• 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
2,630
Points
1,040
Where is Davie making a good name for themselves on repair? STJ has been ongoing for a while now, and even allowing for growing pains for a new repair yard (for DND contracts) it hasn't been seemless.

When they used to do refits regularly, we at one point went in and basically restarted a ship (Gatineau?) and sailed her out of there because of their shenanigans.

They were bidder 3 of 3 in the NSS, and from what I've seen on the repair side they are still number 3. Would be number 4 if the yard in St. Catherines was still operating.

Nothing against them; pretty big learning curves and requires a long time to develop the experience, and also relies on DND to have enough experienced people to support the DWP and form the QAR (which we don't have enough of either).

If their performance matched their PR, they could be as good as VSL on the repair side, but requires a lot of learning on some key things like QC, planning etc, and there is no way to do that other than to do it.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,942
Points
1,160
French article on the tax structure of Davie Shipyards, translates fine.

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,942
Points
1,160
Interesting fire fighting tech
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,942
Points
1,160
Where is Davie making a good name for themselves on repair? STJ has been ongoing for a while now, and even allowing for growing pains for a new repair yard (for DND contracts) it hasn't been seemless.

When they used to do refits regularly, we at one point went in and basically restarted a ship (Gatineau?) and sailed her out of there because of their shenanigans.

They were bidder 3 of 3 in the NSS, and from what I've seen on the repair side they are still number 3. Would be number 4 if the yard in St. Catherines was still operating.

Nothing against them; pretty big learning curves and requires a long time to develop the experience, and also relies on DND to have enough experienced people to support the DWP and form the QAR (which we don't have enough of either).

If their performance matched their PR, they could be as good as VSL on the repair side, but requires a lot of learning on some key things like QC, planning etc, and there is no way to do that other than to do it.
When I do security at VDC, I am listening in on the guys working on my radio. I really get a sense they care about the quality of work they do. The yard is always busy and right now they have a Cruise ship in, before that, 3 barges and freighter, all foreign, I am sure the exchange rates do not hurt either.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,529
Points
1,260
Where is Davie making a good name for themselves on repair? STJ has been ongoing for a while now, and even allowing for growing pains for a new repair yard (for DND contracts) it hasn't been seemless.

When they used to do refits regularly, we at one point went in and basically restarted a ship (Gatineau?) and sailed her out of there because of their shenanigans.

They were bidder 3 of 3 in the NSS, and from what I've seen on the repair side they are still number 3. Would be number 4 if the yard in St. Catherines was still operating.

Nothing against them; pretty big learning curves and requires a long time to develop the experience, and also relies on DND to have enough experienced people to support the DWP and form the QAR (which we don't have enough of either).

If their performance matched their PR, they could be as good as VSL on the repair side, but requires a lot of learning on some key things like QC, planning etc, and there is no way to do that other than to do it.

From what I have been told STJ has been arising after arising. Kind of like when I work on my 75 year old house. I always know when I open a wall that is the first contact my plan always dies at. Ooooo look more aluminum wiring goody goody.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,630
Points
1,040
From what I have been told STJ has been arising after arising. Kind of like when I work on my 75 year old house. I always know when I open a wall that is the first contact my plan always dies at. Ooooo look more aluminum wiring goody goody.
Yeah, for sure.

Still going through growing pains though on both sides for doing DWPs there, but is similar what we went through when we did the refit in St. Catherines (which was actually in the same company structure as CDCI at the time under Upper Lake Marine). I think it was a lot of overoptimism on both sides, but the piss poor state of our ships doesn't help. I think we've figured some of the big moving parts out, so TOR should be better now that we've started to get a better handle on some QC issues. The reactivation is still going to be painful though, and it's crazy that DND is running with a lot of that vice driving the shipyard to get everything in place for a basin trial.

Just hoping they finish the major work before rushing the ship back to Halifax; she might actually be genuinely seaworthy for the TRP if they do that. If they send it back to Halifax with major repairs outstanding still will be fighting against the rest of the aging fleet and limited resources.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,453
Points
1,040
Thought this quote was interesting...

“The next decade is likely to see a ‘Dreadnought moment’ in relation to war at sea stimulated by radically novel technologies. Despite its massive superiority, the US will have to continue to invest heavily to maintain its lead while other ambitious navies, notably China and Russia are likely to follow closely. The rest will struggle to remain within touching distance, especially as they doggedly persist with traditional ship programmes well into the future. As a result, the world will be divided into countries that can prevail at sea and those that, frankly, need not bother” Rear Admiral Chris Parry, RN Retd.

The implication is the traditional ship programs are going the way of the dodo and something new will be replacing them.

