Shipbuilding contracts

[Smallc]

Source?

Norman, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, said the retirements have been in the cards for some time, but other developments speeded up the plans.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/navy-sending-four-cold-war-era-ships-into-retirement-1.2014607

You must know more than him.

Source?

We only have 1 larger icebreaker slated for construction. We're going to need 5 more in about 10 - 15 years. The current build schedule takes us beyond that, while not even getting into the offshore patrol vessel fleet.

[Smallc]

· Considering the relatively short service life remaining for HMCS Protecteur, which was scheduled to be retired in 2017, and its current state of repair, the cost to re-instate the ship to full operational capability would not represent a responsible use of public funds. As a result, the ship will remain alongside and be prepared for disposal as early as is practically feasible.

· HMCS Preserver is rapidly approaching the end of its operational life, which was planned for 2016.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/the-royal-canadian-navy-issues-details-on-retirements-of-ships

[Derek 2.0]

Norman, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, said the retirements have been in the cards for some time, but other developments speeded up the plans.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/navy-sending-four-cold-war-era-ships-into-retirement-1.2014607

You must know more than him.

You're not answering the question.......when was there an intended capability gap? (and your link doesn't work)

We only have 1 larger icebreaker slated for construction. We're going to need 5 more in about 10 - 15 years. The current build schedule takes us beyond that, while not even getting into the offshore patrol vessel fleet.

Source?

Edited September 24, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

· Considering the relatively short service life remaining for HMCS Protecteur, which was scheduled to be retired in 2017, and its current state of repair, the cost to re-instate the ship to full operational capability would not represent a responsible use of public funds. As a result, the ship will remain alongside and be prepared for disposal as early as is practically feasible.

· HMCS Preserver is rapidly approaching the end of its operational life, which was planned for 2016.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/the-royal-canadian-navy-issues-details-on-retirements-of-ships

So you're stating the RCN and Government had no intention of addressing said capability gap, prior to the accidents and the earlier retirements?

Again, not answering the question.

[Smallc]

Source?

The Louis S. St. Laurent was built in 1968 and is more than twice overdue for replacement by the time she gets replaced...sometime in the 2020s after all 3 OFSV, 1 OOSV, 2 JSS....at least 9 years off, being generous. Her current date of decommission is scheduled for 2017, though that is being extended.

The Henry Larsen was built in 1987. That means, using the original decommission date of the LSSR of 2012 (before the current extension that she's running under), she'll need to be replaced by 2032. The Deifenbaker will barely be in the water at this rate by then. That's the new icebreaker.

The Terry Fox was built prior to 1983. That gives a replacement date of about 2025...none in sight.

The Cape Roger (offshore patrol ship) was built in 1977 - no replacement in sight.

Des Groseilliers - almost 35 years old - nothing in sight.

Amundsen - over 35 years old - nothing in sight

Pierre Radisson - almost 40 years old - nothing in sight.

Need I go on?

Edited September 24, 2015 by Smallc

[Smallc]

So you're stating the RCN and Government had no intention of addressing said capability gap, prior to the accidents and the earlier retirements?

There is no evidence that they did considering they were basically forced into the interim capability by the looming election and sheer embarrassment.

[Derek 2.0]

The Louis S. St. Laurent was built in 1968 and is more than twice overdue for replacement by the time she gets replaced...sometime in the 2020s after all 3 OFSV, 1 OOSV, 2 JSS....at least 9 years off, being generous. Her current date of decommission is scheduled for 2017, though that is being extended.

The Henry Larsen was built in 1987. That means, using the original decommission date of the LSSR of 2012 (before the current extension that she's running under), she'll need to be replaced by 2032. The Deifenbaker will barely be in the water at this rate by then. That's the new icebreaker.

The Terry Fox was built prior to 1983. That gives a replacement date of about 2025...none in sight.

The Cape Roger (offshore patrol ship) was built in 1977 - no replacement in sight.

