Shipbuilding contracts

[Derek 2.0]

That's how you get them to go fast.....four LM2500 gas turbines.

And why they cost so much to operate...........None the less, one would certainly be a great asset to the RCN…….If they can support an entire CVBG with an UNREP 1-2 a week, well being resupplied themselves by tankers and dry store ships….One Supply class shouldn’t have a problem keeping 2-3 Canadian frigates/destroyers topped-up for an entire 6 month deployment. It would only having to top itself up a handful of times for fresh produce and dairy products, coupled with go juice………..I should think it would carry enough frozen and canned food, munitions, spare parts and JP-5 for the entire deployment…..

The first two of the previous Sacramento Class used leftover steam propulsion plants from WW2 era battleships to make that 25+ knots. These ships served for nearly 45 years, and were considered to be BIG FAT TARGETS.

I never knew that about the battleship guts.......learn something every day.......They certainly were targets, as I said, worked with them on various deployments, hence why the baggage train always had a couple of Sprucans and OHP/Knox figs along with them......

[Derek 2.0]

Noticed an edit to the CBC link posted earlier.......In it, comment from the Liberals and some bias:

The Canadian government has promised to build two new support ships under the Joint Support Ship Project at a cost of $2.6 billion. The first ship was once expected to arrive in 2012, but that date has since been pushed back to 2019 as part of a larger $39 billion ship-building strategy.

What it fails to mention, the design first put forth under the Liberals, the JSS, would have combined roles as a "troopship" and a "tanker".....what could go wrong there...

But Hansen said the government is likely to face a lot of questions over the navy's proposal since it will cost less than the plan to build new ships.

And yet, several paragraphs up, the author states some question the navy's lack of ability to refuel it's own ships.......and now some will question the Government for finding a cheaper interim fix.........One can have it both ways when attacking the Conservative Government..........As for the Liberals:

"The fact that this is on the table at all is a testament to how badly this government has bungled much needed equipment," wrote Joyce Murray, the Liberal defence critic, in a statement to CBC News.

So the Liberals would have done what differently? The current Government came to office and had on the books, left over from the previous Liberal Government, a design for replacements (The JSS) which would have combined a supply ship (loaded with fuel and supplies for the fleet) with a transport/hospital ship/Command post for supporting the army ashore.........

......Of course the current Government had to restart the program, and after a run of accidents, is looking at interim replacements until Canadian made replacements are in service..........

A good question to ask of the Liberals, is why did they retire HMCS Provider (a previous AOR) in the 90s without a replacement........back then, there were plenty of options from allies drawing down their Cold War fleets.....Three AORs would have put less stress on the fleet and allowed a longer lifespan.

The other question, why did the Liberals allow HMCS Huron (the sister Destroyer of the ones just retired) to be put into reduced operating status and finally retired and suck as a target? Like the supply ships, keeping the Huron would have allowed for spreading usage and in turn stretching the lifespan of our Destroyer fleet..........

As they say about living in glass houses......

[Army Guy]

There's really nothing that they can do to make it faster.

Not sure why that is, if there is a policitical want , presure from oposition to make this happen,then why not have they cut any steel for them yet ? is the contract set in stone.... there is also the possiablity that the oposition could make it a election promise trying to win some support by looking like a hero.

...I mean the british just purchased a ready made AOR from the Koreans, at a bargin price....so there are alternatives out there....

[Army Guy]

The problem with both the British (Type 45) and French (Horizon) destroyers is that they reliant upon British and French electronics, radars, propulsion, weapons etc……..Our navy’s preference is to share similar systems with the Americans, so as to realize greater savings from a larger production and support system (often with a large impact on Canadian divisions of larger American companies), synergies and interoperability with our largest ally and strategic security, in that during a large scale conflict, replacements are just a railhead away.

