• 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

J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Well, here it is.  Shared with the usual disclaimers....

I'll believe it when I see it..

MacKay lays out $30B shipbuilding policy
Last Updated: Thursday, June 3, 2010 | 1:54 PM ET Comments15Recommend22CBC News
Defence Minister Peter MacKay on Thursday laid out Ottawa's $30-billion plan to reinvigorate Canada's moribund shipbuilding industry.

HMCS Preserver, the navy's 40-year-old Halifax-based supply ship, rests at drydock at the Halifax shipyards on June 3. (Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press)
MacKay said the government will establish a long-term relationship with two Canadian shipyards for the procurement of the large ships — one to build combat vessels, the other to build non-combat vessels.

"The plan is to select two Canadian shipyards in a fair and transparent process," he said at the CANSEC arms show in Ottawa. "We expect to have these contracts signed within two years."

The plan calls for building 28 new large ships over the next decade, for a cost of more than $30 billion.

Ottawa has been trying for the better part of a year to iron out a national policy that would get major shipbuilding companies to work together.

"This national shipbuilding procurement strategy will bring predictability and eliminate the cycles of boom and bust," said Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, also on hand at the event. "It is about using Canadian sources to fill Canadian needs."

Critics have long complained about Canada's disjointed naval policy.

The country's top military commander told the defence industry on Wednesday that new ships for the navy was his No. 1 procurement need, and noted it has been 14 years since the last major warship was launched in Canada.

He noted the 38-year-old, 5,100-tonne command-and-control destroyer HMCS Iroquois will soon be the oldest frontline warship in the western world.

"We need to cut steel on new ships," Gen. Walter Natynczyk, chief of defence staff, said Wednesday.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/06/03/mackay-shipbuilding-cansec.html#socialcomments#ixzz0poffmzlE
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
425
Points
880
That's it ???

I must be missing something here:

First of all, it looks like the next two years are for writing and signing the contracts that appoint the two shipyards to be selected. I assume those contracts will spell out what the shipyards need to maintain as a knowledge base or financial structure or what have you to remain the selectee. So no new constructions for two years at least.

Secondly, how does calling for the construction of 28 unspecified "large" ships in the next decade (then not having your "plan" go further) differ from a boom-bust cycle? This is just the next boom if we do not come up with guaranteed further orders thereafter at an agreed constant rate.

And how will we guarantee that rate? In fact, how will the government guarantee that the 28 large ships will be ordered. Even if the "guaranteed" number of orders (without specifying type) was put in the "selection" contract, contracts can be broken (Chretien: "Zero helicopters") and the resulting damages usually cover penalties and lost profit, but it would not normally include the cost of maintaining a work force that can otherwise be laid off. So you are back to square one.

P.S. Can someone help me here: what makes a ship "large"? When I pass by a frigate with an Orca, I tend to look at it as large, but from an aircraft carrier, I usually find them puny.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
(Note post changed significantly.) Oldgateboatdriver: 28 "Large" ships--I presume they mean JSS (3), A/OPS (6-8), Canadian Surface Combatant (destroyer/frigate replacemen--12?) for Navy: total 21-23; so remainder would presumably be new icebreakers (and other sizeable vessels) acquired for the Coast Guard:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/Ccg/fleet

Which might leave the CCG rather short if you count up their such vessels (some 13) and age.

But then the CSCs are not likely to be built in any large numbers by 2021:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4296901

So maybe most ships this decade will be for CCG.  Here's the status of their major vessel programs:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2010-2011/inst/dfo/st-ts07-eng.asp

Not sure exactly which qualify as "large".

Mark
Ottawa
 

57Chevy

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1
Points
410
OTTAWA — Canada's ship yards will be "humming like they haven't hummed since the Second World War" under a $35 billion, 30-year federal shipbuilding strategy announced Thursday, says Defence Minister Peter MacKay.


