Shipbuilding contracts

[Guest Derek L]

I doubt that the CSC order would ever be reduced. If anything, the ships themselves could be more capable than any of us expect, given that (despite the $25B combat package) they are allowing up to $26B for just acquisition. Do you know what that buys? Crazy.

Well a Burke is costing ~1.5-1.8 billion per when development costs are factored in……….With our budget of 25 billion by 15 ships, that’s a ~1.6 per ship…….So it does seem like realistic pricing if we stick to off the shelf electronics, armament and propulsion systems.

[Smallc]

Well a Burke is costing ~1.5-1.8 billion per when development costs are factored in

We won't get that (too bad), but can you imagine the capability from 15 Burkes or burke like ships? Canada would have few equals.

Imagine even 15 F100s or F124s.....or 15 type 45s with their Surface to surface weaponry installed.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

We won't get that (too bad), but can you imagine the capability from 15 Burkes or burke like ships? Canada would have few equals.

Imagine even 15 F100s or F124s.....or 15 type 45s with their Surface to surface weaponry installed.

Never know.....The "loser" in the Australian air defence destroyer program:

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_AWD_Gibbs%2BCox_Design_Graphic_lg.jpg

[Smallc]

I guess we'll find out around 2014....it won't happen, but I can dream, right? Love that ship, BTW. The ship they picked is nice too, as are the new Korean designs. Seems that Australia paid a great deal for these ships. I wonder why?

I'm still not sure if we'll get APAR or AEGIS though.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Smallc

[Smallc]

If I had to bet, I'd put my money on 15 FREMM frigates. Then, it won't be AEGIS or APAR.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

I guess we'll find out around 2014....it won't happen, but I can dream, right? Love that ship, BTW. The ship they picked is nice too, as are the new Korean designs. I'm still not sure if we'll get APAR or AEGIS though.

I really doubt we’ll get any current or past designs……when you figure a ten year old design today, built ten years into the future, retiring ~ 30 years after that, anything from today will look rather antiquated….kind of like one of the old steamers today……..

I’m sure the future design will incorporate an integrated, all electric drive power system……If not built with, designed to incorporate electromagnetic rail guns and/or lasers etc, not too mention various unmanned vehicles etc…….

I’d wager on us going with the latest block of Aegis as opposed to APAR, despite our involvement with the project, due to the well established development path and future growth with it from many of our allies navies.

[Smallc]

That's why I'd put money on FREMM, it's new, modular, and fully upgradable with time. The government plans to order the CSC in 3 tranches. They don't expect futuristic technology in the first tranche.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

That's why I'd put money on FREMM, it's new, modular, and fully upgradable with time. The government plans to order the CSC in 3 tranches. They don't expect futuristic technology in the first tranche.

I highly doubt we’ll switch to French/European weapons, electronics, and sensors though…….If we wanted to incorporate American weapons/electronics/sensors etc on a FREMM hull, we’d be paying the development costs on our own………Which if that’s the case, better to just start with a clean sheet……..The FREMM is also just too small, I’ll also wager the size of ship will be closer to the Type 45, if not the Burke…….Bigger ship= greater future development………As for future tech, we shall see what’s incorporated into the flight III Burkes in the next few years.

[Smallc]

Just for clarification, the FREMM is actually larger than our current ships...and I only speculate because I hate to wait. I love ships....and I want them now. :angry:

[Guest Derek L]

Just for clarification, the FREMM is actually larger than our current ships...and I only speculate because I hate to wait. I love ships....and I want them now. :angry:

Sure it is, but the overall trend in warship construction is build bigger....steel is cheap and air is free.......We've learned the lesson first hand with TRUMP and now FELEX.

Don't get me wrong, I love to "dream" also......I'd have split 280/330 replacement, and replaced the 280s with something like the Hyūga class and the rst of the fleet with the proposed AEGIS version of the USS Freedom

[Smallc]

Sure it is, but the overall trend in warship construction is build bigger....steel is cheap and air is free.......We've learned the lesson first hand with TRUMP and now FELEX.

