• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,673
Points
1,040
Just a question from a crayon eater - red ones please - can we not just contract a US shipyard to build us stuff?

As long as PQ gets to build something - industrial benefits etc - is that viable?
Just requires a waiver from Cabinet to deviate from the (Cabinet level) Build in Canada policy.

Was done recently for some hi speed ferries done overseas because no shipyard in Canada had the facilities big enough to make the modules, and also lacked the experience in using aluminium. There are some built in exceptions, like lack of facilities, operational requirements etc, but it's really political so difficult to justify for small ships, when we have plenty of shipyards that can do that kind of <1000 tonne ship with no major issue.

When 40% of all the salaries you pay comes right back into govt coffers as well the economic spinoffs are pretty big, so hard to make a good economic case (although hasn't stopped the Dept of Finance from trying for the last decade to get NSS torpedoed.)

Adopting a USN design is difficult though; they have a totally different crewing philosophy and we just don't have the same setup (or # of people). RN, RAN, RNZN operate pretty much the same as we do trade wise, so they are much better for compatible designs.

A lot of the complications come from GoC process requirements, so really don't see a big advantage. If we ditch all the IRBs, DPS and other contractual overhead and decision loops and just go with a straight commercial contract, would save a lot of time regardless of where it's built. And if things go sideways no real guarantee our build wouldn't get bumped if the USN needed a sudden build as well.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,296
Points
1,260
Just requires a waiver from Cabinet to deviate from the (Cabinet level) Build in Canada policy.

Was done recently for some hi speed ferries done overseas because no shipyard in Canada had the facilities big enough to make the modules, and also lacked the experience in using aluminium. There are some built in exceptions, like lack of facilities, operational requirements etc, but it's really political so difficult to justify for small ships, when we have plenty of shipyards that can do that kind of <1000 tonne ship with no major issue.

When 40% of all the salaries you pay comes right back into govt coffers as well the economic spinoffs are pretty big, so hard to make a good economic case (although hasn't stopped the Dept of Finance from trying for the last decade to get NSS torpedoed.)

Adopting a USN design is difficult though; they have a totally different crewing philosophy and we just don't have the same setup (or # of people). RN, RAN, RNZN operate pretty much the same as we do trade wise, so they are much better for compatible designs.

A lot of the complications come from GoC process requirements, so really don't see a big advantage. If we ditch all the IRBs, DPS and other contractual overhead and decision loops and just go with a straight commercial contract, would save a lot of time regardless of where it's built. And if things go sideways no real guarantee our build wouldn't get bumped if the USN needed a sudden build as well.

If we received a quality product at a globally completive price, from Canadian manufacturers, I could tow this line.

This highlighted mindset has to stop, or we have no one to blame but ourselves.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,673
Points
1,040
If we received a quality product at a globally completive price, from Canadian manufacturers, I could tow this line.

This highlighted mindset has to stop, or we have no one to blame but ourselves.
But it's reality, and also part of what will be looked at for any build outside of Canada. Similarly, the impact on supply chains (ie no local suppliers), training for the crew, support for equipment all comes into play as well.

Talked to a lot of people in other countries, and they have their own issues with domestic builders, so building foreign doesn't guarantee quality either, or mean you get a functional ship any sooner.

And if we have trouble setting up a det in Halifax or Vancouver, imagine doing it in a different country.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Just a question from a crayon eater - red ones please - can we not just contract a US shipyard to build us stuff?

As long as PQ gets to build something - industrial benefits etc - is that viable?
Like @Navy_Pete stated the Gov't can basically do what they want. The icebreakers that Davie is upgrading are an example of going outside of (or perhaps differently interpreting) the Build in Canada policy.

But if you want fleet strategic viability you should build your own as much as possible. Lots of reasons for that but the main one is to develop the talent, own the equipment and facilities needed to keep the ship maintained and to "own the IP of the product" so to speak. This is what happened with the FREMM bid. They wanted to own too much of the product themselves.

It's the same sort of problem bidders have with Colt Canada for army weapon replacement.

For an MCDV replacement, this is really straightforward shipbuilding stuff. Civilian standards, simple weapon system supplied by the RCN with likely an FMF installation, no CMS, no crazy sensors. Only comms integration and power for whatever containerized systems you want to carry. With all those similar style designs out there you can pick one that needs minimal modification.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,840
Points
1,160
But it's reality, and also part of what will be looked at for any build outside of Canada. Similarly, the impact on supply chains (ie no local suppliers), training for the crew, support for equipment all comes into play as well.

Talked to a lot of people in other countries, and they have their own issues with domestic builders, so building foreign doesn't guarantee quality either, or mean you get a functional ship any sooner.

And if we have trouble setting up a det in Halifax or Vancouver, imagine doing it in a different country.
The German leaning tower of Frigate, British tanker that can't sail and the Aussie ampib that broke down completely all come to mind
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,296
Points
1,260
But it's reality, and also part of what will be looked at for any build outside of Canada. Similarly, the impact on supply chains (ie no local suppliers), training for the crew, support for equipment all comes into play as well.