I'm guess that having the designs changed to fit American standards ie wpns and such, would make them very unaffordable...Although something we have done in the past.... ie Subs....I get the whole interoperability thing, how ever as NATO operators one would think that their designs could fit into a US Naval battle group offering much of the same capabilities. And with that in mind could we not just switch out wpns systems....i mean the Type 45 and new horrizon are the latest and greatest designs. and with our record of keeping ships well past their sceduled life times, would it not make sense to get the best on the market....Not that the US designs are no good, but they have not changed much in the last 15 years, exception being their latest zumwalt which is price beyound our reach.

A flight III Burke would be the ideal replacement for our destroyers, but too costly (in both procurement and operation) to replace the entire fleet with. Why this is a problem, is that the navy wants a common root design to replace the destroyer and frigates to simplify training and the supply chain…..Along the lines as how the Burke class is the USN’s mainstay of their surface fleet, of course as already mentioned, Canada following a similar meme would be too costly.

Hence why the next best thing, would be a “baby Burke” grafted onto an affordable root design.

What makes they so expensive to operate ? i mean we were just discussing leasing those AOE which seem to need thier own oil field to operate....

I also understand the want to have a common root design for training and supply chain, but one has to ask why would it over ride and drive the entire project. we have not done it in the past, shit even the last batch of Frigates were not built to the same specs, with minor changes to each, as different shipyards put them together....

I was under the understanding that the new frigate design was already chosen, if it was, was the design able to be converted into a destroyer.... if it was not then the whole common thing is out the window....besides we are not talking about creating a whole US fleet of ships but rather 4 to 6 of the same class....I'm starting to understand why you said this should have been a separate project combining them may have to many moving parts....

[Smallc]

Not sure why that is, if there is a policitical want , presure from oposition to make this happen,then why not have they cut any steel for them yet ? is the contract set in stone.... there is also the possiablity that the oposition could make it a election promise trying to win some support by looking like a hero.

...I mean the british just purchased a ready made AOR from the Koreans, at a bargin price....so there are alternatives out there....

The yard is not ready to build the AOPS, never mind the destroyers. It's better to get all the ducks in a row and built the smaller less complex ships first. No one is going to cancel the CSC, even if they end up ordering 10 - 12 instead of 15 (which I fully expect, no matter who is in power).

[Derek 2.0]

...I mean the british just purchased a ready made AOR from the Koreans, at a bargin price....so there are alternatives out there....

There are, but South Koreans, Spanish, Poles etc don't vote in Canadian elections nor pay Canadian taxes....

[Argus]

To add, just one of these two Supply Class AORs has nearly the combined displacement of both of our retired AORs……The intended purpose of the Supply Class was to replenish an entire Carrier Battlegroup, typically made up of a Super Carrier, cruiser and several destroyers and/or frigates……..if the deal goes through, it would be the largest ship ever commissioned into the RCN, dwarfing our previous aircraft carriers and cruisers.

The thing is, whether this or any other deal goes through won't have much to do with what the navy wants. The primary factor will be what sort of political overtones it will have. Will this embarrass the government? If so, it's not going anywhere. Will it win the government praise from population segments it considers important? That will be an important factor.

The defense budget is not there for buying kit for the military, you know. It's for putting jobs in important constituencies and allowing cabinet ministers to have happy sound bytes in front of the camera. Buying or renting some foreign ship might not really do that enough to justify the cost.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm guess that having the designs changed to fit American standards ie wpns and such, would make them very unaffordable...Although something we have done in the past.... ie Subs....

In some regards, also in many cases purchasing European programs, due to their smaller production runs, allows us to be a bigger fish, as opposed to a smaller fish in a bigger American buying pond……..of course, bigger fish are expected to pay a whole bunch more….

I get the whole interoperability thing, how ever as NATO operators one would think that their designs could fit into a US Naval battle group offering much of the same capabilities. And with that in mind could we not just switch out wpns systems....

We could switch out anything we wanted to…….Like you could put the powertrain of a Ford Mustang into a VW Jetta, but why would you want to?

i mean the Type 45 and new horrizon are the latest and greatest designs. and with our record of keeping ships well past their sceduled life times, would it not make sense to get the best on the market....Not that the US designs are no good, but they have not changed much in the last 15 years, exception being their latest zumwalt which is price beyound our reach.

