Jump to content

      













Photo

Shipbuilding in Victoria


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#1 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,440 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 12:35 PM

bring it on :thumbsup:

Sun rising on shipbuilding industry, says Victoria-based marine research centre
Carla Wilson / Times Colonist
July 30, 2013

B.C. shipyards have the capability to build three new B.C. ferries, although it may require a joint effort among companies, says the head of the new marine training centre in Esquimalt.

“I don’t think, for instance, a smaller yard might be able to take on the whole contract by itself. It might have to band together with a couple of other yards to do that,” Alex Rueben, executive director of the Industrial Marine Training and Applied Research Centre, said Tuesday.

The centre is marking its nearly six-month anniversary, announcing that slightly more than 2,000 students have received training since it opened to develop a workforce dedicated to B.C.’s expanding maritime industry. This facility was set up with money from the federal and provincial governments and the ship-building industry.

New ships for B.C. Ferries, ongoing refit and upgrading projects for Canada’s Navy, new coast guard vessels, plus the National Ship Building and Procurement Strategy all add up to billions of dollars in work in coming decades.

By 2020, a total of 4,237 workers are expected to be employed in the shipbuilding and repair sector, up from 3,198 today, research centre documents state. In the next seven years, 850 shipyard workers are expected to retire.

http://www.timescolo...centre-1.565570

#2 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,440 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:16 AM

Shift warships from Halifax to CFB Esquimalt, defence analysts urge
Peter O'Neil / Vancouver Sun
August 11, 2013

OTTAWA — Canada should get out of its Cold War mindset and move the majority of its warships from Halifax to the B.C. coast in response to the Chinese navy’s aggressive military buildup, defence analysts say.

The U.S. government has announced its plan to put 60 per cent of its naval assets on its west coast by 2020 as part of its plan to make the 21st century “America’s Pacific Century” — a term coined by former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

The Canadian military’s tiny fleet of warships is split up on a 60-40 basis favouring the Atlantic coast, with seven frigates and two destroyers in Halifax compared to five frigates and one destroyer in Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt.

When submarines, maritime patrol and supply vessels are included, there are a total of 18 vessels assigned to Halifax, where approximately 5,000 military and 2,000 civilian personnel are located. That compares with 15 vessels assigned to Esquimalt, where roughly 4,000 military and 2,000 civilian employees are stationed.

Analyst David McDonough said Ottawa should reverse the emphasis, with at least 60 per cent of the frigates and destroyers in B.C.

He also argued that once the submarine fleet is fully operational, two of the three subs in service (one will always be in the Esquimalt drydock undergoing repairs and upgrades) should be based out at Esquimalt.

http://www.timescolo...s-urge-1.575869

#3 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,232 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:20 AM

Canada will do what America does. Expect a larger presence of vessels and personnel on the west coast by 2020 as per the Americans.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#4 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,491 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:12 AM

Quite a politically murky proposition, logistically problematic and materially insignificant in terms of any additional military capability that we can bring to the table.

It takes any warship from the east coast 2 weeks to get here for starters, then another 3 weeks to cross the Pacific; although psychologically moving a frigate (or two - and good luck with that given the ruckus Halifax will surely raise as a result) would be good locally for morale, in the event the balloon really went up, lets say in the face of determined Chinese military action against Taiwan, the best that could be said for most of the Canadian naval units would be for them to get out of the way. Unless Canada is determined to really ratchet up defence spending and create a blue water navy ~ 50+ major combatant warships - which will obviously never happen - then 1 or 2 additional frigates or an additional creaky 20+ year old Victoria-class submarine will make zero difference in any real shooting war.

#5 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,621 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 10:04 AM

Shipbuilding in Canada is a joke and I find it disgusting that the public and our politicians continue to use shipbuilding as a political football. Canada is not a globally competitive place to build ships. It's not that we cannot build ships, it's that we don't have the infrastrure or the economies of scale to make it a cost compeititve venture here in Canada.