Talked to a lot of people in other countries, and they have their own issues with domestic builders, so building foreign doesn't guarantee quality either, or mean you get a functional ship any sooner.

And if we have trouble setting up a det in Halifax or Vancouver, imagine doing it in a different country.

Absolutely its reality. Quality products should trump Canadian economic benefits. But I this area I could probably be labeled an idealist.
 
Reaction score
157
Points
530
View attachment 69873

Quebec falls below the national average in Federal spending per capita.

Please stop spreading divisive myths. This is not Facebook, nor is it Army.prairies.
Quebec will be happy. Why wouldn't they be? If they gave the work to Irving wouldn't NS be happy? Davie is the one large yard looking for work. If I held any preconceived bias against Quebec I would have not suggested Davie.
Army.prairies? gimme a break. Thou doth protest too much, methinks.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,673
Points
1,040
Absolutely its reality. Quality products should trump Canadian economic benefits. But I this area I could probably be labeled an idealist.
I don't disagree, but our procurements go to the 'lowest compliant bidder' and then don't have penalties when turns out things don't meet the standard, so really doesn't matter at the component level what the Canadian content is or not. We can't blacklist suppliers that provide crappy quality products, or even commit outright fraud hoping we won't notice. For the NSS for the most part it's existing companies becoming authorized reps for existing international companies, so it's good for them to get a foothold in the market, but the big 'Canadian content' is really a shipyard located in Canada doing the work, so if they happen to have a Canadian supplier of an international product it's all gravy. Once in a while an actual Canadian company will win out compared to a cheaper international version, which I think is great provided you hold everyone to the same quality/time standard.

Weirdly some of the Medium and Small Enterprise rules that are meant to encourage companies to set up outstations actually work against an existing Canadian supplier with an integrated product chain that are too big for the M&SE points, so some quirks in the system.

On normal NP buys have had to go back to scratch for a few procurements because some bellend jobbers underbid legitimate suppliers but provided paperwork that looked okay, so it had to actually show up before we rejected it as non-compliant. Have one or two of those and it's long enough that actual compliant bids are no longer valid (usually time limited to 90 days or so), and sometimes they slip through QAR at the receiving warehouse and get paid for, so we get stuck with them and usually find out when someone goes to install them that there is a problem.

It's the 'buy 10 of NSN x" ones for common things like valves, pumps etc that area problem, but really makes up about 90% of the ship items. Bane of my existence is to get shock rated hull valves, or sea water pumps.

For bigger items that's where including an ISSC is great, because you can include actual in-service costs, including maintenance, R&O etc. That's what we did with the CPF DGs, and let us balance between really high time between the full R&Os and the initial capital costs. The complicated bids though cost money to put together so even the last place bidder was still putting together a really quality product. But that will also mean a much bigger contract value, so now means a whole extra set of hoops to jump through (SBCA).... it's like bureaucratic groundhog day, where sometimes you stick with it out of spite for the stupidity of the system.

(PS really glad I took a typing class in grade 9, but apologize for the novella; this is one of those things that just drive me crazy. We have a huge amount of decision gates, oversight etc to force things to happen a certain way, with arguably very little measurable benefit but takes more effort over a longer time to just buy even basic stuff if it hits a certain dollar value.)
 

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
324
Points
930
You do realize that a Mk48 torpedo is a submarine launched torpedo, right? And one does not just “roll it off“ a PT boat doing 40kts?

Well not with that attitude.

Also most PT boats had torpedo tubes, while some had the roll off launcher.
elco-pt-boat.jpg


Mk_13_torpedo_launch_from_PT_boat_c1943.jpg


What about an anti-ship version of the Mark 46 or Mark 54?
Minus the fantasy Mk48 torp a whole bunch of those are what's needed to Op Caribe. MGBs.

PT-59, John F. Kennedy's third command after PT-109 was sunk, was exactly that. The torpedo launchers were removed and more guns and armour added.
PT-59_after_conversion.jpg

For comparison, the PT-109 at the time of its last patrol. A 37mm on the bow and a 20mm at the stern.
PT-109_Design1943.jpeg
 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
285
Points
730
Absolutely its reality. Quality products should trump Canadian economic benefits. But I this area I could probably be labeled an idealist.

Then we need to address the quality issue here at home. NSPS needs proper oversite and more competition. The preselect process gave the two shipyards too much security it will make them lazy and greedy.
There are so many reasons why buying ships overseas is a bad idea. And they have all been gone over here many times.
The NSPS is intended to Re-build our ship building industry. It has faults and needs tuning but all the money invested so far will be wasted if we dont see it through.
As with anything as time goes on quality, speed and cost will improve.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,733
Points
1,040
Torpedoes aside that's an interesting picture. If this model is to be believed, that 37mm was an Army M3 anti-tank gun with the wheels off and strapped onto the deck and timbers with ropes.

ufi1ax08p0gx.jpg


Who'd have thunk it?

