Results 1 to 51 of 51

Thread: Cost to build navy's new warships more than doubles to $30B

  1. #1

    Default Cost to build navy's new warships more than doubles to $30B

    Yup, Stephen harper was an economist. He knew how to save money. Simply underestimate everything. It'll be interesting to see how Moa and Hello Lady spin this to be Trudeau's fault.

    Seriously, how do you underestimate it by a factor of two?

    Cost to build navy's new warships more than doubles to $30B
    Independent analysis suggests Canada will have to accept fewer ships — or spend a lot more money


    The price of 15 new warships for the navy has more than doubled, from $14 billion initially set aside for construction to more than $30 billion, says an independent analysis of the largest military procurement in Canadian history.

    That takes the total cost to upgrade Canada's navy to $42 billion — $16 billion more than the $26.2-billion approved by the government for the Canadian Surface Combatant program.

    That would make the warships component alone more expensive than the approved budget for the entire national shipbuilding program, which also includes supply ships, coast guard ships and Arctic vessels.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nsps...osts-1.3345435

  2. #2

    Default

    Easy to explain, Greater Harper (the whole Calgary "Skool") is a complete liar.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  3. #3
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Yup, Stephen harper was an economist. He knew how to save money. Simply underestimate everything. It'll be interesting to see how Moa and Hello Lady spin this to be Trudeau's fault.

    Seriously, how do you underestimate it by a factor of two?
    Moa will creatively edit some quotes and Hello Lady will refer to him a "Junior" and blame it on his nice hair.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  4. #4

    Default

    Beware the Military/Industrial complex...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  5. #5

    Default

    ^the report was paid for by Irving Shipyard, not surprisingly they want more money, that's what rich families want. At the end of the day, we build them in Canada and pay a premium because our shipyards aren't as efficient as overseas, or we build them overseas for less. The conservatives chose the former, mostly for political reasons, and any other political party would to. Seems to me the government just has to be firm on the costs per the original quote and not let the shipyards or the Navy push to over engineer this.

  6. #6
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,798

    Default

    Should have gotten a quote from PCL to do it ! Ahead of schedule and under budget. lol. I cant see why a company can give a quote, then double the price. (1 billion each to over 2 billion each)Fire them and get someone else.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 03-12-2015 at 06:56 AM.

  7. #7

    Default

    ^the difference is, I guess, that PCL have competition. The shipyards have a bit of a gun to head of the government, because there are only about 3 capable of building the ships (Quebec was the province that lost out - but that is an option Government could threaten Irving with). And since they won the contracts, it would be politically tough for a government to take that business away from those cities (Sespan in Vancouver for the support ships and Irving in Nova Scotia for the combat ships). So now, Irving is trying to weasel their way to escalate the costs as much as possible over and above what they tendered so they can build fewer ships for same money, or same ships for more, its why you see them funding these "independent" studies about design changes... The government has to try and keep the Navy under control re what they want, yet make sure these shipyards fulfill their contracts and provide as many ships as they promised for the price. Not an easy task.
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-12-2015 at 07:23 AM.

  8. #8
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,798

    Default

    Its a racket

  9. #9
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    I don't understand this fascination with having the ability to build warships in-country. It happens once or twice a generation, so what's the point? Especially if you have to pay twice the price? There are lots of models that are commercially available that are very capable. Many are built by scandinavian countries that have the same operating conditions as our coastline. We don't need best in class. We need professional, competent, well maintained ships, staffed by sailors who are extremely well trained, compensated, and treated for later in life. Take the cost savings from buying off the shelf items and do upgrades more often, more in depth training, etc.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    I don't understand this fascination with having the ability to build warships in-country. It happens once or twice a generation, so what's the point?
    I guess there are a few points, but the big ones to me are:

    1. You build up military capability for industry which allows them to win contracts elsewhere. Not just the ships, but all sorts of components in those ships
    2. You win electoral seats in those provinces, whereas you will win virtually none if you give it to a foreign ship yard (applies to Liberals and Conservatives equally).