#6 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,232 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:16 AM

Quite a politically murky proposition, logistically problematic and materially insignificant in terms of any additional military capability that we can bring to the table.

It takes any warship from the east coast 2 weeks to get here for starters, then another 3 weeks to cross the Pacific; although psychologically moving a frigate (or two - and good luck with that given the ruckus Halifax will surely raise as a result) would be good locally for morale, in the event the balloon really went up, lets say in the face of determined Chinese military action against Taiwan, the best that could be said for most of the Canadian naval units would be for them to get out of the way. Unless Canada is determined to really ratchet up defence spending and create a blue water navy ~ 50+ major combatant warships - which will obviously never happen - then 1 or 2 additional frigates or an additional creaky 20+ year old Victoria-class submarine will make zero difference in any real shooting war.


I think we'll sooner build new vessels than permanently transport them from one base to another. As Asia becomes the next area of focus it only makes sense to pad Esquimalt but it doesn't make sense to strip the east coast of vessels.

We're already seeing this shift of focus to the west coast with the construction of 443 Squadron's new facilities out at YYJ and fairly substantial modernization at Esquimalt. Check out the 30 year timelapse of the base and you'll also see quite a lot of new construction since the 1990's.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#7 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,491 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 12 August 2013 - 12:01 PM

I think we'll sooner build new vessels than permanently transport them from one base to another. As Asia becomes the next area of focus it only makes sense to pad Esquimalt but it doesn't make sense to strip the east coast of vessels.

We're already seeing this shift of focus to the west coast with the construction of 443 Squadron's new facilities out at YYJ and fairly substantial modernization at Esquimalt. Check out the 30 year timelapse of the base and you'll also see quite a lot of new construction since the 1990's.


Possibly, however our history with regard to updating and upgrading our military services is not a good omen for "building new ships"; while the old Soviet Navy and to an extent the PLA (Chinese) were and are capable of pushing out new classes of warships literally at will, due to political (i.e. insistence on "building it in Canada") and logistic, i.e. budget, considerations Canada takes literally decades to replace its ships in the case of the RCN. Militarily that is as ridiculous as it is unacceptable: as an ex-RN officer told me in the early 90's when he signed aboard the RCN "It (transferring from an RN to RCN ship) was like going from Secretariat to Elsie the Bloody Cow...I could not believe any modern Navy actually still used vacuum tubes as part of its electronic warfare systems".....

That fact combined with our miniscule numbers - transfer the entire East Coast fleet to Esquimalt if you like - and we still have a numerically insignificant force providing negligible military capability in the event of a Really Big Blow-up. For example with a population 30% greater than Australia (a much more realistic comparison for Canada than China for obvious reasons) our Navy actually is smaller than the Australian fleet and has far less capability in terms of submarines and fleet replenishment, which is rather scary. In addition their fleet, unlike ours, actually has a viable air arm component than doesn't utilize 50-year flying deathtraps, aka Sea King helicopters.

Then consider the size and capability of the potential adversary - the PLA - as of today (see pp. 40) and you will seen what I mean:

http://www.fas.org/s...row/RL33153.pdf

And of course the PLA Navy, unlike ours, is only expanding and growing exponentially year after year after year....

#8 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,232 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 12:05 PM

I'm wondering if the United States' navy/military will suppress any adversarial motions towards Canada. After all, whoever invades Canada might as well be invading the United States.

Taking what you said into account, ASE, I guess the Canadian navy/military will focus on the Arctic areas first considering the issues of sovereignty up there.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#9 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,621 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 12:38 PM

I'm wondering if the United States' navy/military will suppress any adversarial motions towards Canada.


Of course they would.


ASE, Canada also has this insane habit of developing and designing our own equipment as if the Canadaian military is some super unique entity that is totally incapable of using equipment designed for use by say the USA or other counties. The Sikorsky anti-sub helicopter debacle is an ongoing example, and the supply ships and artic patrol vessels are others. There is no reason we couldn't go to our biggest ally and purchase some ships or helicopters rather than design our own. At the very least, we could buy or license US ship designs as it's safe to say the design of US military equipment is probably pretty good.

