Shipbuilding contracts

[bush_cheney2004]

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

Like that's gonna happen ?

If Canada is too cheap to fund basic military platforms, it sure as hell will not pay for nuclear capable missiles, warheads, and platforms to launch them. Canada has been much happier to supply the United States, United Kingdom, India, and Pakistan with uranium instead !

[Derek 2.0]

Like that's gonna happen ?

If Canada is too cheap to fund basic military platforms, it sure as hell will not pay for nuclear capable missiles, warheads, and platforms to launch them. Canada has been much happier to supply the United States, United Kingdom, India, and Pakistan with uranium instead !

Exactly, in context of shipbuilding, the Royal Navy's nuclear deterrent will cost roughly the same as the planned program for high speed rail from England to Scotland.........or better put, more than any current planned defense programs for Canada......lots of money for only a 180 warhead arsenal.

[bush_cheney2004]

The procurement comedy just keeps on rolling.....new ships are gonna cost a lot more than planned to nobody's surprise:

The price of 15 new warships for the navy has more than doubled, from $14 billion initially set aside for construction to more than $30 billion, says an independent analysis of the largest military procurement in Canadian history.

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

Ships...planes...helos...it doesn't matter. Same script is repeated over and over again.

[On Guard for Thee]

The procurement comedy just keeps on rolling.....new ships are gonna cost a lot more than planned to nobody's surprise:

The price of 15 new warships for the navy has more than doubled, from $14 billion initially set aside for construction to more than $30 billion, says an independent analysis of the largest military procurement in Canadian history.

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

Ships...planes...helos...it doesn't matter. Same script is repeated over and over again.

Like the bomb truck script?

[Argus]

The problem with building these ships in Canada is we have no expertise in either the design or the construction. The ship builders don't have the people or the gear. All the tooling up, the hiring and training, the designing, all adds up to an incredible amount of money. And that money is not for "defense". Let's not kid ourselves. If all we wanted were frigates or destroyers the Americans could sell them to us for half the cost, probably less. They already have the experienced people, equipment and shipyards.

All those billions and billions of extra costs are for pleasing local voters around the ship yards, for 'regional economic expansion' or various other reasons. But it's not because we need ships.

[The_Squid]

The Harper government severely underestimated the costs of building the ships...

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-harpers-shipbuilding-strategy-is-coming-apart-at-the-seams

The Harper legacy... no ships... no planes.... and costs that are ballooning out of control.

[Derek 2.0]

The Harper government severely underestimated the costs of building the ships...

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-harpers-shipbuilding-strategy-is-coming-apart-at-the-seams

The Harper legacy... no ships... no planes.... and costs that are ballooning out of control.

Odd that you cite a dated article, the very same day the head of the RCN lays the blame on:

On Wednesday, Norman offered an explanation for the budget trouble. He said it flowed from a lack of professional capacity and maturity across the shipbuilding sector in Canada, from Navy officials, to procurement bureaucrats right on down to the shipbuilders.

------

None the less, the CBC interview touches upon several points I made several years ago in this thread:

From the CBC:

"As soon as we start throwing numbers around, those numbers become the gospel or the focus of the discussion," Norman said. "We had concerns all along. Obviously the concerns were less acute in 2008 and 2009, when the locking-down process, if you will, was fresh, the ink was drying on that. But as we've gone forward, you know, we've had real concerns."

That's because those locked-in prices end up acting as a kind of budget cap. They also act as a limit on capability.

Contrasted with what I said just over two years ago:

Where I do find potential for trouble is that the Government has appeared to have fixed the price for each ship prior to having a mature design, as opposed to a more traditional method of building the first vessel “cost plus” and identifying areas of savings for the follow on ships of the class. In essence, setting a fixed price, prior to a mature design will only lead to cost increases and in turn, less ships for the same amount of money……..Case in point, the reduction in numbers from 4 to 2 AOR…..or the promise to build “6-8” AOPS…….

And the result, per the CBC:

That leads to the possibility Canada could end up with fewer ships, or less capable ships, or ships that cost much more. It's a kind of balancing act done while perched atop a three-legged stool, with the goal being to provide enough ships capably equipped to defend the nation.

Contrasted with my comments from several years ago:

As to going forward, there are four ways that the program can play out:

1. Add more money. This is not a palatable option currently, but once the more expensive portion (the surface combatants) starts, we’ll be closer to the end of this decade, which coincides with larger forecasted surpluses.

2. Reduce the capabilities of the planned vessels, but not sacrifice ship numbers. Though this option would be detrimental to the navy in a great many ways, it would save on the production and potentially a portion of the support costs.

3. Build less vessels for the budgeted funds, well maintaining the required capabilities the Navy needs, this would reduce (depending on numbers) the operational capability of our Navy, but depending on the size of reduction, could place a significant reduction on long term operational costs. This option for a great many Western Powers is the most “popular” as confirmed by the reduction of fleet sizes within NATO.

4. Build the ships offshore in an established shipyard(s). This, combined with selecting a “off the shelf design” could result in significant savings in the acquisition price, well doing little for the long term support cost, but reduce our strategic ability to nil for building and repairing ships. This could be catastrophic if we later had a falling out with the nation that built our ships, to say nothing about the political ramifications of “outsourcing” Canadian jobs. I highly doubt this would ever happen.

I'll wait by the phone for the Government to offer me the position of procurement Czar.......

