Shipbuilding contracts

[Smallc]

Hey, I only like drift that I create and or find interesting...

[Smallc]

It worries me though that we won't see the AOPS start construction until 2015. Their target to have the first CSC by 2022 seems too optimistic.

[Guest Derek L]

It worries me though that we won't see the AOPS start construction until 2015. Their target to have the first CSC by 2022 seems too optimistic.

Now I might be going senile, but I seem to recollect a poster, perhaps in this thread even, having associated doubts with the final number of hulls that would end up in the water………Who could that be

[Smallc]

Well, I used to have faith in the Conservatives when it came to defence - used to. You were far more realistic.

[Signals.Cpl]

Or look at 39 CBG………..They have approx 1500 members…….In a “Brigade”, commanded by a Colonel with staff, with Lieutenant Colonels commanding “regiments” with staff………..There is no reason for this associated top down bloat……..1500 multi service & trade members…….What ’s that…..two Battalions or a combined arms “Battle Group”?

The empire building and excess (like Ottawa for reg force) is where many of the PRes problems stem from…….realistically, in a major war, Canada is never going to generate a combined arms Brigade out of 39 CBG……So why delude ourselves?

Never said we should have a combined arms brigade out of one CBG rather each CBG would do their part to provide trained troops for the Primary Reserve.

What good are faux regiments of death techs in a CBG if we’d be lucky to field a company or two? And what if the balloon goes up and half the force can’t deploy because of exams?

I have had to miss exams because of last minute tasking when I was in university and I can tell you many go the professors are sympathetic but thats where the government comes in and affords protection to both the working reservists and the students. It is a two way street, we need to have willing soldiers but also a government that backs them up, you send a Reg force guy to Afghanistan and when he comes back he has a job, you force a Reservists to go without protecting his job he won't be a CF member for long after his return...

Set-up a training center for a couple of companies? That’s crazy……..DND needs to divest itself of real estate, not increase it…….An entire company (120) from the lower mainland would cost $30000-40000 bucks return flying WestJet from Vancouver to Edmonton………Four times a year..what? 160k? The cost of just four members salaries for your small training cadre……..If flying Commercial is too much, put them in the back of a Globemaster……..

The difference is not how big or how fancy the training centre is, the difference is that you have a small cadre of instructors that know what the are doing and know the end goal they can accomplish much with the time allotted and the resources available. four guys who know what they are doing and utilizing instructors from local units can do a pretty damn good job and we don't need CTC Gagetown and its mock up villages.

Then you enable said reservists to train with the reg force units and using the actual equipment that they would deploy with………All in an area that we actually already have……..Hell, a couple of corporals could probably even coordinate having the reserve companies from all Land Force Western Area meet at the same time…….

I am not saying it will not work, I am saying having an exercise once every 2-3 months is not optimal when you can have the same 120 troops as a light Infantry coy in the field every other weekend. What you are suggesting is flying a coy over to an exercise for 36h and then fly them back home 4-6 times a year whereas I am suggesting we utilize that we should CBGs within reasonable drive time to a nearby Reg Force Combat arms unit should utilize that, CBGs not so lucky should make do with what is available and flying a coy 2h to a different province for an exercise twice a month is not likely on the other hand driving the same coy in a couple of busses to a nearby base is affordable and as far as I know there are 6 bases with Reg force infantry and Combat Arms units within acceptable distance of reserve CBGs.

The idea of mating up personal with their equipment in a different geographic region via air is hardly new….And does work…

Wether it works or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is the ability to go to 4 exercises in 2 months or 1 exercise in 2 months, the reserves are already strapped for time as it is we don't need to cut down even further on the training time.

Or how about we concentrate on fixing all the problems inflicted upon the regular force first, the worry about making two separate reserve forces?

Or we could go about doing things concurrently because at some point in time we might not have the opportunity to do so.Solving the reserve problem might increase our available forces to a level not available if it were done through the Reg force only and ignoring that means we will be throwing away a potential to have a versatile force that can meet more than one major deployment and a minor deployment at a time.

We can make the same argument about the different elements too right? Lets solve the Navy's problem before we go and deal with the F-35's or we could solve the F-35's before we deal with the Army and its barracks in which even squatters would not occupy because of the neglected state or we restructure the Army and worry about the new ships 10 years from now.

