# AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)



## Ex-Dragoon

Well with the Liberals winning (for now) I think both the army and navy are fortunate as JSS will most likely go ahead. I am no naval architech but I was thinking of what could be done with HMCS Preserver. For those that don't know she is undergoing a 18 million dollar refit down here in Halifax. My idea is maybe convert her into a hospital ship. After another refit, which would I think have to be fairly extensive  to bring it in lines with some degree of health standards, it could be used in humanitarian missions, disaster relief and in the event of conflict as a true hospital ship. Thoughts?


----------



## DJL

Isn't that going to be the role of the "JSS"?

Also, would it be worth the cost to refit Preserver to keep her in service after the second JSS comes down the slips (2010?)? I also wonder, would the navy want to keep a single steamer around? Wouldn't you think that perhaps the money spent on converting  Preserver would be better spent on putting towards, dare I say, a fourth JSS?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

It is but when its part of a Task Force, the JSS might not bee able to detach to conduct humanitarian missions. ALso JSS will have not be a purpose hospital ship like I am proposing a refitted Preserver to be. A 4th JSS would be handy but so would a dedicated hospital ship. I think it would be something the Canadian public wouold support as well buying into their opinion that we are peacekeepers first and soldiers second.


----------



## Sundborg

Making the Preserver into a Hospital  Ship is something that Canada would probably agree on.  But when it all comes down to it, where is all this money going to come from?  We barely have enough as it is.  If Harper was elected I could see a few more dollars coming this way and put into something like that; but, since we still have Martin, I doubt we'll get enough funding for all these extra little projects.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Agreed just wishful thinking lol.


----------



## Sheerin

Out of curosity, how long would preserver be able to function as a hospital ship?  By the time the JSS come around she'll be in her 40s, right?  Would it be worth the extra money to refit her just so she could be a hospital ship for 10 years or so (assuming of course she'll be kept into her 50s).  

Would the Navy and Forces in general be able man her?  I, may be mistaken, but isn't the CF facing a Medical Officer shortage?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The refit she is undergoing right now is supposedly adding 15 yrs to her life but you are correct. As for medical personnel you could always send personnel for 1 CFH or the Field Ambs or any of the base hospitals. One from there 2 from here...and its not like she would sail all the time. AGain it was wistful thinking on my part for a capability that we don't have and should invest in that would be palatable to the Canadian public.


----------



## Sheerin

Its a good idea, and i'm sure the public would go for it too... hopefully.

How much would it cost to build a new hospital ship anyway?  Would it be acceptable for the navy to use hospital ships that are built to civilian specs (is that the proper term?)?

Also, how many other western nations operate hospital ships?  

Sorry for all the questions


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Its a good idea, and i'm sure the public would go for it too... hopefully.
> 
> How much would it cost to build a new hospital ship anyway?   Would it be acceptable for the navy to use hospital ships that are built to civilian specs (is that the proper term?)?
> 
> Also, how many other western nations operate hospital ships?
> 
> Sorry for all the questions



Its not even in the works but it would be a nice addition to the fleet.
Not sure on the price but a lot are converted tankers and civillian specs or mercantile specs is correct.
I will let you know tomorrow if thats ok?


----------



## NavyGrunt

Maybe we could tie some of the old pig boat minesweepers togther and make it into a floating CF disco/med boat.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Its a good idea, and i'm sure the public would go for it too... hopefully.
> 
> How much would it cost to build a new hospital ship anyway?   Would it be acceptable for the navy to use hospital ships that are built to civilian specs (is that the proper term?)?
> 
> Also, how many other western nations operate hospital ships?
> 
> Sorry for all the questions



I did some checking for you and while a lot of nations have some decent medical facilities afloat(usually on carriers, assault ships or other auxillaries)...only the US has full fledged floating hospitals (of NATO)....the Mercy class (the US has 2) are 894 ft long have 1000 beds and carry approx 820 medical personnel.


----------



## Sundborg

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Sheerin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a good idea, and i'm sure the public would go for it too... hopefully.
> 
> How much would it cost to build a new hospital ship anyway?   Would it be acceptable for the navy to use hospital ships that are built to civilian specs (is that the proper term?)?
> 
> Also, how many other western nations operate hospital ships?
> 
> Sorry for all the questions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we even have that many medical personnel in the CF?
> 
> I did some checking for you and while a lot of nations have some decent medical facilities afloat(usually on carriers, assault ships or other auxillaries)...only the US has full fledged floating hospitals (of NATO)....the Mercy class (the US has 2) are 894 ft long have 1000 beds and carry approx 820 medical personnel.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I heard a bad rumour stating that the Preserver would replace one of the proposed JSS, and we would only buy two new ships.  I sure hope that this is wrong, but seeing as how we'll be waiting for a few years for the JSS, I'm sure the Preserver has lots of sea time ahead of her!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

While things can change thankfully that's what it is a bad rumour, Lance.


----------



## canuck101

instead of the JSS we should get three Patino Class AOR's and two Schelde Enforcer LPD the 11000 Ton versions. I would think it would be cheaper but i am not the liberals.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

It would make sense to have a seperate AOR and logistic ship classes but in the long run it supposedly saves money. With 2 seperate classes thats two different training programs set up not to mention different spare parts.


----------



## canuck101

what is the crew size going to be for the three new JSS ships.  If  we have one out just for refueling and supplies it will be half empty. We the government that we have they will never pick missions for the navy to use them to there fullest.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The crew size won't change for whatever mission. Basic sailing requirements and minimum manning stay the same.


----------



## Green Lid

Hold on a minute!!-If my memory serves me right didn't the government just announce,well last year, that they were going to commission some new support ships to support heliborne/amphibious operations.
If that is correct then it flys in the face of any general trend towards cuts in spending such as is being discussed here ???


----------



## Sheerin

Yeah, the JSS was announced a few months ago.  
and of course they can always drag their feet on the procurment like they did with the Seakings or they could just forget that we even need new AORs and pretend that the current ones can go on and on and on and on.


----------



## Cloud Cover

condor888000 said:
			
		

> Out of curosity, does any navy have any large deck-mounted guns?



As noted by Ex-Dragoon, Canada relies upon small diameter weapons on her naval vessels. I think Peru, of all countries, may hold claim to the largest naval guns right now, 6" twin mounts on some old cruisers. I'm not sure of the current operational status of those ships, though.    I think, but am not totally sure anymore, that the USN's proposed Littoral Combat Ship will mount a 155 mm long range naval gun which will fire precision guided ammunition at a fairly high rate of fire and out to a fair distance. Kind of a navalized Crusader system. I believe this weapon is more of a concept than a reality right now, but as I said, I'm no longer sure of the status of that weapon, or indeed the project itself. [very expensive!!]    

Green Lid: you are referring to the JSS, and without saying much more, just look at the CPF 57mm thread, where there is a little information [ok, speculation on my part,"information" on Ex-D's part] about the proposed vessel.    The navy website also has some information as well: http://www.navy.dnd.ca. Look for the JSS article and come to your own conclusions. A vessel of similar dimensions and displacement, but different role, [it is in fact a more sophisticated vessel] costs about 955 million US dollars to build.    That works out to a lot of Canadian Tire coupons for the Mastercraft do-it-yourself JSS!!      

Cheers ...


----------



## Green Lid

Has a thread for discussions on the JSS been opened in any of the forums, apart from the CPF 57 mm thread.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://army.ca/forums/threads/16528/post-71338.html#msg71338

Try this one on for size O Ye of the Green Beanie.  I see you are Army but Army with a Green Lid?  Any actual time in troopships and comments you might like to relate?

Cheers.


----------



## Green Lid

Sorry it took so long to reply, it was close to bedtime here on the East Coast when I sent my last post.

Indeed I did wear a green lid at one time even though I was in the Army, The Commando Brigade has soldiers(Engineers,Gunners etc) as well as marines. I do have some experience of Heli and amphibious ops from ships. Do the Canadian forces have this capability or is that the intention of the JSS.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

No such capability at this time Green Lid.     As to whether the JSS is to have such a capability, significant or otherwise seems to be very much up for debate.   

The first two links below are from the Government

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1346
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1347

This link is from one of our universities that hosts a discussion group on the Canadian Forces.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1347

The ship is designed as fleet oiler and replenishment vessel that can also support a joint HQ, a hospital, carry up to 300 LSVWs (Similar in size to the one tonne LandRover or the Pinzgauer) some number of helicopters (Medium if we have them) and possibly a couple of hundred troops.     3 vessels to be bought at about $2.1 billion dollars, or roughly 1 billion quid.

Your thoughts could be interesting.

Cheers.

Edit:  As Ex-Dragoon points out below I left the impression the vessel is only to carry LSVWs.  That is equivalent space.  It actually has up to 1500 lane-meters of covered vehicle space and 1000 lane-meters for weather deck stowage of TEUs.

Sorry for the confusion.  Thanks Ex-D.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Kirk I had to read your post a couple of times because when I originally read it you give the impression that it will only be embarking the LSVW and not the LAVs of an army battlegroup. You might want to edit your post to reflect this to save confusion.


----------



## Kirkhill

You are correct EX-D. Sorry for the confusion.  Re-editing now.


----------



## Green Lid

Kirkhill 

You asked for my thoughts, bear in mind I am not an expert in amphibious ops.
If Canada is considering the establishment of such a force,  then I think that it demonstrates a significant shift in thinking at the top. 
After all setting up such a force from scratch is not something you do on a whim!!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Sorry guys I split this from the original 280 discussion to stay more on topic.


----------



## Green Lid

Kirkhill

I just opened up the links you posted previously, very interesting.
At a more down to earth army level, they would have to set up a new corps/regiment or perhaps re-train light infantry for an amphibious type role
They talk about deploying a battle group I don't know how realistic that is as you are not going to be deploying armoured vehicles or heavy equipment from the ships.

If Canada wants to have this type of capability then Personally I think it is a great idea.


----------



## Kirkhill

So it requires some work then does it Green Lid?

You mention light infantry in the amphib role, with some armoured back-up.  There has been some concern expressed on this forum that a such a light force would be relegated to only constabulary duties and not be a proper war-fighting force.  Would you agree with that?

In other words is a light battle group a credible force?


----------



## Green Lid

In the right circumstances I think that a light amphibious battle group can be a very credible force.It is just the right type of force to use if you are responding to emergency situations, rescuing Canadians trapped in a foreign country for instance.I would see it as being more of a quick reaction type of force, ready to respond and move at short notice.


----------



## canuck101

I was just wondering has anyone seen or heard anything new on the JSS ships since the election promises were made.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Until Parliament sits again in the fall there will be very little progress with any other project beyond the Cyclones.


----------



## canuck101

I was just looking at the dnd site: http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp
and looking at the Proposed Ship Capabilities.

Our proposed JSS ships may look like the the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) Fort Victoria just a little smaller.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/victoria/

what do you think.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Similiar but all AORs have some degree of commonality world wide from my experience.


----------



## mjohnston39

Some recent CG renderings of the proposed JSS from Fleetech news release and DND literature:












Mike.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The locations of the two funnels suggests two independent machinery spaces, which is interesting. Is that an APAR mast structure?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Two machinery spaces isn't that odd as we have they on the CPFs, could be an APAR or just an enclosed mast.


----------



## Kirkhill

The two machinery spaces and the Azipod.  Does that mean an Electric Boat concept?

Also, I remember seeing a documentary about a Finnish Oil Tanker designed to cross the Gulf of Bothnia and First Year Ice.  It had an interesting hull form and an Azipod. The vessel appeared like a standard hull form with the bulb at the bow, the bridge in the stern and the azipod below the bridge.  The azipod pushed the tanker through the water conventionally.

In ice, the vessel backed around and presented its "stern" to the ice, rotated the azipod 180 degrees and reversed the rotation of the prop.  This had the effect of both pulling the tanker "backwards" through the ice as well as sucking the water out from under the ice allowing the weight of the vessel to more easily break it when it rode up over the ice.   I believe SNC Lavalin had something to do wiht the design.

The bridge was a double-sided bridge with controls for and aft so that the Captain could control the vessel going both ways.

The designs shown here don't seem to be in line with that control concept but the azipod and hull could be.


----------



## mjohnston39

KMM has a double acting design tanker:

http://www.masamarine.com/ship_tankers.html


----------



## Kirkhill

The looks like the one I was thinking of.  Don't know how I got SNC Lavalin mixed in there.  So its out of one of Kjell Inge Rokke's companies... curious.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Another perspective of what mjohnston39 posted above:


----------



## Storm

Wouldn't it make more sense to have it RoRo rather than amphibious? I can't see it as a good idea to try and have an AOR take a beach under fire... Besides, where would we stick the vehicles between all the cargo, fuel, and landing craft?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Now you are seeing with an amphib and an AOR combination will not work and a transport/AOR will.


----------



## Sam69

Storm said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it make more sense to have it RoRo rather than amphibious? I can't see it as a good idea to try and have an AOR take a beach under fire... Besides, where would we stick the vehicles between all the cargo, fuel, and landing craft?



This is not an either/or type of argument. You can have the well deck for the amphib type ops *and* the RoRo ramp. Although the well deck implies the loss of some space inside, it may be a great capability to have if you are trying to land forces in a failed state that either does not have adequate port facilities or where the port facilities have been rendered unusable. Having the well deck does not imply any intention to conduct opposed amphibious operations, it just gives you a few more options for disembarking kit.

Sam


----------



## Garbageman

Sam69 said:
			
		

> Having the well deck does not imply any intention to conduct opposed amphibious operations, it just gives you a few more options for disembarking kit.


East Timor for example?  I seem to recall pictures of a unit landing this way (R22R?), so I'm assuming it must have been an allied ship they were landing from?


----------



## Sam69

Garbageman said:
			
		

> East Timor for example?  I seem to recall pictures of a unit landing this way (R22R?), so I'm assuming it must have been an allied ship they were landing from?



Yes - Aussie in fact. But what is your point? I merely said that the option of adding a well deck to the JSS does not imply any intention of ever conducting an opposed amphib operation in the future. And I'm not even sure that I would call the East Timor landing "opposed."

The only point that I am trying to make is that the well deck option opens up an alternative means of getting gear ashore that is not dependent on the type of port facilities that the RoRo capability requires. And that having the well deck does not imply any ambition to start planning D-Day 2.  ;D

Sam


----------



## Garbageman

Sam69 said:
			
		

> Yes - Aussie in fact. But what is your point? I merely said that the option of adding a well deck to the JSS does not imply any intention of ever conducting an opposed amphib operation in the future. And I'm not even sure that I would call the East Timor landing "opposed."
> 
> The only point that I am trying to make is that the well deck option opens up an alternative means of getting gear ashore that is not dependent on the type of port facilities that the RoRo capability requires. And that having the well deck does not imply any ambition to start planning D-Day 2.   ;D



My point was only to reinforce and agree with what you were saying - we've used this amphib capability in the recent past, and it would be a nice thing to be able to do on our own.


----------



## Sam69

Garbageman said:
			
		

> My point was only to reinforce and agree with what you were saying - we've used this amphib capability in the recent past, and it would be a nice thing to be able to do on our own.



Sorry - my bad. Missed your point (and it was a good one in retrospect). Note to self: engage brain before replying.



Sam


----------



## Jungle

The landing in the Bay of Suai was unopposed... but we didn't know that until we went in. There already were troops on the ground, but they were spread thin. 
The capability the JSS offers is certainly welcome, as demonstrated in Timor we cannot expect to have port facilities everywhere we go.
Should we ever go into an opposed landing, the ships would have to remain as far as possible from the shore. It is to be expected we would not do this on our own, so we could count on support (Naval and Air) from Allies or from a coalition. Again that was the case in Timor: we sailed on the Aussie ship HMAS Tobruk, and were supported by CH-53s from the USS Belleau Wood, which was sailing nearby. Some French landing craft also took part in the cargo delivery operation. Those had been dispatched from French Polynesia.
The only problem I have with the JSS project is the number of units the govt plans on buying. I would like to see 5 units built, with one unit permanently under Army command.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> I would like to see 5 units built, with one unit permanently under Army command.



Does the Army plan on sailing and maintaining this unit as well?


----------



## Jungle

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I would like to see 5 units built, with one unit permanently under Army command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Army plan on sailing and maintaining this unit as well?
Click to expand...

Of course not... just like the Navy is not flying, or maintaining, the Maritime Helicopters.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Kind of a different scenario don't you think?


----------



## Inch

Jungle said:
			
		

> Does the Army plan on sailing and maintaining this unit as well?


Of course not... just like the Navy is not flying, or maintaining, the Maritime Helicopters. 

We're not under Navy command. Our command still lies at 1CAD. We're just attached to the Navy when we're embarked.


----------



## Jungle

As usual Ex-Dragoon is ultra-protective of *his* Navy...   ;D 
OK, to explain this clearly: the first time I was briefed on the project (then called ALSC) the plan was to buy 5 units, and have one of those units, sailed and maintained by the Navy, detached to the Army.
"Under command" was probably the wrong expression; don't get your panties in a knot, you will not be posted to an Army Ship next APS...   : 
The intention was to have one of the units (on a rotation basis) detached to the Army so we could train in amphib ops, and it would be available immediately for rapid deployment. That's all...


----------



## Cloud Cover

Unless the budget for the program is increased by a large measure, the Navy will be lucky to get 3 ships, and they will be very basic models even with the funding allocated right now.


----------



## Kirkhill

I still don't get why the Brits, the Dutch and the Spanish can buy a boat that will transport a Battle Group's worth of kit, a Command centre, a hospital and a Helicopter maintenance facility for $160,000,000 each and we are going to spend $2,100,000,000 for 3 vessels that may be great tankers and supply the navy with all the frozen beef and Tim Hortons they can handle but on the face of it have only a half-arsed transport capability.  

By the way 160,000,000 goes into 2,100,000,000 13.25 times.

What are we doing? Rebuilding Davies Drydock so it can handle larger vessels?   As to job opportunities it should be noted that the Dutch designed vessels were built by local yards in the UK (Glasgow) and in Spain.

Bollocks.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Kirkhill ..good points. By way of contrast, look at LPD 17 project, at around 900 million USD per hull. I suspect Canada will take the middle ground, as long as nothing goes wrong, and the ships are not too complex for the builders that are still standing when the contract is tendered, subject to the customary process of delay, cancellation, reformulate, retender etc. 

* edit: 800 million: source:  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lpd-17.htm

Link posted under the _Fair Dealing _ provisions of the _Copyright Act_.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> As usual Ex-Dragoon is ultra-protective of *his* Navy...   ;D


Someone has to be otherwise misconceptions and  misinformation about the Navy would abound.


> OK, to explain this clearly: the first time I was briefed on the project (then called ALSC) the plan was to buy 5 units, and have one of those units, sailed and maintained by the Navy, detached to the Army.
> "Under command" was probably the wrong expression; don't get your panties in a knot, you will not be posted to an Army Ship next APS...   :
> The intention was to have one of the units (on a rotation basis) detached to the Army so we could train in amphib ops, and it would be available immediately for rapid deployment. That's all...



See that would make sense if we had 5 units, with 3 you are cutting down on expeditionary capability and with the 2 AOR we whave now we have problems considering 1 is still in HSL.

As for my panties Jungle, I lent you my thong but you stretched it all out so I am wondering about those knots you put in yourself.


----------



## Jungle

Ex-Dragoon, why is it that you edited my post above ???


			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I still don't get why the Brits, the Dutch and the Spanish can buy a boat that will transport a Battle Group's worth of kit, a Command centre, a hospital and a Helicopter maintenance facility for $160,000,000 each and we are going to spend $2,100,000,000 for 3 vessels that may be great tankers and supply the navy with all the frozen beef and Tim Hortons they can handle but on the face of it have only a half-arsed transport capability.
> By the way 160,000,000 goes into 2,100,000,000 13.25 times.


As usual, the CF are getting abused. According to those figures, we could probably acquire 3 conventional AORs and 2 of those amphibious platforms for the price of the 3 JSS. Now that would give us some flexibility. But as Kirkhill mentionned, we probably have to save some CDN shipyard somewhere...
BTW Ex-Dragoon, the HMAS Tobruk is manned by both Army and Navy pers. The Sailors sail the ship, but the Traffic Tech aspects are done by a joint team of Navy and Army pers. So Army pers are actually posted to the unit.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Sorry Jungle when I was looking at your post I hit the _Modify_ Tab vice _Quote_ Tab, no worries nothing was changed.

You will also find though that HMAS Tobruk is still under naval control, at least that is what my souces in the RAN tell me.

Let me ask this of you guys, I know a lot of you are upset with what we are paying to build these ships, if we can asemble them offshore for much cheaper should we take that option and to hell with Canadian Industry?


----------



## Infanteer

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Sorry Jungle when I was looking at your post I hit the _Modify_ Tab vice _Quote_ Tab, no worries nothing was changed.



I've done that a couple times too....



> Let me ask this of you guys, I know a lot of you are upset with what we are paying to build these ships, if we can asemble them offshore for much cheaper should we take that option and to hell with Canadian Industry?



That's a toss up.   If we're doing it for political purposes; ie: to prop up regional interests and distribute political largesse - then I say no.   If we are doing it to promote and sustain neccesary skill sets and capabilites in the Defence Industrial Base, then I'd say yes.

As well, two other factors I'd want to consider is the difference in cost and the length of time of a homegrown version vs an off the shelf one.


----------



## Kirkhill

I have no problem with using tax-payer dollars to support ship-yards.   Just make it an honest investment and direct it out of Industry or Infrastructure.   Don't take it out of the Defence budget.   They have got little enough to play with.

Likewise I am not thrilled with the way the new life-cycle costs are being used to "bulk-up" contracts.   The Liberals love to bundle a bunch of projects together and add them up over a long period of time so that they create the impression that they are doing something while standing in place. Better yet if they can add in third-party money, like provincial, municipal and private funds and take credit for them all as a federal investment.

Case in point, the new SH-92s.   5 Billion dollar contract.   Wow - they're spending.   Gee-Whiz Pauly's spending more than even Brian Mulroney was proposing.   Pauly definitely isn't from Shawinigan.   He's a BIG friend of the CF.   And spending all that money in the US - won't that make George happy.

Counter-spin.

5 Billion = 1.8 + 3.2 Billion

1.8 Billion for 28 choppers at roughly 64 million a copy.     3.2 Billion for 20 years of maintenance and training support including facilities. 

Now while I support life-cycle costing and through-life support I am concerned that the spinning will be used by the Government to show how much they are doing and justifying how little more they can do. 

On the other hand they could make the point that they are only setting aside 5 Billion out of 20 years x 13 Billion (assuming no increases) or 5/260 or less than 2% of projected spending.

I guess I will have to wait and see but between past history, burying the defence review as an internal exercise and the delay in getting a defence and foreign policy review out (both were supposed to be released this fall for discussion) I am exceedingly cynical.

Just for laughs I took the Cyclone Programme Expenditure costs and used the same ratio of Capital to Operating costs and applied them to the JSS project.   

Capital costs are 1.8/5 or 36% of the total project costs.   With the 2.1 Billion dollar JSS project that results in a total capital cost of 756 Million dollars for three vessels or about 252 Million dollars apiece.
Actually that is probably a pretty fair and reasonable price.   The question is who is going to get the 20 year maintenance contract and who is going to be given the new improved dry-dock necessary to handle a larger hull.

Having said that - if the capital cost is in the 250 Million range (maybe even 150 Million for a similar hull but without the RAS capability and more Transport space)   maybe it wouldn't boost the cost of the project so much to add another couple of hulls for Jungle and me.   Especially if they were only used occasionally for deployments and training and were manned by a skeleton crew (50 or so) or reservists.
I can't see that it would add that much to the support costs if they were not going to accumulate the number of sea-days that their sisters operating in the AOR-RAS roles would.

Gawd - if somebody would just let me be King of the World for a day................ :-\  ;D :'(


----------



## Jungle

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Sorry Jungle when I was looking at your post I hit the _Modify_ Tab vice _Quote_ Tab, no worries nothing was changed.


No problem... 



> You will also find though that HMAS Tobruk is still under naval control, at least that is what my souces in the RAN tell me.


Yes, of course it is under Navy control. That is where it belongs... But a TPT ship is useless if there are no troops to transport.  ;D
Maybe this "joint" thing will be more difficult than I thought for the CF... we are used to doing our own thing, without a care for the other Services. The Army and Air force had a good thing going with the CAR, but that's all gone now.


----------



## DJL

> Let me ask this of you guys, I know a lot of you are upset with what we are paying to build these ships, if we can asemble them offshore for much cheaper should we take that option and to heck with Canadian Industry?



Yes. Now without diving into the political realm too much, let me ask you this, did you or a member of your family design and sew your before mentioned thong? If not, why?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> But a TPT ship is useless if there are no troops to transport.



Don't forget when not embarking troops it would be carrying fuel. spare parts and bullets for the navy so hardly useless.


----------



## Jungle

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> But a TPT ship is useless if there are no troops to transport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget when not embarking troops it would be carrying fuel. spare parts and bullets for the navy so hardly useless.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the Tobruk...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Got ya...thought we were talking JSS


----------



## Kirkhill

> Don't forget when not embarking troops it would be carrying fuel. spare parts and bullets for the navy so hardly useless.



That is the whole point.  You need them for those jobs.  They will not be available to carry troops. The army needs to know that it has reliable, available, ready transport to get what it needs to wherever it needs to be in a timely fashion.

Three of them together are just about big enough for one battle group but at least one and possibly two are likely to be away on deployment at any given time with the third possibly in for maintenance.  Are they going to come on back to Halifax or Montreal to be loaded up and leave the Navy unsupported?  Are they going to return without escort or is the Task Force going to leave station to return with them?  Or is an escort group going to have to leave Halifax or Victoria and transit out and back to pick them up before they can be loaded?

We need enough vessels that we have the capacity IDLE and READY at dockside.  Otherwise its like saying we can use the Fire Chief's pick-up truck to put out fires when he is not busy picking up the groceries.


----------



## mjohnston39

> The question is who is going to get the 20 year maintenance contract and who is going to be given the new improved dry-dock necessary to handle a larger hull.



I believe the graving yard in Victoria can handle something as large as being proposed with no modifications and Vancouver ship yards have a 220M floating dry dock. I haven't any idea of what Halifax or Davie (is it still around) can handle.

Washington Marine Group facilities:

Floating drydocks

220 metres (722 feet) x 45.8 metres (150 feet)
     36,000 tonne lift capacity
     Cranage to 85 tonnes

131.1 metres (430 feet) x 33.5 metres (110 feet)
     30,000 tonne lift capacity 


Graving dock

347.67 metres (1140 feet) x 38.40 metres (126 feet) 
Vessels up to 100,000 DWT 
Cranage to 150 tonnes


Mike.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Kirkhill, in our largest mission in the last 20 years, how many vehicles and of what types did we deploy?

I'm just trying wrap my head around how much capacity we need to transport our non-MBT-based force.

As an example, if we bought two small Ro-Pax Ferries, would that not be able to carry and support just about anything we need to deploy?



Matthew.     ???


----------



## Kirkhill

I can't answer you directly Cdn Blackshirt but when the GTS Katie was coming back from Bosnia she had on board 580 vehicles including 5 Leos and numerous other armoured vehicles as well as 390 ISO Containers according to the BBC   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/865091.stm.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

mjohnston39.....at that rate it seems that both Washington Marine and MIL Davie's yard (assuming that it is in business) could handle something like the Rotterdams (178m x 28m and 12 - 16,000 tonnes displacement) or for that matter the JSS at 200m x 26m and 20,000 tonnes.

Perhaps my outrage was premature and misplaced (it has been known to happen so I am told) but I seem to recall comments at the time the JSS project was raised that Canadian yards might not be able to handle vessels of that size without considerable "investments".  Perhaps my memory, my understanding or the initial concerns were wrong - all possible.

However - it still bugs me that it seems that all of these projects require us to build up civil infrastructure at military expense.


----------



## Mortar guy

It drives me friggin mad how the government forces us to account for everything even remotely related to a project when calculating the costs! If the JSS project management office needs an ergonomic chair for one of their civilian employees, it is calculated in the tally! $2.1 billion _sounds_ like a lot which has the effect of making people (i.e. media, politicians, public) balk at the price tag, when in reality, as someone pointed out, it is less than 2% of our budget over the life of the project. Anyway, I'm just ranting about that.   

What I really wanted to say was this: when I first heard of ALSC (on CID for those who know what that is), the project proposed 4 ships. At the time I thought: we should just buy three of those bad boys and use the money we would have spent on the fourth to buy this: http://www.izar.es/cgi-bin/run.dll/...Type=1016&paginaInclude=/productos/detail.jsp (Wow, that's a long address. Sorry)

Look at the dimensions and displacement. Looks alot like the JSS. I realize they will cost more but _damn_ it would be great if we were back in the carrier game! What do you think?

Alex


----------



## mjohnston39

> at that rate it seems that both Washington Marine and MIL Davie's yard (assuming that it is in business) could handle something like the Rotterdams (178m x 28m and 12 - 16,000 tonnes displacement) or for that matter the JSS at 200m x 26m and 20,000 tonnes.



Thinking about this some more, it seems to me that they have the capacity to handle a build this large, but do they may not have the capability. Recently, Washigton Marine lost a bid to build 140M ferries for BC ferries because it was believed that they didn't have the capability to deliver on time and on budget. I've got a feeling that these ships will be built overseas and fitted out/refitted here.

Mike.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> I realize they will cost more but darn it would be great if we were back in the carrier game! What do you think?



I think we have done the carrier approach to death don't you?


----------



## Kirkhill

> Quote
> I realize they will cost more but darn it would be great if we were back in the carrier game! What do you think?
> 
> I think we have done the carrier approach to death don't you?



Agreed.


----------



## Disillusioned

We should always build things in Canada.....the problem is private shipyards require constatn orders to justify maintaining facilities and staff.....we get tax dollars back from them, but they should be given frequent contracts so Canadians are employed and our technical espertise is on display....nationalized shipyards re-coup all revenue, but require the government to pay to maintain the facilities and staff.


----------



## Mortar guy

> I think we have done the carrier approach to death don't you?



Yeah, sorry about that. I just think it would be such a good idea. I'll try lobbying the defence minister next time I see him in the hallway (which never happens BTW)

MG


----------



## Kirkhill

I am all for Canadian orders going to Canadian yards if the yards can produce a competitive product at a competitive price - and that means leaving competition open to international players as well.

It isn't up DND to build shipyards so that Canadians can build ships.  That may be a valid government goal but it isn't a National Defence goal.

By the way - would all members kindly refrain from using the word Nationalize in my sight or at least supply fair warning - violent visceral reaction may be hazardous to my health.

Cheers, tremblingly.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I am all for Canadian orders going to Canadian yards if the yards can produce a competitive product at a competitive price - and that means leaving competition open to international players as well.
> 
> It isn't up DND to build shipyards so that Canadians can build ships.   That may be a valid government goal but it isn't a National Defence goal.
> 
> By the way - would all members kindly refrain from using the word Nationalize in my sight or at least supply fair warning - violent visceral reaction may be hazardous to my health.
> 
> Cheers, tremblingly.



I'm just going to throw this out there, but doesn't it make sense for the navy to own it's own production/repair facilities (surface fleet only)?

Steal a guy out of Northrup Grumman Ship Systems in the USA to design and build the facility and organization from scratch.

My primary rationale is that if you owned the facilities and much of your production costs were fixed (labour), it then becomes logical to run a serial construction program to keep your guys busy and minimizes the fiscal advantage of deferring programs.



Matthew.     ???


----------



## DJL

> We should always build things in Canada.....the problem is private shipyards require constatn orders to justify maintaining facilities and staff.....we get tax dollars back from them, but they should be given frequent contracts so Canadians are employed and our technical espertise is on display....nationalized shipyards re-coup all revenue, but require the government to pay to maintain the facilities and staff.



Why? Did you, or a combination of you and your family build your home? Your Car? Make your own clothes? Raise/grow your own food? If not, why? Do you not think it prudent to keep your families income within your family?

I've no problem with admitting that I can't do those before mentioned tasks efficiently, and as such, I seek the services of those that can. Why should Canada do any different?

As for returning tax dollars to the government, I'll go one step further.......let's return the tax dollars saved in purchasing foregin built ships to the taxpayers, well getting a quality product.




> I'm just going to throw this out there, but doesn't it make sense for the navy to own it's own production/repair facilities (surface fleet only)?



Look into why the Royal Navy no longer builds it's own ships.


----------



## Kirkhill

Trying a different tack here based on a comment by the PM after reporters jumped him about BMD.

He responded that Canada's priorities were its coasts and approaches, its air space and arctic sovereignty.   He also said to a Liberal fundraiser that Canada could look after its own sovereign spaces it didn't need the US to come up here and do it for us.

So.............

In April the PM announces three JSS vessels capable of navigating 1st year ice.
In June or July there is speculation about a new class of Offshore Patrol Vessels
In August Canada takes its first run in years at an Arctic Ex
The MHP project gets finalized 
An announcement on replacing the YAGs with a Patrol/Training craft that is faster than the MCDVs.

Can we suggest that the focus is going from bluewater anti-sub task to domestic littoral tasks?
If so, and we accept that most domestic threats/tasks can be handled by a light infantry combat team then the JSS makes sense?

Consider some roles and taskings.

In a rerun of this   Summer's Arctic Ex a JSS could transport a Combat Team with OSVs, Bv206s and MSHs to a large portion of the Canadian Arctic and virtually all of the Shores of the Northwest Passage(s)

In EEZ roles a JSS could support   a mix of OPVs with heli support and boarding parties as well as doing coastal patrols on remote shores in support of sovereignty.

In Expeditionary roles it could act either/or as an AOR for a bluewater taskforce or as a lead element in a littoral task force of OPVs, MCDVs and possibly even the SSs, with or without FFHs and with or without troops embarked.

In Humanitarian Roles - such as aid to Haiti or Grenada - it could be deployed on its own from Halifax and be in the Caribbean in about 4 days,   - it could even put to sea in advance of Hurricanes to cut the reaction time.

If looked at in this light even I can start to see the vessel as a versatile piece of kit that will enhance the CFs flexibility.

It will even let us get our feet wet (excuse the expression) conducting unopposed amphibious operations in domestic waters and on humanitarian missions.

The one thing it won't do is let us transport a battle-group to the field.   I think for the forseeable future most kit is still going to go by charter - or by a NATO operated vessel (UK, Norway, Netherlands and some others are already signing bilateral deals to utilize their transport assets).

Maybe in a few years they might let you have a purpose built vessel capable of carrying a battlegroup.

In a related thought it might be possible that the government will buy some heavy lift aircraft (4-6).

Reasons:

During the election PM said "aircraft carriers" were "cold war stuff" and too slow.   The world needed aircraft for rapid response.
Look to the MHP program to see what politicians will do so as not to be caught in an embarassing position with an election coming up.

Aircraft are critical for timely response to domestic crises, both military and civil.

Aircraft are absolutely necessary for Humanitarian Aid Ops where the first 72 hours are critical.   If you are not there in that time your contribution is less effective.
Humanitarian Ops will buy international goodwill, don't require soul-searching debates or approval from the international community.

Half-a-dozen C17s put at the disposal of NATO would be the quid pro quo for not putting ships into the pool.

Buying C17s would demonstrate commitment to defence and international ops to the Americans.

Buying C17s would go some way to evening out the trade imbalance that currently favours Canada and contributes to the falling American dollar.
Buying American would be good politics.

Thoughts for the day, Cheers.

PS Mike thanks for getting back up on line.... Missed you 

PPS another thing that prompted me to start thinking on these lines were the comments by Whiskey and DKL on the Global Cruiser and operating a Chinook.   That suggests that the RN at least is considering that there will a role in the world coming for platoon/company sized interventions to stabilize situations.   In addition to fighting ships and subs or bombarding the shore Her Majesty's Government wants the option to be able to deploy a GunBoat that can launch a flag-raising force along with its missiles.   Our JSSs would allow the despatch of a similar sized or larger force but would require an FFH or DDH to accompany it for firesupport (assuming an armament change).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think you are reading too much into it.
1) The current YAGs were in such need of replacemen it was only a matter of time as for a patrol craft there was a picture of the ORCA in the Maple Leaf (Proposed pic) and you won't get any more then a .50 at best on it.
2) As for the OPVs it makes economical sense to free up the CPFs from patrol duties and use them in showing the flag so to say during offshore deployments.
3) As for the JSS being a versatile piece of kit all you have to do at look on what they want it to do. We have used our AORs in the past for disaster relief why would we not continue to do so?


----------



## Kirkhill

> Insert Quote
> I think you are reading too much into it.



Probably.  But I enjoy speculating. 

Cheers.


----------



## FSTO

Inch said:
			
		

> Of course not... just like the Navy is not flying, or maintaining, the Maritime Helicopters.
> 
> We're not under Navy command. Our command still lies at 1CAD. We're just attached to the Navy when we're embarked.



It would be far easier for the Navy to take over Naval Aviation (as it should be) than it would be for the Army to become sailors.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Actually, I think Kirkhill's analysis was well thought out and may accurately predict the future. We all know what "should be", therefore we can predict the future: "should be": will never happen. Despite whatever plans the gov. may put to paper for single hulls etc. I think it's a pretty safe bet that the blue water fleet will shrink while withering on the vine, along with the missions associated with it. The single hull concept is illusory at best, and more likely a disaster in the making, if anything is made at all. The JSS was/is an easy choice to make, because it will never kill an enemy, and certainly won't ever carry a tank to a foreign shore, will it? RAS'ing 20 year old semi modernized CP frigates until they are extinct will be the extent of it's blue water mission, after that they may well be an arctic superstore to OPV's and corvettes while the world passes us by.         

The politics of Canadian defence are turning inwards towards protecting our own eez and coasts. Despite the rhetoric of PM, Canadians and their politicians don't give a flying you know what about showing the flag internationally anymore, but they will definitely get their backs up WRT our own lands, coasts and water. I think they will ultimately go cheap[er], and build oversized, politically correct under armed corvettes- in other words littoral in the true sense of the word, without the associated potential for the violent response to make the necessary effective statement. Of course, that would be a mistake since nothing else better conveys a message that reads "f**k off and don't even think about coming into our waters" than a 6000 tonne destroyer and squadron of FFG's, backed up by air and flexible submarine offence/backstop.   [preferably stationed just outside of the potential enemy's harbour!!]

BTW, is there   a predicted world wide shortage of FFG's and DDG's amongst our allies? ... because if there isn't, it's pretty difficult to convince the government and tax payers that we need ships like that to support our allies. Especially since we don't support our own people overseas. Defence, like charity, properly begins at home and some people like to think we live in a condo.   

Too bad only a privileged few see and understand the benefits of what the current Navy does,[or should be doing] but then again it's the Navy's own fault for keeping a low profile until the crap hits the fan. There may be plans for the future, but they aren't set in stone because there is no tangible willingness to commit, partly based on the mis-perception that there is no ongoing threat.    Every military procurement decision carries with it a political risk analysis, and the potential political risks always overrule the actual needs of security and defence.   

I don't mean to sound depressing but if Brock was still alive,with a tear in his eye he would turn his back ... at least he could look his men in the eye and say he tried. Any Brock's out there?


----------



## Inch

FSTO said:
			
		

> We're not under Navy command. Our command still lies at 1CAD. We're just attached to the Navy when we're embarked.



It would be far easier for the Navy to take over Naval Aviation (as it should be) than it would be for the Army to become sailors.


How do you figure? The navy hasn't been flying aircraft in 36 years. Blame it on unification, under unification, all air assets belong to the air element and all naval assets belong to the naval element, so unless you go back to separate forces, you're not going to see Naval pilots any time soon.  If you're talking about the uniform we wear, well you could put a navy uniform on MH crews just as easily as you could put army uniforms on sailors. Either that or you start from scratch and train everyone up. Either way your take on the situation is ridiculous to think one is easier than the other.


----------



## FSTO

Inch said:
			
		

> It would be far easier for the Navy to take over Naval Aviation (as it should be) than it would be for the Army to become sailors.
> 
> 
> How do you figure? The navy hasn't been flying aircraft in 36 years. Blame it on unification, under unification, all air assets belong to the air element and all naval assets belong to the naval element, so unless you go back to separate forces, you're not going to see Naval pilots any time soon.  If you're talking about the uniform we wear, well you could put a navy uniform on MH crews just as easily as you could put army uniforms on sailors. Either that or you start from scratch and train everyone up. Either way your take on the situation is ridiculous to think one is easier than the other.


I should have made my point more clearly. Tranfer the entire rotary wing to the Navy, because in my conversations with most helo pilots is that the fighter jocks who run the airforce do not give a damn about the Maritime Air Dets. The Navy already has the infrastructure, the knowledge and experience to really own maritime air.


----------



## Inch

FSTO said:
			
		

> How do you figure? The navy hasn't been flying aircraft in 36 years. Blame it on unification, under unification, all air assets belong to the air element and all naval assets belong to the naval element, so unless you go back to separate forces, you're not going to see Naval pilots any time soon.   If you're talking about the uniform we wear, well you could put a navy uniform on MH crews just as easily as you could put army uniforms on sailors. Either that or you start from scratch and train everyone up. Either way your take on the situation is ridiculous to think one is easier than the other.


I should have made my point more clearly. Tranfer the entire rotary wing to the Navy, because in my conversations with most helo pilots is that the fighter jocks who run the airforce do not give a damn about the Maritime Air Dets. The Navy already has the infrastructure, the knowledge and experience to really own maritime air.

Ah, seen. Though to be perfectly honest, at least the jet jocks know a thing or two about flying, even if they don't give a damn about us. The Navy doesn't have that knowledge and is no better demonstrated than the constant complaints about the crew rest that the MH dets get. If they had a schmick about flying, they'd understand why we need it, moving in 3 dimensions at 3 times the speed of a Frigate is why. The crew rest is mandated by 1 CAD, I highly doubt the Navy would have the same concern.  An exhausted aircrew leads to crashes and fatalities. Sure you could mandate that from the Navy standpoint, but how many changes of command would that survive without an aircrew perspective from higher up?

On top of that, the fishheads would have to put up with the possibility of having pilots as commanders, you can't just top a pilot at LtCol/Sqn Comd level. Like that would ever fly (pardon the pun) with the navy types.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

On the flip side can you imagine a naval captain with no aviation experience being put in command of helicopter squadron? The system works why mess with it?


----------



## FSTO

Inch said:
			
		

> I should have made my point more clearly. Tranfer the entire rotary wing to the Navy, because in my conversations with most helo pilots is that the fighter jocks who run the airforce do not give a darn about the Maritime Air Dets. The Navy already has the infrastructure, the knowledge and experience to really own maritime air.
> 
> Ah, seen. Though to be perfectly honest, at least the jet jocks know a thing or two about flying, even if they don't give a darn about us. The Navy doesn't have that knowledge and is no better demonstrated than the constant complaints about the crew rest that the MH dets get. If they had a schmick about flying, they'd understand why we need it, moving in 3 dimensions at 3 times the speed of a Frigate is why. The crew rest is mandated by 1 CAD, I highly doubt the Navy would have the same concern.  An exhausted aircrew leads to crashes and fatalities. Sure you could mandate that from the Navy standpoint, but how many changes of command would that survive without an aircrew perspective from higher up?
> 
> On top of that, the fishheads would have to put up with the possibility of having pilots as commanders, you can't just top a pilot at LtCol/Sqn Comd level. Like that would ever fly (pardon the pun) with the navy types.



well having the Navy run maritime air seems to work everywhere else in the world?

Okay, here is how it goes:
Everyone goes to Venture do MARS training get a BWK (pers desig as pilots could go as far as MCDV BWK)
Pilot/Air Navigator/FNO/AAWD/SAC/ASWD/ all director level course (if you wash out of pilot training we still have a guy to go do a D level)
Pilot can become Air Det Commander or squadron Cdr if so desired 
Pilots who want to become Ship CO's go on to ORO course
Get command qualified 
Ships XO
Ships CO

There would be some hiccups (maybe alot!)
Would this happen? Never
Just like the Armed Forces able to do joint ops if the attitude on this board is any reflection of the mind-set.


----------



## Inch

FSTO said:
			
		

> Ah, seen. Though to be perfectly honest, at least the jet jocks know a thing or two about flying, even if they don't give a darn about us. The Navy doesn't have that knowledge and is no better demonstrated than the constant complaints about the crew rest that the MH dets get. If they had a schmick about flying, they'd understand why we need it, moving in 3 dimensions at 3 times the speed of a Frigate is why. The crew rest is mandated by 1 CAD, I highly doubt the Navy would have the same concern.   An exhausted aircrew leads to crashes and fatalities. Sure you could mandate that from the Navy standpoint, but how many changes of command would that survive without an aircrew perspective from higher up?
> 
> On top of that, the fishheads would have to put up with the possibility of having pilots as commanders, you can't just top a pilot at LtCol/Sqn Comd level. Like that would ever fly (pardon the pun) with the navy types.



well having the Navy run maritime air seems to work everywhere else in the world?

Okay, here is how it goes:
Everyone goes to Venture do MARS training get a BWK (pers desig as pilots could go as far as MCDV BWK)
Pilot/Air Navigator/FNO/AAWD/SAC/ASWD/ all director level course (if you wash out of pilot training we still have a guy to go do a D level)
Pilot can become Air Det Commander or squadron Cdr if so desired 
Pilots who want to become Ship CO's go on to ORO course
Get command qualified 
Ships XO
Ships CO

There would be some hiccups (maybe alot!)
Would this happen? Never
Just like the Armed Forces able to do joint ops if the attitude on this board is any reflection of the mind-set.

Sure, the navy runs air ops everywhere else, how many of those countries have separate forces and not unified forces? But just to put this to rest, I'll ask my USN Pilot coworker how things work down there, I'd be willing to bet it's pretty similar to here except they wear the same uniform. 

Maybe you can explain why a pilot would need a bridge watch keeping ticket and only on an MCDV that we'd never be deployed on? Is that so we can do watch after a full day of flying? Sounds like we'll get our crew rest alright. Or are you trying to say that MARS training isn't that difficult that a Pilot could learn it too on top of all the flying related stuff?

So, on top of 2 + years of pilot training, you're going to throw MARS training in there, plus university, BOTC, & SLT for a total time in the system of what? 8 years? I'm sure you'd have recruits banging down the door. I know I would have told you to stuff it and I would have went TacHel or Multi.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> There would be some hiccups (maybe alot!)
> Would this happen? Never
> Just like the Armed Forces able to do joint ops if the attitude on this board is any reflection of the mind-set.



I love how people imply we are closed minded to new ideas if we point out flaws in their ideas, don't you Inch?


----------



## Inch

You know I do!  ;D


----------



## hugh19

Ok I may be a big history buff but, when the fleet air arm was around prior to unification. Loe and behold pilots after there first tour flying went to a ship and got there BWK. Then went back to flying another tour. BY the late 60's most ships had a Pilot as a CO.

Scary but true.


----------



## Inch

sledge, thanks for the info. The point I was making is that unless you're actually doing watches, what's the point in having a BWK as part of the initial training? We're not going to be doing watches during a flying tour, and from an individual standpoint, I'd much rather have the option to fly other aircraft than be railroaded into a Navy job that I didn't want nor ask for.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I believe the correct term is "press ganged." 

"Railroaded" was the term for "volunteers" who built wooden boardwalks for supplies in Flanders.


----------



## FSTO

Inch said:
			
		

> sledge, thanks for the info. The point I was making is that unless you're actually doing watches, what's the point in having a BWK as part of the initial training? We're not going to be doing watches during a flying tour, and from an individual standpoint, I'd much rather have the option to fly other aircraft than be railroaded into a Navy job that I didn't want nor ask for.



Its called having a full appreciation of what is involved in the naval environment. Being a Sailor first and a tradesman second. Why do you think there are things called "all ship" evolutions? Like RAS, coming alongside, coming to a buoy, coming to anchour, light jackstays, etc. The one of the best things that I see is when a purple trade (who we use as a part ship communicator) comes on a ship thinking that all they are going to do is logistics, paperwork, or cooking and they find out they are doing a myriad of things from fire fighting to boatwork.
The BWK gives you the perspecitive of what the OOW has to do up there to ensure that you have a safe deck to land on. Or why the OOW is not giviing the LSO a green deck because of numerous other actions going on that has a higher priority than the helicopter,
Why not do watches during a flying tour, especially when the helo is busted? Which looks like that will be the norm until the Cyclones get into service.
Air Crew rest, as a BWK standing 1 in 3, sailing in zero vis, the entire crew your responsibility, do you not think they need some  mandated down time. Then on top of this all of the admin work that we have to do, on top of our regular watches and you wonder why the Wardroom rolls their eyes when you guys go on about how tired you are.

Anyway as I said above, this will never happen and don't even think that we are actually unified. The only combined ops that the CF does is the navy with air dets and tac hel (which with the Griffon is more air recon than anything really tactical).


----------



## Garbageman

FSTO said:
			
		

> The BWK gives you the perspecitive of what the OOW has to do up there to ensure that you have a safe deck to land on. Or why the OOW is not giviing the LSO a green deck because of numerous other actions going on that has a higher priority than the helicopter,



By this logic then, shouldn't all MARS types go through Portage for lead-in flight training?  After all, it would give them the perspective of what the MH types are doing.

Let's get realistic here - MOCs have a specific role, and can't be expected to know how every other MOC that they interact with will behave.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

You guys can argue this all you want, but I can't ever see us undoing unification.   Should MH aircrew be OOW quailifed?   Technologically, it is a different era.   Aircrew have a much more complicated aircraft than ever before to learn and understand.   That takes time.   Ships are also much more complex than in the 1960s, so I think that it is much harder to be an OOW now.   

FTSO, I don't understand your points about OOW/aircrew relations.   On every ship I have ever sailed on, we have made it a point for the new aircrew to get a general feel for what an OOW is faced with.   We also take every OOW for a flight (it is in their req book) so they see our problems.

I fully understand the "crew rest" issue for BWKs and have always argued that the Navy needs to think about it, too.   I have seen some really stupid things happen on a ship because the OOW was exhausted.   The Navy chain of command, however, does not seem to be ready for these kinds of rules.

As for having pilots or Navs stand as OOWs while helo is broken- huh?   Every ship that I am aware of on the West Coast now sails a 1-in-8 rotation for BWKs (for non-naval types, that is 4 hours on the bridge in every 32 hours) because there are so many officers in the fleet who require consolidation time and no sea time to do it in.   You would like to see maybe a 1-in-10 rotation?

Look, for what it is worth, I consider myself to be more of a "naval aviator" than I do a member of the air force.   It has more to do with attitude than uniform colour, in my opinion.

Cheers.


----------



## FSTO

Garbageman said:
			
		

> By this logic then, shouldn't all MARS types go through Portage for lead-in flight training?  After all, it would give them the perspective of what the MH types are doing.
> 
> Let's get realistic here - MOCs have a specific role, and can't be expected to know how every other MOC that they interact with will behave.



We can go on and on here and as I said before, this will never happen. But saying all that, if I was the PM or MND then this is what I would do,
(and this will ruffle a lot of feathers and mud ;D) The government finally decides that we will take a more acitvist role in the world (UN and Martins L12 concept) and asks how we could best get people to where they are needed and support them. The MND looks around and sees that the best way to project your nations intrest is with a (no surprise here coming from me) Navy.
Using the Royal Navy as the model. 
The Fleet
Fleet Air Arm
Marines.

Cry Havoc and let loose the feathers and mud of environmental indignation!!!!


----------



## Cloud Cover

FSTO said:
			
		

> if I was the PM or MND then this is what I would do,



Ok, so you're not in politics. A little more info in your forum profile might go a long way.  Thx.


----------



## Sam69

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Look, for what it is worth, I consider myself to be more of a "naval aviator" than I do a member of the air force.  It has more to do with attitude than uniform colour, in my opinion.



I really don't want to wade into this debate but I gotta say D that your last point brought a tear to my eye.  

Great post.

Sam


----------



## Cloud Cover

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I think we have done the carrier approach to death don't you?



Couldn't resist: might this be a possible carrier option if the USN would be so kind as to sell it to us? Cheers.


----------



## Inch

FSTO, I never said OOW's didn't need crew rest, I'm not too sure where you came up with that. As for everything else, I'm with the rest of the boys, MARS do their job, we'll do ours. Every non-aircrew type seems to think that we should do more wrt to their trades yet they have no inclination to do a basic air ops course to know what we can and can't do. You yourself said it "full appreciation", so let me get this straight, only aircrew needs to have full appreciation? Well hell, why aren't we running the military then? I can't wait to be the CO of a ship since I'll be one of the few that understand MH ops and ship evolutions in detail, I should get there pretty quickly.

It was a MARS officer that said to me one time after hearing what we do, "man, I had no idea you guys did that stuff", I asked what he thought we did and his response was " I dunno, joyride for 2.5 hrs?". 

When I see a MARS officer sitting in my AOI class, then I'll be a little more open to learning their job. After all, why should I know their job while they can be ignorant of mine? 

PS, if you don't know what an AOI is, then you need to work on the full appreciation thingy.


----------



## FSTO

Never accused you of saying that  OOW's, didn't need crew rest. I'll leave it at that.

Nice things about forum like this is that ideas can be brought fwd and debated to an extent that would be unthinkable at the federal cabinet level.

What was this thread orig. about? Oh yea, Anphib capability of JSS.
From my conversations with some of the higer ups, there is a huge debate on weather or not there will be a stern ramp for LCVP's to enter to embark troops and equipment. There is a fair amount of space that is lost for the docking area and flooding tanks.

More on this later, off to Singapore for a week!

Been a pleasure.


----------



## Kirkhill

> there is a huge debate on weather or not there will be a stern ramp for LCVP's to enter to embark troops and equipment. There is a fair amount of space that is lost for the docking area and flooding tanks.



Interesting parting shot FSTO.

The observation of course demands the question "How Joint is this Joint Support Ship?".     Or is it just another AOR by another name?

Cheers ;D


----------



## Jungle

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The observation of course demands the question "How Joint is this Joint Support Ship?".     Or is it just another AOR by another name?


The more we discuss this, the more it seems like it cannot work... Not that we won't "make it happen", we always do...   :
But there seems to be so many compromises to accomodate everyone, I am not sure it is possible to make it work. I'm starting to think we need 2 different platforms for 2 very different sets of tasks. I know Ex-Dragoon, we don't have the manpower, (are we supposed to say personpower now ??) but that's not my problem... 
In the end, the JSS will be a Navy asset, and the Army will only get one when the Navy is ORDERED to provide it... We are still very far from joint, and there is little push to improve things. We are still stuck in inter-service rivalry, almost 40 years after unification...


----------



## Kirkhill

> In the end, the JSS will be a Navy asset, and the Army will only get one when the Navy is ORDERED to provide it... We are still very far from joint, and there is little push to improve things. We are still stuck in inter-service rivalry, almost 30 years after unification...



The question then becomes who will do the ordering.  Who can rise beyond their uniforms and make such an order sure in the knowledge that it will be wholeheartedly accepted and implemented?

Or is this a case where the decision on war is too important to be left to the Generals and Admirals?  Do we need a politician to take charge of the DND and force Jointness on them?

It would need a politician that would be sympathetic to military culture, understanding of military needs but also be willing to impose discipline on the department.  There are few enough politicians in Canada that would fit that bill.

There might be one however.  Senator Colin Kenny - Chair of the Senate Committee on Security etc (can't remember the full title).  He seems to have grip on the problem and is friendly towards the forces at large.

It has been a while since we had a Senator in an active role in cabinet but it is not without precedent.

Rambling off topic and thread here,  perhaps DS want to put this into a separate thread but the obvious connection here is with Jungle's astute observation on imposing Jointness. Paul Hellyer tried it, unsuccessfully, in 1964. About the same time that the Brits tried to do it by abolishing the Admiralty and the War Department and creating the Ministry of Defence.  

Both the Brits and Canada have yet to achieve full "purpleness".  Donald Rumsfeld is striving manfully to "transform" the US military in a "purple" force and I have no doubt that Wes can find examples of anti-joint obstruction in Australia.

It seems that the only time advances are made in jointness is when forceful civilians, acting against the screams of those in uniforms, impose jointness.  Wouldn't it be better, if rather than waiting to be shoved into an undesirable position kicking and screaming that for once the uniformed side took the lead and set out a rational, considered, co-operative programme?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Above all else, and in the absence of any alternatives, this ship's primary mission has nothing to do with "jointness" at all. The fleet in it's present configuratin needs RAS, first and foremost. Unless and until the fleet changes in mission, and nobody knows for sure if it will or will not [not a subject currently being publicly discussed by the Navy, if at all] then RAS trumps all other missions. That is why two platforms makes more sense right now, but we won't do that because of money and manpower. 

In the usual Canadian tradition, some capabiility will be sacrificed to make room for "jointness." I believe the sacrifice will be AAD, others would say " No!: AAD will be found in the single hull concept, becuase that's what the plan says." To which the counter argument is: "concepts are just that: show me something more." In light of that situation, why bother with   "jointness"   at all, lets call it what it is: a barge service. That proposition carries with it a hollow political response [and hence the military one] " we woudn't deploy without allies to provide AAD." To which my personal opinion would be: to heck with jointness, let the army figure it out, becuase the loss of a full spectrum Navy would essentially be the end of the game for Canada as a maritime nation. 

This is not a question of staying relevant to the current international situation, it's a question of long term priorities and making choices, and nobody is really sure what those prioroties are, and hence what choices have to made.     "Sucks to be the Navy"   right now, somebody needs to come out swinging, problem is Navy floated the JSS/ASLV 14 years ago as a complimentary vessel to the fleet, and not a primary role. Problem was then, and is now, " selective hearing", in and outside of the Navy. 

As Nelson said before the Trafalgar: "if I should die today, let "want of frigates" be written across my chest."  

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Above all else, and in the absence of any alternatives, this ship's primary mission has nothing to do with "jointness" at all. The fleet in it's present configuratin needs RAS, first and foremost. Unless and until the fleet changes in mission, and nobody knows for sure if it will or will not [not a subject currently being publicly discussed by the Navy, if at all] then RAS trumps all other missions. That is why two platforms makes more sense right now, but we won't do that because of money and manpower.





> To which my personal opinion would be: to heck with jointness, let the army figure it out,




Fair enough whiskey.  The Navy shall do as it pleases.  The Army shall do as it pleases.  Presumably you would give the same freedom of manoeuvre to the Air Force.  You didn't really need those CP140s and Sea Kings after all?

As to Canada being a Maritime Nation.  We aren't a Maritime Nation.  Haven't been for a long, long time.  Not since that chap McKay took his designs down south from Nova Scotia and started building "Baltimore" Clippers in the 1850's.

Canada doesn't have a merchant fleet.  It never has.  Its merchant fleet was an extension of the British fleet.  Most of the money that financed it came from Britain  

Canada's naval contribution, has never been adequate (except for a hiccup between 1943 and 1945) to defend its coastal waters and the trade routes that its merchandise was transported on.  Canada's trade first was sheltered by the Royal Navy and British taxes and then by the US Navy and American taxes.

Canada's Navy, like Canada's Army has had the luxury of not being required to actually build a force to defend against threats and preserve the sovereignty of the nation.  It has been able to pick and choose missions that it likes/can afford.  It has never been backed into a corner and forced to take up a defensive posture against something that actually threatens Canada and Canadians directly.  

The more I think about this the more it seems likely that this is the real problem with the CF.  In the absence of a real threat (like the prospect of a hanging in the morning) both Canadian Officers  and Politicians have had the luxury of playing games.  And the games continue....


----------



## Cloud Cover

Kirkhill, you are quite correct. Modify maritime nation to negligent country with three resource rich oceans ripe for plunder, and sea lanes of approach currently unsurveilled after 5pm. I don't disagree with the merchant marine observations, the Income Tax Act never provided incentive for one outside of the Great Lakes. It follows that the RN never actually defended Canada, it defended British commercial interests located in Canada which exported/imported   to/from the motherland. 

If the JSS swiss army knife comes at the price of sacrificing current fleet capabilities, then why proceed? If there is only X amount of dollars available, build or buy smaller AOR's and more frigates/destroyers/subs. 

The Navy needs FFG/DDH capabilities along with MH's, and the MACC is tasked with providing those aircraft. The inverse is not true WRT to the Navy, in fact I would think the circumstances would be rare where the navy supports an air command function, providing of course the tactical thinking still exists that shipborne ASW is still a naval prerogative.* They should just build a straight AOR replacement and get it over with. The army will be no worse off in terms of it's relationship with the Navy, and certainly the country will be no less defended by the army whether the ship is built or not. But, to sacrifice overtretched AOR functions for new army missions is meritless in terms of planning for purely naval ops, which constitute the bulk of deployments. Unless of course the JSS is intended primarily for domestic operations, which presumably would alter the surface fleet matrix as you described above in an earlier post.

In any event, the JSS will likely need the protection of frigates and destroyers when delivering army gear, and those same ships require lots of fuel and supplies if the mission is for a measure of time beyond a few weeks at any distance away from home port. If the JSS is going to deliver army gear in benign environments only, then why have frigates and ddestroyers and friends with same, at all?     I'm not saying the army shouldn't have access to a sea to shore capability, it just shouldn't be in the form of a reduced gas tank apparently rendered undefended by a reduced FFG fleet. 

A quad set of small 4500 tonne LPD's located in one port, perhaps manned by the reserves as required, would be the better option, along with a six pack of 12000 tonne tankers, split equally on each coast. Total tonnage = ~ 90, 000. Same as three fully loaded JSS.   Arguably, with a bit of legislative tinkering, these ships could be manned by reserves [LPD] and civvies [AOR]. 

As for Canada not having to defend itself, I never once saw a Delta IV or Victor come up to the surface and have a BBQ within sight of Vancouver or Whidbey Islands, or   47 °44'45"N 122 °43'40"W, but I know we had a few steaks on the quarterdeck looking for them!! Couldn't speak to whether that's the case right now, but it would be imprudent to risk it just so another  country  might be blessed with the guys in green arriving in theatre courtesy of the Navy.     Those are just my thoughts, unpopular as they are. Cheers.            

* I don't think the CP 140 ever was a navy asset per se: those squadrons formed from the RCAF Maritime Air Command Argus-Neptune lineage. The Sea Kings and Trackers came from the former RCN Fleet Air Arm.   I could be wrong, but I think until the 1980's, even the Trackers had FAA VF squadron numbers until their mission changed from ASW. [not sure why Sea Kings went 400 series, but somebody will explain, I'm sure]


----------



## Kirkhill

Now we start to agree Whiskey.   

But instead of 6x12000 AORs + 4x4500 LPD (Reserves) = 90,000 how about 4x12000 AORs and 3x14,000 LSD (Reserves) = 90,000?  Actually to get started I would even settle for 6x 12000 AORs and 1x 18,000 LSD.

And no, I don't think we should be out of the sub-hunting business but we have a lot more to do than just hunt subs.

All the best.


----------



## canuck101

What about 4 The Patino auxiliary oiler and multi-product replenishment ships at 17040 full load
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/patino/

and 2 LST 4001 Osumi at  8900ton
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/osumi.htm

What do you think of those as different options.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Okay, I'm getting worried.   Kirkhill annd W601 are beginning to agree on things...


----------



## Kirkhill

Shhh.  Don't tell anyone else.


----------



## STONEY

1. I believe that jss is still  pretty much a concept and or a work in progress, the final configuration  is by no      means anywhere near final. Requests for proposals haven't been issued yet and may not be for years yet. Then a final design has to be worked on and a contractor picked and a build plan set out so we have many moons still to go.
2. Can it be built in Canada?  God knows. Weather a yard has a large floating dock or not means nothing as we have to build the thing not fix it. Warships built today are put together using pre outfitted mega modules or building blocks of several hundred tons requiring large cranes to lift them in place. The yard requires plasma welding machines and steel plate shaping machines and the workforce to operate them plus all the CAD/CAM design shops to run everything. Too bad Saint John Shipbuilding who built the present AOR'S & most of the CPF'S and had all the expertise is now closed due to lack of buisness. If the west coast yards can't build a ferry on time and budget this could be their chance to tackle a JSS and  go over time and over budget & create another Defence boondoggle.
3. If you can remember back that far , when the present AOR'S were built they were touted as having the capability of embarking troops . They carried landing barges and had cranes to offload vehicles and equipment but over the years when this was exercised it proved of very limited use. i.e. with the flight deck covered with vehicles it proved difficult to operate helo's.  
4. The JSS will be at best a compromise. Naval planners know they stand a snowballs chance in hell to get 3 AOR'S & a couple trooplift ships out of the GOV.  so they settle for JSS just as they knew they would not get new subs so begged for second hand one's and refitted them on a shoestring budget.
5. I wonder how the AUSSIES are managing to get 3 new air-defence & command ship destroyers + a new tanker + 2 new LHD's (they look like aircraft  carriers but they ane not just as everything with a track isn't a tank as the media seems to call them)  + new main battle tanks + new lav's  + new subs  and the list goes on & on .  This from a country smaller than Canada in both population and GDP.

Just a few points i thought i'd throw in the discussion pot.

CHEERS


----------



## bossi

canuck101 said:
			
		

> I was just wondering has anyone seen or heard anything new on the JSS ships since the election promises were made.



Oh, what a coincidence ... a Brit-built ship just "happens" to be conducting cold weather trials in our neighbourhood... and so ironic, too:   





> "... The trials are an important milestone on the road to completing full acceptance of the ship's _novel all electric power plant_.   ..."


 (... sigh ... and the V-22 Osprey just finished some cold weather trials here, too ... what a pair THEY'D make ...)

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2005/01/19/fMetro118.raw.html



> Wednesday, January 19, 2005 Back The Halifax Herald Limited
> 
> *British ship to visit port *
> 
> The Royal Navy's amphibious assault ship HMS Albion will arrive in Halifax on Thursday for a four-day visit.
> 
> Albion acts as the command platform for the navy's amphibious task force.
> 
> The warship transports, deploys and recovers troops, and their equipment and vehicles, that form part of an amphibious assault force. It usually travels with a crew of about 370.
> 
> The ship is capable of taking 256 staff or troops (with an additional 405 troops in overload) and their associated vehicles and combat supplies.
> 
> Its vehicle deck can hold 31 large trucks and 36 smaller vehicles and their trailers. Albion can also carry armoured vehicles, including the 70-tonne Challenger II tank.
> 
> The vessel also has a flight deck capable of operating two helicopters at a time, with a third aircraft parked.
> 
> The warship sailed from the U.K. on Jan. 12 and is going to Canada and the United States for cold-weather trials.
> 
> It is the Royal Navy's on-call amphibious flagship and can be sent anywhere in the world at short notice.


----------



## Kirkhill

bossi

If I am not mistaken that means that between April of last year (when the JSS project was announced) and now Halifax has seen a Brit LPD, a French LPD and, IIRC, an American LPD.  Not sure about the American.

Perhaps some of the Naval types can comment on the accuracy of this observation and whether this is unusual or does Halifax regularly see this class of foreign vessel visiting?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Actually it was the entire Saipan Strike Group about a month and half ago. Its not unsual to see foreign warships of any class and type come into Halifax. It usually happens every couple of months, sometimes more sometimes less frequently depending on whats going on in the world.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for the clarification Ex-Dragoon.

I understand that foreign vessels are a fairly common sight in Halifax but are the LPD sightings more frequent than previous?

Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Usually get 2 or more amphibs a year.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks again for the clarification.  Just goes to show how you can get a distorted view if you rely on reports from the Media.

So the only thing we can take from increased reports is increased Media interest.  Can we infer, in Canada, increased political interest?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Thanks again for the clarification.   Just goes to show how you can get a distorted view if you rely on reports from the Media.
> 
> So the only thing we can take from increased reports is increased Media interest.   Can we infer, in Canada, increased political interest?



I would say closer to it being a slow newsday.


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> .....   Can we infer, in Canada, increased political interest?



its nice to have dreams.........


----------



## Kirkhill

> its nice to have dreams.........



Sometimes that is all that is left....


----------



## STONEY

Then again some dreams become nightmares.

It seems the Brits had to retire their previous LHD early and the world situation being what it was they requested the shipyard building HMS Albion to speed up delivery. Now the yard building Albion hadn't built Navy ships for awhile so its workers were not used to stringent navy construction standards and the ship was being built to commercial structural standards so the results are not entirely satisfactory.  The Royal Navy was in such a hurry to rush these ships into service that they accepted them from the builders with a long string of defects. The electrical cable runs done poorly especially where they passed through watertight bulkheads ( shades of HMCS Chicoutimi)  , shoddy construction work (poor standard of welding) , the hull will probally require strenthening especially below the bridge and in general the vessel seems too lightly built to stand up to battle conditions but only time will tell. We are not the only one's cutting corners to save $$$$ at the expence of ????

cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't know what it is about Brits and electrics.  They just don't seem to get them.  

Brit houses, Brit cars, Brit subs and now Brit boats.


----------



## bossi

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I don't know what it is about Brits and electrics.   They just don't seem to get them.
> 
> Brit houses, Brit cars, Brit subs and now Brit boats.



Yup - I'll never forget my friend's MG; it was pure shyte in wet weather (not like there's any of that in Britain), and he actually had to carry two batteries ...

And, when I was living in England, the electrical wiring was frightening ... (I've got much more confidence in our CSA and building codes, when enforced)


----------



## karl28

If you whant some more info on the JSS program there is a GOV site called www.sfu.ca/casr/101-ointro.htm its got info on all sorts of millitary projects


----------



## Infanteer

That isn't a government site, it is an independant "think-tank".


----------



## Cloud Cover

I thought we were a think tank.

"tanks ... I think?"


----------



## Navalsnpr

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That isn't a government site, it is an independent "think-tank".



Definitely true!!

The page is maintained by a defence analyst and professor of political science at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.


----------



## karl28

Oops sorry about that thought that the web site was Gov but does have some good info


----------



## Navalsnpr

Though it isn't a Gov't website, the website does have some good information.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Navalsnpr said:
			
		

> Though it isn't a Gov't website, the website does have some good information.



Not to mention some real out to lunch information as well. CPFs as OPVs come on what were they smoking?


----------



## Navalsnpr

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Not to mention some real out to lunch information as well. CPFs as OPVs come on what were they smoking?



That must of been something they thought of after their Friday Lunch at the local tavern!


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Apparently the Aussie's, yet again, assign different priorities to their defence dollars.

Tanker converted at a cost of 60 MAUSD to fill RAS role.


----------



## Grimey

It seems that our Aussie cousins realy have their siht together.  Probably been covered by upteen threads already, but i wonder what the catalyst was that has them taking defense seriously, as opposed to us.

Incidentally, i served with a new Naval Cadet undergoing OJT out of Esquimalt over ten years ago.  He had written a service paper on the need for a Canadian marine battalion.  A really good read.  He was originally from HK.  His old man had been the first oriental Wessex pilot in RN and had spent much of the mid sixties inserting RM's and 22 SAS into Borneo.


----------



## Kirkhill

> It seems that our Aussie cousins realy have their siht together.  Probably been covered by upteen threads already, but i wonder what the catalyst was that has them taking defense seriously, as opposed to us.



I'm betting it is having Indonesia sitting just off their Northern Coast with a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists in the country and China not very far away.

But you're dead right.  They do have a sense of urgency and practicality that we lack and need to develop in a hurry.


----------



## Grimey

Come to think of it:

-They avoided Amalgamation like the plague
-Where involved in Korea like us, plus Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam, GW 1 and 2 on the ground (unlike us)
-have avoided the morale sappin', boyscout with guns, higher Moral standard bull shit that our government purveys.


----------



## Jungle

Part of the answer is likely here: http://www.vuw.ac.nz/css/docs/briefing_papers/ET.html


----------



## Kirkhill

Great reference Jungle, Thanks.


----------



## Grimey

Good read, although they missed mentioning Protecteur's contribution and the company of Vandoos.


----------



## Jungle

They missed a lot more: there were 20 countries in INTERFET. The paper is about Aus and NZ capacity to defend themselves, not other's.


----------



## mjohnston39

From the National Post



> Canada's top general says he needs a big amphibious expeditionary warship to realize his plans for a Canadian task force to take our navy, army and air force anywhere in the world for everything from humanitarian missions to all-out wars.
> 
> General Rick Hillier outlined his ambitious plan for the Canadian Forces in an interview with the National Post yesterday, a plan that will require a top-to-bottom reorganization of all three services and an infusion of new soldiers and equipment.
> 
> "We're talking about taking army task forces, navy task groups and air capability ... and have it ready to deploy either in Canada or around the world as an entity that says 'Canadian' on it -- a Task Force Maple Leaf if you will," Gen. Hillier said, adding with a smile: "I like that name."
> 
> Gen. Hillier, who was sworn in as Chief of Defence Staff less than two weeks ago, said he will need a big, new vessel to carry up to 1,500 troops, heavy equipment and new air force heavy lift helicopters to international hot spots, and he will need it soon.
> 
> "What we're going to clearly need is the ability to project our men and women and the capabilities that they bring with them around the world," said Gen. Hillier. "We'll have to find something different that allows us to do that. We're still looking, all the options are out there."
> 
> The General said his staff is considering expanding the navy's Joint Support Ship program to fill that role, but is also looking at larger and more expensive vessels to become the flagships of a future Canadian expeditionary force.
> 
> "What we need is something that is going to allow us to project power across the shore, from here to our next theatre of operations, whether that's in the north part of Canada or on the coast of Canada or around the world," he said.
> 
> "Whether our Joint Support Ships can be shaped to give us that capability is the first question we will ask."
> 
> The Joint Support Ship program, a $2.1-billion plan to build three or more vessels by 2011, will combine the roles of a tanker for refuelling other warships at sea, a transport for ground troops and their equipment and an offshore command post or hospital.
> 
> But each of the vessels, which are still on the drawing board, will be able to carry only 200 soldiers and a limited amount of equipment. Their flight decks would be able to accommodate only four medium-sized helicopters.
> 
> So Gen. Hillier said Canada may have to acquire a ship like the Royal Navy's HMS Albion, an 18,500-tonne, 176-metre-long amphibious assault ship that can carry up to 700 Royal Marines and their equipment and armoured vehicles.
> 
> Another possibility is the U.S. Navy's San Antonio class, an even larger troopship and helicopter carrier, but the General said those vessels might be out of Canada's price range.
> 
> "Those U.S. ships are enormously powerful, capable ships without question," he said. "They're also enormously expensive."
> 
> Gen. Hillier said his envisioned task force will also need new heavy transport helicopters to replace the air force's Chinook helicopters that were sold to the Netherlands in the 1990s. "We'll need that medium or heavy lift to move around that theatre of operations," he said.
> 
> Gen. Hillier would not say how much money his over-burdened troops will need from this month's federal budget to begin making his planned expeditionary force a reality, but in his first speech as head of the Canadian Forces last week he was pointedly critical of military underfunding.
> 
> Gen. Hillier acknowledged his plans are "a little bit pre-emptive" of the government's defence policy review, expected to be unveiled this spring to outline the future direction of the military.
> 
> But he does not want to wait before acting and intends to start putting his proposed task force together almost immediately. "We'll build one task force as soon as we possibly can," he said. "I want to get there sooner rather than later, I'll tell you that."
> 
> Gen. Hillier, a 30-year career army officer and veteran of missions in Bosnia and Afghanistan, stepped into the limelight within minutes of being sworn in as the head of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> The General, whose reputation for bluntness has made him a favourite among the rank-and-file members of the military, said yesterday he has no plans to tone down his language or lower his public profile.
> 
> "Canadians realize that the armed forces have a fundamental and valuable role to play -- sometimes they just need to have that articulated a little bit more clearly for them," he said. "As Chief of Defence Staff, part of that role is mine."
> 
> Gen. Hillier denied published reports last month suggesting the army would become the pre-eminent service under his leadership, at the expense of the air force and navy.
> 
> "There are three legs to the stool. You pull one of them away and the stool will tumble: It doesn't work," he said. "There is a role for air force; there is a role for the navy; there is a role for the army, but the best role is when all three are working together and the three-legged stool sits upright nicely."
> 
> And he dismissed concerns in naval circles that Canada's trouble-prone new submarines, including HMCS Chicoutimi, damaged in a fire last year that killed one crew member, could be scrapped.
> 
> "We've got those submarines, they're enormously capable ... and there is an incredible use that we can make of them. So I would say simply, let's get on with it."
> 
> Gen. Hillier admitted that the Canadian Forces' top generals have "a lot of work to do" before his expeditionary force becomes a reality and said the details of his plan have yet to be fleshed out.
> 
> "I have a vision of where we need to go here, but to be able to describe it in specific detail, I'm not quite ready to do that yet," he said.
> 
> But he said he is optimistic that there is more public and political support for the military now than at any time in the past two decades. "I think there's opportunity here, I really do ... I think Canadians have been much better informed and educated about their Canadian Forces; I think our own government committees have laid out very clearly the investment required for the Canadian Forces; [and] I think there's enormous support across our country.
> 
> "We're at the point right now where we can make significant change."


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I like the sounds of this....




Matthew.   ;D


----------



## thomastmcc

Yeah I agree it is interesting maybe canada will do something along the lines of HMS ocean ,built with commercial building methods ,who knows .


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Our MCDVs were built to commercial standards and they are a mess. Pay the extra money and get it done right the first time.


----------



## thomastmcc

HMS ocean is ok for the royal navy ,and a good ship sorry if I upset you it was only a suggestion .


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

No upset was given thomas, just relaying our experience with warships built to commercial standards.


----------



## bossi

Interesting comparisons ... USS Guam, HMCS Bonaventure  and HMS Ocean

Apparently the San Antonia  class cost approx &815 million ... but they sure look good ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Please don't start another carrier debate.   Last time Ex-dragoon tried to kick me in the nuts right through the computer.




Matthew.      ;D

P.S.   Personally, I like the Rotterdam-class as unlike the Albion, it has a proper helicopter hangar which could accommodate (4) Cyclones in addition to carrying a battalion-sized group.   See link for information:   *http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/*


----------



## canuck202

I agree with you Canadian Blackshirt. We need two  Rotterdam class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) 
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/

I also think we should get the licence to build three Patino auxiliary oiler and multi-product replenishment ships. Instead of building those three JSS ships
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/patino/


----------



## FSTO

canuck202 said:
			
		

> I agree with you Canadian Blackshirt. We need two   Rotterdam class Landing Platform Dock (LPD)
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/
> 
> I also think we should get the licence to build *three* Patino auxiliary oiler and multi-product replenishment ships. Instead of building those three JSS ships
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/patino/



I'd make that 4, 2 on each coast.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Quote from: canuck202 on Today at 17:39:27
> I agree with you Canadian Blackshirt. We need two  Rotterdam class Landing Platform Dock (LPD)
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/
> 
> I also think we should get the licence to build three Patino auxiliary oiler and multi-product replenishment ships. Instead of building those three JSS ships
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/patino/
> 
> 
> I'd make that 4, 2 on each coast.



All in favour say "Aye".

Aye.


----------



## Infanteer

Aye


----------



## Jungle

Aye... aye... aye-aye-ayyyye...!?!? 
OK, the Navy can have 4 AORs, but I want 3 LPDs for the Army. We need to be able to deploy 2 at a time: one to support an ongoing mission, and one on high readiness for unforeseen needs. The third one will either be in workup or in dry dock.


----------



## canuck202

So we have two AORs on each coast right.


----------



## mjohnston39

Just a point of interest on the Enforcer (Rotterdam) class LPD: they run about 200M USD ea (I would guess this depends on size etc.), are built to combined military/civilian standards and their hulls may have been built in eastern Europe????


Mike


----------



## canuck101

That sounds like a good price does anyone know what the unit price of the AORs would be.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lsda.htm

I haven't been able to find the price on the AOR but the link above tells the entire story of the Brit built versions of the Rotterdams - Basically bare hull versions with a limited "hotel" capability.

No hangar, no C4, no Hospital.

Unit price as of January 2004 and the UK version of the Auditor-General (the NAO) 91.5 MUKP or 214 MCAD at today's rate of exchange.

Question:   Could the hulls be built bare-bones so as to receive mission dependent modules like the Danish Flex corvettes/frigates?   Keep the costs down and make upgrades easier.

By the way hull steel was cut and modules assembled in the UK with some overload work going to a Dutch yard.  No mention of East Europeans here.  And while the Dutch may have parcelled out their construction I can't see the Spanish doing that with their yards.  They have been getting a lot of the construction work that used to go to Northern European yards since they joined the EU.


----------



## Infanteer

As Kirkhill points out, would a "flexible hull" design maybe allow us to keep costs down and get more out of a serial run.  Using the same basic hull allows us to spit out about 8 Common Hulls, with four being configured for Amphibious Force Projection and four being configured for Fleet Resupply and Sustainment.

I don't know, it seems the idea of the Single Ship Transition project leaves us maneuver room to handle multiple surface combat functions required by a capable fleet (mentioned on this thread: http://army.ca/forums/threads/26436.0.html); perhaps we can do the same with the larger "ferry" type ship (either Army plugs or fleet supplies).

Thoughts?


----------



## Kirkhill

Just for completeness sake here is the site for the yard that built the Rotterdam and is building its younger sister the Johann de Witt. It also built the Amsterdam which is a Patino class AOR.

All of them are on this site.

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/products.html

Note that the Rotterdam and the de Witt are similar but not identical - they complement each other rather than being totally interchangeable.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Notice how the Dutch can lay down a new class of ship and commission it within three or so years?


----------



## Kirkhill

Aint it marvellous?   What ARE they doing wrong?  -  Better send PWGSC over there to correct their mistakes before the Dutchmen get into real trouble.


----------



## mjohnston39

> Notice how the Dutch can lay down a new class of ship and commission it within three or so years?



Dutch yards didn't build her, the Johan de Witt's hull was built in Romania by Royal Shelde's Parent company, Damen, and then fited out in the Netherlands. Still impressive they can order, build and recieve a ship that quickly though. They are definitely doing something wrong 

See page 7: http://www.ibiblio.org/maritime/Pdf/scheepvaartnieuws/2004/okt/218.pdf

As for the Brit built versions they have had many problems, as far as I under stand it, mainly involving the specs changing as they were being built.

Mike.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Quote
> Notice how the Dutch can lay down a new class of ship and commission it within three or so years?
> 
> Dutch yards didn't build her, the Johan de Witt's hull was built in Romania by Royal Shelde's Parent company, Damen, and then fited out in the Netherlands. Still impressive they can order, build and recieve a ship that quickly though. They are definitely doing something wrong
> 
> See page 7: http://www.ibiblio.org/maritime/Pdf/scheepvaartnieuws/2004/okt/218.pdf
> 
> As for the Brit built versions they have had many problems, as far as I under stand it, mainly involving the specs changing as they were being built.
> 
> Mike.



Sounds like a reason to hire the Dutch to do the job for us and just buy their boats.


----------



## big bad john

THE CITIZEN
Latest News


Canadian military should be able to land troops on a hostile shore: analyst
  
John Ward 
Canadian Press 


Monday, February 21, 2005 

OTTAWA (CP) -- The Canadian Forces of the future should have ships capable of landing peacekeeping or peacemaking troops on a hostile shore, a Senate committee was told Monday. 

The ships might be obtained on a lend-lease or rental basis from the United States navy, Richard Gimblett told the senators. 

Gimblett, a retired naval officer and now a research fellow at the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Halifax's Dalhousie University, said these vessels would give Canada a valuable versatility. 

"I don't like to use the word marines, because that conjures up visions of the United States marines landing on Okinawa,'' he said. "These would be sea soldiers.'' 

He said his idea wouldn't involve troops storming ashore like something out of Saving Private Ryan. "For one thing, there aren't that many fortified beaches in the world.'' 

But he does envisage landing against some opposition. 

"The troops should be prepared to meet and project violence when they land,'' he said. 

Gen. Rick Hillier, the new chief of the defence staff, has spoken of giving the military a more flexible capacity to get to trouble spots. Gimblett said landing ships would do that. 

The navy is already planning to replace its existing supply ships, which are basically tankers with some extra storage space for cargo. They cannot carry more than a handful of soldiers and a few small vehicles. 

Gimblett's idea would involve vessels big enough to carry a battalion of troops, their vehicles and supplies to last a few days to let them get established ashore. 

"That's what you need to go in and establish a presence.'' 

He said such a force might be used to seize and open an airport occupied by rebels in some troubled country. Reinforcements could then fly in. 

Ships big enough to carry a significant force of troops aren't cheap, however. 

Gimblett suggested that building one might cost $1 billion. 

However, he said, the United States is building 12 San Antonio class ships known as landing platform docks. These 25,000-tonne vessels can carry 700 soldiers, helicopters and landing craft, as well as supplies and equipment. 

The Americans want to slow the arrival of these ships, as the navy budget gets squeezed to pay for ground operations in Iraq. 

Gimblett said they might be happy to lend or lease one or two to Canada on favourable terms. 

The navy might also want to build its own ships, although he warned against trying to design a Canadian vessel from scratch. 

"To try to design and produce our own, it adds years to the procurement,'' he said. "There are a lot of good designs out there.'' 

Gimblett said financing remains the main problem for the military. The best plans in the world are useless without the money to fund them. 

He said he would like to see a big increase in defence spending in the budget which comes down on Wednesday, but admits he isn't optimistic. 

"I have little confidence that the Canadian Forces will get the funding they need.'' 

© Canadian Press 2005


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

With a supposed extra of 750 million I won't hold me breath for an amphib capability any time soon.


----------



## Kirkhill

Posting this on both this thread and on the Air Force board re helos.

JSSs as advertised with berths for 200 troops AND a leased San Antonio or two?



Military pores over options for new ships, helicopters

By STEPHEN THORNE




Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier comments on the 2005 federal budget in Ottawa Wednesday Feb 23. (CP/Fred Chartrand) 
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's military planners say they might buy or lease surplus U.S. ships to transport troops and equipment to hot spots the world over. 

They are also considering altering the design of new naval supply vessels to get the job done. 

The effort to make Canada's military more mobile is part of the strategy for spending being laid out in a defence policy review that's not yet public. 

Planners also want to purchase medium-lift helicopters to ferry troops and equipment around theatres of operation - but they're discovering the options are limited to some politically distasteful choices. 

One is a reconditioned version of the same Boeing Chinook helicopter Canada unloaded on the Dutch in the early 1990s. Another is the Agusta-Westland EH-101 helicopter, a marine version of which the Liberals cancelled in 1993. 

The chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, will discuss the future of the military Thursday at the Conference of Defence Association's annual meeting in Ottawa, Col. Brett Boudreau says. 

The federal budget last week promised $12.8 billion in new military spending over five years, the bulk of it starting to flow in 2008-09 as the long-awaited policy statement takes hold. 

Senior defence officials say some type of troop-carrying vessel - preferably between a carrier-like amphibious assault ship and a ferry-like roll-on, roll-off vessel - will form part of the $3.8 billion in policy-related expenditures promised but not detailed in last week's spending blueprint. 

The officials, who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity, said amphibious assault vessels, designed for landing troops and equipment on a heavily defended shore, are more ship than Canada needs. 

So-called ro-ro vessels, however, require port facilities to land their cargoes - no good in a tsunami zone, for example - and, alone, are not enough, the officials said. 

One option Canada is considering is the new San Antonio Class ship, known as a landing platform dock, that can deploy a battalion of 700-800 troops, three air-cushioned landing craft and a handful of helicopters. 

The Americans ordered a dozen of the vessels but may only use nine, said Stephen Saunders, editor of Janes Fighting Ships. They will build the other three anyway and may be inclined to sell or lease one or more to Canada. 

"We are looking into that," said a defence official. 

Another option being considered is enlarging the design of the joint support ships, which are barely off the drawing board, and tacking one or two more on the current plans to purchase three, said senior planners. 

The joint support ships, whose primary role is refuelling and resupply, currently can carry up to 200 troops and a limited amount of equipment. 

Saunders said there are drawbacks to both options that are of particular concern to a small military such as Canada's, including how much sea and air support each requires. 

"Most nations that have gone into this expeditionary warfare business have realized that it doesn't just stop at the sharp end," he said. 

"There is a follow-on in order to sustain operations. You need either ro-ro ships or whatever to back up with ammunition, stores, medical - you name it." 

As for expanding the support vessels, "the more you try to squeeze into one ship, the less you get out of it," he cautioned. 

Italy and Spain are among several countries, particularly in NATO, that are reconfiguring their forces to encompass expeditionary capabilities, Saunders said. 

"I would entirely endorse it if that's the way Canada wants to go," he said. "Of course, whether Canada wants to pay for it is entirely another matter." 

The budget includes $2.8 billion specifically for, among other things, 12-18 transport helicopters starting in 2007-08. Those would replace about 15 Chinooks that Canada sold off more than a decade ago. 

Gunter Endres, editor of the online magazine Helicopter Markets and Systems, said the choice of lift helicopters is limited to the Chinook, the EH101 and Eurocopter's NH-90, unless Canada wants to buy Russian equipment. 

In one of his first acts after becoming prime minister in 1993, Jean Chretien cancelled a Tory contract to buy several dozen 101s, mainly to replace aging Sea Kings. 

After acquiring 15 Cormorants - a downscaled version of the 101 - for search and rescue, the Liberals finally committed last July to 28 Sikorsky H-92s to replace the Sea Kings. 

Boeing's workhorse is the biggest of the non-Russian transport choppers, capable of carrying 30 to 50 troops, and may be the best buy of the three, Endres said. The only price he had was $18 million US for the EH-101

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/27/pf-944433.html


----------



## mjohnston39

One problem I see is that the San Antonio class ships need a crew of nearly 400, could the CF get away with less????

Mike.


----------



## Kirkhill

Of that 400 how many might be Ship's Crew and how many might be part of the Command Group?   Is that a possibility?

Actually, the more I think about it the more likely that seems.  In Tom Clancy's book Marine there is a schematic picture of the Notional (at that time - 1996) LPD17 and it indicated that a large portion of the super structure was to be turned over to "Planning Spaces C3".  Likewise, comparing Johan De Witt to Rotterdam, the JdW has considerably more top hamper than the Rotterdam and the yard (Royal Schelde) mentions that a Staff Group of 400 can be carried in addition to 540 troops with vehicles.

I might be inclined to think that a good chunk of that "Ships Crew" of 400 could actually include Joint HQ and Medical Staff in our case.  Not necessarily required to drive the boat and therefore not necessarily Navy.


----------



## mjohnston39

Perhaps, I don't really know. For what it's worth Globalsecurity.org breaks it down as follows

--------   Total/Ship/Troops/Surge/Transient   
Officers        115      33       66          11      6
CPO/SNCO    82      34       42            6      0
Enlisted     1005     330     591        84      0
Total           1202     396    699     101      6

Mike.


----------



## DJL

> Of that 400 how many might be Ship's Crew and how many might be part of the Command Group?   Is that a possibility?
> 
> Actually, the more I think about it the more likely that seems.   In Tom Clancy's book Marine there is a schematic picture of the Notional (at that time - 1996) LPD17 and it indicated that a large portion of the super structure was to be turned over to "Planning Spaces C3".   Likewise, comparing Johan De Witt to Rotterdam, the JdW has considerably more top hamper than the Rotterdam and the yard (Royal Schelde) mentions that a Staff Group of 400 can be carried in addition to 540 troops with vehicles.
> 
> I might be inclined to think that a good chunk of that "Ships Crew" of 400 could actually include Joint HQ and Medical Staff in our case.   Not necessarily required to drive the boat and therefore not necessarily Navy.



I would tend to think that any command staff would come out of the USMC number of 700-800 personnel.

Here's an intresting note from the USN LPD-17 site:

http://www.pms317.navy.mil/index2.asp



> Although LPD 17 is not flagship-configured, it does contain enhanced command and control features and a robust communications suite that greatly improve its ability to support embarked landing forces, Marine Air Ground Task Forces, Joint or friendly forces. The ship's Combat Information Center, Marine Tactical Logistics Center, mini-Intelligence Center, and Troop Operations command and control spaces are equipped with large screen displays and dedicated computer consoles. Removable "smart bulkheads" integrate these spaces to create synergy and the shared knowledge needed to improve operational agility. A separate mission planning space provides the assets for crisis action planning critical to Special Operations Capable missions.



With that, I'd tend to think the number and compostion of command staff would depend on each given mission....



> The LPD 17 Program also took advantage of numerous "Smart Technologies" and optimized-manning initiatives to achieve significant cost avoidance in the operating and support costs of this 12-ship Class. Addressing manning and human-systems integration issues early in the developmental process was absolutely essential, since some 60 percent of a ship's total ownership costs - cradle-to-grave - are linked directly to its operating and support expenses. In response, the LPD 17 was designed for a significantly reduced crew size: the projected manning of 361 men and women is 14 percent less than that of the smaller and far less-capable LPD-4 ships that the LPD 17 Class replaces.



From looking at the crewing requirements from the DoD site, of both the LPD-17 and Austin class (and the above quote), added to the fact that I'd imagine that the majority of any command staff would be based upon the LHD, also the reduction in manning from ditching the steam plants, I'd tend to lean towards the 360 number as being "sans the command staff".


----------



## DJL

I think you beat me to it...........

http://www.pms317.navy.mil/tech/attributes.asp



> Accommodations (Berthing)
> Total Ship Troops Surge Transient
> Officers  115 32 66 11 6
> CPO/SNCO  82 34 42 6 0
> Enlisted  1005 330 591 84 0
> Total  1202 396 699 101 6


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> The budget includes $2.8 billion specifically for, among other things, 12-18 transport helicopters starting in 2007-08. Those would replace about 15 Chinooks that Canada sold off more than a decade ago.



Unless I am missing something we had only 7 Chinooks not 15 IIRC.


----------



## thomastmcc

Hi it would be interesting to know what the outcome will be for the amphibious capability ,but does canada really need it ? would they tag on to the USN antonio class ,it is a good design ,or could it buy heavylift aircraft instead like the A400 or C-17 .


----------



## Cloud Cover

JSS is moving forward: www.merx.com.  DND is already looking for letters of interest  from teams of companies to form up!! It is not  an RFP, but compare the speed of this to the CPF or, heaven forbid, the MHP. It seems the government is very serious about moving this project along with some speed in order to perhaps be operational before the 2009-2011 commitment deadline. Good News!!


----------



## Jungle

So does that mean there are chances we will see the JSS AND some LPD-type ships in the future ? That would be an ideal situation.


----------



## Cloud Cover

AFAIK, nothing has officially changed with the original concept with the JSS. I think the LPD/LPH is being "floated" as a trial balloon for now.


----------



## FSTO

I think with the CDS musing about no need for dedicated heavy airlift then maybe we will be back to a single hull type.
If I am wrong and the CDS musing about a ship that can land and support 1000 troops is true than I cannot see how we could possibly put an AOR capability and Amphib (of that size) capability into one ship. 

Can anyone else? 

Then again this is Canada we're talking about where anything absolutely out of left field can happen ???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

If its true I hope they keep the platforms seperate. *holds breath*


----------



## DJL

> I think with the CDS musing about no need for dedicated heavy airlift then maybe we will be back to a single hull type.
> If I am wrong and the CDS musing about a ship that can land and support 1000 troops is true than I cannot see how we could possibly put an AOR capability and Amphib (of that size) capability into one ship.
> 
> Can anyone else?
> 
> Then again this is Canada we're talking about where anything absolutely out of left field can happen



Though I would never advocate the idea, unless out of necessity, in the past (presnet?) carriers (and USN Battleships) have been tasked with preforming a limited RAS capability for their escorts when no AOR was available or able to keep up with the task group...........Is the CDS thinking about something along the lines of a WASP size LHD taking on these roles for us   ??? I'd hope they would look at more viable, 
off-shore designed and built (thus cheaper) AOR and perhaps a couple of used commercial Ro/Ros for the sealift capability of JSS.....When thats done, (plus the 280 replacement, FFH and SSK upgrades) then start looking at phibs.


That being said, I've read that the Dutch navy was considering a small LHD based on the Enforcer series to replace their older AOR........ ???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Kind of a waste to deploy an amphib to conduct RAS with your frigates and or destroyers if you are deploying to enforce sanctions on another nation don't you think?


----------



## Cloud Cover

AHHHHH! We've beaten this to death so many times!!!

Nevertheless, it seem like the feds want the JSS .. perhaps the LPD/LPH or whatever the heck they decide to call it is going to be a one off separate class of ship in the fleet.


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm in "Wait, Out" mode on this one Whiskey.


----------



## DJL

> Kind of a waste to deploy an amphib to conduct RAS with your frigates and or destroyers if you are deploying to enforce sanctions on another nation don't you think?



Of course, thats why I don't advocate that approach.......thats not too say the CDS shares the same views though, based of the speculation in the press of further mutating the role of JSS to include an enlarged troop carrying capability and DND's track record of doing suspect things.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=83179&ran=138749

USN concepts on Sea-basing.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The gas guzzling, extenda-Tarawa got my attention!!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> The gas guzzling, extenda-Tarawa got my attention!!



Nice but I would hope we would look at something more attainable. The _San Antonios_ are nice as well but I think even they are pushing our envelope.


----------



## mjohnston39

Found these hunting around the JSS project website:

Proposed JSS capabilities (draft)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs/JSS_SRD_for_Concept_Design.pdf

Proposed JSS concepts (some decent schematics and CG images)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs/JSS_Ship_Concept1.pdf


Mike.


----------



## Cloud Cover

2.9.4 Escape and Evacuation The ship shall have four Marine Escape Systems, each with a 200 person capacity.


"Fail to plan, plan to fail."


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I'm just bumping this....

Do we have any new rumblings about JSS or a designated amphibious assault ship?

Thanks,



Matthew.


----------



## mjohnston39

The Joint Support Ship Statement of Operational Requirement (JSS SOR) - June 17

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs_presentations/state_op_require_e.asp

Mike.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Interesting read....

It looks to me like it's pretty well spec'd-out which means our biggest hurdle (delay) is coming from getting the budget allocation to fund it.

Likes:
1)  Build in Canada
2)  Ability to carry 4 Cyclone-sized helicopters per vessel.
3)  Adequate sealift surge capacity

Dislikes:
1)  I'd still prefer separate the resupply ships from the sealift ships (but I'm guessing due to political reasons it's easier to buy 3 new ships than 6).
2)  Procurement model and long leadtime....sounds very similar to the MHP which may scare away some good potential suppliers.
3)  Not enough hulls (would like to see a minimum of 2 per coast as opposed to three in total)

Of note, does anyone know if we pay bidding companies for the design phase?  

To me that would make a lot of sense in that if you're going to separate it into two distinct phases (design versus construction) it is unfair to ask a company to provide their wisdom, experience, time, money and efforts when there is the distinct possibility at the end of the day they will get absolutely nothing out of the deal.  Even it's a nominal amount of $50 million per qualified bidding design team, it just seems like good business practice to me.....

Thanks in advance,


Matthew.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just as a side note, it looks like the Shelde Enforcer 27m beam might be an interesting alternative in that the standard 17,000 tonne version which measures 180m in length, could be modified to add a 20m mid-hull extension (reaching the 200 metre specification) which would contain all the at-sea resupply equipment.

Perhaps Ex-dragoon or others could comment on the direction they're leaning at the moment.



Matthew.    ???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Remember that interest in the Amphib only popped up a few months ago. Requirements, _must haves _ and _would likes _ have to be considered. Will be awhile yet as its not an overnight process.


----------



## FSTO

Was listening to Admiral Maddison on the radio the other day (CKNW in Vancouver) and when the subject of an Aircraft Carrier came up, he was pretty cool to the idea. Now when Joe Six-pack talks about carriers they are thinking that anything with a flat deck, airplane sitting on that deck with a superstructure to the side is a carrier. They don't know or care that there are all sorts from CVN to LHA. 
Now that the CDS is asking for a honking big ship the subject of a ship like the ENFORCER has come up. Personally the Enforcer would be great for us but there is still a fear (I think) in the Navy to bring up anything close to a ship with a full flight deck. Just remember how the liberals slammed the Conservatives when they brought up the subject during the last election.


----------



## Roy Harding

FSTO said:
			
		

> Was listening to Admiral Maddison on the radio the other day (CKNW in Vancouver) and when the subject of an Aircraft Carrier came up, he was pretty cool to the idea. Now when Joe Six-pack talks about carriers they are thinking that anything with a flat deck, airplane sitting on that deck with a superstructure to the side is a carrier. They don't know or care that there are all sorts from CVN to LHA.
> Now that the CDS is asking for a honking big ship the subject of a ship like the ENFORCER has come up. Personally the Enforcer would be great for us but there is still a fear (I think) in the Navy to bring up anything close to a ship with a full flight deck. Just remember how the liberals slammed the Conservatives when they brought up the subject during the last election.



Just a quick one that probably belongs in the political threads, however:  The Conservatives did NOT bring up the subject of an aircraft carrier, they brought up troop carrier.  The Liberals, either through guile or ignorance, translated that into "aircraft carrier".  The Canadian public, being generally ignorant of military matters, bought the "aircraft carrier" red herring hook, line, and sinker.

Sorry to interrupt - please return to  your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## FSTO

Retired CC said:
			
		

> Just a quick one that probably belongs in the political threads, however:   The Conservatives did NOT bring up the subject of an aircraft carrier, they brought up troop carrier.   The Liberals, either through guile or ignorance, translated that into "aircraft carrier".   The Canadian public, being generally ignorant of military matters, bought the "aircraft carrier" red herring hook, line, and sinker.
> 
> Sorry to interrupt - please return to   your regularly scheduled thread.


Thats exactly what I was talking about. The Conservatives were talking about something reasonable that is vital to the defence of Canada IMHO. The Libs turned it into its usual fearmongering and used it to its political advantage. Granted the Conservitives did a poor job explaining the concept. (which proved Kim Campbell's assertion that elections were the wrong time to discuss issues.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The term the Conservatives actually used was _hybrid carriers_. Had they said troop transports and left the term carrier out of it the Liberals would not have been able to capitalize on their gaff in terms.

http://www.robanders.com/Issues/Policy%20Paper%20-%20Defence1.pdf


----------



## mjohnston39

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs/Closing_of_Solicitation_of_Letter_of_Interest.pdf

Mike


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

mjohnston39 said:
			
		

> http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs/Closing_of_Solicitation_of_Letter_of_Interest.pdf
> 
> Mike



Anyone know the proposed operational date for the first vessel?



Matthew.    ???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Anyone know the proposed operational date for the first vessel?
> Matthew.      ???



I'd wait till they start building them before being worried about when they become operational.


----------



## mjohnston39

I seem to recall that construction _should_ begin in 2008 and the first launched/opperational in 2012... I guess it will really depend on funding, political interference and a multitude of other factors. 

Mike


----------



## Allen

Yup. That's the plan according to the "Schedule" on the JSS project site 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/schedule_e.asp


----------



## Kirkhill

Looking at the SOR on the JSS, the picture at the top looks awfully familiar.

Her lines look like Enforcer lines and Royal Schelde doesn't seem too concerned about shopping its designs around to other yards for local building.

As to numbers - 3 must have, 4 nice to have if dollars allow - suggests that the Navy can get its job done with 3 hulls as they used to.  If there is money available for a fourth hull how about building a cheaper ATS (Amphibious Transport Ship) without all the AOR Top Hamper and leave her decks clear.

The fourth dedicated ATS would take the load off the JSSs for container cargo, (if all 3 JSSs are available to lift a Vanguard Battle Group's 7500 l-m then no helo ops are possible as the flight decks and hangars will be full of ISO containers).   Also the JSSs can only hang around to support land operations for 30 days and then likely only one JSS.

3 JSS(AOR) and one JSS(ATS).   Same ships with some modifications.   The ATS doesn't have to be a full flight deck ship.   She could be along the lines of the Bay Class LSD(A)s, the Rotterdam, Johan de Witt, the Galicia, Ocean, Bulwark and San Antonios.   Superstructure forward, flight deck aft.

Howaboutit?

Comparison of the JSS and the Enforcer catalog posted by Blackshirt suggest to me that the lead candidate is probably a 25,000 tonne Enforcer, ice strengthened.   

I wonder how much it would cost to turn them into Double Acting vessels along the lines of Kvaerner-Masa's arctic oil tankers - their hull forms allow conventional running in open seas but the ship can reverse its way through one year ice like an ice breaker.   Perhaps a possibility for the AOR's where there seems to be no intention of a floodable well deck.   As well it would meet that 365 day a year Montreal requirement.

http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/tempera/


----------



## Kirkhill

PS what is the nbsp designator?  Have I contravened some new code imposed in my absence? ???


----------



## Roy Harding

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> PS what is the nbsp designator?   Have I contravened some new code imposed in my absence? ???



NBSP

Short for Non-breaking space, NBSP is commonly used in programming and in HTML that create a space in the program or document without breaking the line the space is on. An example of how a user may insert a NBSP in HTML would be by adding the following HTML tag: 



If you cut and paste an HTML page into and then back out of a text editor which doesn't recognize HTML, the HTML tags (or codes) will be spelled out, rather than implimented.  Not a big deal


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for squaring me away CC.

Cheers


----------



## bossi

Golly Gee ... apparently other countries know how to SPEED UP their acquisition process ...
(but, of course ... the "experts" will find countless ways of telling us why Canada and Australia can't "partner up" on their purchases ... like, for example:  "... an Aussie ship wouldn't be acceptable in Canada because it couldn't possibly meet Canadian bilingualism regulations ..." or even better, "... Canada doesn't need a ship capable of carrying Abrams tanks, and besides - if the Navy doesn't need a "Cadillac" helicopter ... then it certainly doesn't need a ship compatible with our ABCA allies or with surplus capacity)



> Govt advances amphibious ship project
> 13:53 AEST Thu Aug 11 2005
> AAP
> The government launched a competition to build two new amphibious naval ships, alerting local shipbuilders to be ready to tender for the $2 billion project early next year.
> 
> Defence Minister Robert Hill said the contract would only be decided after thorough financial and technical comparisons between Australian bids and overseas options.
> 
> *The project would provide the Navy with two amphibious vessels for combat use, regional disaster relief, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping, peace monitoring and assistance for policing or military missions.*
> 
> Senator Hill said Australian shipbuilders would be invited in the second quarter of next year, to tender for either or both of two designs - the 27,000 tonne Spanish Navantia or the 22,000 tonne French Armaris Mistral.
> 
> "Each ship will preferably be able to transport up to 1000 personnel, have six helicopter landing spots and provision for a mix of troop lift and armed reconnaissance helicopters," he said in a statement.
> 
> "It will also be able to transport up to 150 vehicles including the new M1A1 Abrams tanks and armoured vehicles.
> 
> "Each ship will also be equipped with medical facilities, including two operating theatres and a hospital ward."
> 
> Under the government plan, the new vessels would enter service around 2012.
> 
> Last week Senator Hill warned key local shipbuilders - Tenix, ASC and Austal - the government would prefer the ships be built in Australia, but not at any price.
> 
> He repeated that warning.
> 
> "The government's preference is to see the ships built in Australia. However, Australian industry will need to demonstrate it can deliver the project at a competitive price," Senator Hill said.
> 
> He said the government had given first pass approval to the project and committed $29.8 million towards the design development phase.
> 
> That would enable Navantia and Armaris to now work on defining the requirements for the ships, incorporating essential Australian environmental, safety and technical requirements.
> 
> Senator Hill said the tender documentation would allow bidders to form teaming arrangements with other firms, submit fixed price bids, provide innovative solutions to improve price and schedule, and also bid for support solutions.



http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=57722&print=true


----------



## Cloud Cover

wait for it Bossi ... you never know what might happen. Maybe the Chi-Cheemaun  will come up for sale ..


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Again, I'm left confused as to claims we apparently cannot afford such ships and the Australians can.

Regardless, here's another article from Defence Industry Daily and some photographs....



Matthew.   

========================================================================

Australia Approves 2 Finalist Designs for $2B Amphibious Ships Project
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/australia-approves-2-finalist-designs-for-2b-amphibious-ships-project/index.php#orison_mc
Posted 12-Aug-2005 16:06
Related stories: Air Reconnaissance, Australia & S. Pacific, Contracts - Awards, Design Innovations, Events, Issues - Political, Lobbying, New Systems Tech, Official Reports, Other Corporation, Policy - Procurement, Pre-RFP, Surface Ships - Combat
Also on this day: 12-Aug-2005  » 

HMAS Manoora LPA 
(click to view full) The Australian government has approved the first stage of a $2 billion LHD Amphibious Ships project that will provide the Royal Australian Navy with two new multi-purpose ships that would have air support, amphibious assault, transport and command centre roles. They will replace the Navy's two existing Kanimbla-Class LPAs (HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Manoora) from about 2010, significantly upgrading Australia's force projection capabilities.

The government has now given first pass approval to the project and committed $29.8 million towards the Design Development Phase. The finalist ship designs include:

Spain's Navantia has designed a new LHD ship at approximately 27,000 tonnes. 
France's Armaris is offering its Mistral-Class LHD ships with modifications for additional troop carrying capability, at approximately 22,000 tonnes. See also A study on the feasibility of local construction of an LHD/assault and command ship for the Royal Australian Navy [PDF file] 

Navantia LHD Mockup






Each ship will preferably have the ability to transport up to 1000 personnel, have six helicopter landing spots and provision for a mix of troop lift and armed reconnaissance helicopters. It will also be able to transport up to 150 vehicles including the new M1A1 Abrams tanks and armored vehicles. Finally, each ship will be equipped with medical facilities, including two operating theaters and a hospital ward.

For comparison purposes, the USA's Wasp-class LHDs are 42,000 tonnes, and the proposed LHA-R would weigh in at 50,000 tonnes.


Mistral-Class LHD





Australia's selection tradeoffs include the fact that the Navantia LHD would have a greater carrying capacity, but construction of the first ship has only just started in Spain. In comparison, the French Aramis-Class ship has slightly less carrying capacity but has been built and is undertaking its final tests with the French Navy. A number of observers believe the Navantia design has a slight edge at this point in the competition.

Australian shipbuilders will be invited to tender for either or both of two designs, and a Request for Tender will be released to the Australian shipbuilding industry in the second quarter of 2006. 

Funding for the program's Design Development Phase will enable Navantia and Armaris to work on defining the requirements for the ships, incorporating necessary Australian environmental, safety and technical requirements. The tender documentation will allow bidders to make teaming arrangements, propose innovative solutions to improve price and schedule, submit a fixed price bid submission, and bid through life support solutions.

Nonetheless, overseas build options will be considered and to quote Defence Minister Sen. Hill: "The Government's preference is to see the ships built in Australia, however Australian industry will need to demonstrate it can deliver the project at a competitive price."

As might be imagined, this approach has provoked some lobbying and controversy in the Australian shipbuilding industry, which has also pointed to gaps in the program.

Australian shipbuilding sources claim that building the two LHDs overseas would cost Australia's naval industry around 1,000 jobs and weaken it severely. They also note that cost estimates are unrefined and don't yet incorporate any dialogue with the designer over technical issues and possible cost reduction measures.

The Australian Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) commissioned Canberra-based economic consultancy ACIL Tasman to undertake a study, "Skills shortages and the Amphibious ships project," whose final report was completed in April 2005. Despite a reducing number of naval construction projects over the past five years, it noted that Australia's broader naval and marine construction capacity has actually expanded. The DMO itself has also committed some $200 million over the next ten years to the Skilling Australian Defence Industry (SADI) initiative in order to raise both skills and workforce numbers to meet the demands of the Defence Capability Plan.

As DID has reported re: previous Australian ship contracts, state efforts are underway to secure shipbuilding for this contract, and private companies are also making investments. In addition to Forgacs' existing construction and refit facilities at Cairncross dry dock in Brisbane, ADI's Garden Island yard in Sydney and Tenix's Williamstown Naval Shipyard, Western Australia is already planning a major expansion of its recently completed Australian Marine Complex south of Fremantle which will strengthen its bid to carry out module construction and consolidation of the LHDs. 

For an Australian build, the Amphibious Ships contract would be awarded in early 2007, with the in-service date for the first ship being 2012.

============================================================================


----------



## bossi

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Again, I'm left confused as to claims we apparently cannot afford such ships and the Australians can.
> 
> "... Spain's Navantia has designed a new LHD ship at approximately 27,000 tonnes.
> 
> *Each ship will preferably have the ability to transport up to 1000 personnel, have six helicopter landing spots and provision for a mix of troop lift and armed reconnaissance helicopters. It will also be able to transport up to 150 vehicles including the new M1A1 Abrams tanks and armored vehicles. Finally, each ship will be equipped with medical facilities, including two operating theaters and a hospital ward.*
> 
> For comparison purposes, the USA's Wasp-class LHDs are 42,000 tonnes, and the proposed LHA-R would weigh in at 50,000 tonnes.
> 
> Australia's selection tradeoffs include the fact that the Navantia LHD would have a greater carrying capacity, but construction of the first ship has only just started in Spain. In comparison, the French Aramis-Class ship has slightly less carrying capacity but has been built and is undertaking its final tests with the French Navy. A number of observers believe the Navantia design has a slight edge at this point in the competition.



Gentlemen, Orders:

1.  SITUATION.  As your new CDS, I view it as essential for Canada to have the ability to deploy military forces by sea - in essence, an "expeditionary force" capability.

2.  MISSION.  YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY PURCHASE TROOP-CARRYING SHIPS.

3.  EXECUTION.
3.a.  Concept of Operations.  It is my intent to strengthen Canada's INTEROPERABILITY with selected allies by partnering our ship purchase program with an allied country or countries - either a NATO ally, or an ABCA ally (such as Australia, and/or Spain).
3.b.  I see Canada's new HMCS CONFEDERATION/HMCS CONSTITUTION class ships as preferably having the ability to transport up to 1000 personnel, have six helicopter landing spots and provision for a mix of troop lift and armed reconnaissance helicopters. It will also be able to transport up to 150 vehicles including heavy armoured vehicles. Finally, each ship will be equipped with medical facilities, including two operating theaters and a hospital ward.[/b]
3.c.  In order to defeat nay-sayers and prevent political interference which would delay or even stop this program, effective immediately Public Affairs shall launch a public information campaign to demonstrate the urgency, and expediency of parthering with an ally such as Australia in purchasing ships such as the Navantia option.
3.d.  This purchase project must NOT be delayed by seditious activities or sabotage such as we've already seen in other defence acquisitions ...

What?  Where am I?  Why is everybody staring at me ... ?
Was I dreaming that I was CDS again ... ?

Hey - wait a minute ...
Why are all these NDHQ staff writing down everything I've been saying and pretending it was THEIR idea ... ?


----------



## Edward Campbell

That's very nice but we have a national (Liberal Party of Canada, anyway â â€œ it is said to amount to the same thing) _industrial strategy_ which says, in part, that: all major war vessels will be built in Levis â â€œ a suburb of Québec City.  (See: http://www.marinetalk.com/articles_HTML/xxx00093149IN.html )

The _Industrie Davie_ yard's capacities are at: http://www.davie.ca/eng/02/mas0202.htm 

For comparison, consider the Navatania (one of the Australian candidates) yard's capacity at: http://www.navantia.es/cgi-bin/run.dll/extranet/jsp/programa.do

I do not know enough about shipbuilding but it appears that Davie might not be able to build a ship as big as the Australians think they need.

That brings me to another part of the Liberal Party of Canada's _national strategy_ for shipbuilding which says: if Davie cannot build it then the Canadian Navy does not need it.

So, it's really simple: our JSS requirements will equal whatever Davie can build.  What's all the fuss about?  Isn't it clear that our government wants the very best for our sailors, soldiers and aviators?  And who is the Hiller guy, anyway; what does he know about our _national strategy_?


----------



## Monsoon

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> That's very nice but we have a national (Liberal Party of Canada, anyway â â€œ it is said to amount to the same thing) _industrial strategy_ which says, in part, that: all major war vessels will be built in Levis â â€œ a suburb of Québec City.  (See: http://www.marinetalk.com/articles_HTML/xxx00093149IN.html )


Do you suppose that the _national industrial strategy_ might have anything to do with the fact that the Davie yard is the only shipyard in Canada capable of constructing vessels of that size?  It's simply not true that the government won't buy anything from elsewhere - the YAG replacements are being built by Victoria Shipyards in BC because they are very small boats.  The fact is that our lax support of our native shipbuilding industry has left us with only one yard able to do the job.



> The _Industrie Davie_ yard's capacities are at: http://www.davie.ca/eng/02/mas0202.htm


250m x 60m is quite ample - if yard capacity was the sole determining factor in this, a carrier could be designed to fit these dimensions. You can bet that the size of their construction berths would be expanded in a hurry if the yard was awarded a $5bn contract for 300m-long ships.


----------



## Edward Campbell

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Do you suppose that the _national industrial strategy_ might have anything to do with the fact that the Davie yard is the only shipyard in Canada capable of constructing vessels of that size?  It's simply not true that the government won't buy anything from elsewhere - the YAG replacements are being built by Victoria Shipyards in BC because they are very small boats.  The fact is that our lax support of our native shipbuilding industry has left us with only one yard able to do the job.



I said all major war vessels, minor war vessels have been and will be built wherever.

The decision to *force* Saint John to close was 100% political.  I would argue that we need only as much capacity as is necessary to _finish_ (add weapons and electronics suites) and refit most ships in Canada.  We (government and business alike) should buy all from the lowest *global* bidder and allow the taxpayers of the 'winning' country to subsidize the ships we need.

There are two major impediments to having a _native_ shipbuilding industry:

"¢	Low demand - which means we build too many _"one off"_ vessels; and

"¢	Too much competition for foreign sales, supported by ludicrous subsidies by many governments.

Joining the subsidy game is madness.  Better to have one or two government owned/contractor operated dockyards to fit out and refit warships and subsidize nothing in Canada.  Buy everything off-shore, let the other guys subsidize us.


----------



## Kirkhill

A degree of bitterness this morning Edward?    Of course we have to build ships in the only shipyard facing ice restrictions.

I don' t know a thing about shipbuilding - but that hasn't stopped me before.

Davie's largest construction berth - 250m x 60m (how do you get ship into the water from there?)
Davie's largest drydock (most constricted dimensions) 364.24m x 36.57m at dock gates   ( I know you can get a ship into the water from there)

LHD Wasp ~ 40,000 tonnes 257m x 32m   - seems to fit the dry dock but a bit long for the construction berth
LPD-17 San Antonio ~ 25,000 tonnes 208.5m x 31.9m - seems to fit both berth and drydock
HMS Ocean ~ 20,000 tonnes 203m x 36.1m (at deck 28.5 m at waterline) - Is that a fit or not?
RNlMS Rotterdam ~12,000 tonnes 162.2m x 25m - an easy fit it seems

Spanish BPE 27,000 tonnes 230.8m loa (205.7m between perpendiculars) x 32.7m (29.5m at water line)
French Mistral 20,000 tonnes 199m x 32m

On balance it appears to me that Davie might be able to build and service any of the above ships.

http://www.vicship.com/specs.htm   
On the other hand it seems that Victoria Shipyards Dry Dock is larger than Davies and the port is ice free.
Perhaps an expert can explain this conundrum.

Either way we should be able to build any of the ships we need here.   

I just don't like the way that we go about apportioning business and costs in this country.   In the words of the youngsters "it sucks".   Even right decisions are suspect because of a lack of clarity, transparency, openness, trust etc.

In any event - how possible is it that the hulls themselves could be built in a low cost environment like Korea or Romania, and then fitted out at VSL or Davie?

I keep coming back to the 150 MCAD Tamesis   

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1290/printArticle.html

22,000 lane-meters, capable of carrying locomotives, 38,000 tonnes,   and at 240m x 32m it seems it might also fit in either shipyard.

A hull with a motor and steering wheel isn't all that expensive.   Its all the rest of the gear that adds costs.   As do the number and nature of the intermediate contractors.


By the way the locks on the Panama Canal are 294.1 x 32.3 meters wide.  They handle cruise ships, cargo and US Navy vessels like the Wasp but not the Enterprise.


----------



## Monsoon

I'll answer Kirkhill's question first:


			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> On the other hand it seems that Victoria Shipyards Dry Dock is larger than Davies and the port is ice free.
> Perhaps an expert can explain this conundrum.


The Victoria Graving Dock once was the largest in the British Commonwealth, but drydocks aren't the same as construction berths which allow for the actual laying of a keel and assembly of the hull structure.  Also, the St-Lawrence is navigable through winter as far up as Montreal.  Ice forms, but is regularly broken.



> In any event - how possible is it that the hulls themselves could be built in a low cost environment like Korea or Romania, and then fitted out at VSL or Davie?


The hull construction itself is really one of the least expensive parts of the job - the real money goes into system design and integration.  The cost of towing an empty hull across the ocean kills any savings you might find by offshoring the hull manufacture.

And Edward Campbell:


> The decision to force Saint John to close was 100% political.


Nonsense.  The Irvings did whatever they could to keep it open, and they can hardly be said to be politically unconnected.  The Saint John yard found some work in constructing merchant ships, but the only political decision that shut it down was the decision to not subsidize the shipbuilding industry.  The yard simply couldn't bid low enough to get the contracts to stay in operation.



> I would argue that we need only as much capacity as is necessary to finish (add weapons and electronics suites) and refit most ships in Canada.  We (government and business alike) should buy all from the lowest global bidder and allow the taxpayers of the 'winning' country to subsidize the ships we need.


Or we (the government) could say, "This $12bn contract costs an extra $2bn to give to a Canadian contractor, but we'll get back $3bn in corporate and personal income tax from that money.  And the long-term revenue from having a marine industry in the country will generate even more money".  It's easy to scorn subsidized industries, but they do make sense when you take into account the investment aspects of it.  And when talking specifically about domestic military industries, it's simply irresponsible for an industrialized nation to offshore it's military construction capability.  We have a mobilization plan for our military, what about mobilization for our industry?


----------



## Kirkhill

> Quote
> I would argue that we need only as much capacity as is necessary to finish (add weapons and electronics suites) and refit most ships in Canada.  We (government and business alike) should buy all from the lowest global bidder and allow the taxpayers of the 'winning' country to subsidize the ships we need.
> 
> Or we (the government) could say, "This $12bn contract costs an extra $2bn to give to a Canadian contractor, but we'll get back $3bn in corporate and personal income tax from that money.  And the long-term revenue from having a marine industry in the country will generate even more money".  It's easy to scorn subsidized industries, but they do make sense when you take into account the investment aspects of it.  And when talking specifically about domestic military industries, it's simply irresponsible for an industrialized nation to offshore it's military construction capability.  We have a mobilization plan for our military, what about mobilization for our industry?



Brilliant notion hamiltongs.  I can get behind that.  Now just make sure that DND only gets charged for $10bn and that the remaining $2bn comes out of Industry Canada's budget where it belongs.


----------



## Monsoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Brilliant notion hamiltongs.  I can get behind that.  Now just make sure that DND only gets charged for $10bn and that the remaining $2bn comes out of Industry Canada's budget where it belongs.


True dat.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I would argue that we need only as much capacity as is necessary to _finish_ (add weapons and electronics suites) and refit most ships in Canada.   We (government and business alike) should buy all from the lowest *global* bidder and allow the taxpayers of the 'winning' country to subsidize the ships we need.
> 
> There are two major impediments to having a _native_ shipbuilding industry:
> 
> "¢	Low demand - which means we build too many _"one off"_ vessels; and
> 
> "¢	Too much competition for foreign sales, supported by ludicrous subsidies by many governments.
> 
> Joining the subsidy game is madness.   Better to have one or two government owned/contractor operated dockyards to fit out and refit warships and subsidize nothing in Canada.   Buy everything off-shore, let the other guys subsidize us.



I personally disagree.  I think our failing has been the lack of strategic planning on the part of NDHQ brought on by a failure of budget systems to protect the military and its mission.

Should the government change its budgetary structure to put "Overseas Deployments" as a Foreign Affairs supplemental budget item, we would not have this problem.  

That would leave line items for:  Domestic Operation and Procurement in place, with little volatility which would allow planners a long-term ability to structure procurement using our assets to our best advantage.

Bottom Line:  Deployments should never bugger up well-laid procurement plans.  You fix the budget, you can then schedule hulls out over at least a 10 year time frame making effective use of your shipyards and getting the economies of scale we will never get using the current model.



Matthew.


----------



## Edward Campbell

If the Department of National Defence needs ships, aircraft, trucks - whatever - to deploy then the defence budget must bear the costs.  The business of Industry Canada paying for the _regional benefits_ (which never existed from day one) is just _creative accounting_. There are already too many fingers in the pie - attempting to apportion costs to e.g. DFAIT will cause more heartburn, waste more time and cost more money.

Most defence industries are inefficient and ineffective, they have, generally, a poor ROI and remain in business only because they are needed by the government.  This is not, totally, the industry's fault - may major defence companies are well managed.  The major problem with defence procurement is that most defence ministries are lousy customers.  They rarely know/understand what they need - and they usually get _want_ and _need_ all mixed up.  Contracts are, usually, driven by political considerations; that means that cost and performance are minor considerations.

Most governments, like Canada's have policies in place which prohibit the _customer_ (e.g. DND) from enforcing the fairly standard, every-day conditions of the contract, like "this product must meet spec."  The _Department of Public Blunders and Wonders_ (or whatever we call the government's central procurement agency today) has a split mandate: to buy things efficiently and effectively and to help Canadian business.  The latter usually takes precedence over the former, especially if the supplier of inadequate goods and services is in a government MP's riding.*

There is nothing wrong with companies designing, developing and producing good military kit - even just OK military kit, if they can find buyers for it - witness GMDD now General Dynamics in London with the _Piranha/Grizzly/Bison/LAV III/Stryker_ programme.  To the degree that everyone subsidizes exporting industries we might as well do the same for Canadian companies.  We should, however, drop all pretence about having a distinct Canadian defence industrial base.  We are piece workers in an integrated North American defence industrial base.  We should buy our hardware, always, with two considerations in mind:

"¢	The operational requirement; and

"¢	The life cycle costs.

We should always buy the product which meets the requirement - it doesn't have to exceed it - and has the lowest life cycle costs (which means that capital costs (the sticker price) are often not terribly important - especially not for long life, high cost, maintenance intensive items like ships, planes and tanks.

That means we can build hulls wherever we want because, hamiltongs tells us (and I believe him), they are a minor part of the programme.

That also means that we should, whenever possible:

"¢	_Join_ an allied programme, especially one with COLOG (Cooperative Logistics)  and maintain _configuration management_ (I think that's what it's called - it means keeping our aircraft and tanks 'up to spec' with the allied fleet);and, consequently

"¢	Stop _Canadianizing_ everything - sometime, now and again, it is necessary but too often it just adds costs and complications for something which was not called up in the requirement and, also too often, is not supported by the requirements staff in Ottawa.

Defence procurement is a complex, sometimes maddening business. In my experience - and I have some, even though it is out of date, at the senior staff level - the only countries that have more politicized processes than Canada are the USA and France.

But, the key is a suitable mix of:

"¢	Good, well reasoned, validated _operational,_ requirements; and

"¢	Life cycle costing - which requires extensive, excruciatingly boring reliability/maintainability analysis and seemingly endless hours of briefings from pencil-necked engineer/bureaucrats.

----------
* For a few years I sat in the back-row at meetings of groups (e.g. the Programme Control Board (three stars and civilian equivalents)) which authorized spending and, over time, monitored progress.  I saw project managers (usually Navy captains or army/air colonels) come back again and again to report 'lost' money due to Canadian suppliers being unable to meet specs - not by just a wee tiny bit, either, which forced the PM to go off-shore, at DND's expense, to procure whatever was needed - parts, materials, sub-systems, etc.


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward: 

Any idea how the cost analysis was done in the days of HM's Dockyards vice (Defence Logistics/Defence Procurement/Defence Research/P3 initiatives in the UK) or the current PWGSC abomination over here?

My issue is with the IRB budget coming out to DND's purse.  I am with you (and for that matter the Dutch Parliament and Ministry of Defence) in that I don't believe there is an economic case for IRBs/Offsets. A political case yes, but not an economic case.  And I now understand from your posts that such benefits may contravene various trade pacts.

I don't disagree that DND should be responsible for its budget, and that the government should pony up the funds in their entirety or else admit defeat, tuck its tail between its legs and shut up shop.  Insofar as I don't see either eventuality soon one way to get more money into the hands of NDHQ is to:

-  increase the revenue stream by acquiring grants from departments like Industry Canada (which supplies that service to private sector Canadian entities to support Canadian industry), NRC for research grants to trial new kit for "Canadian" applications and HRDC for training grants for recruits and serving members.
-  sell its services to other departments such as Foreign Affairs, a ploy recommended by the UN, NATO and the OECD so that Troops to maintain order count towards Pearsons 0.7%
-  reduce the areas on which it is required to spend funds such as IRBs/Offsets/Pensions and other "statutory" expenditures

Thus the government can double the budget without offending its voting public.

Is it the right way to do things? No.
Is it duplicitous and underhanded? Yes
Do I care? No. 

As long as the necessary kit gets into the right hands in appropriate numbers with the right training and support.

Cheers Edward


----------



## Kirkhill

Here is another alternative to the strategic lift conundrum.  It embraces the CDS's BHS concept

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Mar/Army_Logistics.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/hsv.htm
http://www.dt.navy.mil/wavelengths/archives/2004_05.html



> May 17, 2004
> Division Supports Innovative High-Speed Catamaran Sea Trials
> By William Palmer
> 
> WEST BETHESDA-Test engineers recently rode Swift (HSV 2, for High Speed Vessel) to measure the ship's seakeeping and load bearing abilities. The high-speed catamaran is modified from a commercial high-speed ferry design and outfitted with a flight deck and weather-protected stowage area for two H-60 helicopters, a vehicle load ramp capable of holding a 60-ton M-1 Abrams tank, berthing space for 107 with a reconfigurable seating area to provide an additional 87 berths when required, and enough communications gear to support a wide range of missions. Doug Griggs (5200), Martin Donnelly (5400), and James Gray (6530) sailed on Swift as she transited from Naval Amphibious Base at Little Creek, VA, to Jacksonville, FL, then to an operational area off the coast of Honduras, supporting a Joint Logistics Over The Shore (JLOTS) exercise called New Horizons, a joint Navy/Army/Air Force humanitarian relief exercise.
> 
> Prior to her departure for Little Creek, Swift tied up at Old Town Alexandria, VA, as a public demonstration for DoD personnel, dependents, and contractors, and to show the Department of Defense's use of new technology to support traditional missions. One feature of the ship is that it is currently the only ship in the Navy authorized to use a paperless navigation-steering system, designed to use no paper charts.
> 
> Because the ship is manned with two crews, the operational tempo is intense, leaving little room for down time. So when the trio of engineers collected data, they had to act when opportunities arose. Hours after getting underway from Little Creek, Swift encountered waves approaching 12 feet in height off Cape Hatteras. The team used that time to measure seakeeping and structural response information, with a number of wave "slamming" events being recorded. The sea conditions encountered almost perfectly matched the most severe test regime in the evaluation program.
> 
> Upon the ship's arrival in Jacksonville, three H-60 helicopters, several HUMMV military vehicles, and aircraft support equipment were loaded aboard. The Carderock Division team was at work here as well, as they instrumented the load ramp and mission deck with strain gauges. The gauges remained in place for the duration of *the exercise, which consisted of loading vehicles from a larger transport "roll-on, roll-off" ship and moving the vehicles 100 miles to a port. The catamaran made trips between the transport ship and shore averaging about three hours, carrying a large selection of vehicles, including 2.5- and 5-ton trucks, tractor-trailer tankers, cranes, graders, loaders, ambulances, and various trailers. Offloading the ship took about 30 minutes, with no tugs or shore support used in the offload.*Swift is built by Incat, a commercial shipbuilding firm in Hobart, Tasmania, leased under contract to Military Sealift Command, and operated by the Mine Warfare Command at Ingleside, TX. For more information about Swift, contact Doug Griggs at 301-227-4921, DSN 287-4921, or griggsdb@nswccd.navy.mil.




Take the Tamesis class of BHS to act as a floating mobile warehouse and support facility.  Minimum cost 160 MAUSD (150 MCAD or 120 MUSD).
Add 2 to 3 HSV catamarans to act as High Speed Trucks or lighters for delivery to various ports at 141 MUSD each (Curious the truck costs more than the warehouse)

The HSVs would not be for amphibious assault but would increase the range of delivery options.  They might also find utility on the West Coast and internationally (ice free waters) without the warehouse, for disaster relief.

The BHS would be able to carry sufficient fuel to replenish the HSV Lighters during vehicle transfers.

Interesting sidenote is that the Lighters would then be able to outrun any available "escorts" (50 kts vs 30 kts)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The question is how well it would fair in the North Atlantics/Pacific Oceans. Our navy operates in some of the most extreme weather conditions in the world, so please take that into account.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The question is how well it would fair in the North Atlantics/Pacific Oceans. Our navy operates in some of the most extreme weather conditions in the world, so please take that into account.



Understood Ex-Dragoon.  It isn't an all-encompassing solution.  Might it be a better solution than we have?  Is it more affordable than the all-encompassing solution?  I don't know.  I'm just throwing it out for consideration.

Personally I like the idea of the Tamesis and Lighters, but perhaps a more conventional lighter might be in order.  The combination of price for the HSVs and the experience of the Pacificats gives pause.  On the other hand the speed, range and shallow draught are intriguing.

Final observation: while the Navy operates in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific, are those the areas that the Army is going to be tasked to send troops?  Might you not be seeing more of the sun in the future?

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover

Canadians laugh and shrug if the Army can't get to the ME by whatever means. They get pissed off when the Navy can't give the Army a ride to the arctic. The Navy needs to be able to appease all, with no exceptions.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Final observation: while the Navy operates in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific, are those the areas that the Army is going to be tasked to send troops?  Might you not be seeing more of the sun in the future?



Unfortunately predicting the future has never been one of my skill sets but is it not better to get a ship that can weather the rigours of the Northern oceans then one that cannot?


----------



## Kirkhill

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Unfortunately predicting the future has never been one of my skill sets but is it not better to get a ship that can weather the rigours of the Northern oceans then one that cannot?



You're right. And no buts.

Whiskey's point is taken as well but there is a but.

The difference might be though that Northern operations can be served by a Company/Battalion (100  to 500) force without heavy vehicles and there are other delivery options (air) as we own bases in the North and are free to move amongst them.  International obligations require the delivery of a Task Force/Brigade (1200-3000) with heavy support and there are no (IMHO) alternatives to sea lift.

Cheers.


