Canada's screwed up warship competition

[Argus]

So this is a report from the congressional budget office saying the new US program for frigate is going to cost more than the navy says it will. The navy thinks they'll got $8.7 billion for ten new frigates. But the CBO thinks it will be more like $12.3 billion - or US$1.2 billion per ship.

Meanwhile, Canada's frigates are expected to cost approximately US$4.35 billion apiece. Assuming they ever get built, which is seeming more doubtful by the day.

 

 

[Aristides]

On 3/2/2021 at 7:50 AM, Argus said:

So this is a report from the congressional budget office saying the new US program for frigate is going to cost more than the navy says it will. The navy thinks they'll got $8.7 billion for ten new frigates. But the CBO thinks it will be more like $12.3 billion - or US$1.2 billion per ship.

Meanwhile, Canada's frigates are expected to cost approximately US$4.35 billion apiece. Assuming they ever get built, which is seeming more doubtful by the day.

 

 

Interesting that they are being built by Fincantieri in Italy. It is  also based on the FREMM which we rejected. It is also intended for fleet air defence, not an all rounder.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Aristides

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Interesting that they are being built by Fincantieri in Italy. It is  also based on the FREMM which we rejected. It is also intended for fleet air defence, not an all rounder.

It's being built by Fincantieri in America. They offered us a larger version at a locked in total cost of $30 billion.  So tell me, are our 15 worth more than the 30 we could have had built by Fincantieri?

[Aristides]

25 minutes ago, Argus said:

It's being built by Fincantieri in America. They offered us a larger version at a locked in total cost of $30 billion.  So tell me, are our 15 worth more than the 30 we could have had built by Fincantieri?

How would I know?

[Argus]

21 hours ago, Aristides said:

How would I know?

You seemed to be speaking authoritatively.

Apparently not.

 

[Aristides]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

You seemed to be speaking authoritatively.

Apparently not.

 

The Type 26 is a larger more capable ship. Is it worth that much more? Some countries think so. Is it what we need? Would we be better off with a mix of larger and smaller ships? I don’t know.

Edited March 5, 2021 by Aristides

[Army Guy]

8 hours ago, Aristides said:

The Type 26 is a larger more capable ship. Is it worth that much more? Some countries think so. Is it what we need? Would we be better off with a mix of larger and smaller ships? I don’t know.

Yes and all those nations involved in this project are building them for far less than we are, number one reason is the ship building program is not about building Warships, or preserving our industry, which for the most part is gone already, It is all about putting people to work, and spreading tax payers dollars around the nation... and like everyone else on the planet once you find out it is a government program with billions attached to it, a 45 dollar hammer now cost 1500.00 becasue it is expected to take the government for a ride...

Maybe it is time we sent Canadians and their companies  a message the gravy boat is shipped out, cancel the whole project, have all our ships built overseas, every one of them... 

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Yes and all those nations involved in this project are building them for far less than we are, number one reason is the ship building program is not about building Warships, or preserving our industry, which for the most part is gone already, It is all about putting people to work, and spreading tax payers dollars around the nation... and like everyone else on the planet once you find out it is a government program with billions attached to it, a 45 dollar hammer now cost 1500.00 becasue it is expected to take the government for a ride...

Maybe it is time we sent Canadians and their companies  a message the gravy boat is shipped out, cancel the whole project, have all our ships built overseas, every one of them... 

True but others would say, most of that money is staying in Canada and quite a bit will come back to government in the form of taxes. If they are built offshore, every penny will be leaving the country. It would be interesting to know what the net effect of these projects is to the economy.

[Army Guy]

19 minutes ago, Aristides said:

True but others would say, most of that money is staying in Canada and quite a bit will come back to government in the form of taxes. If they are built offshore, every penny will be leaving the country. It would be interesting to know what the net effect of these projects is to the economy.

Your right it would be sending our tax dollars to another country, let me ask you this when you buy products do you search to see where they are made, is your top decision making factor is it "made in Canada" or is your top interest in getting a good to fair product for cheap.  

