New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Eye In The Sky]

I know people, myself included most days, tend to lay blame on our political leaders for "less than ideal funding and equipment" issues.  Isn't the issue rather with the Canadian population in general though?  They don't see we have any "real" threats to Canada, that is to their homes, communities, etc that are "real".  They are distant, in far off places, and a more real concern for them is the car won't start this Saturday morning at 0500 when they are trying to get the kids to hockey practice.

Politicians listen to the majority of voters and do what they want, that is how they keep their jobs.  I have just resigned myself to accept the average Canadian supports on on/around Nov 11th, they love the Snowbirds, the Nova Scotia International Tattoo, etc but they want their tax dollars to do other things than actually fund a fighting-capable military.

 

[observor 69]

I met a retired Egyptian naval officer at our local rec center a while ago. As it goes we exchanged stories of our previous working life. He spoke of how much he enjoyed his career in the Navy. Egypt has a strong Navy for all the reasons mentioned by Eye In The Sky. His son is completing a degree in Computer Science at York U and he is suggesting to him that he should join the Canadian Armed Forces. When he asked me about our military I was hard pressed to explain "why" it is so underfunded and equipped.
But as I thought about it I realized the politicans are under no pressure by voters for a stronger military.
The general public, unlike Egypt, see no external threats to Canada. Australia has a stronger and funded military. I suspect this is because the country sees threats to there security.
I generally had a good career in the RCAF but it took a while to understand that support by the government of the day is driven by voter priorities .

 

[Dale Denton]

Perhaps a terrible combination of embarrassment, lack of leadership, and not being in the public eye enough.

People don't know the bad state because we do an excellent job of hiding our embarrassing failures. Somebody higher up needs to take the bullet and come out publicly (while still in office) to note the terrible state; a whistle-blower; a Hillier 2.0. Embarrass the gov't for not moving, delaying projects, etc...

More parades, even if they are a drain on resources. Shove the military into peoples faces. More, and bigger presence at local community events (don't take 3 reservists and 1 G-wagon to a big event - bring something like a Leopard or TAPV at least) The populous is numb to this because nobody told them. They have to look it up and take an interest.

We'll never just give up and pay the US for defence. Its much easier to rely on a quiet organisation to suffer in a slow silence...

Unionize the Forces. We wouldn't be the first.

Would these not work?

 

[Cloud Cover]

I met a retired Egyptian naval officer at our local rec center a while ago. As it goes we exchanged stories of our previous working life. He spoke of how much he enjoyed his career in the Navy. Egypt has a strong Navy for all the reasons mentioned by Eye In The Sky. His son is completing a degree in Computer Science at York U and he is suggesting to him that he should join the Canadian Armed Forces. When he asked me about our military I was hard pressed to explain "why" it is so underfunded and equipped.
But as I thought about it I realized the politicans are under no pressure by voters for a stronger military.
The general public, unlike Egypt, see no external threats to Canada. Australia has a stronger and funded military. I suspect this is because the country sees threats to there security.
I generally had a good career in the RCAF but it took a while to understand that support by the government of the day is driven by voter priorities .

Perhaps. There is government and there is Parliament. One has a duty to defend, the other has a duty to decide how. In our country, we have it backwards compared to say: Australia. I think Australia is the best geographical, demographic, democratic, wealth distribution, urban/ rural comparator country. We are a little bigger in most categories, but where we really have them beat is fucking everything up, on any topic at any scale.  For certain, they can also screw up a one horse show, but we Canadians, well can’t even decide if we want a horse, pony or dog show before we screw it up, and by the time we are done the dog has screwed the pony and the horse, and then we blame someone  else. I think we have become the most self harming, masochistic political embodiment of a country in the free world.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Do we, the CAF, not has any responsibility in this matter ?  I agree the lions share falls on the shoulders voters and politicians, but are we terrible at translating what we need and why in terms the populace can get behind and push their elected leaders for ?

 

[YZT580]

Don't blame the public, they only go with what they know.  All questions regarding security are answered with standard government double talk and attention is immediately diverted onto the issue of the day for the politician along with the assuring words that they have it under control and they are taking steps to make it better.  Where the responsibility lies is with your officer corps.  Senior officers simply bend over rather than making the lack of boots, the lack of aircraft, the buy the cheapest (SAR aircraft) etc. a noticeable issue.  Their duty is to the queen and to the country, not to the PM and it is about time that they recognised the difference and pointed out forcefully and publicly that they are unable to carry out their mandate to protect Canada because they haven't got the tools to do so.

 

[Swampbuggy]

A really simple way of getting ordinary people to understand what the CAF does is to make it personal. For instance, the RCN is chronically misunderstood by Canadians that don’t live anywhere near the coasts. But, all one really needs to do is to look at their consumer products. By and large our purchases have come in to this country via shipping container. If the average Canadian could look at his/her shoes or cell phone and realize that it came from overseas, then there is the start of a connection. Explain to these consumers that in order for them to get their goods, shipping lanes must be secured and ports need to be protected, and you’ll give them a reason to appreciate the Navy.

Also, I had heard at one point that the CAF can’t actively promote itself to Canadians? Is that true or just a myth?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Believe me I have had numerous conversations with university educated people who think all the stuff from China come by rail......

Here is a pdf my Department put together to help people involved in environmental reviews understand Marine shipping in the Canadian context. The RCN should do similar.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjB86fXlJ3fAhUBzIMKHX2nCDYQFjAAegQIBxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fceaa-acee.gc.ca%2F050%2Fdocuments%2Fp80054%2F115538E.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1Ve3pYU0z19nATNJDlyyWf

 

[Uzlu]

Is what is going to happen to Canada’s icebreakers going to be similar to what happened to Canada’s replenishment ships and destroyers?

Davie warns of shipbuilding strategy ‘disaster’ as Coast Guard icebreaker delivered

LEVIS, QUE.—As the Canadian Coast Guard took possession of a new icebreaker at Quebec’s Davie Shipyard Friday, a Davie official warned that the national shipbuilding strategy could be headed for “disaster.”

Frederik Boisvert, vice-president of public affairs, said shipyards in British Columbia and Nova Scotia that have won almost all shipbuilding contracts so far are not equipped to handle the work.

“We’re ready to help. We’ve got the capacity,” Boisvert said. Davie, he said, “could build in parallel six massive ships. The two other shipyards, Seaspan (in Vancouver) and Irving (in Halifax) they can only do one at a time. So, sincerely, that national strategy might become a bit of a disaster if we’re not leveraged properly.”

The comments cast a cloud over what was billed as a celebration of a milestone for the shipyard across the St. Lawrence River from Quebec City, delivery of the first new icebreaker floated by the Coast Guard in 25 years. Federal officials announced another $90 million in work for Davie to convert two other icebreakers.

The three ships were bought from Norway in August, at an announced cost of $610 million. Budget documents revealed in November that with tariffs, brokerage fees, engineering work and other costs, the total cost had risen to $827 million.

Boisvert said the icebreaker contract will bring the workforce up to about 260, but that is well below the 1,400 who once worked there. There is a danger of losing expertise, he said.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/12/14/davie-warns-of-shipbuilding-strategy-disaster-as-coast-guard-icebreaker-delivered.html

 

[Stoker]

Is what is going to happen to Canada’s icebreakers going to be similar to what happened to Canada’s replenishment ships and destroyers?https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/12/14/davie-warns-of-shipbuilding-strategy-disaster-as-coast-guard-icebreaker-delivered.html

Got to hand it to Davie, they're self promoters for sure. Makes it sound like they they single handed built 3 new ice breakers for the CG, when it was a minor conversion job. Sure if they got the capability like they said give them a contract to build 6 heavy ice breakers if we're not too busy giving the money away to another country.

 

[FSTO]

Got to hand it to Davie, they're self promoters for sure. Makes it sound like they they single handed built 3 new ice breakers for the CG, when it was a minor conversion job. Sure if they got the capability like they said give them a contract to build 6 heavy ice breakers if we're not too busy giving the money away to another country.

I used to be a hard critic of Davie back in the TRUMP days, but since their restructuring they have gotten their act together. Unlike Irving who spend more time pulling the strings of their political puppets vice getting to work on the plethora of contracts they have been gifted from the Feds. Too bad their QA is shyte.