The government will select two Canadian shipyards — one to construct large combat vessels, the other for non-combat ships — within the next two years, and contracts for smaller ships would be open to bids by other Canadian shipyards. Competition would be national and overseen by a "fairness monitor."


The "national shipbuilding procurement strategy" was welcomed as "a big step" by Peter Cairns, a retired Canadian vice-admiral who heads the Shipbuilders Association of Canada. He said shipyards in Newfoundland, Halifax, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia would be eligible to compete for the major work and the industry will work together.


He also predicted highly-skilled workers from the East Coast will be lured home from the Alberta oilsands for the highly-skilled jobs.


"We've been pushing for something like this for quite some time," he said. "It's very important for the government to actually acknowledge that the shipbuilding industry is important to the country, is strategic to the country, for Maritime defence.


"For the longest time people looked at shipbuilding as an old industry, where the only tool you need is a sledgehammer, when in fact it's a very high-tech industry. Inside it's as sophisticated as a space shuttle or any airplane that's flying."


MacKay said the priority is the construction of joint supply ships for the Canadian navy, a project that has been delayed for two years since the government halted the procurement process due to bidders' non-compliance with requirements and costs.


The plan that MacKay and three other ministers announced at a military trade show got a thumbs up from Peter Stoffer, a Nova Scotia New Democrat MP who has lobbied for a federal policy to rejuvenate the shipbuilding industry for years, and was on hand for the announcement.


"I will give them credit," Stoffer said. "In 2003, John Manley . . . said shipbuilding was a sunset industry."


He was referring to former federal finance minister John Manley who repeatedly told MPs that the then Liberal government could not afford huge subsidies for shipbuilding.


Stoffer said he hoped the strategy would not lead to a wasteful duel among the handful of shipyards in Canada because there was enough work for everybody.


"You could have the West Coast and East Coast spending millions of dollars fighting each other over these competitive bids," he said. "If the government worked with the industry, and I'm hoping that they'll do that . . . that money could go to building ships instead of beating each other over the head in the competition."


Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said the plan would generate 75 million hours of work across the country over three decades.


"This strategy will be the framework through which the government invests $35 billion over the next thirty years to acquire twenty-eight large vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian navy, as well as more than a hundred smaller ships," MacKay said.


The shipyards would be expected to invest in training to prepare their workforce and the facilities would have to show regional balance in subcontracts.


"There's going to be enough work for all the shipyards," MacKay told reporters, enumerating a need to replace combat vessels, supply ships, icebreakers, coast guard vessels, and Arctic operations vessels.


"We're well on our way to an important process, an important strategy, that is going to see the shipyards across the country humming like they haven't hummed since the Second World War."

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service


Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Shipbuilding+strategy+will+leave+yards+humming+MacKay/3107934/story.html#ixzz0ppdjo9xh
 

donaldk

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Basically to summarize the Minister of National Defence released a statement on the conservative's proposed new ship building strategy.

Summary: $35B proposed to create two national ship yards to build military and civilian government vessels over the next 30 years, with consideration to eliminate boom-bust cycles.

Linkage:
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/06/03/mackay-shipbuilding-cansec.html

What do you guys think?  I think it is a step in the right direction. Let the debate begin...  >:D
 

Antoine

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
From the point of view of an applicant for the NAVY (me), it is encouraging but , hey, I am still naive !
 

RC

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
The discussed level for cut off between "small" and "large" was 1000t.  The assessment of the requirements for the CCG and Navy fleets over the next 30 years, which other than a couple of exceptions is just replacement of existing assets, suggested that  to be a reasonably natural cut off point with relatively few ships falling into a grey area.

I find it alarming that they intend to take another 2 years to make a decision on the yards.  So they still don't intend to start construction on any ships for another 2 years?
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Note JSS is not/not considered "combat" vessel and will be built in civilian yard, 1,000 tonnes is cut-off for "large"--from DND:
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do;jsessionid=ac1b105430d891a768c0b48a471388a9bb629767dd3e.e34Rc3iMbx8Oai0Tbx0SaxiKbxz0?m=%2Findex&nid=537419

...
Two shipyards will be selected to build the large vessels (1000 tonnes displacement or more)...

