Shipbuilding contracts

[Guest Derek L]

Like you said, many of those ships will be build in NDP ridings so would the NDP fight the government on this one? And at point I would think common sense would prevail when you see that we have such a long coastline, with a potential requirement for navy presence in the arctic increasing dramatically over the next decade or two cutting the already insufficient numbers would be completely against logic. I don't think even the NDP is obtuse to such a degree as to argue that we can cut the numbers at the same time the RCN's AO will be increasing over the next decade or two. Honestly, if the program is reviewed they might grasp on some straws or minor problems to score some political points against the big bad Conservatives, but if the Government and the CF put out the numbers just like they were required to do for the F-35's the NDP will suddenly fight those numbers as they would be counter productive to their interests.

Well, an NDP or Liberal Government (less likely) could decide we don’t require surface combatants, thus reducing large sums of money, and that a “patrol vessel” built to commercial standards is all that is required for the fleet…….After all, the actual bending of steel isn’t the expensive portion of the program (What you put in it is) and said construction of “patrol vessels” could still be carried out in said ridings……..

As to the Arctic, that’s still a political pipe dream, and if the Navy were smart, would offer up the AOPS to the sacrificial budgetary alter.

[Signals.Cpl]

Well, an NDP or Liberal Government (less likely) could decide we don’t require surface combatants, thus reducing large sums of money, and that a “patrol vessel” built to commercial standards is all that is required for the fleet…….After all, the actual bending of steel isn’t the expensive portion of the program (What you put in it is) and said construction of “patrol vessels” could still be carried out in said ridings……..

Yeah but the ships currently planned if done properly could guarantee jobs in those areas for something like 30 years, and if the government in 20 years time has a brain would keep them employed with more orders when this group of ships comes to be replaced. Building "patrol vessels" would be a short time stint and I don't think the province or the people directly involved would be too happy to lose 20 to 25 years of guaranteed work because of the Liberals or the NDP. When it comes to putting food on the family table ideology comes second as it is less important than feeding the wife and kids.

As to the Arctic, that’s still a political pipe dream, and if the Navy were smart, would offer up the AOPS to the sacrificial budgetary alter.

I don't think the arctic is a political dream, rather its a nightmare for the RCN. Should it become accessible for regular naval vessels for any period of time during the year this would simply stretch the resources of the fleet to cover more area.

[Guest Derek L]

Yeah but the ships currently planned if done properly could guarantee jobs in those areas for something like 30 years, and if the government in 20 years time has a brain would keep them employed with more orders when this group of ships comes to be replaced. Building "patrol vessels" would be a short time stint and I don't think the province or the people directly involved would be too happy to lose 20 to 25 years of guaranteed work because of the Liberals or the NDP. When it comes to putting food on the family table ideology comes second as it is less important than feeding the wife and kids.

Oh, they certainly could build 20+ cheapo patrol boats, spread out over the same time frame.......

I don't think the arctic is a political dream, rather its a nightmare for the RCN. Should it become accessible for regular naval vessels for any period of time during the year this would simply stretch the resources of the fleet to cover more area

It's a dream for one key reason:

The Ice Navigator

Wanna take a stab at how many MARS officers are certified and experienced in operating in the ice?

[Signals.Cpl]

Oh, they certainly could build 20+ cheapo patrol boats, spread out over the same time frame.......

Look at how long it would take to build the new ships to replace our frigates and destroyers, the plan from how I understand it is that they ships would be spread to 3 major shipyards and ill be build over the next 30 years of continuous work. Getting 20,30 or even 50 cheap patrol vessels and trying to stretch it over a 30 year timeframe would not achieve the same goal, either the shipyard will intentionally drag their feet with construction, or the yard will work for a few years, then take some time off and start again. On top of that, should the order be changed, there would be no reason to keep all the orders for those shipyards and thus the yards building the new surface vessels will lose out.

It's a dream for one key reason:

The Ice Navigator

Wanna take a stab at how many MARS officers are certified and experienced in operating in the ice?

Does not matter, what I am saying is that with every passing year the area of operation for the RCN increases as the ice starts to melt. Shrinking the navy while there is more territory to be patrolled and protected with every year is ignorant and criminal at the very least.

[eyeball]

Oh, screw the NDP riding's the RCN and the stupid Arctic.

Train a few Inuit ranger squads to use drones and they can send us a report if they see a boat.

[Guest Derek L]

Look at how long it would take to build the new ships to replace our frigates and destroyers, the plan from how I understand it is that they ships would be spread to 3 major shipyards and ill be build over the next 30 years of continuous work. Getting 20,30 or even 50 cheap patrol vessels and trying to stretch it over a 30 year timeframe would not achieve the same goal, either the shipyard will intentionally drag their feet with construction, or the yard will work for a few years, then take some time off and start again. On top of that, should the order be changed, there would be no reason to keep all the orders for those shipyards and thus the yards building the new surface vessels will lose out.

