Shipbuilding contracts

[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==

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…………

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/28/budget_woes_plague_replacement_of_canadas_navy_supply_ships.html

Page’s analysis shows that had the government stuck with the original plan, it would have delivered more capable ships to the navy at less cost than what is now projected.

The budget officer’s report says one of the factors driving the higher cost is the insistence that the ships be built entirely in Canada, something that runs contrary to the defence practices of many other nations.

Among Canada’s major allies, only the United States and Britain design, build and launch their own warships. Britain, however, is expected to use foreign sources for some future construction.

European countries, notably France and the Netherlands, outsource some of their naval construction to lower-cost builders such as Romania and South Korea.

Building in Canada will come with a cost, one that the government doesn’t seem willing to acknowledge, the report suggests.

Both the NDP and the Liberals said the report draws into question the Harper’s often-celebrated national shipbuilding strategy, which promised to deliver at total of 28 warships and coast guard vessels.

Government officials acknowledged in the background briefing that the number of hulls is not fixed.

Well smallc.......I'll wait a couple of more days till your ban is over for comment............

For perspective, the current supply ships (AORs) are essentially fuel tanks, warehouses, machine shops and a dentist office………..And we can’t build two (with an option on a third) for under 2.6 billion (Notice said costs don’t include any form of support) in Canada………..And what will be the result of the many magnitudes more complex destroyer and frigate replacements?

For comparison sakes, the Americans can manage 14 massive Lewis & Clark class stores ships for under 7 billion……….The Australians bought a merchant tanker, and converted (now HMAS Sirius) it in Australian shipyards for under $200 million, well also buying two amphibious assault carriers (bigger then ours and their last aircraft carriers) that started construction in Spain and will be completed in Australia, well also purchasing a fairly new, former Royal Fleet Auxiliary, landing ship for under $5 billion Canadian……..

But by far, the most expensive portion of the Shipbuilding program will be the surface combatant portion to replace the Navy’s surface fleet………with over 1.5 billion budgeted per vessel, for a requirement of 15 ships………..Now if we can’t purchase and build a couple of tankers for 2.6 billion, how likely is it we can purchase 15 modern warships for somewhere between 20-25 billion?

And to contrast further, the Americans currently produce the most capable surface combatant (and one of the largest) in the world, the Arleigh Burke for under 2 billion a copy, with the planned initial Flight III Destroyer going for somewhere between 3-4 billion (with all the non reoccurring costs like development being born on the initial vessel), but further incorporating ballistic missile technology, a more modern version of AEGIS and electric propulsion………….

Here’s the brochure of the RAN’s LHDs:

http://youtu.be/ruiY-RUXtWM

The Spanish also build supply ships and the Destroyers (The RAN is building three)

[bush_cheney2004]

....For perspective, the current supply ships (AORs) are essentially fuel tanks, warehouses, machine shops and a dentist office………..And we can’t build two (with an option on a third) for under 2.6 billion (Notice said costs don’t include any form of support) in Canada………..And what will be the result of the many magnitudes more complex destroyer and frigate replacements?

...But by far, the most expensive portion of the Shipbuilding program will be the surface combatant portion to replace the Navy’s surface fleet……

Didn't somebody around here predict that the shipbuilding program would blow up in Canada's face when subjected to the same scrutiny as the F-35 JSF ? Now I wonder who that was......

[Guest Derek L]

Didn't somebody around here predict that the shipbuilding program would blow up in Canada's face when subjected to the same scrutiny as the F-35 JSF ? Now I wonder who that was......

I wonder who would say such a thing eh?

Just wait till they they include support and operation costs over the projected lifespan(s).............It will land in the hundreds of billions of dollars

As I said previous............I'm still waiting for our promised fleet of nuke attacks boats..........

[bush_cheney2004]

...I wonder who would say such a thing eh?

Too funny....the NDP supporters thought they would get away with it because of domestic shipyard and supplier labour. Fun to watch them squirm just as you predicted.

[Guest Derek L]

Too funny....the NDP supporters thought they would get away with it because of domestic shipyard and supplier labour. Fun to watch them squirm just as you predicted.

It is funny……….And several of the Federal ridings surrounding the yards themselves, populated with blue collar union worker types, happen to be held by the NDP……….

So does the Government outsource for cheaper ships or overpay to produce them locally?

And whatever you do, don’t tell them that Lockheed produces AEGIS

[shortlived]

I actually support the shipbuilding program but I don't really like the choice of ships. I think they should be built modular with the ability to upgrade them, just concertrating on ice breaking hulls, and cargo holds etc.. to act as ferrys, cargos, and ice breakers. but weaponizable.

Like I can't imagine a war that canada will get into that it will need weapons on its ships other than a few odd machine guns and a rocket launcher to scare off the odd fishing trawler from Portugal and Chinese boat people.

