New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Good2Golf]

Just Davie embellishes?

Wouldn’t any company that says they can do something (inclusive of schedule) then not be able to do it, embellish?

Regards
G2G

 

[Stoker]

Just Davie embellishes?

Wouldn’t any company that says they can do something (inclusive of schedule) then not be able to do it, embellish?

Regards
G2G

Well they did say they are the only company in Canada with ice breaker building experience, not really true and I find it funny they are expecting a large 10 ship plus ice breaking contract when there is no mention of that fact anywhere. The guy that is saying all these "facts" is their PA person. Yes all yards embellish.

 

[NavyShooter]

ISI embellishes their ability to complete work...and to be competent...the west coast option embellished their ship's trials crew skills and had a little 'bump'...

They all lie.  Perfect politicians!

 

[Stoker]

ISI embellishes their ability to complete work...and to be competent...the west coast option embellished their ship's trials crew skills and had a little 'bump'...

They all lie.  Perfect politicians!

I agree they all lie.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Davie is also doing the conversions on the VIKINGS for the CCG, so I guess they can claim with some legitimacy that they are the go to yard for ice breakers. I’ll be happy if it happens soon.

 

[Stoker]

Davie is also doing the conversions on the VIKINGS for the CCG, so I guess they can claim with some legitimacy that they are the go to yard for ice breakers. I’ll be happy if it happens soon.

They can but so can any number of yards that's done refits on ice breakers. What their PA have said they are the only yard with ice breaker building experience. They clearly didnt  build any . 

 

[Swampbuggy]

They can but so can any number of yards that's done refits on ice breakers. What their PA have said they are the only yard with ice breaker building experience. They clearly didnt  build any .

That’s a fair point.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Davie is also doing the conversions on the VIKINGS for the CCG, so I guess they can claim with some legitimacy that they are the go to yard for ice breakers. I’ll be happy if it happens soon.

From what I understood, they weren't doing anything special for the icebreakers that really goes above and beyond typical docking work anyway (repairs, replacing systems with updated versions, etc).

Interested to see if they roll Davie into the NSS fully, as that will include a requirement for them to modernize their yard (to Target State) and meet a number of other policy requirements (Value Proposition and Industrial Technological Benefits) that don't apply to the other projects they've done (because of the dollar value threshold they kick in at).  Those are all pretty significant, and would require a few years lead time to put in place. Maybe that'll be the next governments problem?  Seems like they are doing something similar to what they complained the Cons did and squeezing in a major policy change before the election (seeing as we're about to hit summer break, then it will be full campaign season).

 

[suffolkowner]

Well Davie did build 1 3/4 to 2 1/4 of the following offered to the government following order falling through

https://www.davie.ca/news/davie-launches-ship-717/

 

[Underway]

They can but so can any number of yards that's done refits on ice breakers. What their PA have said they are the only yard with ice breaker building experience. They clearly didnt  build any .

I think one could easily argue that ISI has more icebreaking "building" experience at this point than Davie.

Not that it really matters.  There is more than enough work for low intensity shipbuilding in three yards for the next 20-30 years. The coast guard, fisheries and oceans and the RCN all need vessels.  And by the time they are done they can start again on the replacement vessels because the others will be 20-30 years old by then...

 

[JMCanada]

Excuse me to post this link. Will not be nice to anybody, and I particularly believe it's clearly biased against CSC offseting some aspects as job creation, technology transfers and the effort to level the shipbuilding cycles. Yet the article has some reason...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/203273/canada%E2%80%99s-naval-shipbuilding%3A-double-the-cost-for-half-the-performance.html

Mention to Cyclone (at least)  is not accurate, nor should be listed as another fiasco.

 

[Uzlu]

Excuse me to post this link. Will not be nice to anybody, and I particularly believe it's clearly biased against CSC offseting some aspects as job creation, technology transfers and the effort to level the shipbuilding cycles. Yet the article has some reason...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/203273/canada%E2%80%99s-naval-shipbuilding%3A-double-the-cost-for-half-the-performance.html

Subsidies!  Subsidies!  Subsidies!  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/no-subsidies-for-shipbuilding-industry-says-tobin-1.270095

And maybe also different accounting practices—e.g., including the cost of upgrading a jetty to the price of the Protecteurs.  There are errors in that article that you linked to.

That increase, officials said at the time, will notably allow the government to order 15 new Canadian Surface Combatants, whose estimated cost more than doubled to C$60 billion compared to the previous estimate of C$26 billion, without any clear explanation.

Wrong.  The explanation for the increase: https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf

At the conclusion of a competition to select a new frigate – and for which a joint offer by Fincantieri and Naval Group was disqualified for late filing – Canadian Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough announced on Feb 8, 2019 that the Canadian government had awarded Lockheed Martin Canada a C$185 million contract to design a fleet of 15 warships based on the Type 26, with a total program cost of C$58 billion to C$60 billion.

