• 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

RC

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
captloadie said:
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.

Canada has several internationally competitive naval architecture firms.  They can quite readily address the needs of the non-combatant ship designs, including AOPS (which technically is a non-combattant despite the work split described).  Aside from the frigates, there is currently more capability to design the ships in Canada than to build them.
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
70
Points
530
Thanks for the answer.

The last:
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).
I tend to disagree.

After WWII, the Merchant Navy lobbied successfully for Veteran's benefits and service medals. Many merchant ships were armed for anti surface raiders/submarines and anti aircraft. The on-board naval gun crews were augmented by civilian gun numbers.

They did go in harms way. No question, and were paid a lot more than their military counterparts. A premium if on ships that would blow up quickly when hit.

The Merchant Navy lobbied and were successful. The HK vets were not so lucky.
 

RC

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
GAP said:
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....

This initiative is primarily driven by the civil servant lifers.  They have recognized that something has to be done, and quick, or we are not going to have the ships we need.  Yes, of course the politicians have to buy into it and will spin it whichever way they can to their political advantage, but this plan has some real legs to it and has been in the works for a long time.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
425
Points
880
Rifleman62 said:
They did go in harms way. No question, and were paid a lot more than their military counterparts. A premium if on ships that would blow up quickly when hit.

Granted. However, they were doing their basic job only: driving cargo  or people from point A to point B. It just so happened that in "total war" they were the primary target of the opponent. This is different from actually  asking them to serve on a ship whose purpose is to actually go in a combat situation to participate actively in the fight. The difference would be the same as between soldiers and police officers. Police officers do get shot and can potentially get harmed in what they do, but they do not have an "unlimited liability" clause to their contract and no one has the authority to order them to do something that WILL result in their death (i.e. to sacrifice themselves for the mission).

Should we start another thread here?
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
425
Points
880
Interesting RC. But can you expand on the lifers?

Which ones would have realized that  we need ships?

The DND ones, or the DOT's, or both (which would be extraordinary as in my experience, these two dept have a hard time talking to one another)?

Or could it have been the Dep. of Industry  and Commerce lifers, not realizing that we need ships but that they needed to save their friends in the shipbuilding industry?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,901
Points
1,160
Shipyards need new builds to recapitalize their equipment and upgrade to stay competitive. Our West Coast yards have a good rep in the Pacific for doing good and fast repairs on commercial ships. We can’t compete with the Asian market in new builds, hence the failed attempt to build fast cats. Shipyards that don’t get new builds will likely eventual fail as they will not have the capital to replace large equipment. The problem is that shipyards provide very good paying jobs, and create a lot of downstream economic effects supporting many small local businesses, providing, pumps, switches, wiring, valves, small machine works and small fabrications, etc. hence the reason regions fight hard to keep their slice of the pie. Sadly there is more shipyards than money for the pie. As Mark pointed out there is more hulls needed than budgeted for, so the need and capacity is there. The real questions are how much money do you have to spend and when can we start?
 

RC

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
The senior bureaucrats in DND, DFO / CCG, and Industry were all working together on this, seemingly in harmony.  I'm in the industry, not in the government, so naturally, I'm not seeing behind the scenes, but when you can get hundreds of senior civil servants from four departments and their four MPs all in the same room and they are all telling the same story, I think there is more than just smoke there.

Particularly when they subsequently put something out that is at least reasonably close to what they discussed and what was recommended to them by industry.

The goal is to eliminate the boom/bust cycle independent of changing politics.  Let's hope they get the mechanics right, but at least they are getting the ideology right so far.  My biggest beef with it so far is the timeline of another 2 years before they start an AOPS or a JSS.
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
70
Points
530
Why would Canada want to committ strategically to a long term ship building programme in Quebec?

Whatever Quebec gets, it is never enough. The hand is always out for more. Quebec is not happy in Canada, as evidenced by how it's citizens vote nationally. The CPC will not get any more votes in Quebec if the contract is let there. They may down home and in BC.