[Guest Derek L]

Never said we should have a combined arms brigade out of one CBG rather each CBG would do their part to provide trained troops for the Primary Reserve.

But to we need a pretend Brigade Group to accomplish that?

I have had to miss exams because of last minute tasking when I was in university and I can tell you many go the professors are sympathetic but thats where the government comes in and affords protection to both the working reservists and the students. It is a two way street, we need to have willing soldiers but also a government that backs them up, you send a Reg force guy to Afghanistan and when he comes back he has a job, you force a Reservists to go without protecting his job he won't be a CF member for long after his return...

I agree 100%, But in doing so, there should be no (or very little) excuses with a person not being deployable.

The difference is not how big or how fancy the training centre is, the difference is that you have a small cadre of instructors that know what the are doing and know the end goal they can accomplish much with the time allotted and the resources available. four guys who know what they are doing and utilizing instructors from local units can do a pretty damn good job and we don't need CTC Gagetown and its mock up villages.

But that’s just it, the resources are not available………We currently have world class training centers, instead of creating more, we bring the people to said training centers…….In this case Reserves, to allow them to train with the regular force…………

Look at Fort Irwin in the States……..They send regular army, reserves, the Marines, National Guard (and Canadians), combined with elements of each services respected air arms (plus the USAF) to one massive training center, with full time trainers, accommodations & support, plus all the modern equipment that each unit would require in the field…………It works.

Clearly, our Reserves would receive better training under a similar system then as current……..I subscribe to quality or quantity…….And having an under strength platoon out in the local woods over the weekend, bouncing around in MILCOTS and relics wouldn’t garner said unit the same quality of training as going to a larger center, with other reserve units from across the given geographical command, attached to a combined arms regular force Battle-Group………….

Honestly, how often, aside from the pre deployment training for a select few, do reserve units train alongside actual tanks, helicopters and fast air etc?

I am not saying it will not work, I am saying having an exercise once every 2-3 months is not optimal when you can have the same 120 troops as a light Infantry coy in the field every other weekend. What you are suggesting is flying a coy over to an exercise for 36h and then fly them back home 4-6 times a year whereas I am suggesting we utilize that we should CBGs within reasonable drive time to a nearby Reg Force Combat arms unit should utilize that, CBGs not so lucky should make do with what is available and flying a coy 2h to a different province for an exercise twice a month is not likely on the other hand driving the same coy in a couple of busses to a nearby base is affordable and as far as I know there are 6 bases with Reg force infantry and Combat Arms units within acceptable distance of reserve CBGs.

How often do reg force units exercise in the field with combined arms? (To qualify myself, my younger brother is in one of the reg-force Armoured Regiments)

Wether it works or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is the ability to go to 4 exercises in 2 months or 1 exercise in 2 months, the reserves are already strapped for time as it is we don't need to cut down even further on the training time.

Quality over quantity………

Or we could go about doing things concurrently because at some point in time we might not have the opportunity to do so.Solving the reserve problem might increase our available forces to a level not available if it were done through the Reg force only and ignoring that means we will be throwing away a potential to have a versatile force that can meet more than one major deployment and a minor deployment at a time.

With what money?

We can make the same argument about the different elements too right? Lets solve the Navy's problem before we go and deal with the F-35's or we could solve the F-35's before we deal with the Army and its barracks in which even squatters would not occupy because of the neglected state or we restructure the Army and worry about the new ships 10 years from now.

And that is very true………The Navy had theirs in the 90s…….The Army in the 2000s and the Air Force are on deck…….rinse and repeat.

[Guest Derek L]

Well, I used to have faith in the Conservatives when it came to defence - used to. You were far more realistic.

Defense doesn't win elections.........At the end of the day though, since they've been Government, DND has done alright.......

The problem isn’t solely the fault of Government, but also the civilian and military bureaucracy in Ottawa……Be it tremendous amounts of waste within the department or every major military procurement program being a job creation program first………Look at the MHP……It started in the 80s and is still going…….The AOR and now shipbuilding program….The F-35s etc………..Or the amount of bases and property DND currently operates…….The (as discussed above) tail wagging the dog with the reserves……..The amount of faux regular force commands and their associated wagon trains…..The retention of many high ranking officers (and their staffs) doing the work that majors and lieutenant commanders should be doing etc………….