    Lets face it, Canada is a laggard in military spending, we spend about 1% of our GDP on the military, versus the US which spends 4%. While that sounds terrible for the US, that spending is a big prop to their economy. The dollars are big in these contracts, but a lot of it is reinvested here in Canada. Its ship workers paying taxes here, companies paying taxes here, less employment benefits to pay in those provinces, etc.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    I don't understand this fascination with having the ability to build warships in-country. It happens once or twice a generation, so what's the point?
    I guess there are a few points, but the big ones to me are:

    1. You build up military capability for industry which allows them to win contracts elsewhere. Not just the ships, but all sorts of components in those ships
    2. You win electoral seats in those provinces, whereas you will win virtually none if you give it to a foreign ship yard (applies to Liberals and Conservatives equally).

    Lets face it, Canada is a laggard in military spending, we spend about 1% of our GDP on the military, versus the US which spends 4%. While that sounds terrible for the US, that spending is a big prop to their economy. The dollars are big in these contracts, but a lot of it is reinvested here in Canada. Its ship workers paying taxes here, companies paying taxes here, less employment benefits to pay in those provinces, etc.
    Or just buy used from another Navy, or new from an established builder, save billions or tens of billions of dollars, save years or decades of waiting and turmoil, have the ships, etc on schedule so that your country is militarily prepared, and you can then use the savings of billions of dollars to properly care for your veterans, build other military capability for a wide range of other threats and pay for all kinds of other priorities. So the economy is equally supported and the spending can then go to entities with proven efficiencies.

    Basically do it the way the private sector would do it, rather than engaging in government subsidized industry creation.

    As is, 100% over budget, $15 billion over, so clearly the private sector couldn't handle the job so far, so nationalize it and own it so if it eventually becomes profitable and cost effective, the public can earn a return on their spending. Stop the privatizing of gains and socializing of losses.
    Last edited by KC; 03-12-2015 at 09:34 AM.

  12. #12

    Default

    ^I think you can sell that in Alberta, where we don't have shipyards, but good luck in BC, Quebec and Nova Scotia. The Liberals won't do that, and the Conservatives wouldn't as well, for that reason, it would be political suicide in those provinces. The opposition and unions would be screaming about the billions given away to foreign ship yards while our ship yards sit idle.

  13. #13
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Finland, Norway, Germany, Denmark, etc spend 1.2-1.4% of GDP on their military. So we're not far off.

    Our shipbuilding industry sees these contracts as gravy. They happen so infrequently that there's no way they're going to build up their capability to bid on contracts outside of Canada. Especially when they see the prices we end up paying from our own vendors.

    Doing it just to buy votes isn't worth it. Almost 1 billion extra a year just to win an extra couple votes? And only for one election to boot.

    Most of the 'components' on the ship are already purchased from established international defence companies. These are all large companies that have been around for at least one world war, if not several. You want to displace them, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than this small contract (spread out over so long, this is peanuts in the arms world).
    Last edited by nobleea; 03-12-2015 at 09:43 AM.

  14. #14
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    I don't understand this fascination with having the ability to build warships in-country. It happens once or twice a generation, so what's the point?
    I guess there are a few points, but the big ones to me are:

    1. You build up military capability for industry which allows them to win contracts elsewhere. Not just the ships, but all sorts of components in those ships
    2. You win electoral seats in those provinces, whereas you will win virtually none if you give it to a foreign ship yard (applies to Liberals and Conservatives equally).

    Lets face it, Canada is a laggard in military spending, we spend about 1% of our GDP on the military, versus the US which spends 4%. While that sounds terrible for the US, that spending is a big prop to their economy. The dollars are big in these contracts, but a lot of it is reinvested here in Canada. Its ship workers paying taxes here, companies paying taxes here, less employment benefits to pay in those provinces, etc.
    Who will hire someone to build ships for double the price, no country on earth. How many seats did this win the cons, none. Get income taxes back? When the govt is paying for it plus an extra billion per ship tip? Makes no sense

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Who will hire someone to build ships for double the price, no country on earth.
    Really? How about, the US Navy? I'd suggest pretty much every Navy except for the very smallest ones, build their own ships. There is the odd exception, like the Russian buying the French carriers, but look all the problems with that.