What we are talking about is hand outs to an industry that allowed itself to collapse, or rather the Canadian people allowed it to collapse, you've already stated Canadians are not interested in defense spending... Hence ship building in Canada would be like making igloos in Florida,  Irving ship yards know this, and yet they are some how self proclaimed as experts... not any more their so call experts have moved on, to ship yards that build real ships, and naval vessels of war... and to gather all of that takes dollars one that these companies are all to happy to pass on to the consumer, us the taxpayer....

And it would be interesting to know the bottom dollar, myself am skeptical , just spent 400 bil this year our economy should be booming , but it's not, the end sate is we are left a huge debt for future generations.

[Argus]

46 minutes ago, Aristides said:

True but others would say, most of that money is staying in Canada and quite a bit will come back to government in the form of taxes. If they are built offshore, every penny will be leaving the country. It would be interesting to know what the net effect of these projects is to the economy.

The French-Italian consortium offered to build them here in Canada.

[Aristides]

25 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Your right it would be sending our tax dollars to another country, let me ask you this when you buy products do you search to see where they are made, is your top decision making factor is it "made in Canada" or is your top interest in getting a good to fair product for cheap.  

What we are talking about is hand outs to an industry that allowed itself to collapse, or rather the Canadian people allowed it to collapse, you've already stated Canadians are not interested in defense spending... Hence ship building in Canada would be like making igloos in Florida,  Irving ship yards know this, and yet they are some how self proclaimed as experts... not any more their so call experts have moved on, to ship yards that build real ships, and naval vessels of war... and to gather all of that takes dollars one that these companies are all to happy to pass on to the consumer, us the taxpayer....

And it would be interesting to know the bottom dollar, myself am skeptical , just spent 400 bil this year our economy should be booming , but it's not, the end sate is we are left a huge debt for future generations.

I do look to see where things are made and made in Canada is a big factor when I buy something. We can't bitch about things being offshored if we aren't willing to support our own industries.

[Aristides]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

The French-Italian consortium offered to build them here in Canada.

By who? Irving?

[Army Guy]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I do look to see where things are made and made in Canada is a big factor when I buy something. We can't bitch about things being offshored if we aren't willing to support our own industries.

Your one of a few people in Canada sir, and i applaud you for your efforts, i wish we could all be disciplined to do so, but unfortunately most Canadians price is the deciding factor... All of this could be over come if the government just said OK 60 BIL for 15 ships, but what is the requirement is it 15, i ask because that was based on a 19 bil project, how many do we really need ? how many are we going to get out of that 15 when the price balloons over 60 bil...or better yet what capabilities will each ship have when it is all done.. because the money is going wasted here, but the only compromise is going to be numbers of ships and capabilities...

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Your one of a few people in Canada sir, and i applaud you for your efforts, i wish we could all be disciplined to do so, but unfortunately most Canadians price is the deciding factor... All of this could be over come if the government just said OK 60 BIL for 15 ships, but what is the requirement is it 15, i ask because that was based on a 19 bil project, how many do we really need ? how many are we going to get out of that 15 when the price balloons over 60 bil...or better yet what capabilities will each ship have when it is all done.. because the money is going wasted here, but the only compromise is going to be numbers of ships and capabilities...

I don't know how many we will need. It depends on our commitments to our allies and whatever arrises on our own coasts in future. The best weapon is the one you never have to use. I'm pretty sure money will be wasted no matter who builds them.

[SpankyMcFarland]

When the inevitable cost overruns rear their ugly heads in these projects, foreign companies from allied nations are a lot easier to keep in line than local oligarchs with political connections everywhere. Having them built here is preferable in many ways but, again, it has the disadvantage that the government may have to demand cutbacks to the program, including job losses, in Canada itself, something politicians hate doing. 

Edited March 6, 2021 by SpankyMcFarland

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, Aristides said:

I don't know how many we will need. It depends on our commitments to our allies and whatever arrises on our own coasts in future. The best weapon is the one you never have to use. I'm pretty sure money will be wasted no matter who builds them.

