Manitoba | Port of Churchill

[1ajs]

fits in line with what ive been told allot more in the works allot more

[bodaggin]

.

[bomberjet]

Jumping back a smidge. Yes the travel speed was super slow form Thompson to Churchill because of tack condition. Painfully slow. even further south it's not fast. I would be interested to know about the upgrades to the rail line and what that means for speeds and travel times.

[bomberjet]

With Port Nelson. The article mentions year round operation. What is the feasibility of ice breaking all winter long? Busy season for shipments is in the winter. Like do you have to keep the shipping lane clear or if it freezes up beyond a certain level, are you screwed?

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

With Port Nelson. The article mentions year round operation. What is the feasibility of ice breaking all winter long? Busy season for shipments is in the winter. Like do you have to keep the shipping lane clear or if it freezes up beyond a certain level, are you screwed?

You're screwed beyond a certain point. You'd need to keep a lane continuously open by patrolling with icebreakers. Pilotage would be necessary at that point to make sure the safe lanes are followed. It doesn't take long for ice, especially brackish like the Hudson Bay to get a couple feet thick.

[bodaggin]

.

[bodaggin]

.

[FactaNV]

Building ships in Churchill is a bad idea. Ships are expensive enough as is, now you'd have to price in the cost of shipping all the materials North. A merchant icebreaker isnt a bad idea but you'd still need purpose built heavy icebreakers to patrol the corridor, in the winter that ice forms quick as heck.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Building ships in Churchill is a bad idea. Ships are expensive enough as is, now you'd have to price in the cost of shipping all the materials North. A merchant icebreaker isnt a bad idea but you'd still need purpose built heavy icebreakers to patrol the corridor, in the winter that ice forms quick as heck.

Building ships in Canada generally is way too expensive. Just look at our naval procurement costs. We only do that for national security reasons - to ensure we have an independent capacity to build warships (and economic development).

[1ajs]

If we have lots of traffic breaking ice all the time it's easier to keep open.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Building ships in Canada generally is way to expensive. Just look at our naval procurement costs. We only do that for national security reasons - to ensure we have an independent capacity to build warships (and economic development).

All those "cheap" ships you can get offshore? Well that quoted price is basically the cost of welding slabs of steel together to form a hull. You want plumbing? $! You want electrical? $$! You want radars and engines? $$$! You want weapons? $$$$$$$$$$$!

In addition, you want maintenance and refits of that shiny ship you bought? Well get in line Canada because your priority is not our priority. You don't have a yard capable of doing the work? Well maybe you should have thought of that prior to buying offshore. But give us enough money and we'll help you out! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

A little history lesson. In 1998, HMCS Ottawa left Saint John Shipbuilding in NB. She was the last of 12 frigates being built for the RCN. At that time Canada had a worked up and experienced shipyard that had cut the build time of a frigate by 18 months. The workers were able and ready for more work. And work was available because the RCN's two Supply Ships and 4 AAW Destroyers were closing in on 30 years of age. The Canadian Coast Guard's only major polar ice breaker was reaching 50 years of age. The entire GoC fleet was in dire need of renewal. But the GoC decided that it wasn't the time for that and the yard was shut and the workers drifted off with the wind.

I'm sure that Stephen Harper was not pleased with the state of the GoC fleet and did what I think was the most important thing that he ever did for Canada, initiate the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS). To their credit the Trudeau Liberals kept that program and despite the hiccups it is about to bear fruit. To shut the whole thing down and go offshore right now would be the cherry on top of stupid shit this country has done over the years.

Oh on a final note, they way we cost procurement is fubard. That 70 billion for the River Class Destroyers? Well that cost includes the food, fuel, and wages of the crew over the life of the ship! Chew on that for a bit before folks pull their hair out on the costs.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Building ships in Churchill is a bad idea. Ships are expensive enough as is, now you'd have to price in the cost of shipping all the materials North. A merchant icebreaker isnt a bad idea but you'd still need purpose built heavy icebreakers to patrol the corridor, in the winter that ice forms quick as heck.

The icebreakers would be located at ports in the north. They would be built at shipyards down south. We are negotiating with Finland and the USA to build icebreakers together.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

The icebreakers would be located at ports in the north. They would be built at shipyards down south. We are negotiating with Finland and the USA to build icebreakers together.

I'm aware, but what I was replying to was someone suggesting to build ships in Churchill. The AOPS are already online for icebreakers, next steps are the 20-something CCG icebreakers over the next couple decades. We very well could have the world's preeminent icebreaker fleet when it's all said and done. We should be cutting out the Americans though, they can't be trusted.

[Winnipeg Grump]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

All those "cheap" ships you can get offshore? Well that quoted price is basically the cost of welding slabs of steel together to form a hull. You want plumbing? $! You want electrical? $$! You want radars and engines? $$$! You want weapons? $$$$$$$$$$$!