----------



## Monsoon

This just in:



> *CANADA â â€œ JSS RfP Delayed Until Early 2006 *
> October 03, 2005
> On 13 September 2005, the Department of National Defense (DND) announced a delay in the issuance of the Request for Proposal (RfP) for the Joint Support Ship (JSS) Program. The original release date of September/October 2005 (for the four approved teams) has now been pushed back until the January 2006 timeframe with Canadian Navy sources believing December 2005 the more likely date. This delay is attributed to an unofficial moratorium on procurement programs announced by the Chief of Defense General Hillier in April 2005 following the release of their latest defense paper Canada's International Policy Statement. The moratorium was meant to identify priorities within the Canadian services and for the Navy. JSS is still the number one priority for the sea service and the program will move forward. The second naval priority identified in 2005 is for the acquisition of an amphibious capability (See article CANADA â â€œ In The Market For an Amphib?)
> 
> This September announcement follows the 30 June 2005 closure of the Letter of Interest (LoI) solicitation, in which six responses were received by the Canadian Government and only four met the criteria for the program. The four consortiums that will receive the RfP when issued include:
> 
> General Dynamics Canada (Prime Contractor) with Davie Marine Inc, Fleetway Inc, Irving Shipbuilding and Lockheed Martin Canada Inc. Consortium consisting of BAE Systems Limited (BAE Systems Naval Ships) with Newdock (St John's Shipyard Ltd). Canadian North Atlantic Marine Partnership with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG, Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft, Peter Kiewit Sons Co and Maersk Canada. SNC-Lavalin ProFac Inc (Prime Contractor) with Washington Marine Group, Raytheon Canada Ltd, Thales Canada, Alion Science & technology/JJMA Marine Sector, Aker Marine, Fincantieri, Merwede and Schelde. The following is the most recent schedule of key events as of this writing based on a three-ship build at a projected total cost of C$2.1B (US$1.72B) (US$573M per unit) with an additional C$4B (US$3.28B) for through life costs:
> 
> December 2005/January 2006: The Request for Proposal (RfP) will be issued only to approved teams.
> 
> April/May 2006: Project Definition contracts awarded to two industry teams.
> 
> Summer/Autumn 2008: Winning design selected and effective project approval expected from the Treasury board.
> 
> Construction Contract Award 2009



Scuttlebut is the CDS staff wants to try to shoehorn some Amphib capability into the JSS spec, but CMS wants to keep the projects separate (knowing that if JSS goes in for redesign now, it'll never get bought).  This delay may be a play for time on the part of CDS to get some Amphib into the specification. Seems likely since the next press release was:



> *CANADA â â€œ In The Market For An Amphib?*
> October 03, 2005
> September 2005 press reporting continues to indicate that the Canadian Navy is interested in acquiring an amphibious capability in the near term. Identified in Canada's International Policy Statement (April 2005), the top three Canadian Naval programs were listed as the JSS, an amphibious capability followed by the Single Class Surface Combatant (SCSC). With the JSS Program nearing a construction contract, the sea service is beginning to plan for the acquisition of its amphibious capability.
> 
> Recent comments from the Chief of Maritime Staff (CMS) Vice Admiral MacLean indicate that the sea service wishes to acquire the capability by 2007. Acknowledging that new construction is not an option at this juncture, the Canadian Navy is now investigating its options with a variety of allies with the most likely option being the procurement of a used vessel for near-term operations.
> 
> In order to meet a 2007 timeline, the sea service would have to acquire a used vessel via "Hot Transfer", or the immediate transfer of an active vessel from a foreign navy to the Canadian Navy. The primary candidate for a Hot Transfer would be the US Austin class LPD with potentially up to five units decommissioning from 2006 through 2008 as they are replaced by the new San Antonio class. An Austin class LPD would enable the sea service to acquire its capability by 2007 while studying long-term solutions. New construction candidates for the long-term solution include the Rotterdam class (UK- Bay class LSD, Spain â â€œ Galicia class) and the Italian San Giorgio class LPD. Although the Canadian Navy has expressed a desire for the US San Antonio class, the price tag of over US$1B will make it extremely difficult to procure.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thanks for the update hamiltongs.


----------



## FSTO

Austin Class!?!   I hope not! Bloody things are 30+ years old   and the Americans do not take care of their equipement as well as we do (they know that they will be getting new stuff!  :crybaby


----------



## Kirkhill

General Dynamics Canada (Prime Contractor) with Davie Marine Inc, Fleetway Inc, Irving Shipbuilding and Lockheed Martin Canada Inc. 

  
http://www.generaldynamics.com/
Check out Products and Services, Marine, NASSCO for some of the things GD might be offering


Consortium consisting of BAE Systems Limited (BAE Systems Naval Ships) with Newdock (St John's Shipyard Ltd). 

http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Today/bay.htm
Perhaps a BAE proposal (Schelde Enforcer design though)?


Canadian North Atlantic Marine Partnership with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG, Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft, Peter Kiewit Sons Co and Maersk Canada. 

http://rusi.4t2depot.com/downloads/pub_rds/Carmel.pdf
A Maersk/Flensburger solution? - Flensburger builds Container and RoRo ships, including the 6 RoRos acquired for the British strategic transport option.


SNC-Lavalin ProFac Inc (Prime Contractor) with Washington Marine Group, Raytheon Canada Ltd, Thales Canada, Alion Science & technology/JJMA Marine Sector, Aker Marine, Fincantieri, Merwede and Schelde.

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/
The original designer and supplier of the same vessel built by BAE Systems as the Bay Class ships.


JSS Statement of Requirement.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs_presentations/state_op_require_e.asp


My Guess is that SNC-Lavalin, Washington Marine, Schelde have a good look-in at the JSS project

While ei ther Davie or Maersk have a shot at the BFS project with a conversion of a Container or RoRo in the near term, as opposed to taking over a 30 year old hull.


My wishful thinking anyway.




> The following is the most recent schedule of key events as of this writing based on a three-ship build at a projected total cost of C$2.1B (US$1.72B) (US$573M per unit) with an additional C$4B (US$3.28B) for through life costs:



573 MUSD per hull AND 3.28 BUSD for through-life costs?


----------



## Monsoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My Guess is that SNC-Lavalin, Washington Marine, Schelde have a good look-in at the JSS project


I would have said that the GD has the best "team Canada" solution, but that may not be a driving factor in JSS.  It doesn't appear that the SNC-Lavalin team would have a yard in Canada large enough to build the ship.



> 573 MUSD per hull AND 3.28 BUSD for through-life costs?


Sounds about right.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.yotor.com/wiki/en/hm/HMS%20Ocean%20(L12).htm   LPH HMS Ocean 271 MUSD - 21,000 tonnes displacement

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020206/text/20206w17.htm   LPD HMS Bulwark 327 MUSD - 14,000 to 21,000 tonnes displacement

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lsda.htm   LSDA RFA Largs Bay   161 MUSD - 16,000 tonnes

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/mars.htm   MARS Fleet Replenishment 8-15 RFA vessels for 3.5 BUSD (235 MUSD to 444 MUSD per vessel) possibly even leased from industry, just like the OPVs for EEZ patrol   (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/opvh.htm) and strategic lift (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/roro.htm)

We do have our own way of doing things.   Don't we?


----------



## Monsoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://www.yotor.com/wiki/en/hm/HMS%20Ocean%20(L12).htm  LPH HMS Ocean 271 MUSD - 21,000 tonnes displacement
> 
> http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020206/text/20206w17.htm  LPD HMS Bulwark 327 MUSD - 14,000 to 21,000 tonnes displacement
> 
> http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lsda.htm  LSDA RFA Largs Bay  161 MUSD - 16,000 tonnes
> 
> http://navy-matters.beedall.com/mars.htm  MARS Fleet Replenishment 8-15 RFA vessels for 3.5 BUSD possibly even leased from industry, just like the OPVs for EEZ patrol  (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/opvh.htm) and strategic lift (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/roro.htm)
> 
> We do have our own way of doing things.  Don't we?


Not sure I understand your meaning, but I think you're talking about the comparative costs.  You'd have to factor the through-life into that, as well - I suspect the "purchase" cost includes some expenses that discount the through-life costs in the JSS price above.  Also, the JSS will be much more than a Landing Ship - it will also be a combat replenishment vessel and C2 platform.  The ships you mention would be interesting for Amphib capability, though.


----------



## Kirkhill

I thought we had factored OUT the through life costs and decided on a construction cost per hull of 573 MUSD?   For a tanker with a dry hold and a few derricks.

All of my cited costs were construction costs, actual, with the exception of the MARS project which has yet to be defined.


----------



## FSTO

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Not sure I understand your meaning, but I think you're talking about the comparative costs.   You'd have to factor the through-life into that, as well - I suspect the "purchase" cost includes some expenses that discount the through-life costs in the JSS price above.   Also, the JSS will be much more than a Landing Ship - it will also be a combat replenishment vessel and C2 platform.   The ships you mention would be interesting for Amphib capability, though.



Guys, get this right. JSS and the Amphib will be two different ships! JSS primary role will be Fleet Replensihment and will completment the SCTF when required. The Amphib will be the centerpiece of the SCTF.


----------



## Monsoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I thought we had factored OUT the through life costs and decided on a construction cost per hull of 573 MUSD?  For a tanker with a dry hold and a few derricks.


It's not as easy as it sounds - some things that might be considered part of through-life expenses in the foreign contracts might have been included in the baseline JSS price and vice-versa.  Warranty work is the grey zone where construction and through-life costs blur, and the amounts that can straddle both columns are surprisingly expensive.  Also, the plan for JSS is to serve as far more than "a tanker with a dry hold and a few derricks" - once you start adding combat systems the price steepens exponentially.



> Guys, get this right. JSS and the Amphib will be two different ships! JSS primary role will be Fleet Replensihment and will completment the SCTF when required. The Amphib will be the centerpiece of the SCTF.


Agreed.  I was suggesting that the platforms Kirkhill mentioned might be better suited to the proposed Amphib programme rather than JSS.


----------



## Cloud Cover

FSTO said:
			
		

> Austin Class!?!    I hope not! Bloody things are 30+ years old    and the Americans do not take care of their equipement as well as we do (they know that they will be getting new stuff!   :crybaby



Also, if these are steam plants, we probably don't have enough spare stokers to maintain the beast.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO:

I understand that it will be two different ships.  I am just having difficulty understanding how, no matter which combination of capabilities I look at, the Brits seem to be able to get them into the water for less than 573 MUSD per hull. (Choosing the Brits because they actually publish their construction costs)

OCEAN and Bulwark both transport troops and act as C2 centers and have medical facilities.  Ocean also supports helos while Bulwark supports LCUs.  These cost approximately 300 MUSD each (271 and 327).

The Bay Class LSDA's, which are pure transport vessels that can transfer troops and cargo to helos and LCUs supplied by other vessels cost 161 MUSD.

Someplace round about those two numbers seems like a reasonable number for a new build Transport Vessel.

The MARS project is allocating 235 MUSD - 444 MUSD per hull to build fleet replenishment vessels which seems to be the primary role of the JSS.  It will have a secondary role of transporting a company of troops and some gear as well as acting as a C2 centre.

I do understand that proposals often vary when it comes to stipulating what is included, what is warranty and what may be an ongoing operating cost.  I have written enough of them myself.  Those gray areas constitute the salesmanship .

I guess what is ultimately confusing me is that initially this was announced as a 2.1 BCAD project for 3 hulls and when that was questioned on these boards speculation was advanced that the reason for the apparently high price was through life costs.  This was particularly true when vessels like the Enforcers were debated.

Now the suggestion seems to be that 2.1 was just the cost of the hulls and that there is another 4 BCAD in through life costs?

Wouldn't it just be simpler all round for the Navy to buy the vessel it needs, a fleet replenishment vessel and buy a separate transport vessel for the army?  I know that the project has been split already.  I understand that.  What I am asking is, given the costs how does it make sense to combine what the navy needs and what the army needs in one platform?

2.1BCAD=1719 MUSD = some combination of 5 or 6 of the above vessels.  Doesn't it?


----------



## Monsoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The MARS project is allocating 235 MUSD - 444 MUSD per hull to build fleet replenishment vessels which seems to be the primary role of the JSS.  It will have a secondary role of transporting a company of troops and some gear as well as acting as a C2 centre.
> 
> I do understand that proposals often vary when it comes to stipulating what is included, what is warranty and what may be an ongoing operating cost.  I have written enough of them myself.  Those gray areas constitute the salesmanship .


And there you have it - I just don't think the prices are comparable.  For instance, the required support infrastructure may not be included in the UK price (if only because the RN may already have it), or the warranty may be different, or the combat systems fit may be different, or the C2 fit may be different (task group C2, as opposed to land-oriented C2), etc.  The MARS will be part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary rather than the RN itself - that's not an idle observation:  RFA ships are simply not intended for combat and their capacity for self-defence is very limited.

Also, MARS hasn't been built yet so the cost is projected: bear in mind that RN ship construction contracts are always - always - 50% over budget.  We seem to be able to define more realistic budgets in Canada, at least as far as ships go.


----------



## Kirkhill

Fair enough Hamiltongs.   I guess we will see.

Though I am still left asking a question that seems to be in common currency in the States.   Given that lots of things are possible, and may be more possible in the future, but that all things cost money, is it appropriate to keep putting more and more capabilities into fewer and fewer platforms? Or is it equally valid to reduce the "wish list" to keep costs down and build more platforms?   

In the US case this is a matter of quality of the force.   They are debating whether to have 20 DDXs or only 10 DDXs for example.   Or 12 LPD17s or only 6 and a few more extended Tarawas.   The Government will have a full range of capabilities, it is only a matter of how much redundancy they can afford - the more the better.

In the Canadian context it is a matter of having any capability at all. 

Is it more appropriate to say that we need   X-number of hulls to perform this task and Y-number of hulls for that task, we have Z-number of dollars for the project how much capability can you supply?   We will adjust our operations accordingly.

Isn't that what you are implicitly accepting when you state that the RN accepts operations with the civilianized RFA support fleet?   Aren't similar restrictions accepted when civilian vessels and aircraft are chartered to support operations - Falklands, both Gulf Wars, UK, US, Canada....?

In the absence of all the possible capabilities we may only be able to participate in 85-90-95% of operations because we would put our vessels, their crews and their cargoes and passengers at risk.

On the other hand in the absence of the primary capability - either RAS or Transport we may be unable to participate in any operations.


----------



## daniel h.

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Also, if these are steam plants, we probably don't have enough spare stokers to maintain the beast.



So if they are steam plants, do they still burn solid fuel?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Is that a joke, or are you asking if they atomize the fuel with super heated steam as the fuel is pumped through a nozzle? Stokers haven't used the shovel in the Navy for many decades.


----------



## daniel h.

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Is that a joke, or are you asking if they atomize the fuel with super heated steam as the fuel is pumped through a nozzle? Stokers haven't used the shovel in the Navy for many decades.




Just wondering why they are still called stokers, and how steam compares to diese or gas with respect to efficiency, noise level etc....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

daniel h. said:
			
		

> Just wondering why they are still called stokers, and how steam compares to diese or gas with respect to efficiency, noise level etc....



They are really Marine Engineering Mechanics...stoker is a hold over(tradition) from the days where we used coal. Steam is more labour intensive then presently powered ships as have have far fewer stokers onboard the CPFs then classes like the IREs had.


----------



## Monsoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is it more appropriate to say that we need  X-number of hulls to perform this task and Y-number of hulls for that task, we have Z-number of dollars for the project how much capability can you supply?  We will adjust our operations accordingly.
> 
> Isn't that what you are implicitly accepting when you state that the RN accepts operations with the civilianized RFA support fleet?  Aren't similar restrictions accepted when civilian vessels and aircraft are chartered to support operations - Falklands, both Gulf Wars, UK, US, Canada....?


I think that's a largely academic question - of course there's a certain amount of danger in rushing into a scheme of combining capabilities, but the technology has advanced so far that it doesn't make much sense to define new ships according to the old "tanker, frigate, destroyer" paradigm.  Today, 100 people can easily do what it took 200 or more to do just twenty years ago.  I think the point behind JSS isn't that it's a tanker with some fighting capability or a fighting ship with some replenishment capability, but that it's a warship that can fight and sustain.

Canada tends to push in this dierction more than other navies, if only because of budget restrictions: it's cheaper to buy and maintain one expensive platform that can do two things than it is to buy and maintain two moderately-priced platforms that can focus on one thing each.  You can argue that JSS might turn into a "jack-of-all-trades and master of none", but I think the state of the art is such that it won't.  People forget that the AORs were a huge (and criticized) step forward - a ship single that could replenish, offer hospital and repair services, and defend itself was inconceivable to many forty years ago.  It's telling that the RN is only today building ships (MARS) that look like that.


----------



## Kirkhill

Well, academicallly speaking, if you are going to combine fighting and support capabilities why not combine them in such a manner that capabilities that are critical to particular evolutions are grouped together?  Vis:  A Naval Task Force - always needs fuel, ammunition and food.  It also always needs air defence and a C2 capability.  A vessel carrying fuel, ammunition and food is a high value target that needs to be defended.  

By contrast a Naval Task Force does not always need the ability to transport troops.  But any vessel that transport troops will always need the protection of a Naval Task Force.  Such a transport is also a reasonable place to locate medical, mechanical and functions that support the troops while in theatre, including C2.

Following from your logic then, why not combine RAS and Air Defence into one platform and leave the transport/support function to an entirely separate vessel?  Would it held any if the vessel were funded out of the budget of the army, air force or logistics and the crew were naval reservists?

I am pretty sure that the reason other navies aren't incorporating so many capabilities in single platforms is not primarily cost-saving but the "too many eggs in one basket" problem.   The center piece of any such force would become of too high a value and the loss of it would cripple the Task Force.  Redundancy matters.

In the non-academic world I invariably counsel my clients against investing in one piece of machinery, one system or one operator even though it is possible and often cheaper.  Instead of one system capable of 100% of the task I usually suggest 3 systems, each of which is capable of 50% of the task.  Then when one is down the other two operating at 100% of their individual capacities can maintain plant operations at planned capacity.  When all three are operating then each unit is only required to function at 66% of capacity thus extended their working life.  

The individual systems are less expensive.  The project cost is more expensive.  Operating costs maybe more or less expensive.  Losses from downtime though are drastically cut.  

What is the impact on operations of losing a JSS while on deployment?

Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I would never want to be on a ship that carries my ships gas and munitions and have it as a Area Air Defence Platform, that does not make sense to me, in fact I think it would be so unsafe it would border on crimminal. With SM2s or ESSMs you have made this ship an even bigger priority target to any bad guy out there. I have no problem combining support and auxillary roles but leave the war fighting to the escorts.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree with you Ex-Dragoon.  I was extrapolating from Hamiltongs suggestion:



> I think the point behind JSS isn't that it's a tanker with some fighting capability or a fighting ship with some replenishment capability, but that it's a warship that can fight and sustain.



The JSS is to be warship that can fight and sustain.  It may contain troops and vehicles.  It will contain helicopters, fuel and ammunition, including I suppose replacement SM2s or ESSMs.

I certainly understand wanting to mount defensive systems on such a vessel.  I would also like it to be built in such a fashion that it is not going to disappear with the first impact.  As a troop being transported I would be inclined to think that would be a good thing.

Presumably you do as well.

Does that make it a warship (f-echelon in landlubbers parlance) or a support ship (a-echelon)?  The army's a-echelon vehicles are being armed and armoured for the same reason it makes sense to arm and armour an AOR or a JSS.  The Navy has always operated on a 360 battlefield with no secure lines of communication.

Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I agree with you Ex-Dragoon.   I was extrapolating from Hamiltongs suggestion:
> 
> The JSS is to be warship that can fight and sustain.   It may contain troops and vehicles.   It will contain helicopters, fuel and ammunition, including I suppose replacement SM2s or ESSMs.
> 
> I certainly understand wanting to mount defensive systems on such a vessel.   I would also like it to be built in such a fashion that it is not going to disappear with the first impact.   As a troop being transported I would be inclined to think that would be a good thing.
> 
> Presumably you do as well.
> 
> Does that make it a warship (f-echelon in landlubbers parlance) or a support ship (a-echelon)?   The army's a-echelon vehicles are being armed and armoured for the same reason it makes sense to arm and armour an AOR or a JSS.   The Navy has always operated on a 360 battlefield with no secure lines of communication.
> 
> Cheers.



The JSS is an Auxillary pure and simple, to me and many others in the navy to confuse it to be a warship only ends up doing one thing and that is getting sailors killed. I have no problems with the JSS being fitted with defensive systems (the more tungsten in the sky the better) but when you advocated making it the TG AAD platform thats when I stepped in. Again I say keep the warfighting seperate from the support/auxillary aspect, let the 280s/CPFs and replacements do the job they are suppose to do. If you want to put a C4I capability on the JSS so be it but have it for the landing force only, keep command and control of the warships onboard the destroyers and if necessary the frigates as they are the ones doing the fighting.


----------



## Kirkhill

Seems reasonable to me Ex-Dragoon.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Is there a reason why we just wouldn't have signed onto the UK's MARS program?

It appears to have nearly identical design requirements....




Matthew.   ???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Is there a reason why we just wouldn't have signed onto the UK's MARS program?
> 
> It appears to have nearly identical design requirements....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew.     ???



As Kirkhill has so rightly pointed out earlier..."we have our own way of doing things"


----------



## Monsoon

A Preliminary Design specification has gone out to the four JSS bidders - it can be got at the PMO JSS website: http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs_presentations/SRD_PD_SOW_e.asp


----------



## STONEY

After reading this thread for awhile i thought i'd chuck in a few points to ponder that & that people should add to their reasoning.
1. The high speed cats for transport as sugested by Kirkhill.  Their hulls are made of aluminum and hence pretty usless in ice. Their propulsion system is water-jet  which involves sucking in great quantities of water & spewing it out the back once again useless in ice.
Their much touted high speed also is a great advantage in calm water but falls off rapidly in rough water and the ride is somewhat like being in a airliner in severe turbulance and have to remain in your seat strapped in with a seat belt . 
2. The JSS is first of all a tanker ,and as such, under new international regulations soon to come in force, are required to have a double hull for safety (one reason besides age we are replacing the AOR"S) .  Some of the ships suggested in this thread to be aquired for our Navys RAS requirement do not have double hulls hence do not meet our needs. Also ,as a tanker it has very strict rules where any open flame is allowed because fuel fumes go Boom hence putting air defence missils all over them with flames shooting out of them when they launch may not be a good idea. The British Navy is having to get rid of several tankers not because of their age but because they don't have double hulls. The double hull requirement may also be a factor in not having a floodable well deck in JSS and to opt for a stern ramp & mexifloat system.
3. The LPD17 saga is still ongoing earlier reports of cost overruns were just the tip of the iceburg and the cost for the first of class is now well over a billion although subsequent ships of the class may well be cheaper. She has just recently been reluctantly accepted from the builder with a long list of defects & shoddy work that will cost still more to rectify. Still this is to be expected with a first of class.
4. The Brits are in the process of aquiring new Carriers and they are too large to be built  in any one shipyard in Britain so they are going to build them in 4 or 5 different yards in mega building blocks then join them together at another location. So the discussion weather Canadian yards are large enough are moot .  Case in point the Hibernia oil platform which is a huge structure was put together in a bay in NFLD.


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting Stoney:

Just a point on the cats - I wasn't suggesting that the cats would be functional in Northern waters.  It may have been in another thread but I recall asking if we need to be tied to two identical fleets on the east and west coasts.  The west coast is suited to a different range of vessels than the east coast.  Some vessel requirements overlap.   At the same time the different environments offer opportunities for different vessels to operate.  Icebreakers are more suited to east coast operations.  Cats and Fast Patrol Vessels could find employment on the west coast.

This wider range of available platforms and competencies could put Canada in a position to contribute more broadly internationally.

WRT SAMs on Tankers - point taken.

Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Also ,as a tanker it has very strict rules where any open flame is allowed because fuel fumes go Boom hence putting air defence missils all over them with flames shooting out of them when they launch may not be a good idea.



I think I mentioned that before as well.


----------



## cobbler

Problem with fastcats is they are fuel guzzlers, and they outrun all of their escort and support vessels.

HMAS Jervis Bay did some really good work in the Timor situation, but we found we had to string frigates and destroyers all along her route with each excort handing off responsibility to the next ship along the line.
Escort was vital with all those Indonesian aircraft, ships and submarines about with unknown intentions, we did do it, but if the destination was further away than timor It might not have been possible to cover the Jervis Bay's journey.


----------



## Allen

I'm surprised nobody has commented on this yet:

http://www.news.gc.ca/cfmx/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=258089

This means the teams headed by Irving & BAE are now out of the running.

I don't know the BAE JSS site (if any), but here is the Irving (JSS Canada) site: http://www.jsscanada.com/

The 2 finalists: - Thyssen-Krupp (CANAMP)  http://www.canamp.ca/ (Site seems to currently be down)

                      - SNC-Lavalin (Team JSS) http://team_jss.snc-lavalin.com/

So this means the ships will either be built by WMG in B.C., or Kiewit in Nfld.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

It's a pretty bad sign when you're two finalists can't even keep a website up & running....


M.   :


----------



## ringo

Royal Schelde is part of SNC they are currently involed with a very similiar ship for the Neterlands, I give SNC a slight edge.


----------



## Navy_Blue

So Irving is not in this??

Kind of pleasantly surprised.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

That's too bad I was hoping Irving would be building them in Halifax so we could watch them in the progress.
It sure would be a shot in the arm for NFLD though if they got it. ;D


----------



## Navy_Blue

After seeing who was selected and seeing their sites info I'm really excited.  I'm hopping Shield gets it just because they have been building on the same hulls for awhile now and they seem keen on Pod drives for propulsion.  Being an electrician means the boat will be more focused on our trade.  Not to mention the savings in space you have cutting out shafts and gearboxes and the equipment supporting that gear.  I would really like to be on the commissioning crew but with it being built (possibly) out west that would be a long haul to pic up and move the family.  Still the two teams that were picked were the most worthy.  

Irving must have pi$$ed in someones coffee cup up in Ottawa to get passed over for this though.


----------



## Sub_Guy

I find it odd that irving got dropped, I will honestly say that I never gave the west coast shipyard a chance.  I just figured that some place out east would get it (I know that NFLD is still in the hunt)

Anyway I suspect that Irving will benefit from other projects... (FELEX and potential Ice Breaker?)  


I am pulling for the west coast bid as they seem to have some good experience behind them


----------



## FSTO

Very glad Washington Marine Group is in the running. They did a bang up job on the ORCA's and I am sure that they have done this job well to put them in good stead for the JSS.


----------



## Torlyn

It would be nice to see them rolling off out here...  Fingers crossed for WMG.

T


----------



## stfx_monty

Pure speculation, but I wonder if the lack of Canadian content for the Thyssen-Krupp build gives an edge to WMG. I honestly expected Irving and WMG to go head to head.

I'd love to know why Irving wasn't chosen.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I am dancing a jig (and I am not alone in my trade) to see that Iriving will not get their mucky paws on this project.  I have had enough of living with a ship that has had it's two previous refits by these folks.  (To be fair, some of the fault lies with the bean counters who nixed some of the needed repair requests in out last outing)  But, we spent quite an amount of unecesseary effort/money correcting things that had been "refit".  As a sailor and taxpayer I am steamed.  Imagine if you will that you have taken your family vehicle to find it needs extensive repair work, you cannot afford to get it all done and have to settle for a lessor job.  It would be, and is adding insult to injury to find that some of what you had to settle with has been botched as well.

I agree with In Hoc from the stand point that it would have been interesting to see the girls take shape from day to day, but as I am a potential end user I am glad it will not come to pass.  At any rate I will be interested to see the reasoning behind the decisions that are made when they are released for public comsumption.  Either coast is fine as long as the company who gets the nod is not a bunch of fids.


----------



## STONEY

Carefull what you wish for .  How many ships have ever been built in NFLD let anone warships. Fishing vessels yes , tugs & supply vessels but no ships let alone a vessel the size of JSS.  How many of the Navy's current fleet were built on the west coast, None. The last vessels built on the west coast of note were BC Ferry's Superferrys which were world class disasters and had to be sold at a great loss. While IRVING may not be everyone's favorite, remember they built the bulk of the present fleet including both present AOR's and they are still going after over 30 years of hard service. The 2 remaining groups will have a steep learning curve as they have no experience in Naval construction in Canada and this could cause delays & cost overuns. Maybe the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. 

Cheers


----------



## Gus

Interesting stuff.  Funny thing about WMG, they have shipyards, but don't build large ships here; they have focussed on small-build, large-repair.  For the BC ferries latest large ships, they noted that the contracts went overseas (Germany), but they could have built them, but in their own literature it came out that they wouldn't have built them, they would have assembled them -- huge difference.  The hull sections would most likely have been built overseas (china? s. korea?).  

I think, however, we could take a lesson from the Australians.  They don't have a large shipbuilding industry, so they buy overseas, and retrofit.  Canada used to have a viable, well running, large-ship building industry, but not anymore.  The whole "must buy in Canada" can force us away from already proven hulls, in already proven shipyards (there is a micro-economic argument as well about the cost of keeping "home" industry alive, vs going overseas, and in micro-economics the model (albeit simplified) usually points towards it being more expensive to keep "dying" industries alive.

Nonetheless, not so bad.


----------



## FSTO

The fast ferries were a political project by the NDP and to compound the mistake they were put on the wrong route. The ferries were well buillt, also many of the steamers were built on the west coast but the men who built them are long dead. 
WMG has the capability to build the AOR's out on the coast.

Australia does not retrofit. They purchase the building rights, but they manufacture in Australia.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

FSTO said:
			
		

> The fast ferries were a political project by the NDP and to compound the mistake they were put on the wrong route. The ferries were well buillt, also many of the steamers were built on the west coast but the men who built them are long dead.
> WMG has the capability to build the AOR's out on the coast.
> 
> Australia does not retrofit. They purchase the building rights, but they manufacture in Australia.



At one time if I remember rightly there was a thought or a contingency paper floating around to see if those Fast Ferries would work for us as ships to ferry troops and equipment. What ever became of that idea? Is that ferry suitable for blue ocean work?


----------



## Allen

Yes, Australia builds locally, with heavy support from the designer.

Hopefully, the experience & guidance of the foreign design companies can help to offset the lack of experience of the Canadian builders. Flensburger has designed & built Ro-Ro ships and German Navy AOR's. On the other team, Schelde has designed & built LPD's & AOR's for the Dutch navy. A JSS-type ship for the Dutch Navy is also planned.

I read a Canadian Defense Review article that said that Flensburger plans to expand Kiewit's Cow's Head, Nfld. shipyard to a level that can build the JSS. Apparently they have built similar shipyards with Thyssen in the past.


----------



## Neill McKay

Gus said:
			
		

> For the BC ferries latest large ships, they noted that the contracts went overseas (Germany), but they could have built them, but in their own literature it came out that they wouldn't have built them, they would have assembled them -- huge difference.  The hull sections would most likely have been built overseas (china? s. korea?).



I wonder how feasible that would be, given that they'd have to move the sections in several heavy-lift ships.  What would be the advantage to doing the assembly here?


----------



## Kirkhill

I think what gives WMG a leg up is the combination of Aker Marine, Royal Schelde and Merwerde, moreso than what WMG brings to the table.

All three have a very strong design and contracting reputation with construction happening in a variety of yards around the world.  Aker just recently reopened or revitalized underutilized docks in Philadelphia.  

Aker brings experience working with ice and azipods and working with Civ/Mil joint specifications.  They make double acting ice-breaking tankers, the Svalbard Patrol/Ice-Breaker for the Norwegian Coast Guard, OPVs for various nations, as well as a variety of utility vessels, oil rigs and cruise ships as well as deep sea trawlers that are as large as Canadian frigates.  They build ships in Norway, Finland, Spain and now the US as well as building the New Zealand OPVs in Australia and New Zealand

Royal Schelde brings the Dutch naval experience as well as the Enforcer design for an Amphibious Transport (used by the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK and built in the Netherlands, Spain, the UK and Bulgaria) and the design for the Patino class of oilers used by the Netherlands and Spain.

Merwerde brings the design for the ice-strengthened Multi-Role Vessel for the New Zealand Navy - built in the Netherlands and fitted out in New Zealand by an Australian company as part of a international package.

WMG just brings the facilities to this consortium (and the Canadian connection).  The rest of this group is well supplied with designs,  experience in assembling projects internationally and in the vagaries of dealing with politically sensitive State enterprises.

And no this isn't a commercial for the WMG..... ;D

I do have to declare a bias though,  having worked as a supplier to American Seafoods for years, a Seattle company founded by Kjell Inge Rokke, I have been fascinated by his career.  The legend is that the came to the US from Norway as an 18 year old deckhand on a small trawler.  Made a fortune in Alaska, p****d it all away.  Learned and bought his own boat.  Went broke two or three more times.  Learned and built a company then ended up as owner/president of one of Norway's major state owned companies.   Aker - Kvaerner.    This fascination, together with my interest in things military and naval caused me to spend more time than is healthy on Aker and what they might bring to the Canadian situation.    I was really surprised to see that WMG scooped not just Aker but also Royal Schelde and Merwerde because these three firms usually compete vigorously for the very types of vessels that Canada is looking at for all applications.

I honestly don't think that you could find a more experienced set of suppliers for effective, mid-range solutions.

hmmph - Maybe I should go present myself to them and see if there are any openings - I guess I qualify as a fan.  

PS Aker also was early into the game of building a common hull then dropping in modules (such as hotel modules) built on shore.  Similar to the Danish Flex concept.


----------



## Gus

Allen said:
			
		

> Yes, Australia builds locally, with heavy support from the designer.



Australia has built their own ships, but I was thinking of these ships in the RAN --  http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/amphib.html (originally built for the US) and http://www.navy.gov.au/ships/sirius/ (built by Hyundai)


----------



## Willing Foe

FSTO said:
			
		

> The fast ferries were a political project by the NDP and to compound the mistake they were put on the wrong route. The ferries were well buillt, also many of the steamers were built on the west coast but the men who built them are long dead.
> WMG has the capability to build the AOR's out on the coast.
> 
> Australia does not retrofit. They purchase the building rights, but they manufacture in Australia.


You are half right. Australia purchases building rights but are also currently retrofitting (converting) - MT DELOS converting to a role of RAN Auxiliary Oiler (AO) to what will become HMAS SIRIUS. Though this is an interim measure to last till new builds come online.


----------



## geo

Irving did quite the mess with the Frigatte program AND dismantled it's shipyard in St John once the project was finished.  Any expertise they may have had... is gone.

If there is anything I hpe is that the Navy decides to avoid going into building binges .... followed by shipyard famines.  Wasteful and non productive.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

geo said:
			
		

> Irving did quite the mess with the Frigatte program AND dismantled it's shipyard in St John once the project was finished.  Any expertise they may have had... is gone.
> 
> If there is anything I hpe is that the Navy decides to avoid going into building binges .... followed by shipyard famines.  Wasteful and non productive.



I would hardly call 12 frigates a buying binge...considering they were the first new warships constructed in almost 2 decades. It was a sorely needed shot in the arm for the Navy, one that I hope does not come every decade or 2.


----------



## geo

my point is that it would have made a lot more sense to build em in 1s or 2s over a decade.  If they were building on even years and refitting on odd years, shipyards would be kept busy without breaking the bank and buying your expertise at top $$.


----------



## Roadracer

This would require a change in strategic thinking by the government, but makes a lot of sense. 

Canada needs ships for the Coast Guard, Fisheries Dept, RCMP and the Navy. With the strategic will, government ships could be building all the time, keeping all fleets relatively current and keeping naval architecture alive and well in this country. 

However, in order to do this, there would have to be investment in only 2 or 3 ship yards., Canada could not afford to help maintain this sort of capacity in more yards than that. 

Now the politics kicks in, which 2 (or 3) and where? Halifax and Vancouver? What about Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland? All areas with great shipbuilding traditions.


----------



## geo

Roadracer.......... at present, there aren't that many shipyards open that would benefit from the Gov't largesse.

NB - Irving shut it down and took it apart - it ain't there no more.
Halifax - more like maintenance yards over there
Quebec - Davie just got saved from the Auction block.  Bought by a Scandinavian consortium to build Offshore Oil platforms.


----------



## Roadracer

Agreed, the industry may be so far gone it is unsalvagable. Unlike the past, when there was enough infrastructure left where expensive improvements were enough to bring it all back up to standard. This time it may need to be rebuilt from scratch. 

It's too bad. I believe as recently as 10 years ago we still had a chance to execute a national shipbuilding strategy that put hulls in the water AND served industry.


----------



## Willing Foe

Roadracer said:
			
		

> Agreed, the industry may be so far gone it is unsalvagable. Unlike the past, when there was enough infrastructure left where expensive improvements were enough to bring it all back up to standard. This time it may need to be rebuilt from scratch.
> 
> It's too bad. I believe as recently as 10 years ago we still had a chance to execute a national shipbuilding strategy that put hulls in the water AND served industry.



It should be noted that the reason that we don't have a shipbuilding is because we DID execute a national shipbuilding strategy. The Liberals, when pressed to move on such a strategy decided not to have a world class shipbuilding industry. They instructed the Irvings to fill in their ship yard and paid them to do it. If they were to convert that facility back to shipbuilding they would have to repay a signficant incentive to find a new use for it.


----------



## tasop_999

I had someone tell me that there are still some facilities left on the West Coast that may be able to handle building Naval-sized ships.  Any thoughts? I know that VSL and the other major one in Vancouver are only really equipped to do refits.  I am puzzling to think who on the West Coast (besides China and Japan) this person was talking about.  I am thinking that this person was a little off the mark.  Any insights?


----------



## geo

Small shipyards abound.  BC one is working on the Orca class of training ships as we speak.  BC shipyard built those "fast cat" ferries..... which were yanked out of service and the headache sold to other parties.


----------



## Sub_Guy

tasop_999 said:
			
		

> I had someone tell me that there are still some facilities left on the West Coast that may be able to handle building Naval-sized ships.  Any thoughts? I know that VSL and the other major one in Vancouver are only really equipped to do refits.  I am puzzling to think who on the West Coast (besides China and Japan) this person was talking about.  I am thinking that this person was a little off the mark.  Any insights?



You can't be serious!  Didn't you read the post, Washington Marine Group...... WHICH, oddly enough....... builds ships on the west coast!  But if you are looking towards Asia for shipbuilding, I would have gone with Korea......   BTW WMG is one of the final two teams bidding on the JSS.......

I know it is hard to fathom, but we do have some maritime industry set up out here on the west coast....................


----------



## geo

At ease sub guy.... think I pointed that out - WMG being the lead on the Orca class... 

However weren't they also involved with the BC pacificats?


----------



## Sub_Guy

I know WMG bought them at an auction when the government sold them off....   

March 1996 - Catamaran Ferries International Inc. (CFI) is created by the government and BC Ferries for directing and building the new fast ferries.    I don't know if WMG was a part of CFI or not.

WMG was involved in the building of the Spirit Class which  are solid vessels


----------



## geo

Think you will find that the makers did buy them back.......... 

All in all, when you get down to brass tacks, there was nothing wrong with the Cats.  The problem was that the design was not well suited for the area they were intended for use.  The straights are narrow enough and the Cats would create small Tsunamis if they travelled at their max speed.  Also the problem of Floatsam, logs being ingested by the propulsion jets... and their heavy diesel consumption when run at low speeds.

The Cat builders did their job - the Cat designers and the NDP Gov't are responsible for the boondogle.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

geo said:
			
		

> Think you will find that the makers did buy them back..........
> 
> All in all, when you get down to brass tacks, there was nothing wrong with the Cats.  The problem was that the design was not well suited for the area they were intended for use.  The straights are narrow enough and the Cats would create small Tsunamis if they travelled at their max speed.  Also the problem of Floatsam, logs being ingested by the propulsion jets... and their heavy diesel consumption when run at low speeds.
> 
> The Cat builders did their job - the Cat designers and the NDP Gov't are responsible for the boondogle.



Hmmm the NDP....that would be the party that bankrupted Ont under a certain fellow that the Liberal party of Canada were seriously considering electing as their new leader and running against the current PM to have a go at the rest of the country's economy. Ain't democracy cool??


----------



## geo

He ain't no liberal & he was never voted into the Fed house under any party.

Bye the bye.... Quebec Lib party leader (&premier) was Fed Conservative..... elected to both offices.  Bob Rae did not run & he did not get elected - after being turfed out of Ontario politics


----------



## Danjanou

geo said:
			
		

> He ain't no liberal & he was never voted into the Fed house under any party.



Well actually he was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Rae

“…Rae was elected to the Canadian House of Commons in a 1978 by-election, defeating Progressive Conservative Tom Clifford by 420 votes in the Toronto riding of Broadview. He was re-elected in the new riding of Broadview—Greenwood in the 1979 federal election, and gained national prominence as the NDP's finance critic. It was the vote on Rae's motion of no confidence that brought down the Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark in December 1979.

Rae was elected to parliament for a third time in the 1980 federal election, and married Arlene Perly days later. In caucus, he sided with party leader Ed Broadbent in supporting patriation of the Canadian Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He also articulated his party's policy on the Canadian Bank Act, and criticized the Bank of Canada's high interest rate policy.”

Sorry for the hijack, we now return you to your regular scheduled thread discussion. 8)


----------



## geo

Heh.... an NDP


----------



## Cloud Cover

Reviving Discussion:

Changes to JSS: among other things, design changed to accommodate transport of Leopard 2A6M.
 http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/jss/docs/jss_sor_v_4.1.pdf

It's time to stop fooling around and start cutting steel.


----------



## geo

Other than buying a design off the shelf, don't think we have the marine architects to come out with the actual working design.  Then there is the matter of having a capable shipyard to lay down keels & build from the ground up....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I still feel JSS in its current form is a waste of time. Lets just get a couple of dedicated AORs and a couple of dedicated LPDs. That way we can get the job done right. The JSS concept is a bastardized idea that will not do whats needed even halfway correct.


----------



## geo

Agree with you Ex D, methinks we would be better off attaching ourselves to an order for  LPD / AORs by our US/UK/Aus friends... with the possibility of some "quid pro quo" always there - for now or the future...


----------



## Cloud Cover

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I still feel JSS in its current form is a waste of time. Lets just get a couple of dedicated AORs and a couple of dedicated LPDs. That way we can get the job done right. The JSS concept is a bastardized idea that will not do whats needed even halfway correct.



You and I were both saying that 4 years ago and nobody would listen.


----------



## aesop081

JSS = Big white elephant

In trying to make it everything to everyone they will just end up building a ship that is useful to no one.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> You and I were both saying that 4 years ago and nobody would listen.



Yes God forbid we might actually have a clue and know somewhat what we are talking about. :


----------



## tabernac

The bean counters could just say "Screw it!, we're keeping the AORs." Then we would be in trouble. JSS>Nothing/AOR.


----------



## aesop081

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> JSS>Nothing/AOR.



JSS means that the army wont have a transport when it wants one and that the Navy wont have an AOR when it needs one.

Even the bean counters understand that its more expensive to keep the AORs we have than building something new.


----------



## geo

The only thinkg I see coming down the line is that we are going to wait too darned long and end up in the dog house (again) without the necessary kit to do the job we have to do... dependant on other people/countries to get us to where we need to be.... and wearing out those nice new C17s we just got


----------



## 54/102 CEF

Whats the latest on the JSS? Any pointers to open source websites?  Who's the front runner - scuttle butt etc? 

Thanks in advance


----------



## PO2FinClk

Try the Navy sub-forum or even the search?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?board=43.0
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53823.0/all.html


----------



## 54/102 CEF

With the recent gravy handed out to BC and Nova Scotia I smell a NFLD award.....


----------



## geo

Nah.... Ontario awards


----------



## Neill McKay

geo said:
			
		

> Nah.... Ontario awards



Could you get a JSS though the Seaway?  Or, for that matter, is there a yard on the Lakes big enough to build one?


----------



## jollyjacktar

The size of these beasts, no.  There is of course talk going around that the project will not go ahead after all.  Both bidders have indicated that they are not going to be able to deliver for the money being offered.  This project, we are hearing whispers of to the effect it will die of crib death soon.  If so, back to square one.  Hopefully should this happen we will go with off the shelf for an oiler and the same for a LPD.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The size of these beasts, no.  There is of course talk going around that the project will not go ahead after all.  Both bidders have indicated that they are not going to be able to deliver for the money being offered.  This project, we are hearing whispers of to the effect it will die of crib death soon.  If so, back to square one.  Hopefully should this happen we will go with off the shelf for an oiler and the same for a LPD.



Maybe saner heads have come to the fore. This combo AOR/LPD is not the way to go.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Sure that is the better way to go, but I don't think we can afford to wait another 15 years.


----------



## jollyjacktar

As I understand prior to going into the ditch the suggestion was made in the strongest possible terms that they should not bother with spending the money on the refit and build a new ship instead.  The Navy's reply was that they could not wait for 6 years without a tanker.  Now the whispers are that we will have to keep this old beast going for another 10 years.  It will be virtually impossible this old beast is done it just has not the sense to lay down and die.

They need to buy off the shelf.  It will mean going out of country in all probability but it could be done effectively and easily.  Hell Hyundai will knock one out in a year time frame.  Done.  It is time we stopped screwing around and got our finger out.

Then they could look at the Amphibian project once again.  I am sure there are platforms out there that are obtainable and will do the task we need.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Funny how I always end up looking at Australia and wondering to myself, why doesn't Canada adopt their procurement policy?

Another decade for the Protecteur Class is going to be very costly, but it would be even more costly without a tanker.


----------



## jollyjacktar

A couple of years ago the LCMM for the engineering side of the house was told to be prepared to keep sourcing parts until 2018.  We lost the head to a joy compressor some years ago.  The only replacement to be found was in a junk yard in Texas.  You are not kidding when you say that it will be expensive to keep these beasts in service.  I could say more, but I am sure it would get some heads all bothered.

He was also asked in his professional opinion what parts of the engineering plants on both vessles could be taken off and installed in the replacement ships.  He reply was that it was impossible as it was 50 year old technology and 40 + year old equipment.  He suggested that they not be so cheap and invest in modern power plants.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> A couple of years ago the LCMM for the engineering side of the house was told to be prepared to keep sourcing parts until 2018.  We lost the head to a joy compressor some years ago.  The only replacement to be found was in a junk yard in Texas.  You are not kidding when you say that it will be expensive to keep these beasts in service.  I could say more, but I am sure it would get some heads all bothered.
> 
> He was also asked in his professional opinion what parts of the engineering plants on both vessles could be taken off and installed in the replacement ships.  He reply was that it was impossible as it was 50 year old technology and 40 + year old equipment.  He suggested that they not be so cheap and invest in modern power plants.



That is just sad. Another example, PRO was broken down in San Diego and the only way she could get underway again was to find an old backyard mechanic who lived near the base who was able to fashion a part that he had not seen in 25 years.

When will the Navy and Government understand that fixing crap is not the way to work efficiently.


----------



## jollyjacktar

We broke down once in PR.  We had to get  a backyard mechanic there to fix us up that time too.  Cost us $15K.  Our last trip we broke down several times and had us sitting in Mayport for a week and Norfolk for a week, it cost a bundle this time too.  It made the papers back home.  This old girl is tired and if it was a horse they would put her out to pasture years ago or shoot her.


----------



## geo

FWIW, the new CDS has come out as saying that he intends to move ( which way ??? ) on Navy requirements. 

IMHO, it'll be up to the Chief of Maritime staff to set his priorities and deliver a workable plan...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

geo said:
			
		

> FWIW, the new CDS has come out as saying that he intends to move ( which way ??? ) on Navy requirements.
> 
> IMHO, it'll be up to the Chief of Maritime staff to set his priorities and deliver a workable plan...



Agreed as mentioned here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/77915.0.html


----------



## FSTO

For those of you with access to the DIN

http://maritime.mil.ca/english/cmssuite/jul/jul2008/21-25/RDIMS_151407.doc

In a nutshell, the CMS is listening to industry who has informed the Navy that they cannot have a JSS as currently envisioned at the price Canada is willing to pay. Therefore we are looking at the Royal Netherlands Navy Joint Logistic Support Ship and the Spanish Cantabria AOR as comparisons for ideas such as purchase the plans and build in Canada, design and build (in Canada) something very similar or buy off the shelf. This will enevitably delay the delivery of the AOR replacement, but in the long run we maybe taking a page from Australia and doing (we hope) the right thing.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Finally they are starting to listen. Its too bad its taken this long for DND to clue in. isn't the Cantabria class a variant of the Patino class?


----------



## FSTO

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Finally they are starting to listen. Its too bad its taken this long for DND to clue in. isn't the Cantabria class a variant of the Patino class?



I think it is a larger version. I tried to find a picture of it (or a conceptional drawing) but so far have been unsuccessful.
As for the PATINO, we did a RAS with her during OP APOLLO and she is a nice little ship with lots of logic used in her design. I would not be disappointed if we used her as a template.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Navantia Launches Combat Replenishment Ship for the Spanish Navy 


> (Source: Navantia; dated July 21, web-posted July 22, 2008)
> Navantia has celebrated on 21st. July, in the San Fernando- Puerto Real shipyard, the ceremony of christening of the combat replenishment ship “Cantabria” for the Spanish Navy.
> 
> This contract was signed in July 2005 and the keel was laid in July 2007. The commissioning of this ship to the Spanish Navy is scheduled 12-14 months after the launching.
> 
> This is a double hull ship, capable of supplying fluids (oil, water, fuels) and solids (goods, weapons, ammunition, supplies, etc.) to a group of combat for support of Army and Navy operations. It also has capacity for support on fighting against the sea pollution, and a high hospital capacity, and therefore can be used on humanitarian operations and ecological disasters.
> 
> Main characteristics:
> -- Length overall: 173.9 meters
> -- Length between at waterline: 162.0 m
> -- Beam: 23.0 m
> -- Design draught: 8.0 m
> -- Depth: 11.8 m
> -- Weight: 9,800 tonnes
> -- Displacement: 19,500 t
> -- Propulsion: 2 x 10.890 kW + 1 CPP
> -- Maximum speed: 22 kts
> -- Range: 6,000 nautical miles
> -- Crew: 122 persons



Link to Navantia website for Cantabria and Patino


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Looks like they will then decomission the Fleet Oiler  "Marques de la Ensenada" and replace it with the Combat Replenishment Ship "Cantabria"

Just for comparison, Patino Characteristics:

Eslora total   166 m (total length)

Eslora entre perpendiculares  156 m (length between waterline)

Manga máxima  22 m (beam)

Puntal a cubierta principal  11,8 m (depth)

Desplazamiento de plena carga  17.000 t (displacement)

Velocidad máxima 20 n (max speed)

Autonomía a 20 nudos  13.500 mn (range 13500 nautical miles @ 20 kn)

Tripulación  180 p (crew)

Margen de futuro  150 t (can't find the correct english term.  :-[ )


----------



## canuck101

If they do build variants of the Spanish Cantabria AOR how many would they build, and would this leave them open to purchase a surplus LPD or LHD from the US.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I would hope they get a minimum of 3 AORs and 1 LPD. As long as the ship LPD/LHD was not over 10 years old otherwise you are going to have increased reliability issues


----------



## gvg

Latest artist impression of the Dutch JSS Karel Doorman, from (the usually well informed guys at) www.dutchfleet.net.
Not an LPD, since it doesn't have a well deck.






Around 25.000t displacement.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think thats the wrong way to go. LPD has the best of both worlds, a flight deck and a well. having an LHA only type of ship will only limit the types versatility in our Navy.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I think we'd be a lot better off with either a fourth AOR or a used ro-ro. A ro-ro could also be civilian-manned, the same as the Glen tugs.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Then we may run into the GTS Katie scenario all over again.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Has anyone stolen a Glen tug lately?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thats not the point and you know it...you start putting civillian mariners under contract in harms way (and who says they will be sailors from the 1st world) they might refuse.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Thats not the point and you know it...you start putting civillian mariners under contract in harms way (and who says they will be sailors from the 1st world) they might refuse.



You do realize that we are transporting vehicles and materiel to and from theatre in precisely this manner today?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Yup...but I will maintain that if we ever were to get an amphib the chances of GTS katie Part 2 will go down significantly.


----------



## aesop081

Maybe its time for a cost-effective solution involving a military/civilian mix. Something along the lines of the RFA maybe ?


----------



## tabernac

From a projected capabilities standpoint, the Dutch JSS seems to have more of what the Canadian JSS had in it's design. IE, embarked infantry force, C4I, and replenishment capabilities.

The Spanish JSS seems to be oriented towards humanitarian ops too much, and I don't think the CF wants or needs that.



			
				Dutch JSS said:
			
		

> carrying helicopters, hospital facilities, an embarked landing force, supplies, fuel and a suite of C4I facilities.





			
				Spanish JSS said:
			
		

> This is a double hull ship, capable of supplying fluids (oil, water, fuels) and solids (goods, weapons, ammunition, supplies, etc.) to a group of combat for support of Army and Navy operations. It also has capacity for support on fighting against the sea pollution, and a high hospital capacity, and therefore can be used on humanitarian operations and ecological disasters.



Edited for explaination


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Yup...but I will maintain that if we ever were to get an amphib the chances of GTS katie Part 2 will go down significantly.



I agree. If we ever get an amphib the chances of affording an expeditionary force to put on it go down significantly. At least with a used ro-ro we could afford its cargo. 

The Katie was a freak incident. As long as the Canadian government owns the vessel and it's crewed by the same auxiliary service that also handles the Glen tugs and Quest, the chances of that happening are pretty slim.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I agree. If we ever get an amphib the chances of affording an expeditionary force to put on it go down significantly. At least with a used ro-ro we could afford its cargo.



come on now...We already own what we would be putting on to an amphib anyways. So explain to us how would we not be able to afford an expeditionary force.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Ex-D,

I love ya like a brother, but, I'm beginning to think that an LPD/LHA is not right for us for most of what we do, most of the time.  A CF owned RO-RO would get our stuff to where we need it in 90% of the cases.  The expense and complexity of a LPD/LHA may well scupper the AOR program.  And if the AORs don't go- nothing else matters.  The Navy (at least as an entity that can venture outside of our territorial waters) will die by 2015.  Full stop.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> come on now...We already own what we would be putting on to an amphib anyways. So explain to us how would we not be able to afford an expeditionary force.



Most of what we have isnt well suited for for amphib assault. On top of that, it's worn out from service in Afghanistan, and requires major rebuilds. Which don't appear to be in the capital program, and would compete for LHD funding.

Aside from that, SKT said it better than I could.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

SKT,
 If a Ro-Ro is CF owned (which all was stated in the original post was civillian manned) and not chartered/leased what have you, then while its not as ideal as an LPD it is a better option then renting a ship.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Are the Glen tugs chartered or leased? I thought they were DND property.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Maybe its time for a cost-effective solution involving a military/civilian mix. Something along the lines of the RFA maybe ?



Or something similiar to what the USN has in practice.


----------



## blacktriangle

I'm not navy so forgive my ignorance, but why is there such a focus on an amphib when our destroyers are almost at the end of the line, same with the AORS, Frigates are mid life, submarines situation what it is etc etc...?

I really don't know if it should be a major priority for us since apparently we can't man what we have... I really have alot of respect for you navy guys and while I can buy my own chest rig and ruck, and be effective, you guys need to be properly equipped by the government with ships and systems to assert our sovriegnty and project power across the world. In my opinion, the LPD is going to take too much of the focus away from the navy's true purpose and yield only one or two ships that won't make a major difference to the way we operate. 

Unless we get into a major world war situation, we should in theory have some forewarning of an operation to use to get a RO-RO chartered, and if it is a major war, I don't think the one LHD will do as much as a properly equipped and supported group of warships.


----------



## FSTO

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Are the Glen tugs chartered or leased? I thought they were DND property.


They are DND property, manned by civilian aux crews.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Ok, thanks. I thought that was how it worked.


----------



## gvg

From the National Post.



> *Navy looks to Europe for ships*
> _Dutch Meetings; 'Ridiculous,' say Canadian shipbuilders_
> David ********, Canwest News Service
> Published: Wednesday, August 06, 2008
> 
> With its plan to construct a new fleet of navy supply ships in disarray, the Defence Department has dispatched a retired admiral to the Netherlands to look at the possibility of building the vessels there.
> 
> Retired rear admiral Ian Mack was recently sent to Europe for discussions with a Dutch shipyard as the federal government considers various options to salvage the navy's $2.9-billion Joint Support Ship project.
> 
> But any move to have the work done overseas, cutting out Canadian jobs in the process, will be met with stiff opposition from the country's shipbuilding industry, warns Peter Cairns, president of the Ottawa-based Shipbuilding Association of Canada.
> 
> "The whole thing is ridiculous," said Mr. Cairns, who acknowledged he is worried nonetheless about the meetings the Defence Department has had in Europe.
> 
> He said the department has held at least two meetings with a Dutch shipyard, the latest involving Mr. Mack, an official from the office of Dan Ross, assistant deputy minister of materiel.
> 
> Any move by the Harper government to have the navy vessels built offshore would be a major change in policy and could significantly weaken domestic shipbuilding, according to defence industry officials.
> 
> The current government policy states that vessels acquired for the government must be built in Canada.
> 
> But Canadian industry officials are worried that some in the government want to change that. "I think there's a camp that wants to go offshore," Mr. Cairns said. "There's a group of people who don't see any benefit in investing in their own country."
> 
> This year, the federal government determined that proposals from two Canadian consortiums earmarked to build the new fleet were "noncompliant."
> 
> Defence officials were told the Joint Support Ship budget was not enough to build the three vessels envisioned and attempts to obtain more funding from the government have been unsuccessful.
> 
> A number of options on how to proceed will now be looked at by the government, including building ships in Europe. Other options would be to significantly reduce the scope of what the new ships could do, as well as reducing the number to be bought to two vessels.
> 
> The new vessels are to replace the navy's ageing supply ships, which are considered vital to supporting destroyers and frigates for long periods at sea. The current supply ships carry fuel and provisions for warships but the Defence Department wants the new vessels to carry army vehicles, a command centre and a small hospital, as well as other facilities to support ground troops on shore. There is no similar type of ship like it in the world as most navies use two types of vessels to do the two distinct roles.
> 
> The Conservatives used the Joint Support Ship project to kick off the equipment portion of its Canada First Defence Strategy in June, 2006, heralding the event as a new beginning for transforming the Canadian military for the future.
> 
> Jay Paxton, press secretary for Defence Minister Peter MacKay, said on complex procurement projects it is common for allies to meet and compare processes and lessons learned.
> 
> "Although the director-general of major project delivery land and sea was in Europe on other business, he had a chance to meet with government representatives from the Netherlands who are undertaking a similar project and they compared best practices in the context of an update on their project," Mr. Paxton said.



From a Dutch perspective the article is also quite interesting, because the Dutch MoD has told Parliament in the past that there was no other (NATO or EU) country that wanted a JSS and that collaboration with another country was therefore impossible, although at that time Canada was already busy with their JSS project. 
I haven't read anything about this visit in Dutch newspapers though.


----------



## canuck101

the shipbuilding industry should not be worried there will still be plenty of work for them to do ie frigate upgrade, new destroyers, and the CG new new ships to be built too so I don't think they will go starving. 


I found more information on the Dutch JSS program at this webpage:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ae8664ce8-c638-4964-a960-5d8acf53c61f


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Personally I am hoping the Navy goes overseas for the next generation destroyer as well.


----------



## Neill McKay

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I am hoping the Navy goes overseas for the next generation destroyer as well.



Concern over the quality of Canadian work, or something else?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Seeing how the AORs and the 280s have come out of HSL I would not have them touch another naval vessel. I have never been a fan of their work and I have not seen anything good from then since I got in the Navy in 94.


----------



## Haletown

or maybe the discussions are to license the Dutch design and build it here, or build the hull and equip it here or ???


----------



## geo

From what I can gatehr, we do not have the marine architects to do the design work of what we are looking to build.
Do we give em (Cdn shipyards) the time to develop it all over again or do we go to people who have em and are using em for working plans?
Do we build here or go for broke and have em built overseas as well ???

I think we have waited too long and the pressing need for replacement ships make it necessary to have em built overseas - based on a proven design.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> From what I can gatehr, we do not have the marine architects to do the design work of what we are looking to build.
> Do we give em (Cdn shipyards) the time to develop it all over again or do we go to people who have em and are using em for working plans?
> Do we build here or go for broke and have em built overseas as well
> 
> I think we have waited too long and the pressing need for replacement ships make it necessary to have em built overseas - based on a proven design.




The Dutch JSS is not a proven design as its not even in the water yet....Granted they have had some good classes come down the slips over the past couple of decades but their JSS is still a conjectural design.


----------



## Kirkhill

geo said:
			
		

> From what I can gatehr, we do not have the marine architects to do the design work of what we are looking to build.
> Do we give em (Cdn shipyards) the time to develop it all over again or do we go to people who have em and are using em for working plans?
> Do we build here or go for broke and have em built overseas as well ???
> 
> I think we have waited too long and the pressing need for replacement ships make it necessary to have em built overseas - based on a proven design.



Further to geo's and Haletown's observations - even the Dutch don't build at home.   The have contracted out some of their shipbuilding to places like Romania.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18459/post-168365/topicseen.html#msg168365


----------



## gvg

There's only one reason the Dutch don't build all their ships at home and that is: money. 
The Damen Group (parent company of Royal Schelde, the builder of the naval vessels) owned Romanian yard can build the hulls cheaper.

But at times when the Royal Schelde is having it rough, Parliament demands all ships to be build in the Netherlands. At the moment Royal Schelde has more than enough work with the Dutch OPV's and Maroccan & Indonesian corvettes. But if times are slow again when the JSS has to be build, it will be build in the Netherlands.

All information on the Dutch JSS, besides the Ares article canuck101 mentioned, that I know of is in Dutch. But if anyone wants a couple of links, I can give them.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Building ships offshore is bad for the navy long term, although its attractive short term. 

If the shipbuilding communities weren't lobbying Ottawa for the contracts, the navy just wouldn't get very many new ships. Its sad but true.


----------



## geo

drunksubmrnr...
If we were building ships in a more logical way.... a little bit at a time, all the time, then Canada would still have naval architects capable of designing the ships - we would have shipyards with the staff & equipment necessary to build our new ships.
The feast and famine way of doing business makes absolutely no sense at all - and Canada ends up paying for it, over and over again.

If our shipbuilding ducks were all lined up and ready - the Chicoutimi wouldn't be consigned to the drydock like an expensive paperweight.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

You're preaching to the choir on ship building.

I dunno what that has to do with the Chicoutimi though...Somehow I can't see SJSL building a better submarine than Barrow. Probably not a whole lot worse either, but not better.


----------



## HalfmyLife

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Building ships offshore is bad for the navy long term, although its attractive short term.
> 
> If the shipbuilding communities weren't lobbying Ottawa for the contracts, the navy just wouldn't get very many new ships. Its sad but true.



How would this affect the long term exactly (In a naval sense, not an industrial one). In my thinking, gone are the day's when we could do an emergency build like in WWI WWII. If and when there is a major conflict, it will be fast, furious and over before you know it. Just throwing that out there to see what I get.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

HalfmyLife said:
			
		

> How would this affect the long term exactly (In a naval sense, not an industrial one). In my thinking, gone are the day's when we could do an emergency build like in WWI WWII. If and when there is a major conflict, it will be fast, furious and over before you know it. Just throwing that out there to see what I get.



Long term, we're not going to get very many new ships if they aren't built in Canadian yards. One of the major drivers for actually getting funding for new ships is regional employment aka "pork". 

There are also effects on refit and repair ability, but the major effect would be on numbers.


----------



## viper3ca

Here's an overhead shot of the new spanish AOR Canabria in the building process. 3 of these with 1 or 2 of there new LHD'S like the ones the Aussies are getting and we would be all set.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The problem with getting all of these HVUs(High Value Units) is we still need the escorts/crew/aircraft for them. It doesn't do anyone any good if we cannot give the AORs/JSS/Amphib any sort of protection from surface, sub-surface and air threats.


----------



## HalfmyLife

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Long term, we're not going to get very many new ships if they aren't built in Canadian yards. One of the major drivers for actually getting funding for new ships is regional employment aka "pork".
> 
> There are also effects on refit and repair ability, but the major effect would be on numbers.



Things we all know
280's approaching the end of there life
AOR at the end of there life
FFH - at mid life
SSK - Who really knows

Now the only plans in the works are JSS and the AOPS, While I admit that this is the perfect time to revitalize the Canadian shipbuilding industry and have it sustainable over the long term, it seems to me that the government and any future government are not really interested in spending the money to do so(current sit with JSS). So where does that leave the navy? They have to look at cheaper market's off shore, where they can afford more for less. In my view we would get more numbers. As for the quality, I don't know. 

I know I have repeated some things already stated in this post but this is where my thought process goes


----------



## canuck101

Navy's support ship replacement program scuttled

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080822.wscuttle22/BNStory/National/home

The Canadian Press

August 22, 2008 at 11:53 PM EDT

OTTAWA — The Conservative government has quietly scuttled the navy's $2.9-billion project to replace its aging supply ships, saying bids from the shipbuilding industry were “significantly” higher than the money set aside for the program.

It has also cancelled a tender call for the purchase of 12 mid-shore patrol ships for the Coast Guard.

The decisions were announced in a statement issued at 8:30 Friday night by Public Works Minister Christian Paradis.

“These vessels are a key priority of the Government of Canada,” Mr. Paradis said in the release.

“However, the government must ensure that Canadian taxpayers receive the best value for their money.”

Both National Defence and the Fisheries and Oceans Department are considering “the next steps,” Mr. Paradis added.

But the decision to halt the Joint Support Ship project is a major blow to a navy that is already struggling to keep its existing 1960s vintage replenishment ships — HMCS Preserver and Protecteur — in the water.

The “tankers,” as they are known in the navy, are vital to keeping warships supplied with fuel, ammunition, spare parts and supplies during long overseas operations.

Both were expected to reach the end of their service life between 2010 and 2012, but Friday's decision means they will likely have to remain at sea longer.

No one at the Defence Department was available to comment late Friday night.

The program to acquire three new multi-role ships was announced in Halifax in June 2006 by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor. The announcement was heralded at the time as the beginning of a new era for the navy.

Almost right from the beginning the plan ran into trouble as designers tried to incorporate everything into the ships that naval planners had requested.

The ships were expected to function as re-supply vessels, cargo carriers for the army, a floating headquarters and possibly a hospital ship, depending upon the mission assigned.

Defence sources say the two consortiums that were bidding basically determined the ships could not be built for the amount of money the Conservative government had set aside.

Within the navy proposals were kicked around to cut the number of ships to two, but it was ultimately determined not to be practical from an operational point of view, said the sources who spoke on background.

The decision is also a blow to the coast guard.

Last year, Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn announced $324-million had been aside for the purchase and maintenance of six new vessels for the coast guard fleet.

Among those plans was the purchase of 12 new mid-shore patrol vessels.

They were to be used primarily for fisheries conservation and protection duties in the Maritime, Quebec and Pacific regions.
But at least four of the ships were to be tasked for maritime security duties on the St. Lawrence Seaway-Great Lakes system


----------



## Bigrex

Yes, it'll be hard for all the Harper fanboys on these forums to brush this one aside. This was a major program that will affect the entire Navy's operational capabilities, and put sailors lives at risk, and just because it will cost too much. 

To bad they spent all of that 14 billion dollar surplus or they could have paid for this. now they'll probably have to pay big bucks for canceling contracts (just like they got angry at the Libs for doing on the EH-101 contract) and will have to rob our pension funds again to pay for whatever, most likely used replenishment vessels, they decide to go with. Canada is the only major Country that intentionally goes out looking to buy other countries cast-offs to arm their military with.  All this makes me glad I'm an EX-sailor.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ah a typical response....its ok that that the Liberals tried to make an unworkable jack of all trades ship and place it it on the Conservatives to make it work. How convient you forgot about that isn't it? Look through the posts here and you will find the majority of us "Harper fanboys" felt the design would not work. I am glad your gloating that the navy will be without AORs for another X number of years. I am sure you are real proud of yourself! :


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Well not one single side of parliament has gone out of thier way to move forward in our nations defences, nor it's ability to produce the tools that go along with it. Untill Ottawa can get it's collective act together we are as good as pants down and bent over.  :-[

 We need one government, one plan, one nation unified and outfitted to succeed.  

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> We need one government, one plan, one nation unified and outfitted to succeed.



Zu Befehl.


----------



## Monsoon

Ex-D - Partisanship aside, this is pretty inexcusable. And you know as well as the rest of us that "the Liberals" didn't design JSS. The real test will be how quickly a plan B comes around. If there is no plan B, then this is just a desperate budgetary measure. Alternately, someone realized that a comparable ship could be bought from a foreign shipyard for much less. Only time will tell.


----------



## FSTO

Bigrex said:
			
		

> Yes, it'll be hard for all the Harper fanboys on these forums to brush this one aside. This was a major program that will affect the entire Navy's operational capabilities, and put sailors lives at risk, and just because it will cost too much.
> 
> To bad they spent all of that 14 billion dollar surplus or they could have paid for this. now they'll probably have to pay big bucks for canceling contracts (just like they got angry at the Libs for doing on the EH-101 contract) and will have to rob our pension funds again to pay for whatever, most likely used replenishment vessels, they decide to go with. Canada is the only major Country that intentionally goes out looking to buy other countries cast-offs to arm their military with.  All this makes me glad I'm an EX-sailor.



No contracts were signed so there will be no cancellation fees. Although I support the idea of a dedicated AOR, I just hate the thought of all that work down the drain and having to start the procurement process from scratch. We know what we want, we know what we want it to do, lets go out and get a design and build the damn thing(s).


----------



## The_Dictat

It's a shame that the project is scuttled.  I understand one of the main reasons for it is the steep increase of metal cost which was not accurately forecasted when the project was launched.  I do not fault the government with the decision, it is a smart business decision.  They do not want to have the same problems that the US Navy is facing with its shipbuilding programs and the severe cost overruns.  

That being said, I just hope the work has already started to rescope the project towards dedicated AORs thus reducing the costs.  I am still unsure about getting LPD/LPH, that would be cool though.  I think supporting (with AORs) the Navy should come first and then buy a Ro/RO ship for transport.

The good news about this bad news is that the money can be diverted to accelerate the purchase of other equipment.  What would that be?


----------



## Sub_Guy

I am glad this one tanked, building an all in one ship was a crazy idea from the start.  We need dedicated AOR's, an AMPHIB capability would be cool, but we don't need cool!  

Hopefully there will be a plan "B" announced soon.


----------



## Bearpaw

How far would the Type 702 Berlin class replenishment ships go to fulfilling the JSS requirements? 

They are being produced currently(Germany has ordered a third ship) and seem to be about the right size.


----------



## FSTO

I think we should quit calling it the JSS, at this stage of the game we are getting an AOR and that is it. On the plus side, there shouldn't be a problem getting a design for it.


----------



## HalfmyLife

My question is this, could we get 3 (plus?) AOR for the price of 3 JSS (I think so) and a RO/RO type ship?


----------



## FSTO

HalfmyLife said:
			
		

> My question is this, could we get 3 (plus?) AOR for the price of 3 JSS (I think so) and a RO/RO type ship?


More than likely get 4 AOR's and that's it. Ro/Ro or LPH would have to come seperate.


----------



## HalfmyLife

FSTO said:
			
		

> More than likely get 4 AOR's and that's it. Ro/Ro or LPH would have to come seperate.


Well at this point anything would be great, sad but true.


----------



## Pud

So just so I am clear on this, the Gov't had a certain amount of money set aside for this project but its going to cost more than what was expected so they canned the idea.  If this be the case, whats to come of the money that they originally had set aside for the project?  That should be the next question placed at their doorstep.


----------



## Neill McKay

Pud said:
			
		

> So just so I am clear on this, the Gov't had a certain amount of money set aside for this project but its going to cost more than what was expected so they canned the idea.  If this be the case, whats to come of the money that they originally had set aside for the project?  That should be the next question placed at their doorstep.



I would imagine that they will start a new process to procure more modest vessels that fit in the budgeted amount.  (That's what this is: a budgeted amount, not an actual bag of money sitting somewhere.)

One thing I haven't seen in any of the press coverage on this issue: what's the connection between the JSS project and the Coast Guard vessels?  Nobody seems to have reported why the latter were also cancelled.


----------



## NavyShooter

Ok,

So I guess my take on this is, if the "At home" bidders have now been eliminated from the project....does that mean that they can go elsewhere and COTS a ship from somewhere else?

I mean, that'd allow us to fast-track the purchase somewhat, no?

NavyShooter


----------



## GAP

I think it was mentioned here already, but the concept the Australians used seemed to keep the costs down....


----------



## FSTO

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Ok,
> 
> So I guess my take on this is, if the "At home" bidders have now been eliminated from the project....does that mean that they can go elsewhere and COTS a ship from somewhere else?
> 
> I mean, that'd allow us to fast-track the purchase somewhat, no?
> 
> NavyShooter



Fast track and Canadian military procurement are two terms that are never used in the same sentence.


----------



## geo

Shooter....
all this is saying is that the project, as presented, was too rich for the Government to swallow.
The gov't/Navy can either return to the contractors with a slimmed down wish list and consider new proposals from Cdn shipyards OR
they can obtain plans from a foreign design & work on technology exchange - having the ships built in Canada OR
they can obtain plans and ships from foreign sources.... which won't fly too well with the Electorate BUT might fly on a principle of austerity.


----------



## FSTO

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Ex-D - Partisanship aside, this is pretty inexcusable. And you know as well as the rest of us that "the Liberals" didn't design JSS. The real test will be how quickly a plan B comes around. If there is no plan B, then this is just a desperate budgetary measure. Alternately, someone realized that a comparable ship could be bought from a foreign shipyard for much less. Only time will tell.



From the CMS website: http://maritime.mil.ca/english/cmssuite/jul/jul2008/21-25/RDIMS_151407.doc
Dated 20 July 08
First Paragraph

1.	The procurement challenges associated with the Joint Support Ship (JSS) Project suggest that the current phase will soon be completed.  While the government has made no decisions to limit its options to pursue either an onshore or offshore procurement, it is prudent for us to begin to examine a range of options to better inform future decision-making regarding our path forward in addressing this essential operational requirement.
The Navy has known for quite some time that this could happen and they were already out looking for other options. I just hope that they have shelved the idea of an "all in one ship".
Also of note, after 2010 or maybe 2015 at the latest, our AOR's will not be allowed into anybody's territorial waters because of their single hulls. So to coin a term from the PM we'll be forced to fish or cut bait if we want this capability. 

That it has come to this point is a reflection of absolute maze of BS that government procurement has become. Why PWGSC is even involved is crazy, TB should set out the rules, the departments abide by them. The department makes their case to the cabinet and get approved or rejected based on needs and monetary concerns. Also the political parties and bureaucrats HAVE to come together on a way ahead for our military. There has to be an agreement between Harper-Dion-Layton-Deuceppe and yes even Lizzy-Mae on what kind of military/coast guard/customs enforcement do we need and what kind of equipment do we require to carry out this mandate. Then a change in government does not mean a wholesale change of procurement and roles. For example Australia (why do they seem to be a template of what works? except for Seasprite and Collins) had a change of government but there was no (it appears) no real change in government policy when it comes to the ADF. If they can do it why have we so crapped the bed when it comes to things like national security?


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> For example Australia (why do they seem to be a template of what works?)



Hardly........Go look up how things went with the super seasprite program for one example.......


----------



## Sub_Guy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Hardly........Go look up how things went with the super seasprite program for one example.......



After you are done reading that, have a good look at the Collins class project.  At least the submarines are in service now, but it was a long bumpy road to get them there.


----------



## FSTO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Hardly........Go look up how things went with the super seasprite program for one example.......



Nobody is perfect, but we had a fully booted and spurred Saint John Shipbuilding yard with a trained and experienced workforce. We knew that our AOR's, 280's, Entire Coast Guard fleet needed to be replaced within the next 20 years and we pissed it all away.


----------



## aesop081

This is like a family of 5 going shopping for a new set of wheels.

The family's budget is $35 000 and they want a large SUV.

Toyota has a model that meets the requirements but its $40 000

Ford has one as well but its $39 000

Chevy has one but its $42 000

All of the large SUV models that the family needs are above the maximum that can be spent. What is the family to do ?

They go home and review their requirements.

Turns out that a mini-van will fullfil all the requirements that family has but at a lower cost ( doesnt have as much LCF and some bells & wistles) that is within the $35 000 budget.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

You missed an option...

Save up till you CAN afford one.  ;D


----------



## aesop081

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Save up till you CAN afford one.  ;D



We dont have that kind of time. We are the family whos car doesnt start and cant pass the safety inspection anymore.

Either we spend within budget or we cut something else. With a military that needs so much....i dont think we have anything left to cut that would produce enough money.


----------



## Neill McKay

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> This is like a family of 5 going shopping for a new set of wheels.
> 
> The family's budget is $35 000 and they want a large SUV.
> 
> Toyota has a model that meets the requirements but its $40 000
> 
> Ford has one as well but its $39 000
> 
> Chevy has one but its $42 000
> 
> All of the large SUV models that the family needs are above the maximum that can be spent. What is the family to do ?
> 
> They go home and review their requirements.
> 
> Turns out that a mini-van will fullfil all the requirements that family has but at a lower cost ( doesnt have as much LCF and some bells & wistles) that is within the $35 000 budget.



That's an excellent explanation.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> You missed an option...
> 
> Save up till you CAN afford one.  ;D



I am glad you're amused by the possible loss of a much needed capability for the Navy to deploy... :


----------



## Snafu-Bar

I guess lease to own is out of the question  ;D

 Seems to me that the money is set aside, why not invest it till the amount needed is secured before settling for refits and less than's, only to compound the problem down the road. 

Cheers


----------



## geo

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> You missed an option...
> 
> Save up till you CAN afford one.  ;D


Add to the assumption that the car you have is well worn & on it's last leggs.
You have to replace it within 24 months or have to spend a bundle or repairs AND
there is the distinct possibility that the licencing authority will not licence your current vehicle beyond same said 24 months...

SO, what are ya going to do ???


----------



## aesop081

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Seems to me that the money is set aside, why not invest it till the amount needed is secured before settling for refits and less than's, only to compound the problem down the road.



Ok, while i understand that you brain has already hit max processing capacity, i will say this again for you.......



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> We dont have that kind of time. We are the family whos car doesnt start and cant pass the safety inspection anymore.



The current AORs are life-expired. JSS turned out to be too expensive. Do-it-all-and-then-some things always cost too much. Why not get something a little less gucci, that does the jobs we really need as oposed to be without a vital capability.


----------



## Neill McKay

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Seems to me that the money is set aside, why not invest it till the amount needed is secured before settling for refits and less than's, only to compound the problem down the road.



It's just a number on a sheet of paper (somewhere in the defence budget).  It wouldn't make sense to specifically invest that sum of money for a time as that would tie up the money when it could be used for any of the thousands of things the federal government does, anything from another defence project to new weather forecasting equipment for Environment Canada to paying the janitors in the House of Commons.  It's all part of the federal pot, and if a decision is made to procure some other vessels to replace the JSS programme (which I imagine we all hope it will be) then X millions of dollars will be budgeted at that time.


----------



## viper3ca

What ships  currently being  built for AOR do you think  would be the best  suited for the Canadian Navy? The first two that come to mind are Spains Canabria  and the German Berlin class? Another option is to go with the Dutch JSS.


----------



## aesop081

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Seems to me that the money is set aside, why not invest it till the amount needed is secured before settling for refits and less than's, only to compound the problem down the road.



Furthermore, its not like the gov just hands the builder a check for 1.2 billion dollars and says " build us a ship"

The money is paid to the builder over several years during construction of the ship program. The builder usualy gets given a bunch of money at first to purchase long-lead items and then gets so much at each stage of construction.


----------



## gwp

The Minister is taking a positive approach


> OTTAWA — Renewing the coast guard fleet and ensuring the Armed Forces have the equipment they need remains a key government priority, Public Works Minister Christian Paradis said yesterday, even as his government moves to scuttle its multimillion-dollar plans to purchase a resupply ship for the navy and new patrol vessels for the coast guard.
> 
> “Our first wish was to have this procurement to be finalized that we could go forward. Unfortunately, there is a major budget constraint here, so this is why we had to announce that the procurements are over,” Paradis said. “We have to make sure that the taxpayers get the most for their dollars.”
> 
> The two programs to rebuild Canada’s maritime capabilities were thrown into limbo Friday night after the Conservative government announced it had rejected the bids it had received for the navy’s $2.9-billion Joint Support Ship project. Both bids were significantly over the established budget for the shipbuilding program.
> 
> But Paradis said the government would continue to work toward getting the military and the coast guard the equipment they needed.
> “This is our key priority … since we got into office that we will give Defence the supplies that they need and the renewal of the coast guard ships,” said Paradis. “Fisheries and Oceans and DND [the Department of National Defence] are looking on their side to see what will be the next step . . . but for now, the procurement process [is] over.”



The solution lies in the Canadian Shipbuilding Industry becoming more efficient or the Government establishing a shipbuilding policy that would allow the Shipbuilding Industry to trust that there is sustainable work. Or both (which chicken which egg). 

The boom-bust approach to shipbuilding generally in Canada has not generated the infrastructure or the workforce that competes internationally. Yet, there is real politics of "Buy Canada."


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

So we have to wait until the Canadian Shipbuilding industry wakes up before the Government looks into getting new ships for the Navy and the CCG again???


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Here's a recent write-up on the subject in the Hill Times from Darcy Knoll who is a senior writer for _Esprit de Corps _, Scott Taylor's magazine. 

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2008/august/25/program/&c=2

Not a bad write-up in my opinion. I found it pretty informative, however, I haven't really been following the program, so some the info may be old news to other posters. However, I found the Headline *[i]"Joint Support Ship program has floundered in a 'minefield' [/i]* to be may be a little overboard.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

The news(cbcn "The National") reported the plans haven't been scrapped and that it was on hold. What that entails is yet to be seen. 

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

viper3ca said:
			
		

> What ships  currently being  built for AOR do you think  would be the best  suited for the Canadian Navy? The first two that come to mind are Spains Canabria  and the German Berlin class? Another option is to go with the Dutch JSS.


I would hope they would go with either the Pantino class or Berlin class


----------



## geo

Ex D,
Pantino Command functions sits in the back while Berlin's sits in the front.
any preference over where the Command function should be located ???


----------



## hugh19

I would say forward. As both the Protectuer and Provider had the bridge forward.


----------



## aesop081

sledge said:
			
		

> I would say forward.



But why ?

Other classes of AORs have the superstructure aft.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

geo said:
			
		

> Ex D,
> Pantino Command functions sits in the back while Berlin's sits in the front.
> any preference over where the Command function should be located ???



I am in the bowels of a ship...for me it does not matter as its usually the CO up there...


----------



## Nfld Sapper

HMCS PROTECTEUR





B.A.C. "Patiño"





FGS Berlin

Does it really make a difference where the bridge sits?


----------



## geo

was just wondering if there were any practical considerations.....
Mechanicals concentrated in the rear
Noise issues of being over the engine room

Remember... am a green Engineer - confortable on Zodiacs and rafts


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

*Snicker* I am an Operator so placement of the superstructure only matters on how it blocks my sensors


----------



## FSTO

The best person to ask would be a Nav Arc mainly for stability issues. As a MARS Officer with the bridge aft you will be able to see everything that is going on the RAS deck. Other than that its pretty much a saw off weather you have one or two superstructures.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> The best person to ask would be a Nav Arc mainly for stability issues. As a MARS Officer with the bridge aft you will be able to see everything that is going on the RAS deck. Other than that its pretty much a saw off weather you have one or two superstructures.



Or you can build a Trawler Bridge.  Bridge forard with glass fore and aft so that the fishing master can direct  both navigation and net operations on the trawl deck.






Edit - OK, I give up.  Could somebody please link to the image above and post it properly?

Thanks.


----------



## HalfmyLife

Does anyone here believe that we will see new AOR's/JSS or what ever you want to call it approved anytime the foreseeable future. With an election on the horizon and with the current government with a 50/50 shot of winning. It seems to me we are looking at another MHP!!!


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Or you can build a Trawler Bridge.  Bridge forard with glass fore and aft so that the fishing master can direct  both navigation and net operations on the trawl deck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit - OK, I give up.  Could somebody please link to the image above and post it properly?
> 
> Thanks.



Take the url and place it between the insert image place holder like so (remove the extra space after img) [ img] url goes here[/img]


----------



## blacktriangle




----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks guys.

Still learnin'.


----------



## GAP

Canada’s C$ 2.9B “Joint Support Ship” Project Sinks
26-Aug-2008 18:49 EDT
Article Link

HMCS Protecteur, and HMCS Preserver have contributed to humanitarian aid missions in Florida and the Bahamas, peace-making off Somalia and East Timor, and have been poised for the evacuation of non-combatants from Haiti, to name but a few. 

As part of its spate of military modernization announcements issued just before Canada Day (July 1) 2006, the Canadian government issued an RFP that began the process of defining and building 3 “Joint Support Ships.” The aim was to deliver 3 multi-role vessels with substantially more capability than the current Protecteur Class oiler and resupply ships. In addition to being able to provide at-sea support (re-fueling and re-supply) to deployed naval task groups, the new JSS ships were envisioned as ships that would also be capable of sealift operations, as well as amphibious support to forces deployed ashore. 

This was expected to be a C$ 2.9 billion (USD $2.58 billion) project. DID describes the process, the 4 pre-qualified industry teams participating, and some of the issues swirling around Canada’s very ambitious specifications. 

Specifications that ultimately sank the whole project, in a manner that was predictable from the outset. Leaving Canada’s navy with a serious problem…

JSS: The Procurement Process 
JSS: Contracts and Key Events [updated] 
Appendix A: DID Op-ed/Analysis – June 30, 2006 
Appendix B: Additional Readings [updated] 
JSS: The Procurement Process

Here’s how the three-step process announced by Paul Martin’s Liberal Party government in 2006 was expected to work:

Four industry teams have been pre-qualified to compete for the contract. A request for proposals, to be issued shortly, will trigger the process to select two industry teams for the project definition phase.

The second phase, Project Definition, will see two qualified consortia selected from among the qualifying proposals. These two consortia will each be awarded a C$ 12.5 million contract to produce and deliver an implementation proposal consisting of a preliminary ship design, a project implementation plan, and an in-service support plan. These proposals will be evaluated on the basis of compliance and the proposal demonstrating the best value, taking into consideration technical merit and total ownership cost, will be selected as the winner.

The final phase, Project Implementation, will see the winning bidder awarded two separate but inter-related contracts. The first will be for the completed design for and construction of the Joint Support Ships. The second will be for the in-service support for the life of the vessels. Delivery of the first ship is targeted for 2012. 

The expected overall project cost for the JSS includes a base cost of C$ 2.1 billion (USD $1.87 billion), plus an estimated C$ 800 million (USD $712 million) in contracted in-service support over 20 years. Industry teams are led by:

Irving Shipbuilding 
BAE Systems (Project) Limited (BAE Systems Naval Ships) 
ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG 
SNC-Lavalin Profac Inc. 
A list of the required capabilities can be found in the Canadian government’s detailed release. Supply functions, medical care, repair facilities, self-defense, roll-on roll-off, lift-on lift-off helicopter operation, ice capabilities, deck space for vehicles…. the list goes on. 

All in a 200m/28,000t ship.

The new Conservative Party government kept the JSS program, and followed the competition procedure to narrow the contest down to just 2 bidders: ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG, and SNC-Lavalin Profac Inc.

In the end, however, the specifications, design, and budget simply could not be made to agree. The JSS project is currently in limbo. A solution is required, and soon, but successfully executing one will demand a rethink of the project’s main premises.

JSS: Contracts and Key Events


HMCS Protecteur
(click to view larger)Aug 22/08: The End. Canada’s Ministry of Public Works and Government Services announces the termination of the JSS program:

“After receiving and evaluating the mandatory requirements for the Joint Support Ship Project from the bidders, the Crown has determined that the proposals were not compliant with the basic terms of the Request for Proposals (RFP). Among other compliance failures, both bids were significantly over the established budget provisions…. The Department of National Defence and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are currently considering the next steps. The government is committed to procure, repair and refit vessels in Canada according to the government’s Buy Canada policy.”

The Hill Times was blunt, as it offered more background details:

“According to industry insiders, both design teams were unable to come up with a ship design under-budget. Although details are tight, officials say one team submitted a blueprint for two vessels [instead of 3], while the other sent in a plan for three, which was way over budget. In other words, industry has sent a strong signal to Ottawa – either increase the funding or scale down the project.”

The government’s decision leaves the Canadian navy’s future ability to operate independently at risk. HMCS Preserver and HMCS Protecteur were expected to reach the end of their service life between 2010- 2012, but the failure of the JSS concept means that it will be very difficult to build replacement ships before that date. Meanwhile, HMCS Preserver is headed into dock to have its boiler system repaired, just 2 years after the last repair. Those systems are an ongoing risk, as the Canadian Press explains:

“An undated briefing note, leaked to The Canadian Press over the weekend, show the navy was bracing for the blow…. “If the Protecteur and Preserver are going to be needed longer than expected, we will also determine what needs to be done to keep our supply ships safe, operational and available until they can be replaced…. Many of their systems are nearly obsolete, such as the boilers they use to generate steam for main propulsion. As you might expect, it’s becoming increasingly difficult and costly to maintain these ships. Spare parts are no longer readily available, and the skills needed to operate and maintain systems that were already mature in the 1960s are becoming increasingly rare.”.... Beyond basic mechanics, marine engineering designs and environmental laws have become more complex over the last 40 years. The navy’s two supply ships are single hull designs…”

See also: The Hill Times | Globe & Mail | Canwest News Service | Canadian Press | CBC.

Aug 3/08: The National Post reports that discussions have begun with Dutch shipbuilders, in the wake of serious problems with the JSS bid. The Netherlands builds the highly-regarded Rotterdam Class LSDs – but political friction is building around the prospect of contracting for shipbuilding outside Canada. Even though…

“This year, the federal government determined that proposals from two Canadian consortiums earmarked to build the new fleet were “noncompliant.” Defence officials were told the Joint Support Ship budget was not enough to build the three vessels envisioned and attempts to obtain more funding from the government have been unsuccessful.”

See Apendix A, which discusses why this outcome could have been, and was, predicted long in advance. Meanwhile, Conservative Party Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s press secretary Jay Paxton is attempting to douse the flames of controversy regarding the Netherlands visit:

“Although the director-general of major project delivery land and sea was in Europe on other business, he had a chance to meet with government representatives from the Netherlands who are undertaking a similar project and they compared best practices in the context of an update on their project.”

May 19/08: The Ottawa Citizen reports problems with the JSS program:

“The $2.1 billion set aside for buying three Joint Support Ships is not enough, defence officials confirm. They point out that part of the problem is the new vessels would conduct missions far beyond the scope of re-supplying warships at sea, the role now done by the decades-old Protecteur-class ships…. There is no similar type of ship in the world, as most navies use two types of vessels to perform the distinct roles.

Defence officials have heard from industry that the money set aside by the government might be enough for two ships, not three.”
More on link


----------



## geo

> Defence officials have heard from industry that the money set aside by the government might be enough for two ships, not three.”



By the time construction was complete, if this goes on much longer, the money set asside would probably be enough for just 1


----------



## GAP

Canada's Navy dodges a bullet
Posted: August 27, 2008, 5:30 PM by Kelly McParland 
Full Comment, Matt Gurney
Article Link
The unexpected press release announcing the termination of procurement processes for two new types of ships for the Canadian Coast Guard and Navy was no doubt a heavy blow. And for the perennially underfunded Coast Guard, the indefinite delay for the twelve new patrol ships they’d been counting on must be a bitter thing indeed. 

The Navy, however, might just have dodged an expensive bullet. The Joint Support Ship (JSS) program was never a good idea. It is no surprise  that the program could not be afforded at the desired cost, since it is a typically Canadian attempt to reinvent the wheel with a homegrown “Made in Canada” solution. Canadian shipwrights are as gifted as any in the world, and our technology is first-class. All that matters not, however, when the very concept of the ship itself is fundamentally flawed. 

The two Protecteur-class Auxiliary Oil Replenishment (AOR) ships possessed by the Canadian Navy today are almost forty years old. These large ships serve a vital role in the fleet, serving as mobile pit crews for our warships at sea. They can sail alongside a frigate or destroyer and refuel its tanks while underway, and have enough storage space aboard to maintain a stockpile of spare parts and ammunition to help keep those ships fully functional while deployed. These vital supplies, along with well-equipped medical and dental facilities, allow our warships to stay on station longer, free of the need to return to port for fuel and provisions. The Protecteurs are, however, starting to show their age, with operating costs climbing as they break down and spare parts become harder to find. After four decades of honourable service, these fine ships should be retired and replaced with alacrity.

The JSS concept should have been just that – a modern replacement to an already proven class of vessels. While retaining the storage space, health care facilities, and fuel bunkers, they could have been fitted out with more modern engines, powerful defensive weapons with the computers to match, and would have benefited from decades of experience at how to make ships easier to maintain, harder to detect, and more environmentally friendly. These hypothetical new AOR ships would have made a substantial contribution to improving the Canadian Navy’s effectiveness while having the undeniably appealing fringe benefit of helping sustain Canada’s struggling shipbuilding industry. 

The JSS’s, however, were doomed by the bureaucratic realities of “capability creep.” Canada is in the enviable position of being secure within its own borders; our military is mainly for use abroad. In recent years, there have been several embarrassing incidents where the Canadian Forces have been unable to move troops and equipment to where they were needed. The ability to pick up a unit and drop it somewhere else in the world, with everything it needs to function along with it, is known as strategic lift, and Canada has chronically lacked it. The Air Force has recently taken delivery of four giant C-17 transport aircraft that are ideal for moving troops and equipment, whether this means infantry and tanks to Afghanistan or our DART team to disaster areas around the globe. These planes give the Canadian Forces strategic airlift, and the Navy wants a way of providing strategic sealift.

The men at the top of the Navy are of course realists, and they know that even the most hawkish Canadian government is ultimately answerable to a notoriously gun-shy electorate. The need for new AORs is obvious and palatable to any political party; they are, after all, support vessels, not mean, scary warships. Therefore, the AOR replacements are a near-sure thing, insofar as much as any Canadian military expenditure can ever be considered certain. Given that, and the Navy’s desire to grab a piece of the strategic lift pie, a decision was made to incorporate as much troop carrying capacity as possible into an AOR design. 

This was a mistake for any number of reasons. Fundamentally, it comes down to the fact that a compromise between an AOR and a troop ship capable of supporting an amphibious landing is exactly that: a compromise that does neither job well or economically. An AOR is already a large vessel; it has to be in order to hold enough fuel to do its job. Trying to shoehorn in enough empty space to carry troops, vehicles, equipment and the communications gear necessary to serve as a floating headquarters is unrealistic, as the inability of either received bid to come in at the three billion dollar budget for the program attests. You can have a good ship on budget or a totally new kind of hybrid ship for lots of money, but reinventing the wheel costs, and the Canadian military can’t afford it. 

Then there is the problem inherent to packing too many vital functions onto one platform. It would be rather embarrassing for Canada if we ever found ourselves needing to send troops abroad to one place while fueling a task force somewhere else. Not even the fastest ship can yet be two places at once, and if Canada truly believes that it needs to be able to support squadrons at sea while putting troops ashore, it is incumbent upon us to try and ensure we can do both of those jobs simultaneously. 

On top of these very real limitations is the sheer absurdity of the idea. Does anyone at National Defence Headquarters really think  it would be a good idea to approach a potentially hostile shore in a ship that is essentially a sluggish gas can packed with ammunition?
More on link


----------



## aesop081

Praise the lord, someone said it out loud.......


----------



## FSTO

This article points out everything I have been saying about JSS for years.


----------



## gwp

FSTO said:
			
		

> This article points out everything I have been saying about JSS for years.



 The requirements set forth in the JSS project represent the minimum essential requirements, which are both realistic and achievable. 

Yes, the JSS concept is innovative – but no more than was HMCS Provider when she was built in the mid-60s.  Provider combined capabilities into a single hull that no other navy had attempted before, and we benefited enormously for 40 years as a result.  In the same way, the Joint Support Ship is essential to address Canada’s future needs.

The JSS is not an amphibious ship and was never intended to deliver an amphibious capability. While sealift and support to forces ashore capabilities have been included in the ship, the JSS would provide a very different capability. First and foremost, the role of JSS is to support operations by enabling a naval task group to deploy and to remain on station anywhere in the world. The unique capability requirements of Canada’s Navy are not addressed by the differing capability needs and projects of other countries, and therefore a direct comparison cannot be made. 

The JSS is a project that the Navy supports these ships will fulfill a critical role in the conduct of naval operations at home and abroad. The ships were intended to provide a broad range of capabilities and options to future governments for the next half-century.


----------



## geo

Problem is - we need new ships for the AOR / Provider/Preserver role.....
can we wait for the additional $$ needed for the JSS... watcha ya gonna do ???


----------



## GAP

Build 2.....order the 3rd as soon as $$$ can be budgeted....


----------



## aesop081

gwp said:
			
		

> The requirements set forth in the JSS project represent the minimum essential requirements



No it does not. It provided the "that what we want" solution, not the "what we need " solution. There is a difference.



> the Joint Support Ship is essential to address Canada’s future needs.



Sealift is essential.........not JSS.




> The ships were intended to provide a broad range of capabilities and options to future governments for the next half-century.



....and it did this at a rice that was unaffordable for the government therefore it provided zero capability.


----------



## Bearpaw

I will throw myself on the altar with the following suggestion(food for thought):

===============================================================
TGSS(Task Group Support Ship) = AOR+

number in class=4 or 5 (order 2 or 3 now with follow-on option for 1 or 2)

complete flat-top except for 2 island towers(port, starboard) with (replenishment gear, cargo sling) engine exhaust+Radar/Comm structures 

10,000 tons light, 28,000 tons full load 
flight deck = 200m long, 30m wide
Speed = 20 knots sustained
Range = 12000 km at 15 knots
Crew = 160-180(ship crew)
              80 (aircraft)
              10(medical)
              30(HQ team)

Armament
2 Goalkeeper Dual Purpose (fore and aft)
4 x RAM-21 (2 on each island tower, 1 fore and aft)
6 x 12.7 mm HMG mountings(3 on each side)
passive decoy systems

Aviation

2 elevators from hangar deck to flight deck
4 - 6 large naval helicopters
8-12 UAH(CL-327) for surveillance, ASW sonobouy dipping,....
Under-deck Hangarspace  for 6 large naval helicopters

Survivability: 
Damaged Stability Enhanced Two Compartment

Ice Capability
First year Ice Capabiity

Task Group Command Facilities with Naval and Shore communications

Underway support

Fuel 10,000 - 12000 tonnes
JP-5 1500 -   2000 tonnes
Ammunition  1500 tonnes
Dry Stores   2000 tonnes

Medical support

30 bed and 2OR hospital capable of modular expansion
dental facilities
===============================================================

This ship would look similar to some of the Japanese carriers or WWII.


----------



## aesop081

Great.......as if AOR + Sealift wasnt enough

you want AOR + CV + LCC + Hospital ship




> 8-12 UAH(CL-327) for surveillance, *ASW sonobouy dipping*,....



WTF is that ?


----------



## Bearpaw

No Sealift above---basically an AOR + enhanced helicopter capacity.

CL-327 is a unmanned surveillance helicopter developed in Canada----USN did some tests on it in the
late 1990's. It has quite a bit of potential provided you "think out of the box". As we may be getting back into the ASW business in the future they may well be useful for that type of work.
Canada has really missed the boat by not developing these----there are several " out of the box" land applications which could be very handy for small units.  I am sure we are waiting for the US to do it first then clamor to pay 10-20 times what we should for them.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/cl-327.htm


No hospital ship---As I understand it the current AORs supply enhanced medical facilities now---I do not know what size.  Personally I would not put extensive hospital facilities on a tanker for obvious reasons but with the enhanced enclosed space under a flight deck you have the space to do many things.

CV??---I am not advocating a small aircraft carrier----just a large simple flight deck---no catapult, arresting gear.

LCC???--not sure what this is.


----------



## aesop081

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> No Sealift above---basically an AOR + enhanced helicopter capacity.



What you described above is well beyond even an AOR +



> CL-327 is a unmanned surveillance helicopter developed in Canada----USN did some tests on it in the



I'm aware thanks.....


> It has quite a bit of potential provided you "think out of the box". As we may be getting back into the ASW business in the future they may well be useful for that type of work.



I live and eat ASW, i'm aware of whats in or out of the box



> No hospital ship---As I understand it the current AORs supply enhanced medical facilities now---I do not know what size.



30 beds and 2 ORs is well beyond a simple capability to support.

CV??---I am not advocating a small aircraft carrier----[/quote]

6 large naval helos and UAVs with hangar space below decks .........thats not an AOR plus.



> LCC???--not sure what this is.



Well......


> Task Group Command Facilities with Naval and Shore communications



Thats at least the role of our current destroyers and if you mean shore cooms for supporting land ops then thats the job of an LCC.

Too many jobs for a single ship.....too much money $$$

Exactly what was wrong with JSS.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> I will throw myself on the altar with the following suggestion(food for thought):



===============================================================
TGSS(Task Group Support Ship) = AOR+

number in class=4 or 5 (order 2 or 3 now with follow-on option for 1 or 2)



> complete flat-top except for 2 island towers(port, starboard) with (replenishment gear, cargo sling) engine exhaust+Radar/Comm structures


So you are going to put your RAS Stations with everything else....hot engine exhaust being expelled the same area as fuel for ahips and aircraft...not to mention ammunition. Heat and those items don't mix, you would be putting both ships and the crews at risk.



> 10,000 tons light, 28,000 tons full load
> flight deck = 200m long, 30m wide
> Speed = 20 knots sustained
> Range = 12000 km at 15 knots
> Crew = 160-180(ship crew)
> 80 (aircraft)
> 10(medical)
> 30(HQ team)


Where are you getting these numbers....what are they based upon?



> Armament
> 2 Goalkeeper Dual Purpose (fore and aft)
> 4 x RAM-21 (2 on each island tower, 1 fore and aft)
> 6 x 12.7 mm HMG mountings(3 on each side)
> passive decoy systems


Why are you arming a ship with weapons no other ship uses beyond the .50 cals? What about active countermeasures? Why are you positioning the weapons fore and aft and not port and stbd?



> Aviation
> 
> 2 elevators from hangar deck to flight deck
> 4 - 6 large naval helicopters
> 8-12 UAH(CL-327) for surveillance, ASW sonobouy dipping,....
> Under-deck Hangarspace  for 6 large naval helicopters


Again your numbers for an air det I think are way too small....



> Survivability:
> Damaged Stability Enhanced Two Compartment


Can you explain what this means?

Ice Capability
First year Ice Capabiity



> Task Group Command Facilities with Naval and Shore communications


Giving your AOR flagship duties in a huge mistake....for all the communications and data that are fed to it from other units...you make it too much of a prime target. Thats why we in the Navy have destroyers as our AAD and Flagships.



> Underway support
> 
> Fuel 10,000 - 12000 tonnes
> JP-5 1500 -   2000 tonnes
> Ammunition  1500 tonnes
> Dry Stores   2000 tonnes


Again curious where these numbers are coming from



> Medical support
> 
> 30 bed and 2OR hospital capable of modular expansion
> dental facilities


numbers...numbers and numbers...



> As we may be getting back into the ASW business in the future


Ummm..hello.....while our skill set got rusty we never got out of it....the last couple of years I have been doing CASEXs up the ying yang.


----------



## Bearpaw

I got some of the numbers from the JSS requirement as published on the DND site (size,....)
For the crew I looked at the information available on the web for the Protecteur class and tried to make reasonable estimates.  The Protectuer class has about 45 or 50 listed for it air detachment--for 3 Sea Kings---for the new helicopters (4-6) I estimated 80---perhaps it should be more.

Your comment about the RAS risk is something I was worried about----perhaps move the gear for or aft as needed.

If you have better choices of air defence systems then fire away.

I agree with you about the HQ function----since it was in the JSS requirements it may well need to be included to have the political will to proceed with such an idea----in fact I would be hesitant about having the ammunition on a tanker as well!

There real point of this is that something is going to have to be cut from the JSS requirements.  In my opinion, the JSS is really a conglomeration of 3 ship-types.  Just calling for AOR will probably not cut it with the bureaucrats---so what do YOU cut and still make the concept appealing to the bureacrats??
A single purpose ship will likely be still-born.

For the numbers on the Underway support----just look at the Protecteur class for its numbers---recall I have taken sealift out and this ship is 4000 tons more(at full load).

As I said this is food for thought---I would hate to see the next class of new ships to be "ice-breaking kayaks armed with a C6".


----------



## Infanteer

Do you have a model built from LEGOs so I can get a better picture of the thing?


----------



## aesop081

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> There real point of this is that something is going to have to be cut from the JSS requirements.



Exactly. What you did in that post was not to cut from JSS but to add a bunch of shit to it.




			
				Bearpaw said:
			
		

> Your comment about the RAS risk is something I was worried about----perhaps move the gear for or aft as needed.



Better starting thinking of where your flight deck is going to go......all that RAS stuff getting in the way. Then theres your elevators.......





> I agree with you about the HQ function----since it was in the JSS requirements it may well need to be included to have the political will to proceed with such an idea----in fact I would be hesitant about having the ammunition on a tanker as well!



What you were proposing has fuel, ammuniton, your C3 assests, your aviation assets and your medical facilities on the same ship.......



> I would hate to see the next class of new ships to be "ice-breaking kayaks armed with a C6".



And i would hate to see operations come to a grinding halt because everything we had was on it....literaly.

Go read up on the Falklands in 1982. I will give you the key words "Atlantic Conveyor".


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> If you have better choices of air defence systems then fire away.


Sure I do..how about something in use by the rest of the Navy....unless you are going to place Goalkeepers and RAMs on the rest of the fleet as well...



> I agree with you about the HQ function----since it was in the JSS requirements it may well need to be included to have the political will to proceed with such an idea----in fact I would be hesitant about having the ammunition on a tanker as well!


You completely missed my point....an AOR is what we called an HVU (High Valued Unit) to put a command capability on it like the JSS proposed is just making it a higher priority target for the bad guys. What do you think carries our ammuntion right now? Thats right the AORs...



> There real point of this is that something is going to have to be cut from the JSS requirements.  In my opinion, the JSS is really a conglomeration of 3 ship-types.  Just calling for AOR will probably not cut it with the bureaucrats---so what do YOU cut and still make the concept appealing to the bureacrats??
> A single purpose ship will likely be still-born.


Sure it is...as an AOR you are busy as it is...if your the command ship of a TG and there is a crises....you might not be able to leave the area and who will refuel your consorts then...you are certainly not going to do it within harms way....


----------



## aesop081

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> no catapult, arresting gear.



Bear trap, tie down, room to refuel the helos, move them around since you have many of them.......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

not to mention torpedo handling facilities


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Do you have a model built from LEGOs so I can get a better picture of the thing?



I really like that one  ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ummm we can get back on track right now...


Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Slightly off topic but does anyone know why only one ship HMCS PROVIDER was ever built out of the Provider class?


----------



## GAP

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic but does anyone know why only one ship HMCS PROVIDER was ever built out of the Provider class?



I thought there was 2 supply ships....


----------



## Nfld Sapper

I can only find reference to one every being built, but the PROTECTEUR Class has 2, PROTECTEUR and PRESERVER


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

There are Provider was a seperate class and was taken out of service...Preserver and Protecteur are the two in service now


----------



## armyvern

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic but does anyone know why only one ship HMCS PROVIDER was ever built out of the Provider class?



On speaking of the HMCS Proctecteur and the HMCS Preserver (Protecteur Class) ...



> Built in the late 1960s, these ships (Vern's insert: the two above) benefitted from the lessons learned from Canada's first postwar replenishment vessel, HMCS PROVIDER. Once the new ships were available, PROVIDER was sent to the West Coast where she would stay until the late 1990s. *PROVIDER's open "jungle" deck made her unsuited to the North Atlantic, and the new ships therefore had enclosed "jungle" decks.* They were originally fitted with a 'bowchaser' twin gun mount, but these were removed due to the maintenance involved with a gun in such an exposed position on the foc's'le. During the 1990/1991 Gulf War (or Persian Excursian as it is known in CAF circles), this mount was replaced on PROTECTEUR, and removed again once she returned. Both ships have ice-strengthened hulls. They are the largest ships ever built for the Canadian Navy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Provider was an orphan but in the navy you will find quite a few ships like that.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Hmm... couldn't they have retrofitted her by covering in the "jungle" deck instead of building a new class of AOR's?


----------



## armyvern

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Hmm... couldn't they have retrofitted her by covering in the "jungle" deck instead of building a new class of AOR's?



I'm wagering that good ol' KC Irving had way too much pull way back then for a _mere_ "retrofit" to have sufficed.  >


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Provider would be approaching 50 years old had we have kept her


----------



## Neill McKay

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Hmm... couldn't they have retrofitted her by covering in the "jungle" deck instead of building a new class of AOR's?



The other two ships were required anyway.  All three served together for years.


----------



## FSTO

I was talking with my boss today about JSS. He has a close friend in the project office and when my boss tried to get some info on what was going to happen next, the friend wouldn't tell him a thing. Seems that CMS staff is being very tight lipped on what is happening next. So for the next foreseeable future whatever you see in the press is nothing but speculation.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Maybe they are waiting to see what ideas we come up with here.


----------



## HalfmyLife

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Maybe they are waiting to see what ideas we come up with here.


sure they do. but maybe I'm a pessimist


----------



## gvg

> *MacKay: Ottawa to restart process to replace navy ships*
> 
> _By Jennifer Macmillan, THE CANADIAN PRESS_
> 
> DARTMOUTH, N.S. - Defence Minister Peter MacKay is promising a Canadian-made solution to replace two aging navy supply ships after Ottawa sunk a $2.9 billion replacement program last week.
> 
> The program was put on hold after bids to build the new vessels came in over budget.
> 
> "Unfortunately the Canadian companies were not able to meet that bid process," MacKay said at an event on Friday.
> 
> "Now we hope we'll be able to restart that process and get that ship building underway very quickly."
> 
> MacKay says the federal government intends to sit down with Canadian industry groups to find a way to replace HMCS Protecteur and HMCS Preserver.
> 
> He added that Ottawa is still seeking to buy 12 new mid-shore patrol boats for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> In a written statement released late last Friday, the Conservative government announced a tender call for the new coast guard vessels had also been cancelled. Ottawa had expected to spend $340 million on the patrol boats.
> 
> The move to scuttle the supply ship replacements came as a blow to a navy that is already struggling to keep its existing 1960s-era ships in the water.
> 
> Undated briefing notes leaked to The Canadian Press last weekend say the ships are obsolete, out of spare parts and may not meet today's environmental standards.
> 
> The document also sheds light on concerns about whether the two current ships are safe enough to continue at sea, concluding the navy will have to "manage the risk" and take stock on how to keep the vessels in service.
> 
> The supply ships are vital to keeping warships supplied with fuel, ammunition, spare parts and supplies during long overseas operations.
> 
> The cancellation was criticized by the opposition parties, with NDP fisheries critic Peter Stoffer calling it a broken promise.
> 
> He said scuttling the program flies in the face of the Conservative government's pledge to strengthen the Canadian Forces.
> 
> The program to acquire new multi-role ships was announced in Halifax in June 2006 by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor.
> 
> The announcement was heralded at the time as the beginning of a new era for the navy.
> 
> Stoffer said the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn't living up to its commitments to the military.
> 
> "It is easy for the Harper Conservatives to say that they support the troops," Stoffer said in a news release on Friday.
> 
> "But at the end of the day, they just don't deliver."


 Source


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> MacKay: Ottawa to restart process to replace navy ships



I figured we would not be waiting too long for it to start up again.


----------



## jollyjacktar

True enough, but the procurement process is so bloody long and convoluted it will still be many years before a replacement comes through the pipeline.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> True enough, but the procurement process is so bloody long and convoluted it will still be many years before a replacement comes through the pipeline.



I think though they are doing it at the right time (within a couple of years) vice a decade into the process.


----------



## gvg

What I''m trying to find out is why this program is so expensive (or the Dutch so cheap). 

A quick glance at both the Canadian JSS and the Dutch JSS lets me to believe that the major difference between the two is that the Canadian JSS would get an ice-breaking hull. The difference in price is significant though. A Canadian JSS was estimatied to cost around C$700 mln (in 2004), a Dutch is, according a Dutch MoD report, around C$400 mln (in 2003). Heck, according to that Dutch MoD report, even a Helicopter Support Ship (12 helicopters and six landing spots vs. 6 helicopters and 2 landingspots for the JSS) would be more than C$150mln cheaper than the Canadian JSS.

Is that ice-breaking hull indeed around C$300 mln, has the Dutch MoD significantly underestimated the price (they do have a pretty good track record with their Zeven Provincien-class, only 15% over budget in 10 years and that includes corrections for inflation), or am I missing something else?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I think though they are doing it at the right time (within a couple of years) vice a decade into the process.



Don't mind me.  I'm just a bitter Tanker Wanker.  There was a committee in from Ottawa back in 99 who promised 4 in the water for 05.  I bet that it will still be 10 years before we take possession for sea trials.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

gvg said:
			
		

> What I''m trying to find out is why this program is so expensive (or the Dutch so cheap).
> 
> A quick glance at both the Canadian JSS and the Dutch JSS lets me to believe that the major difference between the two is that the Canadian JSS would get an ice-breaking hull. The difference in price is significant though. A Canadian JSS was estimatied to cost around C$700 mln (in 2004), a Dutch is, according a Dutch MoD report, around C$400 mln (in 2003). Heck, according to that Dutch MoD report, even a Helicopter Support Ship (12 helicopters and six landing spots vs. 6 helicopters and 2 landingspots for the JSS) would be more than C$150mln cheaper than the Canadian JSS.
> 
> Is that ice-breaking hull indeed around C$300 mln, has the Dutch MoD significantly underestimated the price (they do have a pretty good track record with their Zeven Provincien-class, only 15% over budget in 10 years and that includes corrections for inflation), or am I missing something else?



Personally I have no idea but if overseas can do it cheaper and deliver a ship on time I am for  building it overseas.

With JSS gone now, we might as well forget that acroym.

A helicopter Support Ship is not going to provide our ships with fuel and ammo as well as an AOR will. I would look at it for the BHS side of things but not JSS.


----------



## Kirkhill

When did a Canadian yard last launch a new build ship over, say,  5000 tonnes?

Here's the Aussie example - HMAS Sirius. 25,000 tonnes

"2006 will see the commissioning of the Navy’s new support ship HMAS SIRIUS three years ahead of its original in service date, at one third the cost and six years after it was first proposed in the 2000 Defence White Paper." 

And:

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/index.php/HMAS_Sirius

Proposed..................................2000
Defined.....................................2001
Revised.....................................2003 (80% of Requirements, 40% of the Budget, 50% of the Time)
Hull Purchase.............................2004 (3 June) (Existing double-hulled Korean Tanker in yard)
Conversion  Conrract .................2005  (60,000,000 AUD)
Commissioned............................2006 (16 September)

That particular hull is a bit slow at 16 knots but perhaps something similar?

Let's assume that we can get rid of the ice requirement 
(CPFs and DDHs are not ice classified and it is them that an AOR would be replenishing,
(Northern Patrols are to be handled by AOPVs and they will be operating from shore bases)

Would this meet an immediate need at a reasonable price in a form that a Canadian yard could handle?

If so it would free up cash for both the SCSC project and possibly one simple Rotterdam/Bay Class Transport.

Commercially and Technically it is viable.
Politically it is probably viable (Cheap, Fast, "NON-Military"-ie logistic with DART possibilities)
C17s demonstrated what is possible in the procurement area when the will exists.


----------



## karl28

I am just wondering if there is any AOR that are already in service with our allies that may still have some good life in them and that we could buy / Lease from our Allies till  the Canadian Government gets the cash to build new ones ?  Just so we don't have to lose this valuable capability.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

karl28 said:
			
		

> I am just wondering if there is any AOR that are already in service with our allies that may still have some good life in them and that we could buy / Lease from our Allies till  the Canadian Government gets the cash to build new ones ?  Just so we don't have to lose this valuable capability.



Lets please not go down this road....

However a brief glimpse through _Janes_ and AORs are one of those ships that a lot of navies (like ours) run into the ground. The ones that we could get are in not much better shape then what we have now, in fact I would put ours near the top.


----------



## karl28

Ex-Dragoon  

                    Well I guess that idea is most definitely not going to work if there all that bad of shape .   How much life is there left in the ones the Canadian Navy operates ?  Could they stay in service till a replacement is built ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

karl28 said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon
> 
> Well I guess that idea is most definitely not going to work if there all that bad of shape .   How much life is there left in the ones the Canadian Navy operates ?  Could they stay in service till a replacement is built ?



They will have to. Maybe with the JSS concept dead, naval planners will be able to design a working AOR class from the keel up sonner rather then later, or as I have advocated in the past. Buy overseas!


----------



## karl28

Ex-Dragoon  


           I just hope the Government who ever gets in next will  see how important it is to have the AOR and get the ball rolling ASAP in getting a replacement that way the Navy won't lose this capabilitie


----------



## Neill McKay

karl28 said:
			
		

> How much life is there left in the ones the Canadian Navy operates ?  Could they stay in service till a replacement is built ?



You can keep a ship in service as long as you want, but the cost of doing so escalates dramatically.  (You can replace bits of hull and machinery forever; theoretically you'd eventually get a ship that resembles a very old axe that has had the handle replaced three times and the head replaced twice...)  In practice what it comes down to is eventually the ship is just not economical to maintain anymore.


----------



## Stoker

With the amount of problems the Perserver is having with her boilers, I can't see the ship lasting for another 5 to 10 years without a major overhaul/refit. You can only overhaul a plant like that so many times.


----------



## geo

The "saving" to HMAS Sirius probably comes from buying an existing Tanker hull and making modifications from there.... not bad if you can find a suitable candidate.... but you won't find an ice strengthened hull that will fit that bill.


----------



## Kirkhill

> but you won't find an ice strengthened hull that will fit that bill.



Stipulated geo.




> Let's assume that we can get rid of the ice requirement
> (CPFs and DDHs are not ice classified and it is them that an AOR would be replenishing,
> (Northern Patrols are to be handled by AOPVs and they will be operating from shore bases)



I don't happen to think that the ice-strengthened requirement is particularly critical for a vessel that is needed principally  operate with CPFs and DDHs which are also not "ice-capable".  The current AORs aren't ice-capable, and, to boot, are also single-hulled (as I understand them).


----------



## geo

Kirkhill... there is that new port in Nanasivik to look after & replenish.... so that AOR might have to do a couple of runs each summer - ensuring topped up tanks for customers.


----------



## FSTO

geo said:
			
		

> Kirkhill... there is that new port in Nanasivik to look after & replenish.... so that AOR might have to do a couple of runs each summer - ensuring topped up tanks for customers.



It is easier to send a bulk fuel carrier (ice strengthend of course) to replensih the fuel farm then to send our HVU up there.


----------



## Kirkhill

If they can't deliver on time and on budget because of a lack of infrastructure, skilled trades and current experience then the government needs to be able to go off-shore to meet time-critical needs.

Having said that, the Canadian industry DOES need to be supported and revitalized - but not doing the same old things, the same old ways in the same old yards.  It will take a decade or more for a shipbuilding industry to be re-imagined and recreated.  And if it is done with Edward's, and my, concern for productivity in mind it will be built on the backs of robots and not on a limited supply of skilled trades.

In the meantime the CF and Coast Guard need vessels.


----------



## geo

As I have pointed out, we need a shipbuilding industry that builds ships all the time VS a whole bunch in a very short time ... with nothing afterwards... this is how we got into trouble in the 1st place.


----------



## Klinkaroo

Like geo said a constant flow and steady work in the shipyards would also help retain people. When I finish my degree I will have to jump from contract to contract to get work (though there isn't a lack of it) but you can't get a job full time for a shipyard...

And the idea of building Hulls overseas is not a bad idea since you get rid of the problem of needing a big drydock so you can use a smaller shipyard to do the outfitting...


----------



## geo

If you look as the Aussies, they bought their AOR hull outa Korea & finished em off at home... to OZ tastes


----------



## cobbler

Bigrex said:
			
		

> Yes, it'll be hard for all the Harper fanboys on these forums to brush this one aside. This was a major program that will affect the entire Navy's operational capabilities, and put sailors lives at risk, and just because it will cost too much.




you see the scrapping of plans to purchase some highly stupid ship designs as having a NEGATIVE impact on navy capability and RISKING sailors lives?

Other way around mate.

JSS was a god-awful idea. better to wait a few years and get some proper ships. Not rush in to get the multi-billion dollar brain fart of a bean counter.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oi, Cobbler, 

Seeing as how we've got your attention,  what's the word on Sirius? Is she getting the job done?


----------



## cobbler

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Oi, Cobbler,
> 
> Seeing as how we've got your attention,  what's the word on Sirius? Is she getting the job done?



Yeah from all I' ve heard shes going great. No problems onboard and no complaints from her receiver ships in RASs.

But she is just a tanker. She can take huge amounts of liquids and transfer them pretty bloody quickly. But she is very limited in replenishment of stores.
Unlike SUCCESS and I would imagine your two AORs which can transfer everything from food to Harpoon missiles.

For what she is, a quickly procured tanker to replace the capability of the aging WESTRALIA, shes damn near perfect. But the whole package? she aint.

Depends how desperate you guys are I suppose.


----------



## geo

well... not sure why we don't buy an "off the shelf" tanker to remove the urgency in procurment (we can always sell it off later) and build "tailor made" AORs (with or without help) once we get our act together ???


----------



## FSTO

geo said:
			
		

> well... not sure why we don't buy an "off the shelf" tanker to remove the urgency in procurment (we can always sell it off later) and build "tailor made" AORs (with or without help) once we get our act together ???



There are days that I dispair to think that we'll ever get our act together.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:
			
		

> There are days that I dispair to think that we'll ever get our act together.




I have learned from this thread that a *multi-role* ship (à la the SMART ship proposed by MIL back in the late ‘80s or early ‘90s which was very popular in some circles in NDHQ _waaaaay_ back when) can have too many roles to be ‘optimal’ for any of them.

So, and this is a serious question: what IS the 'right' (best? optimal? affordable? whatever?) answer?

And, since I’m asking questions: It appears to me that our overriding operational requirement is for a some  multi-role AORs (refuelling and replenishment), not for a tanker and a ‘supply’ ship and not for a _too many roles_ JSS. Is that correct? If so, how many?

Should we, eventually (when here might be enough resources for an amphibious task force), look for a single role amphibious ships, LPDs, LPHs and the like? Is the UK’s HMS Ocean a useful ‘model’ for our (eventual) consideration?


(Small words, please, I'm an *old* soldier.)


----------



## Kirkhill

cobbler said:
			
		

> Yeah from all I' ve heard shes going great. No problems onboard and no complaints from her receiver ships in RASs.
> 
> But she is just a tanker. She can take huge amounts of liquids and transfer them pretty bloody quickly. But she is very limited in replenishment of stores.
> Unlike SUCCESS and I would imagine your two AORs which can transfer everything from food to Harpoon missiles.
> 
> For what she is, a quickly procured tanker to replace the capability of the aging WESTRALIA, shes damn near perfect. But the whole package? she aint.
> 
> Depends how desperate you guys are I suppose.



Ta much.

Desperate might be a fair estimate from what I understand.


----------



## ringo

Buy offshore, why waste DND dollars to prop up Canadian shipyards they should be content with refit and outfitting work.
IMHO buy 2 Cantabria AOR's from Spain, HMCS Provider and HMCS Supply?
May be able to lease oiler Marques De La Ensenada from Spanish navy till new ships commission.  
Buy single JLOS type from the Netherlands, a ship of this type can fill in when an AOR is in refit and provide basic sealift, HMCS Vimy Ridge or HMCS Juno Beach?

2 AOR's and 1 JLOS would certainly be more flexable than 2 AOR's currently in service.

Finally I believe the Tribal's will pay off without replacement and surface fleet will be reduced to 12 Halifax frigates.


----------



## GAP

US Navy on the T-AKE As It Beefs Up Supply Ship Capacity (updated)
11-Sep-2008 
Article Link

The entire T-AKE dry cargo/ ammunition ship program could have a total value of as much as $6.2 billion in exchange for 14 ships, as the US looks to modernize its supply ship fleet. Indeed, the House Armed Services Committee recently put together an FY 2008 budget that added $456 million for another T-AKE ship – though this figure would not cover all of the internal systems et. al. that must be added to make it operational.

How do T-AKE ships fit into US naval operations? What ships do they replace? What’s the tie-in to US civilian industrial capacity? How were environmental standards built into their design? And what contracts have been issued for T-AKE ships to date? DID has answers in this FOCUS Article. Recent updates include a minor contract for T-AKE 5 post-shakedown work…
More on link


----------



## FSTO

ringo said:
			
		

> Buy offshore, why waste DND dollars to prop up Canadian shipyards they should be content with refit and outfitting work.
> IMHO buy 2 Cantabria AOR's from Spain, HMCS Provider and HMS Supply?
> May be able to lease oiler Marques De La Ensenada from Spanish navy till new ships commission.
> Buy single JLOS type from the Netherlands, a ship of this type can fill in when an AOR is in refit and provide basic sealift, HMS Vimy Ridge or HMS Juno Beach?
> 2 AOR's and 1 JLOS would certainly be more flexable than 2 AOR's currently in service.
> 
> Finally I believe the Tribal's will pay off without replacement and surface fleet will be reduced to 12 Halifax frigates.



I know that I am telling you to suck eggs but if they are Canadian Navy ships then its HMCS.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, and this is a serious question: what IS the 'right' (best? optimal? affordable? whatever?) answer?



That depends on what you mean by 'right'. Since the CF hasn't received a useful projection of what to expect from the government, that would be a pretty hard question to answer.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, since I’m asking questions: It appears to me that our overriding operational requirement is for a some  multi-role AORs (refuelling and replenishment), not for a tanker and a ‘supply’ ship and not for a _too many roles_ JSS. Is that correct? If so, how many?



The immediate naval operational role appears to be for an AOR, not a transport. 

Generally you can get 30% availability out of a unit, so 3-4 ships sounds about right to keep one ship more or less available most of the time.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Should we, eventually (when here might be enough resources for an amphibious task force), look for a single role amphibious ships, LPDs, LPHs and the like? Is the UK’s HMS Ocean a useful ‘model’ for our (eventual) consideration?



That's looking pretty far into the future. Before looking at specific platforms, we'd need to know what the task force is supposed to do.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks for that.

Now, my next question: personnel.

I understand, I think, that we can go for smaller crews (or require larger ones) by adopting different standards; but part of an AOR's crew consists of technical specialists, right?

How many sailors will we need to crew four AORs?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ed, it varies across the spectrum:
Complements are approximates:
Patino class- 180
Berlin class- 240
Supply class -175 civillian; 60 military
Fort Victoria class- 285

All and all it will depend on how big they want our next gen AORs to be and what they want them to be able to do.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have learned from this thread that a *multi-role* ship (à la the SMART ship proposed by MIL back in the late ‘80s or early ‘90s which was very popular in some circles in NDHQ _waaaaay_ back when) can have too many roles to be ‘optimal’ for any of them.
> 
> So, and this is a serious question: what IS the 'right' (best? optimal? affordable? whatever?) answer?
> 
> And, since I’m asking questions: It appears to me that our overriding operational requirement is for a some  multi-role AORs (refuelling and replenishment), not for a tanker and a ‘supply’ ship and not for a _too many roles_ JSS. Is that correct? If so, how many?
> 
> Should we, eventually (when here might be enough resources for an amphibious task force), look for a single role amphibious ships, LPDs, LPHs and the like? Is the UK’s HMS Ocean a useful ‘model’ for our (eventual) consideration?
> 
> 
> (Small words, please, I'm an *old* soldier.)



From my perspective we need to work on the basics of sea power before we can get the cool toys the big boys play with. While it would be nice to have an LPD in the fleet, exploring the concept IMO has taken resources away from the replacement and refit of all of our ships.
1) Get the AORs
2) Refit the CPFs
3) Replace the 280s annd eventually the Halifax class with a common hull with common systems
4) Get the Victorias back in the water and look for a replacement sooner rather then later.
5) maintain some sort of cadre minewarfare capability
6) develop an Arctic patrol and support capability.
_then_ and only then should we look at an LPD.

Personally before an LPD, I would rather see in the fleet, ships like diving support tenders, salvage and repair ships and even a hospital ship.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I agree.

Hospital ships maybe at the same time as an LPD. Unfortunately, you tend to need them at the same time.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> Hospital ships maybe at the same time as an LPD. Unfortunately, you tend to need them at the same time.



I think the peacekeeper loving Canadian public would really support the idea of a Canadian manned and crewed hospital ship. May be able to use it as a DART support platform as well....


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Yes, I suppose that would be popular. Are there enough doctors and nurses in the CF to crew it?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Yes, I suppose that would be popular. Are there enough doctors and nurses in the CF to crew it?



thats the question...but the again we have sent teams to the Mercy and the Comfort. i am sure some sort of agreement with the US could be worked out as well. considering the way the weather has been in the US south, I would suspect a lot of operations down there.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> From my perspective we need to work on the basics of sea power before we can get the cool toys the big boys play with. While it would be nice to have an LPD in the fleet, exploring the concept IMO has taken resources away from the replacement and refit of all of our ships.
> 1) Get the AORs
> 2) Refit the CPFs
> 3) Replace the 280s annd eventually the Halifax class with a common hull with common systems
> 4) Get the Victorias back in the water and look for a replacement sooner rather then later.
> *5) maintain some sort of cadre minewarfare capability*
> 6) develop an Arctic patrol and support capability.
> _then_ and only then should we look at an LPD.
> 
> Personally before an LPD, I would rather see in the fleet, ships like diving support tenders, salvage and repair ships and even a hospital ship.



Thanks again, for this and the personnel numbers. I understand your list, here, and makes good sense to me.

Re: the highlighted bit - are the MCDVs part of the minewarfare capability? Or do we need a carbon fibre hull, etc?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

While we have some ability in mine warfare I don't think we have a capbility to the degree of navies such as Belgium or Germany. Maybe one of our friendly neighbourhood NavRes can clarify this more. In particular E.R.'s carbon fibre hull question?


----------



## Blackadder1916

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Yes, I suppose that would be popular. Are there enough doctors and nurses in the CF to crew it?



It's been a couple of decades since I first visited the Comfort (or was it Mercy?, anyway, whichever was homeported in Baltimore, visited the one in Oakland later)), so some of my information may be out of date.  But back then, I was there to make a preliminary study of the requirements if in case we got serious about doing something similar.  Having something of like size and dedicated solely to a medical (or humanitarian) mission didn't make sense from the Canadian perspective.  It probably still doesn't considering the size of the CF and what would be expected (not to mention politically acceptable) casualty rates.  There would be a similar over-capacity in a vessel dedicated to a humanitarian mission.  The Comfort, back then, had an inpatient bed capacity that exceeded the total number of active hospital beds in all CF hospitals.  Of course, there was a significant difference between the inpatient care that could be provided afloat and that available in a static tertiary hospital.  But I was somewhat awed (back then) that the Comfort had recently been outfitted with two (2) CT Scanners when  NDMC was nowhere close to having a CT of its own (other than a capital project that was still just a proposal and nowhere close to funding).  The conclusion back then (and it probably still holds true) is that an enhanced medical facility with a surgical capability on a mutli-use vessel (be that an AOR, LPD or something else) would be the best approach.  It was even taken into consideration in the planning of the CCG's Polar 8 icebreaker.

Back then the Comfort and Mercy did not get out much.  That started to change with Desert Storm but I don't think the manning of the ships has changed much.  They are not "USS" ships; they are "USNS", the "ships crew" were civilians; the "medical crew" were military and other than a very small caretaker group were only with the ships when deployed.


----------



## Sailorwest

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> While we have some ability in mine warfare I don't think we have a capbility to the degree of navies such as Belgium or Germany. Maybe one of our friendly neighbourhood NavRes can clarify this more. In particular E.R.'s carbon fibre hull question?


The advantage of carbon fibre hulls for minesweeping is clear and those countries that are concerned about sea mines have developed that capability to deal with it. The adults in Canada's Navy are to a great degree fixated on blue water operations jointly with US and other NATO partners and have little to no interest in brown water. There is lots of talk of litoral warfare and how to deal with it but the actions by the higherups are clear; continue with ASW frigates and area air defence destroyers, submarines and new fleet supply/JSS to participate in the big game in far away places. 
The KIN class have done the decidedly unsexy job of route survey, and are capable of doing ROV inspections of things found. Is that enough minewarfare capability? At the end of the day, we still have clearance divers don't we? The question is, if the KIN are phased out with the arrival of the AOPS, is that capability (arguably minimal) going to be lost?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Do I understand this correctly?

1.	The (six?) AOPVs (which will be larger than the MCDVs?) will have mixed Reg/Res crews;

2.	The people have to come from somewhere so at least some of the MCDVs have to be decommissioned to provide 250 or so trained NAVRES people for full time service;

3.	We will still *want* (or will we *need*?) to be able to conduct mine warfare operations on both coasts so we will need some (new?) (purpose built?) MCMVs.

How many MCMVs will we need to have a credible mine warfare capability? How many sailors? Can they have mixed (Reg/Res) crews, too? 


Edit: I apologize for highjacking this thread but one question seems to lead to another and I'm trying to get my simple, old soldier's head around the Navy's requirements.


----------



## Sailorwest

1.	The (six?) AOPVs (which will be larger than the MCDVs?) will have mixed Reg/Res crews;
The initial discussion that I've seen would be just that. Probably a crew size of 60 to 80 pers. 

2.	The people have to come from somewhere so at least some of the MCDVs have to be decommissioned to provide 250 or so trained NAVRES people for full time service;
Fair enough. Although 250 is pretty healthy portion of current MCDV manning list for both coasts (80 - 90%). Of course, you could decommission one 280 and have the same effect.  

3.	We will still *want* (or will we *need*?) to be able to conduct mine warfare operations on both coasts so we will need some (new?) (purpose built?) MCMVs.
Does anyone (I mean in a position to make a decision) agree that we want or need any MCM capability? It doesn't seem to be on the menu anywhere.

How many MCMVs will we need to have a credible mine warfare capability? How many sailors? Can they have mixed (Reg/Res) crews, too? 
We have 10 platforms for MCM currently. Of course there are much fewer packages that could be used at any one time. I suppose you could limit the number of ships to the number of route survey/ROV packages we currently have. But that would be if you were to have these ships as purpose driven, with no other role. A crew size of no more than 30 would make sense as does a mixed crew. Of course you open the debate as to whether the reservists on the KIN class currently are actually reservists or really in the reg force.


----------



## navy Dave

Since the present AOR's are old, I think that something needs to be done quickly to replace them. The navy should have kept HMCS Provider for parts until the new Oil Replenishment vessels are ready.


----------



## geo

preaching to the choir my friend.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

You do know that HMCS Provider was a different class of AOR all together don't you?