I don’t want to sound like too much of an asshole, but you don’t know what you’re talking about………The PC government cancelled the planned “improvements” (mk41 VLS) to HMCS Montreal on, to say nothing about the nuke boats that were “in the bag”………Orders and schedules do very much so change and said final designs and contracts for the program won’t be signed for several years, after the next election.

Does not matter, what I am saying is that with every passing year the area of operation for the RCN increases as the ice starts to melt. Shrinking the navy while there is more territory to be patrolled and protected with every year is ignorant and criminal at the very least.

Does not mater? Perhaps you should stick to signals..........No Canadian warship will legally operate in ice without qualified MARS officers. Full Stop. The RCN doesn’t have a cadre of officers qualified to operate in ice. Full Stop. The required corporate knowledge, training and experience to gain such officers will take a decade(s)…………You want to talk about “criminal acts” and I’ll point to the downward trend of all of our allies navies in terms of numbers………The Royal Navy alone has went from over 30 escorts a decade ago to a planned 19.…..The Dutch have halved their combatants and only replaced a portion with “patrol vessels”……..The USN will replace their Spruance & Perry classes with the Little Crappy Ship etc…..

[Wild Bill]

Oh, screw the NDP riding's the RCN and the stupid Arctic.

Train a few Inuit ranger squads to use drones and they can send us a report if they see a boat.

And after they saw a boat, just what would they do? Wave?

[eyeball]

And after they saw a boat, just what would they do? Wave?

Sure, why not?

Afterwards they could contact headquarters who would then call whoever owned the boat. You figure you need a stealth fighter to do that?

[Wild Bill]

Sure, why not?

Afterwards they could contact headquarters who would then call whoever owned the boat. You figure you need a stealth fighter to do that?

"Hey guys! We saw you! Now stop whatever you're doing!"

Yeah, that would work.

[Signals.Cpl]

Sure, why not?

Afterwards they could contact headquarters who would then call whoever owned the boat. You figure you need a stealth fighter to do that?

Since when are frigates considered stealth fighters?

[eyeball]

Since when are frigates considered stealth fighters?

Oh sorry...I might have got the bucket wrong but it's still packing the same old shit.

[Signals.Cpl]

Oh sorry...I might have got the bucket wrong but it's still packing the same old shit.

So your theory is that we should give the Rangers some drones and a radio so that they can call DNDHQ and tell them of anyone entering our territory so that the RCN can do what exactly? Call the Americans and beg for someone to go and chase the bad guy away? We need the new Surface Combat vessels no matter how much you wish that we didn't.

[eyeball]

So your theory is that we should give the Rangers some drones and a radio so that they can call DNDHQ and tell them of anyone entering our territory so that the RCN can do what exactly? Call the Americans and beg for someone to go and chase the bad guy away? We need the new Surface Combat vessels no matter how much you wish that we didn't.

We seem to be getting by just fine without them now. If the trigger-happy shoot-first-ask-questions-later theory you're obviously operating under is anything to go by we'll be the bad guy's.

And I said call the owner of the vessel, which will probably be the White House in any case...

[Signals.Cpl]

We seem to be getting by just fine without them now. If the trigger-happy shoot-first-ask-questions-later theory you're obviously operating under is anything to go by we'll be the bad guy's.

And I said call the owner of the vessel, which will probably be the White House in any case...

We are doing fine without what? The Frigates? Because we have a bunch of those I think 15 Frigates and destroyers so we are doing fine WITH them rather than without them. So is your position that we need to depend on the goodwill of the company/nation which has the ships in the arctic to do the right thing and recall said ship? What about the east coast and west coast? what happens when we need to enforce the laws of Canada in Canadian waters? Or what happens when we need to send a ship in order to help evacuate Canadians from a war zone? What happens then? Ask the Americans for help? If we are going by your logic we might as well disband the CF and just give the Americans the money to protect us. If we cannot protect the Arctic, or the Pacific, or the Atlantic we are not independent, if we cannot protect our citizens and help evacuate them from a war zone we are not independent.

[Wild Bill]

We seem to be getting by just fine without them now. If the trigger-happy shoot-first-ask-questions-later theory you're obviously operating under is anything to go by we'll be the bad guy's.

And I said call the owner of the vessel, which will probably be the White House in any case...

So what we don't know can't hurt us?

Man, it's that kind of thinking that could get my kids killed...

[eyeball]

We are doing fine without what?

The new surface combat vessels you mentioned.

[eyeball]

So what we don't know can't hurt us?

Man, it's that kind of thinking that could get my kids killed...

Aren't you the guy who thinks pairs of shoes dangling from telephone wires are the mark of a street gang?