If you don’t know who he is, and can get a copy of it, read the biography of Chesty Puller: Marine! The Life of Chesty Puller………In it, he/the author discusses and highlights many of the failings associated with the bureaucracy of not only the Marines, but Navy, Army and USAF……Though a complete different service, from a complete different country, of a completely different time, many of his criticisms hold true today and can be applied to the Canadian Forces in a great many areas.

[Army Guy]

I think your concept is a good one, but it requires alot more investment in the army, than what is currently there. And While the Army has got the lions share of funding in the last 10 or more years it is still well below what it should be. a good example of that is in a mech Inf Bn units are lucky to be able to field 2 full coys of lavs, with most Inf Bns only having one...Yes there is the LAV up project which will see our current LAV fleet rebuilt into new machines but there is only 550 of those...But the Inf is not the only unit that employs the LAV so they will be spread thin, supplemented with TPAV vehs , which are really an armoured patrol veh, not a mech battle taxi. So with reg force units barely holding on to the titles of Mech, adding one more Res company into the mix would really throw a wrench into the mix...

As for training , again lack of funding, units struggle with the regular PCF cycle, keeping up with normal training requirements , and might get out once a year for a BN or Brig level EX if lucky.....I think it all comes down to funding , but the Army's turn at the trough is finsihed....

[Signals.Cpl]

But to we need a pretend Brigade Group to accomplish that?

No but that is what we have so we should work within that, besides I think the LFA's are going to be named Divisions and as such a pretend CBG would be just the right name for it...

I agree 100%, But in doing so, there should be no (or very little) excuses with a person not being deployable.

As long as the CF backs their troops up and they signed on the dotted line only legitimate reasons will be accepted...

But that’s just it, the resources are not available………We currently have world class training centers, instead of creating more, we bring the people to said training centers…….In this case Reserves, to allow them to train with the regular force…………

A small satellite training centre does just that especially when we throw in support trades which do need the actually infantry to get some hands on experience as well...

Look at Fort Irwin in the States……..They send regular army, reserves, the Marines, National Guard (and Canadians), combined with elements of each services respected air arms (plus the USAF) to one massive training center, with full time trainers, accommodations & support, plus all the modern equipment that each unit would require in the field…………It works.

How many times a year do they do it? Do you really think it is a good idea to take soldiers and train them for 36h every 2 months for 8-9 months or do you think it would be better to do that same training 2 times a month for 36h for 8-9 months? And again, no Reg Force regiment nearby they become light infantry and specialize with mountain and arctic warfare. It is already happening with the Arctic Response coy's but they bring the same coy back year after year but not necessarily the same support troops or even coy troops which means that a lot of the experience and lessons learned are not applied the next time they go out.

Clearly, our Reserves would receive better training under a similar system then as current……..I subscribe to quality or quantity…….And having an under strength platoon out in the local woods over the weekend, bouncing around in MILCOTS and relics wouldn’t garner said unit the same quality of training as going to a larger center, with other reserve units from across the given geographical command, attached to a combined arms regular force Battle-Group………….

Maybe but they can't do it enough to get experience, do proper exercises locally 1-2 times a month and maybe one major exercise 2 times a year but limiting it to just flying in limits the already negligible time they have to gain experience and will fall further behind compared to the Reg Force.

Honestly, how often, aside from the pre deployment training for a select few, do reserve units train alongside actual tanks, helicopters and fast air etc?

Not often, but this doesn't mean that it can't work, units within geographic locations can get training along with their reg force counterparts while units outside the geographic location will full fill other roles and do the major exercise twice a year. Honestly though, do you think that the first time there is a budget crunch trips to the local CTC will survive? Even cutting one such exercise means that the soldiers lose out on 25% of their training time.

How often do reg force units exercise in the field with combined arms? (To qualify myself, my younger brother is in one of the reg-force Armoured Regiments)

Not all that the Reg Force units do can be transferred to the reserves. A few back after someone overspend on the CBG's budget or something along those lines they cancelled winter warfare for a number of units, limiting it to once every 2 years, you still qualify by getting the powerpoint lecture but its not exactly the same so what guarantee do we get that this won't happen with some brigade where they overspend on something or their budget is cut and they end up axing 2 exercises a year out of the four and with little in the way of infrastructure set up to conduct training in the local area we will end up with the current format nothing more.