 

[Stoker]

I used to be a hard critic of Davie back in the TRUMP days, but since their restructuring they have gotten their act together. Unlike Irving who spend more time pulling the strings of their political puppets vice getting to work on the plethora of contracts they have been gifted from the Feds. Too bad their QA is shyte.

Everyone touts their "on time and on budget" in the media when the truth is that they had agreements with their unions to be on time at all costs in order to get more business. I have no doubt they would be the same as any other ship builder once they get a piece of the pie. If anything they sound like sore losers.

 

[NavyShooter]

The garbage I have personally seen coming out of the local 'preferred bidder' here in Halifax has me using words in personal conversation like 'willful and deliberate' and 'sabotage' and 'incompetence' as well as 'outright theft.'


The fact that our ships have to strip all of our firefighting gear because 'someone' will cut the hose ends off to steal the brass connectors, we have to strip out the lazy-rod brass covers, again, because they'll get stolen, the fact that unused compartments end up getting padlocked so that workers don't go and hide in them to have a nap...well, the above words are ones I've used, will continue to use, and based on the things I've seen, I don't think the 'non-preferred' contractor in Quebec can do any worse. 


I was asked about 2 years ago if I'd be interested in a civilian job working for a certain company in the HRM...I responded that I had too much pride in myself to see my name on a business card with their company's name on it. 


We've always had problems with every yard we go to...back in the 80's there's the tale of a ship (Gatineau?) getting pulled out of a yard by a crew on a weekend when the shipyard workers went on strike.  There's tales of ships arriving at other yards and immediately having holes cut in the hull specifically to prevent something like that happening again.  There's tales of incompetence and greed and porkbarreling in every yard we've ever used.  I don't expect that will change. 


The problem with any Government Contract, particularly one of any real size, is that it's a political issue, not a capability issue. 


Someone said it best when they indicated that the NSPS is a jobs program, where the ships are merely a useful byproduct.


NS

 

[Kirkhill]

The garbage I have personally seen coming out of the local 'preferred bidder' here in Halifax has me using words in personal conversation like 'willful and deliberate' and 'sabotage' and 'incompetence' as well as 'outright theft.'


The fact that our ships have to strip all of our firefighting gear because 'someone' will cut the hose ends off to steal the brass connectors, we have to strip out the lazy-rod brass covers, again, because they'll get stolen, the fact that unused compartments end up getting padlocked so that workers don't go and hide in them to have a nap...well, the above words are ones I've used, will continue to use, and based on the things I've seen, I don't think the 'non-preferred' contractor in Quebec can do any worse. 


I was asked about 2 years ago if I'd be interested in a civilian job working for a certain company in the HRM...I responded that I had too much pride in myself to see my name on a business card with their company's name on it. 


We've always had problems with every yard we go to...back in the 80's there's the tale of a ship (Gatineau?) getting pulled out of a yard by a crew on a weekend when the shipyard workers went on strike.  There's tales of ships arriving at other yards and immediately having holes cut in the hull specifically to prevent something like that happening again.  There's tales of incompetence and greed and porkbarreling in every yard we've ever used.  I don't expect that will change. 


The problem with any Government Contract, particularly one of any real size, is that it's a political issue, not a capability issue. 


Someone said it best when they indicated that the NSPS is a jobs program, where the ships are merely a useful byproduct.


NS

Sidebar

...At the height of World War I, in February 1915, workers in munitions factories on the Clyde had walked out, with industrial unrest spreading to factories in Sheffield and Birmingham.

Later in the year, 15,000 Clyde shipyard workers went on strike again in protest at the compulsory deduction of rent arrears from their pay packets.

Then, in 1917, 200,000 workers in 48 different towns walked out, mainly over wages, but also over food prices, exemptions from military service and what they termed ‘war profiteering’....

[Others] went further — and refused to abstain from strike action until 1941 and the Nazi invasion of Russia .... Even though strikes had been made illegal in wartime, there were at least 900 in the first few months of the war.

In May 1940, as Hitler launched his attack on the Low Countries and France, ... saw more and more reason to strike ...

During the rest of the war, there were strikes all across the country — in engineering factories, the coal mines, aircraft manufacturers, shipyards, and by bus drivers and conductors.

In 1943, workers at a factory in London making tail-fins for Halifax bombers went on strike and more than 16,000 women and some men walked out of the Rolls-Royce factory in Glasgow — where they should have been making engines for fighter planes.

Another key area of industrial unrest was the docks. In December 1943, 1,000 dockers went on strike in Middlesbrough and 1944 was considered to be an annus horribilis in terms of strike action, with lightning walk-outs in many ports at full stretch preparing for the invasion of Europe.

There were strikes at docks in the west of England, including Plymouth, in January....

Daily Mail

The anecdotes are useful.  The Daily Mail does its usual job of adding its interpretation.

The point is "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, (nor from the shipyard worker our ship) but from their regard to their own interest."  We deal with the situation as it stands.  That doesn't mean accepting the situation though.  It may mean accepting having to trade punch for punch to get what we want.

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/adam_smith_136391

 

[JMCanada]

(...) Sure if they got the capability like they said give them a contract to build 6 heavy ice breakers if we're not too busy giving the money away to another country.

Please correct me if I'm wrong or the Leadmark 2050 I am using is no longer valid, but in page 58, under "platforms" column, it states: 
http://navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/rcn_leadmark-2050.pdf

Before 2035  ==> Incremental HA/DR capacity & capability introduced
through hull & deck arrangements
Platform investments ==> Purpose-converted peace-support ship acquired.

So basically these two are talking about the same ship(s), I guess. I understand as well this is the big amphibious ship we talk about in another thread.

(1) If Davie is asking for further contracts, might it be the time to give them another one for conversion of an existing vessel into such "Purpose-converted peace-support ship"?  [I would call it Project resourceful ]

There is however one line which is not clear to me at all: Page 58, Platform investments ==> Replacement Canadian Coastal Patrol Ship acquired. The line just above says "MCDVs life-extended". Could you please help me to decipher this?

----

On the other hand, I have also know from there about MCDVs life extension. Meaning at least they will not be replaced until beyond 2035. However there is a target or commitment to maintain both the MCM capabilities and a kind of coastal defence, while "Maritime  Platforms  for  Joint  Action  in  the  Littorals" is also mentioned (pages 42-45).

I am therefore addressing now an issue to be solved in the 2030s, for new combatants to enter service within the 2035-50 period. Both the scenarios and the techniques may have changed quite a bit, nevermind I make my question...

(2) Would it make sense to split the 12 new combatants (12 + 15 CSC = 27 as mentioned in the document)  into six Off-shore Patrol Vessels (of about 1400-1800 tons, complement about 40-50) to substitute the MCDVs and six corvettes/light frigates of about 3000-3500 tons (complement about 100) ?

These light frigates would then be double sized than OPVs, while half-size than AOPS and less than half of CSCs. They might better serve than OPVs in medium-contested waters or peace-keeping missions under international assignments, while being much cheaper to crew and operate than the big combatants.

Once again, thanks in advance for your inputs.

 

[Uzlu]

Would it make sense to split the 12 new combatants (12 + 15 CSC = 27 as mentioned in the document)  into six Off-shore Patrol Vessels (of about 1400-1800 tons, complement about 40-50) to substitute the MCDVs and six corvettes/light frigates of about 3000-3500 tons (complement about 100) ?

My preference would be to build lightly armed versions of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend-class_cutter.  Ten for the coast guard, twelve for the navy, change the law, and give the Harry DeWolfs to the coast guard.

 

[Cloud Cover]

This was an interesting editorial letter in the CNR 11 years ago.  Consider what the author states and where the RCN is heading with AOPS and 15 CSC today, with 2-3 AOR (inc. Asterix).

http://www.navalreview.ca/2007/10/the-navys-future-fleet-plans-are-not-what-canada-needs/

"The perennial dilemma of the DND/CF (including the navy) will only be solved by a resolute display of government leadership; leadership that issues an explicit statement of strategic goals and priorities for the Canadian military.  The navy must not be allowed to dictate strategy and policy to the government, or to interpret direction as they see fit.  Of course, an informed public will be a useful adjunct to forming government decisions.  And with specific reference to the navy, the debate that finalizes those expectations most certainly should not begin, as mainstream naval officers and traditional ‘navalists’ always insist, with an expression of the sanctity and non-negotiability of the task group as the centre of our maritime security concept."