I'm not sure if he's refering to new technologies or a complete overhaul of the way technologies are being implemented (Dreadnought moment).
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,478
Points
1,140
Thought this quote was interesting...



The implication is the traditional ship programs are going the way of the dodo and something new will be replacing them.

I'm not sure if he's refering to new technologies or a complete overhaul of the way technologies are being implemented (Dreadnought moment).
Interesting, I would assume it’s an astronomical leap in automation, to reduce crews, as I’m not seeing any other revolution popping out.

Sea ‘Drone’ Swarm ?
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,771
Points
1,140
Interesting, I would assume it’s an astronomical leap in automation, to reduce crews, as I’m not seeing any other revolution popping out.

Sea ‘Drone’ Swarm ?
Totally spitballing here but how realistic is it to think that a small, long-range drone could get along side a ship and drop some sort of chems into the ship's ventilation system and take out some/all of the crew? If not 1 drone, but how about 5 dozen, 10 dozen?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,478
Points
1,140
Totally spitballing here but how realistic is it to think that a small, long-range drone could get along side a ship and drop some sort of chems into the ship's ventilation system and take out some/all of the crew? If not 1 drone, but how about 5 dozen, 10 dozen?
Most ships are NBC proof - so the vent system is most likely not going to "fall for it". Plus the whole Chemical weapons provisions...
I'm more curious about something like an E Boat, 100t and 120 ft long - and fairly low profile that are fairly autonomous - no crew quarters, no food, fresh water etc -- just fuel and munitions.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
634
Points
960
Most ships are NBC proof - so the vent system is most likely not going to "fall for it". Plus the whole Chemical weapons provisions...
I'm more curious about something like an E Boat, 100t and 120 ft long - and fairly low profile that are fairly autonomous - no crew quarters, no food, fresh water etc -- just fuel and munitions.
sounds like a 21st century fireboat. Not a new idea by any means. First recorded use is way back in 413 b.c. With modern technology i.e. radio control they could be a great inconvenience to a modern navy
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,478
Points
1,140
sounds like a 21st century fireboat. Not a new idea by any means. First recorded use is way back in 413 b.c. With modern technology i.e. radio control they could be a great inconvenience to a modern navy
I was thinking of stand off munitions etc on them, to greatly increase the range and power of your fleet, not a suicide type Fireboat. But I am also totally cool with some of those too ;).
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,453
Points
1,040
All interesting things to think about and worry about. NBC protection is affored to the crew by a "citadel" which essentially is higher atmospheric pressure in a space so toxins can't come in. Dropping a NBC item onto a ship would be irritating as hell, but if the crew were prepared for that eventuallity barring actual battle damage to the citadel its something that we train for. There is also a prewet system that can be activated which sparys the ship and covers it in a slick of seawater, so toxins and particles will automatically be washed away and not find purchase on the hull.

@KevinB one of the reason autonomous ships are not fully a thing now is that they are easily captured by enemy vessels and the technology analyzed. It's one of the reasons there isn't any AEW UAV's yet, as can you imagine that expensive and top secret radar getting captured because of a software piloting error? Crazy stuff.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,478
Points
1,140
All interesting things to think about and worry about. NBC protection is affored to the crew by a "citadel" which essentially is higher atmospheric pressure in a space so toxins can't come in. Dropping a NBC item onto a ship would be irritating as hell, but if the crew were prepared for that eventuallity barring actual battle damage to the citadel its something that we train for. There is also a prewet system that can be activated which sparys the ship and covers it in a slick of seawater, so toxins and particles will automatically be washed away and not find purchase on the hull.

@KevinB one of the reason autonomous ships are not fully a thing now is that they are easily captured by enemy vessels and the technology analyzed. It's one of the reasons there isn't any AEW UAV's yet, as can you imagine that expensive and top secret radar getting captured because of a software piloting error? Crazy stuff.
Yeah I’m envisioning then more as a screen around a manned ship - not sure they need that much radar and high end targeting if the ‘command ship’ can run them all, and just use them as remote weapons stations.

Multiple loyal wingmen as it where.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
521
Points
1,090
Yeah I’m envisioning then more as a screen around a manned ship - not sure they need that much radar and high end targeting if the ‘command ship’ can run them all, and just use them as remote weapons stations.

Multiple loyal wingmen as it where.
Just as there are loitering munitions for the army, there are loitering munition in development for the navy. The most common I've seen so far are: ISR platforms, loitering munitions, and off-board jammers.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
521
Points
1,090
Thought this quote was interesting...

The implication is the traditional ship programs are going the way of the dodo and something new will be replacing them.

I'm not sure if he's refering to new technologies or a complete overhaul of the way technologies are being implemented (Dreadnought moment).

