"U.K., Canada Discuss Joint Frigate Development"

[MarkOttawa]

Oldgateboatdriver: I certainly do not favour a constabulary militia.  My point is simply that I do not think Canadian governments (any stripe, this one is an example) will be willing to pay for three multi-purpose combat capable services that actually are that combat capable around the world.  I fear that if things go on as they are the services will each become slowly less combat capable as the funds simply are not there to keep them effectively multi-purpose.

Seeing as we are most unlikely to take on a serious unilateral combat mission, to my mind the logical thing to do is decide what we can best bring militarily to a coalition effort that can make the most effective contribution.  Given that in the great majority of cases Canadian governments choose the Army to be the main component of expeditionary deployments (including UN and other "peacekeeping", ineffectual as that often is) it seems to me that one possible future structuring of the CF would emphasize an expanded Army with the other services having support for it abroad as a prime operational purpose.

Nevertheless the Navy must still also be able to deal with waters of immediate interest to Canada--as must the Air Force as well as being able to patrol and defend our territory and surrounding airspace.

If each service tries to go on being as all-singing and all-dancing as possible each is likely to end up not performing all that well.  The UK, starting from a much larger defence base than us, in the recent Strategic Defence and Security Review
http://www.number10.gov.uk/topstorynews/2010/10/strategic-defence-review-55906
has made some very difficult choices to focus the services, and abandoned some capabilities so as to be able to afford and maintain others.  I believe Canada will eventually be forced to do something similar; I just hope we can do it intelligently.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[McG]

If each service tries to go on being as all-singing and all-dancing as possible each is likely to end up not performing all that well. 

How do you think any of our services are trying to be "all-singing & all-dancing"?  Is this a convenient distortion of reality to fit your arguments, or are you actually oblivious to the great range of important and usefull capabilities that we do not hold?  You realise the Army is divesting of air defence, the Air Force is not asking for bombers, the Navy is not asking for cruisers and aircraft carriers, nobody is looking for attack helicopters, and ....

If it costs a penny, you seem to be against it.

 

[MarkOttawa]

MCG: 

How do you think any of our services are trying to be "all-singing & all-dancing"?

I was of course exaggerating for effect, note the "as possible" that you omitted. 

If it costs a penny, you seem to be against it.

Not me, just most finance ministers and the Treasury Board.  You'll note this government has already broken its 2008 CFDS budget promises:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/index-eng.asp

...
This stable and predictable funding provides the planning certainty required to continue rebuilding the Canadian Forces...

2010 budget:
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/plan/chap4a-eng.html

...
Restraining Growth in National Defence Spending
...
The Government remains committed to continuing to build the Canadian Forces into a first-class, modern military. However, as part of measures to restrain the growth in overall government spending and return to budget balance in the medium term, the Government will slow the rate of previously planned growth in the National Defence budget. Budget 2010 reduces growth in National Defence's budget by $525 million in 2012–13 and $1 billion annually beginning in 2013–14. Defence spending will continue to grow but more slowly than previously planned...

And that from the supposedly oh so military-friendly Conservatives, nonetheless the most CF-friendly government we'll have (even if only for political motives, not a real interest in, or concern for, strategy and defence).  I would like some 2% of GDP going to defence, rather than the around 1.2% now.  That amount could fund those three multi-purpose, combat capable services.  But I know that is dreaming and am just trying to be realistic within the funding levels that will be available.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[NavyShooter]

Seeing as we are most unlikely to take on a serious unilateral combat mission, to my mind the logical thing to do is decide what we can best bring militarily to a coalition effort that can make the most effective contribution. 

No.  What Canada needs to do is to look at what our nation's interests are, and what military assets we need in order to continue to serve those interests.

Given that in the great majority of cases Canadian governments choose the Army to be the main component of expeditionary deployments (including UN and other "peacekeeping", ineffectual as that often is) it seems to me that one possible future structuring of the CF would emphasize an expanded Army with the other services having support for it abroad as a prime operational purpose.

Um.  No. 

The Army has been the force most in the media highlight, because the Army has had a high profile mission, for almost a decade, with numerous casualties. 

The Navy has not been idle, we've been somewhat busy ourselves...though without the media attention. 

Nevertheless the Navy must still also be able to deal with waters of immediate interest to Canada--as must the Air Force as well as being able to patrol and defend our territory and surrounding airspace.

True.  Those waters include wherever the Canadian Government decides to send the fleet.  Immediate interest could include overwatch of the evacuation of tens of thousands of refugees from a bad situation in the middle east...or piracy, or oil supplies, or humanitarian missions...all while maintaining the capability for warfighting and national defence. 