Des Groseilliers - almost 25 years old - nothing in sight.

Amundsen - over 25 years old - nothing in sight

Pierre Radisson - almost 30 years old - nothing in sight.

Need I go on?

By all means, go on, well highlighting your source on a reduction in size of the Coast Guard fleet.......as you stated above.

[Smallc]

By all means, go on, well highlighting your source on a reduction in size of the Coast Guard fleet.......as you stated above.

Actually, I was off by 10 years for my ages. It's more dire than I thought. These ships can't be kept running forever, and there is no replacement for most of them in sight. A smart government would have laid out the whole plan to replace the whole fleet, and worked the plan to keep all of the vessels at an acceptable average age. Seaspan, under such a plan, would be charged with maintaining the CCG fleet for a set yearly amount. They would have to maintain a ready fleet of a certain size at an acceptable average age. Irving could do the same thing for the RCN. There's probably enough work for Davie to even get involved. Right now, we're not going to keep up with attrition.

[Derek 2.0]

There is no evidence that they did considering they were basically forced into the interim capability by the looming election and sheer embarrassment.

No evidence other than the current interim solutions (one just left Esquimalt) or the recent purchase of MV Asterix by Davie...........And now you're stating such capability was sought because of the election........funny, I would assume two accidents, on two different vessels the cause

[Smallc]

No evidence other than the current interim solutions (one just left Esquimalt)

Maybe we should just contract out all of our sovereignty. Spain has a pretty good navy and airforce (better than ours, to be sure), and we all know they could used the money.

You and I both know that's not a real solution. Having to contract a used American 3rd world tanker to maintain our blue water navy is pretty embarrassing.

or the recent purchase of MV Asterix by Davie...........And now you're stating such capability was sought because of the election........funny, I would assume two accidents, on two different vessels the cause

The cause was a lack of foresight starting in the 90s. The solution was pulled out o someone's ....

[Derek 2.0]

Actually, I was off by 10 years for my ages. It's more dire than I thought. These ships can't be kept running forever, and there is no replacement for most of them in sight. A smart government would have laid out the whole plan to replace the whole fleet, and worked the plan to keep all of the vessels at an acceptable average age. Seaspan, under such a plan, would be charged with maintaining the CCG fleet for a set yearly amount. They would have to maintain a ready fleet of a certain size at an acceptable average age. Irving could do the same thing for the RCN. There's probably enough work for Davie to even get involved. Right now, we're not going to keep up with attrition.

Oh, so you're now informed on the current material condition of the Coast Guard fleet..........I don't suppose you could share how you've come across such insight.............Call me ignorant, but I'd assume by the little amount of actual sea time a Coast Guard vessel actually sees a year, compared to the navy or commercial shipping, would equate to a longer lifespan.....

[Derek 2.0]

Maybe we should just contract out all of our sovereignty. Spain has a pretty good navy and airforce (better than ours, to be sure), and we all know they could used the money.

Inversely, maybe we should triple our defence budget and leave NATO since partnerships with allies equate to contracting out our sovereignty..........

By all means, expand upon how you've formed the opinion that the Spanish navy and air force is better than ours

You and I both know that's not a real solution. Having to contract a used American 3rd world tanker to maintain our blue water navy is pretty embarrassing.

Embarrassing to who? The Chilean navy is both a professional and modern force, that have been our Allies for a very longtime, and have exercised with us, the Americans, RAN etc in numerous International exercises, including RIMPAC, for decades...........yet more of your unfounded opinions

The cause was a lack of foresight starting in the 90s. The solution was pulled out o someone's ....

The only one pulling stuff out of ones orifices is you........

[Maybe]

I am just glad Canadian shipbuilders are getting the contracts, not the Koreans, Chinese, or Taiwanese.

[Smallc]

I am just glad Canadian shipbuilders are getting the contracts, not the Koreans, Chinese, or Taiwanese.