I can just imagine someone like you in command of a new surface combat vessel or even worse a whole fleet of them.

[Signals.Cpl]

The new surface combat vessels you mentioned.

Because we have the Firgates and Destroyers, we are not looking to get new capabilities, we are looking to replace existing capabilities.

[Signals.Cpl]

Aren't you the guy who thinks pairs of shoes dangling from telephone wires are the mark of a street gang?

I can just imagine someone like you in command of a new surface combat vessel or even worse a whole fleet of them.

Do you thinkg the new ships are so drasticly different to give us some magical superpowers? If the RCN has not gone mad with power having destroyers AND frigates they will not go mad with power have an equal number of frigate type ships.

[Wild Bill]

Aren't you the guy who thinks pairs of shoes dangling from telephone wires are the mark of a street gang?

I can just imagine someone like you in command of a new surface combat vessel or even worse a whole fleet of them.

Apparently, you are the guy who would leave us defenceless and trust to blind luck and the generosity of our allies.

If you are wrong, my children are screwed! I don't care to take that risk. I don't appreciate those who insist that we do when they can do SFA about it if they are wrong.

[eyeball]

Apparently, you are the guy who would leave us defenceless and trust to blind luck and the generosity of our allies.

Meanwhile...

Our government can't sell our natural resources fast enough to the fastest growing dictatorship the planet has ever seen.

[bleeding heart]

Meanwhile...

Our government can't sell our natural resources fast enough to the fastest growing dictatorship the planet has ever seen.

As the man said: "the generosity of our allies" must be rewarded.

[Guest Derek L]

From a few days back:

Canadian shipbuilders fear navy will buy German vessels

Though I don’t necessarily advocate this approach (Specific German designs), the piece is full of bull- stuffing:

Some Canadian shipbuilders are concerned a German design could be the leading contender to replace the navy's aging sea support ships.

The Canadian designer Is putting forth it’s parent companies design for the AOR replacement.

Said design, was created to address the Royal Navies and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries requirements to replace their supply ships………….Hardly a Canadian design, and of the two, the British design is less appropriate (for our Navy) when some of the key requirements (Supplying aircraft carrier and Amphibious task groups) and limitations (designed to be a cog in a vast replenishment fleet, as opposed to a stand alone vessel), to say nothing of building standards (Built to commercial, as opposed to military standards)

The German navy, like ours, is a modern, medium size fleet that requires getting the most out of each individual design.

Since the Second World War, Canada has designed and built its own warships. However, in recent years, the German industry has lobbied the Canadian government to supply designs for frigates, destroyers and new submarines.

Though current German designed submarines would be unsuitable, the German destroyer and frigate designs would be suitable for the RCN and already have Canadian (partial) content incorporated into the design.

Peter Cairns, president of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, said buying an existing foreign design means the Canadian industry loses out.

"You can get vessels off the shelf cheaper," he said.

"[There's] no Canadian input with the exception of the odd piece of pipe."

Cairns said he's concerned the sea support ship contract could signal the demise of a decades-old Canadian design industry.

The Canadian defence industry is already, by and large, subsidiaries of American and European defence conglomerates…………….That ship has already sailed.

[Flueriepoilia]

Croatia is one of the biggest European shipbuilding countries. There are seven large shipyard and few smaller.

ремонт macbook люберцы

[Guest Derek L]

A friend emailed this link and update on the other defence program which will cost many magnitudes more than the F-35:

http://www.merx.com/...i0mqDQF95VuUA==

The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to request

that interested companies provide feedback and recommendations

by way of written response to the questions posed in the RFI

document (please order the associated component; see the link

above). The questions posed are regarding a potential

solicitation for the provision of Independent Third Party

expertise and support to Canada's National Shipbuilding

Procurement Strategy (NSPS) project offices.

Over the coming years, Canada will need to negotiate and manage

several contracts under NSPS: ancillary contracts for

understanding the ship design, engineering contracts for

maturing the ship design, and build contracts for building and

delivering the ships. In anticipation of these contracts,

Canada has identified key areas where the support of an

Independent Third Party Expert would help ensure that Canada

achieves the most equitable, effective, and robust contracts

possible, which contain acceptable levels of risk and provide

value for money. Key areas identified include benchmarking of

industry norms, shipbuilding expertise, and complex negotiation

support. The knowledge and expertise provided by PWGSC and the

Independent Third Party Expert would not overlap. Rather, the

Third Party's contributions would supplement PWGSC's knowledge

and expertise in these areas.

This should be telling to those that suggest Canada should “just design our own fighter aircraft”…………..As this demonstrates, we need “help” building a supply vessel/tanker……….

I wonder why the NDP is not picking up this ball and running with it…………

Edited December 11, 2012 by Derek L