Just building up a merchant fleet ability will be far more economical if it actually carries out commercial activities.

they can build their own electronic systems while at sea.

building commercial ice capable hulls is a good industry to start up, highly advisable.

also take into account the cost recovery of building in canada with 10% of costs taken back in corporate taxes, plus the income taxes of people. We just need to insure any stock is held by canadians.

We can keep the old ships with guns and stuff in drydock. or transport them up the Ottawa river to act as floating offices for government service workers, or as hotels for senators and mps so the housing cost stuff can be removed.

You know the boats will just be floating missile targets anyway right, so maybe if they can stand up to packice they can stand up to a missile.

Or perhaps my new "super icebreaker" concept that you make really hard regenerating pack ice on the ships hull via convection to heat the inside of the ship while cooling the outside. Afterall harder ice will break packice right?

Comeon where the hell is the Canadian Navy going to fight a sea war?

I'd do the following. Concentrate on solid hull infrastructure, micronuclear plants capable of incorporating launch systems and THEL/lasers or ballistic rail cannons.

the the crew build the navagation and other systems at cost.

all you need is hull and propulsion, they can build their own quarters, hammocks or what have you. all you need is a microwave not a whole freaken kitchen. Or one microwave for each 10 sailors or something. you know just add water. Or what they catch while trawling or diving. Or the birds they keep onboard.

foreign navies can be envious of the CN for other reasons.

---

yes speaking of decomissioned RCN ships.. the HMCS fraser is a good start that could be used as a parliamentary and public service hotel, and museum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Fraser_%28DDH_233%29

too late perhaps.. but perhaps its not too late for the next one.

Edited March 6, 2013 by shortlived

[Bonam]

Welcome back, William/login

[Signals.Cpl]

Welcome back, William/login

You are right, this is F-35 argument all over again...

[Guest Derek L]

Welcome back, William/login

I called it

[Signals.Cpl]

So are we going to replace the Destroyers and Frigates with thousands pleasure craft and canoes that the MPs will operate in their spare time armed with all sorts of weapons and maintained by people who are voluntold?

[shortlived]

So are we going to replace the Destroyers and Frigates with thousands pleasure craft and canoes that the MPs will operate in their spare time armed with all sorts of weapons and maintained by people who are voluntold?

No, I said move the old ships to Ottawa for use as a parliamentary hotel. I said build a merchant marine, that is make all the ships ice breaker capable and make them able to be upgraded modularly, that is don't pay for weapons systems but insure that energy weapons and rail guns can at a future date be incorporated, likewise don't dump money into American electronics suites instead let the seamen and CFtechnicians (CSE, CFCI etc..) design and build their own systems. (Standard commercial equipment can be build at very low cost) Even GPS-p is just a matter of having the right implementation. The systems are remarkably low cost to build from off the shelf parts. You just need to inbuild EM defences into the ship. I already have what I think is the ideal design in mind based upon future technology not current technology that these ships are built around (and why they are a fail) but also the needs of Canada in 10-20 years with a navigable north west passage and trans arctic trade.

The reason WHY the helicopters and mp flown low cost (eg. under 1 million dollar jets were suggested is because it would cost less than replacing the outgoing challengers, which don't seem to be due to be replaced any time soon.

Both the challenger jet plan and this oceans plan is designed to commercialize the military assets. We don't need just stuff that costs money, we should have a military that can fill commercial roles like cargo transport when it isn't needed for stationary war operations.

Putting money into a combat only military is just committing money to be flushed down the toilet.

Canada will have a passage from pacific to atlantic as well as canada to russia. Edited March 7, 2013 by shortlived

[Guest Derek L]

So are we going to replace the Destroyers and Frigates with thousands pleasure craft and canoes that the MPs will operate in their spare time armed with all sorts of weapons and maintained by people who are voluntold?

Didn't you read his post several pages back?

[Signals.Cpl]

Didn't you read his post several pages back?

I stopped reading his posts days ago...

[Guest Derek L]

I stopped reading his posts days ago...

I thought that was where you got the hotel canoes from

[Signals.Cpl]

I took our F35 conversation and replaced planes with ships boats and voila...

[Guest Derek L]

I took our F35 conversation and replaced planes with ships boats and voila...

Ahh, he had one post, perhaps not is this thread, where he listed dozens of links to online dealers selling everything from Yachts and MIGs to unicycles

[Signals.Cpl]

Ahh, he had one post, perhaps not is this thread, where he listed dozens of links to online dealers selling everything from Yachts and MIGs to unicycles

That was the "discussion" about MPs learning to fly armed planes to save on the cost of the pilots and so forth...

[Guest Derek L]

That was the "discussion" about MPs learning to fly armed planes to save on the cost of the pilots and so forth...

I must be going senile.........Where did the flying monkeys and Imperial Star Destroyers fit in?

[Signals.Cpl]

I must be going senile.........Where did the flying monkeys and Imperial Star Destroyers fit in?

Right behind the MiGs but before the yachts...

[shortlived]

I'm just dumbfounded that the cost per ship is ~1.67 Billion to build I bet 5 f35s could sink one.

Edited March 7, 2013 by shortlived

[Smallc]

Here's my comment - I've given up on the Harper government keeping any of their promises to to the military. They've cut funding before the beginning of some of the most needed work (the replacement of FWSAR, AOR, CSC, and others that I'm probably forgetting). I'm not optimistic about the future of the navy in particular.

[Guest Derek L]

The navy will eventually get replacements, either at reduced capability or reduced numbers……….but they will get something, the glimmer of hope that I have from the recent announcement:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/07/navy_upgrade_ottawa_announces_deal_to_design_of_arctic_patrol_ships.html

He said several subcontractors would also be involved and a Danish engineering and naval architectural firm, Odense Maritime Technology, has been contracted to do the design because the Halifax shipyard lacked the necessary expertise.

It also fails to mention that Irving will also be drawing upon General Dynamics......And Lockheed for the ship's electronics.........What does this mater?

GD builds Arleigh Burkes with Lockheed's AEGIS.....

[Smallc]

It's funny that they're drawing on, at this point, expertise from both AEGIS and APAR users. I would expect us to now get ships numbering 6 AOPS (we shouldn't be doing this anymore, IMO, or the CCG should get them), 2 AORs, and 12 CSC. That's not necessarily bad though, considering it's a trend with navies world wide.

[Guest Derek L]

It's funny that they're drawing on, at this point, expertise from both AEGIS and APAR users. I would expect us to now get ships numbering 6 AOPS (we shouldn't be doing this anymore, IMO, or the CCG should get them), 2 AORs, and 12 CSC. That's not necessarily bad though, considering it's a trend with navies world wide.

Well the Danes certainly make some valid considerations (Absalon & Iver Huitfeldt) for the surface combatant portion, I think the recent announcement in relation to the AOPS, will look to channel more of the Thetis class OPV……

[shortlived]

That was the "discussion" about MPs learning to fly armed planes to save on the cost of the pilots and so forth...

Nope you got it wrong that was the cost of transporting MPs and ministers, and other government officials by replacing challenger jets with small personal aircraft that cost 1/200th to 1/500th of the cost to buy and operate.

The arming part was only using bomarc missiles as an area effect against any type of invasion or large scale attack.

Many planes and missiles is far more effective against a mass launch than 50 planes based at 2-3 points in Canada

You don't need fast planes, you need fast missiles or energy weapons.

The light personal jets were a solution for challenger replacement not cf18 replacement although 1 or 2 f35s would be sacrified to fund the program for 400 or so jets and second hand aircraft like helicopters and turboprops to be leased for commercial purposes such as air cargo and flight training amongst small scale transport.

for cf 18 replacement, was to be done with a variant CF-18 with an autoflight and remote flight function amongst other tweaks which could be physically engaged. via a physical bridge, rafale for eastern Canada and quebec, and eventually f35's or their successors or something like the j31 when the programs mature in 5-10years.

The personal jets and other craft would be used primarily for Canadian Domestic flights, while the remaining challengers would be used in concert with commercial flights where available or non emergency in nature (of course it would be on economy flights not VIP/ business or first class as ministers often use.)

military personnel would use military jets and civilian and military flights would only intermingle during emergencies.

some deployments of personnel overseas would be done through commercial flights were available.

Only equipment transfers or emergency operations might require military aircraft. However civllian government should be use to flying economy class while the government has a debt.

Its ultra contemptuous for a company running year on year losses for 10 years while also being in debt hundreds of billions of dollars would be so thieving as to live in luxury while they drain money from the taxpayers. If they want luxury and VIP treatment they should pay for it out of their generous salaries (generous for incompetents)

This navy issue though, needs to address the realities of the future. A strong arctic capable merchant marine with the ability weaponize at a future date.

This buy really expensive equipment that can be built for a fraction of the cost BS is nonsense, get technicians to build it, stop paying prices garnered by IP blockades. Build the tech by techs, get our ship builders to be able to build arctic capable hulls and equipment, that's all you need. aside from ships able to intergrate energy weapons, perhaps super caviated torpedos and some supermachine gun mounts. Canada doesn't need big ships it needs small craft capble of performing in the arctic as well as in the great lakes which could act as ferry boats or inter great lake cargos, plus cargoes. Some boats that can operate on the mississipi might be good too.

Big ships are big targets.

The only big ships should be freighters/cargos able to be converted into use as helipads and aircraft carriers. That way they can earn their keep and still be used for emergencies.

These acquisitions should not be looked at from a solely military standpoint, they should primarily integrate the commercial use and secondary military function. The key is instilling in the CF/navy an ability to build and maintain its own electronic systems. Also rolling the navy into the coast guard should also occur, perhaps just calling them Maritime Forces, if deployed outside Canada they could be called NAVY and if deployed within Canadian seas Coast Gaurd.

ex.

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/marpac/0/0-w_eng.asp

This merchant marine aspect would provide much better global deployment of Canadian forces to points of economic interest to Canadians by default.

Edited March 11, 2013 by shortlived