The type 45/Sampson combo might be the current "greatest", thats open to debate, none the less, you could count the number of British/French systems (likewise APAR) with your fingers and toes......the American AEGIS/SPY-1 is in use by over 100 ships and more allies.....The greater numbers of the American units will ensure the costs of purchasing and upgrading will be spread over a much greater user base.......

As to the Americans, their Burke design is continually being upgraded, with already three variants in service (flights I, II, IIa) with the third flight just about to go into production…….likewise AEGIS and the SPY radar receiving continual software upgrades, including a planned upgrade to include an AESA radar, which would allow the steerable beam of the radar to use as a weapon against “unfriendly” electronic devices…….There is certainly nothing wrong with the growth path of AEGIS & SPY-1, and that is why all other systems are measured against it.

What makes they so expensive to operate ? i mean we were just discussing leasing those AOE which seem to need thier own oil field to operate....

Crew requirements namely……..12 of our frigates require ~2700 personal, 12 Burkes would require ~3800 personal……….With the AOE/AORs, it’s expected that they’re going to eat up a large number of personal, and if we operated one of the Supply class AOEs, it would likely require about the same number of personal as our soon to be retired AORs..

I also understand the want to have a common root design for training and supply chain, but one has to ask why would it over ride and drive the entire project. we have not done it in the past, shit even the last batch of Frigates were not built to the same specs, with minor changes to each, as different shipyards put them together....

It costs a lot of money…….With our current Destroyers and Frigates for example, we require two separate schools for the engine room, radars/systems etc…..likewise supply chains……….If you can combine similar systems, why wouldn’t you?

For example, our current Halifax frigates use the same engines as the Burke destroyers and those American supply ships……..right now, our Halifax and Tribal destroyers use a completely different gas turbines, well our supply ships still use steam.

I was under the understanding that the new frigate design was already chosen, if it was, was the design able to be converted into a destroyer.... if it was not then the whole common thing is out the window....besides we are not talking about creating a whole US fleet of ships but rather 4 to 6 of the same class....I'm starting to understand why you said this should have been a separate project combining them may have to many moving parts....

Not yet complete, but closer........There are compromises to be made by sharing a common type. For instance, a purpose built ASW frigate will use a different hull form to optimise quietness, where as a anti air destroyer will have greater effectiveness by having their radars mounted higher (to increase the radar horizon), which requires a wider ship to maintain stability. A ship (like a corvette) that you’d want to operate in the littorals will need to be smaller to decrease the chances of being detected, where as a navy wanting a ship to be able to deploy for months on end (with Command and Control facilities) will require being quite large, but will require a far larger crew………For Canada, we require all of the above, so like most navies, a compromise in some areas is a must.

[Derek 2.0]

The thing is, whether this or any other deal goes through won't have much to do with what the navy wants. The primary factor will be what sort of political overtones it will have. Will this embarrass the government? If so, it's not going anywhere. Will it win the government praise from population segments it considers important? That will be an important factor.

The defense budget is not there for buying kit for the military, you know. It's for putting jobs in important constituencies and allowing cabinet ministers to have happy sound bytes in front of the camera. Buying or renting some foreign ship might not really do that enough to justify the cost.

If we do purchase the American supply vessel, I fail to see the political overtones that you suggest, likewise any negatives for the navy by increasing dramatically it’s abilities to deploy overseas at the behest of the elected Governments foreign policy.

In essence, you’re complaining because the Government seeks to add an interim replacement, that is a drastic improvement to our current assets, well also procuring new vessels made by Canadian taxpayers/voters……….the problem is what exactly? Frankly, you’re looking for something to bitch and moan about, and are coming up short.

[Army Guy]

The yard is not ready to build the AOPS, never mind the destroyers. It's better to get all the ducks in a row and built the smaller less complex ships first. No one is going to cancel the CSC, even if they end up ordering 10 - 12 instead of 15 (which I fully expect, no matter who is in power).

I think your misunderstanding me, i was talking about destroyers period , i was under the understanding that the destroyers were not part of the CSC my bad, that being said if there is a neeed , and perhaps the policical drive to change it why can't the Destroyer block of the CSC be removed or changed, hence why i asked if steel was being cut or contracts signed....if it is not to late then why not.....