One shipyard will be selected to build combat vessels. This will enable the procurement of the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) [15 planned:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3778076 ]
and Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) [6-8]. The surface combatant project will renew the Navy's surface fleet by replacing various warfare capabilities of the destroyers (Iroquois-class) and multi-role patrol frigate (Halifax-class) ships. The primary tasks of the Arctic ships will be to: conduct sea-borne surveillance operations in Canada's Economic Exclusion Zones (EEZs), including the Arctic; provide awareness of activities and events to various departments; and cooperate with other elements of the Canadian Forces and other federal government departments to assert and enforce Canadian sovereignty, whenever and wherever necessary.

Another competitively selected shipyard will build non-combat vessels, such as the Joint Support Ships (JSS) [emphasis added, 3 planned]. The capabilities required of these ships are crucial to the Canadian Forces. The Joint Support Ship increases the range and sustainment of a Naval Task Group, permitting it to remain at sea for significant periods of time without going alongside for replenishment. These vessels will also provide capacity for sealift and support to troops ashore...

Meanwhile the CCG has 28 ships of 1,000 tonnes (some just under) or more; 15 soon will be over 30 years old with the youngest 25 years:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0000459?todo=search&reg%3Bion_id=C&is_active=1

Mark
Ottawa
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
This is not about building ships.

It is about a majority in the next election, which, coincidentally, will happen within the next 2 years. And, Glory Be!!, there's promise in them thar regions that they don't have many seats...(see Atlantic Canada, Quebec and BC).

They just pulled a Liberal....vague, grand promises with a far enough ahead date to change direction if necessary....
 

captloadie

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
73
Points
330
So, we are going to create invest in two national shipyards to build ships. Great. But who is going to design the ships? Are we going to have agreements that allow foreign designs to be built in Canada? If not, this will greatly limit the ability for the ministries involved (DND, Fisheries, etc.) from getting the ships that meet their needs. "Buy Canadian" is a great theme, but is it really practical, or economical? The story was rather thin on details.
 

Monsoon

Sr. Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
GAP said:
It is about a majority in the next election, which, coincidentally, will happen within the next 2 years. And, Glory Be!!, there's promise in them thar regions that they don't have many seats...(see Atlantic Canada, Quebec and BC).

Not many seats? Let's see: in BC they have 22 out of 36 seats, in the Maritimes they have 9 out of 25, and the shipbuilding strategy seems to be geared towards dockyards in Esquimalt and Halifax to the exclusion of the Davie yard in Quebec. I guess they could try to build ships in Alberta and Manitoba...
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
I'll be dead and buried  before this comes to pass in full, if at all. :2c:
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Trying to pull it all together at The Torch:

Government's "National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy": Numbers don't make sense, esp. for Coast Guard
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/06/governments-national-shipbuilding.html

More sound and fury, smoke and mirrors, from the government--and our media bought it hook, line and sinker...

Mark
Ottawa
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
425
Points
880
Is this going to be a "plus ça change, plus c'est pareil" situation? I do not know.

However, I would not sell Davies in Quebec city short for the large non-combat vessels: It still has the largest facility in Canada and the only one (unless they built a new one in BC recently) that can take ships the size of the "planned" JSS. Davies is also currently under ownership of a Danish shipyard and as a result has managers that know what they are doing.

I also agree with MarkOttawa on the probable breakdown of the 28 "large" ships.

As for the JSS (and I will digress here), I am getting desperate: Other than the fact already well discussed in other threads that such type of ships do not exist and for technical reason are then extremely complex and expensive to build, can anybody make the Minister (and for that matter, the geniuses at HQ that came up with this) see the fundamental military reason for not building such ship. Someone please show them WWII footage of what happens to a tanker hit by a single bomb or torpedo. AOR's are floating bombs. That is fine when you are fully manned with seaman only who know what they are getting into and you stay more or less out of the most dangerous areas. If you are sunk, this creates a logistical nightmare for the ships you support, but that is  it. If, however, you then add a lot of army gear, some soldiers, the ground force logistical support and command staff, you have to stand closer to danger and your loss is mission critical. Since you are a "single shot" target, this means that there is no margin for any leakers whatsoever. A real amphibious ships have the resilience to take multiple hits before they become too disabled to operate.