Ah, I think FELEX is rather successful as a stop gap measure, but it would be nice if we went bigger. We may get a somewhat larger ship....and I like surface combatants, so I'm in heaven with this.

[dpwozney]

“Under the shipbuilding procurement strategy, the two winning yards will be eligible to bid on an estimated $35 billion worth of contracts over the next several decades”, according to this October 19, 2011 article by David Pugliese, Postmedia News, Ottawa Citizen.

So there’s still going to be future bidding on an estimated $35 billion worth of contracts?

Future bidding for the Joint Support Ships and the Polar Icebreaker will be limited to just the Vancouver Shipyard owned by Seaspan Marine?

Future bidding for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships and the Canadian Surface Combatants will be limited to just the Halifax Shipyard owned by Irving Shipbuilding?

Final design and prices for many of these ships is still future?

[Smallc]

So there’s still going to be future bidding on an estimated $35 billion worth of contracts?

Yes, but I don't like the term bid in this case. After an umbrella agreement is signed with each yard (hopefully by January), individual contracts can be negotiated, the first being the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, the Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel, and the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels.

Future bidding for the Joint Support Ships and the Polar Icebreaker will be limited to just the Vancouver Shipyard owned by Seaspan Marine?

yes

Future bidding for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships and the Canadian Surface Combatants will be limited to just the Halifax Shipyard owned by Irving Shipbuilding?

yes

Final design and prices for many of these ships is still future?

yes

[dpwozney]

Smallc, thank-you for your informative and helpful replies.

[Smallc]

So, what do you think we should get? What should be on the CSC? Was it the right decision to fit the AOPS with a 25 - 40mm cannon and restrict it to a constabulary role (though it will likely carry a torpedo armed helicopter) instead of a 57mm cannon and making it a combat ship (are cannons even relevant anymore in combat in the age of missiles and long range torpedoes?)? Which ship are you most excited about/ impressed with?

[Guest Derek L]

So, what do you think we should get? What should be on the CSC? Was it the right decision to fit the AOPS with a 25 - 40mm cannon and restrict it to a constabulary role (though it will likely carry a torpedo armed helicopter) instead of a 57mm cannon and making it a combat ship (are cannons even relevant anymore in combat in the age of missiles and long range torpedoes?)? Which ship are you most excited about/ impressed with?

The smaller calibre size for the AOPS is all that is really need for domestic patrols……..A ships gun is still relevant against a myriad of potential threats……..Naval gunfire support for forces ashore, defence against small boats and air defence etc………if anything, I’d expect us to choose a larger calibre (5”) for the new combatants….

[Smallc]

The smaller calibre size for the AOPS is all that is really need for domestic patrols

I'm just asking the question, since you see other, similar vessels fitted with 57 - 76mm cannons. I can't help but wonder, if in 2020, when the AOPS is done construction, and the rest of the Kingston class is set to retire, if we won't see something like the new Canadian designed OPV used in New Zealand enter the fray as a replacement.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 127mm cannons on the CSC, along with some of the 30 mm auxiliary cannons becoming so popular for asymmetrical threats. I, btw, am most excited about the CSC.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm just asking the question, since you see other, similar vessels fitted with 57 - 76mm cannons. I can't help but wonder, if in 2020, when the AOPS is done construction, and the rest of the Kingston class is set to retire, if we won't see something like the new Canadian designed OPV used in New Zealand enter the fray as a replacement.

