OK With +$42 Billion For WAR Ships?... NO Way Don't Pay!

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP
OK With +$42 Billion For WAR Ships?... NO Way Don't Pay!

Cost To Build Navy's New Warships More Than Doubles To $30 B

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nsps-naval-ship-procurement-costs-1.3345435

"That takes the total cost to upgrade Canada's navy to $42 billion - $16 billion more than the $26.2 billion approved by the government..."

Hurtin Albertan

Even if we decide to have a purely coastal defence Navy, and not have our Navy arsing about in the Persian Gulf or what have you, we still need to spend some money on new ships. 

We'd also probably save a HUGE amount of money buying "good enough" ships from some other country rather than trying to build the latest and greatest wunderwaffen special snowflake ships in Canada.  

Nobody ever seems to want to have the conversation about what our military needs to do.  We just expect it to do all sorts of things that somehow never cost us money.

Slumberjack

Those shiny new missile firing Russian corvettes in the Caspian Sea might be built at a fair discount.  Why not go off the shelf, and then our shipyards can still be given work removing all the Cyrillic script from the instrument panels.

NDPP

OK, so give the Hairy Asses their $26.2 B as agreed, put the extra $16 billion into social housing and tell the rulers of the Queen's Navy not a penny more so suck it up.

Hurtin Albertan

I seem to remember that the last time we cheaped out and bought second hand stuff for the Navy it didn't work out so well. 

Anyways I'm not even sure the Russians would sell to us.  Geopolitics and so on and so forth.

I'm honestly not even sure what you could get for 26 billion these days.  Part of me would like to see the money stay in Canada and provide some jobs and domestic economic returns and whatnot, but I'm also pretty sure we'd get a better deal buying something from the Swedes.  I'd even bet we could work out a package deal that includes fighter jets.  Sweden makes some pretty decent stuff.

Slumberjack

NDPP wrote:
OK, so give the Hairy Asses their $26.2 B as agreed...

Oh so you have been to sea?

Hurtin Albertan wrote:
Anyways I'm not even sure the Russians would sell to us.  Geopolitics and so on and so forth.

Are you kidding?  RT would be drooling all over that.

Quote:
I'm honestly not even sure what you could get for 26 billion these days.

Take half of that amount, and it'll maybe buy a few shiny new ships (doesn't France have a couple of spanking new helicopter carriers for sale at a couple billion apiece?), and one hell of a refit on the existing frigates.  Gut them out and fill em back up with new tech. Life extend the hulls, and it's clear sailing for a couple decades more at least.

NDPP

There you go. It's our coasts which are the priority.  Kindly explain the brylcream boys need new toys too. Besides, in the end they follow orders. It's NATO and Sam that's put these Armani fancy-ship ideas in their heads..

Geoff

I think I see a way to eliminate the deficit and have money to spare.

NDPP

omit

Paladin1

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

Anyways I'm not even sure the Russians would sell to us.  Geopolitics and so on and so forth.

 

Russia isn't selling surplus 7.62.x39 ammo to Canada much anymore.  Firearm dealer I was speaking with said his ammo suppliers can't get in the Russian stuff anymore.

 

 

I wouldn't be worried about Canada buying 15 ships, we don't even have enough people to sail them. I think something like 40% of our Navy is civilian employees.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I want a ship building industry in Canada and I want good ships for our navy and coast guard. I have no problem with the cost of building in Canada from new I only have a problem with the types of ships and armaments being procured. The best way to help everyone including the poor is to put our trades people back to work and start the money circulating in the local economies of our ship building cities.

We need to bring ther fleet home to patrol Canadian waters. That is where the cost savings are. How much have we spent since the first Gulf war by having a fleeet operating out of Bahrain. Besides the expense we as Canadians are actively supporting the dictatorship of the Saudi's and their Bahraini monarch puppets.

