• 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

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
606
Points
1,060
There's already been talk here that the Halifax class will require some deeper structural overhauls to keep them going. That combined with manning issues suggests that the RCN should be taking one out of service on each coast for that purpose.


We've got a long road ahead. Depending on when the CSC gets started and how quickly they can be built and the learning process. Below is my own creation just going off of some RN and RAN examples. Can Irving get the build process down to 5 yrs? Is that reasonable? Are any of the following guesses even in the ballpark?

CSC/Halifax transitionagelaid downconstruction yrs
Halifax199220313920238
Vancouver199320334020258
Toronto199320344120277
Regina199320354220296
Quebec199420364220306
Montreal199420374320316
Fredricton199420384420326
Calgary199520394420336
Charlottetown199520404520346
Winnipeg199620414520356
St John's199620424620366
Ottawa199620434720376
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,491
Points
1,140
Actually our operational tempo is very light compared to what it used to be so its not going "full tilt" because we don't have the personnel. One 280 was laid up due to personnel shortages and was ultimately decided to be paid off, one because of an accident and the money to repair was deemed too expensive, one had corrosion issues and was paid off immediately and the other sailed right up she was paid off and she had corrosion issues as well not to the degree as the other. These all gas turbine ships were driven hard over the years going into crazy sea states that we typically don't do too much of now. There were also all kinds of issues with these ships due to botched refits and issues after TRUMP conversion also keep in mind lack of personnel and we still had 12 CFPs to sail. Hard decisions were made so when you say all the 280's gave up the ghost was factually wrong. Also keep in mind we now have the imperative to keep these ships going, this the reason why Davie now does half the refit work and more money is being being spent on maintenance. As a civilian you have no idea the plans to keep these ships sailing other than stating they're going to rust out based on the 280's, apples and oranges but if you want a good comparison we ran the steamers for almost 40 years.

I saw the proposed timelines and I have no idea if they maintain these as we are talking years away but I do know they will do everything in their power to keep these ships sailing. We will see some ships more than likely stay alongside at some point but all 12 won't be getting paid off.

Of course not all kinds of delays, some contractor, some navy, some beyond everyone's control. Ship building programs always have delays and some were expected and remember these ships were built to get the yard to build the skills and processes needed to build the CSC. You talk there is some type of conspiracy here, as of last month the 2 CCG APOV's are still being built. That being said it could very well that these ships could be given to Davie if the gap is no longer there.

Procurement is broken and everyone knows that, no political will to fix it. I know you try and keep yourself informed but generally most of what you state is refuted by SME's who try and explain it to you. You are not an SME and there is many moving parts that you are not privy to.

Fill your boots, I think your wrong. There are many people in Ottawa and the fleet looking for solutions to keep these ships running, it is in the realm of possibility.
There's already been talk here that the Halifax class will require some deeper structural overhauls to keep them going. That combined with manning issues suggests that the RCN should be taking one out of service on each coast for that purpose.


We've got a long road ahead. Depending on when the CSC gets started and how quickly they can be built and the learning process. Below is my own creation just going off of some RN and RAN examples. Can Irving get the build process down to 5 yrs? Is that reasonable? Are any of the following guesses even in the ballpark?

CSC/Halifax transitionagelaid downconstruction yrs
Halifax199220313920238
Vancouver199320334020258
Toronto199320344120277
Regina199320354220296
Quebec199420364220306
Montreal199420374320316
Fredricton199420384420326
Calgary199520394420336
Charlottetown199520404520346
Winnipeg199620414520356
St John's199620424620366
Ottawa199620434720376
Well, that looks a lot like the exercise I’ve tried before, in laying out the facts of age plus reality.
Thanks for doing this.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
98
Points
380
Are any of the following guesses even in the ballpark?

