Arctic/Offshore patrol ships: More never never land

Guess what? The vessels' planned capabilities are being reduced and the project is being delayed--not enough money (here's another never never land):

Navy waters down plans for Arctic patrol ships

The federal government has put off asking shipbuilders for ideas on the construction of a flotilla of Arctic patrol boats, a sign that the two-year-old program is in trouble.

The navy's project management office advised the defence industry on June 10th that the long-anticipated letters of intent had been delayed.

"The extent of the delay is unknown at this time," said the note obtained by The Canadian Press.

The navy's project office describes the postponement as a "glitch," but the officer in charge, navy Capt. Eric Bramwell, declined to explain what the holdup might be.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in July 2007 that the navy would acquire six to eight ice-capable vessels for nearly year-round operation in the Arctic. The announcement was a cornerstone of the Conservatives' northern strategy

At the time, the proposal was a step back from the 2005-06 [silly] Tory election promise to build three armed, heavy icebreakers to enforce Canada's northern sovereignty.

[As I wrote back then:

Such vessels would make much more sense than having the Navy take on a true icebreaking role. But to have even their limited arctic capability they will be less capable (speed, range, etc.) for general naval duties--and building them in Canada means they will cost more than they should...]

The Conservatives have said the Arctic is a priority as competition for boundaries and resources with other nations, particularly Russia, intensifies. But the heavy cost has increasingly given them pause.

A National Defence estimate last year pegged the annual operating expense of Arctic military operations at $843-million, excluding capital purchases, such as the patrol boats.

As the patrol vessel plan went through the definition phase, the capabilities of the ships were scaled back from the original Conservative proposal in order to stay within the original $3.1-billion budget.

The navy now envisions purchasing just six Class 5 ice-cutting ships and arming them with 25-mm cannons -- the same calibre carried on the army's light armoured vehicles -- as opposed to larger 40-mm weapons.

The ships will also be slower than originally planned and have less cargo capacity [previous specifications at 2) here; they're already damned slow for naval patrol vessels--"cruise speed of at least 14 knots and a maximum speed of at least 20 knots"].

Despite that, Bramwell says the navy is happy with the look of the ship that's on the drawing board.

"We've been working the issue with our requirement colleagues to keep an eye on affordability," he said.

Cmdr. Dave Soule, who's overseen the ships' development, said a lot of attention has been paid to the smaller gun, which critics suggested turns the warship into nothing more than glorified police boat.

"We've looked at what other navies do for the kinds of missions these ships would be employed," Soule said in an interview Tuesday. "That calibre of gun is suitable."

He said many of the operations envisaged would be in support of domestic operations by other government departments; security and other non-military type threats.

"Those generally tend to be not like a warfare situation."..

In fact these ships' main role will be to replace the Navy's Kingston-class maritime coastal defence vessels. More from the prime minister's July 2007 announcement:

...
While the current Kingston-Class Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDV) have the versatility to operate in coastal areas, these minor war vessels have limited ability to operate in the open ocean, cannot support a helicopter, and are restricted in their capacity to support boarding operations. The Navy must use its large combatant vessels – destroyers and frigates, which are expensive to operate, to patrol the open ocean.

To fill this capability gap, the Navy will acquire up to eight Polar Class 5 Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (A/OPSs)...

Yet even the Kingston-class have a 40 mm gun.

Meanwhile, given what I am sure are the now-limited capabilities of Canadian shipyards to design and build naval vessels, foreign shipbuilding practices are being looked at. Here's another sad story following on the insistence by all our governments that their ships be built in Canada to prop up a failing industry. Oink. Oink. Oink:

New Canadian Coast Guard vessels: Paying more to build in Canada

The Mid-Shore Patrol Vessel saga is yet another sorry procurement effort. Nobody in Canada could build them for what the government was willing to pay. So now some shipbuilder in Canada will have to buy a foreign design and then build it in Canada. Not a way to get the best vessel for the best price. But I suppose better than paying even more by trying to design it here. Might the same thing happen with the Navy's Joint Support Ships and Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships? Still a wasteful way to try to maintain a wasting industry for political advantage...

As for our general procurement mess, remember that the Joint Support Ships (now too in never never land) and the Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels are projects that began quite a few years ago under the Liberals. Good grief.