    Anyway, I'll drop out. I'd be fine if we purchased foreign ships. But good luck convincing the Conservatives, the NDP or the Liberals of that.

  16. #16
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,798

    Default

    What I meant is that someone suggested this would set up a shipyard to do future business in shipbuilding for others, but who in the world will pay a Canadian shipbuilder to build their ships for double the cost. They would get it done in their own country or elsewhere for half the cost.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    What I meant is that someone suggested this would set up a shipyard to do future business in shipbuilding for others,
    I never really meant the ships as exports (should have been clearer), more the spin off impacts like Naval components, electronics, software, etc. We already have a good sized military export industry, it won't all be purchased overseas:

    For the 2012 and 2013 calendar years, Canada’s total exports of military goods and technology amounted to approximately $1.72 billion. The major share ($1.15 billion or 67%) went to member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or non-NATO AFCCL destinations. Saudi Arabia, a non-NATO AFCCL destination was the largest single destination of Canadian military exports each year, received $575.1 million in military exports, accounting for 33% of all Canadian military exports. Five NATO countries were also in the top ten destinations for the same period: the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France and Belgium. One other of the top ten destinations was non-NATO AFCCL destination; Australia, which received a combined $46.9 million in military exports. The United Arab Emirates, Austria and Singapore, the second, fourth and ninth-largest destinations for military exports respectively, were the only non-NATO and non-AFCCL countries in the top ten. Military exports to Participating States of the Wassenaar Arrangement accounted for $741.7 million, or 43% of the total military exports.
    http://www.international.gc.ca/contr....aspx?lang=eng
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-12-2015 at 11:59 AM.

  18. #18
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I never really meant the ships as exports (should have been clearer), more the spin off impacts like Naval components, electronics, software, etc.
    I think most of the high value items are already (or would be) purchased from established vendors. Telling those vendors to set up a design/assembly/manufacturing shop in Canada doesn't magically create a local knowledge base. It's just charity.
    Take a look at the C-Series from Bombardier. Bombardier Aerospace and through its predecessors has been building planes, in Canada, since 1911. But take a look at the supplier list for the C-Series:
    http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_de...?model=CSeries
    Majority of those vendors are not canadian.
    Same thing happens in big warships. Radar and fire control systems from the US, guns from Sweden, turbines from germany, etc etc.

  19. #19
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I can't figure out why military contracts are allowed to break all the rules of procurement.

    Government contracts are supposed to work like this:

    1. Put out RFP

    2. Companies bid on RFP

    3. Winning bid is selected

    4. Company is contractually obligated to fulfill terms and conditions of their bid

    If they bid too low and the budget inflates, too bad so sad. The company eats the loss. If they are behind schedule, the company pays a penalty. If they deliver poor product, the company pays a penalty.

    Without the above benefits, there is no reason to contract the work out. The government would be just as well off hiring all of the necessary staff and doing it themselves.

    Why have large military procurement projects been allowed to break these rules? First with the attempted fighter jet project, now with boats.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 03-12-2015 at 01:26 PM.

  20. #20
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    I can't figure out why military contracts are allowed to break all the rules of procurement.
    Part of it has to do with the way governments (especially the US) treat their defence industries as strategic assets vital to the national interest. With the F35 program, Lockheed Martin's contract is guaranteed cost plus a percentage of profit which LM promptly saw fit to exploit.

    The US shipyards that produce nuclear submarines are similarly treated as strategic asset such that the Congress approves long duration low rate production of subs to ensure that the shipyards stay open in perpetuity and ensure that institutional knowledge and experience is retained.

    Also, it is the recognition that the R&D of new technologies is risky that requires it to be underwritten.

    Of course none of this excuses poor management practices or blind trust. It is worth noting that the Virginia class SSN sub program has been particularly successful with subs being delivered under budget and ahead of schedule. The building program is even spread between the two major sub shipyards of General Dyanamics and Newport News Ship Building and Drydock Company to ensure that they stay in business.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  21. #21
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The issue is, if we are going to treat defense contractors as a "strategic asset" and excuse broken timelines and cost estimates, we are better off just nationalizing them.

    The benefit of privately executed contracts is that companies necessarily have to deliver on time and on budget. These companies compete with others for innovative ways of doing that.

    If innovation is not occurring, and companies are not required to fulfill contractual obligations, there is no reason to have the project executed by the private sphere.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 03-12-2015 at 02:57 PM.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    I can't figure out why military contracts are allowed to break all the rules of procurement.
    That is because the package is not locked down. There are hundreds or even thousands of design changes, upgrades, revisions, mistakes, insufficient drawings or details etc that the contractor adds up at cost plus. There are also countless loopholes, supplier agreements, market provisions etc.

    Augustine's Law #16

    Law Number XVI: In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine%27s_laws

    Law Number XII: It costs a lot to build bad products.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 03-12-2015 at 05:36 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  23. #23

    Default

    ^how so re bad products? All of those planes were eventually world beaters and odds are the F35 will be as well just looking at the curve. They cost a lot to developer, but they lasted a long time, and they are a big part of why, like it or not, the US is the most powerful nation militarily on earth.

    As to the ships, I think it's simply a matter of the navy not asking for too much, and the government enforcing the tender. At the end of the day though, our service personal deserve world class equipment, I'm ok with my tax dollars going towards that.

  24. #24

    Default

    ^ so how much do the Irvings pay the Cowservidive Pardy?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  25. #25
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post


    That is because the package is not locked down. There are hundreds or even thousands of design changes, upgrades, revisions, mistakes, insufficient drawings or details etc that the contractor adds up at cost plus. There are also countless loopholes, supplier agreements, market provisions etc.

    This is my point. If this is the case, literally nothing is gained by contracting out rather than just starting a crown corporation to do the same thing. The reason we contract out is because of tight contracts that offer guaranteed costs and timelines.

    If we allow private companies to operate like a government department, there is no reason we should hire them.

  26. #26
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Every contract seems to have change orders, spec changes, etc. It's a fact of life on complicated projects. You go 20, 30% over initial budget, hey that's within the realm of understanding.
    But not even knowing what you want?
    "We want some kind of cloaking device - let's iron out the details just before we have to install it"
    Don't sign the contract until you have a design and specs everyone is comfortable with. Private industry figured out long ago how to avoid scope creep on projects.

  27. #27

    Default

    Agreed. I forgot to mention scope creep or even wholesale design changes.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  28. #28
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,215

    Default

    ^Definitely the most problematic issue with developing weapons systems, specs are not firm because of yet to be developed capabilities.

    CBC News

    Some capabilities don't yet exist

    Many of those requirements are also said to be developmental, in other words a capability that does not yet exist or requires further work before it's ready for production.


    Developmental costs are hugely expensive and difficult to peg, industry sources say. It's impossible to know exactly how much it will cost to develop the technology to make a requirement feasible.


    That level of complexity — and the budget uncertainty it produced — angered one former Conservative official, who said the navy was demanding a warship beyond Canada's needs.


    "Why do we need to be better than the Brits and the Americans," the official wondered. "We're a middle power."
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  29. #29
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    ^Definitely the most problematic issue with developing weapons systems, specs are not firm because of yet to be developed capabilities.
    We'd never buy a computer if you wanted capabilites that don't exist yet. Like any technology, it is always improving. Source the best available on the market right now and plan for an upgrade to technology every 5-7 years with the money you've saved.

    There are always improvements in weapons, yet there are still 30-40 yr old systems that work flawlessly.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    ^Definitely the most problematic issue with developing weapons systems, specs are not firm because of yet to be developed capabilities.
    What we don't really know from the article though, is how much of this is:

    1. The Navy pushing for something unreasonable, versus
    2. The shipyards saying something reasonable should cost more than it really should. There is a reason they funded that supposedly "independent" study you quote - and that reason, is to get more funding, or to build fewer ships for same money than what they committed to.

    I think its probably something in the middle. As to all the anger at the start of this thread over the Harper government, it was pretty silly. It is exactly the same burecrats who have to figure this out for the Liberals, and it will be exactly the same issues with the military contracts they enter into. Like it or not, there is no such a thing as a simple billion dollar plus military contract, you can't just pick a naval ship off the naval ship dealer shelf and have it work perfectly for our navy (although that French mistral ship built for the Russians is interesting).
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-12-2015 at 10:02 AM.

  31. #31
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I think its probably something in the middle. As to all the anger at the start of this thread over the Harper government, it was pretty silly. It is exactly the same burecrats who have to figure this out for the Liberals, and it will be exactly the same issues with the military contracts they enter into. Like it or not, there is no such a thing as a simple billion dollar plus military contract, you can't just pick a naval ship off the naval ship dealer shelf and have it work perfectly for our navy (although that French mistral ship built for the Russians is interesting).
    Well it's pretty obvious that the original figure wasn't even an estimate it was more of a guesstimate. Whatever the case as a taxpayer I am not inclined to write a blank check and accept everything at face value whether it's for jet fighters or ships without some sense of transparency as to how requirements and capabilities are derived. And consequently how solutions are selected.

    I don't even see this as a partisanship issue, through all of the various governments we've had in the past several decades defence procurement has been less than ideal. Whether it's politics or a letting our equipment rot and losing capabilities as a result. It's ludicrous that we let our naval supply ships fall apart despite knowing well in advance that their service life was at an end. It was the equivalent of flying our CF-18s until their wings fell off.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  32. #32

    Default

    On CBC news today

    "
    Design of Coast Guard's fisheries ships led to fears of capsizing
    Discovery of possible flaw results in longer, heavier vessels to make them seaworthy

    Photo of James Cudmore
    Exclusive
    James Cudmore · Parliamentary Reporter · CBC News
    4 Hours Ago
    Offshore fisheries science vessel construction
    Construction has started in North Vancouver on the first of three fisheries science vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard. CBC News has learned an early design was so unstable the boats would likely have capsized in heavy weather. (Farrah Merali/CBC)
    The government's plans for the Coast Guard's new fisheries and science vessels produced a ship some engineers considered so unstable it was unseaworthy and if sailed on the open ocean would capsize in heavy seas, CBC News has learned.

    The issue was discovered in 2012 once the blueprints of the government-ordered design were sent to Vancouver Shipyards, where three of the ships are being built under the government's shipbuilding strategy.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  33. #33

    Default

    ^ ok, now that's something I'd have never thought possible.

    Link please.

    Couldn't wait. Here it is...

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/coas...sign-1.3349619
    Last edited by KC; 05-12-2015 at 09:22 AM.

  34. #34
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,535

    Default

    ^ Maybe Capt. Francesco Schettino had a hand in it.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ^ ok, now that's something I'd have never thought possible.

    Link please.

    Couldn't wait. Here it is...

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/coas...sign-1.3349619
    More from that source

    Jeffrey Smith, the former head of shipbuilding for B.C. Ferries, said such a serious flaw should have been caught early.

    Smith is a former chief engineer in the navy and once chaired the Canadian Institute of Marine Engineering. He said stability is one of the fundamental considerations of ship design. Questions about weight, centres of gravity and the ability of a vessel to right itself in various environments are not minor and are never left to the final design stages.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #36

    Default Zumwalt class goes out for trials

    $4.4 billion. Used to get a Nimitz aircraft carrier for that, but in fairness, its the first of its class, so will get cheaper:



    http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/ameri...ials-1.2689932

    One day there will be a rail gun or a laser hidden in there.

    The UK also has been experimenting with some stealthy ships - the type 26, not as radical or as expensive though:



    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...00-tonnes.html
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-12-2015 at 03:40 PM.

  37. #37

    Default Irving Shipyards Contract under Review

    Oh no..., I'm getting deja vu here re past Liberal military contracts, don't expect any military upgrades for a long time (this will put at least a year delay on these ships that are badly needed), everything that has been decided, will now have to be reviewed and re-decided...:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ew-source-says

  38. #38

    Default

    Yay!
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Oh no..., I'm getting deja vu here re past Liberal military contracts, don't expect any military upgrades for a long time (this will put at least a year delay on these ships that are badly needed), everything that has been decided, will now have to be reviewed and re-decided...:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ew-source-says
    See post #35. It's better to take time to build a ship than just a huge anchor.

  40. #40
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,521

    Default

    The ships are badly needed however the opaqueness of this program is a problem. It's not as if the Cons did a great job with military contracts either. A decade in power and they were only just getting to dealing with these things.

    As a side note while I was in England last summer we got a look at the Type 45 destroyers. The UK built six of them at about CA$2.2b each:




    I believe all six were in port.

    It was notable how many ships in Portsmouth were being decommissioned including this carrier:



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Illustrious_(R06)

    In the foreground are the HMS Kent (F7 and the HMS Iron Duke, both Type 23 frigates.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    See post #35. It's better to take time to build a ship than just a huge anchor.
    I don't think our sailors would agree with you, the ships are despearley need. Every time you delay and review past decisions, you typically just add more cost, not less. The classic example of that was the Sea Kings replacements. Compare that the C17's the Conservatives purchased, which are loved by the airforce, and allow us now to do both military and aid missions much more effectively than we have ever been able to. Rather than wasting time reinventing and trying to do better everything the "Cons" did, I'd much rather the Liberals focused on new contracts for other much needed military equipment. If they leave the contract as is, and it goes sideways, it won't be their fault, but if they interfere now and it goes wrong, it will be.

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    See post #35. It's better to take time to build a ship than just a huge anchor.
    I don't think our sailors would agree with you, the ships are despearley need. Every time you delay and review past decisions, you typically just add more cost, not less. The classic example of that was the Sea Kings replacements. Compare that the C17's the Conservatives purchased, which are loved by the airforce, and allow us now to do both military and aid missions much more effectively than we have ever been able to. Rather than wasting time reinventing and trying to do better everything the "Cons" did, I'd much rather the Liberals focused on new contracts for other much needed military equipment. If they leave the contract as is, and it goes sideways, it won't be their fault, but if they interfere now and it goes wrong, it will be.
    That's why they should buy used. Like cars, buy used and you win some, lose some, but at least you get something for far, far less than paying a new price for a lemon. Plus you get to see and inspect what you are buying, before you take delivery.

    If we want to build navy ships, build them for another country first, learn the ropes and then build for the home country. Like they say in construction, always build someone else's garage first before you build your own.
    Last edited by KC; 12-02-2016 at 10:41 AM.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    That's why they should buy used. Like cars, you win so etcmetc, lose sometimes, but at least you get something for far, far less than paying a new price for a lemon.
    No, its not, used military equipment likely won't match the Navy's particular technologies that they are using, at least, not without major refitting, which is going to cost a fortune (like the submarine purchase has). Not to mention the fact that used warships are completely outdated at the moment (you can see in the pictures above - need to have lower radar profile to improve survivability).

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    That's why they should buy used. Like cars, you win so etcmetc, lose sometimes, but at least you get something for far, far less than paying a new price for a lemon.
    No, its not, used military equipment likely won't match the Navy's particular technologies that they are using, at least, not without major refitting, which is going to cost a fortune (like the submarine purchase has). Not to mention the fact that used warships are completely outdated at the moment (you can see in the pictures above - need to have lower radar profile to improve survivability).
    The subs had to be the worst purchases ever because the costs and delays and retrofitting likely raised their costs close to what would have happened had we built our own. Smarter procurement should have been able to attain far superior results.

    Currently building new takes years if not decades to get these things in the water and then we keep them active for decades -plus probably more decades well past their projected service lives. The prospect of massive replacement costs and the one-shot nature of building likely delays their replacement. So they are almost assuredly technologically obsolete somewhere along that timespan. Moreover, the offensive weaponry they will face at any point is likely unpredictable as offensive forces can pretty much surmise what the ships capabilities are.

    I'd opt for more frequent turnover cycles buying used and then spending the savings on other capabilities.
    Last edited by KC; 12-02-2016 at 04:30 PM.

  45. #45

    Default

    ^if second hand warships were readily available and good quality / safe, why would any of our allies who also need such ships, be willing to sell them? You aren't making sense, typically the only time you get something second hand military wise, is its something somebody else thinks isn't good enough anymore for their soldiers (there are some rare short term exceptions, like the Leopard tanks from the Dutch, which was more to fill an immediate need, but that's costly, and some were just purchased for spares). Canada operates a NATO capable fleet, it doesn't operate just in costal waters, it performs sophisticated deep water operations in hot spots all over the place, often monitored by the best that Russia and China have.

    I would be open to the government looking at the Mistral ships France is building for Russia. The issue there though, is the political implications on spending billions on a ship that was built in a shipyard in France, not in Canada where the dollars and tax on all those workers salaries cycles through our economy. That's not a second hand ship though, and even so, because it wasn't designed to Canadian spec, would still need a lot of money to be spent on it for our forces:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...tion-1.3235816

    The Mistrals could potentially sell for $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion, according to published reports overseas, and if Canada did bid, they would require hundreds of millions of dollars worth of modifications to bring them in line with Canadian military standards.
    Last edited by moahunter; 12-02-2016 at 05:04 PM.

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^if second hand warships were readily available and good quality / safe, why would any of our allies who also need such ships, be willing to sell them? You aren't making sense, typically the only time you get something second hand military wise, is its something somebody else thinks isn't good enough anymore for their soldiers (there are some rare short term exceptions, like the Leopard tanks from the Dutch, which was more to fill an immediate need, but that's costly, and some were just purchased for spares). Canada operates a NATO capable fleet, it doesn't operate just in costal waters, it performs sophisticated deep water operations in hot spots all over the place, often monitored by the best that Russia and China have.

    I would be open to the government looking at the Mistral ships France is building for Russia. The issue there though, is the political implications on spending billions on a ship that was built in a shipyard in France, not in Canada where the dollars and tax on all those workers salaries cycles through our economy. That's not a second hand ship though, and even so, because it wasn't designed to Canadian spec, would still need a lot of money to be spent on it for our forces:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...tion-1.3235816

    The Mistrals could potentially sell for $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion, according to published reports overseas, and if Canada did bid, they would require hundreds of millions of dollars worth of modifications to bring them in line with Canadian military standards.
    You may be right. However, selling a technologically dated ships might enable countries like the US to upgrade their fleets more frequently and somewhat cost effectively. We take the budget route and enable them to go the luxury route. We lag and let them lead.

    As for the economic impact, Canada could always buy made in Canada oil and let those billions circulate...

    ...I wonder how our military standards are so different that those of Russia. Seems to be more of a swapping out and in issue to me. Substitution, not enhancement.


    Ever Wanted to Buy an Actual Naval Warship? Good News, They’re on Sale - The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) - 24/7 Wall St.
    http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defen...heyre-on-sale/




    Warship Developments:
    To Buy New or Used?
    Doug thomas

    http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content...6num3art10.pdf


    What $13 billion buys new...

    This is the US' new $13 billion warship - Business Insider
    http://www.businessinsider.com/this-...warship-2015-6

    Last edited by KC; 13-02-2016 at 01:40 AM.

