Shipbuilding contracts

[Derek 2.0]

Maybe those very wealthy 25,000 refugees can help pay for them....otherwise, it ain't a gonna happen.

My point exactly.......as it says in the article:

No design has been selected for those vessels and the government has not decided on their intended capabilities. The warning of cost increases so early in development suggests there is some problem other than design.

furthermore:

"In the event of poor shipyard performance off ramps are available," the ministers were told, but the costs of such a major action would vary according to the yard and project affected.

Off ramps such as deciding in the defense review that we're out of the warship business, and that our needs could be met by an equal number of cheaper and less complex cutters.......or better yet, if proven successful, another batch of AOPS vessels awarded to the shipbuilder in lieu of frigates..........the shipbuilders make money, the workers still have jobs, the GoC "saves money" and the navy becomes a coast guard.

[Argus]

If some programs are going to soar upwards of 181% of cost (for simple Coast Guard vessels) how are they going to contend with a similar increase for the frigates? How does a Justin Trudeau Government gain support for building "guided missile style battleships" at ~$26 billion, let alone ~$70 billion?

How is it a company like Irving can bid on this ship building, then pull its pockets inside out, give us a sad face and tell us there's not enough money? If you couldn't do it for that amount then why did you win the contract? It should have gone to the next guy over, who bid higher.

[Derek 2.0]

How is it a company like Irving can bid on this ship building, then pull its pockets inside out, give us a sad face and tell us there's not enough money? If you couldn't do it for that amount then why did you win the contract? It should have gone to the next guy over, who bid higher.

In a perfect World, yes, I agree. With that, I don't know that Irving, Seaspan or Davie would do much better than the others given a crack. There is no doubt, as I've been saying in this thread for years, we will pay a premium for ships built in Canada, and that no Canadian Government (Liberal, Tory or NDP) would build ships overseas...........though most of their reasons would be the political optics involved, on strategic grounds, I feel building the vessels domestically is worth the extra cost.

With that though, the debate becomes actual funding (which as of yet, the Liberals have no additional funds per their fiscal update), ship numbers and the end result capabilities of each vessel. With that, I'm of the opinion, that this Government will eventually build more ships, but said ships will drastically be reduced in capability as a cost cutting measure, as opposed to outright cancellation or a drastic reduction in numbers.......

In other words, absent a huge infusion of money, the Liberal's will manage our navy's decline in capability, versus a Conservative Government that would have managed our decline in numbers (as is the current trend in most of our allies naval numbers).

[bush_cheney2004]

.....With that, I'm of the opinion, that this Government will eventually build more ships, but said ships will drastically be reduced in capability as a cost cutting measure, as opposed to outright cancellation or a drastic reduction in numbers.......

That means per unit costs will only go up, as tooling, fixtures, jigs, testing, etc. development is spread over fewer units for actual Canadian construction. I don't know what percentage of propulsion, power generation, combat systems, or habitability are sourced outside Canada anyway.

[Derek 2.0]

That means per unit costs will only go up, as tooling, fixtures, jigs, testing, etc. development is spread over fewer units for actual Canadian construction. I don't know what percentage of propulsion, power generation, combat systems, or habitability are sourced outside Canada anyway.

Not so, if the Government decided we didn't need 12-15 modern frigates, instead, 12-15 modern cutters, economies of scale wouldn't be affected, just the complexity and expense of modern combat systems.......furthermore, if they just awarded another batch of the AOPS to replace the frigates, they would save even more, as much of the design work is already completed and paid for.

As to your second point, most of said points are sourced overseas or are built by Canadian subsidiaries. If, for example, they decide to go with something along the lines of the USCG's National Security Cutter, they could simply reuse much of the weapons systems off our current frigates (57mm, CWIS etc) to further reduce costs.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not so, if the Government decided we didn't need 12-15 modern frigates,

But if they decide to build 8 frigates instead, they will be more expensive per unit.

As to your second point, most of said points are sourced overseas or are built by Canadian subsidiaries. If, for example, they decide to go with something along the lines of the USCG's National Security Cutter, they could simply reuse much of the weapons systems off our current frigates (57mm, CWIS etc) to further reduce costs.

The savings would not be a direct offset, as other costs would arise (see Liberal's brilliant used submarine fiasco). My main point was that a certain percentage of hull content cost is fixed regardless of where the ships are built. Systems integration in Canada is probably more expensive.