Well, if as reported, the AOPS are to be based on the Svalbard class, there will be room for the 57mm….so never know

[Smallc]

Well, if as reported, the AOPS are to be based on the Svalbard class, there will be room for the 57mm….so never know

The AOPS, as designed by STX Marine, originally had a 57mm cannon. That will be fitted if the costs work out, but all that is required, according to the design requirements, is a 25mm cannon, and that's what the latest design shots show:

Preliminary design with 57mm cannon and azimuth:

http://dieselduck.blogspot.com/2009/05/aooopps-huh-i-meant-aops.html

Later, cost saving design:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/shipbuilding/

The only reason this concerns me, is that people like the Danes, who will be operating in the same place, have 76mm cannons, I believe....not that we'd be shooting at each other.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Oh, and this is the Protector class OPV, designed by STX Marine...I'd say it would be a nice complement to the AOPS, if 25mm and 12.7mm (the AOPS is supposed to have 2 12.7mm emplacements) is all that is needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMNZS_Wellington.JPG

Edited October 20, 2011 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Apparently, according to Irving, it will be two years, not one, before they can start construction of the AOPS.....

So we'll have Seaspan starting construction on the OOSV and OFSVs in fall 2012, and Irving starting construction of the AOPS in spring 2013.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Smallc

[Smallc]

As well, he said, the federal government has plans for another 17 vessels which should fall under the non-combat sector that are not part of the package awarded Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Jubilation+greets+billion+shipbuilding+contract/5578584/story.html#ixzz1bMhULHhm

I knew it.

So that's 4 - 5 icebreakers, 2 - 3 offshore patrol vessels, 5 large, light icebreaking multitask tenders, and 5 smaller multitask vessels. I'm still not sure if there's a enough money in the $4.1B though. That's about $2.3B for the icebreakers, $.3B for the OPVs, and $1.5B for the multi task vessels. Of course, those vessels shouldn't cost as much as the OOSV and OFSV adjusted or size, given that they won't carry all of the complex scientific equipment.

There's also the possibility that fewer multi task vessels (the non tender ones) will be built, and that there will be more OPVs.

Oh, and:

Seaspan will build the ships in North Vancouver and they will then be towed to Victoria for finishing. On Wednesday, Whitworth said about 80 per cent of the new jobs will be created in North Vancouver, and 20 per cent will be in Victoria.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Ah, I think FELEX is rather successful as a stop gap measure, but it would be nice if we went bigger. We may get a somewhat larger ship....and I like surface combatants, so I'm in heaven with this.

I was just looking over FELEX, and I realized something. The contract is outfitting the Halifax class to operate against more littoral threats, and threats from asymmetrical targets. It seems that DND expects more Libya type situations. The new Harpoon missiles have land attack options and are better than the old ones near shore, and the new 57mm cannons have programmable ammo, and can even be used as a close in weapons system. The radar systems relevant to near shore operations are also being upgrades, as are decoy systems. I wonder if this signals something for the later CSCs going forward (with he first 3 - 5 being more geared at air defence)?

Edited October 20, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Jubilation+greets+billion+shipbuilding+contract/5578584/story.html#ixzz1bMhULHhm

I knew it.

So that's 4 - 5 icebreakers, 2 - 3 offshore patrol vessels, 5 large, light icebreaking multitask tenders, and 5 smaller multitask vessels. I'm still not sure if there's a enough money in the $4.1B though. That's about $2.3B for the icebreakers, $.3B for the OPVs, and $1.5B for the multi task vessels. Of course, those vessels shouldn't cost as much as the OOSV and OFSV adjusted or size, given that they won't carry all of the complex scientific equipment.

There's also the possibility that fewer multi task vessels (the non tender ones) will be built, and that there will be more OPVs.

Oh, and:

I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over the costing……..BC Ferries paid about 180 million per Super C class ferry………With each one being of equal, if not advanced levels of complexity………So that costing sounds about right

[Smallc]

I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over the costing……..BC Ferries paid about 180 million per Super C class ferry………With each one being of equal, if not advanced levels of complexity………So that costing sounds about right

Yeah, all of the ships besides the science ships and the ice breakers should be cheap. Even if we arm the coast guard, as the Conservatives promised, it will probably only be 12.7mm guns on the foredeck, as the training and inshore navy ships in BC are sometimes fitted with.