In addition, you want maintenance and refits of that shiny ship you bought? Well get in line Canada because your priority is not our priority. You don't have a yard capable of doing the work? Well maybe you should have thought of that prior to buying offshore. But give us enough money and we'll help you out! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

A little history lesson. In 1998, HMCS Ottawa left Saint John Shipbuilding in NB. She was the last of 12 frigates being built for the RCN. At that time Canada had a worked up and experienced shipyard that had cut the build time of a frigate by 18 months. The workers were able and ready for more work. And work was available because the RCN's two Supply Ships and 4 AAW Destroyers were closing in on 30 years of age. The Canadian Coast Guard's only major polar ice breaker was reaching 50 years of age. The entire GoC fleet was in dire need of renewal. But the GoC decided that it wasn't the time for that and the yard was shut and the workers drifted off with the wind.

I'm sure that Stephen Harper was not pleased with the state of the GoC fleet and did what I think was the most important thing that he ever did for Canada, initiate the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS). To their credit the Trudeau Liberals kept that program and despite the hiccups it is about to bear fruit. To shut the whole thing down and go offshore right now would be the cherry on top of stupid shit this country has done over the years.

Oh on a final note, they way we cost procurement is fubard. That 70 billion for the River Class Destroyers? Well that cost includes the food, fuel, and wages of the crew over the life of the ship! Chew on that for a bit before folks pull their hair out on the costs.

Yup. Same thing thing with the big scary number they threw out for the F-35 program life cycle costing. "Sooo, you want me to freak out about our entire fighter jet program costing us ~$1 - $1.5B/yr?" Sorry, that actually seems pretty reasonable.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

All those "cheap" ships you can get offshore? Well that quoted price is basically the cost of welding slabs of steel together to form a hull. You want plumbing? $! You want electrical? $$! You want radars and engines? $$$! You want weapons? $$$$$$$$$$$!

In addition, you want maintenance and refits of that shiny ship you bought? Well get in line Canada because your priority is not our priority. You don't have a yard capable of doing the work? Well maybe you should have thought of that prior to buying offshore. But give us enough money and we'll help you out! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

A little history lesson. In 1998, HMCS Ottawa left Saint John Shipbuilding in NB. She was the last of 12 frigates being built for the RCN. At that time Canada had a worked up and experienced shipyard that had cut the build time of a frigate by 18 months. The workers were able and ready for more work. And work was available because the RCN's two Supply Ships and 4 AAW Destroyers were closing in on 30 years of age. The Canadian Coast Guard's only major polar ice breaker was reaching 50 years of age. The entire GoC fleet was in dire need of renewal. But the GoC decided that it wasn't the time for that and the yard was shut and the workers drifted off with the wind.

I'm sure that Stephen Harper was not pleased with the state of the GoC fleet and did what I think was the most important thing that he ever did for Canada, initiate the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS). To their credit the Trudeau Liberals kept that program and despite the hiccups it is about to bear fruit. To shut the whole thing down and go offshore right now would be the cherry on top of stupid shit this country has done over the years.

Oh on a final note, they way we cost procurement is fubard. That 70 billion for the River Class Destroyers? Well that cost includes the food, fuel, and wages of the crew over the life of the ship! Chew on that for a bit before folks pull their hair out on the costs.

I don't think you can possibly justify over $1 billion per unit for the DeWolf class patrol ships. They do not have any anti-air, anti-ship, anti-submarine or offensive capabilities. Yes we need arctic patrol ships but this is clearly not about bang for the buck.

[bomberjet]

IMO long term strategy regardless of specific micro events going on today. Canada should be building capabilities for all that. Military and civilian purposes. Instead of just dRilLinG tHe Oil durrrr.

but then you get these reports to parliament and the opposition party shits a brick for political gain and we end up with nothing. I'm glad to hear about the ship building strategy. I'll admit I didn't follow that closely. With the aircraft. Give me Avro Arrow! haha my son's into that story right now and has some models and such. Seriously disappointing stuff.

[Winnipeg Grump]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I don't think you can possibly justify over $1 billion per unit for the DeWolf class patrol ships. They do not have any anti-air, anti-ship, anti-submarine or offensive capabilities. Yes we need arctic patrol ships but this is clearly not about bang for the buck.

Well, that's the thing with having to build up your capacity almost from scratch - the first builds are way more expensive than the later ones.

And yes, the DeWolf class are disappointing on a number of fronts, to say the least.

[Winnipeg Grump]

Also, let's not ignore the fact that even the Yanks, with all of the money that they pump into their military machine year after year, are incapable of firing out hulls at the pace that they'd like to.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I don't think you can possibly justify over $1 billion per unit for the DeWolf class patrol ships. They do not have any anti-air, anti-ship, anti-submarine or offensive capabilities. Yes we need arctic patrol ships but this is clearly not about bang for the buck.

The AOPS doesn't have offensive capabilities because that's not what they are needed to do. They're perfectly capable of of constabulary duties with the 25mm and the 50s. The Navy likes them, they provide an arctic capability that was lacking and are in demand for patrols in the Arctic or elsewhere. Remember, CAF prices include all maintenance, support, infrastructure, etc over the life cycle.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I don't think you can possibly justify over $1 billion per unit for the DeWolf class patrol ships. They do not have any anti-air, anti-ship, anti-submarine or offensive capabilities. Yes we need arctic patrol ships but this is clearly not about bang for the buck.

The entire project cost included getting Halifax Shipyards up to a more modern standard, new jetties for both coasts, new support facilities for the ships and finally as I noted above all the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs for the next 25 years. That's where you get a billion per ship.