Shipbuilding contracts

[Derek 2.0]

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…..

And further dribs and drabs on the Supply class:

The RCN is looking to buy two U.S. Navy supply ships that are to be retired, the USNS Bridge and the USNS Rainier. That report came from CBC.

But that proposal is one of several options offered up by the Americans. The U.S. Navy was also offering to dedicate a supply ship, at times, for the RCN.

But sources tell Defence Watch that the U.S. Navy was less than thrilled when the RCN came back with a massive list on when such supply ships were needed. The suggestion was that Canada was milking the favour to the extreme.

To me, trying to put myself in the position of the USN, their present options are the force reduction and the loss of these two ships (and the strategic options they bring to the table), leasing/selling them to Canada, or find other funds to keep them in service, which is doubtful when they’re scrambling to fund the refueling of the carrier the USS George Washington…..

Now the loss of these ships would likely entail the ships being put into category B reserve, allowing the ships to be reactivated in a time of national crisis. This does cost money, and the ships condition will worsen (despite preservation practices) with time, making a return both more costly and time consuming. On paper, the USN has many ships in reserve, but their reactivation isn’t assured, nor the required time being present to bring a given ship back into service in the time of war.

With Canada acquiring the vessels, to some degree, it keeps the ships “in the family” and would allow the USN to still utilize these assets, via our working relationship in peacetime. They would lose operational command, but in all likelihood, in a time of war, both the RCN and USN would be working together…….perhaps a kiss from a cousin.

Keeping them in service would likely require the USN giving up something else, or the US congress finding money within next year’s budget…….as I mentioned, witnessing the difficulty in finding funding for an aircraft carrier, I have my doubts two large, expensive to operate supply ships will see that much political capital expended…….In fact, I’d suggest a greater chance of seeing any additional funds being directed to funding several more Lewis & Clark supply ships.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

Some "news" on the destroyer and frigate replacement:

(Pardon the Spanish to English translation)

Navantia is currently participating in the Canadian Surface Combatant program (CSC), which provides for the supply of three twelve destroyers and frigates, in collaboration with the American Lockheed Martin and lessons embodied in the F-100 frigates for the Spanish Navy, the F -310 Norwegian and Australian AWD destroyers. The CSC will replace the Halifax-class frigates and Iroquois class destroyers, so the possibility of two types of vessels using the same hull and include advanced air defense capabilities is proposed, which would benefit Navantia for having the system Lockheed Martin Aegis, installed on all three ships.

Said Spanish, Norwegian and Australian destroyers are, in effect, a "Baby Burke" using the AEGIS combat system.

As confirmed to us from the Spanish company, is expected before the end of the year the RFI (Request For Information) expected for the second half of next RFP (Request For Proposal) Canada has launched an ambitious program year concrete modernization of the National Shipbuilding Procurement named Marina Strategy (NSPS) valued at 32,900 million

And some thought there was no movement...........

[Smallc]

I thought for sure we'd go with something closer to a combined Absalon/Iver Huitfeld design.

[Derek 2.0]

I thought for sure we'd go with something closer to a combined Absalon/Iver Huitfeld design.

The Iver Huitfeld was designed to three final specs......one each accepting APAR, Sampson and SPY-1.....

[Smallc]

I think that the Absalon is a great idea for the general purpose variant (overall) and that the Iver would work very well as AAD. Then again, so would the F100 or even the Norwegian frigate (although that one is a bit small.

[Smallc]

I'd be interested to see how they'd mount the AEGIS syatem on the ship.

[Derek 2.0]

I'd be interested to see how they'd mount the AEGIS syatem on the ship.

On the Danish Frigate? All three designs differed above the hull/main deck.....

[Smallc]

Okay that makes sense.

[Derek 2.0]

Okay that makes sense.

It does, by far the radars/combat system are the most expensive, well vital, part of the build.

[Derek 2.0]

AOPS contract signed

The federal government has announced it has reached a build contract with Irving Shipbuilding for the arctic/offshore patrol ships.

Cost for the planned six ships is $2.3 billion, up from the expected $2.1 billion.

The AOPS design has been 90 per cent finalized, government officials say.

The plan is for the first of the ships to be delivered in 2018 with each following one coming every nine months.

Production is set to start in Halifax this September with the program scheduled to be complete by 2022.

So despite media claims that the Government would only be able purchase half the number of ships with the allotted budget framework, for an increase of several hundred million dollars, the Government and RCN will get all six of the planned AOPS.......with production starting later this year (like I said a few months ago) and in service by 2018......

[Smallc]

It says 5 - 6 actually.

[Derek 2.0]

It says 5 - 6 actually.

The link clearly has been modified/edited, ~20 minutes ago, since I posted:

Irving signed an incentive-laden contract wherein the company will make more money if it produces six ships. However, government officials said there is always risk in designing new ships and it is possible that only five ships can be built within the budget.

Interesting contract none the less, well being far from the doom and gloom claimed by the Opposition and namely the CBC.......

[Smallc]

I figured that was what had probably happened. I want trying to imply you were being dishonest. Still, it looks like it's weighted towards 6 ships as it means more money for Irving.

[Derek 2.0]

I figured that was what had probably happened. I want trying to imply you were being dishonest. Still, it looks like it's weighted towards 6 ships as it means more money for Irving.

Indeed, interesting performance based contract that has implications for all involved, be they labour, supplier, the Government or the RCN.....I would expect after the first, second at the most, AOPS is complete, any issues will be identified and hopefully resolved.

[Argus]

So despite media claims that the Government would only be able purchase half the number of ships with the allotted budget framework, for an increase of several hundred million dollars, the Government and RCN will get all six of the planned AOPS.......with production starting later this year (like I said a few months ago) and in service by 2018......

You act like this is a good thing. I'd prefer they scrap the entire idea. These ships, from what I can tell, will be mostly useless. They can't really break ice, can't move very fast, are extremely lightly armed. Really, these are nothing but weak icebreakers that ought to be given to the coast guard.

Harper promised big, powerful icebreakers and what he's offering now are puny slushbreakers which will have to be parked in a garage over the winter.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

You act like this is a good thing. I'd prefer they scrap the entire idea. These ships, from what I can tell, will be mostly useless. They can't really break ice, can't move very fast, are extremely lightly armed. Really, these are nothing but weak icebreakers that ought to be given to the coast guard.

Harper promised big, powerful icebreakers and what he's offering now are puny slushbreakers which will have to be parked in a garage over the winter.

That of course is your uninformed opinion, from the onset, they were never intended to be warships (nor polar icebreakers) but patrol vessels, of which they will be vast improvements over the vessels they replace..........and of course the Coast Guard is getting replacements for their icebreaker fleet.

[Argus]

That of course is your uninformed opinion, from the onset, they were never intended to be warships (nor polar icebreakers) but patrol vessels, of which they will be vast improvements over the vessels they replace..........and of course the Coast Guard is getting replacements for their icebreaker fleet.

He promised us ICEBREAKERS. BIG, powerful ones! Then we got promised 6-8 little 16 knot slushbreakers. How much patrolling do you think they'll be doing at a top speed of 16 knots in open water? Can they even catch a fishing boat at that speed? And now instead of 6-8 it's 5, with the possibility of one more (which is never going to happen). And again, they have to be beached in the winter and will be limited as to how far north they can go any time of the year. These are NOT arctic patrol ships. They are small, heavy, slow, expensive coastal patrol ships which will be too slow and expensive to operate efficiently.

FAIL!

[Derek 2.0]

He promised us ICEBREAKERS. BIG, powerful ones! Then we got promised 6-8 little 16 knot slushbreakers. How much patrolling do you think they'll be doing at a top speed of 16 knots in open water? Can they even catch a fishing boat at that speed? And now instead of 6-8 it's 5, with the possibility of one more (which is never going to happen). And again, they have to be beached in the winter and will be limited as to how far north they can go any time of the year. These are NOT arctic patrol ships. They are small, heavy, slow, expensive coastal patrol ships which will be too slow and expensive to operate efficiently.

FAIL!

Your ignorance is noted.........how do you expect a BIG ICEBREAKER to "catch" smaller boats in the open water?

Beached in winter? they will be used on all three of our coastlines, likewise their use in the Arctic won't be limited year round, unlike the current Kingstons, the AOPS will expand the upon the RCN's ability to operate in the North........but of course I fail to see why you feel the RCN needs BIG ICEBREAKERS to "catch" fishing boats in the Arctic ice

[Smallc]

He promised us ICEBREAKERS. BIG, powerful ones! Then we got promised 6-8 little 16 knot slushbreakers. How much patrolling do you think they'll be doing at a top speed of 16 knots in open water? Can they even catch a fishing boat at that speed? And now instead of 6-8 it's 5, with the possibility of one more (which is never going to happen). And again, they have to be beached in the winter and will be limited as to how far north they can go any time of the year. These are NOT arctic patrol ships. They are small, heavy, slow, expensive coastal patrol ships which will be too slow and expensive to operate efficiently.

FAIL!

They are faster at 17 kn than the Kingston class that they replace at 15 kn. They're about as well armed, and they bring to the CF a capability of amphibious warfare that we haven't had before. They're a great step up.

[Derek 2.0]

They are faster at 17 kn than the Kingston class that they replace at 15 kn. They're about as well armed, and they bring to the CF a capability of amphibious warfare that we haven't had before. They're a great step up.

But the most important addition is the inclusion of a helicopter........with that, one AOPS will be able to cover more of our coastlines then 3-4 Kingstons can presently.

[Smallc]

But the most important addition is the inclusion of a helicopter........with that, one AOPS will be able to cover more of our coastlines then 3-4 Kingstons can presently.

Do you have any idea if the entirety of the Kingston class will be retired, or will it be on a 1 to 1 basis?

[Derek 2.0]

Do you have any idea if the entirety of the Kingston class will be retired, or will it be on a 1 to 1 basis?

I'm not sure, 1/3rd is currently tied-up already....but putting a portion in reduced operating status will allow the fleet to continue without a major refit for decades.......I would expect some will be retained after the AOPS have entered service for dive support and route survey.....

[Argus]

Your ignorance is noted.........how do you expect a BIG ICEBREAKER to "catch" smaller boats in the open water?

No, I expect them to be able to patrol in the Arctic, though, which the slushbreakers won't be able to do much of.

Beached in winter? they will be used on all three of our coastlines,

Not in winter, they won't. They couldn't survive the Arctic in winter.

likewise their use in the Arctic won't be limited year round,

Yes, they will.

unlike the current Kingstons, the AOPS will expand the upon the RCN's ability to operate in the North........

The Kingstons are crap. They were crap when they were built - as training ships, and they're crap now.

but of course I fail to see why you feel the RCN needs BIG ICEBREAKERS to "catch" fishing boats in the Arctic ice

Sure you do, but you're you're a bureaucrat to the core, trying to dismiss valid objections by ridiculing the opposition. Canada needs icebreakers to have a valid claim to the far north. Harper said as much when he promised to build them. Then he reneged.

[Smallc]

I'm not sure, 1/3rd is currently tied-up already

I don't know if that's true anymore. I know it was until the retirement of the 4 larger vessels, but I thought they had reactivated them.

[Derek 2.0]

No, I expect them to be able to patrol in the Arctic, though, which the slushbreakers won't be able to do much of.

......yet the Kingston class already operates in the Arctic.

Not in winter, they won't. They couldn't survive the Arctic in winter.

I never said they would operate in the winter in the Arctic.

Yes, they will.

They will be able to operate more of the year in the Arctic then the current Kingston class...

The Kingstons are crap. They were crap when they were built - as training ships, and they're crap now.

The Kingstons were not built as "training ships"........

Sure you do, but you're you're a bureaucrat to the core, trying to dismiss valid objections by ridiculing the opposition. Canada needs icebreakers to have a valid claim to the far north. Harper said as much when he promised to build them. Then he reneged.

What requirement does the RCN have to go after fishing boats in the Arctic ice?

Of course, the Government is replacing our current Coast Guard ice breaker fleet, well adding more capable patrol vessels to our navy......the problem is what exactly?