[Derek 2.0]

But if they decide to build 8 frigates instead, they will be more expensive per unit.

Sure, but I doubt this Government, for sake of optics involved, would reduce the actual number of vessels eventually built, just the capability.

The savings would not be a direct offset, as other costs would arise (see Liberal's brilliant used submarine fiasco). My main point was that a certain percentage of hull content cost is fixed regardless of where the ships are built. Systems integration in Canada is probably more expensive.

That's very true, but risks/costs associated with system integration would/could be offset by who we select.

Reusing the current weapons systems already in the fleet, in addition to radars etc would reduce the initial purchase....we already own 12 57mm Bofors, CIWS, harpoon launchers and mk 41 VLS cells, in addition to the fire control radars needed to target them etc..........fitting them into a hull and making them work would come down to who we selected as system integrator.

As such, fitting said systems into the already paid for and developed NSC wouldn't be beyond the scope of reality.

[bush_cheney2004]

...As such, fitting said systems into the already paid for and developed NSC wouldn't be beyond the scope of reality.

But such things rarely go so smoothly. Some of those systems were designed with other platform requirements and design constraints...they are not just plug 'n play to any hull/configuration. Maybe Canada can save some money by building Frankenships...maybe not when all life cycle costs are considered.

[Derek 2.0]

But such things rarely go so smoothly. Some of those systems were designed with other platform requirements and design constraints...they are not just plug 'n play to any hull/configuration. Maybe Canada can save some money by building Frankenships...maybe not when all life cycle costs are considered.

The weapons, not at all.......using the NSC as an example, they currently deploy with the exact same 57mm and CIWS as is used on our current frigates, in addition, the design made provisions for harpoon quad launchers on the stern (the same as currently on our Frigates) and an 8 cell mk41 (what was on our destroyers) launcher on the fo'c'sle for quad-packed ESSM........and the required fire control systems etc.

There is a far cheaper option, in a hull size far cheaper to operate (than our current frigates), that could recycle the weapons from our current frigates, on a design that has far greater range than our current frigates (no need for costly AORs!!), that could perform nearly every mission (likely all) that we've asked of our frigates since they have been in service.

[bush_cheney2004]

....There is a far cheaper option, in a hull size far cheaper to operate (than our current frigates), that could recycle the weapons from our current frigates, on a design that has far greater range than our current frigates (no need for costly AORs!!), that could perform nearly every mission (likely all) that we've asked of our frigates since they have been in service.

Such proposals are big on compromise and short on money to make it happen. I think your original question stands...either Canada is in the combat platform business or it is not. Half-ass solutions are great for peace time !

[Derek 2.0]

Such proposals are big on compromise and short on money to make it happen. I think your original question stands...either Canada is in the combat platform business or it is not. Half-ass solutions are great for peace time !

Don't get me wrong, the NSC would be a huge compromise over survivability and next to zero ASW capability, but there you go.........but, as you pointed out, there is currently no money for combat capable or half-ass......so its a moot point.

[Army Guy]

I think Canadians have to ponder what are our priorities.....having a ship building capability....to which we don't....or Combat ves that can live and breath in a combat environment....

What pisses me off about this whole ship building program.....is how we continue to drop the ball....and when we do pick it up we have to turn something that really was straight forward....replacing ships....turns into a meatball sandwich the size of Ottawa....i think and have always thought that the ship building program would cost a lot more than the conservatives planned for....it seems nobody is living in the reality of this nightmare call equipment replacement....Why is it that Canada has a world reputation for doing everything on the cheap....we cut, slash, every program until some politician decides OK that number sounds right.....DND is tired of saying no to anything, afraid they won't get anything......but after cutting so much capability there soon won't be any capability to cut........maybe 6 newfies in a row boat, armed with a sling shot.....with one guy having props glued to the top of his hat, as we have to represent the airforce in there as well....

Before every brief.....every presentation .....a picture of couple hundred a young sailors should be shown......with a big ass caption below this picture is of a Canadian frigate crew....How much are they're lives worth to you.....

Edited November 27, 2015 by Michael Hardner
spelling of conservatives

[Big Guy]

The Harper Government: mishandling procurement since 2006.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/shipbuilding-procurement-action-plan-1.3336604

This will test the current government's commitment to their promises for the navy and coast guard.