That is part of the problem with our procurement today, is very little of these decisions are made by DND. yes, they make up the specs they are looking for, the recommend how many, and what wpn systems are placed inside, but the KEY word is RECOMMEND... every other detail is decided by public service, and the ruling party. If Justin decided we needed 20 row boats thats what DND would get and that decision would be based on what exactly, certainly not knowledge of the equipment , or how it is going to be used, nor expertise in the field...

The government places more weight on , how much off set is the company going to spend in Canada, how many Canadians are employed and how much of the product is made in Canada, How much does it cost and how cheap can we buy it for... Quality does not count AT, all how many votes can we generate, and where are those votes generated... mean while what does not place high on the list is how effective is it on the battle field, will it survive an engagement with near peer hostile nations, will it save soldiers lives, in other words military concerns are put to the rear....

Just take a look at the Armies latest buy of the TAPV, that was suppose to be a cheaper more cost effective vehicle to supplement  the LAV 6.0 as there is not enough of them for all units that have them to be fully up to their table of equipment (TOE). Most units have only 2 companies of Lav's , but 3 rifle companies, and a combat support company.  LAV 6.0 carries 3 crew, and up to 8 soldiers. TAPV has crew of 3 and carries 1 soldier, One would think well they must have ordered a lot of them to make up for the LAV 6.0, NO they were ordered to replace shortfalls vehicle for vehicle....so the other 7 soldiers in the section get carried to the battle field by rented school busses... This is not a one of event this happens all the time... 

Do i believe that there should be control over every tax dollar spent, YES, i think the Military should tell the government  we need 100 tanks, and fully explain to the defense committee the 5 w's, DND would say they cost this much... parliament grants what ever dollar value they want to, contract is then let. Next year the process starts all over again... This puts the type of equipment and how many they need in DND hands, parliament controls how much money is spent... off sets and made in Canada, by Canadians do not come in to the equation until the end, and are not at the top but rather  a bonus if they can be meant...

The reason our procurement does not work for buying any departments equipment is it is designed to work that way, it is designed not to buy stuff, but rather make the process so difficult it takes years of red tape... there have been several examples of how the government can purchase things in a timely manner.  C-17 for instance, or Vaccines, we know it can be done, so why is it so difficult...because they want it that way..   

[Argus]

So while Canada has spent much of the last twenty years struggling to decide what new frigate it wants, how much it will cost, where it will be built and who will build it China has been building a modern, blue-water fleet with hundreds of ships.

The modernization of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has resulted in a growth in fleet size and capabilities. Research conducted by RAND suggests that China’s surface fleet in 1996 consisted of 57 destroyers and frigates, but only three of these vessels carried short-range surface-to-air missiles (SAM), making them virtually “defenseless against modern anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM).” Three quarters of its roughly 80 attack submarines belonged to the Soviet Romeo-class that entered service in the 1950s.

Over the last few decades, China’s navy has rapidly expanded. As of 2019, the Chinese Navy consisted of 335 ships, making it larger than the 296 vessels comprising the deployable battle force of the US Navy.1 The fleet sizes of other leading nations are comparatively smaller. The British Royal Navy consists of 75 ships and the Royal Australian Navy has a fleet of 45 ships.

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-naval-modernization/

[Argus]

Given the absurdly escalating costs of the frigates, they may never be built. Especially given the lack of enthusiasm the Liberals have for spending money on the military, and the huge deficit we're now operating under.

First, these ships are unaffordable. The PBO estimates that it will cost $77.3 billion to acquire the 15 CSC. Using DND’s own cost factors, the costs to maintain these ships over their expected 30-year life would amount to an additional $208 billion, for a total life-cycle cost of $286 billion. In comparison, the funds available in DND’s budget over the next 30 years to acquire and maintain its capital goods for the army, navy and air force combined is only $240 billion. This program alone would bankrupt the department’s capital and maintenance accounts for the next 30 years.

