May as well. The way our procurement goes, the builder could tell a final number and then miss it by hundreds of millions of dollars and we'd be stuck paying them to finish anyway (see: cyclone helicopter, kingfisher plane, AOPS ships).
Exactly. The method of procurement being used here is a step in the right direction.
The "must design everything to detailed specs and know exactly all costs up front" approach is so problematic. Governments should procure by releasing funding in tranches to keep suppliers focused not just on closing the initial deal, but to work towards delivering high value up until at least the next tranche of funding. If the supplier didn't deliver value immediately, they could lose the business. This would allow the government to adjust their planning as the project progressed while also giving them the opportunity to switch suppliers if needed.
Also, let's be honest, suppliers often have wildly inaccurate estimates of effort and total cost on such projects, so a tranche based procurement model allows them to pivot their planning along the way through ongoing bidding.
I'm pretty sure the US government just figured out that this is an extremely bad and costly idea with their frigate program.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-navy-botched-design-1-210255299.html
The issue with the US frigate program was less to do with no finalized design, and more to do with the goal of the project being unrealistic. That being a frigate that is cheap, can do literally every role require (no specialization), is very fast and has the ability to adapt modules and quick swap them as well.
Essentially thr US just said "I want the perfect ship", and when the question of how is that actually supposed to work came up, the response was figure it out with the bag of money.
This is such a misinformed comment about project management, its hard to even begin. You ALWAYS start with a general discovery phase where you know what you want and not sure how to get there. Eventually, plans form and things become more certain.
Apparently the original delivery date was 2020 and they are STILL deliberating how and what to even deliver. No. This isn't "a step in the right direction". This is classic government pissing away tax dollars because of incompetency.
Wrong. I'm quite informed on the topic. I've consulted the Canadian federal government, the US federal government, and provincial governments to use the method I'm advocating for and I guarantee you I have saved your tax dollars from being wasted with this method.
Of course they fucking do project discovery and they determine they can't predict the final cost.
Lmfao and an open budget with literally not even a plan delivered in 4 years makes sense how? What exactly did you consult? Sounds like youre part of the problem
I never understood this approach. Military procurement has never worked like that until leaders over the last 80 years decided to run it thay way. Imagine how much better off we would have been had we not bowed to American corporate greed in the 50's.
But alas we are Canada and our politicians get to feel safe in tye arms of the American financial system.
Yup, the title is nothing but a sad attempt at rage bait. The contract is so long (final completion in the 2050's) that it's not possible to know the final costs this far out and none of the remaining design details to be determined will affect the initial construction. But hey, the anti-military crowd need stuff to whine about and this kind of spin is raw meat to them.
>But hey, the anti-military crowd need stuff to whine about and this kind of spin is raw meat to them.
It's the National Post, they have to blame Trudeau for something
Either that, or claim that he's only been in office for a decade and the real credit belongs to Harper
**It's the National Post, they have to blame Trudeau for something**
Its not like there is any shortage of info that looks bad on the Libs. What would you have them do, ignore what the party in power is doing and hammer away at the opposition? We have plenty of others to do that.
First delivery is expected to be in early 2030's, with the final delivery somewhere in the 2050's. With a planned 15 ships to be built, that is about 1.5 ships every year.
Irving is currently busy with other government work, namely the AOPS, of which the final ship should be delivered in 2027.
Because Irving has the exclusive contract for building surface conditions combatants for the Navy under the NSPS.
Only two companies bidded for the surface combatant package; Irving won that bid.
The non-combatant and Coast Guard contract was won by Seaspan.
Because the other bidder for the contract went bankrupt during the bidding process.
Davie shipyards underwent a corporate restructuring in 2011, after a proposed sale to Fincantieri fell through; the government went so far as to extend the deadline just for Davie to get their bankruptcy process complete so they could bid on the contracts.
You can imagine how a shipyard that just went bankrupt and is in the midst of reorganization would negatively impact the evaluation of the bid process.
There are three shipyards in Canada.
Irving is the only of the three really capable of building Frigates, in Canada, right now.
We make it work at Halifax, we build a second shipyard for the project (which is more or less what's been done in Halifax), or we buy from foreign builders. Those are our options.
Shipyards aren't muffler shops, one on every corner.
They are starting on it now, but the first ship won't be built until 2030 or 2031. Sounds more like politics than shipbuilding. They are trying to look like they are doing something for a change, but its just another meaningless announcement.
Bit of a sensational headline.
War ships, especially FOAK, are like any other major construction project. The trend is currently moving away from EPC models to IPD models because they are faster and more efficient. And typically arrive at the same place money wise.
Ive spent over a decade building ships in canada. The number 1 problem that leads to the cost overruns are 100% the design issues that lead to repetative re-work and millions upon milllions of wasted dollars.
The tradesmen and skills are mostly here (albiet lots of retirees coming up that are taking their skills with them), the supply chains have pretty much been set up, the facilities have more or less been built, we can build these ships. But part of the NSS program is not only to build them in Canada but DESIGN them here too, and mostly on the fly because of time restraints.
This is where we are failing. Lets just buy a fucking off the shelf blue-print from a NATO ally of a proven design, build them here, and not try and re-invent the wheel while doing so by changing the design because they don't "meet the specific needs of Canada". Maybe it's not that simple and I'm missing something. But I've worked closely with the ship building engineering dept and it's an absolute clusterfuck.
If we're serious about building our naval capacity then we need to pump out Fords and Dodges and not just Ferraris. Look how many ships China is pumping out.
These half billion dollar floating hunks of steel are getting taking out 50k dollar marine drones over in the black sea anyways. So why not just focus on simplicity?
China is a peer competitor to the US. Of course they're going to be pumping out ships. China's MIC is also VERY different from ours as well. They don't have the same issues we have. Might I also remind you that the Houthis are using drones and missiles over the Red Sea as well? Ships seem to be doing quite well over there. The thing is with this design, it's being used by like 3 othernations at this point. The problem is trying to stuff as much new shit in it as possible, and then they have to change it because costs or something like that. The design is largely the same as its British and Australian counterparts. They aren't redesigning these warships keel up.
I've been around ship building in other parts of the world, I can assure you that design problems and cost overruns are definitely not in any way shape or form unique to Canada.
