Shipbuilding contracts

[Smallc]

Anyone could, but they would be an ass.........the Conservatives have a clearly outlined plan on the direction of the Canadian Forces.........and how have the Conservatives dropped the ball?

It's been almost 10 years since their first promises.

You realize the first AOPS is being built

Yes, that's good. Better late than never. I do support this government's plan, I'm simply disappointed.

and interim AOR was just funded

You mean the provisional one that we're having to scramble to get, because the others won't even start construction until at least 2019? I'm glad we're getting it, but, it seems that we could have done what we're doing now years ago.

and SEASPAN has already started on the West Coast their work share of the National Shipbuilding Strategy

And that's good - but already probably isn't the word for it. The Franklin won't be complete for 2 years.

As I said, show me one modern navy, without a viable domestic shipbuilding industry, that can put first rate hulls in the water inside a decade.......The Royal Navy started designing the Type 45s in the 80s, only to commission HMS Daring over 20 years later........and they have a shipbuilding industry.

You might be right. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the NDP and the navy though.

[Derek 2.0]

That's really all we have from the Conservatives at this point. A placeholder budget figure for the CSC, no defined requirements, a commitment for 'up to 15' (it won't be 15) ships. The Conservatives have failed on this file and it leaves them open to much criticism.

No defined requirements? There are very clear and defined requirements put for by the navy..........the commitment for a total figure is honest, as the total end result will be defined by the actual production cost.......clearly the Government is not going to write 15 vessels in stone without a firm price tag from industry, for fear of seeing them costing upwards of 5 billion each like a Zumwalt DDG.

Explain how they have failed.

[Army Guy]

So if a ship needs major work lets say a fire, or collides with another, or receives battle damage, they are in our scope to repair, it is just not efficient....but could they be expanded to become more efficient? the reason i ask is i think it would be a good investment, have a ship yard that could handle major repairs or refits at the navy level.....I think it would also be a huge training tool for the navy repair guys to have that level ....much like 202 wkshops in quebec for armoured vehs......instead of paying Irving to produce a product that cost alot more then in 15 to 20 years allow that experience to fade away like history has shown.....

Skill fad that could effect the quality of product we receive....

and while i know fixing a ship is not the same as fixing an army truck, but we purchase foreign equipment all the time, we pay for our mechanics to get trained up like the airforce as well. does the navy have such a program....

[Smallc]

Explain how they have failed.

They've taken too long. That'y my biggest complaint. They should have got the NSPS rolling in 2006, and we wouldn't be having this discussion, and the first ships would actually be launching now.

[Smallc]

Lets move on to something more interesting. Who is going to get shortlisted for warship designer and combat systems integrator for the CSC?

Here's who most likely applied, based on their attendance at the industry engagement:

DCNS

TKMS

Fincantieri

MDA

Gibbs & Cox

Thales

Raytheon

BAE Systems

Navantia

Saab

Lockheed Martin

Atlas Elektronik

Selex ES

General Dynamics

OMT

Alion Science & Technology

Irving Shipbuilding Inc.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

It's been almost 10 years since their first promises.

So? We didn't have a ship building industry capable of building such vessels ten years ago, nor did the RCN have a clear definition approved by the Government, instead, saddled with past Liberal wet-farts in brown paper bags....

Yes, that's good. Better late than never. I do support this government's plan, I'm simply disappointed.

Who would have built them domestically earlier?

You mean the provisional one that we're having to scramble to get, because the others won't even start construction until at least 2019? I'm glad we're getting it, but, it seems that we could have done what we're doing now years ago.

The Royal Canadian Navy, nor the Government of Canada, are at fault for a series of accidents that befell both supply ships, cutting both vessels remaining service lives early.

There of course was no requirement to procure interim types "years ago", when we then had two serviceable AORs.

Hindsight is a bitch.

And that's good - but already probably isn't the word for it. The Franklin won't be complete for 2 years.

Yet SEASPAN has made the required upgrades in its Vancouver yard to produce its share, well still completing its share of FELEX and the Victoria class upgrade.........

Who would you have had build said ships earlier?

You might be right. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the NDP and the navy though.