Sure, but if we'd given the contracts to the Koreans, we'd have ships by now.

[Argus]

Sure, but if we'd given the contracts to the Koreans, we'd have ships by now.

At a third the cost.

[Smallc]

At a third the cost.

We could have invested the rest of the money into transportation infrastructure and been further ahead on both fronts.

[Argus]

By all means, expand upon how you've formed the opinion that the Spanish navy and air force is better than ours

Doesn't seem to be much doubt their air force is more capable. 86 F-18s, 48 Eurofighters, and 300 assorted other aircraft, plus 14 Airbus transport aircraft on order.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Air_Force

Their navy has, oh look, an amphibious assault ship which takes Harriers, 11 frigates, 3 subs, and 23 patrol vessels plus 6 minelayers and 'a number of auxiliary vessels"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Navy

[Smallc]

Doesn't seem to be much doubt their air force is more capable. 86 F-18s, 48 Eurofighters, and 300 assorted other aircraft, plus 14 Airbus transport aircraft on order.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Air_Force

Their navy has, oh look, an amphibious assault ship which takes Harriers, 11 frigates, 3 subs, and 23 patrol vessels plus 6 minelayers and 'a number of auxiliary vessels"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Navy

Yeah, they've got us beat. Of course, they're sending even less money than us now, so it won't last.

[Argus]

Yeah, they've got us beat. Of course, they're sending even less money than us now, so it won't last.

I wonder what the pay and benefits are for their military people.

That's where most of our money goes, well, along with overpriced ships.

[Derek 2.0]

Doesn't seem to be much doubt their air force is more capable. 86 F-18s, 48 Eurofighters, and 300 assorted other aircraft, plus 14 Airbus transport aircraft on order.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Air_Force

Their navy has, oh look, an amphibious assault ship which takes Harriers, 11 frigates, 3 subs, and 23 patrol vessels plus 6 minelayers and 'a number of auxiliary vessels"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Navy

So what? Pakistan has an air force 5-6 times larger than that, that doesn't equate to capability............You deem capability by a spread sheet, when its far more complex than that.......using the Spanish Armada for an example, though imposing on paper, its devoid of context. The Spanish had an aircraft carrier for example, but were forced to retire it due to lack of funds a few years ago, and with it, so to annual operating budgets for their tiny Harrier fleet. Furthermore, half the Spanish surface fleet is comprised of obsolete frigates, their submarine program has been plagued with problems since its inception and their Navy has a whole, has been little more than a coastal/Mediterranean force for decades, relegated to lesser tasks by NATO.

Spain, was able to afford semi modern equipment (until recently) because until a ~ decade+ ago they still had national service.......now that they don't, they can't afford the military they have, and what they haven't sold off, is parked.

[Derek 2.0]

Yeah, they've got us beat. Of course, they're sending even less money than us now, so it won't last.

By all means, expand upon your vast knowledge of the Spanish military, and the role it undertakes within NATO.

[Derek 2.0]

I wonder what the pay and benefits are for their military people.

That's where most of our money goes, well, along with overpriced ships.

Next to nothing, the military for the vast majority of European NATO members (Germany is one of the worse offenders) is seen as little more than an extension of their civil service, combined with a youth employment program.......hence one of the reasons why very few European forces contributed to any real combat missions in the decade that was Afghanistan......simply put, lack of political will and lack of ability, translates into lack of capability.

[Smallc]

By all means, expand upon your vast knowledge of the Spanish military, and the role it undertakes within NATO.

So you're going to deflect again? That's fine, but they're frigates alone put our navy to shame.

[Derek 2.0]

So you're going to deflect again? That's fine, but they're frigates alone put our navy to shame.

Ahh, no, their Oliver Hazard Perry frigates don't.........leaving the rest of their paper fleet vulnerable to a 40 year old Soviet Foxtrot submarine.

[Smallc]

Ahh, no, their Oliver Hazard Perry frigates don't

The F100 frigates certainly do.