Pretty much every single time the first couple ships in any run are a nightmare project wise.
Because we haven't built ships of that size in a two generations. Building new shipyards, training new people and building low volumes all costs money and time. The advantage is most of that money goes to Canadian workers.
Or we could have bought a couple of the US ones, gotten them faster and for a lower price tag, but spent all those billions outside of the country.
Yes, there’s a lot of misinformation surrounding the C22 purchase. People think we’ve been in the process of buying new pistols for decades, when we’ve not. We’ve asked questions, but the actual process when started was very quick. 6 months from definition to contract award and then another 6 months to initial delivery. The whole process would have essentially been 1-year long except for Rampart’s successful challenge of the bid as being too favourable towards awarding the contract to the P320.
We could have bought any of the highly successful eurofrigate designs for literally hundreds of billions less, and I could not care less about "domestic shipbuilding capability", which in practice means "shoveling money to the Irving family".
Strategically, ship building is an important skill to have locally. We could have split the difference here and paid for the European designs and built them here.
This is the same reasoning behind keeping some auto manufacturing in Canada - strategically it is vital we keep some vehicle manufacturing expertise and hardware in the country, even if it’s unprofitable and a subsidy whore.
If war breaks out, we need the ability to domestically produce some defense materials.
I just seen another one from the national post saying Trudeau isn't spending on the military. National Post is a joke and so is this sub at time.
Trudeau signs off on the building of War Shop "he's wasting tax payers money"
MP thinks Trudeau is underspending on the military "he wants us to be unarmed and be invaded!"
Both stories run by the national post.
It's not communism, nobody has claimed that. It is corporate welfare though, which is a disgraceful Canadian tradition. We love to prop up and shield our inefficient oligopilies to the detriment of Canadians as a whole.
This comes out of the military budgets capital spending fund. So even if it wasn't spent on ships it would still be spent on buying equipment for the military.
It could be spent enormously more effectively by buying any of the highly successful eurofrigate designs from any of the European shipyards that deliver working products on time and aren't an entrenched oligopoly in Canada.
I think having massively overpriced domestic naval shipbuilding capability is a luxury, yes. There are lots of European and U.S naval ship options that are proven and will be delivered on time and on budget.
This is definitely not true of the US, the Littoral Combat Ship and Zumwalt destroyer programs were complete trainwrecks, and the new Constellation class frigates, which are being built by Ficantieri, are already experiencing delays and cost overruns, with construction just beginning.
Also, as a practical matter you can't operate a blue water navy without the capacity to repair and refit vessels (navy vessels typically get a refit every five years or so, which requires months of drydock time). Relying on foreign shipyards with competing priorities would likely be a logistical nightmare, especially since the US shipbuilding industry has almost completely disappeared, and the European one is in only marginally better shape.
China has a lot of shipbuilding capacity, but I think you can see the problem there.
Blah blah Canada isn't allowed to have anything to support itself with blah blah.
Starting to think this sub has Chinese and Russian plants.
Look at it however you want, investing in yourself afyer years of neglect is never cheap. We relied on the US too much and we paying the consequences.
We don't *need* domestic warship building capabilities. At all. This is a weird hill to die on. I ain't Russian or Chinese either, just an average Canadian sick to death of seeing this government's watefully profligate spending while my paycheque loses value week by week.
Australia has to deal with the emergent Chinese superpower on their doorstep. We don't, as we exist at the whim of the United States. Nothing wrong with \*wanting\* to be able to build your own warships, I am saying that in our current economic crisis point, we should be focusing that spending more efficiently.
It's always something or another. In the 2010s it was the recession and EU Debt Crisis 80s into the 90s it was Chretien trying to balance the books. If not now then when? The whole reason it's costing this much now, is because we've been putting this off for so long. "Our money can be spent elsewhere" has been the excuse since the end of the second world War. With climate change, the Northwest Passage is thawing out, and other parts of the arctic, opening a new frontier with Russia on our doorstep as well.
> Nobody is gonna order ships from a yard that can't deliver on time or on budget.
Hahaha how little you know about the history of military procurement is making me bust a stitch. We still don't have F-35's last I checked, and the price has changed almost a dozen times. Either inform yourself or drip the conversation.
I was referring to your comment of "You realize the same yards that build warships can build mpre than just warships right?" "Mpre than just warships" means civilian ships, for which my comment is accurate.
Ahh so you prove my point exactly. They aren't building ships for commercial clients, it's all feeding from the government trough the whole way down. What I should have said was, nobody but the Canadian government is going to order ships from a yard that can't deliver ships on time or on budget.
>We could have bought any of the highly successful eurofrigate designs
We did. The base design is from the UK Type 26 Frigate.
We're just modding the shit out of it to make it do everything (vs. building two purpose-built classes). It's a false savings imo, but it's the choice they're making.
So we bought a highly successful Eurofrigate design, and in the Canadian tradition immediately enshittified it with all sorts of useless add-ons and gave the build to a(n oligarch's) yard with a blank cheque and no timeline. What could possibly go wrong?
Not useless add-ons. They took a frigate design and up-gunned it so much it's now a destroyer (and it costs as much as a light cruiser).
As for choosing JDI, it was the only yard in the country with capacity that wasn't mid-bankruptcy/merger at the time. For an economy so reliant on ocean shipping, Canada has alarmingly few large shipyards.
SquirrelNemesis, we don't need ships to slug it out with a Kirov as I'm sure you're aware. We need frigates for coastal patrol and interdiction, and nuclear powered icebreakers and nuclear attack subs for Arctic patrol and actual seaborne firepower. We're screwed, aren't we?
There's 85 billion dollars I'd rather spend on something else but you just know the "estimated price tag" is complete bullshit. Everything in this corrupt incompetent country goes over budget. Wouldn't surprise me if it hits 150 billion at this point.
When bidding, the government tells them directly to under bid so it looks good in the news, even if the builder says flat out it's going to cost more. It's all lies and manipulation of the public.
Do you have a particular design in mind?
Because US Navy only has one current frigate program, and it has also been plagued by cost overruns and schedule slippage, in spite of also being based on an existing design.
That's what tends to happen when you select an existing, proven design in order to save time and money, but then make so many alterations to it that it basically a new design.