CSC/Halifax transitionagelaid downconstruction yrs
Halifax199220313920238
Vancouver199320334020258
Toronto199320344120277
Regina199320354220296
Quebec199420364220306
Montreal199420374320316
Fredricton199420384420326
Calgary199520394420336
Charlottetown199520404520346
Winnipeg199620414520356
St John's199620424620366
Ottawa199620434720376
The first three surface combatants will not replace the Iroquois-class destroyers? The government of Canada website still claims that close out is in the late 2040s. So the last surface combatant might be delivered in around 2049 and might commission in around 2050. Canadian surface combatant - Canada.ca
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
606
Points
1,060
The first three surface combatants will not replace the Iroquois-class destroyers? The government of Canada website still claims that close out is in the late 2040s. So the last surface combatant might be delivered in around 2049 and might commission in around 2050. Canadian surface combatant - Canada.ca
I wasn't really concerned with ships that aren't in service anymore, more what is the length of time that we require out of the Halifax class. So I have the first 12 CSC's replacing the Halifax's one for one. CSC 13,14,15 if continued would come online in 2044,2045,2046 so looks like my schedule is a little optimistic
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,254
Points
1,090
The first three surface combatants will not replace the Iroquois-class destroyers? The government of Canada website still claims that close out is in the late 2040s. So the last surface combatant might be delivered in around 2049 and might commission in around 2050. Canadian surface combatant - Canada.ca
Assuming we still get 15, yes late 40s, maybe even early 50s depending on delays.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,525
Points
990
Close out for the project will likely be 3-4 years after last delivery. There will be sparing, training materials, reconciliations, audit and evaluation and other activities ongoing even after the last ship is delivered. By the book close out is supposed to be within six months of final operational capability, but for a project of this size, it will be longer.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
277
Points
880
There's already been talk here that the Halifax class will require some deeper structural overhauls to keep them going. That combined with manning issues suggests that the RCN should be taking one out of service on each coast for that purpose.


We've got a long road ahead. Depending on when the CSC gets started and how quickly they can be built and the learning process. Below is my own creation just going off of some RN and RAN examples. Can Irving get the build process down to 5 yrs? Is that reasonable? Are any of the following guesses even in the ballpark?

CSC/Halifax transitionagelaid downconstruction yrs
Halifax199220313920238
Vancouver199320334020258
Toronto199320344120277
Regina199320354220296
Quebec199420364220306
Montreal199420374320316
Fredricton199420384420326
Calgary199520394420336
Charlottetown199520404520346
Winnipeg199620414520356
St John's199620424620366
Ottawa199620434720376
Well all the yards are sharing information on the building processes so that will help and I wouldn't be surprised we have people imbedded at those yards. Just before Christmas I had the opportunity of a conference about the Halifax Class and expected build times for the ships. It was 7 years for the first one, the next 3 to 4 is 19 months apiece and 12 months for the rest. I'm sure there will be delays but that's the timing I saw.

If we did take them out of service there would still be crew to conduct maintenance and the idea would be to reactivate down the road. I don't think the intent is to scrap them. Don't be surprised you may see other platforms doing our NATO commitments.
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
122
Points
580
Well, RCN could cheaply fulfill our commitment to NATO by lending out some of our AORs/JSSs if some of the Halifax's get retired early...oh wait.

More pragmatically

  • we bump up the timelines (with the inherent risk and $$$) by having the first CSC Block in the water as fast as possible (as opposed to whatever we're doing now?).
  • Or add more ships (take your pick) to the NSS portfolio to show allies we are less useful 2025-2035 but we will be a good friend sometime later.
  • Announcing we're buying a fleet of Subs would pull attention away from our shortage of CPFs.
  • Build a good number of JSSs and Asterix-type refitted AORs and offer them up for allies Task Groups, offer to ship the US war machine over the pacific with a free fleet of ships (thinking WW2 merchant navy).

  • Less work and its stuff we might do anyways, plus we're pros at announcing stuff to cover our failings.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,254
Points
1,090
Well, RCN could cheaply fulfill our commitment to NATO by lending out some of our AORs/JSSs if some of the Halifax's get retired early...oh wait.

More pragmatically

  • we bump up the timelines (with the inherent risk and $$$) by having the first CSC Block in the water as fast as possible (as opposed to whatever we're doing now?).
  • Or add more ships (take your pick) to the NSS portfolio to show allies we are less useful 2025-2035 but we will be a good friend sometime later.
  • Announcing we're buying a fleet of Subs would pull attention away from our shortage of CPFs.
  • Build a good number of JSSs and Asterix-type refitted AORs and offer them up for allies Task Groups, offer to ship the US war machine over the pacific with a free fleet of ships (thinking WW2 merchant navy).

  • Less work and its stuff we might do anyways, plus we're pros at announcing stuff to cover our failings.
Buy subs off shore, get Davie to convert Astrix's sister ship. Start working in the Kingston replacement at either Davie or a 4th yard in the great lakes. However if you increase any time lines, we need a massive reworking if our recruiting process, tell NATO we need a short break so we cab pull people back and get pumping bodies through the schools. We can build all the vessels in the world but it will be useless without crews.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
277
Points
880
Its been talked about how can we move up the start time of the CSC. I was told its been looked at however it won't work. Currently the design is not finished and we are building AOPS. Is even stopping the AOPS even possible at this point and pivot into the CSC ? I know the assembly building may need to be upgraded at Irving so there's that. Perhaps giving another yard or cancelling the CCG version of the AOPs will speed things up.

Crewing is another big problem and you just can't start pumping them through the schools because they don't have the throughput and to train those numbers of sailors even for FF/DC would mean to double the size of our current DC/FF schools.
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
122
Points
580
Buy subs off shore, get Davie to convert Astrix's sister ship. Start working in the Kingston replacement at either Davie or a 4th yard in the great lakes. However if you increase any time lines, we need a massive reworking if our recruiting process, tell NATO we need a short break so we cab pull people back and get pumping bodies through the schools. We can build all the vessels in the world but it will be useless without crews.

Mothball a tiny handful of Kingstons as CSCs come out to save on people. Push out a great family benefits package to help with recruit/retention as a new re-org is done to allow for the extra time-off/leave accesses. Shell out for a fancy recruitment campaign, remind Canada it has a Navy.

Cancel the CCG AOPS to move up CSC in the timeline. It would work to all yards' benefits.

Placate Seaspan with extra CCG MPVs or another Polar Class for the CCG. Show long-term commitment to all yards.

Davie gets a contract to convert a new fleet of 6-10 or so IAOR (all oceans+2 ice-strengthened), and retire/sell them off after 10 years of heavy use and refit/build new ones on a cycle. Davie gets work forever.

Irving gets a promise to build all 15 CSCs and a couple Kingston Class replacements to slowly churn out.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,525
Points
990
Mothballing half the Kingstons (assuming they are fully crewed) might get you sufficient crew for two CSCs.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
606
Points
1,060
Well all the yards are sharing information on the building processes so that will help and I wouldn't be surprised we have people imbedded at those yards. Just before Christmas I had the opportunity of a conference about the Halifax Class and expected build times for the ships. It was 7 years for the first one, the next 3 to 4 is 19 months apiece and 12 months for the rest. I'm sure there will be delays but that's the timing I saw.

If we did take them out of service there would still be crew to conduct maintenance and the idea would be to reactivate down the road. I don't think the intent is to scrap them. Don't be surprised you may see other platforms doing our NATO commitments.
Sorry, I wasn't clear I didn't mean scrap/pay off just have them get the deeper maintenance that they require
Its been talked about how can we move up the start time of the CSC. I was told its been looked at however it won't work. Currently the design is not finished and we are building AOPS. Is even stopping the AOPS even possible at this point and pivot into the CSC ? I know the assembly building may need to be upgraded at Irving so there's that. Perhaps giving another yard or cancelling the CCG version of the AOPs will speed things up.

Crewing is another big problem and you just can't start pumping them through the schools because they don't have the throughput and to train those numbers of sailors even for FF/DC would mean to double the size of our current DC/FF schools.
In my "plan" above I already cancelled the CCG AOPS
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
277
Points
880
Sorry, I wasn't clear I didn't mean scrap/pay off just have them get the deeper maintenance that they require

In my "plan" above I already cancelled the CCG AOPS
That's why I think we need an "Op pause". Get all the ship surveys done, get the fleet maintained, get sailors on all the courses they need. Unfu*k the schools and increase facilities for training. We can still use the other smaller platforms to keep a presence.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,217
Points
1,040
Sorry, I wasn't clear I didn't mean scrap/pay off just have them get the deeper maintenance that they require

In my "plan" above I already cancelled the CCG AOPS
Part of having the CCG AOPs is to prevent a production gap between the two projects. All the backend steel cutting and similar work starts a year or more before the ship is launched, so even if the last AOPs isn't delivered there are still a bunch of people sitting idle if the CSC isn't ready to go.

They need to figure out how to actually build it as well, so once the critical equipment is chosen and the design is finalized, they still need to figure out how to construct it at ISI, and set up the QC, set to work and trials. All that production engineering takes a few years, so we aren't gaining anything by scrapping the CCG AOPs.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
606
Points
1,060
Part of having the CCG AOPs is to prevent a production gap between the two projects. All the backend steel cutting and similar work starts a year or more before the ship is launched, so even if the last AOPs isn't delivered there are still a bunch of people sitting idle if the CSC isn't ready to go.

They need to figure out how to actually build it as well, so once the critical equipment is chosen and the design is finalized, they still need to figure out how to construct it at ISI, and set up the QC, set to work and trials. All that production engineering takes a few years, so we aren't gaining anything by scrapping the CCG AOPs.
I get that but my hope was that they were further along in the design process and that another 1.5 to 2 years would be enough time to finish the design of a ship class that will already be in construction in the UK and Aus. Systems integration by LM/BAE/ and Irving was prioritized to make this process easier as well. If they need 3 to 4 years more to finish the design work then so be it, I guess
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
73
Points
380
Part of having the CCG AOPs is to prevent a production gap between the two projects. All the backend steel cutting and similar work starts a year or more before the ship is launched, so even if the last AOPs isn't delivered there are still a bunch of people sitting idle if the CSC isn't ready to go.

They need to figure out how to actually build it as well, so once the critical equipment is chosen and the design is finalized, they still need to figure out how to construct it at ISI, and set up the QC, set to work and trials. All that production engineering takes a few years, so we aren't gaining anything by scrapping the CCG AOPs.
Maybe an unpopular thought, but it might make some sense to build the extra 2 AOPS, and keep them with the Navy. If it appears that we'll be short of ships for missions in the next 5-10 years, flexible vessels like the HDW class, may be useful, particularly with their lower demands on crewing. I get that they're not replacements for frigates, but they are a better match for longer deployments than an MCDV.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,110
Points
1,060
and likley sell them later to Chile or another country. I like to see an expansion of the Fleet Auxiliary combining the Federal Fleet Services, including some contracted helicopters to partly man the AOR's, perhaps make it more like the RFA. Use it also as a pipeline to train up more Merchant Marine deck officers and deck crew. Some of the money to cover the training element can come from outside of DND.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,254
Points
1,090
and likley sell them later to Chile or another country. I like to see an expansion of the Fleet Auxiliary combining the Federal Fleet Services, including some contracted helicopters to partly man the AOR's, perhaps make it more like the RFA. Use it also as a pipeline to train up more Merchant Marine deck officers and deck crew. Some of the money to cover the training element can come from outside of DND.
Turn it into a P3? End goal being more merchant marine crews, both FFS and the private sector would benefit
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,110
Points
1,060
It's your merchant marine that generates the mandatory Ships Pilots, without them, most merchant ships would not be allowed to enter or a lot more marine accidents. It takes roughly 20 years to develop a Ship Pilot. Two of my Deck Officers and one of my deckhand buddies have become Pilots, it's an incredibly hard course. Not sure how many naval officers have become Ship Pilots?
 
Top