So further to this digression, here is the topic relevant question: What is more important to the government's shipbuilding strategy, the overall monetary figure, or the number of hulls that keep the shipyards busy continually? If the later is the answer (and in my view, it should), then forgo the three JSS and build four AOR's and two amphibious ships (À la "French "Mistral" or, better yet, à la South-Korean " Dodko" style) for the same price. 
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,901
Points
1,160
MarkOttawa said:
Trying to pull it all together at The Torch:

Government's "National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy": Numbers don't make sense, esp. for Coast Guard
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/06/governments-national-shipbuilding.html

Mark
Ottawa

Good job by the way on the blog. I would have preferred a bipartisan committee made up of all parties to determine the ship building strategy so there is buy in from whoever is in government. Having two major shipbuilders is better than one, so you can sort of keep them from getting to cocky.

Semi off topic, shipyards here in N. Van are surviving by building component for Hydro power plants.
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
70
Points
530
Question. I believe US Navy replenishment ships (POL, Ammo, General, etc) are crewed with Department of Defence civilian employees with a small Navy augmentation.

Is this an option for the JSS?
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
hamiltongs said:
Not many seats? Let's see: in BC they have 22 out of 36 seats, in the Maritimes they have 9 out of 25, and the shipbuilding strategy seems to be geared towards dockyards in Esquimalt and Halifax to the exclusion of the Davie yard in Quebec. I guess they could try to build ships in Alberta and Manitoba...

That may be, but do they have seats in the shipbuilding ridings and adjoining ones where the people are going to be drawn from? Even if they do, it never hurts to feather you own nest.  :)

I'm not saying they don't mean well, but things don't add up as far as what they're saying we're going to get and how, and reality. This is a political promise with no cost for at least 3-5 years.....they all do it...anyone remember the RED BOOK(S) and the removal of the GST?  The Liberals were masters of the big promise....
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
OGBD, I am, you could call me a "Tanker Wanker".  Yeah, they do have the potential to go "Bam".  But you get used to the thought of it and frankly it is a small comfort that the end might be very fast and final.  Would prefer that end to say the USS Indianappolis and crew.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
425
Points
880
You are correct R62.

In the US Navy today, more and more of the at sea logistics support ships are manned by  the Military Sealift Command personnel, which is made of merchant seaman, with small naval logistics cell embarked as necessary. It was not so only a decade ago. This was a (successful) experiment they learned from the British, where at sea support is carried out by the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, similarly crewed by merchant seaman. However, none of the US amphibious ships are so crewed.

To answer your question, If the JSS only transported army gear from one harbour to another and resupplied the ships at sea, the concept could work, and we already have the organization that could do it: the CFAV's (Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessels organization), which encompasses all the merchant mariners that crews the fleet of support vessels (tugs, ferries, research vessels, etc.) in our two harbours. They are extremely competent seaman and could easily take over then.

If, however, the JSS are expected to carry some form of expeditionary  personnel, landing command staff, helicopters for landed troops support, etc, then it would be unfair to expect merchant seaman to agree to go in harms way (and we might even then be in breach of Geneva Convention for operating what would then be considered a "combatant" with  non-combatant personnel).
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
425
Points
880
Jollyjacktar, I have served my fair share on Protecteur also, but you make my point: We seaman know and sign up for that. I do not think the army does. And if we have to get them close to shore, we greatly increase the chances that an asset that is mission critical will be disposed of with a single lucky shot. It is just not what  AOR's are designed for, as opposed to Phibs.

I am also with you on the concept of having a quick end.
 
Top