I don't agree that we are there yet. None of the major navies have demonstrated any significant new naval warfare technologies that would fundamentally change warship design. Lasers are looking promising, but they would just replace existing AA systems, not fundamentally change the way ship's fight/defend themselves. Anti-ship and air-defence missiles are just getting faster and longer ranged. Rail guns seems to be losing steam as they were originally intended for shore bombardment and a lot of focus is being put back onto blue water engagements. So, what exactly is he referring to? Or is it just a "gut" feeling of his? I think "drone swarms" really good be the neck evolutionary step, but no one has so far designed a ship or demonstrated a concept of use that would fundamentally transform the war warships are designed.

Plus, he's forgetting or ignoring a few facts:
1. 99.9% of the time warships are and have been used in a constabulary or support to OGD/diplomatic role. You don't need the most modern designed warships for that;
2. Having a few of the very best is not always better that having a lot of good enough (Sherman tanks, for example).
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,529
Points
1,260
I don't agree that we are there yet. None of the major navies have demonstrated any significant new naval warfare technologies that would fundamentally change warship design. Lasers are looking promising, but they would just replace existing AA systems, not fundamentally change the way ship's fight/defend themselves. Anti-ship and air-defence missiles are just getting faster and longer ranged. Rail guns seems to be losing steam as they were originally intended for shore bombardment and a lot of focus is being put back onto blue water engagements. So, what exactly is he referring to? Or is it just a "gut" feeling of his? I think "drone swarms" really good be the neck evolutionary step, but no one has so far designed a ship or demonstrated a concept of use that would fundamentally transform the war warships are designed.

Plus, he's forgetting or ignoring a few facts:
1. 99.9% of the time warships are and have been used in a constabulary or support to OGD/diplomatic role. You don't need the most modern designed warships for that;
2. Having a few of the very best is not always better that having a lot of good enough (Sherman tanks, for example).

Those lasers. Any idea what kind of power draw they would have ? I know nothing about them. Would it be essentially an endless supply of "ammo" ?
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
521
Points
1,090
Those lasers. Any idea what kind of power draw they would have ? I know nothing about them. Would it be essentially an endless supply of "ammo" ?
In theory, yes. It will have unlimited "ammo", but will be limited in: 1. how often it can shoot, 2. how many targets it can engage at a time, and 3. what type of targets it can destroy. The biggest issue is power consumption. If you want to engage multiple inbound targets, you would need multiple lasers. If you want to engage larger and hardended targets, you would need more powerful lasers. Both of these would require more power, and right now, I've only seen testing of a single 30 (ish) kw laser firing against a single target. I have no idea how much power the lasers requires and whether it needs to be "charged up" first (meaning it would have a maximum firing time or "volley" ending once the capacitor runs out) or if it can fire continuously as long as power is being supplied by the ship's electrical system.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
2,223
Points
1,160
I don't agree that we are there yet. None of the major navies have demonstrated any significant new naval warfare technologies that would fundamentally change warship design. Lasers are looking promising, but they would just replace existing AA systems, not fundamentally change the way ship's fight/defend themselves. Anti-ship and air-defence missiles are just getting faster and longer ranged. Rail guns seems to be losing steam as they were originally intended for shore bombardment and a lot of focus is being put back onto blue water engagements. So, what exactly is he referring to? Or is it just a "gut" feeling of his? I think "drone swarms" really good be the neck evolutionary step, but no one has so far designed a ship or demonstrated a concept of use that would fundamentally transform the war warships are designed.

Plus, he's forgetting or ignoring a few facts:
1. 99.9% of the time warships are and have been used in a constabulary or support to OGD/diplomatic role. You don't need the most modern designed warships for that;
2. Having a few of the very best is not always better that having a lot of good enough (Sherman tanks, for example).
Also, arguably, Flower class corvettes in the first years of the Second World War.HMCS_Louisburg.jpeg
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,529
Points
1,260
In theory, yes. It will have unlimited "ammo", but will be limited in: 1. how often it can shoot, 2. how many targets it can engage at a time, and 3. what type of targets it can destroy. The biggest issue is power consumption. If you want to engage multiple inbound targets, you would need multiple lasers. If you want to engage larger and hardended targets, you would need more powerful lasers. Both of these would require more power, and right now, I've only seen testing of a single 30 (ish) kw laser firing against a single target. I have no idea how much power the lasers requires and whether it needs to be "charged up" first (meaning it would have a maximum firing time or "volley" ending once the capacitor runs out) or if it can fire continuously as long as power is being supplied by the ship's electrical system.

Interesting. That was my wonder really. Will the limitation be the ships ability to generate the power needed for sustained contact.
 
Top