I've never been a team player when it comes down to the CSC, and all these ships being built in Canadian yards, for alot of reasons , DND contracts should never be used as job creation projects first and for most....And although i would agree it would be a player in talks..... ,but the prime concern should be getting the most bang for our buck in regards to kit purchased. not rebuilding a dead industry that we let die in the first place....and 30 years from now we will be in the same boat.....nothing will change we will pay more for less...again....

[Army Guy]

There are, but South Koreans, Spanish, Poles etc don't vote in Canadian elections nor pay Canadian taxes....

Do you think the Canadian public will raise that much stink about 3 or 4 ships built else where for cheaper, but more capabilities.....although i do like the idea of buying american, and they do have a new design out.....

[Smallc]

They won't really be cheaper, as none of the money is being cycled back through the economy.

[Derek 2.0]

Do you think the Canadian public will raise that much stink about 3 or 4 ships built else where for cheaper, but more capabilities.....although i do like the idea of buying american, and they do have a new design out.....

To a degree, as much as people get upset with outsourcing jobs.......Which American design are you talking about?

[Derek 2.0]

I've never been a team player when it comes down to the CSC, and all these ships being built in Canadian yards, for alot of reasons , DND contracts should never be used as job creation projects first and for most....And although i would agree it would be a player in talks..... ,but the prime concern should be getting the most bang for our buck in regards to kit purchased. not rebuilding a dead industry that we let die in the first place....and 30 years from now we will be in the same boat.....nothing will change we will pay more for less...again....

Ask yourself this…….how popular is defense spending with the Canadian electorate? Now how popular would defense spending that injects little to none of taxpayers’ dollars back into the Canadian economy be? This is the political reality.

Normally I disapprove of corporate welfare, but I also understand that at times, the Government has to secure Canadian interests as a whole. In the case of shipbuilding, it’s an industry that isn’t competitive in most first world nations. When it is competitive commercially, you will see an industry that is heavily subsidized by Government largess……..as such, we have to do the same out of strategic interest.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Army Guy]

In some regards, also in many cases purchasing European programs, due to their smaller production runs, allows us to be a bigger fish, as opposed to a smaller fish in a bigger American buying pond……..of course, bigger fish are expected to pay a whole bunch more….

This is just some army guy spewing , i claim to no very little about things navy, I read alot of material on the new Type 45 and the french Horrizon, and they sound like all the tech inside and outside are of the very latest, including the new hull designs which have a stealth factor to them....Your concern was wpns and other stuff not being american....and the supply chain for american goods is shorter....great what if we kept the hull and other stuff and just changed out wpns, wpns sys, fire control, radar and sonar.....would we not be ahead of the game meaning have a superior design with the latest in sub systems or would it just be unaffordable.....my reason why is the Arliegh Burke are at the top of their field, with the inside, but their hull design and stealth tech is not up to the Euros standard.....this would give us the best of both worlds.....

The type 45/Sampson combo might be the current "greatest", thats open to debate, none the less, you could count the number of British/French systems (likewise APAR) with your fingers and toes......the American AEGIS/SPY-1 is in use by over 100 ships and more allies.....The greater numbers of the American units will ensure the costs of purchasing and upgrading will be spread over a much greater user base.......

That makes sense, but is it cheap enough to really make a difference , i mean france or britian have been lobbying Canada to get their foot in the door, perhaps pricing may not be that much of an issue...

On the other hand you have said the american sys are very expensive both in price and operation,sounds like we are screw if we do screwed if we don't at one piont we need to make a call, spend the extra dollars and get all the checks in the box, such as being able to operate side by side with a US naval battle gruop..... but what are we really talking about here 3 to 4 ships in the destroyer class

[Army Guy]

It costs a lot of money…….With our current Destroyers and Frigates for example, we require two separate schools for the engine room, radars/systems etc…..likewise supply chains……….If you can combine similar systems, why wouldn’t you?