----------



## geo

Different ship from the same era though... most of the mechanicals that make the ship go shoulda been compatible - I woulda thought.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

And has anything been stated that they did not gut the Provider with what they could use for the Protecteur class? The Navy has always been big on recycling equipment that can be reused. The ships are 40 years old, no matter what parts you have on hand, its going to be hard to keep them going....


----------



## NavyShooter

She was well and truly cleared out before she left.

The problem is getting new ones is not a short process, and re-starting part-way through means more lost time that the current platforms do not have.  


NS


----------



## ironduke57

End of last year our parliament approved the money for an third Berlin class ship for our Navy. 
(~330Mil Euro. The first two cost only ~120Mil each. :brickwall
Actuall delivery should commence in 2012. (But as I know our politicians they are let it build as slow as possible to pay the money in a looong time frame.) Maybe you could cut a deal with our Navy for it. As we already have two we are not in such dire need as you are. 

Regards,
ironduke57
(P.S.: If parts are hard to read for you I am sorry. It is a "bit" late here.)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

NavyShooter: That's what I thought too.

Ironduke57: From what I have seen of the Berlin class I think our Navy would be getting a really good asset should we ever chose to buy it.


----------



## geo

A1411 Berlin... Pretty ship... capabilities list is impressive - we could do a lot worse than buying into that design.


----------



## whitehorse

Re; MCDV and MCM:

You are both right. The MCDVs were never intended to be 'full time' MCM platforms but were an amalgamation of several roles including sovereignty patrols, some limited MCM capability and of course training junior officers. As a result there are not ideally suited for any of the above (and yes perhaps there is a lesson here for JSS). Accordingly when they are  retired we will be loosing some of our limited MCM capability.

In addition to you various comments about divers etc that we also have the remotely operated mine detection system (using side scan sonar in a remote semi-autonomous body)  which can be operated from frigates, destroyers and AORs (with the right crane). This system (whose name escapes me) can do many of the same jobs as the route survey payload on the MCDVs but obviously can't do the BOIV role.

I guess what I am saying is that with the end of the MCDVs in 10 years or so that we will loose some of this but a small mixed fleet often has to make trade-offs in capability. My guess is the adults either have weighed the options or are weighing them and have decided that is worth it.

Could an AOPV do MCM? A little I guess and at least as well as an MCDV could with the right payloads and crew training.

Finally Sailor West is right about the crew mix.  It will be a mix of regular force and 'reserve'. However let me point out some other facts that will be happening about the same time.

First the total crew requirements for the AOPV will be more or less the same as the total crews of the MCDVs, about 300 - 400. (Which by the way the Naval Reserve can't meet now, much less 10 years from now).

Second, by that time (2019) the 280s will be long gone and there is not signed contract to replace them. It takes our navy working with our politicians about 10 years betwen signing a contract to having a hull in the water. The FFH contract was signed in 1983, the 1st (HALIFAX) was delivered in 1991 with VACOUVER in 1993. The point here is that there will be a gap where significant numbers of regular sailors will be available.

Third, at the same time some of the FFHs will be still going through the FELEX program, again more sailors available.

Fourth, even if a AOR/JSS contract were signed today (presuming they are locally built) it will take 10 years to build them and they will probably have smaller crews. More sailors available.

Fifth, the SSKs will probably reach the end of their useful life about this time and any government other than this one will be loathe to replace them. More sailors.

In summary I do not think manning the AOPVs or the JSS will be a problem in 2019 -2020. Too many other classes will either be gone without replacement or going through refit, or hopefully under construction. So assuming we have about the same numbers of sailors in that time as we have now we will have plenty of regular sailors at least initially. 

What does this mean? Well if I were a 'permashad' in my 20s or thirties I would give serious thought about staying on 'full-time'. About the same time that you expect to have a 'career' the "raison d'etre" of the reserves will be gone and there will be plenty of regular sailors to fill any bunks required.

Additionally, while the crews are 'mixed' (although I agree with Sailor West here in that  personally see no difference between a permashad and a regular sailor, they certainly aren't 'reserves' by any stretch of the imagination) the manning will proably not be a reserve responsibility. Accordingly training, qualifications and appointments will be controlled by CMS staff and not NAVRESHQ. As such all those nice juicy shore jobs currently held by so called 'reservists' (most of whom have long since given up their day jobs, if they ever had one) will probably also not be required. If a bosn requires the same skills as for a FFH as for an AOPV why have a separate training system?


----------



## Navy_Blue

I  had the opportunity to have a few Holstein and to much Jägermeister on the Frankfurt am Main.  It was a very nice ship inside and out.  Compared to anything we sail on it was a cruise ship.   

As far as the SSK's its been said before in many other threads if you don't have Subs you don't have a navy.  We might as well pack up and turn our funding over to the Coast Guard if we ever loose our Sub capability.  

As far as manning them.  If magicly we fixed all four and tried to put to sea tomorow we would have maybe one and a half crews after a lot of people slapped in retirement notices.  Not releases.  Your not quiting if you have given the CF your 20 or even completed a contract.   Your manning issues will not be solved by loosing platforms or having them in refit.


----------



## cobbler

whitehorse said:
			
		

> Could an AOPV do MCM? A little I guess and at least as well as an MCDV could with the right payloads and crew training.



I wouldn't think so. 

An ice capable ship is not really going to fair well amongst mines, due to having large magnetic & acoustic signitures etc that would set off influenced mines. 

Also the hull materials and design between icebreakers and first world MCMs are pretty much polar opposites of each other.

IMHO Mine Warfare should never be something tacked on to a ship as an afterthought, there are too many considerations to be made. As such dedicated MW ships should be sought.


----------



## whitehorse

Cobbler:

You're right and you're wrong. An AOPV will not be an ideal MCM in fact it may in a crunch prove to be useless at the task but it would probably do as well as an MCDV would be given that all of the limitations you mentioned apply just as much to MCDVs as they would to a hypothetical AOPV (remember no contract has been signed yet). In fact given that their proposed displacement will be twice that of an MCDV they are that much more likely to survive an underwater detonation.

In a crunch however you party with what you've got not what you wanted to have. No Government regardless of political stripe is going to spend $1B+ on a small group of GRP hulled dedicated  MCMs. Not in an economic depression. They would be instantly labelled as expensive, cold war 'toys' and about 3 million special interest groups would demand the funding be moved to their budgets. 

The Canadian Navy will be getting out of the mainstream MCM business and fact given the fact that the Minesweeping gear for the MCDVs has long since been mothballed and that we are developing an 'any hull' capability with the 'Dorado' (that's the name) we have already begun the process. All other MCDV 'capabilities' in this area are probably doable with the AOPVs.

This really is no different than what the liberal governments of the 70s did with naval aviation. Make it too expensive, denounce it as politically unacceptable and then replace the capability with something less capable (in that case helicopter carrying destroyers). The pattern is there and has been going on for a very long time.

As far as submarines go the writing is on the wall. Yes we will operate them for their lifespans but no one seriously expects them to be replaced. You can tell me that no submarines = no navy, or that ton for ton they are the most effective platforms or whine on about elites etc but they are done. Any political party in power or aspiring to be in power knows this, opinion polls have been consistent on this for years. Get over it and enjoy what you've got while you've got it.

I would also remind you that we were a navy before we had submarines just like we were a navy before we had carriers and a fleet air arm. We have somehow survived the loss of one and will survive the loss of the other when it happens. In any event I haven't seen any submarines intercepting pirates off the Somali cost or doing vessel searches in the Red Sea. Until and unless they are seen as value for money by the Canadian public their future and replacements are limited.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

With all do respect whitehorse, I know you are a LCDR and all but I don't think anyone of us can predict the future and what the Navy will or will not have.

Guaranteed if a terrorist boat dropped a mine over the side of his cabin cruiser and an ocean liner struck it with a heavy loss of life including Canadians. The Canadian public would be screaming for mine warfare vessels.

WRT your comment on submarines hunting pirates. Have you ever considered the fact they might be there gathering intelligence?

Last point helicopter carrying frigates and destroyers are not a bad thing. Its a valuable asset to have and nothing to be scorned at as you did in your post.


----------



## whitehorse

Ex-Dragoon:

I am not dissing the helicopter carrying destroyer or frigate, I am simply pointing out that historically they were used (in part) by the RCN as a cheap replacement for the BONAVENTURE when she was scrapped for economic/political reasons. The reality is compared to a modernversion of BONAENTURE they are simply less capable. Exactly the same process is going on today with respect to other capabilities like MCM. This is simply part of a long term trend in Canadian Naval capabilities and shows no sign of letting up. This government for all of its hot air has not signed a single warship building contract in the three years of its existence. What it has done is cancel without replacement the JSS project. That decision too place over six months ago and yet I have heard nothing official on either an AOR replacement, an amphib capability, the 280 replacement etc etc.

AS far as submarines go, if the SSKs are being used then it should be done so publicly. SO far as I know the Somali pirates dont appear to have ASW capabilities and as a result the usual submariners preference for secrecy shouldn't be necessary. 

The point here is that submariners haven't sold their platforms to the public. That's why Chretien got away with not buying them for 5 years, no public pressure. Having said that I suspect that the Canadian public has no time for the usual cold war nonsense and vague generalities that one usually sees come from that community in justifying their costs and lack of operational usefulness. Let me blunt, an overwhelming majority of Canadians dont know about or care about SSKs, what little they do know, they don't like. If the submarine community wants to sell this capability (and its replacement) they have to sell themselves now or in 10 years or so they will be out of a job.


----------



## dapaterson

JSS has not been canceled; it's still in the capital plan.  It's being re-assessed in terms of what capabilities are affordable within the funding envelope available - or what other items can be delayed / deleted from the plan to free up additional funds.

It's perhaps not making speedy progress, but that's not unusual for DND projects.


----------



## whitehorse

Dapaterson:

In case I haven't said it cearly enough - I hope I'm wrong. But I think JSS (as we understand it) is effectively dead - too expensive. There may be an AOR replacement but in any event it will take a long time and remember we have been talking (and talking and talking ....) about this project for at least 6 years now with no results.

This is as you have pointed out is typical but for one factor. We are in or are about to be in a severe  economic downturn and this will slow or even stop an new navy programs for the simple reason that they don't produce many jobs in the short term. Jobs are the focus of every poltical party in parliament and are the absolute priority. We can and will stretch the AORs as long as we can but there will be a 'gap' and this should free up some sailors.


It's being re-assessed in terms of what capabilities are affordable within the funding envelope available    

At some point in time progress on a project can be so slow that it will look for all practical purposes the same as a cancelled program. Promises are cheap - warships aren't. This process of promising something and delivering something late, small and inadequate has been going on since before you and I were born. There is no reason to beleive that it will change.


----------



## dapaterson

Go to the EMM, look up the JCRB and see what CFD is doing for the JSS - and also look in the CID.

And if you don't understand those acronyms, you're not really in a place to discuss the capital plan.


Slow is not cancelled.  Cancelled is an order of magnitude worse than slow.  Project staff is still in place.  Some work is progressing.  Ever seen a duck in the water?  Calm, serene, bobbing along - but the legs are paddling like the dickens underwater, where you can't see them.

We will not see the all singing, all dancing, fully pimped out JSS that was the product of naval architect's wet dreams.  But we will see a sea resupply platform with enhanced C2 and sealift abilities.

And never underestimate possibilities for rapid advancement of an initiative, particularly in this case when the MND is a Maritimer.


----------



## whitehorse

"We will not see the all singing, all dancing, fully pimped out JSS that was the product of naval architect's wet dreams."

What part of the words late small or inadequate were not understood?

"Have you ever considered the fact they might be there gathering intelligence?"

If they are they should be public about it, if only to sell themselves to the Canadian public. On the other hand why be secret? Are we afraid of their ASW capability? 

I suspect its because they were never there, since there still tied up in Halifax and Esquimalt. In any event there are many cheaper ways of tracking these things that don't need a $250M asset. How many UAVs do you get for the same price?


----------



## aesop081

whitehorse said:
			
		

> In any event there are many cheaper ways of tracking these things that don't need a $250M asset.



Realy ? What are they ? Have you seen the price tag on MPAs these days ?



> How many UAVs do you get for the same price?



How many UAVs are capable of ASW ?


----------



## whitehorse

CDN Aviator;

Of course UAV's cant do ASW ... yet.

My point was that for the piracy issue and for the MIO issue (which are the two real world missions the navy faces today) the submarines are of very limited utility (even if they were working) and we can probably achieve most of this utility for these operations with UAVs at far lesser cost. Ditto for Canadian Coastal surveillance. Yes in the surveillance role subs do offer some advantages but are they worth it?

Where submarines do well is working against other submarines. The problem for Canada's submarines can be encapsulated in two words: Who and where?

Who is out there with such a significant submarine threat that it either can overwhelm the USN, RN and our NATO allies submarines or alternatively who's submarines pose a realistic threat to Canada's interests that is likely to use them at a time and place when our NATO allies would be unwilling or unable to intervene?

The answer to the first question is of course no one, not today. The answer to the second can become encapsulated in one idea: the Arctic. Even then this idea is curtailed by the idea of likelihood. Who is likely to use their submarines to undermine Canada's claims in our portion of the arctic? The only people who operate in the arctic are either our alllies or Russia. And so the question becomes even more reduced - How likely is Russia to use its submarines to interfere with Canada's claims to the Northwest passage and the arctic archipelago? I would suggest that outside of the noises Putin et al have been making of late (and they are just noises) the chances are extremely low. Russia's noises by the way are situated far away from Canada's claims.

Further Canada's claims are most likely to be settled in the courts and probably facing across the table with some of those allies of ours (e.g. the US). It seems ludicrous to me and 99% of the population that any Canadian government would use force to enforce environmental regs or to collect royalties on oil production.

But even if we accept that argument however the submarines we do have are of limited value as they do not operate under the ice. The cost of doing so would be prohibitive.

If the arctic sovereignty issue is largely a diplomatic and/or constabulary one would we not be better off using the AOPVs (obviously when the ice is gone) to do sovereignty patrols? DO you send a JTF2 commando when a Mountie will do?

And so we are led back to the initial questions, who, when, where? The few possibilities seem remote and unlikely (even if domestic politics effectively limited our ability to assist) and other NATO navies would seem to have more than enough assets to deal with the issues should they arise, even if we chose to become involved.

From this we are then forced to ask the question that given ever tightening operational, maintenance and capital budgets for Canada's navy for at least the next 5 years couldn't we spend the money better somewhere else?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> My point was that for the piracy issue and for the MIO issue (which are the two real world missions the navy faces today) the submarines are of very limited utility (even if they were working) and we can probably achieve most of this utility for these operations with UAVs at far lesser cost. Ditto for Canadian Coastal surveillance.



Whitehorse- it is clear from this comment that you do not understand the problem- UAVs are just another tool in the toolkit.  They are not a panacea. Nor, you will find, are they cheaper (the bandwidth and comms redundancy requirements alone would beggar most militaries).  They are currently severely limited by weather and regulatory requirements- neither of which can be wished away.  Now, does this mean UAVs should not be bought?  No- it is just that buying UAVs will not relieve a now or future government from having a mixed fleet of surface vessels, manned aircraft, satellites, (probably) submarines and dog sleds to maintain and enforce sovereignty.

My two cents.


----------



## whitehorse

Seaking Tacco:

I understand the problem, and no I don't think UAVs are a replacement for SSKs. I also agree with the toolkit analogy. 

Here is the problem  - we cannot afford all the tools we want or need. We can buy the pricey all singing all dancing tool and not afford the ladder necessary to reach to work site or we can buy what we can while we can. 

In our case I think DDH/FFH replacements are the priority followed by AORs. Also remember that at about the same time the government of the day will be looking onto replacing the F18s with hopefully the JSF, at $80-100M a copy. Add other big $ projects and you have a problem.

Ten years from now (when the SSKs need replacing) if no blatant obvious threat exists, which can only be dealt with by subs,  and which the public buys into - then the boats are gone.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Ten years from now (when the SSKs need replacing) if no blatant obvious threat exists, which can only be dealt with by subs,  and which the public buys into - then the boats are gone.



Of this, I will agree.

My reaction on the UAV front is part of my "one person war" to convince people that UAVs while sexy, useful, and (probably) where the future lies, are anything but a cheap replacement for any other capability.  Per flying hour, the most expensive aerial vehicle in the CF today is the Spewer (the next closest is not even close).


----------



## navy Dave

Whatever the decision, they should act fast. the AOR's aren't getting any younger. parts are becoming more diffficult to come by.


----------



## CountDC

Interesting posts.

JSS is dead??  Funny when we talked last week at work it was still alive. The problem is that the government approved a cost for the ships, the builders wanted to add in a lot of extras such as the cost of training staff, moving staff to the shipyards (IE hire a welder in Manitoba and pay to move him to Halifax), any facilities they would have to build, etc.  Basically the bidders wanted the government to pay all costs of them setting up to the job which was estimated to be approx an extra $8 billion if I remember correctly.  Did this kill the program?  No.  Options are being looked at including the possibility of joining the project with some other government agencies (perhaps coast guard??) projects to make a more inticing package for the bidders (which would hopefully result in lower bids) and sharing the extra costs. There is also the consideration of what do we actually need the outside agency to do and what can we actually do ourselves? Perhaps there are some possible cost savings there too. 

Then again we will soon have a new CMS so anything is possible.


----------



## The_Dictat

I would support a joint venture with major shipbuilders, Industry Canada, Coast Guard and DND for a major refurbishment of the major shipyards to modernize their equipment, worker training, etc.  But that needs to come from elsewhere than the defence budget.  We need world class shipyards.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I'm sure some of the guys on the inside are familiar with this vessel, but I'd never seen it before.

Interesting design that's already ready to go....

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/BMT/bmt_media/bmt_media/33/2ppAegir-18R.pdf

On the design, as it's smaller than the original JSS design, I'd be curious if we can afford more units on each coast and additionally, if we were first to contract (assuming domestic production as manditory), it would put us in a great position to attempt to sell follow-on export units to eventually offset the domestic facilities investment. 


Matthew.


----------



## Haletown

wonder if that design could be tweaked from handling a 10,000lb helicopter so that it could handle a 17,000 lb H-92?


----------



## Jungle

Haletown said:
			
		

> wonder if that design could be tweaked from handling a 10,000lb helicopter so that it could handle a 17,000 lb H-92?


From the ship's specs:


> Flight deck for 1 x 10 tonne helicopter with aircraft refuelling and hangar


Now unless I'm missing something, 10 tons is 20 000 lbs...


----------



## Haletown

Jungle said:
			
		

> From the ship's specs:Now unless I'm missing something, 10 tons is 20 000 lbs...



ahhhh  my bad  . . . .  more coffee rule has been enacted, might help clear out the obvious cobwebs

thanks  . . .


----------



## Baz

Haletown said:
			
		

> wonder if that design could be tweaked from handling a 10,000lb helicopter so that it could handle a 17,000 lb H-92?



If we're talking about the Cyclone, its in the 14 ton range (28,650lbs)...


----------



## Sailorwest

I think you need to 'metrify' that number. 10 tonnes is actually 10,000 kg. And that is approximately 22,000 lbs. I am always amazed that I can still remember these conversions, 30 years later.  :2c:


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Depends which ton we are talking about

long ton, weight ton, gross ton "ton" (UK) = 2,240 lbs = 1,016kg Used in countries such as United Kingdom that formerly used the imperial system 

short ton, net ton "ton" (US) = 2,000lbs =  907kg Used in North America 

tonne, metric ton "metric ton" (US) = 2,205lbs = 1000kg The Tonne is also known as the Metric Ton in areas which use the metric measurement system, such as the UK. Conveniently, the weight is less than 2% difference to the Long Ton.


----------



## Haletown

Baz said:
			
		

> If we're talking about the Cyclone, its in the 14 ton range (28,650lbs)...




www.airforce-technology.com   has the weight as 6895kg/15,513Lb empty and a fuel load of 2143kg/4821lb  or 20,350ish pounds


----------



## CountDC

and with all those numbers do we have a volunteer to land a fully loaded one on the platform in question?  ( I take 3 paces back)


----------



## h3tacco

Haletown said:
			
		

> www.airforce-technology.com   has the weight as 6895kg/15,513Lb empty and a fuel load of 2143kg/4821lb  or 20,350ish pounds



If I had to choose between Air-forcetechnology.com and Baz's knowledge I would go with Baz. 28,650 lbs is the correct number the CH-148 is not 15,000lbs empty.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The exact weight is less important than the ship is only able to carry one aircraft. With the TG's already losing the two spots on the TRUMPs, the JSS has to be able to carry three or four helos.

Does anyone know what plan 'B' is? If we don't get JSS, what are we going to do with all of those extremely expensive helicopters?


----------



## Kirkhill

How about lilypad operations with the CH148s operating from shore bases in EEZ/Defence of Canada roles with the AOPS as distant lilypads (up to Sea State 3)?

Pat Bay, Greenwood, Gander, Iqaluit, Resolute, Inuvik, Arctic Bay, Coppermine Inlet? Draw a 2 hour circle around any of those then post an AOPS out there as a floating FARP.  What does that do for coverage and response?   Both CH-148s (armed) and -149s (SAR)?

Admittedly the SOR is from Mar 2008.  Any newer news - definitive?




> AOPS – Interim SOR (DMRS 10-2) Draft 121400 May 2008
> 3371-300001216 Vol 1 (DMRS 10-2) / RDIMS # 144233 Original – Project 00001216
> 20/45
> 
> 
> 4.2.3 Organic Air Operations. AOPS shall:
> 
> 4.2.3.1 normally operate and maintain one light organic helicopter56 for up to and including 120
> consecutive days;
> 4.2.3.2 embark a single light helicopter non-core crew air detachment;
> 4.2.3.3 provide Class 157 facilities in accordance with APP 2(F) Vol 1 - Helicopter Operations
> from Ships other Than Aircraft Carrier (HOSTAC) for a one light helicopter;
> 4.2.3.4 provide Level 158 operations in accordance with HOSTAC;
> 4.2.3.5 be able to land, launch, house and re-fuel a CH 148 Cyclone;59
> 4.2.3.6 conduct CH 148 flight operations using “Aviation Night Vision Imaging System”
> (ANVIS)60;
> 4.2.3.7 provide, within the limitations of para 4.2.3.3 and 4.2.3.4, to the extent practicable,
> support for limited CH 148 operations to include limited and emergency maintenance routines;
> 4.2.3.8 be able to land, launch and re-fuel a CH 149 Cormorant61;
> 4.2.3.9 conduct Ship Without Air Detachement (SWOAD) operations with core crew personnel;
> 4.2.3.10 carry aviation fuel62 to support a minimum of 150 hours63 of flying operations with an
> embarked light helicopter64; and
> 4.2.3.11 launch and recover a light helicopter, CH 148 or CH 149 without the benefit of a
> helicopter haul-down and rapid securing device (HHRSD) while:
> 4.2.3.11.1 underway in up to and including SS 3656667; and
> 4.2.3.11.2 berthed alongside in harbour and at anchor.]
> 
> 52 Assumption is that a diesel truck will use F-76
> 53 The GVWR includes the net weight of the vehicle, plus the weight of passengers, fuel, cargo and any accessories
> added to the vehicle after purchase. The GVWR is a safety standard used to prevent overloading. The number for
> the GVWR has been based on the maximum GVWR of an F-150 Supercab 4x4 (3.7 tonnes) and rounded up to 4.0
> tonnes.
> 54 Portable POL arrangement to be provided by clients as required e.g. Land Forces support.
> 55 An average large ATV/snowmobile will have a twenty-litre fuel tank and will provide approx four hrs of
> operations. A CPF carries up to twelve x 20L (approx) of POL. ROM for 100hrs is approximately 500 litres.
> 56 For the purpose of this SOR a Light helicopter is defined as a helicopter with a maximum take off weight of 5,080
> kg (Bell 212 used as maximum weight. Empty weight of a Bell 212 is 2,517 kg). CHC Helicopter Corporation is
> currently the main leasing organization in Canada and further info can be viewed at the following web site:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet or http://www.chc.ca/
> 57 Class 1: The host ship has a landing area, service and maintenance facilities for the helo to be operated.
> 58 Level 1: The ship facilities are capable of supporting day and night helicopter operations under both VMC and
> IMC for those helicopter designated.
> 59 It is not envisioned that the CH148 will be maintained onboard the AOPS.



Edit - It is of particular interest to me that Resolute and Nanisivik (Arctic Bay) straddle the North and South "coasts" of the NW Passage at a natural choke point;  that they are mutually supporting; that they supply alternate landing fields; that with an AOPS or two in the neighbourhood operations they could cover the entire passage and the eastern EEZ.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

That would be *FRP* wouldn't it? There's no mention of helicopter munitions in the AOPS SOR.


----------



## Kirkhill

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> That would be *FRP* wouldn't it? There's no mention of helicopter munitions in the AOPS SOR.



You're right.  My error.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Floundering along (usual copyright disclaimer):

Navy faces seven-year wait for new ships, Senate hears 
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1123991.html



> It could be up to seven years before the navy is able to replace its 1960s vintage supply ships, senior defence officials told a Senate committee on Monday.
> 
> And even then, the ships they get may *have to be a scaled-down version* [emphasis added] of the original multi-purpose vessel envisioned by National Defence and the Conservative government.
> 
> Dan Ross, assistant deputy minister of materiel, testified that a request for proposals for three new joint support ships *likely won’t be issued until next year* [emphasis added], and it will take another five to six years before the first one is delivered to the fleet.
> 
> Last summer, the federal government scuttled a $2.9 billion replacement process for supply ships, which were to double as army transport and command vessels, because the bids exceeded the Conservatives’ budget envelope.
> 
> That has forced the navy to go back and re-think the kinds of things it wants the ship to do, said deputy defence minister Robert Fonberg.
> 
> "We’re trying to live within the funding envelope," he said Monday.
> 
> "We’re looking at the capabilities to see what within that design was driving up the price, and if you were to take that out of the design what it would actually mean for the navy’s ability to operate."
> 
> Liberal Senator Tommy Banks wondered whether that meant the navy will be left with a less capable ship.
> 
> Fonberg said the federal government has *not ruled out increasing the budget, but such a measure would mean the military would have to do without some other appropriation* [emphasis added--oh dear].
> 
> The two existing supply ships — HMCS Protecteur and HMCS Preserver — are both nearly at the end of their life expectancy and have required major overhauls to stay in service.
> 
> Ross noted that at least one of the ships will have to undergo a year-long refit in order to remain in service until the new vessels arrive.
> 
> Replacing the aging tankers with multi-purpose ships — capable of carrying army supplies and vehicles — was first suggested in the 1994 defence white paper produced by Jean Chretien’s government. But the plan collected dust on the shelf until 2005, when it was resurrected by former prime minister Paul Martin and eventually adopted by the Conservatives.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggested last winter that he wanted to see a comprehensive shipbuilding strategy that would include work on the joint support ships.



So now, realistically, it'll be at least 2016 before the Navy has a new vessel. In 2006 the new Conservative government said the target date would be 2012. 
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=1959
On and on and on things go.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Floundering along (usual copyright disclaimer):
> 
> Navy faces seven-year wait for new ships, Senate hears
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1123991.html
> 
> So now, realistically, it'll be at least 2016 before the Navy has a new vessel. In 2006 the new Conservative government said the target date would be 2012.
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=1959
> On and on and on things go.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



When I was in Timor at the turn of the century, we were told 2005 there would be AOR hulls in the water.  Nice to see nothing has changed.


----------



## ezbeatz

gvg said:
			
		

> Latest artist impression of the Dutch JSS Karel Doorman, from (the usually well informed guys at) www.dutchfleet.net.
> Not an LPD, since it doesn't have a well deck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around 25.000t displacement.



See that little red thing pointing out at the end of the ship. That's a well deck!


----------



## aesop081

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> See that little red thing pointing out at the end of the ship. That's a well deck!




Psssst....

Doors at the back a well deck does not make.

For example, The HDMS Absalon. Doors at the back are for a RoRo capability, not well deck that gets flooded to release landing crafts.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/absalon/

But in case of the Dutch ship, you are correct, it is a welldeck .


----------



## gvg

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Psssst....
> 
> Doors at the back a well deck does not make.
> 
> For example, The HDMS Absalon. Doors at the back are for a RoRo capability, not well deck that gets flooded to release landing crafts.
> 
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/absalon/
> 
> But in case of the Dutch ship, you are correct, it is a welldeck .


With the Dutch JSS, as pictured here, it's also a RoRo capability. This JSS has no welldeck, it's not an LPD.

Check the (clickable) pic on the Dutch MoD site: http://www.defensie.nl/dmo/materieelprojecten/zeestrijdkrachten/verwerving_joint_logistiek_ondersteuningsschip_(jss)/


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The flexdeck in question on the Absalon class can be modified so it can launch the classes embarked landing craft, so it effect it is a quasi well deck.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Start of a post at _The Torch_:

Joint Support Ship: The wait continues/Politically-imperative pork 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/joint-support-ship-wait.html



> What happens when the government (they all do) insists on designing and building vessels in Canada, and when the Navy over-reaches in its desires:
> 
> "*Ships still on drawing board*
> _Navy won’t talk to builders about supply vessels until next year_...
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1144036.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## gvg

For those that are interested.

The Dutch have signed an agreement in principle with Damen Naval for their version of the JSS. It will cost €365,5mln (C$ 577,5mln) and have a displacement of 27.800 tons.

The letter to parliament said this about a cooperation with Canada:
_The Canadian procurement strategy offered no starting point for cooperation, other than an information exchange._

Diesel-electric propulsion, maximum speed: 18 knots, crew of 152 (max 171) and room for an additional 129 troops for a total of 300, 2 heli spots (for NH-90 and/or Chinook) and a hangar for 6 of those helicopters (with wings folded) and a hospital with 2 operating rooms.

Parliament (and not only the oppostion) is starting to raise questions about the price, since the original (2005) budget was about €100mln less.





from: www.dutchfleet.net





www.defensie.nl





www.defensie.nl


----------



## MarkOttawa

Amazing what a country about as wealthy as Canada but with half the population is capable of doing.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

Well, the vessel won't be built in Nova Scotia, so the MND would never approve...


----------



## Haletown

h3tacco said:
			
		

> If I had to choose between Air-forcetechnology.com and Baz's knowledge I would go with Baz. 28,650 lbs is the correct number the CH-148 is not 15,000lbs empty.



I'll go with Sikorsky . . .  this is for the H-92 so not exactly for how we get our helo's 

- internal load 26,500 lb 12,020 kg
- external load 28,300 lb 12,837 kg
Maximum external load 8,000 lb 3,629 kg **
Weight empty (Troop transport) 16,223 lb 7,362 kg
Operating weight empty 16,676 lb 7,563 kg
Maximum fuel load, (internal, standard) 5,130 lb 2,327 kg
Maximum fuel load, (internal, auxiliary 2 x 210 gallons) 7,965 lb 3,612 kg


http://www.sikorsky.com/StaticFiles/Sikorsky/Assets/Attachments/Mission%20Downloads/S92-044%20February%202009.pdf

last page


----------



## Sub_Guy

Is that a Cyclone in the second CGI generated picture?


----------



## dapaterson

I'm more concerned by the Iltis in the last picture.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'm more concerned by the Iltis in the last picture.



Don't the Dutch have the Iltis in or at one in their inventory?


----------



## dapaterson

Yes.  I'm just afraid someone from DND wll look at the picture, think it's a good idea, and after typical confusion forward it to the Army vice the Navy for action and we'll see the Iltis back in service instead of a JSS-type ship!


----------



## gvg

Maybe someone at Damen thinks they can sell the design to Canada and that's the reason they put the Iltis (they just forgot you guys also use the G-wagon nowadays  ;D) and the Cyclone in.

For the Dutch is should be the G-wagon (the Dutch never even used the Iltis unlike the Canadians) and the NH-90.


----------



## tango22a

DAPaterson;

Did you ever consider  that the CGIs were a not-too-subtle jab at the CF to get off their collective a$$es and get the JSS under weigh!!


tango22a


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I say we would be better off skipping the JSS concept all together and going straight to an dedicated AOR. Less mess and fuss and we'll get hulls sooner rather then later.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Ex-D-  that makes too much sense. 

In fact, there will certainly be major budget cuts to defence that will occur after the G-20 summitt. In order to deal with the deficits and sustain an army looking to refresh its worn out kit, I would wager that none of these high cost naval projects [JSS, AOR, Destroyers] will proceed. Politically, the government is now in a position where it can leverage the high costs vs the deficit and forever entrench a minimal capability territorial Navy.  Such a Navy will have little need for air defence, tanker support or expeditionary support. 

Even then, barring the unforseen appearance of pirates equipped with cruise missiles in Hudsons Bay or the Queen Charlottes, look for a Navy severely different in composition than it is today.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Post at _The Torch_:

More on new Dutch version of Joint Support Ship 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-on-new-dutch-version-of-joint.html



> It looks almost as if a post here in November 2009,
> 
> *Dutch moving forward on their version of Joint Support Ship*
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/dutch-moving-forward-on-their-version.html
> 
> has been read by a journalist:
> 
> "As the Canadian Navy’s Joint Support Ship remains stalled, the Royal Netherlands Navy is moving ahead with the construction of its own similar vessel..."



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 54/102 CEF

Lost in the tornado of news from Haiti is a simple truth

To move lots of stuff painted Green you need a JSS ship (s) and we can't do that yet nor get it inland quick. I think its time to get that long lead time capability back into the pipeline.

We have an earthquake zone in Vancouver,for example,  thats a ba$tard to drive around in - has few routes to move on and lots of people who'll look just like you know where - living in the street on a rainy night.

Even if we flew the C17s to Vancouver - they'll be at the wrong end of town to assist assuming the routes are open - and the path of the government is pull military from the west to the east (3 PPCLI-1CER are good examples) and replace them with mounties driving cruisers. Last I checked that 5900 constables are on the job there --- seen the numbers on RCMP Website and this wikipedia link looks the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCMP_%22E%22_Division. Buffalo taxi trunks are full of other stuff than IRPs...

And even worse - JSS may be great on the east coast but not nec a part of the solution for the west coast.

City governments everywhere - review your disaster plans.

Ring ring ring ---- Col - its a Mr Lastman on the line? Sir - he won`t take "cough and die" for an answer and says he wants to speak to the MFWIC.  

RCMP pers in BC 9200 plus 
http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=38&languageId=1&contentId=9114&q=strength


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Like it or not the first responder to an major earthquake that effects mainly the Vancouver area will be Ft lewis. The Americans will pour in large amounts of troops and material to help us. 

Plus their navy and Airforce will be busy helping us as well. However if an earthquake was to devastate Seattle and Vancouver, we would on our own.


----------



## terminator50

yeah i read about a hypothetical senario like that in one of J.L Granastein's books


----------



## Kirkhill

54/102

I think RH was right and you are partly right.  We need the BHS, preferably multiple.  We don't need the JSS and I don't think the Navy needs the JSS either.

The Navy needs an AOR or three.  The Canadian Government needs some cheap floating warehouses to preposition materiel to respond to natural and "man-made" (pace hizzzobaminess) disasters.  Warehouse transit by Naval Reserve crews of 25, comparable to civilian vessels.


----------



## George Wallace

We don't have the budget to warehouse equipment.  We don't even have the budget for equipment in enough numbers to train with.  

So, not having a budget to warehouse equipment, where would we get the budget to build ships to warehouse the equipment we can't afford?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I do hope and pray the JSS goes away and someone with a clue or two in Ottawa wakes TFU and gets the Navy AORs; Berlin class anyone?


----------



## aesop081

WRT to JSS, Hillier is as wrong today as he was then.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We don't have the budget to warehouse equipment.  We don't even have the budget for equipment in enough numbers to train with.
> 
> So, not having a budget to warehouse equipment, where would we get the budget to build ships to warehouse the equipment we can't afford?



No.  CF doesn't have the budget to warehouse equipment.  And the Canadian Taxpayer wouldn't pay for the budget necessary to do the job for the CF.  That's why I said the Canadian Government needs the kit and the ships.  Add it to Foreign Affairs budget or CIDA - with some management changes.

Beans, Bullets, Bandages and POL.  Leave the Bullets, Personnel and AFVs to the Air Force - perhaps one fast military standard BHS for the Navy as well.  But the rest, along with kit for a Sigs Sqn and a Service Battalion - park that on one of those surplus ships sitting around the world's oceans just now.  Or, if their feeling well heeled get the Ccandian shipbuilding industry to put out CSL grade vessels.


----------



## 54/102 CEF

Hi 

Thanks for commenting - I guess I mean "capability" to move Green painted stuff 

As for stocking in Canada - its all about redundancy and operational research - as in what are the odds.....

As well - for people to keep extra food on the shelf for the unforeseen.

A good thinking cap ex and well done to all

As for budgets - Its all politics - the dough pi$$ed down endless ratholes would float a major fleet of something.

PS: Anyone living in the world of "never will" or "never can" - come in now


----------



## GAP

Dutch Order Multi-Purpose Support Ship
20-Jan-2010 
Article Link

Damen Schelde recently announced a contract from the Dutch Defence Materiel Organisation to build a 28,000t “Joint Logistic Support Ship” (JSS), which is scheduled to launch in 2014 and replace the existing 16,900t HNLMS Zuiderkruis.

The Dutch want a very versatile ship that can resupply other warships, transport significant numbers of army equipment and vehicles, act as a floating headquarters, take on hospital duties, and embark up to 6 helicopters. Price was not disclosed, but that level of versatility will come with costs. Canada’s ill-fated JSS program had similar or larger ambitions, but the 3-ship, C$ 2.9 billion program was ultimately suspended when contractors informed the government that they could not supply what Canada wanted at the prices demanded. With respect to the Dutch design…

The Dutch JSS design measures 205m/ 672’6” long with 30m/ 98’5” beam, and 28,000t total displacement, offering much more space compared to the 190m length, 20m beam, and 16,900t for HNLMS Zuiderkruis. Power will come from 5 diesel generators offering up to 25 MW, and speeds of up to 18 knots will be achieved using 2 main electric motors of 9 MW each, driving 2 fixed-pitch propeller shaftlines, 2 bow thruster pods, and 1 stern thruster pod.

In order to fulfill its main supply role, the Dutch JSS will have 2 Replenishment-At-Sea masts, an elevator and crane for up to 40 tonnes, a large (“2000 lanemeters”) vehicle storage or evacuee holding area with roll on/roll off capability, and a “steel beach” stern design for cargo transfer via landing craft. A large helicopter deck can handle up to 2 CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters, and the hangar will be able to hold up to 6 helicopters of undefined type; space for 6 Lynx helicopters would be very useful, but is not the same thing as space for 6 NH90 medium helicopters. HNLMS Zuiderkruis currently accommodates 2 Lynx helicopters.

The vessel is expected to hold 150 crew and up to 150 additional residents, such as helicopter crew and medical teams. Automation is expected to help achieve these low totals.

Self-defense will include 2 of Thales Nederlands 30mm Goalkeeper gatling gun systems, for last-ditch missile defense and withering fire against boats and UAVs, 2 single-barrel 30mm remote weapon systems (RWS) that can be aimed and fired from stations within the ship, and 4 “medium calibre” RWS that will probably be 12.7mm/ .50 cal. This compares with HNLMS Zuiderkruis’ single Goalkeeper system and 2 manned 12.7mm stations. The new JSS ships are also expected to include “signature reduction measures” in radar and infrared, ballistic protection, blast resistant construction, redundant and shock resistant systems, a gas citadel, and extensive fire fighting systems.
More on link


----------



## FSTO

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Ex-D-  that makes too much sense.
> 
> In fact, there will certainly be major budget cuts to defence that will occur after the G-20 summitt. In order to deal with the deficits and sustain an army looking to refresh its worn out kit, I would wager that none of these high cost naval projects [JSS, AOR, Destroyers] will proceed. Politically, the government is now in a position where it can leverage the high costs vs the deficit and forever entrench a minimal capability territorial Navy.  Such a Navy will have little need for air defence, tanker support or expeditionary support.
> 
> Even then, barring the unforseen appearance of pirates equipped with cruise missiles in Hudsons Bay or the Queen Charlottes, look for a Navy severely different in composition than it is today.


I would hope that the government would have a different thought process (sorry I don't recall drinking that 40 pounder of whiskey   ) especially after the Navy's performance (once again) to Haiti. When the next disaster hits and all we have are ORCA's and MCDV's, the public will scream bloody murder.


----------



## jollyjacktar

On the drive home today one of the reporters who were embedded with Athabaskan is back home from Haiti.   He was describing how our present response (equipment wise) was hampered by lack of suitable ships.  He rightly pointed out that our CPFs and 280s were designed for hunting Russian subs mid Atlantic, not delivering goods/personnel ashore.  Mention was made of the USS Gunston Hall and what it is capable of doing, our borrowing her in 2006 and of course the JSS.  All in all a very good case was made on why the Navy should procure a suitable platform for the tasks that are being faced by the CF today.  Maybe they might be the shove that gets the ball rolling again.  He said the troops there were fantastic, but limited in what they could accomplish by lack of means.  Here's hoping.....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Let's not reinvent the wheel:

 We have the plans for the Protecteur class AOR's. They still work out.  Lets build two new ones with Diesel-electric pods for propulsion and modern shipborne integrated control systems to reduce crewing requirements. (p.s.: people may remember that they carry landing crafts - would have been useful in Haiti if any had been available).

As for joint support, please pass on the Dutch JSS: All I can see so far is that they are a Landing Platform Dock with a Derrick stuck on one side to refuel her escorts. B.T.W. 129 soldiers carrying capacity: is that even one company? On the nice pictures, they have  landed a field hospital. How many people out of 129 are left to do something else? The real alternative, cheap and easy, is something like the French Mistral or British HMS Ocean: ships built quickly at reasonable price from merchant ship designs: very small crewing requirement, large troop and equipment transport capacity, a good onboard hospital facility and a good deck to operate between 12 and 16 medium to heavy helicopters. Can you imagine if one of those had been sent to Haiti !

I would be willing to bet that we can build 2 new AOR's and 2 of these landing ships mentioned above for less than the estimate for three JSS AND build them all in Canada.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Let's not reinvent the wheel:


There is a reason we move on to other designs, its usually because they are no longer feasible. Why would we use the single hull Protecteur class and be limited to most of the worlds ports because they do not meet enviromental concerns. The Protecteur class served the Navy well  but its high time we get new AORs. Two is not enough, look how much each coast suffers when that coast's lone AOR goes in for a refit. I will say it again and again. Get the AORs (not JSS) and come back to the amphib. We have so many other ships we need replaced before we should even consider an amphib.


----------



## gvg

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> .....
> As for joint support, please pass on the Dutch JSS: All I can see so far is that they are a Landing Platform Dock with a Derrick stuck on one side to refuel her escorts. B.T.W. 129 soldiers carrying capacity: is that even one company? On the nice pictures, they have  landed a field hospital. How many people out of 129 are left to do something else? ..........
> ...........


It isn't a LPD, it has no well. 
It has 2 RAS masts, one on the left and one on the right.
Troop transport was always a minor issue with the Dutch JSS, since they have 2 real LPD's that together can carry 1159 troops (apart from their crew).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

gvg said:
			
		

> It isn't a LPD, it has no well.
> It has 2 RAS masts, one on the left and one on the right.



Sorry gvg, there are no right/left on ships. On the nice Netherland pictures, she has a refuelling station on the starboard side, but the port side view shows a much smaller  and less encumbered installation that looks like a standing heavy jackstay post to me.  Also, on the port side view, there is an opening in the stern. Comparing to the schematics at the top , we see it is a ramp for what is know as a "beach" for her landing crafts: This is a compromise: not quite a dock so you do not use internal space but the beaching means you have to be still in the water and are highly constrained by sea states. 

At an extra 3,000 tons, she is barely bigger than our current AOR's. But, the schematics show lots of internal space dedicated to linear lanes of vehicles, a large hangar and some general cargo space of greater proportion than our AOR's. This means that she cannot possibly carry the 15,000 t. of fuel and avgas that AOR's can. Pardon my cold war escort bias, but I like my fuel tanks topped up every chance I get, and I like to go out with a ship from which I can keep fuelling, and fuelling and fuelling...



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> There is a reason we move on to other designs, its usually because they are no longer feasible. Why would we use the single hull Protecteur class and be limited to most of the worlds ports because they do not meet enviromental concerns.



I am not advocating rebuilding them to old standards, but one of the most demanding part of starting such design "from scratch" is to determine compartments configurations, internal arrangements, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic data and other such curves and analysis. With the existing plans, these are pretty well done or easy to modify. Doubling the hull on the tank portions and fitting other environmental systems is made faster and easier that way, which leads to costs and time savings. That is all I was advocating.

I am in full agreement that two is not enough: three, so each costs can have one available at all time, would be my minimum, and two for each coast the dream, but between two new ones or none, I choose two.


----------



## Otis

From a purely selfish point of view:

Whatever they decide, I'D like the food spaces to be bigger and better configured!

Every time I had to go in the fridges / rations spaces on the Protecteur, it aggravated me that a SUPPLY ship had such constricted rations spaces. Now, I understand that the ships were designed to civvie standards, intended for a much smaller crew and that they go in to port far more often than a 'fighting' ship, but should the crew have to store rations EVERY time they go in because of that?

Otis the old Bin Rat and Victualler.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

I was doing some research on another subject and found  this diagram  from the Russia's RIA Novosti news agency which shows the layout for the French MISTRAL class amphib/helo carrier. Thought you guys might be interested.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Psssst the problem with the Mistral though its not an AOR.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Might this warm and fuzzy approach be relevant to our governments--if we bought AORS?

Italy To Get New Amphibious Ships
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2010/06/01/DT_06_01_2010_p36-228013.xml



> The Italian navy has received the go-ahead to procure two 20,000-ton amphibious assault ships (LHDs), with the possibility of a third ship, configured with extensive aviation facilities (LHA).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preliminary LHD project is funded and will take 12 months for completion. It will be followed by a project definition phase requiring eight months and leading to a contract. Delivery of the first ship comes within 30 months after that. If everything goes to plan, the first LHD arrives in late 2014.
> 
> LHDs will replace two 8,000-ton San Giorgio-class LPDs, commissioned in 1987 and 1988. The LHA will eventually replace the carrier Garibaldi, which is being dedicated to amphibious and helicopter roles now that the Cavour carrier is in service.
> 
> The new LHDs will be 190 meters (623 ft.) long, feature a well dock that holds four LCACs (landing craft air cushions), and have a hangar with dedicated maintenance area where six medium-heavy helicopters can be recovered. The flight deck will provide six landing spots and be served by two elevators, one at the stern, the other forward of the island. It will thus be possible to launch air-assault operations, lifting a reinforced rifle company with each wave and rapidly moving personnel and equipment to the deck. Helicopter capacity will be 12-15, depending on mix.
> 
> Capabilities also include four smaller LCVP (landing craft, vehicle, personnel) vessels and two motorboats, all in dedicated spaces with cranes under the port flight deck.
> 
> The LHD can accommodate 760 troops, including an aviation detachment and staff personnel, in addition to a ship’s crew of only 200, a result of shipboard automation. The vessel will normally carry a reinforced marine battalion and aviation personnel, and be able to add an amphibious task force and landing force command, which will rely on extensive C4I spaces and systems. The basic space earmarked for the command staff is 500 sq. meters (5,380 sq. ft.)...
> 
> A peculiarity of the design is that *the ships, at least the first, will have civil protection as the primary operational role. The requirement is taken seriously and dictates many capabilities—for instance, large electricity generation and water purification capacity, including deployment of flexible hoses for ship-to-dock or ship-to-ship water transfer* [emphasis added].
> 
> The LHD will have a hospital that treats 54, with 1,000 sq. meters of dedicated space. The hospital can expand by using space dedicated to the marines’ mess and loading medical containers in part of the hangar. The C4 spaces can be used as a command center for civil protection authorities...
> 
> To *minimize costs, the LHDs will be built to commercial standards, modified somewhat to improve survivability, but without full military specifications. Tradeoffs between cost and survivability are being assessed. According to one estimate, the ship can be built for €300 million ($369 million), excluding combat systems* [emphasis added--!?!].


  

Via _New Wars_, interesting blog focussed on USN reform:
http://newwars.wordpress.com/

Remember that the government classifies the JSS as a "non-combat vessel":
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do;jsessionid=ac1b105430d891a768c0b48a471388a9bb629767dd3e.e34Rc3iMbx8Oai0Tbx0SaxiKbxz0?m=%2Findex&nid=537419



> ...
> Another competitively selected shipyard will *build non-combat vessels, such as the Joint Support Ships (JSS)* [emphasis added]...




Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The description makes it look like a very slightly smaller version of the french Mistral class. So, there must be a small mistake in the capabilities described: Ships that size can only accommodate two (vice four) LCAC's, otherwise, the well would have to extend almost all the way forward, and you would not have any room left for troops or their equipment. However, a well that accommodates two LCAC's will accommodate four LCU's.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Mark, hoses for transferring of fuel and water is all well and good but we also use AORs to restock ammo, food, spare parts etc. _These_ LHDs so not address our RAS needs.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ex-Dragoon: I wrote "if we bought AORS?", meaning in addition to an LHD type.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Mark:
If you read back through this thread and through your own thread titled "New Canadian Shipbuilding Policy", you will notice that Ex-D. and I are of the same mind: Build four AOR's and two LHD's. Keep the fighting and fuelling separate.

'nough said.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Agree.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Mark:
> If you read back through this thread and through your own thread titled "New Canadian Shipbuilding Policy", you will notice that Ex-D. and I are of the same mind: Build four AOR's and two LHD's. Keep the fighting and fuelling separate.
> 
> 'nough said.





> The JHSV program is procuring high-speed transport vessels for the Army and the Navy. These vessels will be used for fast intra-theater transportation of troops, military vehicles and equipment. The JHSV program merges the previous Army Theater Support Vessel (TSV) and the Navy High Speed Connector (HSC), taking advantage of the inherent commonality between the two programs.
> 
> JHSV will be capable of transporting 600 short tons 1,200 nautical miles at an average speed of 35 knots. The ships will be capable of operating in shallow-draft ports and waterways, interfacing with roll-on/roll-off discharge facilities, and on/off-loading a combat-loaded Abrams Main Battle Tank (M1A2). Other joint requirements include an aviation flight deck to support day and night air vehicle launch and recovery operations.
> 
> JHSV is a commercial-design, non-combatant transport vessel, and does not require the development of any new technology. JHSV is being built to American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) High Speed Naval Craft Guide. Systems onboard will be based on commercial ABS steel vessel rules. As such, it does not require the survivability and ability to sustain damage like the LCS. It has no combat system capability and no ability to support or use LCS mission modules. It will leverage non-developmental or commercial technology that is modified to suit military applications. Select military features include Aviation; Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and (Military) Intelligence; and Firefighting for the Mission Bay. NVR does not apply to any part of JHSV.
> 
> As a non-combatant sealift ship, the Navy variant of JHSV will be crewed by civilian mariners, either employed by or under contract to the Navy’s Military Sealift Command. U.S. Army vessels will be crewed by Army craft masters. Both versions will require a crew of approximately 22-40 people, but will have airline style seating for more than 300 embarked forces and fixed berthing for approximately 100 more.



Source USN

First: I am not advocating HSVs.  That is a separate issue.
The comment about separating fighting and fuelling caught my eye.  If the Canadian navy is willing to countenance a “non-combatant” AOR, just like the RFA fleet and much of the US fleet, and if the US is continuing to purchase logistical vessels built to civilian standards, and find employment for them, why should we not consider building transport vessels to commercial standards as well?  
I don’t believe that we need to purchase vessels capable of handling opposed landings just to improve the CFs deployment capabilities.  A couple of flat-top Ro-Ros with a helicopter hangar conversion would greatly increase the government’s options available.   
As far as Command and Control facilities are concerned: why not follow the Danish lead of the Absalon class and create a variant of the SCSC that includes a flex deck capable of handling a C&C centre, and maybe even the taskforce hospital.
If anything I would be in favour of spending money to increase the survivability of the AOR as it regularly deploys with the fleet and goes in contested waters.  The enemy usually gets to decide if a vessel is a combatant in those circumstances and punching a hole in your gas tank might be seen as an appropriate method of reducing your capabilities.
Meanwhile the government can choose to limit deployment of land forces to only those shores that are uncontested and still create many more policy options than it currently has with no logistic capabilities at all in that regard.


----------



## Kirkhill

Source for the above quote  (USN Fact File)

Sorry for the addendum post but I am having problems with longer posts.

Cheers.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Kirkhill:

If you read through the very same thread I mentioned, you will see that I also advocate turning the AOR's over to the CFAV's for the very same reason, and to alleviate the manning problems. I think I also mentioned the same in the thread that began as "6 MCDV's to be mothballed".

But it is an idea whose time has come, in my humble opinion.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile down south the USMC is getting closer to its own real carriers:

The USA’s America Class: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-new-lhar-ship-class-carrier-air-amphibious-assault-updated-0870/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=did&utm_medium=textlink



> ...
> Designed to project power and maintain presence, LHA-Replacement (LHA-R, aka. LH-X  and now the America Class) large deck amphibious assault ships will replace the LHA-1 Tarawa Class. They’re based on the more modern LHD Wasp Class  design, but initial ships will remove the LHD’s landing craft and well deck. While its LHA/LHD predecessors were amphibious assault ships with a secondary aviation element, it’s fair to describe the LHA-Rs as escort carriers with a secondary amphibious assault role...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Kirkhill:
> 
> If you read through the very same thread I mentioned, you will see that I also advocate turning the AOR's over to the CFAV's for the very same reason, and to alleviate the manning problems. I think I also mentioned the same in the thread that began as "6 MCDV's to be mothballed".
> 
> But it is an idea whose time has come, in my humble opinion.



OGBD 

I didn't mean to slight anyone.  I have seen your posts and agree.  My apologies for not being more direct in giving credit where it's due.

As a tangential comment I will drag the AOPS into the fray by linkingthis article on the USN's plans to purchase more civilian pattern JHSVs as sea bases for troops engaged in "irregular warfare".  I guess I have always seen the AOPS in this light.  It is a platform for troops more than missiles. Its targets are the people on shore and not other vessels or even aircraft and tanks.  They are mobile islands designed to operate in "low risk" environments.  The JHSV operates in open, tropical waters. The AOPS operates in icy northern waters.

Let's spend the dollars on the SCSC fleet and make them  both flexible and capable of operating in a high risk environment.  That does not necessarily mean that every ship of the class should be able to do all tasks all the time.  But some hulls could be allocated fo Absalon type configurations while others are designed for AAW and the rest for a configuration more in line with our current General Duties type escort frigates.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> But some hulls could be allocated fo Absalon type configurations while others are designed for AAW and the rest for a configuration more in line with our current General Duties type escort frigates.



Which would require more hulls for us to meet our commitments. Remember the first 4 SCSC will be AAD/Flagships to replace our 280s. If you take away from the SCSC to make arctic patrol vessels you are cutting down the numbers of frigates we need for general warfare roles.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> But some hulls could be allocated fo Absalon type configurations while others are designed for AAW and the rest for a configuration more in line with our current General Duties type escort frigates./quote]
> 
> Which would require more hulls for us to meet our commitments. Remember the first 4 SCSC will be AAD/Flagships to replace our 280s. If you take away from the SCSC to make arctic patrol vessels you are cutting down the numbers of frigates we need for general warfare roles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your right Ex-D, which is why I was rather thinking about taking resources from the JSS and AOPs projects, fund a less capable group of vessels (AORs and RoRos built to civilian specs for the JSS project and hollow out the AOPS as much as possible - try and get it back to the 50 MCAD price tag of the Svalbard) and  then use such funds as can be found from those projects to fund an extra two or three SCSC hulls.   Those hulls needn't have any offensive capability - just a defensive suite, a flex deck and naval survivability standards.
> 
> Sorry for not making myself clearer the first time.
Click to expand...


----------



## RC

The Svalbard was between 100 and 110 million euros.  Not sure where you got the 50 MCAD figure from, but it is incorrect.  The AOPS was modified to allow more flexibility and conform to Canadian standards, but fundamentally, it is not dramatically different from the Svalbard and the modifications are far more practical than costly.


----------



## Kirkhill

RC:

You're right. I was wrong. A result of relying on an increasingly faulty memory.  And I am glad to hear that, at that rate, the AOPS will come in some around 1 BCAD for a half-dozen (build only).

Here's a question that you seem well placed to offer an opinion on: I understand capital costs, vice O&M, vice Manning and life-cycle costing, but why do Canadian construction costs seem so much higher than Dutch, Danish and Norwegian costs (I'm not going to touch the Brits and Yanks - they are in worlds of their own)?   Is it because our yards have to purchase new infra-structure to match the capabilities of the national yards I mentioned?  And if that's the case do you know if there is a WTO sanctioned mechanism for the Government to directly subsidize the yard separately from the cost of the vesssels?

The reason I ask is that I was looking at the Absalon info again,  and the new non-frigates the Danes are building and it appears that the Danes can get a functional hull in the water for something around the 300-400 MCAD mark, 500-600 by they time they arm them from their stock of weapons modules from their Flex ship stock.  Likewise the French, Italians and Spaniards get new frigates in the 500-800 range.  Our numbers for the SCSC, admittedly, apparently, also including O&M costs seem to be closer to the 1500 mark.


Can you clarify and correct?


----------



## Kirkhill

RC - it seems it is about time for me to stop making statements and stick to asking questions.

A little bit of Google time revealed that the Maersk yard at Odense in Denmark is shutting down right after it finishes these last three frigates in 2012.  Despite best efforts and a whole lot of investment by a sentimental patron they just couldn't compete with $50,000,000 hulls out of Asia.


----------



## RC

Shipbuilding is a tough business with a lot of competition.

There are many answers to your questions on why Canadian yards are so much more expensive than European yards and an even greater number of papers, articles, opinions, etc.  However, I think that the main thrust of it can be summed up in one word: continuity.  A yard with a steady order book can train, pay for efficient workers, develop strengths, have good, modern references, research niche markets, organize the yard, and spend on infrastructure.

All these things decay suprisingly quickly if the order book is unpredictable and the people doing the work don't feel secure and move on to other things.  One has almost to start over each time there is a long dry period and the skilled workers, engineers, and managers move on to other things.

And as I think we are all aware, Canadian yards have very little continuity.  They either have long dry spells or they jump from repair to military to offshore to commercial, which can be almost as damaging.

In the end, the truth is that it's extremely difficult to judge the cost of building a ship in a Canadian yard because of the lack of continuity and thus the lack of good price references.  There's a big risk initially on both the yard's side and the government side.  The situation will be exacerbated if we occaionally decide to build in Canada and other times to build overseas.   Balance out the order books and there is no good reason that Canadian yards can't be as competitive as any of their European counterparts.


----------



## jollyjacktar

From the CBC website.

Navy supply ship replacement plan expected
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 | 10:46 AM ET CBC News 
The federal government is expected to announce new details of its latest plan to replace the navy's aging supply ships.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay takes part in the opening session of the government ship building consultation in Gatineau, Que, in July 2009. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press) Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose and Industry Minister Tony Clement are scheduled to make the announcement on Wednesday morning in Halifax.  It comes after the government shelved an earlier plan to construct three navy supply ships and some coastal patrol boats because of defence contractors' problems with meeting the specifications under the government's budget.  The navy has been struggling to keep its existing 1960s vintage replenishment ships in the water. HMCS Preserver and Protecteur were expected to reach the end of their service life between 2010 and 2012  Since 2006, Ottawa has had plans to build 28 large ships over the next several decades, at a cost of more than $33 billion, as well as more than 100 smaller ships.

With files from The Canadian Press 


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/14/government-shipbuilding-strategy.html#ixzz0tfbkakCC


----------



## The Bread Guy

This just out from CF:


> The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, together with the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada and Minister for Status of Women, and the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, today announced the Government is moving forward with procurement of new Joint Support Ships (JSS).
> 
> The new ships will be built in Canada and will be an important part of our Navy’s work at home and abroad, as part of the Canada First Defence Strategy.
> 
> “This government is providing our men and women in uniform the tools and equipment they need to do the jobs asked of them,” said Minister MacKay. “The Joint Support Ship will be a new vessel for our Navy that better enables our sailors to protect Canadian coastlines and sovereignty, and support international operations.”
> 
> The Government will acquire two support ships, with the option to procure a third. The JSS project represents a total investment by the Government of Canada of approximately $2.6 billion. The presence of a JSS increases the range and endurance of the Canadian Navy, permitting it to remain at sea for significant periods of time without going to shore.
> 
> The primary role of the JSS will include supply of fuel, ammunition, spare parts, food, and water. The JSS will also provide a home base for the maintenance and operation of helicopters, a limited sealift capability, and logistics support to forces deployed ashore.
> 
> “As part of Canada’s National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, this announcement will lead to the creation of long-term, skilled jobs for Canadians and will reinvigorate Canada's marine industry, allowing it to compete on the world stage,” added Minister Ambrose.
> 
> “Today’s announcement will mean jobs for Canadian workers, as shipyards across the country produce elements of this fleet,” said Minister Clement. “When all is said and done – we are beginning the process to build these ships, and that is great news for our Navy, for our Shipbuilding industry, and for Canada.”
> 
> This first step in the replacement of the Navy’s current Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessels, known as the definition phase, will involve the assessment of both new and existing designs. Existing ship designs are those already built, operating, and meet key specific Canadian requirements.
> 
> A new ship design is being developed by government and industry officials working side-by-side. The selected ship design will be based on the best value in terms of capability and affordability, ensuring the successful delivery of the JSS. The design is expected to be available in approximately two years, at which time a Canadian shipyard, selected as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, will be engaged to complete the design of and build the Joint Support Ships.
> 
> The Government of Canada will ensure both value for taxpayers’ dollars and opportunities for Canadian communities and the Canadian marine industry. The Government is committed to getting the right equipment for the Canadian Forces, at the right price for Canadian taxpayers, with the right benefits for Canadian industry.



From the Backgrounder:


> The Joint Support Ships (JSS) are a critical component for achieving success in both international and domestic Canadian Forces (CF) missions, as laid out in the Canada First Defence Strategy.  The ships constitute a vital and strategic national asset. The presence of replenishment ships increases the range and endurance of a Naval Task Group, permitting it to remain at sea for significant periods of time without going to shore for replenishment.
> 
> The JSS will replace the Navy’s current Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessels that are now more than 40 years old and nearing the end of their service lives. The new ships will provide core replenishment, limited sealift capabilities, and support to forces ashore. The JSS will be one of the first of the Navy’s ships to be built by one of the competitively selected Canadian shipyards, as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS).
> 
> The Way Ahead
> 
> This first step in the replacement of the Navy’s current Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessels, known as the definition phase, will involve the assessment of both new and existing designs. Existing ship designs are those already built, operating, and meet key specific Canadian requirements. The new ship design under consideration is currently being developed in-house.
> 
> The selected ship design will be based on the best value in terms of capability and affordability, ensuring the successful delivery of the JSS. The design is expected to be available in approximately two years, at which time a Canadian shipyard, selected as part of the NSPS, will be contracted to complete the design of and build the JSS. The JSS project represents a total investment by the Government of Canada of approximately $2.6 billion.
> 
> The Government of Canada will ensure both value for taxpayers’ dollars and opportunities for Canadian communities and the Canadian marine industry. The Government is committed to getting the right equipment for the CF, at the right price for Canadian taxpayers, with the right benefits for Canadian industry.
> 
> Capabilities
> 
> The JSS project will procure two ships, with an option to acquire a third. Their capabilities will include:
> 
> * Underway Support to Naval Task Groups: Underway support is the term that describes the transfer of liquids and solids (fuel and cargo) between ships at sea.  This underway support also includes the operation and maintenance of helicopters, as well as task group medical and dental facilities;
> 
> * Limited Sealift: To meet a range of possibilities in an uncertain future security environment, the JSS will be capable of delivering a limited amount of cargo ashore; and
> 
> * Limited Support to Forces Ashore: The JSS will have space and weight allocated for the potential future inclusion of a limited joint task force headquarters for command and control of forces deployed ashore.
> 
> The JSS will replace the core capabilities of the current Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment ships, including: provision of fuel, ammunition, spare parts, food, and water, and other supplies; modern medical and dental care facilities, including an operating room; repair facilities and expertise to keep helicopters and other equipment functioning; and basic self-defence functions.
> 
> (....)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

From the Backgrounder:
"Capabilities

The JSS project will procure two ships, with an option to acquire a third. Their capabilities will include:

    * Underway Support to Naval Task Groups: Underway support is the term that describes the transfer of liquids and solids (fuel and cargo) between ships at sea.  This underway support also includes the operation and maintenance of helicopters, as well as task group medical and dental facilities;

    * Limited Sealift: To meet a range of possibilities in an uncertain future security environment, the JSS will be capable of delivering a limited amount of cargo ashore; and

    * Limited Support to Forces Ashore: The JSS will have space and weight allocated for the potential future inclusion of a limited joint task force headquarters for command and control of forces deployed ashore."


It certainly looks to me like an AOR with a small increase in dimension to have a very limited sealift/land support capability. I gather Ottawa got the point that what they originally wanted could not be done, but they just had to have some army support capability so they could keep calling it a J.S.S. and not lose face.


----------



## MarkOttawa

> This first step in the replacement of the Navy’s current Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessels, known as the definition phase, will involve the assessment of both new and existing designs. Existing ship designs are those already built, operating, and meet key specific Canadian requirements.



In other words it is conceivable that a foreign design just might be chosen.  Though with the ship now looking a lot like an AOR  plus rather than a super JSS (as Oldgateboatdriver notes) it should be easier for a Canadian design to be come up with.  Are there any similar existing foreign vessels?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Earlier the plan was for three (presumably more capable vessels) vice two for just $300 million more--assuming costs on same basis--and many years later.  Great defence "strategy" (procurement list actually), eh?

"Canada First" Defence Procurement - Joint Support Ship
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=1959



> *NR-06.030 - June 26, 2006*
> 
> *HALIFAX*  [nice coincidence]– Minister of National Defence Gordon O’Connor, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Michael Fortier and Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier announced today the $2.9 billion Joint Support Ship project for Canada’s Navy. This project includes a base cost of $2.1 billion, plus an estimated $800 million in contracted in-service support over 20 years...
> 
> The Joint Support Ship project will deliver three multi-role vessels with substantially more capability than the Protecteur Class. In addition to being able to provide at-sea support (re-fuelling and re-supply functions) to deployed naval task groups, they will also be capable of sealift operations as well as support to forces deployed ashore...
> 
> ...Based on these plans, one team will be selected to build the three ships, with *delivery of the first ship targeted for 2012* [emphasis added, hurl].



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Pulling things together:

“Canada First Defence Strategy” and the Joint Sometime Ship (JSS)
http://unambig.com/canada-first-defence-strategy-and-the-joint-sometime-ship-jss/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, as discussed in the "shipbuilding strategy" thread, the Ottawa plan for the industry to have certainty over the next 20 years called for 33 large ships and one hundred smaller vessels in that time frame. The three JSS were supposed to be part of the 33 large ships. Now its two "JSS" with an option for a third. Will the  6 to 8 AOPS become four with an option for three more? And will the whole strategy then end up being 16 large ships with an option for 17 more? Not too good in terms of continuity of orders and foreseeability for the industry, which were the basis of the strategy.

As for design, Mark, you will note that the "limited sealift" capability is described as "capable of delivering a limited amount of cargo ashore". It does not call (apparently) for carying vehicles, just cargo. Current AOR's already carry landing crafts, so its just a matter of a slightly larger AOR design that gives you a cargo hold behind the fuel tanks and a good crane to transfer the extra cargo to the landing craft. As for "limited" joint command staff: just the reduction in the number of navy personnel that will not be required in view of today's automation would free about a hundred bunks from current style accomodation that would be more than sufficent for such purpose. There are tons of merchant ship designs out there that would provide the starting point for a quick and easy conversion.


----------



## Kirkhill

Previous government set a hard budget and a hard design then discovered that the Canadian industry couldn't deliver on either.

Now we have a budget that industry has previously agreed to (check back into the records and you will find that they said they COULD deliver two ice-capable JSS for the 2.9 but not three) and a reduced, but adequate, rough spec for only two units.  Detailed specs and final budget yet to be determined as is the question of whether or no a third unit can be built at a reasonable price.

If, as I was discussing with RC, the problem is prepping the yards and jigs then the first big ship is going to be ruddy expensive.
If you order two then the costs get buttered across the two boats.  If you order three then it gets spread three ways.
However if you order two, with an option for a third then the costs of prepping the yard will be eaten by the first two hulls.  The cost of the third hull would then be the actual build cost - a useful metric for future planning.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oldgateboatdriver: Excerpt from a June 4 post at the now-defunct _Torch_:



> ...
> Now for some real fun with figures that show the government is not up to very much in reality.
> 
> We are promised 28 large ships [both Navy and Coast Guard] over 30 years.
> http://www.canada.com/news/national/Somnia/3107934/story.html
> Well, the Navy is already allocated 3 JSS and 6-8 AOPS, supposed to be built over the next few years, total cost $4.6 billion (look them up here).
> http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2010-2011/info/mcp-gpe-eng.asp#dnd
> That's eleven ships max. Then there are supposed to be 15 new Canadian Surface Combatants
> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3778076
> to replace our detroyers and frigates--the first is not likely to appear before 2020 (see "What's the time frame for a new surface combatant?" here).
> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4296901
> These, especially if all 15 are built, will be hugely expensive, far beyond the price of the other two types. But, far in the future as they are, no specific funding has been allocated for their construction.
> 
> Thus planned large Navy ships: 24-26. And the government says it will build in total 28 large ships for *both the Navy and the Coast Guard* over the next 30 years!
> 
> What about the Coast Guard? The government is now committed to 5 large vessels--see this news release on their share in the shipbuilding strategy,
> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4296901
> total cost some $1.2 billion.
> http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2010-2011/info/mcp-gpe-eng.asp#dfo
> 
> So the number of large vessels specifically planned for over the next 20 or so years is 29-31--*already over the 28 promised in 30 years*.
> 
> But wait! There's more! The CCG now has 28 ships over 1,000 tonnes.
> http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0000459?todo=search&reg%3Bion_id=C&is_active=1
> Of those 15 will soon be over 30 years old (see preceding link), the youngest will soon be 25 years old, and only 5 replacements are in train. That leaves *23 other ships to be replaced*, one would surely hope and expect, as part of the government's shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> So let's recount. The government says it will build 28 large ships over 30 years. It already has public plans for 29-31, Navy and CCG. Yet the CCG still has those 23 more old and older vessels about which nothing is being said. That is a huge shortfall in the government's numbers; as things now stand the CCG is sailing towards oblivion--even if somewhat fewer new and better ships might do for the aging 23.
> 
> Where is the money and schedule to rebuild the Coast Guard? I guess, since only $5.8 billion has been committed so far for large ships ($4.6 billion Navy plus $1.2 billion CCG, see above), there's around $29 billion of mythical government money left of that $35 billion the MND mentioned to build a whole lot of ships for the CCG--plus the Navy's surface combatants.
> 
> Sure...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

This is the same song more or less, mostly less IMO, that I have heard several times already.  I won't get excited until steel is cut and ships delivered.


----------



## CougarKing

The mods are welcome to move this to any appropriate older JSS thread:



> *Navy restarts plan for new support ships  *
> 
> 33 minutes ago
> By Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press
> Canadian Press link
> 
> HALIFAX - Ottawa has restarted a plan to purchase two new support ships for Canada's navy after previous efforts to do so were scuttled.
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced the plan to design and build the new vessels was back on track after it was shelved two years ago.
> "We're back in business," he told a news conference Wednesday at a naval reserve base in Halifax. "The government and industry in Canada are very serious about proceeding with shipbuilding in the country."
> *In announcing the $2.6-billion project, MacKay said the ships would be built in Canada, though he added there will be a two-year design process before it's determined which yards will do the work.
> NDP MP Peter Stoffer noted the procurement project has stalled in the past, giving rise to questions on whether this schedule will be met. *
> "What have you (the government) been doing for the previous two years?" he said in an interview.
> The Liberals first announced the plan to replace the navy's 40-year-old supply vessels in 2004.
> After the Tories took power in 2006, they announced three new supply ships would be designed and built for $2.1 billion. *
> The project was shelved in the summer of 2008 — amidst the global economic downturn — when the federal Public Works Department said the industry bids came in over budget and didn't meet project requirements. *
> The lack of progress was highlighted this winter, when one of the two existing supply vessels was laid up for repairs, and the navy didn't send a support ship to assist with its mission helping victims of the Haitian earthquake six months ago.
> MacKay said he doesn't expect the plan to collapse this time.
> "We're absolutely determined to see this project through." *
> But unlike the proposal announced in 2006, the purchase of a third ship is optional, the government said.*
> "That's part of the negotiations that will occur after the design is picked," said Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose. *
> Eric Lerhe, a retired Canadian navy commodore, said he doesn't believe the third ship can be constructed for the proposed budget.*
> "There's only going to be two vessels I suspect because of the key requirement that the navy must live within its means," he said.
> He said that's unfortunate because when one of the two supply vessels is undergoing repair, either the East or West Coasts will be without a supply ship. However, Lerhe says the navy's top brass will be content if they receive the ships over the next five to seven years.
> "We've lost five years, and the navy is carrying the cost of aging ships. The navy is saying, 'We can't afford another five-year delay,'" he said.
> The Defence Department says the ships will have limited sea-lift capabilities, referring to the ability of the ships to carry cargo and deliver it to shore.
> Lerhe, who was in the navy when the first proposals were drawn up, said it appears the Defence Department is scaling back its original plans for the ships.
> But MacKay said the requirements for the new ships aren't less ambitious than previous specifications.
> "Our intention is to have at least as good as or better capability," he said. "That's why we left open the option for a third vessel, and that's why we're going through this process very carefully in consultation with industry."
> Bidders in the past were expected to come up with features such as a stern ramp that could load and offload containers, and 1,000 metres of space to park vehicles such as army trucks and tanks.
> It's not yet clear whether those specifications will be part of this bidding process.
> Louise Mercier-Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Navy League of Canada, said the announcement is an important first step in Ottawa's plan to restart shipbuilding through a 30-year program of replacing navy and coast guard vessels.
> "The joint support ships could create momentum to work with industry and continue full speed ahead ... to ensure the timely replacement of Canada's aging federal fleets," she said.


----------



## Infanteer

Does anyone know if there are any Sailors that actually support this concept?


----------



## Occam

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if there are any Sailors that actually support this concept?



Which concept is that, specifically?


----------



## Sailorwest

I think that replacing the oldest ships in the fleet is positive news, although most would be concerned about whether this announcement will actually result in ships in the water. I think our government (all editions) has been famous for making announcements that don't actually turn into anything real.


----------



## STONEY

I notice that the number has now dropped from 3  to 2 with an option for a third, so in other words we will be lucky if we get 2.

As to when god only knows remember the original announcement was in 2004.

Note;  The AOPS program has been delayed no idea when it will be on track.

Cheers


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I suggest everybody in this thread look up the one already going on in "Ships & vessels re: Navy looking at AOR options". We have been discussing that very point in more detail.

In any event, Infanteer, the answer to your question is two fold: First no, for the "sailor", because our navy has no sailors - we have "seamen"; as to the support for the concept, as this one is presented above, I am sure we have all the support in the world. The reason is simple: do not be fooled by the politicians rhetoric that this is still the same "Joint Support Ship" concept they pitched earlier. It is not.

The concept announced here is really just an AOR plus. Our current AOR's already have the capacity of "landing limited cargo" because they carry Landing Crafts and have an appropriate crane for cargo handling. The current limitation is due to the limited cargo space onboard once you load it with the cargo required for the fleet. However, a larger AOR design can easily incorporate space for a cargo hold dedicated to a limited amount of army supplies/general cargo. In fact, the added deck space could then be used to store a few more landing crafts and a cargo dedicated crane (such design is not new - its been used extensively during WWII). As for the accommodation of a "small Joint Command Staff for landed forces", a modern AOR requires a much smaller crew than the current generation in view of advances in automation. This will in itself free sufficient accommodation space to carry this  "small Joint Command Staff". 

Also, the concept as now announced indicates clearly that the primary role, which will be fully supported with all the necessary dedicated  space and equipment is that of an AOR for fleet support duties, the other two functions are now described as "some" and "limited". The original concept, which the industry said could not be met at the cost requested by the government, was much more ambitious on those two roles and even included carrying some troops for landing and their rolling equipment (this last now appears out of the picture), not just "some cargo" and "command staff" only as the new one requires. This is all notwithstanding the government claim to the contrary, which IMO is made for face saving political purposes: It would not have looked good to  say they abandoned JSS in favour of good 'ol  AOR's, so they put in the reqs a very small amount of "army" support capability that can easily be accommodated in a slightly larger AOR and call it still a JSS. 

Like Sailorwest, I'll believe it when I see them hit the water.

And Stoney: I'm sure we'll get two: That is the minimum under which, the Navy told the Government that they would not deploy overseas - and the government likes its Navy overseas since it precludes in many cases having to participate in land ops while still claiming doing our part! I would not have my hopes too high on ever seeing the third one, though.


----------



## Privateer

> our navy has no sailors - we have "seamen"



Somebody forgot to tell this to the powers that be:  The CF website uses "sailors" to describe these people.  "Seamen" is, at least in my view,  an out of date term, given that so many "seamen" are "seawomen".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Oh very drole!

Actually: It is "sailor" that is out of date. In proper English parlance, it refers to a crew that operates a Sail ship. We have not had one of those for a while (Oriole excluded, of course).

In more modern English, "sailor" is used to refer to the actual crew of a ship only, whereby "seaman" refers to all the serving members of a country's naval forces, more particularly those below the rank of petty officer. Source: The Canadian Oxford Dictionnary.

As for the "seaman - seawoman" debate (and the confusing reason DND invented the use of "sailor" in public relation to avoid living with this decision) we settled it in the late seventies: Until then, women were reffered to as "wrens" and I can tell you that many of them, my wife included, have never accepted being deprived of the historical connection to the great achievements of this corpus. So, until then we had Ordinary Wren, Able Wren, Leading Wren, Master Wren and then the usual ranks. Suddenly, someone decided that it was sexist and we all had to use seaman but, when required (as for accommodation purposes) you would indicate one's sex with a (W). It was stupid, the old system was not broken, but they are now trying to cover up the reference to "man" by resuscitating the archaic term "sailor".


Interestingly enough, for once the problem does not arise in French, where both "marin" and "matelot" can be used indiscriminately in the masculine or feminine.


----------



## Infanteer

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In any event, Infanteer, the answer to your question is two fold: First no, for the "sailor", because our navy has no sailors - we have "seamen"



Whatever - legally we don't have a Navy either, so who cares.



> as to the support for the concept, as this one is presented above, I am sure we have all the support in the world. The reason is simple: do not be fooled by the politicians rhetoric that this is still the same "Joint Support Ship" concept they pitched earlier. It is not.



That's what I was looking for - thanks.


----------



## jollyjacktar

OGBD, I think of myself as a "Shipwright" or "Sailor" not a "Seaman".  Whether correct or otherwise, sorry Mate.

Infanteer, as I am on the whole a "Tanker Wanker" (having spent pretty well all my sea time on the AOR) I do wholeheartedly  support a replacement for the old girls.  They are long past their prime and should have been replaced well before they were first promised in my briefings of 99/00.  And in those days we were told there would be 4 in the water for 05.  So, having be led down this path several times before, I will believe it when I see one sail into the Dockyard and not before.


----------



## Infanteer

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Infanteer, as I am on the whole a "Tanker Wanker" (having spent pretty well all my sea time on the AOR) I do wholeheartedly  support a replacement for the old girls.  They are long past their prime and should have been replaced well before they were first promised in my briefings of 99/00.  And in those days we were told there would be 4 in the water for 05.  So, having be led down this path several times before, I will believe it when I see one sail into the Dockyard and not before.



I whole-heartedly support AOR replacement; I'd put it on my top 3 of things-to-do for the Forces.  The concept I was reffering to was the all-singing-all-dancing JSS that was discussed above and appears truncated.  To me, it sounds like the JSS was from the people who brought us great things like the MMEV....


----------



## vonGarvin

Infanteer said:
			
		

> To me, it sounds like the JSS was from the people who brought us great things like *the MMEV*....


and the MGS, and the CASW, and the....


----------



## jollyjacktar

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I whole-heartedly support AOR replacement; I'd put it on my top 3 of things-to-do for the Forces.  The concept I was reffering to was the all-singing-all-dancing JSS that was discussed above and appears truncated.  To me, it sounds like the JSS was from the people who brought us great things like the MMEV....



I thought it was attempting to be all things to all people and came from the Penny Pinchers want to do more with less and cheap out on reality.  But honestly, I would have done song and dances to see damn near anything new come down the pipe 10 years ago when I was first promised the ALSE concept prior to the JSS.  Of course being a greedy bugger I also wanted to see the Amphibs be brought to life too.  A chance to crew a ship like the USS Gunston Hall would have been fantastic.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

Well when I was in the Navy, Seamen was not nearly as used as Sailor. You know how the Army says one soldier one kit, well the Navy pers would say one Sailor one kit. Seaman at least in the units ive served in, was used for only MS and below.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In more modern English, "sailor" is used to refer to the actual crew of a ship only, whereby "seaman" refers to all the serving members of a country's naval forces, more particularly those below the rank of petty officer. Source: The Canadian Oxford Dictionnary.


You’re making a distinction that doesn’t exist.  My trusty Random House Dictionary defines ‘sailor’ thusly:
1. a person whose occupation is sailing or navigation; mariner. 
2. a seaman below the rank of officer. 
3. a naval enlistee. 
4. a person adept at sailing, esp. with reference to freedom from seasickness: He was such a bad sailor that he always traveled to Europe by plane. 
5. a flat-brimmed straw hat with a low, flat crown.

—Synonyms 
Seafarer, sailor, mariner, salt, seaman, tar are terms for a person who leads a seafaring life. A sailor or seaman is one whose occupation is on board a ship at sea, esp. a member of a ship's crew below the rank of petty officer: a sailor before the mast; an able-bodied seaman. Mariner is a term now found only in certain technical expressions: master mariner (captain in merchant service); mariner's compass  (ordinary compass as used on ships); formerly used much as “sailor” or “seafaring man,” now the word seems elevated or quaint: Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Salt and tar are informal terms for old and experienced sailors: an old salt; a jolly tar.

and seaman:

1. a person skilled in seamanship. 
2. a person whose trade or occupation is assisting in the handling, sailing, and navigating of a ship during a voyage, esp. one below the rank of officer; sailor. 
3. U.S. Navy and Coast Guard. An enlisted person ranking below petty officer.

Looks like pretty much the same thing to me.  FWIW, I consider myself to be a sailor (a person whose occupation is sailing or navigation; mariner).



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As for the "seaman - seawoman" debate (and the confusing reason DND invented the use of "sailor" in public relation to avoid living with this decision) we settled it in the late seventies: Until then, women were reffered to as "wrens" and I can tell you that many of them, my wife included, have never accepted being deprived of the historical connection to the great achievements of this corpus. So, until then we had Ordinary Wren, Able Wren, Leading Wren, Master Wren and then the usual ranks. Suddenly, someone decided that it was sexist and we all had to use seaman but, when required (as for accommodation purposes) you would indicate one's sex with a (W). It was stupid, the old system was not broken, but they are now trying to cover up the reference to "man" by resuscitating the archaic term "sailor".


That (w) thing hasn’t been used in the 18+ years that I’ve been in the navy and I’ve certainly never heard a female sailor express a desire to be called WREN.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not having a Navy is fine Infanteer, since legally, we do not have an Army either  .

Now Jollyjacktar: Of your post I will only say this:

"Shipwright" is to "hull tech" as "sailor" is to "seaman" (after all, when was the last time you fixed a wooden hull?).

One is just the old term for the other one. All trades evolve like that: When I joined, we still had "radar plotters" and "fire controlman", but these terms were modernized when it became clear that their duties exceeded by far what the older name implied. However, when the transition was taking place from late 19th century to first third of the 20th century, calling a seaman a sailor was considered a very serious personnal insult as it meant that the person was not smart enough to acquire the skills required by the new steam technology.

Oh! and Lex Parsimonia, in Canada we use the Queen's English (or at least our own version of it, which is why I used the Canadian Oxford Dictionnary). I just note that the US dictionnary you use show our southern cousins having the concepts reversed, as usual   .

I think we should leave it at this and go back on topic.

P.s.: While I appreciate the use of proper terminology, I only seek to educate hopefully in a lighthearted way, not berate, and thus, please accept my apology if for any reason you feel put down or insulted or otherwise slighted, as this not my intention and any such result is purely accidental and I greatly appreciate all the profesional points of view expressed in these forums and find them enlightening and educational.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Nah, no insult here.  I'm not a DIB.    And by the way, I have not worked on any Hulls in recent memory either.  Potatoe... Potato, Tomatoe... Tomato.     :duel:  Back to the show then.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Additional for Lex Parimonia on the "wren" thing.

The Navy of the last 20 years is quite different from the one of the seventies and eighties. Then, woman were not allowed at sea, at least not until the last few years of the seventies, and then it started slowly. There was lot of resistance at fisrt, as you can imagine. Women, who were performing beyond the call of duty in shore positions in everything from communication to shipping control, to Maritime Command's op center "plotters" and staff, were still refered to as "wrens" because it connected them to the wartime service and wartime performance of their predecessors, and it was something to be very proud of. In particular (and few people remember this) in WWII, the Wrens operated all the harbour service crafts (every task and trade) in order to free up the men for combat duty. Thus, when the decision was made to remove that "badge of honour" from them in 1979 (if I remember right), it created a lot of resentment, which only faded after a fashion because they were finally allowed in the hard sea trades. I am sure that, unless you were dealing with female PO's and LCdr's and above in the early 1990, few  others would have remembered the "wren/seaman debate, and I am quite certain that by 2000 just about no one was left that knew of it, save in very elated ranks.

And Jollyjacktar: did we sail together? Were you on Protecteur when Capt. Guy commanded?


----------



## Kirkhill

Technoviking said:
			
		

> and the MGS, and the CASW, and the....



Griffon?


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Oh! and Lex Parsimonia, in Canada we use the Queen's English (or at least our own version of it, which is why I used the Canadian Oxford Dictionnary). I just note that the US dictionnary you use show our southern cousins having the concepts reversed, as usual   .


Got me on the U.S. source  :-[ although I thought that was an elegant way of explaining the terms.  The Government of Canada’s Translation Bureau ‘Terminology Standardization’ notes that “The terms "seaman" "mariner" and "sailor" are used interchangeably in general contexts although the term "mariner" is often restricted to legal documents.”  

Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.  I generally enjoy your posts and agree with your point of view.

Regards,

Lex


----------



## vonGarvin

Screw "Sailor", "Seaman" and "Wren". I just call them all "Hairy Bags".  But affectionately, if that counts for anything ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

LOL, Hairy Bag works for me too.

OGBD, I never sailed on the (cough "Enemy Ship") Protecteur.  Preserver and a CaribOps on Provider only for Tankers.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> The Government of Canada’s Translation Bureau



These are the same folks that originally  translated Lieutenant-commander and Commander  into French with "lieutenant-commandeur" and "commandeur" until we pointed out to them that, in French, commandeur has a single possible meaning: the leader of a religious faith (As in the Queen, commander of the faith, etc.). Now, as a Franco LCdr myself, I will confess to having an extensive religious vocabulary, but I would not style myself a leader in the way I use it


----------



## Neill McKay

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> These are the same folks that originally  translated Lieutenant-commander and Commander  into French with "lieutenant-commandeur" and "commandeur" until we pointed out to them that, in French, commandeur has a single possible meaning: the leader of a religious faith (As in the Queen, commander of the faith, etc.). Now, as a Franco LCdr myself, I will confess to having an extensive religious vocabulary, but I would not style myself a leader in the way I use it



It sounds like you're the perfect person to ask for an opinion on the importation of French Navy ranks into Canadian use, then!


----------



## MarkOttawa

_DID_ round-up:

Canada’s C$ 2.9B “Joint Support Ship” Project, Take 2
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-issues-rfp-for-cdn-29b-joint-support-ship-project-updated-02392/



> As part of its spate of military modernization announcements issued just before Canada Day (July 1) 2006, the Canadian government issued an RFP that began the process of defining and building 3 “Joint Support Ships.” The aim was to deliver 3 multi-role vessels with substantially more capability than the current Protecteur Class oiler and resupply ships. In addition to being able to provide at-sea support (re-fueling and re-supply) to deployed naval task groups, the new JSS ships were envisioned as ships that would also be capable of sealift operations, as well as amphibious support to forces deployed ashore.
> 
> This was expected to be a C$ 2.9 billion (USD $2.58 billion) project. DID describes the process, the 4 pre-qualified industry teams participating, and some of the issues swirling around Canada’s very ambitious specifications. *Specifications that ultimately sank the whole project, in a manner that was predictable from the outset* [emphasis added]. Leaving Canada’s navy with a serious problem. Will a second go-round in 2012-13 help any?...
> 
> *July 14/10*: Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) issues background materials concerning a second attempt at the JSS project. *Specifications are very, very thin* [emphasis added]. The second go-round is listed as a C$ 2.6 billion project, though currency strength would offset some of the $300 million reduction. So would the revised plan of buying 2 ships, with an option for a 3rd.
> 
> Canada’s proposed shipbuilding strategy fits into the plan, but a construction bid can’t be expected before 2012 at the earliest. *The mission description is close to meaningless* [emphasis added], and will remain so until tradeoffs are specified among these capabilities, and exact requirements become clearer...
> 
> *Jan 18/10*: The Dutch go ahead with their own multi-role “Joint Logistics Support Ship” program, with a budget of *EUR 385.5 million for 1 ship* [emphasis added, do the math for our cost per ship]. Could this represent a JSS contender if the project resurfaces? Read “Dutch Order Multi-Purpose Support Ship” for the full story...
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Dutch-Order-Multi-Purpose-Support-Ship-06113/



'Nuff bolded.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I do not think the dutch JSS fits the bill for reasons I have expressed earlier (around March I think): The dutch JSS is the reverse of what we are looking for: It is a land operations support ship that happens to  have some ancillary capability to act as a limited AOR. We are looking for the reverse. The Dutch JSS simply cannot carry the fuel load Canada is looking for.

And N. McKay: Ask away. Though I suspect your question will be: why do we use something "French" when we are in canada.  Well its not just French, the terminology we employ is latin based: There are no  language routed in Latin that have the concepts of "commander" as it is known in English, but they  ALL have the same progression of Captains: Corvette, Frigate and Vessel (ship of the line). And it is a recognized rule of translation that you do not transpose words literally but rather use the other language's corresponding concept. We pointed it out to Ottawa and they agreed. Personally , I could have lived with Lieutenant-commandant and Commandant, but I think there were worries that commandant, as a rank, could be confused with commanding officer  as an appointment.

If your question is different: ask it again please.


----------



## Neill McKay

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If your question is different: ask it again please.



Thanks -- I think you've answered it.  I was wondering what you (or Francophone officers in general) thought of it, as opposed to why it was done.


----------



## RC

If someone came to you and said he needed three tanker trucks with small pony trailers and he wanted all the frills, but after looking at his budget and needs, you found that he couldn't afford it, would you:

A) Recommend that he think about cutting out the frills, buy a smaller tanker truck, and/or think about getting only two instead;

B) Try to sell him a Dutch designed flatbed trailer with a jerry can strapped to the back because, gosh darn it, it's cheap, it's Dutch so it must be good, and after all a truck's a truck, am I right?

Hopefully the parallel is clear here.

The Navy/government is forcing innovation in order to get what they want, instead of settling for something that they don't want.  This takes time, patience, and money, but it is this sort of innovation and leadership that will keep the Canadian Navy and Canadian industry, if not at the forefront, at least still in the race.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I am not sure I see the parallel.

The original requirement of the government were not akin to a tanker truck with a pony trailer, it was akin to a tanker truck towing a 40ft container trailer, plus a 40 ft car trailer and then a full mobile home. Even up in the Australian Territories they would not allow such a road train. This is what killed it - not the "frills".

I agree however that the Dutch JSS is akin to a trailer with a (large) jerry can. That's why I do not see it filling the current bill.

And the current bill removed a lot of the "towing" requirement, so that  now your parallel works: its a tanker truck with a pony trailer.

I have great confidence in the innovative thinking of Canadian naval architects and  shipyards. After all they came up with the fastest Hydrofoil, the bear trap, the helicopter landing pad and hangar, the Variable Depth Sonar, the citadel and all sorts of other innovations that are now in current use by most navies around the world.

And here is my  2c worth on a suggested direction to explore for those innovators: Start from your current AOR general layout. Aft of the last tank, but before the hangar, add a 30-40 m long new section. this section is now your "non-naval" cargo hold. You make it a multi level warehouse and put a good elevator in the middle so that  electrical forklifts working on any level can quickly select, load and bring to the upper deck any piece stored therein. Just below the upper deck, you can insert a single deck of accommodation spaces, which if kept at current AOR standard, should give you approximately a hundred "spartan" bunks for short term passengers. On the upper deck, above, you store four LCVPs side by side. With the two on each side of the hangar, you now carry six. Locate the two cargo cranes so they can handle all LCVPs and load them from the hold and voila! you meet all the requirements. All you need to do is provide for either a third crane or some other way of loading/unloading Helicopters  from the hangar as may be required.

With the reductions in personnel we can expect from an automated modern design (for instance, going from a steam turbine and boiler to diesel - electric pods with a control room will greatly reduce the need for engineering watch-keepers), you can provide for much more comfortable accommodation spaces for permanent personnel  AND still provide extra room for temporary embarked mission specific personnel. Imagine being able to  carry and land the DART in places where C-17's can't go. This design could do it.

Just food for thoughts.


----------



## jollyjacktar

OGBD, being a TW, I can envision what you are describing.  But could one build on your thoughts and go slightly farther?  Your suggestions on landing the DART for example.  Is there a LVCP available and the cargo space to have perhaps a soft skinned vehicle or two which the DART teams could use for extra lift once they are on the ground.  Of course it would be better served to have some sort of Amphib as was once on the plate to deliver a better equipped landing force.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, If you make the elevator large enough to, say, accommodate the footprint of a HLVW, you could probably design the lower level of the hold to embark 10 to 15 of them or smaller vehicles. You then lower them in the landing crafts with the crane. It was done that way in the Pacific in WWII. You would probably have some restrictions on the sea state you can do this in, but then again, you have such restrictions for any cargo offloading not done at a pier unless you have a docking well as found in amphibs.


----------



## George Wallace

With absolutely no expertese in this matter, I wonder why an Amphib wouldn't be in the picture?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Manning and money.  They are chasing each others tails at the moment.


----------



## jollyjacktar

OGBD, have tried to post a reply several times now..... damn computers.  I did think of a docking bay and some sort of LCAC vs LVCP but did not mention it because of the technical/cost hurdles.  It would be making a swiss army watch out of her again and that seems to drive folks nuts.  It would be better to have as others suggested a dedicated AOR and AMPHIB (Harpers Ferry class?).  But as per my previous post I think we will have to make do with a more with less situation.  I do like your suggestion though.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

George: Jollyjacktar is right: Its a matter of money and manning. But also of political decision on what the powers that be want the Navy to be able to do.

You see, today's Amphibs could be operated by a permanent crew that is smaller then that of a frigate and they cost less than a frigate to put together. So in theory, Ottawa could decide to "reduce" the number of DDH/FFH replacements by, say two, and build two Amphibs: same cost and manning really. However, that would leave us with a surface combatant fleet of 12 only. Some countries that are equivalent in population/GDP do it with such low numbers (Australia, Netherlands) but unlike us, they have smaller coast line and ocean area of interest and in the case of the Netherlands, they only have one coast to worry about. Much more difficult for us to do with two greatly separated fleet.

12 Surface combatant means that only two ships could be deployed per coast in high readiness state. So if, for instance one is out with NATO on SNRFMG 1 duty, another one is out on UN anti-piracy ops in the Gulf of Aden and a third one is on exercise with the US in Hawaii on RIMPAC, that would leave a single one to patrol Canadian waters. That might be viewed as a little thin on the ... water.

PS: Since I breached a rule of these forums regarding acronyms, I'll make amend here for those not in the know: SNRFMG1 is the old Standing Naval Force Atlantic of NATO, it is now designated Standing NATO Reaction Force Maritime Group One.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

If amphibs are to be in the equation maybe something like getting two Absalons might be the key. Versatile enough they can take on the patrol duties of a frigate.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Did you get a close look at her when she was in town?  She is indeed pretty and has more teeth than the USS Gunston Hall, but I expect she is more money too.  As for Amphibious being in the pic, I think sadly that ship has ironically sailed.  Things were indeed looking good and moving forwards which gave hope to those of us who wanted to apart of that off shoot.  But I believe it died in infancy and Mum and Dad don't feel like trying for another kid anytime soon.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Did you get a close look at her when she was in town?  She is indeed pretty and has more teeth than the USS Gunston Hall, but I expect she is more money too.  As for Amphibious being in the pic, I think sadly that ship has ironically sailed.  Things were indeed looking good and moving forwards which gave hope to those of us who wanted to apart of that off shoot.  But I believe it died in infancy and Mum and Dad don't feel like trying for another kid anytime soon.



I met a couple of their Ops Types and got to see the ship up close and personal. Very nice indeed. It made me a fan.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I only saw her from across the harbour, she is pretty indeed.  Nothing like a new car to get the blood flowing.  I was lucky enough to get a very good tour of USS SAN ANTONIO during fleet week 06 in Ft Lauderdale.  It too is a fantastic platform and made me a huge fan of what it can do.  More so because I also had a more extensive tour of USS SHREVEPORT, a AUSTIN class LPD.  She is of the same vintage as PRESERVER.  Just the crew accomodations alone made me go Ugggg.  The MSE messdeck was 100+.  

It is too late for me now, but I really was hoping we were going to run with the Amphib concept we had guys cross polled to the USS GUNSTEN HALL for the trip we "borrowed her" and had the starting core of folks setting up in Shearwater as you may remember.  The places we could have seen if it had taken off....


----------



## RC

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am not sure I see the parallel.
> 
> The original requirement of the government were not akin to a tanker truck with a pony trailer, it was akin to a tanker truck towing a 40ft container trailer, plus a 40 ft car trailer and then a full mobile home. Even up in the Australian Territories they would not allow such a road train. This is what killed it - not the "frills".



Of course you are right.

The one thing that really does annoy me about this project is that the government's expert consultants didn't take one look at the requirements, do a two minute back of the envelope sanity calculation, and laugh the government back to the drawing board, saving everyone a great deal of time and energy.

One really has to question the expertise and/or motivation that led to this situation in the first place.


----------



## Neill McKay

RC said:
			
		

> The one thing that really does annoy me about this project is that the government's expert consultants didn't take one look at the requirements, do a two minute back of the envelope sanity calculation, and laugh the government back to the drawing board, saving everyone a great deal of time and energy.



Might have done.  Politicians don't always accept the advice they're given.

It's also possible that they were hoping for some industry innovation to make it happen.  That's not unreasonable as long as you're willing to drop it when the industry shows you that it's not feasible either by telling you outright, or by quoting a higher price than you're willing to pay.


----------



## Haletown

related . .  I caught part of this show last night on Discovery HD.

HMDS Absalon

It repeats at other times this week.

http://www.discoveryhd.ca/showpage.aspx?sid=19208

Not an AOR or JSS but an interesting design concept.


----------



## STONEY

The Absalon class while pretty has to looked at a little more critically.

She is built to Merchant ship standards not Naval.

As a Frigate she is too slow - Max speed 23 kts on diesels.

As an AOR this vessel receives oil does not despence it.

As an anphib its well deck holds only small boats and its passageways are narrow and only allow one person at a time to pass
and would be a problem for fully equipped soldier with ruck, a shock after being on USS Wasp with 12 foot wide ramps that you could drive LAV'S up .   

This is a very usefull ship to have but is it something Canada would want, would a closer look reveal other shortcomings or are we just looking for pretty.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Haletown said:
			
		

> related . .  I caught part of this show last night on Discovery HD.
> 
> HMDS Absalon
> 
> It repeats at other times this week.
> 
> http://www.discoveryhd.ca/showpage.aspx?sid=19208
> 
> Not an AOR or JSS but an interesting design concept.


The Absalon class flexible support ship replaced the Falster class minelayer.  It is neither an AOR nor an Amphib.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

STONEY said:
			
		

> The Absalon class while pretty has to looked at a little more critically.
> 
> She is built to Merchant ship standards not Naval.
> 
> As a Frigate she is too slow - Max speed 23 kts on diesels.
> 
> As an AOR this vessel receives oil does not despence it.
> 
> As an anphib its well deck holds only small boats and its passageways are narrow and only allow one person at a time to pass
> and would be a problem for fully equipped soldier with ruck, a shock after being on USS Wasp with 12 foot wide ramps that you could drive LAV'S up .
> 
> This is a very usefull ship to have but is it something Canada would want, would a closer look reveal other shortcomings or are we just looking for pretty.



I never said to use it as either but it brings a bit of versatility to the table that we would be foolish to ignore.


----------



## Kirkhill

If I'm not mistook the Danes took the Absalon hull for their frigates and doubled up the power plant to drive that maximum speed up from 23 knots to something in the 30s.  The Boat drivers and engineers are looking at the same controls and plant in both hulls.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You are not quite correct Kirkhill.

The upcoming frigates of the Danish Navy are indeed using the Absalon hull as a starting point (there are some minor variances and the frigates will be ever slightly longer) but, with double the number of Diesel Engines (Four MTU 8000 instead of two), they will increase speed from 23 to  28 knots only. As you have two more engines, there are now two more control boards in the ER control room and the plant is different. Also, they are ships, not boat, and the expression ship driver usually refer to the Captain, not the helmsman. In any case, I can guarantee you that the captains of the frigates will not be looking at the same things as the captains of the Absalon class. It is just the nature of the different jobs.   

Finally, I am not sure what point you were trying to make. If you wanted to make the point that they could be made to go faster, remember that the additional two engines of the frigates come at the expense of space for the extra engine room and extra fuel tank. The higher speed version can then probably not accommodate all that can be fitted in the Absalon, because it would not have the space for it. Those are the trade-offs.

Ex-D: I would love for Canada to have something like the Absalon, but as you know, they cannot substitute for a real Amphib. They would be a great complement to an amphib, but as we are not even getting those, its all a dream. I would not have them as a substitute for the "command" version of the SCSC, but if ice-strenghtened (not turned into an icebreaker - please) without loss of speed, I would seriously consider them as substitute for the AOPS.


----------



## Kirkhill

OGBD:

I stand corrected on all points. 

The poor point I was alluding to was that the Danes seem to be demonstrating a degree of flexibility in thinking (not just in the capabilities of their vessels but in the manner in which they approach problems) that I find admirable and would suggest that we consider emulating.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hmm I wonder if you could build them with a RO/RO ramp that can also attach to a multi-section pontoon that can be used to load vehicles onto landing craft? 

The advantages is the pontoon sections stay dockside until needed and lifted aboard and the RO/RO ramp works at most port facilities with minimal effort. 

The disadvantages of such a system is that you will need a safe harbour to deploy and use the pontoons and the pontoons sections will need a significant amount of deckspace and lifting equipment.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The poor point I was alluding to was that the Danes seem to be demonstrating a degree of flexibility in thinking (not just in the capabilities of their vessels but in the manner in which they approach problems) that I find admirable and would suggest that we consider emulating.


I'm not so sure about that.   It is this kind of general purpose, do everything in one hull thinking, that resulted in JSS ver 1 and the resulting cancellations due to cost.

I'm sort of betwixt and between on the Absalon class flexible support ships. 

While an interesting concept - some sort of a combination between a frigate and support / command ship - it is another jack of all trades and master of none.  Too slow and under-manned to be a frigate (damage control teams, boarding party, combat operators to analyze and fuse data, etc), not capable of acting as an AOR, too small to be an amphib, etc.  Effectively the Danes have built a corvette/OPV type vessel at fairly high cost.

Where it excels is in counter-piracy type ops, Haiti relief ops, etc.  Good staff facilities including C2, and frigate levels of self-defence weapons.  I think it would be a useful ship but just not at the cost of a general purpose frigate or AOR.  Just my  :2c:


----------



## cobbler

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I never said to use it as either but it brings a bit of versatility to the table that we would be foolish to ignore.



I'd argue that it brings some *very limited* capabilities to the table that you would be foolish to take at face value.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

cobbler said:
			
		

> I'd argue that it brings some *very limited* capabilities to the table that you would be foolish to take at face value.



Sadly, Very limited is better then nothing at all.

I wasn't sold on them until I had a chance to look around hence my change in viewpoint.


----------



## GAP

Canadian Navy’s ships risk being banned from foreign ports 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-navys-ships-risk-being-banned-from-foreign-ports/article1663709/

Bill Curry

Ottawa — From Friday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Aug. 05, 2010 9:15PM EDT Last updated on Friday, Aug. 06, 2010 3:44AM EDT

The Canadian Navy’s two aging oil tanker supply ships risk being barred from docking at European and American ports over environmental concerns, warns an internal cabinet-level briefing note.

The document, obtained by The Globe and Mail, warns the possible bans may force the tankers to stay near home and impact the navy’s ability to act independently around the world.

The single-hulled tankers are more than 40 years old and are out of step with international efforts to phase out such ships in favour of double-hulled vessels that are less likely to cause a toxic spill. The global movement to ban single-hull tankers set timelines after the devastating Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, which until this year’s BP leak in the Gulf of Mexico was the worst oil spill in American history.

The Conservative government announced in July that it will spend $2.6-billion to replace the navy’s two auxiliary oil replenishment vessels – the HMCS Protecteur and the HMCS Preserver (currently docked for maintenance) – with two or three new joint support ships, which will be double-hulled. However, the first new ship is not expected until at least 2017. The internal document indicates there will be problems between now and then.

“These vessels are single-hulled, which violates most international environmental standards,” states a February, 2010 briefing note provided to Treasury Board president Stockwell Day by his senior public servant, Michelle d’Auray.

Mr. Day, who is responsible for finding savings to tackle the federal deficit, had requested a briefing on planned spending by the navy.

The note, which indicates it is based on discussions with National Defence officials, warns exemptions for single-hulled vessels are about to expire.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I knew this was coming but thought we had a little bit more time. Well done Government of Canada for continually dragging your heels on this issue!!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I hate to say this but: There are pretty good "off-the-shelf" pure AOR designs out there ... and U.S. Shipyards that could have two or three wrapped and delivered to Halifax in 18 months. (I won't mention "for much less than 2.9 $B" - OK I'll mention it  ).


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I hate to say this but: There are pretty good "off-the-shelf" pure AOR designs out there ... and U.S. Shipyards that could have two or three wrapped and delivered to Halifax in 18 months. (I won't mention "for much less than 2.9 $B" - OK I'll mention it  ).


HMAS _Sirius_ is a basic tanker purchased by the Royal Australian Navy and converted into a fleet replenishment vessel in 2006.  According to _Canadian Naval Review_,The cost of buying this ship and converting it for naval service was about $100 million (US).


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I knew this was coming but thought we had a little bit more time. Well done Government of Canada for continually dragging your heels on this issue!!



This has been coming for 10 years or more.  We were asked not to come back to some places 10 years ago.  I am surprised it has taken this long to come home to roost.

Purchasing off the shelf offshore is something I have personally wished for for some time now.  I know it would be great to give the work locally, but we cannot get off the pot in time to make it happen in Canada.  Canada first is great for domestic consumption especially if you are in politics, but as a possible end user I don't give a damn where it comes from as long as it comes quickly and it works.  The 10+ years I have been waiting so far is too long IMO.  But I don't hold the purse strings or dangly/jangly round things of those who do hold the purse so I guess I'll just have to forget about it.  Whatever will come down the pipe will be too late for me to see in service.


----------



## dapaterson

For a purely political perspective it may be possible to do something along the lines of the _HMAS Sirius_, provided (1) a Canadian shipyard did the refit work and (2) it was announced simultaneously with another major shipbuilding contract - providing a distraction.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The one thing it lacks is a hangar and if we sail as part of a Canadian Task Group where would send a surface combatant's helo for maintenance?


----------



## NavyShooter

Perhaps get a pair of COTS tankers to convert to AOR's, and then let the JSS shift from an AOR with a hobby, to a Support ship with the ability to refuel, support helos, bring RORO cargo, etc.

If we dealt with the immediate need for new tankers through a COTS buy, then the JSS can have all the time it needs...

NS


----------



## GK .Dundas

I have never been able to figure out what successive governments of different political stripes see in the JSS concept . It didn't make any sense to almost 20 years ago when I first saw early concepts of the the JSS. And It makes even less today.If they are trying to save money it doesn't do that . it they're trying to add capabilities it also fails to do that. In short it brings very litle to that table for a great deal more the an AOR


----------



## MarkOttawa

Latest from DND, my comments below:

Joint Sometime Ship (JSS): At least five years late
http://unambig.com/joint-sometime-ship-jss-at-least-five-years-late/



> ...at least the government is finally willing to consider buying an existing foreign design in order to save money (which they finally agreed to do a year ago for some new Canadian Coast Guard vessels). And to ensure the blinking things work.
> 
> Some two years ago our Navy actually looked at Dutch plans for a similar type of ship, but nothing came then of that exploration. And even the Dutch will have the hulls of their new ships built in Romania to save money...
> 
> Although our government is now open to foreign designs it still insists–as would any other Canadian govenment–that the construction be done in Canada. Pork. Pork. _Porc_.
> 
> Meanwhile the rather smarter Aussies have bought Spanish designs for new naval ships–with some construction also being done in Spain...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## canuck101

Found this article interesting it is what the French are planning too build
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=114066

It seems to have everything the Canadian Government wants in our future ship. 

Here is the English translation If the page comes up in French for you.

Proposed export and to replace the current tanker Navy, Brave is the new concept of logistics building designed by DCNS. Particularly versatile, this ship must meet a wide range of missions, ranging from fuel supplies (ships and aircraft) to the repair of equipment, possibly via the transport of soldiers and armored vehicles. Long by 195 meters and a width of 28 meters, displays a Brave displacement of 30,000 tons. It is therefore much larger and heavier than the oil-tanker Meuse and buildings of command and supply Var, Marne and Somme (157 meters, 18,000 tons). 
The new logistics building DCNS aims to be very versatile and reconfigurable same. To this end it provides a modular rear area. As required, it can be used to store materials or hosting workshops. Indeed, the future French ships should not only replace the PR and the BCR, but also compensate for the disarmament, in 2009, building mobile support Loire and workshop building Jules Verne. The new BL will thus be able to have facilities capable of making repairs. 
The rear area of the Brave has also been designed to serve at the reception of troops and equipment, including vehicles. Boarding and landing would be achieved through a side door. Compared to existing vessels, aircraft capabilities would be enhanced with a platform for the simultaneous implementation of two helicopters (and a double shed). Brave is, again, with a headquarters large enough for him to host a staff and run an operation. 

Increased capacity

In terms of pure supply, the building must be able to provide naval forces it supports fuel, food and ammunition. Bunker design study for the Navy can reach 15,000 m3. As is already the case today, Brave should be able, at the same time, the replenishment of two ships alongside. It has to do two gantries and refueling capabilities for transferring heavy loads greater than those of existing boats. Behind the block bridge, two cranes to handle containers can be housed in a specific space. 
To meet the international maritime regulations, Brave is a double-hulled ship designed to incorporate standards such as IMO MARPOL (pollution). 
In late 2009, the Directorate General of Armament launched a scoping study to determine the needs and characteristics that will result in program called Fleet Logistics. " According to forecasts by the DGA, the construction of the first vessel to replace the Meuse, is expected in 2015 for delivery two years later. The target is for the moment, four units. 

Serious competition for export

In addition to the domestic market, which could be the subject of cooperation with Great Britain, DCNS is also exported. Many Marines have, indeed, need to renew their fleet logistics buildings. In this regard, the competition will be severe for the French group, which did not deliver any ship of its kind since 1987 (the Somme in 1990, was conducted by shipyards of La Seyne-sur-Mer). In Europe, DCNS faces several competitors, starting with Italy's Fincantieri, which is currently completing two oil tanker for India. The Spanish Navantia is also positioning itself internationally with the Cantabria, just delivered to the Armada. While in Britain, BAE Systems, BMT Defence Services have submitted their design to the Royal Navy Aegir Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding sold its hybrid design of JSS (both tanker and ship projection) to the Dutch navy, awaiting delivery of the Karel Doorman in 2014. Finally, as this type of vessel is carried out according to civilian standards, Asian manufacturers are also serious competitors. Daewoo and Hyundai have, moreover, not hesitate to make an offer under the Military Afloat Reach program and Sustainability (MARS) in the UK


----------



## jollyjacktar

If I read the english translation correctly she has almost the same liquid cargo capacity as the PRO/PRE presently has.  Seems to be more of the same idea as the JSS.  I am still not keen on a swiss army knife ship, but as I have said before, anything new wouild  be welcome and better than status quo.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The US Navy getting a new supply ship:

_The USNS Charles Drew -- the new 689-foot dry cargo ship that bears the name of the pioneering surgeon who created large, life-saving blood banks during World War II -- will achieve a milestone early Wednesday when the vessel leaves the NASSCO/General Dynamics yard for its first extensive sea trials.

Workers are scheduled to remove the $500 million ship's mooring lines at 7:45 a.m., enabling the Charles Drew to sail out of San Diego Harbor for 40 hours of rigorous testing far offshore, the company says. Two of Drew's children, Charlene Drew Jarvis and Sylvia Drew Ivie, are scheduled to be aboard for the departure.

"Preparing the ship to go to sea for the first time creates a sense of urgency, passion, determination and pride among the sea trial riders that would rival any team preparing for 'the big game,' " said Jason Mitchell, who oversaw the building of the ship. "This is the week that we’ve been preparing for over the last 20 months (since construction started). This is where the 'rubber meets the road.'"

The ship is one of the last Lewis and Clark-class cargo ships that NASSCO is scheduled to build for the Navy. The company will launch the USNS Washington Chambers in September, and it recently began work on a vessel that will be known as the Medgar Evers. And it will start on yet another Nayy cargo ship this fall. i]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/15/grsq-huge-nassco-ship-ready-sea-trials/

_


----------



## MarkOttawa

Logically shameless, or challenged?

Canadian shipyards can’t competitively build large civilian vessels–but the government insists they build naval ones
http://unambig.com/canadian-shipyards-cant-competitively-build-large-civilian-vessels-but-the-government-insists-they-build-naval-ones/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GK .Dundas

Colin P said:
			
		

> The US Navy getting a new supply ship:
> 
> _The USNS Charles Drew -- the new 689-foot dry cargo ship that bears the name of the pioneering surgeon who created large, life-saving blood banks during World War II -- will achieve a milestone early Wednesday when the vessel leaves the NASSCO/General Dynamics yard for its first extensive sea trials.
> 
> Workers are scheduled to remove the $500 million ship's mooring lines at 7:45 a.m., enabling the Charles Drew to sail out of San Diego Harbor for 40 hours of rigorous testing far offshore, the company says. Two of Drew's children, Charlene Drew Jarvis and Sylvia Drew Ivie, are scheduled to be aboard for the departure.
> 
> "Preparing the ship to go to sea for the first time creates a sense of urgency, passion, determination and pride among the sea trial riders that would rival any team preparing for 'the big game,' " said Jason Mitchell, who oversaw the building of the ship. "This is the week that we’ve been preparing for over the last 20 months (since construction started). This is where the 'rubber meets the road.'"
> 
> The ship is one of the last Lewis and Clark-class cargo ships that NASSCO is scheduled to build for the Navy. The company will launch the USNS Washington Chambers in September, and it recently began work on a vessel that will be known as the Medgar Evers. And it will start on yet another Nayy cargo ship this fall. i]
> 
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/15/grsq-huge-nassco-ship-ready-sea-trials/
> _


_ 20 MONTHS ! From start to end product in the water You would think we're we planning a go it alone Mars expedition with all the planning  and money  and time and what do we have to show for  it all?.......Nothing! well except for a lot of paper.
The procurement system in this country seems to broke beyond repair .
How did we get here? More importantly how do we fix this?_


----------



## Kirkhill

Gord,

I don't think you can compare the situation of a ship that is the last of a number of a standard design (and a relatively simple one at that) being built in a running shipyard, with all the jigs prepared and practiced yard workers, with the situation of the first of a new design (the complexity of which can and should be debated) in an unprepared, undermanned yard loaded with new hires .

Yes, we do seem to be screwing up on writing specs, but that problem doesn't seem to be unique to Canada, and it is a crime that we don't have functioning GOVERNMENT yards capable of building GOVERNMENT ships.  

I am a died in the wool capitalist, and I have no problem with buying vessels from the private sector, when it makes sense, or of shore, when it makes sense.

But I am reminded that for centuries His/Her Majesty's Ships were built in His/Her Majesty's Dockyards.  Successfully.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## NavyShooter

I think that I, like many other sailors, are growing weary of the "it's coming" tale we keep hearing.

Realizing that TFA and the guys on the sharp end have priority in a war, there's things that we have to make do without.

That said, it's pretty hard to take when we have ships in service celebrating their 40th anniversaries....and not an inch of steel cut on a replacement.

NS


----------



## jollyjacktar

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I think that I, like many other sailors, are growing weary of the "it's coming" tale we keep hearing.
> 
> Realizing that TFA and the guys on the sharp end have priority in a war, there's things that we have to make do without.
> 
> That said, it's pretty hard to take when we have ships in service celebrating their 40th anniversaries....and not an inch of steel cut on a replacement.
> 
> NS



My feelings exactly, except I am way past the weary stage.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> 20 MONTHS ! From start to end product in the water You would think we're we planning a go it alone Mars expedition with all the planning  and money  and time and what do we have to show for  it all?.......Nothing! well except for a lot of paper.
> The procurement system in this country seems to broke beyond repair .
> How did we get here? More importantly how do we fix this?



Scary when they think their procurement is to cumbersome. Mind you they have had some big failures as well.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Colin P said:
			
		

> Scary when they think their procurement is to cumbersome. Mind you they have had some big failures as well.



Now, now that's no way to speak of some former MNDs and PMs.  But seriously it hacks me off that solutions could be done quickly and reasonably if not for politics and pandering to some quarters.  For Christs sake as an example IIRC the P-51 was designed and a working prototype fabricated in less than 3 months.  Things can happed fast if there is some will and backbone behind it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I believe it is the law of unintended consequences that defeats us. Ship building contracts are good for votes as they create a fair bit of domestic economic benefits. Also most politicians want to give the best bang for the buck to the people who serve on our behalf. The problem we have is we let the domestic infrastructure to design and build such vessel stagnant to the point where the only way to get good bang for the buck is to go offshore, this is not good for votes. Now if we were in a economic boom time, we could absorb some of the costs of rebuilding domestic capability, but we are not doing well economically, so we have a situation were there is not enough money to buy domestically and not enough political will/need to buy offshore. The subs had a strong argument as there never was a domestic naval sub building industry here (There has been significant exploration sub industry here) and it would have been insane to attempt to start one.
The current crop of politicians have inherited the dual problem of a rusting fleet that will soon not be able to put to sea without significant allied support and a domestic shipbuilding industry that is not really positioned to build the replacements. The politicians cannot put this issue off much longer, to complicate things, the other branches are full of worn out equipment adding to the burden. One hopes that the politicians are learning from this crisis of their own making. The fact that they are talking about long term planning is a good thing, as long as it is not a smokescreen to avoid a confrontation with reality.


----------



## NavyShooter

The problem then Colin becomes a question of, will the military be able to maintain the capability in the face of poor long term planning by the politicians?

If it costs too much for the benefits returned, will they chop the capability instead of renewing it????

NS


----------



## The Bread Guy

This today in MERX (highlights mine):


> .... The Government has approved a new procurement approach whereby National Defence will explore adapting the designs of recently built naval fleet replenishment ships that are operating with other NATO Navies.
> 
> Based on information available in the public domain and information received from Allied Navies, National Defence has concluded that the following designs are the only candidates for adaptation:
> 
> *    · The Berlin Class
> · The Cantabria Class*
> 
> The Government intends to award two separate contracts, one to ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. (TKMS) and the other to Navantia, S.A. (Navantia), to conduct risk reduction studies to ascertain the feasibility of adapting these designs to meet Canadian requirements, to provide the historical cost of building these ships, and to deliver a proposal for the development of suitable modifications to their respective designs and the delivery of a data package for use by a Canadian shipyard to build the ships, a technology transfer agreement and the right for Canada to use the design and all data for the construction, use and in-service support of these ships.
> 
> If one of these designs is selected for the JSS, Canada will amend the contract with that designer to implement its proposal.
> 
> Accordingly, you are hereby notified that Canada intends to solicit bids from and negotiate contracts with TKMS and Navantia as described above. ....



More on link and in attached if link doesn't work.

More on:
- Berlin class replenishment ships here (usual Wikipedia caveats apply)
- ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. here and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems here
- Pantino/Cantavia class replenishment ships here
- Navantia S.A. here


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Them there ships are AOR's my friends, not JSS's.

Have we (finally!) walked down the watering-down road far enough to get replacement AORs? I hope so.

Otherwise, to accommodate the now minimal additional requirements of the government (to turn them magically into JSS'), either of these designs could easily incorporate the "extra" ~ 30m section aft of the fuel tanks that I proposed  in a previous post  above at page 43 « Reply #642 on: July 21, 2010, 08:52:17 »:

 "_And here is my  2c worth on a suggested direction to explore for those innovators: Start from your current AOR general layout. Aft of the last tank, but before the hangar, add a 30-40 m long new section. this section is now your "non-naval" cargo hold. You make it a multi level warehouse and put a good elevator in the middle so that  electrical forklifts working on any level can quickly select, load and bring to the upper deck any piece stored therein. Just below the upper deck, you can insert a single deck of accommodation spaces, which if kept at current AOR standard, should give you approximately a hundred "spartan" bunks for short term passengers. On the upper deck, above, you store four LCVPs side by side. With the two on each side of the hangar, you now carry six. Locate the two cargo cranes so they can handle all LCVPs and load them from the hold and voila! you meet all the requirements. All you need to do is provide for either a third crane or some other way of loading/unloading Helicopters  from the hangar as may be required.

With the reductions in personnel we can expect from an automated modern design (for instance, going from a steam turbine and boiler to diesel - electric pods with a control room will greatly reduce the need for engineering watch-keepers), you can provide for much more comfortable accommodation spaces for permanent personnel  AND still provide extra room for temporary embarked mission specific personnel. Imagine being able to  carry and land the DART in places where C-17's can't go. This design could do it."_

Seems to me reality is sinking in and that can only move us closer to replacements.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Maybe OGBD, but I won't hold my breath for sanity to hit the purse string pullers unless I want to look like my uniform colour.  Good ideas on the mods by the way.


----------



## Snakedoc

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Them there ships are AOR's my friends, not JSS's.



My thoughts exactly as I looked through the specs, I guess we've come full circle once again and are forced to face reality.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Cannot say I am surprised then again I have been saying JSS was an out to lunch approach since that ugly acronym entered Canadian Naval terms.


----------



## NavyShooter

Interestingly, both ships have space for about 500-ish tons of "other stores".

I'd be pleased to see steel cut on something new, and maybe if there is a split between the "JSS" and "AOR" it will allow at least ONE of them to go ahead.

Perhaps if we get AOR's as dedicated tankers, it means that there is consideration being given to the "BHS" as a supplement?

NS


----------



## viper3ca

I think a dedicated AOR is the way to go! Both the Berlin class and the Cantabria are proven ships. My preference is for  the Berlin class.We all know the German's make good stuff!! lol. Too bad the goverment can't pick up a couple of good used BHS like the USS Nassau and USS Peleliu which are soon to be retired.


----------



## canuck101

I say we get two Berlin class and if there is any money left over get two Endurance class landing platform dock ships  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

BUT THERE IS NO MONEY---esp. with the F-35. and the planned Canadian Surface Combatant:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03884.html
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4296901

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

Can a ship of this type/design be used in the Arctic and if so, what needs to be done to the hull and other systems to make it ice capable?


----------



## MarkOttawa

The 2006 JSS specs contained this:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=1958



> ...
> Capability to navigate in first-year arctic ice...



I would assume that has now been abandoned.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> BUT THERE IS NO MONEY---esp. with the F-35. and the planned Canadian Surface Combatant:
> http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03884.html
> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4296901
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



F-35 for Canada = $16 Billion over twenty (20) years.  If  we can't afford that, we should pack up all the toys & go home.

The CBC will flush closer to $35 Billion down the "nobody watches us anyway toilet" over the  same time frame.

Let's focus on really expensive public spending boondoggles like the CBC, or the $3 - $5 billion spent EVERY year on Immigration lawyers and bogus refugee claimants or the gawd knows how many $billions wasted every year funding thousands of grievance mongering victimization or tree hugging groups that set themselves up as NGO's and get a lip lock on the public teat via government grants.

Freeing up money for DND is a Target Rich Environment.  We just need a government willing to shoot at sacred cows.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This today in MERX (highlights mine):
> More on link and in attached if link doesn't work.
> 
> More on:
> - Berlin class replenishment ships here (usual Wikipedia caveats apply)
> - ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. here and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems here
> - Pantino/Cantavia class replenishment ships here
> - Navantia S.A. here


Good news.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Haletown: They can easily be designed to operate in the Arctic during the standard navigation period. They only need a double hull, which they will be getting anyway and perhaps a reinforced band around the flotation line, like the ones you find on merchant ships that can operate in, say, the St-Lawrence River in winter. These ships are common: Montreal Harbour is open year round to cargo, tankers and container ships and they come in troves.

It would be impossible to make them into more than that  (they would become heavy icebreakers otherwise) but there is no requirement for them to be up there in winter when the navigation season is closed.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> BUT THERE IS NO MONEY---esp. with the F-35. and the planned Canadian Surface Combatant:
> http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03884.html
> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4296901
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Why does everything have to be linked with the F35 with you?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Its called an unhealthy obsession. Personnaly I think Mark in Ottawa is just itchin' to bum a ride on the first Canadian F-35 we get .


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

There isn't going to be a whole lot of money left in the capital budget after the F-35's are paid for, even with accrual accounting.


----------



## RC

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Haletown: They can easily be designed to operate in the Arctic during the standard navigation period. They only need a double hull, which they will be getting anyway and perhaps a reinforced band around the flotation line, like the ones you find on merchant ships that can operate in, say, the St-Lawrence River in winter. These ships are common: Montreal Harbour is open year round to cargo, tankers and container ships and they come in troves.
> 
> It would be impossible to make them into more than that  (they would become heavy icebreakers otherwise) but there is no requirement for them to be up there in winter when the navigation season is closed.



A Polar Class 6 or 7 rating (what you are describing as common) would require an ice belt, plus reinforced rudder, propeller, shaft, and gearbox.  That's ~30 tonnes of extra steel, modified structure with double transverse framing in way of the ice belt, and somewhere around a 30% mark up on the shaftline and steering.

For PC7, in a Canadian yard, you'd be looking at about $550k for the steel and steelwork and maybe $750k to beef up the driveline, so $1.3 million total in materials and labour and maybe $1.5 mil total.

That would do for tooling around the St. Lawrence in winter and going a bit north in the summer and shoulder periods.  For actual Arctic operations, you'd have to consider changes to the communications suite as well, since it gets difficult and thus expensive for a ship to communicate up there.  You have also to think about the effects of icing on stability and of the temperature on your HVAC system and deck equipment.  You can probably double the given number to account for that (assuming the designs can accomodate the stability hit without major modification).

Double it again for the study and analysis the government will commission from some hack to tell you what I just did in a lot more words and you get around $6 million to make it Arctic capable in broken first year ice during summer and shoulder seasons.

Still not really a huge amount for the added capability it brings.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Thanks for the particulars, RC.

I am just a dumb MARS boat driver, not a Naval Architect, but I knew that this was possible fairly cheaply for most merchant ships design, and AOR's are fundamentally merchant ships. Even at he price you quote, what's six millions over the cost of a ship that will set you back 350 to 500 millions to start with?


----------



## MarkOttawa

If we go for the Berlin, surely our ships (2? 3?) should be the Kitchener class ;D.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> If we go for the Berlin, surely our ships (2? 3?) should be the Kitchener class ;D.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Normally, I would suggest the two ships of the class be named HMCS KITCHENER and HMCS WATERLOO, but then we'd encounter the old complaints of being too focussed on central Canada.


----------



## Privateer

How about HMCS SWASTIKA, for Swastika, Ontario?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika,_Ontario


----------



## MarkOttawa

Privateer: Now, now, now, _S.M.S Berlin_ spent its service in the _Kaiserliche Marine_ 





and the _Reichsmarine_:
http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/sms_berlin.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

well if it is a naming coantest . . 

HMCS Better Very Late Than Never 

HMCS Broken Procurement System


----------



## RC

I think we should take bets on which of the major NSPS procurements will hit the water first.  JSS (or AOR or whatever they are calling it now) has been around the longest.  AOPS has the most complete design.  The OFSV is the smallest.  OOSV looks like the dark horse of the contracts that are on the street, but my source on the inside says they are riding with the lightest jockey.

I think JSS is going to remain mired in studies, options analyses, and modifications and will be both the first out and the last in.   They need to drop some of the deadweight or they will just keep hemorrhaging time and I don't think shopping a foreign design that will inevitably be modified is going to do that.

I'm going to go with OFSV in third place just on a hunch.  I think it will be slow on approval.

AOPS in second because it is going to have a long construction schedule for the first ship.  I'm betting on first steel cut, but not first in the water.

And I'm calling the winner as the OOSV just because I like an underdog.  Last out, first in, big success!

The JSS makes me sad.  I just don't see it pulling up, even with the new strategy.  On the other hand, it's going to be an exciting race where anything might happen.  I'm a little bitter that I'm stuck on the sidelines.


----------



## MarkOttawa

At least the CCG has got already a contract to build Dutch-designed MSPVs, no installed weapons 




(to continue the acronyms):
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2009sep00032.html

And if one seeks a really, really aging fleet (sorry about the bad table transfer, check the links):
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0004253



> ...
> Table 4: Age of CCG Vessels in 2007-2008 Vessels	Current Number	Vessels Over 25 Years Old	Vessels 15 to 24 Years Old	Vessels Under 14 Years Old
> LARGE VESSEL FLEET
> Large Ships (over 88m)
> Design Life - 30 years 	7 	5 	2 	0
> Medium Ships (48 to 87m)
> Design Life - 30 years 	27 	12 	15 	0
> Smaller Ships (33 to 47m)
> Design Life - 15 to 20 years 	6 	5 	1 	0
> TOTAL Large Fleet 	40 	22 	18 	0



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RC

The MSPV's aren't really in the same weight class, but more importantly, I can't seriously consider a vessel that only meets a bare handful of the original spec requirements and was bought, seemingly, out of desperation to get something/anything in the water.

While I'm glad that they are bringing some work into Canadian yards and some much needed assets to the CCG, I'm ranking that smoldering wreckage of a project as a Did Not Qualify.


----------



## MarkOttawa

From a round-up article in _Defense Industry Daily_ (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-issues-rfp-for-cdn-29b-joint-support-ship-project-updated-02392/



> As part of its spate of military modernization announcements issued just before Canada Day (July 1) 2006, the Canadian government issued an RFP that began the process of defining and building 3 “Joint Support Ships.” The aim was to deliver 3 multi-role vessels with substantially more capability than the current Protecteur Class  oiler and resupply ships. In addition to being able to provide at-sea support (re-fueling and re-supply) to deployed naval task groups, the new JSS ships were envisioned as ships that would also be capable of sealift operations, as well as amphibious support to forces deployed ashore.
> 
> This was expected to be a C$ 2.9 billion (USD $2.58 billion) project. This article describes the process, the 4 pre-qualified industry teams participating, and some of the issues swirling around Canada’s very ambitious specifications. Specifications that ultimately sank the whole project, in a manner that was predictable from the outset. Leaving Canada’s navy with a serious problem. Will a second go-round in 2012-13 help any?..
> 
> …July 2010 saw the JSS program’s re-start announcement, this time at C$ 2.6 billion instead of $2.9 billion. With the Canadian dollar close to par with the US dollar, currency shifts made up some of that difference. The other difference involved cutting the planned order to just 2 ships instead of 3, after previous program experience that said *it wasn’t possible to buy 3 ships to do all of the things that Canada wanted, for the money it was prepared to spend* [emphasis added].
> 
> October 2010 saw the final piece of the puzzle fall into place. A dysfunctional political and procurement system has led Canada’s government to use ACAN buys for big defense purchases, almost all of which have been organized as rigged sole-source decisions instead of competitions. The JSS program might be an exception, as it looked to pick one of 2 existing designs that were already in service with NATO allies…
> 
> Contender #1 is ThyssenKrupp Marine’s 20,240t Berlin Class, with 3 examples serving in the Germany Navy. These ships are mostly conventional oiler and replenishment ships, with storage for 9,330t of fuel oil, aviation fuel and fresh water, and 550t of mixed cargo. They can carry light armament and up to 2 medium helicopters, with an on-board hospital that can handle up to 43 patients.
> 
> Contender #2 is Navantia S.A.’s Cantabria Class. The Cantabria is an enlarged 19,500t version of the Patino Class replenishment ship. Cargo specifications for the smaller Patino are 8,480t fuel capacity (6,820t diesel and 1,660t aviation), and 500t of mixed cargo. The Cantabria carries a crew medical center with 10 beds, including a operating facilities equipped for telemedicine by videoconference, an X-ray room, dental surgery, sterilization laboratory, medical surgery and gas containment center.
> 
> Discussions will be held with each firm concerning Canada-specific modifications to their designs, and the terms under which they’d be willing to hand over their designs to a designated Canadian shipbuilder. While each of these ships has some minor capabilities beyond the basic fleet replenishment mission, the most striking thing about these choices is their signal that *Canada has effectively abandoned its attempt to make the JSS a multi-role amphibious operations ship* [emphasis added]…



All that took this government four and three quarter years. And still no contract. What a lot of political hoo-hah. Plus dreaming on the part of the Navy.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Plus dreaming on the part of the Navy.


I don't think JSS came from the navy...


----------



## RC

In my opinion, it's not fundamentally the government's fault that this program hasn't worked.  They come to the table with a wish list and a budget, but they don't have any idea whether their budget will fit their wish list.  How can they?  Shipbuilding and ship design is not their business.

So they did what people normally do when they want something but don't know how to do it themselves.  They hired an expert to help.  On the JSS, the expert's assessment should have taken about 10 minutes to do and a few months to prove.

We will probably never know whether the experts were incompetent or whether they simply failed to convince the government that it couldn't afford what it wanted.   My personal opinion is that it was a combination of both.
Either way, the failure lies squarely on the shoulders of the consulting experts, as they failed to do the job they were hired to do by the government.  

