|
Post by dofd on May 6, 2013 20:59:18 GMT -8
The follow up to my post above. Irving says ship contract comparisons 'apples and oranges'
Three thoughts in one group: OK maybe two thoughts and one question. I find it hard to believe that it could cost that much more. Boeing and Airbus spend huge money on development, but it is a head to head market. Watched a National Geographic episode on the building of one of the USA's new aircraft carriers, they were talking about how easy the interior design was because of the same program Boeing uses. So what is Irving doing that is so ground breaking?
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jun 5, 2013 6:55:46 GMT -8
This is a DND News Release I stumbled on at work today... Surprised I do not remember seeing it in the media this week? Perhaps because it was issued on a Sunday?
News Release Joint Support Ship Design Selected NR 13.185 - June 2, 2013
OTTAWA – The Government of Canada today announced that a ship design for the Joint Support Ships being acquired for the Royal Canadian Navy has been selected, as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.
The selection of the Joint Support Ship design was conducted through a transparent assessment process, involving multiple government departments and third party advisors, based on three criteria: operational capability, affordability, and the cost and schedule risks associated with building the ship. The process was monitored by audit firm KPMG, as an independent third-party. First Marine International, a recognized firm of shipbuilding experts, provided ship construction costing expertise.
Two viable ship design options were commissioned for the Joint Support Ships: an existing design and a new design by BMT Fleet Technology. Based on rigorous analysis and assessments by government officials and military experts, the proven, off-the-shelf ship design from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada was selected as the best design option for the Royal Canadian Navy and for Canadian taxpayers.
Canada will provide the design to Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd, to review in preparation for actual production. This design development work will be led by Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd., as part of the Joint Support Ship definition contract to be negotiated between Canada and the shipyard. Once these steps are completed, Canada will acquire the required licensing for the ship design. This license will enable Canada to use the ship design and build, operate, and maintain the Joint Support Ships – right in here in Canada. This effort will also enhance technical skills and knowledge among Canadian shipyard staff, to be leveraged as the shipyard builds the subsequent ships assigned under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.
The Joint Support Ships, which will be built by workers at Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd, will supply deployed Naval Task Groups with fuel, ammunition, spare parts, food and water. They will also provide a home base for maintenance and operation of helicopters, a limited sealift capability, and support to forces deployed ashore.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jun 5, 2013 7:38:39 GMT -8
Thanks for posting that, Dane. Glad something is moving on the NSPS front...
I had the opportunity this weekend to attend a lecture with Marc Gregoire, the Commissioner of the CCG. He mentioned that Vancouver shipyard does not have the capacity to build the JSS and the Diefenbaker at the same time, so one of the two projects will be significantly delayed. If the Diefenbaker ends up being delayed, CCG will have to invest heavily in the Louis S. St. Laurent for a few years to maintain adequate arctic icebreaking support, as well as winter icebreaking services on the east coast.
On the other hand, I've heard that the Navy's replenishment ships (ship?) are not in much, if any, better condition. I wonder which deferral would cost more in the long run?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Jun 5, 2013 8:10:57 GMT -8
This is a DND News Release I stumbled on at work today... Surprised I do not remember seeing it in the media this week? Perhaps because it was issued on a Sunday? That story was in the papers on Monday. Still no contracts on the major projects that were announced ages ago. The Harperites were praised to the heavens for their supposedly squeaky clean tendering process, but they haven't made good on the important part- getting the ships built.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jun 5, 2013 8:51:46 GMT -8
I know nothing of the Coast Guards current ships, but the two Navy supply ships are in "end of life" cycle, which means they fix things that are broken - but do nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jun 5, 2013 19:50:17 GMT -8
Still no contracts on the major projects that were announced ages ago. The Harperites were praised to the heavens for their supposedly squeaky clean tendering process, but they haven't made good on the important part- getting the ships built. Remember the gushing praise a few years back for our BC ship building capabilities from Christie & company. Since then our yards have sat idle puttering along with repair work & the federal promise to build something. Then there is the construction of three new BC Ferries to replace the Nanaimo & Burnaby. Watch our government sit back and allow those contracts to go off-shore. Remember, TransLink chose a yard in Singapore to build the second new SeaBus. Maybe I will be proven wrong & Christie & the BC Libs really do want to promote jobs for British Columbians.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 12, 2013 11:04:16 GMT -8
Problem with the Vancouver award of that shipbuilding procurement: - bold is my emphasis (aside: I normally take a short vacation trip in October. I remember being in Ruckle Park on Salt Spring Island on a day in October 2011, listening to the procurement award announcement on CBC radio. 2 years ago already.) STORY HERE
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Oct 12, 2013 13:08:09 GMT -8
With the Harperites' record of replacing military planes and helicopters, can anyone be surprised at this story? And can any sane person believe that they didn't know what the capability of the shipyard was when they originally announced the construction schedule?
With Stephen Harper, every move is about politics, and winning, and playing to his base. They announced the supply vessel program in 2004. They announced their intention to build three or four large ice breakers in 2006. Since then they've announced more intentions, announced concept plans, announced procurement processes, announced how wonderfully fair those processes are, announced the great benefits to the shipbuilding industry, announced chosen shipyards, and for good measure, announced everything again if they felt more points could be scored.
Now the date for the launch of the Louis St Laurent's replacement is being announced as 2022. Announcements out their keesters for ten years, and not a square metre of steel has been cut for anything.
The Conservatives have milked the military and the coast guard and the shipbuilding industry for every drop of public relations they can get. No doubt some of these ships will be built, and shipyard workers and all the associated industries will benefit. But it was never about improving our defense capabilities or our ability to enforce sovereignty over our territory; it was always about Stephen Harper playing to his base, and I would be extremely surprised if everything his gang has promised the military and the coast guard actually gets built.