Wrong.  It was disqualified, because there was no formal bid.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I knew missiles were expensive, but 2.1 million each? That makes guided projectiles quite appealing at a mere $150,000-500,000 each.

 

[Kirkhill]

I knew missiles were expensive, but 2.1 million each? That makes guided projectiles quite appealing at a mere $150,000-500,000 each.

On the other hand, cost doesn't really impact choice of missile or missile capability.  All of them are in the 2 to 3 MCAD price range.  So cost isn't a key determinant in deciding whether or not to swap air defence for land attack.

The sole exception in ABM but even at 5 MCAD for the SM6 you are looking at a marginal cost increase of 2 to 3 MCAD per missile.  A 6 pack on each CSC would still be a low cost adder to achieve a massive strategic and political advantage.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The problem is that any missile based war is going to be short as you use up stock faster than can be bought/made and you will be reluctant to stockpile that many both at the initial cost, maintenance and life span.

 

[Uzlu]

Feds cut heavy-icebreaker order from Vancouver shipyard

OTTAWA — The federal government has taken construction of the coast guard's next heavy icebreaker away from a Vancouver shipyard, the latest in a string of changes to Canada's multibillion-dollar shipbuilding strategy.

Seaspan Shipbuilding was tapped in 2011 to build the icebreaker, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, as part of a larger order that also included four science vessels for the coast guard and two navy supply ships.

But Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson's office says the icebreaker has been removed from Seaspan's order book and replaced with 16 smaller vessels that the government announced it was buying last month.

Wilkinson's office says no decision has been made on where the Diefenbaker will be built but some believe Seaspan's bitter rival in Quebec, Davie Shipbuilding, will get the contract.

Davie has been lobbying the federal government for the icebreaker since 2013 and a spokesman for the shipyard says he thinks it is a foregone conclusion that the vessel will be built there.

The Canadian Coast Guard's existing heavy icebreaker, the 53-year-old CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, which the Diefenbaker will replace, is currently in drydock at Davie.

https://www.delta-optimist.com/feds-cut-heavy-icebreaker-order-from-vancouver-shipyard-1.23853389

 

[FSTO]

https://www.delta-optimist.com/feds-cut-heavy-icebreaker-order-from-vancouver-shipyard-1.23853389

I don't think that Seaspan is a bitter rival of Davie. Pretty sure that title goes to Irving.

 

[Stoker]

I don't think that Seaspan is a bitter rival of Davie. Pretty sure that title goes to Irving.

Its funny you say that but Davie's PR guy Frederik Boisvert seems to have a real beef with both Seaspan and Irving. He's on a page I frequent and is ranting all the time in regards to those yards.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Davie has lobbied a bit to hard, slagging Seaspan when their real target was Irving. They created some bad blood and are going to have to find a way to walk back from that

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

Interested to see if they roll Davie into the NSS fully, as that will include a requirement for them to modernize their yard (to Target State) and meet a number of other policy requirements (Value Proposition and Industrial Technological Benefits) that don't apply to the other projects they've done (because of the dollar value threshold they kick in at).  Those are all pretty significant, and would require a few years lead time to put in place. Maybe that'll be the next governments problem?  Seems like they are doing something similar to what they complained the Cons did and squeezing in a major policy change before the election (seeing as we're about to hit summer break, then it will be full campaign season).

The NSS is ten years old; it's time for another 'tiger team' of very senior civil servants to review it and, perhaps, make adjustments IF they are needed and warranted ... and, after ten years most programmes do need some fine-tuning, at least.

I think that way back when, ten years ago  , Davie was on the verge of bankruptcy, mostly due to bad management that was allowed, even encouraged to thrive under the rules of 'Quebec Inc,' and the policy decision to exclude it from the NSS made good sense. I suspect that Davie is, now, a much better company and might deserve to be part of the NSS.

I also wonder if there might be some merit in looking at small vessels ~ < 1,000 tons? <2,500 tone? ~ as a separate issue which would allow for a similar (to the NSS) programme to help rebuild some of the inland (Great Lakes), St Lawrence basin and smaller coastal yards. (I'm reminded that, in 1939, Canada could not build a warship at all ... not one of our yards was capable. But the corvettes, based on a North Atlantic whale-hunter of < 1,000 tons, were able to be built by several Canadian yards and Canada produced well over 100 of them before the war ended. Each took about a year to build and required a few months of sea trials and training before entering combat service.) Minor combatants might be important again and there is, I think, a worldwide market for them.

Anyway ... it's about time to revisit the NSS and, maybe, to incorporate at least one more yard.