The JSS should never have come out to public tender in the form that it did.

Next, I'm certain that the groups that put designs together at $10 mil a piece knew right from the outset that the experts had messed up and that they wouldn't be able to submit an offer within budget.  Did any of them have the moral courage to stand up and say "Look, this isn't even going to be close to working.  You are just wasting time."?  I don't think they did.  So the government continued to operate under the assumption that everything was ok until they were hit with a $20 million bill and offers that weren't worth the paper they were printed on.

In my assessment, the government's only real fault was hiring "experts" who were either charlatans or were in way way over their heads.  A fault to be sure, but not worthy of the primary blame for the program failure and wasted time thus far.

However, from here on out, the problems will be entirely the government's fault since as far as I'm aware, they haven't made an effort to replace their advising experts.  And I'm quite sure they are going to continue to have problems.  Buying a design and adapting it to your needs comes with its own set of difficulties and traps.  If the past is any indication, the future is not a great deal brighter for JSS.


----------



## Kirkhill

RC said:
			
		

> .......We will probably never know whether the experts were incompetent or whether they simply failed to convince the government that it couldn't afford what it wanted.   My personal opinion is that it was a combination of both.
> 
> Either way, the failure lies squarely on the shoulders of the consulting experts, as they failed to do the job they were hired to do by the government.
> 
> The JSS should never have come out to public tender in the form that it did.
> 
> .....government continued to operate under the assumption that everything was ok until they were hit with a $20 million bill and offers that weren't worth the paper they were printed on.




I see everything you say RC, and can understand and agree with it.

I wonder though, if  there isn't also another factor here though: the tendencies of juniors being reluctant to tell their seniors that the seniors haven't got a clue.

The Minister asks if such and such is possible.  The DM asssigns a junior to determine the cost.  Will the junior, who now thinks his career depends on it, tell the DM that what the Minister "wants" is impossible?  Wouldn't the junior be inclined to think that his failure to find a suitable solution would be a personal and career damaging failure.  Whereas what the Minister wanted in the first place was an assessment of the possible and a clear statement of the impossible would have better served the needs of the Minister and the country.


----------



## RC

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I see everything you say RC, and can understand and agree with it.
> 
> I wonder though, if  there isn't also another factor here though: the tendencies of juniors being reluctant to tell their seniors that the seniors haven't got a clue.
> 
> The Minister asks if such and such is possible.  The DM asssigns a junior to determine the cost.  Will the junior, who now thinks his career depends on it, tell the DM that what the Minister "wants" is impossible?  Wouldn't the junior be inclined to think that his failure to find a suitable solution would be a personal and career damaging failure.  Whereas what the Minister wanted in the first place was an assessment of the possible and a clear statement of the impossible would have better served the needs of the Minister and the country.



That does seem entirely possible Kirkhill, but should have been trumped by the hiring of an independent industrial expert.  A junior presenting the conclusions of an expert would have nothing to fear from his superiors even if the expert's conclusion was that it was impossible.  Furthermore, the role of the expert should have been to say "You can't afford this, but let's find a solution that you can afford.", which would give the junior a solution to present.  An expert should have been able to quickly assess the major cost drivers in the project, as well as which ones were outside normal bounds and should be brought in line to make budget.

You've hit on a good argument as to why government should not try to do these things on their own and should consult outside help, but I don't think it answers why the process failed so badly in this case.


----------



## Kirkhill

That rather begs the question of how do you find an "expert consultant" that you can trust and that knows his stuff and that communicate clearly with the client.....

My own view is that unless the client is extraordinarily skilled and current they are better served to put out slim document stating their broader goals and then invent all comers to offer solutions.  They will likely get some cautious responses offering to do business in a traditional fashion at an outrageous cost, some outrageous solutions also at an outrageous cost and finally some novel variants that could be turned into something practical.  And the competitive process, as potential vendors beat up on the competitors' solutions, gives the client to learn about the industry, the suppliers and the possibilities.

The worst thing a client can do, IMHO, particularly one that is green, is to create a massive laundry list of specifications at the outset.  The laundry list should be reserved for the final contract.


----------



## Snakedoc

Is part of the issue a lack of experience on the part of all parties involved?  

I would think the aforementioned issues such as juniors afraid to tell their seniors that something is not going to work, the same on the vendors looking to bid on the projects end, hiring of an expert in over their heads etc. etc. would be common in shipbuilding/government projects around the world.

Yet it doesn't seem like other countries have the same fundamental problems that Canada has had with getting hulls on the water.


----------



## RC

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> That rather begs the question of how do you find an "expert consultant" that you can trust and that knows his stuff and that communicate clearly with the client.....



Well now that's the 20million dollar question.  I think they have done much better on subsequent contracts, having learned from the JSS procurement.  The SOIQ's have been better tailored and I think the fact that the very similar problems in the AOPs requirements were caught in the first few months and ironed out is evidence that they improved.



			
				Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Is part of the issue a lack of experience on the part of all parties involved?
> 
> I would think the aforementioned issues such as juniors afraid to tell their seniors that something is not going to work, the same on the vendors looking to bid on the projects end, hiring of an expert in over their heads etc. etc. would be common in shipbuilding/government projects around the world.
> 
> Yet it doesn't seem like other countries have the same fundamental problems that Canada has had with getting hulls on the water.



The experience exists out there, but the problem is very common.  There is a lot of money involved so, it's hard to find the real experience through all the lobbying and sales.  And often people just don't know how much they don't know.  

There are in fact dozens of procurement processes around the world that have the same type of problems as the JSS program.  Look at the Deepwater or LCS programs in the US.  The US is just more willing to throw money at the problem than admit defeat and start over than Canada is.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My office reviews large infrastructure projects, the trend is towards design build, which means the proponent lays out the basic requirements of what the structure must accomplish ( i.e. load rating, lifespan, budget, clearance, etc) and then sit back and let industry suggest solutions to the problem. Classic example is the Port Mann bridge here in Vancouver, Province decides they want to twin the existing bridge, the entire assessment is based on this concept, but the winning bid is for a larger single bridge and the removal of the old. The Province had not thought it was possible within the budget (we will see who was right I suppose) but a lot of technology advance in the last few years has helped to control costs.


----------



## mad dog 2020

Navy considers modified German and Spanish designs for new supply ship

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - The Canadian navy is looking for consultants to help adapt foreign designs for the replacement of its 40-year-old supply ships.

The request for professional services, issued by the Public Works Department this week, signals a major turn in the shipbuilding program, first begun by the Liberals seven years ago.

The consultants will be asked to assess the risks and cost of altering current German and Spanish military supply ship designs to Canadian needs.

They're also being told to be ready to assist federal officials with detailed drawings.

The proposal was issued the same week the Harper government deep-sixed co-operation with the British on the future design of new frigates, following an outcry from the Canadian shipbuilding industry.

A naval expert says the push to use either the Berlin or Cantabria-class designs marks a significant shift in Ottawa's long, tortured process to get new supply ships into the water.

Eric Lerhe, a retired commodore and fleet commander, says neither of the foreign ships have much capacity to transport army equipment and stores, something that was a major pillar of the original Canadian design


----------



## MarkOttawa

The use of a foreign design for a rather less capable than envisaged JSS is not itself news--bad reporting:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/17282/post-980449.html#msg980449

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

First post on the subject here--six months ago:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/17282/post-978257.html#msg978257

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> Navy considers modified German and Spanish designs for new supply ship
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA - The Canadian navy is looking for consultants to help adapt foreign designs for the replacement of its 40-year-old supply ships.
> 
> The request for professional services, issued by the Public Works Department this week, signals a major turn in the shipbuilding program, first begun by the Liberals seven years ago.
> 
> The consultants will be asked to assess the risks and cost of altering current German and Spanish military supply ship designs to Canadian needs ....


Here's the new MERX listing (compared to the one issued in October of last year):


> .... Canada has a requirement to assess two NATO Navy ship designs to
> determine their viability in relation to the Canadian Navy
> operational requirements for naval fleet replenishment SHIPS:
> a.    the Berlin Class; and
> b.    the Cantabria Class
> 
> Canada intends to award two separate contracts, one to
> ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. (TKMSC) and the other to
> Navantia, S.A. (Navantia) to conduct Risk Reduction Design
> Studies (RRDS) for each design. This will enable Canada to
> ascertain the feasibility and affordability of adapting these
> designs to meet Canadian requirements. Canada is deploying a
> team of government representatives to shipyards in Germany and
> Spain to perform the RRDS and a follow-on Detailed Design
> Activity (DDA).
> 
> Canada is seeking professional services of two qualified
> personnel to provide consulting, ship production engineering and
> translation services and support to the JSS PMO for the RRDS
> activity at facilities in Germany and Spain and, if required, in
> Canada, who are fluent in English and the native language of the
> ship designer (one in German and one in Spanish).
> 
> This RFP may result in two Contracts. The Bidder may bid on one
> or both requirements (Spain and/or Germany).
> 
> The initial term will be for a period of eight ( 8 ) months from
> date of award of Contract. Support Services in Canada will be
> required on an "as and when requested" basis, for up to ten
> days (per person) starting on or around the beginning of May
> 2011. Core services in Germany and Spain will be required for a
> period of six (6) months starting on or around the beginning of
> June 2011, with an option to renew for up to six (6) additional
> months to provide additional support for RRDS and/or for DDA ....


A bit more in the attached Statement of Work.


----------



## MarkOttawa

So in fact rather than JSSs they will be really AORs



> naval fleet replenishment SHIPS



And lord knows when a shipbuilding contract will be signed and when a ship will eventually be in service.  On...and on...and...

This whole endeavour is becoming a scandal.  All because of the insistence by Canadian gov'ts (both stripes) first that ships be designed in Canada (now abandoned in this case, for the CCG, and one has heard for the A/OPS), and second that they be built here.

Cue "As Time Goes By"; play it Stephen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qujHKmU95o&feature=related

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kalatzi

Haletown said:
			
		

> well if it is a naming coantest . .
> 
> HMCS Better Very Late Than Never
> 
> HMCS Broken Procurement System



Canadian warship procurement has been scandalous for decades, IMHO,   at least as far back as the tribals. 

The money spent on  could design could be far better used, unless we choose to export. Good luck with that. 

The South Koreans seem to doing good things, eg FFX Frigates


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> So in fact rather than JSSs they will be really AORS:


Well if thats the case its been one of the smartest decisions regarding the JSS in a long time.



> And lord knows when a shipbuilding contract will be signed and when a ship will eventually be in service.  On...and on...and...
> 
> This whole endeavour is becoming a scandal.  All because of the insistence by Canadian gov'ts (both stripes) first that ships be designed in Canada (now abandoned in this case, for the CCG, and one has heard for the A/OPS), and second that they be built here.
> 
> Cue "As Time Goes By"; play it Stephen:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qujHKmU95o&feature=related
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa
> Mark
> Ottawa



Well at least its still on the Government radar, I would be more concerned if there wasn't any mention at all.



> The South Koreans seem to doing good things, eg FFX Frigates


Lets wait for the class goes into service before applauding the South Koreans as the frigate maybe a dismal failure.


----------



## FSTO

Maybe our procurement process is so tortured because we have invented this need to make everyone happy. Quebec, the west, Atlantic provinces, first nations, environment, the list goes on and on. Just once I wish the government would have the balls to tell the special interest groups to bugger off, we are going to get a platform that is what we want, quickly and at the best price. We should also cut about 1/3 of the oversight requirements that satisfy nobody but the blood sucking vampires at Treasury Board. Maybe we could cut about 10 years from the 15 to 20 year process that we have now.


----------



## Infanteer

FSTO said:
			
		

> Maybe our procurement process is so tortured because we have invented this need to make everyone *but the Navy* happy. Quebec, the west, Atlantic provinces, first nations, environment, the list goes on and on.



Fixed that for you....


----------



## Kalatzi

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Well if thats the case its been one of the smartest decisions regarding the JSS in a long time.
> 
> Well at least its still on the Government radar, I would be more concerned if there wasn't any mention at all.
> Lets wait for the class goes into service before applauding the South Koreans as the frigate maybe a dismal failure.


----------



## Kalatzi

re: my previous 

The comment on waiting to see if the south korean class was a success was a good one. 

We no longer design our own combat aircraft

We no longer design our own combat vehicles - witness the ram or the bobcat

A local design could still be a dud. 

I also encountered another thread that theres hope for the surface combatant being a partnership, pun.


----------



## Dissident

Way out of my lane: the Berlin class looks interesting. Is it big enough? Wiki shows it is 4000tons lighter than the Protecteur.


----------



## FSTO

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you....


 :nod:


----------



## Haletown

Well I guess we should be thankful that Bombardier doesn't produce a long in the tooth 4th generation fighter aircraft that they would be flogging to the Air Force instead of getting a truly modern aircraft.

It would make where/how to get ships look easy.

I can hear the howls from the Bloc from here.


----------



## Infanteer

Haletown said:
			
		

> Well I guess we should be thankful that Bombardier doesn't produce a long in the tooth 4th generation fighter aircraft that they would be flogging to the Air Force instead of getting a truly modern aircraft.
> 
> It would make where/how to get ships look easy.
> 
> I can hear the howls from the Bloc from here.



Actually - wait for it.  With all the political howling over the F-35, I wouldn't be surprised if, 25 years from now, we finally replace the CF-118s with a Bombardier passenger plane (with engines built by Bell) with weapons pods strapped to the wings....


----------



## Haletown

That is a scary thought but the PBO report released today will give lots of bluster points for the media and opposition to use.

I have downloaded a copy and a quick read says it has a most unique way of estimating future costs based on aircraft weight in Kilos and uses a 30 year period rather than the 20 years . . .  good way to get a big number & front page headlines !!


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the Halifax _Chronicle-Herald_, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._


> Canada should not adapt foreign designs to replace its 40-year-old supply ships, says the man who represents over 1,000 workers at Halifax Shipyard.
> 
> The navy is looking for consultants to assess the risks and cost of altering current German and Spanish military supply-ship designs to Canadian needs. They are also being told to be ready to assist federal officials with detailed drawings.
> 
> "No matter what way you slice the pie, its Canadian tax dollars leaving Canada to go to another country to help them out in an economic crisis when we’re in our own," Jamie Vaslet of the CAW/Marine Workers Federation, said Thursday.
> 
> "Made in Canada is not a bad name, so designed in Canada is not a bad name, either. We designed and built some of, if not the best, world-class frigates."
> 
> If the supply ships are designed in another country, intellectual rights accompany that design, Vaslet said. He pointed to HMCS Chicoutimi, one of the Canadian navy’s British-built submarines, which was sidelined by a fatal fire in 2004.
> 
> "When the Chicoutimi was in the Halifax Shipyard, we could have gone to Canadian Tire and bought a nut and bolt to do a job on that submarine for $1.29 and we paid $1,500 taxpayers’ dollars for it to come three weeks later from Britain," Vaslet said.
> 
> "Where in anybody’s logical mind does that make sense? And why would we want to get into the same thing again when we’re going to build supply ships?"
> 
> The Harper government recently nixed a co-operative effort with the British on the design of new frigates after an outcry from the shipbuilding industry.
> 
> "At the same time that they’re saying that, they’re going to another country for the design on a supply ship, so it’s a shell game that the Tories are playing," Vaslet said.
> 
> Three joint support ships, announced as part of the 2004 budget and confirmed by the Conservatives when they took power in 2006, have been the subject of discussions, drawings and revisions as naval planners struggled to stay within the $2.9-billion budget.
> 
> The government said it wanted a ship that could resupply warships, haul army equipment and act as a floating hospital or command post when necessary.
> 
> The Conservatives hit the reset button on the program in the summer of 2008, sending everyone back to the drawing board, because shipyard bids exceeded what had been budgeted.


----------



## RC

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> This whole endeavour is becoming a scandal.  All because of the insistence by Canadian gov'ts (both stripes) first that ships be designed in Canada (now abandoned in this case, for the CCG, and one has heard for the A/OPS), and second that they be built here.



Where did you hear that?  CCG FRV - Canadian design (after foreign procurement failure), CCG OOSV - Canadian design, AOPS - Canadian design.  There were two Finnish ice design consultants on AOPS, but otherwise all Canadian.

The CCG midshore is the lone exception and didn't really work out that well in terms of design choice.

The AOR/JSS could have been successfully designed in Canada, but they went about the contracting in a bizarre manner and thus excluded some of the best candidates.


----------



## Halifax Tar

All I can say is that as a member who may have to serve on  the new ships someday I would like them to built by the best shipyard possible, using the highest standards possible. I don't give a hoot where its located,  Canada or elsewhere. Just give me the best equipment possible, please.  

I hate that our military procurement is used as some sort of employment/economic tool to win votes. Don't use the building of the equipment meant to increase my safety and survival in that manner please Mr. Government!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Politics, politics, politics:

Shipbuilding means big regional politics and even bigger price tags
With the Navy and Coast Guard set to place big orders, who will win and who will lose?
http://embassymag.ca/page/view/navy-03-16-2011



> With billions of dollars promised to the navy in the form of combat, patrol and support ships, the federal government pledged last June to form a "strategic partnership" with two Canadian shipyards to help carry these promises to fruition.
> 
> Forming these partnerships is key to the government's stated objective of firing up two sustainable and robust private shipbuilding clusters in Canada through which it can pipe its various big-ship requests. It's also part of its unstated objective of currying favour with key voters, say experts who follow the shipbuilding saga.
> 
> On Feb. 7, the government announced that five shortlisted companies—Davie Yards outside Quebec City; Irving Shipbuilding in Saint John, New Brunswick; Vancouver Shipyards in Vancouver; Kiewit Offshore Services in Milton, Ont.; and Seaway Marine & Industrial in St. Catharines, Ont.—have until July to submit their proposals.
> 
> That timeframe is far enough away for Conservatives to get an election out of the way, if that's in the cards. They will want to, because the politics behind the decision—both the potential boons and ramifications—are extremely significant.
> 
> "Really, the purpose of this national shipbuilding strategy is to guarantee regional employment," says Chris Madsen, an associate professor at the Royal Military College of Canada who specializes in maritime strategy and history.
> 
> A general consensus is that the biggest contenders now are Davie, Irving and Vancouver, meaning the East, Quebec and the West are in direct competition. Experts argue the three of these have the most going for them in terms of attracting the government's attention. Who will lose out?
> 
> *Quebec*
> 
> The most contentious issue is whether the government will go for Davie Yards situated near Quebec City, which is in bankruptcy protection but represents a strategic location in terms of electoral politics and history...
> 
> *New Brunswick*
> 
> Eastern Canada is more opposition-dominated than other areas of the country, meaning the Conservatives smell blood there.
> 
> In Defence Minister Peter MacKay's home province of Nova Scotia, only four of its eleven ridings are held by Conservative MPs, including Mr. MacKay, and prominent opposition members, both Liberal and NDP, hold several ridings around the Halifax area, historically a shipbuilding centre. The Liberal Defence critic Dominic Leblanc is also close by in eastern New Brunswick.
> 
> Giving the contract to Irving in Saint John would thus demonstrate to those voters unsure of whether to hand the Tories a bigger majority in the area that the party is serious about shipbuilding...
> 
> *British Columbia*
> 
> Out west it's a slightly different story. British Columbia is one of three Western "have" provinces, its economy recovering from the recession, its growth expected to slowly eliminate its budget deficit over the next few years. The Conservatives have MPs in a majority of ridings in the province. The demographics are different; there is less of an employment emergency...
> 
> *Other issues*
> 
> While regional politics will most likely guarantee that the current strategy is carried out, *experts argue selecting two major commercial shipyards will cost the Canadian taxpayer the most as well as proceed the slowest* [emphasis added], and it's worth it for the government to consider the financial burden it's heaping on its citizens...
> 
> If there's anything experts agree on, it's that the current budgeted price is probably being low-balled, considering the level of uncertainty so far and the long-winded procurement process...
> 
> With the current tug-of-war going on between the navy and the government over how many expensive destroyers and frigates to build, compared to how many lower-cost patrol ships, and what capabilities they will have, the price tag is up in the air.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More of the bite-back:

Navy review of foreign ship designs gives builders the jitters
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/navy-review-foreign-ship-designs-gives-builders-jitters-20110216-134624-902.html



> National Defence has been quietly urging the Canadian navy to explore offshore designs and solutions to its shipbuilding needs — causing jitters in a domestic industry struggling to survive.
> 
> Britain's parliamentary secretary for defence recently revealed that country was in discussions with Canada about participating in BAE Systems Inc.'s Global Combat Ship program, the Royal Navy's plan to replace its frigates.
> 
> The Harper government has refused to comment on the talks, other than to play them down as routine.
> 
> Defence sources say the navy also considered — but rejected — a British offer to sell Canada one of the Royal Navy's relatively new Bay-class transport ships, some of which will be sold or retired because of deep budget cuts.
> 
> The proposal was floated because the navy's supply-ship replacement program is in limbo, with no firm date established despite nearly a decade of planning, number-crunching and redesigns.
> 
> Naval planners were also told to look at French proposals and blueprints, despite extensive staff work put into Canadian warship requirements.
> 
> Buying designs offshore would be short-sighted, said Canada's shipbuilding association.
> 
> "I'm not sure there's any cost-saving in that at all. In fact, I would argue it would possibly be more expensive," warned the association's executive director Peter Cairns.
> 
> Government insiders describe the process the navy is going through, at the direction of the deputy minister of defence, as due diligence meant to justify an eventual submission to the Treasury Board...
> 
> The Canadian Auto Workers/Marine Workers Federation, which represents shipyard workers, told the Halifax Chronicle-Herald newspaper this week the talks with Britain threatened to destroy the shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> Cairns disagreed and said shipyards would still have work, but the larger industry, the one that has propelled Canadian maritime innovation for decades, would likely wither and die.
> 
> "It would be very short-sighted," he said.
> 
> Cairns said he would like to hear government ministers say the $35 billion in planned ship purchases will be "designed and built" in Canada.



Meanwhile the Aussies seem to have seen some light:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/99923.0.html

_Chez nous_:

How Slow Can One Procure Navy Ships, Part 2?
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=136

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Some sharp words from _Defense Industry Daily_:

Amphibious Ship For Sale: RFA Largs Bay   
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Amphibious-Ship-For-Sale-RFA-LArgs-Bay-06808/



> The fate of a nearly-new British amphibious support ship, RFA Largs Bay, is all about timing.
> 
> Britain commissioned 4 of the 176m long, 16,200t Bay Class LSD amphibious ships to renew a very run-down capability. The new “Alternative Landing Ship Logistic” ships were built from the same base Enforcer template that produced the successful Dutch Rotterdam and Johann de Witt, and Spanish Galicia class programs. Britain ordered 4 of these ALSL/LSD-A ships into its Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and active use began with RFA Largs Bay’s commissioning in 2006. By 2011, however, Britain’s fiscal situation was so dire that a strategic review marked RFA Largs Bay for decommissioning in April 2011, after just a fraction of its 30+ year service life.
> 
> That was bad timing for Britain, but good timing for others...
> 
> Canada’s 2006 “Joint Support Ship” program was a proper mess by 2011,
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-issues-rfp-for-cdn-29b-joint-support-ship-project-updated-02392/
> after failing to deliver amphibious support capabilities at an affordable cost. On the other hand, the Canadian DND was generally seen as far too hidebound, and its government as too paralyzed by the need for economic handouts in its military projects, to consider a Bay class bargain. They had also been burned before by used British ships, in the Oberon Class submarine deal.
> 
> Whatever the reason, the opportunity produced no apparent movement in Canada...



Ouch.  More:



> *March 16/11*: Australian Minister for Defence Stephen Smith confirms that the government is bidding on RFA Largs Bay:
> 
> _“Firstly, today, London time, we will formally enter a bid for the purchase of a large, heavy amphibious lift vessel, a Bay Class from the United Kingdom. I’ve spoken about this publicly before. But we’ll put our formal bid in today to purchase the vessel…. So we’re – we are very keen to pick up the Bay Class to cover that amphibious lift capability, and the C-17s have been a very useful asset for us, and getting another one will really help us in terms of our flexibility. So, very pleased with both of those initiatives occurring this week in terms of acquisitions.”_
> 
> A subsequent Canberra Times report quotes the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, who estimates a price in the low $100 million region, for an almost-new ship that cost 2-3 times that much to build. Britain’s decision is expected in April 2011...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Dissident

After the sub deal, I am a little skittish about buying ships from the UK. However, I can not help but feel like we are missing out on one hell of a fire sale.


----------



## jollyjacktar

In my personal opinion, we are frigging idiots not to get one.  The only bigger idiots than ourselves are the Brits for getting rid of them so soon.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> In my personal opinion, we are frigging idiots not to get one.  The only bigger idiots than ourselves are the Brits for getting rid of them so soon.



You are right. I have heard that the majority of the worlds population lives within a 100 miles of a coastline and the ability to have a mobile support platform is crucial to our ability to respond to crisis. Since it will be 15 years before we see a replacement for PRE and PRO, we need something in the interim.


----------



## ironduke57

Just a side note: The hulk of our third Berlin class AOR named BONN (A 1413) should swim for the first time at the end of this month and then towed to Emden in May. 

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## The Bread Guy

Remember the latest call for professional services (8 Nar 11 here)?

New bid deadline:  9 May 2011 - see attached.


----------



## Rifleman62

Way out of my lane. Interesting video.

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2011/04/ship-for-canada-with-few-modifications.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FbhARU+%28Celestial+Junk%29

Previously noted here by MarkOttawa

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/99923.0.html


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The problem is that its not a dedicated AOR. Sure you can carry troops and vehicles but the main overall mission of the new AORs/JSS is to replenish the ships of the fleet and to have a minor troop lift capability. Using an LPD/LHD/LHA for RAS can be done but should be only used in extreme situations. To use anything else but an AOR is a half assed measure at best.


----------



## Snakedoc

Definitely a very cool vessel with a lot of bells and whistles.  Would love to see one in the fleet but as was mentioned, not an AOR.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Definitely a very cool vessel with a lot of bells and whistles.  Would love to see one in the fleet but as was mentioned, not an AOR.



Agreed....would love to see one in the Fleet but not at the expense of other naval and more important capabilities.


----------



## Good2Golf

Folks, let's use our heads and refrain from discussing things from a Departmental internal system.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well we can buy the Dutch AOR, it should fit in nicely considering it was built in 1975.


----------



## gvg

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well we can buy the Dutch AOR, it should fit in nicely considering it was built in 1975.


Yep, if you want the AOR built in 1995 (HNLMS Amsterdam), you'll have to wait untill 2014. Would fit nicely with Patino AORs if Canada would decide to build those. The Patino class was a joint design by Spanish BAZAN and Dutch NEVESBU. HNLMS Amsterdam is the Dutch built version of that design.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is germane to this discussion:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/department-of-national-defence-to-drop-ship-lease-after-losing-millions/article2111804/ 



> Department of National Defence to drop ship lease after losing millions
> 
> MURRAY BREWSTER
> Naples, Italy— The Canadian Press
> 
> Published Wednesday, Jul. 27, 2011
> 
> The Department of National Defence plans to drop the use of a dedicated civilian cargo ship for hauling military supplies and equipment after discovering that Ottawa lost millions of dollars in the arrangement.
> 
> The existing contract for the use of the container ship will be allowed to lapse in October, according to internal federal documents.
> 
> The ship has been used 13 times since October 2007, most notably to move Canadian military equipment and humanitarian supplies to Haiti in January 2010 following the earthquake.
> 
> The documents say that most of the time, the ship has either been waiting for orders or sailing empty, at a cost of $21.3 million to taxpayers
> 
> “Of that, only $3.4 million is directly attributed to the movement of cargo with the remainder for empty transits, standby while awaiting tasking as well as support to two Naval exercises,” said a briefing note prepared for Defence Minister Peter MacKay and obtained by The Canadian Press.
> 
> Defence bureaucrats estimate that had they leased a ship on a spot basis — as they had done so in the past — it would have likely cost a total of $13 million.
> 
> “We will save money by eliminating the (full-time charter),” said the briefing note dated Oct. 22, 2010. “It will be cancelled.”
> 
> The decision comes as the Defence Department concedes that future operations could mean “in the post-July 2012 period, (that) CF readiness levels may require a faster response” in the deployment of troops and equipment overseas.
> 
> The use of the cargo ship has been cumbersome because its owners are allowed to shop it out to other NATO countries and commercial clients when Canada is not using it. And it has taken up to 30 days in some cases for them to recall the ship for duty at a Canadian port.
> 
> A case in point was the Haiti relief effort where C-17 transport planes were able to be on the ground within hours of the disaster, but it took up to three weeks to ship vehicles and equipment to peacekeepers deployed in the ruined country.
> 
> Sources at NATO expressed concerns about the decision to drop the ship contract because Canada originally bought in at the request of the alliance.
> 
> While cost concerns were understood, the thought of a major partner without dedicated sealift makes some people nervous, especially when the Harper government's plan to build joint support ships for the navy is years behind schedule.
> 
> Defence bureaucrats in Ottawa point out that they have never had a problem renting a ship on the spot. That may be true, but those arrangements haven't always gone smoothly.
> 
> Army equipment and vehicles returning from the war in Kosovo were snared in a contract dispute involving the ship's owner, forcing the Canadian navy to board the Estai on the high seas almost a decade ago. A dedicated ship was considered one way to avoid a repeat of such a scenario.
> 
> It was reinforced after the 2005 Prague NATO summit when the alliance said it faced a shortage of transport ships. It proposed sharing time on dedicated ships and flogged it as a “cost-effective” solution.
> 
> There were dire warnings at the time about a global shortage of container ships because of China's booming economy, but the shortage did not occur.
> 
> “Co-operative saving with our allies has not materialized despite our best efforts to participate in the various NATO organizations established for that purpose,” said the note to Mr. MacKay.
> 
> Defence expert Rob Huebert says the problem speaks to the larger question of what sort of vision the Harper government has for the navy.
> 
> “It at the very least raises the issue of what is the best way of ensuring we can move our forces,” said Mr. Huebert, a University of Calgary professor.
> 
> He pointed out that most of the navy's equipment needs to be replaced over the next 15 years and major projects, like the supply ships, are years behind schedule.
> 
> In addition, the Harper government has committed to building Arctic patrol ships as well as modernizing and eventually replacing its frigate fleet.
> 
> Mr. Huebert said sealift is an essential capability, much like the C-17 has demonstrated the effectiveness of massive airlift.
> 
> Retired Gen. Rick Hillier, the former defence chief, once proposed that the military acquire a transport landing ship which would not only haul supplies but troops and helicopters as well. The proposal was shelved.
> 
> It could have proven useful in Haiti, where the leased cargo ship was not able to unload because the ports were damaged by the earthquake. Instead, it dropped vehicles and supplies off in the Dominican Republic and the material was flown over the mountain into Haiti.




Well, another option bites the dust.


----------



## Kirkhill

Just a quibbling point for accuracy -  Canada did not ship her Kosovo gear back on the Spanish Trawler Estai.

Her problem was with the Ukrainian-American Ship GTS Katie


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Just a quibbling point for accuracy -  Canada did not ship her Kosovo gear back on the Spanish Trawler Estai.
> 
> Her problem was with the Ukrainian-American Ship GTS Katie



Don't worry, Kirkhill...it's not really a "quibble" when journalist (used to) pride themselves on 'accuracy' as one of the tenets for their trade...  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'll believe there is a solution to this problem when I see it sailing into/out of  the harbour.  I heard believed the promises 12 years ago, I'm still waiting and won't see myself stepping on the deck before my time in the Navy is done.


----------



## a_majoor

Well, since we are going to wait a while, this technology promises to reduce fuel consumption:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/10/mitsubishi-builds-a-bubble-boat-for-better-efficiency/



> Mitsubishi Builds a Bubble Boat For Better Efficiency
> 
> inShare
> By Keith Barry Email Author October 26, 2011 |  8:30 am |  Categories: Marine
> 
> Grain conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland has ordered three dry bulk carriers that blow bubbles to improve fuel efficiency.
> 
> The boats, to be completed by 2014, rely on Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ proprietary Mitsubishi Air Lubrication System (MALS). The setup uses massive blowers to create a layer of bubbles underneath an already streamlined hull in order to further reduce friction.
> 
> Mitsubishi claims that MALS can reduce CO2 emissions by a quarter compared with conventional dry bulk carriers. Considering the ships will carry about 100,000 tons including cargo, fuel and crew, that’s a significant reduction.
> 
> Serious plans to install MALS on an oceangoing carrier began just over a year ago, when Mitsubishi got some help from the Japanese government and private foundations to put MALS on module carriers — ships that bring heavy equipment to industrial development sites, like the one shown above. Back then, the company estimated that carbon emissions could be reduced 10 percent.
> 
> The grain carriers will gain additional efficiencies from a unique propulsion system that puts its fins ahead of the propellers. The ship’s bow reduces the amount of waves it makes for even smoother sailing that doesn’t disrupt the bubbles beneath.
> 
> The three ships ordered by ADM will be 131 feet wide and 777 feet long and will be built by Oshima Shipbuilding. It’s the first time another shipbuilder has been selected to install MALS on a boat not built by Mitsubishi.



While the "CO2 reduction" is for the climate alarmists, in real terms this means the ship is burning a lot less fuel, which is a big deal, especially over the lifetime of the ship. The dimensions of these ships are much larger than our AOR's, so I'm not sure how well this scales, but even a 10% increase in fuel economy should be worth going for.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Would this bubble machine not make more noise allowing an AOR (and its escorts) to be detected at an even greater range?


----------



## GAP

I would think it would definitely have a recognizable audio signature.


----------



## Occam

GAP said:
			
		

> I would think it would definitely have a recognizable audio signature.



Yup.  It would likely sound like rain.

Same principle as the Prairie Masker.


----------



## a_majoor

You could always turn it off where the threat is high. I did not realize this was an update of  Prairie Masker


----------



## Occam

Calling it an update of Prairie Masker would be a stretch.  Prairie Masker was intended to reduce the noise signature of a ship. This new system is designed to increase fuel efficiency.  The principle is the same - bubblers under the hull.  The difference would probably be the volume of air, but the sound probably wouldn't be all that much different listened to from afar.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Would this bubble machine not make more noise allowing an AOR (and its escorts) to be detected at an even greater range?


As if an AOR can hide from anything.  I am sure the new girls will be mostly just as damn noisy as the old ones.


----------



## GAP

Occam said:
			
		

> Calling it an update of Prairie Masker would be a stretch.  Prairie Masker was intended to reduce the noise signature of a ship. This new system is designed to increase fuel efficiency.  The principle is the same - bubblers under the hull.  The difference would probably be the volume of air, but the sound probably wouldn't be all that much different listened to from afar.



Well that answers my question.   But what about the fishies........we're gonna make them healthier by pumping all the oxygen into the water (it works in aquariums... :nod, now all we need to do is add fish flakes and the boats will be lost in the noise of the fishies fighting over the food...........


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As if an AOR can hide from anything.  I am sure the new girls will be mostly just as damn noisy as the old ones.



True but do you not practice Sonar Quiet states like we do on CPFs and 280s? I realize a tanker is inherently noiser then a frigate but I still think they would try and build an AOR with some sort of countermeasures. They are the HVUs after all.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As if an AOR can hide from anything.  I am sure the new girls will be mostly just as damn noisy as the old ones.



I think you'll be in for shock JJ: The new girls will be a lot noisier than the old ones. That was one advantage of steam turbines: nice and quiet compared to GT's and Diesels. If built to "merchant" standards, don't look for much in terms of engine room sound proofing.

And Ex-D: The AOR's have a sort of countermeasure: Its called an escort  .


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> True but do you not practice Sonar Quiet states like we do on CPFs and 280s? I realize a tanker is inherently noiser then a frigate but I still think they would try and build an AOR with some sort of countermeasures. They are the HVUs after all.



No, not really.  She is a big, boisterous, noisy old woman.  Would be like putting the largish opera singer with the Wagner horned helm on her head in a field of wheat.  Not much room to hide in.  We did try a quiet state a time or two, but as I said.


----------



## a_majoor

Just a bit of clarification here; Prarie Masker is a noise reduction technology? If that is the case, and since the air lubrication system is based on similar principles, then it seems we get a twofer by adopting the system.


----------



## Occam

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Just a bit of clarification here; Prarie Masker is a noise reduction technology? If that is the case, and since the air lubrication system is based on similar principles, then it seems we get a twofer by adopting the system.



Yes - Prairie Masker is for noise reduction.  I've also since been told that Prairie Masker, while still fitted on HMC Ships, is not used or maintained anymore because its upkeep is cost prohibitive (that info is in the public domain).

I also got the impression that the Mitsubishi fuel conservation technology moves a lot more air than Prairie Masker does.  

This is the best link I've found for info on Prairie Masker - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/prairie.htm


----------



## a_majoor

Thanks for the link. Judging by the diagram, the bubble pattern in the air lubrication system is quite different from Prairie Masker, so there would not be a twofer effect.

Also interesting that Prarie Masker is no longer used on HMC ships due to upkeep costs. An interesting datum since the air lubrication system would be larger than Prarie Masker. It would be interesting to see if the cost saving from increased fuel economy would be offset by upkeep costs?


----------



## RC

Thucydides said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to see if the cost saving from increased fuel economy would be offset by upkeep costs?



In my experience you often find some shady accounting with these types of systems.  For example, they might tell you how much fuel you saved on your mains by using the bubbler system, but forget to include the extra fuel used by the gensets that were powering the compressors that provide the bubbles.  Bubbler systems on icebreakers about break even on fuel consumption (but give slightly better ice performance).  I'd bet these ones might be just slightly better than breaking even and wouldn't make sense unless you were doing long, continuous hauls at constant speed.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Bump! I'm curious if this project has simply faded. August 30th marked 43 years since _Protecteur_ was commissioned.


----------



## Occam

Yes, the project is still ongoing.


----------



## Kirkhill

The response to those of us that proposed the purchase from the Brits of their "spare" Bay Class (RFA Largs Bay - currently serving as HMAS Choules):

The Prince of Darkness Strikes Again* 







*Alternate Headline: Britain Demonstrates Its Continuing Standard Of Excellence In Electrical Systems


----------



## Stoker

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The response to those of us that proposed the purchase from the Brits of their "spare" Bay Class (RFA Largs Bay - currently serving as HMAS Choules):
> 
> The Prince of Darkness Strikes Again*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Alternate Headline: Britain Demonstrates Its Continuing Standard Of Excellence In Electrical Systems



It was Siemens transformer that malfunctioned which is a German company.  We have many Siemens transformers and electrical equipment of HMC ships, sometimes we have problems with them.


----------



## Kirkhill

Fair enough Chief, but it was the Brits that spec'd and installed the transformers.  Even good nails can be bent.


----------



## Stoker

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Fair enough Chief, but it was the Brits that spec'd and installed the transformers.  Even good nails can be bent.



True enough, I would imagine if the transformers were prematurely failing it was probably a bad batch or like you said improperly installed. I would even go as far to say the transformers in question were probably off the shelf items and not tailor built.


----------



## GK .Dundas

I had no idea that Lucas Electrical was still in business ? ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Definitely off the shelf Chief.

The Bay class were built on an existing RO-RO design with minimal adaptation (Hence the Mexafloats instead of a well that can be flooded to offload landing crafts). They were built at their existing merchantman standards. This is why they were considered "auxiliaries" and part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. 

That may also explain why "propulsion" transformers can have problems.

In a naval setting, there would not likely be any "step-up" transformers between the main diesel-generators and the motors. The DG's would be rated at the propulsion motors voltage and you would only have the thyristors to transform AC to DC between the DG's and the Motors. Then you would have "step-down" transformers to provide shipboard service. That is the arrangements on the MCDV's for instance (as far as I know).


----------



## Stoker

Got this off a site from one of the engineers on board.

"Yes there are six transformers located within the High Voltage system. Two, one Port, one STBD are used to transform the voltage of 6.6kV to 440V for domestic distribution.
The other "four" transformers are used in the propulsion system. You are correct in saying we have four engines. Two engines either side, one straight line 8 cylinder and then a V12 engine. Both supplying the High Voltage system. From the Alternators to the H.V switchboard, power is then applied via a vacuum circuit breaker to a combined transformer, meaning two transformers ( one wired in a delta configuration and one wired in a star configuration) the power on the secondary is 2.2kV. This voltage is then applied to a converter to the azi motor then to the azi itself.( azimouth propulsion) Have I lost you yet?
So, we can lose 50% of our propulsion due to a defect in one transformer. I cant go into the specific nature of the defect due to its sensitive nature and bad press we are getting. Anyway if any of you have further questions, please drop us a line and i will try and answer them."

They also have Wartsila diesels, the same brand as on a MCDV so easily supportable by ISSC.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I assume the long paragraph is the quote from that engineer and refers to the Bay class.

The set up makes (some) sense, but it is different than the one we use on the MCDV's. 

For instance, while both ships use Warstila diesels,  on the MCDV's all four are of the same type.

Also, domestic power on the MCDV's is usually  provided by the motor alternator at sea, and usually by the general service DG in harbours without shore power - so there is no need for transformers for shipboard service. I think from a military point of view, our set up makes more sense, in that we can ultimately drag ourselves back to port with any single DG and single Azi-motor remaining functional.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I assume the long paragraph is the quote from that engineer and refers to the Bay class.
> 
> The set up makes (some) sense, but it is different than the one we use on the MCDV's.
> 
> For instance, while both ships use Warstila diesels,  on the MCDV's all four are of the same type.
> 
> Also, domestic power on the MCDV's is usually  provided by the motor alternator at sea, and usually by the general service DG in harbours without shore power - so there is no need for transformers for shipboard service. I think from a military point of view, our set up makes more sense, in that we can ultimately drag ourselves back to port with any single DG and single Azi-motor remaining functional.



Yes the quote is from what I assume is someone in the know, its amazing what you can find on the web.

You are dead on with the description of the MCDV propulsion. We do have a number of fairly large 440V/220V step down transformers on the ship and 110V lighting transformers as well.
It is a pretty robust system and as you pointed out you can single shaft as long as you have one shaftline and DA functioning. The Aux DA and Emerg DA are also Warstila brand.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> I had no idea that Lucas Electrical was still in business ? ;D



The Lucas trademark is currently owned by TRW Industries, of Livonia, Michigan. They produce under the name Elta Lighting.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Definitely off the shelf Chief.
> 
> The Bay class were built on an existing RO-RO design with minimal adaptation (Hence the Mexafloats instead of a well that can be flooded to offload landing crafts). They were built at their existing merchantman standards. This is why they were considered "auxiliaries" and part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
> 
> That may also explain why "propulsion" transformers can have problems.
> 
> In a naval setting, there would not likely be any "step-up" transformers between the main diesel-generators and the motors. The DG's would be rated at the propulsion motors voltage and you would only have the thyristors to transform AC to DC between the DG's and the Motors. Then you would have "step-down" transformers to provide shipboard service. That is the arrangements on the MCDV's for instance (as far as I know).



 :sarcasm: Some Brit shipbuilder probaly tried to hook them up to a positive ground  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Say what you will, I would have been chuffed to see one or two come here.  They fill a need that we cannot presently provide.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Say what you will, I would have been chuffed to see one or two come here.  They fill a need that we cannot presently provide.



Agreed, anything would be better than we have now. I think we missed out big time on the purchase.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Agreed, anything would be better than we have now. I think we missed out big time on the purchase.



The Admiral didn't when I took him to task on it during his town hall.


----------



## FoverF

Hogwash. 

Canada has a maritime amphibious warfare capability commensurate with its needs and role within the international community. 

It's just that major components of that capability involve repeated uses of the word 'zodiac' and 'frigate'.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The CCGS Henry Larson burnt out a transformer/electric motor on it's sea trials and had to wait in the harbour for 6 months while the factory made a replacement, German made as I recall.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Colin P said:
			
		

> The CCGS Henry Larson burnt out a transformer/electric motor on it's sea trials and had to wait in the harbour for 6 months while the factory made a replacement, German made as I recall.


That's the cost of having a vintage fleet.  When PRE went into refit in 04/05 she had to have the cargo pumps redone.  The housings were rotten.  New ones had to be custom made at a cost of $1.5M apiece.  Many of the companies who made components for the old girl went out of business decades ago.  When the Joy air compressor died and needed a new head, the only one that could be found anywhere was in a scrap yard in Northern Texas.  Thank god it was usable after a fashion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This was when she was brand new.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm sure that it's worse now then.


----------



## mad dog 2020

I know Canada did it with the tanks, and bought the Dutch Leopards as they had too many.
So why don't we lease to own an AOR or something similar. We missed two opportunities to provide aid. Haiti and Sandy.
In the current world fiscal situation must be a German or Brit ship available. 
Thought I read earlier that Australia jumped all over this.
At least one until we build our own.


----------



## creasy bair

Just found this in the Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1311250--navy-support-ships-join-f-35s-as-objects-of-criticism


----------



## Kirkhill

The lightness of being a consultant..... never having to say you're sorry and being allowed to survive with polka dot bow ties around your neck.  :


----------



## brihard

Why did I start reading the comments?  :facepalm:


----------



## CombatDoc

Brihard said:
			
		

> Why did I start reading the comments?  :facepalm:


I did it so that I could read strongly-held opinions from the poorly informed. ;D


----------



## q_1966

So are the new Joint Support Ships going to have a fuel replenishment capability, the first plans that got shot down by parliament didn't.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Someone with 'the power (aka Mod). you may want to merge this with:
http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/17282.0.html
...Oh my; I have become one of 'them'!

That said, I had a pretty interesting conv with someone this morning about this...though informal, I saw it as a priveledged platform but it will be interesting to see if some of what he said comes out in the wash.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Someone with 'the power (aka Mod). you may want to merge this with:
> http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/17282.0.html
> ...Oh my; I have become one of 'them'!


Not at all - ask and you shall receive.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Kirkhill

With respect to Canadian design and supply:

Damen Shipyards, previously Royal Scheldt, supplied the design for their STAN 4207 to Irving shipyards who built it as the MSPV for the Coast Guard.

Perhaps Damen could be induced to do the same for Washington Marine and supply them the plans for the Karel Doorman. 

It is either a Dutch ship or a German ship we are looking at.  The Spanish ships are Dutch designs as well.

Interesting to see that Flensburger has a new design they are touting as a JSS as well.  The Bridge is well forward, unlike the Berlin class oilers, and the fantail is extended into a proper flight deck.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The problem remains that we want a Billion dollars of capability...but only want to spend half that.  It is going to be tough to bridge that gap...


----------



## FutureSailor

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The problem remains that we want a Billion dollars of capability...but only want to spend half that.  It is going to be tough to bridge that gap...



Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to bridge that gap.. :-\ 

I could give a million reasons why we shouldn't half-ass the job, but it'd be pointless.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The problem remains that we want a Billion dollars of capability...but only want to spend half that.  It is going to be tough to bridge that gap...



Here is Combat proven design that will fit our budget.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/US_T2_WW2_tanker_Hat_Creek.JPG


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seems China has a fairly new JSS design

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2013-02/20/c_132181473.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchi_%28Qiandaohu%29_class


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think you are misreading the caption.

As the Chinese call their navy the People's Liberation Army's Navy, they call their seaman "troops". The 730 "troops" are not soldiers carried by the AOR (Which is all that the Weishanhou is), but rather the total number of "seaman" deployed as part of the the three ships flotilla.

So its not a JSS, and looking the characteristics over in your second link (Wiki), we can see that it is a design that is actually close to our current AOR's design.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You are correct, my bad.


----------



## AlexanderM

I think it is absolutely ludicrous that they are suggesting around 4 billion to replace the supply ships.  No way a Berlin Class costs 2 billion each and that's all we need.


----------



## Lineman

Brochure from BMT re: Aegir
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1057880/BMTDSL-Aegir-Brochure.pdf


----------



## Dissident

How much?


----------



## Lineman

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/02/fdr-maritime-at-sea-replenishment/

This site quotes 5 Aegir 18 for 320 million pounds which converts roughly to 500 million Canadian for just the vessels. I haven't found any other sites that mention price.


----------



## Kirkhill

Not sure how this Feb 2013 update got by us. 

Backgrounder from NSPS on JSS

Project Milestone	Description	Estimated Date
Design Selection 	Selection of an affordable JSS that demonstrates best value to Canada	Spring 2013
Production Design and Engineering	To mature the selected design to a production ready state	2014
Build Contract	To build and deliver the JSS	2015/2016
IOC	Initial Operational Capability of the first JSS	2018
FOC	Full operational capability with two JSS	2019

Estimated Life-Cycle Costs
Total indicative cost for two ships (incl. GST)	$2.6B
In-Service Support (30 yrs)	$1.9B
Personnel & Operating Costs (30 yrs)	$2.6B
TOTAL	$7.1B


Commentary from Redensign - I can't say it any better.


The only vessel I can think of that would cost close to 1.3 BCAD apiece are San Antonios and they have zero fleet support capability.


2.6 BCAD would buy 3 Doormans and 4 MARS AORs and leave change in the pocket.

None of the European Big Ship contenders (Berlin, Cantabria, AEGIRS, Mistral, Juan Carlos, Canberra, Doorman, de Witt, Rotterdam, Bay Class) none of them come close to 1.3 BCAD per copy.  

The only nation that spends those kind of dollars on ships is the US.

American models.  American results.


Edit to add:

2012 Power Point from Seaspan showing Ice Breaker, OOSV, OFSVs and JSS.  The JSS image shown seems to be the AEGIR-26 from BMT.

Total Work Package Estimate from SeaSpan: 3 BCAD for the complete suite of ships (Icebreaker and Coast Guard Vessels Included) vs 2.6 allocated for just the JSS, vs 4.1 estimate from PBO for just two JSS.

Edit: To modify the AEGIR link


----------



## Acer Syrup

Decision made. Waiting for minister announcement.


----------



## MilEME09

The AEGIR-26 seems capable however I'm worried not enough budget is allocated for them and things may be cut


----------



## CougarKing

A major update that also mentions the "Diefenbreaker"  :

National Post link



> OTTAWA — *The head of the Royal Canadian Navy delivered a poignant reminder Wednesday that the fate of Canada’s military is in industry’s hands as he announced that a design for new resupply ships has been chosen.*
> 
> The relationship between National Defence and defence companies has been turbulent recently following problems with a number of high-profile procurement projects, including the F-35 stealth fighter, armoured vehicles for the army and search-and-rescue aircraft.
> 
> Some of these issues have originated within National Defence and other federal departments, others have been industry’s fault. The result, however, has been the same: delays, cost overruns, and project cancellations or resets.
> 
> “If we are to collectively succeed, it will be because we enter into this great enterprise in a genuine spirit of strategic trust and co-operation, of frank and honest dialogue and respect,” he said.
> 
> Maddison appealed to industry representatives to look beyond their own interests and do the right thing for the country and Canada’s men and women in uniform.
> 
> “The Royal Canadian Navy has placed its future in a very real way into your hands,” he said. “The same applies to the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole.”
> 
> *He said this is particularly true for the government’s $35-billion national shipbuilding plan, which is emerging as one of the most complex military procurements in Canadian military history.
> 
> Maddison, who retires in just over three weeks, said the three major naval projects — new armed Arctic patrol ships; replacements for the navy’s aging destroyers and frigates; and new resupply vessels — are proceeding.
> 
> In particular, he revealed that a design had been chosen for the resupply vessels, also called joint support ships, in late April following an in-depth comparison between two options “based on capability, cost and risk.”
> 
> So the sequencing decision that’s going to be made is, you know, is JSS built first or is the polar (icebreaker) built first
> The joint support ships were the subject of a Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report at the end of February, which warned the project could cost more than $1 billion more than the government had budgeted. The government refuted the PBO’s findings.*
> 
> Maddison would not reveal what design had been selected for the vessels, nor could he say when the joint support ships will be built thanks to a scheduling conflict with the Coast Guard’s new polar icebreaker, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker.
> 
> *The joint support ships are desperately needed to replace the navy’s two 45-year-old resupply vessels, which were supposed to have been retired in 2012 and have become environmentally unsound and prohibitively expensive to maintain.*
> 
> But they are expected to be ready for construction at the same time in 2017 as the Canadian Coast Guard’s new polar-class icebreaker, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, and the Vancouver shipyard responsible for both projects can only handle one project at a time.
> 
> Maddison said there is an “urgent” need to replace both the resupply ships and Coast Guard’s existing heavy icebreaker, the 40-year-old CCGS Louis St-Laurent.
> 
> “So the sequencing decision that’s going to be made is, you know, is JSS built first or is the polar (icebreaker) built first,” he said. “So we’ll see how that goes.”
> 
> The navy commander could not say whether the navy would still be able to afford the new joint support ship design that had been chosen if construction was delayed in favour of the icebreaker.
> 
> He also warned that he did not see the navy’s existing resupply vessels lasting past the end of this decade, though he was confident National Defence would be able to “find a way to innovatively mitigate any capability gap that opens.”


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

I'm sure I'm not the only one watching all of this with a good amount of worry on if the project will follow through on the original line of intent.  Cost overruns and expensive plans and designs for these ships is not what we need, affordable and effective is.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yeah, IMHO we're screwed.


----------



## MilEME09

its to be expected though, its not like we regularly build these types of ships, we only build them when we need them, so we have no experience in actually costs vs theoretical costs. The entire project will be much higher I bet


----------



## The Bread Guy

Highlights mine....


> The Government of Canada today announced that a ship design for the Joint Support Ships being acquired for the Royal Canadian Navy has been selected, as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.
> 
> The selection of the Joint Support Ship design was conducted through a transparent assessment process, involving multiple government departments and third party advisors, based on three criteria: operational capability, affordability, and the cost and schedule risks associated with building the ship. The process was monitored by audit firm KPMG, as an independent third-party. First Marine International, a recognized firm of shipbuilding experts, provided ship construction costing expertise.
> 
> Two viable ship design options were commissioned for the Joint Support Ships: an existing design and a new design by BMT Fleet Technology. *Based on rigorous analysis and assessments by government officials and military experts, the proven, off-the-shelf ship design from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada was selected as the best design option for the Royal Canadian Navy and for Canadian taxpayers.*
> 
> *Canada will provide the design to Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd, to review in preparation for actual production. This design development work will be led by Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd.*, as part of the Joint Support Ship definition contract to be negotiated between Canada and the shipyard. *Once these steps are completed, Canada will acquire the required licensing for the ship design.* This license will enable Canada to use the ship design and build, operate, and maintain the Joint Support Ships – right in here in Canada. This effort will also enhance technical skills and knowledge among Canadian shipyard staff, to be leveraged as the shipyard builds the subsequent ships assigned under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.
> 
> The Joint Support Ships, which will be built by workers at Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd, will supply deployed Naval Task Groups with fuel, ammunition, spare parts, food and water. They will also provide a home base for maintenance and operation of helicopters, a limited sealift capability, and support to forces deployed ashore.


DND/CF Info-machine, 2 Jun 13


----------



## Lineman

Halifax Shipping News posts the Berlin Class AOR has been chosen as the new Joint Support Ship. However there are no links to the government announcement nor could I find any news on any Government of Canada Website
http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/

Link to Naval Technology.com
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/berlin-class-fleet-auxiliary-vessels/


----------



## PuckChaser

At least they're not reinventing the wheel here.


----------



## Kirkhill

The best part about this: a decision has been made.


----------



## Stoker

Lineman said:
			
		

> Halifax Shipping News posts the the Berlin Class AOR has been chosen as the new Joint Support Ship. However there are no links to the government announcement nor could I find any news on any Goverment of Canada Website
> http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/
> 
> Link to Naval Technology.com
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/berlin-class-fleet-auxiliary-vessels/



http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4821


----------



## Kirkhill

Not the best quality source, I admit, but the only one I could come up with:

$445,000,000 US (or about E340,000,000) for a Type 702 from New Wars.  New Wars appears to have lost its link to the original information.

445,000,000 US = 445,000,000 CAD

445,000,000 CAD x 1.15 to allow for 15% Made In Canada premium = Target cost in 2008 dollars = 512,000,000

512,000,000 CAD x 1.3 to allow for 2.7% per annum inflation between 2008 cost and 2018 delivery = 668,000,000 CAD Target cost in 2018 dollars.

Two vessels contracted = 2x 668,000,000 = 1,336,000,000 CAD

Acquisition Budget = 2,600,000,000 CAD

Budget Remainder = 1,224,000,000 CAD

Accountants and Vendors to justify variances as license fees and project management costs.

Anything left over to be spent on third ship and/or BHS.

op:

Edit to add a better trace on the price (from the comments on the New Wars site)



> Scott B. PERMALINK
> February 28, 2010 5:47 pm
> German Type 702 Berlin-class AOR : €330 million for 3rd ship (A1413 Bonn), i.e. about $445 million per unit.
> Source : German DOD press release, 18 December 2008
> “Die Kosten für die Beschaffung belaufen sich auf rund 330 Millionen Euro einschließlich der Herstellung der Versorgungsreife.”


----------



## Haletown

While admitting to not being that much of a ship guy, the Berlin class looks pleasing to this landlubber's eye

http://www.wrightys-warships.com/type-702-berlin-class.html

The shot showing the stern and starboard side is particularly nice.  I can only assume the ships's capacities and capabilities will do the job the RCN needs done.



This news will be well received in the Vancouver marine industry.  A number of  related/supporting programs and activities have been held in juggling mode waiting for a decision. I have a peripheral involvement in some marine apprentice training programs that are NSPS dependent and the funds can now start moving.


----------



## Kirkhill

More info on the vessel from Flensburger Schiffgebau - the yard that built the Berlins.

EGV Berlin Type 702

Another interesting product from Flensburger here  as well as the Strategic Ro-Ros built for MOD charter (as adjuncts to the RNs LPDs/LHDs and the RFAs LSD(A)s).


----------



## AlexanderM

If we build 2, there should definitely be money left over from the $2.6 billion budget.  These ships would typically cost about $500 million each to build.


----------



## Kirkhill

Alex:

I'm inclined to agree with you but we're not in a position to presuppose much of anything.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Alex:
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with you but we're not in a position to presuppose much of anything.


I know, as I wrote the above I was thinking, now watch them spend every dime.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I spent over 35 years in the military, the last quarter (plus) of that in NDHQ, including a stint on the staff of the two star who oversaw major capital acquisitions ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... I predict cost overruns before the project is completed.


----------



## AlexanderM

The only upside is, this side of the program is Seaspan and I have more confidence in Seaspan then in Irving.  I had a job interview with them several years ago.  I see their operation every day, notice the ships come and go.  They do seem to have their act together, although I've heard that they do have labor problems, meaning problems with the unions.  Although they should be able to put together a good deal with the unions for these big contracts, generally everyone's happy when there's lots of money around.


----------



## GAP

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I spent over 35 years in the military, the last quarter (plus) of that in NDHQ, including a stint on the staff of the two star who oversaw major capital acquisitions ...
> .
> .
> ... I predict cost overruns before the project is completedstarted.



TFTFY.....


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I spent over 35 years in the military, the last quarter (plus) of that in NDHQ, including a stint on the staff of the two star who oversaw major capital acquisitions ...
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> ... I predict cost overruns before the project is completed.



And in other news:

ERC predicts the sun will rise in the morning..... ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

While I'm pleased to see they've chosen a "tanker" instead of the damn silly swiss army knife JSS, that still leaves us with out any heavy lift with a Amphib or RORO.  I did ask the Admiral during my last town hall I attended as to WTF we didn't snap up one of the Bay class ships the RN was practically giving away as we need the heavy lift for humanitarian missions like Haiti if nothing else.  His answer didn't answer anything and was wholly unsatisfactory, so I went down and put it again to his face after the meeting.  He feels we don't need to worry as the EU is basically bankrupt and they'll be selling off others down the road at bargain basement prices.   :  I hate it when we squander excellent opportunities like that, politics be damned.


----------



## NavyShooter

After buying the Upholders, I'm sure the RCN is once bitten twice shy (particularly in front of the media) over buying used from the Brits...

Just my thoughts.

NS


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, you're right.  We got our fingers burned and righfully so on the new subs.  They saw us coming and we called ahead too.  But, the Bay class amphibs are another story.  They were a deal we should not have passed up.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Really?  

Perhaps you should ask the RAN how happy they are with the "deal" they got on their Bay Class.

Hint- electrical problems, again.


----------



## Monsoon

The best part about the choice of the Berlin class is that since it's a proven off-the-shelf design, Vancouver Shipyards will likely begin construction of the JSS before the new-design CGG icebreaker. That means delivery on-schedule (barring other intervening factors).


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> Perhaps you should ask the RAN how happy they are with the "deal" they got on their Bay Class.
> 
> Hint- electrical problems, again.



Self-caused electrical problems. For once that's not he fault of the UK.


----------



## jollyjacktar

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> Perhaps you should ask the RAN how happy they are with the "deal" they got on their Bay Class.
> 
> Hint- electrical problems, again.



The problems they experienced are nothing compared to what we experienced with the subs.  I imagine it was frustrating at the time to be sure, but has since been corrected and the ship is operational.  Overall I would think they were happy with the deal.  I'll stick with my assertion that we missed the boat, litterally.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As I mention to people, those subs sat along the wall for a long time before we bought them, never a great idea in any type of vessel and I suspect even worse with a complex vessel like a sub. The story would have been different had we bought them when first offered.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> The story would have been different had we bought them when first offered.



Not really. The issues with the boats go far beyond neglect while they were along the wall.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Self-caused electrical problems. For once that's not he fault of the UK.



Ahh- seen.  The RAN Officer I spoke to, neglected to mention the "self-caused" part.

Still, it would have politically unthinkable to buy another used RN vessel.  Any problems (and there are always problems) would have landed the gov't on the editorial pages and would have incurred the wrath of the ship-building industry and BC.


----------



## Good2Golf

Out of interest, how was the transformer insulation failure on Largs Bay/Choules the RAN's fault?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Their version of Sea Training shut down the transformer cooling system, against the advice of the RN officer assisting. The idea was to test the crews reaction to the backup system taking over.

The problem was that there was no backup system.....


----------



## Good2Golf

Ah, seen.  Thanks DS.


----------



## Jacky Tar

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Their version of Sea Training shut down the transformer cooling system, against the advice of the RN officer assisting. The idea was to test the crews reaction to the backup system taking over.
> 
> The problem was that there was no backup system.....



You'd like to think Sea Trg would actually listen to the section heads and CHODs about systems and capabilities, wouldn't you?


----------



## ironduke57

And shouldn´t something like that be written in some manual? Which would make this a clear "RTFM!!!!11!1111" moment. :facepalm:

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Around 2001/2002, the STS CERA ordered the standby air turbines on the port MLO pumps disabled, the alternate pump removed from 'standby' and the on line MLO pump to be shut down on board TOR against the advice of the ship's IMCS Tech. Before he (IMCS Tech) could do anything, it was done. Thank God the watch reacted as they should and stopped shafts very quickly. It seems there was a bit of residual pressure though several bearings in the cross connect gearbox got wiped. Oddly enough, that same Chief was posted to TOR a few years later as the Cox'n. Nothing ever came of it though I believe the IMCS Tech had his pee-pee slapped.You can have all the orders, regs, SOPs, EOTIs...etc but sometimes people feel they are above all that. I suspect if the same thing happened today though, that STS member would at the very least be removed from staff and possibly even be convinced to 'retire' early. I doubt a summary investigation would ensue and if it did, I am not sure where it would go.


----------



## Lineman

I know CASR is not everyone's favourite site but some capacity/capability comparisons can be found at the bottom of the page.
http://casrca.nationprotect.net/bg-navy-jss-joint-support-ship-aor.htm


----------



## RC

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> The best part about the choice of the Berlin class is that since it's a proven off-the-shelf design, Vancouver Shipyards will likely begin construction of the JSS before the new-design CGG icebreaker. That means delivery on-schedule (barring other intervening factors).



Don't get your hopes up on that.  Given how far the Berlin class is from meeting the requirements, they will likely attempt to modify it, not to mention that the regulatory regime under which it was built is long out of date.  In my experience, it's quicker, cheaper, and easier to start from a blank sheet or from a decent parent form.  I expect that choosing this design will require at least as much time as the BMT design; more if the requirements can't be fit into the existing hull and it takes them time to determine that.

The idea that buying an off the shelf design is cheap and easy is an idea promulgated by people who know little about ship building and its ever shifting regulatory environment.

I would peg the Polar icebreaker design as being at least a year ahead of the JSS design with very little chance of JSS catching up.  I'm not sure what role design readiness will ultimately play in the sequencing decision, but this decision doesn't help.   I expect the JSS design contract will still be under negotiation when the Polar is ready for functional design.  That said there's a reasonable chance that the schedules for ofsv and OOSV make the difference irrelevant to the overall decision.

It could still go either way.


----------



## Monsoon

RV said:
			
		

> I would peg the Polar icebreaker design as being at least a year ahead of the JSS design with very little chance of JSS catching up.  I'm not sure what role design readiness will ultimately play in the sequencing decision, but this decision doesn't help.   I expect the JSS design contract will still be under negotiation when the Polar is ready for functional design.  That said there's a reasonable chance that the schedules for ofsv and OOSV make the difference irrelevant to the overall decision.


The sequencing has less to do with the readiness of the designs (and I have no visibility on the CCG icebreaker, except that I suspect the CCG is no faster at designing from scratch than the RCN) than on the amount of delay risk that the shipyard is prepared to assume. Once the Berlin license is procured, the exact schedule will be known with very little risk; even if the CCG icebreaker design is close to completion, the operational risk will still be huge at the construction commencement.

I agree it could still go either way, but I assess that the RCN is nosing ahead in the race with this decision.


----------



## Kirkhill

GAP said:
			
		

> TFTFY.....





> Don't get your hopes up on that.  Given how far the Berlin class is from meeting the requirements, they will likely attempt to modify it, not to mention that the regulatory regime under which it was built is long out of date.  In my experience, it's quicker, cheaper, and easier to start from a blank sheet or from a decent parent form.  I expect that choosing this design will require at least as much time as the BMT design; more if the requirements can't be fit into the existing hull and it takes them time to determine that.
> 
> The idea that buying an off the shelf design is cheap and easy is an idea promulgated by people who know little about ship building and its ever shifting regulatory environment.



GAP Wins.......


----------



## HB_Pencil

RV said:
			
		

> Don't get your hopes up on that.  Given how far the Berlin class is from meeting the requirements, they will likely attempt to modify it, not to mention that the regulatory regime under which it was built is long out of date.  In my experience, it's quicker, cheaper, and easier to start from a blank sheet or from a decent parent form.  I expect that choosing this design will require at least as much time as the BMT design; more if the requirements can't be fit into the existing hull and it takes them time to determine that.
> 
> The idea that buying an off the shelf design is cheap and easy is an idea promulgated by people who know little about ship building and its ever shifting regulatory environment.



Hi there. I'm not as familiar with shipbuilding as other areas of defence procurement, but what would you suggest are key factors behind cost overruns/delays and below specification performance in ship building, and how do we avoid them? In aerospace I'd suggest complexity and immature technological and manufacturing knowledge as being major factors behind failures in that sector. If you were attempt to produce a start a domestic production of a preexisting design in aerospace, final assembly isn't really the issue... cost increases are significant, but not as much as trying to replicate all of the tier two and below suppliers. IS that similar for ships, or is more of the cost found in the ship's actual construction?


Also, is there an incongruence between building a ship for military and civil purposes? How difficult a transition is it for a civil shipyard. I now we spent several hundred million into upgrades, but is that because of the military requirements or the scale of the ship seaspan must build.  Granted an jss is probably the least demanding capability we're building, but what are the issues they must deal with which are different from civil manufacturing? 




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I spent over 35 years in the military, the last quarter (plus) of that in NDHQ, including a stint on the staff of the two star who oversaw major capital acquisitions ...
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> ... I predict cost overruns before the project is completed.



In the past 30 years, several defence writers have noted that in the United States only two major aerospace projects have come on budget, schedule and performance... and only one was a newly developed capability (of sorts)... the EA-18G growler. So its a pretty safe bet to say that any major capital acquisition there will be a cost overrun.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> More info on the vessel from Flensburger Schiffgebau - the yard that built the Berlins.
> 
> EGV Berlin Type 702
> 
> Another interesting product from Flensburger here  as well as the Strategic Ro-Ros built for MOD charter (as adjuncts to the RNs LPDs/LHDs and the RFAs LSD(A)s).


And what appears to be some imagery from the company, attached.


----------



## Lineman

Some visual differences from the image of the Berlin displayed from the Navy Technology site to the ones above are : only one large crane, an addition of 2 landing craft (not sure of the size), a different RAS rigs configuration, and other minor things like life boats etc. I'm sure there's been some tweeking of the original design but most of it I suspect would be in the controls, coms, and radars. From what I've been able to read it is a much more capable ship than the Aegir26 offered by BMT.


----------



## Monsoon

Lineman said:
			
		

> Some visual differences from the image of the Berlin displayed from the Navy Technology site to the ones above are : only one large crane, an addition of 2 landing craft (not sure of the size), a different RAS rigs configuration, and other minor things like life boats etc. I'm sure there's been some tweeking of the original design but most of it I suspect would be in the controls, coms, and radars. From what I've been able to read it is a much more capable ship than the Aegir26 offered by BMT.


There also apear to be CWIS mounts fore and aft, presumably to replace the need for the 27mm guns and the guys-running-around-on-deck-with-Stingers point air defence on the original.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hmm well I suppose this is one way to deal with timelines..........

Not sure how it's going to help them build up capacity to design their own.

    
_Inside China: Carrier’s engineers worked to death


At least 15 Chinese were worked to death in response to leaders' orders to finish refurbishing the Liaoning, China's first aircraft carrier. A senior military engineer revealed the deaths in noting that the work was finished far ahead of schedule.

Wang Zhiguo, a systems engineer for the Liaoning project, disclosed the deaths in discussing statistics on the refurbishment in the May 31 online edition of China Youth Daily.

"The refurbishing project involved too much work to be done and we were given a very tight deadline, which caused the deaths of my colleagues," Mr. Wang said, expressing anguish over the loss.

He elaborated that the order came from Beijing that the carrier must be rebuilt in 30 months. But the home port for the carrier's Ukraine-built shell was at Dalian in frigid northeastern China.

"We encountered the coldest freeze in 50 years, and many civic engineering projects involving the refurbishment were greatly affected by the cold weather, wasting a lot of time," Mr. Wang said.

In the end, political leaders in Beijing refused to yield on extending the deadline, and all work was completed in 15 months.

The Liaoning was commissioned in September. Top leaders, including President Hu Jintao, attended the event and delivered commissar-style speeches.

The Liaoning was left to conduct tests and repairs. On Nov. 25, Luo Yang, the 51-year-old project manager in charge of the Liaoning's aviation capability, had a massive heart attack aboard the ship and died soon afterward. The Chinese Communist Party Central Committee made Mr. Luo a national martyr and a model worker to be emulated.

No other deaths resulting from excessive work were announced before Mr. Wang's interview.

China is known for making draconian demands on its people to achieve political objectives.

The most infamous was Mao Zedong's "great leap forward" during the late 1950s, when Mao demanded that the entire nation catch up to levels of industrial output with Great Britain within 15 years. As a result, at least 35 million people starved to death as the result of a man-made famine.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/13/inside-china-carriers-engineers-worked-to-death/#ixzz2WDClOmzr
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
_


----------



## jollyjacktar

Not too much fear of Irving's workers being worked to death (speed-wise) to successfully meet and deliver a ship to a customer...


----------



## MilEME09

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not too much fear of Irving's workers being worked to death (speed-wise) to successfully meet and deliver a ship to a customer...



instead they will be delivered late and over budget..........


----------



## George Wallace

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> instead they will be delivered late and over budget..........



Historically, you are correct.  

The Government should adopt some of the methods of contract writing some organizations are now writing.  If you complete project early, you earn a bonus; and if you complete the project late, you are 'fined' for the overtime.  This may make our contractors a little more 'fiscally responsible' in fulfilling the projects they have been awarded.


----------



## Monsoon

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Historically, you are correct.


What history are you referring to? The last ships built for the navy from scratch were delivered early and under budget (by Irving).

What we seem to have trouble with are "Canadianizations" of existing platforms (like subs and Cyclones).


----------



## NavyShooter

I took a ship into ISL for a docking work period in 2007.

We had 3 of 4 DG's functioning, but needing maintenance.  Somehow, if memory serves me correctly, we came out with 1 functioning in emergency run only.

They also let our HMS transducer freeze....damaged just shy of 10% of the array....the fiber-optic cable that took 4 months to fix after they broke it (and actually admitted to it!) 

I have faith that the ships built at ISI will continue to be completed to such an outstanding standard as this, and that we'll take them....regardless of the condition, and try to fix them ourselves instead of demanding that they be made right.

Just my thoughts.

NS


----------



## Stoker

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> What history are you referring to? The last ships built for the navy from scratch were delivered early and under budget (by Irving).
> 
> What we seem to have trouble with are "Canadianizations" of existing platforms (like subs and Cyclones).



I know the KINGSTON class (HMCS KINGSTON) on acceptance trials had a significant part of the propulsion control system jumpered out for it to work. In fact many systems still didn't work right several years later.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I've been on several ships that have come out of Irving's refits.  My current one was delayed by months and we had the TP in Jan.  Things like discovering a three inch stud inserted into the BW piping (not an accident), expandable foam put into scuppers so drains won't work (not an accident) valves put in backwards, or the guts taken out, I could go on but I won't.  

We don't sail until the Fall for RRI, now to be fair, some of the work delay is the result of the LM and L3 portions of the FELEX.  But I have always been and continue to remain totally underwhelmed by Irving and their work.  It's only the hatchet job that Port Weller did on ATH that makes Irving look like a first class yard by comparison.  They are allowed to get away with shoddy work time and time again.  They are never held to account.  I'm just tickled pink that they're using a great hunk of the tax dollars that Dexter threw at them to build a parking garage.  Yup, lots of ship related work there   :


----------



## Edward Campbell

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Edmonton Sun_, is a report on the scheduling problems:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/06/22/canadas-navy-not-shipshape


> Canada's navy not shipshape
> 
> BY SIMON KENT, TORONTO SUN
> 
> FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, JUNE 22, 2013
> 
> TORONTO - Ready, set, don’t do anything.
> 
> A fortnight ago the federal government announced it was a step closer to finalizing a multi-billion-dollar deal for two new Royal Canadian Navy supply ships.
> 
> The vessels will be built at a North Vancouver shipyard and based on an existing German design.
> 
> The choice of the 20,000-ton Berlin-class marks the latest step in a plodding selection process that began back in 2004.
> 
> Since then there have been proposals and counter-proposals for a Joint Supply Ship (JSS) that was initially to be designed locally.
> 
> Three JSS vessels were envisioned, with a contract to be awarded in 2008, the maiden ship delivered in 2012 and the project completed in 2016.
> 
> The government allocated $2.1 billion to design, develop and acquire the trio.
> 
> In 2009, however, Ottawa found that the three ships would not fit within the initial $2.1 billion budget estimate. In response, the number of ships was reduced to two, delivery dates pushed out (again) and requirements changed.
> 
> The new budget was set at $2.6 billion in fixed nominal dollars. Now some critics see the final cost doubling due to cumulative delays in design selection.
> 
> Nobody should expect the designated builder Seaspan Marine Corp. to start cutting steel for the project anytime soon.
> 
> Before any work can begin, the Berlin-class design must be optimized for Seaspan’s specific yard and, because the shipyard’s current upgrade work is only about 25% done, it will still be several years at least before the first keel is laid. Once construction begins, it will take about 36 months to build the first ship.
> 
> There is also one other problem to solve.
> 
> A decision is needed on whether or not the Coast Guard’s long-planned new polar icebreaker will be built first at the same site.
> 
> The icebreaker CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent is set to retire in 2017, and will be replaced by a new Polar class icebreaker CCGS John G. Diefenbaker.
> 
> Meanwhile, the two RCN ships the new class will replace just keep getting older.
> 
> Both HMCS Protecteur and HMCS Preserver will be 50 years old (at least) by the time they head for the breakers. That would qualify them for museum status in most countries around the world.
> 
> During their lifetime they have contributed to the 1991 Gulf War and humanitarian aid missions in Florida and the Bahamas, peace-making off Somalia and East Timor and have been poised for the evacuation of non-combatants from Haiti.
> 
> The ships are also single-hulled which is in contravention of most international environmental standards and limits the number of ports that will accept them.
> 
> The RCN is acutely aware of operational limitations and is busy talking up the project.
> 
> National Defence and the Canadian Forces say that the new Berlin-class ships should “provide a home base for maintenance and operation of helicopters, a limited sealift capability, and support to forces deployed ashore.”
> 
> Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, the now-retired commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, told a defence industry conference in Ottawa that the design had been selected “following a thorough, third-party-validated process, during which two designs were compared in depth based on capability, cost and risk.”
> 
> Clearly he is a fan but at some stage a keel will need to be laid and works begin. Even the most optimistic naval planner admits Ottawa is still years away from signing a detailed build contract.
> 
> Then there is the rest of the RCN fleet.
> 
> Canada’s Iroquois-class destroyers, our principal naval warships, are on average 40 years old. They are due for retirement/replacement.
> 
> The Halifax-class frigates are due for retirement/replacement starting in 2025.
> 
> Therefore, just to maintain the navy at its present operational capacity, Canada needs to build 15 new warships while completing the support ships and rebuilding the Coast Guard’s fleet of icebreakers at a time when the world is turning its attention to increasing sea traffic through the Northwest Passage.
> 
> Clearly the time for talking has ended. It remains to be seen if Ottawa is ready to stop talking and start building.




It may be clear to Simon Kent that " the time for talking has ended" and it is time to "start building," but, as he suggests, Ottawa is a lot better at talking than doing. Finance Minister Flaherty's top priority is balancing the budget in time for the 2015 general election. As we have all noted elsewhere, absent increased revenues (renewed economic growth or higher taxes), the only way to balance a budget is to delay even necessary spending.


----------



## chrisf

The CCGS Louis S St. Laurent is already officially going to be around longer than 2017... no new official date, but they've stopped saying 2017... she'll be pushing 60 at least when she's done.


----------



## Kirkhill

It may indeed be time to start building.... but where and with what?

As Kent notes first we have to build the yards.....


Venice built her Arsenal before she built her fleet.
Henry VIII built his dockyards before the RN.

Movement is happening.  Pugh's wheel is turning. Progress is being made.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Movement is happening.  Pugh's wheel is turning. Progress is being made.


You could have fooled me.  At least from the vantage point I've been viewing from the past 14 years.


----------



## ironduke57

Well TKMS would probably be happy to build one or both JSS for you.  

Regards,
ironduke57 ;D


----------



## a_majoor

A bit of a tangent, but Japan is building new "helicopter destroyers". The interesting part in the stats is the number of troops and vehicles that can be deployed aboard, and ferried ashore via helicopter. Rearranging the interior would probably allow the ship to be used as a LHD, and a very fast thinking and acting government *could* attempt to join the program while the ships are being built in order to achieve economies of scale and perhaps receprocity from Japan in other military, commercial or diplomatic ventures...

This ship is a large step beyond the  Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/08/japan-has-unveiled-its-helicopter.html



> *Japan has unveiled its helicopter aircraft carrier and continues an Aircraft carrier arms race in the Pacific*
> 
> Japan on Tuesday unveiled its biggest warship since World War II, a huge flat-top destroyer that has raised eyebrows in China and elsewhere because it bears a strong resemblance to a conventional aircraft carrier.
> 
> JDS Izumo (DDH-183) is a helicopter carrier (officially classified by Japan as a helicopter destroyer) and the lead ship in the Izumo-class of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force.
> 
> Though able to carry up to 14 helicopters, critics including China argue it could be modified to use as a more standard aircraft carrier.
> 
> It has the following displacement and length
> 
> 19,500 long tons (19,800 t) standard
> 27,000 long tons (27,000 t) full load
> 248 meters long (814 ft)
> 
> It has helicopters now but it would be relatively easy to get vertical take off jets. The US would love to sell Japan some F35Bs.
> 
> For other operations, 400 troops and fifty 3.5 ton trucks (or equivalent equipment) can also be carried.
> 
> It cost 113.9 billion yen (for construction of first unit to date). The second helicopter carrier will be done in 2015. Each of the ships then takes two years to fully commission.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Would be great and be excellent forward thinking, I agree.  

But, as I stated a couple of years ago on this topic, during a town hall meeting with the Admiral I put it to him as to why we didn't snap up one of the Bay class vessels being virtually given away by the UK as they'd be perfect for humanitarian missions such as Katrina, Haiti etc.  He said that we had bigger fish to fry and get on line such as AOPS and AOR replacements.  Maybe some day we could think about it and at any rate the EU is broke and will be selling off family heirlooms one day and we could go to the estate sale then.  Hell, right now we are having a hard time budgeting for fuel.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if they would lease us a support ship till ours get finished?


----------



## Kirkhill

You could probably lease the services of the RFA entire.


----------



## Kirkhill

New Stuff.

The Dutch are flogging the ship we wanted to build 20 years ago - The Karel Doormann - a combination of AOR and LPH.












The way I see it this is a threefer.

1 - Cheap and Immediate AOR

2 - Cheap and Immediate BHS 

3 - Allows Icebreaker to move up the production line

Canada to buy it, sell it to Washington Marine and lease it back with In Service Support.



> Defence to Sell Off Biggest Navy Ship Before It Is Finished
> 
> 
> (Source: Dutch News; published September 5, 2013)
> 
> 
> 
> THE HAGUE --- The defence ministry has to find over 300 million euros of extra savings. The Dutch navy's biggest vessel, currently being built n Vlissingen will be sold before it is commissioned, Trouw newspaper reported Wednesday.
> 
> The scrapping of the logistics support ship, which was to be the biggest and tallest ship in the Dutch navy, is part of a 330 million euro pruning operation, according to the paper. Where the navy gives up a ship, an entire battalion will be scrapped in the army.
> 
> The air force will also have to make do with six or seven fewer F16 fighter aircraft. At the same time, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft is being chosen as the successor to this fleet. The number of JSFs will depend on the price. A ceiling of 4 billion euros will apply to the total order.
> 
> These measures, to be announced on Prince's Day (17 September), are on top of the 1 billion euros in cutbacks that Defence had already been saddled with earlier. As part of this, 12,000 jobs will be lost, mostly in the higher echelons.
> 
> According to Trouw, while the Karel Doorman (which will cost over 400 million euros), is being sold, at the same time, a new but smaller and cheaper supply ship will be built. HMS Amsterdam (commissioned in 1995), now sailing in the Caribbean, will also have to remain in service longer than planned.
> 
> The navy will also have to sacrifice a company, which involves 180 to 200 people. Which battalion will be scrapped is not yet clear. It could be one of the four armoured infantry battalions, possibly one of the two stationed in Havelte.
> 
> The scrapping of a battalion costs between 600 and 650 jobs. Additionally, the pruning of support services is to yield savings of 40 million euros.



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/147732/dutch-to-sell-off-biggest-ship-in-latest-round-of-budget-cuts.html


----------



## ringo

Canada would be wise to snap this ship up, HMCS Vimy Ridge or HMCS Juno Beach perhaps?


----------



## The_Dictat

Oh, yes... it would be able to support the fleet for a while until the canadianized Berlin-class are ready. It would be great for disaster relief. I am just worried about compatibility with our current systems and how much it would cost to canadianize.

Please, please, please...


----------



## tomydoom

ringo said:
			
		

> Canada would be wise to snap this ship up, HMCS Vimy Ridge or HMCS Juno Beach perhaps?



How about the HMCS Battle of Groningen or HMCS Groningen, honour a major World War 2 victory by the Canadian Army, and being a Dutch city, a way to thank those good folks for cutting us a deal.


----------



## Edward Campbell

tomydoom said:
			
		

> How about the HMCS Battle of Groningen or HMCS Groningen, honour a major World War 2 victory by the Canadian Army, and being a Dutch city, a way to thank those good folks for cutting us a deal.




How about some addresses The_Dictat's excellent point about the costs of making it _Canadian_; would it still be worth it?


----------



## Underway

Right off the bat the hotel services would need to have all their wiring changed.  Every plug, light bulb and beer machine would be a problem.  It is still built to NATO standard power so it shouldn't be to horrible (*subs cough cough).  I also don't know how far along they are with the build of it.  They certainly are not at the point where sensors and weapons go into it.  It was supposed to be commissioned in 2014 and usually a ship has to be able to move under her own power or a certain distance along before you commission.  

You could easily slap on cheaper sensors and weapons (as we are wont to do with such a ship).  But the sea basing capability is so attractive to the CF.  And then there are the political ramifications of such a move.  It could cause problems or be a benefit.  The Gov't might be able to sell it as a fix, getting something the navy wants/needs if you add it on top of current expenditures.  If it comes out of the JSS budget though huge political cost.

And as its capability is different than the Berlin Class it would have a use after those were built.

Also the cost will be around $600 million Canadian to purchase IMHO.  

*edit - additions to comments*


----------



## Dissident

Don't we usually turn in about half to a billion a year from our budget? Get all the paperwork ready then comes March 31st, just before year end, BOOM, new ship and we hit our target budget. Win-win. Long live March madness.

(I know, I know, it's not that easy, but one can dream.)


----------



## Infanteer

Just through it under the FPL.


----------



## jollyjacktar

In so many ways it makes good sense to obtain it, which is precisely why we won't.


----------



## Kirkhill

Keep all the gear exactly as is and find out how you like the Thales solution.

Wrt the power stock up on travel power adapters

Wrt the beer machines learn to appreciate Heineken

As for a name

Bergen op Zoom


----------



## Haletown

Get the PM to say if only we  had the proper ships we could send humanitarian relief to the suffering children of Syria. 

Then leak the story about the  availability of  the ship and let CBC beat up the government about buying it.

Then we could get it.


----------



## mad dog 2020

Could you just imagine this platforms capabilities for something like another Haiti instead of a 280 and a frigate. Seeing our more appropriate vessel was in for service. 
Yes, I agree it would take the load off and allow another project to move to the front of the line!


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Haletown said:
			
		

> Get the PM to say if only we  had the proper ships we could send humanitarian relief to the suffering children of Syria.
> 
> Then leak the story about the  availability of  the ship and let CBC beat up the government about buying it.
> 
> Then we could get it.



You're hired!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You could buy this one and then commission the yard here to build the 2nd one and do some final refit/conversions on the new one. The time to finish it would be good as it will allow the crew to work up to prepare for it. Even if it came with only the barest of navigational equipment and the other stuff fitted here. I'm sure we can duct tape on some 3"50's  ;D


----------



## mad dog 2020

I like this so much, I sent the article and picture to my MP.  We can't wait for the full meal deal of ships to be built as some will not survive or be too expensive to extend the shelf life?
This is like buying a new car. You make the move when the old one costs more to maintain than a car payment.
Also remember with those Action Plan Commercial: investing in double hulled tankers for the sake of the environment. 
Start with right in your own fleet and practise what you preach!


----------



## sunrayRnfldR

There is however one drawback to the Karel Doorman-she is not reinforced for navigation in ice. Otherwise she would be a wonderful addition to the fleet and Canadian capabilities, particularly in the Caribbean, Africa, South-west Pacific and like waters. I would name her HMCS Walchern Island in memory of a difficult amphibious and land assault on that island in Holland late in World War II.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> Right off the bat the hotel services would need to have all their wiring changed.  Every plug, light bulb and beer machine would be a problem.  It is still built to NATO standard power so it shouldn't be to horrible (*subs cough cough).  I also don't know how far along they are with the build of it.  They certainly are not at the point where sensors and weapons go into it.  It was supposed to be commissioned in 2014 and usually a ship has to be able to move under her own power or a certain distance along before you commission.
> 
> You could easily slap on cheaper sensors and weapons (as we are wont to do with such a ship).  But the sea basing capability is so attractive to the CF.  And then there are the political ramifications of such a move.  It could cause problems or be a benefit.  The Gov't might be able to sell it as a fix, getting something the navy wants/needs if you add it on top of current expenditures.  If it comes out of the JSS budget though huge political cost.
> 
> And as its capability is different than the Berlin Class it would have a use after those were built.
> 
> Also the cost will be around $600 million Canadian to purchase IMHO.
> 
> *edit - additions to comments*



As you are going from 240 to 110, I suspect it won't be that hard. Going the other way would be pricey


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> As you are going from 240 to 110, I suspect it won't be that hard. Going the other way would be pricey



Agreed, all ships run on NATO standard power, so much of the machinery and systems already are equivalent.  As I said its mostly the hotel services that need to be on Canadian power.  I really wonder how far along they are with instillation of the electrical and electronic systems.  Its cheaper and easier to just slap on your own stuff than to rip out and replace.  Wow getting this thing would be a dream.  Horizon 2050 specifically states that an amphibious ship of some sort is a future requirement due to the strategic impact that it provides.

Events like Haiti, US hurricanes, tsunami's, etc... seabasing capability for forces ashore anywhere for any event, Somalia deployment situations, special forces basing, avoiding GTS Katie repeats.  So much more can be done with this ship vice the Berlins.  

Even better the dutch use leopard tanks so we know this vessel can carry/fit them (probably the same leopards we bought off the dutch in the first place!).  Carrying Chinooks or the "commando" version of the cyclones (should they ever get built).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I am no big expert in Naval engineering, but I can't see wiring designed for 230 v. not be able to handle 115 v. All you have to do then is provide a small step down transformer just before each sub panel that services "hotel" functions, change that panel for a 115v. one and replace the various receptacles associated with it. Can't be that bad.

As for the rest: First, we already operate Thales equipment: The SMART-S that we are fitting on the HALs, not to mention the 501/502 radars on the IROs. Second, contrary to the Upholders, we would be getting a brand new ship - so no issue of rusted/degraded/seized/corroded parts from siting at the dock with improper precaution. Similarly, no issue here of fitting new torpedo tubes and associated combat system, which was a HUGE undertaking with the UK subs.

I would even say keep her after we get the Berlin's - especially if we only get two. The Karel Doorman is not a full AOR like the Berlin's, but she would be much better than nothing on a coast while one of the Berlin is unavailable. When both AOR's are available, then she could concentrate on the joint aspect of her function: train special forces or others in landing ops, provide support at sea for disaster relief, etc.

I am wiling to bet that after a short while, we would find her so damn useful that voices in Ottawa would clamour for acquiring one more, just like the ones heard right now for acquiring one more C-17.


----------



## GAP

230V carries less amperage for the same power usage as 115v. ergo...smaller diameter wire "can" be used. Probably isn't but that's the theory behind using a higher voltage.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am no big expert in Naval engineering, but I can't see wiring designed for 230 v. not be able to handle 115 v. All you have to do then is provide a small step down transformer just before each sub panel that services "hotel" functions, change that panel for a 115v. one and replace the various receptacles associated with it. Can't be that bad.
> 
> As for the rest: First, we already operate Thales equipment: The SMART-S that we are fitting on the HALs, not to mention the 501/502 radars on the IROs. Second, contrary to the Upholders, we would be getting a brand new ship - so no issue of rusted/degraded/seized/corroded parts from siting at the dock with improper precaution. Similarly, no issue here of fitting new torpedo tubes and associated combat system, which was a HUGE undertaking with the UK subs.
> 
> I would even say keep her after we get the Berlin's - especially if we only get two. The Karel Doorman is not a full AOR like the Berlin's, but she would be much better than nothing on a coast while one of the Berlin is unavailable. When both AOR's are available, then she could concentrate on the joint aspect of her function: train special forces or others in landing ops, provide support at sea for disaster relief, etc.
> 
> I am wiling to bet that after a short while, we would find her so damn useful that voices in Ottawa would clamour for acquiring one more, just like the ones heard right now for acquiring one more C-17.



I completely agree with everything you said here.  The Karel Doorman would give the CAF a sealift, seabasing and logistics over the shore capability that we currently do not have and IMHO desperately need.  And it would back up the Berlins while they did their refits etc... as you stated.


----------



## Infanteer

It doesn't look like it can accommodate many troops, so its value as an amphib seems limited.  How about plunking ISOs down for temporary troop berths?


----------



## Kirkhill

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It doesn't look like it can accommodate many troops, so its value as an amphib seems limited.  How about plunking ISOs down for temporary troop berths?



2000 lane-meters of RoRo deck = 4000 m2 of deck 

Question is how many troops do you want to keep on station for how long?  Are they going to stay aboard or just pass through?


----------



## Kirkhill

Related:  How many men can you stow in 4000 m2 of deck if you pack them in like this?







Or this?


----------



## Haletown

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Related:  How many men can you stow in 4000 m2 of deck if you pack them in like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this?



Well the First Class berths look marvellous but I bet the Baggage Class is more like an Air Canada flight.


----------



## Kirkhill

And in looking further at this I stumbled across this article and video about Afloat Forward Staging Base (Interim) Ponce  - Previously LPD-15 Ponce.

Amongst other things she is apparently the first ship to mount a Laser Weapons System.

She has also downsized her crew and transitioned from Sailors to Mariners.


----------



## Infanteer

The bunks on a US LPD aren't much bigger.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 2000 lane-meters of RoRo deck = 4000 m2 of deck
> 
> Question is how many troops do you want to keep on station for how long?  Are they going to stay aboard or just pass through?



You'll want to change some of that to m3 as you stack them on top of each other.   ;D  Frankly I haven't read anything that says how many troops she's supposed to carry but the numbers for crew (160 + 140) are listed regarding core crew and probably air det.  However I have looked around and found a reference that states she was designed to carry 300 troops.  So that's a pretty good complement of troops and makes sense looking at the dimensions etc... Also considering how and what you want to drop off that works IMHO.  The Chinooks drop off two platoons light, outer cordon the area, and then the two LCU's drop off 4 LAV's at and away you go...


----------



## Kirkhill

> The navy is being forced to sell its largest ship, the Karel Doorman, which is still under construction.
> The vessel will first be taken into service to increase its market value. ...



Interesting comment from the editor of defense-aerospace


----------



## Electric Ian

I highly doubt we'll see any new JSS, due to budget constraints and political interference in the processes. If the helicopters are any indication of what the future is for these ships, your grandchildren will be on an indexed pension before you see them.  I know they want to revitalize the ship building industry here in Canada, but really, at what cost? We all know the price balloons as does the delivery times when Canadian Industry is the sole provider without competition. Hyundai heavy industries could pump out a fully spec'd double hulled tanker in less than a year, and at probably at half the cost.  The Preserver is WELL past its' expiry date, single hulled steamships were obsolete 20 years ago, and its only the cost of new ones that kept them from being paid off. Can't see it being any different in the future.


----------



## CougarKing

An update that underlines the need for an AOR replacement:

CBC



> Arctic icebreaker delayed as Tories prioritize supply ships
> 
> Joint support ships won't be ready until old ones retired
> 
> Quote
> 
> .... "Let's be clear: these critical shipbuilding projects are facing delays because of the Conservative decision to cancel the Joint Support Ship procurement process in 2008," NDP defence critic Jack Harris said in a statement.
> 
> "*That restart means that the Canadian navy will now face a two-year gap in resupply capacity during which time Canada will have to rely on allies for essential resupply capabilities*, . The Canadian navy's capacity to conduct independent marine operations during this period will be greatly reduced." ....



Wait a minute, the NDP as "the voice of reason" on defence issues?  :


----------



## Navy_Pete

Is that two year gap any different then what you get when one ship is in refit?  It might be longer then that anyway, if the PRE or PRO decide they've had enough and retire themselves early.  Hopefully no one gets hurt in the process.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Let's not forget that we take our fair share of turns being "duty tanker" (or whatever it's called) for allied navies. (I believe I read that after the recent accident _Protecteur_ deployed to US waters for just such a task.)  Mutual support is provided to allies and can be expected from them in return.


----------



## Kirkhill

The impact the Canada-EU trade agreement might have on the RCN

Shipbuilding

Funny picture they chose to accompany their article.


----------



## mad dog 2020

This is a deal, right off the assembly line. We wanted three but money is tight. So buy the new one on sale while we wait? 
Like anyone when the repair bills get too much to keep that junker on the road, time for a new car. 
Please don't even compare this to the British Sub deal. We need this ship as a fill in. 
Just consider the capabilities should another quasi disaster happen whether it is Haiti or a washed out road in Nfld.


----------



## Edward Campbell

_Sun News_ is reporting that: "A senior government source told QMI Agency the ships will be named HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay."

I guess all those cheap plastic pins weren't enough.


----------



## ModlrMike

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Sun News_ is reporting that: "A senior government source told QMI Agency the ships will be named HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay."
> 
> I guess all those cheap plastic pins weren't enough.



From the comments:

"They were going to name one the HMCS Layton, but after realizing that the ship would be doomed to making only left turns, and would be attracted to ports of call that catered to ``massage`` parlor type of entertainment they wisely reconsidered. "
 :rofl:


----------



## mad dog 2020

Now if we had a couple of ships like the Karel Doorman. We could send one to the  Philippines, immediately!
We did it for Katrina. There are plenty of Canadians especially from Winnipeg (send it and the PR in the namesake city would pay dividends), that have immediate family there. 
We did it for Haiti, because the GG was from there and it was already our second largest target for annual aid money.
I think sending help and supplies would be a sight more useful than dumping cash into relief funds or agencies. We dumped millions upon millions into Haiti and the people got nylon tents from Canadian Tire.
I suggest you say our AOR is sailing in one week and the tractor trailers packed and loaded from Winnipeg would be there in 2 days, hell get the rivalry of the Ice Road Truckers going? 
Maybe with the regular schedule of disasters we need to re-think the availability of the new Berlin class AOR's and toss in that Dutch Karel Doorman as a immediate spare.


----------



## ModlrMike

A little bit more on the subject:

German supply ship gives navy peek at new design
CBC

The German navy has pulled into Halifax with its latest warship to give Canadian sailors a sneak peek at what they can expect within a few years.


----------



## NavyShooter

Drove past the 'yard this evening with the wife and we noted the rather well lit-up ship.

Nice to see our German friends in town!  

NS


----------



## AirDet

That reminds me of the American Oilers. She sure has nice lines though.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Did a tour this morning-It is so new, you can still smell the fresh paint (rather than that boiled dirty laundry smell all Navy ships seem to have). Built to civilian standards, there are some interesting layout and procedural differences (MCR is right behind the Bridge 5 decks up).  Upper decks have a wide open space between the Bridge and the fuelling stations that can hold up to 28 (14 stacked 2 high) containers. I also saw a spot forward of the fuelling station where our designers will probably try to stuff a kingpost in. Hanger is huge and the flight deck is the size of the dkyd gym.
The tour was unfortunately restricted to open common spaces but it was definitely interesting. Crew of approx. 150 but bunk space for up to 250, two huge 28 ton cranes, 3 high speed rescue craft and 4 x 27 mm rapid fire-high velocity guns (but I see those not being fitted on an RCN version). 20000 tonnes and max speed in excess of 21 knots from 2 X 10000 hp diesels (CRP propellers) with 4 X 1200 kW DGs for PG&D. Surprisingly, the main engines are not in acoustic enclosures (which I am sure makes maintenance MUCH easier).
I guess BONN was just commissioned in Sep last year but the class has been around for over 10 years (2 previous of the class)-It would be interesting to get on board one of the old 'used' ones to see what was learned and changed on this one.

Pat


----------



## FSTO

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Did a tour this morning-It is so new, you can still smell the fresh paint (rather than that boiled dirty laundry smell all Navy ships seem to have). Built to civilian standards, there are some interesting layout and procedural differences (MCR is right behind the Bridge 5 decks up).  Upper decks have a wide open space between the Bridge and the fuelling stations that can hold up to 28 (14 stacked 2 high) containers. I also saw a spot forward of the fuelling station where our designers will probably try to stuff a kingpost in. Hanger is huge and the flight deck is the size of the dkyd gym.
> The tour was unfortunately restricted to open common spaces but it was definitely interesting. Crew of approx. 150 but bunk space for up to 250, two huge 28 ton cranes, 3 high speed rescue craft and 4 x 27 mm rapid fire-high velocity guns (but I see those not being fitted on an RCN version). 20000 tonnes and max speed in excess of 21 knots from 2 X 10000 hp diesels (CRP propellers) with 4 X 1200 kW DGs for PG&D. Surprisingly, the main engines are not in acoustic enclosures (which I am sure makes maintenance MUCH easier).
> I guess BONN was just commissioned in Sep last year but the class has been around for over 10 years (2 previous of the class)-It would be interesting to get on board one of the old 'used' ones to see what was learned and changed on this one.
> 
> Pat



Did you notice if there was a cargo elevator that ran to the same level as the flight deck? That our flight deck and cargo deck are not the same is a huge issue with our AOR's.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Actually, I didn't notice but there are cargo hatches open to the replenishment position. The hangar was 'done up' for some sort of reception with the bunting up and I got the impression we were not to look behind it. That would be a good question to raise though. There are layout drawings floating around now and I will see if I can find one and have a look. 
 One thing I forgot though, there is an actual elevater from the just outside the bridge to all the accomodation levels...a real elevator!


----------



## FSTO

Thanks for the info. I would like to see the layout when it comes available. Would it be online?

An elevator for people, wow! Maybe that would put to bed forever the idea of the 'BATTLETANKER" the most asinine idea ever in the annals of the RCN.


----------



## Occam

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> MCR is right behind the Bridge 5 decks up



Wow, they'll have to watch you MSE types for signs of altitude sickness for the first little while after we get the ships.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Pat,  mentioned that she was built to civillian standards. From your brief tour were you able to get a feel for her DC capabilities or lack of them?


----------



## Pat in Halifax

There were fitted fire suppression systems everywhere including at the fuelling position (AFFF I assume). This was something discussed when I was working CSC; having fitted systems with remote cameras to act as boundaries. One thing I did notice is that other than EEBDs (or the German Navy version of them), there was really nothing in the main passageway(s). Bunker gear, MSAs, hoses, nozzles, AFFF, extinguishers etc were all in side passages. A lot of remote monitoring equipment. This was one of the reasons I would like to have seen one of the other two ships of this class-That said, I can only assume that lessons learned were incorporated into BONN.
Hard to explain but I like the way their boat decks were arranged (Yes, this from a stoker!). There is a central stairway in the superstructure with dressing areas at various landings. If for example a fast rescue craft is being launched, the appropriate people report to a specific landing, dress and step out the door into the boat. There is also the wide open area in front of the Bridge and if not carrying too many containers I see an optimum locale for an RPC in a foreign port!! I am trying to remember but I think their fuel load out was 150 cums of F44 and 10000 cums F76. I don't actually know how this compares to PRO class...anyone?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Doing a quick mental conversion of cums to tons, I would say avgas is about the same but Navy distillate is only about 2/3rds of a PRO capacity.

I guess that will mean more consolidation RAS. Yippee!!!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Doing a quick mental conversion of cums to tons, I would say avgas is about the same but Navy distillate is only about 2/3rds of a PRO capacity.
> 
> I guess that will mean more consolidation RAS. Yippee!!!


It's 1/10 of JP5 unless 150 is a typo and you mean 1500 cums and it is 2/3 of distillate.  It will all depend upon how much they can deliver before they get into stability issues as it with PRO class.  If they can go lower, then it should not mean too much of change.  Didn't get a chance to see BONN but I sure wanted to.  Maybe next time.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You're right JJ.

Brain cramp on my part: I guess it did not make sense to me that they would only carry 1/10 th the avgas, so I "multiplied by ten" when I shouldn't have. After all, all their frigates and destroyers carry helicopters.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Could have been a misunderstanding on my part and I meant to ask the question again as 150 cums JP5 is not much when supporting a TG. There are GAs out there but there is still a security issue so we will have to hold off for a bit for more detail.


----------



## Kirkhill

Re: Fuel capacity 

Does this help? From Naval Technology



> A single Berlin-class can transport 9,600 cubic meters of fuel, 550 cubic meters of water, 160t of ammunition, 280t of food, 100t of dry stores and 32 containers.


----------



## CougarKing

Cross-posting this update from another thread to a topic where it's just as relevant:

CBC



> *Canada's navy looks to fill fleet gap with purchase from U.S.*
> Canada's 2 supply ships were forced into retirement earlier this month
> 
> *The Royal Canadian Navy may purchase a soon-to-be retired ship from the U.S. to replace its two supply vessels forced into retirement, since a Canadian government ship-building program has been delayed by several years*, CBC News has learned.
> 
> The navy is counting on the government to deliver new ships as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, commander of the Canadian navy, said at a news conference on Friday.
> 
> But that program is not expected to deliver new supply ships until the end of the decade.
> 
> *With the navy's only two supply ships forced into unscheduled early retirement this month, Norman said the navy is now considering other options to fill the gap.*
> 
> Norman would not say what those options are, but CBC News has learned one of them is a plan to secure access to *a surplus U.S. navy supply ship*.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## GK .Dundas

http://www.usmilitaryart.com/Aoe8-dc-mini.jpg
  


  Behold in all it's resuppling awesomeness!!


----------



## ringo

What names would you assign USNS Bridge and Rainier in RCN service HMCS Keystone and Hibernia perhaps?


----------



## Rifleman62

Excellent!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No, no, no …

USNS Bridge -> HMCS Hearts
USNS Rainier -> HMCS Logan


----------



## suffolkowner

Would the size of these ships present any difficulty in Halifax and Esquimalt?
                    Supply vs Protecteur
Displacement 49600t vs 24700t
Length            230m vs 172m
Beam             32.6m vs 23.2m
Draft                 12m vs 10.1m


----------



## jollyjacktar

No.


----------



## Occam

ringo said:
			
		

> What names would you assign USNS Bridge and Rainier in RCN service HMCS Keystone and Hibernia perhaps?



HMCS Makedo and HMCS Tideusover.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lol, best laugh of the day!  :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer

ringo said:
			
		

> What names would you assign USNS Bridge and Rainier in RCN service HMCS Keystone and Hibernia perhaps?



HMCS Plugahole

HMCS Bridegethegap


----------



## jonsey

HMCS Onemanstrash and HMCS Anothermanstreasure


----------



## Journeyman

With the current obsession with 'all things British antiquity,' they would likely be _Rainbow_ and _Niobe_


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Journeyman said:
			
		

> With the current obsession with 'all things British antiquity,' they would likely be _Rainbow_ and _Niobe_


Oh, now you did it!!
Someone in Ottawa is going to pick up on this...Thanks!


----------



## Kirkhill

Gap-filler for Canada or permanent solution?



> Erickson Awarded Contract Extension with US Navy Military Sealift Command (MSC)
> 
> (Source: Erickson Incorporated; issued Oct 15, 2014)
> 
> PORTLAND, Ore. --- Erickson Incorporated (EAC), a leading global provider of aviation services for a diverse mix of commercial and government customers, announced today that it was recently awarded an option period extension with the United States Navy’s Military Sealift Command (MSC).
> 
> Udo Rieder, Chief Executive Officer of Erickson said, “We see this as a huge vote of confidence. We were proud last year to have been awarded the contract to provide our airlift services to Military Sealift Command to support our Navy’s 5th and 7th fleets around the globe. We are even more pleased for our national defense leaders to extend our service and exercise their option to entrust us with the important responsibility to provide personnel and cargo transport.”
> 
> Erickson will provide ship-based rotor wing aircraft to support ship-to-ship and shore-to-ship vertical replenishment (VERTREP) in the Mediterranean Sea and Pacific Ocean--a procedure the company helped to develop 16 years ago. SA330J Puma helicopters will be stationed on civilian cargo vessels to support Navy convoys. The aircraft will eliminate dangerous ship-to-ship cargo transfer by delivering vital sustenance, ammunitions and aircraft parts in a fraction of the time. This process will enable ships and their crews to remain at sea for extended periods of time, improving military readiness capabilities.
> 
> Erickson employs the world’s most qualified pilots, maintenance personnel and support teams necessary to aid in flight operations and safety procedures. Services offered by Erickson’s heavy, medium and light-lift helicopters include passenger transport, oil and seismic exploration support, search and rescue, aerial spray application, firefighting, long-line lift operations, and emergency medical evacuation in some of the most challenging and isolated places on Earth.
> 
> 
> Erickson is a leading global provider of aviation services to a diverse mix of commercial and government customers. Erickson currently operates a diverse fleet of 88 rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft, including 20 heavy-lift S-64 Aircranes. Founded in 1971, Erickson is headquartered in Portland, Oregon, and maintains facilities and operations in North America, South America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia-Pacific.
> 
> -ends-



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/158011/us-navy-extends-erickson-vertrep-contract.html


----------



## Kirkhill

And the Aussies again ..... dam the rabbit-poachers.

We're still trying to get a current solution.  They're looking at their next solution.



> http://Navantia and Australia Sign Contract for the Risk Reduction Design Study for Two Logistics Ships
> 
> 
> (Source: Navantia; issued Oct 10, 2014)
> 
> 
> On 10th October, Navantia and Australian DMO have signed a contract for the RRDS (Risk Reduction Design Study) of the program SEA1654, for the construction of two AOR logistic ships.
> 
> The signature of the contract took place in Garden Island Naval Base, with the presence of Admiral Purcell and Patrick Fitzpatrick, from DMO, the Commercial Director of Navantia, Gonzalo Mateo-Guerrero and the Director of Navantia Australia, Francisco Barón.
> 
> The contract, that will last approx. 8 months, intends to study the design of the BAC “Cantabria”, built by Navantia for the Spanish Navy, within the Australian specific requirements.
> 
> This phase means the beginning of the program for the acquisition of two AOR logistic ships in which Navantia has been preselected, together with DSME from Korea. After this phase, the Australian Government will start the final part for the construction of the ships, issuing the Request For Proposal.
> 
> This contract, together with the recent acceptance of the ALHD Canberra, first of the two ALHD’s built by Navantia and BAE Systems, by the Commonwealth of Australia, is a new important milestone and shows the relevance of Australia as a strategic client for Navantia.
> 
> -ends-



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/158012/navantia-to-study-ran-logistics-ships.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Gap-filler for Canada or permanent solution?
> 
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/158011/us-navy-extends-erickson-vertrep-contract.html



Brits are already doing this 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX7R2mGOA_M


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Nice Colin, but those are American ships - not Brits.

The supplying vessel is the USNS Matthew Perry T-AKE-9, a civilian operated supply ship of the USA operated by the Military Sealift Command, and the white Puma helicopter aiding with the VERTREP is actually carried onboard and also operated by the MSC.

The ship they appear to be supplying is a LHA/LHD of the Marines.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I saw the Brit version in a video but could not find it before I had to leave but basically the same thing off of a RFA vessel all done by private contractors, how this sort arrangement stands up to a conflict is anyone's guess. Knowing the Brits they will dust off some 200 year old legislation and Pressgang the crews into the RN


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> I saw the Brit version in a video but could not find it before I had to leave but basically the same thing off of a RFA vessel all done by private contractors, how this sort arrangement stands up to a conflict is anyone's guess. Knowing the Brits they will dust off some 200 year old legislation and Pressgang the crews into the RN



The original role of the Fusiliers......



> Guarding and escorting artillery pieces was the first task assigned to the Fusiliers du Roi: flintlocks were especially useful around field artillery, as they were less likely than matchlocks to accidentally ignite open barrels of gunpowder, required at the time to load cannons.[1] At the time, *artillery units also required guards to maintain discipline amongst civilian draymen*.[2] Hence the term fusilier became strongly associated with the role of guarding artillery in Britain and the English-speaking world,[2] especially after the formation of the first official "Fusilier" units, during the 1680s.



And that, boys and girls, is why drivers in military service often have military helpers assigned to them.  Just like the Royal Navy sailors had all those nice Royal Marines assigned to help them.  >

I can just see a Royal Marine with a 9mm sitting in a jump seat in those helicopters.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Never a dull learning moment on Army.ca  :nod:


----------



## ringo

Any RCN interested in lease or purchase of French AOR, FS Meuse?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Would still be one of the newer vessels in the fleet.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And there's a report in the _International Business Times_ that "The Canadian military has emerged as a potential destination for the controversial French-built Mistral helicopter carrier ships, built for Russia and now at the center of an international row after France indicated it would not hand them over, in response to international indignation over Russian actions in Ukraine ... The possibility of a Canadian solution appeared in French media after French President François Hollande began a state visit to Canada this week. While Hollande has yet to make a decision on whether Russia has met the criteria to receive the ships, the presence in the French delegation to Canada of the diplomatic advisor to the chairman of DCNS, the company that manufactures the ships, offers the first indication that France could actively be seeking an alternative buyer."

Don't hold your breath/get your hopes up/believe rumous/etc/etc/etc ... _(delete which not applicable)_


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Rumours are the only hope I have left these days.  8)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

A quote from that article in the _International Business Times_:

"The Canadian link, first reported by French newspaper Le Monde on Monday, comes at a time when the Canadian military is aggressively modernizing its navy and coast guard. According to French and Canadian sources cited in Le Monde, the Canadian Armed Forces “are now determined to diversify their partners in defense matters,” moving away from their traditional U.S. suppliers."

If the pace at which we are going is considered "aggressive modernization", I would hate to see what happens when you do it at "normal" speed. /Sarc off


----------



## MilEME09

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And there's a report in the _International Business Times_ that "The Canadian military has emerged as a potential destination for the controversial French-built Mistral helicopter carrier ships, built for Russia and now at the center of an international row after France indicated it would not hand them over, in response to international indignation over Russian actions in Ukraine ... The possibility of a Canadian solution appeared in French media after French President François Hollande began a state visit to Canada this week. While Hollande has yet to make a decision on whether Russia has met the criteria to receive the ships, the presence in the French delegation to Canada of the diplomatic advisor to the chairman of DCNS, the company that manufactures the ships, offers the first indication that France could actively be seeking an alternative buyer."
> 
> Don't hold your breath/get your hopes up/believe rumous/etc/etc/etc ... _(delete which not applicable)_



or DCNS is there because they are heavily lobbying for the CSC project


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As much as I would love to see a Mistral under Canadian colours, that does not solve our AOR problem. I am not sure the media understands the difference in the 2 types of vessels.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Colin P said:
			
		

> As much as I would love to see a Mistral under Canadian colours, that does not solve our AOR problem. I am not sure the media understands the difference in the 2 types of vessels.



No, they don't have a clue in all honestly in my opinion.  I don't really expect them to either as they're not in the business.  There will be one or two that are somewhat savvy but...  The ships will all look and be the same, big, grey coloured and mysterious to the majority especially the further you go inland.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> As much as I would love to see a Mistral under Canadian colours, that does not solve our AOR problem. I am not sure the media understands the difference in the 2 types of vessels.



True enough. Though Mistral's carry a lot of fuel and it would not be a very complex modification to add a single fuelling mast just aft of the island and set up pumps on the deck below so they could have some refuelling capability. It would be like going back to the old days when the aircraft carriers used to refuel their escorts at sea.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No, they don't have a clue in all honestly in my opinion.  I don't really expect them to either as they're not in the business.  There will be one or two that are somewhat savvy but...  The ships will all look and be the same, big, grey coloured and mysterious to the majority especially the further you go inland.


Of course there is this thing called the internet and wiki, but what the hell we can't expect adults who think they should be able to tell us what to think to be able to operate complex devices and software like Firefox and keyboards.  ;D


----------



## MilEME09

speaking of the mistrals, the International Business times is reporting Canada is a serious potential destination for the Mistral



> French-Built Mistral Ships For Russia Could End Up In Canadian Hands
> By Christopher Harress
> 
> The Canadian military has emerged as a potential destination for the controversial French-built Mistral helicopter carrier ships, built for Russia and now at the center of an international row after France indicated it would not hand them over, in response to international indignation over Russian actions in Ukraine.
> 
> The possibility of a Canadian solution appeared in French media after French President François Hollande began a state visit to Canada this week. While Hollande has yet to make a decision on whether Russia has met the criteria to receive the ships, the presence in the French delegation to Canada of the diplomatic advisor to the chairman of DCNS, the company that manufactures the ships, offers the first indication that France could actively be seeking an alternative buyer.
> 
> While the $1.6 billion deal was signed in 2010, European relations with Russia deteriorated significantly in 2014 after the former Soviet country annexed Crimea and assisted pro-Russian separatist in the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
> 
> Sanctions imposed against Russia did not prohibit the final delivery of the two Mistral ships, but the French president decided that the deal should go ahead only if Russia meets two criteria: one, genuinely observing the ceasefire between the Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebels that was signed in September; and, two, agreeing to formally resolve the conflict in Ukraine.
> 
> The idea of Canada buying the ships is not a new one. In May 2014, Canadian Senator Hugh Segal publicly suggested that France should sell to Canada instead of Russia. “Canada or NATO should buy these ships from France, leaving the Russians to await a further slot on the list, which good behavior would assure,” Segal said. “Being silent as French technology is afforded to an adventurist Russian military stance makes no sense at all.”
> 
> It’s unclear whether Hollande has decided if Russia has met the criteria. However, French Finance Minister Michel Sapin said at the end of October that Russia has not managed to meet the criteria and the ships should not be delivered. In the wake of those comments, the CEO of DCNS fired Yves Destefanis, the project manager responsible for the delivery of the ships to Russia, saying that he had “caused damaging consequences” to the company.
> 
> The Canadian link, first reported by French newspaper Le Monde on Monday, comes at a time when the Canadian military is aggressively modernizing its navy and coast guard. According to French and Canadian sources cited in Le Monde, the Canadian Armed Forces “are now determined to diversify their partners in defense matters,” moving away from their traditional U.S. suppliers.
> 
> Canada may seek to take the two ships for less than Russia paid for them, meaning a deal could be delayed for negotiations. But a deal is further complicated by two issues: The decision not to deliver the ships is a political one that DCNS has no say in. According to the company, the deal will go ahead with Russia; the state-owned Russian defense company Rosoboronexport has already been invited to the handover ceremony of the first ship, the Sevastapol, set for Nov 14. Second, should the ships be handed over to a different military, DCNS may be sued for breach of contract, which could force them to return the cash Russia paid upfront and face a possible fine.
> 
> http://www.ibtimes.com/french-built-mistral-ships-russia-could-end-canadian-hands-1719438


----------



## Cloud Cover

Acquiring these particular vessels would be a disaster of epic proportions for the RCN and Canada as a whole. 

1. Putin will simply order the occupation of some northern Canadian islands, Infanteer and his band of brothers will be dispatched and receive a rather unforgettable arctic swimming lesson, and then we hand over the ships anyway, and we will hand them over.  

2. What in tarnation would we be doing other than spending good money on Canadianizing a French amphibious hull loaded with Russian electronics, Russian specified engines and propulsion drive systems that the RCN has no experience in handling, likely could not get spare parts for etc.  

This would be more stupid and more useless than AOPS, yet in the finest tradition of Canadian defence procurement I could see point 2 occurring but for point 1 above.  Putin is the ally of the RCN here, if he plays his cards right....  The French should sell these things to India, they like Russian stuff.


edit to say: If Canada was looking at an LP(?) it should probably be an LPD like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio-class_amphibious_transport_dock
The US cancelled one of the ships but is still paying the full price for all 12.


----------



## Furniture

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Acquiring these particular vessels would be a disaster of epic proportions for the RCN and Canada as a whole.
> 
> 1. Putin will simply order the occupation of some northern Canadian islands, Infanteer and his band of brothers will be dispatched and receive a rather unforgettable arctic swimming lesson, and then we hand over the ships anyway, and we will hand them over.
> 
> 2. What in tarnation would we be doing other than spending good money on Canadianizing a French amphibious hull loaded with Russian electronics, Russian specified engines and propulsion drive systems that the RCN has no experience in handling, likely could not get spare parts for etc.
> 
> This would be more stupid and more useless than AOPS, yet in the finest tradition of Canadian defence procurement I could see point 2 occurring but for point 1 above.  Putin is the ally of the RCN here, if he plays his cards right....  The French should sell these things to India, they like Russian stuff.
> 
> 
> edit to say: If Canada was looking at an LP(?) it should probably be an LPD like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio-class_amphibious_transport_dock
> The US cancelled one of the ships but is still paying the full price for all 12.



The other side of this is maybe the government wants to back out of buying 15 surface warships, and 3 billion for a couple of amphib ships for "humanitarian relief" is a more palatable. If they buy half the new CSCs planned and buy a couple of discount boats from France they save a lot and still show token support for the Canadian shipyards. 

I for one don't see it as beyond any Canadian government to buy 6 AOPS and 6 CSCs to replace the frigates and destroyers.  Throw in some flashy new boats to say they are expanding our capabilities and most Canadian's wouldn't bat an eye at halving the contracts in the NSPS.


----------



## MilEME09

Could mean more work for our shipyards too, Remember they were built for the Russians, that means the hanger, elevators, and other equipment is to Russian specs, what work needs to be done so Canadian helicopters can launch from those ships? 

Second point Remember when our new supply ships were also planned to be floating hospitals? well if a mistral can do it the government could buy upto all three and say "hey now we have all the capabilities we promised, just in more ships"


----------



## dimsum

I admit I haven't really been following this a whole lot, but how far in the "Russianization" process did DCNS go before all of this happened?  The French Navy already operate 3, so if it's not too far in (or hasn't happened yet) then maybe that won't be an issue?


----------



## MilEME09

I honestly don't know my self though i assume things like accommodating Russian helicopters, installing Russian electronics and such, in other news "defense watch" for those who follow the news by thee who shall not be spoken is reported that a source has told them DCNS did lobby Ottawa about the mistrals during the French Presidents recent trip to Canada, as well as the CSC program.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

This is like deciding you need a new bicycle and buying a snow blower instead. This vessel as configured would fill '0' mandates outlined in the CFDS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder how much of the specs really changed for the Russians? The French have hedged their bets nicely, selling these ones to non-Russians while still keeping the door open to the Russians if they play nice and replacing it with another one. 

this is what I have found so far in the way of changes, which seem to work for us http://www.janes.com/article/41532/russia-orders-ka-52k-helicopters-for-mistral-class-lhds
_
The two Mistral-class vessels in production for the Russian Navy have been modified compared with the baseline version for the French Navy. These changes include changes in hull construction to enable them to be used in northern latitudes, including in ice conditions. The height of the vessels has also been increased due to modifications to the ships' internal hangars to allow them to accommodate large helicopters like the Ka-52K and Ka-27PS.

Additionally the vessels have been modified for the installation of extra armament, including anti-air systems and large calibre automatic weapon stations for combating surface threats. The logic behind increasing the vessels' onboard armament is to enable the Russian Navy to use them in the open sea with a smaller escort._

and here http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/France-Shows-Russia-The-True-Way-7-21-2013.asp
_The Russian Navy has made some changes, in cooperation with the French, of the existing Mistral design. The Russian version of the Mistral will be called the Vladivostok Class and carry 30 helicopters (compared to 16 on the French version). The Vladivostoks will be armed with two AK-630 multibarrel 30mm autocannon for anti-missile defense. There will also be two quad-launchers of shoulder fired type anti-aircraft missiles (with a 5 kilometer range and does well against helicopters) and two or more DP-65 55mm grenade launchers for defense against divers.

*The Vladivostoks will also be winterized for use in arctic conditions. The hull will be strengthened to deal with ice and the well deck door will completely close. The flight deck will have a deicing system and the ship will be modified to operate for extended periods in arctic conditions*. There is also different electronics and this means a different arrangement of radomes and antennae._


----------



## MarkOttawa

Posts by two professors:

Steve Saideman (Carleton):



> Maple Mistrals? Mais Non
> http://saideman.blogspot.ca/2014/11/maple-mistrals-mais-non.html



Roland Paris (Ottawa U.):



> Mistral Misunderstandings
> http://cips.uottawa.ca/mistral-misunderstandings/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

If I understand correctly, we had a brief window to accquire one of the Bay class amphibs the UK recently divested themselves of.  It didn't fly for several reasons, mainly budgetary considerations and we already got our fingers badly burned with the Upholders.  So, "no" on two counts.  And the previous exploratons and stand up of the amphib unit was quietly shelved some years ago now.  We won't be rushing headlong into any decision again like that any time soon.  

And as Pat say's the Mistrals are not what we need, or can afford.  (Which by the twists of logic they do seem to work under at times must make it tempting in some quarters)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have no doubt the French would like Canada to buy them and solve a political headache for themselves and then later sell more to the Russians when things have calmed down a bit. I suspect that if we did buy them, then you would see a change in how Canada involves itself overseass, just as the C-17's allow us to do things we never really had the capability for previously. The Mistral might allow us to project ourselves and our interests on the geopolitical field in a way we can't currently. It would also require some interesting negotiations in to regard to a Allied air wing operating off of them. Given the expeditionary nature of our oversea's involvements, they may make more sense than we think.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Anybody who thinks the Russians will not take some action if those ships are not handed over is dreaming. They have clearly staked some local strategic designs on them (artic ice for example), which implies a disruption to their plans is intolerable. 

If the prospect of no delivery becomes a fact, those ships will be on the bottom in a harbour in France, or the Russians will take some action to harm pretty much any country that takes them. Putin does not screw around, he might walk away from the financial cost (maybe), but he will not be robbed of an asset like these ships which can can be used against him. This situation is not analogous to the Kidd class destroyers and Iran 35 years ago. It is potentially much more serious. Russia is strongly and swiftly re-emerging as a sophisticated global military power.


----------



## Kirkhill

Not so much of a pessimist as you but I would take note that the Russians are already aboard the vessels.

I have seen Russian vessels (trawlers admittedly - but made in Norway and Spain) after Russians have made themselves at home.

The Russians would be better advised to let Canada, or some other poor blighters, have them.  They don't even have to engage in intentional sabotage, let alone a spectacular like sinking them.  Their unintentional efforts will cripple those ships in no time flat.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There are quite a few Russians who would be happy not to have them and not have to pay for them. As noted Russia could still get the same class of ship at a later date and a out of court settlement might achieve an attractive price for them. Russia might say a lot but do little and see what they can squeeze out of the French. At worse they just cut gas supplies in Europe, which means we can sell them more.


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile - Whatever happened to the Joint Support Ship?

Here's the Karel Doorman - Follow the link for a video tour by a member of her crew (in Dutch) https://youtu.be/MQ45uLk667Q

Here's the link to the Marine Schepen article http://marineschepen.nl/schepen/jss.html  (the article is also in Dutch but I google translated it)

400,000,000 Euros for a flaming great floating island that you can do with as you will......


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and she has already conducted her first mission 

Even though Karel Doorman had just finished sea trials and had not yet been commissioned, on 6 November she was sent on a three-month deployment to West Africa to deliver aid to Ebola-struck countries. She was loaded with different goods in 91 containers and 155 vehicles, including ambulances. On 18 November the ship arrived in Freetown, Sierra Leone for her first offload. After her third offload in Liberia and the replenishment of RFA Argus the ship returned to the Netherlands to pick up another load.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Doorman-class_support_ship


----------



## Underway

How the hell did we miss this!??!?!?!?

And some Breakfast Television Video's of the ship for those of us who are ne parlez francais good  :-[ (ce dommage).

http://www.btmontreal.ca/videos/4261943231001/

http://www.btmontreal.ca/videos/4261943194001/

http://www.btmontreal.ca/videos/4262029201001/

And the ship tracker.

It's almost as if they are rubbing our noses in it.... lol!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

or subtly suggesting we get them to build one for us


----------



## MarkOttawa

The Dutch, intelligently, had most of the metal-bashing done in Romania:
http://navaltoday.com/2013/07/25/hnlms-karel-doorman-departs-romania/







Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

And then there is this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CTV News_:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-slams-conservatives-over-lack-of-decision-on-naval-supply-ship-1.2395503


> NDP slams Conservatives over lack of decision on naval supply ship
> 
> CTVNews.ca Staff
> 
> Published Thursday, May 28, 2015 12:31PM EDT
> 
> The NDP is accusing the Conservative government of failing to ensure the Canadian Forces have the equipment they need, after it was revealed that cabinet yet again avoided making a decision on whether to convert a commercial ship into a naval supply ship.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy has been without supply ships since the announced retirement of HMCS Preserver and its sister ship HMCS Protecteur in November 2014.
> 
> Government records show navy mechanics had at one point been combing eBay for parts in an attempt to keep Preserver on duty.
> 
> New supply ships won’t be built until at least 2020, and could be even further delayed as construction has yet to begin on the Joint Support Ship project.
> 
> Government documents show the navy has been exploring its options for filling the gap. Cabinet has considered employing a vessel from an allied navy or leasing a converted commercial ship, but decided further study is needed before choosing either.
> 
> NDP MP Jack Harris said during question period on Thursday that the failure to make a decision is evidence the government’s military procurement strategy has failed.
> 
> “These Conservative delays threaten shipbuilding jobs and prevent our military from getting needed equipment,” Harris said. “How can the minister allow these unacceptable delays to multiply?
> 
> Defence Minister Jason Kenney responded by pointing out that his government had acquired new equipment, including C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft and Chinook helicopters, and launched “the single largest peacetime shipbuilding program in (Canadian) history.”
> 
> Kenney vowed to “ensure that the Royal Navy of Canada has the necessary equipment, including resupply ships,” and added, “if the NDP was in charge, there would be no new equipment for soldiers.”




_My guess_ is that revenues are less than anticipated even a few months ago and the prime minister sees a need for even more spending that directly benefits "Joe Sixpack" in suburban Toronto. No one doubts that the Navy needs supply ships but the overarching political priority is that, in late August or early September, just before the writs are dropped for the 2015 election, I expect Joe Oliver to stand up and remind us of just how much money the government is pouring into the pockets of married, 35+ year old suburbanites and he will tell us that the budget is still balanced ... no deficit. Nothing can be spent that might jeopardise that statement.


----------



## Underway

My guess is that they are waiting for the right time to announce it, so they can have the maximum impact on Quebec voters as the work will most likely be done at Davies.  But either way ERC it a political decision.


----------



## Underway

Older article on the Bonn when she visited Canada.  What I found interesting is that she is considered a different ship than the Berlin Class, at the least a 2.0 version by the looks of things. Some of the article relative to ship characteristics quoted below:



> Officially, Bonn is the third ship of the Type 702 Berlin-class. However, the presentation made during the second-day’s seminar was focused on the many significant differences between Bonn and her two sisters, Berlin and Fankfurt-am-Mein. The primary one relates to the concept of employment that required significant change to the propulsion system. The ship’s combat officer briefed that the first two ships were envisioned as external support components to a naval task group whereas Bonn is designed as an integral part of the group. This is consistent with the Canadian task group concept.
> 
> In total, the changes make Bonn so different that she represents a new class of ship. Thomas Ruckert, vice president for sales with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (GmbH), has confirmed that, “Bonn is the MOTS baseline for the Canadian JSS developed by TKMS Canada.” This is a key point because the design for Berlin is a significantly less capable ship than Bonn.
> 
> The primary change to enable the new concept of employment resulted in the main engines of Bonn being upgraded to two MTU 20V 8000 M41R diesels from the two MAN 12V 32/40s used previously. The original arrangement limited sustained high power usage and placed very significant restrictions on sudden changes or application of astern power, and on ship manoeuvring while at high speed. The new engines provide 35 percent more power and are more robustly connected to the gearing and shaft lines.
> 
> This provides complete freedom to use the engines in demanding tactical settings and makes Bonn very capable of keeping station with a group of warships. The manoeuvrability of the ship has also been enhanced by a revised placement of twin rudders directly aft of the screws, which are equipped with controllable-pitch blades.
> 
> An added benefit of the new engines is improved fuel economy. According to the briefing, the MTU diesels are “significantly more efficient.” In addition, the new power train allows for the trailing of one screw and this configuration results in 43 percent higher fuel-efficiency than in normal twin-shaft operation. This provision will go a long way to conserving cargo fuel, as Bonn carries significantly less fuel than the Protecteur-class; as much as 35 percent, depending on the source and conversion factors used.
> 
> The reduction in fuel capacity is offset by the gains made in multi-role configuration and additional containerized cargo-carrying capacity. Bonn can carry 78 containers as deck cargo and is capable of self-unloading, which makes her enormously versatile when dockside services are not available. In remote locations or where either conflict or natural disasters have damaged shore facilities, this will be an invaluable function.
> 
> Additionally, Bonn can embark a set of 23 pre-outfitted containers that stack three-high before the after deckhouse, forming a medical facility. This augments the ship’s medical capability to what is known in NATO terms as Level 2 ‘plus’. It includes two operating theatres and independent power for complete autonomy and reliability. The ship also has facilities to embark a group commander and staff for the operational control of tactical units. All of these capabilities would have been enormously valuable during Operation Hestia, the Canadian disaster relief effort in Haiti.
> 
> In short, there are a lot of different functions packed into this ship.
> 
> During an interview, Captain Laue said of Bonn, “It was a originally a kind of merchant design but [was] changed for the military.” In particular, her twin-engine propulsion will provide greater reliability than the single-engine arrangement used in earlier Canadian sustainment ships. The recent fire in HMCS Protecteur has demonstrated the vulnerability of that approach. However, some of the limitations of using a converted merchant vessel for military service are also evident. The bridge, main machinery control room and operations room are all closely co-located on the same deck, which presents a major risk in the event of a fire or other calamity. Also, the magazine spaces are situated quite high in the hull, likely overtop of the fuel tanks. The normal arrangement in Canadian practice would be to place them below the waterline.
> 
> Lieutenant-Commander Bruno Tremblay was quoted in a media report as saying Canadian derivatives of Bonn won’t be identical to her. My sources are telling me that the list of changes to the German version is already well over 100 items. Design change is one of the key areas that affect cost increases. Conversion from European-standard power to North American-standard for 120-volt service will make local appliances and equipment usable without the nuisance of converters.
> 
> However, if more significant things, like the relocation of the machinery control room and operations room, are contemplated then major increases in cost are almost certain to develop, making the option for a third ship less likely. Because of the reduced fuel capacity and multi-role utility of the ship, accepting less-than-desirable physical arrangements may be necessary to keep the option of getting a third ship viable. This is critically important to ensure the navy has operational sustainment where and when it is needed. Two ships cannot provide this and makes the effect of an accident or operational loss of one of them dramatically worse.
> 
> FGS Bonn represents a new chapter in the developmental history of the Royal Canadian Navy. She will bring many new capabilities that will make the navy much more capable and relevant in the wider scope of global maritime security operations. As Thomas Ruckert told me, “The Canadian navy will experience the same quality in German engineering as people in North America have come to know from owning German cars. Once you have had that, you will never want to go back to anything else.”



Its interesting to see how what on the surface looks like a simple purchase, with a slight change in the usage philosophy changes aspects of the ships design so significantly.