For example, our current Halifax frigates use the same engines as the Burke destroyers and those American supply ships……..right now, our Halifax and Tribal destroyers use a completely different gas turbines, well our supply ships still use steam.

That is my piont , we are not doing it now, and we are not sure we can even do both frigs and destroyers with similar designs and not cut capablities or have other effects some place else....as far as i know this is not a common practice with other ships is it?

since the designs are not picked or ready yet why not adapt the new frigs to have similar sys as the Arliegh burkes.....

Not yet complete, but closer........There are compromises to be made by sharing a common type. For instance, a purpose built ASW frigate will use a different hull form to optimise quietness, where as a anti air destroyer will have greater effectiveness by having their radars mounted higher (to increase the radar horizon), which requires a wider ship to maintain stability. A ship (like a corvette) that you’d want to operate in the littorals will need to be smaller to decrease the chances of being detected, where as a navy wanting a ship to be able to deploy for months on end (with Command and Control facilities) will require being quite large, but will require a far larger crew………For Canada, we require all of the above, so like most navies, a compromise in some areas is a must.

Not trying to be a smart ass, but was it not you that said want an AOR build an AOR, want a Amphib build an Amphib.....i get the fact that some compromises have to be made, i'm just saying want a destroyer lets build a destroyer.....lets get the one that will do the job for the next 30 years....

[Army Guy]

They won't really be cheaper, as none of the money is being cycled back through the economy.

So my question is has someone checked out that fact, or are we just trying to build a dead industry on the backs of DND capabilities....

[Army Guy]

Ask yourself this…….how popular is defense spending with the Canadian electorate? Now how popular would defense spending that injects little to none of taxpayers’ dollars back into the Canadian economy be? This is the political reality.

Normally I disapprove of corporate welfare, but I also understand that at times, the Government has to secure Canadian interests as a whole. In the case of shipbuilding, it’s an industry that isn’t competitive in most first world nations. When it is competitive commercially, you will see an industry that is heavily subsidized by Government largess……..as such, we have to do the same out of strategic interest.

Perhaps it is all in the presentation, this is how much it costs to build into canada this will be the gross income injected back into the nation, compared to this is the price of building in South Korea, this is the capabilities our navy gets with those savings....not a PR guy, but i'm sure some univeristy kid could spin this a thousand ways....Saying that i do understand how popular the military is today, and how much it's citizens care about spending.....but at the end of the day the funding we spend on this dead industry will effect the bottom dollar and the dept that is going to pay for that is DND, a good example of that is they are already talking about cutting the frigs numbers down.....like every project we get into....

I also starting to question the whole ship building project is it worth rebuilding a dead industry to have it go limp after this project is completed....

[Army Guy]

To a degree, as much as people get upset with outsourcing jobs.......Which American design are you talking about?

Sorry, I was refing to the AOR's but the same could be said for the Destroyer, Arliegh Burke class....

[Derek 2.0]

This is just some army guy spewing , i claim to no very little about things navy, I read alot of material on the new Type 45 and the french Horrizon, and they sound like all the tech inside and outside are of the very latest, including the new hull designs which have a stealth factor to them....

Ahh but the Burke class also features sonar/IR/radar signature reduction measures.......and far more combat agility, a single Burke has the greater ability to deal with a saturation attack by anti-ship missiles than a Type 45 and Horizon combined.

Your concern was wpns and other stuff not being american....and the supply chain for american goods is shorter....great what if we kept the hull and other stuff and just changed out wpns, wpns sys, fire control, radar and sonar.....would we not be ahead of the game meaning have a superior design with the latest in sub systems or would it just be unaffordable.....my reason why is the Arliegh Burke are at the top of their field, with the inside, but their hull design and stealth tech is not up to the Euros standard.....this would give us the best of both worlds.....

Like I said with the Ford/VW……why would you want to? It would be akin to wanting the fire control system and engine of the M1 Abrams, but in a Leopard A6 hull……..It could be done with enough money, but not just purchase the Abrams or design a new tank from the ground up with the features that you desire? Now with that being said, what DND will/is doing, is looking at a design (the Danish frigate) that was intended from the onset, the ability to incorporate one of European/British/American radars, combat management systems, weapons etc…..