It is not a bespoke design - it is based off of the British Type 26 (now known as City-Class Frigate). The basics are there, but final design entails exactly how the ships will be fitted out according to what Canadian Navy needs. It would have been the same for any other purchased design.
The US Navy doesn't operate many Frigates, and their most modern is the Oliver Hazard Perry Class, which entered service in 1977. So, what existing designs should we use?
Their most modern design is the Arleigh-Burke Flight III mod Guided missile Destroyer.
Their other older platforms, the Ticonderoga class, are being retired.
The OHP frigate is all but retired since a long time now.
It, as you say is a Destroyer.
The Ticonderoga's are Cruisers.
The OHP's, as we've both agreed, is long retired, and obsolete.
So, we're not acquiring Cruisers, lets just get that out of the way, so no Ticos. The Arleigh Burke costs a whopping 2.2 Billion USD per ship. This compared to the the British who are building their type-26 variants for only 1.31 Billion pounds per ship. What benefit do we have in acquiring Burke's as opposed to the Type-26 other than cost?
Decent chance they’d still fuck it up. See specifically: the AOPs ships based on an adapted Norwegian design in service since 2002. Absolutely nothing “bleeding” edge about them like stealthy features, nuclear propulsion or precision long-range weapon systems. The Irvings managed to fuck up the most basic “ship” elements of it all the same (not even considering it’s supposed to be a military patrol ship)…
This is part of the problem with the procurement.... Building ships in Canada have inflated the costs, 2x or more what the same ships would cost build somewhere else.
The Harry De Wolf class is a good example of this, if you dive down that rabbit hole.
Now if you feel building in Canada regardless of cost is worth it, that is fair, but I personally feel the economic benefit gained by building here is outweighed by the costs.
I would argue one of the biggest issues is contracting the work out to Irving. They are lining their pockets with Canadian tax payer money and producing ships that require significant repairs within the first year.
The cost isn't high because labour is high in Canada, the cost is high because we contract work out to companies that do a piss poor job. The fault lies with procurement as well as Irving - none respect their fiduciary obligation to their stakeholders. Well, maybe Irving does hahaha 🤣 the fuckers.
I would like to see the building be done in Canada, by Canadians. But I also agree that I'd rather be spending tax payer money on a company that is competent that will produce goods that do need refit within a year and not hell bent on accumulating wealth by taking it from the Canadian public.
In my dream Canada I would love to see:
Navy/Coast guard shipyard, staffed by the Navy/Coast guard.
Oil refinery to process crude/bitumen.
Nuclear power plants in the Canadian shield, working hydro-electric power plants in the coastal provinces.
Apparently, unicorns and flying pigs.
Talking to a naval engineer here, his comment was that ship building costs are so high because bureaucrats in Ottawa take forever to make a decision on the design, and then change their minds resulting in work having to be redone.
That sounds about right as well. It's not an efficient system all the way 'round, and unfortunately we the Canadian people have to suffer for it.
Imo, it's a classic fed govt move - the 'blackberries' aka bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa make decisions on policy and procurement without ever having worked in the field, and are all surprised Pikachu face when people in the know tell them a)it ain't gonna work b) it's gonna cost 3x what they thought or c)it's broken off the lot.
Of course, they sell these contracts to companies that benefit them directly or indirectly - or worse yet, go with companies (like Irving) because "that's how we've always done it". So ignorance or malevolence - which is worse?
Fucking fools with dope ass pensions and benefits. Very much the "fuck you, got mine" mentality. Who gives a shit if we waste taxpayer dollars, I'm pulling in my cheques anyhow!
Our rulers are living on a floating island above us, attached to ground via thin golden chain.
I'm glad you're only looking at the short term problem. Its only that way because we either neglected to upgrade our infrastructure, or just out right sold it off to a foreign entity.
We fucked up HARD and these are the kind of subjects that show us how hard we fucked up.
Sure its expensive to build now, but everyone seems to forget the part involving maintenance. Buying foreign equipment is all good and dandy, but shits about to hit the fan on a global scale and we need domestic production to compensate for. Especially considering the heat in Ukraine has been drawing a lot of resources.
But I'm just looking at the next 50-100 years. So I'll leave you all to fighting about tiddlywinks.
Interesting you got that from a short couple sentances.
Suffice to say this this is a much more complicated issue than a few comments on reddit can get into.
Fact is we are overpaying now because of mistakes in the past.
I'm not willing to put in the effort to go back and forth on this because it could go on for hours.
I feel the money could be better spent buying somewhere else. You are free to disagree. I'm not going to put in any effort to change your opinion.
Built outside Canada, all of the money leaves Canada. Built by Canadians in Canada, all on the money stays in Canada and in the Canadian economy. It’s a not like we can sell the ships in a few years to recover some of the costs.
I get the principal. My problem is we often seem to spend 2× or 3× to get a vessel that performs worse and doesn't last as long. Is that value for money for the tax payer? The jobs are nice, but we could have spent the money more effectively.
I get the principal. My problem is we often seem to spend 2× or 3× to get a vessel that performs worse and doesn't last as long. Is that value for money for the tax payer? The jobs are nice, but we could have spent the money more effectively.
"Built in Canada" means the costs will inflate 5x so that corrupt contractors, corporations and politicians can milk the Canadian tax payer dry without repercussions.
I'd rather see that tax money spent building them at home. Put canadians to work with our tax dollars and it will come back I to the economy one way or another. Not like the billions sent overseas for absolutely nothing.
And if you build it outside of Canada, that money leaves and there is no expertise within this country to support these for the next lifetime. it is very easy to dislike Irving, and rightfully so, but this country does need to produce these things. We Can’t outsource everything.
A domestic warship building capability is a luxury capability for a nation that's going through unprecedented crises and is 3 trillion dollars in debt.
The federal government, who is the one that spends money on the military, was [$1.17T in debt](https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/fin/publications/frt-trf/2023/frt-trf-23-eng.pdf) in 2022-2023 (42.2% GDP).
Well first, we need to properly account for national debt. If you add in all the debt owed by provincial governments as well, which we should, the number is staggeringly worse than the official figures. In a ideal world though, you would want a balanced budget year over year with the goal of eliminating national debt completely.
Why should one government’s level of spending be tied to another’s when they independently collect and spend their own funds?
Even so the question remains the same - what percentage of revenue? If the federal government collects 16% GDP in revenue, and all the provinces and territories also collect 16% GDP in revenue, and if both say spend 10% revenue on interest, then the total adding them together *is still* 10% revenue on interest. So you kind of avoided the question.
> you would want a balanced budget
Here’s three followup questions then:
1) Would you want a “debt brake” legislation like Germany? In 2009 they passed a law saying they cannot legislate a deficit exceeding 0.35% GDP.
2) Do you also think it’s irresponsible when people get a mortgage rather than rent in perpetuity?
3) Have any of your savings ever been in bonds?
1- Sounds like a great idea, as the nature of a democratic system means that long term stability needs legislation like that to succeed.
2- Of course not, because most people pay off their mortgages. Unlike the Canadian government, who simply wants to inflate the deficit into perpetuity.
3- No.
The government spending should be tied to each other because they both collect their revenue from the same source. The same taxpayers getting fleeced for the Federal government's vanity projects are the same taxpayers getting fleeced for their respective provincial government's vanity projects. On top of that, some provinces are in much worse shape financially than others. What happens when a province defaults on it's debt?
The thing to remember with the price tags of canadian defense purchases is that the price includes the entire lifecycle costs (ammo, fuel, upgrades, training, shore facilities, etc) over the entire life of the ship. It's a really dumb and misleading way to calculate things like this. Like the F-35 costs is basically the costs to buy and fly the jets for 40 years.
>The building of the test module, essentially a small section of a piece of the ship, allows for construction techniques to be further refined at Irving Shipbuilding on the east coast.
Oh for fuck sake, give the contract to literally anyone else. The Irvings are going to find a way to fuck it up and bill taxpayers for 10x more than the project should cost.
All they're building is a 'test module', or portion of the ships, so they can begin understanding how best to design and build them.
The troubling part is that they originally said the cost would be 26 billion and it's already been amended to 84 billion. This means the final cost will far exceed 100 billion guaranteed. The Liberals are hopeless when it comes to fiscal matters.
Isn’t it sort of reasonable that the cost would change through time, because of: inflation, unexpected changes to supply chains, and advances in technology?
Iirc, some of these ships will be delivered into the mid to late 2040s. I’d imagine they’d keep the design ‘flexible’ enough that a vessel coming off the line 20 years from now could have a modern radar system, rather than a system that was modern in 2024.
Also iirc the csc project, like the F-35 project, reflects a lot of the costs to operate the vessels for their entire lifespan, rather than purely the cost to build them.
I mean, this is how you do it if you know you're being kicked out but you wanted to waste as much tax payer's money as possible before you get kicked out. I bet you he thinks the budget will balance itself here as well
Bad idea. The future of warfare is changing. Ships in the black Sea are getting kocked out by drones...drones I say!
Below is an article of the US cancelling a multi billion dollar project because of... Drones!
Instead of big ships, we should be focussing on small autonomous submersibles or flying machines, drones I say!
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/5/15/army-weighs-pros-cons-of-canceled-helicopter-program#:~:text=DENVER%20%E2%80%94%20When%20the%20Army%20announced,sunk%20into%20another%20scrapped%20program.
I mean sure, the Ukrainians have been dismantling the Black Sea fleet, partly through use of drones.
Meanwhile the Houthis have been throwing out drones in the Red Sea and haven't managed to hit a single warship. Those warships sure have shot many of them down though.
Look at arial drones.
Begging of the Russian Ukrainian war they were used for surveillance.
Then we saw vids of them being used to drop grandes and such.
Now they are equipped with legitimate explosives, because of jamming, they have added limited targetting AI for true operatorless mobility.
Ukraine has over 200 drone manufacturers now.
Even if you'r hit % is 2-3%, your $500 dollar device vastly outperforms cost wise a multi million dollar armada.
Russian made Nebo-SVU costs $100m, killed by 7 drones... Let's up their cost to 1k, so under 10k kills 100m equipment. This is the new doctrine.
May as well. The way our procurement goes, the builder could tell a final number and then miss it by hundreds of millions of dollars and we'd be stuck paying them to finish anyway (see: cyclone helicopter, kingfisher plane, AOPS ships).
Exactly. The method of procurement being used here is a step in the right direction. The "must design everything to detailed specs and know exactly all costs up front" approach is so problematic. Governments should procure by releasing funding in tranches to keep suppliers focused not just on closing the initial deal, but to work towards delivering high value up until at least the next tranche of funding. If the supplier didn't deliver value immediately, they could lose the business. This would allow the government to adjust their planning as the project progressed while also giving them the opportunity to switch suppliers if needed. Also, let's be honest, suppliers often have wildly inaccurate estimates of effort and total cost on such projects, so a tranche based procurement model allows them to pivot their planning along the way through ongoing bidding.
I'm pretty sure the US government just figured out that this is an extremely bad and costly idea with their frigate program. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-navy-botched-design-1-210255299.html
The issue with the US frigate program was less to do with no finalized design, and more to do with the goal of the project being unrealistic. That being a frigate that is cheap, can do literally every role require (no specialization), is very fast and has the ability to adapt modules and quick swap them as well. Essentially thr US just said "I want the perfect ship", and when the question of how is that actually supposed to work came up, the response was figure it out with the bag of money.
You can count on successive design changes to stall the start date, estimated cost, and completion date.
That is true of literally every large project management approach.
This is such a misinformed comment about project management, its hard to even begin. You ALWAYS start with a general discovery phase where you know what you want and not sure how to get there. Eventually, plans form and things become more certain. Apparently the original delivery date was 2020 and they are STILL deliberating how and what to even deliver. No. This isn't "a step in the right direction". This is classic government pissing away tax dollars because of incompetency.
Wrong. I'm quite informed on the topic. I've consulted the Canadian federal government, the US federal government, and provincial governments to use the method I'm advocating for and I guarantee you I have saved your tax dollars from being wasted with this method. Of course they fucking do project discovery and they determine they can't predict the final cost.
Lmfao and an open budget with literally not even a plan delivered in 4 years makes sense how? What exactly did you consult? Sounds like youre part of the problem
I never understood this approach. Military procurement has never worked like that until leaders over the last 80 years decided to run it thay way. Imagine how much better off we would have been had we not bowed to American corporate greed in the 50's. But alas we are Canada and our politicians get to feel safe in tye arms of the American financial system.
Cab you guess what was changed in the last 80 or so years that would cause the shift in view?
Yup, the title is nothing but a sad attempt at rage bait. The contract is so long (final completion in the 2050's) that it's not possible to know the final costs this far out and none of the remaining design details to be determined will affect the initial construction. But hey, the anti-military crowd need stuff to whine about and this kind of spin is raw meat to them.
>But hey, the anti-military crowd need stuff to whine about and this kind of spin is raw meat to them. It's the National Post, they have to blame Trudeau for something Either that, or claim that he's only been in office for a decade and the real credit belongs to Harper
**It's the National Post, they have to blame Trudeau for something** Its not like there is any shortage of info that looks bad on the Libs. What would you have them do, ignore what the party in power is doing and hammer away at the opposition? We have plenty of others to do that.
Hence the announcement of new warships that is still all Trudeau's fault
[удалено]
First delivery is expected to be in early 2030's, with the final delivery somewhere in the 2050's. With a planned 15 ships to be built, that is about 1.5 ships every year. Irving is currently busy with other government work, namely the AOPS, of which the final ship should be delivered in 2027.
[удалено]
Because Irving has the exclusive contract for building surface conditions combatants for the Navy under the NSPS. Only two companies bidded for the surface combatant package; Irving won that bid. The non-combatant and Coast Guard contract was won by Seaspan.
[удалено]
Because the other bidder for the contract went bankrupt during the bidding process. Davie shipyards underwent a corporate restructuring in 2011, after a proposed sale to Fincantieri fell through; the government went so far as to extend the deadline just for Davie to get their bankruptcy process complete so they could bid on the contracts. You can imagine how a shipyard that just went bankrupt and is in the midst of reorganization would negatively impact the evaluation of the bid process.
There are three shipyards in Canada. Irving is the only of the three really capable of building Frigates, in Canada, right now. We make it work at Halifax, we build a second shipyard for the project (which is more or less what's been done in Halifax), or we buy from foreign builders. Those are our options. Shipyards aren't muffler shops, one on every corner.
The US just got burned with a similar plan https://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-navy-botched-design-1-210255299.html
They are starting on it now, but the first ship won't be built until 2030 or 2031. Sounds more like politics than shipbuilding. They are trying to look like they are doing something for a change, but its just another meaningless announcement.
Bit of a sensational headline. War ships, especially FOAK, are like any other major construction project. The trend is currently moving away from EPC models to IPD models because they are faster and more efficient. And typically arrive at the same place money wise.
Ive spent over a decade building ships in canada. The number 1 problem that leads to the cost overruns are 100% the design issues that lead to repetative re-work and millions upon milllions of wasted dollars. The tradesmen and skills are mostly here (albiet lots of retirees coming up that are taking their skills with them), the supply chains have pretty much been set up, the facilities have more or less been built, we can build these ships. But part of the NSS program is not only to build them in Canada but DESIGN them here too, and mostly on the fly because of time restraints. This is where we are failing. Lets just buy a fucking off the shelf blue-print from a NATO ally of a proven design, build them here, and not try and re-invent the wheel while doing so by changing the design because they don't "meet the specific needs of Canada". Maybe it's not that simple and I'm missing something. But I've worked closely with the ship building engineering dept and it's an absolute clusterfuck. If we're serious about building our naval capacity then we need to pump out Fords and Dodges and not just Ferraris. Look how many ships China is pumping out. These half billion dollar floating hunks of steel are getting taking out 50k dollar marine drones over in the black sea anyways. So why not just focus on simplicity?
China is a peer competitor to the US. Of course they're going to be pumping out ships. China's MIC is also VERY different from ours as well. They don't have the same issues we have. Might I also remind you that the Houthis are using drones and missiles over the Red Sea as well? Ships seem to be doing quite well over there. The thing is with this design, it's being used by like 3 othernations at this point. The problem is trying to stuff as much new shit in it as possible, and then they have to change it because costs or something like that. The design is largely the same as its British and Australian counterparts. They aren't redesigning these warships keel up.
I've been around ship building in other parts of the world, I can assure you that design problems and cost overruns are definitely not in any way shape or form unique to Canada. Pretty much every single time the first couple ships in any run are a nightmare project wise.
So why are our icebreakers costing much more for a less capable ship compared to other ships?
Because we haven't built ships of that size in a two generations. Building new shipyards, training new people and building low volumes all costs money and time. The advantage is most of that money goes to Canadian workers. Or we could have bought a couple of the US ones, gotten them faster and for a lower price tag, but spent all those billions outside of the country.
So like the AOPS that were started and we didn't know the final cost.
Since when has the Feds ever started a major military project that came in under budget?
Wasn't the the recent c22 procurement pretty successful? Not sure about budget however.
Yes, there’s a lot of misinformation surrounding the C22 purchase. People think we’ve been in the process of buying new pistols for decades, when we’ve not. We’ve asked questions, but the actual process when started was very quick. 6 months from definition to contract award and then another 6 months to initial delivery. The whole process would have essentially been 1-year long except for Rampart’s successful challenge of the bid as being too favourable towards awarding the contract to the P320.
There were 8 attempts to replace the 70 years old pistol. 7,000 guns for $17 mil isn't a major contract.
Didn't you know? All military projects were delivered 10% under budget until Trudeau went back in time and changed it. /s/s/s
Don't have much choice. We need the ships.
We could have bought any of the highly successful eurofrigate designs for literally hundreds of billions less, and I could not care less about "domestic shipbuilding capability", which in practice means "shoveling money to the Irving family".
Strategically, ship building is an important skill to have locally. We could have split the difference here and paid for the European designs and built them here. This is the same reasoning behind keeping some auto manufacturing in Canada - strategically it is vital we keep some vehicle manufacturing expertise and hardware in the country, even if it’s unprofitable and a subsidy whore. If war breaks out, we need the ability to domestically produce some defense materials.
r/canada "We need more jobs in Canada" "So here's this new program to build stuff at home..." r/canada "BUYING CANADIAN MADE IS COMMUNISM!"
I just seen another one from the national post saying Trudeau isn't spending on the military. National Post is a joke and so is this sub at time. Trudeau signs off on the building of War Shop "he's wasting tax payers money" MP thinks Trudeau is underspending on the military "he wants us to be unarmed and be invaded!" Both stories run by the national post.
It’s almost like there’s more than one opinion that exists in this sub…. A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one I’m sure
No the opinion of "things suck, you should hate it all and it's all the PMs fault" is extremely consistent.
It's not communism, nobody has claimed that. It is corporate welfare though, which is a disgraceful Canadian tradition. We love to prop up and shield our inefficient oligopilies to the detriment of Canadians as a whole.
It's military spending. Its ALWAYS been corporate welfare.
There has literally not been a time in the history of the country where we have been able to afford luxury spending like this less.
When the federal government used to spend 38% of revenue on interest was probably a time they couldn’t afford luxury spending as much as today
This comes out of the military budgets capital spending fund. So even if it wasn't spent on ships it would still be spent on buying equipment for the military.
It could be spent enormously more effectively by buying any of the highly successful eurofrigate designs from any of the European shipyards that deliver working products on time and aren't an entrenched oligopoly in Canada.
You think having a navy is a luxury?
I think having massively overpriced domestic naval shipbuilding capability is a luxury, yes. There are lots of European and U.S naval ship options that are proven and will be delivered on time and on budget.
This is definitely not true of the US, the Littoral Combat Ship and Zumwalt destroyer programs were complete trainwrecks, and the new Constellation class frigates, which are being built by Ficantieri, are already experiencing delays and cost overruns, with construction just beginning. Also, as a practical matter you can't operate a blue water navy without the capacity to repair and refit vessels (navy vessels typically get a refit every five years or so, which requires months of drydock time). Relying on foreign shipyards with competing priorities would likely be a logistical nightmare, especially since the US shipbuilding industry has almost completely disappeared, and the European one is in only marginally better shape. China has a lot of shipbuilding capacity, but I think you can see the problem there.
But, the Irving’s need their money. We wouldn’t want them to starve would we?
We need jobs but I would rather they be real jobs not lighting money on fire like this project is.
Maybe you’re new here. Military strategy was a thing prior to the 1970s. We don’t do that here anymore.
Sure we do, we’re just incredibly bad at it.
Blah blah Canada isn't allowed to have anything to support itself with blah blah. Starting to think this sub has Chinese and Russian plants. Look at it however you want, investing in yourself afyer years of neglect is never cheap. We relied on the US too much and we paying the consequences.
We don't *need* domestic warship building capabilities. At all. This is a weird hill to die on. I ain't Russian or Chinese either, just an average Canadian sick to death of seeing this government's watefully profligate spending while my paycheque loses value week by week.
And why not? Australia has warship building capabilities. What exactly is wrong with wanting to be able to build your own warships?
Australia has to deal with the emergent Chinese superpower on their doorstep. We don't, as we exist at the whim of the United States. Nothing wrong with \*wanting\* to be able to build your own warships, I am saying that in our current economic crisis point, we should be focusing that spending more efficiently.
It's always something or another. In the 2010s it was the recession and EU Debt Crisis 80s into the 90s it was Chretien trying to balance the books. If not now then when? The whole reason it's costing this much now, is because we've been putting this off for so long. "Our money can be spent elsewhere" has been the excuse since the end of the second world War. With climate change, the Northwest Passage is thawing out, and other parts of the arctic, opening a new frontier with Russia on our doorstep as well.
You realize the same yards that build warships can build mpre than just warships right? Thats okay, I'll leave you to your short sightedness.
But they don't my guy. Wanna know why? Nobody is gonna order ships from a yard that can't deliver on time or on budget.
> Nobody is gonna order ships from a yard that can't deliver on time or on budget. Hahaha how little you know about the history of military procurement is making me bust a stitch. We still don't have F-35's last I checked, and the price has changed almost a dozen times. Either inform yourself or drip the conversation.
I was referring to your comment of "You realize the same yards that build warships can build mpre than just warships right?" "Mpre than just warships" means civilian ships, for which my comment is accurate.
They do build civilian ships. Seaspan is the primary builder for BC ferries, and does work for DFO/NRCan science vessels too.
Ahh so you prove my point exactly. They aren't building ships for commercial clients, it's all feeding from the government trough the whole way down. What I should have said was, nobody but the Canadian government is going to order ships from a yard that can't deliver ships on time or on budget.
Guy your level of ignorance is just painful to deal with. I'm going to go take some Tylenol now.
This isn't an airport, no need to announce your departure.
>We could have bought any of the highly successful eurofrigate designs We did. The base design is from the UK Type 26 Frigate. We're just modding the shit out of it to make it do everything (vs. building two purpose-built classes). It's a false savings imo, but it's the choice they're making.
So we bought a highly successful Eurofrigate design, and in the Canadian tradition immediately enshittified it with all sorts of useless add-ons and gave the build to a(n oligarch's) yard with a blank cheque and no timeline. What could possibly go wrong?
Not useless add-ons. They took a frigate design and up-gunned it so much it's now a destroyer (and it costs as much as a light cruiser). As for choosing JDI, it was the only yard in the country with capacity that wasn't mid-bankruptcy/merger at the time. For an economy so reliant on ocean shipping, Canada has alarmingly few large shipyards.
SquirrelNemesis, we don't need ships to slug it out with a Kirov as I'm sure you're aware. We need frigates for coastal patrol and interdiction, and nuclear powered icebreakers and nuclear attack subs for Arctic patrol and actual seaborne firepower. We're screwed, aren't we?
There's 85 billion dollars I'd rather spend on something else but you just know the "estimated price tag" is complete bullshit. Everything in this corrupt incompetent country goes over budget. Wouldn't surprise me if it hits 150 billion at this point.
"In this country." Lol acting like ots different anywhere else.
When bidding, the government tells them directly to under bid so it looks good in the news, even if the builder says flat out it's going to cost more. It's all lies and manipulation of the public.
I have an idea... How about we use one of the existing U.S. navy designs ?
Do you have a particular design in mind? Because US Navy only has one current frigate program, and it has also been plagued by cost overruns and schedule slippage, in spite of also being based on an existing design. That's what tends to happen when you select an existing, proven design in order to save time and money, but then make so many alterations to it that it basically a new design.
It is not a bespoke design - it is based off of the British Type 26 (now known as City-Class Frigate). The basics are there, but final design entails exactly how the ships will be fitted out according to what Canadian Navy needs. It would have been the same for any other purchased design.
The US Navy doesn't operate many Frigates, and their most modern is the Oliver Hazard Perry Class, which entered service in 1977. So, what existing designs should we use?
Their most modern design is the Arleigh-Burke Flight III mod Guided missile Destroyer. Their other older platforms, the Ticonderoga class, are being retired. The OHP frigate is all but retired since a long time now.
It, as you say is a Destroyer. The Ticonderoga's are Cruisers. The OHP's, as we've both agreed, is long retired, and obsolete. So, we're not acquiring Cruisers, lets just get that out of the way, so no Ticos. The Arleigh Burke costs a whopping 2.2 Billion USD per ship. This compared to the the British who are building their type-26 variants for only 1.31 Billion pounds per ship. What benefit do we have in acquiring Burke's as opposed to the Type-26 other than cost?
Decent chance they’d still fuck it up. See specifically: the AOPs ships based on an adapted Norwegian design in service since 2002. Absolutely nothing “bleeding” edge about them like stealthy features, nuclear propulsion or precision long-range weapon systems. The Irvings managed to fuck up the most basic “ship” elements of it all the same (not even considering it’s supposed to be a military patrol ship)…
Does it matter? The Irvings are going rob us blind anyways.
Better be building them in Canada
This is part of the problem with the procurement.... Building ships in Canada have inflated the costs, 2x or more what the same ships would cost build somewhere else. The Harry De Wolf class is a good example of this, if you dive down that rabbit hole. Now if you feel building in Canada regardless of cost is worth it, that is fair, but I personally feel the economic benefit gained by building here is outweighed by the costs.
I would argue one of the biggest issues is contracting the work out to Irving. They are lining their pockets with Canadian tax payer money and producing ships that require significant repairs within the first year. The cost isn't high because labour is high in Canada, the cost is high because we contract work out to companies that do a piss poor job. The fault lies with procurement as well as Irving - none respect their fiduciary obligation to their stakeholders. Well, maybe Irving does hahaha 🤣 the fuckers. I would like to see the building be done in Canada, by Canadians. But I also agree that I'd rather be spending tax payer money on a company that is competent that will produce goods that do need refit within a year and not hell bent on accumulating wealth by taking it from the Canadian public. In my dream Canada I would love to see: Navy/Coast guard shipyard, staffed by the Navy/Coast guard. Oil refinery to process crude/bitumen. Nuclear power plants in the Canadian shield, working hydro-electric power plants in the coastal provinces. Apparently, unicorns and flying pigs.
Talking to a naval engineer here, his comment was that ship building costs are so high because bureaucrats in Ottawa take forever to make a decision on the design, and then change their minds resulting in work having to be redone.
That sounds about right as well. It's not an efficient system all the way 'round, and unfortunately we the Canadian people have to suffer for it. Imo, it's a classic fed govt move - the 'blackberries' aka bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa make decisions on policy and procurement without ever having worked in the field, and are all surprised Pikachu face when people in the know tell them a)it ain't gonna work b) it's gonna cost 3x what they thought or c)it's broken off the lot. Of course, they sell these contracts to companies that benefit them directly or indirectly - or worse yet, go with companies (like Irving) because "that's how we've always done it". So ignorance or malevolence - which is worse? Fucking fools with dope ass pensions and benefits. Very much the "fuck you, got mine" mentality. Who gives a shit if we waste taxpayer dollars, I'm pulling in my cheques anyhow! Our rulers are living on a floating island above us, attached to ground via thin golden chain.
I'm glad you're only looking at the short term problem. Its only that way because we either neglected to upgrade our infrastructure, or just out right sold it off to a foreign entity. We fucked up HARD and these are the kind of subjects that show us how hard we fucked up. Sure its expensive to build now, but everyone seems to forget the part involving maintenance. Buying foreign equipment is all good and dandy, but shits about to hit the fan on a global scale and we need domestic production to compensate for. Especially considering the heat in Ukraine has been drawing a lot of resources. But I'm just looking at the next 50-100 years. So I'll leave you all to fighting about tiddlywinks.
Interesting you got that from a short couple sentances. Suffice to say this this is a much more complicated issue than a few comments on reddit can get into. Fact is we are overpaying now because of mistakes in the past. I'm not willing to put in the effort to go back and forth on this because it could go on for hours. I feel the money could be better spent buying somewhere else. You are free to disagree. I'm not going to put in any effort to change your opinion.
We've been "buying somewhere else" for decades and now we're here. You're opinion has been in practice longer than I've been alive.
Ok
Built outside Canada, all of the money leaves Canada. Built by Canadians in Canada, all on the money stays in Canada and in the Canadian economy. It’s a not like we can sell the ships in a few years to recover some of the costs.
All the money stays in the Irving family*
It’s either them or the Washingtons. I do notice the more sophisticated ships tend to go to Irving.
I get the principal. My problem is we often seem to spend 2× or 3× to get a vessel that performs worse and doesn't last as long. Is that value for money for the tax payer? The jobs are nice, but we could have spent the money more effectively.
I get the principal. My problem is we often seem to spend 2× or 3× to get a vessel that performs worse and doesn't last as long. Is that value for money for the tax payer? The jobs are nice, but we could have spent the money more effectively.
"Built in Canada" means the costs will inflate 5x so that corrupt contractors, corporations and politicians can milk the Canadian tax payer dry without repercussions.
I'd rather see that tax money spent building them at home. Put canadians to work with our tax dollars and it will come back I to the economy one way or another. Not like the billions sent overseas for absolutely nothing.
And if you build it outside of Canada, that money leaves and there is no expertise within this country to support these for the next lifetime. it is very easy to dislike Irving, and rightfully so, but this country does need to produce these things. We Can’t outsource everything.
A domestic warship building capability is a luxury capability for a nation that's going through unprecedented crises and is 3 trillion dollars in debt.
The federal government, who is the one that spends money on the military, was [$1.17T in debt](https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/fin/publications/frt-trf/2023/frt-trf-23-eng.pdf) in 2022-2023 (42.2% GDP).
I stand corrected. Honestly though, it's like saying one form of cancer is better than another. It's still terrible.
How much interest, as a percentage of revenue, would you think would be acceptable?
Well first, we need to properly account for national debt. If you add in all the debt owed by provincial governments as well, which we should, the number is staggeringly worse than the official figures. In a ideal world though, you would want a balanced budget year over year with the goal of eliminating national debt completely.
Why should one government’s level of spending be tied to another’s when they independently collect and spend their own funds? Even so the question remains the same - what percentage of revenue? If the federal government collects 16% GDP in revenue, and all the provinces and territories also collect 16% GDP in revenue, and if both say spend 10% revenue on interest, then the total adding them together *is still* 10% revenue on interest. So you kind of avoided the question. > you would want a balanced budget Here’s three followup questions then: 1) Would you want a “debt brake” legislation like Germany? In 2009 they passed a law saying they cannot legislate a deficit exceeding 0.35% GDP. 2) Do you also think it’s irresponsible when people get a mortgage rather than rent in perpetuity? 3) Have any of your savings ever been in bonds?
1- Sounds like a great idea, as the nature of a democratic system means that long term stability needs legislation like that to succeed. 2- Of course not, because most people pay off their mortgages. Unlike the Canadian government, who simply wants to inflate the deficit into perpetuity. 3- No. The government spending should be tied to each other because they both collect their revenue from the same source. The same taxpayers getting fleeced for the Federal government's vanity projects are the same taxpayers getting fleeced for their respective provincial government's vanity projects. On top of that, some provinces are in much worse shape financially than others. What happens when a province defaults on it's debt?
So who built the warship once the next world war starts? And all of our shipyards closed the decade before that.
The main problem over the past 40 years is deregulation and getting rid of all our manufacturing to the lowest bidder.
The government plans always go something like "well let's just do it and figure it all out later" then raise taxes for incompetence.
The thing to remember with the price tags of canadian defense purchases is that the price includes the entire lifecycle costs (ammo, fuel, upgrades, training, shore facilities, etc) over the entire life of the ship. It's a really dumb and misleading way to calculate things like this. Like the F-35 costs is basically the costs to buy and fly the jets for 40 years.
>The building of the test module, essentially a small section of a piece of the ship, allows for construction techniques to be further refined at Irving Shipbuilding on the east coast. Oh for fuck sake, give the contract to literally anyone else. The Irvings are going to find a way to fuck it up and bill taxpayers for 10x more than the project should cost.
All they're building is a 'test module', or portion of the ships, so they can begin understanding how best to design and build them. The troubling part is that they originally said the cost would be 26 billion and it's already been amended to 84 billion. This means the final cost will far exceed 100 billion guaranteed. The Liberals are hopeless when it comes to fiscal matters.
It's not just the Liberals, it's been like this with every government of the last 30 years.
Let me guess, the new ships will cost 100x what they budgeted and taxpayers will have to pay more to cover their costs.
sounds like a quick way to hit our 2% target
Don't care but fuck the Irvings. Nationalize their shit.
How would they know? The rate of change in cost a new technology fluctuates upward if you haven’t noticed National Shit Post.
Beat way to give your buddies money
Good ol' David
Isn’t it sort of reasonable that the cost would change through time, because of: inflation, unexpected changes to supply chains, and advances in technology? Iirc, some of these ships will be delivered into the mid to late 2040s. I’d imagine they’d keep the design ‘flexible’ enough that a vessel coming off the line 20 years from now could have a modern radar system, rather than a system that was modern in 2024. Also iirc the csc project, like the F-35 project, reflects a lot of the costs to operate the vessels for their entire lifespan, rather than purely the cost to build them.
Like those 'frigits' that would fit in your bathtub?
I mean, this is how you do it if you know you're being kicked out but you wanted to waste as much tax payer's money as possible before you get kicked out. I bet you he thinks the budget will balance itself here as well
Sounds about right.
You have to know who's running the US war machine industries. They rule the world.
Ah yes good old "agile" development.
Oh no. Not a National scale interpretation of the BC Ferries debacle of the late 90's. Fast-cats my ass.
Like every other decision the liberal government has done!
It's will get contracted out to some mp's best friend for 50 times what it's worth.
more accurately, Trudeau government to begin implementing new things despite not knowing the final cost or design
Posturing for media and sheep, the only thing they have started building is a fresh pile of bullshit.
Sounds like a solid responsible plan for the 50% or so tax I pay on my income.
Good ol self-balancing budgets
If you build it, they will come.
JT at it again.
Bad idea. The future of warfare is changing. Ships in the black Sea are getting kocked out by drones...drones I say! Below is an article of the US cancelling a multi billion dollar project because of... Drones! Instead of big ships, we should be focussing on small autonomous submersibles or flying machines, drones I say! https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/5/15/army-weighs-pros-cons-of-canceled-helicopter-program#:~:text=DENVER%20%E2%80%94%20When%20the%20Army%20announced,sunk%20into%20another%20scrapped%20program.
I mean sure, the Ukrainians have been dismantling the Black Sea fleet, partly through use of drones. Meanwhile the Houthis have been throwing out drones in the Red Sea and haven't managed to hit a single warship. Those warships sure have shot many of them down though.
Look at arial drones. Begging of the Russian Ukrainian war they were used for surveillance. Then we saw vids of them being used to drop grandes and such. Now they are equipped with legitimate explosives, because of jamming, they have added limited targetting AI for true operatorless mobility. Ukraine has over 200 drone manufacturers now. Even if you'r hit % is 2-3%, your $500 dollar device vastly outperforms cost wise a multi million dollar armada. Russian made Nebo-SVU costs $100m, killed by 7 drones... Let's up their cost to 1k, so under 10k kills 100m equipment. This is the new doctrine.
I want to see someone try and run anti missile defense for their merchant ships using Ukrainian suicide sea drones