Shipbuilding contracts

[Smallc]

What "foot dragging".........again, your claims are unfounded in reality.

The Liberals should have replaced the HMCS provider rather than scrap her and let that be that. We had and still have a requirement for 3 ships to maintain 99% availability. It's part of our doctrine. Mulroney should have started the process to replace the Tribal class. Now, we have no AAD (we have the Athabaskan, but she's not actually useful for what she was intended or refitted for).

Edited September 23, 2015 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Could it be, like in the past, procurement is budgeted outside the annual defence budget???? I'm shocked!!!

Is it?

[Derek 2.0]

Because they can't. Derek says that the Irving is building 6 A/OPS. That may be true....or we may just get 5. There's a reason that the contract calls for 5 with 6 if budgets allow. There's also a reason that the Conservatives have only named 5 of the ships.

I frequent the Army.ca forum. No one there expects us to actually get 15 ships. Very few expect us to get even 12.

How many of your forum friends are involved directly in the program? I would assume none, as those that actually are and commenting on it without authorization are in violation of the National Defence Act.....

[Derek 2.0]

Is it?

Yeah, like all major procurement programs in the past, that Governments budget for and in turn make funds available for said purchases, and then adjust annual budgets to account for operational costs.......

[Smallc]

How many of your forum friends are involved directly in the program?

I'm sure that they, like I, have been watching procurement long enough to know how things go. We're getting fewer jets, fewer ships, fewer LAVs, fewer....and on and on. It's the trend the world over. Like I said, even the Royal Navy is down to 19 surface combatants.

[Smallc]

Yeah, like all major procurement programs in the past, that Governments budget for and in turn make funds available for said purchases, and then adjust annual budgets to account for operational costs.......

You're going to have to show me evidence of this, because I don't see this to be the case.

[Derek 2.0]

The Liberals should have replaced the HMCS provider rather than scrap her and let that be that. We had and still have a requirement for 3 ships to maintain 99% availability. It's part of our doctrine. Mulroney should have started the process to replace the Tribal class. Now, we have no AAD (we have the Athabaskan, but she's not actually useful for what she was intended or refitted for).

Yes, I've stated as much in this thread..........this is the fault of the current Government how?

[Derek 2.0]

I'm sure that they, like I, have been watching procurement long enough to know how things go. We're getting fewer jets, fewer ships, fewer LAVs, fewer....and on and on. It's the trend the world over. Like I said, even the Royal Navy is down to 19 surface combatants.

So that is a no........hence unfounded claims, since, as mentioned, the final design (hence cost) of the program are not known........do they also pick sports scores and the lottery numbers?

[Derek 2.0]

You're going to have to show me evidence of this, because I don't see this to be the case.

Every annual budget, in any fiscal year, that the Government has purchased new big ticket items..........DND didn't return pop bottles and hold car washes to purchase the Chinooks, Leopard IIs or Globemasters........

[Smallc]

Every annual budget, in any fiscal year, that the Government has purchased new big ticket items..........DND didn't return pop bottles and hold car washes to purchase the Chinooks, Leopard IIs or Globemasters........

There's a certain amount dedicated to procurement each year. It isn't separate from the total budget number.

[Smallc]

So that is a no

We've gone from 2 BHS to 1 to...0. We've gone from 3 JSS to 2 - 3 to 2 with an option for a 3rd. We've gone from 6 - 8 AOPS to 6 AOPS to 5 - 6 A/OPS. Do you see the trend and why we may be sceptical?

[Derek 2.0]

There's a certain amount dedicated to procurement each year. It isn't separate from the total budget number.

An amount in constant flux, that is outside the annual operating budget.....a budget that the Government has provided an elevator to ensure the budget keeps up with inflation...........like I was saying.

[Derek 2.0]

We've gone from 2 BHS to 1 to...0. We've gone from 3 JSS to 2 - 3 to 2 with an option for a 3rd. We've gone from 6 - 8 AOPS to 6 AOPS to 5 - 6 A/OPS. Do you see the trend and why we may be sceptical?

"BHS" was never a funded program, and has been a concept in constant flux for over a decade, starting with the JSS program under the past Liberal government.........

The AOR replacement, as JSS, started with a requirement of 4 vessels, once strategic sealift was divorced from the program, the requirement shrunk, alas, we are getting direct replacements for both AORs, in addition to the interim type through Davie (its retention, I would assume, would be determined after the Queenstons class is in service and its actual level of performance is known).

AOPS is a new capability, hence not a reduction at all..........

[Smallc]

youre being intentionally dishonest. We're getting less than originally promised.

[Derek 2.0]

youre being intentionally dishonest. We're getting less than originally promised.

