The Canadian shipyard that builds the new destroyers of the Navy and the British defense contractor responsible for the basic design recently signed a collaboration contract, marking the next step forward in the multimillionaire program that the federal government has largely involved in secret.
Much of the plans and costs of the program remain involved in mystery and obfuscation, including precisely how much each of the first three warships will cost.
The news of the agreement, between Irving Shipbuilding Inc. and Bae Systems Inc., based in Halifax, from the United Kingdom, arrived in a British publication a little more than a week after the federal government revealed that it had signed a contract of implementation of $ 8 billion with the shipyard to begin the construction of the replacements of the long and long frigates of the Marina Halifax.
The Department of National Defense and Public Services and Acquisitions of Canada says that the Irving implementation contract is an initial payment for the first three destroyers, an acquisition that is expected to cost taxpayers $ 22.2 billion.
The Navy hopes to acquire 15 of the ultra modern naval destroyers, the largest military acquisition, in terms of dollars, in the history of the country.
Other allied nations, including the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, are more communicative about the costs associated with their construction of war ships. The data is publicly available.
The Department of Defense says there are other costs, ammunition and training, including the general price of $ 22.2 billion, but officials refused to reveal a detailed breakdown.
“At this point, we have not specifically attributed a cost of ‘ship’ for the delivery of ships by lots 1, we have only attributed the cost of delivering the three ships,” said the Department of Defense in a statement. Nor is there a public estimate available for the second lot of three ships.
Despite the repeated requests for clarification of CBC News, none of the Federal Department explained why cost estimates were not being disseminated.
Experts say they must exist somewhere in the Navy or the Federal Government, writing large.
Part of the reluctance can be related to the fact that the final design for war ships is not completed, and it is not expected to be finished, and approved, until 2028. The federal government is essentially designing and building at the same time, using the design of the British type 26 hull as a base and completing the design as the combat systems are added.
But experts say there is more at stake in the secret than the simple design mechanics.
Institutional paranoia
By strange it seems, there are many political ghosts and an unhealthy spoonful of institutional paranoia that remains of the long F-35 saga that is still on the stalking within the new Destroyer program.
The first attempt by the former conservative government to acquire the stealthy fighter built by Lockheed Martin collapsed over political fights, as well as the indignation of surveillance and public outrage due to the enormous cost of the advanced plane and the feeling that the figures were being deliberately low.
The solution to maintain the destroyer program on the rails? Say as little as possible. Keep a lid tight in the numbers. And avoid public attention.
Richard Shimoka, an expert in defense of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said federal officials must grow and begin to defend and explain their decisions in public.
“I think this, somehow, represents the scars of the F-35, the first iteration of the F-35 program,” said Shimoka. “The Canadians deserve to be informed … and now it is this type of adverse relationship that the department has with everyone, partly because, I think it has politicized. We cannot do anything for the government to look bad.”
Alan Williams, a former purchasing chief in the Department of Defense, said he cannot believe that there is no cost estimate per boat and that if he had presented a darkened plan to a crown minister, he would have been fired.
And if they continue without a boat cost estimate, even a baseball stadium, it would represent a serious violation of taxpayers’ confidence, Williams added.
Anyway, he said, he doesn’t look good.
“They certainly were enough in the process,” said Williams, who a couple of years ago published a warning that the projections of warship vessels were disabled and that the program was becoming unsustainable for the money that had been projected.
He also tried and failed to obtain cost estimation by War of federal officials under legislation of access to information.
Defense Minister Bill Blair was in Halifax to announce the beginning of the construction of the Canadian surface combatant fleet, 15 next generation warships to replace the destroyers and frigates of the Royal Canadian Navy.
“We are talking about billions of dollars,” said Williams. “It is tragic when you cannot be open with the public. Let us know how our money is spent.”
There, said Williams, a fundamental lack of responsibility.
“You have to really ask yourself: these people, the people who execute these programs, do not understand the fundamental acquisition, the openness, justice, transparency, the integrity of the service, the integrity of the process?” said.
Dave Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and an acquisition expert who has followed the program since its inception, says that he has not yet seen defending the government ministers, much less explain, the program to Parliament and the public, which is impressive given the cost.
All experts say that the initial payment ad of $ 8 billion is full of control of political messages.
He would be forgiven for getting lost because, as part of a traditional tradition and strategy of both departments, the Naval Milestone construction plan was buried in a press release on Saturday on March 8, in a communications strategy too abundant to divert and limit the scrutiny of the multimillionaire program.
It is strange, given the pressure that Canada is below the Trump administration and other allies to Fulfill the commitment of the defense expense of two percent of NATO. One would think that an investment of $ 8 billion from the roofs would be screaming.
But government officials have a long history, burying naval construction costs on vacation and weekends.
Politically unpleasant price increases for the Arctic high seas patrol program He slid between Christmas and New Year at the end of 2022 And even the first iteration of the Naval Supplier Program was canceled in 2008 late on August on Friday night just before a Federal Electoral call.
For a real estimate, look at the allies
Government guards also fight in their hands when they look for numbers.
In 2016, the Office of Parliamentary Budget (PBO) fought against a prolonged battle for naval construction data and estimates on which the government bases its analysis of the program.
At the moment, the only Canadians of criteria have to determine the cost of what they have committed comes from allies, the United Kingdom and Australia, who are building their variants of type 26.
Last year, Australia was able to estimate that it will cost taxpayers in that country $ 4.1 billion to build each of their hunting class frigates.
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the first frigates are being built under a program of $ 6.8 billion with an average ship cost of $ 1.9 billion each.
Several years ago, the liberal government made a deliberate decision to go with the British design of type 26 because it was considered “to be in regard” and cheaper to build than a specific Canadian manufacturing design.