🍻
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
350
Points
730
Torpedoes aside that's an interesting picture. If this model is to be believed, that 37mm was an Army M3 anti-tank gun with the wheels off and strapped onto the deck and timbers with ropes.

ufi1ax08p0gx.jpg


Who'd have thunk it?

🍻
A much better weapon was the M4 37 mm belt fed auto cannon.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
494
Points
930
Then we need to address the quality issue here at home. NSPS needs proper oversite and more competition. The preselect process gave the two shipyards too much security it will make them lazy and greedy.
There are so many reasons why buying ships overseas is a bad idea. And they have all been gone over here many times.
The NSPS is intended to Re-build our ship building industry. It has faults and needs tuning but all the money invested so far will be wasted if we dont see it through.
As with anything as time goes on quality, speed and cost will improve.
the whole reason behind the pre-select was allowing the yards to expand and modernize. That is lost the second it goes out to competition. Efficiencies gained through development are expensive. Why not rather go with a guarantee that it is yours until you start giving us the run-around.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,606
Points
1,010
Well not with that attitude.

Also most PT boats had torpedo tubes, while some had the roll off launcher.
elco-pt-boat.jpg


Mk_13_torpedo_launch_from_PT_boat_c1943.jpg


What about an anti-ship version of the Mark 46 or Mark 54?


PT-59, John F. Kennedy's third command after PT-109 was sunk, was exactly that. The torpedo launchers were removed and more guns and armour added.
PT-59_after_conversion.jpg

For comparison, the PT-109 at the time of its last patrol. A 37mm on the bow and a 20mm at the stern.
PT-109_Design1943.jpeg
Since you are clearly unaware of how a Mk48 torpedo works (if you did have even a basic understanding of the weapon, you would realize just how ridiculous your proposal is), there is little point in arguing with you.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Since you are clearly unaware of how a Mk48 torpedo works (if you did have even a basic understanding of the weapon, you would realize just how ridiculous your proposal is), there is little point in arguing with you.
Not only that, but we have these things called missiles now... Hence why torpedo boats are not a thing but missile boats are.

@Maxman1 there is a reason ships don't carry heavyweight torpedos even redesigned ones that could "roll off". Because that way of dealing with submarines is essentially trading your ship for their sub, and they have all the advantages. Airpower trumps subs almost every time. You want to create an overmatch situation, not a shootout at high noon.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Then we need to address the quality issue here at home. NSPS needs proper oversite and more competition. The preselect process gave the two shipyards too much security it will make them lazy and greedy.
There are so many reasons why buying ships overseas is a bad idea. And they have all been gone over here many times.
The NSPS is intended to Re-build our ship building industry. It has faults and needs tuning but all the money invested so far will be wasted if we dont see it through.
As with anything as time goes on quality, speed and cost will improve.

Oversite? If you want to create a Nationalized Shipbuilding Industry then go ahead. But short of that the yard does what the yard needs to do. The project approves and inspects. More oversight risks us telling them what the solutions to problems are instead of us approving their proposed solution. We don't tell, we approve based on the requirements. If we have to tell them then we need way more staff. Because at that point we are doing the engineering work for them.

I'm dead set against this as the RCN needs the shakeup and to learn how to do things differently. New tech and new ways of getting the same performance standard from systems are needed.

And then at some point we cross the line to a shadow yard and that's not good for anyones efficiency.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,516
Points
1,090
Not only that, but we have these things called missiles now... Hence why torpedo boats are not a thing but missile boats are.

@Maxman1 there is a reason ships don't carry heavyweight torpedos even redesigned ones that could "roll off". Because that way of dealing with submarines is essentially trading your ship for their sub, and they have all the advantages. Airpower trumps subs almost every time. You want to create an overmatch situation, not a shootout at high noon.
Why do we still have torpedo launch tubes in the design of the CSC (If I recall correctly?

For the tanker wankers, do you think we'll continue the Battle Tanker close in ASW training once we get the JSS?
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,952
Points
1,360
Slightly bigger version of our "Hero Class Coast Guard Cutters" Not the most fun boats to be on in a heavy sea, I served on a 95' cutter and we damm near got laid on our side in a storm south west of the Charlottes during a SAR call, we wondered if she was coming back up.
I think we should organize an overnight sail out to the West Coast Firing Area in January for all the people suggesting going out there in a crappy little Cutter 😁

I'll bring the buckets 🤮, you bring the gravol and a years worth of saltine crackers 🤣

I mean I do enjoy a good swell, I'll put the seas on the beam so everyone gets a bit of extra enjoyment 😁

Since you are clearly unaware of how a Mk48 torpedo works (if you did have even a basic understanding of the weapon, you would realize just how ridiculous your proposal is), there is little point in arguing with you.

@Maxman1 You're comparing technology from 80 years ago to today, it's not even relevant to this discussion.
 
Top