  47. #47
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I would be open to the government looking at the Mistral ships France is building for Russia. The issue there though, is the political implications on spending billions on a ship that was built in a shipyard in France, not in Canada where the dollars and tax on all those workers salaries cycles through our economy. That's not a second hand ship though, and even so, because it wasn't designed to Canadian spec, would still need a lot of money to be spent on it for our forces:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...tion-1.3235816

    The Mistrals could potentially sell for $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion, according to published reports overseas, and if Canada did bid, they would require hundreds of millions of dollars worth of modifications to bring them in line with Canadian military standards.
    I can't see how Canada would have a need for helicopter carriers. It's never been identified as a need by any defence review, so why go and buy them? Because they're on sale? The only possible reason we'd get them is to be helpful in disaster assistance. But any disaster assistance that we can respond to quick enough is going to be in the caribbean. And there's a huge navy on the way down there that has far more capacity to do something like that.

  48. #48

    Default

    ^there is a need for a troop transport ship for missions like Afghanistan, and also training missions. This is just that, on steroids. If you can get it for the cost of such, its a pretty powerful upgrade.

  49. #49
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^there is a need for a troop transport ship for missions like Afghanistan, and also training missions. This is just that, on steroids. If you can get it for the cost of such, its a pretty powerful upgrade.
    We're going to send troops across the world on a boat? In this day and age?
    No, they'll take the plane.

    So a billion$ trainer (plus how many billion extra to 'refit')

  50. #50

    Default

    ^its also to carry the tanks and equipment. Have a look this, its been thought about before these mistrals came available for a bargain price that we might build one, take the supply ship and enhance it a bit, and you get something much more useful. Rick Hillier was a big fan of this idea.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphib...t_Ship_Project

    The Amphibious Assault Ship Project is a proposed procurement project by the Government of Canada for the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN). However, no such project has been announced by the Canadian Government and cost challenges with other naval procurement projects under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy had led to no movement on the idea.

    This idea came about as part of the development of the Joint Support Ship Project of the Royal Canadian Navy and the need to improve the strategic sealift and amphibious assault capability of the Canadian Forces.[1] Many of the capabilities required for strategic sealift were to be included in the Joint Support Ship Project, however, a dedicated amphibious assault ship was favoured by some, such as then Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier.[2]

    By Late 2008, the project appeared to have been placed on hold, if not canceled.[3] In 2012 the Canadian Forces announced that they continue to regret not purchasing the landing ship Largs Bay. By 2013 the project received a green light for the design and contractor selection phase. The Thales (DCNS) Mistral-class amphibious assault ship design was chosen. In mid-2014, DCNS & SNC Lavalin offered three ships for CAD$2.6 Billion (2 Billion euro). SNC Lavalin will construct the vessel, while DCNS will design it and STX France will consolidate the hull for arctic operations. [4][5] The Canadian Navy also trained with the French Navy on a Thales built amphibious assault ship.[6]
    That's no trainer, that's a fleet command and control flag ship that would perform multiple humanitarian and military roles.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-02-2016 at 03:31 PM.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I would be open to the government looking at the Mistral ships France is building for Russia. The issue there though, is the political implications on spending billions on a ship that was built in a shipyard in France, not in Canada where the dollars and tax on all those workers salaries cycles through our economy. That's not a second hand ship though, and even so, because it wasn't designed to Canadian spec, would still need a lot of money to be spent on it for our forces:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...tion-1.3235816

    The Mistrals could potentially sell for $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion, according to published reports overseas, and if Canada did bid, they would require hundreds of millions of dollars worth of modifications to bring them in line with Canadian military standards.
    I can't see how Canada would have a need for helicopter carriers. It's never been identified as a need by any defence review, so why go and buy them? Because they're on sale? The only possible reason we'd get them is to be helpful in disaster assistance. But any disaster assistance that we can respond to quick enough is going to be in the caribbean. And there's a huge navy on the way down there that has far more capacity to do something like that.
    It seems that our military standards are a major impediment to upgrading our standard military.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •