Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[John Fedup]

There were a coupe of articles at the casr.ca site regarding the Mistrals from a Canadian prospective. Although both were unlikely, I find it strange that both have disappeared from the site. The first was a CDN acquisition and the second was a shared NATO lease arrangement.

 

[t68]

Sad day for the RCN, four ships set to go without near term replacement

Navy sending four Cold War era ships into retirement | CTV News

 

[Delta204]

Sad day for the RCN, four ships set to go without near term replacement

I think there is a real concern that since replacements are still years away a future govt. may ask why they need to be replaced at all. The AOR's would likely still get replaced, but I'm not so sure about the destroyers.

Interestingly enough, this week the Yanks have just sent one of their "Supply" class T-AOE for early retirement (only 16 years old I believe)... look like big expensive ships but could be an interim option for the RCN.

 

[John Fedup]

I think there is a real concern that since replacements are still years away a future govt. may ask why they need to be replaced at all. The AOR's would likely still get replaced, but I'm not so sure about the destroyers.

Interestingly enough, this week the Yanks have just sent one of their "Supply" class T-AOE for early retirement (only 16 years old I believe)... look like big expensive ships but could be an interim option for the RCN.

I can't see the RCN being too anxious to lease a T-AOE until Seaspan actually starts cutting steel for the Berlin class AOR otherwise the govt might delay or cancel the new AOR builds. The destroyer situation is pathetic to say the least. The new surface combatant ships (15 in all) still are in design phase and there is a question as to whether we will have an all frigate navy or will we have a few destroyers, i.e. 12 frigates and 3 destroyers. A larger vessel is needed for a command ship and a decent destroyer would be the answer. If no announcement is made soon then destroyers are likely off the table. Needless to say they should be built ahead of the AOPVs but that will never happen.

 

[Delta204]

the CBC is now reporting that the RCN is indeed considering buying/leasing the T-AOE's that the US is retiring. Additionally, the article states the "Canadian navy may also buy or lease foreign-built civilian ships and convert them to meet its needs"..... I can only hope that this is indeed true.

 

[John Fedup]

The CBC reported on Sep 24 that the DND is considering leasing both the USNS Rainier and Bridge. I will believe it when they sail into a Canadian port.

 

[John Fedup]

According to an Ottawa Citizen new article today, Adm Mark Norman says there will be no purchase of used surplus supply ships. The article implies the govt would be too embarrassed by their failed procurement strategy. More likely is the RCN's fear the JSS might get cancelled if this purchase ever went through.

U.S. supply ship purchase would signal failure of Conservative’s shipbuilding program | Ottawa Citizen

 

[RobWilliams]

It's a legitimate fear, more often than not anything bought as a stopgap measure tends to end up being the official replacement in the long run.

 

[StobieWan]

If they'd gone down the same route as the UK, they'd be taking delivery of the first ship for home fitout early next year.

Just saying...

 

[John Fedup]

If they'd gone down the same route as the UK, they'd be taking delivery of the first ship for home fitout early next year.

Just saying...

Exactly right and not only that, we would have larger ships and the money saved would go a long way towards the icebreaker that SeaSpan will also be building and is needed just as urgently as the AORs. Building a couple of Tide class ships in SKorea would allow for an immediate start on the icebreaker.

 

[John Fedup]

It's a legitimate fear, more often than not anything bought as a stopgap measure tends to end up being the official replacement in the long run.

True enough. If no temporary (or permanent used) ship is acquired, Canada will be without an AOR for at least 4 years. That turns the RCN into a coastal navy. If SeaSpan runs over budget and the build is delayed or faulty, how long do you think it will take our defence challenged politicians to cancel the project? They claim the RCN no longer has the need to be a blue water navy and the voters here will go along with this BS. The combatant surface ship program can then be scaled back or outright cancelled leaving us with AOPVs, frigates good to 2030-5 and subs to maybe 2030. After 2035 the RCN will fade away and we will have a coast guard which the politicians will also starve to death by mid century. WTF, I am sure bilingualism and multiculturalism will be well funded.

 

[Delta204]

Right now the RCN and the rest of the Cdn military in general is taking a beating from the current gov. With an election coming up next year the govt. is obsessively focused on balancing its books and getting rid of the budget deficit and from govt.'s perspective the military is the easiest target. Add to this the political mess that follows military procurement in this country and it is easy to see why the govt. is delaying nearly every military procurement announcement possible (eg. F-35, anything related to NSPS, UAV's, transport trucks, ect. ect.) until after the election. While most defense analysts agree that this type of procurement strategy proves more costly in the long run this obviously matters little to Cdn. politicians.

I'm still holding out hope that once this election is over the funding will return and just maybe the govt. will make the necessary but potentially unpopular decision (especially with voters in shipbuilding ridings) that perhaps building all these vessels in Canada is not the smartest option.

 

[John Fedup]

I'm still holding out hope that once this election is over the funding will return and just maybe the govt. will make the necessary but potentially unpopular decision (especially with voters in shipbuilding ridings) that perhaps building all these vessels in Canada is not the smartest option.

I have minimal hope regardless of which party wins the next election. As for the ship building, the AORs and maybe the icebreaker should be built offshore but the politicians are both too stupid and cowardly to do this.

 

[Volkodav]

If you have a local industry, especially if that industry is struggling due to lack of work, cancelling, delaying or sending contracts off shore is false economy.

In the short term the premium paid for local construction is usually lower than the increased tax receipts from the benefit gained through spending the money locally. Over the long term, ordering as many, if not all, of the ships the navy requires, locally will increase the efficiency and expertise of the local yards, reducing the premium paid for local construction, reduce through life costs for sustainment and increase the critical mass of national project management and heavy engineering skills to the benefit of the economy.

Japan, South Korea and now even China are off shoring commercial work to lower cost countries as their wages, conditions and pollution controls improve and increase costs. The improvement in efficiencies in their shipyards can't compete with the low wages in Vietnam and the Philippines etc. I imagine African nations getting into shipbuilding next.

Simple steel bashing for ships with a limited economic life can be off shored but more complex work is expensive whether done locally or overseas. If you have a local industry it makes sense to give them all of the work in a well planned, sustainable manner, to increase your economies of scale than to waste money on make work projects and rebuilding / revitalizing the industry in between the projects you do retain.

Another factor that comes to mind is currency values, I am not sure but believe Canada, like Australia has had a long period of stable high currency, due mostly to commodity prices and low ( on a global scale) debt. This has made off shoring look more attractive at the same time as making conditions very challenging for local manufacturing and heavy engineering. The failure of government to compensate for global conditions and level the economy means that Canada (and Australia) are particularly vulnerable to dropping commodity prices and when the dollar inevitably drops too the off shore option they are now tied to will be much more expensive, perhaps unaffordably so.

 

[John Fedup]

Currently Canada has two yards undergoing revitalization so they can build new ships. Should the government cancel or cut back the planned ship build, taxpayers will have to pay these yards for the upgrades. I understand the advantages of local build for warships and arctic patrol vessels but the AORs, no. A single icebreaker built locally doesn't do much for me either. Worse, these three ships are the only ones planned for Vancouver's Sespan yard. Unless this yard can get involved in a new submarine program this yard will be done in less than 10 years. The Irving yard on the east coast can be viable if the new surface combatants are all built and an on going renewal is adhered to.

As for currency issues, this will be a problem regardless as so many of the ships major components have to be foreign sourced anyway. Your other key point, a well planned sustainable build, given Canada's recent procurement horror shows doesn't seem likely.

 

[Volkodav]

If you have established manufacturing and heavy engineering capabilities you can easily increase the local content of any build. Having worked on major projects I have seen contracts for equipment being subcontracted by subcontractors to companies all over the world based on profit margins. Equipment that could have been easily fabricated and assembled locally was instead ordered from a European supplier who subcontracted the work to an Eastern European company based on price rather than quality resulting in the delivery of sub par equipment that required rectification work after delivery.