Not a chance......you've already admitted the subs will go (and they would), in effect, eliminating our most capable offensive/sea denial and ISR platforms, and yet suggest the Navy will do good under an NDP Government

[Derek 2.0]

So if a ship needs major work lets say a fire, or collides with another, or receives battle damage, they are in our scope to repair, it is just not efficient....but could they be expanded to become more efficient? the reason i ask is i think it would be a good investment, have a ship yard that could handle major repairs or refits at the navy level.....I think it would also be a huge training tool for the navy repair guys to have that level ....

So you would have a Government funded yard to fix navy ships.......sounds reasonable if we had one on each coast.......only problem, when there isn't a requirement to conduct major repairs, what would your workforce do?

What about a civilian yard, on each coast, that can repair or build Government of Canada vessels, and when its not doing so, can compete in the refitting and construction of civilian ships? We could call it the National Ship building and strategy.......oh wait

[Derek 2.0]

They've taken too long. That'y my biggest complaint. They should have got the NSPS rolling in 2006, and we wouldn't be having this discussion, and the first ships would actually be launching now.

How? It wasn't conceived yet, nor determined to be the most cost effective and strategic way forward.

[Derek 2.0]

Who is going to get shortlisted for warship designer and combat systems integrator for the CSC?

I know, but have this aversion to Federal prison time.......with that, one could speculate based on already announced contracts and past working relationships with the Canadian Forces, in particular, with the RCN.........

[Army Guy]

So you would have a Government funded yard to fix navy ships.......sounds reasonable if we had one on each coast.......only problem, when there isn't a requirement to conduct major repairs, what would your workforce do?

What about a civilian yard, on each coast, that can repair or build Government of Canada vessels, and when its not doing so, can compete in the refitting and construction of civilian ships? We could call it the National Ship building and strategy.......oh wait

I do think it is reasonable, not only would the navy have the expertise in major repairs of it's own ves, which could only benefit not only the civilian staff but also hard navy mech trades as well, but it could also start building on capabilities that are in short supply, such as ship designer,naval marine engineers, ship rights, not sure if these are the correct terms but those trades that you need to build ships, prove their designs, draft the blue prints etc.....trades that when employed at civilian shipyards seem to drift when that company is no longer building naval ships.....

This could just save us the price of having a built at home solution, which has plagued our purchasing of equipment forever.....it is a major problem within this country, and while there is a few exceptions, we want the cake and eat it to.....we spend next to nothing on R&D, or preserving those capabilities by capabilites what i mean is the actual manufacture plants, their tooling, their work force..... once we have them...I think we have proven over and over again that we don't have the budget or the stomach to atleast try, and are content to bleed out and compromise in quality and quantity. Which contributes to shrinking capabilities, making the navy do more with less..

DND has been bleed dry this way for decades,not only with ships but everything aircraft, combat equipment.....the list goes on to the point DND is more than happy with what ever scraps the government gives them, they have said we require 15 frigates to do the job, however funding may only allow 10 to be built.....which leaves us 5 ves short, and while this may not be a problem in peace time it hurts during deployments, or crew rest....

retooling and re educating the work force every time the government decides to build naval ves....perhaps it could also be used as a full government facility , that works on all federal ves...which should increase the work load that much more...

I guess everyone is tired of fighting to get funding for ships in the first place then see that hard earned cash go to civilian companies that want their share of the pie, which in some cases double the price of the ships , meaning the navy suffers with decreased capabilities, due to dropping ship numbers to make the total cost...

The problem with civilian companies doing the job, is it is just that, it is a job, their is no interest in preserving what ever experience or capabilities they gain. where a federal government yard run by the navy for the navy, and perhaps all federal ships that would be its main focus, and in time growing those capabilities to the point it may just be able to produce a home grown solution or at least providing a design that is navy driven.

I see it as a win win, for everyone involved, the navy will not have to wait in line with other civilian ship building contracts to have its ships repaired, it will grow navy manpower experience needed, and in time of crisis it will have a yard capable of handling damaged ships....

as for the civilian growth in the ship building , increase the number of coast guard ves, get them to build them.... build our ship building experience around that, i mean how many nations have stopped in Canada and said shit son, i want you to build me some of those.......? look at some of the problems the US ship builders were having, production of Arliegh burkes were pushed to the right because of so many building projects on the go, that and quality issues, had say irving kept up with its expertise and experience it might of been possible to get some of those projects to build here in Canada...once again not sure if that is possible but it was an option or maybe merge with one of those large ship builders...

after all i think it was you that once said building s ship and building a naval ship are two different beasts, we could be getting our naval ships built by those that have a proven record...at a much cheaper price...