Let Davie build ships for Quebec's own navy.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
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.

You're reading my mind.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
425
Points
880
R62, I was not advocating anything political. I merely point out that it would be foolhardy to rule out in advance a "win" by the largest facility in the country.

To correct you on CPC politics however, Davies is located at Quebec city, the area where the CPC have made their greatest breaktrough in Quebec. B$ of shipbuiding there would go a long towards creating a "stronghold " in the province of Quebec from which to make inroads into the rural ridings by completely bypassing the overly left leaning Montreal. So you see, one can always come up with a valid political reason to do something. ;)
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Ex-Dragoon said:
You're reading my mind.

I agree totally and speaking as a end user this is the way to go.  I will go further and say "screw waiting years for these ships.  Go offshore now and get the ships in a couple of years or less"  I saw a documentary where Hyundai for example can go from cutting steel to turnover in 10 months.

However, to play Devil's advocate, this (AORs and Phibs) would require more personnel in an already stressed and degrading numbers game, and of course this has to be a "Made in Canada" solution for the acquisition of the ships.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
425
Points
880
Ah! But that is not so my padiwan-learner!

The Mistral/Dodko are designed to operate with a crew of approx. 170 to 180, which is easier to man than AOR's. As for the AOR's, you could operate in rotation two of them (one per coast at any given time) and the new ones would certainly have a much smaller crew than the current ones (with diesel electric propulsion and since the AOR's that I have in mind -and I think Ex-D also - would be dedicated to no other type of mission, you could probably get by  with today's automation with  crew of about 120).

Moreover, if you have had the chance (or  bad luck :) ) of following some of my past post, you will see that I advocate turning any "pure" AOR over to the CFAV's, just like the Brits, to aleviate manning problems.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
425
Points
880
Additional on my last: The 120 crew for new AOR's properly automated includes all the logistics people and air group. With automation, you can run an AOR the navy way with a "hard sea trade [which includes cooks]" crew of 45 and run a four watch rotation.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Although beyond the JSS/AOPs/SCSC no other naval ship type has been talked about, so I am think the 'big honking ship' dream of General Hillier might have been just that, a dream.
 

karl28

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
            I am just wondering instead of having a multi-role ship like the JSS wouldn't it be cheaper to have one Fuel supply ship  and than one cargo ship ? Forgive me I do not know the proper terms for those ships .
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
255
Points
880
I will leave it to the naval experts to further answer your question, but having just one AOR (the fuel supply ship in your words) won't cut it. You have to factor in training, deployments, refits etc into the rotation of the fleet. If I'm not mistaken, a few posts back someone suggested having 3-4 AORs...that makes more sense to me.

I can't believe they are still trying to do this JSS thing as opposed to getting some friggin AOR hulls in the water. And for the love of good, no amphibs...there are plenty of other priorities.

Just my 2 cents from a non-navy guy.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
karl28 said:
            I am just wondering instead of having a multi-role ship like the JSS wouldn't it be cheaper to have one Fuel supply ship  and than one cargo ship ? Forgive me I do not know the proper terms for those ships .

Hi Karl,
  The reason why we use AORs is because they can carry both cargo and fuel. If we had two different types as you indicate that would mean twice the assets we would have to crew and escort.
 

57Chevy

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1
Points
410
57Chevy said:
Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said the plan would generate 75 million hours of work across the country over three decades.

That's great news for the economy no matter how you look at it
 

gcclarke

Sr. Member
Reaction score
7
Points
230
Ex-Dragoon said:
Although beyond the JSS/AOPs/SCSC no other naval ship type has been talked about, so I am think the 'big honking ship' dream of General Hillier might have been just that, a dream.

As for AOPs, I'll believe it when I see it, and even then, I'll be sure to double check my glasses prescription.
 

karl28

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Ex-Dragoon

              Thanks for that eplenation makes sense to me .

Cheers Karl
 
Top