Cancel the program and sped the money on improving Canadian quality of life.

[Smallc]

Cancel the program and sped the money on improving Canadian quality of life.

Whether or not you believe we need a military, we need a CCG for search and rescue, fisheries policing, pollution policing, and research. We need a navy (or something like it) to generally police our coast line.

[Big Guy]

Whether or not you believe we need a military, we need a CCG for search and rescue, fisheries policing, pollution policing, and research. We need a navy (or something like it) to generally police our coast line.

I fully agree. A Canadian "Coast Guard" for search and rescue is needed to protect Canadians from weather problems, smuggling and other typical problems. That does not require anything with first strike capabilities.

[Smallc]

No one is proposing that.

[SpankyMcFarland]

The whole idea to build them in Canada has turned out to be an 'orrible mistake.

I think we need to have something credible up there but a national debate should decide how much. I'd like to see more spending on the military myself.

Edited November 29, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Smallc]

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1022609&tp=980

Everyone is happy, and Trudeau got to blame Harper.

[Derek 2.0]

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1022609&tp=980

Everyone is happy, and Trudeau got to blame Harper.

Sure, and the first military contract signed by this Government was a sole sourced contract, what they howled and screamed about when the Tories did it.........sure, he got to blame Harper, but at the end of the day, Trudeau's convictions were brushed aside for political expediency. (and I'm glad he did it, like his breaking his stupid promise to rush the Syrian refugees)

You've suggested this was a shady deal (absent any proof), do you support the Trudeau Liberal's signing "shady deals"?

-------

For those keeping score at home, this is now Trudeau's fourth broken promise (Online political advertising for refugees, 25k Syrian refugees by years end, pulling out of the F-35 and issuing sole sourced military contracts).........I've heard, they might not actually open up all of the closed VAC offices, since it turns out veterans aren't dying in the streets by having to go into a Service Canada center (often in the same building) instead of the now closed VAC offices......

[Smallc]

The Trudeau government, in their release, eluded to it being a shady deal.

The contrac will cost us money no matter what. There is really no choice but to proceed at this point.

The government gave a very rational explanation for signing. That's the first in a while.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

The Trudeau government, in their release, eluded to it being a shady deal.

The contrac will cost us money no matter what. There is really no choice but to proceed at this point.

The government gave a very rational explanation for signing. That's the first in a while.

They didn't suggest it was a "shady deal", likewise, if it were "shady", they shouldn't have signed the deal and took Davie to court over the cancellation fees............The Trudeau Government either willing signed a "shady deal" or they signed a good deal started under the previous Government, reversing their convictions on sole sourced deals.

[Smallc]

As you said, the deal was already done. The government checked into it and determined that this was the best course for everyone involved at this stage, despite the questionable rule bending that got things to this stage.

[Derek 2.0]

As you said, the deal was already done. The government checked into it and determined that this was the best course for everyone involved at this stage, despite the questionable rule bending that got things to this stage.

What rules were bent? None of course, aligning sole source leasing contracts with those of sole sourced bids, is within the legal purview of the elected Government. Trudeau can blame Harper until he's blue in the face, but the fact is, the Trudeau Government's first defense contract was a sole sourced lease, which flies in the face of their past criticisms of such deals by the previous Government and their promise to do away with said deals.

[Derek 2.0]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nsps-naval-ship-procurement-costs-1.3345435

As I was saying..........with that, a couple of passages don't pass the smell test:

The former official said the navy's requirements would make the vessels among the fastest single hull warships in operation.

Not "fastest" in terms of actual speed, but acceleration, one of many advantages afforded by electric propulsion........

And of course:

The Kearney report is controversial within government. It was paid for by Irving Shipbuilding Inc., the company selected to build combat ships for the navy.

A report paid for by the proposed builder of the vessels, stating they will need double the money to do the job.........perhaps the Government should give Davie a crack at it.......

..........None the less, as I was saying, no new frigates will be selected inside this mandate.

[Big Guy]

All we need is an adequate Coast Guard. We certainly do not need $3 billion attack vessels to attack what and where?

Our next war (which the Americans will start for us) will probably be in the Middle East. Not sure how ships will be used there.

I suggest that if we are serious about first strike capability that we look at nuclear armed missiles.