The real question is not do we need a navy and coast guard but can we afford to be in NATO, both financially and morally. NATO is the elephant in the room that neither the Liberals nor the NDP are going to deal with.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

When the naval procurement story first broke (several years ago) comparisons were made to Norway and Denmark, both of whom had recently launched major programs to procure ships of essentially the same class as the Canadian Navy was seeking -- and in the case of Denmark, with practically identical specifications for range and operating conditions [because of the Danish Navy's mandate to patrol the waters off Greenland]. The estimated development costs alone of what the Canadian Navy wants was two to three times the total cost both Norway and Denmark spend on both development and building of the ships they ended up with - even though, as was pointed out at the time, Irving Shipyards would be using the frigate model developed by Odense Maritime Technologies for the Danes as a base for its work. It is unfathomable to me that the Canada would not explore the option of purchasing these apparently necessary ships from either Denmark or Norway where the development costs have already been factored in. Hurtin Albertan's musings about purchasing from the Russians (and the need to expunge Cyrillic script from control panels) to one side, I cannot see the reasoning behind building these ships in Canada, when the price will be multiple times higher rather than purchasing them from what are supposed to be allied countries (both Denmark and Norway being founding members of NATO). Perhaps if the cost was merely double what the Scandanavians spent I could see the reasoning to keeping construction in Canada -- but not when it is five or six times the cost. Rather than promoting Canadian industry, it strikes me as another case of corporate fraud welfare.

Although one has to wade through a lot of military porn (and deal with the inane jargon that goes along with it) to find information about the ships that are to be procured, it is probably worth the effort in order to frame the questions that have to be asked. It is not like we are comparing apples to oranges... the similarities between the types of ships the Navy wants is more like comparing Granny Smiths with Golden Delicious... I might prefer something a little more sour, but not when it is being sold at six times the price.

Interesting factoid I stumbled across while trying to find the figures I remembered from the earlier discussion - although it was in reference to commercial as opposed to military ships - the shipbuilding costs (per ton) was $4K for ships made in South Korea, $10K for ships made in the Excited States and just under $70K for ships built in Canada.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Multibillion-dollar warship replacement plan 2.4 times over budget: PBO

The federal government's multibillion-dollar effort to replace the navy's warship fleet could cost taxpayers 2.4 times more than first expected, Ottawa's budget watchdog warned Thursday in a new report.

And the longer a process tripped up by delays drags out, the more it's going to hurt the public piggy bank, the analysis found.

The parliamentary budget officer estimates Ottawa will have to spend nearly $61.8 billion to replace 15 ships — more than twice the original 2008 budget of about $26.2 billion.

Looking at a per-ship price tag, the cost is likely closer to $4.1 billion, rather than the $1.7-billion estimate released in 2008 by the then-Conservative government....

Paladin1

Maybe the Liberals should have supported them in 2008?

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Maybe the Liberals should have supported them in 2008?

It depends on what the purpose is.

It seems effectiveness is not the key objective. It is spending. Canada is spending more on defence due to pressure to spend more. This is a reaction to Trump.

If you consider objectives other than cost, it may be reasonable to put a priority on sships -- but perhaps the ice-breaker / coast guard capability thatseems more fitting given our geography.

I think countries want "influence" but I don't support the emphasis on military influence for its own sake that seems to be so popular. Of course that is not so controversial here. The kind of influence Canada could be purchasing with investment could be from the diplomatic and social to support for science and health research. Why should every country even want to contribute in the same way?

SeekingAPolitic...

Last I heard these ships will built in Canadian shipyards.  If wasn't for these orders then the Canada ship industry would collaspe.  This is more a gift for certain geographic locations that are political sensitive and fund domestic RD.  The powers that be have decided that for stragetic reasons to keep the shipbuilding industry alive. 

         This very much like provincial and federal aid to the automotive industry - airplane industry in central Canada.  Canada is a expensive place to do busiess compared to mexico and while there is a gap in productivity is not close to being 5-10 an hour to wage in mexico.   The Canadian dollar has fallen in a big way so has the Mexican pose in regards the dollar.  In fact I believe without help of the Canada governments at all levels and non  tariff barriers the Canada would in indeed produce very little added value products.  Canada has accepted that the way of the future is open markets and would face the full burt of the competition it was not government support and non tarrif barriers.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It depends on what the purpose is.

Warships are multipurpose =)

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Last I heard these ships will built in Canadian shipyards.  If wasn't for these orders then the Canada ship industry would collaspe.  This is more a gift for certain geographic locations that are political sensitive and fund domestic RD.  The powers that be have decided that for stragetic reasons to keep the shipbuilding industry alive. 

If we had proper local sourcing we would have a ship building industry on the West Coast. BC Ferries is replacing its aging fleet with ferries built in Germany and Poland. Both of those countries subsidized the bids to get the work. In Canada we just don't provide the support to high value added industries that other countries do.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It depends on what the purpose is.

Warships are multipurpose =)

 

Actually no.

If the purpose is light fast coast guard or ice breaking for arctic duties then the heavier warships do not work.