Edit: I stand corrected, I just read that the Navy is purchasing a German design for the supply ships that are slated to be built in North Vancouver. The design of the "Polar Icebreaker" ships is a different story.

#10 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,232 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:12 PM

I'd say Canadian's know a thing or two about ice breakers so it would make sense to build our own vessels for the Arctic region.

We shouldn't necessarily outsource something just because another country has something similar or close to what we're looking for. Canadians have built and continue to build extraordinary technology that has its place in the world. It wasn't so long ago that the Avro Arrow was the most advanced jet fighter in the world (so advanced the US pressured Canada to scrap it) and we continue to excel in various heavy industries.

Furthermore the spinoff effects from Canadian research and development are incalculable and give our engineers and scientists invaluable experience, something that just can't be bought.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#11 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,570 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:06 PM

^Unfortunately we develop this technology and people and then they and the development leave the country because we take too long to build them or lose our will to build them.

Canada's navy is a coastal defence force at best and only against a not very determined opponent.
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#12 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,491 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:41 PM

^Unfortunately we develop this technology and people and then they and the development leave the country because we take too long to build them or lose our will to build them.

Canada's navy is a coastal defence force at best and only against a not very determined opponent.


Pretty much this; the problem in this country with military procurement - IMO - is that only rarely if at all are purely military considerations ever paramount; they are always it seems superseded by "how many jobs and spin off benefits will accrue, and where?" That is absurd. If I am the guy in the field or in the air or at sea I could care less if the gear is built in Canada, Timbuktu or Disneyland: I just want it to be the very best gear money can buy and above all it better bloody work when I need it to. Frankly whether there are 'spin off benefits' to a Canadian shipyard shouldn't enter into the equation when push comes to shove and two guys are staring down the barrel of the other guy's gun. Unfortunately in this country the opposite is almost always the case; which as noted above is why we have the ridiculous situation with our replacement helicopters; and our replacement replenishment ships; and our replacement heavy lift air force planes. And almost always the result is an unsatisfactory and very watered down solution designed to satisfy and make as many bean counters and economists and pork barrel politicians as happy as possible: and that almost never equates to providing the serving soldier with the best military option.

Hence to Jonny's point that in Canada we insist on "tailoring" the equipment to "meet our special needs" so as to squeeze as many manufacturing and economic benefits out of the deal as we can. Unfortunately for the people in uniform this usually translates into a sub standard piece of hardware, and (usually) because we drag the process out over years or even decades, in many less units (planes. ships. guns etc.,) than was originally envisioned and requested.

#13 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 09:18 PM

There is no reason we couldn't go to our biggest ally and purchase some ships or helicopters rather than design our own.


I wonder if the Brits have got any more stuff in mothballs that we could purchase? That's the kind of deal that keeps our shipyard workers busy.

#14 http

http

    Data Sans Practicality

  • Member
  • 1,024 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 06:47 AM

I wonder if the Brits have got any more stuff in mothballs that we could purchase? That's the kind of deal that keeps our shipyard workers busy.


Great. Now I have to clean my keyboard.
"Who are those slashdot people? They swept over like Mongol-Tartars." - F. E. Vladimirovna

#15 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,621 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 07:27 AM

I wonder if the Brits have got any more stuff in mothballs that we could purchase? That's the kind of deal that keeps our shipyard workers busy.


That's clearly not what I meant. We don't need to buy the junk from other nations, but we certainly don't need to design our own naval helicopters with special requirements when, for example, the US Navy already has the SH-60 Seahawk which I'm sure is a capable aircraft and I'm sure they would allow us to purchase brand new.

#16 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,621 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 07:32 AM

We shouldn't necessarily outsource something just because another country has something similar or close to what we're looking for. Canadians have built and continue to build extraordinary technology that has its place in the world. It wasn't so long ago that the Avro Arrow was the most advanced jet fighter in the world (so advanced the US pressured Canada to scrap it) and we continue to excel in various heavy industries.