Second, this program comes closer to providing “worst value” than “best value.” As one example, the U.S. recently concluded a competition for its Navy Constellation class (FFG-62). These ships are multi-mission guided-missile frigates, directly comparable to the CSC. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of the 10 FFG-62 ships would be $12.3 billion or about $1.2 billion U.S. per ship. This equates to approximately $1.56 billion Cdn per ship, or $23.4 billion for 15 ships – one-third of Canada’s cost to build the CSC.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/williams-under-this-plan-canadas-new-warships-will-never-be-built/ar-BB1f54gX?ocid=BingNewsSearch

[PIK]

Whoever is the best ship builder in the west world, order the ships. Jobs are important, but so are the ships.

[PIK]

I understand we blew 238B on 15- 17 yr Olds, so spend the money and buy the ships.

[Army Guy]

Here is something the liberals are keeping from Canadians, remember the F-35 program had to be costed out to 25 years, in a recent article DND has estimated over 25 years those ships will cost 240 bil, and what shocks me is it never even made headline news...it also said that the new PBO cost estimates are now 84 bil for 15 ships and they are rising every day they are not building ships.. 

Remember this ship building project also includes ships for Coast Guard as well and we stil have not seen estimate for these ships...anyone still think we should build them in Canada, yes we are putting some people to work, but how many people 3000 maybe for 84 bil dollars, is that worth that kind of cost... i think we are just putting valuable tax payers money in the pockets of the mega rich Irving's ... who really have never built a good quality ship, ask the guys that work in the refir workshops, some are standard other metric some have both fasteners, in some cases cheap material was used, or material not to code or military grade... Although i really like the type 26 design and capabilities, i think Argus has a valid point, have the US build them, spend a little more and get the same or better capabilities than the 26 for much cheaper... 

The navy is now scared shitless of capabilities being cut to save on funds, also a cut in numbers. They must being getting these rumors from some place. 

[Aristides]

7 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Here is something the liberals are keeping from Canadians, remember the F-35 program had to be costed out to 25 years, in a recent article DND has estimated over 25 years those ships will cost 240 bil, and what shocks me is it never even made headline news...it also said that the new PBO cost estimates are now 84 bil for 15 ships and they are rising every day they are not building ships.. 

Remember this ship building project also includes ships for Coast Guard as well and we stil have not seen estimate for these ships...anyone still think we should build them in Canada, yes we are putting some people to work, but how many people 3000 maybe for 84 bil dollars, is that worth that kind of cost... i think we are just putting valuable tax payers money in the pockets of the mega rich Irving's ... who really have never built a good quality ship, ask the guys that work in the refir workshops, some are standard other metric some have both fasteners, in some cases cheap material was used, or material not to code or military grade... Although i really like the type 26 design and capabilities, i think Argus has a valid point, have the US build them, spend a little more and get the same or better capabilities than the 26 for much cheaper... 

The navy is now scared shitless of capabilities being cut to save on funds, also a cut in numbers. They must being getting these rumors from some place. 

Not buying the F-35 was a Liberal campaign tactic so anything that made it look more expensive was good. The frigate aquisition is a Liberal project so the opposite is true.

[Army Guy]

According to the news release, they are also planning to complete the new fighter project in a few years... i really hope they do, it would mean 2 major military projects completed or atleast on the way, something the cons could not do ... it is going to be a wait and see, could be another pre election ploy, once elected to kick it down the road... 

[Aristides]

24 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

According to the news release, they are also planning to complete the new fighter project in a few years... i really hope they do, it would mean 2 major military projects completed or atleast on the way, something the cons could not do ... it is going to be a wait and see, could be another pre election ploy, once elected to kick it down the road... 

A few years could mean maybe sometime this decade for a Canadian government.

[Argus]

Russia is building up its bases and weapons in the Arctic, determined to control as much territory as it can as the ice melts. But don't worry, against their nuclear subs, fighters, bombers and 'nuclear torpedoes' we'll soon have several unarmed arctic patrol vessels which will at least be capable of going there in the summer.

I suspect that whatever claims we've made up there which conflict with Russia's ambitious claims are going to be out of luck.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/546452-satellite-images-show-large-russian-military-build-up-in-arctic-report?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral