Canadian Long Term Ship Design and Building Contracts

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Canadian Long Term Ship Design and Building Contracts

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Canadian Long Term Ship Design and Building Contracts

jimh posted 10-31-2011 12:10 PM ET (US)
The federal government of Canada has undertaken a program called National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy to modernize and upgrade its federal fleet of vessels. Recently the contract awards were announced.
Irving Shipbuilding Inc. has been selected to build the combat vessel work package of 21 vessels, and Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. has been selected to build the non-combat vessel work package of 7 vessels. The total value of both packages is $33-billion and will span 20 to 30 years.
Iriving Shipbuilding of Nova Scotia will be the prime contractor for combat vessels.
Seaspan of British Columbia will be the prime contractor for non-combat vessels. The $8-billion award is anticipated to create 4,000 jobs over the next eight years.
home Aside posted 10-31-2011 05:54 PM ET (US)
I have a very close cousin who lives in Toronto, is natural born Canadian citizen, is very proud of his citizenship, and also is very Pro-American often vocalizing on how Canada is so lucky to have the U.S.A. as both a neighbor & ally. He often joked, I thought anyway, about the Canadian 3 ship Navy.

So this post brought some questions to mind.....and if wikipedia is correct or even close, the Royal Canadian Navy consists of 8,500 regular force and 5,100 reservists, and some 5,100 civilian personnel, they have 29 surface warships and 4 submarines. They are going to need a lot more sailors for those additional ships.
Comparatively, the U.S. Navy, according to wikipedia, has 328,516 regular and 101,689 reservists. A Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier has 3,200 assigned to the ships companies as well as an additional 2,480 in the air wing.
those are some amazing differences! I think they're going to need a bigger Navy!!!!
Pat
dfmcintyre posted 10-31-2011 06:16 PM ET (US)
Pat -
Someone once remarked that there are more armed individuals that go north deer hunting then in the Canadian forces....
Mambo Minnow posted 10-31-2011 06:42 PM ET (US)
While small, the Royal Canadian Navy is a highly professional force with a rich heritage. I have had the privilege of sailing with them and I have been impressed with their vessels and seamanship. They have a beautiful naval bases at Esquimalt, in British Columbia and Halifax, Nova Scotia.
WT posted 10-31-2011 07:45 PM ET (US)
Canada should save their $33 billion because everyone knows the USA would protect them for free. The USA protects everyone that sells us oil.
Warren
jimh posted 10-31-2011 07:55 PM ET (US)
I am a bit surprised that for $8-billion you can only get seven non-combat ships. The biggest one is going to be a rather large polar-region ice breaker that will cost $800-million or thereabouts. Now we are down to six ships for $7.2-billion. Those are going to be some darn nice ships at that price.
The math of the jobs creation equation is interesting: $8-billion creates 4,000-jobs. That works out to about $2-million per job over the next eight years. Those are going to be good jobs. Let's assume the cost of the ships will be 50-percent material and 50-percent labor. That works out to about $125,000-per-year-per-job. Nice work if you can get it.
I think it is great that Canada is investing in its federal fleet. Too often they're spending money on commissions to study the impact of some modern aspect of society on the ecosystem of a few hundred square-feet of tundra.
Mambo Minnow posted 10-31-2011 08:18 PM ET (US)
The United States Navy's Arleigh Burke class destroyers cost $1.1 billion per copy. They have extended the shipbuilding program vice funding newer designs and the latest have sharp cost increases to incorporate the latest Ballistic Missile Defense technology. President Obama recently decided our future ballistic missile defense should be sea based vice land based. This makes sense given the political unreliability of some foreign governments.

Hoosier posted 10-31-2011 08:37 PM ET (US)
I got this from a US Navy oriented blog, it's kind of germane to this thread:
CBC News is reporting that the Harper Government is at least pondering the idea of cutting their losses with the Victoria class submarines and replacing them with nuclear submarines. The Victoria class submarines have been plagued with problems since being acquired from the UK, and despite being described as the "military bargain of the century" when purchased for $750 million in 1998, they have become anything but.
The submarines are currently all out of service, with HMCS Victoria the soonest to potentially return to service by late next year. The article describes the issues.
One of the subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, has been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased from the Brits.
The Chicoutimi caught fire on its maiden voyage from the U.K. to Canada, killing one sailor and injuring a number of others.
It has been in the repair shop ever since, and isn’t expected back in service for at least another two years and $400 million more in repairs and retrofits.
The article goes on:
The other three would remain out of service until at least 2013. One may not be out of the repair shop until 2016.
By that time, the submarines will have cost taxpayers an estimated $3 billion, almost enough to have bought all new subs in the first place.
But the real problem is that by the time the whole fleet is in active service for the first time in 2016, the submarines will already be almost 30 years old with only perhaps 10 years of life left in them.
High-ranking sources tell CBC News the government is actively considering cutting its losses on the dud subs, and mothballing some if not all of them.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay is hinting they might be replaced with nuclear submarines that could patrol under the Arctic ice, something the existing diesel-electric subs cannot do.
The blogger speculates:
What would it cost to refuel and refit a Los Angeles class submarine for a second time to add 15 or so more years to the submarine? In 2005 the cost was slightly over $200 million, so even if we estimate the total refit per submarine to be around $350 million (serious modernization), Canada would only be spending $1.4 billion for four SSNs with a service life of 15 years vs $2 billion for four SSKs with a service life of 10 years. Another big advantage for Canada would be they could use the rest of the money to put their sailors through existing US Navy submarine training schools and use existing US contractor services for upkeep, both of which would allow Canada to save a bunch of money.
elaelap posted 11-01-2011 11:19 AM ET (US)
Isaiah 2:4 -- "...and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
Sure sounds like Canada is joining its southern neighbor in beating swords into taxpayer-subsidized corporate welfare. Jimh's article discusses the number of jobs to be created, but as usual there's no comment about the amount of profit the corporate manufacturers will garner.
Take the gargantuan profits out of the production of war materiel and guess what...very little war. When will we ever learn? Not in my lifetime, that's for sure...
Tony
tom976 posted 11-01-2011 11:35 AM ET (US)
Canadian government isnt as smart as the USA. Our government would give the contract to a foreign company that sort of sounds like and American one while only shaving off a million or so. Then the government would make the tax payers who are out of work pay for the whole mess further weakening our economy and strengthening foreign competitors.
Mambo Minnow posted 11-01-2011 01:48 PM ET (US)
Canada has a great deal of Arctic territory that submarines make accessible. If they adopted nuclear propulsion, the personnel and operations costs in both training and bonuses for retention of the skill set would be another large additional cost not factored into the shipbuilding equation.
Some of the newer diesel electric technology being pioneered by Sweden and Germany would allow under ice capability. Stirling Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) is one such technology. Improved battery technology is another.

WT posted 11-01-2011 01:56 PM ET (US)
What's the purpose of taking a submarine under the ice? To shoot other submarines under the ice? Or to shoot polar bears up above?
Goofy waste of money. Give the money back to the Canadian taxpayers or lend it to the USA (we need it).
Warren
K Albus posted 11-01-2011 02:23 PM ET (US)
The Arctic region is subject of ongoing territorial disputes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Arctic
jimh posted 11-01-2011 03:04 PM ET (US)
I believe that the notion of exerting sovereignty and showing the flag may be some of the motivation for Canada to be building vessels suitable for operation in the Arctic regions.
Mambo Minnow posted 11-02-2011 11:32 AM ET (US)
There are discovered natural resources on the Arctic sea bed that have caused Russia, Canada and the U.S. to exert territorial sovreignty to portions of the sea bed. Mostly, these claims are being handled in international diplomacy.
However, as Clausewitz wrote, "War is the extension of politics by other means..."
Don't think we'll be making any plowshares in the near future Tony ;)
egres posted 11-04-2011 07:43 AM ET (US)
Shipyard workers celebrate $8-billion deal for vessels

For many, job security means buying homes, education for their children
Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/Shipyard+workers+celebrate+billion+deal+ vessels/5648278/story.html#ixzz1cjwSPjvy
Jobs a plenty.
egres posted 11-04-2011 07:55 AM ET (US)
[Changed TOPIC to discuss historical use of warships.]
Hoosier posted 11-07-2011 08:46 PM ET (US)
The Canadians were looking at nukes before the Victoria debacle. They went with, at the time, state of the art diesel-electric for cost and politically correct reasons. AIP is only AIP for a given period, then it, or the crew, needs air. A nuke is true AIP, and it can make air for the crew. Given the theater of operations a nuke can go down at sunset in October and come up at sunrise in April, in time for the playoffs...
Mambo Minnow posted 11-07-2011 09:01 PM ET (US)
No doubt nuclear propulsion is the ultimate, especially for under ice capability which would highly interest our northern neighbors. Extended, high speed range is another advantage, but less important to Canada since they would not be concerned with transoceanic travel.
However, my main counterpoint was the operating costs and shore infrastructure costs they would have to establish to support a nuclear sub fleet are prohibitive for them.
Owtrayj25 posted 11-08-2011 08:39 AM ET (US)
Jesus says "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Matthew 10:34

Jesus said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one..." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.
Luke 22:36,38

Please, enough with the one-sided religious references....
jimh posted 11-08-2011 09:03 AM ET (US)
ASIDE to Owtrayj25: That's all well and fine with your quotes, but I believe that Sean McCue said "Peace is the word," and that settles that.
http://seanmccue.bandcamp.com/track/peace-is-the-word
elaelap posted 11-08-2011 01:13 PM ET (US)
Metaphors, Owtrayj25, metaphors.
C'mon, guy -- the image of the Prince of Peace wading into battle swinging a broadsword (or at the helm of a nuclear submarine) has gotta be just a little outre, eh?
Tony

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Canadian Long Term Ship Design and Building Contracts
jimh	posted 10-31-2011 12:10 PM ET (US) The federal government of Canada has undertaken a program called National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy to modernize and upgrade its federal fleet of vessels. Recently the contract awards were announced. Irving Shipbuilding Inc. has been selected to build the combat vessel work package of 21 vessels, and Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. has been selected to build the non-combat vessel work package of 7 vessels. The total value of both packages is $33-billion and will span 20 to 30 years. Iriving Shipbuilding of Nova Scotia will be the prime contractor for combat vessels. Seaspan of British Columbia will be the prime contractor for non-combat vessels. The $8-billion award is anticipated to create 4,000 jobs over the next eight years.
home Aside	posted 10-31-2011 05:54 PM ET (US) I have a very close cousin who lives in Toronto, is natural born Canadian citizen, is very proud of his citizenship, and also is very Pro-American often vocalizing on how Canada is so lucky to have the U.S.A. as both a neighbor & ally. He often joked, I thought anyway, about the Canadian 3 ship Navy. So this post brought some questions to mind.....and if wikipedia is correct or even close, the Royal Canadian Navy consists of 8,500 regular force and 5,100 reservists, and some 5,100 civilian personnel, they have 29 surface warships and 4 submarines. They are going to need a lot more sailors for those additional ships. Comparatively, the U.S. Navy, according to wikipedia, has 328,516 regular and 101,689 reservists. A Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier has 3,200 assigned to the ships companies as well as an additional 2,480 in the air wing. those are some amazing differences! I think they're going to need a bigger Navy!!!! Pat
dfmcintyre	posted 10-31-2011 06:16 PM ET (US) Pat - Someone once remarked that there are more armed individuals that go north deer hunting then in the Canadian forces....
Mambo Minnow	posted 10-31-2011 06:42 PM ET (US) While small, the Royal Canadian Navy is a highly professional force with a rich heritage. I have had the privilege of sailing with them and I have been impressed with their vessels and seamanship. They have a beautiful naval bases at Esquimalt, in British Columbia and Halifax, Nova Scotia.
WT	posted 10-31-2011 07:45 PM ET (US) Canada should save their $33 billion because everyone knows the USA would protect them for free. The USA protects everyone that sells us oil. Warren
jimh	posted 10-31-2011 07:55 PM ET (US) I am a bit surprised that for $8-billion you can only get seven non-combat ships. The biggest one is going to be a rather large polar-region ice breaker that will cost $800-million or thereabouts. Now we are down to six ships for $7.2-billion. Those are going to be some darn nice ships at that price. The math of the jobs creation equation is interesting: $8-billion creates 4,000-jobs. That works out to about $2-million per job over the next eight years. Those are going to be good jobs. Let's assume the cost of the ships will be 50-percent material and 50-percent labor. That works out to about $125,000-per-year-per-job. Nice work if you can get it. I think it is great that Canada is investing in its federal fleet. Too often they're spending money on commissions to study the impact of some modern aspect of society on the ecosystem of a few hundred square-feet of tundra.
Mambo Minnow	posted 10-31-2011 08:18 PM ET (US) The United States Navy's Arleigh Burke class destroyers cost $1.1 billion per copy. They have extended the shipbuilding program vice funding newer designs and the latest have sharp cost increases to incorporate the latest Ballistic Missile Defense technology. President Obama recently decided our future ballistic missile defense should be sea based vice land based. This makes sense given the political unreliability of some foreign governments.
Hoosier	posted 10-31-2011 08:37 PM ET (US) I got this from a US Navy oriented blog, it's kind of germane to this thread: CBC News is reporting that the Harper Government is at least pondering the idea of cutting their losses with the Victoria class submarines and replacing them with nuclear submarines. The Victoria class submarines have been plagued with problems since being acquired from the UK, and despite being described as the "military bargain of the century" when purchased for $750 million in 1998, they have become anything but. The submarines are currently all out of service, with HMCS Victoria the soonest to potentially return to service by late next year. The article describes the issues. One of the subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, has been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased from the Brits. The Chicoutimi caught fire on its maiden voyage from the U.K. to Canada, killing one sailor and injuring a number of others. It has been in the repair shop ever since, and isn’t expected back in service for at least another two years and $400 million more in repairs and retrofits. The article goes on: The other three would remain out of service until at least 2013. One may not be out of the repair shop until 2016. By that time, the submarines will have cost taxpayers an estimated $3 billion, almost enough to have bought all new subs in the first place. But the real problem is that by the time the whole fleet is in active service for the first time in 2016, the submarines will already be almost 30 years old with only perhaps 10 years of life left in them. High-ranking sources tell CBC News the government is actively considering cutting its losses on the dud subs, and mothballing some if not all of them. Defence Minister Peter MacKay is hinting they might be replaced with nuclear submarines that could patrol under the Arctic ice, something the existing diesel-electric subs cannot do. The blogger speculates: What would it cost to refuel and refit a Los Angeles class submarine for a second time to add 15 or so more years to the submarine? In 2005 the cost was slightly over $200 million, so even if we estimate the total refit per submarine to be around $350 million (serious modernization), Canada would only be spending $1.4 billion for four SSNs with a service life of 15 years vs $2 billion for four SSKs with a service life of 10 years. Another big advantage for Canada would be they could use the rest of the money to put their sailors through existing US Navy submarine training schools and use existing US contractor services for upkeep, both of which would allow Canada to save a bunch of money.
elaelap	posted 11-01-2011 11:19 AM ET (US) Isaiah 2:4 -- "...and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Sure sounds like Canada is joining its southern neighbor in beating swords into taxpayer-subsidized corporate welfare. Jimh's article discusses the number of jobs to be created, but as usual there's no comment about the amount of profit the corporate manufacturers will garner. Take the gargantuan profits out of the production of war materiel and guess what...very little war. When will we ever learn? Not in my lifetime, that's for sure... Tony
tom976	posted 11-01-2011 11:35 AM ET (US) Canadian government isnt as smart as the USA. Our government would give the contract to a foreign company that sort of sounds like and American one while only shaving off a million or so. Then the government would make the tax payers who are out of work pay for the whole mess further weakening our economy and strengthening foreign competitors.
Mambo Minnow	posted 11-01-2011 01:48 PM ET (US) Canada has a great deal of Arctic territory that submarines make accessible. If they adopted nuclear propulsion, the personnel and operations costs in both training and bonuses for retention of the skill set would be another large additional cost not factored into the shipbuilding equation. Some of the newer diesel electric technology being pioneered by Sweden and Germany would allow under ice capability. Stirling Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) is one such technology. Improved battery technology is another.
WT	posted 11-01-2011 01:56 PM ET (US) What's the purpose of taking a submarine under the ice? To shoot other submarines under the ice? Or to shoot polar bears up above? Goofy waste of money. Give the money back to the Canadian taxpayers or lend it to the USA (we need it). Warren
K Albus	posted 11-01-2011 02:23 PM ET (US) The Arctic region is subject of ongoing territorial disputes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Arctic
jimh	posted 11-01-2011 03:04 PM ET (US) I believe that the notion of exerting sovereignty and showing the flag may be some of the motivation for Canada to be building vessels suitable for operation in the Arctic regions.
Mambo Minnow	posted 11-02-2011 11:32 AM ET (US) There are discovered natural resources on the Arctic sea bed that have caused Russia, Canada and the U.S. to exert territorial sovreignty to portions of the sea bed. Mostly, these claims are being handled in international diplomacy. However, as Clausewitz wrote, "War is the extension of politics by other means..." Don't think we'll be making any plowshares in the near future Tony ;)
egres	posted 11-04-2011 07:43 AM ET (US) Shipyard workers celebrate $8-billion deal for vessels For many, job security means buying homes, education for their children Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/Shipyard+workers+celebrate+billion+deal+ vessels/5648278/story.html#ixzz1cjwSPjvy Jobs a plenty.
egres	posted 11-04-2011 07:55 AM ET (US) [Changed TOPIC to discuss historical use of warships.]
Hoosier	posted 11-07-2011 08:46 PM ET (US) The Canadians were looking at nukes before the Victoria debacle. They went with, at the time, state of the art diesel-electric for cost and politically correct reasons. AIP is only AIP for a given period, then it, or the crew, needs air. A nuke is true AIP, and it can make air for the crew. Given the theater of operations a nuke can go down at sunset in October and come up at sunrise in April, in time for the playoffs...
Mambo Minnow	posted 11-07-2011 09:01 PM ET (US) No doubt nuclear propulsion is the ultimate, especially for under ice capability which would highly interest our northern neighbors. Extended, high speed range is another advantage, but less important to Canada since they would not be concerned with transoceanic travel. However, my main counterpoint was the operating costs and shore infrastructure costs they would have to establish to support a nuclear sub fleet are prohibitive for them.
Owtrayj25	posted 11-08-2011 08:39 AM ET (US) Jesus says "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34 Jesus said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one..." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. Luke 22:36,38 Please, enough with the one-sided religious references....
jimh	posted 11-08-2011 09:03 AM ET (US) ASIDE to Owtrayj25: That's all well and fine with your quotes, but I believe that Sean McCue said "Peace is the word," and that settles that. http://seanmccue.bandcamp.com/track/peace-is-the-word
elaelap	posted 11-08-2011 01:13 PM ET (US) Metaphors, Owtrayj25, metaphors. C'mon, guy -- the image of the Prince of Peace wading into battle swinging a broadsword (or at the helm of a nuclear submarine) has gotta be just a little outre, eh? Tony