That makes sense, but is it cheap enough to really make a difference , i mean france or britian have been lobbying Canada to get their foot in the door, perhaps pricing may not be that much of an issue...

Yes. First, the radars, combat management systems, weapons etc are by far the most expensive portion of any design......now basic economies of scale would see the advantage going to the Americans....Now the Royal Navy at first wanted 12 type 45 destroyers, but due to the costs associated with Sampson, were forced to settle on 6......but if they had of went with AEGIS/Spy-1, though probably not 12 ships, they would have got 8-9 for the same budgeted total.....

The same can also be said of ongoing support.......the Americans, Japanese, Australians, Norwegians, Spanish and South Koreans will be continually be upgrading and supporting AEGIS/Spy-1, spread over 100 ships........the British will have to do likewise for just six ships.....the French and Italians likewise, over ~12 hulls.....

On the other hand you have said the american sys are very expensive both in price and operation,sounds like we are screw if we do screwed if we don't at one piont we need to make a call, spend the extra dollars and get all the checks in the box, such as being able to operate side by side with a US naval battle gruop..... but what are we really talking about here 3 to 4 ships in the destroyer class

That's not so though, AEGIS/SPY-1 are used in over 100 ships and growing.....

[Derek 2.0]

That is my piont , we are not doing it now, and we are not sure we can even do both frigs and destroyers with similar designs and not cut capablities or have other effects some place else....as far as i know this is not a common practice with other ships is it?

since the designs are not picked or ready yet why not adapt the new frigs to have similar sys as the Arliegh burkes.....

That's the idea

Not trying to be a smart ass, but was it not you that said want an AOR build an AOR, want a Amphib build an Amphib.....i get the fact that some compromises have to be made, i'm just saying want a destroyer lets build a destroyer.....lets get the one that will do the job for the next 30 years....

This is very true, but don’t confuse the use of frigate/destroyer/cruiser……they are just labels…….Norway has anti-aircraft frigates, the Americans have had ASW destroyers and built AAW cruisers on the same hulls…..the Burke class destroyer, is the same size as their cruisers, and the size of a WW-1 era battleship.

Very few navies have specialist ships anymore on cost grounds, favouring “general purpose”, with a type like the Burke, the USN can do anti-air, anti-sub, anti-ship, ballistic missile defense, land attack and support of special operations…..Whereas based on cost, for example, the British Type 45 would be hard pressed to defend itself against submarines or other ships. The RCN is looking towards the American method of all singing and dancing…

[Derek 2.0]

I also starting to question the whole ship building project is it worth rebuilding a dead industry to have it go limp after this project is completed....

The intent of the program is to both modernise the industry to keep it viable, and at such time as the current projected build portion is complete, we’ll be performing the midlife upgrades, then replacements to keep it sustainable.

[Argus]

If we do purchase the American supply vessel, I fail to see the political overtones that you suggest,

A reminder of how screwed up their procurement is, of their continuing failures with building kit in Canada.

In essence, you’re complaining because the Government seeks to add an interim replacement,

No, I'm being cynical about the chances the government gives a damn about an interim replacement. All we have is a newspaper suggesting the military would like to have one. We have nothing suggesting the Tories have any interest in their wishes.

[Derek 2.0]

A reminder of how screwed up their procurement is, of their continuing failures with building kit in Canada.

In this case, how is it screwed up? The supply ships, after suffering accidents, won't last until Canadian built ships are in service, so the Government will purchase/lease interim ship(s).

No, I'm being cynical about the chances the government gives a damn about an interim replacement. All we have is a newspaper suggesting the military would like to have one. We have nothing suggesting the Tories have any interest in their wishes.

Why would you say that? Surely if they didn't care, they wouldn't be seeking said option..........And no, we have more than a "newspaper", we have a direct quote from the head of the RCN stating they are seeking an interim replacement, of course at the direction of the elected Government

[Smallc]

The head of the navy would never say that without authorization.