Quality over quantity………

doesn't work out to be so black and white if we see soldiers end up going to the field once every 4 months which means in between they will have lost the experience learned from previous ex.

With what money?

With the money we are wasting on stupid stuff like changing the names of formations from Land Forces Area to Division, or Changing unit names to align with brigade names... or we can start putting officers in appropriate positions of command... stop wasting resources at the end of the fiscal year in order to justify the same resources next year... how many units do you think save up resources and at the end of the year figure out they have a lot of money so they go on exercises wether they serve a real purpose or not? I have done 5 BFT's in 1 month because someone somewhere had held back and now they had to burn the budget, or Ive gone to the range 3-4 times in 2 months just to burn off the ammo for the unit. Cut back on the waste and we can do wonders, or we can increase the budget by 20 billion and we would still be in the same position.

And that is very true………The Navy had theirs in the 90s…….The Army in the 2000s and the Air Force are on deck…….rinse and repeat.

And unfortunately we don't get wars based on the our cycle of equipping our military we get wars based on the situation and we should not trust politicians to give us enough funding we should work within our means to be able to be as efficient as possible.

[Signals.Cpl]

I think your concept is a good one, but it requires alot more investment in the army, than what is currently there. And While the Army has got the lions share of funding in the last 10 or more years it is still well below what it should be. a good example of that is in a mech Inf Bn units are lucky to be able to field 2 full coys of lavs, with most Inf Bns only having one...Yes there is the LAV up project which will see our current LAV fleet rebuilt into new machines but there is only 550 of those...But the Inf is not the only unit that employs the LAV so they will be spread thin, supplemented with TPAV vehs , which are really an armoured patrol veh, not a mech battle taxi. So with reg force units barely holding on to the titles of Mech, adding one more Res company into the mix would really throw a wrench into the mix... As for training , again lack of funding, units struggle with the regular PCF cycle, keeping up with normal training requirements , and might get out once a year for a BN or Brig level EX if lucky.....I think it all comes down to funding , but the Army's turn at the trough is finsihed....

I disagree, the money is there if we only had the leadership willing to go and get it by cutting out all the waste that is sucking it out of the people that need it most.

[Guest Derek L]

No but that is what we have so we should work within that, besides I think the LFA's are going to be named Divisions and as such a pretend CBG would be just the right name for it...

And like I said above…further bureaucratic waste.

A small satellite training centre does just that especially when we throw in support trades which do need the actually infantry to get some hands on experience as well...

And what will said small training center cost? As I’ve said above and in other threads, DND should and will be divesting itself of real estate in the near future…not adding more.

How many times a year do they do it? Do you really think it is a good idea to take soldiers and train them for 36h every 2 months for 8-9 months or do you think it would be better to do that same training 2 times a month for 36h for 8-9 months? And again, no Reg Force regiment nearby they become light infantry and specialize with mountain and arctic warfare. It is already happening with the Arctic Response coy's but they bring the same coy back year after year but not necessarily the same support troops or even coy troops which means that a lot of the experience and lessons learned are not applied the next time they go out.

And what percent of said soldiers training “twice a month” are deployable as is? 5-10%? You wish to allocate further funds to a force that doesn’t deploy?

Maybe but they can't do it enough to get experience,

do proper exercises locally 1-2 times a month

and maybe one major exercise 2 times a year but limiting it to just flying in limits the already negligible time they have to gain experience and will fall further behind compared to the Reg Force.

Again, why would we set up local training centres for such a small force, a small force that has a very small percentage of deployable personal ?

Explain how sending the small group of deployable members to train with regular force members every several months, will prepare said deployable reserves less then having them “train” every couple of weeks with an under strength, poorly equipped and largely undeployable force……….

Not often, but this doesn't mean that it can't work, units within geographic locations can get training along with their reg force counterparts while units outside the geographic location will full fill other roles and do the major exercise twice a year. Honestly though, do you think that the first time there is a budget crunch trips to the local CTC will survive? Even cutting one such exercise means that the soldiers lose out on 25% of their training time.

I’m glad you’ve come to recognize geography is a factor in this land of ours…..As such, wouldn’t you agree that some units, due to geography, are closer to regular force units and training centers, as such, would benefit greater due to their geographic location?