----------



## a_majoor

Even the Turks are getting into the game, with a ship of their own:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/turkey-completing-26000-ton-amphibious.html



> *Turkey completing a 26000 ton amphibious assault helicopter carrier in 2021 *
> 
> The Turkish government announced it signed a nearly $ 1 billion deal with a local shipyard to produce the country's first Landing Platform Dock (LPD).
> 
> The planned amphibious assault vessel will carry a battalion-sized unit of 1,200 troops and personnel, eight utility helicopters, three unmanned aerial vehicles and transport 150 vehicles, including battle tanks. It also will have an aircraft platform for vertical take off and landing. A ski jump at the front of the deck can be used to launch fighter aircraft.
> 
> Industry sources estimate the cost of the contract at close to $1 billion.
> 
> SSM said the 231-meter-long vessel will be completed by 2021. The LPD will deploy on the Aegean, the Black, and the Mediterranean seas, as well as on Turkish Navy's operations on the Atlantic and Indian oceans.
> 
> Turkey will be the third operator in the world of this ship type after Spain and Australia.
> 
> The $1 billion deal to cooperate with Spanish shipbuilder Navantia to build a Juan Carlos I-class light aircraft carrier. Here's what we know about it.
> 
> Stretching 758 feet in length, and weighing 26,000 tons, the Juan Carlos is the largest naval warship ever built in Spain. Once Turkey gets its copy, it will outweigh the next-largest Turkish warship by a whopping seven times


----------



## geo

Turkey should consider buying one or both French ships ordered by Russia... Throw in a few dymo guns for label changes & they should be good to go


----------



## observor 69

Defence Minister Jason Kenney to make an important announcement at National Defence Headquarters

June 23, 2015

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Jason Kenney will make an important announcement at National Defence Headquarters on June 23, 2015.

What: Supporting Canada and the Royal Canadian Navy

When: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. (EST) 

Where: National Defence Headquarters – Multimedia Room, 101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=990419&tp=3


----------



## Loachman

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Defence Minister Jason Kenney to make an important announcement at National Defence Headquarters



What part of the uniform is being changed this time?


----------



## Privateer

Jason Kenney to announce temporary naval supply ship for Davie shipyard

Per CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jason-kenney-to-announce-temporary-naval-supply-ship-for-davie-shipyard-1.3124221



> CBC News has learned that Defence Minister Jason Kenney will announce today a plan for Quebec's Davie shipyard to retrofit a commercial tanker to serve as a temporary naval supply ship.
> 
> CBCNews.ca will livestream his announcement at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa starting at 1 p.m. ET.
> 
> The move is necessary because existing supply ships were forced into early retirement. The government's decade-long plan to purchase new supply ships is still in the design phase and construction has not yet begun.
> 
> Last month, the Navy bid farewell to the HMCS Protecteur at a ceremony at CFB Esquimalt in British Columbia.
> 
> The event marked almost 46 years of military service for the Canadian navy supply ship, including the Cold War, Gulf War and hurricane relief.
> 
> Protecteur retired after a devastating engine-room fire in 2014, which left the ship burning, powerless and adrift off Hawaii for 11 hours. It was towed to Pearl Harbor, then towed back to its home port of Esquimalt, B.C.


----------



## Sub_Guy

I am a cynical bastard, but it would not surprise me if this temporary supply ship doesn't hit the water until after we take possession of the new vessels.

On a more logical note, doesn't the USN have a few vessels laying around that are already supply ships?  Why aren't we barking up that tree?


----------



## Privateer

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> On a more logical note, doesn't the USN have a few vessels laying around that are already supply ships?  Why aren't we barking up that tree?



Election in 4 months... Quebec vote... stemming the Orange flood...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Here, in the government's words ....


> *Government Announces Way Forward on Interim Supply Ship Capability*
> 
> June 23, 2015
> 
> OTTAWA – The Government of Canada will enter into preliminary discussions with Chantier Davie Canada Incorporated to pursue an interim supply ship capability, Defence Minister Jason Kenney announced today.
> 
> These discussions with Chantier Davie will help determine if it can provide an interim solution at a cost, time, and level of capability acceptable to Canada and the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN). Should the Government of Canada decide to pursue a provision of service contract agreement, it would provide the required standard of service to bridge the gap until the first Joint Support Ship (JSS) is anticipated to be operational, in 2021.
> 
> The JSS will be a robust warfighting capability with all military crewing and contain the capacity to be continuously upgraded over the next 30 to 40 years to meet with the Navy’s evolving operational requirements. An interim supply ship would provide a more modest capability and would not conduct full-spectrum military operations in high-threat environments.
> 
> *Quick Facts*
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) relies on the capability provided by Auxiliary Oil Replenishment ships (AORs) to supply fuel, ammunition, water, spare parts and food to individual ships or naval task groups, as well as to support task group helicopters.
> 
> In order to assist the RCN to meet their missions over the next several years, the Government of Canada has decided to enter into preliminary discussions with Chantier Davie Canada Inc.
> 
> The discussions would be to pursue an interim capability for a commercial ship to be refitted for military use.
> 
> The objective is to provide an at-sea replenishment service to RCN. This is directly linked to the Canadian Armed Forces operational readiness in support of national security and the fulfillment of Canada’s national and international obligations. It could also add significant additional capabilities, such as medical and aviation support and enhanced command and control.
> 
> An interim AOR ship will help sailors acquire and retain key skill sets needed to operate Queenston-class JSS once they are delivered.
> 
> *Quotes*
> 
> “Our government is committed to ensuring the Royal Canadian Navy has the tools it needs to defend Canadian waters and take part in international missions. An interim supply-ship capability will allow the RCN to operate more freely around the world while also keeping our crews’ skills up to date in anticipation of the arrival of the more robust Joint Support Ship.”
> The Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of National Defence


----------



## FSTO

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I am a cynical *******, but it would not surprise me if this temporary supply ship doesn't hit the water until after we take possession of the new vessels.
> 
> On a more logical note, doesn't the USN have a few vessels laying around that are already supply ships?  Why aren't we barking up that tree?


The Supply Class of AOR's are far far to large and costly for our needs. If there are a couple of Kaisers available for rent then we are talking!


----------



## Privateer

"... enter into preliminary discussions... to pursue..."

"...help determine if it can provide an interim solution..."

phhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht


----------



## The Bread Guy

Privateer said:
			
		

> "... enter into preliminary discussions... to pursue..."
> 
> "...help determine if it can provide an interim solution..."
> 
> phhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht


As they say on Twitter - #buzzwordbingo


----------



## Navy_Pete

Except that it would be an illegal single source contract which other yards that also didn't get the NSPS could do as well, and take a year or two to complete, plus need a trained crew, which doesn't exist, and we would have to make from scratch from somewhere. ??? :facepalm:


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Except that it would be an illegal single source contract which other yards that also didn't get the NSPS could do as well, and take a year or two to complete, plus need a trained crew, which doesn't exist, and we would have to make from scratch from somewhere. ??? :facepalm:



Emergency operational requirement + election + no one will argue against pork barreling in Quebec = ignore procurement rules.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Except there is no emergency operational requirement that can't be met faster by simply leasing an oiler to be on site to support specific operations.

All they announced is that they 'engaged in talks' with Davie, not that they've commited to anything.  This is a cynical and cheap vote winning operation, not any sign of real support.


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is discussion in the media about _possibly_ converting an existing commercial cargo ship to an AOR. (The discussion also posits that the AOR project (Berlin class, is that right?) is in trouble.)

My question is, political posturing aside: _why not?_

I couldn't find much discussion that I could understand, except this. A bit of further reading (caution _Wikipedia_ as a source) suggests that _"HMAS Sirius (O 266) (formerly MT Delos) is a commercial tanker purchased by the Royal Australian Navy and converted into a fleet replenishment vessel to replace HMAS Westralia. Launched in South Korea on 2004, and converted in Western Australia, Sirius was commissioned in 2006; three years before a purpose-built vessel would have, and at half the cost. The tanker is expected to remain in service until the 2020s."_






Can the Navy engineers (and associated experts) tell this simple soldier: why not?

     (I do recall the saga(s) of the commercial trucks in the Army; in fact, I was, peripherally, involved in the 1¼ ton truck project and I heard, direct from the horse's mouth, as it were, why the late Gen Jacques Dextraze wanted to explore
      COTS vehicles. (That story changed, in some details, but not in substance, every time he told it!))

_I'm not advocating, just asking_ ... because _I suspect_ that some senior bureaucrats and politicians are asking: isn't, say, 85% of the requirement for 50% of the budget a "good deal?"


----------



## jollyjacktar

ER, there is no practical reason why it could not happen.  I have said for years that if we were smart, we would buy COT overseas as yards such as Hyundai can give you a turn key vessel in a very short time.  Barring that solution, if there was a suitable candidate available either commercial or ex-military available... certainly it could and I believe, should be done.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

ER,

Having served on Canadian Tankers a few times in my career, there is no reason you could not convert a civian tanker, with a couple of caveats:

- for better or worse, we have tended to treat our AORs as fighting units. You won't get that capability in a convert, for very good engineering and damage control reasons. A convert would have to be kept very strictly out of harms way.

- your helicopter facilities are likely to be rudimentary, at best.

-you probably will lose the capability to transfer ammo at sea, as creating a magazine space would be pricey. It depends how important you think that is.

-your ability to transfer food and stores at sea might be limited, although you may be able to Gerry rig something using sea cans on deck. It would not be very efficient, however.

- the role 2/3 medical facility might be hard.

As you said- it all depends on how much value you put all of those capabilities.


----------



## Edward Campbell

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ER,
> 
> Having served on Canadian Tankers a few times in my career, there is no reason you could not convert a civian tanker, with a couple of caveats:
> 
> - for better or worse, we have tended to treat our AORs as fighting units. You won't get that capability in a convert, for very good engineering and damage control reasons. A convert would have to be kept very strictly out of harms way. Seen, but, ultimately, taking that risk would be a _political choice_.
> 
> - your helicopter facilities are likely to be rudimentary, at best. Indeed, it appear that HMAS Sirius has a deck but no hanger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that being a _deal breaker._
> 
> -you probably will lose the capability to transfer ammo at sea, as creating a magazine space would be pricey. It depends how important you think that is.
> 
> Another deal breaker in my, uninformed, opinion.
> 
> -your ability to transfer food and stores at sea might be limited, although you may be able to Gerry rig something using sea cans on deck. It would not be very efficient, however.
> 
> - the role 2/3 medical facility might be hard.
> 
> As you said- it all depends on how much value you put all of those capabilities.




Thanks for that; they were all factors I didn't understand.


----------



## Navy_Pete

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is discussion in the media about _possibly_ converting an existing commercial cargo ship to an AOR. (The discussion also posits that the AOR project (Berlin class, is that right?) is in trouble.)
> 
> My question is, political posturing aside: _why not?_
> 
> I couldn't find much discussion that I could understand, except this. A bit of further reading (caution _Wikipedia_ as a source) suggests that _"HMAS Sirius (O 266) (formerly MT Delos) is a commercial tanker purchased by the Royal Australian Navy and converted into a fleet replenishment vessel to replace HMAS Westralia. Launched in South Korea on 2004, and converted in Western Australia, Sirius was commissioned in 2006; three years before a purpose-built vessel would have, and at half the cost. The tanker is expected to remain in service until the 2020s."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can the Navy engineers (and associated experts) tell this simple soldier: why not?



TL;DR - It can be done, it's just a dumb idea that won't meet operational needs and will cost a lot.

Engineering wise, it's definitely doable.  The practical reasons why not are more related to the time it would take to do the conversion, and then all the practical issues around getting a crew trained to use it and actually supply the fuel.

You would need to do some work to strengthen/reinforce the upper deck for the posts (the large towers that with the cables and fuel hoses).  Depending on the configuration of the ship you were converting, you may also need to design and fit systems to transfer the fuel at the required flowrates, plus maintain fuel quality and other things that a bulk oil carrier doesn't necessarily do. Would probably also need to look at all the fire suppression systems and update those as required for the new role. It's all fairly basic structural, mechanical and electrical stuff, but does take time to design, plan and build.  12-18 months would be pretty aggressive to do that portion.

If it's operated by the RCN or someone else, there is also the crew training required to just get the ship out to sea, plus actually conducting RASs.  It may take some time to find the right people if they are providing the crew, and the navy is pretty short on most critical sea going positions, so if it was RCN crewed, it would make that worse, plus directly impact the new AOPs and eventually the JSS crewing.  That would probably also take 1-2 years to get them in place and trained to operate the ship safely.

So if they start going full throttle now, looking at sometime in 2017-2018 when it's leaving Davie.  Then there would be probably another six months of getting practice and experience until it's really effective.  And it would be a lot more limited then what we would have in the AORs that we had, or what JSS will provide.  It'll be a one off ship, so probably a lot more expensive to operate and maintain.

While this is all going on, us engineering weenies are going full throttle trying to maintain the current fleet while supporting three major ship builds at the same time as government cuts is driving a large workforce reduction, and a lot less resources are available for basic maintenance and repairs, so the fleet is in less then 100% state.  So any work on this would probably directly impact the current and future ships as you would need to redirect resources.

All of that to try and provide a stop gap, one off one of a kind ship that no one else will want after the fact, that will be intermittently available to provide limited operational support, and probably be restricted from specific areas due to the threats.

It's less of a matter of can we do it, and more of a matter of should we do it.  This would be an okay idea to have done ten years ago to replace one of our AORs, as we could have ran it for a few cycles to get our moneys worth then scrapped it.  Ships are a big capitol investment, so you need to operate them for a long time to get the money's worth.

There are also other options, including straight up leasing commercial oilers to operate in specific areas as mobile gas stations at sea.  Probably cost a bit more, but would be available immediately, and then there is zero support required on our end, and would also be available to both coasts, rather then one lone COTs bastardized AOR.  Combined with fueling off our allies, that's a much better option for all kinds of practical reasons.  When the AORs went into their long refits, you would make do without for several years, so we already have plenty of recent experience in getting things done regardless.


----------



## chrisf

FWIW, it doesn't look as if HMAS Sirius is anything other than a tanker, aside from the addition for refueling at sea, it looks like a pretty stock cargo tanker, if anything her superstructure is a bit smaller than most. I'm doubtful she has any room for additional stores, ammunition, etc. There is a small open cargo deck mid-ship, but she doesn't seem to have any sort of crane to handle the containers.

It's a nice looking helipad she's got though.

Really, if you just wanted to convert a civilian ship into a non-deployable navy ship, so you've got "a" tanker rather than "no" tanker, it's far cheaper and easier to just lease an existing civilian ship, with the state of the oil industry, you can have one pretty much ready to go, crew and all, for a very reasonable rate. You'd still need modifications, but again, go with the private industry leasing option, those can be accomplished in a much more reasonable time frame.


----------



## Underway

Some of the considerations regarding this idea are also that Davie would convert and then lease/crew the ship (partially I'm assuming).  If the ship is leased then that free's up a lot of the RCN engineering/pers resources.

If the RCN decides to purchase how is that any different than the Preserver and Protector themselves?  The engineering/costs required to keep them going was very intensive due to their age and uniqueness.  A single COTS AOR might actually be cheaper to run than the JSS as most likely all the main engineering parts could be bought COTS.  Just keep sending it back to Davie to fix it....

In the long run this could turn into a positive.  Keeping some expertise in the fleet on how to run an AOR (avoiding some skill fade), trail out new ways of doing things in preperation for the JSS etc....  If the RCN kept the COTS AOR after the JSS are online then the fleet would have the 3 AORS that the navy needs, one for domestic/low risk OPS and two that act as the combat ships we consider them to be.  No breath holding though...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

One of the things that never ceases to amaze me in these pages is how many naysayers always take the position: Can't be done, we need five gazillion years to train for the task and nobody has done it before.

NP: We need one to two years to train the crew just to safely put to sea and to conduct RAS? Are you serious !!! You engineering type have never seen a diesel engine single shaft ship? Our chief engineers, at sea for 20 years at least and the EOOW's, at sea for about 15 years, can't crawl through a civilian designed single engine diesel ship, with an ordinary hydraulic steering gear and two diesel generators for electrical and figure out how to make it work in two weeks? We have suddenly completely forgotten how to do the RAS we have been doing for more than 45 years just because we stopped for a year or two?
/RANT OFF

This steam let out (from the old AOR  ), lets recap the situation as it relates to the proposal by Davie. Yes, that's right: It is Davie that proposed the deal to the government - not the other way around: Davie proposed to convert a tanker, crew it and then lease it for an annual price for support of the Navy. I don't know where Navy_Pete is getting is info on what is required to be done and the timeline (and from his profile, do not believe he has the experience to make those statements, unless, undisclosed, he has worked extensively with the shipbuilding industry before joining), but I am willing to bet that from get go to ship available, Davie can do it in one year. 

What would Davie deliver? Most likely something very close to HMAS SIRIUS. What does it mean? It means a tanker (HMAS SIRIUS is an AO - Auxiliary tanker, not an AOR, even though, she has, under the housing that was added between the bridge and the Fuelling posts about 20 standard containers and reefers for food and light materials that can be transferred by jackstay [at a max of 250 Kg per shot] or by helicopter [hence, the helipad]. She carries no ammunition).

Does it meet all the naval requirements of the Navy for deployable AOR? No, but so what. Is there a problem in going in harms way? Yes, but the last time we did this with an AOR was Gulf War 1. Many other nations deploy much less armed support vessels than our old AOR but keep them at a safe distance. It is still a lot better than no support at all.

Moreover, people (as I said above) get all excited when we don't train to death before we do anything. Well, right now, we cannot TRAIN to do heavy jackstays and fuel transfers at sea because we don't have our own AOR's. It is a manoeuvre that we must train for before we go out  into an operational theatre and carry it out with another nation's AOR/T-AKE/T-AOE. Having such a vessel would provide that training and the capacity to bring some support with us where we may.

I get a feeling from the minister's statement, however, that the government is NOT looking to go that route. Obviously, they don't want to look like they are rejecting Davie's proposal right off the bat in an election year, so they  are engaging in preliminary discussions (that will last until after the election IMHO). The reference by the minister to giving us a capability in command and control and in medical support shows that he is either ignorant of the capability Davie is offering [which is NOT a full JSS or even AOR] or is a setup for suddenly finding a reason to reject the proposal after the election is over.

I can see one danger, so to speak, for the Navy in Davie's proposal: If it was accepted and worked (i.e. civilian crew on a support ship) It might open the door to combat support to be transferred to the civilian side of the outfit - the CFAV's. After all many nations, including the two of the largest largest sea powers on which we model ourselves (USA and UK) have civilians running their combat support.


----------



## Good2Golf

What about something like Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel Argus (A 135), with some RAS gear added?  Perhaps Davie could effect a change similar to the MT Contender Bezant to RFA Argus, albeit in less than four years?

MT Contender Bezant





becomes...

RFA Argus


----------



## Baz

I'm still convinced that we:
- purchase the two "unwanted" Mistrals, one for each coast.
- add a single starboard side RAS point and heavy jackstay
- load them up with training subbies and baby engineering types
- make them the Flag ship, and permanently embark the flag and staff
- embark the entire squadron on each coast (423/443)
- sail a lot of Mondays, returning Fri
- train the crap out of everyone, including doing RAS's
- take along whatever schools, Warfare Centers, etc that want to come learn
- if the army wants, they can come play to (using there own rubber boats for now)... same for Griffins and Chinooks (not necessarily embarking, but flying on)
- have a role 2/3 hospital we could embark if we wanted to do disaster stuff; fill 'er up with stuff and people and off you go

When we actually get the Berlins, we could either keep them for developing littoral maneuver, or pass them on.

... and to free up engineering capacity and crew, get rid of Athabaskan; yesterday...

But alas, can't see it happening.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

:goodpost:

Wholeheartedly agree. And for what its worth, they can always get whatever minor modifications this would require done at Davie.


----------



## ringo

Agree with Mistral purchase, should build hull for JSS oversea's outfit in Canada.


----------



## Navy_Pete

OGBD, the timelines are based around what was proposed by Davie a few _years_ ago, and based on the opinion of people that do have decades of experience in ship building and repair sector. I also have my own very relevant and recent experience in ship repair, and while not decades worth, a few years is enough to call BS.  A year to get this done is, in my opion, BS.  

They would need time to buy a ship, then do a modification design specific to that ship, have it reviewed (by either us or a classification society), then build it.  Once you have a design, there is lead time required for ordering parts, and that can be months for large capacity pumps, valves and other items.  They would also need to do a number of surveys and repairs to existing equipment, and a lot of that would be docking dependent for the tanks, hull valves, etc.  That takes a lot of time and expertise to do all of that safely and properly, otherwise it will be half assed at best and will be down more then operational.  Installing RAS posts on a ship not designed to provide fuel at sea is not a minor modification.

The crew estimate also included time to FIND the crew.  Not many civilians do RASs, and you wouldn't hire them until you had a contract.  So unless they have a huge pool of available candidates they`ve already got on retainer, they will need at least a few months to hire them.  You can do that concurrently, but will still need to make sure whoever it is operating the specific RAS gear gets training on that equipment and how it`s setup.  The engineering piece for the crew is easy; it's the deck hands and the drivers that will be hard.  The Davie proposal had them leasing it to us with crews included.  We don't have the bodies to spare as indicated by every single manning shortage message that comes out whenever a ship goes out the harbour.  Again, all of this takes a lot of time to do properly.

It's also pretty expensive.  We could get the same capability now by putting contracts out for having an oiler on station in an OpArea when we call, which is basically all we`d be getting from Davie.

This proposal only makes sense politically; it does nothing for the RCN other then cause a lot of churn at the HQ.  This is a cheap political ploy where they commit to nothing, look like they are supporting the Navy, and try for votes in QC.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Baz said:
			
		

> I'm still convinced that we:
> - purchase the two "unwanted" Mistrals, one for each coast.
> - add a single starboard side RAS point and heavy jackstay
> - load them up with training subbies and baby engineering types
> - make them the Flag ship, and permanently embark the flag and staff
> - embark the entire squadron on each coast (423/443)
> - sail a lot of Mondays, returning Fri
> - train the crap out of everyone, including doing RAS's
> - take along whatever schools, Warfare Centers, etc that want to come learn
> - if the army wants, they can come play to (using there own rubber boats for now)... same for Griffins and Chinooks (not necessarily embarking, but flying on)
> - have a role 2/3 hospital we could embark if we wanted to do disaster stuff; fill 'er up with stuff and people and off you go
> 
> When we actually get the Berlins, we could either keep them for developing littoral maneuver, or pass them on.
> 
> ... and to free up engineering capacity and crew, get rid of Athabaskan; yesterday...
> 
> But alas, can't see it happening.



I will add to this idea, also buy one Berlin Class to be built overseas by the shipyard that has built others. Hell by the time ours are ready to sail, this one will need a refit. Perfect world 3 Berlins, 2 Mistral. The ships can rotate through refits and hot layups to help with manning and a modern fleet might make recruiting a bit easier as well.


----------



## ringo

What about french AOR Meuse, IIRC this ship just decommissioned from french navy, maybe if we buy the russian Mistrals france will throw in Meuse for free.


----------



## Underway

There is a bit of a precedent for the civilian ship AOR in the RCN.  HMCS Provider was essentially a slightly redesigned civi ship to trail the new RAS concept which eventually became the NATO standard.  And she was built by Davie as well.  Who says history isn't cyclical...


----------



## MarkOttawa

A tweet:



> Timothy Choi ‏@TimmyC62 10m10 minutes ago
> 
> Just learned during #NAC2015: #Chile Navy supply ship to be stationed from #Esquimalt for interim-interim #AOR starting next few weeks
> https://twitter.com/TimmyC62/status/614518079146438656



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chilean navy's--pretty impressive--website:
http://www.armada.cl/

One of two AORs:






http://www.armada.cl/armada/unidades-navales/superficie/petroleros/ao-52-a-almirante-montta/2014-04-15/162530.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chilean AORs ex-USN.


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is an internet rumour that this is what Davie is proposing:










Source:https://www.facebook.com/GOCANADANAVY/photos_stream


----------



## jollyjacktar

Looks very interesting, thanks.


----------



## Underway

Seems a bit ambitious...


----------



## PuckChaser

I'm not any close to a structural engineer, but that seems like a massive amount of modifications that need to be completed to a civilian container ship and is going to cost huge sums of money.

Sure looks pretty though.


----------



## jollyjacktar

It's ambitious, certainly, but as long as money and time aren't too big a factor, it's not beyond Davies to do.


----------



## Kirkhill

There always seems to be a world of difference in price and value between a vendor driven proposal and a client driven proposal.

My personal bias, based on my years of experience, has me believe that a vendor driven proposal will deliver 80 to 90% of the requirement for 110% of the budget within the warranty period.  

Conversely a client driven proposal will cost a fortune in preliminary engineering, run to many times the budget in cost over runs and may never get delivered.  Engineers and architects make a fortune from bespoke solutions that never turn into bricks, mortar and steel.

Most projects that work seem to work because time and budget pressures demand making the best use of what is immediately available.  Most projects that fail seem to fail because committees of young PhDs with nary a scar on their knuckles are determined that a rhombus makes a better wheel than a circle.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Lets remember we are commenting on a rumour here.

We must also remember that Davie is not selling this thing to the government. It is proposing to build, own, operate (at least the driving around/load/unload part) and then lease it at an annual price. If that annual price is right for the government and Davie can deliver what we see in the picture with the described capabilities, then more power to Davie.

[Hey Kirkhill, are you not happy? Davie seems to want to be able to put up to two Chinook on that thing :nod:]

From an engineering, cost and time point of view, it is more than doable. 

First (and quietly, unbeknownst to most people), Davie under the new British management is a great success story, now employing in excess of 850 people, which makes it currently THE largest shipyard in Canada both in size of facilities [always was] but in personnel also, and it just won the title of best shipyard in North America, a title granted by the North American association of shipbuilders. They have also completed the first - and are working on two more - of the most complex merchant ships ever built in Canada, built for Norwegian gas exploration companies which says something.

Second, it is smarter, in my book, to start from a container ship than a tanker. You save a lot of cleaning and decontamination work before start, for one thing. Second, because of their cargo being "piles" of containers, container ships tend to have a different and stronger internal structure and more separate holds than tankers or bulk carriers, where the mass is already spread evenly on the ship's bottom. They also have a better interior system of access to those compartments for inspection at sea. So it is a lot easier and faster to install all the piping, pumps and handling equipment and then enclose the future tanks or hold from within in a container ship than in a pre-built tanker. The superstructure looks impressive, but again, taking the old one out nowadays is easy: cut at base and crane out to shore and as impressive as the new one looks, it is a straightforward square box likely built to civilian standard: easy-breezy for a civilian yard, something they can do in their sleep. The stronger structure of a container ship also makes finding proper attachment points for the two large cranes (forward: for dry cargo and ammunition) and the four transfer posts very easy.

If Davie already has the merchant ship in its sight, I am still willing to bet they can do it in 12 to 16 months.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> [Hey Kirkhill, are you not happy? Davie seems to want to be able to put up to two Chinook on that thing :nod:]
> 
> ...



Why would I be happy?  I'm Scots.  ;D

PS - I agree with you.  If Davie, the vendor, is saying such a thing is possible I would be inclined to agree with you.  Equally, I am sure a BMT/STX AOPS built at Seaspan would be much closer in budget and timeline to a Svalbard.


----------



## Navy_Pete

That proposal doesn't look like a ship that would be operated by Davie; there wouldn't be Chinook hangars and ammunition on board if that was the case.

Also it's a lot more then just replacing the superstucture if they want it to hold 350 pers; it would also require an upgrade to all the hotel services (black/grey water, hvac, galleys, etc) and be able to carry a lot more water/food.  All doable, but it's a little more then a bit of steelwork, and would also probably mean an upgrade to the power distribution system and other auxiliary systems to accommodate the changes.  Again, not rocket science, but not 'easy peasy'.  Depending when the boat was built, they also would need to do some other updates to various navigation, comms, environmental and other systems to meet the changes to civilian standards that are grandfathered until you upgrade.


----------



## MarkOttawa

'easy peasy'--a phrase learned from my wife .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As in: "You should remodel the bathroom this week-end. It's easy-peasy, you'll be done in no time at all".

And then, six months later ...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Armada de Chile supply ship arrives Esquimalt July 3--another tweet:



> Timothy Choi
> ‏@TimmyC62
> As noted last week, @Armada_Chile Almirante Montt arrives at @MARPAC for #AOR duties...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/TimmyC62/status/617036907667525632



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Newsflash: First world navy dependent on developing world navy to provide logistical support!

All kidding aside, not a bad idea, I wonder how much we are paying? The Chilean navy has some interesting history behind it as well and will be a good bonding exercise between our nations. No doubt at some point our subs will go down there to provide some "clockwork mice" training for them.


----------



## observor 69

Este buque es el cuarto de la clase de petroleros de flota "Henry J. Kaiser" ,construídos para la Armada de Estados Unidos. A contar de 1996 se mantuvo en condición de reserva, hasta el año 2009 en que se inició el proceso de transferencia a la Armada de Chile, incorporándose oficialmente el 10 de febrero de 2010, para ser rebautizado como "Almirante Montt", con el objetivo de reabastecer en alta mar a las unidades de la Armada, en reemplazo del viejo petrolero "Araucano", dado de baja tras 43 años de servicio.

http://www.armada.cl/armada/unidades-navales/superficie/petroleros/ao-52-almirante-montt/2014-04-15/162530.html


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

For the two or three people on this site that don't habla espanol, it roughly translates as:

"This ship was the fourth of the United States Navy Henry J. Kaiser class of auxiliary oiler resupply ship. It was put in reserve staring in 1996, until 2009, when the process of transferring it to the Chilean Navy began. The ship officially joined the fleet on February 10, 2010 and was renamed Almirante Montt. Its task is to provide the fleet units with refuelling at sea as a replacement for the old oiler Auracano, who will be retired after 43 years of service".


----------



## MarkOttawa

Armada española loaner for MARLANT:



> With a little help from our friends – Spanish Navy lease RCN an AOR
> http://casr.ca/doc-news-aor-lease-cantabria.htm



Cantabria webpage:
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/buques_superficie/prefLang_en/06_buques-logisticos--02_buque-aprovisionamiento-combate-cantabria






.

Cantabria design was once in running as basis for JSS:



> ...
> JSS Procurement Plan #2
> ...
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-issues-rfp-for-cdn-29b-joint-support-ship-project-updated-02392/



Note from the DID article:



> ...
> While the 20,240t Berlin Class would certainly qualify for this role, Britain ended up choosing the option Canada didn’t: BMT’s Aegir design, albeit in a larger 37,000t ship. This makes for a very interesting comparison, and Britain added one more major difference: their ships would be built abroad, because even the UK’s shipbuilding facilities weren’t deemed ready, or good value for money. Instead, they chose one of the world’s leading shipbuilders, with a commercial and military history of on-time, on-budget delivery: Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering in South Korea. The 1st ship, RFA Tidespring, is expected to enter service in 2016.
> 
> The cost differential is stunning.
> 
> Canada’s JSS program is budgeting C$ 2.6 billion for 2 ships of 20,240t each. Which means that each ship costs $1.3 billion. We’ll assume that rough parity with the US dollar continues throughout the project. We’ll also assume that the JSS project doesn’t end up with major cost overruns, even though this is a significant risk given Seaspan Vancouver’s lack of experience.
> 
> Britain’s 4 x 37,000t Tide Class MARS replenishment ships cost GBP 602 million total, or about $950 million equivalent. Which means that each ship costs $237.5 million. Their builder has a long record of solid performance, so this amount is fairly reliable.
> 
> The difference per ship = 5.47x, in order to build ships with just 2/3 the individual tonnage, and much greater risk of cost overruns or late arrival...



Good politics though--Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

It makes me want to hurl, reading that article which is exactly what I've been saying for years that we should do.  But, no....


----------



## Infanteer

:facepalm: :not-again:


----------



## Harrigan

Colin P said:
			
		

> I will add to this idea, also buy one Berlin Class to be built overseas by the shipyard that has built others. Hell by the time ours are ready to sail, this one will need a refit. Perfect world 3 Berlins, 2 Mistral. The ships can rotate through refits and hot layups to help with manning and a modern fleet might make recruiting a bit easier as well.



It would be great to have this level of capability with the RCN, particularly the Mistrals with their "Joint" capabilities.  But I wonder if the RCN would be able to actually man a fleet of this size. (2 Mistrals, 3 Berlins, 12 CSCs, 4 SSKs, 5-6 AOPS, any remaining MCDVs, etc)  Granted, with PRO, PRE, IRO, and ALG all retired in quick succession, there would presumably be a bit of excess crew capacity at the moment, but IIRC there was a deficit not long ago that had ships tied up alongside with no crews.

Any future plan that relies upon a massive recruiting effort seems doomed to fail in my opinion.  With personnel costs the largest chunk of our budget (from what I understand - someone here might have the details), I can't see any government wanting an increase on that front.

Sure would be nice to have though, and I think the RCN is in the most dire need of new kit.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan

Ref: the Spanish and Chilean AORs, 

How does the purchase of "at-sea days" work in practice?  Do they deploy solely for RCN use for a set number of days, or do they go the "Eastern Pacific Station" and pass gas to all Navy ships that need it, with us "booked in" for a certain number of days?  (or does it mean something else)

Harrigan


----------



## Kirkhill

Harrigan said:
			
		

> It would be great to have this level of capability with the RCN, particularly the Mistrals with their "Joint" capabilities.  But I wonder if the RCN would be able to actually man a fleet of this size. (2 Mistrals, 3 Berlins, 12 CSCs, 4 SSKs, 5-6 AOPS, any remaining MCDVs, etc)  Granted, with PRO, PRE, IRO, and ALG all retired in quick succession, there would presumably be a bit of excess crew capacity at the moment, but IIRC there was a deficit not long ago that had ships tied up alongside with no crews.
> 
> Any future plan that relies upon a massive recruiting effort seems doomed to fail in my opinion.  With personnel costs the largest chunk of our budget (from what I understand - someone here might have the details), I can't see any government wanting an increase on that front.
> 
> Sure would be nice to have though, and I think the RCN is in the most dire need of new kit.
> 
> Harrigan



I'll harp on an old theme of mine.  When you cant find bodies buy motors.

Some advantages of motors:

They come in all shapes and sizes and can move any load known to man

They follow orders

They are easy to communicate with

Groups are easy to coordinate

They dont talk back

They dont take up much space

They are easy to maintain

They are easily replaced

They dont require funerals

Their families dont vote.

On the downside they can be expensive.

Me, I would be buying AFVs designed for two man crews, log vehicles that can be operated in trains buy two to four men, LRPRS/GBAD batteries for supplying umbrellas -many of them ship mounted, ships with minimum crews, and aircraft of all sorts.  Adjust TTPs to suit and hire them out to needy allies.

Boost defence to 2% of GDP and Aid to 0.7%  and use them to make friends.  I figure the massive boost in Aid along with a well managed publicity campaign  would cover the rise in Defence.

Plan on supplying support that others can't afford themselves.  Let the locals man the MGs and fill the trenches.  Move the infantry to SOF light and have them focus on Sense operations with easily extactable small groups.

If we ever need to line the trenches ourselves well, there is always the Militia -who will need asmuch support and as many motors as the Regs can find.

Dont plan on trying to raise a bigger foreign service force.  If you can only recruit 50,000 of the authorized strength of 65,000 then figure hoe you can make the available force as effective as possible by converting the unused FTEs to motors, sensors, munitions and comms.


----------



## Kirkhill

Back on June 24, when we were discussing the Davie AOR proposal Seaspan was announcing this:








> Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards Celebrates Start of Construction on First NSPS Vessel
> Posted June 24, 2015 & filed under Press Releases.
> 
> For Immediate Release – June 24, 2015
> 
> North Vancouver, BC – The Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, joined by Andrew Saxton, Member of Parliament for North Vancouver and John Weston, Member of Parliament for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, announced today that Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards (VSY) has started construction on the first National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) ship, the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG)’s Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel (OFSV).
> 
> It was also announced that the first ship will be named CCGS Sir John Franklin in honour of a British Royal Navy officer and explorer of the Arctic. Found in September 2014, Franklin’s ships are an important part of Canadian history given that his expeditions, which took place nearly 200 years ago, laid the foundations of Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.
> 
> “Seaspan is changing the course of shipbuilding history on the west coast of Canada, and today’s ceremony marks the most significant milestone yet for the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS),” said Brian Carter, President, Seaspan Shipyards. “Today is day one of many years to come of planned ship production at Vancouver Shipyards for the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy. This is thanks to NSPS and we are grateful that federal Minister Finley is here to celebrate with us the official start of our first vessel, the OFSV.”
> 
> Seaspan’s steel-cutting event follows the recent awarding of an incentive-based build contract to VSY for the construction of three OFSVs, which will be delivered together under a ceiling price of $514 million before the end of 2017. Following the completion of the OFSVs, Seaspan will then build one Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel (OOSV), two Joint Support Ships (JSS), one Polar Icebreaker (PIB) as well as up to five Medium Endurance Multi-Tasked Vessels (MEMTVs) and up to five Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs), with more opportunities to follow well into the future.
> 
> “This announcement marks the resurgence of sustained employment and long-term economic activity within Canada’s shipbuilding and marine industrial base across the country. Seaspan is proudly building the next generation of vessels for the men and women of the Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Navy,” said Brian Carter.
> 
> To date, Seaspan has signed over 200 contracts with 137 companies in Canada, with half of their value going to small and medium-sized businesses.
> 
> It is estimated that Seaspan’s NSPS work will create 5000 direct, indirect and induced jobs over the next 20 years, produce almost $500 million per year in GDP for B.C.’s economy, and mean thousands of people will get the opportunity for an exciting new career in shipbuilding.
> 
> -30-
> 
> Jeff Taylor
> Email: jataylor@seaspan.com
> Office: (604) 990-3175
> Mobile: (778) 879-8993



The structure in the back ground, under the flag, appears to be the fairly well developed hull of an OFSV.  That would lend credence to the claim:



> Seaspan’s steel-cutting event follows the recent awarding of an incentive-based build contract to VSY for the construction of three OFSVs, which will be delivered together under a ceiling price of $514 million before the end of 2017.



After the similarly sized OOSV the JSS construction will start.

http://www.seaspan.com/building


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually Kirkhill, you are the one that missed it.

We were all over it in the proper thread "New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy":

http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1374273.html#msg1374273


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually Kirkhill, you are the one that missed it.
> 
> We were all over it in the proper thread "New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy":
> 
> http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1374273.html#msg1374273



Ouch....... mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Thanks OGBD. (I think).

Edit: WRT "Proper" thread - I claim AOR relevance on scheduling grounds.  :nod:


----------



## CougarKing

Posted an article with an update on Project Resolve at the Shipbuilding thread.

Plus, here's a a computer rendering of the M/V Asterix vessel after conversion. Picture: Chantier Davie






Plus a picture of how she looks now:





caption: _Civilian container vessel M.V. Asterix will be converted into an Auxiliary Oil Replenishment (AOR) ship 
for the Royal Canadian Navy’s interim supply ship capability. Picture: Chantier Davie_


----------



## Edward Campbell

_Davie_ has just posted this picture ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




               ... of the MV Asterix in Levis, ready to begin the conversion process.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I have to admire Davie. They are really showing a set of balls that I did not think any shipbuilder in Canada had.


----------



## FSTO

I thought that this was all political posturing. Despite not hearing anything official from CRCN, I beginning to believe that this just might happen.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have to admire Davie. They are really showing a set of balls that I did not think any shipbuilder in Canada had.



That's because Davie has Daewoo backing them now.  They aren't some bush league operation anymore.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Another graphic from _Davie_:





_Source_: https://www.facebook.com/GOCANADANAVY


----------



## jollyjacktar

More from Project Resolve.  Will be of possible interest to all the Tanker Wankers out there.

http://projectresolve.ca/website/


----------



## Kirkhill

If they get this done then perhaps Davie could convert another couple of hulls to AORs and the Berlins could be reconfigured by Seaspan to be heavier on the Army Support side?

Perhaps something like the M/V Cragside - Originally a Maersk RoRo.


----------



## jollyjacktar

We were discussing this project this afternoon.   In looking at the design concepts with the drawing ER provided, we're optimistic it won't be a shitshow.  In fact, we're impressed. Especially if they do it in 18 months.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If they pull this off, they might just create a niche market, to bad the Russians are naughty, we could have sold them a couple.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Check this website out. It has an outstanding list of COTS alternatives for naval purposes.  And, the things can be done with seacans!!! Amazing.

   http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/08/a-ship-that-is-not-a-frigate-part-4-modules-and-payloads/#Small_Craft 

What are we doing playing around with Berlin class tankers and thinking about LHD etc?


----------



## MilEME09

It's starting to come out that apparently the RCN will have the option to buy the Astrix when the initial contract is up, could be a cheap way of making sure we have 3 AOR's


----------



## Bearpaw

I would even go a bit farther---there is an option to buy another Asterix-class container ship for conversion to AOR as well.  If we were to exercise that option and later buy both Asterix-class AOR's then together with the Berlin-class AOR's we could have
1 "blue-water" AOR and 1 "domestic" AOR on each coast.

Bearpaw


----------



## jollyjacktar

If we buy two converted Astrix I doubt we'll see the Queenstown's come to pass.  That money will be better spent towards more CSC.


----------



## MilEME09

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If we buy two converted Astrix I doubt we'll see the Queenstown's come to pass.  That money will be better spent towards more CSC.


Not really, two is not enough, we will have periods when the ships need to be in dry dock for maintenance, meaning a coast might be without a AOR for a few months, that is why three was the original plan. The third one would be able to cover that gap while one of the other two is in dry dock. If we had two on each coast, that makes it easier as we wouldn't have to worry about having a ship make the long transit through Panama to get to the other coast.


----------



## MarkOttawa

jollyjacktar: The Liberals might well prefer to put JSS money towards another icebreaker or two for the, civilian, Canadian Coast Guard--Arctic! Arctic! Arctic! (even if mainly used off east coast).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Not really, two is not enough, we will have periods when the ships need to be in dry dock for maintenance, meaning a coast might be without a AOR for a few months, that is why three was the original plan. The third one would be able to cover that gap while one of the other two is in dry dock. If we had two on each coast, that makes it easier as we wouldn't have to worry about having a ship make the long transit through Panama to get to the other coast.



I'm an old tanker hand, I know we need at least three if not four to allow cycles for refits etc.  However, what we need is not necessarily what we'll get as has been proven time and time again.  Dollars will go where those who control the purse strings decide and my money's on getting other capacity growth elsewhere, be it CCG or RCN.  And by the way, the "original" plan was to have four in the water for 2005.  Nuff said there...


----------



## Lumber

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Not really, two is not enough, we will have periods when the ships need to be in dry dock for maintenance, meaning a coast might be without a AOR for a few months, that is why three was the original plan. The third one would be able to cover that gap while one of the other two is in dry dock. If we had two on each coast, that makes it easier as we wouldn't have to worry about having a ship make the long transit through Panama to get to the other coast.



Two may not be enough, but we made do with two for a long time. Sure, a lot of people we're saying we could really use more, but it wasn't in the public eye. It wasn't until we were down to 1 (and very shortly after, 0) that the general public and therefore politicians started to notice or care.

I think two Astrix and two Berlins would be awesome! But if we get two Astrix and they perform well, I can see the Berlin class hitting some road blocks.

Hey neat question, what are we going to name the Astrix? Suggestions?

HMCS Votes-en-Lauzon?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:
			
		

> Two may not be enough, but we made do with two for a long time. Sure, a lot of people we're saying we could really use more, but it wasn't in the public eye. It wasn't until we were down to 1 (and very shortly after, 0) that the general public and therefore politicians started to notice or care.
> 
> I think two Astrix and two Berlins would be awesome! But if we get two Astrix and they perform well, I can see the Berlin class hitting some road blocks.
> 
> Hey neat question, what are we going to name the Astrix? Suggestions?
> 
> HMCS Votes-en-Lauzon?



God no more place names.  How about something more aggressive like HMCS Fearless or HMCS Puncher


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ha, don't you mean HMCS Beerless...


----------



## blacktriangle

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ha, don't you mean HMCS Beerless...



If we get two, the second can be HMCS Crewless.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> God no more place names.  How about something more aggressive like HMCS Fearless or HMCS Puncher



I don't think they will be commissioned, just a civi ship with a civi crew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

RCFA - Actually might work , the ships could be used as floating classrooms to teach Merchant Marine Cadets and support various missions.


----------



## suffolkowner

Maybe retain the for CCG after the Queenston's come online?

http://www.casr.ca/mp-daly-project-resolve-aor.htm


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not a lot they could do for the CCG. Keep them as RCFA's ships and lease to support other NATO's allies? If we got two to back up the Queenstons and kept them in Hot layup that would make sense. I suspect that crewing new ships might be easier as well as morale will be boosted and living accommodations improved.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not a lot they could do for the CCG. Keep them as RCFA's ships and lease to support other NATO's allies? If we got two to back up the Queenstons and kept them in Hot layup that would make sense. I suspect that crewing new ships might be easier as well as morale will be boosted and living accommodations improved.



I suspect there would be good business supplying fleet services to allies.  The Air Tanker Consortium.

Perhaps you could bring The Hanseatic Tanker Consortium into the picture as a civilian partner (or not).  That has a Canadian connection - Algoma Central Corp.  Another Canadian connection could be FedNav which operates this:

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/01/31/a-drone-boost-for-a-canadian-arctic-icebreaker-and-cargo-ship.html.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Can someone tell me please how much the _Berlin_ class AOR can do that the _Asterix_/Project _Resolve_ ship cannot?

I'm interested from to angles:

     1. How close does the _Asterix_/Project _Resolve_ ship come to meeting, say, 95% of our minimum operational requirement? and 

     2. How do the two ships compare on a value for money basis? (And, yes, I appreciate that building two big _Berlin_ class ships in a Canadian yard will have its own "value.")


----------



## Jed

Spectrum said:
			
		

> If we get two, the second can be HMCS Crewless.


HMCS Clueless


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to ERC's post:

And would someone care to comment on the effect created by having the RCN and PWGSC intimately involved in the detailed design and selection of the Berlins vice the purely internal, civilian process that generated the Asterix to conform to naval requirements?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Can someone tell me please how much the _Berlin_ class AOR can do that the _Asterix_/Project _Resolve_ ship cannot?
> 
> I'm interested from to angles:
> 
> 1. How close does the _Asterix_/Project _Resolve_ ship come to meeting, say, 95% of our minimum operational requirement? and
> 
> 2. How do the two ships compare on a value for money basis? (And, yes, I appreciate that building two big _Berlin_ class ships in a Canadian yard will have its own "value.")



One ex-navy Captain recently said to me after looking at the potential design, that hull space will be limited, meaning some choices need to be made on what is carried. Someone here pointed out difficulties in moving cargo around on some designs to accommodate different means of transfer. The magazine looks small and is at the forward end of the vessel, likely it will not be an optimal setup for the quick handling of ammunition.


----------



## NavyShooter

Colin P said:
			
		

> One ex-navy Captain recently said to me after looking at the potential design, that hull space will be limited, meaning some choices need to be made on what is carried. Someone here pointed out difficulties in moving cargo around on some designs to accommodate different means of transfer. The magazine looks small and is at the forward end of the vessel, likely it will not be an optimal setup for the quick handling of ammunition.


 
I see 45 ISO shipping containers in their diagram.

I see what appears to be a small (rectangular) space that *could* be an elevator/ammunition hoist (between the large and smaller stacks of containers)

I suspect that the notional magazine space is probably larger than you think.  I was Mag Custodian on a CPF until June, and it's less a matter of volume, and more a matter of compatibility...what can you put together down there?  I suspect that FAI has been involved or at least consulted.  

Then, who's to say (besides FAI) that they couldn't use some of those containers as extra storage space for 1.4S class ammo (small arms) which would give you a vast amount of space.

NS


----------



## Bearpaw

To ERC's questions:

Differences between Queenston Class AOR and Asterix Class Converted AOR

Queenston Class has double the helicopter capacity of the Asterix (4 vs 2)
Queenston has hospital facilities
Queenston has some minor armament
Queenston has capacity for easily handling vehicles
Queenston likely has much more complete and well-designed damage control systems

Bearpaw

The Davie Website is high on glitz but short on hard data so it is difficult to compare the
tankage and dry cargo capacities of the classes.


----------



## Privateer

Lumber said:
			
		

> Hey neat question, what are we going to name the Astrix? Suggestions?



Given that it is "Project Resolve", I assumed that it would be RESOLVE.

But I was hoping that they would keep the name ASTERIX, and then get a second ship and call it OBELIX.


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> One ex-navy Captain recently said to me after looking at the potential design, that hull space will be limited, meaning some choices need to be made on what is carried. Someone here pointed out difficulties in moving cargo around on some designs to accommodate different means of transfer. The magazine looks small and is at the forward end of the vessel, likely it will not be an optimal setup for the quick handling of ammunition.



And this compares how to current Canadian resupply capabilities?


----------



## Kirkhill

Privateer said:
			
		

> Given that it is "Project Resolve", I assumed that it would be RESOLVE.
> 
> But I was hoping that they would keep the name ASTERIX, and then get a second ship and call it OBELIX.








My hero.  ;D  All things considered much more appropriate than Asterix


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> To ERC's questions:
> 
> Differences between Queenston Class AOR and Asterix Class Converted AOR
> 
> Queenston Class has double the helicopter capacity of the Asterix (4 vs 2)
> Queenston has hospital facilities
> Queenston has some minor armament
> Queenston has capacity for easily handling vehicles
> Queenston likely has much more complete and well-designed damage control systems
> 
> Bearpaw
> 
> The Davie Website is high on glitz but short on hard data so it is difficult to compare the
> tankage and dry cargo capacities of the classes.




Thanks, Bearpaw, but ..

Suppose I'm a very, very senior official, sitting just a few blocks from 101 Colonel By Drive (AKA Fort Fumble), and I call the CDS and say, "Jon, can you come and see me please, to discuss ships? Specifically, why can't you fellows have three or even four of the sorts of vessels Davie are converting so that we can divert the money from the big, _Berlin_ class project to other ships? Please don't send an admiral and some over-educated analyst, Jon ... just you and me, "under four eyes," in words we can both understand, and that I can use, next week, with the new fellow." What should Gen Vance say? What are the _minimum_ operational requirements? How close is _Asterix_ to the 95% capable mark? (I'm thinking that the last 5% of performance/specification usually equals 20% of the cost.)


----------



## AlexanderM

To save money we could just jump in with the Brits on the ships they're building in Korea, if that's still on.  We could get 2 for well under 1 billion, then have Seaspan build one or two additional large icebreakers and we'd still be way ahead in the dollars column.  Just saying.


----------



## AlexanderM

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The Dutch, intelligently, had most of the metal-bashing done in Romania:
> http://navaltoday.com/2013/07/25/hnlms-karel-doorman-departs-romania/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


If this is still available the Liberals might be convinced, as it's a good deal.  If options are now possible, there are some out there.

Also, too bad we missed the Mistrals, that might of also been possible, who knows??


----------



## CBH99

AlexanderM,

Wowa wowa wowa there partner.   Who do you think you are, coming on here & making good suggestions?  Common sense?  Better bang for the buck?  Getting more ships for less money!?

Geez, that is NOT the way we do things here in Canada.   Can't believe you'd even suggest such a monstrosity of an idea.   Give your head a shake...


----------



## AlexanderM

It's going to be interesting to see what the Liberals do regarding the shipbuilding program put in place by Harper.  Will they cancel parts of it and do their own thing and how much would that cost??  I know the conservatives signed a deal with Irving regarding the new warships, but how firm is it and can it be cancelled without costing a fortune??  I have no idea what comes next.


----------



## MarkOttawa

AlexanderM: The only actual RCN shipbuilding contract that has been signed is with Irving for the A/OPS; I very much doubt the Liberals would want to mess with that pretty warm and fuzzy project with but a 25mm gun.

On the other hand one wonders how much they will value the additional onshore expeditionary support capabilities the JSS have over the Davie AOR(s).  More CCG icebreakers for Seaspan instead?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Pelorus

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Also, too bad we missed the Mistrals, that might of also been possible, who knows??



Too many defense commentators in Canada love to throw around the Mistrals as a prime example of what could have been if only the government did procurement via "common sense".  

Were the two Russian Mistrals extremely capable ships being sold for a fraction of their value due to political reasons?  Absolutely.  However, they were a class of ship that would have been great in a perfect world, where the RCN wasn't suffering from the multitude of other problems that affect every major decision that is made regarding our Navy.  Today's Navy as is stands is already stretched thin wrt budget, personnel in key positions, assets (ie. Maritime Helicopters) and a number of other minor problems that would have precluded their integration into the existing fleet of frigates.  Essentially, the addition of such a major asset would have caused more headaches than it solved.

It is similar in many ways to the recommendations to buy the two surplus Fast Supply Ships that the US had mothballed.  Again, great ships being sold for dirt cheap, but with a significantly higher operating cost (GT only operation) than we had at the time.   We could barely afford to put our own ships to sea for significant periods of time due to fuel costs.


----------



## AlexanderM

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> AlexanderM: The only actual RCN shipbuilding contract that has been signed is with Irving for the A/OPS; I very much doubt the Liberals would want to mess with that pretty warm and fuzzy project with but a 25mm gun.
> 
> On the other hand one wonders how much they will value the additional onshore expeditionary support capabilities the JSS have over the Davie AOR(s).  More CCG icebreakers for Seaspan instead?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Yes, I expect Irving will build the AOPS which is fine, but good news if that's all we're signed up for as there can now be options. Thanks!


----------



## AlexanderM

boot12 said:
			
		

> Too many defense commentators in Canada love to throw around the Mistrals as a prime example of what could have been if only the government did procurement via "common sense".
> 
> Were the two Russian Mistrals extremely capable ships being sold for a fraction of their value due to political reasons?  Absolutely.  However, they were a class of ship that would have been great in a perfect world, where the RCN wasn't suffering from the multitude of other problems that affect every major decision that is made regarding our Navy.  Today's Navy as is stands is already stretched thin wrt budget, personnel in key positions, assets (ie. Maritime Helicopters) and a number of other minor problems that would have precluded their integration into the existing fleet of frigates.  Essentially, the addition of such a major asset would have caused more headaches than it solved.
> 
> It is similar in many ways to the recommendations to buy the two surplus Fast Supply Ships that the US had mothballed.  Again, great ships being sold for dirt cheap, but with a significantly higher operating cost (GT only operation) than we had at the time.   We could barely afford to put our own ships to sea for significant periods of time due to fuel costs.


I believe the Liberals have stated that they want to put money into the navy, less on fighters more on navy, so I expect these issues will get resolved through better funding.


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks, Bearpaw, but ..
> 
> Suppose I'm a very, very senior official, sitting just a few blocks from 101 Colonel By Drive (AKA Fort Fumble), and I call the CDS and say, "Jon, can you come and see me please, to discuss ships? Specifically, why can't you fellows have three or even four of the sorts of vessels Davie are converting so that we can divert the money from the big, _Berlin_ class project to other ships? Please don't send an admiral and some over-educated analyst, Jon ... just you and me, "under four eyes," in words we can both understand, and that I can use, next week, with the new fellow." What should Gen Vance say? What are the _minimum_ operational requirements? How close is _Asterix_ to the 95% capable mark? (I'm thinking that the last 5% of performance/specification usually equals 20% of the cost.)



ER, it is the opinion in discussion in my section which includes a NavArc, who was on the JSS PMO at one point, that the Asterix will deliver most of what the Queenstowns will at a substancial savings in both time and money.  Especially if Davies delivers in 18 months and there is no reason why they can't.  Our money say's what will be, that if it all pans out, they'll do another Asterix part deux and JSS is going to be quietly shelved.


----------



## Pelorus

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I believe the Liberals have stated that they want to put money into the navy, less on fighters more on navy, so I expect these issues will get resolved through better funding.



Unfortunately, some of our bigger problems (ie. having enough senior technicians to put a fleet to sea, most notably Cert 3 MSE types) cannot be solved by simply throwing money at the situation.  Having spoken with a lot of these guys, the problem runs much deeper into nebulous areas such as morale and overall job satisfaction.

These are by no means easy problems to solve.  It's going to take a lot of ingenuity to mitigate, especially once more platforms such as the AOPS come online.


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> AlexanderM: The only actual RCN shipbuilding contract that has been signed is with Irving for the A/OPS; I very much doubt the Liberals would want to mess with that pretty warm and fuzzy project with but a 25mm gun.
> 
> On the other hand one wonders how much they will value the additional onshore expeditionary support capabilities the JSS have over the Davie AOR(s).  More CCG icebreakers for Seaspan instead?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Remember the Through-Deck Cruiser?  HMS Invincible?







Howabout the Casualty Ship? RFA Argus?







RFA ARGUS

The principal role of RFA Argus is to serve as a Primary Casualty Receiving Ship (PCRS). She has a fully equipped 100-bed medical complex on board, which can be uniquely tailored to deliver cutting-edge treatment afloat

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/royal-fleet-auxiliary/casualty-ship/rfa-argus

Compare her to Bay Class






And you're too late on the Karel Doorman Alex. The Dutch kept her.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Through-deck destroyer?



> http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/japan-launches-new-helicopter-destroyer/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

Just to correct from something said earlier - according to project resolve website, the ship will carry a large hospital.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ER, it is the opinion in discussion in my section which includes a NavArc, who was on the JSS PMO at one point, that the Asterix will deliver most of what the Queenstowns will at a substancial savings in both time and money.  Especially if Davies delivers in 18 months and there is no reason why they can't.  Our money say's what will be, that if it all pans out, they'll do another Asterix part deux and JSS is going to be quietly shelved.




Thanks for that, JJT ~ it confirms what I heard from another old retired, Navy four striper, who heard it in the wardroom bar ... from whence all useful info flows. 

There is a rumour floating about the at least one or two of Prime Minister designate Trudeau's advisors want to take some quick action on something that smells a bit like _1)_ a decision on new ships for the RCN, after years of procrastination; and _2)_ job creation. The gist of the rumour is that if the _Asterix_/Project _Resolve;_ ship meets "most" (whatever that is) of the Navy's requirements then it, plus one or two more, will be built, in Quebec, and other contracts will be announced in other yards, too. But the aim is to get people cutting steel, _*and to be seen to be cutting steel*_, very soon.

Edit: grammar  :-[


----------



## donaldk

Overall Davie pulled an excellent maneuver for coming up with Project Resolve - 18 months versus 7 years just to get some of our beloved RAS capability back.  Will be interesting to see what ISSC arrangement will come out of it if (*cough* when *cough*) the government decides to purchase an Asterix or two at the end of the lease agreement.

The real fun begins once Parliament reconvenes in December  ;D -  How I foresee it:

 *ding* *dong* Ladies and Gentlemen, in preparation for take off, please stow your luggage under the seat in front or in the overhead bin, ensure your tray table is fastened, seat is in the upright position, and fasten your seat belts.  We're in for one helluva ride!

P.S.  News on who is getting the upcoming disposal contract for the old tankers/280s should be coming forth within the next couple months...  whenever legal is finished with it.  That is all.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm still looking for guidance ...

If the _Berlin_ is, say, the Mercedes Benz C Class of AORs, meaning top of the line but not the very, very best, then what is the _Asterix_/Project _Resolve_ ship? Is it a Chevrolet Cruze, providing basic but "good enough" service for a small_ish_ middle class family navy? In other words, is it an _acceptable_ AOR for, say 95% of the RCN's requirements over the next 25+ years?

New question: what about the UK's RFA model? Is there, given the personnel problems some of you have mentioned, some advantage in using civil service sailors, rather then RCN members, to crew the tankers? I know that we've never done it, but the Brits have, including, in the 1980s, in battle ...


----------



## jollyjacktar

ER. In my opinion, it might not be a Benz but it is a luxury classed car nonetheless.  Say maybe a couple of steps down.  

Again, we were discussing the merits or not of a RFA type option in the office, after all we do have civilian sailors already manning our auxillary fleet (tugs, barges, Quest) as yes, the RFA Wave class are (mostly) all over the place.  The difference between how we use our AOR's and the other guys is that we take ours into high risk areas such as the Straights of Hormuse and do boardings and the like.  We, have the unlimited liability clause as a matter of fact, our civilians don't.


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ER. In my opinion, it might not be a Benz but it is a luxury classed car nonetheless.  Say maybe a couple of steps down.
> 
> Again, we were discussing the merits or not of a RFA type option in the office, after all we do have civilian sailors already manning our auxillary fleet (tugs, barges, Quest) as yes, the RFA Wave class are (mostly) all over the place.  The difference between how we use our AOR's and the other guys is that we take ours into high risk areas such as the Straights of Hormuse and do boardings and the like.  We, have the unlimited liability clause as a matter of fact, our civilians don't.




But I believe the RFA Civilians do.



> Your place in the team
> Although you’ll be working alongside the
> Royal Navy, you won’t actually be joining
> them. In fact, *the Royal Fleet Auxiliary
> is part of the UK Merchant Navy, which
> means you will stay a civilian*.
> 
> Of course, serving with the Royal Fleet
> Auxiliary is a bit different from serving on a
> cruise ship or an oil tanker.  *By keeping the
> Royal Navy supplied and operational, you’ll
> have a vital role in Britain’s defence and
> humanitarian activities around the world.
> This could mean serving in hostile waters*
> or regions that have suffered a major
> natural or man-made disaster. To prepare
> you for this, *you’ll begin your career with
> us in Royal Navy training bases, learning
> specialist technical and military skills you
> wouldn’t develop in other Merchant
> Navy jobs.* You’ll also earn qualifications
> accredited by the Maritime & Coastguard
> Agency (MCA), which will be recognised
> throughout the UK shipping industry.
> On many Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, your
> crewmates will include Royal Navy or Royal
> Marines personnel, such as Air Engineering
> Technicians looking after your ship’s
> helicopters. *As a civilian, though, you’ll
> have to keep to Royal Fleet Auxiliary codes
> of conduct, rather than military ones.*
> 
> A unique purpose…
> 
> In the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, you’ll be
> working with two main groups of people.
> *The Royal Navy will look to you to supply
> and repair their warships away from home
> ports and provide training facilities for
> ratings and officers. *Meanwhile, t*he
> Royal Marines Commandos and the Army
> will rely on you to provide them with a
> floating base for their operations on shore.*
> Our ships are all specially designed and
> equipped to carry out these crucial tasks.
> You’ll serve on one of the ships in the
> Royal Fleet Auxiliary fleet, which currently
> has six fleet and support tankers, two
> dry-cargo fleet replenishment ships, two
> combined fuel and stores replenishment
> ships, four landing ships, one aviation
> training ship and one forward repair ship.
> *Almost all our ships have large flight
> decks and hangars, so they can land and
> carry helicopters.* We use helicopters to
> carry loads out to warships as part of our
> supply work. Sometimes, though, you’ll
> have Royal Navy anti-submarine helicopters
> on board with you, or detachments of
> Royal Marines Commandos or Army troops
> being airlifted into action.
> 
> …and identity
> 
> You can tell Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships from
> Royal Navy warships by their grey paint
> and the *Royal Fleet Auxiliary flag, the blue
> ensign. *This is a blue flag with the Union
> Jack in the top-left corner and an upright
> gold anchor in the centre. Royal Navy ships
> fly the white ensign, while other British
> Merchant Navy ships fly the red ensig





> *Q: What happens if I find myself in a
> war zone?*
> 
> A: *As a member of the Royal Fleet
> Auxiliary, you’re also a special member
> of the Royal Naval Reserve (RNR). In a
> combat situation, this special status is
> activated, *so you gain reservist status
> and are protected by the Geneva
> Convention.



http://c69011.r11.cf3.rackcdn.com/63a223b946c1458d9981deea2b6d456b-0x0.pdf


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ER. In my opinion, it might not be a Benz but it is a luxury classed car nonetheless.  Say maybe a couple of steps down.
> 
> Again, we were discussing the merits or not of a RFA type option in the office, after all we do have civilian sailors already manning our auxillary fleet (tugs, barges, Quest) as yes, the RFA Wave class are (mostly) all over the place.  The difference between how we use our AOR's and the other guys is that _we take ours into high risk areas_ such as the Straights of Hormuse and do boardings and the like.  We, have the unlimited liability clause as a matter of fact, our civilians don't.











                    The (chartered) _Atlantic Conveyor_                                and           the RFA _Sir Galahad_ were both sunk by enemy fire in
                    the Falklands War ... and, we sent plenty of civilians into harm's way in ships in the last Big war ...









                    ... they were (relatively, especially viz-a-viz, the Navy) well paid and their TOS were not the same as RCN sailors but they died anyway ...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Thank you Chris and ER, you did beat me to it with those examples.  

I don't know how often the RFA find themselves conducting RAS in hostile waters since that time (82) as I've only run into them operating down south.  But the other kids normally keep their combat support vessels back from operating in places such as the SoH and have the combatants go out of the box to RAS.  We on the other hand were willing to go in and as such were regularly requested to come into the box and RAS.

Our Auxiliary chaps with the exception of Quest normally stick to the home port.  I don't know if having a clause such as you point out Chris to default to the RNR would fly or if it's not already there buried in their TOS.   :dunno:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If the Davie contracts pans out, they could get 2 ships built over the next 3 or so years, delay the Queenston's and get the icebreakers done, then proceed on the Queenstons, which by the time they are ready the Davie ships will need a good refit. I hear that the naval tugfleet is getting long in the tooth and may be to small for some of the ships proposed?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yeah, the tugs are saber toothed as well.


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> If the Davie contracts pans out, they could get 2 ships built over the next 3 or so years, delay the Queenston's and get the icebreakers done, then proceed on the Queenstons, which by the time they are ready the Davie ships will need a good refit. I hear that the naval tugfleet is getting long in the tooth and may be to small for some of the ships proposed?



Yes on both counts. 
Tugs are not glamourous but they are critical. You would think it would be easy to get replacement tugs, but this is Canada remember.


----------



## Furniture

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The difference between how we use our AOR's and the other guys is that we take ours into high risk areas such as the Straights of Hormuse and do boardings and the like.  We, have the unlimited liability clause as a matter of fact, our civilians don't.



I wonder if we used our tankers for boarding’s and such because we thought they were an appropriate platform for the job, or if we did it because we were low on warships to do the job?

Would it not make more sense to use a RFA model with Resolve class axillary boats pumping gas, and the saved money used to buy an extra CSC/AOPS to carry the boarding parties?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yeah, the tugs are saber toothed as well.



How can you say that ??? They were new, modern and recent acquisitions when I joined ... in 1975.  ;D

And I agree that acquisition of two Asterix would make it possible to delay the Queenston and as a result, get on with building the Diefenbaker first (wonder if the Libs will change that name?)

As for the way we operate our AOR's, they form an integral part of the deployed Task Group from an operational point of view, so they carry out ops, are part of the surface/air picture and provide some of the coordination required, since they are in the box with the other warships anyway. If you move to a civilian model (and I have no problem with that model), then the AOR does not form part of the TG anymore and is left out, requiring a supplementary military asset in the deployed force to meet the coverage needs. This means three more such assets to keep one deployed at all times.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The UK utilizes the RFA fleet as much more than just a tanker fleet "out of the box":

"On 14 May 2012, during its 2012 deployment, U.S. helicopter squadron HSM-77 Detachment Five completed its temporary operational rotation on board the Fort Victoria which was serving as the flagship for Combined Task Force 151. This was the first time that a MH-60R helicopter had ever operated from a Royal Navy ship. The detachment's helicopters primarily concentrated on anti-piracy surveillance missions during this two-week period.[18]

For her four-month-long 2013 deployment, Fort Victoria relieved Wave Ruler and operated with Task Force 53 in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf.[19] In September 2013 she took over as flagship of Combined Task Force 151 tackling piracy off Somalia.[20] In mid 2013, she sailed with the COUGAR 13 task group.[21]"

However, I believe they are doing this because the RN is so short of surface combatant ships to the point where they must take such risks.

Also, RFA ships have Marines to man weapon systems and RN sailors to operate sensors, communications, aircraft handling etc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

An article on the importance of refueling capability 

http://cimsec.org/canadas-naval-fuel-crisis/19073


----------



## GK .Dundas

Colin P said:
			
		

> An article on the importance of refueling capability
> 
> http://cimsec.org/canadas-naval-fuel-crisis/19073


 OUCH!


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm surprised he didn't bring up HMS PENELOPE getting run over by PRE.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Penelope_(F127)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If anyone is interested, here is the video of the PENELOPE collision (a little more than getting hung up on PRESERVER's anchor. She almost got rolled over):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2vW7B5JLmY

For those of you unfamiliar with these type of things:

PENELOPE is the ship that is on the right side of PRE at the start. She and PRE are steamships, so the black smoke you see coming from their smokestacks at different times indicates that the engine rooms have just got and are executing "full speed" orders.

PENELOPE goes full speed first. But in her case, it was because, as she made her approach to refuel, the engine telegraph on the Starboard engine got stuck  at "full ahead". The engine room obliges, but before that can be noticed, the counter  order be passed and new way of communicating engine orders established*, it is too late: she has lurched ahead and been pushed to port. At that point, it is too late and her best chance is to put speed on again to cross in front of the AOR as fast as possible. 

On the left side, you can see a textbook emergency breakaway, where the gear is quickly returned to PRE while the refuelled ship eases herself quickly out to open the distance, and executes a hard turn to port as soon as the last connection is broken.

At that point, PRE is free to maneuver and full speed astern is ordered (hence the black smoke) and turn hard to port to minimize the blow.

PENELOPE was lucky enough to have had this happen to her while fueling from a Canadian AOR. The British and American supply ships of that era (and today's too, including all the new ones Canada is about to get - Berlins and Asterix) had bulbous bows to help with speed and fuel consumption. PRE did not, and otherwise, PENELOPE would have been sunk.

*: For educational purposes here: for frigates of that era, like the LEANDERs and ST-LAURENT's, there are no engine controls or status indicators on the bridge of the ship. All engines are controlled manually by the engine room. Orders go from the bridge to the wheelhouse (located below decks in the centre of the ship - again not on the bridge) by microphone (or voice pipe when no power available), where they are then transmitted to the ER by way of  mechanical telegraphs (one at each end - connected by chains and wires traveling in tubes. The Engine rooms themselves have a second set of telegraphs to order the then required steam settings from the boiler room. when the engine room "repeated" an order received from the wheelhouse, it meant "got what you want, I am getting on with doing it now", not "order has been executed". So it could take quite a few precious seconds before anyone realizes that an engine order is not being executed or is being executed improperly.


----------



## jollyjacktar

During a RAS things can escalate quickly and become exciting.   OGBD  gives a nice play by play on how a good emergency breakaway is done.  On the video you hear 6 blasts of the horn from the ship on the port side announcing she is committing this manoeuvre.   When done well as this video shows, it's swift, slick and a pleasure to watch especially with something like an Arleigh Burke flooring the gas and screaming off like a raped ape.

When done badly...  I was on PRE doing workup assists for IRQ.  She was in the same position on port as the video.  I was in the fuel dump of station 2 and passing down the fuel orders to the after liquid control office where they would start and stop pumping the fuel across as needed.  IRQ gave their warnings they were full and to stop pumping.  All normal.  Frequently the warships practice emergency breakaways and tear away as soon as all the fuel hoses are disconnected and wires released.

This time however the officer of the watch signalled his intention to do a emergency breakaway, honk honk, then he peeled off with the main engines engaged and everything still connected.  It was like the biggest game of deep sea fishing with jaws on the line.  The guys controlling the span wires were desperately playing out the the hose and wire while the guys across on IRQ tried to disconnect it all before it snapped off and shot back toward PRE.

On the IRQ foscle the folks who were manning the distance line (a long rope marked with pennants every 5 meters so the OOW can gauge the distance between ships) were paying it back to PRE's team as fast as possible when one of the girls were snagged by the line and nearly dragged between ships.  She was only saved by getting slammed around a stancion and pulled to safety by a team member.

Meanwhile, midships we could see the gear wouldn't be disconnected but torn off.  The fuel nozzle was ripped out of the Bell housing on IRQ and went flopping over the side as the RAS deck crew tried to bring it back.  The span wire was singing and at this point I along with everyone else outside ran for cover.  The weak link finally snapped and the wire shot back toward PRE stacking against the side of the ship and into the water.  Thankfully no one was seriously injured and our gear didn't get caught up underneath.

All of this took place in a span of about 3-4 minutes.  I counted about 18 sea training staff watching the RAS,  I can just imagine the blast of shit the OOW received afterwards.


----------



## NavyShooter

Geez.....

I was SSD helmsman for 9 years on CHA, STJ and MON...never had that kind of mess up.


----------



## jollyjacktar

It just wasn't their day.  Later on, about midnight ST decided to have a small simulated fire in the Tech Office.  They set off a smoke candle which started some papers on fire instead...  ;D


----------



## Occam

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Geez.....
> 
> I was SSD helmsman for 9 years on CHA, STJ and MON...never had that kind of mess up.



That's the beauty of having your throttle controls directly linked to the propulsion and CRPP systems.  On post #21 of the thread at http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=41364, a stoker describes the actions going on in the engine/boiler room when all this stuff is going on.  Sounds like an incredible amount of activity, with lots of opportunity for errors to be made in a lot of places.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> All of this took place in a span of about 3-4 minutes.  I counted about 18 sea training staff watching the RAS,  I can just imagine the blast of crap the OOW received afterwards.



Maybe someone with more time on the bridge than I (as a CSE type) can enlighten me:

My understanding is that the XO or CO is always on the bridge during a RAS, even if they're not actually driving.  If an OOW made such a critical error as to put on full helm for an emergency breakaway (as opposed to a more gentle course manoeuver to allow a quick but orderly RAS gear retrieval and span wire slip), would the XO or CO not immediately direct the OOD to fix their error, or do a quick "I have the ship" and start making the necessary helm and throttle corrections?  

I guess put another way, at what point does a CO or XO say to him or herself "this is going seriously wrong and I now have to take over"?


----------



## Furniture

As the guy standing in front of the CO on the wing for a RAS I can asure you that they are present, and aware of what is happening. If the communication betwen the dump and the bridge is poor things might go a bit sideways, but the tanker CO is on a direct line with the CO of the ship refueling so you would think issues like that wouldn't come up.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Things can and do go sideways even with the Old Man in the house.  When PRE hit the Nova Dock a few years ago, I am told the OM froze when the youngster OOW got in over his head.  The tankers don't respond to the helm all snappy like a warship and their inertia also make their response time slow down too.  Both of these men were new-ish to the ship and not used to her ways.  It was the XO jumping in and taking over the situation that softened the collision somewhat. 

Both OMs should be on the Bridge Wings for a RAS and I'm sure there was plenty of hooting and hollering when the breakaway went south, especially on IRQ.  Probably didn't help matters with the poor bastards on the helm,  as OOW etc.  I know I eventually threw my headset off and ran for my life as did others.


----------



## NavyShooter

Having the helmsman position on the bridge is a good thing....having a well trained and situationally aware helmsman on the bridge is a very good thing.  Having a Helmsman who asks the OOW to "SAY AGAIN SIR" when he gets a port vs starboard helm order (which happened just a handful of times to me) to which I got the same order....and repeated the "SAY AGAIN SIR" at which point the CO broke in with the correct helm order, then passed control back to the OOW.  We were not alongside a tanker for a RAS, but if I recall we were doing OOW maneuvers with SNFL many moons ago.  I think that was on CHA.

CO was always on the bridge.  ALWAYS.  During a RAS or other events on the bridge like this.

NS


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Fully agree with NavyShooter here.  

I am sure the CO here did not intervene right away to see if the OOW got the hint. As he/she didn't, the CO got involved, and probably had a little chat with the OOW later to explain to him how polite and proper helmsmen bring what they believe to be maneuvering errors to the OOW's attention.

When I observed that type of behaviour by a helmsman, I always sent the Deck Officer a little positive note on the event for inclusion in the seaman's divisional file and PER.


----------



## NavyShooter

All I got was a dirty look from the OOW afterwards....guess the CO had some good words with him after ;-)

That said, when they changed my spot on the W&SB and put someone else on the helm, the CO had him kicked off after about 20 minutes and me back up from the AX....price of being good at something?


----------



## Half Full

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I counted about 18 sea training staff watching the RAS,  I can just imagine the blast of shit the OOW received afterwards.


This seems very similar to a situation that occurred when I was the NAVO on PRE...again with IRO.  If the CO had the Con than the OOW should have known better and questioned the CO's orders...however I can assure you that the ultimate responsibility for that poor shiphandling event lays with the CO...and only the CO.  CST would have had a long closed door session with the CO of IRO on that one.


----------



## jollyjacktar

CBC Radio is reporting that the Liberals may not approve the Davies Asterix AOR and the plan may die quickly.  So much for supporting the navy.  Just like old times....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Here is the link to the story on the CBC website:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/davie-supply-ship-liberals-halt-1.3327039

If true, the melding of Irving Shipyard is bad news, especially as it relates to ships that are not even supposed to be assigned to its yard, for one thing, and if Irving offered something similar to the government, I just can't see how they could have done it without delaying work on the other ships they are supposed to build.


----------



## Lumber

> It's that decision that the Irving team complained about in its letter...



F*** YOU IRVING, F*** YOU IRVING, F*** YOU IRVING!!!

It's because of Bull S*** like this that we need the Asterix program in the first place! 



> The Davie deal is, indeed, a sole-source arrangement as Irving complained. But cabinet was told Thursday the deal had won an exemption to the government's contracting regulations...



That exception is due to the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces have lost a significant naval capability which has a direct impact on our ability to operate! 

I can't believe how angry I actually am after reading this article (can you tell?). I wish I could blow this up all over social media. To me Irving is acting like a spoiled, whinny little child who didn't get their way, but instead of a few toys or food thrown around the house, they're putting RCN operational capability and sailors lives in jeopardy god damnit!!  ullhair:


----------



## jmt18325

It's interesting to note that people in the NSPS office were never in favour of this.  I support it (our current situation in terms of destroyers and aupply ships is embarrassing) but, it seems the government ignored other options, at least one of which was lower prices for political expediency.  It also seems to me that the Conservatives set up a process that even the Liberals agree is good.  Perhaps we should remain committed to that process?  It will mean we don't have what we need for longer, but, if the money is transferred into the new ships instead, it may end up better...eventually.


----------



## Lumber

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I support it (our current situation in terms of destroyers and aupply ships is embarrassing) but, it seems the government ignored other options, at least one of which was lower prices for political expediency.



Even if we found a secret internal note or memo from the previous government's Cabinet that said "Hey we all know this is not the best deal but it will get us votes in Quebec" I would still be for it. We're too far along now; the Navy needs this capability.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's interesting to note that people in the NSPS office were never in favour of this.  I support it (our current situation in terms of destroyers and aupply ships is embarrassing) but, it seems the government ignored other options, at least one of which was lower prices for political expediency.  It also seems to me that the Conservatives set up a process that even the Liberals agree is good.  Perhaps we should remain committed to that process?  It will mean we don't have what we need for longer, but, if the money is transferred into the new ships instead, it may end up better...eventually.



Except we can't wait that long. We should actually get 2 of them, delay the Berlin class AOR's and finish the icebreakers first, then build the AOR's which by that time these interim ships will need to go in for a long term overhaul. Then you keep one in hot layup on each coast to cover off the AOR as they cycle through their regular refits. Plus you have some surge capacity.


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> Except we can't wait that long. We should actually get 2 of them, delay the Berlin class AOR's and finish the icebreakers first, then build the AOR's which by that time these interim ships will need to go in for a long term overhaul. Then you keep one in hot layup on each coast to cover off the AOR as they cycle through their regular refits. Plus you have some surge capacity.



I agree with you 100% - the problem, I suspect, as the minister has found out, is that the Conservatives over promised for their budget.  As the Liberals have committed to the same amount of money, and this was a new purchase...we have a problem.


----------



## CougarKing

More from the story posted by OBGR above:

The Liberals back to their old wicked tricks despite Justin's promise to fund the Navy.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same"
-Quark, Star Trek 

CBC



> *Davie interim supply ship $700M deal delayed by Liberals
> No supply ship would leave Canada unable to defend itself*
> 
> By James Cudmore, CBC News Posted: Nov 20, 2015 5:34 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 20, 2015 8:11 AM ET
> 
> The new Liberal government is delaying approval of a deal to convert a civilian cargo ship into a badly needed military supply vessel, leading to concerns the plan will soon be scuttled and the navy will be left unable to properly defend Canada or deploy its force abroad.
> 
> Shipbuilder Chantier Davie had proposed a new-for-Canada plan to buy a cargo ship and turn it into an interim supply vessel able to support a Canadian naval task group at sea by providing fuel, food and ammunition.
> 
> The government signed a letter of intent earlier this year, and in October finalized a roughly $700-million, seven-year contract with Davie. The deal was dependent on cabinet approval, expected to flow out of a cabinet committee's meeting this week.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> Except we can't wait that long. We should actually get 2 of them, delay the Berlin class AOR's and finish the icebreakers first, then build the AOR's which by that time these interim ships will need to go in for a long term overhaul. Then you keep one in hot layup on each coast to cover off the AOR as they cycle through their regular refits. Plus you have some surge capacity.



 :goodpost:


----------



## NavyShooter

700 million....refugee funding is purported over 800 million this FY (1.2 Billion total)....just about the same number.....coincidence?

*Not complaining about refugee support, just noting a similar amount of funds, and timing.  Call it a 'coincidence...?


----------



## dimsum

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> 700 million....refugee funding is purported over 800 million this FY (1.2 Billion total)....just about the same number.....coincidence?
> 
> *Not complaining about refugee support, just noting a similar amount of funds, and timing.  Call it a 'coincidence...?



Call me cynical, but they needed to get that $ from somewhere.  Might as well be from the Navy that the LPC promised to build back up after years of CPC neglect.    :


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _politics_ of shipbuilding in Canada have always overwhelmed the _policy_ aspect (even, one can argue, during 1939/40/41 when we were, almost literally, fighting for our lives) and the _operational requirements_ of the RCN and CCG are almost always at the bottom of the "considerations" list after partisan political, budgetary and policy concerns.


----------



## Stoker

Not really surprising as the Libs seem to be intent on reversing everything the Cons did. I'm a optimist and they are looking for a different option to get us a tanker quicker.


----------



## George Wallace

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Not really surprising as the Libs seem to be intent on reversing everything the Cons did. I'm a optimist and they are looking for a different option to get us a tanker quicker.



Is a "Tanker" all that we need, or do we need more than just a "Tanker"?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Of course this would make sense if a deal for the Mistrials was still in the works. I don't believe Egypt has actually completed the deal.


----------



## Spencer100

Colin, I think its done.

Russia to Supply Equipment, Helicopters for Egyptian Mistral Ships

(Source: Sputnik News; published Oct 19, 2015)


NOVO-OGARYOVO --- Russia will supply equipment and helicopters worth over $1 billion for the Egyptian Mistral helicopter carriers, the Kremlin chief of staff said Monday. 

 Cairo and Paris signed a contract earlier this month for the purchase of two French-made Mistral-class helicopter carriers originally built for Russia. 

 "Russia will be, if you want, a sub-contractor, who will supply the missing equipment without which the Mistral warships are just a tin can. And of course, all the helicopters,” Sergei Ivanov said. 

 He added that the price of potential contracts would amount to over $1 billion. 

 Egypt emerged as France’s replacement customer for the Mistrals in September 2015, after Paris and Moscow formally terminated a 2011 deal on the construction and delivery of the two ships. In November 2014, France suspended the contract, claiming Moscow's alleged participation in the Ukrainian conflict. 

 Russia and France are expected to sign the final documents on the removal of radio-electronic systems from the Mistral-class helicopter carriers in early November. 

 -ends-


----------



## Stoker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is a "Tanker" all that we need, or do we need more than just a "Tanker"?



No of course not but the greatest need right now is a tanker in my opinion.


----------



## Spencer100

All is unfolding to the Liberal dream.....no at sea supply.....no need for blue water....no need for expensive SCS....corvettes will do fine... 

Mark my words....


----------



## jollyjacktar

:crickets:      From the Liberal drumbeaters of the election period era here in the forums.   Funny, that....


----------



## jmt18325

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> All is unfolding to the Liberal dream.....no at sea supply.....no need for blue water....no need for expensive SCS....corvettes will do fine...
> 
> Mark my words....



The promised exactly the opposite.  This deal would take money from the procurement budget...money that is in short supply.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As we used to say in the Navy: Whisky - Whisky - Tango*

Davie has never offered that ship to the Navy. Canada would not be buying a ship modified into an AOR for $800 M.

Davie has offered to build the modified ship and lease it back to the Navy every year for the next five years at about $130 M. a year, crewed (at least for the non-military functions) after which either negotiate a new contract or the ship stays with Davie. There is a slightly higher lump payment at the beginning, which brings the overall price of the contract to the $800 M.

Now if anyone here tells me that its impossible to cover an increase of the CAF Operations budget by about $150 M. a year for the next five years, then we are in a very dire budgetary fix in Canada, and we shouldn't go about promising 14b$ + in aid to foreign countries.

*: Meaning for those who don't know: Whoah! Whoah! Taberna... !


----------



## Edward Campbell

I am, once again, going to give the new government, the new cabinet, the benefit of the doubt.

They have only been in office for two week; those two weeks have been dominated by "reading the (big, thick often very complex) briefing books" and what, I suspect, feels like being force fed information with a fire hose.

The PM has been away for a week or so, in Turkey and Manila, and, of course, Paris happened. But refugees dominate the agenda ... until climate change does.

In the midst of all that the Irving gang sent a letter ... the Irvings are important people and their various enterprises matter, too; one takes a pause when they raise a serious objection to something on the agenda.

It is my _hope_ (and it is a valid COA in politics), and expectation, that cabinet will listen to all points of view, including, especially, those presented by their (newly met) senior officials. It seems to me that this deal, in so far as I understand it, is pretty good for the RCN, for Davie (of course) and for Canada ... maybe some good way(s) can be found to move forward and, if really necessary, alleviate Irving's concerns.


----------



## Kirkhill

WRT funding:

Maybe somebody could tell PMJT that the tanker/AOR/JSS is Infrastructure - and thus deficit financing is justified.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the Shipbuilding Association of Canada:


> The Shipbuilding Association of Canada is surprised and disappointed by the reported delays in the signing of Davie Shipyard’s At-Sea Support Services contract by government.
> 
> Following the Harper government’s refusal to adopt the shipbuilding procurement strategy suggested by all Canadian shipbuilders in 2009 through the Shipbuilding Association of Canada (letter attached), to build large ships at large shipyards, small ships at small shipyards and so on, the Canadian naval and coastguard fleet renewal has failed to achieve any of its objectives in terms of schedule and value-for-money.
> 
> In 2012, the Canadian shipbuilding industry was reinvigorated by a series of multi-million dollar investments in Davie, Canada’s largest shipyard by a major British-owned marine group, which since then has spearheaded innovation in the domestic shipbuilding industry.
> 
> Davie’s Project Resolve is lean and innovative and leverages the best-practices adopted by our allied navies throughout the globe.
> 
> Following an exhaustive industry solicitation process and then months of deliberations by all the relevant governmental departments, Davie’s solution was selected as the only one which met the needs of the Royal Canadian Navy. After further months of negotiations and independent audits,
> 
> the agreement was concluded and is ready to sign.
> 
> There must be no further delays. The navy needs ships and Canada needs its navy. Now more than ever.


----------



## Navy_Pete

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am, once again, going to give the new government, the new cabinet, the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> They have only been in office for two week; those two weeks have been dominated by "reading the (big, thick often very complex) briefing books" and what, I suspect, feels like being force fed information with a fire hose.
> 
> The PM has been away for a week or so, in Turkey and Manila, and, of course, Paris happened. But refugees dominate the agenda ... until climate change does.
> 
> In the midst of all that the Irving gang sent a letter ... the Irvings are important people and their various enterprises matter, too; one takes a pause when they raise a serious objection to something on the agenda.
> 
> It is my _hope_ (and it is a valid COA in politics), and expectation, that cabinet will listen to all points of view, including, especially, those presented by their (newly met) senior officials. It seems to me that this deal, in so far as I understand it, is pretty good for the RCN, for Davie (of course) and for Canada ... maybe some good way(s) can be found to move forward and, if really necessary, alleviate Irving's concerns.



Hard to read between the lines here, but the contract award to Davie was murky at best, so I think it's prudent to pause and see what the previous government actually did, considering all the potential monies involved here between the challenges to the sole source contract, plus the inevitable excuses it will give for further delays in the ship building.

As well, with the two other tankers on loan from other countries, we're actually able to plan RASs on both coasts for the first time in years, so it's a lot less dire then it was two years ago


----------



## Good2Golf

So Irving has so much capacity that it can build AOPS, CSC and interim AOR?  ???


----------



## NavyShooter

Last ships for FELEX are in....and soon out....they need something to tide them over?


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is more information here on the Irving letter, specifically:

    "In the letter, dated Nov. 17 and obtained by iPolitics, Irving co-chief executive officer James (Jimmy) Irving asked Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy Foote to help delay approval of the
     deal until after the government allows a proposal by Irving and U.S.-based Maersk Line Ltd. to be “competitively evaluated.”

     “We understand that a contract for Davie Shipyard to provide the Interim Refuelling at Sea capability is awaiting approval by the new Government,” Irving writes. “I ask your support to request that the Irving-Maersk proposal be
     competitively evaluated before a contract is placed.”

     Also copied on the letter were Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Treasury Board President Scott Brison, who represents the Nova Scotia riding of Kings-Hants."

I'm still giving the new cabinet the benefit of the doubt. The letter does matter because the Irvings and their businesses matter, and the request deserves _some_ consideration.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And here, on Canada News Wire is a statement from Kevin McCoy, President of Irving Shipbuilding Inc.


----------



## ringo

What ro/ro ship was irving proposing to rebuild as AOR.


----------



## Edward Campbell

There was a time, in the 1980s and '90s, when both _politics_ (both Conservative (Mulroney) and Liberal (Pierre Trudeau and Chrétien)) and _policy_ (the DMs of DND and Industry, for sure, and the Clerk, and Secretary of the Treasury Board too, I think) were united in deciding that Canada needed five (three "major" and two "minor") shipbuilding centres: the Pacific Coast (which, it was thought, could look after itself), the Great Lakes (small ships), Quebec (which meant Davie) and the Atlantic (which meant both Irving in Saint John and a yard in Halifax (small ships, again)). Both the CPF and Tribal (280) Class update projects were divided, by direction from either or both of the political and policy centres) between Quebec (Davie) and the Atlantic (Irving) and the MCDV contract went to Halifax Dartmouth Industries, now Halifax Shipyard Ltd but then owned by SNC Lavelin. The focus on the East reflected Canadian views throughout most of the 20th century: the _real Canada_ stretched from Cape Breton to about the Great Lakes ... the rest was an agri-mining _hinterland_ ... because the _real world_ surrounded the Atlantic.

Now, Quebec _separatism_ and the Pierre Trudeau-Mulroney-Chrétien reaction to it (throw more and more money at the problem) was a factor (and Davie, especially, got lazy as a result) but the view, both the _political_ and the _policy_ view, was that ship building was a 'good' industry. A well designed and managed national shipbuilding strategy could provide steady, well paid employment for many, many men of less than higher educational attainments: the people l,east able to thrive in a changing economy. Of course we never managed, after the 1950s, to have a large enough well designed and managed industrial _strategy_ in much of any sector.


----------



## Edward Campbell

From a report in _iPolitics_:

    "Quebec ‘will simply not accept’ any changes to the plan to have Chantier Davie built a temporary supply ship for the Canadian navy, Premier Philippe Couillard says.

     Speaking to reporters Friday morning at the Canada2020 conference in Ottawa, Couillard addressed reports that broke Friday morning suggesting the new Liberal government wants to delay the decision on whether to approve
     a $750-million sole-sourced deal to have Davie retrofit a civilian tanker to serve as a supply ship until the joint support ships promised under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy are built."


----------



## jollyjacktar

Even their industry peers feel Irving are being douchebags. (my paraphrasing)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-association-chastises-irving-over-davie-1.3331612


----------



## MilEME09

It really needs to go full speed ahead, having all the national shipyards moving towards one goal of rebuilding our navy can only benefit us. However I would chastise Irving more, if they aren't happy with all the billions they are already getting, maybe we should spank the spoiled brat so to speak.....


----------



## CougarKing

More on Jacktar's article, plus Irving's response: Squabbling among Canadian shipbuilders over the interim AOR contract. 

CBC


> *Shipbuilding association calls Davie contract for navy supply ship 'fair'
> 
> 
> $700M contract for a navy supply ship was to be finalized this month, but is now on hold*
> 
> 
> The industry group that represents Canada's shipbuilders has taken the extraordinary step of chastising a key Canadian shipyard for allegedly overstating its case in a growing spat over a government ship contract.
> 
> 
> The Shipbuilding Association of Canada appeared Monday to rebuke Irving Shipbuilding Inc., saying it is surprised and disappointed over Irving's intervention in the government plan to have Chantier Davie build and operate an interim supply ship for Canada's navy.
> The roughly $700-million contract with the Lévis, Que., shipbuilder has been finalized and was due for cabinet approval by the end of the month.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



CBC



> *Irving Shipbuilding fires back at shipbuilding association criticism
> Shipbuilding Association of Canada says Irving is trying to delay Davie contract*
> 
> By Jennifer Henderson, CBC News Posted: Nov 23, 2015 6:37 PM AT Last Updated: Nov 23, 2015 6:41 PM AT
> 
> 
> The association that represents some Canadian shipbuilders says it's "surprised and disappointed" Halifax's Irving Shipbuilding Inc. is urging the Trudeau government to stall a contract previously awarded to a Quebec shipyard.
> 
> Chantier Davie Canada Inc. of Lévis, Que., wants to convert a civilian cargo ship into a badly needed military supply vessel that would provide fuel, food and ammunition to Royal Canadian Navy ships at sea.
> 
> CBC News reported last week that Irving Shipbuilding had sent letters for four cabinet ministers asking the new Liberal government to delay final approval of the $700-million Davie contract. The deal had been awarded by the Harper government during the October federal election campaign.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Lumber

This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## jmt18325

I support the deal, but this wasn't done right, it seems.  Cabinet rules were changed on the fly to make this fit.  To make matters worse, the government signed nothing but a letter of intent and left the real decision making until the post election period.  I don't blame this committee for doing their due diligence.


----------



## The Bread Guy

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I support the deal, but this wasn't done right, it seems.  Cabinet rules were changed on the fly to make this fit.


Funny you should mention this - the latest from the Info-machine - highlights mine....


> The Government of Canada was recently briefed on the interim auxiliary oil replenishment file. We know that this process commenced as a result of an expression of interest by Chantier Davie Canada Inc. We also know that the previous government made a decision to proceed with this proposal through a sole-source rather than a competitive process. The previous government also modified the long-standing procurement rules governing contracts for interim defence requirements.
> 
> We have taken time to assess all these facts and have also taken the following into consideration:
> 
> The process is at an advanced stage. If we restarted this initiative by launching a competition, we would lose precious time in providing the Navy with a critical refuelling and naval support capability.
> The ship has been purchased by Chantier Davie Canada Inc. and is in the yard undergoing conversion.
> According to public reports, several hundred employees have already been hired.
> Due to the structure of the agreement entered into by the previous government, *we will be required to pay up to $89 million in expenses should we not proceed with this initiative.*
> After amassing the facts and carefully deliberating, *The Government of Canada determined that proceeding with Project Resolve is the most viable course of action to provide the Navy’s at-sea oil replenishment capability until the Joint Support Ships, to be built by Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards, are operational.*  The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that competitions for major military procurements stand up to the highest standards of openness and transparency.
> 
> Furthermore, The Government of Canada will undertake a review of the process for sole-source contracts for military procurements, including looking at current regulations and policies and those regulations amended by the previous government.


----------



## Bearpaw

AOR project at Davie will go adhead----just announced on CBC.

Bearpaw


----------



## Edward Campbell

BZ to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government.


----------



## PuckChaser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> BZ to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government.


Yep, managed to keep the project going and blame it on Harper.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sole source is so evil because it brought us the C-17, C130J, Chinook and Leopard 2. Clearly not enough pork barrel in any of those projects.


----------



## Old Sweat

Colin P said:
			
		

> Sole source is so evil because it brought us the C-17, C130J, Chinook and Leopard 2. Clearly not enough pork barrel in any of those projects.



Not to mention the M777 and Excalibar.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin P said:
			
		

> Sole source is so evil because it brought us the C-17, C130J, Chinook and Leopard 2. Clearly not enough pork barrel in any of those projects.



Not one of those items were made in Canada.  They must be junk


----------



## MilEME09

In defense of the leopard 2, I've never seen a open competition for slightly used equipment, I do believe a certain liberal sub buy was also sole sourced.


----------



## jmt18325

We can't know that a competition would have been worse or if it would have been better.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Took them over a year to decide and Irving had a proposal thy have considered. Sometimes the government need to move ahead with the good enough option and not the gold plated one (or in Irving’s option, no doubt charged for gold plating, but only applied paint)


----------



## McG

CBC is now covering this being a go (again).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/davie-shipyard-s-700m-deal-for-navy-supply-ship-retrofit-to-go-ahead-1.3344037


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile ....


> The Spanish Navy will deploy two auxiliary oiler and replenishment (AOR) vessels in 2016 to "cover the Canadian Navy's temporary need for logistic support vessels in the North Atlantic," military sources told Defense News.
> 
> Both replenishment ships — Patiño and Cantabria — will support training for the Royal Canadian Navy's Atlantic fleet in two different time periods: Patiño will operate between February and March, and Cantabria between mid-September and November.
> 
> "This support is based on NATO’s principle of solidarity among its allies, by which a country provides a capability that the other does not have," a Spanish military source said. "The deployment will not have additional costs and will not have an impact in our capabilities."
> 
> The main mission of a combat-replenishment ship and hospital is to supply fuel, fresh water, ammunition, provisions, spare parts, military equipment, uniforms, medicines and medical assistance to other combat units at sea.
> 
> The Cantabria deployed with the Royal Australian Navy in 2013. The government of Australia paid the expenses of that deployment during the year ....


----------



## Edward Campbell

Some pictures of the _Resolve_ conversion at Davie:






























Source: https://www.facebook.com/GOCANADANAVY/

I expect it all makes sense to some of you. I'm guessing it shows progress.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes. It does show progress. And I suspect these pics are a few months old.

But, good lord does that main engine need a clean-up. Look at tall the carbonization crap. Once re-finished, I would hope it never gets back to such a bad state, as we, in the Navy don't switch to heavy bunker for fuel once at speed on the open ocean.


----------



## Cloud Cover

There are some neat features about this ship, the extra space for pax being one. I wonder if Davie is on to something here. Buying and converting ships and operating a small fleet of AOR available on a contract basis for NATO and RIMPAC countries but used out of threat areas? Canada's very own RFA fleet, only it is privately a owned entity or perhaps initially a PPP (although Im sure having the federal bureaucracy involved in it would be a serious efficiency drag.) 
A workplace for sailors and MARS officers to retire or semi-retire?  A place for air maintenance crew and others to get some time in prior to deploying on the JSS?


----------



## FSTO

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> There are some neat features about this ship, the extra space for pax being one. I wonder if Davie is on to something here. Buying and converting ships and operating a small fleet of AOR available on a contract basis for NATO and RIMPAC countries but used out of threat areas? Canada's very own RFA fleet, only it is privately a owned entity or perhaps initially a PPP (although Im sure having the federal bureaucracy involved in it would be a serious efficiency drag.)
> A workplace for sailors and MARS officers to retire or semi-retire?  A place for air maintenance crew and others to get some time in prior to deploying on the JSS?



Good points. Why we employed the AOR's as battle tankers is totally beyond me. We could have 2 or even 3 of these on each coast?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Plus they can also be partly manned by Merchant Marine Cadets needing sea time.


----------



## jmt18325

FSTO said:
			
		

> Good points. Why we employed the AOR's as battle tankers is totally beyond me. We could have 2 or even 3 of these on each coast?



Yeah, it's pretty clear that Canada's doctrine on this is flawed.


----------



## PuckChaser

FSTO said:
			
		

> Good points. Why we employed the AOR's as battle tankers is totally beyond me. We could have 2 or even 3 of these on each coast?



Because Battle Tanker sounds like an awesome ship to serve on?  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

F.A.R.T. Fast Attack Replenishment Tanker, thank you very much.


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> F.A.R.T. Fast Attack Replenishment Tanker, thank you very much.



The sound heard when a periscope is sighted?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The sound heard when a periscope is sighted?



The sound heard when Preserver ran over Penelope.


----------



## Lumber

> *Royal Canadian Navy picks a name for a third Joint Support Ship*



Link removed as per site rules.
Bruce

I'm ashamed to say, but until just now, I had never, ever, heard of this battle.

Also, I'm all for celebrating Canadian(ish) victories, but this name just doesn't sound as nice as the other two, especially with the word farm.

However, if we ditched the word farm (like we ditched the word "Heights" for HMCS Queenston), I suspect we'd have a copyright lawsuit with someone...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Little historical tid-bit here: The Battle of Crysler's field (alternate name) was fought on November 11, which is why at Upper Canada Village, near Cornwall, ON, where the battle's monument is located, the ceremony is joined with the Remembrance day ceremony, but a distinct part of the ceremony specifically references the battle.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Is steel even being cut for these?


----------



## Bass ackwards

Lumber said:
			
		

> Also, I'm all for celebrating Canadian(ish) victories, but this name just doesn't sound as nice as the other two, especially with the word farm.



It still has a nicer ring, I think, than USS Cowpens...


----------



## Occam

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Is steel even being cut for these?



Not yet, as far as I know.  The shipyard on the west coast had to take care of a large upgrade to its facilities in order to be able to handle the JSS and other ships awarded.  I'm not sure if they're done that yet or not.


----------



## Kirkhill

Occam said:
			
		

> Not yet, as far as I know.  The shipyard on the west coast had to take care of a large upgrade to its facilities in order to be able to handle the JSS and other ships awarded.  I'm not sure if they're done that yet or not.



Complete as of 6 November, 2014.

http://www.seaspan.com/shipyard-modernization-project

Construction of the OFSVs is already under way

http://www.seaspan.com/seaspans-vancouver-shipyards-starts-construction-on-second-offshore-fisheries-science-vessel-ofsv


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think Seaspan will stick pretty close to the schedule now they are off and running.


----------



## MarkOttawa

JSS construction still some way off:



> "...
> Award of Implementation Contract 	Fall 2017
> ..."
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2016-status-report-on-transformational-and-major-crown-projects.page#P14



Seaspan has to build three CCG Offshore Fisheries Research Vessels first (and maybe the CCG Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel):
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/mark-collins-canadian-coast-guard-vessel-acquisitions-sliding-right/

Two of the OFSVs are now under construction:
http://www.seaspan.com/seaspans-vancouver-shipyards-starts-construction-on-second-offshore-fisheries-science-vessel-ofsv

Also from Seaspan:



> What are we building?
> http://www.seaspan.com/building



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

Maybe to the OOSV?  It's being built first, and is larger than the OFSVs.


----------



## Kirkhill

> For Immediate Release – *March 29, 2016*
> 
> Vancouver, BC – Brian Carter, President – Seaspan Shipyards, *announced today the start of construction* on Seaspan’s second National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) ship, *the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG)’s second Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel (OFSV).*
> 
> “Seaspan is now full-steam ahead on the production and delivery of its first two National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) vessels, and we are re-writing shipbuilding history in Canada in the process for generations to come,” said Brian Carter. “Today not only marks a proud moment for the progress and success of the NSS, it also serves as a testament to the hard work and tireless commitment of our world-class team of experts at Vancouver Shipyards (VSY) in readying us for this milestone.”
> 
> *With production of the second OFSV now underway*, significant *progress continues on the first OFSV* with 35 of 37 blocks currently under construction. The two CCG ships are part of VSY’s three vessel, incentive-based build* contract for the construction of three OFSVs*, which will be delivered under a ceiling price contract *before the end of 2017*. Work on *the third OFSV is scheduled to begin later this year*.
> 
> Seaspan’s cutting of steel on the second OFSV also follows the recent announcement (March 14, 2016) of *two new NSS contracts* valued at more than $65.4 million, which will help pave the way *for future construction of the CCG’s Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel (OOSV)* and the Royal Canadian Navy’s Joint Support Ships (JSS) at VSY.
> 
> To date, Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards has awarded over $400 million in contracts to suppliers in Canada, with more than 160 Canadian companies having already benefited from these investments. It is estimated that Seaspan’s NSS work will create more than 2300 direct, indirect and induced jobs annually, produce almost $290 million per year in GDP for Canada’s economy, and mean thousands of people will get the opportunity for an exciting new career in shipbuilding.



http://www.seaspan.com/seaspans-vancouver-shipyards-starts-construction-on-second-offshore-fisheries-science-vessel-ofsv


----------



## FSTO

I was just chatting with one of the MS here. We have both served on PRO and PRE. 
We were discussing the names of the replacement ships and how there is little to no naval connection with the names (There was a bit of amphibious action at Queenston Heights but that was by the Americans)

We were thinking that since PROVIDER, PROTECTEUR and PRESERVER were all gone now, why don't we recycle the names? Makes sense to me. 
What do the rest of you think?


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> I was just chatting with one of the MS here. We have both served on PRO and PRE.
> We were discussing the names of the replacement ships and how there is little to no naval connection with the names (There was a bit of amphibious action at Queenston Heights but that was by the Americans)
> 
> We were thinking that since PROVIDER, PROTECTEUR and PRESERVER were all gone now, why don't we recycle the names? Makes sense to me.
> What do the rest of you think?



PRE is still in service, albeit alongside.

I suggested PROVIDER and PROTECTEUR and was slapped down as it's too soon.  Shame, as I don't like the 1812 names that the previous GoC was obsessed with.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> PRE is still in service, albeit alongside.
> 
> I suggested PROVIDER and PROTECTEUR and was slapped down as it's too soon.  Shame, as I don't like the 1812 names that the previous GoC was obsessed with.



She will be gone long before the second AOR is even close to being built. With the change of government maybe there will be a change in heart. They don't seem to mind changing other things about the conservatives. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Too bad you don't wear cap tallies anymore.  Think of the fun you could have constantly changing names.   >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As someone for whom PRO will always be dear and close to my heart, I completely agree on re-using these names.

And JJT, I don't know why time has to matter: OTTAWA was recycled from a "River" class to a "City" class in less than four years between decommissioning of the third and commissioning of the fourth.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As someone for whom PRO will always be dear and close to my heart, I completely agree on re-using these names.
> 
> And JJT, I don't know why time has to matter: OTTAWA was recycled from a "River" class to a "City" class in less than four years between decommissioning of the third and commissioning of the fourth.



I totally agree.  (with the exception of the hearts and flowers for PRO... they were the opposition, PRE all the way     did a trip on Provider too)


----------



## George Wallace

As we are looking at replacing our AOR's and at the same time Australia has just announced that it needs supply ships in a hurry, and will be looking to them being built overseas; this may be good timing in which to kick-start our shipbuilding yards and vie for that contract.....or is that way beyond our capabilities?


----------



## jmt18325

Seaspan already won the exclusive right to negotiate the AOR contract.


----------



## CBH99

GW,

One of the reasons the Australians are looking to have them built overseas is because it was too expensive & time consuming to have them built in Australia.  (They are also in the process of renewing their fleet, similar to our situation.)

There is no way that Canadian yards would have been remotely competitive, when compared to the yards in Spain, South Korea, etc.

As you are probably well aware, we - as in the Canadian taxpayer - will be paying anywhere from 3x to 4x the cost for a Berlin class AOR to be built here, compared to overseas.  And quite frankly, _in my own personal opinion,_ the work will be sub-par when compared to the work done by overseas yards.

We couldn't have lobbied for that contract.  With the exception of Davies, we have some of the most non-competitive yards in the world.


----------



## Kirkhill

If I take George correctly he was wondering if Seaspan could have bid on the Aussie job.   I think it would have been quite educational for all parties if they had entered a bid into that competition.  Who knows, Seaspan might have found a way to win the bid.

Watching their supplier compete on the "open" market would certainly provide useful information to our government purchasing agents.

Might be kind of interesting to see if Seaspan, who has a good reputation commercially, could come up with a better price for the Aussies than the Canadians could negotiate.  Or if they would go the Bombardier route, who just sold their C-Series to Delta at 33% of list price (contract at list price 5.6 BCAD, actual contract approximately 1.9 BCAD) while looking for a 1 BCAD subsidy from the taxpayer.




> Two sources pegged the discount closer to two-thirds off the nominal list price of $71.8 million.
> 
> Commercial jets typically sell for roughly half of their catalog prices before adjustments for inflation, according to those familiar with the business.


|

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKCN0XP19I


----------



## jmt18325

33% of list prices is a very typical amount for an aircraft sale.


----------



## Kirkhill

Yep.  So I gather. Which means the list price is Bullsh*t and the entire negotiation strategy is a fraud.


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Yep.  So I gather. Which means the list price is Bullsh*t and the entire negotiation strategy is a fraud.



I think the hope is that you won't have to discount that much for every sale.  Of course, there are sales like that of the Boeing 73G to United at 76% off list price.  That was done to ensure that Bombardier didn't get the sale.


----------



## Kirkhill

So if that is the norm in civilian practice - how much faith do you have in a budgeting system for defence products that rely on similar practices when determining the cost of supply?

F35s at list minus 75% anyone?

CSCs at list minus 66%?

AORs at list minus 50%?

If that is the standard then the game is best played by us building for the Aussies, the Aussies building for the Spaniards and the Spaniards building for Canada.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So if that is the norm in civilian practice - how much faith do you have in a budgeting system for defence products that rely on similar practices when determining the cost of supply?
> 
> F35s at list minus 75% anyone?
> 
> CSCs at list minus 66%?
> 
> AORs at list minus 50%?
> 
> If that is the standard then the game is best played by us building for the Aussies, the Aussies building for the Spaniards and the Spaniards building for Canada.



Now that is an interesting suggestion!

Or as they say: we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume! Or in this case: by government "x": we lose money on every ship sold to another country (because of the subsidies we give our yards), but make it up on every of our ships we purchase abroad (and benefit from the subsidies their government give their shipyards).


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Now that is an interesting suggestion!
> 
> Or as they say: we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume! Or in this case: by government "x": we lose money on every ship sold to another country (because of the subsidies we give our yards), but make it up on every of our ships we purchase abroad (and benefit from the subsidies their government give their shipyards).



Except that this isn't private sector purchasing. The second the public finds out that we sold our $1.5 Billion supply ships for $750 Million, they'll be in uproar. It won't matter that we managed to buy AORs from Spain for $750 Million a piece, thereby balancing it all out; they will just see us taking a $750 Million loss.


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> Except that this isn't private sector purchasing. The second the public finds out that we sold our $1.5 Billion supply ships for $750 Million, they'll be in uproar. It won't matter that we managed to buy AORs from Spain for $750 Million a piece, thereby balancing it all out; they will just see us taking a $750 Million loss.


Sub contract all over again...


----------



## Kirkhill

Lumber said:
			
		

> Except that this isn't private sector purchasing. The second the public finds out that we sold our $1.5 Billion supply ships for $750 Million, they'll be in uproar. It won't matter that we managed to buy AORs from Spain for $750 Million a piece, thereby balancing it all out; they will just see us taking a $750 Million loss.



Agreed Lumber.  The point is that there is no way to have a rational discussion about any of this because nobody can agree on the numbers and accountants will make the numbers mean what ever you want them to mean.


----------



## Danjanou

FSTO said:
			
		

> I was just chatting with one of the MS here. We have both served on PRO and PRE.
> We were discussing the names of the replacement ships and how there is little to no naval connection with the names (There was a bit of amphibious action at Queenston Heights but that was by the Americans)
> 
> We were thinking that since PROVIDER, PROTECTEUR and PRESERVER were all gone now, why don't we recycle the names? Makes sense to me.
> What do the rest of you think?



I agree the names should have some form of Naval significance. I have no problems with recycling the old names. Hey if we phrase it as a green eco friendly, pro recycling thing because it's 2016 maybe our political masters will buy it  8). If not then how about naming them after the Naval ( including FAA and RCAF) VC recipients? We have five to choose from.

HMCS William Hall (VC)
HMCS Rowland Bourke (VC)
HMCS Frederick Thornton Peters (VC)
HMCS Robert Hampton Gray (VC)
HMCS David Ernest Hornell (VC)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I agree the names should have some form of Naval significance. I have no problems with recycling the old names. Hey if we phrase it as a green eco friendly, pro recycling thing because it's 2016 maybe our political masters will buy it  8). If not then how about naming them after the Naval ( including FAA and RCAF) VC recipients? We have five to choose from.
> 
> HMCS William Hall (VC)
> HMCS Rowland Bourke (VC)
> HMCS Frederick Thornton Peters (VC)
> HMCS Robert Hampton Gray (VC)
> HMCS David Ernest Hornell (VC)



William Hall (VC) is getting one of the AOPS already.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> William Hall (VC) is getting one of the AOPS already.



I really hope that the names morph into the last name only. Using the full name is so...........Government of Canadaish (or even worse USNish).  [


----------



## jollyjacktar

I think they may, I keep hearing, "DeWolf", when name dropping is used on the AOPS.  Or it might just become "Harry" (unofficially of course).  But you're right, it sounds a mouthful and alien to my ears having a person's full name like that for our ships.


----------



## Lumber

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I think they may, I keep hearing, "DeWolf", when name dropping is used on the AOPS.  Or it might just become "Harry" (unofficially of course).  But you're right, it sounds a mouthful and alien to my ears having a person's full name like that for our ships.



Harry? Sounds too much like Hairy. I'd be much more on board with unofficially calling it "Wolf".


----------



## FSTO

Lumber said:
			
		

> Harry? Sounds too much like Hairy. I'd be much more on board with unofficially calling it "Wolf".



We all ready have PCT Wolf.

Just keep it DeWolf (DWF on the flight deck!!!  ;D)


----------



## Danjanou

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> William Hall (VC) is getting one of the AOPS already.



 True forgot about that. However if I was PM I'd give him a bigger ship. The first three names I listed would be the Berlin AORs and as long as I'm dreaming here the last two because of their aviation connection would be our BHS, preferably Mistrals or something similar. hey I can dream.

I guess if we stayed with this whole War of 1812 Battle Honours theme though we are limited.

Can't use the two Naval enjoyments and call ships HMCS Lake Erie, and HMCS Lake Champlain, bit embarrassing naming ships after battles we lost. There is of course that skirmish up on lake Huron involving the crew of HMS Nancy, RFLDR and First Nations capturing two US Frigates, but "HMCS We're a sneaky bunch" sounds too much like a name that ship contest.

Going to the land battles we are still limited. Can't see the Yanks liking us have ships named HMCS Detroit, HMCS Ogdensburg or HMCS Miami, although they might be okay with HMCS Burning Buffalo to the Ground (Again).  HMCS Fort Michilmackinac will never fit on a ball cap and HMCS Beaver Dams is just too cruel. 

Can't use HMCS York, HMCS Moraviantown, HMCS Fort Wayne, HMCS Fort Harrison, HMCS Fort Meigs, HMCS Fort Stephenson, HMCS Fort George,  HMCS Newark,  HMCS Chippewa, and/or HMCS Fort Erie because we lost all those engagements. No wonder the Yanks think they won the bloody war.

 That leaves the one's chosen and HMCS Stoney Creek and HMCS Lundy's Lane, but who wants to name a ship after an outlet mall.  8)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

HMCS YORK and HMCS CHIPPAWA already exist: Reserve units for Toronto and Winnipeg, respectively.

As I have suggested before, however, if you want to stick to the War of 1812, you could've used the names of HM Ships that fought in the war.  There is a whole slew available and I offered a quorum of them in the past. You may say that they were British ships, but by and large, the land battles were fought by the British also. At least, the ships had the advantage of having been built locally, on the river and great Lakes.


----------



## jollyjacktar

HMCS Shannon, then.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just came upon this Youtube video put out by Davie on project resolve's progress. They apparently intend to do this from time to time  - smart PR :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_2_aWcd7mI

P.S.: Note the number of time they mention that they are Canada's "most experienced, highest capacity and largest shipbuilder"  [


----------



## jollyjacktar

That, was a slick video.  Very well done indeed.  They're not acting like they see themselves as the king of the hill and entitled to the lion's share as their natural due, ala Irving.  This was most definitely evident at CANSEC last week.  Polar opposites in how they came across to the public.


----------



## MilEME09

The words on time and on budget are a rarity for made in Canada, if at the end of the day they are still on time and on budget, I think Davie will see a lot more work come from the government.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good catch OGBD.

Most interested in the FEDNAV involvement in operating the vessels - including supplying the engine room, navigation and hotel staff.

Something a bit more civilian than the UK's Royal Fleet Auxiliary and moving towards the RAF's AirTanker consortium model.

Irving's recent "Cragside" proposal offers a "me-too" solution that would put a similar tonnage Floating Support Base/Transport in the water with a crew for about 60 MCAD a year for the first five years and 25 MCAD a year there after.  The Davie proposal, according to CASR, is for about 75 MCAD a year.

Sounds like a reasonable solution to a "B" fleet for the Navy.   (B fleet as the Army employs the term - a logistics fleet of unarmoured vehicles to support the F (Fighting) echelon with their A (Armoured) vehicles).


----------



## Cloud Cover

Good for Davie, I think this is going to be an interesting turn of events. As for Irving, put up some private money, start showing initiative and get moving. No reason they can't work with FFS too.

QQ's about resolve:
- what type/ class landing craft are those ( it looks like either 2 or 4 can be carried);
- is this a double hull vessel where the fuel tanks are? ( must be, but just asking)
- they are making statements about integrated tactical combat systems- what systems might that be?
- how is the RCN getting all of the necessary communications gear- have orders been placed?
- fitted for but not equipped with CIWS, good move- how many, and where would they be fitted?
- chaff and decoy systems? 
- the accommodations look interesting- 2 to a room or 4?
- the hospital facilities are scaled to what level? 
- how will FFS crew the ship over longer duration- this ship looks like it could be at sea for very long periods. Will there be Navy style work ups, and how the heck will that work with a mixed civvie(Union) crew and reg force sailors
- did they say 2 Chinooks? New doctrine coming? 
- interesting escorts vessels in the refuelling part of the video. Those are large destroyers ( yet to be built) unless they are foreign


----------



## YZT580

Watched the video.  Gee, I thought that it was the Cons who agreed to the contract with the libs reluctantly signing on after the election.  Sure wouldn't know that from watching that little bit of politicking.  All credit to the Trudeauites.  Wouldn't have happened without them.


----------



## Kirkhill

YZT -

Don't upset the paymaster.  Like Whiskey says: It's a good thing.


----------



## YZT580

Wouldn't dream of it.  Strictly an observation.  In fact, it is a very shrewd (albeit dishonest) action on the part of Davies.  I expect more contracts will follow for the good folks in Quebec as soon as the government can figure out how to send them their way without alienating the voters of the Maritimes who are actually far more loyal than Quebec has ever been.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Did a little research:



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Good for Davie, I think this is going to be an interesting turn of events. As for Irving, put up some private money, start showing initiative and get moving. No reason they can't work with FFS too.
> 
> QQ's about resolve:
> - what type/ class landing craft are those ( it looks like either 2 or 4 can be carried); UNK
> - is this a double hull vessel where the fuel tanks are? ( must be, but just asking)  - YES
> - they are making statements about integrated tactical combat systems- what systems might that be? - from L3, in particular MAPP, other equipment and sensors removed from old AOR's.
> - how is the RCN getting all of the necessary communications gear- have orders been placed? - being removed from older AOR's and installed on Resolve
> - fitted for but not equipped with CIWS, good move- how many, and where would they be fitted? [will be taken from older AOR]
> - chaff and decoy systems? UNK
> - the accommodations look interesting- 2 to a room or 4? UNK
> - the hospital facilities are scaled to what level? it is capable of 60 beds split into two wards.
> - how will FFS crew the ship over longer duration- this ship looks like it could be at sea for very long periods. Will there be Navy style work ups, and how the heck will that work with a mixed civvie(Union) crew and reg force sailors - UNK, the language bounce between "fully crewed by FFS" to "manned by RCN (I am assuming this is combat systems)"
> - did they say 2 Chinooks? New doctrine coming? the deck is engineered /designed to land Chinooks,  still not clear if Chinooks can be stored and maintained in the hangars.
> - interesting escorts vessels in the refueling part of the video. Those are large destroyers ( yet to be built) unless they are foreign



In addition, all of the the wet/dry RAS infrastructure will be removed from a Proctecteur class vessel and installed on  Resolve. In general, the RCN seems to be stripping a decommissioned AOR and providing that equipment to Resolve. Obviously that keeps Davie's costs low. Seems to me there is an inferential assumption the RCN will take this ship on strength after 5 years if the Queenston class fall behind commissioning schedules.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I asked the Davies folks at CANSEC what was the purpose of having military crew embarked, they said it was for keeping the Tanker skill sets alive such as Bosn and NavCom for example.  I asked about HT as we're the people who take care of the fuel on our present AOR and get it from the cargo tanks to the fuel dump and hoses and therefore we would need to keep those skills alive as well.  

Was told that there are no plans to include HT into the mix.  Further, the damage control duties will apparently come from the civilian crew as well, she said.  I guess we're redundant now with the trade being killed off.  :dunno:


----------



## Lumber

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Did a little research:
> 
> In addition, all of the the wet/dry RAS infrastructure will be removed from a Proctecteur class vessel and installed on  Resolve. In general, the RCN seems to be stripping a decommissioned AOR and providing that equipment to Resolve. Obviously that keeps Davie's costs low. Seems to me there is an inferential assumption the RCN will take this ship on strength after 5 years if _when _the Queenston class fall behind commissioning schedules.



FTFY.


----------



## Furniture

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I asked the Davies folks at CANSEC what was the purpose of having military crew embarked, they said it was for keeping the Tanker skill sets alive such as Bosn and NavCom for example.  I asked about HT as we're the people who take care of the fuel on our present AOR and get it from the cargo tanks to the fuel dump and hoses and therefore we would need to keep those skills alive as well.
> 
> Was told that there are no plans to include HT into the mix.  Further, the damage control duties will apparently come from the civilian crew as well, she said.  I guess we're redundant now with the trade being killed off.  :dunno:



Who will provide crash rescue with an embarked Air Det if there are no HTs? It won't be a permenant posting, but there should still be some sailing on the AOR.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The civilian crew is going to do most everything I did/do on ship, if the lady I was discussing this topic with was correct in her information.  I do know that we're not invited to the party, hopefully that will change.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One could start with the RFA model and then adapt it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

My understanding was that the military personnel would only be composed of whatever detachment may be required for specific functions that have no civilian equivalent. 

For instance, an air det would be deployed as a self contained team. All personnel required for all operations aspects of the deployed birds would go as a group. Similarly, if operation of the shipboard hospital is required, a complete military medical team would deploy to cover the operation of the sick bay.

Other than that, there will always be a military supply group on board any time the ship deploys, in order to process the fuel, ammunition and dry good orders and to complete all the paperwork and accounts as required.

Oh! To answer a question that was asked as to how FSS personnel will be deployed, considering the ship is likely to be at sea a lot: That is not a problem for civilians at all. They will simply follow the usual trade practices, and the various members of the crew will work onboard for three months (that is three months solid - 7 days a week), then rotate out for a month or two before going back in, etc. That's normal life for merchant seamen.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Thanks OGBD, that's what I thought. It will be interesting to see how this all works out.


----------



## JLB50

As for the RAS infrastructure and other things removed from the Protecteur class, will that equipment still belong to Canada?  I'm just wondering what will happen once the lease is up and if Canada wants to discontinue any relationship with Resolve.


----------



## Kirkhill

JLB50 said:
			
		

> As for the RAS infrastructure and other things removed from the Protecteur class, will that equipment still belong to Canada?  I'm just wondering what will happen once the lease is up and if Canada wants to discontinue any relationship with Resolve.



I would imagine it would depend on whether both the head and the haft of the axe have been replaced and how much life there might be left remaining.


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just came upon this Youtube video put out by Davie on project resolve's progress. They apparently intend to do this from time to time  - smart PR :
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_2_aWcd7mI
> 
> P.S.: Note the number of time they mention that they are Canada's "most experienced, highest capacity and largest shipbuilder"  [



I assume the video producers intended no association between the Phalanx CIWS mentioned concurrently with the lifeboat filled with people shown at 15:13? ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

> New Zealand Orders New Fleet Tanker
> Nick Lee-Frampton, Defense News 9:13 a.m. EDT July 19, 2016
> 
> *New Zealand ordered a new $348 million naval tanker from Hyundai in South Korea *to replace the replenishment tanker that is nearly three decades old.
> 
> Powered by diesel engines driving twin props, the ship will have provision for the installation of two mini-typhoons and a Phalanx CIWS for self-defense.The tender requires a deck with a capacity for at least 12 TEU containers in a single tier. The tanker replaces the HMNZS Endeavour, commissioned in April 1988.
> 
> "This vessel will be significantly larger, will be able to refuel two ships at a time while underway, carry and refuel Defence Force helicopters, produce and store water, and store and transport bulk goods," New Zealand Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee said. "The Government has also opted to include ice-strengthening and winterisation features, representing a very useful enhanced capability when compared to the current tanker. This will allow it to deliver fuel and other goods to support Scott Base and McMurdo Station, during summer months once an icebreaker has cleared a path."
> 
> The tender for the maritime sustainment capability  requires the new ship to spend up to 160 days at sea each year.
> 
> The new ship shall be able to operate, maintain and have hangar space for any one of the existing NZ Defence Force helicopter types, including the NH90, SH-2G, and the A109. The HMNZS Endeavour is unable to operate helicopters and is scheduled for decommissioning in 2018, two years before the replacement ship’s expected delivery.



No comment

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2016/07/19/new-zealand-orders-new-fleet-tanker/87282602/


Additional info



> South Korean shipbuilder Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) has won a NZD 493 million (USD 350 million) contract to build a naval tanker for the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF).
> 
> The vessel, whose purchase has been approved by the New Zealand Government, is expected to be delivered by 2020.



http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/197375/nzdf-orders-tanker-at-hhi/

It starts to look like production capacity may be starting to fill up.


----------



## Underway

Seaspan announcement from a few days ago.  I know it was _going to happen_, however, it's interesting to note that the contract was non-binding until this award.  Now its binding from how I understand it.

Here is the original.



> March 1 (UPI) -- The government of Canada awarded Seaspan's Vancouver Shipyards with a contract to produce Queenston-class Joint Support Ships.
> 
> The project aims to replace the Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessels currently in service with Canada's navy, and has an estimated budget of $1.7 billion. Under the contract, Seaspan will provide production and engineering services to support the program.
> 
> Canada plans to construct two of the vessels as part of its National Shipbuilding Strategy, but is considering building a third. The government expects the first vessel to be delivered by 2021, and the second by 2022.
> 
> The announced names of the new vessels are HMCS Queenston and HMCS Châteauguay.
> 
> Seaspan received the production order after completing an initial design review for the ships based on designs by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada. The company was previously contracted in December 2015 to supply equipment, propulsion systems and generators to finalize the design.
> 
> Once completed, the Joint Support Ships will be used to provide limited sealift capabilities, offshore operations support and core replenishment duties.


----------



## ekpiper

> The project aims to replace the Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessels currently in service with Canada's navy...



Which AORs would those be?


----------



## MilEME09

ekpiper said:
			
		

> Which AORs would those be?



HMCS contracted spanish navy vassel, that one


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We have stealth AOR's, so stealthy even the crews can't find them.....


----------



## jollyjacktar

I knew the adults would shit the bed on this one.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Truly major-league up-sucking to PM Trudeau by Davie--a tweet:
https://twitter.com/chantierdavie/status/852159771440533506



> Davie Shipbuilding‏ @chantierdavie
> 
> The lounges onboard the Resolve-Class AOR are built to cruise-ship standards.



Up-chuck to the max.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO

I hope those bar chairs are bolted to the deck!

As for the PM's picture, I do believe that it should not be there.

In our unit this is the order.

Queen
GG
CDS - CWO of the CAF
MND
CRCN 
followed by all the subordinates of MARPAC and NAVRES

The prime minister is not to be seen.


----------



## jollyjacktar

But it's not truly a military vessel.  Not that I like looking at the kid's face, but, it's not an HMCS.  They're not biting the hand that feeds it.   :nod:  Cruise ship standards... Disney Cruises.  No booze.


----------



## NavyShooter

How long do you think that picture will last without some wit adding a mustache and a goatee to it?


----------



## dapaterson

Paging Guy Fawkes.


----------



## jmt18325

Is that picture actually there?  There's no reason for it to be there.


----------



## NavyShooter

Geez JMT, you're an expert on everything....thanks for your insight that practically expands from what FTSO and Jolly have contributed.


----------



## Baz

FSTO said:
			
		

> I hope those bar chairs are bolted to the deck!
> 
> As for the PM's picture, I do believe that it should not be there.
> 
> In our unit this is the order.
> 
> Queen
> GG
> CDS - CWO of the CAF
> MND
> CRCN
> followed by all the subordinates of MARPAC and NAVRES
> 
> The prime minister is not to be seen.



I assume you mean that the MND is before the CDS...

The last time I had the "pleasure" of being at Stadacona's Wardroom the PM was there and had been for a while.  I remember mentioning it to someone quite a while ago and got a blank stare indicating they didn't understand...


----------



## jmt18325

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Geez JMT, you're an expert on everything....thanks for your insight that practically expands from what FTSO and Jolly have contributed.



Oh good - we're back to this again.


----------



## Stoker

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Is that picture actually there?  There's no reason for it to be there.



That's a Photoshop rendering


----------



## MilEME09

I'll assume you all saw the other tweet, of the Resolves hangers? https://twitter.com/chantierdavie/status/852160217924108288/photo/1


----------



## GK .Dundas

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Truly major-league up-sucking to PM Trudeau by Davie--a tweet:
> https://twitter.com/chantierdavie/status/852159771440533506
> 
> Up-chuck to the max.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


 Mark , 
Are  you sure it's not a dartboard ?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Tee hee .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Davie is reporting on their FB page that the accommodation block has arrived, as have the 2 cranes, so looks for some major progress shortly.


----------



## Stoker

I find that's its interesting that the military contingent for IAOR will be larger than I thought with around 60 for normal missions and can be upwards of 114 fully manned, with 10 personnel in shore positions. 36 civilians with 2 crews at 30 days on , 30 days off. The max crew size is 150 and if they need to bring more on say for a evacuation can ask for a waiver and have to embark additional life saving equipment. The initial contract will be for 5 years, with one year extensions after that, providing at a min 130 sea days a year.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I find that's its interesting that the military contingent for IAOR will be larger than I thought with around 60 for normal missions and can be upwards of 114 fully manned, with 10 personnel in shore positions. 36 civilians with 2 crews at 30 days on , 30 days off. The max crew size is 150 and if they need to bring more on say for a evacuation can ask for a waiver and have to embark additional life saving equipment. The initial contract will be for 5 years, with one year extensions after that, providing at a min 130 sea days a year.



Chief, can you clarify those numbers for me?

Are you saying 36 civilians split between two shifts (18 on, 18 off) or 72 civilians (36 on, 36 off)?  I think you are saying 36 on and 36 off.

So minimal crewing could be 

36 civvy and 60 CAF (RCN and other trades), for a total of 96

Nominal crewing would add 54 CAF trades to achieve a crew of 

36 civvy and 114 CAF for 150

Overload possible with preparation?


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Chief, can you clarify those numbers for me?
> 
> Are you saying 36 civilians split between two shifts (18 on, 18 off) or 72 civilians (36 on, 36 off)?  I think you are saying 36 on and 36 off.
> 
> So minimal crewing could be
> 
> 36 civvy and 60 CAF (RCN and other trades), for a total of 96
> 
> Nominal crewing would add 54 CAF trades to achieve a crew of
> 
> 36 civvy and 114 CAF for 150
> 
> Overload possible with preparation?



2 crews of 36 pers. 30 days on, 30 days off. 114 posted to IAOR, 10 of which in some sort of shore office. The rest posted to the ship and that would vary with the type of mission they're on. They probably will include trainees as well. I will imagine as time goes on this number will vary. The max of 150 is a Loyd's regulation. I believe they can embark over 300 additional pers for a short time and must get a waiver, the galley can feed up to 500 pers a day. It appears the ship will be out sooner as well.


----------



## Lumber

Since I can't find a link to this on a website, check out the attached picture.


----------



## Stoker

Lumber said:
			
		

> Since I can't find a link to this on a website, check out the attached picture.



The IAOR is very capable however won't be allowed into threat zone with the civilian crew.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks to the pair of you.

Now that there has been a chance to consider both ships side by side is there an opinion on the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimate of 2 BCAD per ship?

I am not sure that I want to blame the PBO because of their lack of expertise in the matter, which led them to seek out experts, which led them to seek out US experts familiar with operating in a US procurement environment.

I am wondering if this will have a knock on effect at SeaSpan in terms of their pricing and the number of vessels that might be procured.

In terms of the ship manoeuvering under threat:  

Is there any difference in the ship in that regard or is it strictly a crew contract issue?;

What would be the effect if the crew were all RCNR?


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Thanks to the pair of you.
> 
> Now that there has been a chance to consider both ships side by side is there an opinion on the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimate of 2 BCAD per ship?
> 
> I am not sure that I want to blame the PBO because of their lack of expertise in the matter, which led them to seek out experts, which led them to seek out US experts familiar with operating in a US procurement environment.
> 
> I am wondering if this will have a knock on effect at SeaSpan in terms of their pricing and the number of vessels that might be procured.
> 
> In terms of the ship manoeuvering under threat:
> 
> Is there any difference in the ship in that regard or is it strictly a crew contract issue?;
> 
> What would be the effect if the crew were all RCNR?



I doubt it, both ships are vastly different animals with the construction significantly different.I do agree the price is out to lunch though. I do believe its exactly a crew contract issue and the fact the RCN doesn't own the ship.


----------



## suffolkowner

I'm pretty sure I recall that a third Queenston was supposed to be considerably cheaper, whether that remains true or possible or available I don't know. Hard to get economies of scale or any production efficiency out of such small production.


----------



## chrisf

Lumber said:
			
		

> Since I can't find a link to this on a website, check out the attached picture.



It's interesting that they note it still has it's dynamic positioning system...

Follow-track mode will make RAS much easier/safer if they use it.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The IAOR is very capable however won't be allowed into threat zone with the civilian crew.



Chief, is that confirmed?  Could they not operate like the civilians aboard US Military Sealift Command USNS in combat zones?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Chief, is that confirmed?  Could they not operate like the civilians aboard US Military Sealift Command USNS in combat zones?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I believe what I read is a "low threat environment", we are talking about civilian crews here and maybe unionized. I doubt if they will go in a war zone, as well the civilians do the firefighting there.


----------



## captloadie

In practical terms, what would be considered a war zone? Is it a certain distance from a hostile coast? Is it an area known or suspected to be mined? I'm just trying to see where these unionized employees potentially wouldn't/couldn't go in this leased to the CAF ship that they would be going if working on other commercial vessels.


----------



## Kirkhill

captloadie said:
			
		

> In practical terms, what would be considered a war zone? Is it a certain distance from a hostile coast? Is it an area known or suspected to be mined? I'm just trying to see where these unionized employees potentially wouldn't/couldn't go in this leased to the CAF ship that they would be going if working on other commercial vessels.