[Smallc]

Doesn't this just seem like a smarter way to do things:

The new Liberal government has moved to reform Canada's costly National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, promising a new system to evaluate costs, launch quarterly public updates and provide annual reports to Parliament.

So we'll always know what's going on. For an information junkie like me, this is huge.

Public Services Minister Judy Foote is also hiring a shipbuilding expert to advise the government, filling a gap in expertise in her department, tasked with managing the massive multibillion-dollar ship program, CBC News has learned.

And if this program has been ongoing since 2009, why is there still a gap?

In an indication of how swiftly the government intends to move to repair the shipbuilding program, the government is expecting to begin its interviews of experts as soon as Friday.

More evidence that the government takes this very seriously.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-shipbuilding-irving-1.3347779

[Derek 2.0]

Doesn't this just seem like a smarter way to do things:

No, as the hiring of a six figure bureaucrat doesn't equate to the shipyards building capable vessels faster and/or cheaper.

[Smallc]

No, as the hiring of a six figure bureaucrat doesn't equate to the shipyards building capable vessels faster and/or cheaper.

So the less expertise the better, then?

[Derek 2.0]

So the less expertise the better, then?

Yes and no......an expert would tell them, if they wanted to build the vessels the RCN requires for the budget allocated, to build them in Poland/South Korea/Maine etc.........or, if they want to build the vessels the RCN requires, in the numbers they require, in Canada, to "double the budget".

I can't see the Liberals doing either, hence said expert will do little.

[Smallc]

I can't see the Liberals doing either, hence said expert will do little.

And yet their words, platform, and deeds thus far say the exact opposite of your constant (negative) assertions. One thing is certain (as I've been saying for over a year). The Conservatives really made a mess of this.

[bush_cheney2004]

... The Conservatives really made a mess of this.

Repeating that partisan observation does not a ship make. The Conservatives were Canadian, no ?

[DogOnPorch]

What burns me is that Egypt (LOL) bought the two Mistrals that could have been the core of a brand new modern Canadian Navy. Nice to know even Egypt can kick our butts.

[Derek 2.0]

And yet their words, platform, and deeds thus far say the exact opposite of your constant (negative) assertions. One thing is certain (as I've been saying for over a year).

Has the Government suggested they will increase the budget.......

The Conservatives really made a mess of this.

Odd that the head of the RCN didn't blame them.......you know something he doesn't?

[Smallc]

Repeating that partisan observation does not a ship make.

Neither does repeating the process thus far.

What an expert and a refining of process can bring clarity.

It can tell us what we can build with the money allocated and what is needed to build what we want. Reality, as always, will lie somewhere in the middle. Finding out how much money we need and what we can buy for with a realistic, outside, expert interpretation seems like a smart idea at this point.

It may mean a rethink of the Canadian Surface Combatant. Does Canada really need AAD (each AAD frigate will cost about $3B)? Considering what Canada does with its navy, should we buy 6 frigates and 9 corvettes, or light frigates?

What I'm almost certain of is that the single OOSV will go ahead with an increased budget, as needed.

[bush_cheney2004]

What burns me is that Egypt (LOL) bought the two Mistrals that could have been the core of a brand new modern Canadian Navy. Nice to know even Egypt can kick our butts.

It's just so sad....I do not know this Canada.

[Smallc]

What burns me is that Egypt (LOL) bought the two Mistrals that could have been the core of a brand new modern Canadian Navy. Nice to know even Egypt can kick our butts.

There are far more pressing concerns - namely the JSS and about 3/4 of the CCG.

[bush_cheney2004]

...It can tell us what we can build with the money allocated and what is needed to build what we want. Reality, as always, will lie somewhere in the middle. Finding out how much money we need and what we can buy for with a realistic, outside, expert interpretation seems like a smart idea at this point.

More of the same....anything but actual keels being laid...steel being cut. Build ships....not excuses !

[DogOnPorch]

It's just so sad....I do not know this Canada.

Your navy is tres impressive. Why Canada can slip a few billions your way for proper ships 'n subs is beyond me.

[Derek 2.0]

What burns me is that Egypt (LOL) bought the two Mistrals that could have been the core of a brand new modern Canadian Navy. Nice to know even Egypt can kick our butts.

Did Saudi Arabia offer to front the money? Last estimate I heard, the cost to relabel the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet on each vessel was approaching $15 million per.......and in the 100s of millions to rewire both vessels to North American voltages.......no thanks.

[DogOnPorch]

There are far more pressing concerns - namely the JSS and about 3/4 of the CCG.

They were just sitting there at fire-sale prices...slipped away. Now a third rate dictatorship with ties to terrorism has 'em. Well done, Canada.

[DogOnPorch]

Did Saudi Arabia offer to front the money? Last estimate I heard, the cost to relabel the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet on each vessel was approaching $15 million per.......and in the 100s of millions to rewire both vessels to North American voltages.......no thanks.

Canada's can't-do attitude is legendary.

[Derek 2.0]

It may mean a rethink of the Canadian Surface Combatant. Does Canada really need AAD (each AAD frigate will cost about $3B)? Considering what Canada does with its navy, should we buy 6 frigates and 9 corvettes, or light frigates?

Not if we're to become a coast guard.........like I was saying.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your navy is tres impressive. Why Canada can slip a few billions your way for proper ships 'n subs is beyond me.

No way...is Canada not a seafaring nation ? Build ships I say...build them now...on budget if possible...but always fine ships !