I'm being dishonest? The Government announced in 2007 that it would procure 6-8 vessels. This year it signed an incentive based contract with Irving shipbuilding to produce 6 vessels, the Royal Canadian Navy is expecting 6 vessels . Production on the first vessel has started, production on the second vessel will start next Spring/Summer etc. Said vessels with be a new capability for the RCN, that it did not have before, hence this Government has expanded the scope of the RCN.

Unless you have information that states otherwise, that lends you this "insight", it is you that is being dishonest.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Smallc]

The government signed a contract for 5 vessels, and 6 if the budget allows.

[Derek 2.0]

The government signed a contract for 5 vessels, and 6 if the budget allows.

No, it signed an incentive based contract for 6, if the program experiences delays or goes over budget, then only 5 will be built, and with that, so to goes Irving's profit..............Now if you have any information to suggest that 6 won't be built, by all means, present it, if not, I expect a retraction of your claim that I'm the one being dishonest.

[Smallc]

The contract, as signed, does not guarantee the delivery of 6 ships. You presented it as if it did. It's a contract for 5 - 6 ships. Hopefully we get 6. We've already lost out on one AOR.

[Derek 2.0]

The contract, as signed, does not guarantee the delivery of 6 ships. You presented it as if it did. It's a contract for 5 - 6 ships. Hopefully we get 6. We've already lost out on one AOR.

No, its an incentive based contract for six ships, the RCN expects six ships (as cited), if you have information to suggest that we will only get 5 ships, by all means, present it.........then we can forward it to the DND, so they can correct their program information from their website.

And no, we didn't lose out on one AOR, per our contract with SEASPAN, we have an option for a third vessel, that the Government can exercise if it deems it a requirement, or keep the interim type from Davie or just run the two Queenston class vessels as is......

My question to you, since you won't be able to support your above statements, is why do you feel we need additional AORs, if we're only actually purchasing 5 AOPS and 8 CSC? Clearly its apart of the force structure envisioned by the Harper Government, in its drive to destroy the RCN.......

[Smallc]

My question to you, since you won't be able to support your above statements, is why do you feel we need additional AORs

I already stated as much. 3 allows for a 99% readiness rate. 2 Leaves us with a 70% readiness rate. Out doctrine is for 100% readiness. 2 AORs doesn't fit that. That's why the original requirement from this government was for 3 ships.

I truly hope that we get 6 ships, but I'm not confident that it will happen given the reality thus far. The idea that we will only get 5 ships come from pretty much every other project so far.

[Derek 2.0]

I already stated as much. 3 allows for a 99% readiness rate. 2 Leaves us with a 70% readiness rate. Out doctrine is for 100% readiness. 2 AORs doesn't fit that. That's why the original requirement from this government was for 3 ships.

Yes, I know that, I've stated as much in this very thread (to you?). It's a good thing then the Government sought an option on a third vessel from SEASPAN, likewise is procuring an interim option on an additional vessel from Davie, in the event that they deem a third vessel as a requirement.

I truly hope that we get 6 ships, but I'm not confident that it will happen given the reality thus far. The idea that we will only get 5 ships come from pretty much every other project so far.

Your confidence maters little, and is devoid of the contractual reality to date. Likewise, other unrelated programs mater little, for if they did, I could state (unfounded like you) that we will actually get extra vessels, since we ended up with an additional Globemaster.........or better yet, because SEASPAN has been awarded additional contracts to build medium endurance utility vessels and offshore patrol vessels for the Coast Guard....

[Smallc]

Yes, I know that, I've stated as much in this very thread (to you?). It's a good thing then the Government sought an option on a third vessel from SEASPAN, likewise is procuring an interim option on an additional vessel from Davie, in the event that they deem a third vessel as a requirement.

We don't have one yet. Other than that, I like your optimism.

Your confidence maters little, and is devoid of the contractual reality to date.

And your's is devoid of reason. We haven't done well so far.

or better yet, because SEASPAN has been awarded additional contracts to build medium endurance utility vessels and offshore patrol vessels for the Coast Guard....

Actually, those additional contracts don't even begin to replace the CCG fleet. They're going to have to add a lot more yet.

[Derek 2.0]

We don't have one yet. Other than that, I like your optimism.

Of course we don't, as the two accidents to our past AORs were unforeseen.

And your's is devoid of reason. We haven't done well so far.

Reason, mine is based on reason and fact.......I don't know what yours is though, since you refuse to state what you base your unfounded opinion on.

Actually, those additional contracts don't even begin to replace the CCG fleet. They're going to have to add a lot more yet.

Were they intended to?

[Smallc]

Of course we don't, as the two accidents to our past AORs were unforeseen.

There was always going to be a gap. They were set to be retired very soon.

Were they intended to?

Of course they weren't. With the timeline we have going though, we're going to have a lot smaller CCG fleet.

[Derek 2.0]

There was always going to be a gap. They were set to be retired very soon.

Source?

Of course they weren't. With the timeline we have going though, we're going to have a lot smaller CCG fleet.

Source?