Following along this meme, one of us suggests bringing the units negatively effected by geography to the regular force units and training centers, the other, “creating more training centers” so those unlucky units can train amongst themselves and gain very little pliable, real world experience…….

I will submit that 3-4 days training in “real world conditions” (over a three month span) would do more for the reserves then 12 days of “pretend training” over the same timeframe.

Not all that the Reg Force units do can be transferred to the reserves. A few back after someone overspend on the CBG's budget or something along those lines they cancelled winter warfare for a number of units, limiting it to once every 2 years, you still qualify by getting the powerpoint lecture but its not exactly the same so what guarantee do we get that this won't happen with some brigade where they overspend on something or their budget is cut and they end up axing 2 exercises a year out of the four and with little in the way of infrastructure set up to conduct training in the local area we will end up with the current format nothing more.

I will return to my point of only training deployable members……Would we be better off near fully training 15-20 members as apposed to training 120 half-assed, when only a small percent of the half-assed troops would deploy anyways?

doesn't work out to be so black and white if we see soldiers end up going to the field once every 4 months which means in between they will have lost the experience learned from previous ex.

Moving the goalposts I already built?

With the money we are wasting on stupid stuff like changing the names of formations from Land Forces Area to Division, or Changing unit names to align with brigade names... or we can start putting officers in appropriate positions of command... stop wasting resources at the end of the fiscal year in order to justify the same resources next year... how many units do you think save up resources and at the end of the year figure out they have a lot of money so they go on exercises wether they serve a real purpose or not? I have done 5 BFT's in 1 month because someone somewhere had held back and now they had to burn the budget, or Ive gone to the range 3-4 times in 2 months just to burn off the ammo for the unit. Cut back on the waste and we can do wonders, or we can increase the budget by 20 billion and we would still be in the same position.

I’m sorry to go back to it……….Or we could find the required funds by not sending those that will never deploy with their C7 to the range, and those tiny number that would, send them once a week…………You might not know, but I certainly know the cost of 5.56 and 7.62 FMJ………isn’t cheap…

And unfortunately we don't get wars based on the our cycle of equipping our military we get wars based on the situation and we should not trust politicians to give us enough funding we should work within our means to be able to be as efficient as possible.

The elected Government is king (rightfully so) and can decide funding cycles………

You speak to efficiency, yet you wish to create another reserve formation, well also expanding the number of training centres, to train a large percentage of people that will never put said training to practical use…..hmmmm.

[Guest Derek L]

Hmmmm (provincial) NDP pork barrelling to the “military industrial complex”…………

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/03/15/ns-shipbuilding-jobs-loan.html

The province's $260-million loan to Irving Shipbuilding will be forgivable if the shipyard and its direct sub-contractors create 4,000 jobs in Nova Scotia, CBC News has learned.

Irving will repay the loan at a commercial rate of interest if it doesn't meet those job targets.

The Department of Economic Development said the 4,000 jobs will be created over the 29-year life of the agreement.

So does Irving not have to start paying back the loan until after the 29 year period is complete allowing to see if the conditions have been met?

$260 milion/ 4000 (union) jobs = ~65k for one year per worker.........

Good thing:

At the time the Canadian Taxpayers Federation questioned the government's decision to give more public funding to a company that has landed the lion's share of the largest military procurement in Canada's history.

CBC News has filed a freedom-of-information request for the terms and conditions of the loan to Irving Shipbuilding.

But here in BC, the Washington Marine Group:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/991684-shipyard-in-bc-paying-own-way

Seaspan is building four new facilities in its shipyard and upgrading three others. The total cost is estimated at $200 million, and Seaspan is putting up all the money itself.

Irving and Seaspan agreed during the bidding process that neither company would charge the federal government for shipyard improvements, said John Shaw, Seaspan’s vice-president of government relations and business development.

But while Seaspan is spending its own money, the Nova Scotia government is paying about 85 per cent of the cost of upgrading the Halifax Shipyard.

But this:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2013/03/13/Canada-upbeat-about-shipbuilding-boom/UPI-35421363211786/

Ottawa's national shipbuilding program requires the ships to be manufactured in Canada but industry sources said the requirement covers mostly metal works such as hull, deck and superstructure construction.