Furthermore the spinoff effects from Canadian research and development are incalculable and give our engineers and scientists invaluable experience, something that just can't be bought.


Mike, I know this is not the case, but I don't think it should be the responsibility of the federal government to subsidize heavey industries that really aren't all that competitive on a global scale. Canadians are perfectly capable of building extraordinary technology and having capable engineers without government handouts to a couple of Canadian shipyards in the hopes that some "spinoff benefits" will be realized even though they are barely capable of pulling off these types of jobs. I'm surprised it hasn't been all over the news that Vancouver and Victoria Shipyards are owned by an American.

It's no coincidence IMO that the recently successful Canadian military procurements were quick "off the shelf" purchases from allies like the Leopard 2 tanks, Mercedez Benz G-Wagons, Boeing Globemaster and Chinook helicopters.

#17 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,232 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 09:05 AM

Oh yeah, absolutely. I think the real problem in this country is that an entire generation (and coincidentally representing the brunt of tax payers and voters in this country today) grew up with peacekeeping as the role of Canada's military and not as an invading force (Afghanistan).

For a long time Canadians simply kept "the peace," and with that the military did not require the kind of investment or infrastructure most other militaries have. Now that the situation has changed we still have a large chunk of the public unwilling to accept that perhaps we do need a little more muscle than we previously did and that we can't just rely on the Americans for protecting our country (all things considered though, being so close to the military giant that is the US allows us to get away with far, far less than a country like Australia).

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#18 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 10,147 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 09:08 AM

I'm surprised it hasn't been all over the news that Vancouver and Victoria Shipyards are owned by an American.


Yes, and that "American" also owns the railway that operates on Vancouver Island. Christy Clark lobbied the Federal Government in order to obtain a DND ship building contract for this company.

He also bought the fastcat ferries from our provincial government at auction for less than the price of scrap metal and sold them as complete ships to Abu Dhabi Mar, a United Arab Emirates-based builder of luxury yachts.

This guy gets around.

#19 Dimitrios

Dimitrios
  • Member
  • 316 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 10:19 AM

Oh yeah, absolutely. I think the real problem in this country is that an entire generation (and coincidentally representing the brunt of tax payers and voters in this country today) grew up with peacekeeping as the role of Canada's military and not as an invading force (Afghanistan).


This is the point, though. Is Canada going to invade China? Of course not. The reality is that having a military that we depend on for defense is a huge uncertainty (when is the last time Canada was actually attacked or invaded? 1812? I actually don't know). The reality is that we do depend on the US, and our other NATO allies, (and NORAD), to a lesser extent, for defending our borders. This isn't about to change soon.

Peace-keeping, foreign UN missions, 'sovereignty-building' (the north), keeping track of migrant boats and other foreign vessels - these are much more certain uses of our navy and other military branches. And the jobs/investment portion of contracts is also much closer to a certainty.

I don't think it's wrong for Canada to try to get some value-added from these contracts. But sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it does not. This should be a quick decision - something that can be determined by a skilled team within 2-3 months - do we have a reasonable capability within our industries to build, say a couple of destroyers? No? Do we need it quickly, say within a couple of years? Yes? Ok, then buy it from someone else. I agree that military procurement is currently about an order of magnitude slower than it should be, and something should be done about it.

#20 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,621 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 10:24 AM

Yes, and that "American" also owns the railway that operates on Vancouver Island. Christy Clark lobbied the Federal Government in order to obtain a DND ship building contract for this company.

He also bought the fastcat ferries from our provincial government at auction for less than the price of scrap metal and sold them as complete ships to Abu Dhabi Mar, a United Arab Emirates-based builder of luxury yachts.

This guy gets around.


He has a really nice yacht too!

Seriously though, I don't care that these company's are owned by an American. I believe in the benefits of foreign investment and free trade, but with all of the hand wringing around these parts with ferries that are built in Germany I'm surprised nobody has mentioned where most of the profits of building the new RCN supply and coast guard ships will go to...a Yank!

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.