Have to ask, $2 billion a ship seems quite steep, Does that include lifetime costs (As the RAN tends to include) or is that just acquisition cost? From what I can see the biggest threat to Canada's navy is the government and industry its self, Trying to do it all in house thus paying extreme premiums for asset's that deliver little in the way of work while also reducing co-opertion with other nations because they are afraid unjustifiably that work may go off shore ....
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Basically, there ain't no shipyard where they propose to build it, or at least the facilities and skills aren't there in sufficient quantity so some of that $2b is one off charges in the same way that the QE costs for the UK include say, dredging a channel for her.
Worse if I understand correctly, the shipyard has no work once this is done. If I'm off the mark, please correct me as I've not been following the Canadian travails as closely as I might.
Worse if I understand correctly, the shipyard has no work once this is done. If I'm off the mark, please correct me as I've not been following the Canadian travails as closely as I might.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I assume the 2 billion (CDN) is acquisition and startup costs only, no life cycle costs are included. This number isn't far off from what a Type 26 is expected to cost.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Irving shipyard in Halifax claims to have invested several hundred million into the Halifax yard. They are currently starting a build of 5-6 Arctic offshore patrol ships which are in the 6,000 ton range for the RCN. They will be submitting their final design proposals for the 15 future surface combatant ships which will replace the Halifax frigates and the now retired Tribal class destroyers. These ships will be built after the AOPS. Irving has been involved in the Halifax modernization program. The skills part is a work in progress as opposed to the yard facilities which are up to date now. As it stands now, the yard will have work for many years (assuming everything moves forward) but whether the commitment will exist 15-20 years from now to begin a continuous build to keep the skills up to date is questionable given our history of boom and bust naval building.
As for the costs, the 2 billion cost per ship probably has some one off costs.
The other naval program takes place on the other side of the country at SeaSpan in Vancouver. Again, a significant investment in yard capability has been made and they are presently building vessels for the Canadian coast guard. They will build the two Berlin class AORs then a heavy class icebreaker. IMO, the AORs should have been contracted to SK and SeaSpan should be building the icebreaker as soon as possible after the coast research vessels. This would have allowed the two most urgent requirements (AORs and icebreaker) to arrive earlier. In fact once the decision to settle on the Berlin design had been made, a contract should have been awarded to a SK yard and it would arrive well before this conversion job awarded to Davie will occur.
Here's an interesting interview with the RCN commander regarding the increased costs. He's talks pretty candidly about some of the RCN procurement issues.
Warship cost could rise to $30B, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman confirms - Politics - CBC News
It does look like the 2 billion figure is acquisition costs alone in the revised estimates. Back in 2008 the CSC project was pegged at 26 billion (total program cost) of which 14 billion was set aside for acquisition. As the commander points out in his interview that was a long time ago... and the people doing the estimate didn't really know what they were doing.
The Liberal government initially had committed to 15 ships, but you can get a sense that they may start moving away from that commitment with these revised cost estimates. Now the question seems to be how many do we really need or what's the bare minimum... consensus right now has that number around 10-11.
The other issue that's being looked at is capability. I think initially these ships were planned with 32-48 cell VLS. I've also read in older publications showing the ability to embark up to 2 Cyclone helicopters which would require a pretty big hangar / mission bay. If capabilities are now being reviewed there may be some scaling back in these areas.
Personally, I would sacrifice or scale back the air defense variants (which are the first 3 ships that are to be built). The more important need here is the command / control capability that traditionally comes along with these ships. With improvements made in modern radars GP / ASW frigates are not nearly as vulnerable or dependant on escorts for airborne threats as they may have been in the past. In my opinion (pls correct me if I'm wrong here) it seems the only major capability offered by modern AWD over regular surface combatants is in the BMD realm which isn't something our current govt. would be interested in anyway.
If we design these ships around a ASW hull; we could make the first 3-4 versions without all the advanced ASW gear which could then free up the room required for the command / control function. I think, in my very amateur opinion, that this could save a significant amount of money instead of trying to build a more traditional AWD sub variant for the first 3 hulls in this class of warship.
Warship cost could rise to $30B, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman confirms - Politics - CBC News
It does look like the 2 billion figure is acquisition costs alone in the revised estimates. Back in 2008 the CSC project was pegged at 26 billion (total program cost) of which 14 billion was set aside for acquisition. As the commander points out in his interview that was a long time ago... and the people doing the estimate didn't really know what they were doing.
The Liberal government initially had committed to 15 ships, but you can get a sense that they may start moving away from that commitment with these revised cost estimates. Now the question seems to be how many do we really need or what's the bare minimum... consensus right now has that number around 10-11.
The other issue that's being looked at is capability. I think initially these ships were planned with 32-48 cell VLS. I've also read in older publications showing the ability to embark up to 2 Cyclone helicopters which would require a pretty big hangar / mission bay. If capabilities are now being reviewed there may be some scaling back in these areas.
Personally, I would sacrifice or scale back the air defense variants (which are the first 3 ships that are to be built). The more important need here is the command / control capability that traditionally comes along with these ships. With improvements made in modern radars GP / ASW frigates are not nearly as vulnerable or dependant on escorts for airborne threats as they may have been in the past. In my opinion (pls correct me if I'm wrong here) it seems the only major capability offered by modern AWD over regular surface combatants is in the BMD realm which isn't something our current govt. would be interested in anyway.
If we design these ships around a ASW hull; we could make the first 3-4 versions without all the advanced ASW gear which could then free up the room required for the command / control function. I think, in my very amateur opinion, that this could save a significant amount of money instead of trying to build a more traditional AWD sub variant for the first 3 hulls in this class of warship.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
It really would be interesting to see the actual final design for the CSC ships. The Defence Spending - Military Procurement - Arctic Sovereignty - Canadian Forces - Aerospace Industry - CASR Index - Canadian American Strategic Review - Military Vehicles - Military Aircraft - Armoured Vehicles - CASR Background - In Detail - Modest P site had some interesting information on a concept about the CSC program, specifically a modified Absalon Danish design Your comments regarding the AWD variant are a little beyond my understanding but I understand why the RCN feels this is important (expensive piece of kit that needs state of the art protection). As for BMD, that is not likely a priority for junior and maybe it shouldn't be (but others can correct me here, but given the close relationship between US/CDN, the US would likely subsidize the cost if they felt it could help with NA BMD.
The 15 CSC are to replace 12 frigates and 4 destroyers. That's one ship lost. Not sure why we would need two medium lift CH-148s on a frigate. I don't believe we ever had this capability before with our ancient Sea Kings.
How do see the project being on the back burner! There is little being announced but in this age of media making sweeping assumptions that is a good thing. I would suggest defence are better off not providing repeated updates as the assessement (and DCP) process given the sort of nonese this genrates in the press.
My sarcasm was aimed at the fact you appear to endlessly suggest you have some sort of inside line on what is going on.
Your typical tanker has a large block coefficient ...... in other words it has a very boxy waterline form. Makes it hard to get higher speeds. Containerships are generally (noting there are exceptions to the rule) much finer and have a lower block coefficient meaning they have less resistance.
Look at HMAS Sirius as an example, very boxy hull with regular shape for much of the hull excluding the box and stern. The sealift capacity is quite low and it could have reasonably have been built into a tanker hull from. In both cases it is a compromise where you convert a ship as the structure has not been designed from the onset for that purpose.
I see, for speed through the water. However given RCN needs, I would have thought that the simplicity of converting a tanker would win out out over sealift/speed advantage of a converted container ship.Particularly as an intrim fill. HMAS Sirus has her limitations, but she was cheap, big, and was commissioned pretty quickly.
IMO the JSS with 4 helos, 1,500 lane metres, was always going to be ambitious. I find it interesting they have specified 1,300 tons of aviation fuel despite no significant aviation at sea.
Guess it will be interesting to see how it all plans out. RCN and the RAN seemed to have similar requirements but have made different choices.
I find it interesting that Canada chose such a complex and expensive interim option over a split, overseas/local build for the Berlins. To me it would have made more sense (not to mention cheaper) to order one Berlin in Germany and either another one or two in in Canada rather than opt for the interim conversion.