In some cases that will cover only about half the business, and in other cases even less of the business would likely stay in Canada. The rest transferred to subcontractors who would shop around and could buy from foreign suppliers.

Shipping industry executives were heartened when Lockheed Martin Canada, a major supplier of systems, software and professional services to the Canadian navy, announced it was looking to forge partnerships with Canadian companies.

In 2009 Lockheed Martin opened a facility in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, which includes a state-of-the-art naval training center.

Noooooooo Not Lockheed

I’m loving this…..The NDP in bed with LockMart

[shortlived]

And what percent of said soldiers training “twice a month” are deployable as is? 5-10%? You wish to allocate further funds to a force that doesn’t deploy?

Derek L we seem to be on the same page in regard to the benefits of facilitating private militias that are self funded.

The thing about the reserve it isn't a expeditionary force, it is meant to be a reserve, hence reserve. Primarily it is more like the national gaurd in the US. these forces are meant to in large part provide emergency relief for the CF during emergency type situations. In reality if the CF needs more personnel for foreign deployment the idea would be to have more regular forces, to carry out regular force activities, not to draw upon the emergency reserve for what should otherwise be routine deployments overseas for regular forces. Now in practice both the national guard and the CF reserve has been called up for foreign deployment but in large part it is a little bit of a misuse of those forces.

Now sure 90% may not really be into it regularly, if that is the case, I'm actually surpised that % would be deemed ineffective. However if sh1t hits the fan, they are still trained, they just arn't in shape perhaps, once you go through BMQ and what not its not like you are of no use, it just means the sorts of activities you are engaging in may not be unit deployment or coordinated, eg. if the establishment itself collapse, and in event of ongoign emergency I have little doubt things will congeal a little. I know people who have been in the reserve, and yet a bunch of times it is more about getting some extra money, mostly when they are younger.

IMO hiring older professionals into the reserve will insure a higher effective rate, example people between 25 and 40. While promoting ROTC type programs that offer educational / financial benefits for younger people, with the option of military entry as an officer for younger people. The programs just are not psychologically effective the way the reserve is met.

I would go a step further to encourage people in the suppliemental on leaving the forces to have militias to carry on their military training, as well as engage members of the public who do not wish to be duty about as reserve forces, or where there is no reserve, or MOC availability for their desired activities in that locality. Since sometimes the reserve options are limited and do not reflect the interests of the participants.

[Guest Derek L]

Lockheed's Little Crappy Ship USS Freedom has embarked on her first deployment to Southeast Asia:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/mst/features/2013/130301-uss-freedom-begins-high-sea-adventure.html

Though she doesn’t yet have the mission modules integrated, such a long deployment should sort out any bugs with the ship itself………Well helping to “write the future SOP book” with any new technologies, doctrine and procedures envisioned for the class……….

I must say, two thumbs up on the razzle dazzle paint job:

[Guest Derek L]

And another feather in Lockheed's cap:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/march/lockheed-martin-wins-100-million-aegis-csea-contract.html

MOORESTOWN, N.J., March 5, 2013 — The U.S. Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a 5-year, $100 million contract to provide combat system engineering services - including the design, development, integration, test and life cycle support - for all Aegis-equipped ships.

Lockheed Martin has partnered with the Navy for decades as the Aegis combat system engineering agent (CSEA), while evolving the system through nine technology baselines to outpace a wide array of dynamic and evolving threats.

"This program award validates Lockheed Martin as the Navy's choice for combat management systems," said Dale P. Bennett, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems and Training. "Our team met the Navy's challenge to reduce costs and drive innovation into Aegis CSEA by increasing productivity, utilizing automated testing and analysis and increasing the role of small businesses."

So what does Lockheed have to do with Canada and shipbuilding?

http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2013-03-14/article-3199669/Lockheed-Martin-seeking-NL-companies-to-partner-on-shipbuilding-projects/1

Lockheed Martin officials said in a news release the company will provide a briefing on how companies can prepare and position themselves for shipbuilding work through major contractors. It will then conduct a series of one-on-one meetings to learn about the capabilities of many Newfoundland and Labrador companies.

Lockheed Martin Canada is currently executing a $2.1-billion Halifax Class Modernization program, which is a mid-life refit of Canada’s 12 multi-role patrol frigates to ensure they continue to operate effectively as the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy’s fleet. The project includes a new command and control system, as well as new radar capability and electronic warfare systems and upgraded communications and missiles.

As a result of winning the Halifax Class Modernization program, Lockheed Martin Canada says it has added more than 300 new jobs in Canada, including more than 150 in Atlantic Canada.

In 2009, the company opened a new facility in Dartmouth, N.S., which is now home to more than 250 employees and includes a state-of-the-art naval training centre. Many of the jobs that have been created are in engineering and computer science. Lockheed Martin says, as much as possible, it has looked to fill these positions with local talent allowing new graduates as well as experienced professionals to remain in Atlantic Canada.

Though not related to shipbuilding, those fellows over at Lockheed are also lending a hand to Nova Scotia in furthering green technology in the province:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/mst/features/111121-building-nova-scotias-renewable-energy-future.html

Building on its existing relationship with Cape Breton, Lockheed Martin recently made a donation to establish the first Chair in Renewable Energy at the university’s Center for Sustainability in Energy and the Environment (CSEE).

“Nova Scotia offers great potential for technology development across a variety of (renewable energy) solutions, and the CSEE demonstrates a commitment to pursuing these advancements,” said Tom Digan, president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Canada.

Digan participated in the CSEE’s Nov. 7 opening ceremony along with Canada’s Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay and Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter.

Of course Nova Scotia has sold it's sole to Lockheed Martin in the past:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/064.nsf/eng/05895.html

Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, September 15, 2010—On behalf of The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, the Honourable Gail Shea, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, visited Composites Atlantic Limited of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, an aerospace engineering and manufacturing firm that is producing composite fuselage panels for the F-35 Lightning II aircraft as part of a contract awarded under the Joint Strike Fighter program. At the facility, Minister Shea highlighted the economic benefits created in Nova Scotia as a result of Canada's participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program, the single largest fighter aircraft program in history.

Ahh, but back to shipbuilding i suppose

Edited March 17, 2013 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

Lockheed's Little Crappy Ship USS Freedom has embarked on her first deployment to Southeast Asia:

These are built in Wisconsin at Marinette....love the rooster tail at high speed.

[Guest Derek L]

These are built in Wisconsin at Marinette....love the rooster tail at high speed.

Yup, quite impressive sprint……….I’d love to see how the next couple deployments shake out for her……..and the integration of the mission modules………If she turns up aces, perhaps a cheaper consideration for a portion of our surface combatant replacement program, well also allowing us to replace a portion of the Kingston patrol/mine sweeper fleet…….Maybe their proposed AEGIS equipped variant………

[bush_cheney2004]

Yup, quite impressive sprint……….I’d love to see how the next couple deployments shake out for her……..and the integration of the mission modules………If she turns up aces, perhaps a cheaper consideration for a portion of our surface combatant replacement program, well also allowing us to replace a portion of the Kingston patrol/mine sweeper fleet…….Maybe their proposed AEGIS equipped variant………

Not likely at about $700 million each. I understand the potential advantages of mission modules, but this has yet to be realized in practice. Recall that the early FFG-7 class needed a permanent mission module > hull extensions !!

[Guest Derek L]

Not likely at about $700 million each. I understand the potential advantages of mission modules, but this has yet to be realized in practice. Recall that the early FFG-7 class needed a permanent mission module > hull extensions !!

As current, the Government has budgeted over 1.5 billion per frigate……….And like other current Lockheed products, I’d expect the first several units are costing more then the later bulk procurements

[waldo]

Ahh, but back to shipbuilding i suppose

now... I rarely visit this thread... but reading you dropping so many LockMart flavoured posts just can't go without comment. Uhhh... you do realize the 'Composites Atlantic Limited' contract is with Northrup... right? But why should that stop you from raising the LockMart rally flag, hey? And since you went there with this comment:

And like other current Lockheed products, I’d expect the first several units are costing more then the later bulk procurements

does this mean you'll finally offer-up an isolated, per-plane, F-35 acquisition cost? And, if not, as you continue to refuse to do, why not? What are you waiting for?