The only thing that made the original order cheaper was the exchange rate but that was blown by rectification work, transport, warehousing and maintenance while in storage, not very smart to be honest. Alternatively the same equipment could have been ordered locally, the contracted company could have been inspected and audited and the equipment ordered to be delivered as required by the build schedule. Any problems during manufacture and the shipyard could have sent engineers / technicians to assist, any problems after delivery and the manufacturer could have sent their people to fix it. This is how the successful ANZAC project was run, the troubled AWD project however ordered equipment and material from all over the world relying on documentation rather than experienced technicians to say what was good and what wasn't.

 

[John Fedup]

If you have established manufacturing and heavy engineering capabilities you can easily increase the local content of any build. Having worked on major projects I have seen contracts for equipment being subcontracted by subcontractors to companies all over the world based on profit margins. Equipment that could have been easily fabricated and assembled locally was instead ordered from a European supplier who subcontracted the work to an Eastern European company based on price rather than quality resulting in the delivery of sub par equipment that required rectification work after delivery.

The only thing that made the original order cheaper was the exchange rate but that was blown by rectification work, transport, warehousing and maintenance while in storage, not very smart to be honest. Alternatively the same equipment could have been ordered locally, the contracted company could have been inspected and audited and the equipment ordered to be delivered as required by the build schedule. Any problems during manufacture and the shipyard could have sent engineers / technicians to assist, any problems after delivery and the manufacturer could have sent their people to fix it. This is how the successful ANZAC project was run, the troubled AWD project however ordered equipment and material from all over the world relying on documentation rather than experienced technicians to say what was good and what wasn't.

The RCN's new surface combatant ships will require propulsion and weapons systems along with the usual detection and communication systems. These items, for the most part, are not manufactured in Canada. Thus the Canadian content will involve the steel work, the engineering/systems integration work, and probably some significant software development work. It would be interesting to know what the actual Canadian percentage is, i.e. Is it high enough to justify the the extra cost of a local build? It likely is for a 15 ship acquistion with the understanding that future ships will laid down in a timely manner to sustain the shipyard and keep it viable. Everything hinges on our Government (and future ones) ensuring the RCN is properly supported. Voter apathy in all things defence related makes this government commitment questionable.

 

[Volkodav]

The RCN's new surface combatant ships will require propulsion and weapons systems along with the usual detection and communication systems. These items, for the most part, are not manufactured in Canada. Thus the Canadian content will involve the steel work, the engineering/systems integration work, and probably some significant software development work. It would be interesting to know what the actual Canadian percentage is, i.e. Is it high enough to justify the the extra cost of a local build? It likely is for a 15 ship acquistion with the understanding that future ships will laid down in a timely manner to sustain the shipyard and keep it viable. Everything hinges on our Government (and future ones) ensuring the RCN is properly supported. Voter apathy in all things defence related makes this government commitment questionable.

A very interesting report a moderator linked on the warships1 site
RAN updates (LHD, AWD, CEAFAR) in The Commonwealth Navies Forum

I knew the ANZAC project was a success but I had no idea of the overall positive effect it had on the economy and how great that effect was.

 

[John Fedup]

A very interesting report a moderator linked on the warships1 site
RAN updates (LHD, AWD, CEAFAR) in The Commonwealth Navies Forum

I knew the ANZAC project was a success but I had no idea of the overall positive effect it had on the economy and how great that effect was.

Thanks for that. I have downloaded the report and will digest it later.

 

[John Fedup]

The Ottawa Citizen is reporting today that the arctic offshore patrol vessel program will be cut back from 8 to 5 vessels with an option for a sixth. As shipyards spend millions upgrading their operations, Canadian taxpayers should be aware they are on the hook to pay for these upgrades along with cancellation penalties.