More capability, sooner, and more money for other needed capabilities down the track. I just can't see the point of spending so much on ships that will have such a short service life, especially as there are now rumours of cuts to surface combatant numbers due to funding shortages.
More capability, sooner, and more money for other needed capabilities down the track. I just can't see the point of spending so much on ships that will have such a short service life, especially as there are now rumours of cuts to surface combatant numbers due to funding shortages.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
A split build would have made sense but politically it was impossible. It's all about corporate and job welfare, not national defence. That being said, the other issue has been procurement incompetence by the RCN. They pissed around with a JSS concept for years that had zero chance for funding approval. This allowed the present situation of having no supply ships.
Belesarius
New Member
Do you have any concrete information on the proposed designs? I've been looking and haven't been able to find anything solid that I'd be willing to post or give opinions on.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Both Bath Iron Works and Odense Marine Design are assumed to be involved in Irving's/RCN's requirement. Many assume the design will be a heavily modified Iver Huitfeld frigate. The Iver Huitfeld cost $400m each, a price that is not possible now. The AWD version wanted by the RCN will likely cost closer to $3 billion not $2 billion based on Australia's experience.
1. Is Canada thinking of using the Australian costing method? If not then pointless to make comparisons with the cost between both respective nations.
2. The end cost of a ship can be directly attributed to how any industrial alliance is arranged, Properly conceived and executed they end up so hassle free that the media doesn't want to talk about it and when poorly set up with partners that keep issues hidden, no true leadership and an unrealistic time frame you end up with the AWD. If Canada can at least take lessons from both our success and failure with the Anzac's and AWD's then cost's could fall in a big way especially long term.
3. Please please please don't be like the Aussie Ministers and former Budgie Smuggler PM Abbott and think that 9 divide by 3 is 3, That is a simplistic approach that does truly show what the real costs of the ships are or how the costs have fallen for each consecutive ship.
Cheers, Matthew.
The Australian experience had a number of issues adversely affecting cost one of which was having selected the"existing" design the government, designer, original builder, degraded supply chain, obsolescence and other factors then proceeded to turn them into something else. Assumptions that certain systems and techniques would be used were ignored and many started from scratch. The government basically ignored every lesson of the ANZAC project and did it their way.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The latest here is junior will be having a defence review. This comes after announcing a consultant for the naval ship program and savings from cancelling the F-35 will be invested in the navy. The review will result in fewer ships because he intends to spend money elsewhere.
The Halifax frigates were a decent effort, perhaps not quite as good as the ANZACs from an industrial offset view. The new build is a real question mark. If we want AWD then we should build Burkes.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I am afraid we are on the same path, maybe worse.
The up to "2" Cyclone requirement was on a DND slideshow I've read; 32-48 VLS is based of other analysts predictions that have been made over the years. Most have also pegged the size around 6000 t.
Here's the short list of who's in the running. Looks like there will be two main subcontractors selected from this process; one for warship design and one for system integration.
Results of pre-qualification process for Canadian Surface Combatant - NSPS - Defence Procurement - Buying and Selling - PWGSC
We won't know anything about a concrete design until a contract is awarded in 2017 but if you look at the list of companies selected possible designs could be based off one of the following:
Alion - KDX-II
BAE - Type 26
DCNS - FREMM
Fincantieri - FREMM
Navantia - F-100
Odense - Iver Huitfeldt / Absalon
ThyssenKrupp - F124 / MEKO 600
Last edited:
Blas de Lezo
Member
So it´s official , Both SPS Patiño and Cantabria will be serving assisting the Canadian Navy in 2016
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_noticias/prefLang_en/00_noticias--2015--12--NT-243-COL-MARINA-CANADA-INGLES_en?_selectedNodeID=2420013&_pageAction=selectItem
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_noticias/prefLang_en/00_noticias--2015--12--NT-243-COL-MARINA-CANADA-INGLES_en?_selectedNodeID=2420013&_pageAction=selectItem
t68
Well-Known Member
Well that should help in the interim, if I remember right both ships will be used at diffrent times and I read elsewhere they will not be on the same agreement such as the RAN which paid all expences for her oz cruise, something to do with being NATO partners