[Guest Derek L]

now... I rarely visit this thread... but reading you dropping so many LockMart flavoured posts just can't go without comment. Uhhh... you do realize the 'Composites Atlantic Limited' contract is with Northrup... right? But why should that stop you from raising the LockMart rally flag, hey? And since you went there with this comment:

No, they have contracts with both companies........The recent one awarded to Northrop was to work on what program though?

does this mean you'll finally offer-up an isolated, per-plane, F-35 acquisition cost? And, if not, as you continue to refuse to do, why not? What are you waiting for?

I already gave you one in the F-35 thread

[waldo]

No, they have contracts with both companies........

and yet you quoted a reference that was actually to a Northrup contract while raising your LockMart rally flag!

I already gave you one in the F-35 thread

nice touch using the "wacko" emoticon!!! Of course, you didn't give one... you didn't give a direct per-plane acquisition cost; rather, you buried it within the umbrella overall cost. Of course, when I pointed this out to you, you went all quiet and disappeared for a while. So... what's your cost estimate... without burying it... what's your number?

[Guest Derek L]

and yet you quoted a reference that was actually to a Northrup contract while raising your LockMart rally flag!

And what is Atlantic Composites and Northrop’s relationship with Lockheed? What program are they referencing?

nice touch using the "wacko" emoticon!!! Of course, you didn't give one... you didn't give a direct per-plane acquisition cost; rather, you buried it within the umbrella overall cost. Of course, when I pointed this out to you, you went all quiet and disappeared for a while. So... what's your cost estimate... without burying it... what's your number?

Sure I did………reference the acquisition costs in the previous linked DND tables………or the Government’s estimates…..That’s where I stand…..as I’ve said numerous times in the numerous F-35 threads………..+/- a few million of course

[waldo]

And what is Atlantic Composites and Northrop’s relationship with Lockheed? What program are they referencing?

huh! What's Northrop's relationship with, uhhh... say... Boeing? Northrop isn't LockMart... but don't let that ever get in the way of you continuing to shill for LockMart!

Sure I did………reference the acquisition costs in the previous linked DND tables………or the Government’s estimates…..That’s where I stand…..as I’ve said numerous times in the numerous F-35 threads………..+/- a few million of course

no - no you didn't. I have no hesitation in quoting exactly what was written... where you avoided a direct request and chose, instead, to bury that cost figure. Now... you can't even state the number... now you're dancing between the 92 million figure in that, as you say, "linked DND table" (which, of course, originates from the "independent" LockMart) - and I'm the only one to have pulled that number out of the table and stated it... you won't even acknowledge it. Or... as you say, "Government's estimates"! Which "Government estimates"... the $65 million a plane, the $70 million a plane, or the $75 million a plane number? Which is it? $65 million? $70 million? $75 million? $92 million? Like I said, there's a long, long way to come down from the current LRIP numbers... a long way to even settle in at that $120 million a plane figure being bandied about as the absolute minimum any U.S. military branch or JSFail member country can expect to pay. A... long... way! What's your number again?

seeing as this ship replacement program expenditure far outweighs that of the failed F-35, I just might need to get in gear and begin to follow it, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

huh! What's Northrop's relationship with, uhhh... say... Boeing? Northrop isn't LockMart... but don't let that ever get in the way of you continuing to shill for LockMart!

Hey now, said article referenced Nova Scotia’s contribution to the F-35.…

no - no you didn't. I have no hesitation in quoting exactly what was written... where you avoided a direct request and chose, instead, to bury that cost figure. Now... you can't even state the number... now you're dancing between the 92 million figure in that, as you say, "linked DND table" (which, of course, originates from the "independent" LockMart) - and I'm the only one to have pulled that number out of the table and stated it... you won't even acknowledge it. Or... as you say, "Government's estimates"! Which "Government estimates"... the $65 million a plane, the $70 million a plane, or the $75 million a plane number? Which is it? $65 million? $70 million? $75 million? $92 million? Like I said, there's a long, long way to come down from the current LRIP numbers... a long way to even settle in at that $120 million a plane figure being bandied about as the absolute minimum any U.S. military branch or JSFail member country can expect to pay. A... long... way! What's your number again?

seeing as this ship replacement program expenditure far outweighs that of the failed F-35, I just might need to get in gear and begin to follow it, hey?

As I said in the OP:

And you thought the f-35 was expensive

I’m sure this topic thread could use further distractions, misconstrued quotes and fancy indents…………Give her a go………