Halifax, Nova Scotia, wins a 25 billion Boat Design and Building Contract-- WOW

[rwatson]

"The Pirates, Terrorists and 'bad people' play up a lot less if you have a few heavy weapons to call on"

Originally Posted by CutOnce

Can't say as the empirical evidence supports this theory. The pirates and terrorists have traditionally found the rich and powerful the most succulent targets. Hence 9/11, the Somalian coast etc. Desperation and greed push people with nothing valuable to lose into conflict with those they envy. When life is cheap, no one fears retaliation.-
CutOnce

Sorry - I cant follow the logic

Somalian pirates operated where there was NO protection - no big stick available, until 'they' organised some regular naval patrols.

9/11 was a rare attack in a big city, but there wasn't lot of security around then either. Now, the security on air travel, visas etc has tripled- the 'big stick' effect. Most of the other terrorist attacks have been in poorly protected areas of the world.

The most peaceful areas in the world seem to be the ones that have the most powerful security close to hand.

Canada is wise to stay ahead of the 'game'

[Tad]

Originally Posted by rwatson

is this a bit of envy ?

I presume they 'bidded' for the job like every Canadian company could have.

Hum, no Mr. Watson you completely misread me.........

I have no interest in warships.....

The original posting on this thread was about 25 billion Canadian Taxpayers dollars being spent in Halifax, Nova Scotia......My concern is that in reality very little of this money will actually be spent in Canada, or that the cheques are written to "wholly owned subsidiaries" of international corporations and most of the work and money will go outside the country. Then in 10 years the next government will tell us we have to cut spending on healthcare and senior citizens because we need to make our warship loan payments to Germany and the US.......That's my concern, yelling hurrah about going further in debt for stuff we don't need and can't afford, and won't have money in future to keep operational.

[HReeve]

And again, you have missed the part of the story where it says that the work was won, and will be done by the Canadian subsidiary of the company.

Seaspan - work will be done in Canada (Vancouver)
STX - work will be done in Canada (Vancouver)
Alion - work will be done in Canada (Ottawa)

The contracts weren't won by the coprorate backers. They were won by the Canadian offices.

[CutOnce]

Originally Posted by Tad

Hum, no Mr. Watson you completely misread me.........

I have no interest in warships.....

The original posting on this thread was about 25 billion Canadian Taxpayers dollars being spent in Halifax, Nova Scotia......My concern is that in reality very little of this money will actually be spent in Canada, or that the cheques are written to "wholly owned subsidiaries" of international corporations and most of the work and money will go outside the country. Then in 10 years the next government will tell us we have to cut spending on healthcare and senior citizens because we need to make our warship loan payments to Germany and the US.......That's my concern, yelling hurrah about going further in debt for stuff we don't need and can't afford, and won't have money in future to keep operational.

Tad:

I do not worry about where the money is going. I see where it goes regularly. Initial purchase cost is but a fraction of the expense. I've got dedicated, unappreciated neighbors here in Ottawa who have careers are based on following this type of acquisition through it's service life. First as military officers managing acquisition programs, then later on as civilian contractors maintaining service and standards.

With a little thought, everyone can agree that maintaining complex national defense/security equipment as well as keeping it up to evolving standards and technology is more costly than buying it. How many engines are used on one airframe? (15-20+ on a Hercules over 20+ years) How many systems upgrades happen with weapons and electronic technology? About one complete revolution every five years just to keep up with standards, communications and NATO interoperability.

For Canada to acquire equipment, the bulk of the negotiation is for ongoing local maintenance, access to 20+ year complete service inventories and documentation, as well as commitment to support and supply for complete platform life. These guys aren't in negotiation for just the up front purchase - they are negotiating for the complete 25-35 year service life of equipment.

I for one applaud buying the original equipment from the most cost effective supplier that meets the required standards and conditions - it is just effective use of taxpayer dollars. Face it, we just don't have the necessary development and production infrastructure to cost effectively deliver this kind of equipment.

--
CutOnce

[michael pierzga]

Originally Posted by CutOnce

Tad:

I do not worry about where the money is going. I see where it goes regularly. Initial purchase cost is but a fraction of the expense. I've got dedicated, unappreciated neighbors here in Ottawa who have careers are based on following this type of acquisition through it's service life. First as military officers managing acquisition programs, then later on as civilian contractors maintaining service and standards.

With a little thought, everyone can agree that maintaining complex national defense/security equipment as well as keeping it up to evolving standards and technology is more costly than buying it. How many engines are used on one airframe? (15-20+ on a Hercules over 20+ years) How many systems upgrades happen with weapons and electronic technology? About one complete revolution every five years just to keep up with standards, communications and NATO interoperability.

For Canada to acquire equipment, the bulk of the negotiation is for ongoing local maintenance, access to 20+ year complete service inventories and documentation, as well as commitment to support and supply for complete platform life. These guys aren't in negotiation for just the up front purchase - they are negotiating for the complete 25-35 year service life of equipment.

I for one applaud buying the original equipment from the most cost effective supplier that meets the required standards and conditions - it is just effective use of taxpayer dollars. Face it, we just don't have the necessary development and production infrastructure to cost effectively deliver this kind of equipment.

--
CutOnce

The concern is that defense spending by a small country with a very small military industrial complex and limited defense needs contributes very little to long term economic competitiveness .

Money spent on education, human welfare and infrastructure always improves economic competitiveness.

Perhaps the Canadian shipbuilders and suppliers responsible for the contracts can leverage these spending military programs into future non government payroll works or exports.

[viking north]

As I prev. posted, we do not as yet have the population or tax base to support the industry required for a large military. We share this continent with an industrial giant and superpower. 99% of the time the U.S. doesn't know we exist and I would say 75% of U.S. people know little about us geographically or historically but overall the two nations having come from the same beginning, have alot in common as is reflected in buisness and friendship. The U.S. is Canada's biggest trading partener and Canada is the number one supplier of energy(oil and electricity)to the U.S.. It's not nor should be a one way street-- Thats how nations grow thru co-operation, we're both fortunate to be neighbours. I certainly have no problem with the U.S companies winning any contracts within Canada regardless of what it might be as long as we have the right to bid against them in either country.

[Maritimer]

I think the Halifax and Vancouver announcements are great. While all my Naval Architect class mates have been captured up by the Houston oil machine I have been fixing the Canadian 40 year old fleet for many years. Finally a chance to be involved with new vessel design and construction. Forty years of work will see me off to the pasture quite nicely.

Twenty or more years without any significant shipbuilding program is going to make it very hard to find technical and labour to complete these vessel especially with some of the other major projects planned in Canada, Hebron, Lower Churchill, Montreal Bridge and as always the Oil Sands.

[viking north]

Progress of a growing and vibrant nation ---Geo.

[lumberjack_jeff]

There's an argument to be made that developing the ability to build these kinds of ships in Vancouver enables them to build them for other navies.

It's a lot of money to spend to build that capability though.