As in patrolling sea-lanes for pirates, or managing choke-points commonly transited by civilian carriers?


----------



## Lumber

Why does it have to be civilian crewed? Why can't we buy it outright and crew it with Navy?


----------



## Stoker

Lumber said:
			
		

> Why does it have to be civilian crewed? Why can't we buy it outright and crew it with Navy?



We sure could but I think the RCN sees this as a stop gap until be get the new purpose built AOR's.


----------



## dapaterson

Lumber said:
			
		

> Why does it have to be civilian crewed? Why can't we buy it outright and crew it with Navy?



Because that's not what Davie offered.  It looks like Davie understands that DND has pressure on vote 5 (capital) money, and thus offered DND a way to spend O&M to get the capability - renting instead of owning. 

I do suspect that at the end of the lease (including the extensions, which will be necessary to cover off the learning curve to bring the two JSS to FOC) that the RCN will push to buy her and add her to the fleet, getting a third AOR...


----------



## Good2Golf

If I were King (or Sun Prince) for a day, I'd consider keeping it and having 2+1 AORs. :nod: Weren't PRO, PRT and PRE split configurations (2+1)?

Regards
G2G


----------



## MilEME09

Lumber said:
			
		

> Why does it have to be civilian crewed? Why can't we buy it outright and crew it with Navy?



Davie has stated previously that after the contract is over it may entertain the idea of selling the ship outright to the RCN, but that will be upto Davie and the GoC to work out. In my opinion though if we are only getting two Queenston class, then we should keep the Resolve as a third AOR, to cover our backs when one ship needs to be in dock for maintenance.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Davie has stated previously that after the contract is over it may entertain the idea of selling the ship outright to the RCN, but that will be upto Davie and the GoC to work out. In my opinion though if we are only getting two Queenston class, then we should keep the Resolve as a third AOR, to cover our backs when one ship needs to be in dock for maintenance.



Actually if they run the Resolve for a year and like it, build another one that is a RCN ship. Have one Resolve class and one Queenston class on each coast. That would mean we could operate further and for longer and always have a AOR. Run the Resolves for 10 years, sell them to another friendly 3rd world navy and have Davie build replacements in the same way. Sell the Queenstons after 20 years and have Seaspan build new AORs.


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually if they run the Resolve for a year and like it, build another one that is a RCN ship. Have one Resolve class and one Queenston class on each coast. That would mean we could operate further and for longer and always have a AOR. Run the Resolves for 10 years, sell them to another friendly 3rd world navy and have Davie build replacements in the same way. Sell the Queenstons after 20 years and have Seaspan build new AORs.



Quit talking sense. It may become contagious.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Because that's not what Davie offered.  It looks like Davie understands that DND has pressure on vote 5 (capital) money, and thus offered DND a way to spend O&M to get the capability - renting instead of owning.
> 
> I do suspect that at the end of the lease (including the extensions, which will be necessary to cover off the learning curve to bring the two JSS to FOC) that the RCN will push to buy her and add her to the fleet, getting a third AOR...



Agree entirely with para 1. 

Only concern with para 2 is whether the Government of the Day at the time will sign off on the capability.  I sense some folks might feel that they have been railroaded into this.  And, mixing metaphors, the ground seems to be piling up with noses cut off from spited faces.


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually if they run the Resolve for a year and like it, build another one that is a RCN ship. Have one Resolve class and one Queenston class on each coast. That would mean we could operate further and for longer and always have a AOR. Run the Resolves for 10 years, sell them to another friendly 3rd world navy and have Davie build replacements in the same way. Sell the Queenstons after 20 years and have Seaspan build new AORs.



$500M CAD every 10 yrs is a much better deal than $2Bn CAD every 20.


----------



## Kirkhill

Re the 2 Bn CAD per vessel per the PBO report of 2013

The original DND estimate of 2004 was three vessels delivered between 2012 and 2016 for 2.1 BCAD (700 MCAD per hull average)

By 2009 the DND estimate was revised upwards to 2.53 BCAD and the number of hulls reduced to 2 (1260 MCAD per hull average) with the budget being revised upwards to 2.6 BCAD (1300 MCAD per hull average)

In 2013, after consulting with US experts and using US modelling, the PBO declared that their experts estimated the project at 3.28 BCAD for 2 hulls (1640 MCAD) and recommended a budget of 4.13 BCAD (2060 MCAD per hull average) to allow for a 25% contingency for cost over runs.

Thus we go from 700 MCAD per hull in 2004 (which could reasonably be seen as 900 MCAD for the first hull, 700 MCAD for the second and 500 MCAD for the third) to a well padded 2060 MCAD in 2013.

Now we have a ship built for 300 MCAD (conversion of a 20 MCAD hull) which I suggest might seem to indicate that the original 2004 Estimate had more of a grip on reality than the 2013 PBO budget.

In fairness to the PBO it had this to say about modelling and estimating:



> There are four main approaches to costing: analogy,
> parametric, build-up, and expert opinion. In cost
> estimating, the phase of the project and the
> availability of data drive methodology selection.
> 23
> *Given that the JSS is still in early design phase
> (meaning that detailed specifications and actual costs
> are unavailable) and there are no recent, analogous
> acquisitions, parametric modeling is the most
> appropriate method for estimating cost.*24
> Parametric modeling involves positing cost
> relationships for a set of inputs and testing those
> relationships using historical data.
> Developing and validating a parametric model
> requires a significant investment of time and access
> to a data set of historical costs. For this reason, the
> PBO used PRICE Systems’ TruePlanning®—a software
> package used for estimating cost of hardware
> platforms.



I suggest that PBO should be invited to revisit the findings of their 2013 report now that a "recent, analogous, acquisition" is available.

I also suggest that the PBO recalibrate their parametric models, which would also apply to the AOPS and the CSC, based on the new data.

http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/JSS_EN.pdf


----------



## Kirkhill

In a related vein the Seaspan OFSV project was originally estimated at 244 MCAD in 2004 for three hulls and has climbed to 687 MCAD.

The OFSV is essentially a factory trawler.  (And having been on board many of them I doubt that there are many "science tools" lacking on the modern factory trawler.

Here is one of the premier factory trawler fleets in the world

http://www.havfisk.no/no/flaten

https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2016/09/08/havfisk-adds-new-whitefish-factory-vessel-to-fleet/

http://www.havfisk.no/en/fleet/fleet-overview/gadus-neptun

https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/03/07/third-havfisk-trawler-baptised/

https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2016/02/22/havfisk-commissions-new-e34m-trawler/

Havfisk bought three 3400 tonne trawlers for 132 MUSD and have found money for a fourth this year.

It also bought another similarly sized trawler for mixed fisheries for 38 MUSD.

The OFSVs displace 3200 tonnes.

So, original estimate for three OFSV trawlers in 2004 - 244 MCAD
Current estimate for three OFSV trawlers in 2017 - 687 MCAD
Actual cost of three modern commercial trawlers - 180 MCAD

So why the "inflation"/"poor estimating"?






https://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries/nss-photo-gallery-ofsv3


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually if they run the Resolve for a year and like it, build another one that is a RCN ship. Have one Resolve class and one Queenston class on each coast. That would mean we could operate further and for longer and always have a AOR. Run the Resolves for 10 years, sell them to another friendly 3rd world navy and have Davie build replacements in the same way. Sell the Queenstons after 20 years and have Seaspan build new AORs.



Actually, Colin, I would go one better on that proposal: Since the Resolve are designed to be operated by a civilian crew of 36, the Resolve on each coast gets manned by the CFAV civvies. Then, on each coast, the Queenston class is your forward deployable asset - going with the CTF wherever it goes, while the Resolve sails local waters to provide for the fleet training - both for the specialized personnel on the Resolve, who then gets its training to get ready to deploy on the Queenston, and for the fleet remaining in Canada to train, who then never loses its UNREP training capability each time the fleet AOR is sent away. It then also provides coverage whenever the actual AOR is undergoing refits.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Is feeling of warmth and happiness i get from your post  :nod:

To much logic they will come and burn us all for being heretics.


----------



## dapaterson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Re the 2 Bn CAD per vessel per the PBO report of 2013
> 
> The original DND estimate of 2004 was three vessels delivered between 2012 and 2016 for 2.1 BCAD (700 MCAD per hull average)
> 
> By 2009 the DND estimate was revised upwards to 2.53 BCAD and the number of hulls reduced to 2 (1260 MCAD per hull average) with the budget being revised upwards to 2.6 BCAD (1300 MCAD per hull average)
> 
> In 2013, after consulting with US experts and using US modelling, the PBO declared that their experts estimated the project at 3.28 BCAD for 2 hulls (1640 MCAD) and recommended a budget of 4.13 BCAD (2060 MCAD per hull average) to allow for a 25% contingency for cost over runs.
> 
> Thus we go from 700 MCAD per hull in 2004 (which could reasonably be seen as 900 MCAD for the first hull, 700 MCAD for the second and 500 MCAD for the third) to a well padded 2060 MCAD in 2013.
> 
> Now we have a ship built for 300 MCAD (conversion of a 20 MCAD hull) which I suggest might seem to indicate that the original 2004 Estimate had more of a grip on reality than the 2013 PBO budget.
> 
> In fairness to the PBO it had this to say about modelling and estimating:
> 
> I suggest that PBO should be invited to revisit the findings of their 2013 report now that a "recent, analogous, acquisition" is available.
> 
> I also suggest that the PBO recalibrate their parametric models, which would also apply to the AOPS and the CSC, based on the new data.
> 
> http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/JSS_EN.pdf



I use the analogy of buying a house to look at how costs increase.

Buy a used house and move in - cheapest option.

Buy a used house and do some renos - more expensive (this is what we're doing with Resolve).

Buy a new house in a new development with standard layout and finishes.

Buy a new house in a new development with custom finishes.  (This is what we're doing with JSS)

Buy a new house with a new design in an existing development.

Buy a new house with a new design in a greenfield location where you're paying for 100% of servicing (most expensive).  (This is what some of the original concepts would have been)


DIfferent approaches wil lead to different cost models and factors- and if you go for custom build, it's almost always going to be more expensive.


----------



## dapaterson

Another take on Canadian shipbuilding: Why bother?

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/05/05/its-past-time-for-canada-to-get-out-of-the-shipbuilding-trade/


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I use the analogy of buying a house to look at how costs increase.
> 
> Buy a used house and move in - cheapest option.
> 
> Buy a used house and do some renos - more expensive (this is what we're doing with Resolve).
> 
> Buy a new house in a new development with standard layout and finishes.
> 
> Buy a new house in a new development with custom finishes.  (This is what we're doing with JSS)
> 
> Buy a new house with a new design in an existing development.
> 
> Buy a new house with a new design in a greenfield location where you're paying for 100% of servicing (most expensive).  (This is what some of the original concepts would have been)
> 
> 
> DIfferent approaches wil lead to different cost models and factors- and if you go for custom build, it's almost always going to be more expensive.



While I agree with the concept I would argue that in the case of Resolve we are not so much taking a used house and doing some minor renos as buying a 5 year old house, knocking it back to grade, keeping just the basement and the utilities, and rebuilding the above-grade structure from scratch.

We could just as easily buy brand new hulls with motors fitted and ferry them to Canada for outfitting over here with Canadian workers at either Davie or Victoria Drydocks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson




----------



## FSTO

Holy crap! An actual catwalk in front of the bridge!!!! Has the world gone mad?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The world has moved on since the mid 20th century  ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FSTO said:
			
		

> Holy crap! An actual catwalk in front of the bridge!!!! Has the world gone mad?



Pretty standard on commercial structures of that type, FSTO. How else are you going to clean the bridge windows safely? Just ask the sigs whose job it is how they would like to do that hanging from bosun chairs at that height.  ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just for an additional visual confirmation, here are some modern merchant ships superstructure pics - complete with catwalks for the bridge windows cleaning.  ;D

Remember, the merchant navy couldn't care less about radar cross-section.


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Pretty standard on commercial structures of that type, FSTO. How else are you going to clean the bridge windows safely? Just ask the sigs whose job it is how they would like to do that hanging from bosun chairs at that height.  ;D


I just remember all those years with our crappy windshield wipers on all of our warships and how nice it would have been to be able to send the lookout out to clean the bloody things off without having to get a man-aloft chit!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Generally the guy using the catwalks still gets a safety harness


----------



## chrisf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Generally the guy using the catwalks still gets a safety harness



Why? There's usually a rail and it's usually the same height as every other rail on the ship.

Walking out to wipe windows or soogee shouldn't be a problem.

Only ever worn or seen worn harness if you're working above the rail, say painting or fixing wipers.

Sometimes they even get a brilliant idea and the stick the wipers on upside down... Which is great till they get jammed up with dirt and paint chips.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin is from the civilian side of things.

The squeegee guys that wash the skyscraper windows are on a solid platform with a proper height guardrail, but they still have to be harnessed. It's called Workplace Safety Regulations and merchant mariners are bound to follow the ones from their country of origin, and the Canadian ones while in Canadian waters.

And if the civilians do it for safety reasons, we really should too, unless there is a specific operational reason to ignore them in a given situation. We used to be quite slack about it, but a ship is basically a residential building interspersed in an industrial setting. We've gotten more serious about workplace safety in the last say 30 years, and it is quite appropriate.

Look at the Resolve mast in the picture: pretty safe set up, right. Yet, anyone going up there would require the man aloft safety precautions to be taken, including harness and a person to tend to him/her from below.


----------



## chrisf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Colin is from the civilian side of things.



As am I  8)

He and have even sailed on one ship in common (Though not at the same time).

Fall restraint on a bridge catwalk may be a policy local to some ships or some employers (possibly with good reason, such as a low or missing guard rail, possibly a paranoia policy) but it's not a universal requirement, and it's not a requirement in any of the appropriate safety regulations.

Good sense still needs to apply, it's probably a bad idea to wash the windows during a hurricane, but looking at the picture, assuming the weather is good, walking out on to the catwalk on the resolve boat to wash the windows shouldn't require any sort of additional fall protection (I assume it'll be lloyds classed, they define a handrail as 1m or higher)

If being able to wash the windows is impressive, just wait till the navy catches up to buying a cyber chair bridge.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Already being slide onto the hull

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18403827_1369657483087562_3767909629346826284_o.jpg?oh=839f9bb01b7c1b02bde9fbd7df56f7ea&oe=59B986D3


----------



## MilEME09

I remember reading somewhere the RAS system had also been delivered and will be installed soon. While I realize it was a conversion and not a complete from scratch build, Resolve is looking to be the success story here in ship building.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The two cranes have been delivered, not sure if the RAS is at site?


----------



## Underway

The Globe and Mails review of the Davie Resolve project.  Not so glowing.  My favourite quote "We inherited a turd".


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> The Globe and Mails review of the Davie Resolve project.  Not so glowing.  My favourite quote "We inherited a turd".



The Liberals wanted to get out of it because the Conservatives initiated it, no wonder they're calling the contract a "turd". I couldn't care less what dealings are behind the scenes or if the company is owned offshore. We should be getting a fairly nice ship with loads of capabilities including starting to refuel our own ships again years before we get our own tankers built by Seaspan.


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The Liberals wanted to get out of it because the Conservatives initiated it, no wonder they're calling the contract a "turd". I couldn't care less what dealings are behind the scenes or if the company is owned offshore. We should be getting a fairly nice ship with loads of capabilities including starting to refuel our own ships again years before we get our own tankers built by Seaspan.



I'm with you 1000%.  It's just sometimes good to take a different look at things.  I think the whole article is because the Navy quite rightly backed the gov't into a corner on this.  And good for us for showing some political gonads for a change.


----------



## NavyShooter

At the price of a VCDS?

Capability seems to have a cost....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I thik he may have taken one for the team, sacrificing himself to ensure the Navy got the ship it desperately needs before the corporate knowledge of how to do things like RAS is lost.


----------



## Eaglelord17

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> At the price of a VCDS?
> 
> Capability seems to have a cost....



Seeing as he was the one who had alcohol removed from the ships, I am not sure everyone is seeing it as a cost...


----------



## Cloud Cover

The phrase "...inherited a turd" suggests that the so called "senior official" is a political appointee, and not a person with any care in the world about what the current, actual needs of the RCN really might be.
Second, I highly, highly doubt that the actual cost of a ship with the capabilities of Resolve, even if made in South Korea, would come in at 175 million quoted for the UK/NL tankers. These are two different ships altogether. In any event, buying a brand new build foreign vessel seems to be off limits for the RCN anyway, no matter how desirable, affordable, practical etc. Just not going to happen with our ****ed up system.
I don't give a rats *** who is privately funding the ship and at what interest rate, as long as the cost to the RCN remains within the agreements of the leasing arrangements.  

Of course this ship is expensive and overpriced, it's supposed to be. And I'm sure it will have it's deficiencies and faults plastered on every media outlet that enjoys that sort of thing. This is Canada, the land of scandal and graft,  and I am resigned to the fact this is just the way things are done here, and it has been this way for more than 50 years. 

However, this ship will be completed on time, and everybody knows that despite the huffing and puffing from Irving, they could not have delivered a ship like that last year, and certainly not for the cost they have supposedly quoted, (unless they were planning to steal a ship from somewhere else.)  That claim from Irving is just total BS, and the G&M failed in their own "due diligence" on that one. If they could build or convert ships like that for the low price stated in the article, they would have more than just the RCN interested in what they have to offer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nice looking "Turd"


----------



## Kirkhill

Et encore la reste - si c'est de la merde, j'en veux.



> Un ravitailleur de la Marine royale canadienne construit de façon originale
> PUBLIÉ AUJOURD'HUI À 10 H 47
> 
> 
> Un navire de ravitaillement, qui sera le plus gros navire jamais utilisé par la Marine royale canadienne, est présentement en construction au chantier maritime Davie, à Lévis. Le ravitailleur Astérix est construit à partir d'un porte-conteneurs, une première pour la Marine royale canadienne.
> 
> Un texte de Jean-François Nadeau
> 
> Le porte-conteneurs a été fabriqué et acheté Allemagne. Il a été transporté au chantier maritime Davie, où on a conservé seulement la coque et une salle des machines pour le convertir en ravitailleur.
> 
> Le principal avantage de ce type de construction, c'est son faible coût par rapport à une construction traditionnelle. Les responsables du chantier soutiennent qu'il y a des économies substantielles à faire pour les contribuables.
> 
> « On va construire le bateau et le mettre en service pour le quart du prix de ce qui est prévu sur la côte ouest pour un bateau similaire, explique le directeur général de Federal Fleet Services, Spencer Fraser. Le navire va coûter environ 500 millions de dollars, comparé à 2 milliards de dollars. »
> 
> Ce projet est le premier entièrement piloté par la nouvelle administration des Chantiers Davie. Environ 600 personnes travaillent à la conversion du navire en ravitailleur. Les travaux devraient durer un an et demi.
> 
> Même s'il s'agit d'un navire converti, on assure qu'il sera à la fine pointe de la technologie.
> 
> Le ravitailleur va pouvoir transporter 10 000 tonnes de carburant pour ravitailler les navires de combat en mer et 1000 tonnes de carburant pour les hélicoptères.
> 
> Les responsables de la construction ont également mené un sondage auprès des marins pour connaître leurs besoins. Ils ont obtenu 700 réponses.
> 
> Résultat : l'Astérix va avoir le plus grand gymnase au monde pour un navire et les cabines individuelles des matelots occuperont l'espace qui était réservé auparavant pour trois à cinq personnes.
> 
> « Il y a des prises USB, un pupitre, un accès Internet et même une fenêtre, ce qui est rare dans la marine canadienne, affirme Spencer Fraser. Chaque matelot aura un téléviseur, qui servira aussi pour la formation, une douche et sa propre toilette. »
> 
> La cuisine du navire a été dessinée par une entreprise qui conçoit les cuisines des grands paquebots de croisières et de grands hôtels un peu partout dans le monde.
> 
> « On peut servir des repas à 500 personnes à la fois, si jamais il le faut, affirme Spencer Fraser. Si le bateau se retrouve dans une région sinistrée, comme en Haïti, on peut prendre la nourriture du bateau et l'amener à terre. Il y a une boulangerie, une pâtisserie. »
> 
> La cale de l'Asterix accueillera également le plus grand hôpital de la flotte canadienne.
> 
> « Une fois aménagé, l'hôpital va pouvoir traiter 30 personnes à la fois quand le ravitailleur sera en mer, mentionne Spencer Faser. Il y aura deux salles d'opération, un local de dentiste et une salle de rayons X. Bref, tout ce qu'on trouve dans un hôpital. »
> 
> La conversion du porte-conteneurs a été présentée à l'OTAN, il y a trois semaines.
> 
> « Ils ont trouvé notre façon de faire extraordinaire et innovatrice, raconte Spencer Fraser. Il y a au moins deux autres pays de l'OTAN qui aimeraient nous acheter un bateau converti. »
> 
> La Marine royale canadienne n'a plus de ravitailleur depuis février 2014. L'Astérix sera inauguré officiellement le 20 juillet prochain à Lévis. Il devrait être opérationnel à l'automne.
> 
> Il demeurera la propriété de Federal Fleet Services, qui le louera à la Marine.



http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1035679/ravitailleur-marine-canadienne-chantiers-davie

If I get it right -

Everybody gets a personal cabin with porthole, head and shower, tv and USB connection.  An extraordinarily large gym.  A cruiseliner compatible galley capable of serving 500.  A 30 patient hospital with a dentist.  In addition to carting fuel, ammo and groceries.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I don't know how anyone could be expected to sail under those living conditions.

 :sarcasm:


----------



## dapaterson

Don't worry.  If there's a way to make it miserable, the RCN will find it


----------



## jollyjacktar

They did, it's a dry ship.


----------



## Kirkhill

Is that the whole ship or just the RCN part?  How about the FedNav berths?


----------



## Stoker

If anyone's interested I have a photo album of IAOR build pictures on my RCN History page.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/GOCANADANAVY/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1476057212453004


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> If anyone's interested I have a photo album of IAOR build pictures on my RCN History page.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/pg/GOCANADANAVY/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1476057212453004



I do like a nice job of cabling......

Only thing is, about those galleys,  I think sunglasses might be the order of the day.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I do like a nice job of cabling......
> 
> Only thing is, about those galleys,  I think sunglasses might be the order of the day.



Yes quite the galley, able to feed up to 500 if refugees are embarked.


----------



## jollyjacktar

That's not nice to call the AOR-less RCN guys refugees...   ;D


----------



## dapaterson

Believe the proper term is post-Dunkirk infantry.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That's not nice to call the AOR-less RCN guys refugees...   ;D



Of a sort I guess [


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and the head of Davie responds to Irving http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news%2F2278


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I think we should ask Davie to provide a Turn key CSC alternative bid and see what they come up with.


----------



## dapaterson

Canoe with a C6 mount.  What could be more Canadian?


----------



## Rifleman62

> and the head of Davie responds to Irving http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news%2F2278



And who is allowing this to happen?

Read the other day that the Phoenix pay system cost $300M, and to fix another $400M. What did the contract state re penalties for a system that does not function to specs?


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Canoe with a C6 mount.  What could be more Canadian?








Open water arctic design already complete.  Modest Canadianization to swap out MG for C6.  Kayak with c6.

Shouldn't cost more than a million apiece????


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Open water arctic design already complete.  Modest Canadianization to swap out MG for C6.  Kayak with c6.
> 
> Shouldn't cost more than a million apiece????



Irving needs money to "design" it though so you're probably looking at an additional million!


----------



## Spencer100

New Davies video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjlOxp2aKgw

Looks good and for corporate PR videos nicely made.  Plus a dig at the other ship yards.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

beat me to it, good on them for the work and the video. Both Seaspan and Davie are pretty good at keeping the public informed. Irving is more like "Eff off, we will tell you when it's done".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Agree. Very slick presentation. 

Colin, I know of Seaspan's web site progress pictures, but I don't recall seeing any videos. Are there any?

Also, for those who have viewed the Davie video, just a rhetorical question: How much delays and extra money do you think our East Coast Friend would have tried to "extort" from our government had they suffered a  minor catastrophe like Davie having its dry dock flooded from the extraordinary river flood and high tides of this spring? Note that davie is still 90 % complete and indicates they are still ahead of schedule even with this drawback.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seaspan is not as slick as Davie, but they maintain easy to find and use photo albums so I give them a good grade on that. Here is a video timelapse https://www.seaspan.com/20170313-ofsv1-progresstimelapse

As for your other question, I shudder to think. But I suspect it would really show the difference in management culture, I think that company suffers to much of the "to big to fail" attitude.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Love these updates.  They sure make Irving look like shit.  Mind you, that's pretty low hanging fruit.


----------



## FSTO

From the persona-non-grata reporter (I won't paste the link) of the Ottawa Citizen that basically confirms that the federal bureaucrats care not a whit about capability and its all about process. They admit the project resolve is a good idea and is good value for money but they didn't like the optics of making the NSP look bad.
Very disheartening to say the least.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think it might have more been concerns about 'oh, you have project resolve, we can cancel JSS altogether'.  Just having a single AOR would have been bad.

The Davie facility looks pretty impressive.  I'd love to get a tour through there to compare against the ISI and Seaspan facilities (both of which are pretty impressive for assembling the blocks).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Invites to the public as well for next month, wish I could be there

http://www.janes.com/article/71441/davie-prepares-resolve-class-oiler-for-delivery-eyes-new-conversions-on-the-horizon?from_rss=1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I can't post more due to the source not being allowed to be linked here.


----------



## serger989

Colin P said:
			
		

> Invites to the public as well for next month, wish I could be there
> 
> http://www.janes.com/article/71441/davie-prepares-resolve-class-oiler-for-delivery-eyes-new-conversions-on-the-horizon?from_rss=1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
> 
> I can't post more due to the source not being allowed to be linked here.



I hope Davie is able to push ahead with Project Resolute. A secondary PIB (AIVIQ, 2nd to Diefenbaker) and 3 medium IBs (Vikings) would really help the CCG out big time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CCG might be reluctant to "lease" a vessel, someone might start asking: "So if we are leasing an icebreaker, why aren't just contracting the work out?"


----------



## ModlrMike

I think conversions might be a great way for smaller shipyards to stay in the game. I know that when Davie got the contract there was much celebrating in Quebec City, and there's probably still an appetite for similar projects.


----------



## JLB50

I understand that Resolve is being converted to commercial rather than military standards.  But would it have been vastly more expensive to have converted it to military specifications?  Or do military standards start with the composition of the hull itself as well as internal fittings and systems? Is a different thickness or grade of steel required for the hulls of military ships?


----------



## Kirkhill

JLB50 said:
			
		

> I understand that Resolve is being converted to commercial rather than military standards.  But would it have been vastly more expensive to have converted it to military specifications?  Or do military standards start with the composition of the hull itself as well as internal fittings and systems? Is a different thickness or grade of steel required for the hulls of military ships?



Standards are "various". There are naval and military standards administered by national militaries.  There are communal military standards such as NATO standards.  There are national standards for civilian vessels administered by state agencies.  There a privately administered standards for civilian vessels administered by outfits like Lloyds and DNV.   And those same companies administer separate but similar standards for military vessels.

Bit of a dog's breakfast and ultimately up to the operator to choose the insurer and the national flag under which it will sail.  In my opinion.

The Europeans are leaning towards militarized civilian standards for everything but high end combat vessels.  Even their patrol vessels, even if well armed, are being built to militarized civilian standards.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lloyds rules are going to be very important in future vessels.


----------



## JLB50

Jollyjacktar, you're probably right.  Interestingly, if my memory serves me correctly, a year or two ago the Chinese government was planning to require all new commercial ships over a certain size to be built to military standards as well as have some of them subject to use by the military.  Not sure though if it actually happened.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Standards are "various". There are naval and military standards administered by national militaries.  There are communal military standards such as NATO standards.  There are national standards for civilian vessels administered by state agencies.  There a privately administered standards for civilian vessels administered by outfits like Lloyds and DNV.   And those same companies administer separate but similar standards for military vessels.
> 
> Bit of a dog's breakfast and ultimately up to the operator to choose the insurer and the national flag under which it will sail.  In my opinion.
> 
> The Europeans are leaning towards militarized civilian standards for everything but high end combat vessels.  Even their patrol vessels, even if well armed, are being built to militarized civilian standards.



Don't forget the first line on pretty much all the IMO, SOLAS and other regulatory standard ; "Military vessels are exempt".  We self regulate, and any civilian standards (or otherwise) are voluntary.  That's why we formed our own baseline standard for required equipment for the frigates to meet the general intent of SOLAS and the Nato ANEP 77 standards.

One weird intersection is where different authorities require any vessel coming in to meet (like a harbour authority requiring double hull tankers) or transitting through (ie St. Lawrence Seaway authority), but those are performance based vice certification.

At the end of the day, nothing will legally prevent us from sailing if we don't meet Lloyds or whatever due to operational requirements but I suspect you'll need a good reason on the ISSC ships as that will affect the expensive warranties we pay for.


----------



## AlexanderM

Look at the difference in the cost of the first Frigates Spain built to civilian standards as compared to the last one in which the US convinced them to use steel with anti-ballistic properties. 

Sorry to quote Wiki, but I used to be able to find lots of articles about this, but now, not so much. Anyway you will notice that the cost of the first 4 ships is listed as $600M USD each and the last ship was $1.1B USD, the last ship being built to much higher standards. I believe they all look pretty much identical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_de_Baz%C3%A1n-class_frigate


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Don't forget the first line on pretty much all the IMO, SOLAS and other regulatory standard ; "Military vessels are exempt".  We self regulate, and any civilian standards (or otherwise) are voluntary.  That's why we formed our own baseline standard for required equipment for the frigates to meet the general intent of SOLAS and the Nato ANEP 77 standards.
> 
> One weird intersection is where different authorities require any vessel coming in to meet (like a harbour authority requiring double hull tankers) or transitting through (ie St. Lawrence Seaway authority), but those are performance based vice certification.
> 
> At the end of the day, nothing will legally prevent us from sailing if we don't meet Lloyds or whatever due to operational requirements but I suspect you'll need a good reason on the ISSC ships as that will affect the expensive warranties we pay for.



One of the advantages of being a sovereign state, eh? 

You don't have to worry about whose flag you sail under.  Its your flag and you make up the rules.  And as for insurance - in the words of the trade - you're self-insured.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Lloyd's and DNV, amongst others, are construction standards and fitted system standards that relate to the actual construction of the vessels (and the maintenance of seaworthiness thereafter). And then the military has their own standards for construction, that usually relate to flood and fire control, NBCD protection, shock resistance, EMP protection, etc. which are of much less interest to the civilian vessels.

IMO and SOLAS are regulation concerning life saving equipment and personnel safety practices (like the new container weighing requirements). They have nothing to do with construction and fitting out of vessels, other than specifying the number and type of lifeboats, minimum radios kitting, minimum radar requirements, carrying of EPIRB's, issuing Rules of the Road etc. and other similar obligations.


----------



## Kirkhill

Surely they all impact on the design and construction and associated costs of any vessel?

Lloyd's and DNV are construction standards.  They can be invoked by the insurer's as a method of protecting their investment and forced on any operator that cannot afford self-insurance.  On the other hand, a self-insured agency might voluntarily decide to adopt any of those standards, especially if they have minimal expertise themselves, as a means of keeping their risks under control.   

But, because the standards are adopted voluntarily, they can be modified at whim.  It might not make sense to modify the standard, and doing so might be a big mistake, but there is nothing to prevent the modification of a standard to meet the wishes of the owner.

As for international laws -  and laws of the sea - ultimately those are gentlemen's accommodations.  There is little to stop a vessel with lots of guns cruising the high seas spewing smoke, leaking oil and releasing more radiation than Chernobyl.  The recourse is another vessel with bigger guns (or more vessels with guns).


----------



## a_majoor

Chris, this sounds right up your alley:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/07/13/USNS-Lewis-B-Puller-expeditionary-sea-base-deploys-for-first-time/9291499967079/?utm_source=sec&utm_campaign=sl&utm_medium=1



> *USNS Lewis B. Puller expeditionary sea base deploys for first time*
> The USNS Lewis B. Puller has deployed from Val Air Station Norfolk, marking the first operational cruise of the expeditionary sea base as it joins its supporting role in the U.S. Fifth Fleet.
> By Stephen Carlson   |  	July 13, 2017 at 2:16 PM
> 
> July 13 (UPI) -- The USNS Lewis B. Puller has deployed from Val Air Station Norfolk, marking the first operational cruise of the expeditionary sea base as it joins its supporting role in the U.S. Fifth Fleet.
> 
> The Puller is part of the U.S. Navy's Sealift Command and has a joint U.S. Navy and civilian crew.
> 
> "The Puller is a brand new ship, so we had a lot to learn. The military crew has been training with the ship's civil service mariners for a year to prepare for this deployment," military detachments officer-in-charge Cmdr. Arlen Rose said in a press release.
> 
> "We are ready to get Puller out there to takes its rightful place in the fleet. Everyone is really excited to get to work and see what the Puller can do."
> 
> The Puller is the first purpose-built expeditionary sea base of its kind. It is 784 feet long and has a 52,000 square-foot flight deck. It serves as a logistical hub for other ships with fuel and ammunition storage and repair facilities.
> 
> Its helicopter facilities and storage capacity make it ideal for humanitarian and disaster relief support alongside conventional military operations.
> 
> The Puller will be permanently stationed overseas to allow continuous suport for other deployed ships. Crew rotations would take place in theater.
> 
> The ship draws its name from Lt. Gen. Lewis "Chesty" Puller, a commander in World War II and Korea, and the only Marine to win 5 Navy crosses.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Be interesting if Davie was to propose a helicopter carrier based on a existing RO/RO hull


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Chris, this sounds right up your alley:
> 
> https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/07/13/USNS-Lewis-B-Puller-expeditionary-sea-base-deploys-for-first-time/9291499967079/?utm_source=sec&utm_campaign=sl&utm_medium=1



This is a proven, sea-worthy vessel.







This is what happens when you let the Navy get its hands on it






And Colin -  I think we would have to by more kit fill that beast.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would cut most RO/RO down by at least 1 deck, most are not the most stable ships


----------



## Underway

Not sure if this has been posted before but oooh glossy brochure.

I find the "modest capability" comment very entertaining.  It's like they are saying don't believe everything you hear/read about this ship.


----------



## Kirkhill

Modest Capability .....

50% of the requirement (2 vessels) or 33% of the hope.

Or....

Infinitely more than there was last month.


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Modest Capability .....
> 
> 50% of the requirement (2 vessels) or 33% of the hope.
> 
> Or....
> 
> Infinitely more than there was last month.



Actually I'm thinking more on the lines of this is a civilian ship vs JSS is a warship.  The capability gap is significant between it and the JSS.  It's supposed to do one thing.  Refuel and restock ships.


----------



## MilEME09

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Modest Capability .....
> 
> 50% of the requirement (2 vessels) or 33% of the hope.
> 
> Or....
> 
> Infinitely more than there was last month.



Look at the bright side, Resolve is almost done, and if memory serves me correct she should be launching in about two months here. Making it the last project started and the first to finishing within this whole ship building plan.


EDIT: infact, she's almost ready for duty

http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=26679:davie-shipbuilding-unveils-project-resolve-naval-support-vessel&Itemid=257



> JULY 21, 2017 — Davie Shipbuilding, Lévis, Quebec, Canada, yesterday unveiled the Asterix, the Resolve-class naval support vessel created by converting a containership in a project taking just under two years and involving Davie's 1,369 staff together with over 900 Canadian suppliers.
> 
> Davie says the ship will enter into service with the Royal Canadian Navy by the end of this year as initially planned.
> 
> The Resolve-Class naval support ship will be the largest naval platform in service with the Royal Canadian Navy for the foreseeable future and will provide a wide range of functions from at-sea replenishment of fuels and cargo to aviation support, fleet medical support and humanitarian and disaster relief.
> 
> The ship has been created in a program involving three levels of innovation for Canada allowing, says Davie, "the delivery of a most needed ship in a timely manner and with the best value for Canadian taxpayers." First, instead of building a ship from new, a modern containership has been converted by the shipyard into a state-of-the-art naval support ship. Second, the ship has been privately financed by Davie and will be leased to Canada – that means a fixed, transparent cost to the Canadian taxpayer. Third, Federal Fleet Services, Davie sister company, will operate the ship with a mixed crew of merchant seafarers and Royal Canadian Navy personnel.
> 
> Yesterday's unveiling of the ship included an employee appreciation for the Chantier Davie Canada Team as well as a Family Day, a blessing for the ship by the Huron-Wendat Nation and VIP tours onboard.
> 
> The traditional breaking of the sacrificial champagne bottle on the bow by the sponsor of the ship in order to bless the ship and her crew was performed by Mrs. Pauline Théberge, spouse of J. Michel Doyon, the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Surely they all impact on the design and construction and associated costs of any vessel?
> 
> Lloyd's and DNV are construction standards.  They can be invoked by the insurer's as a method of protecting their investment and forced on any operator that cannot afford self-insurance.  On the other hand, a self-insured agency might voluntarily decide to adopt any of those standards, especially if they have minimal expertise themselves, as a means of keeping their risks under control.
> 
> But, because the standards are adopted voluntarily, they can be modified at whim.  It might not make sense to modify the standard, and doing so might be a big mistake, but there is nothing to prevent the modification of a standard to meet the wishes of the owner.
> 
> As for international laws -  and laws of the sea - ultimately those are gentlemen's accommodations.  There is little to stop a vessel with lots of guns cruising the high seas spewing smoke, leaking oil and releasing more radiation than Chernobyl.  The recourse is another vessel with bigger guns (or more vessels with guns).



They definitely do have their associated costs; the various certification societies have a nice business for reviewing and certifying major equipment and the designs along with the inspectors that are used to verify that the vessel is being maintained to class through life, and there is also the cost of buying/maintaining the standards and training for our personnel in what the standards mean towards through service issues that all add up.  

Yes, we do have our own construction standards, but in some cases they date back to the 1960s and haven't been updated at all to make better use of technology.  We did a comparison of a number of existing civilian standards against the existing RCN ones as well as the new NATO standard and some differences were minor where in other cases the civilian through life inspection regime was actually more strict then ours for things like the hull.  Some of the reasons made a lot of sense, so I think we're in the process of updating some of our processes accordingly, as there were changes to inspection scope and frequency as the ships got older that we don't necessarily do formally (for example).

Being self insured is nice though; we have enough internal bureaucracy wouldn't want to add on a separate external company as well!


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> They definitely do have their associated costs; the various certification societies have a nice business for reviewing and certifying major equipment and the designs along with the inspectors that are used to verify that the vessel is being maintained to class through life, and there is also the cost of buying/maintaining the standards and training for our personnel in what the standards mean towards through service issues that all add up.
> 
> Yes, we do have our own construction standards, but in some cases they date back to the 1960s and haven't been updated at all to make better use of technology.  We did a comparison of a number of existing civilian standards against the existing RCN ones as well as the new NATO standard and some differences were minor where in other cases the civilian through life inspection regime was actually more strict then ours for things like the hull.  Some of the reasons made a lot of sense, so I think we're in the process of updating some of our processes accordingly, as there were changes to inspection scope and frequency as the ships got older that we don't necessarily do formally (for example).
> 
> Being self insured is nice though; we have enough internal bureaucracy wouldn't want to add on a separate external company as well!



There is definitely an office in Ottawa who is working with Lloyds on warship build/design rules.  I have no idea why, or what the goal is, but I know it exists.  I'll ask around at work what's the deal and why.  I'm sure insurance of some sort but ???


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> There is definitely an office in Ottawa who is working with Lloyds on warship build/design rules.  I have no idea why, or what the goal is, but I know it exists.  I'll ask around at work what's the deal and why.  I'm sure insurance of some sort but ???



Ottawa was commissioned in 1996.  I wonder how many ships Lloyds has rated and registered since then?  It would certainly be interesting to find out how Lloyds and Ottawa are associating.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Underway said:
			
		

> There is definitely an office in Ottawa who is working with Lloyds on warship build/design rules.  I have no idea why, or what the goal is, but I know it exists.  I'll ask around at work what's the deal and why.  I'm sure insurance of some sort but ???



That, is the future direction things are moving, is why.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris, you be impressed with how far and fast they went with ideas and solutions in 1944, film on the Landing Ship Dock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0kHr3qDG4&list=PL8bQve3Wpo5Da3ZFoai2vIeGJZKOeycsb


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Chris, you be impressed with how far and fast they went with ideas and solutions in 1944, film on the Landing Ship Dock
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0kHr3qDG4&list=PL8bQve3Wpo5Da3ZFoai2vIeGJZKOeycsb



[slight tangent]

Is it wrong of me to focus on the LSD's sailor shooting the AA-gun at 5:14 with his helmet's chin-strap undone and him having to hold down the top of his helmet with his 'free' hand, and be reminded that there always seems to be a balance between American ingenuity and apparent lapses in common sense?

Golden Generation equivalent of the Millennial below?  

[/slight tangent]


----------



## Kirkhill

Suitably impressed - although OSHA may have had a few things to say about managing lines.

And G2G - you're one of those attention to detail people aren't you?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> There is definitely an office in Ottawa who is working with Lloyds on warship build/design rules.  I have no idea why, or what the goal is, but I know it exists.  I'll ask around at work what's the deal and why.  I'm sure insurance of some sort but ???



There are a couple of sections working on various aspects of it; understanding what the civilian standards means to the ships we're getting (from a general perspective) is one part.  Another is looking at how we do the (internal) certification for the basic 'safe at sea' equipment to try and learn from people that do this for a living and improve our own policies.

It's mostly the old NMPRO section (that is now in DNPS under MEPM), but basically the naval material assurance policy people, with others from the various technical sections as well.  People working on the ISSCs get sucked in as well from time to time.

I think if I ever personally get posted to one of those policy jobs I'll lose my will to live, but glad some people love that kind of work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Project Resolve will be the RCN's first real exposure to modern civilian standards, so hopefully they take a good look, see what they like, what they can live with and what they can't. I look forward to the Astreix refueling the Harry DeWolfe for the for the first time while doing vertical re supply with a Cyclone. Speaking of which, since they are leasing the ship, how about leasing 2 S-92 for the air detachment?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Why would we lease instead of using our own?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think Colin feels that, if the Asterix's heldet's purpose is to effect resupply by air, then why not lease and use civilian helicopters to do that too, and free the actual military helicopter to carry out their real missions of fighting surface crafts, submarines and extending the sensor range of their mother ship. If we are not going to use the Asterix as an actual deployed ship that is part of the ops (as we did with the old AOR's), then why put operational helps on board?

I believe that't his point.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Correct, I wonder if we have enough airframes to equip all the ships and leasing helicopters would reduce airframe hours on the ASW machines. As I recall the RFA is already doing this.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Correct, I wonder if we have enough airframes to equip all the ships and leasing helicopters would reduce airframe hours on the ASW machines. As I recall the RFA is already doing this.



That way lies madness....

Next you will be proposing that other tasks in environments where bullets are not a risk factor could be civilianized - things like SAR, Air/Space Surveillance (Satellites and UAV), Maintenance, other Logistics.

Then the manning limit of 65,000 or whatever it currently is could be applied to uniformed personnel tasked with going into harm's way.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook: Earlier:



> Contracting our Rotary SAR? Plus Australia’s Coastwatch
> http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/the3dsblog/?p=1724
> 
> Contracting our Rotary SAR? Part 2
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/mark-collins-contracting-our-rotary-sar-part-2/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> That way lies madness....
> 
> Next you will be proposing that other tasks in environments where bullets are not a risk factor could be civilianized - things like SAR, Air/Space Surveillance (Satellites and UAV), Maintenance, other Logistics.
> 
> Then the manning limit of 65,000 or whatever it currently is could be applied to uniformed personnel tasked with going into harm's way.



Madness indeed!   

When first-world blue water Navies start contracting civilian helicopters in operational theatres to support their military sealift logistic support vessels, then we'll know that the end of the earth is coming!

Oh wait...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

There is nothing saying we can't do civvy helos at sea- we actually have the operating rules for that already written.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> There are a couple of sections working on various aspects of it; understanding what the civilian standards means to the ships we're getting (from a general perspective) is one part.  Another is looking at how we do the (internal) certification for the basic 'safe at sea' equipment to try and learn from people that do this for a living and improve our own policies.
> 
> It's mostly the old NMPRO section (that is now in DNPS under MEPM), but basically the naval material assurance policy people, with others from the various technical sections as well.  People working on the ISSCs get sucked in as well from time to time.
> 
> I think if I ever personally get posted to one of those policy jobs I'll lose my will to live, but glad some people love that kind of work.



That's exactly what I was wondering.  I also looked into it a bit and this follows on with your "safe at sea" comment.  

In 80s through to early 90s the RCN and ADM(Mat) were able to maintain our ships themselves.  The crews and FMF were also very highly qualified.  Since then our resources have been reduced quite a bit while the gov't requirements for ship safety have increased in the same time.  As such there is a lot of strain on the resources (if any) to maintain suitable standards to prove that the ships are safe.  We may be even unable to prove safety in many cases (not saying ships aren't safe, but without a standard to compare with, you can't prove it even if they are).

The Lloyds that is being worked with is not the marine insurance branch but the classification society which deals with marine safety.  The RN uses many of these rules as a technical standard.  There is also the NATO Naval Ship Code for warship safety.  These two set of rules help provide a framework from which we can base our own standards which are going to be implemented.

_*What I interpret*_ from this is that when the internal discussion on who gets what money within DND, the RCN can point to the technical standard, the spreadsheets, the maintenance, and the survey data from the ships and say that we need $X so we can keep the ships safe, so we don't lose Y capability by Z time.  The air force is very good at this sort of stuff (air safety and all that).  It will also be useful in briefing the civil service and Ministers office on exactly how much money gets you exactly what capability.


----------



## Stoker

Before we go to sea we compare the technical readiness of the ship on the material baseline standard for that class. The MBS is a document that lists all the safe at sea requirements of a class in a table that we need to have operational before the ship can get off the wall. If we had to go, and the ship didn't meet MBS, then a risk assessment is conducted and a waver asked for.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Project Resolve will be the RCN's first real exposure to modern civilian standards, so hopefully they take a good look, see what they like, what they can live with and what they can't. I look forward to the Astreix refueling the Harry DeWolfe for the for the first time while doing vertical re supply with a Cyclone. Speaking of which, since they are leasing the ship, how about leasing 2 S-92 for the air detachment?



Civilian standards have already been used in the Kingston class, and is being used in AOPS. Lloyd’s Register classification society have been involved with both of those builds.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> That's exactly what I was wondering.  I also looked into it a bit and this follows on with your "safe at sea" comment.
> 
> In 80s through to early 90s the RCN and ADM(Mat) were able to maintain our ships themselves.  The crews and FMF were also very highly qualified.  Since then our resources have been reduced quite a bit while the gov't requirements for ship safety have increased in the same time.  As such there is a lot of strain on the resources (if any) to maintain suitable standards to prove that the ships are safe.  We may be even unable to prove safety in many cases (not saying ships aren't safe, but without a standard to compare with, you can't prove it even if they are).
> 
> The Lloyds that is being worked with is not the marine insurance branch but the classification society which deals with marine safety.  The RN uses many of these rules as a technical standard.  There is also the NATO Naval Ship Code for warship safety.  These two set of rules help provide a framework from which we can base our own standards which are going to be implemented.
> 
> _*What I interpret*_ from this is that when the internal discussion on who gets what money within DND, the RCN can point to the technical standard, the spreadsheets, the maintenance, and the survey data from the ships and say that we need $X so we can keep the ships safe, so we don't lose Y capability by Z time.  The air force is very good at this sort of stuff (air safety and all that).  It will also be useful in briefing the civil service and Ministers office on exactly how much money gets you exactly what capability.



The NATO ship code is slowly being rolled out, although older ships don't necessarily meet all the performance based goals for each section, so it's a bit piecemeal.  Our certification plan for the frigates is largely based on that.

It is a big learning curve, and a huge pain in the ass to keep the records up to date, but in a resource limited environment, having the data available is really helpful in prioritizing resources, and I was able to use it (and the MBS standards) to get a lot of extra work done before the deployment.  Additionally, even after the rationalization the frigates have a huge maintenance load, so that helps prioritize the critical maintenance, the really important maintenance, and the rest of it for when you can get to it.

Ideally this will eventually get taken a step further and we will use EHM properly to do minor CM before it becomes a big problem.  Optimistic that ISSCs will be better at this (as it saves a tonne of money in the long run) and that culture diffuses across the rest of the Navy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

New Davie video out, most of it is talking heads, but early in there are some good drone video of the vessel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHva7cQg3Qo


----------



## MilEME09

On time, on budget, and being praised by liberals, what strange world did I wake up in? who are you all and what did you do with my Canada?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's in the "anointed Province" and therefore politically acceptable. Plus it's actual good news for a change, the fact the Tories started it, is quietly buried. I will give Davies credit though, they are delivering, although Seaspan won't be far behind with the First OFSV, followed by a far distant Irving and it's AOPs. Early next year, I think?


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's in the "anointed Province" and therefore politically acceptable. Plus it's actual good news for a change, the fact the Tories started it, is quietly buried. I will give Davies credit though, they are delivering, although Seaspan won't be far behind with the First OFSV, followed by a far distant Irving and it's AOPs. Early next year, I think?



AOPS is about 6-9 months out from what I recall on open house day.  They are going to put them on one of those semi-submersible heavy lift ships, take her out into Bedford Basin and then float her there.


----------



## NavyShooter

With the current drinking policies....it makes me wonder if the bottle of 'champagne' was actually sparkling grape juice instead....?

;-)


----------



## Cloud Cover

Curious if they have actually ordered the landing craft shown in the videos, or are they re-using the ones from Protecteur?


----------



## FSTO

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Curious if they have actually ordered the landing craft shown in the videos, or are they re-using the ones from Protecteur?


No. Those are gone and good riddance!


----------



## sunrayRnfldR

The old landing craft are gone. I watched the last two sail on the ex-Preserver to the scrapper a few days ago.

 On a different issue mentioned in this thread, the question of what type of helicopter should operate from MV Asterix also applies the the new Harry Dewolf Class. This new class is not designed as a warfighter but is intended to do sovereignty patrols and therefore the helicopter needs eyes-human and electronic. The new Canadian Coast Guard Bell 421 EPI or Bell 429 have both capabilities and transport capacity as well. The RCAF Griffon helicopter can transport people, stuff and do visual searches but is not radar equipped. Is there any intent to upgrade a few for operation from these ships?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect that will trigger quite the bun fight, likely they end up "renting" CCG helicopters for a bit.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quite frankly, in all of my time in the Navy, I only saw those landing crafts unshipped once: When PRE went into refit, and even then, they used the dockyard crane to do the deed. While carried, they were hardly ever used.

And Sunray, I don't know where you get that the helicopters for the DEWOLF need to carry "electronics". BTW the new Coast Guard helicopters only have the latest electronics for avionics, which I believe includes a weather radar, but no surface search radar capability. They also (some but not all - Colin can you confirm this?) have a FLIR, but that's it.

The DEWOLF will carry whatever helicopter may be required for the mission, and most likely one for the primary purpose of ice observation, which can only be done visually. However, the most likely helicopters you will find on board will be (1) a Cost Guard one or (2) a Cyclone.

The later is more than up to the task of surface search in support of sovereignty patrol, and it can also carry about as many personnel as a Griffon.

What is important to remember is that the DEWOLF, as is the ASTERIX, are capable of handling any and all of the helicopters in the Canadian inventory - RCAF or Coast Guard.


----------



## Baz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> <Cyclone> is more than up to the task of surface search in support of sovereignty patrol, and it can also carry about as many personnel as a Griffon.



Using http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-current/ch-146.page as a reference the Griffin can carry 10 passengers plus crew.  The Cyclone can carry 6 plus 4 crew in ASW config or 22 (normally including 2 crew) plus Pilot and Co-Pilot in utility config (which would not have the mission computer but could still use the radar and EO/IR).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

/pedant on

I wish you Air Force types would stop misspelling "Griffon" as "Griffin". This is not Family Guy.

I know that the use of the "iff" instead of "yph"  in the middle of the word confuses you anglos - but the damn bird has a proper name and it should be used.

/pedant off

 [


----------



## Baz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I wish you Air Force types would stop misspelling "Griffon" as "Griffin". This is not Family Guy.



You are of course correct... my apologies.

Of course, you are assuming I gave a $%!# enough when I was typing it to think about it...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, in all of my time in the Navy, I only saw those landing crafts unshipped once: When PRE went into refit, and even then, they used the dockyard crane to do the deed. While carried, they were hardly ever used.
> 
> And Sunray, I don't know where you get that the helicopters for the DEWOLF need to carry "electronics". BTW the new Coast Guard helicopters only have the latest electronics for avionics, which I believe includes a weather radar, but no surface search radar capability. They also (some but not all - Colin can you confirm this?) have a FLIR, but that's it.
> 
> The DEWOLF will carry whatever helicopter may be required for the mission, and most likely one for the primary purpose of ice observation, which can only be done visually. However, the most likely helicopters you will find on board will be (1) a Cost Guard one or (2) a Cyclone.
> 
> The later is more than up to the task of surface search in support of sovereignty patrol, and it can also carry about as many personnel as a Griffon.
> 
> What is important to remember is that the DEWOLF, as is the ASTERIX, are capable of handling any and all of the helicopters in the Canadian inventory - RCAF or Coast Guard.



I have not seen their loadout but since CCG helicopters working on ship do mostly slinging, transport and ice recce, I be surprised if they had search radar, I know the King Airs also used by Transport Canada (the CCG heli's are owned by TC) have weather radar, so it's possible the helicopters might get that. FLIR would be highly useful for SAR, but as buying, mounting and maintaining it cost money and budget, I doubt it. Just looking online they did minimal mods to it and I don't see any FLIR mounted in the any pictures I have seen, perhaps down the line. The Good thing about the 429 is that the blades fold and that might make it an attractive option for both the AOP's and the Asterix AOR. Plus parts and training exist within the government procurement system.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, in all of my time in the Navy, I only saw those landing crafts unshipped once: When PRE went into refit, and even then, they used the dockyard crane to do the deed. While carried, they were hardly ever used.
> 
> And Sunray, I don't know where you get that the helicopters for the DEWOLF need to carry "electronics". BTW the new Coast Guard helicopters only have the latest electronics for avionics, which I believe includes a weather radar, but no surface search radar capability. They also (some but not all - Colin can you confirm this?) have a FLIR, but that's it.
> 
> The DEWOLF will carry whatever helicopter may be required for the mission, and most likely one for the primary purpose of ice observation, which can only be done visually. However, the most likely helicopters you will find on board will be (1) a Cost Guard one or (2) a Cyclone.
> 
> The later is more than up to the task of surface search in support of sovereignty patrol, and it can also carry about as many personnel as a Griffon.
> 
> What is important to remember is that the DEWOLF, as is the ASTERIX, are capable of handling any and all of the helicopters in the Canadian inventory - RCAF or Coast Guard.



On a half NATO in the Caribbean in 2000, we used the landing craft to come ashore and return from PRE to the North coast of Curaco during a multinational exercise.   The trip was slow, wallowly and overall damned uncomfortable.  Beats swimming though or jamming in like sardines on a RHIB if a bunch have to go somewhere (not in a hurry).  And my feet were dry when we hit the beach.


----------



## FSTO

Did you break an ankle jumping off the the "ramp" that stopped lowering when it was 4ft off the ground?  :rofl: 

Piece of junk


----------



## Good2Golf

sunrayRnfldR said:
			
		

> The old landing craft are gone. I watched the last two sail on the ex-Preserver to the scrapper a few days ago.
> 
> On a different issue mentioned in this thread, the question of what type of helicopter should operate from MV Asterix also applies the the new Harry Dewolf Class. This new class is not designed as a warfighter but is intended to do sovereignty patrols and therefore the helicopter needs eyes-human and electronic. The new Canadian Coast Guard Bell 421 EPI or Bell 429 have both capabilities and transport capacity as well. The RCAF Griffon helicopter can transport people, stuff and do visual searches but is not radar equipped. Is there any intent to upgrade a few for operation from these ships?



As OGBD noted, let the CH-148 Cyclone do that work.  What radar would you suggest fitting a small number of Griffon's with?  What capabilities should that radar have?  How would such a capability be integrated into the ship and the Recognized Maritime Picture? What additional training would be provided for the tactical aviation crews?  Who would pay for the incremental acquisition of constant-wear immersion suits?  Who would pay for the increased budget to institute a corrosion control program for the ship-borne CH-146s? Etc...

Sometimes great ideas aren't so great.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XThWzV1BZE

found this video someone did from the ceremony for Astrix, she's a pretty ship, I'll give her that


----------



## Underway

sunrayRnfldR said:
			
		

> On a different issue mentioned in this thread, the question of what type of helicopter should operate from MV Asterix also applies the the new Harry Dewolf Class. This new class is not designed as a warfighter but is intended to do sovereignty patrols and therefore the helicopter needs eyes-human and electronic. The new Canadian Coast Guard Bell 421 EPI or Bell 429 have both capabilities and transport capacity as well. The RCAF Griffon helicopter can transport people, stuff and do visual searches but is not radar equipped. Is there any intent to upgrade a few for operation from these ships?



Cyclone will operate from the Asterix and the HDW.  In particular the Cyclone can be used for VERTREP from the Asterix with more weight carried then the Sea King could.  I would not be surprised if the Cyclone was overkill in the arctic or that the HDW ended up using new UAV's just for ice scouting.  Not sure what the plan is there, but the AOPS can land a Chinook.  She can't operate one but one can land if necessary.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Will, or can?


----------



## Loachman

sunrayRnfldR said:
			
		

> Is there any intent to upgrade a few for operation from these ships?



There is no intent to upgrade it for its intended role, and we do not have enough machines and crews for its intended role.



			
				Baz said:
			
		

> Using http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-current/ch-146.page as a reference the Griff*o*n can carry 10 passengers plus crew.



Not necessarily. That presumes light/no baggage, and the weight of every person/thing carried comes out of the weight of fuel carried hence a range or endurance reduction.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XThWzV1BZE
> 
> found this video someone did from the ceremony for Astrix, she's a pretty ship, I'll give her that



Wasn't the Foc'sl supposed to be covered?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

According to the drawings made public, yes.

However, she is not completely finished at the time of this ceremony. For instance, you may have noted that the two cargo handling cranes, also supposed to go by the foc'sole break, are still on the jetty. I think it may just be that this is one of the last section to be finished (and it would make sense to cover last if you are still working on finishing the various dry cargo holds, ammunition magazines and containers handling systems that go below the foc'sole).


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> According to the drawings made public, yes.
> 
> However, she is not completely finished at the time of this ceremony. For instance, you may have noted that the two cargo handling cranes, also supposed to go by the foc'sole break, are still on the jetty. I think it may just be that this is one of the last section to be finished (and it would make sense to cover last if you are still working on finishing the various dry cargo holds, ammunition magazines and containers handling systems that go below the foc'sole).



Ah, that makes sense.

Cheers

G2G


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Wasn't the Foc'sl supposed to be covered?




The foc'sole  won't be covered with a bow cap, that was only in the early concept drawings.


----------



## Underway

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Will, or can?



*shrug*  Your guess is as good as mine.  I don't know why you would go through the trouble of designing a ship that _can_ land and use a Cyclone without using the capability at least on some level.  I don't _think_ the Chinook capability was really designed as anything but a really nice big landing spot for the Cyclone, and just happens to be able to work for a Chinook.  But suppose there is some sort of emergency and the AOPs are the closest safe place to put down a Chinook for refuel/rest etc...  Might be useful.  Better to have the capability and not need it then the other way around.  Who knows, perhaps we trial it and its a genius idea using a lilypad AOPS/Chinook for whatever purpose.

We do have a history of groundbreaking work with big helo's on little ships.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> *shrug*  Your guess is as good as mine.  I don't know why you would go through the trouble of designing a ship that _can_ land and use a Cyclone without using the capability at least on some level.  I don't _think_ the Chinook capability was really designed as anything but a really nice big landing spot for the Cyclone, and just happens to be able to work for a Chinook.  But suppose there is some sort of emergency and the AOPs are the closest safe place to put down a Chinook for refuel/rest etc...  Might be useful.  Better to have the capability and not need it then the other way around.  Who knows, perhaps we trial it and its a genius idea using a lilypad AOPS/Chinook for whatever purpose.
> 
> We do have a history of groundbreaking work with big helo's on little ships.



AOPS will routinely carry a Cyclone when she deploys. Cyclone will be used for reconnaissance, insertions during boardings and also to ferry people and equipment to and from the ship. AOPS will act as landing pad for Griffins, etc including Coastguard. I doubt we will operate CG helo's. IAOR will operate in a similar fashion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CCG helo's are owned and operated by TC, they are assigned to a ship as required. If the Astriex is going to the Arctic, it's quite possible that DND will "rent" a helo and crew along with an ice pilot to go along with her. It would actually be a good idea and allow some experimentation and cross-pollination of ideas.


----------



## Stoker

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> AOPS will routinely carry a Cyclone when she deploys. Cyclone will be used for reconnaissance, insertions during boardings and also to ferry people and equipment to and from the ship. AOPS will act as landing pad for Griffins, etc including Coastguard. I doubt we will operate CG helo's. IAOR will operate in a similar fashion.



I was talking to people in the know today about the helos of both AOPS and IAOR and need to revise what previously said. AOPS calls for a light utility helicopter which the Cyclone isn't. Even though the Cyclone will operate on AOPS because its not designed to provide an extensive maintenance capability Cyclones  I believe a lighter aircraft is the way to go, much the same as the HUP 3 that operated off HMCS Labrador. The Cyclone has a powerful sensor suite that is good for reconniance and has a decent cargo ability which I this is very useful to Arctic OPS. CCG aircraft could possibiliy operate off AOPS, although a Griffon would make a good choice as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if Davie will pitch the USN a solution that is quick http://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/08/28/report-navys-resupply-and-surge-sealift-ships-facing-readiness-decline/


----------



## Baz

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I was talking to people in the know today about the helos of both AOPS and IAOR and need to revise what previously said. AOPS calls for a light utility helicopter which the Cyclone isn't. Even though the Cyclone will operate on AOPS because its not designed to provide an extensive maintenance capability Cyclones  I believe a lighter aircraft is the way to go, much the same as the HUP 3 that operated off HMCS Labrador. The Cyclone has a powerful sensor suite that is good for reconniance and has a decent cargo ability which I this is very useful to Arctic OPS. CCG aircraft could possibiliy operate off AOPS, although a Griffon would make a good choice as well.



Although I don't know what planning has happened in the last couple of years to address the issue, the Cyclone force structure as approved by the SOR didn't include the requirement to support any AOPS as well... 

... and 12 Wing is a long way from the approved force structure...


----------



## Stoker

Baz said:
			
		

> Although I don't know what planning has happened in the last couple of years to address the issue, the Cyclone force structure as approved by the SOR didn't include the requirement to support any AOPS as well...
> 
> ... and 12 Wing is a long way from the approved force structure...



From what I have been told they will operate there in certain cases. Most likely the reason why 20 ft ISO containers can be stored inside.


----------



## Baz

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> From what I have been told they will operate there in certain cases. Most likely the reason why 20 ft ISO containers can be stored inside.



But there will still only be so many dets to go around; the price will have to be paid somewhere.

Although https://avernica.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/the-butterfly-effect-with-fighter-jets/ speaks to the issues of deploying 4 CF-18's to Romania and how it may affect the RCAF, the author is an ex Wing OpsO and Commander 423(MH)Sqn, who learned the follow on impacts of over deploying a fleet at 12 Wing...


----------



## Stoker

Baz said:
			
		

> But there will still only be so many dets to go around; the price will have to be paid somewhere.
> 
> Although https://avernica.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/the-butterfly-effect-with-fighter-jets/ speaks to the issues of deploying 4 CF-18's to Romania and how it may affect the RCAF, the author is an ex Wing OpsO and Commander 423(MH)Sqn, who learned the follow on impacts of over deploying a fleet at 12 Wing...



For sure, if I was a betting man the first few deployments will be with Cyclone and then never to be seen again.


----------



## MarkOttawa

RCN on helos for Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships:



> ...
> *Helicopter Capability*
> 
> Depending on the mission, the embarked helicopter could range from a small utility aircraft right up to the new CH-148 maritime helicopter...
> http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/fleet-units/aops-home.page



That "range" could certainly cover CCG choppers:
[new ones] https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-oceans/news/2016/12/government-canada-accepts-new-helicopters-canadian-coast-guard.html

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ring-my-bell-new-helicopters-for-canadas-coast-guard-014679/

CCG helo ops:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/Fleet/Helicopters

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> For sure, if I was a betting man the first few deployments will be with Cyclone and then never to be seen again.



So much cynicism in one so young


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have to wonder who is behind this campaign to create doubt about Seaspan ability to deliver on the JSS. I noted their article entirely misses that Seaspan will launch their first ship shortly after the Asterix is finished, and it will be Irving who launches their first ship last. 

http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/79


----------



## serger989

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have to wonder who is behind this campaign to create doubt about Seaspan ability to deliver on the JSS. I noted their article entirely misses that Seaspan will launch their first ship shortly after the Asterix is finished, and it will be Irving who launches their first ship last.
> 
> http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/79



The Diefenbaker was pushed back to allow construction of the JSS ships to take place first wasn't it (Just noticed your comment on CDR)? My only criticism of Seaspan is they should have started with the JSS to begin with  They never had a say in that though did they?


----------



## Kirkhill

Seaspan also has to design, prove and build 6 separate designs:  OFSV, OOSV, JSS, Dief, MEMTV, OPV.

How many designs is Irving responsible for? 2?


----------



## dapaterson

Irving has three. In reverse order: CSC, AOPS, and Scrooge McDuck style bank vault for all the money they are being paid.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

serger989 said:
			
		

> The Diefenbaker was pushed back to allow construction of the JSS ships to take place first wasn't it (Just noticed your comment on CDR)? My only criticism of Seaspan is they should have started with the JSS to begin with  They never had a say in that though did they?



I don't think Seaspan was ready for that size of ship, the OFSV were a better choice and allows them to work out the kinks on the smallest vessels first and polish their techniques on the next 2 of class, the OOSV is a larger version of the OFSV. I hadn't heard if the Dief had been delayed. In my perfect world, Davie would build 2 Resolve class, Seaspan builds the dief first and then the JSS, by the time the first JSS is operational, the first Resolve can go through a deep refit and then the 2nd, at which point we have 4 AOR's, 2 on each coast, one can work coastal, while the other is out on extended patrol or one can be in hot layup for a period as the need ebbs and flows.


----------



## serger989

Colin P said:
			
		

> I don't think Seaspan was ready for that size of ship, the OFSV were a better choice and allows them to work out the kinks on the smallest vessels first and polish their techniques on the next 2 of class, the OOSV is a larger version of the OFSV. I hadn't heard if the Dief had been delayed. In my perfect world, Davie would build 2 Resolve class, Seaspan builds the dief first and then the JSS, by the time the first JSS is operational, the first Resolve can go through a deep refit and then the 2nd, at which point we have 4 AOR's, 2 on each coast, one can work coastal, while the other is out on extended patrol or one can be in hot layup for a period as the need ebbs and flows.



The Diefenbaker was pushed past the JSS builds because of the Protecteur and Preserver being near the end of their service life and then decommissioned. Also keep in mind that when the NSS was first announced, bot the Dief and the JSS were expected to be completed by 2018. It is looking like it will be 2021-2025 now before we see the Dief, which is why I really like Davie's Project Resolute (The PC3 icebreaker AIVIQ and the 3x PC4 Viking icebreakers, their fast track icebreaker solution much like their Resolve project). I really wish Davie was included into the NSS or inserted more easily without all the politics. In my perfect world lol Irving/Davie/Seaspan all hold hands, work together, share suppliers, and participate in block building, while expanding their infrastructure (Like maybe planning a national common user facility?).

Is Seaspan designing the JSS though? I thought there was a competition which shortlisted the BMT and TKMS designs. The TKMS being the Berlin/Queenston design and the BMT MARS design is the one the RN went with for their 4x new Tide supply ships. Do they still have to modify the design after that, I do not actually know? Either way, I do not expect the 2xJSS or Dief until after 2020+, they still need to finish the 3 OFSV and OOSV before they even start the big projects which will take even longer no doubt than what they have already been working on.


----------



## Kirkhill

Did Irving design the AOPS and is it designing the CSC?

And yet they got government money for a "design-build" contract.

Life is just so confusing for this cynical old bugger.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Block building was being done here for quite sometime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-class_ferry


----------



## MarkOttawa

jmt18325:



> That's a big boat.



With just a 25mm gun!
http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/fleet-units/aops-home.page

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

So scuttlebut is that the Queenston and Chatugay are now being renamed the Protecteur and Preserver.  Navy brass I guess really didn't like ships named after land battles, and wanted to preserve (no pun intended) the battle honours of these two stellar ships.  And because they've both now been retired early there should be no problems with that.

Trying to find a non-banned reference for this news and get a good fix on the chart here


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's a big boat.



And I love how they used every trick known to mankind for radar cross-section reduction .... NOT!!!  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

Underway: Fact not scuttlebut:



> Joint Support Ships to be renamed Protecteur and Preserver
> ...
> In October 2013, the Government of Canada announced that the JSS ships would be named the Queenston-class. Since that announcement, the original purpose-built AORs, the former Protecteur and Preserver, were paid off and are no longer part of the RCN’s fleet.
> 
> This fact presented the RCN, through its Ships Naming Committee, an opportunity to consider reusing the names of the original AORs, an option that was not available when the JSS were originally named in 2013...
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2017/09/joint_support_shipstoberenamedprotecteurandpreserver.html



But surely was available a while ago.  Looks like Liberal BS to me with Justin simply continuing to _écraser_ Harper legacy-- and Canadian history at same time?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Stoker

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's a big boat.



Submarines are boats, that's a ship.


----------



## jollyjacktar

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Underway: Fact not scuttlebut:
> 
> But surely was available a while ago.  Looks like Liberal BS to me with Justin simply continuing to _écraser_ Harper legacy-- and Canadian history at same time?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



As a long time Tanker Wanker, l don't care why the names are being changed to PRO & PRE, just that they are.  Something that of late that is being done to/with the navy l can agree with.


----------



## PuckChaser

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As a long time Tanker Wanker, l don't care why the names are being changed to PRO & PRE, just that they are.  Something that of late that is being done to/with the navy l can agree with.



Concur. I'm all about hammering Trudeau for making stupid decisions, but this just make sense since PRO and PRE are paid off already. In 2013 they figured we had at least enough service left with them to have already had the naming (christening?) ceremony for the new JSS, unfortunately they were wrong.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As a long time Tanker Wanker, l don't care why the names are being changed to PRO & PRE, just that they are.  Something that of late that is being done to/with the navy l can agree with.



Now if they can split the MARTECH trade things would be great.


----------



## Underway

From the RCN facebook page.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Would prefer PRE class, myself.  PRO has had her moment in lead.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Now if they can split the MARTECH trade things would be great.



Let's not get crazy now.  Only one mistake correction at a time.   :nod:


----------



## Navy_Pete

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Would prefer PRE class, myself.  PRO has had her moment in lead.



Would it be too soon to make a joke about it taking the lead right into the side of ALG?

This is great news, naming ships after land battles that predated the founding of the country was just stupid and I hated it on the basis of having to wear the 1812 pin that was made in China and fell apart in a few weeks, and both PRE and PRO have a proud history that should carry on and that way they can inherit a lot of the ship artifacts that will otherwise disappear to storage shelves in museums somewhere.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

ALG hit PRO (just sayin).

Most of PRO artifacts are likely to be...smoke tinged.

I like this decision. I have sailed PRO a lot. Glad to see her name live on.


----------



## The Bread Guy

One ship-watching blogger's take ...


> The federal government has taken the liberty of changing the names of the new RCN Joint Support Ships (JSS) . Originally to be named the Queenston class the new ships will now be named the Protecteur class. Queenston will become Protecteur and Chateauguay will become Preserver continuing the names of the ships they will replace.
> 
> The original names were chosen by the previous Conservative government and reflected then Prime Minister Stephen Harper's preoccupation with the War of 1812-14. They commemorated two significant battles of the war, fought between "Canadians" (not yet a nation) and Americans. They hardly seemed to be diplomatically correct in terms of fostering good relations with our southern neighbours, so perhaps the change reflects the current government's fraught re-negotiations of NAFTA and that other issues between the two countries need to be worked out amicably.
> 
> In order to speed up delivery of the two ships, Seaspan Marine in Vancouver has told by the current government to delay construction of the new Polar class icebreaker which has been named John G. Diefenbaker. Do we see a pattern emerging here? Can we expect another renaming in the offing? Perhaps a Lester B. Pearson or even another well known former Liberal Prime Minister's name would be applied - would it be similar to the current Liberal Prime Minister's name? Would it be wise to make the change before the 2018 federal election, when the ship will not likely be delivered until 2021-well into a possible second mandate?
> Oh horrors.
> 
> The new HMCS Protecteur will be the second ship of the name in the RCN, but HMCS Preserver will be the third. A pair of  World War II tankers were named Preserver and Provider and served as Fairmile depot ships until paid off at the end of the war and sold to South America. When Canada built its first post war supply ship, it was named Provider but a second ship of the class was never built.
> 
> The navy explains the new name change respects the previous ships and those who served on them. This is the same explanation that has been given in the past to cover a lack of imagination in ships naming, a change in naming policy or to overcome controversy  (CCGS Edward Cornwallis (ii) was not named for the man but for the previous ship of the same name according to a CCG official.)
> 
> Quite frankly if the RCN can't develop esprit de corps without reverting to nostalgia they need a wakeup call. When the name change is so overtly political do they think that matelots are too stupid to recognize it for what it is? And what message does it send to the forces - that they serve at the whim of political parties or that they serve all the people of Canada no matter their political affiliation?
> 
> I have a couple of suggestions for another name change for the JSS ships. They should be named Kitchener and Waterloo after two adjoining cities in southern Ontario.
> 
> Since the new ships will be built to the German Berlin class, we will be reminded that the City of Kitchener was named Berlin until 1916 when it was changed in view of the anti-German sentiment of the First World War. Many Canadians of German ancestry experienced discrimination solely because their names sound German.
> 
> We will also be reminded of the battle of Waterloo (in Belgium), wherein Prussian and British troops defeated Napoleon Bonaparte in 1815, resulting in his abdication as emperor of France. It was this war in Europe that distracted the British from the War of 1812-14 in North America, and largely left Canada on its own to defend itself. Napoleon met his Waterloo and we should all remember the necessity of overcoming the aspirations of all those who want to conquer the word.
> 
> So something to learn from the significance of the names of two ships other than how to score political points.


----------



## NavalMoose

I find it very difficult to believe that the USN would give a rats behind what we call our ships


----------



## Lumber

Sigh...

I seem to be the dissenting opinion with most of my Navy friends lately, and the trend continues.

I for one do not like this change. The 1812 battle names had their flaws, but I like their combat connotation, and they had a nice ring to them.

I also personally don't like the idea of re-using ship names, except in a few outstanding cases, like the Big-E, or Victory (if they'd ever decommission the first one). There are so many other names we could use to celebrate aspects of Canadian history, both recent and old, that I think re-using these ship names is a missed opportunity.

How about we celebrate naval battles that Canada participated in? What about HMCS Atlantic and HMCS St. Lawrence?


----------



## FSTO

Lumber said:
			
		

> Sigh...
> 
> I seem to be the dissenting opinion with most of my Navy friends lately, and the trend continues.
> 
> I for one do not like this change. The 1812 battle names had their flaws, but I like their combat connotation, and they had a nice ring to them.
> 
> I also personally don't like the idea of re-using ship names, except in a few outstanding cases, like the Big-E, or Victory (if they'd ever decommission the first one). There are so many other names we could use to celebrate aspects of Canadian history, both recent and old, that I think re-using these ship names is a missed opportunity.
> 
> How about we celebrate naval battles that Canada participated in? What about HMCS Atlantic and HMCS St. Lawrence?



We'll reserve those for the Amphibious Carriers (or Peace Support Ship) that undoubtedly the Liberals will be promising next. :rofl: ;D


----------



## MilEME09

FSTO said:
			
		

> We'll reserve those for the Amphibious Carriers (or Peace Support Ship) that undoubtedly the Liberals will be promising next. :rofl: ;D



If we ever commission a Amphibious assault ship, I am pretty sure there would be a portion of the navy who would want her named Bonaventure


----------



## Lumber

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If we ever commission a Amphibious assault ship, I am pretty sure there would be a portion of the navy who would want her named Bonaventure



How about HMCS Pierres Noires, instead?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lumber said:
			
		

> Sigh...
> 
> I seem to be the dissenting opinion with most of my Navy friends lately, and the trend continues.
> 
> I for one do not like this change. The 1812 battle names had their flaws, but I like their combat connotation, and they had a nice ring to them.
> 
> I also personally don't like the idea of reusing ship names, except in a few outstanding cases, like the Beige, or Victory (if they'd ever decommission the first one). There are so many other names we could use to celebrate aspects of Canadian history, both recent and old, that I think reusing these ship names is a missed opportunity.
> 
> How about we celebrate naval battles that Canada participated in? What about HMCS Atlantic and HMCS St. Lawrence?



I'm sorry but I don't feel a connection to a land battle that took place 200 years ago as a good name for a new ship and class.  If battle it must be then make naval battles such as you suggest.  But as a Tanker guy at heart, I say leave the battle names for the warships and have appropriate type names for the supply ships.


----------



## Lumber

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but I don't feel a connection to a land battle that took place 200 years ago as a good name for a new ship and class.  If battle it must be then make naval battles such as you suggest.  But as a Tanker guy at heart, I say leave the battle names for the warships and have appropriate type names for the supply ships.



Then how about HMCS Hibernia and HMCS Fort McMurray?  ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Those are production facilities, Lumber. You want transport/supply facilities: HMCS Transmountain and HMCS Energyeast.    ;D

And I agree with Jjt: As a tanker wanker, I am glad that me old Protecteur name will be back.


----------



## Dale Denton

How about HMCS Turbot? Lets save HMCS Pearson for a Mistral lookin ship (still dreaming).

Politically, the name change reflects a move from the 1812 "Colonialist" war to something safer.

Maybe if a 3rd AOR is laid down it could be a Provider?


----------



## Lumber

Fine, fine. You tanker wankers can keep your intrepid ship names. As someone born and raised aboard CPFs and who has a warfare background, I'll wait for the CSC names to come out before I bring the guns out.  :threat:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lumber said:
			
		

> Fine, fine. You tanker wankers can keep your intrepid ship names. As someone born and raised aboard CPFs and who has a warfare background, I'll wait for the CSC names to come out before I bring the guns out.  :threat:


That's right.  Keep to your swim lanes.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'm just looking at the outstanding returns here at BLog that are still listed under PRE's name, and know that without a 'long pause' between commissioned ships of the same name, there will be potential for a crossover/legacy of old parts hanging around.

Someone out west found CF-100 Canuck fighter plane parts in a warehouse still.  Suppose we bought the F-35 and called it the "Canuck"...what would happen when they started having parts from the 1950's show up from depot instead of the new ones expected...?

I don't have a problem with the name change.  *Not a fan, but I don't see it as a big issue.

Renaming the ship once it's in service? Issue.  

Now?  Meh.

NS


----------



## Lumber

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That's right.  Keep to your swim lanes.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

We, tanker wankers are always glad to be of service. You operators out there remember: We're behind you all the way. [


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> We, tanker wankers are always glad to be of service. You operators out there remember: We're behind you all the way. [



Not in the Canadian Navy. I recall doing close-in ASW with PRO. Now you would hope in a real war the AOR's would be in the rear with the gear sailing about a heavily defended box.


----------



## Lumber

FSTO said:
			
		

> Not in the Canadian Navy. I recall doing close-in ASW with PRO. Now you would hope in a real war the AOR's would be in the rear with the gear sailing about a heavily defended box.



Ah, yes; close-in ASW. The thing we practice all the time while being explicitly told that it is the last thing you should think of doing when trying to engage an enemy submarine.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Astreix is afloat and on the move!!!!!

https://twitter.com/chantierdavie/status/919901355241803777


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Astreix is afloat and on the move!!!!!
> 
> https://twitter.com/chantierdavie/status/919901355241803777



I am assuming sea trials, isn't she due to be handed over next month?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I believe so, but it is exciting to see. Now if the Libs contracted Davie to build another one under the same agreement, that would be a good election promise.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Click on the link in the Tweet and it takes you to the press release, which confirms that this is the sea trials under the supervision of the certifying authority (Lloyd's).


----------



## MTShaw

Colin P said:
			
		

> I believe so, but it is exciting to see. Now if the Libs contracted Davie to build another one under the same agreement, that would be a good election promise.



My first post. As long as they keep the two that are being made to military standards. (Blast and shock resistance etc.) The Asterix and another similar AOR will be useful only outside of of conflict areas.

Me


----------



## Kirkhill

With respect MTShaw

But how do you manage the problem of the Navy, in its blast and shock resistant ships, escorting civilian ships manned by civilians in convoys?  The civilians are not just transiting "troubled waters".  They are the targets.  They are the reason that the Navy is present.

They manage risk by minimizing the crew, and the capital cost, and maximizing the cargo.

One might be inclined to argue that if a 20 ship navy could be manned by 500 sailors (20x 25 and a technical possibility) no self respecting Flag Officer would settle for a Commander's (3-Ringer) command.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Having served on PROTECTEUR, I know that we had no illusions on our chances of surviving a torpedo attack.

Our primary procedure for such an eventuality was "our Father, who art in heaven ..."

irate:


----------



## MTShaw

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Having served on PROTECTEUR, I know that we had no illusions on our chances of surviving a torpedo attack.
> 
> Our primary procedure for such an eventuality was "our Father, who art in heaven ..."
> 
> irate:



Well said. It was my potential naivety that led me to believe that all of the navy's major ships should be built to "military" standards. Is their a realistic improvement between commercial and military standards?

Me


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:
			
		

> Well said. It was my potential naivety that led me to believe that all of the navy's major ships should be built to "military" standards. Is their a realistic improvement between commercial and military standards?
> 
> Me


Generally there are a number of improvements in survivability and redundancy on military ships vice civilian ships in grey paint.  WRT the Asterix vs JSS there are a few:

-Asterix has a single shaft line, engine, rudder.  JSS will have two of each of those.  
-Asterix has less compartmentalization than the JSS, thus any damage it does sustain is potentially more disastrous as fire or flood can spread further more easily.
-Asterix has no ballistic protection, thus smaller caliber weapons can do more damage and explosions do more damage.  
-Asterix won't have self defence capability aside from some 50 cals for port security, where JSS will have hard and soft kill measures for many different threats (Nixie, ECM, MASS, CIWS, etc..).  
-JSS will also be able to operate in a chemical, biological and radiation environment, Asterix won't.
-JSS is edge ice capable, (Asterix might be but haven't found a reference that says it is so assuming no).

There are other differences but I think you get the picture.  Not to say Asterix isn't a good solution to a problem we have.  I'm not opposed to a high-low mix for the AORs.  Asterix can do a ton of good work in many ways where a proper warfighting AOR isn't required.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:
			
		

> Generally there are a number of improvements in survivability and redundancy on military ships vice civilian ships in grey paint.  WRT the Asterix vs JSS there are a few:
> 
> -Asterix has a single shaft line, engine, rudder.  JSS will have two of each of those.
> -Asterix has less compartmentalization than the JSS, thus any damage it does sustain is potentially more disastrous as fire or flood can spread further more easily.
> -Asterix has no ballistic protection, thus smaller caliber weapons can do more damage and explosions do more damage.
> -Asterix won't have self defence capability aside from some 50 cals for port security, where JSS will have hard and soft kill measures for many different threats (Nixie, ECM, MASS, CIWS, etc..).
> -JSS will also be able to operate in a chemical, biological and radiation environment, Asterix won't.
> -JSS is edge ice capable, (Asterix might be but haven't found a reference that says it is so assuming no).
> 
> There are other differences but I think you get the picture.  Not to say Asterix isn't a good solution to a problem we have.  I'm not opposed to a high-low mix for the AORs.  Asterix can do a ton of good work in many ways where a proper warfighting AOR isn't required.



Thanks Underway.

I guess two of each would be way to much to ask for.

MTShaw


----------



## PuckChaser

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I guess two of each would be way to much to ask for.



Not in a country that gave a crap about its military.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:
			
		

> Thanks Underway.
> 
> I guess two of each would be way to much to ask for.
> 
> MTShaw



The requirement from the navy is 3 to 4 AOR's.  I would argue that 3 JSS and an Asterix would be a near perfect solution.  But we make do with what the gov't gives us.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway said:
			
		

> The requirement from the navy is 3 to 4 AOR's.  I would argue that 3 JSS and an Asterix would be a near perfect solution.  But we make do with what the gov't gives us.



Pretty much an S.O.P. (Standing Operating Procedure) for the R.C.N.

For more details, read through the last 107 years of its history.  

Government = :rage:

R.C.N. =


----------



## FSTO

If we went 2 AOR's and 2 Astrix class then our pers bill might be a little easier to swallow.

that being said, I had a meeting with some fellow officers who were at the launch of Astrix. They were saying they will never get the bosn's out of there once they experience their own cabins, with TV and WiFi!


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:
			
		

> If we went 2 AOR's and 2 Astrix class then our pers bill might be a little easier to swallow.
> 
> that being said, I had a meeting with some fellow officers who were at the launch of Astrix. They were saying they will never get the bosn's out of there once they experience their own cabins, with TV and WiFi!



Nor should we ?  God forbid someday Officers and C&POs have to clean up after themselves and we don't house people (MS and below) in cesspools of sickness that are 21+ person mess decks  

(FYI I am in the C&POs mess)

*edited for clarity


----------



## Furniture

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Nor should we ?  God forbid someday Officers and C&POs have to clean up after themselves and we don't house people in cesspools of sickness that are 21+ person mess decks
> 
> (FYI I am in the C&POs mess)



Maybe they are different on the east coast but we cleaned our own mess decks on the west coast... another reason west is best.

Cabins will be great when they come, but I expect that the troops will need to be more closely inspected to ensure the standards are met. The young(sometimes old) guys won't have a MS breathing down their necks daily about clutter and cleanliness.


----------



## jollyjacktar

We clean our own messes too on the East Coast.  Although l have seen worse housekeeping in some of the Chiefs messes than lower down on occasion.


----------



## Halifax Tar

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Maybe they are different on the east coast but we cleaned our own mess decks on the west coast... another reason west is best.
> 
> Cabins will be great when they come, but I expect that the troops will need to be more closely inspected to ensure the standards are met. The young(sometimes old) guys won't have a MS breathing down their necks daily about clutter and cleanliness.



I never said C&POs didn't clean their own sleeping messes. 

Officers and C&POs Heads and wash places, surrounding flats and cafeteria are all cleaned by MS and below. Officers cabins are vacuumed by MS and below STWDs. 

Habitability inspection(s) is fine and I think an expected part of military life.


----------



## FSTO

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Maybe they are different on the east coast but we cleaned our own mess decks on the west coast... another reason west is best.
> 
> Cabins will be great when they come, but I expect that the troops will need to be more closely inspected to ensure the standards are met. The young(sometimes old) guys won't have a MS breathing down their necks daily about clutter and cleanliness.



TROOPS!?!
Well if we allow the mud monkeys on our pristine ships it better be in the sea cans located on the upper decks so that we can hose them out after they dis-embark! :evil:

Sailors on the other hand know all about ships husbandry and they'll be clean. As for the civilians, (Astrix will have a small RCN cadre but the majority of the ships company will be civilian) well I bet there will be some sort of cleaning staff on board?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Actually the numbers l have seen put the RCN numbers over the civilian sailors.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Actually the numbers l have seen put the RCN numbers over the civilian sailors.


Hmm interesting.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> TROOPS!?!
> Well if we allow the mud monkeys on our pristine ships it better be in the sea cans located on the upper decks so that we can hose them out after they dis-embark! :evil:
> 
> Sailors on the other hand know all about ships husbandry and they'll be clean. As for the civilians, (Astrix will have a small RCN cadre but the majority of the ships company will be civilian) well I bet there will be some sort of cleaning staff on board?



Actually there will be more RCN personnel than civilians, up to a 114 fully manned with aircrew.


----------



## Halifax Tar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Actually the numbers l have seen put the RCN numbers over the civilian sailors.



Everything I have heard concurs.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It is also consistent with what I have seen, with one nuance: It would be about 114 CAF personnel, vice RCN.

That is due to two facts: The air group, when embarked, the medical/dental personnel, all logistics personnel are to be CAF. On top of that, all cargo handling - jackstays and refuelling equipment included - is in the hands of the RCN, as will be all CAF related communications.

It leaves navigation, marine communications and engineering only in the hands of the civilian crew, and with their standards and certification approach, that is a much lower number than a military crew would be.

The one aspect I don't know is food services. I don't know if it is to be civilian, military or mixed when military personnel is on board. If civilian merchant marine cooks were employed for everything, that would take some pressure off from the fleet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> Generally there are a number of improvements in survivability and redundancy on military ships vice civilian ships in grey paint.  WRT the Asterix vs JSS there are a few:
> 
> -Asterix has a single shaft line, engine, rudder.  JSS will have two of each of those.
> -Asterix has less compartmentalization than the JSS, thus any damage it does sustain is potentially more disastrous as fire or flood can spread further more easily.
> -Asterix has no ballistic protection, thus smaller caliber weapons can do more damage and explosions do more damage.
> -Asterix won't have self defence capability aside from some 50 cals for port security, where JSS will have hard and soft kill measures for many different threats (Nixie, ECM, MASS, CIWS, etc..).
> -JSS will also be able to operate in a chemical, biological and radiation environment, Asterix won't.
> -JSS is edge ice capable, (Asterix might be but haven't found a reference that says it is so assuming no).
> 
> There are other differences but I think you get the picture.  Not to say Asterix isn't a good solution to a problem we have.  I'm not opposed to a high-low mix for the AORs.  Asterix can do a ton of good work in many ways where a proper warfighting AOR isn't required.



Davie claims that the forward deployable thruster is adequate to bring the ship home on it's own. As mentioned the Asterix combined with the JSS makes a good combo and it has the benefit of being here now.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It is also consistent with what I have seen, with one nuance: It would be about 114 CAF personnel, vice RCN.
> 
> That is due to two facts: The air group, when embarked, the medical/dental personnel, all logistics personnel are to be CAF. On top of that, all cargo handling - jackstays and refuelling equipment included - is in the hands of the RCN, as will be all CAF related communications.
> 
> It leaves navigation, marine communications and engineering only in the hands of the civilian crew, and with their standards and certification approach, that is a much lower number than a military crew would be.
> 
> The one aspect I don't know is food services. I don't know if it is to be civilian, military or mixed when military personnel is on board. If civilian merchant marine cooks were employed for everything, that would take some pressure off from the fleet.



The majority of CAF folks will be Bos'n.  This will really eat into the trade numbers.  

The cooks and stewards are jobs listed on the Federal Fleet Services website of what they're looking for in civilian crewmembers.

http://federalfleet.ca/work-with-us/#toggle-id-11


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

First, I am glad to see that the cooks and stewards will be coming from Federal Services.

Second, AORs have always been Bosn' ships and seamanship intensive. It's the nature of the beast. The Asterix is no different and she should not take more Bosns than any other AOR. So in theory, since the Navy should still be operating two AORs currently, it should not put any undue pressure on the trade that would not otherwise be there already.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting, there will also be a Civ Bosun as well.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin P said:
			
		

> Interesting, there will also be a Civ Bosun as well.



My understanding is that the Civ deckhands will be doing the watch on deck and general seamanship evolutions and the CF Boatswains will be RAS Deck Operators, Small boat drivers and Small Arms custodians. 

Funny enough we are putting a Supply sect on board as well.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> First, I am glad to see that the cooks and stewards will be coming from Federal Services.
> 
> Second, AORs have always been Bosn' ships and seamanship intensive. It's the nature of the beast. The Asterix is no different and she should not take more Bosns than any other AOR. So in theory, since the Navy should still be operating two AORs currently, it should not put any undue pressure on the trade that would not otherwise be there already.



They are a little short in numbers at the moment, like we are.  And the turn over will be quicker for our folks too as the tempo will be more demanding.  I think they're talking about 12-18 month postings before changing out.  It's going to be more juggling for the manglers but should give lots of good exposure to more folks as a plus side.


----------



## Kirkhill

Will the RCN be putting more than the minimum number of Bos'ns required on board the Asterix in order to maintain/recreate skills resulting from the lack of AORs and the loss of the DDHs?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And Chris, what seamanship evolutions, pray tell, do you think are carried out on DDH's that are not carried out on the FFH's? (I mean other than setting up the awnings for receptions all the time because they  were the senior officer's ships)  ;D

All joking aside,  it will restart and maintain the skills needed to operate the new PRO class vessels when they come on line, but you don't need to overstaff the Asterix to do that. The general rotation of personnel should take care of that.

For those unfamiliar with civil side mariners world: every ship has a Bosn. He is just the most senior seaman on a crew (we would call the position Buffer) and, yes, since the Asterix will run the navigation watches, they will have seaman onboard to do that, and run basic evolutions such as coming alongside and anchoring, and the Bosun will have responsibility for the maintenance of these and the basic life saving equipment such as life rafts, etc.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes and no.  We won't be keeping up the legacy-HT skills from Tanker days, those positions are civilian.  I don't know why they don't have provisions for some famil training to keep the skills active, but they don't.  The only legacy-HT that are going there are a MS and PO2 for the HCRFF and Flyco.


----------



## Kirkhill

OGBD 

Wasn't thinking so much about different skills required by deckhands in the DDHs and the FFHs but simply the loss of number of positions resulting from dropping from 16 hulls to 12 hulls.  I assumed that the AORs had different requirements.

And I think you may have finally put your finger on what might sell a larger ship.


Something in which you can stow a bunch of DFAIT types with a decent bar, a useful deck for helicopters, awnings and massed bands at sunset and a crew of bosn's well versed in twirling boathooks as they man multiple barges.

Lots of maple leaves and gold leaf everywhere.   ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Is the manning setup for the Resolve class a good thing for training the new generation of sailors to be tomorrows Bosuns or is it going to mean that we be using the expertise we currently have with little mentorship and training for the next generation of sailors?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is the manning setup for the Resolve class a good thing for training the new generation of sailors to be tomorrows Bosuns or is it going to mean that we be using the expertise we currently have with little mentorship and training for the next generation of sailors?



Yes, these billets are important to keep the Tanker skills alive until the RCN take possession of the new PRO class.  They are, however, missing the boat with not keeping the Legacy HT training up.  Asterix will be having those duties covered off with civilian personnel.  That is, IMHOP, a mistake.  One I pointed out to them last year and I am disappointed it was not corrected.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

HT = Horizontal transfers, correct? I am not sure anyone in the commercial world does this underway, so they have to hire ex-navy supervisors.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Colin P said:
			
		

> HT = Horizontal transfers, correct? I am not sure anyone in the commercial world does this underway, so they have to hire ex-navy supervisors.



I am sure there are many Stokers who would use that term.  (that makes me laugh..)  No, HT = Hull Technician.  On the Tankers we took care of the Liquid Cargo and were in charge of it until it either went into the Ship's bunkers or was delivered to the ship we would be RASing with.  The Fuel Custodian, I was for a year or more, would ensure that all fuel quality tests (F-44 and F-76), tank ullages were done on a daily, weekly as required basis.  We were in charge of bunkering the ship when were were doing consolidation RAS with another Tanker or when we were at a Tank Farm or Refinery.  We had our own Liquid Cargo Officer (LCO)who was in my day a Naval Constructor and the DC Officer.  The Bosns made sure the hoses made it across to the other ship and would tell our man on the Fuel Dump when the ship we were fuellilng wanted to start or stop pumping.  We also took care of the Fresh Water cargo once the Stokers had made it with the Evaporators and delivered it to the FW tanks.  The Stokers would man the Steam Driven Cargo pumps and pump under the directions of our PO1.  We would correct the ballast of the ship as required by either moving fuel or water as needed on an as needed basis too.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

thanks, on a commercial ship it would be one of the mates/ships officers to do the stability calculations and advise the engineer which tank to pump to and from, with the Bosun running the deck crew to conduct the movement of hoses likely under the eye of the 2nd officer. It will be interesting to see how they manage the 2 different cultures. I suspect doing practice runs with freshwater might be an idea to get the bugs out.


----------



## jollyjacktar

In speaking with the Federal Fleet folks they're hoping to have ex-RCN crew whenever possible.  Shouldn't be too much worries about culture from that standpoint.


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting graphic on how the Asterix might be outfitted for a humanitarian mission.

http://www.davie.ca/humanitarianshiptour/
https://www.facebook.com/chantierdavie/photos/a.507767432609909.1073741825.470600409659945/1529901637063145/?type=3&theater

I see some chap name of Colin concerned about CIWS systems.

And the National Post seems pleased.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view-canadian-forces-pull-off-a-rare-feat-a-procurement-triumph#comments-area

I wonder how VADM Norman is getting along these days?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yea that wanker gets around 

I am pleased that it is fitted for, that's a start......


----------



## jollyjacktar

The Post is spot on.


----------



## chrisf

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> In speaking with the Federal Fleet folks they're hoping to have ex-RCN crew whenever possible.  Shouldn't be too much worries about culture from that standpoint.



At least four of the officers hired as last week are definitely ex-navy.

Apparently they're paying well.


----------



## Stoker

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> At least four of the officers hired as last week are definitely ex-navy.
> 
> Apparently they're paying well.



The 2nd mate and the 4th Engineer are currently Naval reservists.


----------



## chrisf

Sorry, belive it or not, that was a typo, should have definitely not ex-navy.

I say they're paying well because we had a couple of guys quit off our boat for jobs there.

Not sure how high tech the asterix is but considering the Navy I coming from a 50 steamer, whether they realize it or not they will probably benefit from some outside experience.

We routinely do transfers of fuel and cargo at sea...

It's done with different equipment, in a different way, and at a different pace than the Navy does, but the asterix is going to be different than the Navy is used to.

Tools.like a "new" DP system and "new" UMS will be game changers if used as designed.

Depending on the construction of the ship, the Navy may even have difficulty applying procedures they've traditionally used.


----------



## Stoker

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Sorry, belive it or not, that was a typo, should have definitely not ex-navy.
> 
> I say they're paying well because we had a couple of guys quit off our boat for jobs there.
> 
> Not sure how high tech the asterix is but considering the Navy I coming from a 50 steamer, whether they realize it or not they will probably benefit from some outside experience.
> 
> We routinely do transfers of fuel and cargo at sea...
> 
> It's done with different equipment, in a different way, and at a different pace than the Navy does, but the asterix is going to be different than the Navy is used to.
> 
> Tools.like a "new" DP system and "new" UMS will be game changers if used as designed.
> 
> Depending on the construction of the ship, the Navy may even have difficulty applying procedures they've traditionally used.



The ship is very modern and the RAS system and liquid cargo handling system is similar to what other navies are using. The Naval personnel will be running the RAS gear and yes the civilians are getting paid well with great benefits.


----------



## chrisf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The ship is very modern and the RAS system and liquid cargo handling system is similar to what other navies are using. The Naval personnel will be running the RAS gear and yes the civilians are getting paid well with great benefits.



"Very modern" is subjective, if it has its original conning and automation system, it's at least a generation behind.

It'll be sufficient for the job regardless, it just may be dramatically different than what the Navy is used to.

For example, we (the ship I work on)  can handle everything for a transfer of fuel from a single chair on the bridge... starting  stopping pumps, navigation, ballast and stability calculations.

Laid out more like the cockpit of an air plane than a traditional ships bridge.

By policy it's handled by two individuals in two chairs, one does cargo and the other does ship handling, but it hysically can be physically done by one person.

By paid well, the guys i know left a job making between $100k-120k where they were constantly griping about money (we're on the (low end of average for the industry) so I would assume they're making more than that.

I'm not saying we we're sad to see them go, but we wish them well in their future endeavors


----------



## Stoker

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> "Very modern" is subjective, if it has its original conning and automation system, it's at least a generation behind.
> 
> By paid well, the guys i know left a job making between $100k-120k where they were constantly griping about money (we're on the (low end of average for the industry) so I would assume they're making more than that.
> 
> I'm not saying we we're sad to see them go, but we wish them well in their future endeavors



Everything has been replaced, its an essentially a new ship. I'm sure the naval personnel posted to it will be training in its operation. The cargo handling system is more like a AOR as there is a training factor involved to preserve skills when our own AOR's are built. Yes they are paid well for essentially working half a year.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> "Very modern" is subjective, if it has its original conning and automation system, it's at least a generation behind.
> 
> It'll be sufficient for the job regardless, it just may be dramatically different than what the Navy is used to.
> 
> For example, we (the ship I work on)  can handle everything for a transfer of fuel from a single chair on the bridge... starting  stopping pumps, navigation, ballast and stability calculations.
> 
> Laid out more like the cockpit of an air plane than a traditional ships bridge.
> 
> By policy it's handled by two individuals in two chairs, one does cargo and the other does ship handling, but it hysically can be physically done by one person.
> 
> By paid well, the guys i know left a job making between $100k-120k where they were constantly griping about money (we're on the (low end of average for the industry) so I would assume they're making more than that.
> 
> I'm not saying we we're sad to see them go, but we wish them well in their future endeavors



Not A Sig Op, considering I am not aware of anyone else than navies (and their associated auxiliary fleets) who do underway refuelling, I have two questions: (1) If it's not state secret, who do you work for? And, (2) what need is there for ship handling and cargo work simultaneously?


----------



## chrisf

Off shore supply vessels.

Not underway, or at least not very often, typically transfers are to stationary rigs, but have also done it to and from moving rigs, as well as moving construction and seismic ships.

Doing it underway usually depends on what it is, how bad they want and how soon they want to get where they're going.

We're not moored or anchored in anyway even when stationary, hence.the need for ship handling and cargo.

There's fewer and fewer supply vessels around without DP systems now, but until about 5 years ago they were still common, meaning that when you backed into a rig to do whatever sort.of work, cargo, passenger transfers, etc, someone had to be manually driving (acceptable sea state varies, but we routinely did cargo in 6 meter seas)

As of the last five years, it's usually a DP system handling everything along side the installation, but there's still supply vessels operating with manual handling only.

Obviously the experience is different than how a Navy does replenishment at sea, but you've also got a new suite of tools to work with, some of these tools with be completely foreign to naval crew.

I've dealt with a number of brand new vessels in the past number of years, despite training, I've found it usually takes time to understand , trust and fully utilize any new tools, particularly a lack of trust in automated systems..

Ironically, the majority of accidents with modern sysfems are operator errors, most modern systems while not totally failure proof,  are exceptionally failure resistant, and quite good at self monitoring.

Obvioisly a RAS system is a navy thing, no one else needs to do it that fast or in that insane of a way, but It's the experience with other systems is where the Navy stands to benefit from the experience of some civilian sailors.

Cross pollination of ideas and experience is never a bad thing, it's why we have exchange programs with other militaries.


----------



## Stoker

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Off shore supply vessels.
> 
> Not underway, or at least not very often, typically transfers are to stationary rigs, but have also done it to and from moving rigs, as well as moving construction and seismic ships.
> 
> Doing it underway usually depends on what it is, how bad they want and how soon they want to get where they're going.
> 
> We're not moored or anchored in anyway even when stationary, hence.the need for ship handling and cargo.
> 
> There's fewer and fewer supply vessels around without DP systems now, but until about 5 years ago they were still common, meaning that when you backed into a rig to do whatever sort.of work, cargo, passenger transfers, etc, someone had to be manually driving (acceptable sea state varies, but we routinely did cargo in 6 meter seas)
> 
> As of the last five years, it's usually a DP system handling everything along side the installation, but there's still supply vessels operating with manual handling only.
> 
> Obviously the experience is different than how a Navy does replenishment at sea, but you've also got a new suite of tools to work with, some of these tools with be completely foreign to naval crew.
> 
> I've dealt with a number of brand new vessels in the past number of years, despite training, I've found it usually takes time to understand , trust and fully utilize any new tools, particularly a lack of trust in automated systems..
> 
> Ironically, the majority of accidents with modern sysfems are operator errors, most modern systems while not totally failure proof,  are exceptionally failure resistant, and quite good at self monitoring.
> 
> Obvioisly a RAS system is a navy thing, no one else needs to do it that fast or in that insane of a way, but It's the experience with other systems is where the Navy stands to benefit from the experience of some civilian sailors.
> 
> Cross pollination of ideas and experience is never a bad thing, it's why we have exchange programs with other militaries.



What your describing is a very different animal. Fueling while underway is one thing, also take into account we will be fueling up to 2 ships at a time and transferring cargo through heavy jack stay and helo ops. The civilians will be navigating, steering, cooking, and operating the propulsion plant and systems. The navy will be operating the cargo handling systems and the transfer of dry or liquid cargo. There will be extensive training for both crews in Nov/Dec to bring them up to an acceptable standard. We will have to learn from the civilians, just as the civilians will have learn from us although some of the crews will be ex military along with being current military(reservists).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Thanks for the info, Not A Sig Op.

That makes sense to me now. And yes, Dynamic Positioning (for those who didn't know what DP stood for) sure is a sweet system. But before it, even with all the bow/stern trusters found on Oil rig supply ships, maintaining position under the cranes, etc. was a good ship handling exercise.


----------



## chrisf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> What your describing is a very different animal.



To be clear, I never said it wasn't.

Just that you're going to have a whole new ship to it with.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> What your describing is a very different animal. Fueling while underway is one thing, also take into account we will be fueling up to 2 ships at a time and transferring cargo through heavy jack stay and helo ops. The civilians will be navigating, steering, cooking, and operating the propulsion plant and systems. The navy will be operating the cargo handling systems and the transfer of dry or liquid cargo. There will be extensive training for both crews in Nov/Dec to bring them up to an acceptable standard. We will have to learn from the civilians, just as the civilians will have learn from us although some of the crews will be ex military along with being current military(reservists).


Not totally.  The HT part of liquid cargo care and custody and getting it to the station with Stoker help is being done by the civilian crew.  That skill is going to be lost.  I pointed tgat out to Federal Fleet last year.  No changes were made.  More slippage.  I may not know much, but l do know my RAS stuff, we're not covering all the bases.  I suspect the people who were gaming out this concept were not from the coal face but head office.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not totally.  The HT part of liquid cargo care and custody and getting it to the station with Stoker help is being done by the civilian crew.  That skill is going to be lost.  I pointed tgat out to Federal Fleet last year.  No changes were made.  More slippage.  I may not know much, but l do know my RAS stuff, we're not covering all the bases.  I suspect the people who were gaming out this concept were not from the coal face but head office.



Interesting, but this is all MARTECH now. Undoubtedly this will be picked up by the Sea Training Hull Tech when trials are done as we'll still have that billet for several more years until the org changes. I'll imagine at some point that skill will be implemented into the trade.


----------



## Stoker

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> To be clear, I never said it wasn't.
> 
> Just that you're going to have a whole new ship to it with.



Fair enough, yes its a whole new ship, just if we had the new AOR's built. I would imagine if cooler heads prevail we'll be taking the ship over from the civilians at some point if we decide to exercise the purchase option.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Interesting, but this is all MARTECH now. Undoubtedly this will be picked up by the Sea Training Hull Tech when trials are done as we'll still have that billet for several more years until the org changes. I'll imagine at some point that skill will be implemented into the trade.



Where are they going to learn that side of the house?  That skill set is being allowed to wither and die on the vine.  By the time the PRO class comes out any corporate knowledge will have retired.  I don't imagine it will be properly implemented as this whole almagamation has been largely fucked up from the get go.  

When l use the legacy terms it is for clarity because with respect to RAS operations they all had different roles in getting fuel to the station and over to the customer.  Stokers operated the cargo pumps for DFO at HT direction and HT pumped the JP5.  HT took care of the cargo, controlled where it came from and where it went to both incoming and outgoing, set up the fuel dump station and manned it during RAS and Bunkering.  All this is not being captured in the iAOR.

DECK make sure the lines, wires and hoses get across and relayed start/stop pumping orders from the other ship to the HT at the station.  Very important and dangerous and the skills need to be kept but so do the others.  If nobody knows how to get the cargo to the station... and that is a FAIL in the iAOR training.


----------



## chrisf

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Where are they going to learn that side of the house?  That skill set is being allowed to wither and die on the vine.  By the time the PRO class comes out any corporate knowledge will have retired.  I don't imagine it will be properly implemented as this whole almagamation has been largely ****ed up from the get go.
> 
> When l use the legacy terms it is for clarity because with respect to RAS operations they all had different roles in getting fuel to the station and over to the customer.  Stokers operated the cargo pumps for DFO at HT direction and HT pumped the JP5.  HT took care of the cargo, controlled where it came from and where it went to both incoming and outgoing, set up the fuel dump station and manned it during RAS and Bunkering.  All this is not being captured in the iAOR.
> 
> DECK make sure the lines, wires and hoses get across and relayed start/stop pumping orders from the other ship to the HT at the station.  Very important and dangerous and the skills need to be kept but so do the others.  If nobody knows how to get the cargo to the station... and that is a FAIL in the iAOR training.



This is part of what I'm getting ar about the "new ship"

How much of this was a manual operation on a 50 year old ship? Opening valves, lining up tanks, starting and stopping pumps, controlling flow, etc.

Does it even need to be an important skill set on future ships? Or alternately will methods be changed? (I genuinely don't know, just asking the question)

On a new modern civillian ship, all of this, plus reballasting as cargo is discharged, can be/is done from an integrated UMS display, graphically showing your tanks, pumps, valves,lines, etc, and it's done from the bridge, with an identical display/control system in the control room.

If you're used to manual operation of systems, it's going to be very hard to trust an automatic system, particulalry given the navy has a "navy" way of doing things, based on long standing training and procrdures, based on 50 year old ships, but that's some of the new tools a new ship brings to the table.

It's a great opportunity to examine the Navy way of doing things for future warships as well... do you need as many crew.to operate a future ship? Can you reduce numbers of certain trades to increase numbers of other trades? Etc.

They stopped making 50 year old ships 50 years ago.


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Where are they going to learn that side of the house?  That skill set is being allowed to wither and die on the vine.  By the time the PRO class comes out any corporate knowledge will have retired.  I don't imagine it will be properly implemented as this whole almagamation has been largely fucked up from the get go.
> 
> When l use the legacy terms it is for clarity because with respect to RAS operations they all had different roles in getting fuel to the station and over to the customer.  Stokers operated the cargo pumps for DFO at HT direction and HT pumped the JP5.  HT took care of the cargo, controlled where it came from and where it went to both incoming and outgoing, set up the fuel dump station and manned it during RAS and Bunkering.  All this is not being captured in the iAOR.
> 
> DECK make sure the lines, wires and hoses get across and relayed start/stop pumping orders from the other ship to the HT at the station.  Very important and dangerous and the skills need to be kept but so do the others.  If nobody knows how to get the cargo to the station... and that is a FAIL in the iAOR training.



And how did you elect your shop stewards?   ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And how did you elect your shop stewards?   ;D



Trial by combat, of course.  It was said, we had the best union in the navy.   :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> This is part of what I'm getting ar about the "new ship"
> 
> How much of this was a manual operation on a 50 year old ship? Opening valves, lining up tanks, starting and stopping pumps, controlling flow, etc.
> 
> Does it even need to be an important skill set on future ships? Or alternately will methods be changed? (I genuinely don't know, just asking the question)
> 
> On a new modern civillian ship, all of this, plus reballasting as cargo is discharged, can be/is done from an integrated UMS display, graphically showing your tanks, pumps, valves,lines, etc, and it's done from the bridge, with an identical display/control system in the control room.
> 
> If you're used to manual operation of systems, it's going to be very hard to trust an automatic system, particulalry given the navy has a "navy" way of doing things, based on long standing training and procrdures, based on 50 year old ships, but that's some of the new tools a new ship brings to the table.
> 
> It's a great opportunity to examine the Navy way of doing things for future warships as well... do you need as many crew.to operate a future ship? Can you reduce numbers of certain trades to increase numbers of other trades? Etc.
> 
> They stopped making 50 year old ships 50 years ago.



Yes, l expect you're right.  Most if not all the valves will be capable of activation from the Liquid Cargo Office (or whatever name it becomes).

Taking care of the fuel and delivering it is more than just flipping levers or pushing buttons.  It needs to be tested on a regular basis to ensure its quality.  And you don't just start moving fluids willy nilly either.  That knowledge needs to be retained as there will no "Pumpman" when Protecteur arrives.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> To be clear, I never said it wasn't.
> 
> Just that you're going to have a whole new ship to it with.



I got to experience the crew cockpit concept while on the hovercraft, it is the way of the future for the marine world. I notice that Davie is trying to sell the RCN on a modified offshore resupply vessel complete with DP.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Colin, I think what you have in mind is their MRNSV (Multi Role Naval Support Vessel), which is a modified version of their successful DPIII Subsea Construction Vessels they built for Cecon. 

So it's not an offshore resupply vessel, and is in fact a lot larger vessel generally, at more than 425 feet and 4,200 tons displacement.

They are offering something that could be damn useful to the Navy (if we could man it) as it could be primarily used for submarine rescue and diving support - something we have not been able to do for ourselves since we disposed of HMCS CORMORANT - and as either a forward ship repair vessel or coastal resupply vessel - which could greatly enhance our Arctic deployment capabilities. It would also provide naval vessel capable of long distance at sea towing for our warships. Please note here that currently, if anything was to happen to one of our submarine in our waters or area of operation, we would have to call on the US Navy as our only option for reuse work.

Here is their brochure on the thing:

http://federalfleet.ca/2016/07/01/download-specification-for-mrn/

Again here: kudos to Davie (or Federal Fleet) for identifying a potential need that is also in their market niche and pro-actively offering it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

OGBD you are correct, going by memory on what is my Monday 

It would be a good ship to have and would work as a minor Arctic AOR and allow us to provide some interesting support functions to the RCN and other friendly navies. Canada really does need a RFA which could man these ships and support the RCN, CCG and DFO.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Colin, we do have such a service. It's called CFAVS (Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessels Service). They are merchant mariners who operate our harbour vessels (though we have less and less of them), such as our tugs, fireboats, target towing vessels, etc. They used to be a larger organization when we had the harbour and coastal fuel tankers, the "blue boat" ferries and the research vessels CFAV Endeavour and CFAV Quest.

How much these people do and what vessels we give them is for us to decide, but the organization is there. For instance, if the RCN was to permanently acquire the iAOR, she could be transferred to the CFAV's. Similarly, a vessel such as the MRNSV proposed by Davie could easily be operated primarily by  the CFAV's again - with the RCN embarking only it's specialized personnel as required for each specific mission.


----------



## kratz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, Colin, we had do have such a service. It's called CFAVS (Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessels Service). They are merchant mariners who operate our harbour vessels (though we have less and less of them), such as our tugs, fireboats, target towing vessels, etc. They used to be a larger organization when we had the harbour and coastal fuel tankers, the "blue boat" ferries and the research vessels CFAV Endeavour and CFAV Quest.



FTFY

ref: Government of Canada awards contract for disposal of navy ships, Aug 4, 2017



> /snip
> 
> for the disposal of the Royal Canadian Navy’s former Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Preserver and Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessel (CFAV) Quest. The dismantling, for both ships, is expected to be completed by summer 2019.
> 
> /snip


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Did I miss something, Kratz?

Who currently operates the Glen and Ville tugs or the Nanoose range torpedo recovery vessels if not the CFAV? And does the West coast fleet not still operate CFAV Firebrand?


----------



## kratz

I can't speak for the other vessels, but I had heard the Quest was disposed of.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Quest is gone, yes.  ATH is the last one that is going to the wreckers.  Once she's turned over thats it until we start getting rid of CFP or MCDV.


----------



## FSTO

All the tugs, yard boats, barges and recovery boats at Nanoose are operated by CFAVS pers. Its still relevant today and could be an even more valuable service. But this mantra of doing more with less is slowly killing this capability as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You could man the MRNSV with CFAVS/CCG personal with a budget split of say 60/40, so she does X amount of taskings with the navy and X with the CCG. No doubt both would want her at the same time in different places, but I expect such a service would work and bouncing her from the military to CCG to any other government tasking would mean we have the capacity and not necessarily to much strain on any one budget. They could also run a program where they host cadets from the various Marine Colleges around the country.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> This is part of what I'm getting ar about the "new ship"
> 
> How much of this was a manual operation on a 50 year old ship? Opening valves, lining up tanks, starting and stopping pumps, controlling flow, etc.
> 
> Does it even need to be an important skill set on future ships? Or alternately will methods be changed? (I genuinely don't know, just asking the question)
> 
> On a new modern civillian ship, all of this, plus reballasting as cargo is discharged, can be/is done from an integrated UMS display, graphically showing your tanks, pumps, valves,lines, etc, and it's done from the bridge, with an identical display/control system in the control room.
> 
> If you're used to manual operation of systems, it's going to be very hard to trust an automatic system, particulalry given the navy has a "navy" way of doing things, based on long standing training and procrdures, based on 50 year old ships, but that's some of the new tools a new ship brings to the table.
> 
> It's a great opportunity to examine the Navy way of doing things for future warships as well... do you need as many crew.to operate a future ship? Can you reduce numbers of certain trades to increase numbers of other trades? Etc.
> 
> They stopped making 50 year old ships 50 years ago.



I can't speak to AORs, but have done RASs on both the 280s and the post HCM frigates. Those are both designed to have the valves remotely operated (the only major difference was the 280s had dials and push buttons and the frigates have a computer screen showing the same info).

In theory, you don't have to manually operate any of those valves. You always test them before each RAS. Despite that, you still have someone standing by when you are switching tanks to make sure the valves are opening and closing because if the remote system doesn't work, you can very quickly get a fuel spill in the time it takes to stop pumping due to the flow rates. Even if you aren't manually operating the valve, you need to understand the full system pretty well to avoid fuel going somewhere you don't want it to go, and when the flow rates are in the thousands of litres per minute, that's pretty critical.

And yes, we had tested valves that worked fine before hand and work perfectly for weeks glitch during a fueling. Watching a valve close signal 'time out' when it becomes non responsive is not a great feeling, and I don't think we'll ever be able to lose that skill set. Ironically the same people that tell you to trust the system and limit the use of personnel are the ones that would run you over the coals if you had a fuel spill without having valve sentries available that know what they are doing, as they are now optional in the SOPs (with a bunch of caveats).

Fortunately the manual operation of a pneumatically controlled valve is pretty easy, and the fuel tanks operate the same as a ballast tank, so it's pretty easy to train someone to be a roving valve sentry.


----------



## Karel Doorman

To be fair i like this tanker as well,and about 100 million us cheaper then the Type 702/Berlin.

http://www.janes.com/article/66675/new-zealand-discloses-further-details-of-navy-s-new-fleet-tanker

I mean the price Canada is paying for those Berlins is ,in my eyes ridiculous.


----------



## Stoker

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> To be fair i like this tanker as well,and about 100 million us cheaper then the Type 702/Berlin.
> 
> http://www.janes.com/article/66675/new-zealand-discloses-further-details-of-navy-s-new-fleet-tanker
> 
> I mean the price Canada is paying for those Berlins is ,in my eyes ridiculous.



The price of doing business in Canada and union wages.


----------



## AlexanderM

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> To be fair i like this tanker as well,and about 100 million us cheaper then the Type 702/Berlin.
> 
> http://www.janes.com/article/66675/new-zealand-discloses-further-details-of-navy-s-new-fleet-tanker
> 
> I mean the price Canada is paying for those Berlins is ,in my eyes ridiculous.


Or look at the price the Brits are paying to build theirs in South Korea, although I now do agree that building there isn't the best idea, given current events.


----------



## Journeyman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> ..... in South Korea, although I now do agree that building there isn't the best idea, given current events.


Should we also divest ourselves of anything marked Samsung, Kia (and its parent, Hyundai), Daewoo.....?
Forgive me if I don't hide under the bed just yet.


----------



## Spencer100

You know South Korea is not the DPRK (North Korea), right?


----------



## Journeyman

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> You know South Korea is not the DPRK (North Korea), right?


If that is meant for me, then yes, I have a reasonable grasp of geography. Thank you. 
Did you know that the companies I mentioned -- Samsung, Kia, Hyundai, Daewoo -- are _not_  DPRK companies?

Apologies if my comment was too complex. 

I don't believe we should refuse business contracts with SOUTH Korea merely because Trump and Kim are chirping at one another like grade-school retards.  The combination of economics' large contribution to bringing down the Berlin Wall, et al, plus the horror stories bordering on treason I've heard related to the quality of some Canadian shipyard's work suggest:
- we should help with Asian economies as a bulwark against PRC and DPRK, and
- we shouldn't unthinkingly throw good money after bad at Canadian shipyards until they get their shit together.


----------



## AlexanderM

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Should we also divest ourselves of anything marked Samsung, Kia (and its parent, Hyundai), Daewoo.....?
> Forgive me if I don't hide under the bed just yet.


You're forgiven. If anyone could start a war it's Trump. BTW, in the battle of Kapyong, fought by Canadians which saved the whole damn peninsula, an uncle of mine was on top of that hill. I do completely agree about the Canadian shipyards comment.


----------



## Spencer100

Davie pushing hard for a second one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qVdJvcHUVk


----------



## MilEME09

Well wait to hear what sailors say once they get Resolve through her paces, but if the quality is there along with the fact that they delivered on time, and on budget, then Davie's work will speak for it self as to why we should get a second one. Would also be a shot at Seaspan if Davie could convert two ships into AOR's before steel was even cut on the berlins.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Davie pushing hard for a second one.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qVdJvcHUVk



That is the first corporate video where I have ever heard them use the term "bullshit"....and I loved it.   :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar

They seem have forgotten about all those equalization payments they keep getting from the other provinces, not to mention Bombardier buyouts.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

So Cdn Blackshirt likes the use of the word "bullshit", eh! Then let me use it to debunk once again the garbage that Jjt is dragging out here:

Here it is, Jjt: Your comment is bullshit! There is not a single province in Canada that pays equalization to the other provinces. None! Nada! Zero! Equalization is paid out of the Federal general fund, with everybody in Canada contributing to it on the exact same basis: individual income taxes, GST, corporate income taxes and customs and excises taxes. On that basis, BTW, Quebec and Ontario - even though they both get equalization payments - contribute 68% of Federal revenues. And, BTW also, "per capita" is the actual way to look at equalization because that is how it is calculated, and on that basis, the Atlantic provinces get three to six (P.E.I.) times more than Quebec or 5 to 8 times more than Ontario. Are you bitchin that Irving can't ask for Federal work in publicity videos?

Personally, considering the fact that no Berlin will hit the water or become operational for at least the next five years, why not give Davie another contract and get an other iAOR in 20 months from right now.

Also, for those not familiar with Canada's naval history, here is an interesting date: 1964. That is three years before construction of PRESERVER started. What is so important about that? It is the first year that the RCN indicated to the government of Canada that its requirement for support vessels called for four AORs. Though we never had more than three at a time, the RCN has never shied away from the fact that it has always called for four as the appropriate number.

Personally, my dream would be: Get Davie a contract for the next iAOR and in the meantime (20 months) acquire and produce all the plans and acquire long lead item to give them a contract to build two "power projection" vessels (Mistral's or Canberra's or equivalent) above and beyond the current CSC and Berlin's that Davie could get into right after the iAOR.


----------



## Baz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Personally, my dream would be: Get Davie a contract for the next iAOR and in the meantime (20 months) acquire and produce all the plans and acquire long lead item to give them a contract to build two "power projection" vessels (Mistral's or Canberra's or equivalent) above and beyond the current CSC and Berlin's that Davie could get into right after the iAOR.



That would be my dream as well; for you and I this is old ground.  *However* I have some questions for you if that were to come to fruition:
- Would you accept the two "power projection" vessels being the flag ships?
- If yes, would you accept giving all the CSC the capability to carry the AD required of the Iroquois replacement, and therefore make them all the same?
- How many CSC would you then consider the minimum and the optimum?

My answers:
- yes
- yes
- 6-8 min, 10-12 optimum

In effect, trade off CSC hulls for "power projection."

One step farther, what about putting the two "power projection" hulls plus two Resolve hulls on the East Coast, and then the 2 Berlins plus two flag capable CSCs on the West Coast, plus say 8-10 frigates? This would give us the capability to have a small "power projection" task group continually available on the East Coast, and a smaller task group continuously available on the West Coast, with some "power projection" capability in the Berlins.  In a major crisis the East and West Task groups could marry up on station, giving a "power projection" and joint task force flag, a Maritime flag, a on station supply (Berlin), a supply runner (Resolve, with the Berlin coming out to meet if force protection requires it), and 3-4 escorts.

Given that we would have to man the "power projection" hulls, I'm just curious on your thoughts.


----------



## jollyjacktar

OGBD, sorry to have hit a nerve there.  My point is that everybody in this country helps each other.  Region to region.  They came across to me that QC was getting shafted.  My counter is they also get benefits as do we all.  The equalization payments come from the Feds whom get it from the group.  Helping companies like Bombardier help the province as a whole.  We all benefit from having a stronger navy regardless of who builds it.  They're not alone in the wilderness, unloved and forgotten.  That's how l view it, if you don't agree.  So be it.


----------



## Cloud Cover

How do Mistrals /Canberra etc serve the  "soft power, high skill expertise" the government is peddling right now. Ships like that are designed to bring a fight to the enemy, (of which we apparently have exactly 0). Leadmark 2050 briefly mentions a "peace operations support ship" complete with aerial and seaborne "connectors" after 2035, but is also very clear no assault capabilities are in contemplation.  Basically, what they are suggesting is a fancy ferry with a well deck and maybe a helo pad. 

 Note: I would like to see LHD/LPD ships as well for the RCN, but chances are next to zero for that.


----------



## Infanteer

Baz said:
			
		

> One step farther, what about putting the two "power projection" hulls plus two Resolve hulls on the East Coast, and then the 2 Berlins plus two flag capable CSCs on the West Coast, plus say 8-10 frigates? This would give us the capability to have a small "power projection" task group continually available on the East Coast, and a smaller task group continuously available on the West Coast, with some "power projection" capability in the Berlins.  In a major crisis the East and West Task groups could marry up on station, giving a "power projection" and joint task force flag, a Maritime flag, a on station supply (Berlin), a supply runner (Resolve, with the Berlin coming out to meet if force protection requires it), and 3-4 escorts.



I know you're asking OGBD, but I'll chime in.  I agree with all of your assertions, but would argue that the "power projection" ships need to go on the Pacific.  There is more open water for them to use/manoeuvre, more areas of interest to access, and a geopolitical area where they'd more likely be called for.  Sailing a "power projection ship" into the Baltic or Black Sea just doesn't seem like a good idea.  There is a reason the USN/USMC weights its amphibious elements to the Pacific by about a ratio of 3:2.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I can understand Davie wanting to keep their people employed, they aren't shy about letting others lose their jobs for that to happen. I would love to see 2 Resolve class AORs and 2 "power projection" vessels, as to crewing, the base crew of a Mistral is slightly less than that of Tribal, had we gotten the 2 Mistrals that were built, we could have easily manned them at the time, by the time we would get them now I not sure that would be possible. Mind you they would be modern and roomy and that might attract more people. The majority of the delays for the NSPS has been on the government side. Out here in the west coast we saw very few government contracts and Seaspan had to exist purely on private contracts for a long time.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would love to see 2 Resolve class AORs and 2 "power projection" vessels, as to crewing, the base crew of a Mistral is slightly less than that of Tribal, had we gotten the 2 Mistrals that were built, we could have easily manned them at the time, by the time we would get them now I not sure that would be possible.



Even at the time it wasn't possible and we were playing the shell game of pier head jumps to man what we have, its significantly worse.


----------



## MilEME09

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Even at the time it wasn't possible and we were playing the shell game of pier head jumps to man what we have, it significantly worse.



Would it be accurate to say then as of right now without significant uptake in recruitment we won't be able to man the new fleet?


----------



## Stoker

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Would it be accurate to say then as of right now without significant uptake in recruitment we won't be able to man the new fleet?



I think we can, that is why the new ships will have more automation and a significant crew reduction. The RCN is trialing this now.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks Chief....

A continuing source of aggravation that I have routinely expressed is the emphasis by some on body-count in the navy when, to my way of thinking, the appropriate parameters are hull-count, sensor-coverage and throw-weight.

Hotel space takes up volume which drives up costs.
Bodies drive up training costs and pension costs.
Time at sea drives up retention costs.

It is apparently/obviously hard to recruit and retain which means packages get more expensive and contracts get shorter, which drive up costs.

All of those rising personnel costs, with a fixed budget, drive down procurement funds and operating funds - which reduces hulls - which reduces coverage.

As much as it is difficult to accept a different way of doing business a viable navy will have to drastically reduce the number of berths per hull.  Even if that means "giving up the ship".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If anybody here has reasonable command of French,here is link to the documentary that  the French CBC did on Sunday (go to 12 November episode) on the Asterix. Interesting because it is the first time that we see and get the views of the naval architect behind the transformation. And for those who think that the CF second language training is a waste ... see what happens when you are put in a situation where you get to use your skill for a while: Spencer's French is pretty good - with little "Englishman" accent left in this one.

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/decouverte/site


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Brits are getting a similar looking ship as our Resolve Class, although I think it's more oriented to being a tanker than all round replenishment ship. 


https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/10814-The-UK-Royal-Fleet-Auxiliarys-Tide-Class-Tankers-Delivered-Powered-by-GE


https://static.vesselfinder.net/images/media/284cc9249c02557c9a51821033acd365.jpg


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Brits are getting a similar looking ship as our Resolve Class, although I think it's more oriented to being a tanker than all round replenishment ship.
> 
> 
> https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/10814-The-UK-Royal-Fleet-Auxiliarys-Tide-Class-Tankers-Delivered-Powered-by-GE
> 
> 
> https://static.vesselfinder.net/images/media/284cc9249c02557c9a51821033acd365.jpg


Great looking ships and the price was so good. We could have had 2 per coast and saved lots of money. There is a replenishment version.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No we couldn't have saved money, nor would it be useful to have two per coast.

They are tanker - that's it - nothing more. They carry and transfer fuel, avgas and some water and lube oil in drums. That's it. They have a very, very, very limited storage capacity for cargo, of a maximum of eight 20 foot containers. That's insignificant. No capacity to handle heavy cargo, no capacity for heavy underway jackstay. and a very small helo hangar for  single medium helicopter (though they can land up to a Chinook on deck).

No cold storage or freezers or food or dry good stores, no ammunition stores and transfer capability, no general stores for aviation or ship's parts. No medical facility, no dental facility, no "tween-deck" for stowage of large cargo or army vehicles/materiel or aid to civil power/disaster relief operations, no heavy cranes, no landing/cargo boats of any sort. No capacity to act as a host ship for civilian evacuations, etc. etc.

Need I go on? Wrong ships for Canada - OK for the UK because they have a full set of other types of support vessels, they don't travel as far as we do (usually), and they have a full amphibious capability in other types of ships.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Davie plays the lay-offs card too--though completely self-interested its proposal makes sense, note the Seaspan JSS timeline now:



> Chantier Davie won’t take ‘no’ for an answer
> 
> Chantier Davie in Lévis, across the St. Lawrence from Quebec City, will be forced to lay off 800 shipyard workers before Christmas without a new contract to build a second supply vessel for the Canadian navy.
> 
> “We’re not taking no for an answer on that,” Davie CEO Alex Vicefield said in a telephone interview on Thursday, after Defence Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan told Le Journal de Québec last week through his press attaché that the government does not plan to buy a second supply ship.
> 
> In an email response Thursday, Sajjan’s press attaché Bryne Furlong reiterated that, “Navy and Coast Guard supply requirements have been extensively studied and are subject to long-term planning, which does not include a second supply vessel‎.”
> 
> The layoffs have begun, now that the Davie workforce has completed — on time and on budget — conversion of the German-built container ship Asterix into a supply ship to deliver fuel, water, food and supplies to the ships of the Royal Canadian Navy.
> 
> Davie’s plan now is the $600 million conversion of the Obelix, a sister ship to the Asterix, into the navy’s second supply ship. Vicefield said Ottawa’s plan calls for paying $2 billion each for two new supply vessels, the first of which will only be available 10 years from now.
> 
> “Why do we need to build these ships for $2 billion each?” Vicefield asked, noting the Asterix and Obelix cost $600 million each and are superior vessels.
> 
> “I’m not a political activist but we believe in the project and we delivered,” Vicefield said.
> 
> In 2011, the Harper government unveiled its National Shipbuilding Procurement Program, awarding $38-billion in contracts to build ships for the Navy and Coast Guard to Irving Shipbuilding Inc. of Halifax and Seaspan Shipbuilding of Vancouver.
> 
> Davie, emerging from bankruptcy at the time, is Canada’s largest shipyard and was excluded.
> 
> Cost estimates have risen since then, Vicefield noted, with the cost ballooning to over $100 billion. And in the six years since the plan was announced, the two winning shipyards have delivered no ships.
> 
> Officially, Seaspan is to launch its first replacement supply ship in 2021.
> 
> But Vicefield noted that _Andy Smith, the official responsible for shipbuilding in the federal department of fisheries and oceans, told a Commons committee Nov. 7 that Seaspan has a backlog of three ships to build before work on the first supply ship can begin in 2023, for delivery in 2027_ [emphasis added]...
> 
> Vicefield regards the Harper government’s plans, renamed by the Liberal government as the National Shipbuilding Strategy, as “mind-boggling” and “a bit of a joke.”
> 
> And he believes Canada can have three shipyards, including Davie, to build and maintain naval and Coast Guard vessels.
> 
> “There are about 50 large ships that need replacing,” he said, noting the _average age of the Coast Guard fleet is 40 years_ [emphasis added]. “So there is enough work for sure for three shipyards for the next 30 years.”
> 
> “We haven’t been pushing against the National Shipbuilding Strategy,” Vicefield said. “I think it is going to fall on its own.”
> 
> _Irving, which is now building ships in Romania, and Seaspan, which has ordered two ferries to be built in Turkey_ [!!! emphasis added], are defending the plan, and so far have political support [Quebec is giving Davie loud political support too, and Liberals want more seats there]....
> https://ipolitics.ca/article/chantier-davie-wont-take-no-answer/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Tweet by Quebec premier:
https://twitter.com/phcouillard/status/937031199557607424



> Philippe Couillard‏ @phcouillard
> 
> Je serai parmi vous demain [Dec. 3] pour marcher en solidarité avec les 800 travailleurs et leur famille. Montrons notre confiance en leur savoir-faire et demandons l’équité pour @chantierdavie et les chantiers navals du #Qc. #PolQc



Take that, Justin Trudeau et al.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I think we can, that is why the new ships will have more automation and a significant crew reduction. The RCN is trialing this now.