In 1959, WAC Bennett announced construction of the largest BC built car ferries to ever serve our waters. The Queen of Sidney and Queen of Tsawwassen were in service the next year. Yes, I realize that military vessels are vastly more complicated than ferries, but the Harper record on this file is reprehensible.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Oct 12, 2013 14:05:07 GMT -8
With the Harperites' record of replacing military planes and helicopters, can anyone be surprised at this story? And can any sane person believe that they didn't know what the capability of the shipyard was when they originally announced the construction schedule?
With Stephen Harper, every move is about politics, and winning, and playing to his base. They announced the supply vessel program in 2004. They announced their intention to build three or four large ice breakers in 2006. Since then they've announced more intentions, announced concept plans, announced procurement processes, announced how wonderfully fair those processes are, announced the great benefits to the shipbuilding industry, announced chosen shipyards, and for good measure, announced everything again if they felt more points could be scored.
Now the date for the launch of the Louis St Laurent's replacement is being announced as 2022. Announcements out their keesters for ten years, and not a square metre of steel has been cut for anything.
The Conservatives have milked the military and the coast guard and the shipbuilding industry for every drop of public relations they can get. No doubt some of these ships will be built, and shipyard workers and all the associated industries will benefit. But it was never about improving our defense capabilities or our ability to enforce sovereignty over our territory; it was always about Stephen Harper playing to his base, and I would be extremely surprised if everything his gang has promised the military and the coast guard actually gets built.
In 1959, WAC Bennett announced construction of the largest BC built car ferries to ever serve our waters. The Queen of Sidney and Queen of Tsawwassen were in service the next year. Yes, I realize that military vessels are vastly more complicated than ferries, but the Harper record on this file is reprehensible. they used to talk about 'wacky's navy' no one will be accusing harper of having anything but a pauper's navy, and as for the crusty navy, it's an offshore building programme for sure! after she gets thru we will have to send to the far east for even a seabus! >:Dmrdot.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 28, 2014 20:25:19 GMT -8
A follow up to the story posted late last year about the delays and budget over-runs with the projects awarded to Vancouver Shipyards. Now it appears Davie Shipyards in Quebec, which lost out in the contract allocations, now says it can start building the icebreaker now and do it for half the price. It was an exciting day when Vancouver Shipyards won the contracts... but I wonder if that's going to be the end of the story. Probably not. www.cbc.ca/news/politics/davie-shipyard-challenges-feds-36b-plan-1.2657186- John H
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on May 29, 2014 20:59:23 GMT -8
A follow up to the story posted late last year about the delays and budget over-runs with the projects awarded to Vancouver Shipyards. Now it appears Davie Shipyards in Quebec, which lost out in the contract allocations, now says it can start building the icebreaker now and do it for half the price. It was an exciting day when Vancouver Shipyards won the contracts... but I wonder if that's going to be the end of the story. Probably not. www.cbc.ca/news/politics/davie-shipyard-challenges-feds-36b-plan-1.2657186An icebreaker that was to cost $720 million in 2008 is now estimated at $1.3 billion... and while the shipyard has been selected, there is still no contract signed.
Now, a yard that was defunct two years ago throws an incredibly unethical and unlikely 'hail mary' attempt to steal the work away from the winning bidder... and still, not a square metre of steel has been cut for anything, anywhere. Deadlines for everything are being pushed back by the decade.
The Harperites were showered with praise for the supposedly pristine nature of the procurement process, but with regard to following up with actual money and construction, this whole military plane/ship/helicopter fiasco is approaching Alice in Wonderland status. The rabbit hole deepens and widens.
|
|
|
Post by timmyc on May 31, 2014 13:53:29 GMT -8
I would love to see the government tell Davie to build the icebreaker on their own funds, and if it falls within the stated price, then the government will pay for it, while Seaspan continues with the Diefenbaker as planned. Two heavy icebreakers would be a significant improvement to our capabilities, especially since one is hardly enough.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on May 31, 2014 14:16:29 GMT -8
:)gee, I don't know about a super icebreaker named after Dief, it's liable to get scrapped on the drawing board, much like honist John did in the avro arrow! 8-|mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 1, 2014 8:15:37 GMT -8
:)gee, I don't know about a super icebreaker named after Dief, it's liable to get scrapped on the drawing board, much like honist John did in the avro arrow! 8-|mrdot. Oh dear! 'mrdot', did you have to open up that old can of worms?? The decision to scrap the avro should have seen some folks go to jail! However, many of the technical engineers etc. did oddly find jobs with NASA. Now where the heck did I put my blood pressure monitor?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 14, 2015 20:35:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by timmyc on May 15, 2015 13:42:43 GMT -8
I doubt they would go with a solution that causes Seaspan to lose its two JSS. As the article suggests, if any alterations to NSPS does happen, it'd be for an interim solution by Davie, leaving Seaspan with more time to either build the JSS or delay their constructions until the first few "easy" CCG ships are done.
|
|
|
Post by timmyc on Jun 13, 2015 17:50:33 GMT -8
On Friday, a Technical Briefing was issued for Seaspan's CCG Offshore Fisheries Sciences Vessels: www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/medias-media/dm-ms/2015-06-12-eng.htmlThe short of it, which surprises absolutely nobody, is that their costs have gone up to $687m total from the original 2004 budget of $244m. The ceiling cap for the actual construction costs is $514m. Seaspan will be rewarded if they get the costs under $400m, and the difference in savings split between GoC and Seaspan. If the construction cost breaches $514m, Seaspan is responsible for the balance.
|
|