PDA

View Full Version : Canadian Supply Ships shelved



jtl310
25 Aug 08,, 20:05
Supply ships shelved
$2.1 billion project quietly cancelled because of cost

The Conservative government is shelving a $2.1-billion project to replace Canada’s aging naval supply ships because bids from the shipbuilding industry were "significantly" higher than the money set aside for the program.

The government also cancelled a tender call for the purchase of 12 mid-shore patrol ships for the Canadian Coast Guard.

Public Works Minister Christian Paradis announced the decisions in a statement released at 8:30 p.m. Friday.

"These vessels are a key priority of the government of Canada," Mr. Paradis said in the release.

"However, the government must ensure that Canadian taxpayers receive the best value for their money."

Mr. Paradis added that the Department of National Defence and Fisheries and Oceans Canada are considering the next step.

Defence sources said the two consortiums that were bidding for the rights to build the 28,000-tonne vessels determined the work could not be done for the amount of money the government had set aside.

The new ships were to serve as refuelling vessels for warships at sea, as well as cargo carriers, floating headquarters and possibly even floating hospitals, depending on the mission.

The project was announced with much fanfare in Halifax in June 2006 by then-defence minister Gordon O’Connor and then-chief of defence staff Rick Hillier. "With those new ships, our ability to protect Canadians, where they live and where they work at home in Canada, around the continent or across the world, will be enhanced," Gen. Hillier said at the time.

MP Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore) called Friday’s cancellation "extremely disappointing," adding that it is just the latest in a long string of delays in military spending.

"They have all these grandiose announcements . . . and then turn around and say they can’t do it," the New Democrat said.

"Why do they play around like that with the emotions of the men and women of the military?"

Mr. Stoffer added that the cancellation may also have a significant impact on Nova Scotia’s economy.

The Irving-owned Halifax Shipyard lost its bid to build the new ships in late 2006, but there was still hope that Halifax could snap up at least a portion of the lucrative maintenance contracts.

The Conservatives had allotted an additional $800 million to keep the vessels running for two decades.

"Now we found out that the government has sent someone over to Europe to see if those ships can be built there," Mr. Stoffer said.

In 2004, the Liberal government announced a similar plan to build support ships, but those plans were put on hold by the new Conservative government after a major review of all military spending.

Canada’s 1960s-vintage supply ships — HMCS Preserver and HMCS Protecteur — are still on the water, but both have required expensive refits in the past few years.

It was expected that they would be retired between 2010 and 2012, but they may now be forced to remain at sea longer.

Mr. Stoffer said he thinks the timing of the announcement — just before the weekend — was a clear attempt to avoid the media.

"They don’t mind making these announcements in broad daylight during the middle of the week when they have national media attention," he said.

"But when they decide to cancel, they’re like a little mouse in a church . . . like no one will notice. But we’re noticing."

Mr. Stoffer said he will make a statement later this week, "urging the defence minister and the Conservative government to honour their commitments and honour their promises to the navy and to the coast guard" and will be raising the matter when Parliament resumes in three weeks. "When we get back to Ottawa, I plan to pursue this quite vigorously with my colleagues," he said.

With The Canadian Press
__________________________________________________ ____________


Nova Scotia News - TheChronicleHerald.ca (http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1074911.html)


How much longer can the Canadian oilers run? before they have to be scrapped?

Besides would it now make more sense for the government to look at a dedicated oiler/replenishment ship of the shelf? which would be significantly cheaper than the fancy JSS?

I think the patrol boats were initiated by the liberals? either way hopefully the conservatives have a better plan in the coming weeks, if they want to save their voter base.

gunnut
27 Aug 08,, 19:00
Canada, UK, and Australia should band together and develop a multi-purpose logistic ship for use by all 3 navies. I'm sure there are some common grounds they can reach and save money at the same time.

VarSity
28 Aug 08,, 09:06
Canada, UK, and Australia should band together and develop a multi-purpose logistic ship for use by all 3 navies. I'm sure there are some common grounds they can reach and save money at the same time.
Not a bad idea, if they can all agree on spec that is.

Iím a little surprised about the patrol boats, I though Canada was looking to make its presents felt, especially its northern coast.

Officer of Engineers
28 Aug 08,, 12:07
Ice cutters are needed up north (I think it's just make work), not coastal vessels.

Stan
28 Aug 08,, 12:17
I think you right baout Canada Australia and Britain banding together to create a new supply ship class. To be honest it should be happening in europe. We might all disagree on frigates, destroyers and carriers but surely we cant be far apart on how to refuel the ships.

jtl310
28 Aug 08,, 19:48
Not a bad idea, if they can all agree on spec that is.

Iím a little surprised about the patrol boats, I though Canada was looking to make its presents felt, especially its northern coast.

They definitely want a stronger presence up north, but really at what cost? Money is the factor here.

How long would creating a partnership, drawing out the necessary requirements of every nation all the way to completion of the ship including trials take?

It would probably make more sense to buy a refueling ship/transport of the shelf and have it completed with trials in 5 years. Plus if the government can have the ships built in Canada would be a significant boost to the ship building industry, along with a significant price tag.

Prairie Canuck
31 Aug 08,, 18:58
I'm sure "off the shelf" is an attractive option but there's at least 2 points that will prevent it. The first is it will be of prime importance that they be built in Canada. Politically it would never fly to spend our dollars overseas and while our own shipbuilding capacity fades to nothing. A second point is there's nothing out there that provides the oiler option with an ice strengthened hull.
One option, my own idea and it's probably "out to lunch", is to follow the Danish HDMS Absalon (L16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMS_Absalon_(L16)) mode of thinking to modify 2 of the future Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels into a mini AOR/resupply vessel exclusively for the north. This would in effect remove the ice strengthened hull requirement for the AOR replacement and fre up the decision makers to look at something along the lines of the Spanish Patino class or the German Berlin class. These are current and could more easily be built in Canadian yards.

Sea Toby
29 Dec 09,, 22:28
Recently the Netherlands did buy their JSS, a ship similar if not the same as Canada's design, for around 300 million Euros. I think a Euro is around one and a half times the value of a Canadian or US dollar. Say $500 million Canadian.

Why did Canada average $700 million Canadian? If the Canadian shipbuilders can't get within 10 percent of the Dutch costs, say $550 million Canadian, its time to buy Dutch....

Rumrunner
30 Dec 09,, 14:57
I know other navies have had success with the 'all-in-one' auxiliary design, but I think that the Canadian Navy has far too much water and far too many climates to deal with to have two ships foot the bill. Money constraints being what they are, was it ever feasible to build two ships with the multi-mission capability, ice-rated and flagship equipped for 2.1 Bil?

Canada's Navy and CG is mostly of Frigate/small DDG size and smaller. Seems to me, and this is exlcuding the crewing and support costs, that building two AOR's to commercial ice standards and two support Tenders with Flagship accomodations might make the nut under that 2.1 bil price tag.

Pioneer
31 Dec 09,, 13:19
Canada, UK, and Australia should band together and develop a multi-purpose logistic ship for use by all 3 navies. I'm sure there are some common grounds they can reach and save money at the same time.

Gunnut -

'I like it'

'I want it'

I like the way you think!!

Regards
Pioneer

Pioneer
31 Dec 09,, 13:28
Such a sensible and practical joint program between the likes of Canada, Britain and Australia, would surly bring other navy's interest and purchasing!
Get the Germans on board, or even the Spanish ship builders and skies the limits!!

'Happy New Year gents'

Regards
Pioneer

Prairie Canuck
09 Oct 10,, 03:49
Apologies for reviving an old thread but Pioneer's clairvoyance may come to pass as Thyssen Krupp and Navantia have been contracted to come up with design modifications to meet Canadian requirements. The 2 vessels mentioned on which the "new" vessels will be based are the BerlinBerlin class replenishment ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_class_replenishment_ship) class and the CantabriaPatino Class Auxiliary Oiler and Replenishment Ship - Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/patino/) class vessels
Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN) Abstract: JSS MILITARY OFF THE SHELF DESIGNS (http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24JSS-002-20532&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=PAGE2&rowcount=291&lastpage=30&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=0&CLOSESORT=0&hcode=3h7D557a5AYiZcSPRvnUcQ%3d%3d)

dundonrl
09 Oct 10,, 05:58
I wonder if they could use a modified design of the USNS Lewis and Clark class of supply ships for their ships.. modify it a bit and you'd have the ship they want.. (the US is building 14 of them, with a budget of 4 billion dollars)


Displacement: 41,000 tons (41,700 t)
Length: 689 ft (210 m)
Beam: 105.6 ft (32.2 m)
Draft: 29.9 ft (9.1 m)

Capacity: • Max dry cargo weight:
5,910 long tons (6,005 t)
• Max dry cargo volume:
783,000 cubic feet (22,000 m≥)
• Max cargo fuel weight:
2,350 long tons (2,390 t)
• Cargo fuel volume:
18,000 barrels (2,900 m≥)
(DFM: 10,500) (JP5:7,500)

Prairie Canuck
10 Oct 10,, 02:39
I'm curious as to why the Lewis And Clark was excluded. My guess is it had something to do with this:
"including, without limitation, the right to the technical data
package and all other related data and technology and the
right to modify the design;"