How do you think brand new ships would affect morale and retention? The AOP's will bring more room for the sailors and different missions.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note what head of Davie says about JSS delivery dates--would push new CCG icebreaker from Seaspan out to end of 2020s:



> Opinion: Canada's flawed shipbuilding strategy needs to be righted
> ...
> The alarm bells should have been ringing last month when, in a written response to a parliamentary committee, the associate deputy minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Kevin Stringer, declared that the actual delivery dates for all ships to be built under the strategy at Seaspan’s shipyard in Vancouver are now secret and cannot be released, even to members of Parliament.
> 
> This unusual response came after the new deputy commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Andy Smith, revealed that Seaspan will not be able to start construction of the navy’s ships until it has completed four other ships for the Coast Guard. The dates he provided paint an entirely different story to what the public has previously been told and, _even in a best-case scenario, means construction of the support ships will begin no earlier than 2023, with the first ship delivered in 2026_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The Department of National Defence continues to maintain the first joint support ship from Seaspan will be ready by 2021. But not a single ship has been delivered in the six years since the strategy was launched, and now we are to believe the Vancouver shipyard will suddenly deliver five ships in four years.
> 
> With Davie currently contracted to provide only one “interim” naval support ship until the Joint Support Ships are ready — a ship being delivered this month — Canada will not be able to deliver on its recently published defence policy, which requires having a naval support ship on each coast, for at least another decade.
> 
> To cover the 10-year gap, Davie has offered to build [actually convert] and lease to the navy a second naval support ship. But accepting our offer would, it seems, be too painful an admission for senior bureaucrats who were the proud architects of the current strategy...
> 
> _Alex Vicefield is chairman of Davie Shipbuilding in Lévis_.
> http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-canadas-flawed-shipbuilding-strategy-needs-to-be-righted



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> How do you think brand new ships would affect morale and retention? The AOP's will bring more room for the sailors and different missions.



I think initially it will help but when you end of spending 5 months in the Arctic year after year it won't be so attractive, much like MCDV's.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I understood that they were going to change crew mid-season when up North.

Let's remember that just because there will be 5 AOPS, you are still unlikely to find all five of them up North at the same time. I suspect two or three only at any given time.

Moreover, I suspect that since the Northern season corresponds in good part with the summer, it will be possible to substitute a number of "summer-employed" reservists in many of the trades (not the engineering ones, however, and unfortunately) such as Bosn, NciOp, Navcoms, cooks and even for some NWO's. These reservists are usually college or university students and won't have the problems associated with family separation. I know that when I was a student and doing four months at a time on the reserve vessels, I would have jumped at the possibility of being paid to go up North with a vessel. Heck! People pay good money for the experience and our full summers were spent away from home anyway.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I understood that they were going to change crew mid-season when up North.
> 
> Let's remember that just because there will be 5 AOPS, you are still unlikely to find all five of them up North at the same time. I suspect two or three only at any given time.
> 
> Moreover, I suspect that since the Northern season corresponds in good part with the summer, it will be possible to substitute a number of "summer-employed" reservists in many of the trades (not the engineering ones, however, and unfortunately) such as Bosn, NciOp, Navcoms, cooks and even for some NWO's. These reservists are usually college or university students and won't have the problems associated with family separation. I know that when I was a student and doing four months at a time on the reserve vessels, I would have jumped at the possibility of being paid to go up North with a vessel. Heck! People pay good money for the experience and our full summers were spent away from home anyway.



They might and might not as crewing will be tight. Probably three at the same time with Kingston Class ships as well,and no ports to speak of. There is plans for at least 10 to 12 billets per ship to be reservists.


----------



## Kirkhill

I understand that the AOPS accommodation, at 85, is unchanged from the 2012 offerings of STX.  

On the other hand the intended crew has expanded from 45 to 65.  Can the ships be sailed with crews of 45?  And what does that do to concerns over manning?

I understand Svalbard sails with a sea crew of about 50 from a total crew of about 75 with a regular rotation of half the crew so as to maintain continuity.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I understand that the AOPS accommodation, at 85, is unchanged from the 2012 offerings of STX.
> 
> On the other hand the intended crew has expanded from 45 to 65.  Can the ships be sailed with crews of 45?  And what does that do to concerns over manning?
> 
> I understand Svalbard sails with a sea crew of about 50 from a total crew of about 75 with a regular rotation of half the crew so as to maintain continuity.



Crewing as I understand it is still evolving, the ship is highly automated from what I can gather. I was through her some time ago and there is a 20 man mess as well as regular crew accommodations. I really don't know where they will get the crew from although the Kingston Class will eventually reduce in crew size at some point. the Kingston Class wuill be used as a feeder for the Class as it is a Diesel Electric ship and will be operated similarly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Note what head of Davie says about JSS delivery dates--would push new CCG icebreaker from Seaspan out to end of 2020s:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Seaspan will launch the first OFSV Dec 12th, the two others are moving along quickly. There is a delay in the Science Vessel, likely due to design issue around stability. My understanding is that the JSS was to start next. They could start on components of it, when the last OFSV is completing and the SV is also coming together. SS has access to two other facilities, one in Esqiumalt and the other in Vancouver they can use as well.


----------



## Kirkhill

OOSV stability issues?  Is that necessitating a redesign in the same way the OFSVs?  

And what is the common point of origin requiring these redesigns?


----------



## NavyShooter

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:755049/mmsi:316030879/imo:9348182/vessel:ASTERIX

Notably, the Asterix is now on her way to Halifax.

NS


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:755049/mmsi:316030879/imo:9348182/vessel:ASTERIX
> 
> Notably, the Asterix is now on her way to Halifax.
> 
> NS



Yes due in Halifax on Boxing day, starting RAS trials in Jan.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Asterix has arrived.  Pier 20.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/new-navy-supply-ship-arrives-in-halifax-1.4465284


----------



## dapaterson

Incredible how innovation can happen when PSPC is told to butt out, and the usual band of bandits are cut out of the process.


----------



## Underway

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Asterix has arrived.  Pier 20.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/new-navy-supply-ship-arrives-in-halifax-1.4465284



From the article:



> They will welcome aboard members of the Royal Canadian Navy to begin training next month and will support the vessel's operations for the next 10 years.


I thought the contract is for 5 years with the option for 5 more.  I guess there was a bit of a Freudian slip there.  Though I expect it will be operational with the RCN for the next 20 years!



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Incredible how innovation can happen when PSPC is told to butt out, and the usual band of bandits are cut out of the process.



Agreed. Asterix will be excellent on the west coast in 2018.  Combined with visits to Singapore, historic sub ops with the Japanese, and two ships working with the South Korean's recently I get the feeling that there is a pattern here.  Just can't quite put my finger on it...   rly:


----------



## dapaterson

Canada's Pacific shift?  Long overdue.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Incredible how innovation can happen when PSPC is told to butt out, and the usual band of bandits are cut out of the process.



Which is why the Liberals are not letting it happen again.

As for those questioning the CBC coverage of the ship arriving in Halifax: Don't worry, it's just the usual incompetent reporting on anything military by the said CBC. Look at the article, while not saying it directly, it sure makes it sound like the Asterix is a ship delivered as part of the Shipbuilding Strategy - which we all know to be completely false - as it is a ship delivered from outside source as a result of the failures of the said strategy to deliver AOR's in a timely fashion.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Which is why the Liberals are not letting it happen again.
> 
> As for those questioning the CBC coverage of the ship arriving in Halifax: Don't worry, it's just the usual incompetent reporting on anything military by the said CBC. Look at the article, while not saying it directly, it sure makes it sound like the Asterix is a ship delivered as part of the Shipbuilding Strategy - which we all know to be completely false - as it is a ship delivered from outside source as a result of the failures of the said strategy to deliver AOR's in a timely fashion.



In the defence of CBC on this one, it may be because PSPC has included the repair, refit and services under a pillar of the NSS.  Which is stupid, because it is, after all, a ship building strategy but they can't differentiate construction from the wider marine industry.

If you look on the official page, it's buried at the bottom.  Expect there will be a GoC newrelease at some point about it as well once folks are back

At least they attended the launch of OFSV 1 in Vancouver three weeks ago; that was a pretty quiet affair for some weird reason.
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/projets-projects-eng.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'll chalk the arrival up as a _*BZ*_ for the RCN, and a failure of the government of Canada (despite there being a *new* ship in town).


----------



## MTShaw

From Facebook:

Royal Canadian Navy Today and Yesterday added 3 new photos.
Yesterday at 15:09 · 

Lets talk about MV Asterix and not get into any debate about which one is better, MV Asterix for the next 10 years will be contracted by the government of Canada to provide AOR services to the RCN with a mixed civilian and military crew on both coasts. The RCN after the initial lease has option to buy. This ship is a interim measure as it lacks certain aspects that a purpose built naval AOR has. The JSS will have two shafts to Asterix's one, JSS will have a citadel for a NBC environment, JSS is also ice edge capable allowing it to operate in the Arctic, JSS will also have a roll on, roll off capability for vehicles. There are not minor features. There's certainly room for both classes of ships in the RCN, with the JSS in high threat areas and the Asterix or sister ships in areas where the threat is minimal and disaster relief. There is plenty of replenishment work to go around. Make no mistake about it, MV Asterix is a capable ship.

MV Asterix is undoubtedly a job well done to the hard working members of Davie and a success story to be proud of, they worked diligently converting the former container ship working long hours. Sub contracting the rather large accommodation section to overseas which was smart on their part as they lacked the expertise to produce it themselves. It would be great to have another however the government of Canada seems to have slammed the door on that prospect.
Hopefully in the future more work can be given to them perhaps in converting some ships to CCG use.


----------



## FSTO

MTShaw said:
			
		

> It would be great to have another however the government of Canada seems to have slammed the door on that prospect.
> Hopefully in the future more work can be given to them perhaps in converting some ships to CCG use.



That's because when it comes to defence policy our government is run by morons.

I would hope that it was Marc Garneau the Liberal Party Politician talking not Marc Garneau the former Naval Officer when he made this statement.

Transport Minister, and former navy officer, Marc Garneau said the federal government doesn’t need another supply ship. ”We cannot artificially create a need for something that doesn’t exist,”

Because if he made that statement as a Naval Officer he should be taken out of the House of Commons and shot with a ball of his own poop in front of the Naval Memorial.


----------



## MilEME09

FSTO said:
			
		

> That's because when it comes to defence policy our government is run by morons.
> 
> I would hope that it was Marc Garneau the Liberal Party Politician talking not Marc Garneau the former Naval Officer when he made this statement.
> 
> Transport Minister, and former navy officer, Marc Garneau said the federal government doesn’t need another supply ship. ”We cannot artificially create a need for something that doesn’t exist,”
> 
> Because if he made that statement as a Naval Officer he should be taken out of the House of Commons and shot with a ball of his own poop in front of the Naval Memorial.



In my opinion all the EX CF members in the house deserve the same treatment


----------



## Rifleman62

> Transport Minister, and former navy officer, Marc Garneau said the federal government doesn’t need another supply ship. ”We cannot artificially create a need for something that doesn’t exist,”



Like fighter aircraft???


----------



## Cloud Cover

FSTO said:
			
		

> Transport Minister, and former navy officer, Marc Garneau said the federal government doesn’t need another supply ship. ”We cannot artificially create a need for something that doesn’t exist,”



I’m going to quote that in my income tax return.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FSTO said:
			
		

> Transport Minister, and former navy officer, Marc Garneau said the federal government doesn’t need another supply ship. ”We cannot artificially create a need for something that doesn’t exist,”



You guys: Lay off the poor sucker. He is just doing a classic politician trick, which is to tell only half the story, leaving an important portion unsaid. The full "real" quote would read:

”We cannot artificially create a need for something that doesn’t exist, [unsaid: unless it is politically expedient for us to get out of a badly thought promise or to get more votes in the maritime provinces]”

Personally, I would love to be there (and hope journalists remember at that time) when the government, which has already stated that at a recent ceremony in Halifax that it is "considering the possibility", announces that they will purchase a seventh AOPS that the Navy has never asked for, is not needed, and covers no gap whatsoever in military capability, for the sole reason that there is a gap in work at Irving's.

Meanwhile they will let an actual, existing, flagrant and enormous gap in naval capability go uncovered for six to eight years because they want to placate the imbecilic reasoning of civil servants who have bet their whole career on the National Shipbuilding [procurement: the word was dropped because as a "procurement" program it is a failure] Strategy, that granting construction outside the NSS would weaken it.

I ask all of you to note something: Whenever the Libs talk about the iAOR issue, they always indicate that the RCN has no need for more than _*three*_ AORs. Now there is no doubt that the RCN has always indicated, since the retirement of PROVIDER, that three AORs is the number they consider to be required to be able to maintain the availability of one operational AOR on each coast at all time, and three was the original number of vessels to be procured under the original "JSS" acquisition program. However, as of right now, and until the iAOR comes on line in February, the current number of AOR in the RCN is zero. With the iAOR, it will go up to one. And unless another iAOR is leased, the number will remain at one until the first of the new PROTECTEUR class becomes operational, which is likely 5 to 7 years from now, at which point, there will be two, until the next AOR becomes operational about two years later. Since the iAOR is leased, it can then be returned - or acquired. But clearly, a second iAOR would reduce the deficit of AOR's in the meantime and help cover at least three years of a five year gap. And that is if all goes well and the PROTECTEUR construction begins at Seaspan when originally planned. 

/RANT OFF


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ships, aircraft and tanks cost MONEY though.  Why can't people just be happy with new rank badges...what is _wrong_ with all of you???????  We can't buy military equipment and provide free wifi on public transport!!

 8)


----------



## MilEME09

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I ask all of you to note something: Whenever the Libs talk about the iAOR issue, they always indicate that the RCN has no need for more than _*three*_ AORs. Now there is no doubt that the RCN has always indicated, since the retirement of PROVIDER, that three AORs is the number they consider to be required to be able to maintain the availability of one operational AOR on each coast at all time, and three was the original number of vessels to be procured under the original "JSS" acquisition program. However, as of right now, and until the iAOR comes on line in February, the current number of AOR in the RCN is zero. With the iAOR, it will go up to one. And unless another iAOR is leased, the number will remain at one until the first of the new PROTECTEUR class becomes operational, which is likely 5 to 7 years from now, at which point, there will be two, until the next AOR becomes operational about two years later. Since the iAOR is leased, it can then be returned - or acquired. But clearly, a second iAOR would reduce the deficit of AOR's in the meantime and help cover at least three years of a five year gap. And that is if all goes well and the PROTECTEUR construction begins at Seaspan when originally planned.
> 
> /RANT OFF



You would think too, since it's a lease having a second one would be great, in 10 years when then Berlin's come into service we can just return them, or buy one or both, regardless it is a real capability gap but the government seems to only slightly care about their fake fighter gap.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Actually, OGBD, when we were briefed at sea by the folks from Ottawa about the planned replacement ships it was to be, 4 total.  2 each coast, by 2005.  Then 9/11 happened and everything went Pear shaped.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Don't get me wrong, jjt, as I have indicated before, the RCN has indicated to the various governments that its requirements are for four AOR (regardless of the statement of the Minister of transport to the contrary) since it finished the technical/operational evaluation of HMCS PROVIDER in 1965. They have also always indicated that their view is that three was a bare minimum.

We have not been at a bare minimum for a long time now.


----------



## MTShaw

I'd agree that we need a an ASTERIX and a Protecteur class in the Pacific where allies are few and far between. However, the battle groups we run with in Europe have plenty of AOR support.  The costs for diesel are the same.  Ideally I'd like one for each of the battle groups, but it doesn't matter in the the end whether who fills whom.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Why not fill any gap with the completion of the AOPS and the starting of the new frigates at Iriving by building some new replacements for the Kingston’s?  Maybe a third of them can be built there and the other two thirds at Davie or another yard? 
The Kingston’s will be 25yrs on by this time.


----------



## PuckChaser

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Why not fill any gap with the completion of the AOPS and the starting of the new frigates at Iriving by building some new replacements for the Kingston’s?  Maybe a third of them can be built there and the other two thirds at Davie or another yard?
> The Kingston’s will be 25yrs on by this time.



Because PSPC will be involved and it'll take 15 years to start cutting steel on those Kingston replacements. It may line up with your timeline of getting ships built while we wait for Iriving with the CSCs, however...  ;D


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Why not fill any gap with the completion of the AOPS and the starting of the new frigates at Iriving by building some new replacements for the Kingston’s?  Maybe a third of them can be built there and the other two thirds at Davie or another yard?
> The Kingston’s will be 25yrs on by this time.



The Kingston's will be around for at least another 10 years, they are all going though extensive refits over the next few years.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The Kingston's will be around for at least another 10 years, they are all going though extensive refits over the next few years.


Why is it that there’s no news on these refits? I’ve never been able to find a single article outlining what is occurring, when it’s occuring or who is going to be doing the work?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Why is it that there’s no news on these refits? I’ve never been able to find a single article outlining what is occurring, when it’s occuring or who is going to be doing the work?



Why do you need an article, its being done as part of the 60M docking. Much of the work is being done through subcontractors through SNC Lavlin. I know exactly what is being done however this is not the forum to discuss that. Needless to say many of the ships systems and power generation is being overhauled.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Why do you need an article, its being done as part of the 60M docking. Much of the work is being done through subcontractors through SNC Lavlin. I know exactly what is being done however this is not the forum to discuss that. Needless to say many of the ships systems and power generation is being overhauled.


Cheers for the info, much appreciated.
I’m just trying to keep abreast of what’s occuring so that I can lean on my local MP and express my dissatisfaction when I believe it’s warranted. I’m not at all happy with the status of the speed or process of providing the men and women of the CAF with the tools that they need to keep Canada safe. It’s time for us to stand on our own two feet and pay our fair share and lift and bear our rightful burden - regardless of the cost. And whatever small role that I can play by being informed, more so than my MP if possible, and badger them for answers and bedevil them for action, I will gladly do so.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Cheers for the info, much appreciated.
> I’m just trying to keep abreast of what’s occuring so that I can lean on my local MP and express my dissatisfaction when I believe it’s warranted. I’m not at all happy with the status of the speed or process of providing the men and women of the CAF with the tools that they need to keep Canada safe. It’s time for us to stand on our own two feet and pay our fair share and lift and bear our rightful burden - regardless of the cost. And whatever small role that I can play by being informed, more so than my MP if possible, and badger them for answers and bedevil them for action, I will gladly do so.



The ships are in fine shape and could even go longer. They do yeoman's work for the RCN due to their low cost of operation and utility.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I'd agree that we need a an ASTERIX and a Protecteur class in the Pacific where allies are few and far between. However, the battle groups we run with in Europe have plenty of AOR support.  The costs for diesel are the same.  Ideally I'd like one for each of the battle groups, but it doesn't matter in the the end whether who fills whom.




We could buy a lot of international brownie points providing AOR's to various task forces and humanitarian incidents, all with minimal political risk. The upsides are so strong on a 2nd Resolve Class, I can't understand why this government is so blind to it.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Colin P said:
			
		

> We could buy a lot of international brownie points providing AOR's to various task forces and humanitarian incidents, all with minimal political risk. The upsides are so strong on a 2nd Resolve Class, I can't understand why this government is so blind to it.



....because Davie didn't donate nearly as much to the Federal Liberal Party as did Irving and Seaspan?


----------



## Stoker

Davie is good at promoting and is not giving up on the second tanker. I was approached a few days ago from someone doing some comms consulting for Federal Fleet and was offered a private tour of the ship in exchange for an interview and/or a Facebook live. I run one of the biggest Royal Canadian Navy face book pages. Obviously I am not going to do it given my day job.


----------



## FSTO

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Davie is good at promoting and is not giving up on the second tanker. I was approached a few days ago from someone doing some comms consulting for Federal Fleet and was offered a private tour of the ship in exchange for an interview and/or a Facebook live. I run one of the biggest *Royal Canadian Navy face book pages*. Obviously I am not going to do it given my day job.


Are you "Royal Canadian Navy Fans"?


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> Are you "Royal Canadian Navy Fans"?




No, that's a guy based in Victoria.


----------



## FSTO

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No, that's a guy based in Victoria.



Got it.

That person doesn't like the Astrix idea at all.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> Got it.
> 
> That person doesn't like the Astrix idea at all.



Yes he tends to do that. I usually keep my opinions to myself on such matters and focus on the history of the RCN. I will try and correct blatantly wrong information though. Every time I post an article on Asterix I usually get quite a few from Quebec who is buying into what Asterix is, they don't want to hear what its isn't.


----------



## jollyjacktar

At the very least, Asterix has the best looking ship's crest I've seen in a long time.


----------



## MARS

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> At the very least, Asterix has the best looking ship's crest I've seen in a long time.



Agreed!

https://tridentnewspaper.com/new-unit-patch-nru-asterix/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> ....because Davie didn't donate nearly as much to the Federal Liberal Party as did Irving and Seaspan?


Davie was out of the running as they were in bankruptcy at the time, it was the Conservatives that agreed to the Resolve Class go ahead.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Colin P said:
			
		

> Davie was out of the running as they were in bankruptcy at the time, it was the Conservatives that agreed to the Resolve Class go ahead.



But there out of bankruptcy protection now....so there's no reason why they couldn't provide them with additional contracts.


----------



## Stoker

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> But there out of bankruptcy protection now....so there's no reason why they couldn't provide them with additional contracts.



True and there should be no reason however their campaign of unsolicited bids probably pissed off the government. The government has already said that if Davie wants more work they can get it from non government sources.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Davie really oversold themselves and belittled the NSPS and made it harder for themselves. I think they misread the Liberals mindset.


----------



## CBH99

It's a tricky situation, and perhaps one that can be revisited with cooler heads if the NSPS gets a rethink.

Davie was in bankruptcy when many of the contracts were announced, and effectively shut itself out of the whole thing due to their financial & legal situation at the time.  However, they have come out of that and are now rated as one of the best shipbuilders in North America - something the Government of Canada should be happy to promote, and build to be even better as a point of national pride.

They also, while it was an unsolicited bid, were the first to deliver a new ship to the Navy/GoC despite it being the last contract signed.  Last ship ordered in the current batch, first one in the water & ready for trials.  On time, and on budget.  

Davie tried to show the government that they can be a reliable & innovative partner to providing these types of solutions for the government, and they proved it big time with this idea/plan/execution.  Pettiness aside, they seem to be doing a lot more to try and *earn* the work than Irving, which simply knows it'll be included no matter what.   :2c:


----------



## Stoker

CBH99 said:
			
		

> It's a tricky situation, and perhaps one that can be revisited with cooler heads if the NSPS gets a rethink.
> 
> Davie was in bankruptcy when many of the contracts were announced, and effectively shut itself out of the whole thing due to their financial & legal situation at the time.  However, they have come out of that and are now rated as one of the best shipbuilders in North America - something the Government of Canada should be happy to promote, and build to be even better as a point of national pride.
> 
> They also, while it was an unsolicited bid, were the first to deliver a new ship to the Navy/GoC despite it being the last contract signed.  Last ship ordered in the current batch, first one in the water & ready for trials.  On time, and on budget.
> 
> Davie tried to show the government that they can be a reliable & innovative partner to providing these types of solutions for the government, and they proved it big time with this idea/plan/execution.  Pettiness aside, they seem to be doing a lot more to try and *earn* the work than Irving, which simply knows it'll be included no matter what.   :2c:



That's the point they didn't qualify and the competition is over. Keep in mind that the build was not a build, it was a conversion and less moving parts than a build. A major part of the build (accommodations) was built overseas and brought over here. It was going to be on budget and time regardless of the cost. The literature that I read was the conversion was to be finished during the fall, I can tell you right now work is still going on the ship while alongside pier 21. I was also talking to a Davie employee a while ago and he said it was the most overtime he ever worked and basically it was 24/7 working on the ship and it was a no fail operation. This could of been accomplished by any foreign yard and we would of had new, not a 10 year old hull. Davie is now making claims that the Asterix is good for 40 years which I think is BS. Davie is also saying that the stern thruster is as good as a second shaft/dual engine JSS and the list goes on. 
Don't get me wrong, I think its great that we have Asterix and the yard still did good but the campaign by Davie to have Asterix to appear more capable than JSS rubs me the wrong way. I wonder if Davie had the winning bid in the beginning would we be seeing the same delays as we're seeing now?


----------



## dapaterson

Right now Asterix is the most capable supply ship in the RCN.  Seaspan has yet to start cutting steel.  The NSS has failed; the Canadian shipbuilding industry remains mostly uncompetitive and reliant on overpriced government contracts.

Four Resolve class would be cheaper and provide more capability sooner than the pair of JSS NSS may deliver in the late 2020s.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Stoker

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Right now Asterix is the most capable supply ship in the RCN.  Seaspan has yet to start cutting steel.  The NSS has failed; the Canadian shipbuilding industry remains mostly uncompetitive and reliant on overpriced government contracts.
> 
> Four Resolve class would be cheaper and provide more capability sooner than the pair of JSS NSS may deliver in the late 2020s.
> 
> Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk



Of course it is and honestly better to build off shore. I wish the government would authorize a another until the JSS is built.  Not four.


----------



## jollyjacktar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Right now Asterix is the most capable supply ship in the RCN.  Seaspan has yet to start cutting steel.  The NSS has failed; the Canadian shipbuilding industry remains mostly uncompetitive and reliant on overpriced government contracts.
> 
> Four Resolve class would be cheaper and provide more capability sooner than the pair of JSS NSS may deliver in the late 2020s.
> 
> Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk



No, they wouldn't.  As was pointed out earlier in this thread by OGBD (IIRC), they cannot supply munitions as will be done with the JSS.  There is also no RO/RO as well with Asterix.  She is just a tanker in that regard.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see her but she's not the total package we need.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No, they wouldn't.  As was pointed out earlier in this thread by OGBD (IIRC), they cannot supply munitions as will be done with the JSS.  There is also no RO/RO as well with Asterix.  She is just a tanker in that regard.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see her but she's not the total package we need.



Not to mention degausing gear, NBC Citadel, dual shafts, the list goes on. Asterix is good for the basics, disaster relief etc and I think should be retained after the lease is over it its usefulness for the RCN is significant.


----------



## FSTO

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Not to mention degausing gear, NBC Citadel, dual shafts, the list goes on. Asterix is good for the basics, disaster relief etc and I think should be retained after the lease is over it its usefulness for the RCN is significant.



It (and its sister  ;D) is perfectly suited to many of the missions we currently conduct. 

In my perfect world we would have a mix of PRO/ASTRIX class coupled with a couple of flat deck helicopter carriers. This is the "More Canada" that the world really needs.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> It (and its sister  ;D) is perfectly suited to many of the missions we currently conduct.
> 
> In my perfect world we would have a mix of PRO/ASTRIX class coupled with a couple of flat deck helicopter carriers. This is the "More Canada" that the world really needs.



Completely agree, Asterix and sisters for more routine missions, low threat areas and the JSS for higher threat areas.


----------



## YZT580

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Completely agree, Asterix and sisters for more routine missions, low threat areas and the JSS for higher threat areas.


Unfortunately, you don't always get to chose which area is going to be low threat when you first start out.  The requirement is for 4 JSS class ships. By all means use the Asterix for humanitarian aid: great way to support without utilising front line assets but don't give any support to the idea of obtaining Asterix in lieu of.  Three JSS should be the absolute minimum with a Mistral type command ship on each coast and the Asterix as a merchant supply class only.  My 2 cents


----------



## Stoker

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, you don't always get to chose which area is going to be low threat when you first start out.  The requirement is for 4 JSS class ships. By all means use the Asterix for humanitarian aid: great way to support without utilising front line assets but don't give any support to the idea of obtaining Asterix in lieu of.  Three JSS should be the absolute minimum with a Mistral type command ship on each coast and the Asterix as a merchant supply class only.  My 2 cents



Yes that's true but nevertheless we have Asterix that will indeed be used in low threat areas as they are not equipped to be used anywhere else. That being said 2 Asterix with some defensive upgrades and with military crew can be used anywhere.


----------



## FSTO

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, you don't always get to chose which area is going to be low threat when you first start out.  The requirement is for 4 JSS class ships. By all means use the Asterix for humanitarian aid: great way to support without utilising front line assets but don't give any support to the idea of obtaining Asterix in lieu of.  Three JSS should be the absolute minimum with a Mistral type command ship on each coast and the Asterix as a merchant supply class only.  My 2 cents



Don't think that for a second that a less than capable platforms will be sent into high threat areas if the government says we are going there. 
Iltis going to the Balkans and Afghanistan for example.


----------



## Edward Campbell

There are always risks ... don't forget the SS Atlantic Conveyor and the FRA Sir Galahad in the Falklands War ...






SS Atlantic Conveyor

and

RFA Sir Galahad


----------



## Cloud Cover

The current issue of Espirit has a Davie created graphic with a comparison of capabilities and abilities between the JSS/Berlin (as currently designed for RCN) and Resolve/Asterix.
Nowhere does ammunition RAS appear, a pretty glaring omission that is not incidental.
I believe there is much good to be said for the Resolve, but it is a conversion and not a purpose built naval stores and supply ship with all of the additional features of the JSS. Then again, I would be hesitant to describe a tanker as a suitable "combat ship".
In a very good way, these two classes complement each other and together, they completely fill all of the voids in the AOR/JSS/Container/Hospital and most practical things of a "joint" nature.
Neither ship appears to be a complete answer to meet all of the requirements in the numbers that are under order. 
It is clear a second Resolve class is required.
 It is also clear if there are to be 15 CSC,  4 submarines, 6 AOPS and the Mcdv retained, then 4 supply ships are required. Only the JSS can meet the needs of each platform in the fleet, but 2 JSS cannot adequately serve the whole fleet and 4 JSS would be too expensive.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

FSTO said:
			
		

> Don't think that for a second that a less than capable platforms will be sent into high threat areas if the government says we are going there.
> Iltis going to the Balkans and Afghanistan for example.



Oh, I think we set the bar even lower than that...how about not even having the right pattern/camo for troops going into harms way?  I seem to recall a lesson on 'why things are seen' when I was doing army stuff...


----------



## Cloud Cover

Was that really as big of an issue that it was made out to be? What difference did it make at night, for example. Not being sarcastic or challenging you,  just asking.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Uniform color can make a pretty big difference sometimes, other times it won't make any difference.  BUT..common sense...we don't wear winter whites in the summer right?  The CAF had zero ARID pattern CADPAT back then and so..well, less than ideal the troops went in green.  We don't paint tanks white or yellow in Canada because it makes it easier to see (and then kill) them. 

Not to derail this thread on CADPAT patterns...the point was to support FTSOs statement that the GoC will send CAF units and people into areas with less than ideal kit, in this case a ship that isn't designed for high threat environments.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Don't think that for a second that a less than capable platforms will be sent into high threat areas if the government says we are going there.
> Iltis going to the Balkans and Afghanistan for example.


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Right now Asterix is the most capable supply ship in the RCN.  Seaspan has yet to start cutting steel.  The NSS has failed; the Canadian shipbuilding industry remains mostly uncompetitive and reliant on overpriced government contracts.
> 
> Four Resolve class would be cheaper and provide more capability sooner than the pair of JSS NSS may deliver in the late 2020s.



Seaspan has a ship in the water for final finishing to be followed shortly by two more.  The first AOPS is essentially on schedule for launch.  The third has started its build.

NSS hasn't failed.  It's barely begun, for what is a 25-30 year program. 

If you want to look at value for only the RCN then yes I agree there isn't any value for the RCN yet.  But behind schedule does not a failure make.  And to be honest the stated goals of the NSS only has the RCN fleet revitalization as one of multiple criteria for what success is measured by.

As for getting four _Asterix_ class lets just test drive this one first for a bit before we run out and buy some more.  We don't know how well its going to work as it's an entirely new concept.  I expect the Admiralty wants to see how the new toy performs before we whistle up some more.  I honestly think that the pressure should be on for 3 Berlins instead of another Asterix.  And give Davie the heavy icebreaker build instead to move that up the timeline faster.


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:
			
		

> As for getting four _Asterix_ class lets just test drive this one first for a bit before we run out and buy some more.  We don't know how well its going to work as it's an entirely new concept.  I expect the Admiralty wants to see how the new toy performs before we whistle up some more.  I honestly think that the pressure should be on for 3 Berlins instead of another Asterix.  And give Davie the heavy icebreaker build instead to move that up the timeline faster.



I would be in support of that concept.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> Seaspan has a ship in the water for final finishing to be followed shortly by two more.  The first AOPS is essentially on schedule for launch.  The third has started its build.
> 
> NSS hasn't failed.  It's barely begun, for what is a 25-30 year program.
> 
> If you want to look at value for only the RCN then yes I agree there isn't any value for the RCN yet.  But behind schedule does not a failure make.  And to be honest the stated goals of the NSS only has the RCN fleet revitalization as one of multiple criteria for what success is measured by.
> 
> As for getting four _Asterix_ class lets just test drive this one first for a bit before we run out and buy some more.  We don't know how well its going to work as it's an entirely new concept.  I expect the Admiralty wants to see how the new toy performs before we whistle up some more.  I honestly think that the pressure should be on for 3 Berlins instead of another Asterix.  And give Davie the heavy icebreaker build instead to move that up the timeline faster.



The main issue with the NSS, is it was about 10-15 years to late. It is a good idea in the long run.


----------



## MarkOttawa

RCAF CH-148 aboard MV Asterix--even CH-147F?



> New MV Asterix could carry choppers
> 
> Though the Royal Canadian Navy’s newest ship, MV Asterix, will spend its days at sea, the use of helicopters aboard the vessel is likely to be an integral part of its operations.
> 
> The converted civilian container vessel will have the space and facilities to operate up to two helicopters, and experts say how the Canadian military decides to equip the vessel will have major implications on its functionality.
> 
> Spencer Fraser, CEO of Federal Fleet Services, the sister company of Chantier Davie Canada Inc. responsible for building and operating MV Asterix, told The Chronicle Herald the vessel was designed in consultation with the Royal Canadian Air Force and Canada’s fleet of helicopters in mind.
> 
> As such, the _Asterix has two hangars designed for CH-148 Cyclone, but which is also capable of accommodating helicopters up to the size of a CH-147F Chinook -- although the Chinook has yet to be marinized_ [emphasis added--would be useful for humanitarian/distaster relief ops, on-shore support in safe areas).
> 
> “We've got a full capability on board, we can hangar two helicopters, we've got electronics workshops, we've got avionics workshops, we've got mechanical workshops, we've got a pilot ready room, pilot briefing room, pilot changing room, administration offices for the air detachment officers as well as an engineering office for the maintainers,” Fraser said...
> 
> Colin Darlington, retired navy commander and current vice-president of the Royal United Services Institute Nova Scotia said there hasn’t been much information put out there on the RCN’s plans for helicopter integration on the vessel.
> 
> ...he said, the ship has many more capabilities than just that -- from quarters for humanitarian and rescue operations, even a floating hospital -- many of which will require the use of aircraft.
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1533650-new-mv-asterix-could-carry-choppers








Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FFS is getting ahead of themselves. To my knowledge, there have been no trials conducted; no Ship/Helo Operational Limitations developed; no Clearance for Service issued for any RCAF helicopter.

Not saying it cannot/won't be done- just saying that it is not as simple as issuing a press release saying you can operate helicopters...


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> FFS is getting ahead of themselves. To my knowledge, there have been no trials conducted; no Ship/Helo Operational Limitations developed; no Clearance for Service issued for any RCAF helicopter.
> 
> Not saying it cannot/won't be done- just saying that it is not as simple as issuing a press release saying you can operate helicopters...



Clearly you've never worked for a defence contractor.


----------



## jollyjacktar

It has been mission creep so to speak, they (the navy) do want to put an Air Det on her if at all possible.  They're asking all the equipment questions of our areas to fit it out.  Can't say how many hoops have been jumped through, but...


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> FFS is getting ahead of themselves. To my knowledge, there have been no trials conducted; no Ship/Helo Operational Limitations developed; no Clearance for Service issued for any RCAF helicopter.
> 
> Not saying it cannot/won't be done- just saying that it is not as simple as issuing a press release saying you can operate helicopters...



You are of course quite correct.  How long do trials and Operations Limitations take to be developed normally?

They put hangers on there for a reason, which means the they _will be_ able to operate helicopters in the future.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Clearly you've never worked for a defence contractor.



Don't forget the magic trick of making requirements "disappear" after the contract was won on those specific requirements!   :


----------



## Occam

I don't know about anything else, but I can tell you the comms requirements from SHOPs have been met, or will be shortly.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> You are of course quite correct.  How long do trials and Operations Limitations take to be developed normally?
> 
> They put hangers on there for a reason, which means the they _will be_ able to operate helicopters in the future.



What I find interesting is the juxtaposition of this discussion with:



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> The USN Strategic Review was just released. I haven't had a chance to read the whole document but my favorite website has done a pretty good synopsis.
> http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2017/12/the-navys-strategic-readiness-review.html
> 
> I suggest our Naval Leadership have a close read of this document. In light of the problems at 7th Fleet, this document destroys all the arguments that the Transforamtionalists used to further their agenda of the last 20 years. It's a very sobering read.





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Wow. You could pretty much word replace "USN" with "CAF" in this document and you would still be bang on.





			
				Baz said:
			
		

> You could also replace it with other words (just from my experience or "research"):
> - "RCN"
> - "NATO"
> - "RN"
> - "14 Wing"
> - or the final one, which you and I take personally, "12 Wing"
> - and I'm sure there are more.
> 
> Some of us are quite worried that the arrival of the Cyclone will be seen as end to the MH problems in Canada, and it's time to get them to sea and use their capabilities, and the underlying problems (not all of which are a result of the procurement issues) will not be solved until it is too late...


https://army.ca/forums/threads/64037/post-1513880.html#msg1513880


I have no doubt (shaped by my past experience) that there are those in the Navy that feel exactly that way... there are hangars on there, so we need an Air Det.  Of course it can be done, but the timing is less than perfect, to say the least.

The last flight of a Sea King on the East Coast has been reported as this month... the retirement is on the West Coast at the end of this year (http://skr18.ca/, which I know for a fact SeaKingTacco is well aware of   They are trying to get Cyclone IOC by this summer and the first CPF HelAirDets out the door.  Some of the same people who are doing that would also have to be pulled aside to do Asterix SHOL.

On top of that, where would the det come from?  Shearwater is authorized for 15 det equivalents in 11 dets (the "280" and tanker dets being larger); however, some of those very line numbers have been used up meeting needs of the center (the biggest example being the never ending expanding empire of ADM(IM)), so the plan will have to be reworked at some point.  In the '90s we could comfortable field 11 dets (5 steamer/CPF, 1 280, 1 tanker on the east coast plus 1 280, 1 tanker, and 2 CPF/steamer west); when I left we were hovering just below 6, plus the training squadron and HOTEF were not as robustly manned (12 AMS had to stay largish just to keep putting Sea Kings through 2nd line so it didn't all collapse).  So to create a Asterix (or AOPS) det would necessarily mean less CPF dets, or something else like training would have to give.

The navy didn't seem to understand that they had a role to play in this.  A core part of generating MH aircrew and techs is Sea Time, yet there always seemed to be a background fight along the lines of "we need dets for deployments... we can't afford to send ships to sea for Air training..."  It was sort of a macro version of "the SOA won't allow time for helo deck evs because we need time for engineering delaying drills; why can't you Air guys understand training is important!"

The worst case, and this leads directly back to the USN Strategic Readiness Review, is that sometime this year some type of op (humanitarian perhaps?) comes up, and the brain trust convinces themselves that the risk is manageable to "stick a couple of helos on there" even though the trials, approvals, documentation, and (in my mind, most importantly) readiness isn't done...


On a different note, I notice that in the article FSS talks about workshops, etc for the air dept.  I wonder if those are the same type as on the CPF, or more like the old tankers?  If the latter there seems to be another disconnect.  Back when we truly had a Canadian Task Group the tanker did 2nd line maintenance at sea for the helos, hence all the workshops.  There was a time when they actually sailed with a two shift 2nd line maintenance crew plus a small section of techs for 1st line (ie flying ops); they also only had 1 and a half crews (so you had a crew plus an LSO and a little bit of flexibility).  The maintenance concept was the other ships would only do first line and small sup checks.  If your helo broke or needed a large sup you'd swap it with the tanker, who had three of them.  They would fix it and then had a maintenance test flight to get it airborne again.  It meant the steamers could sustain 12 hour deck cycles longer.  The 280s also were plused up and had two shifts to support the 2 helos as well, so they could sustain 18 hours a day in a 12 hour block... all of this with the goal of the task group keeping 2 in the screen continuously.  The reason I bring it up is because if someone recreated the old tanker aviation spaces (which haven't been used that way in over 25 years) it's interesting because the Cyclone maintenance concept isn't set up to support that.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Baz said:
			
		

> What I find interesting is the juxtaposition of this discussion with:
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/64037/post-1513880.html#msg1513880
> 
> 
> I have no doubt (shaped by my past experience) that there are those in the Navy that feel exactly that way... there are hangars on there, so we need an Air Det.  Of course it can be done, but the timing is less than perfect, to say the least.
> 
> The last flight of a Sea King on the East Coast has been reported as this month... the retirement is on the West Coast at the end of this year (http://skr18.ca/, which I know for a fact SeaKingTacco is well aware of   They are trying to get Cyclone IOC by this summer and the first CPF HelAirDets out the door.  Some of the same people who are doing that would also have to be pulled aside to do Asterix SHOL.
> 
> On top of that, where would the det come from?  Shearwater is authorized for 15 det equivalents in 11 dets (the "280" and tanker dets being larger); however, some of those very line numbers have been used up meeting needs of the center (the biggest example being the never ending expanding empire of ADM(IM)), so the plan will have to be reworked at some point.  In the '90s we could comfortable field 11 dets (5 steamer/CPF, 1 280, 1 tanker on the east coast plus 1 280, 1 tanker, and 2 CPF/steamer west); when I left we were hovering just below 6, plus the training squadron and HOTEF were not as robustly manned (12 AMS had to stay largish just to keep putting Sea Kings through 2nd line so it didn't all collapse).  So to create a Asterix (or AOPS) det would necessarily mean less CPF dets, or something else like training would have to give.
> 
> The navy didn't seem to understand that they had a role to play in this.  A core part of generating MH aircrew and techs is Sea Time, yet there always seemed to be a background fight along the lines of "we need dets for deployments... we can't afford to send ships to sea for Air training..."  It was sort of a macro version of "the SOA won't allow time for helo deck evs because we need time for engineering delaying drills; why can't you Air guys understand training is important!"
> 
> The worst case, and this leads directly back to the USN Strategic Readiness Review, is that sometime this year some type of op (humanitarian perhaps?) comes up, and the brain trust convinces themselves that the risk is manageable to "stick a couple of helos on there" even though the trials, approvals, documentation, and (in my mind, most importantly) readiness isn't done...
> 
> 
> On a different note, I notice that in the article FSS talks about workshops, etc for the air dept.  I wonder if those are the same type as on the CPF, or more like the old tankers?  If the latter there seems to be another disconnect.  Back when we truly had a Canadian Task Group the tanker did 2nd line maintenance at sea for the helos, hence all the workshops.  There was a time when they actually sailed with a two shift 2nd line maintenance crew plus a small section of techs for 1st line (ie flying ops); they also only had 1 and a half crews (so you had a crew plus an LSO and a little bit of flexibility).  The maintenance concept was the other ships would only do first line and small sup checks.  If your helo broke or needed a large sup you'd swap it with the tanker, who had three of them.  They would fix it and then had a maintenance test flight to get it airborne again.  It meant the steamers could sustain 12 hour deck cycles longer.  The 280s also were plused up and had two shifts to support the 2 helos as well, so they could sustain 18 hours a day in a 12 hour block... all of this with the goal of the task group keeping 2 in the screen continuously.  The reason I bring it up is because if someone recreated the old tanker aviation spaces (which haven't been used that way in over 25 years) it's interesting because the Cyclone maintenance concept isn't set up to support that.



Baz, as always your posts are very informative!  Permission to insert a straw in to your brain?


----------



## Baz

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Baz, as always your posts are very informative!  Permission to insert a straw in to your brain?



It's the same story... the young guys think quicker and can be more adaptive, older guys have seen more things.  In a perfect world we would balance those two things.

I'm pretty sure that whatever came out of that straw would look like a 7-11 slushy!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Baz said:
			
		

> The navy didn't seem to understand that they had a role to play in this.  A core part of generating MH aircrew and techs is Sea Time, yet there always seemed to be a background fight along the lines of "we need dets for deployments... we can't afford to send ships to sea for Air training..."  It was sort of a macro version of "the SOA won't allow time for helo deck evs because we need time for engineering delaying drills; why can't you Air guys understand training is important!"



I think this is a peculiar Canadian problems.

The Australians understand the need for air training at sea. That is why they recently acquired the M/V Sycamore as a fleet auxiliary to do principally air training.

http://www.damen.com/en/news/2017/04/successful_sea_trials_for_australian_matv

The RN does the same thing with the RFA Argus.

In my mind, the problems of understanding the needs for air training in the RCN started when they lost their air service as a result of unification. The further we got from the Navy having an air arm, the more people with connection to the old one retired, and as result the less knowledge of what is involved in air ops existed in maritime headquarters. Nowadays, that knowledge is almost nil.

This could be remedied in different ways: One of them is re-incorporating the MH world into the Navy (RCAF will never let that happen, so there would have to be an important political will to do so). On the other hand, it could be sufficient to do two things: Let air det pilots spend time on the bridge and acquire their BWK and stand some watches, then, after their tour as Air det commander, they would be allowed, if they wish, to go on the Combat officer course and become Combat officers, then X.O.'s and finally CO and so forth. They would have to OT to NWO at the Lcdr level, but it could be made into a form of career progression that would be seamless.


----------



## Baz

OGBD,

Couldn't concur more... and so as to not seem one sided, I spent at least the last 7-9 years in the military banging my head on the lack of maritime, and in particular maritime warfare, skills in MH; I'm convinced that banging did nothing but leave me with a headache...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Baz said:
			
		

> OGBD,
> 
> Couldn't concur more... and so as to not seem one sided, I spent at least the last 7-9 years in the military banging my head on the lack of maritime, and in particular maritime warfare, skills in MH; I'm convinced that banging did nothing but leave me with a headache...



It hasn't gotten any better since you left, Baz.

I have long advocated that select TACCOs and pilots should attend the ORO course, much like some Tac Hel Pilots go to Kingston. I am also coming to the opinion that a pilot, Tacco and AESOp should be posted to CFNOS (or, whatever it is called this week by the RCN) while an Above water warfare director, and underwater water warfare director and a SAC (I am agnostic about which of these should be NWOs or NCMs) should be posted to 406 Sqn. It would cost neither RCN nor the RCAF anything and may help prevent some of the procedures/doctrine divergence I am seeing daily.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Baz said:
			
		

> OGBD,
> 
> Couldn't concur more... and so as to not seem one sided, I spent at least the last 7-9 years in the military banging my head on the lack of maritime, and in particular maritime warfare, skills in MH; I'm convinced that banging did nothing but leave me with a headache...



Exact same problem exists in the Army.  We don't even have a data downlink capability with our tac aviation.


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It hasn't gotten any better since you left, Baz.
> 
> I have long advocated that select TACCOs and pilots should attend the ORO course, much like some Tac Hel Pilots go to Kingston. I am also coming to the opinion that a pilot, Tacco and AESOp should be posted to CFNOS (or, whatever it is called this week by the RCN) while an Above water warfare director, and underwater water warfare director and a SAC (I am agnostic about which of these should be NWOs or NCMs) should be posted to 406 Sqn. It would cost neither RCN nor the RCAF anything and may help prevent some of the procedures/doctrine divergence I am seeing daily.



During RCAF Project 91 I had a SAC posted to my team at HOTEF for the info sharing piece; he later became the fleet SAC.

We bandied about the idea of remoting a radar from Hartlen's Point down to Shearwater, and then have SAC's posted there continuously.  For operational (not 406) crew's the SAC would brief and then control the flights, so they would get control time (as it was sorely lacking in the fleet) and we would "train as we fight."  Then we could also use them in the sims.  Same thing for the west coast.

It would have been a start, and there was lip service support all around, but then the same thing as always happens to ideas; no resources (esp people) to plan and execute.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Baz said:
			
		

> During RCAF Project 91 I had a SAC posted to my team at HOTEF for the info sharing piece; he later became the fleet SAC.
> 
> We bandied about the idea of remoting a radar from Hartlen's Point down to Shearwater, and then have SAC's posted there continuously.  For operational (not 406) crew's the SAC would brief and then control the flights, so they would get control time (as it was sorely lacking in the fleet) and we would "train as we fight."  Then we could also use them in the sims.  Same thing for the west coast.
> 
> It would have been a start, and there was lip service support all around, but then the same thing as always happens to ideas; no resources (esp people) to plan and execute.



Let me take that one for action when I get back to work next week, Baz.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I just had a good glimpse of Asterix as l was crossing the bridge.  She looks nice. Parked close to Irving.   ;D


----------



## Rifleman62

What will Irving do to her, being that close?


----------



## NavyShooter

Melt in flames of jealousy?

I think they moved the AST up the harbour a bit to avoid the storm surge last night.

It was a good storm...


----------



## jollyjacktar

My youngest lives close to Lawrencetown Beach.  The storm surge washed large boulders onto the road and destroyed it.  Hubbards too, lots of damage.

Glad they moved her regardless of reason.  Gave me a good chance to eyeball her from the MacKay both ways.  Looks very tidley in ship's side grey.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My youngest lives close to Lawrencetown Beach.  The storm surge washed large boulders onto the road and destroyed it.  Hubbards too, lots of damage.
> 
> Glad they moved her regardless of reason.  Gave me a good chance to eyeball her from the MacKay both ways.  Looks very tidley in ship's side grey.



She'll be moving to the dockyard soon to start dry runs for rasing across NB jetty. She also still have other work to get done on board.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

3/4" teredo worms..... 8)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> She'll be moving to the dockyard soon to start dry runs for rasing across NB jetty. She also still have other work to get done on board.



Back to Nottawa tomorrow, so will miss out seeing more of her.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Let me take that one for action when I get back to work next week, Baz.



This is why I love this site.  Genius people who give a crap.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think this is a peculiar Canadian problems.
> 
> The Australians understand the need for air training at sea. That is why they recently acquired the M/V Sycamore as a fleet auxiliary to do principally air training.
> 
> http://www.damen.com/en/news/2017/04/successful_sea_trials_for_australian_matv
> 
> The RN does the same thing with the RFA Argus.
> 
> [/color]pt]*In my mind, the problems of understanding the needs for air training in the RCN started when they lost their air service as a result of unification. The further we got from the Navy having an air arm, the more people with connection to the old one retired, and as result the less knowledge of what is involved in air ops existed in maritime headquarters. Nowadays, that knowledge is almost nil.*
> 
> This could be remedied in different ways: One of them is re-incorporating the MH world into the Navy (RCAF will never let that happen, so there would have to be an important political will to do so). On the other hand, it could be sufficient to do two things: Let air det pilots spend time on the bridge and acquire their BWK and stand some watches, then, after their tour as Air det commander, they would be allowed, if they wish, to go on the Combat officer course and become Combat officers, then X.O.'s and finally CO and so forth. They would have to OT to NWO at the Lcdr level, but it could be made into a form of career progression that would be seamless.




Don't blame Mr Hellyer for that. His initial plan had both MARCOM and MOBCOM with _*organic*_ air groups ~ 100% command owned and operated. But times were tough in the late 1960s and Navy admirals and Army generals wanted more ships and more tanks and they, the Navy admirals and Army generals, not RCAF brass, gave short shrift to their air groups.

By the mid 1970s the air force, whose nose had been out of joint over a whole bunch of issues, convinced the CDS of the day (Dextraze) that it was impossible for anyone to do worse than the Army and Navy and so Air Command was born ~ the only time in history, as far as I know, that a major military command was organized around means of locomotion! It was an act of policy vandalism, but 100% of the blame lies with naval and military officers, none goes to Mr Hellyer and none to the civil servants who, I was told, mostly, just shook their heads, partially in silent exasperation and partially in awe of the depths of military stupidity that was on display.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Exact same problem exists in the Army.  We don't even have a data downlink capability with our tac aviation.



[temporary OT]

You can thank the CLS of the day when INGRESS was built.  He said "no link, otherwise the 146 will be treated like a UAV."

You can watch him these days on CPAC, standing in for his boss when Goodale isn't in town... :nod:

[back on topic]


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> [temporary OT]
> 
> You can thank the CLS of the day when INGRESS was built.  He said "no link, otherwise the 146 will be treated like a UAV."
> 
> You can watch him these days on CPAC, standing in for his boss when Goodale isn't in town... :nod:
> 
> [back on topic]



Most people have no idea just how much the _long screwdriver _can actually deter from local commanders being able to use their intelligence, initiative and 'feel', and usually not in a good way.  Aurora folks lived it the past few years and much frustration was experienced.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Most people have no idea just how much the _long screwdriver _can actually deter from local commanders being able to use their intelligence, initiative and 'feel', and usually not in a good way.  Aurora folks lived it the past few years and much frustration was experienced.



I will note that CLS and Comd CEFCOM were having a tiff between each other, each arguing that they were looking after "their" troops...combined effect of 6-leaf bickering.  Sad.

G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Don't blame Mr Hellyer for that. His initial plan had both MARCOM and MOBCOM with _*organic*_ air groups ~ 100% command owned and operated. But times were tough in the late 1960s and Navy admirals and Army generals wanted more ships and more tanks and they, the Navy admirals and Army generals, not RCAF brass, gave short shrift to their air groups.
> 
> By the mid 1970s the air force, whose nose had been out of joint over a whole bunch of issues, convinced the CDS of the day (Dextraze) that it was impossible for anyone to do worse than the Army and Navy and so Air Command was born ~ the only time in history, as far as I know, that a major military command was organized around means of locomotion! It was an act of policy vandalism, but 100% of the blame lies with naval and military officers, none goes to Mr Hellyer and none to the civil servants who, I was told, mostly, just shook their heads, partially in silent exasperation and partially in awe of the depths of military stupidity that was on display.



I should have been more specific and say that it was "in the wake" of unification, not as consequence of it.

However, you are incorrect in stating that MARCOM or MOBCOM "owned and operated 100%" their organic air assets.

They had 100% operational command of their use - which BTW was no different than before unification - but they did not own them, they were owned and maintained by this beautiful creation MATERIEL Command, and the Navy and Army lost all control over training to that other monster: TRAINING Command.

It took the Navy 4 years to regain control over the dockyards and five to regain control over the naval part of training, even after it became clear that the Materiel/Training commands could never be made to work properly for these specialized tasks.

You may recall that, as a result of unification, the RCAF was split apart: European portion became part of that CF Europe command, Fighters became part of the "NORAD command", all transport became part of TRANSPORT command, and of course, the other assets were split between Marcom and Mobcom.

In any event, I would not say that the loss of Naval air for the RCN (or Marcom, as it was then) is in any way the result of the Admirals giving short shrift to their air group (in fact five of the nine admirals at the time were from Naval Air group). It was a result of our good friend P.E.T. cutting the operation budget by fifty percent over five years, and naval personnel by the same amount (he didn't quite do it through cuts, but by freezing the budget at a fixed amount in a time when inflation was running at 7 to 9 % a year and, at the same time increasing the pay scales of personnel ).

In any event, Naval Air (Bonnie and her air groups) represented 50% of the Navy's operations costs. The decision came down to having Bonnie all by herself on the ocean or maintaining the four escort groups we were required to have under the current NATO plans and obligations. The 24 frigates and destroyers won, for obvious reasons (in the end, even that could not be maintained, and, to artificially maintain our 24 escorts requirement towards NATO, SAINT-LAURENT, SAINT-CROIX, COLUMBIA and CHAUDIERE were put in "ready" reserve when the IRO's came into service).

But it was by no way a NAVY decision due to ignorance of the importance of naval air or of not caring for it.

As for the RCAF, the way it was split all over the place after unification, I can perfectly see why their remaining Marshals (now Generals) would have "schemed" to get some form of control over most air assets. Please recall here that, while the long range maritime air patrol assets were under operational control of the RCN at the time of unification, they were already owned and operated by the RCAF.


----------



## Baz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You may recall that, as a result of unification, the RCAF was split apart: European portion became part of that CF Europe command, Fighters became part of the "NORAD command", all transport became part of TRANSPORT command, and of course, the other assets were split between Marcom and Mobcom.



Splitting hairs here: "the other assets were split between Marcom and Mobcom" was not part of "the RCAF was split apart."  These other assets didn't belong to the RCAF prior to unification, they were wholly part of the RCN and Canadian Army, except for MPA, which was part of the RCAF, as you alluded to..  In a sense they were left were they were.

But that is an excellent explanation of the road that got us to the point were we have a Naval Air Arm in name only, belonging to an Air Force that doesn't care about or understand Maritime issues, working for a Navy that can't afford to pay anything more than lip service to Naval Air.  And as the decades of "cuts" passed, more and more of the institutions and organizations that were there to keep that from happening disappeared; I'm, of the opinion that the disappearance of MAG did in fact matter a lot.  It was important to have an Air Flag officer working directly for the admiral, with a dedicated staff dealing with Naval Air issues; as a matter of fact, I believe that MAG E&R (Engineering and Requirements) would have made a lot of things I did *much* easier.

The process seems to be continuing to happen, see https://army.ca/forums/index.php?action=post;quote=1515393;topic=17282.1625.  The logic stated makes sense, keep it in the ensign as the Air Dets embark but not in the badge as they are not organic to the RCN.  I am curious as to whether it was part of the pre-unification RCN badge... I goggled but couldn't find the answer?


----------



## Good2Golf

FWIW, Baz, and you more than many will know this, replace MARCOM with FMC and Fleet Air Arm with Army Aviation and you have the two corners of the RCAF that the RCAF inherently never liked from the outset.

#MiseryLovesCompany


----------



## Baz

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> FWIW, Baz, and you more than many will know this, replace MARCOM with FMC and Fleet Air Arm with Army Aviation and you have the two corners of the RCAF that the RCAF inherently never liked from the outset.
> 
> #MiseryLovesCompany



Yep, based on my understanding, concur.

There seems to be very good reasons why *most* countries navies retain Naval Aviation, and most countries armies retain Tactical Aviation...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Baz said:
			
		

> Yep, based on my understanding, concur.
> 
> There seems to be very good reasons why *most* countries navies retain Naval Aviation, and most countries armies retain Tactical Aviation...



You obviously don't understand that the rest of the world refuses to understand Canada's brilliance in military affairs...


----------



## Pusser

Baz said:
			
		

> The logic stated makes sense, keep it in the ensign as the Air Dets embark but not in the badge as they are not organic to the RCN.  I am curious as to whether it was part of the pre-unification RCN badge... I goggled but couldn't find the answer?



The pre-unification RCN badge did not include a bird.  See https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=e8lM2wqu&id=13954C196613763A10E3C65A0388B8C279299F04&thid=OIP.e8lM2wqudPgXaO_O4UQe9wHaJ6&q=RCN+Badge&simid=608016007955481665&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Concur. The Eagle over Anchor motif came into existence for the MARCOM badge after unification. Never existed before in the old RCN.

However, to my mind, it's retention on the ensign has more to do with thrift and administrative simplicity than any conscious decision to retain the eagle as a symbol of embarked air detachments. By retaining the full MARCOM symbol, the RCN thirst for a distinctive ensign that would connect it back to its British root (white ensign) while remaining clearly Canadian was satisfied without the need to scrap old flags and acquire a full new set, not to mention it was administratively a lot easier: On D-day, everybody simply switched the flags between the jackstaff and flagstaff. That way, no coordination of deliveries of a completely new flag, with potential delays and shortages occurred.

Besides, from a heraldry point of view, this use of the old jack as ensign made sense: It's colour and pattern (white with a national flag in the upper corner) put it clearly in the "white ensigns" family - thus re-connecting to our British root - while the Canadian flag in the upper corner makes it clearly Canadian, and the retention of the Marcom symbol in the fly recognizes all those (such as I, for instance) who have only ever served at sea in MARCOM under the unified forces.

The new RCN badge is merely a "modern" interpretation of the old RCN badge (with the exception of the stupidity of translating the Navy motto "Ready Aye Ready" into latin, which is the most backwards things I have seen in a long time).


----------



## jollyjacktar

We have to be everything to everyone and offend or leave out nobody it seems to be more and more these days.  You can add the changes made to "Canadian-ize" the Victoria Cross as well.  PC stupidity to my mind.


----------



## Rifleman62

> We have to be everything to everyone and offend or leave out nobody it seems to be more and more these days.



Off topic.

The quote below appeared on an unofficial Trey Gowdy Facebook community page.

Summary of eRumor: Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said “nobody has the right to serve in the military” in defense of the transgender military ban announced by President Trump in July 2017.

The Truth: Comments about transgender people serving in the military were incorrectly attributed to Trey Gowdy after President Trump announced a ban on transgender service members in July 2017.

If you have ever seen Congressman Gowdy (a former Federal Prosecutor), it sure sounds like something he would say. What was posted: 



> Nobody has a “right” to serve in the Military. Nobody.
> 
> What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.
> 
> The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short.
> 
> Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn?
> 
> Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can’t run the required course in the required time? Can’t do the required number of pushups?
> 
> Not really a “morning person” and refuse to get out of bed before noon?
> 
> All can be reasons for denial.
> 
> The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability.
> 
> Did someone just scream “That isn’t Fair”? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful.
> 
> YOU change yourself to meet Military standards. Not the other way around.
> 
> I say again: You don’t change the Military… you must change yourself.
> 
> The Military doesn’t need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars.
> 
> If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality… Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who’s next in line?


----------



## FSTO

^^

Could you imagine one of our lawmakers saying that? Or the CDS?


----------



## Pusser

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Off topic.
> 
> The quote below appeared on an unofficial Trey Gowdy Facebook community page.
> 
> Summary of eRumor: Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said “nobody has the right to serve in the military” in defense of the transgender military ban announced by President Trump in July 2017.
> 
> The Truth: Comments about transgender people serving in the military were incorrectly attributed to Trey Gowdy after President Trump announced a ban on transgender service members in July 2017.
> 
> If you have ever seen Congressman Gowdy (a former Federal Prosecutor), it sure sounds like something he would say. What was posted:



The thing is, everything he mentions as examples are physical or mental impairments that truly would limit one's ability to engage in warfare.  What he has failed to do is demonstrate how being transgendered prevents someone from doing any of those things.

PS:  I have been accommodated for not being a morning person for over 35 years now...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Pusser said:
			
		

> The thing is, everything he mentions as examples are physical or mental impairments that truly would limit one's ability to engage in warfare.  What he has failed to do is demonstrate how being transgendered prevents someone from doing any of those things.
> 
> PS:  I have been accommodated for not being a morning person for over 35 years now...



Unless l missed it somewhere in Rifleman's quote, he didn't mention transgender that l could read.  Otherwise, l agree with his points as quoted.


----------



## YZT580

He didn't demonstrate that having flat feet would impair, he simply stated it.  The point being made is that the military should be the arbitrator in deciding whether a particular trait (even having green eyes) will in some manner impede the successful pursuit of victory in war.  If that is the case, then those individuals with green eyes should be eliminated from the selection.  If it is determined that a candidate needs to be able to carry 50 kilos 20 km through a swamp, and a candidate cannot reach that standard, then that candidate needs to be disqualified.  In war, being politically correct could mean being the one who is hauling their flag down.  The only issue is, is the transgender thing harmful to the successful execution of war?  The same question should be asked about green eyes, flat feet, and the ability to carry the aforementioned 50 kilos.  That isn't sexist, racist, or any other ist it is simply ensuring that as much as selection determines a wars outcome that we have the best folks in position.  There isn't a second place finish in war.


----------



## Czech_pivo

YZT580 said:
			
		

> He didn't demonstrate that having flat feet would impair, he simply stated it.  The point being made is that the military should be the arbitrator in deciding whether a particular trait (even having green eyes) will in some manner impede the successful pursuit of victory in war.  If that is the case, then those individuals with green eyes should be eliminated from the selection.  If it is determined that a candidate needs to be able to carry 50 kilos 20 km through a swamp, and a candidate cannot reach that standard, then that candidate needs to be disqualified.  In war, being politically correct could mean being the one who is hauling their flag down.  The only issue is, is the transgender thing harmful to the successful execution of war?  The same question should be asked about green eyes, flat feet, and the ability to carry the aforementioned 50 kilos.  That isn't sexist, racist, or any other ist it is simply ensuring that as much as selection determines a wars outcome that we have the best folks in position.  There isn't a second place finish in war.



Actually there is a second place finish in a war - it’s called the vanquished....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile back at the ranch they are practicing dry RAS at the jetty and apparently going out this week to do more practices at sea.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Asterix lost power while in harbor last week.



> Naval supply ship lost power in Halifax Harbour ahead of storm
> 
> TOM AYERS The Chronicle Herald
> Published January 10, 2018 - 1:45pm
> Last Updated January 10, 2018 - 3:17pm
> 
> A new naval supply ship lost power in Halifax Harbour last week just ahead of a winter storm that packed nearly 80 kilometre-per-hour winds at the dockyard and gusts that exceeded 100 km/h elsewhere in the province.
> 
> The MV Asterix, a large former commercial container ship that has been converted into an interim auxiliary naval replenishment vessel, arrived in Halifax late last month and will be leased to the Royal Canadian Navy once it passes sea trials.
> 
> With the storm coming and the Asterix tied up at the pier next to the Halifax Seaport Farmers’ Market, the harbour authority asked the ship’s owners to move its berth up the harbour, said Spencer Fraser, CEO of Federal Fleet Services, the company that refurbished the vessel.
> 
> The ship was accompanied by tugboats, as usual, he said, and after the power went out, an extra tug was called in just as a precaution.
> 
> “The reason we moved berths was I guess it was too exposed and they don’t want to suffer damage to the jetty with the ship knocking in, so the ship was in fact moved before the storm approached,” Fraser told The Herald.
> 
> “There was a power blackout ... a sensor on the lube-oil system failed on the power generation, but the emergency power generation kicked in as required, and the extra tug was kept there just because of the pending storm and sorting out the sensor problem, which has been solved.
> 
> “We did that and we’ve subsequently done more harbour moves in the harbour. We’re now tied up at the navy dockyard at jetty November Bravo.
> 
> “So all systems worked. There was a failure of a sensor and then the backup systems worked as engineered. There was no damage to the ship, no storm damage, no cost to us other than standard repair.”
> 
> Fraser declined to discuss financial issues, but said there was no extra cost because the large ship always requires tugboats to manoeuvre around the harbour.
> 
> “It’s a new ship and it’s new to the Halifax Port Authority so everyone’s being extra cautious and professionalism came through,” he said.
> 
> Ken Hansen, a retired navy commander and defence consultant, said finding a faulty sensor is a common aspect of sea trials before a ship goes into service.
> 
> And lubricating oil is a critical component of a ship’s mechanical operations, so running drills related to the lube-oil would be expected, he said.
> 
> “Lube-oil failures are a very common thing to practise and the engineering staff have to take action so that they can determine whether or not it’s a faulty sensor or quickly shut down,” Hansen said.
> 
> “Lubricating oil is vital. It’s one of those real, honest-to-God emergencies that happen in a ship, because if the engine or the transmission runs dry, you can very quickly end up with a catastrophic failure.”
> 
> However, he said, the incident with the Asterix sounds like it was fixed right away and was not serious.
> 
> “It’s like cars,” Hansen said. “Cars are the same. In fact, I’ve got a faulty engine light in my car right now, and I know it’s a sensor, because all the other indications — running temperature, fuel efficiency, power response, all that stuff — is normal, so we don’t pay any attention.”
> 
> As an auxiliary naval replenishment vessel, the Asterix will provide the navy with fuel, cargo, ammunition, a floating hospital, a platform for two helicopters and quarters for humanitarian and rescue operations.
> 
> It will be leased to the federal government for five years at a cost of about $700 million, with an option to renew for an additional five years, while another firm builds new replacement ships for the navy.
> 
> The Asterix is currently crewed with a mix of 36 civilian and 114 Canadian Forces personnel and is set to run through sea trials this month.
> 
> Fraser said he expects the navy will put the ship into service in February.
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1535527-naval-supply-ship-lost-power-in-halifax-harbour-ahead-of-storm


----------



## Rifleman62

Uh-oh. Now we will have the PM saying "it doesn't work" that why we will never do a like procurement.


----------



## Colin Parkinson




----------



## Eye In The Sky

> As an auxiliary naval replenishment vessel, the Asterix will provide the navy with fuel, cargo, ammunition, a floating hospital, a platform for two helicopters and quarters for humanitarian and rescue operations.



I thought there was no ammo capacity?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I believe the magazine is in the square structure on the bow.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> I believe the magazine is in the square structure on the bow.



Davie appears to concur

http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/DEFSEC-FOR-WEB.pdf

Slide 13 -  Slides 12 and 14 are also interesting wrt capabilities.

PS - WRT Helo certification: How does the civvy world certify helidecks on oil rigs, OSVs, Cruise Liners and Coast Guard vessels?  I believe Asterix falls into that operational category.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Naval-Technology.today says 300 tones of ammo, and there are various drawings on the net illustrating ammunition storage just forward and beneath of the forward cargo crane. 
Pretty vague. 
I would assume they have some way to move and then sling it for Vertrep.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

From this side view on Flikr, it looks like just forward of the fore fueling mast, there are two apparent king posts for heavy jackstays, so that's one way to transfer ammo, dry cargo and cold/frozen stores.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rcn-mrc/38471794715

Secondly, there is covered deck, called the "tweendeck" that runs like a highway from the front of the ship all the way to the back where it has access to the hangar through an elevator for cargo. This tweendeck accesses all the various stores and cargo holds, like a highway, so vertrep for ammo/dry cargo and frozen/cold stores is another possibility.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> PS - WRT Helo certification: How does the civvy world certify helidecks on oil rigs, OSVs, Cruise Liners and Coast Guard vessels?  I believe Asterix falls into that operational category.



Chris, when (notice I didn't say "if") Asterix flies helicopters, they will be military ones, deployed with an air det. That means military certification - period.


----------



## MTShaw

I'm really annoyed that the federal government isn't taking federal fleet and Davie seriously. They seem to forgot the importance of merchant marine during WWII We could have 8 Davie built AORs for the price of two JSSs. I've always thought Davie and Irving should churn out their own classes of warships while us crunchy organic people should focus of CG and Arctic supply ships.


----------



## Stoker

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I'm really annoyed that the federal government isn't taking federal fleet and Davie seriously. They seem to forgot the importance of merchant marine during WWII We could have 8 Davie built AORs for the price of two JSSs. I've always thought Davie and Irving should churn out their own classes of warships while us crunchy organic people should focus of CG and Arctic supply ships.



Why?, the federal government wants the capabilities that the JSS satisfies and Asterix doesn't. Asterix is also going to cost 600 million to buy when the lease is over making it a fairly expensive purchase if the government decides to even go ahead purchase.


----------



## MTShaw

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Why?, the federal government wants the capabilities that the JSS satisfies and Asterix doesn't. Asterix is also going to cost 600 million to buy when the lease is over making it a fairly expensive purchase if the government decides to even go ahead purchase.



Thanks Chief. Sometimes my passion gets the the best of me.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Why?, the federal government wants the capabilities that the JSS satisfies and Asterix doesn't. Asterix is also going to cost 600 million to buy when the lease is over making it a fairly expensive purchase if the government decides to even go ahead purchase.



You have a source for that contract interpretation, Chief.

I looked at all the references I can access and I can't find anywhere where there is any indication that after spending 540 million $ for ten years, the acquisition cost at the end of the lease is another 600 millions. It would make no sense to call such contract a contract for "one quarter" the costs of the Berlin's, when they are expected to cost about 2.1 billion each. And, if that was the case, I am sure that the other two yards would have pointed that total of 1.1 billion $ from the beginning as the "real cost".

I think you may be confusing with an overall total cost of $600 million dollars, which would make sense, with a 60 million dollars "residual" value to pay at the end of ten years [540 + 60 + total overall of 600 M$)


----------



## jollyjacktar

At any rate it's nice to see them doing some (I assume) dry hookups and getting used to RAS again.  The Tanker Wanker in me is happy.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You have a source for that contract interpretation, Chief.
> 
> I looked at all the references I can access and I can't find anywhere where there is any indication that after spending 540 million $ for ten years, the acquisition cost at the end of the lease is another 600 millions. It would make no sense to call such contract a contract for "one quarter" the costs of the Berlin's, when they are expected to cost about 2.1 billion each. And, if that was the case, I am sure that the other two yards would have pointed that total of 1.1 billion $ from the beginning as the "real cost".
> 
> I think you may be confusing with an overall total cost of $600 million dollars, which would make sense, with a 60 million dollars "residual" value to pay at the end of ten years [540 + 60 + total overall of 600 M$)



The cost of Asterix is well over 600M and closer to 700M, that includes leased services 5 years with a option for another 5 year renewable. Civilians on board have been asked to commit to 10 years. Federal Fleet has stated that the design life and I highly doubt this is so of 45 years. I doubt that Federal Fleet will turn a fairly new ship over to the RCN for 60M after 5 years or ever after 10 years.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1527942-federal-fleet-services-holds-halifax-opening


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> At any rate it's nice to see them doing some (I assume) dry hookups and getting used to RAS again.  The Tanker Wanker in me is happy.



The picture shown is actually a dry hookup from what I have been told.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I figure they'll be practicing RAS approaches, dry hookups and keeping station until everyone is more comfortable with the moves.  They'll walk before they run.


----------



## Czech_pivo

News from Min. Qualtrough’s office that the JSS won’t start until 2018 at the earliest, which seems wishful. I imagine then that the ship won’t be dropped into the water until 2022. That means a min. of 5 years before we’ll have 2 supply ships unless something radically changes.
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/medias-media/gp-pg/2017-02-28-01-eng.html


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Davie appears to concur
> 
> http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/DEFSEC-FOR-WEB.pdf



Nice catch! I would like to see some pics of the Good Life managed gym and fitness facilities. Is there an olympic sized pool and ice hockey rink too?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

In that presentation it lista the JSS at $1.25 billion more per ship ($C2 billion vs $C650 million)

Can anyone elaborate on the primary contributing structures or technologies which are pointed to in order to justify that price differential?

Many thanks in advance....


----------



## Stoker

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> In that presentation it lista the JSS at $1.25 billion more per ship ($C2 billion vs $C650 million)
> 
> Can anyone elaborate on the primary contributing structures or technologies which are pointed to in order to justify that price differential?
> 
> Many thanks in advance....



That's the PBO estimate is it not. I don't know if it justifies the extra cost but JSS has 2 props/ 2 engines vice Asterix's one, degausing gear, RORO deck, NBCD Citadel, íce edge capability, not to mention its a brand new ship and not a 10 year old conversion. Davie fails to mention all of that in their brochure it appears. Keep in mind that the 650M is for a 5 year lease, with a possible another 5 years and the purchase price that won't be cheap.


----------



## FSTO

All I can say is that we have an actual ship in the water doing the RAS business in under 4 years after conception. Where are we with the JSS?


----------



## Czech_pivo

FSTO said:
			
		

> All I can say is that we have an actual ship in the water doing the RAS business in under 4 years after conception. Where are we with the JSS?



We are still deciding what colour to paint the bunks.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> That's the PBO estimate is it not. I don't know if it justifies the extra cost but JSS has 2 props/ 2 engines vice Asterix's one, degausing gear, RORO deck, NBCD Citadel, íce edge capability, not to mention its a brand new ship and not a 10 year old conversion. Davie fails to mention all of that in their brochure it appears. Keep in mind that the 650M is for a 5 year lease, with a possible another 5 years and the purchase price that won't be cheap.



This is the second time you quote numbers without source, and I would say, obviously without any knowledge of what is in the contract. To compound that, you also misinform on technical aspects.

Lets deal with contractual matter first. And I will confess: I have not seen or read the contract either - but I have negotiated and drafted that type of contract before and they are fairly standard (this Davie proposal may have been "novel" for dealing with government procurement, but it is done on a daily basis in industry), and I have access to specialized publications.

You are correct that the 2.1 B$ id the PBO figure - Davie says so on its own slide. The true cost could be higher - we won't know until the contract is let out and final tallying of the costs done. But just this week the government let out a 250 M$ contract to Seaspan just to do the final and detailed drawings on the new PROTECTEUR class. That is not giving me fuzzy feelings.

On the Davie side, you will note that they call the $650M "sail-away" cost. That is contractual term of art: It means that is the cost to Canada to buy the ship right now, as is, if they wanted to. So it is the true and final cost of the ship.

But it is a lease, which includes more than just the ship. It includes the salaries of 54 merchant mariner (36 at all time x 1.5 to get the industry standard rotation of personnel), the whole mechanical upkeep, maintenance repairs and risks associated with unforeseen breakdowns, together with full management of the platform, plus wharfage, pilotage and tugs costs, you can look up the list of what Federal Services will do as included in the cost in the slides. How much would all of that cost the RCN every year? You have to deduct that from the overall lease cost. Then you have to deduct the annual financing cost of Davie/Federal services (they incurred the $650M charge for building the ship, but recover partially year to year, so the "loan" has a rate of return - since it is a"loan" to the Government of Canada, that rate is likely lower than the market rate).

Now, the info I have seen on the contract states overall total lease payments of $540M for five years and $700M for ten years (option exercised). Based on my knowledge of such contracts, a back of the envelope calculation at full market rate would leave an acquisition payment of approximately $200M after five years and $120M after ten.

On the technical side now, and my first comment is not addressed to you alone here, but to the many people who still insist on calling the PROTECTEUR's JSS's. They are NOT JSS, the idea of JSS was abandoned after the first round in the early 2010. They are AOR's. This, BTW means that the new PRO will NOT have any RO/RO capability whatsoever. Those were original JSS requirements that were dropped all together. Second, the "edge of ice" thingy is an alleged requirement of the RCN that was purely imagined by it because they know dick about merchant ships. There is no such capability. All merchant ships can operate at the "edge" of an ice pack, and in fact, all can get into some ice - a lot more ice than the frigates or MCDV's, and yet those two types of ships go up in the Arctic at the "edge of ice" all the time. In fact, right now, there are about 20 large merchant ships pushing their way through the ice of the Gulf of St-Lawrence and the River, all the way to and from Montreal, in more ice than the PRO's will ever encounter at the "edge" of Arctic ice. None (well, maybe one or two) of them have had any modification whatsoever made to their design in order to be able to get into that ice.

Finally, Asterix was five years old (launched in 2010) when acquired by Davie. So, at the end of the first five year, she'll be 13 years old, and at the end of the ten years, she'll be 18 years old. No big deal, especially when you consider that it is only the hull that is five years older at the time davie acquired it: They stripped her interior of everything else, rebuilt the main diesel engine completely, put all brand new bow auxiliary propulsion system and all brand new generators, and all other electrical and mechanical equipment. The difference with a brand new built is insignificant and she is all new for all practical purposes. Besides, the cost of that "used" hull is part of the $650M sail-away cost.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Asterix may not have all the bells and whistles the PRO Class will have, but I'm quite happy with what she does have.  We do badly needed her and if it were up to me I would be having Davies make up her sister too.  God knows how much farther PRO will be pushed to the right and she and PRE will most certainly do so.


----------



## Czech_pivo

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Asterix may not have all the bells and whistles the PRO Class will have, but I'm quite happy with what she does have.  We do badly needed her and if it were up to me I would be having Davies make up her sister too.  God knows how much farther PRO will be pushed to the right and she and PRE will most certainly do so.



100% agree


----------



## Czech_pivo

Not sure if this link has been posted previously - if it has mea culpa - lots and lots of |||| in the document
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/mdn-dnd/D58-255-2011-eng.pdf

And this as well

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/dpb-pbo/YN5-50-2013-eng.pdf


----------



## Pusser

I think there's a lot to be said for looking at adopting a fleet auxiliary concept (RCFA?) and doing this three more times (_Obelix, Dogmatix _and _Panoramix_?).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

This phrase from the "JSS Audit" document of the DND Chief Review Services explains pretty concisely what was dropped from the original JSS requirements to fit in the new budget for two ships leading to the selection of the Berlin as base model, and confirms what I was talking about in my last post. To quote it, it states:

*The need for 1,000 lane meters for vehicles on each JSS was eliminated. Space was reduced to accommodate only a limited joint task force headquarters and the mandatory requirement to move sea containers was reduced from 100 to five sea containers.*

Not much of a "JSS" left after that. It's an AOR, so we should start calling it what it is instead of sticking with the civil service's obfuscating vocabulary aimed at never having to admit that they are delivering to Canadians a lot less than they originally promised - and for a lot more money than planned.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> This phrase from the "JSS Audit" document of the DND Chief Review Services explains pretty concisely what was dropped from the original JSS requirements to fit in the new budget for two ships leading to the selection of the Berlin as base model, and confirms what I was talking about in my last post. To quote it, it states:
> 
> *The need for 1,000 lane meters for vehicles on each JSS was eliminated. Space was reduced to accommodate only a limited joint task force headquarters and the mandatory requirement to move sea containers was reduced from 100 to five sea containers.*
> 
> Not much of a "JSS" left after that. It's an AOR, so we should start calling it what it is instead of sticking with the civil service's obfuscating vocabulary aimed at never having to admit that they are delivering to Canadians a lot less than they originally promised - and for a lot more money than planned.



Tis the Canadian way, no?


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> This is the second time you quote numbers without source, and I would say, obviously without any knowledge of what is in the contract. To compound that, you also misinform on technical aspects.
> 
> Lets deal with contractual matter first. And I will confess: I have not seen or read the contract either - but I have negotiated and drafted that type of contract before and they are fairly standard (this Davie proposal may have been "novel" for dealing with government procurement, but it is done on a daily basis in industry), and I have access to specialized publications.
> 
> You are correct that the 2.1 B$ id the PBO figure - Davie says so on its own slide. The true cost could be higher - we won't know until the contract is let out and final tallying of the costs done. But just this week the government let out a 250 M$ contract to Seaspan just to do the final and detailed drawings on the new PROTECTEUR class. That is not giving me fuzzy feelings.
> 
> On the Davie side, you will note that they call the $650M "sail-away" cost. That is contractual term of art: It means that is the cost to Canada to buy the ship right now, as is, if they wanted to. So it is the true and final cost of the ship.
> 
> But it is a lease, which includes more than just the ship. It includes the salaries of 54 merchant mariner (36 at all time x 1.5 to get the industry standard rotation of personnel), the whole mechanical upkeep, maintenance repairs and risks associated with unforeseen breakdowns, together with full management of the platform, plus wharfage, pilotage and tugs costs, you can look up the list of what Federal Services will do as included in the cost in the slides. How much would all of that cost the RCN every year? You have to deduct that from the overall lease cost. Then you have to deduct the annual financing cost of Davie/Federal services (they incurred the $650M charge for building the ship, but recover partially year to year, so the "loan" has a rate of return - since it is a"loan" to the Government of Canada, that rate is likely lower than the market rate).
> 
> Now, the info I have seen on the contract states overall total lease payments of $540M for five years and $700M for ten years (option exercised). Based on my knowledge of such contracts, a back of the envelope calculation at full market rate would leave an acquisition payment of approximately $200M after five years and $120M after ten.
> 
> On the technical side now, and my first comment is not addressed to you alone here, but to the many people who still insist on calling the PROTECTEUR's JSS's. They are NOT JSS, the idea of JSS was abandoned after the first round in the early 2010. They are AOR's. This, BTW means that the new PRO will NOT have any RO/RO capability whatsoever. Those were original JSS requirements that were dropped all together. Second, the "edge of ice" thingy is an alleged requirement of the RCN that was purely imagined by it because they know dick about merchant ships. There is no such capability. All merchant ships can operate at the "edge" of an ice pack, and in fact, all can get into some ice - a lot more ice than the frigates or MCDV's, and yet those two types of ships go up in the Arctic at the "edge of ice" all the time. In fact, right now, there are about 20 large merchant ships pushing their way through the ice of the Gulf of St-Lawrence and the River, all the way to and from Montreal, in more ice than the PRO's will ever encounter at the "edge" of Arctic ice. None (well, maybe one or two) of them have had any modification whatsoever made to their design in order to be able to get into that ice.
> 
> Finally, Asterix was five years old (launched in 2010) when acquired by Davie. So, at the end of the first five year, she'll be 13 years old, and at the end of the ten years, she'll be 18 years old. No big deal, especially when you consider that it is only the hull that is five years older at the time davie acquired it: They stripped her interior of everything else, rebuilt the main diesel engine completely, put all brand new bow auxiliary propulsion system and all brand new generators, and all other electrical and mechanical equipment. The difference with a brand new built is insignificant and she is all new for all practical purposes. Besides, the cost of that "used" hull is part of the $650M sail-away cost.


   

A goggle search will find media stories stating the figure 659M  (numbers from federal fleet) for a five year lease with the option of another 5 years at a unknown cost. It would interesting to know what a further 5 years will cost the government especially when the government is not going to take Davie up on their offer of a second conversion. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/navy-to-begin-training-crew-at-sea-on-leased-supply-vessel-mv-asterix/article37441593/

https://globalnews.ca/news/3969013/supply-ship-mv-asterix/

Federal Fleet can be wrong but that's the number they're stating and what the media is stating for the contract length and I never claimed I saw the terms of the contract. Any Naval architect will tell you commercial ships are built cheaply and fast and the hull often being the weak point. Yes as you said she was basically gutted and all internals new but she still has a used hull with a design life of 25 to 30 years and most likely the reason its an interim lease. Didn't know about the dropping of the RO/RO capability.   Yes significantly cheaper than the JSS/PROTECTEUR Class but still less capable in some ways.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

In the Globe and Mail article you quote, here is exactly what is said by the Federal Fleet executive cited:

"_*Overall, with the cost of personnel included, Schmidt's latest estimate of the cost to taxpayers for the vessel is $659-million.*_"

"cost to taxpayers for the vessel". No specification as to any specific duration. Is it for acquiring it outright today? Or the all-in cost after five years, including purchase at that time? Or all-in after ten years and purchase at that time? Or just the walk away cost of the lease (i.e. you lease for the full period but don't acquire the ship)?

There are no indications whatsoever of what this estimate is for. And the Global news article you quote second makes no mention of the costs at all.

Personally, if an executive was to tell me that a given figure represents the cost to me for the vessel, I would assume it is the actual full cost of acquiring the ship, whichever way you arrange the numbers. Why then is it just an estimate? Well the executive refers to "cost of personnel included". I suspect two possibilities here: first one is that he wishes to include the RCN personnel costs in here, but can only estimate them, but I doubt it. The second and to me more likely possibility, is that in the contract negotiation, there is an ongoing additional fee payable to Fed Fleet to cover any overtime of its personnel that may be required at the Navy's request and which otherwise would not be payable in operating a merchant ship. About $9M over five to ten years makes some sense. Other costs may also be variable, such as fuel, where a certain amount may be included for the estimated annual steaming, but any extra, or cost of fuel increase be covered separately, etc.

These contracts are generally quite thorough on all these potential costs increases and decreases and who pays or benefit from them, and to which extent.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In the Globe and Mail article you quote, here is exactly what is said by the Federal Fleet executive cited:
> 
> "_*Overall, with the cost of personnel included, Schmidt's latest estimate of the cost to taxpayers for the vessel is $659-million.*_"
> 
> "cost to taxpayers for the vessel". No specification as to any specific duration. Is it for acquiring it outright today? Or the all-in cost after five years, including purchase at that time? Or all-in after ten years and purchase at that time? Or just the walk away cost of the lease (i.e. you lease for the full period but don't acquire the ship)?
> 
> There are no indications whatsoever of what this estimate is for. And the Global news article you quote second makes no mention of the costs at all.
> 
> Personally, if an executive was to tell me that a given figure represents the cost to me for the vessel, I would assume it is the actual full cost of acquiring the ship, whichever way you arrange the numbers. Why then is it just an estimate? Well the executive refers to "cost of personnel included". I suspect two possibilities here: first one is that he wishes to include the RCN personnel costs in here, but can only estimate them, but I doubt it. The second and to me more likely possibility, is that in the contract negotiation, there is an ongoing additional fee payable to Fed Fleet to cover any overtime of its personnel that may be required at the Navy's request and which otherwise would not be payable in operating a merchant ship. About $9M over five to ten years makes some sense. Other costs may also be variable, such as fuel, where a certain amount may be included for the estimated annual steaming, but any extra, or cost of fuel increase be covered separately, etc.
> 
> These contracts are generally quite thorough on all these potential costs increases and decreases and who pays or benefit from them, and to which extent.



The second article mentions the 5 years lease with an option of renewal for a further 5 years. I would like know the the cost to the government of Canada for 10 years of the lease if it goes that long and the cost of the ship. Anything else would be pure speculation.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chief they wouldn't give that information in a clear manner to the house standing committee in 2017, so i doubt they will now:  http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/NDDN/meeting-34/evidence


----------



## Stoker

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Chief they wouldn't give that information in a clear manner to the house standing committee in 2017, so i doubt they will now:  http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/NDDN/meeting-34/evidence



It seems to me that it may be more expensive than whats being publicly stated.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Funny, I saw it the other way.

Considering that the Libs tried to stop it to favour their friends at Irving - potentially - and were really cheesed off when the cancellation was foiled, if they could have pointed out to an overly expansive contract that wasn't necessarily that cheap, if they could show Davie lying about the true costs in any way - they would have had the numbers plastered out all over the place.

On the other hand, considering the reports that, when the Conservatives made that deal, many civil servants - particularly at Procurement Canada - were very miffed and wanted to scuttle it because they felt it would be detrimental to their little puppy: the NSPS, I think it's more likely that we never see the actual complete figures because they would make the procurement strategy (and the Libs for trying to scuttle it) look particularly bad. 

So I am inclined to think the actual, true and complete figures, which ought to be public as far as I am concerned, are never mentioned in a comprehensive fashion because Davie had to make that deal is at the request of the government (which itself, then hides behind the "commercial secret" false exception to ATI requests).

But I could be wrong. It's just that Davie has no interest in hiding true costs. After all, Davie is trying to leverage their success with the Asterix with other NATO nations and into more commercial work. If it even looked for a second, in negotiating with other nations or commercial customers, that the figures they put out in public for the Asterix are a sham and the reality much more expansive, they would lose too much of their reputation to ever build anything again. So their figures must be close enough to reality for them to manage to get some work - since they, unlike others, don't have 20-30 years of government of Canada work guaranteed in front of them.


----------



## Cloud Cover

My sense is that FFS and Davie are both contractually bound not to disclose, and that is why they are suggesting the auditor general look at it. What's that saying, a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush? Well here we have a supply ship in the water and two that may just fly away after the next election.   Edit: that is probably the concern of the public servants, who Davie and FFS are clearly targeting as the root cause of the problems with the NSPS.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Funny, I saw it the other way.
> 
> Considering that the Libs tried to stop it to favour their friends at Irving - potentially - and were really cheesed off when the cancellation was foiled, if they could have pointed out to an overly expansive contract that wasn't necessarily that cheap, if they could show Davie lying about the true costs in any way - they would have had the numbers plastered out all over the place.
> 
> On the other hand, considering the reports that, when the Conservatives made that deal, many civil servants - particularly at Procurement Canada - were very miffed and wanted to scuttle it because they felt it would be detrimental to their little puppy: the NSPS, I think it's more likely that we never see the actual complete figures because they would make the procurement strategy (and the Libs for trying to scuttle it) look particularly bad.
> 
> So I am inclined to think the actual, true and complete figures, which ought to be public as far as I am concerned, are never mentioned in a comprehensive fashion because Davie had to make that deal is at the request of the government (which itself, then hides behind the "commercial secret" false exception to ATI requests).
> 
> But I could be wrong. It's just that Davie has no interest in hiding true costs. After all, Davie is trying to leverage their success with the Asterix with other NATO nations and into more commercial work. If it even looked for a second, in negotiating with other nations or commercial customers, that the figures they put out in public for the Asterix are a sham and the reality much more expansive, they would lose too much of their reputation to ever build anything again. So their figures must be close enough to reality for them to manage to get some work - since they, unlike others, don't have 20-30 years of government of Canada work guaranteed in front of them.



Davie's aggressiveness towards getting more work from the government is a major reason why they won't get further work from the GOC. I highly doubt they will get further work from other NATO nations as well.


----------



## dapaterson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes significantly cheaper than the JSS/PROTECTEUR Class but still less capable in some ways.



One class is performing RAS.  The other is still on the drawing board.


You're right that one is more capable than the other.  You're wrong about which one.


----------



## Stoker

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One class is performing RAS.  The other is still on the drawing board.
> 
> 
> You're right that one is more capable than the other.  You're wrong about which one.



True and its a very capable ship, too bad we're only getting one.


----------



## FSTO

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> True and its a very capable ship, too bad we're only getting one.



That is because our government seems to be completely clueless as to what the real capability gap is.

I'm looking at you Members of Parliament Garneau and Leslie.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:rofl:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I've seen somewhere recently the "RCN of the future" is looking at naval task forces;  is there any plans for the interim AOR or the JSS to do maint on the MH, similar to what was done before on the AOR like during GW1 ref the attached article?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Except the maintenance concept for Cyclone is completely different from the maintenance concept for Sea King...


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I've seen somewhere recently the "RCN of the future" is looking at naval task forces;  is there any plans for the interim AOR or the JSS to do maint on the MH, similar to what was done before on the AOR like during GW1 ref the attached article?



I was wondering if they put the spaces in; but mentioned, as SKT just did, the maintenance concept is completely different for the Cyclone.

To be fair, this isn't really the "RCN of the future."  It's been the cornerstone of the RCN since at least the early '70s, and you could easily say well before that.  The Bonnie, in her final configuration, was an ASW task group, and that task group (not just the carrier) formed the center of the East Coast Navy.

When I first started in the early '90s the task group, centered on the tanker, with one Destroyer for Air Defense, 2-3 steamers/frigates, and 6+ helos embarked, was what we were training for.  However, I have to admit, I only did that once or maybe twice; with all the single ship deployments it just became harder and harder to do.  On the helo side alone 12 Wing would be hard pressed to put 3 helos to sea on one coast when I left a couple of years ago; that would be a full push with no single det deployments ongoing.  And the ship issues to fill out that task group are obvious...

So yes, the goal is the task group; but it is definitely true to say that this is a period of "re-gen."  The RCN has stated a goal to deploy a smaller version of that task group in the early '20s and lead a multinational ASW exercise with it ("If we are successful, and I am confident we will be, success in 2022 will be:" ... "A Naval Task Group consisting of four surface combatants, one submarine, MV Asterix, and CH-148 Cyclone helicopters leading a multinational theatre-ASW exercise." RCN Strategic Plan 2017-2022, page 14)

To circle back though, if the full up Air spaces required for MH maintenance at sea are present in either the Resolve or Protecteur Class AORs (OBGD is correct, they are *not* JSS as originally envisaged; however, we need to be careful: the RCN Strategic Plan, page 18, calls them "Joint _Supply_ Ships" and refers to them as "joint support ships" on page 13 and directly calls them the "Protecteur Class Joint Support Ship" on page 14, but I digress), then the maintenance concept of the Cyclone could be changed.  It would require both a modification the MH ISS contract and to the manning and training levels of 12 Wing...

On a final note, the RCN has always toyed with the idea of something at the center of that task group other than an AOR (JSS as currently envisioned).  Although I don't have time to find the references right now, their strategic level guidance routine makes reference to a "joint enabler" (my term), which harkens back to the latest time it was considered (Standing Contingency Task Force and it's Big Honkin' Ship)...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Which would have been fulfilled had the Conservatives not called an election or made it so long, we would be looking at 2 Mistrals sitting at the dock and Astreix on the same time frame. The timing might have been right as the Mistrals would have taken up the sailors from the AORS and DDH. Mind you each might have 1-2 Sea kings embarked.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Conversation always come back to the Mistrals. Why that conventional type ship, and not something more realistic given the skittish nature of our political establishment?? I would love to see an LPD/LPH combo, but really the most you could hope for would be a used LPD or some cooked up home brew like Irvings "Humanitarian Ship" or the expeditionary hospital ship proposed by Davie "Project Respite"  (both converted civilian cargo ships)  I think there was even a suggestion once from Davie for an arctic support expeditionary platform (I think they called it that) which looked suspiciously like a pregnant San Antonio without the masts and gadgetry.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Because there were 2 for sale and documents showed that the CPC was very interested in them at the time. Starting from fresh would they be the best choice, I don't know, likely that design or the Aussie/Spanish one. Hulls could be built overseas and outfitting by Davie.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Because there were 2 for sale and documents showed that the CPC was very interested in them at the time. Starting from fresh would they be the best choice, I don't know, likely that design or the Aussie/Spanish one. Hulls could be built overseas and outfitting by Davie.



We would only know how good they were if we actually got them, I'd love to see a Canadian Naval Task force centered around a mistral, unlikely to happen though, the current political climate wouldn't support buying any off shore ships unless they were maybe subs.


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Conversation always come back to the Mistrals. Why that conventional type ship, and not something more realistic given the skittish nature of our political establishment?? I would love to see an LPD/LPH combo, but really the most you could hope for would be a used LPD or some cooked up home brew like Irvings "Humanitarian Ship" or the expeditionary hospital ship proposed by Davie "Project Respite"  (both converted civilian cargo ships)  I think there was even a suggestion once from Davie for an arctic support expeditionary platform (I think they called it that) which looked suspiciously like a pregnant San Antonio without the masts and gadgetry.



I'd be quite happy with something along those lines (Basically something like the Damen Enforcer/Bay Class/Rotterdam) on the grounds you argue.  A Mistral looks like an aircraft carrier to a people that see every vehicle with a gun as a tank.  On the other hand an LPD looks like a ferry or a cargo ship - and C17s, C130s and CH-147s are good, in those same eyes.  The less military something looks the easier it is to get the Canadian public to swallow it.  Fortunately logistics needs look the least military - and can be sold as transporters of blankets and parkas.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The brits envisioned 5 different ship classes to do what we wanted the JSS to do.


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> The brits envisioned 5 different ship classes to do what we wanted the JSS to do.



Hillier and his Big Honking Ship distraction knocked the RCN back from getting an AOR by 10 years at least.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Hillier actually proposed the "Big Honking Ship" in 2005 at end of Martin gov't (along with 3 JSS!):
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/toronto-star/20051107/281565171159844
http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol1num4/vol1num4art7.pdf

Note the large "Standing Contingency Task Force" the big one was supposed to carry.

Hillier was then misled by Harper's and the Conservatives' promises to recapitalize the armed forces.  He fairly soon realized his mistake.  In his memoirs he is very favourable towards Paul Martin and Bill Graham (as serious people) and effectively damns Harper and Gordon O'Connor between the lines.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

O'Connor certainly was a bloody disappointment to me.  PMSH as well in the end.


----------



## Stoker

Well it appears that Davie will get their wish and provide icebreakers for the Coast guard, so their whining will diminish. So it looks like the Federal Government is not pissed at them after all. At least the coast guard gets ships sooner which is good for everyone.

Davie shipyard poised to supply new icebreakers for coast guard

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-icebreakers-davie-shipyard-canadian-coast-guard-negotiations-1.4492819


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It sounds like the GoC is finally waking up to the "Project Resolute" offer of Davie made two years ago.

http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/icebreaker-briefing-RESOLUTE-1.pdf

The four icebreakers they own and were offered on loan appear to be the same four, already available to Davie.

This will not be as much work as Project Resolve because the Coast guard is a merchant marine service and their needs are not as specialized. Therefore fewer modifications will be necessary here, coupled with a thorough "mid-life" refit, to provide the Coast guard with three badly needed river ice breakers to supplement or replace the type 1200 ice breakers which are already 35+ years old and one Arctic icebreaker to supplement or replace the ancient Louis St-Laurent, which is falling apart.

By the time Seaspan would have completed the Diefenbaker, the river icebreakers would have been 50 to 55 years old.

At least, now there is an intermediate offering that can rejuvenate the CG fleet of icebreakers while still making their own replacement in the hands of Seaspan should this be the will of the government after the Dief' is completed.


----------



## CBH99

I keep saying it...but...

While the whining can be irritating, and sometimes downright shaming the very government they hope to get work from - they are the shipyard providing innovative solutions to the problems we have right now.  Not 3 years from now, or 5 years from now.  They are the shipyard saying "If we don't follow the standard way of doing things, we can have a ship in the water for you far faster & far cheaper than otherwise possible."

While I understand the NSPS has a bigger goal in mind, Davie is the yard that is providing us with immediate solutions.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Colin P said:
			
		

> Because there were 2 for sale and documents showed that the CPC was very interested in them at the time. Starting from fresh would they be the best choice, I don't know, likely that design or the Aussie/Spanish one. Hulls could be built overseas and outfitting by Davie.



I know that, but buying those Mistrals would have been an epic mistake. Not enough sailors, airmen, helicopters etc. Using them for what they were designed would have broken the back of the army (without radical reorganization) and the navy.  
But, OK,  assume we had bought them, what would refuel and resupply them? Ships that have not been built. What would provide AAD to them? Ships that have not been built. What marine corps force do we have? Well we don't have that either. Taking  parts of light infantry battalions that might be retasked perhaps? What/who would back fill that role. What helicopters do we have that could be attached to act in the manner the NH90 or Merlin would. Old Sea Kings? Take the 47's away from 427 sqn? A couple of Griffins? 

That's all too much, and I'm glad the PS managed to wipe up the drool on those damned things. I'm not happy about the damage they did afterwards with the NSS, and it is more pragmatic to build a case for a modest, inexpensive and perhaps even occasionally deployed platform.
Again, I would love a military that could afford to have those types of ships if we were certain to make good use them. I just do not see that in the future for the RCN and the CAF  as a whole.


----------



## FSTO

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Again, I would love a military that could afford to have those types of ships if we were certain to make good use them. I just do not see that in the future for the RCN and the CAF  as a whole.



The capability that the Mistral's (or something similar) would really state that "Canada's Back!". With climate change and the threat to coastal populations the deployments for disaster relief alone would make those platforms invaluable. 
Maybe we would be forced to do a REAL assessment on what our defence focus should be and maybe it is at the cost of the army and more maritime focus is where this nation can make a real difference. Do we really need the amount of army that we have? Would it not make sense to move some/most/all of those assets to the Navy and Air Force?

But making that kind of decision would take a government that was aware/involved/engaged/GAF about the defence of Canada instead flopping about making empty platitudes about peacekeeping/diversity/social engineering.


----------



## Stoker

It appears that these conversions will provide ice breaking services by Federal Fleet so its probably a lease not a purchase.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> It appears that these conversions will provide ice breaking services by Federal Fleet so its probably a lease not a purchase.



The headline of the articles refer to leases, but the PM states that they are looking to purchase them.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The headline of the articles refer to leases, but the PM states that they are looking to purchase them.



I was going by the RESOLUTE brochure.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I don't think the PM knows the difference or actually cares. The main thing for him is looking like he gives a shit about ice jams and buying some votes.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:
			
		

> The capability that the Mistral's (or something similar) would really state that "Canada's Back!". With climate change and the threat to coastal populations the deployments for disaster relief alone would make those platforms invaluable.
> Maybe we would be forced to do a REAL assessment on what our defence focus should be and maybe it is at the cost of the army and more maritime focus is where this nation can make a real difference. Do we really need the amount of army that we have? Would it not make sense to move some/most/all of those assets to the Navy and Air Force?
> 
> But making that kind of decision would take a government that was aware/involved/engaged/GAF about the defence of Canada instead flopping about making empty platitudes about peacekeeping/diversity/social engineering.




I agree with you, but ... except for a very brief period in the early Harper mandate (when Gordon O'Connor, who some dislike, was MND) defence has never been taken seriously by any government ~ not even when "Dief the Chief" nearly tore the country apart over nuclear weapons and we ended up with the _Bomarc_ debacle ~ since Louis St Laurent.

Diefenbaker and Pearson just wished it could be less expensive; Pierre Trudeau _hated_ the military and everything and anything related to it; Mulroney neither knew nor cared; Chrétien was, in some respects, worse than Trudeau _père_; Martin cared but he couldn't find the right niche for defence in his policy domain; Harper wanted an efficient, effective military but he used DND, mostly, as a cabinet making tool; Trudeau the younger has no idea, at all, about anything so se must not be surprised when he is totally baffled by defence ~ for heaven's sake he's totally baffled by tying his own shoes.  :  Clark, Turner, Campbell ...  :rofl:

Defence is not a priority for Canadians and our political leaders have understood that for the last 65 years.


----------



## Cloud Cover

FSTO said:
			
		

> The capability that the Mistral's (or something similar) would really state that "Canada's Back!". With climate change and the threat to coastal populations the deployments for disaster relief alone would make those platforms invaluable.
> Maybe we would be forced to do a REAL assessment on what our defence focus should be and maybe it is at the cost of the army and more maritime focus is where this nation can make a real difference. Do we really need the amount of army that we have? Would it not make sense to move some/most/all of those assets to the Navy and Air Force?
> 
> But making that kind of decision would take a government that was aware/involved/engaged/GAF about the defence of Canada instead flopping about making empty platitudes about peacekeeping/diversity/social engineering.



I do not have any faith whatsoever that climate change and threats to coastal regions will force any government that ever holds power in Canada to buy LPH platforms with amphibious assault capability. The last few words of your post are, in my opinion, the most likely path to be taken over the next 10-15 years, at least until the Sun God retires or The Resistance takes over. I further do not have any faith that even if another country was to sail up to our shores and take possession of some territory that is not Vancouver, they would be outraged but even that doesn't mean they would equip the country properly for the warfare necessary to take back the territory (assuming people in 905/416/613/514 area codes would even want it back).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Defence is not a priority for Canadians and our political leaders have understood that for the last 65 years.



The most concise summary of all this site's threads on procurement/budgets/policy I've seen to date.

Until defence is a priority, funding will go to free wifi on public transit, save spaces and townhalls.  That (Canadians caring about defence/the CAF) will take something like what happened in Paris to happen in Canada, or a Yasen to park itself off Halifax and stop a shipment of the newest iPhones from making it to the Apple store at the Halifax Shopping Center before the next Christmas shopping season.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Something like what happened in Paris would be a police matter and a failure of intelligence services, not one calling for the creation of a huge military force. As for the iPhones, I’m sure Amazon has a fleet of drones ready to attack. 

We are way off track.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Something like what happened in Paris would be a police matter and a failure of intelligence services, not one calling for the creation of a huge military force.



Yes, I am sure the generation that are eating tide pods will understand the difference.   



> As for the iPhones, I’m sure Amazon has a fleet of drones ready to attack.



You missed the point;  the average person cares more about the newest iGadget and selfie software - not AORs and naval capabilities.



> We are way off track.



Actually, I don't think we are.  We are under-equipped, under-funded and under-supported by the powers that be because their bosses (voters) don't give a shit about defence.  I'd say that is 'on target, fire for effect'.


----------



## YZT580

Actually, I don't think we are.  We are under-equipped, under-funded and under-supported by the powers that be because their bosses (voters) don't give a crap about defence.  I'd say that is 'on target, fire for effect'.

Why should they?  As Orwell brilliantly pointed out, people are conditioned through the press, primarily, but also through listening to the promises of their politicians to think in a programmed manner.  Those who read something other than the Globe and the Star perhaps have a slightly better grasp on world affairs but even then, they won't say anything because those ideas aren't acceptable.  They would happily endorse purchasing a fleet of Mistrals if the flower child came out and said we needed them to help the UN save lives or prevent the Arctic from melting or some other fairy tale AND the press started running stories about how the world needed Canada's contribution.  It isn't that they truly don't care but more that they have been conditioned to not care.  Check the archives on positive military stories: there are very few.  The only exception was when Lewis Mackenzie did his thing after Yugoslavia fell apart


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Strongly agree.   :nod:


----------



## Cloud Cover

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You missed the point;  the average person cares more about the newest iGadget and selfie software - not AORs and naval capabilities.



No I did not miss the point, we are both saying the same things with different words. 

"Actually, I don't think we are.  We are under-equipped, under-funded and under-supported by the powers that be because their bosses (voters) don't give a crap about defence.  I'd say that is 'on target, fire for effect'."

Well if the powers that be and their "bosses" have decided that they don't give a crap about defence (which is true) then I would say they must already feel the DND is over-funded, equipped with too much of the wrong stuff, and have more than the support they need to do the job tasked in the ministerial mandate, which is apparently to say nice things about defence and not do anything except promote gender equality, human rights etc. If follows that the resources on hand already clearly mis-match that mission. It is circuitous and never ending.   

I am suggesting that until the circle is broken nothing will change except by disruption (i.e. nothing short of an attack of absolutely epic proportions that fundamentally changes the outlook of the part of the nation that puts political parties in power). The prospect of that is extremely remote, thankfully.  In terms of magnitude, even loss of far off territory, seizure of valuable remote or coastal property that is resource rich, and even expulsion of a few thousand Canadians from their land  may not even be enough to mobilize the appropriate reaction.  Acting responsibly and prudently on defence matters in Canada is impossible because nobody really feels threatened enough to care about it. As Edward has pointed out, this has been the case for at least 65 years and there is NOTHING in the long term horizon to change that position. That includes climate change, the desires of the UN, and acres of marijuana burning during forest fire season.

Getting back to my earlier statements about the Mistrals, buying those ships would almost certainly have triggered  a defence spending and resource allocation war between commands causing a military-bureaucratic cockup of such proportions that the only political way out would be to gleefully disband the entire goddamned thing because it would take an obscene amount of money to fix it.  Do not underestimate the ability of the military to cut its own throat.


----------



## Edward Campbell

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ... about the Mistrals, buying those ships would almost certainly have triggered  a defence spending and resource allocation war between commands causing a military-bureaucratic cockup of such proportions that the only political way out would be to gleefully disband the entire goddamned thing because it would take an obscene amount of money to fix it.  Do not underestimate the ability of the military to cut its own throat.




Exactly ... it would have been the_ AVRO Arrow_ all over again. The problem with the Arrow wasn't that it wasn't a good or even very good aircraft; the problem was that it would have 'eaten' too much of the defence budget; it was too much for our limited means. Even the non-NORAD elements of the RCAF wanted the _Arrow_ dumped because it was a horribly expensive one-trick pony.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I am just going to chime in quickly here to dispel some myths about the Mistrals.

First, I want you to note one thing: The French don't have "Marines" or any other troops specialized in amphibious assaults, nor any air assets dedicated to amphibious operations. This is important to keep in mind because, as result, when they developed the Mistral's, that was their starting point: They developed a ship that could accommodate ANY of their air forces or army's assets easily and that would require little to no special previous training for them to operate from the Mistral. In France, army and air force units don't know in advance that they will be next deployed on the Mistrals - they just get tasked and go - and then it is the Mistral that adapts to their equipment and requirements.

Here is good example: In 2014, the Mistral visited Quebec. Before getting there, they embarked about 200 members from the 1st battalion R22R with 10 of their LAV's, three helicopters from 430 Squadron with their support team and about 15 engineers from 5e Reg. Genie, to then go and carry out multi-days landing ex (LION MISTRAL) in the Gaspé area (they captured the airport in a simulated sea/air attack). Guess how much pre-ex specialized training they got to be able to do that: None - zero. Why? Because the Mistrals are meant to adapt to the embarked force - not the other way around - unlike the British or American equivalent ships. See the video below on the actual exercise:

https://youtu.be/0vSbA4CydQM

So, acquiring Mistrals is NOT like creating a "Marines" force, with dedicated assets from the army or RCAF to serve her at all time. A Mistral is basically a ship, and its crewing requirements and cost of operation is about the same as frigate - no more. If and when, and only if and when, you need to go an an exercise or operation do you then assign whatever land/air asset would be needed for that specific operation. Considering the army trains its people for many months in preparation for  any six month deployment as it is, is anybody here alleging that the couple of days of "adaptation" required here could not be accommodated in advance of any deployment. Considering that in Canada we already are supposedly "joint" Is anybody suggesting that we couldn't do this?

As for the use of such ship outside of ex and ops, well, she is just another ship. She could go out and  do naval training. Heck, the French already do that: Dixmude (the third of class) deploys every year with the French navy's naval cadets and Junior officers on a training cruise around the world called the Jeanne-D'arc cruise. Couldn't we do something similar within the Canadian context? 

And I have to say that one thing that always makes me cringe in these fora is to see how many people basically use the excuse of "we can't do that because we have never done it before - there's too much to learn". Well, yeah! That may be so! But if you never start, you will never learn and that area of warfare will remain closed to you forever. What better time to start and learn than in peace time?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Might disagree (not with OGBD), the Mistrals have a base crew smaller than a DDH. Convert one Griffon squadron to a same airframe as the Cyclone, without the ASW suite, to provide shipboard helo for Canadian ops. Use the vessels to support anti-piracy ops with another countries helos onboard or for NATO exercises, again with other peoples helo's and troops. Politically it's great, we earn brownie points, with little risks of body bags. That would give our military time to sort out it's stupidity. The Van Doos have already shown they can operate from one, rotate the responsibility to provide a contingent for marine/landing ops. 

We could have seen a RCN Mistral, landing RM's with RCN landing craft and Dutch NH-90's either on NATO exercises or cleaning out a nest of pirates/AQ types in Somali.


----------



## Kirkhill

WRT the Brits and specialist training

The Paras, Gurkhas, Scots and Welsh Guards and Household Cavalry were not specifically trained for amphibious operations.  And I doubt anybody is ever again going to sit around in sight of shore watching movies.

Most of the British transport fleet is geared to transport elements other than the Royal Marines.  A fact not lost on either the Marines nor their paymasters discussing the need for a specialized force of marines.

And before we go down that rabbit hole.... I support the Royal Marines on the grounds of utility.  They are useful.  That doesn't mean that the cat can't be skinned by other means.


----------



## Baz

Again, I'm in whole hearted agreement with OGBD.  The tendency for people is "it looks like a USMC Amphib, so we'd need to create an amphibious force.

Here's what I said when they were still available:


			
				Baz said:
			
		

> So a few of us had a thought bubble.
> 
> Buy both Mistrals, one on each coast.
> Canadianize them as little as possible.
> Ensure they have a single RAS point starboard side (so we can use them as "interim tankers").
> Put all the trainees on them.
> Convert extra spaces to classrooms.
> Embark the two operations MH squadrons.
> Sail them every week from Mon to Fri to regenerate people...
> 
> After a few years, as the new ships start to come on line, we can think about either getting rid of them or using them to start developing a "makes sense" littoral maneuver capability.
> 
> If a disaster response mission came up (like Haiti or Katrina), pull of the trainees, load up with helos (including Chinooks and Griffins) and boats (including the left over tanker and coast guard "landing craft"), fill 'er up with supplies, and off you go.
> 
> Imagine how many subbies you could cram into one of those



We were, and still are, in a period of regen, and they could have been used to:
- gain political points in NATO
- become a great big old training ship
- be available for humanitarian ops; and
- possibly be used with our Allies.

Once we actually regen'd the RCN and 12 Wing, then we could think of what Maritime Joint, instead of Hillier's JArmy SCTF, would look like.

I also agree with those that feel that left to their own devices there are those that would make it bigger then we can afford and therefore disrupt the entire organization.  As an example, take http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no2/mader-eng.asp:
<Quote>
Overall SCTF Requirement for Sealift – Drawing from this analysis of requirements, it can be concluded that the SCTF’s ships must be able to transport at least:
1. A battalion-size landing force that is equipped with some AFVs;
2. Seventeen medium or nine to 12 heavy transport helicopters;
3. Six attack helicopters; and
4. Six landing craft (in a mixture of LCVPs, LCUs and LCACs).
Ship Needs – Such a combination of troops, landing craft, and helicopters means that the Canadian Forces must deploy LHAs, LHDs, or a mixed LPH/LPD flotilla. Large LHAs and LHDs are probably too expensive for the Canadian Forces to acquire and to maintain in peacetime. However, as can be seen from Table I, no other existing, modern ship design can provide the needed lift on its own. Thus, the CF needs several ships to meet the theoretical requirement.
<Unquote>

That's a good chunk of a USMC MEU, the ESG (Expeditionary Strike Group) consists of three capital amphibs (an LHA, LPD, and LSD) plus three surface combatants and a sub. In effect the author said if it isn't at least that then what's the point; if that is the prevalent attitude amongst the Canadian Forces strategic staff then I would completely agree that we shouldn't even try as it would be too disruptive, and accept the status quo that the center of the Canadian Task Group is in fact an AOR...


----------



## Kirkhill

Baz said:
			
		

> ... the center of the Canadian Task Group is in fact an AOR...



So the real purpose of my car is to move my gas tank?   rly:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> No I did not miss the point, we are both saying the same things with different words.



Ahh, copy that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Clearly you did not grow up watching Mad Max

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtjGTrVwRr4


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So the real purpose of my car is to move my gas tank?   rly:



That's not a bad way of thinking to some degree, at least with a Task Group in mind.  No Tanker, no Task Group, as they won't be going very far for very long.  PRESERVER wasn't called "The Heart of the Fleet" for nothing.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So the real purpose of my car is to move my gas tank?   rly:



Our AORs are much more than a gas tank.  They are floating 1st line logistics organization.  Basically and a navy Svc Bn. 

We had 6-7 massive warehouses on Preserver for spare parts, huge ammo warehouses.  The biggest fridges and freezers in the fleet.  As a storesman on Preserver we supported not just our own ship but those that were in consort with us as well.


----------



## Baz

Note that it is not just Davie that sees the government *may* be amendable to some type of "Disaster Relief Ship" and are keeping their options open with proposals; the authors of http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol13num1/vol13num1art1.pdf are the President and Special Advisory at Irving Shipbuilding...

Although that particular ship is interesting, I ask the following questions:
- How do you carry any amount of shore side pers?  In containers?
- Where do you stow the boats?  Or the jetty they envisage?  Mexeflote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexeflote, discussed http://www.navalreview.ca/2017/10/the-utility-of-mexeflote/ seems a good option, note that Davie claims Mexflote ready for Asterix (http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/DEFSEC-FOR-WEB.pdf, slide 13 of 28).
- With just the stern ramp how capable of boat operation is it?  What sea state?

Note that the concept of Ro-Ro to improvised jetty or lighterage is certainly not new; if interested I suggest read up on the Maritime Prepositioning Force.  Here's some interesting links:
- http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2013/August/exercise.htm
- https://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/seabasing-and-maritime-prepositioning-ships
- https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/organizations/marine-air-ground-task-force/maritime-prepositioning-force-mpf
- http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2017/June/lighterage.htm

However, those concepts are all for after the MEU or larger kicked in the door / secured the beach.  It seems to me that the proposal in the first article I quoted assumes someone else has done that; wouldn't we need something more flexible?

... but *much* smaller than a MEU...


----------



## Baz

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Our AORs are much more than a gas tank.  They are floating 1st line logistics organization.  Basically and a navy Svc Bn.
> 
> We had 6-7 massive warehouses on Preserver for spare parts, huge ammo warehouses.  The biggest fridges and freezers in the fleet.  As a storesman on Preserver we supported not just our own ship but those that were in consort with us as well.



Concur with all that; however, they are still there to support the task group.  The discussion is about the fact the most (*all?* major blue water aspiring) navies center a task group on a capability to project *something*, not on the ability to support oneself.

I wonder if the term Fast Attack Replenishment Tanker (ie F.A.R.T.) is still around???


----------



## Baz

... one more tangent.  A small LHD / LHA also makes an excellent way to mass your ASW helicopter force within the task group.  When you do so the survivability as a whole goes up.  You then use the consort decks as places to get fuel to extend your on-sta time (Brits used to do this a lot).  It was also Bonnie's final role in life (well, and she also had a bunch of ASW Trackers...)


----------



## Halifax Tar

Baz said:
			
		

> Concur with all that; however, they are still there to support the task group.  The discussion is about the fact the most (*all?* major blue water aspiring) navies center a task group on a capability to project *something*, not on the ability to support oneself.
> 
> I wonder if the term Fast Attack Replenishment Tanker (ie F.A.R.T.) is still around???



In a Canadian task group the Tanker is at the center as it must be protected.  With out logistic support you cannot project anything.  And projection of ones "capabilities" is really just a projection of ones logistical ability to support a desired military outcome.  Victory is easy, sustaining a victory is hard. 

So until we have something more offensive than a Tanker, they will continue to be to the center of the task group.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Here's a one-liner from the attached document -

_"As the officer continued: “If your navy is essentially one carrier battle group, you can do one thing well, but nothing else.”_
I guess that same could be apply to our current discussion/situation (or train of thought), with our single AOR. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/19/nuclear-weapons-uk-defence-review-russia


----------



## Underway

These are all great ideas.  The RCN however is 700 people short, especially in a few critical trades/senior positions.  There is practically a press gang to get submariners.  700 pers works out to about 300 pers unable to go to sea (given ship to shore ration between 50/50 and 60/40) which is the entire crew complement of 5 AOPS.  All the equipment in the world won't work if we don't have enough people.  The loss of the 280's and AOR's has papered over a huge manning shortage by liberating 4 crews worth of people.  

Let's see if we can actually crew 5-6 AOPs, 3 AOR (includes Asterix) and 3 AAW destroyers on top of the 12 Frigates, 12 MCDV's and 4 Subs we already have before we go out and buy Mistrals which are frankly a second tier requirement to the real business of the navy.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> ...Mistrals which are frankly a second tier requirement to the real business of the navy.



Please provide a doctrinal quote, perferably Allied not Canadian, as to what you believe the real business of *a* navy is.

The reason I ask is because most blue water aspiring navies include power projection, littoral maneuver, and maritime based strike, 3 capabilities which Canada has forced the RCN to ignore.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Baz said:
			
		

> Please provide a doctrinal quote, perferably Allied not Canadian, as to what you believe the real business of *a* navy is.
> 
> The reason I ask is because most blue water aspiring navies include power projection, littoral maneuver, and maritime based strike, 3 capabilities which Canada has forced the RCN to ignore.




Agreed! And power projection is the one thing that the Navy is uniquely prepared/able to do without escalating tensions in a way that deploying air and land forces must do. A proper Navy gives real weight to diplomacy. Joseph Nye in 'Soft Power' makes the point that you cannot really have and use soft power unless you have enough hard power to make people pay attention in the first place. A Navy that can project power is the base for all that.


----------



## Uzlu

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Well it appears that Davie will get their wish and provide icebreakers for the Coast guard, so their whining will diminish.


Maybe not as easy as that.





> A Finnish company has raised red flags over the Trudeau government's decision to launch negotiations with Quebec shipyard Davie for the lease of four icebreakers without conducting a competition.


http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1538255-finnish-company-raises-red-flags-over-federal-negotiations-for-davie-icebreakers


----------



## Edward Campbell

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Maybe not as easy as that.http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1538255-finnish-company-raises-red-flags-over-federal-negotiations-for-davie-icebreakers



As a broad, general rule in international trade law contracts for national security projects ~ which, for most countries, includes the Coast Guard fleets ~ are exempt from the normal trade rules, even, I think, from the provisions of the new CETA.

IF the government had gone to a competition, rather than sole sourcing it, then the Europeans would, I think, have been able to bid on the same basis as our 'domestic' yards ... but we didn't so they can't ~ but my very imperfect understanding of trade law is always open to correction.


----------



## Underway

Baz said:
			
		

> Please provide a doctrinal quote, perferably Allied not Canadian, as to what you believe the real business of *a* navy is.
> 
> The reason I ask is because most blue water aspiring navies include power projection, littoral maneuver, and maritime based strike, 3 capabilities which Canada has forced the RCN to ignore.


Sure, I've cut out a lot of fluff but here's the  UK's version.

UK maritime doctrine:
The 3 core British maritime roles, war-fighting, maritime security and international engagement deliver effect across the full spectrum of military tasks, at sea and from the sea. 

The ability to conduct war-fighting under-writes the ability to deliver maritime security and international engagement and this role has primacy. War-fighting may be used for a variety of reasons, but the physical protection of the UK’s territorial integrity, national security in a very literal sense, is the irreducible minimum requirement. Although there has been no threat of invasion for a long time, and neither is there one on the immediate horizon, this is not the case for some of the UK’s overseas territories. Therefore, British armed forces have a non-discretionary military task to provide ‘an independent ability to defend the overseas territories’

They go on to list the primary reasons for the navy at sea is: sea control, sea denial, fleet-in-being, cover and decisive battle.  The application of force from the sea is the next chapter which include: maritime maneuver, maritime power projection (using sea control), proactive and reactive choices.  

Wikipedia:
_The strategic offensive role of a navy is projection of force into areas beyond a country's shores (for example, to protect sea-lanes, ferry troops, or attack other navies, ports, or shore installations). The strategic defensive purpose of a navy is to frustrate seaborne projection-of-force by enemies. _

As soon as you have a navy you have power projection, even green/brown water navies in the strategic defensive sense  (frustrate enemy actions).  All blue water navies automatically are able to project power away from their own shores and thus are more useful strategically.

That's also from wikipedia: _Power projection (or force projection) is a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state "to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability."_
 - this is different than the UK definition.

Examples of power projection the RCN does are: securing sea lanes or sea control, showing the flag, compulsion/deterrence and it might be argued a limited humanitarian capacity and punitive capacity (depending on the target).  Littoral maneuver (amphibious warfare) and maritime strike (includes shore bombardment and sea based air attacks) are only two components of power projection.

Canada is quite capable of power projection and has a limited maritime based strike capability (Land attack harpoons).  The CSC (which is a first tier capability in my argument) will increase the maritime strike significantly with 127mm and the capacity to embark proper land attack missiles, and better SOF support.

The doctrine and goals are clear.  Each coast is to to be able to provide a 4 warship task group with an AOR, embarked helo's and perhaps a submarine attached.  This is the goal by 2022.

If I were to place the tiers of naval requirements the first tier would alway be to gain and maintain sea control as the primary uber alles reason for a navy.  In that primary tier I would also place the requirement for being able to sustain operations away from our shores (requiring an AOR).  This means bending all resources to ensure Canada has proper _warships_ and can sustain them far from Canada.  It also means for defensive sea control proper submarines.  When all these capabilities are complete (which they are currently not) THEN we can look at Mistrals.

Mistral and its capabilities are second tier.  If it was first tier every navy in the world would buy them first and warships second. But they don't because they understand that littoral maneuver is secondary to sea control.


----------



## Baz

I don't think we should ever look at Mistrals; I think we missed a golden opportunity to bothmake a more meaningful NATO presence and  actually act as the Joint CF that is so vaunted but really doesn't exist.

I also don't think we will ever develop this capability as it crosses too many service stivepipes, even if we could cinvince the government it is perfect soft power.  Heck, they won't be convinced because the CF is incapable of truly delivering to them a Joint argument.

It's interesting you use the UK doctrine because their force model is based on three pieces: carrier and TLAM strike, amphibious, and strategic deterence (much like the USN) .  The have shown they are perfectly willing to forgo the platforms you consider first tier in order to protect those three... to the point noone is even sure if they have enough escorts for those carriers.  Interestingly now they are stretched so thin that the carriers and amphibs seem to be in competition.

I was a targeting officer at SHAPE; I can assure you when a joint commander is asking for strike no-one asks where is the nearest Harpoon / Slammer platform.  They do ask where are the carriers or TLAMs...

The point is there is only one first tier Navy.  All of the second tier navies have robust power projection and/or littoral maeuver capibilities.  The RCN would like to be in that group but fate has determined that they unfortunately will probably be left just outside... most definitely the best of the rest but not premier league.


Excuse if this is riddled with typos as I'm on my phone.


----------



## Baz

PS i think it's important to understand wht it keeps coming up...

It's really unfortunate... Canada is a G7 country with a robust economy and GDP, large enough population, sufficient maritime interests, and strategic distance to be able to do more. Nothng extravagant, but nore than just scraping together the minomum.

That we choose not to is ot only too bad but is also noticed by others...


----------



## Good2Golf

Baz said:
			
		

> PS i think it's important to understand wht it keeps coming up...
> 
> It's really unfortunate... Canada is a G7 country with a robust economy and GDP, large enough population, sufficient maritime interests, and strategic distance to be able to do more. Nothng extravagant, but nore than just scraping together the minomum.
> 
> That we choose not to is ot only too bad but is also noticed by others...



...and then many (most?) Canadians become indignant when the issue of our dependance on other serious defence/defense players (....cough...USA...cough...) is raised.  #CanucksLoveHavingItBothWays

Regards
G2G


----------



## Underway

Baz said:
			
		

> I was a targeting officer at SHAPE; I can assure you when a joint commander is asking for strike no-one asks where is the nearest Harpoon / Slammer platform.  They do ask where are the carriers or TLAMs...



Of course they do,  ;D.  Proven platforms with a greater ability to land more HE on target.  I expect experience and knowledge on what a Slammer could do was (and still is) pretty thin on the ground.  However I suspect that the Slammer is much less capable overall then the TLAM being their design is specific for ASuW not land attack.  The CSC should be able to adjust for this in the future assuming strike length VLS.



			
				Baz said:
			
		

> The point is there is only one first tier Navy.  All of the second tier navies have robust power projection and/or littoral maeuver capibilities.  The RCN would like to be in that group but fate has determined that they unfortunately will probably be left just outside... most definitely the best of the rest but not premier league.


Canada defines navies in ranks which I listed below for those who are following the discussion and don't have access to the doctrine.  So using that info I completely agree, though right now I suspect we are not at the top of rank 3.  Further down the list right now behind Australia and Spain.



> *Rank 1: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Complete)* — This is a navy capable of carrying out all the military roles of naval forces on a global scale. It possesses the full range of carrier and amphibious capabilities, sea control forces, and nuclear attack and ballistic missile submarines, and all in sufficient numbers to undertake major operations independently. E.g., United States.
> 
> *Rank 2: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Partial)* — These are navies that possess most if not all of the force projection capabilities of a “complete” global navy, but only in sufficient numbers to undertake one major “out of area” operation. E.g., Britain, France.
> 
> *Rank 3: Medium Global Force Projection Navy* — These are navies that may not possess the full range of capabilities, but have a credible capacity in certain of them and consistently demonstrate a determination to exercise them at some distance from home waters, in cooperation with other Force Projection Navies. E.g., Canada, Netherlands, Australia.
> 
> *Rank 4: Medium Regional Force Projection Navy* — These are navies possessing the ability to project force into the adjoining ocean basin. While they may
> have the capacity to exercise these further afield, for whatever reason, they do not do so on a regular basis.
> 
> *Rank 5: Adjacent Force Projection Navies* — These are navies that have some ability to project force well offshore, but are not capable of carrying out high level naval operations over oceanic distances.
> 
> *Rank 6: Offshore Territorial Defence Navies *— These are navies that have relatively high levels of capability in defensive (and constabulary) operations up to about 200 miles from their shores, having the sustainability offered by frigate or large corvette vessels and (or) a capable submarine force.
> 
> *Rank 7: Inshore Territorial Defence Navies *— These are navies that have primarily inshore territorial defence capabilities, making them capable of coastal
> combat rather than constabulary duties alone. This implies a force comprising missile-armed fast-attack craft, short-range aviation and a limited submarine
> force.
> 
> *Rank 8: Constabulary Navies* — These are significant fleets that are not intended to fight, but to act purely in a constabulary role.
> 
> *Rank 9: Token Navies* — These are navies that have some minimal capability, but this often consists of little more than a formal organisational structure and a few coastal craft. These states, the world’s smallest and weakest, cannot aspire to anything but the most limited constabulary functions.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> Of course they do,  ;D.  Proven platforms with a greater ability to land more HE on target.  I expect experience and knowledge on what a Slammer could do was (and still is) pretty thin on the ground.  However I suspect that the Slammer is much less capable overall then the TLAM being their design is specific for ASuW not land attack.



We knew what a Slammer could do, it just wasn't a real player.  I was also targetting lessons learned JointEx 13 in Wainwright and the RCN's understanding of the Joint targetting process was pretty thin... hopefully it has gotten much better.

To illustrate the point, TLAM's are pretty much always held at the operational level, Slammers not so much so.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Not that Maclean is an authoritative or even reliable source, but some of the persons interviewed have at least fairly good grasp on the matter of the state of the RCN 2 years ago: https://www.google.ca/amp/www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-sinking-of-the-
"In the long term, this can-do attitude and unwillingness to speak painful truth to power only made it easier for the political class to squeeze out more and more cuts." 

It would appear there is consensus Canada had sunk its Navy to a tier 5 on the Todd scale.
With Asterix I wonder if there is some upward (slight) with that.
The addition of the AOPS would seem to reinforce a Tier 5 rating, the capabilities are pretty solid within that space.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I would agree that until we have legs on both coasts, we're no longer tier 3 level.


----------



## Czech_pivo

https://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/8086568-shipbuilding-strategy-hobbling-our-fleets/


----------



## CBH99

Whoa whoa whoa.... just hold your horses there, Mr. Senator.

Who do you think you are?  Coming in here with your good ideas, efficient way of thinking, respectful analysis of taxpayer dollars being spent, and a real concern that we could get far more bang for our buck if our time & money was used efficiently.  

This isn't the way we do things here...sheesh, get with the program  :facepalm:


----------



## Czech_pivo

This is the line that I find troubling - "The government has opted to lease the ship for five years at a cost of $650 million, including operating costs, rather than purchase it outright for $659 million."


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> This is the line that I find troubling - "The government has opted to lease the ship for five years at a cost of $650 million, including operating costs, rather than purchase it outright for $659 million."


Perhaps the Royal Canadian Navy believes that it does not have enough sailors for three replenishment ships?  If this is the case, the navy should recommend that the coast guard takes the Harry DeWolfs and, please, for the love of god, let us have four replenishment ships.  I hear that the coast guard can really use some new icebreakers.  Yes, I know they are only Polar Class PC 5.  But beggars can’t be choosers.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Perhaps the Royal Canadian Navy believes that it does not have enough sailors for three replenishment ships?  If this is the case, the navy should recommend that the coast guard takes the Harry DeWolfs and, please, for the love of god, let us have four replenishment ships.  I hear that the coast guard can really use some new icebreakers.  Yes, I know they are only Polar Class PC 5.  But beggars can’t be choosers.



The timeline to have these 4 ships online is 4-5yrs out.  I would think that the RCN has the ability to address any potential human resource shortfalls within a 5yr timeframe. 
To go the route that you suggest would mean the 'arming' of the CDN Coast Guard, something that I have no issues with, but I'm sure that I'd be in the minority on this.  Though we finally have armed the CDN Border Agents so precedent has been set. I mean even the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is now armed.... ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If the Honourable Senators' figures are correct ($650M for five years or $659M to buy outright), my back-of-the-envelope calculations I made a few days ago would now mean a residual purchase value after five years of about $75M, and after ten years, well, it's the old $1 purchase.

