship systems engineering ‘team’ at the level of the 1950-76 in-house design team.”

“Before a TSOR can be reasonably certain to be ready for released to industry through a PWGSC Request for Proposals (RFP), the following increasingly detailed and complex swings around the ‘design spiral’ must be completed to the satisfaction of an experienced Naval Architect [Chief Naval Constructor level]:

Concept Design (CD);

Demonstration Design (DD);

Preliminary Design (PD); and, finally,

Contract Design [CD].

The CD Technical Data Package (TDP) of Specifications & Drawings constitutes the Statement of Work (SOW) attached to the RFP for release to industry. The resultant winning shipbuilder will have to engage a design house, preferably with proven international experience, to do a Design ‘Check’ to be followed by the development of the Detailed Design & Production TDPs.”

“The Shipbuilder will have to convince the Crown’s Ship Project Management Office (PMO) the Detail Design has been ‘Canadianized’ to ensure Canada’s world class In-Service Support requirements are satisfied and that Canada continues to be the only navy in the world interoperable with a USN Carrier Task Group. This is not a trivial exercise as the combined value of the two National Ship Procurement Strategy (NSPS) shipbuilder contracts are worth some $35B and a modern 7,000-ton Canadian Surface Combatant will represent one of the more complex design projects on the planet.”

“WRT your two main concerns, the following is offered for your consideration:

It is understood the Crown intends to negotiate an Umbrella Agreement (UA) with each of the two successful Combatant & Non-Combatant shipbuilders. No doubt a primary UA requirement involves the negotiation of a class design.

For the JSS ACAN, a Transfer of Technology deliverable is included, though it makes more sense that it be tailored to whatever shipyard wins the Non-Combatant contract and that it is done as part of the post-selection Functional Design phase.

And no, BMT Ottawa, as the Navy’s Definition, Engineering, Logistics and Management Support (DELMS) contractor, cannot have a direct relationship with the NSPS shipbuilders as it would constitute a conflict of interest, at least not until the two NSPS shipbuilders are under contract with the Crown. All due respect to BMT, they have yet to compete a project whereby their TSOR/SOW [as a result of a Project Definition design] was used. Further, to my knowledge they are not in the Detail Design and shipyard Production Design TDP business.”

“As noted from NSPS Q&A 27: “It is envisioned that ship designers will participate (directly or as part of a team) in the design phase of the ships to be built by the selected shipyards. It is anticipated that under the NSPS, a “design-then-build” approach will further reduce lead-time to construction and increase pricing fidelity. Subject to certain restrictions to avoid conflict of interest, designers may also be involved in the detailed design and the production design of these ships.” And yes it is a challenge, but it is submitted it is the responsibility of the shipbuilders to indicate to the Crown in their RFP Proposals they “have compatible, harmonious, effective and profitable relationships with the ship designers the Government expects them to work with”.”

“Since the NSPS RFPs were released 7 Feb there appears to be a concerted effort in almost daily articles emanating out of Halifax through this DW forum as well as the Canadian Press and the Chronicle Herald to convince all that Canada still has the ship design capability and capacity; that complex ships should be designed in Canada and that there was somehow a NSPS requirement to both design and build the ships in Canada.”

Chief Naval Constructor then goes on to highlight the comments from Peter Cairns in a recent Canadian Press newspaper article:

“Peter Cairns, of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, said it’s the second time Ottawa has looked offshore for designs. That runs contrary to the Conservatives’ national shipbuilding strategy, which pledged to design and build military and government ships in Canada. “I would encourage them to do their own design,” Cairns said. “I’m very concerned that the Canadian government under the guise of short-term budget gain (will) throw the baby out with the bath water.””

Chief Naval Constructor then concludes:

“All due respect but, as noted above, the baby has already been thrown out with the bath water. It is difficult to comprehend why Cairns is not separating ‘design and build’. The NSPS was never about anything but a shipyard-focused ‘build’ effort.”

[Smallc]

Four Three 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.

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.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Smallc

[Tilter]

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

The 1.5 Bil is a disposal cost????? Those "Albatross around the neck" class subs are a real legacy for the Kreetin govt.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Tilter

[Dave_ON]

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.

[Smallc]

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.

I don't agree. We're setting aside almost $1.5B for each of the Canadian Surface Combatant class ships. That means that we have available at least double what most of the designs we will likely buy committed. The AAD ships will be expensive, but the multiroll ships don't have to be. Irving seems to think that they can do it with little difficulty. The repair and build large ships all of time, even if the ones they build aren't war fighting ships. I think they will be able to do what we need them to, the just might need a couple of years lead time to get started. As PRemier Daryl Dexter said, this amount of money is like holding an Olympics every year in the city that gets the combat contrat. If that isn't enough money, then we might as well give up now.