My guess is that if the public was truly and honestly informed ... oh, never mind.

"The navy does little to encourage a public debate, although one is essential.  Indeed, with the admiral’s huge appetite for expanding the fleet, one is long overdue.  The reason for its faint encouragement for discourse is the navy’s expectation that it needs to simultaneously lead and moderate the participants, lest the result not be in accordance with the vision.  Maritime strategy has been reduced to little more than a pawn; a line of argument that justifies naval ambitions."

To a remarkable extent, this article seems to have been on the mark. 

Look what the RCN was expecting in 2007 in about "20-25 years":

"Over the next 20 to 25 years, I [Vice Admiral Robertson] would like to see maritime forces evolving toward a mix of two littoral manoeuvre ships [amphibious landing ships]; three joint support ships; four to six submarines; four task group command/force air defence destroyers; 12 to 14 future frigates; 28 Cyclone maritime helicopters; 16 multi-mission aircraft for long-range maritime surveillance; eight offshore patrol corvettes; four to six coastal defence vessels; eight to 16 internal waters/inshore patrol vessels; and a small constellation of tactical unmanned vehicles remotely piloted or deployed autonomously from our ships and submarines."

I think Australia got our navy, and we got F&^%$# with even less.

 

[Journeyman]

Platform investments ==> Purpose-converted peace-support ship acquired.

Once again, acknowledging that I'm a non-sailor, out of my lane, I had to Google "peace-support ship" (I would have thought that a collection of CVNs/SSNs would support peace pretty adequately).*

I found this description, Serge Bertrand, "Future Roles for the RCN," CGAI,  July 2016:

Better equipped to conduct peace support operations. Recent operations by the RCN as well as allied navies have underscored a pressing need for the CAF to acquire a dedicated peace support ship, specifically to meet the unique demands of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) operations. Such operations typically unfold in chaotic conditions, often in the absence of, or hampered by extensively damaged, transportation networks and infrastructure. The characteristics that would permit such a ship to act as a seabase include: a substantial sealift capacity to embark personnel, vehicles, force logistics and humanitarian materiel for transport into theatre; equipment to embark/disembark cargo as well as transfer cargo at sea; deck space to accommodate or operate medium or heavy lift aircraft and landing craft to act as the ship/shore connectors to project, sustain and support a force ashore, as well as to recover it; and the internal space that can be dedicated to a joint headquarters, civil-military coordination centre, and medical and dental facilities and accommodations for evacuees. 

Such a vessel would likely be among the most heavily utilized assets in the future CAF inventory. Capable of anticipatory pre-positioning or rapid deployment, a peace support ship would be an ideal platform for joint action across a range of relatively permissive scenarios. Such scenarios would include the evacuation of non-combatants from zones of incipient conflict, as well as support to forces ashore during a post-conflict recovery or stabilization period.

Moreover, such a vessel would likely emerge as the CAF’s principal defence diplomacy asset, deployed routinely to regions of strategic interest to Canada with a range of personnel and joint capabilities embarked to strengthen regional capacities and strategic partnerships, or more broadly to conduct goodwill missions with other federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations and assets embarked.

Given our current government's proclivities, I don't think that one would be enough.


* Although having recently watched the movie "Hunter Killer," apparently 1 x LA-class SSN and 4 x SEALs can save the world. :

 

[Cloud Cover]

Both Irving and Davie submitted concepts and unsolicited bids to the current government, and they were rejected.

 

[Kirkhill]

If the Bossman, Gerald Butts, really wanted that UN seat and didn't mind spending more money he doesn't have than he should be all over a fleet of floating warehouses that could be prepositioned at allied ports - places like, say:

Kingston, Jamaica
Cologne, Germany (Yes you can float into Cologne although Copenhagen or Rotterdam might be better)
Kuwait
Singapore

And if he wanted to spend more future money he might even consider some for

Dakkar
Mombasa
Busan with a couple for domestic service.

Fill them up with sea cans of bean, bandages and blankets. 

Sea cans of bullets can be flown in along with troops with guns as the situation warrants.

But then we would be ready for anything - and what excuse would we have to delay until the emergency passed?