Edited August 17, 2015 by Army Guy

[Argus]

That's the point - the money won't dry up this time. Even the NDP police manual specifically lays out support of recapitalizing the navy, and the Liberals and Conservatives will almost certainly go through with this.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but the military always seems like a handy piggybank when any party wants money for something more popular. I agree that the idea behind this is to feed in one ship every few years or so. That way we aren't faced with rebuilding a rusted out fleet (flotilla) from scratch every time. It's a great idea. I just don't see any of our politicians sticking to it.

[Argus]

The Conservatives? About $2B so far, starting when it's affordable. The NDP and Liberals will cancel income splitting, and the Liberals will cancel the UCCB. That'll pay for a lot of it. I can't say until costed platforms come out.

A national daycare program alone will cost many billions, especially if it's the NDP which brings it in, because you can be damn sure every single person working in those daycare centres will be unionized and make nice money. Trudeau has committed to honoring every single one of the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation commission, which will cost billions more, though no one really knows how much. He's also committed to paying billions more for native education. Both have commited to a fairly extensive, expensive, and economically depressing regime of heavy taxation on the use of power and fuel to reduce Co2 emissions.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I could really see, for example, the NDP going for something like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F125-class_frigate

It's right up their alley.

Swell, so when a local gunboat fires missiles at them they can use their water cannon to shoot them down and their searchlights to distract them?

[Argus]

I'm talking about the election promises thus far.

The NDP policy manual was posted by Socialist in another thread:

I can't find the link at the moment but I saved it to my computer. It reads:

a Defending Canadian sovereignty militarily, socially

and economically.

b Ensuring our armed forces are well-equipped

with the necessary human and material resources

for their operations.

c Affirming that the primary purpose of the Canadian

Forces is peace-keeping, defence and support

during emergencies.

d Defending our territorial waters, especially the

Arctic.

e Standing against nuclear arms build-up and

rejecting any ballistic missile defence program.

f Prioritizing peace operations for each of our

armed forces.

There's more. I don't support most of that, but the navy need not worry, it seems.

You realize that the criteria for meeting all of those objectives is entirely up to them, right? I mean, what does 'well equipped' mean? I bet if you asked the Tories they'd say our armed forces are well-equipped now. I bet if you asked Trudeau's or Chretien's Liberals they'd have said the same. What does 'protecting our territorial waters' involve? A frigate, or just a few flyovers from a rickety aircraft?

[Argus]

So you'll only accept the evidence that you provide, then?

I've been following politics a very long time and I can't recall the NDP ever expressing any sort of support for military spending.

[Smallc]

I've been following politics a very long time and I can't recall the NDP ever expressing any sort of support for military spending.

I've seen them do it for the navy. For nothing else.

[Derek 2.0]

I do think it is reasonable, not only would the navy have the expertise in major repairs of it's own ves, which could only benefit not only the civilian staff but also hard navy mech trades as well, but it could also start building on capabilities that are in short supply, such as ship designer,naval marine engineers, ship rights, not sure if these are the correct terms but those trades that you need to build ships, prove their designs, draft the blue prints etc.....trades that when employed at civilian shipyards seem to drift when that company is no longer building naval ships.....

With all due respect, that approach makes zero sense.......you want to forgo costly subsidies to industry, an industry that when its not building or repairing GoC vessels, bids on commercial vessels to keep busy, and replace subsidies with greater expenditures within the Government to support a workforce that will only support the repair of GoC vessels, that are built overseas......

That is akin to having your house built by contractors, then years later wanting a bathroom reno, and instead of hiring contractors again, you and your family going to trade school to learn plumbing, electrical, carpentry and tile setting to avoid hiring those with the skills already.

The Royal Navy stopped building its own ships in the 1960s, after doing so to varying degrees for hundreds of years, because it no longer made economic sense to support the dockyards and keep employed the various specific trades.....this was with a navy then that had a fleet measured in the triple digits.........No modern Western navy builds or maintains its own fleet to the extent in which you suggest for good reason.........Off the top of my head, the last major players to do so were the Soviet Union and China, in which everything was/is owned by the State comrade

[Army Guy]

With all due respect, that approach makes zero sense.......you want to forgo costly subsidies to industry, an industry that when its not building or repairing GoC vessels, bids on commercial vessels to keep busy, and replace subsidies with greater expenditures within the Government to support a workforce that will only support the repair of GoC vessels, that are built overseas......

That is akin to having your house built by contractors, then years later wanting a bathroom reno, and instead of hiring contractors again, you and your family going to trade school to learn plumbing, electrical, carpentry and tile setting to avoid hiring those with the skills already.

The Royal Navy stopped building its own ships in the 1960s, after doing so to varying degrees for hundreds of years, because it no longer made economic sense to support the dockyards and keep employed the various specific trades.....this was with a navy then that had a fleet measured in the triple digits.........No modern Western navy builds or maintains its own fleet to the extent in which you suggest for good reason.........Off the top of my head, the last major players to do so were the Soviet Union and China, in which everything was/is owned by the State comrade

I know it sounds crazy, but bear with me for a minute, I wanted to provide another option, to heavy subsidies to our nearly non existent ship building companies. and while this is in part to existing government policy and actions it never took to ensure those capabilities were not eroded, but some of that blame has to be shoulder on the ship building companies themselves...i mean lets be serious for a second....after the last halifax class frigate was built, what did Irving do to ensure to be a viable partner not only for the Canadian Navy but to itself in the future...

So why do we need a ship building industry here in Canada that is capable of building fighting war ships.....alot of nations have also taken this approach let someone else build them and we will build the maintaining expertise needed for repairs.....be it minor or major...Something like this already exists with the scott ship yard.....that use to repair the subs, not sure what they do now, i'm assume they have moved on to refit and repairs....perhaps they have closed, but the fact remains they did repairs ....so it is not a new concept but rather a continuation.....

If we want to assist our own ship building expertise, then have these company build other ships that they are good at, maybe the coast guard fleet, aux ves, but we have already proven that we are challenged when it comes to building a war ship for the same price as other nations....maybe it is time to let go of that once proud tradition of building our own navy ships.....why do tax payers have to pay for these faults .....why does the navy have to pay for these faults, if you had a choice of any ship in the world to operate off of, what would it be and where is it produced.....would it be a Arleigh burke destroyer built in the US or a Canadian solution for the next destroyer class....if both could be afforded and why ?

Which is one of my huge points, if we bought abroad, due to our decision not to continue or maintain our ship building capabilities, and we can get more capabilities and more ships, why would we not look at that solution....

You have said repeatedly that it is one thing to build a regular sea going ves, but another beast all together when building a fighting naval ves, like a modern frigate for example, tolerances are alot greater, it is just a tougher build and companies need to have that experience before attemting a war ship.........OK so after Irving finished with the last Halifax frig, how many of those specialists stuck around with Irving, because they were lay offs, down sizing down....So to get cranked up Irving would also have to assemble those trained specialist all over again....or train within....

So we drop the the concept of building our own ships, buy abroad, and focus on maintaining them, with a military ship yard....to maintain our fleet....now i know that having new ships means less maintenance but our track record for keeping ships forever will eventually be busy enough , that in the fact maybe the navy requirement for say 15 frigates will be meet, more ships has got to translate in more work....I mean lets face it there are alot of good designs out there built by solid ship builders.....

[Derek 2.0]

I know it sounds crazy, but bear with me for a minute, I wanted to provide another option, to heavy subsidies to our nearly non existent ship building companies. and while this is in part to existing government policy and actions it never took to ensure those capabilities were not eroded, but some of that blame has to be shoulder on the ship building companies themselves...i mean lets be serious for a second....after the last halifax class frigate was built, what did Irving do to ensure to be a viable partner not only for the Canadian Navy but to itself in the future...

The Canadian shipbuilding industry, though a fraction of what one would find in say Japan or South Korea, is a viable industry in its own niche market. I don't blame the shipbuilders for skill fade in the area of producing modern warships, when the last warship ordered by the Government of Canada was over twenty years ago, and then commissioned nearly twenty years ago.............

So why do we need a ship building industry here in Canada that is capable of building fighting war ships.....alot of nations have also taken this approach let someone else build them and we will build the maintaining expertise needed for repairs.....be it minor or major...Something like this already exists with the scott ship yard.....that use to repair the subs, not sure what they do now, i'm assume they have moved on to refit and repairs....perhaps they have closed, but the fact remains they did repairs ....so it is not a new concept but rather a continuation.....

What other nations? The Americans, British, French, Germans, Dutch, Italians, Danes, Australians, South Koreans, Japanese, Norwegians, Swedes, Finns, Spanish etc all heavily subsidize their own shipbuilding industries, and in turn, build their own warships. I will grant you, with the some of the European nations, they will fan-out the labor intensive portions to other cheaper yards in Europe (namely Polish), likewise, some will purchase from overseas yards when they don't have the required domestic capacity, but they all still maintain a domestic industry.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major Navy that purchases solely overseas.......

If we want to assist our own ship building expertise, then have these company build other ships that they are good at, maybe the coast guard fleet, aux ves, but we have already proven that we are challenged when it comes to building a war ship for the same price as other nations....maybe it is time to let go of that once proud tradition of building our own navy ships.....why do tax payers have to pay for these faults .....why does the navy have to pay for these faults, if you had a choice of any ship in the world to operate off of, what would it be and where is it produced.....would it be a Arleigh burke destroyer built in the US or a Canadian solution for the next destroyer class....if both could be afforded and why ?

As I said, comparing reported purchase contracts in in other nations is a fools errand........as I said, such other prices very rarely include investment into the shipyard itself, likewise operational cost.........

I'd have no issue with a Canadian produced DDG-51, since the majority of the design and development has already been done, likewise the majority of the production would be performed by Canadian subsidiaries of larger American companies. Though purely on cost grounds, the actual build would be cheaper in the United States through economy of scales alone, its highly unlikely the actual savings would be that great when compared to building the ships in Canada.......

How would you explain to Canadians that we will spend several billion per ship built by Americans, versus several billion+ spent in Canadians yards?

Which is one of my huge points, if we bought abroad, due to our decision not to continue or maintain our ship building capabilities, and we can get more capabilities and more ships, why would we not look at that solution....

We wouldn't likely get that many more ships for the same budgeted total, well also sacrificing Canadian requirements by purchasing a solely off the shelf design from the Americans......and of course, once what remains of the domestic industry folds, we'll require American yards to repair our ships........Hence why we pick and choose technologies often developed by others and incorporate them into Canadian designed hulls......

You have said repeatedly that it is one thing to build a regular sea going ves, but another beast all together when building a fighting naval ves, like a modern frigate for example, tolerances are alot greater, it is just a tougher build and companies need to have that experience before attemting a war ship.........OK so after Irving finished with the last Halifax frig, how many of those specialists stuck around with Irving, because they were lay offs, down sizing down....So to get cranked up Irving would also have to assemble those trained specialist all over again....or train within....

It is, steel bashing is cheap when compared to what you put into the vessels........in effect, we purchase (and produce through subsidiaries) the more expensive portion of the warship, the combat systems (Radars, computers/electronics, weapons etc) , from pre-existing designs (or partner with other nations to co-develop in some cases). Then we utilize Canadian industry, aided by international partners and defense giants, to integrate said systems into a suitable size hull, a hull developed and produced (with working relationships with international shipbuilders) in Canada.

What you purpose, fanning out the cheapest portion (the warship build), doesn't save that much money. Likewise, with gutting the actual domestic industry, selecting overseas yards, leaves little reason for defense companies to maintain subsidiaries within Canada (Why would a Lockheed or a BAE keep facilities in Canada when any additional work would be performed in another country?)

So we drop the the concept of building our own ships, buy abroad, and focus on maintaining them, with a military ship yard....to maintain our fleet....now i know that having new ships means less maintenance but our track record for keeping ships forever will eventually be busy enough , that in the fact maybe the navy requirement for say 15 frigates will be meet, more ships has got to translate in more work....I mean lets face it there are alot of good designs out there built by solid ship builders.....

I'm not convinced that would save any money in the long run (probably cost more), well sacrificing a Canadian industry, and spending taxpayers dollars on another nations subsidized industry........a more viable option, well offering a level of strategic protection in the advent of another large-scale war or period of serious international tension, is maintaining an important industry domestically.

There is nothing wrong with international partnerships, but to maintain a viable industry, we need a continual drumbeat of production and retrofits in said yards at home. This of course requires a political consensus, and a purposeful strategy on the part of the RCN to seek designs that will only have a 20-25 year lifespan, as opposed to 30-40+ years until rust-out. The National Shipbuilding Strategy, to some degree, seeks to mimic this approach.

[Derek 2.0]

Swell, so when a local gunboat fires missiles at them they can use their water cannon to shoot them down and their searchlights to distract them?

Though I think your assessment of the validity of the F125 class for Canada is spot on, the ships designers/builders have offered a more robust design to both us and the Australians to replace our GP frigates, based off of the F125 class hull and sharing the same propulsion systems.....Since the same German company has won the design contract for the Queenston class support vessels, I wouldn't discount TKMS totally for the replacement of the RCN's Destroyers and Frigates.

Edit to add, the Reader's Digest industry pdf file submitted to the RAN for the MEKO A-400 RAN, and likely similar, as to what TKMS will submit to the DND, for the RCN's CSC, the MEKO A-400 CAN.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Big Guy]

Looks like this initiative will not see the light:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-biggest-ever-military-procurement-at-very-high-risk-documents-suggest-1.2572855

Is there any military procurement that this government can do successfully?

[Derek 2.0]

Looks like this initiative will not see the light:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-biggest-ever-military-procurement-at-very-high-risk-documents-suggest-1.2572855

Is there any military procurement that this government can do successfully?

A leaked internal document with all the potential risks for the program, highlighting the worse case scenarios.........of note, the portions of the program that have been awarded to Irving (the builder of the CSC from your article), the AOPS, are on schedule........your linked to hit job failed to mention that:

And in the real world:

September 1, 2015

Ships Start Now

HALIFAX, NS: Hundreds of employees gathered in the new Assembly Hall at the Halifax Shipyard to celebrate the start of production of the first Arctic Offshore Patrol ship (AOPS) for Canada. Delivery of the first HMCS Harry DeWolf-class ship is expected in 2018.

“Today is a milestone we have all been anticipating. It is a great day to be a shipbuilder in Nova Scotia as we mark the beginning of this generational opportunity,” said Kevin McCoy, President of Irving Shipbuilding. “We’re doing this with the best team and the largest and most modern shipbuilding facility in North America. Our focus is on delivering the best value to Canada with a growing supply chain from coast to coast to coast.”

Ships being built would indicate the Government is doing this procurement successfully.......

[On Guard for Thee]

Looks like this initiative will not see the light:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-biggest-ever-military-procurement-at-very-high-risk-documents-suggest-1.2572855

Is there any military procurement that this government can do successfully?

There is some light at the end of the tunnel, Mulcair has said he will re-open the F 35 file and actually have a bidding process. And Trudeau has said he will scrap the F 35 altogether, seek bids for a more appropriate replacement for the F 18, and the money he saves from not buying the troubled "bomb truck" he will put into the navy. A win, win.

[Derek 2.0]

And of course, on the West Coast, SEASPAN has also started it portion of the shipbuilding program......

And in Quebec, MIL-Davie:

August 1, 2015 – Ottawa, ON – Government of Canada

The Government of Canada has signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) with Chantier Davie Canada Incorporated and Project Resolve Incorporated to continue discussions on pursuing an at-sea support services contract, Defence Minister Jason Kenney announced today.

The LOI provides Chantier Davie and Project Resolve with the ability to start limited activities to advance the schedule. It will also provide some financial protection to the shipyard for these expenses, should a contract not be awarded. Any proposed costs would be pre-approved by the government, which will require Davie to provide a rationale in every instance.

The first Joint Support Ship (JSS) is anticipated to be operational in late 2020. The JSS will provide a robust warfighting capability with all military crewing and contain the capacity to be continuously upgraded over the next 30 to 40 years to meet the Navy’s evolving operational requirements. An interim supply ship will provide a more modest capability and will not conduct full-spectrum military operations in high-threat environments.

[The_Squid]

More poor management by the Conservatives. The internal document says that they have already lost a couple ships. It doesn't say that none will be built... it says that not enough will be built to maintain the navy's capabilities.