If each service tries to go on being as all-singing and all-dancing as possible each is likely to end up not performing all that well.  The UK, starting from a much larger defence base than us, in the recent Strategic Defence and Security Review
http://www.number10.gov.uk/topstorynews/2010/10/strategic-defence-review-55906
has made some very difficult choices to focus the services, and abandoned some capabilities so as to be able to afford and maintain others.  I believe Canada will eventually forced to do something similar; I just hope we can do it intelligently.

Mark
Ottawa

All singing, all dancing isn't what we do now.  We have Multi-Role frigates, Destroyers, MCDV's that can do a myriad of roles from mine-sweeping to ROV ops. 

Our ships can take on a multitude of tasks....and succeed.  The versatility of a warship is something that cannot be cast aside, and if there's a way to make a newer one (our current generation have been in the water for 15-20 years!!!!) in a cheaper fashion, BY ALL MEANS.  PLEASE.  DO IT FASTER.

NS

 

[jollyjacktar]

Our ships can take on a multitude of tasks....and succeed.  The versatility of a warship is something that cannot be cast aside, and if there's a way to make a newer one (our current generation have been in the water for 15-20 years!!!!) in a cheaper fashion, BY ALL MEANS.  PLEASE.  DO IT FASTER.

NS

Well said.

 

[FoverF]

Well, I don't want this to become a pile on, or any more de-railed, but I feel that this is a significant issue:

Canadian government is going to have to engage in a serious defence review--capabilities to conduct specified types of missions necessary vs. money available... to provide governments with the most effective military capability to do realistic things within budgetary realities.

I think this is a horrible, terrible, really really bad idea. There is really only one fore-gone conclusion that will come of it.

It would yield the smallest, cheapest, and least effective military possible, barely capable of performing specific tasks in a hypothetical war which will never happen.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The reviews Mark described are what most countries do. The US does it every four years with the QDR. Normally and logically it would be a good idea to do it here as well.

I think Mark is wrong in that he's trying to apply logic to an illogical situation. The reality is that Canadian governments of any stripe are just not willing to make those kind of tough choices, and then actually fund them. We saw that with the Martin government White Paper.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals are effectively in favour of unilateral disarmament, or at least thats where their policies will lead us. The only difference is in the exact timescale it will take.

 

[MarkOttawa]

drunknsubmrnr:

The reality is that Canadian governments of any stripe are just not willing to make those kind of tough choices, and then actually fund them.

Thank you.  A concise summary of much I have been trying to, er, elucidate.

I think Mark is wrong in that he's trying to apply logic to an illogical situation.

One can but try, Sisyphusian:
http://camus-society.com/myth-of-sisyphus.html

...Here, Sisyphus endlessly rolls a rock up a hill, just to have it roll back to start anew...

On the contrary, I have never liked Jean-Paul Sartre:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KmnZSnqIs

Worth the watch and fun.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Pusser]

This is not a new concept and Canada has been successfully involved in a similar project for years - the vertical launch sea sparrow missile system.

 

[RC]

This is pretty much an essential step in moving forward with the CSC program.  While Canada has strong design capability in most types of ships, it's been some quarter of a century since the design of the last batch of frigates.  Most people who worked on the design have either forgotten what they knew or retired.  The people who might be capable enough to do it likely won't, as committing to a program with that long a duration and intensity means sacrificing the rest of your business.  To force develop the competence from nothing will take a lot of time and money with uncertain results.  Surface combattants aren't exactly the easiest type of ship to design.

Thus, we need to rely on a principal design force that is foreign.  However, I don't believe the Canadian government will ever agree to simply buy a design without having their share of say in the development.  Aside from the fact that, as I understand it, there are some difficult questions about the Type 25, this seems like a pretty good solution.  Canada should furnish a small design team, mainly to benefit from a transfer of technology from the UK, and support the ships in construction and in service.

It will leave Canada with a capability as well as accelerate and reduce risk in the CSC design program.

I wonder if the government won't try to break up the funding to make the perceived cost more palatable to voters.  If you just say it straight out as $41bn dollars, it gives a certain front page panic aura, but if you split it into 4 groups with each announcement coming a few years apart it might drop back a few pages.  In other words, a common platform is a good idea, but a common price tag is not.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Major article in Defense Industry Daily:

Britain’s Future Frigates: Type 26 & 27 Global Combat Ships 
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Britains-Future-Frigates-06268/

...
Both British FSC variants will also be developed with an eye to export orders, in hopes of to spreading development costs over more vessels, getting more benefit from the manufacturing learning curve, reducing costs per ship thanks to volume orders, and sustaining the UK’s naval shipbuilding industry. So far, countries that have expressed some level of interest have included Australia, Brazil, Canada, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Turkey.

Talks do not a deal make, however, and Britain will have a formidable set of established competitors to contend with...

Feb 6/11: MercoPress
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/02/06/brazil-and-uk-ready-to-sign-huge-defence-contract-say-media-reports
refers to Brazilian and British media reports that a GBP 2.9 billion deal (about 7.85 billion Reals, or $4.68 billion) may be about to buy 6 Offshore Patrol Vessels at GBP 60-80 million each, and 5-6 Type 26 at GB 300-400 million [$C640 M] each [emphasis added]...

“The articles mention that according to the agreement with BAE Systems and following on Brazilian policy of ‘technology transfer’ the first patrol and frigate units would be built in the UK and the rest in Brazilian yards…"

Both Canada and Australia have plans for a “future frigate” competition in their 20-year defense procurement strategies, and BAE can expect strong competition on both fronts. Canada may be a better bet than Australia, where Spain’s Navantia has established a very strong foothold with its current Hobart Class destroyer and Canberra Class LHD programs. UK Hansard transcripts |
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110131/debtext/110131-0001.htm#1101318000512
Defense News...
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5593035&c=SEA&s=TOP

So five ships for Brazil would cost some $3.2 billion.  We are planning 15 CSCs.  So for us the cost would be around $10 billion.  Meanwhile the acquisition costs for those CSCs is now put at $26 billion.
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/FutureFleetMack
Big potential savings it would seem.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[RC]

I'll be very surprised if Britain wins the Brazil contract.

I'm slightly biased on the matter, but I think their chances are very poor, particularly if they mean to try and build the first one in Britain.  Brazil has made it quite clear on many occasions that that is not what they want.  They are competing with at least three other countries, at least one of whom is willing to built entirely in Brazil.

You'd have to look at what the Brazilians are asking for in detail to determine whether the frigates being offered are anywhere near the Canadian requirements.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Gov't doesn't seem too enthusiastic and insists on building in Canada which will push costs up considerably:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/britain-canada-talk-about-building-frigates-in-joint-program-uk-minister-115769384.html

Canada and Britain have been holding quiet but lengthy discussions to develop replacement frigates for both of their navies.

The shipbuilding program is being proposed by British defence giant BAE Systems Inc., but has also been pitched to other countries including Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Turkey in what could be described as a watered-down naval version of the F-35 fighter jet.

Word of the talks emerged recently in debate before the British House of Commons.

Britain's parliamentary secretary for defence, Gerald Howarth, said he was delighted that a "close discussion with the Canadians" was underway over the so-called Global Combat Ship program.

A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay played down the talks.

Jay Paxton described them as discussions over "best practices, interoperability, costs and numerous other issues."

Canada's Defence Department is refurbishing its 12 Halifax-class patrol frigates, launched in the 1990s but expected to reach the end of their life around 2025...

The frigate replacement is a huge chunk of the estimated $35 billion the Conservative government has committed in its recent 20-year national shipbuilding strategy. That plan, which the federal government recently formalized in a request for proposals, would see two shipyards selected as prime contractors.

Paxton said that will not change.

"Every new ship that Canada builds for the Canadian navy will be built in Canada," he said...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

With all due respect Mark, you have no basis whatsoever to conclude that building these ships in Canada, as opposed to Great-Britain, will push up the cost AT ALL, let alone considerably.

 

[The Bread Guy]

- edited to add House of Commons exchange -

Talks between Canada and Britain about a joint program to develop a next-generation global frigate could deep-six Canada’s shipbuilding industry, says a marine workers union official.

"If they’re talking to a foreign government about generic frigates, how long before they sell out everything?" Jamie Vaslet, business agent for Local 1 of the Canadian Auto Workers/Marine Workers Federation, said in an interview Tuesday.

The local represents 1,200 workers at the Halifax Shipyard, which is doing a $549 million midlife refit of seven Halifax-class navy frigates ....

More from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald here.

Also, this from Hansard, during yesterday's Question Period in the HoC:

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, shipbuilders on the west coast are nervous about talks with Britain to jointly discuss the building of Canadian naval ships. The government promised that these new vessels would be made in Canada, yet workers are worried that they may be sold out in these closed door negotiations.  Workers at the shipyards of Victoria, Esquimalt and Nanaimo are looking for answers. Will the Minister of Public Works come clean and recommit to an inclusive, fair and made-in-Canada shipbuilding strategy?

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I remember the day that we announced the national shipbuilding strategy. One of the member's colleagues from Halifax was there, and he said that it was a great day for Halifax.  I can tell her that our government is fully committed to the national shipbuilding strategy. It is a historic commitment. Our strategy will create more than 75 million person hours of work for the Canadian shipbuilding industry.  At the end of the day, this is great news for shipbuilders across the country. Our ships for our navy and our coast guard will be built by Canadians.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that we have to go the House of Commons in Britain to find out that Britain and Canada are having closed discussions regarding the possibility of jointly building naval ships.  If the government is so committed to the NSPS, why is it having discussions with Britain regarding the building of our Canadian vessels?  We would like to know what those discussions are about. We would also like the government to recommit once and for all to building the entire ship for the navy and the coast guard, lock, stock and barrel, from stem to stern, with everything in it, in Canada by Canadian workers in Canadian shipyards.

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, as I said, our government is fully committed to the national shipbuilding strategy. The member knows that this is an historic commitment to our shipyards across the country. It is going to create 75 million person hours of work for the Canadian shipyards from coast to coast to coast.  He knows full well, being from Halifax, that this is a very competitive process, but it is good news. At the end of the day our ships for the navy and coast guard will be built in Canada by Canadians.

 

[MarkOttawa]

More from CP:

Navy review of foreign ship designs gives builders the jitters
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/navy-review-of-foreign-ship-designs-gives-builders-the-jitters-116351604.html

National Defence has been quietly urging the Canadian navy to explore offshore designs and solutions to its shipbuilding needs — causing jitters in a domestic industry struggling to survive.

Britain's parliamentary secretary for defence recently revealed that country was in discussions with Canada about participating in BAE Systems Inc.'s Global Combat Ship program, the Royal Navy's plan to replace its frigates.

The Harper government has refused to comment on the talks, other than to play them down as routine.

Defence sources say the navy also considered — but rejected — a British offer to sell Canada one of the Royal Navy's relatively new Bay-class transport ships, some of which will be sold or retired because of deep budget cuts.

The proposal was floated because the navy's supply-ship replacement program is in limbo, with no firm date established despite nearly a decade of planning, number-crunching and redesigns.

Naval planners were also told to look at French proposals and blueprints, despite extensive staff work put into Canadian warship requirements.

Buying designs offshore would be short-sighted, said Canada's shipbuilding association.

"I'm not sure there's any cost-saving in that at all. In fact, I would argue it would possibly be more expensive," warned the association's executive director Peter Cairns.

Government insiders describe the process the navy is going through, at the direction of the deputy minister of defence [emphasis added], as due diligence meant to justify an eventual submission to the Treasury Board.

And Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said in the House of Commons on Wednesday that the Conservatives remain committed to the National Shipbuilding Plan, announced with fanfare last June.

"At the end of the day, our ships for the navy and the coast guard will be built in Canada by Canadians," Ambrose said, in answer to a series of questions from the NDP.

The process, still two years away from full implementation, would see Ottawa develop a strategic relationship with two shipyards in the country — one to build large combat ships, the other to build smaller civilian vessels such as coast guard cutters [wrong, that yard will also build the biggest vessel, the "non-combat" JSS].

Cairns said buying offshore designs is risky because foreign countries lay out their ships based upon their own requirements...

The newest CCG vessels are in fact Dutch designed,
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/17282/post-980011.html#msg980011
and the latest iteration of the JSS will now be based on a foreign design:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/17282/post-978257.html#msg978257

Note the gov't is saying nothing about the design of the CSC even after the Brits spilled some beans.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Last night on the CTV News with Steve Murphy, the Defence Minister stated that these were routine consultations with the UK and that there will be no ships built offshore and that Canadian Shipyards will be getting the work to built the CCG, JSS and next generation destroyers and frigates.

 

[NavyShooter]

The last warships designed and built down in Canada were the MCDV's.

The last major warships designed and built in Canada were the CPF's.

Does it not make sense to refer to the design process that our allies are using in their current production ships to at least validate our designs against modern construction techniques and combat requirements?

CPF's were designed in the 70-80's, and built using technology that's now 20 years old.

Getting involved with other nations that have more current implementation of Naval Architecture only makes sense.

NS

 

[jollyjacktar]

Not only that, but if we had kept our head in the sand 70 years ago we would not have had Corvettes, Lancasters and other designs that were built here in Canada and used successfully.  There is no reason that I can think of against perhaps a joint designed project built in our respective countries.  I looked at HMS Daring while she was visiting, the modern design, stealth features including the mast.  And I looked at what we were fabricating, an old fashioned lattice framed mast for our use.  It's time for some new thinking.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

To add to jj's point, there was lot in common (more than met the eye) between the old steamers and the British Leander class. It did  not happen by accident: we shared info during the original design phase and it lead to a better end result for both countries.

Also, the American coast guard has now elected to buy and build the same Damen design we have selected for our coast guard's mid-shore patrol vessels, but with some local modifications. They did this because it was found to be faster than coming up with their own original design and were in a hurry to replace the old "Island" class with the new "Sentinels". They are all built at Bollinger though - so looking at other nation's design still lets us build local and design our own mods. If it makes getting off the mark to actually build the thing faster, what is wrong with that?