But Asterix is also a new experiment, basically imposed on the Navy by the Conservatives when they agreed to Davie's plan: Operation of the ship by merchant seaman.

Personally, I say we should not buy it outright. We should operate it as planned by Federal Fleet for a few years. In the discussion that broke out recently on the Mistrals in another thread, someone reminded us that the Navy is awfully short of personnel, particularly in the engineering trades. If the model of having merchant seaman run your supply ships can be shown to work, this would perhaps be the turning point where Canada goes the full route of auxiliaries run by a merchant service (We already have it - the CFAV - and would just need to expand it) and the Navy brass realize that it is to its advantage to do so. The biggest one being of course having four AOR's without any new pressures on the engineering trades. 

Then buy it outright, keep merchant seaman operation and "get the next three" proposed by Senator Colin.

BTW, it may have escaped notice here, but: For Davie to make the modification it did to Asterix, it had to either acquire outright or measure by itself and develop a full set of plans for the Asterix, including the built hull and Engine layout. This means that, for the next ones, they wouldn't even have to acquire a next hull, they could just build it from scratch. It may even be faster, as they would be able to do module building and assembly, which they could not do on Asterix. Moreover, building it new would, for that portion (hull and main engine), not be much more expansive than purchasing a five year old full ship, stripping it bare and completely refurbishing the main engine as new.


----------



## Czech_pivo

"This means that, for the next ones, they wouldn't even have to acquire a next hull, they could just build it from scratch. It may even be faster, as they would be able to do module building and assembly, which they could not do on Asterix."

Who do I call to make this happen?


----------



## Navy_Pete

[quote author=Oldgateboatdriver 
BTW, it may have escaped notice here, but: For Davie to make the modification it did to Asterix, it had to either acquire outright or measure by itself and develop a full set of plans for the Asterix, including the built hull and Engine layout. This means that, for the next ones, they wouldn't even have to acquire a next hull, they could just build it from scratch. It may even be faster, as they would be able to do module building and assembly, which they could not do on Asterix. Moreover, building it new would, for that portion (hull and main engine), not be much more expansive than purchasing a five year old full ship, stripping it bare and completely refurbishing the main engine as new.
[/quote]

It depends on the agreements of how they got the design; they may have only limited uses for it.  Also, they would need to take the design and do the production engineering. THey would need to modify that so it would work with how they build ships in modules, so it would most likely be easier to start from scratch, so that the connection points are in the right place and the modules are the right size for their line.

They might be able to buy an up to date basic design for a bulk fuel carrier and modify that to take a couple of posts, but aside from all that they would need to improve their facilities to be able to build them from scratch at a competitive rate.

It's all doable, but it's not really that simple, and ship conversion is still a far cry from being a proven builder.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If the Honourable Senators' figures are correct ($650M for five years or $659M to buy outright), my back-of-the-envelope calculations I made a few days ago would now mean a residual purchase value after five years of about $75M, and after ten years, well, it's the old $1 purchase.
> 
> But Asterix is also a new experiment, basically imposed on the Navy by the Conservatives when they agreed to Davie's plan: Operation of the ship by merchant seaman.
> 
> Personally, I say we should not buy it outright. We should operate it as planned by Federal Fleet for a few years. In the discussion that broke out recently on the Mistrals in another thread, someone reminded us that the Navy is awfully short of personnel, particularly in the engineering trades. If the model of having merchant seaman run your supply ships can be shown to work, this would perhaps be the turning point where Canada goes the full route of auxiliaries run by a merchant service (We already have it - the CFAV - and would just need to expand it) and the Navy brass realize that it is to its advantage to do so. The biggest one being of course having four AOR's without any new pressures on the engineering trades.
> 
> Then buy it outright, keep merchant seaman operation and "get the next three" proposed by Senator Colin.
> 
> BTW, it may have escaped notice here, but: For Davie to make the modification it did to Asterix, it had to either acquire outright or measure by itself and develop a full set of plans for the Asterix, including the built hull and Engine layout. This means that, for the next ones, they wouldn't even have to acquire a next hull, they could just build it from scratch. It may even be faster, as they would be able to do module building and assembly, which they could not do on Asterix. Moreover, building it new would, for that portion (hull and main engine), not be much more expansive than purchasing a five year old full ship, stripping it bare and completely refurbishing the main engine as new.



Or have a yard build a new hull to the point where Davie took Asterix down to and then have it brought over for completion. I should add that even if we have a shortage of personal, there is nothing wrong with doing a hot layup of one of the AOR's or an extended refit.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I can't find a reference, but I thought Davie had stated that the commercialized sistership of the MV Asterix was available for purchase?


----------



## jollyjacktar

It is, the Obelix.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I bet the purchase price for her just went up.


----------



## Kirkhill

Cyclone Vertrep of Asterix per Federal Fleet Services Facebook 23 Jan 2018


----------



## Kirkhill

And another one


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

This has got to be a "joint" ship: Cadpat pants with a Navy floater jacket and an Air Force crash helmet.  ;D


What a fashion statement !!!!!


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Cyclone Vertrep of Asterix per Federal Fleet Services Facebook 23 Jan 2018



My new desk top pic! Thx!


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If the Honourable Senators' figures are correct ($650M for five years or $659M to buy outright), my back-of-the-envelope calculations I made a few days ago would now mean a residual purchase value after five years of about $75M, and after ten years, well, it's the old $1 purchase.
> 
> But Asterix is also a new experiment, basically imposed on the Navy by the Conservatives when they agreed to Davie's plan: Operation of the ship by merchant seaman.
> 
> Personally, I say we should not buy it outright. We should operate it as planned by Federal Fleet for a few years. In the discussion that broke out recently on the Mistrals in another thread, someone reminded us that the Navy is awfully short of personnel, particularly in the engineering trades. If the model of having merchant seaman run your supply ships can be shown to work, this would perhaps be the turning point where Canada goes the full route of auxiliaries run by a merchant service (We already have it - the CFAV - and would just need to expand it) and the Navy brass realize that it is to its advantage to do so. The biggest one being of course having four AOR's without any new pressures on the engineering trades.
> 
> Then buy it outright, keep merchant seaman operation and "get the next three" proposed by Senator Colin.
> 
> BTW, it may have escaped notice here, but: For Davie to make the modification it did to Asterix, it had to either acquire outright or measure by itself and develop a full set of plans for the Asterix, including the built hull and Engine layout. This means that, for the next ones, they wouldn't even have to acquire a next hull, they could just build it from scratch. It may even be faster, as they would be able to do module building and assembly, which they could not do on Asterix. Moreover, building it new would, for that portion (hull and main engine), not be much more expansive than purchasing a five year old full ship, stripping it bare and completely refurbishing the main engine as new.



Just thinking about this - one of the key elements that people miss in calculations is the issue of "liability".   Seeing as how Asterix is owned and operated by FFS then I assume that in the event of an event FFS will be picking up the tab through its insurance company.

That probably had a significant impact on the decision making process in the design stage.  It wasn't some civil servant's career, or even a four-ringer's, that was on the line.  If anything goes wrong it isn't on them.


----------



## Navy_Pete

There are a bunch of costs that would be above and beyond the purchase that come with the lease.  If you include crew, maintenance and other costs, it's probably $100k+ per sea day. Then there is also the devaluation of the ship, plus the docking at the end of the five years. Overall there probably about another $100-120 million of costs over that time that FFS will be on the hook for, so it's not as much of a bad deal as you might think, and I'm sure any extensions for another 5 years would be much less than the initial five.


----------



## jollyjacktar

PRE was costing about that a day in my time.  They're not cheap beasts to drive.


----------



## suffolkowner

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> https://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/8086568-shipbuilding-strategy-hobbling-our-fleets/



from the above article

Timing: On Nov. 7, 2017, Andy Smith, deputy commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, testified before a parliamentary committee that Seaspan would not finish its first four vessels for the Coast Guard until 2023, and only then will they start on the supply ships. This means the new refuellers will not join the fleet until 2026 and 2028.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> from the above article
> 
> Timing: On Nov. 7, 2017, Andy Smith, deputy commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, testified before a parliamentary committee that Seaspan would not finish its first four vessels for the Coast Guard until 2023, and only then will they start on the supply ships. This means the new refuellers will not join the fleet until 2026 and 2028.



But..... according to the Liberal Party that information is classified.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Hmmm, wondering if the Fed's are planning to hold off on making the Obelix decision until the next Fed election is underway, what a great way for them to score points in the Quebec ridings that are currently Tory. Figure they make the announcements in about 15-16 months (roughly spring of 2019) and Davie could have Obelix ready by say fall/winter of 2021 - still 7yrs ahead when the 2nd AOR is looking to be ready. 
The timing would be perfect for them, the current interim AOR would have about 12 months of official service under its keel and the Liberal could then just say something like, 'Davie's ship has proven its self in more ways than we've imagined, as a result, we are asking them to build us a 2nd interim AOR.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> from the above article
> 
> Timing: On Nov. 7, 2017, Andy Smith, deputy commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, testified before a parliamentary committee that Seaspan would not finish its first four vessels for the Coast Guard until 2023, and only then will they start on the supply ships. This means the new refuellers will not join the fleet until 2026 and 2028.



and the first one was launched in Dec 2017, only off by 6 years


----------



## suffolkowner

I think he meant the last of the group of four

they obviously don't know when the ships will be delivered as they haven't even signed a contract yet

10 more years though is a joke its a good thing we take national defence seriously in this country


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The Commissioner seems to have been quite clear, Colin: finish the first four vessels.

While the first of the OFSV is "launched" (i.e. in the water) it is not finished yet, and the timeline for finishing it (and turning it over to the Coast Guard is some time this late spring or early summer. And that is, I am sorry to say, a Dinky-Toy ship.

With the pictures available from Seaspan, you can calculate that the third OFSV will be turned over to the Coast Guard sometimes around early winter 2020.

The fourth, which is a larger ship and a different type so no "learning curve advantage", hasn't even started yet and it is not much of a stretch to think that it will not be turned over to the Coast Guard in finished state before 2022.

So the Commissioner may be a year or two off - if we are happily lucky and no more delays happen, but he is definitely not off by six years.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The 4 I can see, the Fourth one is delayed, sadly I expect that the design is top heavy and it was Seaspan that found the flaws in the current OFSV design, requiring a delay to rectify them. The Science Vessel appears to be a larger version of the OFSV, but I can't confirm that.

This is #2 in November 2017


----------



## Kirkhill

I think you are on to something there Colin.

Seaspan has got a more complex challenge than Irving because it has multiple short runs of various ship types.  While Irving may have more complex ships (a debatable point IMO wrt the AOPS), it only has two of them to manage.

Meanwhile Seaspan has to receive wishlist designs from various departments, vet them, turn them into functional designs that will float, get the approval of the disappointed wishers to proceed with the revised designs, complete the compromised design and then build the ships.

I think it is telling that contracts to build the OOSV and the JSS/AORs have not been let yet (IIRC).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They seem quite capable, once a design is picked and the go ahead is given. I note that Davie has won some smaller contracts as well from the CCG https://www.facebook.com/Chantier.Naval.Forillon/?hc_ref=ARST2X6ar7RZJH4z_4p8DE_9K9pv04pkyaXIikuRUHvGdipOOqj_KpFe7N6ht_vko8U


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin, Chantier naval Forillon is an independent yard located in Gaspé. It is owned locally by the Coté family and it has nothing to do with Davie.

Davie does have Cost Guard contracts, but they are for the upgrades and maintenance refits of Coast Guard ships, not for new builds of any size.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thanks for that, I thought the 2 were related.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I think you are on to something there Colin.
> 
> Seaspan has got a more complex challenge than Irving because it has multiple short runs of various ship types.  While Irving may have more complex ships (a debatable point IMO wrt the AOPS), it only has two of them to manage.
> 
> Meanwhile Seaspan has to receive wishlist designs from various departments, vet them, turn them into functional designs that will float, get the approval of the disappointed wishers to proceed with the revised designs, complete the compromised design and then build the ships.
> 
> I think it is telling that contracts to build the OOSV and the JSS/AORs have not been let yet (IIRC).



That's the 'Design, then build' part of the contracting strategy.  Commercially it's more common to do one contract for delivery that includes all the design. Doesn't really make sense to do that when it's impossible to accurately estimate the build cost until you are well down the way of the design spiral for a unique ship.  If it was a standard ship that you had built multiple versions of, you could put together a realistic fixed point bid.

The VSY program is pretty rough; aside from all the ongoing tweaks on the current build, they are concurrently doing design and planning work for OOSV, JSS, and preliminary work for Polar. There is a limited talent pool for that kind of work so you can only carry so much overhead.   For a brand new shipyard starting from scratch that's a brutal program, and would have been a challenge for even established yards to do. Having walked both OFSV and AOPS I'm not really sure which is more complex; there is a lot jammed into the small footprint of the OFSV and it's equipment spaces are easily comparable to anything you would see on a warship in terms of density. AOPS is obviously bigger, with different things onboard, but a lot more of it is empty space, so it's more volume but arguably easier work, so a different challenge.

With the long AOPs run, ISI has enough time to get all that stuff ready, build the experience base in the workers and generally sort themselves out before CSC, which is really good news for that program.  It's still going to be a challenge but this gives them a fighting chance as they are starting from scratch as well.  The culture of the construction side is different to deal with compared to the refit side as well, so while it won't be cheap, don't think we'll have some of the same quality issues that we get with refits, as they've brought in some really good, experienced people that seem to generally want to deliver a good product for the RCN.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> With the long AOPs run, ISI has enough time to get all that stuff ready, build the experience base in the workers and generally sort themselves out before CSC, which is really good news for that program.  It's still going to be a challenge but this gives them a fighting chance as they are starting from scratch as well.  The culture of the construction side is different to deal with compared to the refit side as well, so while it won't be cheap, don't think we'll have some of the same quality issues that we get with refits, as they've brought in some really good, experienced people that seem to generally want to deliver a good product for the RCN.



Hope springs eternal.  But it's interesting from the culture perspective.  ISI had a chance to make a clean start.  Perhaps they have.  It wouldn't be the first time two different depts in the same organization had different cultures and competence levels.  God knows we see enough of it in the CAF.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Wow!  Senator Kenny is like a dog with a good bone on this issue - very glad to see this!

https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/opinion-canada-cant-refuel-its-own-ships-180035/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

C.P.: This is the same article you posted on January 22 in this very thread. You don't have to repeat it every time another newspaper decides to publish it.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> C.P.: This is the same article you posted on January 22 in this very thread. You don't have to repeat it every time another newspaper decides to publish it.


Mea Culpa


----------



## Czech_pivo

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/hundreds-of-irving-shipyard-employees-stage-unplanned-walkout-1.3775470

Wildcat strike?


----------



## Swampbuggy

Morning’ folks! I’ve been enjoying this forum for awhile now as a guest, but finally worked up the nerve to try participating. I’m not an RCN member, but I worked for DND years ago as a civvie and have had a great deal of admiration for the CAF ever since. I’m fascinated by the sea and ships, so I have a particular enthusiasm for the Navy. Please bear with me when I post and I promise to treat all feedback with respect and gratitude. 

I’ve been thinking about AOR’s lately, and I think there’s a legitimate place for ASTERIX (and hopefully OBELIX) after/if PRE/PRO are built. 

Given that the ASTERIX isn’t necessarily the best choice for contested waters, I see it as being an interesting platform for deployment on OP CARIBBE, for example. It has multiple RHIBs, a flight deck for an observation helo, room for the LEDETS and can RAS USCGCs to boot. It would also be close at hand for any of the frequent humanitarian missions that crop up in the Caribbean. It would also keep the MCDV’s closer to home and be able to take over their role on OP CARIBBE once they start getting decommissioned in another 10 years or so. In many ways, the ASTERIX could be seen as a better tool for the job than an MCDV. Not trying to diminish what they’ve accomplished, though. 

There’s also the possibility of tasking it over to NATO for X number of months annually, to use as they see fit. Sort of like the C-17’s that are shared by several European countries but are made available to NATO as required. Canada could reap a lot of goodwill from that sort of an offer. After all, if Trudeau’s sock diplomacy is having an impact, think of how far Oiler diplomacy can carry us?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Morning’ folks! I’ve been enjoying this forum for awhile now as a guest, but finally worked up the nerve to try participating. I’m not an RCN member, but I worked for DND years ago as a civvie and have had a great deal of admiration for the CAF ever since. I’m fascinated by the sea and ships, so I have a particular enthusiasm for the Navy. Please bear with me when I post and I promise to treat all feedback with respect and gratitude.
> 
> I’ve been thinking about AOR’s lately, and I think there’s a legitimate place for ASTERIX (and hopefully OBELIX) after/if PRE/PRO are built.
> 
> Given that the ASTERIX isn’t necessarily the best choice for contested waters, I see it as being an interesting platform for deployment on OP CARIBBE, for example. It has multiple RHIBs, a flight deck for an observation helo, room for the LEDETS and can RAS USCGCs to boot. It would also be close at hand for any of the frequent humanitarian missions that crop up in the Caribbean. It would also keep the MCDV’s closer to home and be able to take over their role on OP CARIBBE once they start getting decommissioned in another 10 years or so. In many ways, the ASTERIX could be seen as a better tool for the job than an MCDV. Not trying to diminish what they’ve accomplished, though.
> 
> There’s also the possibility of tasking it over to NATO for X number of months annually, to use as they see fit. Sort of like the C-17’s that are shared by several European countries but are made available to NATO as required. Canada could reap a lot of goodwill from that sort of an offer. After all, if Trudeau’s sock diplomacy is having an impact, think of how far Oiler diplomacy can carry us?



Welcome.  You are on the whole, preaching to the Choir here.  Unfortunately, we are the tick on the Elephant's back and are going to be taken which every direction it wishes in search of new socks and photo ops.  And thus, have little traction to suggest to the Elephant which new roads to travel.


----------



## Swampbuggy

:nod: I hear you. I don’t expect to influence policy with any posts, I just enjoy the discussion and appreciation the insights of the members.


----------



## Kirkhill

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> :nod: I hear you. I don’t expect to influence policy with any posts, I just enjoy the discussion and appreciation the insights of the members.



Welcome to the club.

 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover

Here she is again from Davie's Twitter feed:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Either somebody is badly out of station, or the first two frigates behind Asterix are just beginning to move to her sides for the Photex.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

That is a sight for sore eyes.  We're starting to become whole again.


----------



## Good2Golf

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Here she is again from Davie's Twitter feed:



Honest question, can you RAS an SSK?


----------



## Kirkhill

More from Federal

















Question: Is the "scrambling net" on the deck standard practice? Or is it related to the lack of a bear trap haul-down?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Here she is again from Davie's Twitter feed:



Great pictures....thank whiskey!


----------



## Good2Golf

It lets (grey, green and black) skid-equipped helicopters to land on, "I would think."   :nod:


----------



## FSTO

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> More from Federal



Hey I know that bald headed old fart!


----------



## YZT580

Why no bear trap?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Given that the ASTERIX isn’t necessarily the best choice for contested waters, I see it as being an interesting platform for deployment on OP CARIBBE, for example. It has multiple RHIBs, a flight deck for an observation helo, room for the LEDETS and can RAS USCGCs to boot. It would also be close at hand for any of the frequent humanitarian missions that crop up in the Caribbean. It would also keep the MCDV’s closer to home and be able to take over their role on OP CARIBBE once they start getting decommissioned in another 10 years or so. In many ways, the ASTERIX could be seen as a better tool for the job than an MCDV. Not trying to diminish what they’ve accomplished, though.



Another reason we need 2 of them, then.  A lot of OP CARIBBE is EASTPAC...the other side is quieter.  So ya, let's get a second iAOR on the West Coast then.  I'd love to do some co-op in that AOR with a RCN TF including the Cycone.  JIATF HQ was impressed with what a single LRPA was capable of;  I think they'd be impressed with a proper TF (2 AirDets would be sweet).  Although, I'd take a second CP-140M over the current config'd P-8 as the ready bird.   :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> More from Federal



Hey look they even put a nice, big *H* (H for *Here*?) on the deck so the fling-wingers know where to cut power.   ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

> Honest question, can you RAS an SSK?



No, you need to have something for the span wire to hook onto and tension down prior to sending the fueling hose across (a sub wouldn't take kindly being tensioned down like that).  Then when you get the fueling hose across the probe needs to fit into the bell housing before you can start pumping.  Fuel spills can and do happen when RASing, you wouldn't be able to safeguard against spills getting over the casing and into the water.  Lastly, the pumping rate would, I expect, be difficult to manage as well between the AOR and sub.  

Even alongside Halifax, they never came over for a fueling from us.  I expect they use the fueling barge to accomplish it at home.


----------



## Good2Golf

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No, you need to have something for the span wire to hook onto and tension down prior to sending the fueling hose across (a sub wouldn't take kindly being tensioned down like that).  Then when you get the fueling hose across the probe needs to fit into the bell housing before you can start pumping.  Fuel spills can and do happen when RASing, you wouldn't be able to safeguard against spills getting over the casing and into the water.  Lastly, the pumping rate would, I expect, be difficult to manage as well between the AOR and sub.
> 
> Even alongside Halifax, they never came over for a fueling from us.  I expect they use the fueling barge to accomplish it at home.



Thanks!


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It lets (grey, green and black) skid-equipped helicopters to land on, "I would think."   :nod:



Thanks for the "hypothetical" response.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Thanks for the "hypothetical" response.



Caveat emptor:  I didn't "think" much about the grey part of the response so YMMV...by up to 33.333333%.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No bear trap. you would see the tracks and trap on the flight deck, and none is there to be seen.

On the other hand, with the size of the vessel and resulting stability it's no big deal. It's been very long, so people with more recent experience can chime in, but I don't remember the PRO having the bear trap system either. If I am wrong, someone let me know.

The "cargo net" installation is pretty standard set up for  merchant ships and oil platforms that operate helicopters. I believe the idea is to both help prevent sideways slippage and provide a base to "hook on" to after landing to help secure the helicopter.

As for RAS for submarines: No there is no RASing submarines in the classic sense of two ships paralleling while underway with gear passed between them. First of all, with the submarines (VIC class) having a range of 8,000 NM and stores room for three months if need be while rarely operating at speed, there is remarkably little requirement for resupply at sea of submarines. If need be, in calm weather, you could always bring a submarine alongside the AOR and manually re-fuel. It was done by the Germans with the "milchcows" during WWII, and both vessels were a lot smaller than current submarines. On the other hand, a destroyer or frigate involved in near constant high speed work (such as escorting) can suck up half her fuel or more in 48-72 hours  :nod: .


----------



## YZT580

Thanks.  Yet even a ship the size of the Asterix is going to pitch and roll significantly in high seas.  For all it costs, I would have thought the extra insurance that a bear trap would bring would make it a worthwhile addition.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Perhaps that's the very reason, YZT. Since Asterix belongs to and is the responsibility of a civilian outfit (FFS), they prefer to avoid the higher risks and liabilities of operating helicopters in high sea states (even with a trap system) and therefore chose a system with lower limits on purpose.

That's just one possibility. I don't know for sure.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

There is no AOR in the world that I am aware of that has a Hauldown system.

You can usually find a flying course that puts the deck in pitch and roll limits.

If not, it is usually too rough to be very good idea to go flying, in the first place.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Caveat emptor:  I didn't "think" much about the grey part of the response so YMMV...by up to 33.333333%.



Perhaps you could have swapped "red" for "grey"?







And thanks to you as well OGBD.  I didn't know it was standard practice in the civvy market.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There is no AOR in the world that I am aware of that has a Hauldown system.
> 
> You can usually find a flying course that puts the deck in pitch and roll limits.
> 
> If not, it is usually too rough to be very good idea to go flying, in the first place.



Och, what the devil would you know about landing helicopters on ships?   ;D


----------



## NavyShooter

Interesting that they seem to have put the "H" on the flight deck sideways instead of fore/aft, and they seem to have put the dimensions on the flight deck as well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Again here, NavyShooter, having the "H" athwartship and measurements of the flight deck marked on deck is pretty standard merchant ship practices. See examples below - though the numbers don't show up well, but I have seen enough of them to know they are there  :nod:.

Main reason is that, normally for merchies, they are pretty well stopped when a helicopter uses the deck (it is normally for - mostly -oil field/exploration industry working ships that have crew rotations).

So the most usual approach is from the side, and the numbers is because, unlike us that operate standardized size helicopters (pretty well all the same size/set up), for merchant ships, they never quite know what size of helicopter will deliver the parts/people. So it's up to the helicopter pilot to figure how he/she wants to approach by knowing how much room is available and in which direction, where the landing pad is concerned (and many of those helicopter pilots may not have the experience to "estimate" size of a ship's deck just by looking at it).


----------



## rotrhed

CAP 437 from the UK Civil Aviation Authority may provide some insight into merchant vessel flight decks and markings.

https://www.helidecks.net/app/download/1478859/cap437+Offshore+Helicopter+Landing+Areas+-+Guidance.pdf

Chapter 3 goes into physical characteristics, with 3.8 discussing the surface.  3.8.3 describes the netting, laid for wheeled helicopters.

Chapter 4 discusses visual aids, including the rationale behind the deck markings and orientation.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Thanks for that, Bigzoomie. Very useful document, which confirms what I said: All of those things (netting, "sideways" H and size markings) are standard practices in merchant ships.

Any more questions, Chris and NavyShooter?  ;D


----------



## JLB50

OGBD and others, I know this is a huge question and is probably deserving of its own thread but , realistically speaking, how big or well funded should the navy be for a country of Canada's size?  How many ships? What kind of ships? Should we have a particular focus?

I only come here occasionally as, not a navy man, but as someone whose dad died while in the navy many years ago, and I guess his love for the sea continues with me. Anyway, like most here, I hate to see the public and the politicians continually seem to lack a true appreciation of what Canada should be doing for its armed forces.

Excuse me if those basic questions have been dealt with recently, but I don't seem to have seen much mention of what the navy SHOULD HAVE or what the navy SHOULD BE as opposed to what the politicians SHOULD NOT be doing.


----------



## YZT580

JLB, look at Australia's navy.  That should be the minimum for a standard plus add in several top tier icebreakers for the coast guard in order for us to access our third ocean.  And we should be looking at nuclear subs to be able to seal off the north if necessary.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Thanks for that, Bigzoomie. Very useful document, which confirms what I said: All of those things (netting, "sideways" H and size markings) are standard practices in merchant ships.
> 
> Any more questions, Chris and NavyShooter?  ;D



How do you spell smartarse?


----------



## Uzlu

> With Project Resolve ship accepted, Davie pins hopes on icebreakers
> 
> After intensive at-sea trials and testing, Canada's Department of Defence has formally accepted Asterix, the Resolve-Class Naval Support Ship created by Davie Shipbuilding by converting an existing containership.
> 
> The ship is leased to the Canadian Government through Davie's sister company Federal Fleet Services and has now entered full operational service with the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) and Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF).
> 
> During the Royal Canadian Navy trials, as planned, Asterix performed daily replenishment-at-sea (RAS) exercises with the RCN and conducted extensive RCAF CH-148 Cyclone helicopter operations to prove and demonstrate its capabilities. The exercises have included everything from dual RAS operations to helicopter landing, take-off and vertical replenishment trials.
> 
> Spencer Fraser, CEO of Federal Fleet Services commented "To deliver the first Canadian naval ship in over twenty years, the first supply ship in almost 50 years, and to reach FOC [Full Operating Capability] so efficiently and in such a short period of time is a testament to the hard work, dedication and dynamism of the teams at Davie and FFS. We are all very proud of our achievement and appreciative of the professional support we have received from DND and PSPC."
> 
> Fraser added, "We promised the government that we would fill a strategic gap in an expedited manner, that we would save the Canadian taxpayer money with our solution, and most importantly, that we would provide the men and women of the RCN and RCAF with a world-class capability they could be proud of. Today marks that achievement and we stand ready to assist the Government of Canada to do more."


http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=28230:with-project-resolve-oiler-in-service&Itemid=223


----------



## Baz

Uzlu said:
			
		

> During the Royal Canadian Navy trials, as planned, Asterix ... conducted extensive RCAF CH-148 Cyclone helicopter operations ... helicopter landing, take-off and vertical replenishment trials.



Although I have no insight into what was done, given the previous discussions on this topic, there is a little voice inside my head that is concerned.  Given that it has only been 4 weeks, what is meant by *extensive*, especially as they weren't dedicated air trials?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Baz,

The trials were not "extensive". It was not a full SHOL. It was just enough to be able to get them a SWOAD capability.

It in no way certified the ship to operate an embarked CH148 Det.


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Baz,
> 
> The trials were not "extensive". It was not a full SHOL. It was just enough to be able to get them a SWOAD capability.
> 
> It in no way certified the ship to operate an embarked CH148 Det.



Please tell me it is a restricted SWOAD.

Even a SWOAD SHOL takes time to open up the pitch, roll, and wind envelopes...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Please understand that I wasn't part of the trials, but my understanding is that it was just enough so that they can operate SWOAD with a foreign helo, should the need arise.

They did not have time to develop a full envelope. Without looking, I would imagine they have just been given the standard HOSTAC 2/4 limit and the templated wind envelope.


----------



## Kirkhill

Kind of interesting reading the last couple of comments.

On the one hand the Asterix has been cleared to a certain standard, one that permits operations to commence under certain conditions immediately. There are conditions under which those same operations may not be allowed (sea state?  wind speed? lighting?).  

On the other hand it is not yet known what Asterix's full range of capabilities are: her operating envelope.  

But

She can do some stuff immediately.

She can work to demonstrate her full range of capabilities over time.

She can be modified if and as necessary.

That is a fairly typical commercial model.

The Government model is, to say the least, considerably more constrained.  And longer.  And more expensive.  And more uncertain.


----------



## Baz

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The Government model is, to say the least, considerably more constrained.  And longer.  And more expensive.  And more uncertain.



That is probably true... however, without knowing the answer, may it be that when the full envelope of a NATO warship is opened up then they are flying in conditions that the commercial model would not allow?

Although I think the term *extensive* as used was probably misleading to some extent, SKT rightfully pointed out to me that they could have obtained a relatively benign envelope without the trials of, say, the CH148 on the frigates.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think at this time, there is no intent of deploying an Airdet with the Asterix (would there even be enough available?). She is being cleared to operate in fleet supply operations only (like RFA and MSC ships in the US and UK are) - not as a participating warship in a task force as we used to employ our AORs.

Thus, to get her there, there was no point in getting a fully certified deck for an Airdet operation, but only to demonstrate the limited capability, if required, to receive one of the frigates helicopter for either personnel or equipment transfers or to make some cargo VERTREP.

If, at a later time, it is decided to put an Airdet onboard, I am sure the full SHOL will be carried out before hand.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Would she not be the preferred platform to carry deeper repairs/maintenance on the Cyclones away from Canada?


----------



## jollyjacktar

No, a JSS would be.


----------



## Czech_pivo

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No, a JSS would be.


So, are we willing to wait 8-10yrs for that to occur? 
Sad if we are.


----------



## jollyjacktar

It will take as long as it takes.  Nothing we can do about it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No, a JSS would be.



I am going to take a WAG and give you a scenario where you get to do some deep maintenance or swap on one of your helicopters somewhere off the coast of Africa, your choices are a Halifax or the Asterix, I am going to guess that the Asterix would have more hanger space to do so.


----------



## jollyjacktar

It's not so much the space.  You need to have the personnel, shops, gear and parts.  Right now, Asterix has none of that and Halifax is better equipped.  

And it doesn't change my answer that the JSS is the better choice over Asterix.


----------



## Kirkhill

What happens if the Civilian ISS provider (Sikorsky) and the Civilian Ship Charterer (Federal Fleet Services) agree that Asterix is sufficient for the needs of Sikorsky to provide a Forward ISS Base?

What is the RCN/RCAF's involvement?



> CANADIAN COMPANIES SUPPLY ISS FOR CYCLONE
> 
> *Cyclone’s In-Service Support (ISS) contract is a 25-year, $4.2 billion contract primed by Sikorsky*, who formed a team which includes key partnerships with Canadian companies: General Dynamics Mission Systems - Canada (Ottawa, Ontario) providing Mission System life cycle support and training services; L-3 MAS (Montreal, Quebec) providing the support services information environment and warehouse management and Bluedrop Performance Learning delivering courseware and instructors.
> 
> *“The ISS framework is a full service package which runs to approximately 2038*. It's a performance-based construct where* the contractor is responsible for virtually the entire spectrum of in-service support ranging from spare parts, supply chain management, engineering support across the breadth and depth of the program - not just to the helicopter itself*, but support also to the schoolhouse, for example,” said DND’s Baker.
> 
> The ISS infrastructure and the Maritime Helicopter Training Centre (MHTC) is now in place at 12 Wing Shearwater.  Built by Sikorsky, the state-of-the-art MHTC, which was formally dedicated on 8 June as the “Fumerton and Bing Training Centre” has already trained over 300 students, including pilots, SENSOs, TACCOs, and maintainers.  Such is the capability of the schoolhouse, that the full-motion flight simulator can be linked to the mission system simulator so the entire crew can train together.



http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/78


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> What happens if the Civilian ISS provider (Sikorsky) and the Civilian Ship Charterer (Federal Fleet Services) agree that Asterix is sufficient for the needs of Sikorsky to provide a Forward ISS Base?
> 
> What is the RCN/RCAF's involvement?
> 
> http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/78



Seaspan does not approve of this message.....   :tsktsk:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I suggest you go back and watch the episode 3 of "Canada's next AOR", the Davie videos on building the Asterix. It's the episode with the ship's visit with Fraser Spencer, of FFS. You will see that , while the parts and tools are not there, the various shops and compartments required for an Airdet, including the pilot's ready room and the the briefing/mission planning room, are already built in the Asterix. It's just a matter for the RCAF/RCN to decide to put the Airdet on board that is required.

However, the main impediment at this stage (unless our friends in the MH world tell me otherwise) is the fact that the Sea kings are being phased out on the east Coast, while the Cyclones are only ramping up. The shortage of fully trained and ready pilots, operators and technician resulting from the early stage of this process means that there is a smaller number of Airdets available than would otherwise be needed for the needs of the fleet and Asterix at the same time. Fleet comes first - that's all.

Or am I wrong?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Asterix may have the space but until they're kitted, fitted and manned, they're just empty compartments.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, yes and no, Jjt. I agree that until they have the tools and the parts, they are not operational spaces, but the compartments are specifically designed for the Airdet's purposes, they have built in furniture such as workbenches and tables, briefing room equipment and the lot. You were intimating in previous post that the Asterix didn't have any of those compartments at all. 

That's all I was pointing out: While I agree you need all the tools, pubs and parts, every necessary space to accommodate is already there and pre-fitted with all the "built-ins" necessary for the task.

It does not follow that the RCN/RCAF wishes to put a detachment in there, nor even has one that could go in, but if they wished, it can be done.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, you're quite correct.  I was mistaken re: the facilities available.  

2nd and 3rd line capabilities were stripped from PRE years before she was paid off, at around the time of refit in 03/4.  IIRC, it was more of a manning issue in that they couldn't keep it up.

If everything is going ISSC, who knows what will be happening with the new birds.  I don't believe Asterix has cranes fitted aft to move broken birds as PRE/PRO did.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Asterix does not have such cranes, and neither does the Berlin class AOR that will become JSS's.

However, while the PRE/PRO class had cranes back aft that could be used to ship/unship damaged helicopters (and even if it became the main use for those cranes  :nod, that was not the original intent. Those cranes where there to raise and lower the LCVP's (landing crafts, for landlubbers). Being able to use them for helo ship/unship ops was just an unforeseen bonus.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes.  Have participated in both evolutions, around the same time.


----------



## Underway

JLB50 said:
			
		

> OGBD and others, I know this is a huge question and is probably deserving of its own thread but , realistically speaking, how big or well funded should the navy be for a country of Canada's size?  How many ships? What kind of ships? Should we have a particular focus?
> 
> _...snip..._
> 
> Excuse me if those basic questions have been dealt with recently, but I don't seem to have seen much mention of what the navy SHOULD HAVE or what the navy SHOULD BE as opposed to what the politicians SHOULD NOT be doing.



There are a few threads where we delve into this.  Problem is the threads on this are generally started with a different topic in mind and the conversation evolves from there.  Generally the consensus revolves around the following (which coincidentally is what the navy is requesting from the gov't in many cases):

2-4 AOR (Navy wants 3, gov't wants 2, we'll get 2+1)
3-4 AAW Command and Control Ships for Task Group command and defence.
12 General purpose Frigates
4-6 Submarines
12 Minesweepers
6-8 Arctic Patrol Ships

Of course there is plenty of room for argument/discussion here.  Do we really need AOPS as is?  Perhaps more AAW destroyers are needed.  Submarine numbers are contentious.  All with the background discussion that the RCN is short of people by about 700 right now.  There is of course the ongoing discussion about LPD type ships as well.  And then there is a capability discussion on what does a GP frigate really need to do, how big and what type of equipment etc...


----------



## Cloud Cover

Hmmm, why 12 minesweepers?  Seems to me we could do with less but I guess it depends on whether they work in pairs or 4’s.
I think there is an argument to be made for a high end missile corvette/light frigate in that mix, but not by taking away heavier AAD/ASW frigates and AAW/C2 destroyers (both of which should have a land attack cruise missile capability, IMO.) 
Agree with all the rest, it will be interesting to see how/if AOPS performs outside of its primary role. Such a big ship .... 

I always think about how much more potent the 330’s would be if during HCMP they could have quad packed the ESSM (8x4) and then made tube space (somehow) for ERAM missiles.


----------



## Swampbuggy

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Hmmm, why 12 minesweepers?  Seems to me we could do with less but I guess it depends on whether they work in pairs or 4’s.
> I think there is an argument to be made for a high end missile corvette/light frigate in that mix, but not by taking away heavier AAD/ASW frigates and AAW/C2 destroyers (both of which should have a land attack cruise missile capability, IMO.)
> Agree with all the rest, it will be interesting to see how/if AOPS performs outside of its primary role. Such a big ship ....
> 
> I always think about how much more potent the 330’s would be if during HCMP they could have quad packed the ESSM (8x4) and then made tube space (somehow) for ERAM missiles.



Given that there’s maybe about 12-15 years left in the MCDVS, I think I’d extend the AOPS build to 9-10 units and start reducing the KINGSTONs down to 6. Refit and give those remaining 6 the full suite of mine sweep/hunt equipment and then back off their time at sea a bit. If they become dedicated mine warfare vessels, instead of doing all the other tacked on roles they have, those 6 could have a much longer shelf life. Have the AOPS take over as the primary coastal patrol vessels and free up the CPF’s/CSC for their Task Group deployments.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The AOPs will likely be able to support the Kingston minesweepers, much of the modern sweeping will be done with surface and sub surface AUV's and ROV's in the future. So yes you could cut back the Kingstons and still support that mission.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Given that there’s maybe about 12-15 years left in the MCDVS, I think I’d extend the AOPS build to 9-10 units and start reducing the KINGSTONs down to 6. Refit and give those remaining 6 the full suite of mine sweep/hunt equipment and then back off their time at sea a bit. If they become dedicated mine warfare vessels, instead of doing all the other tacked on roles they have, those 6 could have a much longer shelf life. Have the AOPS take over as the primary coastal patrol vessels and free up the CPF’s/CSC for their Task Group deployments.



If you are going to do that build something like River Class which is a proper OPV.  It would make more sense in my estimation to replace the Kingstons (whenever they need replacing) with a Minehunting/OPV with a bit better seakeeping and bit faster top speed.  



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Hmmm, why 12 minesweepers?  Seems to me we could do with less but I guess it depends on whether they work in pairs or 4’s.



The navy likes multiples of 3 and 4 for platforms.  This is because of maintenance and refit.  If you have 3 platforms, one can be in refit, one in low readiness and one in high readiness.  

This is why the RCN really wants minimum of 3 JSS, preferably 4.  4 means each coast can have one ship in refit/maint while the other is available for operations.  

Same thing for AOPS, 6 means 2 per coast are available (assuming 3 per coast).  12 frigates similar numbers, 3 AAW destroyers, 4 subs.... 

So for MCDV's if you have 6 per coast 4 are available for operations almost at all times.  4 MCDV's per coast seems like a smaller number once you break it down from the 12 total.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Sure, but then you lose the economic benefit of building in the batch. With public interest being what it is, I’d say you stood a better chance of running through 3-4 more AOPS than getting a whole new platform of OPVs approved. Also, at that point every coastal patrol vessel is Arctic capable. I’d prefer something like an OTAGO or BECKETT too, but I doubt that’s even on the radar right now between CSC, AOPS, JSS and VIC upgrades.


----------



## ModlrMike

Senatory Kenny has another article over at the National Post.


Sen. Colin Kenny: There's only one right choice for the navy. Why not make it?
For a fixed price the government can acquire all four supply ships the navy needs from Davie for the $2.6 billion it has set aside


----------



## Cloud Cover

A slimmer, faster, up gunned version of AOPS perhaps in a Batch2?

I always like the Thetis class patrol ship, but it is way too much ship for our government to swallow if it is not a full on frigate. Some call it a light frigate, but really it is a long range patrol ship. Small crew, nicely sized, does not have the arctic capability like AOPS, as far as I know only up to about 24 inches of ice capable. Carries an MH60R in the hangar- obviously not good for the Cyclone.  An updated version of that would be a nice patrol ship but unfortunately crew is 65 all hands with aircrew, much more than an MCDV.  It does have 3 STANFLEX modules, which could be handy and handsome to some people, especially the ELINT modules.... 

Assuming 8-10 MCDV are required as a minimum to keep a couple operational on each coast, then maybe additional AOPS would be nice but is that way too much ship if there are already going to be 5-6 in the fleet? My understanding is that there are a number of reg force billets on MCDV's, will they swing over to AOPS in the next few years?  And how does the reserve fit into that picture, will they get their turn on AOPS?


----------



## Cloud Cover

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Senatory Kenny has another article over at the National Post.
> 
> 
> Sen. Colin Kenny: There's only one right choice for the navy. Why not make it?
> For a fixed price the government can acquire all four supply ships the navy needs from Davie for the $2.6 billion it has set aside



Somehow I think that if Davie had the contract the price would be higher than 2.6 billion and would take longer. Better to keep the yards hungry and eager one ship at a time, rather than risk having another Irving CSC debacle on their hands.


----------



## MTShaw

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Somehow I think that if Davie had the contract the price would be higher than 2.6 billion and would take longer. Better to keep the yards hungry and eager one ship at a time, rather than risk having another Irving CSC debacle on their hands.



What is the Irving CSC debacle?


----------



## MarkOttawa

When oh when will Seaspan start JSS?  And CCG icebreaker?



> Seaspan Shipyards working to avoid more layoffs
> _Seaspan brass working with feds to shore up production gaps in multi-year shipbuilding contract_
> 
> Seaspan Shipyards is waiting for the federal government to approve changes to its national shipbuilding schedule that would keep its workforce busy and avoid significant layoffs.
> 
> Seaspan bosses were recently in Ottawa asking federal officials to approve a plan which could see parts of the navy’s massive joint support ships started before an oceanographic science vessel is built in the shipyard.
> 
> Seaspan has been scrambling to find a fix that would avoid having to potentially lay off hundreds of workers this year after delays in the shipbuilding program pushed construction of an oceanographic science vessel back a year or longer.
> 
> Approximately 200 trades workers, including welders and electricians, were laid off at the shipyard in December, immediately following the launch of the first fisheries vessel. Seaspan confirmed the layoffs but did not give an exact number.
> 
> John Pesa, assistant business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 213, said, “It was to everyone’s surprise that the cuts were as deep as they were.”
> 
> Pesa hopes some of the laid-off workers will be called back this month.
> 
> Tim Page, vice-president of government relations for Seaspan, said work is continuing at the shipyard on the second and third fisheries vessels. Seaspan has also been awarded some refit work on federal vessels that is helping to fill the gap. Most of those refits are eight- to 10-week jobs.
> 
> Page said keeping skilled tradespeople at work is a priority for the shipyard. “The length of the downturn will determine how willing people are to stick around and wait for that downturn to pick up again,” said Page.
> 
> _Delays in the design and engineering on the oceanographic science vessel mean that work on that ship – initially scheduled to start this spring – likely won’t get underway until spring 2019, at the earliest.
> 
> That has also raised questions about when the two massive navy joint support ships will be built. The original federal plan called for the first of the support ships to be delivered in 2020. Neither Seaspan nor the federal government have been willing to provide a revised timeline for the shipbuilding program to date_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Ottawa is also facing political pressure from Davie Shipyards in Quebec to allow them to build and lease additional supply ships like the one the shipyard recently provided to the federal government as a stopgap measure...
> http://www.nsnews.com/news/seaspan-shipyards-working-to-avoid-more-layoffs-1.23162857



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

> Delays in the design and engineering on the oceanographic science vessel mean that work on that ship – initially scheduled to start this spring – likely won’t get underway until spring 2019, at the earliest.



So they are stuck in "committee stage"....

I want this lab.....but there isn't any room.

I want a stateroom above the waterline .... but she's already top-heavy.

I want a new atomic absorption spectrometer ... but she's already over-budget.

So we have to build a bigger ship..... hold on while I go back to Treasury Board for more money.  I'll be back to you next year.


----------



## MarkOttawa

See what France and Italy look like doing and how fast French navy may get new supply ships:


> Naval Group Fincantieri Merger on Track - French Navy to Get LSS Logistics Vessels
> 
> The merger between Naval Group and Fincantieri, two major naval shipbuilding gourps, appear to be well on track following a high level ministerial meeting held in Rome on February 1st 2018. The first concrete symbol from this merger is likely to be the procurement by France of Vulcano class LSS Logistic Support Ships originally designed for the Italian Navy.
> 
> French Minister of the Armed Forces and Minister of Economy and Finance, traveled to Rome on Thursday 1 February 2018 to discuss the project of alliance between Naval Group and Fincantieri with their Italian counterparts and CEOs of both groups. This meeting was an opportunity to recall the determined support of France and Italy to this project of alliance and strengthening of the French-Italian naval industry. This meeting was followed by a meeting of the CEOs of both shipyards and the heads of French and Italian major defense companies Thales and Leonardo in Paris on February 2nd 2018. The ultimate goal is to create a leading European naval defense giant.
> 
> According to a French MoD press release, this alliance will allow the construction of a solid industrial and commercial project. between the two groups. This will be achieved through the joint design and construction of surface vessels, of which the logistic support and refueling vessel should be a prime example. This alliance will also enable the two companies to present a united front for military exports on heavily armed surface ships, based on a coordinated product policy and benefiting from international locations complementary of the two companies.
> 
> It appears that the three remaining Durance-class replenishment oilers (Var, Marne and Somme) of the French Navy (Marine Nationale) will be replaced with four Vulcano-class LSS. French President Macron announced last month that the "replenishment oilers would be replaced and their number increased". This will likely be formally confirmed in the next French military planning law (Loi de Programmation Militaire). _Construction of the first French LSS could start around 2020 at St Nazaire / STX shipyard for a delivery two years later_ [emphasis adde--when will Seapan deliver?].
> 
> Back in September 2017, the French procurement agency awarded a contract to Naval Group to "study the adaptation of the Italian Vulcano design to the French Navy needs"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/february-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/5917-naval-group-fincantieri-merger-on-track-french-navy-to-get-lss-logistics-vessels.html



The ship:



> Vulcano Logistic Support Ship (LSS)
> ...
> With a full-load displacement of 23,000t, the LSS can accommodate a total of 200 persons, including 167 crew members and special officers. Fully equipped hospital and healthcare facilities will be integrated in the ship to provide treatment for up to 12 injured personnel.
> 
> The logistics support ship will also have four replenishment stations amidships and one at the stern. Two special-purpose vessels will be carried on port and starboard sides in the middle of the ship to conduct search and rescue operations at sea.
> 
> The vessel will be able to embark up to eight residential and healthcare modules. A 30t capacity crane will be fitted to lift cargo into and out of ships.
> 
> The Vulcano will have a hangar towards the stern to house and maintain up to two EH101 Merlin utility helicopters. A flight will be placed next to the hangar to allow take-off and landing of a NH90 multi-role helicopter or an EH101 Merlin utility helicopter.
> 
> Self-defence for the LSS from surface targets is provided by two 25mm remotely controlled machine guns. The _LSS can be optionally fitted with a 76mm main gun to engage air and surface targets_ [!!! emphasis added].
> 
> The vessel will carry diver detection sonar and obstacle avoidance sonar systems to detect, track and identify underwater threats and obstacles.
> 
> A modular, reconfigurable combat management system is installed to provide command and control for the onboard weapons and sensors. It also assists operators in situational awareness, planning and decision-making functions...
> https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/vulcano-logistic-support-ship-lss/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

Interesting.  I wonder what happened to the vaunted Brave class design, with its electric propulsion follow on.


----------



## Uzlu

> Navy's new resupply vessel won't be able to deploy into war zones
> 
> OTTAWA — While the Royal Canadian Navy is chomping at the bit to start using the newest addition to its fleet, a senior officer says the MV Asterix has some limitations — notably that it can't sail into harm's way.
> 
> The Asterix's conversion from a civilian container ship to an interim naval resupply vessel is almost finished as weapons and other sensitive equipment are now being installed, said Commodore Craig Skjerpen, commander of Canada's Atlantic Fleet.
> 
> That work is expected to be finished in Halifax in March, at which point the vessel will undergo some final tests before heading to the Pacific to participate in a major, U.S.-led training exercise and then onward to the Asia-Pacific region.
> 
> The Asterix addresses a critical gap that emerged after the navy lost its previous resupply vessels in 2014, Skjerpen told The Canadian Press, and navy commanders plan to make heavy use of new ship in the coming years.
> 
> "If I wanted to draw an analogy of driving a car, we were always worried about where the next gas station was," he said of the impact of losing HMCS Protecteur and Preserver.
> 
> "So what this does is that where we're able to program Asterix, we can be less concerned about that. So we can go where we need to go."
> 
> But the Asterix isn't a true military vessel, Skjerpen said, which is why it won't be allowed to operate in dangerous environments.
> 
> That may not be an issue now, as the navy is not operating in any areas that be classified as overtly dangerous, but Skjerpen said: "All of our capabilities and everything we design and everything we need is about operating in that threat environment."
> 
> Two true military resupply vessels are scheduled to be built in Vancouver and will include more powerful self-defence systems than the Asterix as well as better communications equipment and overall survivability against attack.
> 
> "That's a pretty important part when you start talking about a military vessel and something you're going to operate in a threat environment," Skjerpen said in explaining why those Vancouver-built vessels, known as the Protecteur class, are still needed.
> 
> "We want to provide the best capability possible to protect our people throughout. And that's some of the bigger things that we're going to get with the Protecteur class that you're not going to get out of Asterix or vessels like that."
> 
> The two new Protecteur-class vessels will also be crewed entirely by navy personnel, unlike the Asterix. It will have about 45 navy sailors responsible for resupply operations, while the captain and 30 crew members charged with actually sailing the vessel are all civilians.
> 
> "The civilian master is responsible for the safety of the vessel at all times," Skjerpen said. "At any time, like if the visibility is too low or the seas are too high ... the civilian master always has the right to not do something."
> 
> But the two new resupply ships won't be ready for several years, meaning the Asterix, which was converted by Quebec-based Davie Shipbuilding, will be the navy's only resupply ship for the foreseeable future.
> 
> "It's a pretty big step forward from not having something to having that capability," Skjerpen said.
> 
> The previous Conservative government awarded Davie a $700-million contract for the Asterix conversion and a five-year lease in summer 2015, with a five-year option afterward, after the navy's ancient resupply ships were forced into retirement.
> 
> The project gained notoriety in January 2017 after Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was suspended and court documents showed the RCMP suspected him of leaking secret documents to Davie over fears the Liberal government would cancel the project.
> 
> Norman remains suspended, but he has not been charged with any crime and has denied any wrongdoing.


http://www.timescolonist.com/navy-s-new-resupply-vessel-won-t-be-able-to-deploy-into-war-zones-1.23179752


----------



## Halifax Tar

Uzlu said:
			
		

> http://www.timescolonist.com/navy-s-new-resupply-vessel-won-t-be-able-to-deploy-into-war-zones-1.23179752



Its not supposed to go into war zones.  And was never promoted as a fighting vessel.  It is not commissioned into the RCN.  This isn't news.  Its a move to stir up unfounded and ill informed negative sentiment.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.davie.ca/resolve-frequently-asked-questions/



> Can The Resolve-Class Naval Support Ship (Asterix) Serve In Combat Operations?
> 
> Yes. The ship can go wherever the Canadian Armed Forces require it to go. Operationally it is able to perform an identical role to that of the potential future Joint Support Ships (now renamed the Protecteur Class).
> 
> The ship is fitted with the same integrated navigational and tactical system and platform management system as the rest of the future surface fleet will have. Also significant measures were included in the rebuild of the ship to integrate the highest levels of redundancy and watertight integrity in case of damage. Asterix carries specialist insurance for coverage in war risk areas and operations in high risk scenarios.
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces and all foreign navies will always avoid taking supply ships into direct combat due to their vulnerability. Instead, they will remain at a safe distance from any direct combat situation. Supply ships are a vulnerable target, carrying over 10,000 tonnes of fuel and ammunition and with limited armaments. Both the JSS and Asterix are classified as ‘non-combatants’ and neither are fitted with the kind of countermeasures or offensive systems required to enter into a direct combat situation.
> 
> 
> 
> While Asterix is innovative in many ways, the concept of converting a containership into a naval auxiliary ship is tried, tested and proven. In fact, the US Navy and (UK) Royal Navy have been doing it for years and those ships remain active today and have served in every combat operation of the past few decades. For example, the UK’s RFA Argus – another converted containership – served in the Gulf War, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and both Iraq wars. The US navy’s Algol Class – also a fleet of converted containerships – served in the very same combat operations.





> Can Asterix And The Potential Future Joint Support Ship Sustain A Direct Hit?
> 
> Both are effectively tankers. Neither JSS nor Asterix have anti-explosive hardening on them, so a direct hit could destroy either. That is why navies do not take such replenishment ships into battle. They fuel when it is safe, escorted by submarines and destroyers.
> 
> Asterix is uniquely designed with simultaneous multiple code requirements being applied from both Transport Canada and Lloyd’s Register. It has been designed and approved against the most stringent regulations across a myriad of vessel types including naval rules, tanker rules, passenger ships rules, cargo ship rules and special purpose ship code and in each case with the strictest requirements being applied. It is most likely the most stringent governing code requirements placed on any commercial vessel ever to be built in Canada.
> 
> 
> The vessel has seven main vertical zones and innumerous sub divisional watertight and fire tight zones contained within each one. The vessel meets the highest standards of damage stability and has been checked and approved against over 2700 combinations of major, and progressive damage conditions, surviving all and staying within final floating equilibrium angles less than that required for a passenger ship evacuation.
> 
> 
> In terms of surviving a military strike, the idea that no breach will occur to some extent within the hull form of any vessel, naval or otherwise, with modern high-yield weapons is not smart thinking. Weapons manufacturers do not design torpedoes and missiles to have a blast yield of just the required amount not to breach a vessel built to national naval code requirements! In fact, quite the opposite. Breach to some extent is a real possibility in all vessels. Survivability and the ability to subdivide and contain are considered and applied to a very high level in the design of Asterix.





> Does Having A Merchant Crew In Any Way Restrict The Vessel’s Operational Use?
> 
> Absolutely not. The entire auxiliary fleets of the US Navy, Royal Navy (UK) and many other navies are wholly operated by merchant seafarers. By having regular naval staff operate its naval support ships, Canada is in fact in the minority of world navies.





> Can Asterix Go To The Arctic?
> 
> Yes – Asterix is capable of sailing in the Arctic during summer and has ice strengthening. The vessel is designed and certified for unrestricted worldwide service.
> 
> 
> The JSS and Asterix are identically classed for Arctic operations. Neither has icebreaker capabilities, and they both can only operate in the Arctic in summer conditions. Neither has an advantage over the other.





> Does Asterix Have Ammunition Certification?
> 
> The vessel has Transport Canada and Lloyd’s certification to carry dangerous goods including DG-1 cargoes or ammunition. In fact, the cargo storage capacity is 30% greater than JSS.





> Where Can Asterix Dock?
> 
> Asterix can be docked at any Canadian dockyard, commercial dock, NATO dockyard or at any port throughout the world. In fact, the ship’s retractable thruster means it is able to maneuver itself into certain ports, such as those in the developing world, even when tugs are not available. The JSS has no such functionality.



And many, many more answers on the above link.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://www.davie.ca/resolve-frequently-asked-questions/
> 
> And many, many more answers on the above link.



"Can" and "Won't" are two very different things. 



> But the Asterix isn't a true military vessel, Skjerpen said, which is why it won't be allowed to operate in dangerous environments



Also I quote from your first reply:

http://www.davie.ca/resolve-frequently-asked-questions/


> Both the JSS and Asterix are classified as ‘non-combatants’ and neither are fitted with the kind of countermeasures or offensive systems required to enter into a direct combat situation.


----------



## Kirkhill

> What Upgrades Can Be Performed To Asterix And How Long Would They Take?
> 
> *To equal the potential future Joint Support Ship design in terms of self-defence, Asterix could be fitted with a Close-In Weapon System (or Phalanx). These bolt-on systems could be installed in a matter of days and dedicated areas onboard have already been hardened to accommodate them
> 
> Same as the Joint Support Ship, Asterix is designed and fitted for, but not with a Close-In Weapons System. *It is the decision of the Crown, and only the Crown’s to provide weapons system. As for installation, all CIWS are bolted on and installation of such a system is very straight forward. This is a controlled good that is only installed by the RCN, at a naval dockyard.
> 
> 
> Other minor items such as installation of a different radar could be fitted within a single day, if required.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sadly both vessels are good and would be complimentary to each other rather than the stupid either or situation we are in. I understand that emotions get raw when jobs and large contracts are at stake. We can easily use 2 Resolve class AOR’s and 2 JSS ships and the crewing arrangements of the Resolve reduces the personal issues and provide a potential deep sea training opportunity for Canada’s Merchant Marine personal and Naval Reservists. Having 4 AOR’s would give Canada some very effective ways to support our allies with minimal political risk. Canada of course will be to focus on penny pinching, regional bitching and political one-upmanship to realize the opportunities.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Now you are speculating on future upgrades.  All Davies is saying is we hardened some spots on the deck(s) in case you ever want to fit a CWIS.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Now you are speculating on future upgrades.  All Davies is saying is we hardened some spots on the deck(s) in case you ever want to fit a CWIS.



As far as I know no CWIS are being fitted in Halifax and I would take what Davie is saying in their Faq with a grain of sand. Most of what they say have a element of truth but are very creative with their wording. I would take what the Commodore is saying as gospel versus what Davie is saying.


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://www.davie.ca/resolve-frequently-asked-questions/
> 
> And many, many more answers on the above link.



Chris.  I'm going to take the Cmdr's opinion on this, not Davie's.  If he says it's not a combat vessel and will not go into combat then that's what's going to happen.  Davie is just blowing smoke for politics sake.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> As far as I know no CWIS are being fitted in Halifax and I would take what Davie is saying in their Faq with a grain of sand. Most of what they say have a element of truth but are very creative with their wording. I would take what the Commodore is saying as gospel versus what Davie is saying.



Exactly.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Isn't the CWIS more of a 'last line of defence' in the modern world of naval warfare vice the one-stop-shop?  If I wanted to take your gas can out and fired 4 missiles...not all from the same location...


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm not going to get into a debate with the Commodore.  

It is his view that the Asterix does not meet his requirements.  End of.  There are situations where he wouldn't sail the Asterix

Davie and the owners of the Asterix, Federal Fleet Services, seem to have a broader view of what they expect their ship to be able to do.


----------



## Stoker

In regards to the FAQ some more details on the cost, not sure I believe them or not.

The price for Asterix is $659 million.

The Government of Canada will pay approximately $520 million for the lease of the vessel over 10 years.

The additional services requested by Canada over the next ten years amounts to around $300 million.
This includes ship management, crewing, training, operations, maintenance, certifications, insurance, victualling, fuel and lubricants etc. 


So $659 Million for the cost of the ship and conversion and we don't own it. $520 Million for the lease and $300 million for additional services. So 1.4 Billion to operate the ship over 10 years and we don't even own it?


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I'm not going to get into a debate with the Commodore.
> 
> It is his view that the Asterix does not meet his requirements.  End of.  There are situations where he wouldn't sail the Asterix
> 
> Davie and the owners of the Asterix, Federal Fleet Services, seem to have a broader view of what they expect their ship to be able to do.



Easier to have a broader view when your trying to be the RCN's gas station.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I'm not going to get into a debate with the Commodore.
> 
> It is his view that the Asterix does not meet his requirements.  End of.  There are situations where he wouldn't sail the Asterix
> 
> Davie and the owners of the Asterix, Federal Fleet Services, seem to have a broader view of what they expect their ship to be able to do.



You don't seem to see the difference in what it can do and what it will do.  And what it will do is directed by the Government of Canada with, I hope, consultation with Senior Naval Officers, not Davies.



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> In regards to the FAQ some more details on the cost, not sure I believe them or not.
> 
> The price for Asterix is $659 million.
> 
> The Government of Canada will pay approximately $520 million for the lease of the vessel over 10 years.
> 
> The additional services requested by Canada over the next ten years amounts to around $300 million.
> This includes ship management, crewing, training, operations, maintenance, certifications, insurance, victualling, fuel and lubricants etc.
> 
> 
> So $659 Million for the cost of the ship and conversion and we don't own it. $520 Million for the lease and $300 million for additional services. So 1.4 Billion to operate the ship over 10 years and we don't even own it?



Yet.


----------



## FSTO

In all my years sailing in the FARTs we always played silly bugger with close in ASW and such. This was great during peacetime operations. But any Fleet Commander who would put his logistic base in harms way better have a very damn good reason to do so. I don't care how many self defence weapons or watertight bulkheads you have, one torp or a salvo of SSM's will make short work of any AOR.


----------



## Kirkhill

I do see the difference between what she can do (both as assessed by her owners and her customers) and what she will do (as required by her customer).

The customer wants her to do less than her owners believe she is capable of.  I don't see a problem.

As to the pricing issue - 

She cost 659 Million to build.

FFS expects to receive 520 Million in Lease revenues and 300 Million in Operating revenues for a total revenue stream of 820 Million.  FFS will have out of pocket expenses for the crew and maintenance but will be reasonably expected to make a profit out of the 820 Million.

Should HMG buy her for the RCN today then the transfer price is 659 Million and FFS takes no profits from operating her.  The RCN will then absorb the full costs of crewing and maintenance.

Should HMG buy her in 5 years or 10 years time then she will be likely transferred at a significantly reduced rate.

The Government will not be paying 659 Million twice.  It will not be paying 1.4 Billion.

And by the way, seeing as how her owners believe she can do more than you want her to do, you can always experiment to see who is right.


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> In all my years sailing in the FARTs we always played silly bugger with close in ASW and such. This was great during peacetime operations. But any Fleet Commander who would put his logistic base in harms way better have a very damn good reason to do so. I don't care how many self defence weapons or watertight bulkheads you have, one torp or a salvo of SSM's will make short work of any AOR.


  

It never failed to make us laugh during the Battle Problems to hear the pipe "Aircraft" or "Missiles" inbound... brace for shock"  and then go on to successfully conduct DC operations.  Lol.  We'd be that greasy black smoke on the horizon and fuel sheen on the surface of the water.


----------



## NavyShooter

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> As far as I know no CWIS are being fitted in Halifax and I would take what Davie is saying in their Faq with a grain of sand. Most of what they say have a element of truth but are very creative with their wording. I would take what the Commodore is saying as gospel versus what Davie is saying.




Based on my experiences, I'd trust Davie's words over ISI's lies in a heartbeat.   :waiting: 

The Commodore is the force employer though, so when it comes to deciding what operational environment the iAOR will be employed in, he's got an inside scoop over the rest of us.


I will note that looking back at history, the HMCS Terra Nova finished her career with the RCN fitted for, but not with CIWS as well....so....yeah, there's that.


The nice thing about the Phalanx/CIWS is that it requires no through-deck penetrations for setup/install.  All you need is a deck area that's large enough/strong enough to hold its weight and to distribute the recoil (not much from a 20mm) and a spot somewhere on the ship that you can run cables to and setup the Operator's Console(s).  


(OK, there's more to it than that, but Terra Nova's CIWS was installed and running in 10 days...)


NS


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

This is from a recent collision, but you'll get the gist: This what an AOR typically will look like after a single hit by a missile or torpedo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsDOqabk5L4

And Chief, Chris Pook has the math right: It's 659 million if the government want to buy her right now and take her over.

Otherwise, it's 520 millions over 10 years going towards paying for her (with some interest rate in there somewhere) and 300 millions for the operation and the crew over the same 10 years. So 820 millions after ten years, or basically, 82 millions every year in the Navy O&M budget and after ten years, you can return her, no questions asked. Or, you can buy her any time along the way and some of the annual 52 millions dollars for the "rental" gets credited towards the construction cost of 659 millions.

For instance, let say that the rate of return is 3% for FFS (and I will use 660 millions vice 659 for ease of calculation), then, in the first year, , 19.8 millions of the 52 millions is interest and 32.2 millions is applied in reduction of the 659 million value. This leaves a value of 627 millions for the second year, so in that year, 18.8 millions are interest, and 33.2 millions are applied against the residual value, bringing it down to 593.8 millions, which is what Canada would have to pay if they want to acquire her after 2 years.

So you can see that, acquiring her after two years would cost the rental for two years, plus operations costs for two years plus residual value after two years: (2X52) + (2X30) + 593.8 = 757.8 millions.

Now, I have a calculator that does these types of calculations, and using 3% as FFS rate of return on investment (not a bad figures for these days), it tells me that, after 10 years, the residual value for the purchase of the iAOR would be 290 million dollars, give or take a few hundred grands. So if Canada was to acquire her at the end of the period, the total cost to taxpayers would be 1.110 Billion dollars, but that would include use and operations for the last ten years.

So three financial markers here: Outright acquisition right now: 659 Million $, but we then have to pay for her operation from now on; or 820 Million $ paid over ten years, but we have nothing left in hand though we did get use of the iAOR for ten years at no extra operating costs; or 1,110 Million $ and we get the use and operation for ten years and a 17 year old ship at the end of that period.


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Based on my experiences, I'd trust Davie's words over ISI's lies in a heartbeat.   :waiting:
> 
> The Commodore is the force employer though, so when it comes to deciding what operational environment the iAOR will be employed in, he's got an inside scoop over the rest of us.
> 
> 
> I will note that looking back at history, the HMCS Terra Nova finished her career with the RCN fitted for, but not with CIWS as well....so....yeah, there's that.
> 
> 
> The nice thing about the Phalanx/CIWS is that it requires no through-deck penetrations for setup/install.  All you need is a deck area that's large enough/strong enough to hold its weight and to distribute the recoil (not much from a 20mm) and a spot somewhere on the ship that you can run cables to and setup the Operator's Console(s).
> 
> 
> (OK, there's more to it than that, but Terra Nova's CIWS was installed and running in 10 days...)
> 
> 
> NS



I wasn't talking about ISI but I know for a fact some of what Davie is saying is let us say "embellished truth". I hear enough rumblings about Asterix that i'm sure you do as well. End of the day the Commodore is stating the obvious. Davie needs to get over the fact that we are not needing anymore tankers from them.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I wasn't talking about ISI but I know for a fact some of what Davie is saying is let us say "embellished truth". I hear enough rumblings about Asterix that i'm sure you do as well. End of the day the Commodore is stating the obvious. Davie needs to get over the fact that we are not needing anymore tankers from them.



Chief, 

If you are referring to the aforementioned quotes I would tend to disagree.  The Asterix CAN do all of those things, but WILL it ?  That is another matter.  My pickup can haul over 13000lbs, but it never will as I wouldn't dream of straining the engine, drive train and breaking systems to the max on my 60K truck.  It can do over 200 KMH but it never will, so long as I drive it. 

I haven't head any negative statements/rumblings yet about the ship.  You could PM me if you would like.  

Having said that I am in full support another tanker from Davie.  But as long as this government is in power it will never happen.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Chief,
> 
> If you are referring to the aforementioned quotes I would tend to disagree.  The Asterix CAN do all of those things, but WILL it ?  That is another matter.  My pickup can haul over 13000lbs, but it never will as I wouldn't dream of straining the engine, drive train and breaking systems to the max on my 60K truck.  It can do over 200 KMH but it never will, so long as I drive it.
> 
> I haven't head any negative statements/rumblings yet about the ship.  You could PM me if you would like.
> 
> Having said that I am in full support another tanker from Davie.  But as long as this government is in power it will never happen.



I have in the past said an additional IAOR in conjunction with two JSS or whatever they're calling them now would compliment each other. Actually being on board i'm not sure about that now. People have said that its a political thing we are not optioning a second ship however I wonder now if there is other considerations in play.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its not supposed to go into war zones.  And was never promoted as a fighting vessel.  It is not commissioned into the RCN.  This isn't news.  Its a move to stir up unfounded and ill informed negative sentiment.



It's a Victoria newspaper that likes to drum up a lot of Letters to the Editor from retired navy guys...


----------



## Furniture

Asterix is leaps and bounds above what until recently we were operating as "warship" tankers... 

The government is short sighted and typically Canadian in not accepting a second Resolve ship because we have better '90s vintage tankers on order for delivery in the next 10 or so years baring any further delays. 

Davie may be over stating the capabilities of the Asterix, but Seaspan hasn't even cut steel on the new AORs. It comes down to whether "good enough" is what we can work with, or if we take the Canadian route of over-engineering and studying things until we take 20 years to decide we can't make a better boot, ruck, ship than industry, but it buys votes so we will...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Other than the Resolve are there any other AOR designs in the West that are newer and significantly different than the Berlins? Even the Brits were planning 5 different classes of ships to do what we plan on one.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Does the Asterix have a cargo elevator or something similar?  Having an oiler is fantastic, but I'm under the impression that it con't (or won't) carry the big ammunition, but if it has an elevator to the store rooms at least they can carry spare parts, relief supplies etc.


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> Other than the Resolve are there any other AOR designs in the West that are newer and significantly different than the Berlins? Even the Brits were planning 5 different classes of ships to do what we plan on one.


Are you talking designs or ships that have been built? If designs you can see here that there is an AOR version, which I imagine could be ordered in different sizes.

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/bmt-design-portfolio/auxiliaries/bmt-aegir-logistic-support-vessels/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Looks like a mix of the Berlin and Resolve. The good news is that things we like in the Resolve can be added to the Berlins and make sure they don't add things we don't like.


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> People have said that its a political thing we are not optioning a second ship however I wonder now if there is other considerations in play.



If you are able Chief Stoker can you elaborate?


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> If you are able Chief Stoker can you elaborate?



Not really but one has only to look at the dozens of contractor trucks on NB jetty to form a picture.


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Not really but one has only to look at the dozens of contractor trucks on NB jetty to form a picture.



Ah.  The new baby may be teething...


----------



## Furniture

I imagine FMF is very upset that they aren't getting the OT to work on her... and of course not getting the free coffee and soup while hanging out in the mess for coffee breaks.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> Ah.  The new baby may be teething...



A little more than that. There was a reason why she was sent down to Halifax during Christmas before the new year.


----------



## Cloud Cover

This article suggests the ship is is receiving a weapons fit and sensors, and is based on supposed comments from the Commodore : https://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/manufacturing/canadian-navys-new-resupply-vessel-one-major-problem-208488/


----------



## Stoker

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> This article suggests the ship is is receiving a weapons fit and sensors, and is based on supposed comments from the Commodore : https://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/manufacturing/canadian-navys-new-resupply-vessel-one-major-problem-208488/



They are installing radars but no CWIS as of now. The weapons they are talking about are probably .50 Cal mounts.


----------



## Cloud Cover

There is nothing the new contract with RCL that would provide for a CIWS for Resolve/Asterix anyway.

In photo's I have been watching the ship carefully. If there is ever any intent to use this ship other than a civilian chartered supply ship, it seems to me they would need to fit a secure ops room in the space, a decent radar fit, maybe some EW gear, soft kill and decoy launchers would be nice to see.  (I'm not sure even the JSS/Berlin will have much of that once they hit the water sometime in the next 200 years.)     
edit: and if they go with that sort of equipment fit, the RCN may as well just buy the thing.


----------



## jollyjacktar

When I had a visit aboard RFA Wave Ruler in Martinique, I was shown the 30mm Goal Keeper on each wing as well as Dillons on each Bridge Wing.  I was told, IIRC,  that the civilian crew were trained on how to operate/maintain the gear for those times that there were no military personnel embarked.


----------



## Stoker

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> There is nothing the new contract with RCL that would provide for a CIWS for Resolve/Asterix anyway.
> 
> In photo's I have been watching the ship carefully. If there is ever any intent to use this ship other than a civilian chartered supply ship, it seems to me they would need to fit a secure ops room in the space, a decent radar fit, maybe some EW gear, soft kill and decoy launchers would be nice to see.  (I'm not sure even the JSS/Berlin will have much of that once they hit the water sometime in the next 200 years.)
> edit: and if they go with that sort of equipment fit, the RCN may as well just buy the thing.



Interesting, do you think Davie went ahead and put in the areas for a CWIS anyways so they could proclaim that it has the capability to make it look more desirable?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Could probably bolt one onto an Orca if there was desire and room. But self defence as you know is much more than guns. It implies detecting and analyzing a threat*,  and among other things not shooting up the ship beside you. So while I don't believe Davie is throwing the weapons fit as mere concepts, but more is required for it to be an effective concept in a "navy sort of way."
* even though CIWS is a self contained system.


----------



## Underway

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> This article suggests the ship is is receiving a weapons fit and sensors, and is based on supposed comments from the Commodore : https://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/manufacturing/canadian-navys-new-resupply-vessel-one-major-problem-208488/



Speaking to the rumour mill, apparently the Asterix may not have been "finished on time" despite Davie's best sales pitch.  (Rumours, not facts... just watercooler talk here).

Stories about missing plumbing, large numbers of leaks and issues with some of the RAS equipment are starting to percolate.  I expect _some_ of this is teething problems as is common in refits.  Some may be due to rushing the ship out the door to meet a timeline for their sales pitch.  Essentially, she might still be under construction...


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:
			
		

> Speaking to the rumour mill, apparently the Asterix may not have been "finished on time" despite Davie's best sales pitch.  (Rumours, not facts... just watercooler talk here).
> 
> Stories about missing plumbing, large numbers of leaks and issues with some of the RAS equipment are starting to percolate.  I expect _some_ of this is teething problems as is common in refits.  Some may be due to rushing the ship out the door to meet a timeline for their sales pitch.  Essentially, she might still be under construction...



Sounds positively Irving-esque...


----------



## Cloud Cover

Yikes. Hopefully the plug is in the drain hole.


----------



## Underway

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Yikes. Hopefully the plug is in the drain hole.



Just want to re-emphasize this is rumour.  Don't need Davie coming for me in court...


----------



## Cloud Cover

True 'dat. Non disclosure agreements are in place.


----------



## Underway

More Asterix info.  She may not be ready/able to go to RIMPAC this summer.  Lots of work to be done.


----------



## Cloud Cover

FFS has a contract to perform. Davie better not be giving the Libs an opportunity to terminate for breach.


----------



## MTShaw

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> FFS has a contract to perform. Davie better not be giving the Libs an opportunity to terminate for breach.



But if they build a giant piece of shit or that simply doesn't meet the qualifications of the contract, it's the government's obligation to terminate. You intimate that it would be preferable for the government accept an unqualified ship.


----------



## Kirkhill

Who is responsible for supplying and fitting the Government Supplied Equipment?


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:
			
		

> But if they build a giant piece of crap or that simply doesn't meet the qualifications of the contract, it's the government's obligation to terminate. You intimate that it would be preferable for the government accept an unqualified ship.



We do that all the time, and fix it ourselves.  Why would we change now?  We are into big political movers and shakers when you turn a ship back.  The Irving family has every MP, MPP and probably municipal politician from the Quebec border east on speed dial and/or donates to their campaigns.  You go ahead and tell the #3 people on the Canadian most wealthy list the bad news.  The RCN can't do that.  That's a minister to prime minister level gonadal fortitude requirement.  And I doubt the RCN leadership is able to speak truth to power on that one.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Other way around MT Shaw, : if the ship and the services fail to perform as per whatever the contract is, then terminate. Although buying duds and crappy services is a signature hallmark of Canadian defence procurement,  Davie nor Irving nor Seaspan are remarkable in that regard.


----------



## MTShaw

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Other way around MT Shaw, : if the ship and the services fail to perform as per whatever the contract is, then terminate. Although buying duds and crappy services is a signature hallmark of Canadian defence procurement,  Davie nor Irving nor Seaspan are remarkable in that regard.



And we're all kind of stuck with that. Unless we have NATO yards with notable building excellence build our ships. Or Korea.


----------



## Occam

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Who is responsible for supplying and fitting the Government Supplied Equipment?



The GFE is, obviously, being supplied by DND.  Installation of GFE is being carried out by subcontractors to FFS.  I'm providing two systems, to be installed by L-3.


----------



## Kirkhill

Occam said:
			
		

> The GFE is, obviously, being supplied by DND.  Installation of GFE is being carried out by subcontractors to FFS.  I'm providing two systems, to be installed by L-3.



Thanks for the info Occam.


----------



## jollyjacktar

And there are items I'm supplying as well.


----------



## Occam

Anytime.  FYI, from my perspective (which is pretty low on the totem pole), I hope we never do this again.  The sheer volume of e-mail and paperwork generated by the need to set up Technical Assistance Agreements (TAA) and Third Party Transfer (TPT) agreements to allow DND to share technical data and transfer Controlled Goods equipment to third parties has been nothing less than a pain in my backside for months.  It has been quite unpleasant, and taken me away from my normal job taking care of the existing fleet.  It's a lot easier to say "Fleet Maintenance Facility Cape Scott, install this.  Specification, tech data and pubs are attached", and they just pull the necessary materiel from the CF Supply System.  No figuring out the logistics of sending GFE to subcontractors outside of Canada for pre-assembly, then shipped to the coast for installation by another subcontractor.


----------



## NavyShooter

MTShaw said:
			
		

> But if they build a giant piece of shit or that simply doesn't meet the qualifications of the contract, it's the government's obligation to terminate. You intimate that it would be preferable for the government accept an unqualified ship.




We accept crap all the time from ISI and spend thousands of hours fixing it why would we expect this one to be any different?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seaspan is in a lawsuit with one of it's sub-contractors, for failure to fulfill the terms of the contract. Seems the first OFSV needs to be fixed before acceptance.


----------



## Uzlu

> DND wants early start on construction of already delayed navy resupply ships
> 
> The plan would see some work on the two support ships begin later this year, keeping the scheduled delivery to 2022 and 2023, rather than 12 months later
> 
> OTTAWA — The Department of National Defence wants to get an early start on cutting steel for the navy’s new support ships, hoping to keep the multibillion-dollar project from slipping farther behind schedule.
> 
> The plan would see some work on the two support ships begin in Vancouver later this year, taking advantage of a lull in the construction of two science vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> While the science vessels would still be delivered first, officials are hoping the head start will prevent another 12-month delay to the Protecteur-class joint support ships, as the naval vessels are officially known.
> 
> Defence officials are now talking to counterparts from other federal departments about the plan, which was initially pitched by Seaspan Shipbuilding in Vancouver.
> 
> Seaspan is responsible for building the two Protecteur-class vessels as well as four science ships and a polar icebreaker for the coast guard.
> 
> “The final shipyard proposal for the construction of the joint support ships will be presented for government approval in the coming year,” Defence Department spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier said in an email.
> 
> “Discussions are underway on an early start to construction of the ships in 2018. This would result in the delivery of the first ship in about four years, with the second ship being delivered one year later.”
> 
> The plan is the latest twist in what has been a decade-long odyssey to equip the military with new support vessels, which are considered some of the most essential ships for a modern navy.
> 
> Canada has been without a permanent support ship since 2015, when the navy was forced to retire its existing vessels due to an unexpected fire and corrosion.
> 
> The gap will get a little smaller Tuesday when the Royal Canadian Navy formally welcomes to the fleet the converted civilian freighter MV Asterix, which will be leased to the government for five years, with a five-year option.
> 
> Navy commander Vice-Admiral Ron Lloyd was set to participate in a ceremony Tuesday in Halifax, after which the Asterix is expected to participate in a major U.S.-led exercise before heading to Asia.
> 
> But defence officials have said Asterix, which is owned by Quebec-based Davie Shipyards, won’t be deployed into harm’s way and is not a true military vessel like the Protecteur-class — an assertion that Davie has refuted.
> 
> “This ship has a robust force protection capability for when it deploys outside of Canadian waters,” said Spencer Fraser, head of Davie’s sister company, Federal Fleet Services. “So to say the ship is defenceless is a complete exaggeration and misnomer.”
> 
> Construction on the first support vessel was supposed to start in 2016, with delivery slated for 2019. But the project has been plagued by delays and cost uncertainty; the government says its $2.3-billion budget is also under review.
> 
> The most recent concern was a warning from Seaspan that it might have to lay off workers during a gap in construction between the third and fourth science vessels, which are completely different designs.
> 
> That prompted fears that experienced workers would move to other shipyards and be unavailable when it came time to ramp up production on the last science vessel and the support ships.
> 
> Starting some work on the support ships would prevent layoffs, said Seaspan vice-president Tim Page. It would also keep the scheduled delivery of the support ships to 2022 and 2023, rather than 12 months later.
> 
> “This opportunity will support the needs of our navy customer and enable us to retain the shipbuilding knowledge and experience of our workforce,” Page said in an email.


http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/national-defence-aims-to-save-time-by-cutting-steel-on-resupply-ships-early


----------



## Privateer

Happened across this recent federal government direction:



> Direction Made Pursuant to Section 224 of the National Defence Act Respecting Civilian Crews on Auxiliary Vessels
> 
> Short Title
> 
> 1 This Direction may be cited as the _Civilian Crews on Auxiliary Vessels Direction_.
> 
> Application
> 
> 2 It is hereby directed that the _Government Vessels Discipline Act_ shall apply to civilian crews engaged for service on auxiliary vessels of the Canadian Forces.



Edit to add:  That Act is not an easy find. It looks like it wasn't carried forward into the current consolidation of the statutes.  Indexed at R.S.C. 1970, c. G-12


----------



## Stoker

I went on a tour of Asterix last night given by Spencer Fraser CEO of Federal Fleet, enjoy the pictures.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/GOCANADANAVY/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1774026875989368


----------



## Cloud Cover

Nice gym!!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Thanks, Chief.  Very nice looking girl.


----------



## FSTO

The best part? The Trudeau picture seems to have disappeared!


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> The best part? The Trudeau picture seems to have disappeared!



No sadly several of them are still there.


----------



## FSTO

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No sadly several of them are still there.



Ah crap. I was hoping some sanity had prevailed.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No sadly several of them are still there.



As Dartboards?  He asked hopefully...


----------



## MTShaw

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As Dartboards?  He asked hopefully...



Holy sh!t, they're seriously putting the Prime Minster's picture on military vessel. What happened to our monarch, or at least the commander of our military.

The longer I'm a liberal, the more conservative I become.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Strictly speaking, Asterix isn't military.  We're just leasing her services and crew.


----------



## Patski

At Least it's not a Trump Picture... I wanted to go see it in Levis's yard when they launched it, but during the week, it wasnt possible to get free time...


----------



## Pusser

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Strictly speaking, Asterix isn't military.  We're just leasing her services and crew.



In that case, it should be a picture of the company president...


----------



## Furniture

Being a privately owned ship they could festoon it with pictures of My Little Pony, Carebears, etc.. and it bears no reflection on the CAF, or it's CoC. 

If Davie wants to suck up to the PM let them. Maybe it will result in more ships for the federal fleet that they can't, or shouldn't have to wait for any longer.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Just wondering what the appropriate protocol is for a picture of the sovereign since the ship is not an HMC ship.  Can it even fly an RCN ensign?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No. It flies the Canadian merchant ship ensign, which is the national flag.

And there is no protocol whatsoever on pictures of the Sovereign for merchant ships.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No. It flies the Canadian merchant ship ensign, which is the national flag.
> 
> And there is no protocol whatsoever on pictures of the Sovereign for merchant ships.



Actually it flies the CNAV Blue Jack, the national flag and the Federal Fleet house flag.


----------



## quadrapiper

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Just wondering what the appropriate protocol is for a picture of the sovereign since the ship is not an HMC ship.  Can it even fly an RCN ensign?


Would be a question of House custom - IIRC BC Ferries, for one, has a picture of HM onboard their larger vessels.


----------



## Pusser

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Actually it flies the CNAV Blue Jack, the national flag and the Federal Fleet house flag.



But it's flying the auxiliary jack on the yardarm, not as a jack.

Personally, I think the CFAVs should go the same way HMC Ships did and switch their ensigns and jacks...


----------



## Stoker

Pusser said:
			
		

> But it's flying the auxiliary jack on the yardarm, not as a jack.
> 
> Personally, I think the CFAVs should got he same way HMC Ships did and switch their ensigns and jacks...



I don't know how they're flying that flags but I do know to use the Blue jack the RCN is amending the manual of ceremony.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Its a little more complicated than that, but it starts with the fact that the CFAV (CNAV? did it recently change from Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessel to Canadian Navy Auxiliary Vessel?) Jack has no existence in our system of national ship identification. And, no it is not as simple as amending the Manual of Ceremonial, as it is directed by the Canada Shipping Act, which would have to be amended.

In Canada, we have only two possible Ensign: The Naval Ensign, i.e. the RCN's White ensign, or the Merchant ship ensign, which is the National flag. This is different than the UK or Australia, where the identification of vessels allows for three categories: Vessels of her Majesty's Armed Forces (white Ensign), other vessels of her Majesty's government, or vessels in her service, or vessels commanded by members of the Naval Reserves (Merchant ships commanded by a merchant marine officer also holding commission in the NR) fly the Blue, all other merchant ships fly the red ensign.

The reason the RCN can fly its own Ensign is because the ships of the Armed Forces are exempt from the Canada Shipping Act, section 7 (1), which reads:

_Exclusion

7 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this Act does not apply in respect of a vessel, facility or aircraft that belongs to the Canadian Forces or a foreign military force or in respect of any other vessel, facility or aircraft that is under the command, control or direction of the Canadian Forces._

A nuance here: this relates to the vessels of the Canadian Forces, not to all vessels of the Department of National Defence. The CFAV's are operated and under the Department of Defence, thus they are subject to the Canada Shipping Act. Therefore, they must fly the Canadian Flag, under Art 64 of the Act, which reads:

_Right to fly Canadian flag

64 (1) A Canadian vessel has the right to fly the Canadian flag.

Obligation to fly flag

(2) The master of a Canadian vessel, other than one registered in the small vessel register, shall ensure that it flies the Canadian flag

(a) when signalled to do so by a government vessel or a vessel under the command of the Canadian Forces; or
(b) when entering or leaving, or while moored at or anchored in, a port._

So where does the "Blue" jack of the CFAV's come from? It is used as an identifier of the vessels who operate under tasking made by QHM. That's all it means, and that is why it will not be flown as an Ensign, but only as a jack, or at a yardarm. It is the same reason, for instance, that the Coast Guard has a "jack" but flies the National Flag as ensign.

In the present case, Asterix, a vessel belonging to the merchant service, is obliged to fly the Canadian National flag as her ensign. The CFAV's blue is only flown as secondary indicator that it works as tasked by QHM.


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:
			
		

> More Asterix info.  She may not be ready/able to go to RIMPAC this summer.  Lots of work to be done.





> VAdm Lloyd said the new AOR will sail with Canadian Fleet Atlantic ships in the coming months, and as the summer nears it will meet up with West Coast warships for a deployment to the 2018 Rim of the Pacific Exercise off the coast of Hawaii.


http://www.lookoutnewspaper.com/naval-history-made-mv-asterix-added-fleet/


----------



## NavyShooter

I was onboard on Monday.

Had a tour delivered by their XO to a group of us from BLog and N4Log.  

They're sailing.  They're going west.  That was the distinct 'impression' I was left with during the tour.

There is work ongoing onboard, but for the nay-sayers, I will observe, this ship sailed from Davie in Quebec in December, and has sailed since then several times.

We got a frigate back from ISI not that long ago, and not a single RCN ship that has come out of the ISI yard hands has been in 'ready to sail' condition.

The amount of work required to get a ship 'ready' after a 'refit' at ISI is tens of thousands of hours of work.


----------



## Underway

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I was onboard on Monday.
> 
> Had a tour delivered by their XO to a group of us from BLog and N4Log.
> 
> They're sailing.  They're going west.  That was the distinct 'impression' I was left with during the tour.
> 
> There is work ongoing onboard, but for the nay-sayers, I will observe, this ship sailed from Davie in Quebec in December, and has sailed since then several times.
> 
> We got a frigate back from ISI not that long ago, and not a single RCN ship that has come out of the ISI yard hands has been in 'ready to sail' condition.
> 
> The amount of work required to get a ship 'ready' after a 'refit' at ISI is tens of thousands of hours of work.



Which is my point.  Tens of thousands of hours of work.  Difference here is that the Asterix can sail, but can't do the job she's required to do.  Their last sail proved that she can't RAS worth a damn right now for various reasons.  Some of that may be teething, some of that is surely that she was rushed to meet a deadline for political points.  Thousands of hours of work are still required to get her ready for RIMPAC.  I expect she will be "ready enough" to go West if you catch my drift.  But as she is owned by FFS who has the final say on availability? If she was owned by the RCN we might be inclined to say, don't sail until we're happy you are fully operational.  FFS might say sail whether she is fully operational or not.

This is not to say they can't do good work and sort out the readiness issues.  There is certainly a lot of effort going into fixing all the identified problems judging by the lineup of contractors going on and off regularly.  80% capability from Asterix is still infinitely better then 0% capability from JSS currently.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> Which is my point.  Tens of thousands of hours of work.  Difference here is that the Asterix can sail, but can't do the job she's required to do.  Their last sail proved that she can't RAS worth a damn right now for various reasons.  Some of that may be teething, some of that is surely that she was rushed to meet a deadline for political points.  Thousands of hours of work are still required to get her ready for RIMPAC.  I expect she will be "ready enough" to go West if you catch my drift.  But as she is owned by FFS who has the final say on availability? If she was owned by the RCN we might be inclined to say, don't sail until we're happy you are fully operational.  FFS might say sail whether she is fully operational or not.
> 
> This is not to say they can't do good work and sort out the readiness issues.  There is certainly a lot of effort going into fixing all the identified problems judging by the lineup of contractors going on and off regularly.  80% capability from Asterix is still infinitely better then 0% capability from JSS currently.



Yes quite a bit of work to be done as evidence of the state of the ship, right now she's only certified for Cyclones.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes quite a bit of work to be done as evidence of the state of the ship, right now she's only certified for Cyclones.



No, she is not certified for Cyclone. Or any particular helicopter. She has a general clearance to operate with military helicopters in fairly benign conditions.


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> No, she is not certified for Cyclone.



Well you would know wouldn't you, whats in the media have led many to think otherwise.  I know there's still equipment to be installed.

It seems like Federal Fleet and Davie are saying all is good on that front.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/asterix-completes-royal-canadian-navy-trials-achieves-full-operational-capability-foc-671666423.html


----------



## Baz

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Well you would know wouldn't you, whats in the media have led many to think otherwise.  I know there's still equipment to be installed.
> 
> It seems like Federal Fleet and Davie are saying all is good on that front.
> 
> https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/asterix-completes-royal-canadian-navy-trials-achieves-full-operational-capability-foc-671666423.html



Looking in from the outside, as I have *no* first hand information of the extent or how successful the Asterix trials were, my *observation* is that there may not be a formal agreement as to what Full Operational Capability means in the context of the announcement made in the quoted article.

Understanding what flight deck trials, shipborne helicopter operational limitations, and flight deck certifications actually mean and having been informally told what was actually conducted, and then extrapolating that to


			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> No, she is not certified for Cyclone. Or any particular helicopter. She has a general clearance to operate with military helicopters in fairly benign conditions.


I would tend to believe it is not the same definition that would be used by the RCN and RCAF when it comes to Air Ops.

Then seeing as the quoted article states 





> These exercises have included everything from dual RAS operations to helicopter landing, take-off and vertical replenishment trials


 I would tend to make the deduction that this definition of FOC is inclusive for much of the capabilities right now; ie the contractor has declared that it is FOC "for what they are responsible for" but the Operational customer (the RCN) has not made such an announcement.

This is in no way a bad thing per se; it just means (to me) that due diligence on the part of the RCN and RCAF is still going on, regardless of how the contractor views it.  The ship may in fact be very capable in the fullness of time but the contractor may not be using certain terms the way the customer would in order to make it look like a more spectacular result.

As I said, just looking in from the outside...


----------



## Stoker

Baz said:
			
		

> Looking in from the outside, as I have *no* first hand information of the extent or how successful the Asterix trials were, my *observation* is that there may not be a formal agreement as to what Full Operational Capability means in the context of the announcement made in the quoted article.
> 
> Understanding what flight deck trials, shipborne helicopter operational limitations, and flight deck certifications actually mean and having been informally told what was actually conducted, and then extrapolating that toI would tend to believe it is not the same definition that would be used by the RCN and RCAF when it comes to Air Ops.
> 
> Then seeing as the quoted article states  I would tend to make the deduction that this definition of FOC is inclusive for much of the capabilities right now; ie the contractor has declared that it is FOC "for what they are responsible for" but the Operational customer (the RCN) has not made such an announcement.
> 
> This is in no way a bad thing per se; it just means (to me) that due diligence on the part of the RCN and RCAF is still going on, regardless of how the contractor views it.  The ship may in fact be very capable in the fullness of time but the contractor may not be using certain terms the way the customer would in order to make it look like a more spectacular result.
> 
> As I said, just looking in from the outside...



If you look at most of the info that comes out about Asterix its sources from Federal Fleet and Davie. Some is true and some has an element of truth about it and some is totally out to lunch.


----------



## jollyjacktar

A nice video of Asterix conducting a RAS with Toronto.

https://youtu.be/VcalhkPw1s0


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Nice, Jjt.

Two small comments:

(1) A GoPro camera on the probe: That's cool!

(2) The video, which has nothing but music, except a few words of credits at the end in writing (not spoken), feels the need to specify in the title that it is the English version of he video.  ;D Only in the CAF!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Good catch on the versions. Reminds me of "the Aquarium channel" on our satellite tv.  There is an English and French version.  Same music and fish for both too.   :nod:


----------



## Pusser

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Good catch on the versions. Reminds me of "the Aquarium channel" on our satellite tv.  There is an English and French version.  Same music and fish for both too.   :nod:



Can we assume the fish are bilingual?  A number of recent docu-drama productions on Canadian History have used bilingual actors so the same people can give the same dialogue in both languages.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Pusser said:
			
		

> Can we assume the fish are bilingual?  A number of recent docu-drama productions on Canadian History have used bilingual actors so the same people can give the same dialogue in both languages.



They must be.  After all, they spend years in schools.


----------



## Pusser

:rofl:





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They must be.  After all, they spend years in schools.



 :rofl:  You out-clevered me.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Stats on the UK's newest support tanker.

https://sldinfo.com/2018/03/royal-navy-adds-new-support-tanker/

Royal Navy Adds New Support Tanker
03/30/2018
It is good to add new warships but the logistics support aspect is a foundational aspect of at sea operations.

And the Royal Navy is adding four new support tankers to the fleet.

According to a recent UK Ministry of Defence press released published March 27, 2018:

The third of four new support tankers to be delivered to the UK has arrived in Cornwall for customisation and trials before entering service with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and being deployed on operations with the Royal Navy.

The arrival of RFA Tidesurge comes just weeks after her sister ship, RFA Tidespring, met up at sea with aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth for the first time.

The 39,000-tonne tankers can carry up to 19,000 cubic metres of fuel and 1,400 cubic metres of fresh water in support of Royal Navy operations all over the world.

The detailed customisation work to prepare RFA Tidesurge and her sister ships for operations is being undertaken at the A&P shipyard in Falmouth, sustaining around 300 jobs.

Minister for Defence Procurement Guto Bebb said:

“The arrival of RFA Tidesurge in Cornwall marks another key milestone in the Tide Class programme. Tidesurge will soon join her sister ships in providing the integral support which powers our warships and helps our Royal Navy maintain a truly global presence.”

While in Falmouth RFA Tidesurge will be fitted with UK specific armour, self-defence weaponry and communications systems, with the total UK work content, including A&P, in the Tide Class programme worth around £150 million and sustaining further jobs at 27 UK-based companies.

The customisation work is expected to take around four months after which RFA Tidesurge will begin final sea trials before entering service in Autumn this year.

Meanwhile, RFA Tidespring, which was preparing to conduct a Replenishment at Sea (RAS) refuelling when it met with HMS Queen Elizabeth in February, is currently acting as the training tanker for the Navy’s Flag Officer Sea Training (FOST) and will take part in exercise Joint Warrior in the Spring.


RFA Tidesurge has arrived in Cornwall
RFA Tiderace, which is currently docked at A&P Falmouth, is undergoing preparations for her capability trials which are expected to commence in early April.

Sir Simon Bollom, Chief of Materiel (Ships) at Defence Equipment and Support, the MOD’s procurement organisation, said:

“I’m proud to say that the delivery of the tanker programme will provide vital support for the Royal Navy, providing it with fuel and fresh water, while also being able to undertake a wide range of maritime operations, including humanitarian relief.”

The fourth of the Tide Class vessels – RFA Tideforce – is expected to be delivered later this year.

A&P Group has held the contract to support and maintain RFA ships at home and abroad since 2008. Under the Cluster Support Programme, A&P Group provides maintenance support to groups of MOD vessels, which include RFA Argus and the RFA Bay Class vessels Mounts Bay, Cardigan Bay and Lyme Bay.


----------



## Privateer

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In Canada, we have only two possible Ensign: The Naval Ensign, i.e. the RCN's White ensign, or the Merchant ship ensign, which is the National flag. This is different than the UK or Australia, where the identification of vessels allows for three categories: Vessels of her Majesty's Armed Forces (white Ensign), other vessels of her Majesty's government, or vessels in her service, or vessels commanded by members of the Naval Reserves (Merchant ships commanded by a merchant marine officer also holding commission in the NR) fly the Blue, all other merchant ships fly the red ensign.
> 
> ...
> 
> In the present case, Asterix, a vessel belonging to the merchant service, is obliged to fly the Canadian National flag as her ensign. The CFAV's blue is only flown as secondary indicator that it works as tasked by QHM.



Recent photos of Asterix departing Halifax for RIMPAC show her flying the "Blue Ensign" (CFAV Jack) as her actual ensign.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Apparently bound for the Pacific, I hope she visits Vancouver


----------



## Edward Campbell

Privateer said:
			
		

> Recent photos of Asterix departing Halifax for RIMPAC show her flying the "Blue Ensign" (CFAV Jack) as her actual ensign.



Is this (red circle) what you mean?


----------



## Stoker

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is this (red circle) what you mean?



Thats it


----------



## Privateer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is this (red circle) what you mean?



Yes.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:tsktsk:  she's already losing some that new car curb appeal with tugs rubbing nasty black marks on her as well as that streak of rust from the obd.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Asterix is indeed an outstanding ship.

My humble opinion: RCN should purchase the Obelix, install in both ships Phalanx systems. Acquire at the same time MRNSV, creating in that sense a Flexible Logistics Ship group. An not build JSS (only 1 RAS).

Having said that in order not to impact contract with Seaspan, upgrade Polar Icebreaker from Polar class 2+ to Polar class 1 (with Nuclear tech perhaps). Using money unspent in 2 directions: restarting Defence Research Establishment Pacific (DREP) in BC focusing on Maritime Safety i.e. New technology for safe oil tankers in BC coast and in the near future either build or upgrade an LHD from US. Both supported by Seaspan.

In that sense specialize all Shipyards. Davie in Reconversion, Seaspan in Coast Guard and Irving in Warships.


----------



## Cloud Cover

or... we could do what the present government is doing, which is delay and do as little as possible as slow as possible.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

...Future RCN:

12-15 CSC
5-6 AOPS
No more Kingston
8 Orcas (at least 4 upgraded with M2 on deck)
2 AOR (Asterix and Obelix armed with Phalanx)
1 Multi Role Naval Ship
4 Subs (2 Astute*** + 2 Victoria)
1 Possible LHD carrying on F35B's - Wasp style-


----------



## SeaKingTacco

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> Asterix is indeed an outstanding ship.
> 
> My humble opinion: RCN should purchase the Obelix, install in both ships Phalanx systems. Acquire at the same time MRNSV, creating in that sense a Flexible Logistics Ship group. An not build JSS (only 1 RAS).
> 
> Having said that in order not to impact contract with Seaspan, upgrade Polar Icebreaker from Polar class 2+ to Polar class 1 (with Nuclear tech perhaps). Using money unspent in 2 directions: restarting Defence Research Establishment Pacific (DREP) in BC focusing on Maritime Safety i.e. New technology for safe oil tankers in BC coast and in the near future either build or upgrade an LHD from US. Both supported by Seaspan.
> 
> In that sense specialize all Shipyards. Davie in Reconversion, Seaspan in Coast Guard and Irving in Warships.



I'm sorry but your expertise in this area is...what, precisely?


----------



## alexanderpeterson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but your expertise in this area is...what, precisely?



Excellent Question. I am a concerned citizen that wants to see CAD expended wisely...needless to say I am the grandson of a Veteran Officer -with a few tours overseas including Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) - and has spent countless hours talking about the issue with him. I thought that finally I could converse with people sharing my passion: ships, planes and strategy without asking me about my "credentials"...hence my humble opinion words.


----------



## kratz

alexanderpeterson,

Anyone posting here is responsible for their comments. Nobody knows you here, so it should be expected that members expect you to establish yourself.

If SeaKingTacco hadn't of asked now, someone would have at some point.

They may be your humble opinions, but backing them up with links to references and acknowledging your second hand knowledge where appropriate, is part of owning the comments you post.


----------



## jollyjacktar

alexanderpeterson, welcome to the forums.

While the Asterix is indeed a good vessel, she is crewed by civilians and military personnel.  This, as well as her not being milspec limits where she can go and what she can do.  While we need her and her sister, we also need our PRO and PRE back with the fleet too.


----------



## Stoker

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> ...Future RCN:
> 
> 12-15 CSC
> 5-6 AOPS
> No more Kingston
> 8 Orcas (at least 4 upgraded with M2 on deck)
> 2 AOR (Asterix and Obelix armed with Phalanx)
> 1 Multi Role Naval Ship
> 4 Subs (2 Astute*** + 2 Victoria)
> 1 Possible LHD carrying on F35B's - Wasp style-



No more Kingstons? You want us to divest ourselves of one of most useful platforms in the fleet?


----------



## alexanderpeterson

kratz said:
			
		

> alexanderpeterson,
> 
> Anyone posting here is responsible for their comments. Nobody knows you here, so it should be expected that members expect you to establish yourself.
> 
> If SeaKingTacco hadn't of asked now, someone would have at some point.
> 
> They may be your humble opinions, but backing them up with links to references and acknowledging your second hand knowledge where appropriate, is part of owning the comments you post.



I tried to support my comments regarding AOR, specifically Asterix and Obelix with Facts taking from other sources. Sadly they belonged to another source and after posted they were correctly deleted by Admin

I agree with you that making an objective capability comparison between Asterix Vs JSS will make a compelling case in how to spend CAD. For now, just relying in Davie info http://federalfleet.ca/2017/09/12/download-the-defsec-2017-presentation/ -   Page 15 in how JSS is not in compliance with latest NATO RAS std. ATP-16 :
2A-7 2A20 Rigs in Use by Nations... 
6-11 0626 Transfer of Water...
6-18 0630 Fuel STREAM Rig...
6-18 0631 Rigging the Delivering Ship for Fuel STREAM Rig ...
6-23 0632 Passing, Tending, and Recovering the Rig...
6-24 0633 Rigging the Receiving Ship for Fuel STREAM ...
6-30 0634 Connecting and Disconnecting the Rig ...
6-30 0635 Receiving Hose Couplings Other than Probe...
6-32 0636 Precautions Against Loss of Fuel ...
6-34 0637 Blowing Through Hose Procedures ...
6-34 0640 Convoy Escort Replenishment ...6
-36 0641 Necessity for Rapid Fueling ...
6-36 0642 Fueling Course and Speed...
6-36 0643 Station Keeping ...
6-36 0644 Emergency Breakaway...
6-38 0645 Standard Fueling Equipment ...
6-38 0650 Astern Fueling by Float Method ...
6-38 0651 Equipment and Procedures for Converted Merchant Tankers...
6-38 0652 Astern Hose Cleanout System ...
6-38 0660 Astern Fueling Using the NATO 4 Fueling Rig ...
6-48 0661 Communications During Astern Refueling ...
6-48 0662 Maneuvering During Astern Refueling ...
6-48 0663 General Requirements for Astern Refueling ...6-48 0664 Rig Variations ...
6-49 0665 Rig Assembly and Preparations (Single Hose, No Automatic Winch) ...
6-49 0666 Rig Assembly and Preparations (Double or Single Hose, Automatic Winch) ...
6-51 0667 Using the Float Method...6-51 0670 Replenishment of Fuel and Water in Harbor ...
6-51 0671–0684 Nation-Specific Transfer of Liquids ...
6-52 ANNEX 6A—MERCHANT TANKER FUELING BY THE ASTERN METHOD 6A10 Introduction ... 
It includes the standard requirements and procedures that have been agreed to by NATO nations. NATO nations have agreed that all practicable assistance and facilities shall be provided to warships and certain auxiliaries of the NATO navies.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No more Kingstons? You want us to divest ourselves of one of most useful platforms in the fleet?



Is not the idea to replace Kingston by AOPS hence the Container deck capability to allow flexibility for Antisubmarine warfare among others?


----------



## alexanderpeterson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> alexanderpeterson, welcome to the forums.
> 
> While the Asterix is indeed a good vessel, she is crewed by civilians and military personnel.  This, as well as her not being milspec limits where she can go and what she can do.  While we need her and her sister, we also need our PRO and PRE back with the fleet too.



Agreed. 
That is what the current agreement with Federal Fleet Services was done...Can we, in the future after Lease is over and ship transfer to RCN, be able to cover all crew with own Navy personnel? Keeping Knowledge and ensuring long term Skills


----------



## Stoker

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> I tried to support my comments regarding AOR, specifically Asterix and Obelix with Facts taking from other sources. Sadly they belonged to another source and after posted they were correctly deleted by Admin
> 
> I agree with you that making an objective capability comparison between Asterix Vs JSS will make a compelling case in how to spend CAD. For now, just relying in Davie info http://federalfleet.ca/2017/09/12/download-the-defsec-2017-presentation/ -   Page 15 in how JSS is not in compliance with latest NATO RAS std. ATP-16 :
> 2A-7 2A20 Rigs in Use by Nations...
> 6-11 0626 Transfer of Water...
> 6-18 0630 Fuel STREAM Rig...
> 6-18 0631 Rigging the Delivering Ship for Fuel STREAM Rig ...
> 6-23 0632 Passing, Tending, and Recovering the Rig...
> 6-24 0633 Rigging the Receiving Ship for Fuel STREAM ...
> 6-30 0634 Connecting and Disconnecting the Rig ...
> 6-30 0635 Receiving Hose Couplings Other than Probe...
> 6-32 0636 Precautions Against Loss of Fuel ...
> 6-34 0637 Blowing Through Hose Procedures ...
> 6-34 0640 Convoy Escort Replenishment ...6
> -36 0641 Necessity for Rapid Fueling ...
> 6-36 0642 Fueling Course and Speed...
> 6-36 0643 Station Keeping ...
> 6-36 0644 Emergency Breakaway...
> 6-38 0645 Standard Fueling Equipment ...
> 6-38 0650 Astern Fueling by Float Method ...
> 6-38 0651 Equipment and Procedures for Converted Merchant Tankers...
> 6-38 0652 Astern Hose Cleanout System ...
> 6-38 0660 Astern Fueling Using the NATO 4 Fueling Rig ...
> 6-48 0661 Communications During Astern Refueling ...
> 6-48 0662 Maneuvering During Astern Refueling ...
> 6-48 0663 General Requirements for Astern Refueling ...6-48 0664 Rig Variations ...
> 6-49 0665 Rig Assembly and Preparations (Single Hose, No Automatic Winch) ...
> 6-49 0666 Rig Assembly and Preparations (Double or Single Hose, Automatic Winch) ...
> 6-51 0667 Using the Float Method...6-51 0670 Replenishment of Fuel and Water in Harbor ...
> 6-51 0671–0684 Nation-Specific Transfer of Liquids ...
> 6-52 ANNEX 6A—MERCHANT TANKER FUELING BY THE ASTERN METHOD 6A10 Introduction ...
> It includes the standard requirements and procedures that have been agreed to by NATO nations. NATO nations have agreed that all practicable assistance and facilities shall be provided to warships and certain auxiliaries of the NATO navies.



Don't believe everything you read on Federal Fleets page. Asterix has one main engine and one shaft line to JSS's two and Asterix has a decade old hull being reused. It fills our immediate requirements now.


----------



## Stoker

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> Is not the idea to replace Kingston by AOPS hence the Container deck capability to allow flexibility for Antisubmarine warfare among others?



No its not, Kingston class will still be doing the same thing in conjunction with Harry DeWolf. What antisubmarine warfare are you talking about?


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> What antisubmarine warfare are you talking about?



The one performed by Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone and the Containerized version of  the deep sea Thales MMS mechanical mine sweeping system, the route survey system or the Sutec remotely operated vehicle (ROV) mine inspection system.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Don't believe everything you read on Federal Fleets page. Asterix has one main engine and one shaft line to JSS's two and Asterix has a decade old hull being reused. It fills our immediate requirements now.



I would like to see 2 RAS instead of 1 on JSS...remember the original design by BMT?  Also the TAG price for each JSS ship is a little much, don't you think?   The "original" Asterix shape was a nice ship to the eye


----------



## Stoker

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> The one performed by Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone and the Containerized version of  the deep sea Thales MMS mechanical mine sweeping system, the route survey system or the Sutec remotely operated vehicle (ROV) mine inspection system.



The Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone won't be embarked in the Arctic, a CCG helo will be doing that and there is no room for storage of anti sub torpedoes onboard. The Thales system has been gone for some years now. We still have route survey and actually Harry Dewolf won't be using that but they will be using a multi echo mapping payload for hydrographic work. As for the other mine warfare payloads, the class doesn't have degausing unlike the Kingston Class.


----------



## Stoker

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> I would like to see 2 RAS instead of 1 on JSS...remember the original design by BMT?  Also the TAG price for each JSS ship is a little much, don't you think?   The "original" Asterix shape was a nice ship to the eye



It actually has 4 RAS stations to 2 on the PROTECTEUR Class. This means no port and stbd duel RAS. Its a nice to have but seems to have not caused us any heartache over the years. The price is the price for a purpose built AOR that's actually new. I agree that it brings exciting capability but again there's a reason why we're only renting it.


----------



## jollyjacktar

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> That is what the current agreement with Federal Fleet Services was done...Can we, in the future after Lease is over and ship transfer to RCN, be able to cover all crew with own Navy personnel? Keeping Knowledge and ensuring long term Skills



No.  One glaring mistake is that no one is keeping the role my legacy trade did alive with the Asterix.  As a HT we were the custodians of the cargo fuel it was our job to see that it came on board from the refinery or other source, was taken care of while on board and delivered to our fleet during RAS and alongside fuellings.  This function is being done by the civilian crew and all of what is now Mar Tech territory for that matter.  Those of us who were Tanker Wankers are leaving and that knowledge leaves with us.  A fail.  In my opinion.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Resolve Class AOR

Cons: One Main Engine, One Main Shaft, Old Hull, No Phalanx*, Civilian Crew, No Compartmentalized???
Pros: Interim measure, Lower Cost, 4 RAS, Nice shape (at least original Asterix Design)

Berlin Class Modified (V 3.0)

Cons: COST, Old design, 2 RAS, Not so nice shape  ;D (nothing bad about having an old merchant ship look), Lead Time, we can lay waste an opportunity to have a "real" JSS like Karel Doorman or an Amphibious Ship for that cost,
Pros: Permanent Measure, Redundancy, real AOR design, New Canadian Ship - not lease-, AA fitted, RCN Personnel (all trades  ???)

It seems to me that there could be a lost one time generation chance to have built a next gen Navy...sorry to be reiterative but 20 years ago this started as a truly JSS and we are having a great AOR...what you all think?


----------



## alexanderpeterson

On the previous reply I have attached a pic comparison between Original Asterix Design and as - built ship. The original one appears more modern Aegis like ship


----------



## serger989

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> Resolve Class AOR
> 
> Cons: One Main Engine, One Main Shaft, Old Hull, No Phalanx*, Civilian Crew, No Compartmentalized???
> Pros: Interim measure, Lower Cost, 4 RAS, Nice shape (at least original Asterix Design)
> 
> Berlin Class Modified (V 3.0)
> 
> Cons: COST, Old design, 2 RAS, Not so nice shape  ;D (nothing bad about having an old merchant ship look), Lead Time, we can lay waste an opportunity to have a "real" JSS like Karel Doorman or an Amphibious Ship for that cost,
> Pros: Permanent Measure, Redundancy, real AOR design, New Canadian Ship - not lease-, AA fitted, RCN Personnel (all trades  ???)
> 
> It seems to me that there could be a lost one time generation chance to have built a next gen Navy...sorry to be reiterative but 20 years ago this started as a truly JSS and we are having a great AOR...what you all think?



The Karel Doorman is my favourite Joint Support Ship... I wish we had 2-3 of those  For how Canada would use them, we would never even need to look in the direction of an LHD.


----------



## childs56

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but your expertise in this area is...what, precisely?



Lots of experts on this site. Many self proclaimed and some actual. Some people who may not be directly involved might know something another person may not have thought of. Or they may stir up thoughts outside the box. 

I remember a few years ago people jumping all over me about the Bell CH-146 Griffon and not being able to deploy it to Afghanistan. The so called experts claimed no way no how could that helicopter be used in the conditions it would be subjected to
It was used and it did a decent job. Not ideal but it was used. 

So when you question a persons expertise on a subject you should explain yours. 
There are far to many experts. Some may have direct, indirect or none at all knowledge of what is going on. 

As for people saying how bad it is to have lost the Military side of AOR fleet. Look at the US Military, very few of their AORs are staffed by full Military crews, they seem to work pretty well.


----------



## jollyjacktar

CTD said:
			
		

> As for people saying how bad it is to have lost the Military side of AOR fleet. Look at the US Military, very few of their AORs are staffed by full Military crews, they seem to work pretty well.



So, you're a Tanker guy then too in addition to being a sage on the Griffon, are you?  How many years did you sail doing RAS work on PRE, PRO or PROVIDER?  I've got over 9 years.  I'm not an expert but l do know my swim lane reasonably well.

There won't be civilian sailors on the PRO Class.  Tell me, please do, how the knowledge that is not being covered off on Asterix will be retained? 

And lastly, the US ships you speak of are excellent.  Yes they are, agreed.  But they would not go into the box in the Gulf, we were the only country to do so.  There are limitations to where the civilians will go.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You are quite correct, Jjt, that the American supply ships did not go into the box in the Gulf. But look at your own post: We, Canada, were the only ones to do so.

As I have said before, it is not the technical capabilities of the supply ships that make the difference - it is the institutional decisions on force employment that make the difference. We are the only ones anywhere who have elected to take AOR's into more dangerous waters. No one else has, whether their supply ships are manned fully or not by uniformed personnel.

Therefore, there is nothing preventing us from having supply ships manned partially or totally by civilians, so long as we accept to change our employment of those ships to be in line with what everybody else in the world does.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am NOT advocating such a route. I like the fact that we can do some things that no one else can (or will), because it buys Canada credits from our allies that lead to things like the fact that Canada was the only participating Nation in the Gulf War that the US military gave a Theatre command, and it was wholly because of our AOR's capabilities and employment scheme.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Good points, OGDB.  Thank you.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Some onboard video to be found on Federal Fleet Service Twitter feed

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1366294&binId=1.1145745&playlistPageNum=1


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Notice the design differences between aft and forward RAS bridge? Is it because one of them came from Protecteur Ships and the other is brand new?


----------



## Stoker

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> Notice the design differences between aft and forward RAS bridge? Is it because one of them came from Protecteur Ships and the other is brand new?



No, all the RAS gear is new.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I thought the JSS concept was ditched anyway and the decision was made to go with a ship limited to refueling and re-supply hence the _Berlin_ class modified to the _Queenston_ standards and not some new type of ship with too many expectations.  

I think somebody mentioned way back in this thread that if the government wants the RCN to perform LPD work, then build or buy an LPD. Same thing with an LHD, or a ro-ro ship or whatever other "joint" function is deemed necessary.   We are a rich country, we can afford these things if they were really and truly needed, but they aren't ..... right now, the navy has informed the government through Leadmark 20250 that it needs a new mobile gas station and ships with more firepower.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For our current tasks that is. The government could change what Canada will do at anytime.


----------



## Cloud Cover

yes of course, but requirements have to "bake in" at some point or the frigging things will never be built  .... if the requirement changes, then another type of ship will be needed.


----------



## Swampbuggy

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> yes of course, but requirements have to "bake in" at some point or the frigging things will never be built  .... if the requirement changes, then another type of ship will be needed.




I realize this is an AOR thread, but since we’re on the topic of other types of ships, I can’t help but wonder when the discussion will start on what eventually replaces the MCDVS. I understand that they have been continually and greatly updated over the past few years, but if I’m not mistaken, I was under the impression that they will be divested by the early 2030’s. To circle back to the AOR’s, it’s taken well over a decade to be where we are now, which is still likely 5 years away from seeing one in the water. Given the glacial pace of procurement here, shouldn’t there be some impetus to get the ball rolling soon? Or will it be that the RCN has to try and juggle two 4 CSC task groups, a summer’s worth of Arctic patrolling AND east coast/west coast  duties with 5-6 AOPS, 4 SSK, and 15 CSC, once the KINGSTON’s have retired? Seems likely to be stretched pretty thin.


----------



## Stoker

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I thought the JSS concept was ditched anyway and the decision was made to go with a ship limited to refueling and re-supply hence the _Berlin_ class modified to the _Queenston_ standards and not some new type of ship with too many expectations.
> 
> I think somebody mentioned way back in this thread that if the government wants the RCN to perform LPD work, then build or buy an LPD. Same thing with an LHD, or a ro-ro ship or whatever other "joint" function is deemed necessary.   We are a rich country, we can afford these things if they were really and truly needed, but they aren't ..... right now, the navy has informed the government through Leadmark 20250 that it needs a new mobile gas station and ships with more firepower.



Yes they stopped calling it the JSS sometime ago. Its now called the PROTECTEUR Class.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I realize this is an AOR thread, but since we’re on the topic of other types of ships, I can’t help but wonder when the discussion will start on what eventually replaces the MCDVS. I understand that they have been continually and greatly updated over the past few years, but if I’m not mistaken, I was under the impression that they will be divested by the early 2030’s. To circle back to the AOR’s, it’s taken well over a decade to be where we are now, which is still likely 5 years away from seeing one in the water. Given the glacial pace of procurement here, shouldn’t there be some impetus to get the ball rolling soon? Or will it be that the RCN has to try and juggle two 4 CSC task groups, a summer’s worth of Arctic patrolling AND east coast/west coast  duties with 5-6 AOPS, 4 SSK, and 15 CSC, once the KINGSTON’s have retired? Seems likely to be stretched pretty thin.



Yes 2030's is what I have heard, no word on it they will be replaced with a dedicated mine warfare ship or not.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Need to check my glasses.  For a second there, l thought you typed "a dedicated mime warfare ship".

I suppose it would be rather funny looking.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief, is it possible that they can last longer if they reduce the tasks that are currently assigned to the class? For example, if they’re now transitioning back to primarily mine warfare, will that lessen the wear and tear and allow them (or at least some of them) to continue longer?


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Chief, is it possible that they can last longer if they reduce the tasks that are currently assigned to the class? For example, if they’re now transitioning back to primarily mine warfare, will that lessen the wear and tear and allow them (or at least some of them) to continue longer?



The ships are in great shape and the only real problems is obsolescence issues on certain components and that is being dealt with. The payload change don't really cause wear and tear per se.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Need to check my glasses.  For a second there, l thought you typed "a dedicated mime warfare ship".



That would have to be a French design.  ;D


----------



## Swampbuggy

That’s good to hear. If memory serves, some other Mine warfare vessels (Tripartite, for ex) are even older than the KINGSTON’s. That being said, though, they probably haven’t been pulling the same weight as the MCDVS. Just patrolling in the North Atlantic is likely to be harder on a ship than what some European vessels have been tasked with.


----------



## Swampbuggy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Need to check my glasses.  For a second there, l thought you typed "a dedicated mime warfare ship".
> 
> I suppose it would be rather funny looking.



Dangerous duty on one of those. More than one has been stuck in a patrol box that no one else can see...😄


----------



## Loachman

CTD said:
			
		

> I remember a few years ago people jumping all over me about the Bell CH-146 Griffon and not being able to deploy it to Afghanistan. The so called experts claimed no way no how could that helicopter be used in the conditions it would be subjected to
> It was used and it did a decent job. Not ideal but it was used.



It could not have functioned in the transport role.

That was why we acquired the second-hand US Army CH47Ds.

As an escort machine, it was adequate.

It cannot, however, perform that task year-round in cooler/wetter climes.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Sharing a link from http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-liberals-must-change-course-on-sinking-approach-to-shipbuilding

The journalist thinks, as I am, that we shall acquire Obelix. I would add MRNSV (pic in next reply). Focus our CAD in Coast Guard to protect against future threats (China, Russia and USA itself) building a truly Polar Class 1 or two. Hold the JSS for a better opportunity to build an LHD or LPD.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Cool ship. 6 functions in one ship...What do you think?


----------



## jollyjacktar

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> Sharing a link from http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-liberals-must-change-course-on-sinking-approach-to-shipbuilding
> 
> The journalist thinks, as I am, that we shall acquire Obelix. I would add MRNSV (pic in next reply). Focus our CAD in Coast Guard to protect against future threats (China, Russia and USA itself) building a truly Polar Class 1 or two. Hold the JSS for a better opportunity to build an LHD or LPD.



He's not a journalist but a Conservative politician.  He also shouldn't crow so loudly as his team were less than stellar too in taking care of things.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ... his team were less than stellar too in taking care of things.



You are right, both sides of the aisle has mismanaged purchasing process, what leads me to think that either is an endemic or a systemic issue. What is the difference between the effective acquisition (Orca, Kingston, Frigates, etc) and now?


----------



## jollyjacktar

No difference, really.  They've all been messed up to one degree or the other (CPF and MCDV) can't speak to the ORCA as they're on the wrong coast for me to have first hand knowledge.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

From what I gathered, the Orcas were based on a well proven patrol boat design, but with a large training/bunking area added, which have severely limited their stability and their ability to steam the coast in less protected waters. They are certainly a step up from the YFP/YAGs & Gate boats for training, but very limited in the ability to conduct any other function.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Suggestions for the mods, the "Further adventures of the Asterix" might warrant a thread split now that she is in service?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Asterix the Movie......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNh_PRydEPY&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Swampbuggy

My God is Davie’s media department worth it’s weight in gold! Their productions are almost Hollywood level slick. Beautiful ship...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I agree: Very slick. We should hire their PR firm to design CAF recruiting publicity strategy and adverts.  :nod:

Two small things I like: The coffee machine on the bridge - just behind the captain's chair  ;D; and the big, aft located bridge that lets you see over the frigates and with all RAS operations happening in front of you, instead of behind as in the previous AOR's. One quick look and you take all that matters in without having to look forward, then go to each bridge wings and look aft from each as we had to do on the old Protecteur class.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I also like that the bridge wings are enclosed and give a view over the side.  The RNA WAVERULER, I toured in Martinique had that feature as well.  Very nice.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I wonder if the benefits from the aft bridge location was one of the main reasons why the Navantia bid was passed over in favour of the BERLIN class, for the JSS project. Certainly that style seems to be the preferred design for many new oilers, including the TIDE class and the new NZ AOR.


----------



## Underway

Both those designs were compliant.  I don't think the "view" from the bridge would be good enough reason to pick one bid over another.  It probably came down to cost of accessing/refining the design.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Fair enough. From a casual observer POV it just looks like most modern AOR’s are designed bridge aft. I guess what I mean is that if the CANTABRIA and BERLIN were the same $ with similar amounts of work required to meet Canada’s needs, I suspect you’d pick the latter style for the benefits mentioned above.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Fair enough. From a casual observer POV it just looks like most modern AOR’s are designed bridge aft. I guess what I mean is that if the CANTABRIA and BERLIN were the same $ with similar amounts of work required to meet Canada’s needs, I suspect you’d pick the latter style for the benefits mentioned above.



I've never stood a watch (or sailed on) and AOR so I don't even know if a view of the refueling deck is even important for those who drive the ship.  You need to see where other ships are in relation to yourself, and observe their approaches and break aways, but actually watch the deckwork doesn't seem like it would be that important for the watchkeeper, as long as good comms are being used to pass info (when lines are across etc...).  But I'm not really the expert to ask about this.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I think it would be very desirable to the OOW, CO during a RAS.


----------



## FSTO

I've driven PRO during many RAS's and it would have been very nice to be able to see everything going on in the dump at a glance while you are scanning the horizon for oncoming issues. You can have the greatest communications system in the world but being able to see things with your own eyes will give you an extra dose of comfort.

I'm happy that they went with the house aft and all the working gear forward.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As I indicated, it's something I think is nice and that I liked, I didn't say it was essential.

Look at FSTO's post. I never "drove" PRO when I served onboard, but at RAS station, I was 2OOW, FixO or "secondary" Seaguard ( With Captain Guy, we always had a JO on the bridge closed up on a second radar to watch for contacts at long range)

Underway: Many things can go wrong on deck on an AOR even before the refuelling ships are alongside. Remember - we're the mother ship: we have the heavy gear, the high power pumps and all the high tension lines and high power winches. Also, as mother ship, we always took our responsibility for watching out for traffic and calling out the scratch runs, changes of speed or courses for the whole evolution seriously (obviously). Finally, also remember those pressure and suction zones they teach you about for making your approaches on destroyers/frigates? Well, even though the AOR has a lot more weight - and thus inertia - they still work both ways and we get sucked and pushed also, so being able to keep an eye on the helmsman at the right moment is useful, especially with ships on both sides at different stages of their approach.

Anyway, as FSTO alluded to, good comms is one thing and necessary (probably even more so in my days when we didn't have deck cameras with the picture displayed on bridge monitors), but its damn nice to have that extra capability to spot trouble immediately and for yourself when watch keeping on the bridge.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Anyway, as FSTO alluded to, good comms is one thing and necessary (probably even more so in my days when we didn't have deck cameras with the picture displayed on bridge monitors), but its damn nice to have that extra capability to spot trouble immediately and for yourself when watch keeping on the bridge.



In sense, like the warning your vehicle side and rear view mirror: "Objects are closer than they appear".   



_*mod edit to fix quote link_


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting side note, we just had a new volunteer show up at our Navy League Cadet hall last night, he is a CPO that is going to be attached to Vancouver Shipyards to oversee planning and work on the new supply ships for the next couple of years.


----------



## AirDet

serger989 said:
			
		

> The Karel Doorman is my favourite Joint Support Ship... I wish we had 2-3 of those  For how Canada would use them, we would never even need to look in the direction of an LHD.



Agreed. It would also be easier to sell the idea to the public compared to an LHD or other honking ship. Doorman would have been very handy on the Somalia, East Timor and Haiti missions. However our faithful old AORs did us proud.


----------



## Cloud Cover

A favourite out of how many? Isnt  Karl Doorman the sole and only purpose built  Joint Support Ship.  Others appear to be “multi-role” which is a significant difference.


----------



## Sub_Guy

You know what grinds my gears?  The term “Joint Support Ship”.

These are not JSS vessels, they are nothing more than Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessels.  

Might as well call our frigates, helicopter carriers..


----------



## FSTO

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> You know what grinds my gears?  The term “Joint Support Ship”.
> 
> These are not JSS vessels, they are nothing more than Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessels.
> 
> Might as well call our frigates, helicopter carriers..



You have to use the word "joint" to get anything built these days.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> You know what grinds my gears?  The term “Joint Support Ship”.
> 
> These are not JSS vessels, they are nothing more than Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessels.
> 
> Might as well call our frigates, helicopter carriers..



Well we could follow the Japanese with their Izumo-class helicopter destroyer


----------



## NavyShooter

Do we really want to pay Irving another $290 Million dollars to 'Canadianize' another country's ship design?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FSTO said:
			
		

> You have to use the word "joint" to get anything built these days.



We can make it revenue neutral by moving product from Jamaica, when not needed by the military. Just taking a new twist on "Joint"  8)


----------



## garb811

> The federal government has approved plans to start some work on the navy's new support ships in the coming months in a bid to keep delivery of the much-needed vessels from slipping farther behind schedule.
> 
> Seaspan Shipyards is expected to begin cutting steel on some parts of the two vessels in Vancouver this summer during a lull in the construction of two science vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard, several sources told The Canadian Press.
> 
> The science vessels will still be delivered first, but officials are hoping that the head start will result in the first Protecteur-class joint support ship, as the naval vessels are officially known, being delivered 2022.
> 
> More at link:  Feds OK early start to construction of navy's new supply ships


----------



## Underway

Thought this was going to happen.  Seaspan had identified a number of blocks they could start building concurrently that will not change as the design is finalized.  IIRC it was the bow section that didn't require any changes from the Bohnn design.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good plan the 2 remaining OFSV will be finished soon, the SV design has some sort of issues that people don't want to talk about, I but going by other Federal designs, I will assume stability being a major factor.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Gov't still hoping partial JSS pre-build will allow 2022 first delivery date--_on verra_:



> Cost questions abound as work set to start on navy's new support ships
> 
> The cutting of steel for the navy's long overdue support ships will begin next month in Vancouver, even though the federal government doesn't know how much the two vessels will ultimately cost.
> 
> Federal procurement minister Carla Qualtrough confirmed plans for an early start to work on the supply ships during a breakfast address Thursday at the Cansec defence show in Ottawa.
> 
> Seaspan Shipyards will receive $66 million to work on several dozen components of the so-called joint support ships during a lull in the building of two other Canadian Coast Guard vessels.
> 
> The government is hoping that advance work will shave about a year off the expected delivery time for the first support vessel, which is currently slated to hit the water in 2023.
> 
> It will also ensure Seaspan continues to have work for its employees during what would otherwise be a dead zone between construction of the last of three coast guard fisheries vessels and a new coast guard ocean science ship.
> 
> "These support ships will deliver fuel and other vital supplies to vessels at sea," Qualtrough said, "ensuring our women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces are able to carry out their missions for decades to come."
> 
> The navy has been without a permanent support ship since retiring its last two in 2015 because of an unexpected fire and excessive corrosion, and is currently relying on a converted civilian vessel to fill the gap.
> 
> The first new vessel was originally supposed to be delivered in 2019, but the project has been plagued with delays.
> 
> Even as work is set to begin, however, Qualtrough conceded later that the government still doesn't have a concrete estimate of how much the two joint support ships are going to cost.
> 
> "It's too early to speculate on what the (support ships) will ultimately cost," she said.
> 
> The previous Conservative government set a budget of $2.3 billion for the vessels back in 2011, but that number has been under review for nearly two years.
> 
> The parliamentary budget office pegged the full cost of two support ships back in 2013 at $4.13 billion, while the government's new defence investment plan, released this week, said it could cost up to $4.99 billion.
> 
> "There are a lot of things happening on (the support ships)," said Andre Fillion, head of military procurement at Public Services and Procurement Canada.
> 
> "The acquisition of long lead items, the start of the (early work) and also a lot of engineering work."
> 
> Seaspan vice-president Tim Page told The Canadian Press that the shipbuilder is in negotiations with the government, but remains committed to delivering the support ships to the navy.
> 
> Starting work early is a reasonable solution to what would otherwise be a troublesome lull in work at Seaspan, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
> 
> But the _government still doesn't have an approved design_ [emphasis added] for the support ships, he said, and the whole point of the federal government's multibillion-dollar shipbuilding strategy was to prevent such production gaps.
> 
> "It's a solution to an immediate problem," Perry said, "but it's not by any means an ideal scenario."
> 
> The government is hoping that advance work will shave about a year off the expected delivery time for the first support vessel, which is currently slated to hit the water in 2023.
> 
> It will also ensure Seaspan continues to have work for its employees during what would otherwise be a dead zone between construction of the last of three coast guard fisheries vessels and a new coast guard ocean science ship...
> 
> Even as work is set to begin, however, Qualtrough conceded later that the government still doesn't have a concrete estimate of how much the two joint support ships are going to cost.
> 
> "It's too early to speculate on what the (support ships) will ultimately cost," she said.
> 
> The previous Conservative government set a budget of $2.3 billion for the vessels back in 2011, but that number has been under review for nearly two years.
> 
> The parliamentary budget office pegged the full cost of two support ships back in 2013 at $4.13 billion, while the government's new defence investment plan, released this week, said it could cost up to $4.99 billion...
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cost-questions-abound-as-work-set-to-start-on-navy-s-new-support-ships-1.3954033



Absurd build-in-Canada cost.

Tweet from RUSI Nova Scotia, May 31:



> @RUSI_NS
> 
> RUSI(NS)
> Each JSS has 123 blocks. Under "early block build" (EBB) 26 blocks/ship for total 52 to be built.  Of low complexity (basically boxes w minor outfitting as piping) so not to deduce that after EBB ea JSS will be 20% built
> ...
> https://twitter.com/RUSI_NS/status/1002332123460751361



This is what government's just released "Defence Capabilities Blueprint" say about JSS:



> ...
> *Objective*
> 
> To _deliver two Joint Support Ships_ [only, emphasis added] to replace the the Royal Canadian Navy’s Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessels that have reached the end of their service. The capabilities required of the Joint Support Ships are crucial to the Royal Canadian Navy. These new Protectueur-class ships will enable a Naval Task Group to remain at sea for extended periods of time. These vessels will provide core replensihment capabilities, plus added capacity for limited sealift and limited support to operations ashore.
> 
> *Requirements*
> 
> The JSS will provide at-sea support to a deployed Canadian Naval Task Group, limited sealift and support to operations ashore. In June 2013, Canada selected the German Berlin Class design as the basis for the JSS. The JSS's capabilities will underpin Canada’s ability to deploy and sustain Canada’s naval forces worldwide for extended periods. The JSS will have a crew of up to 199 personnel plus its air detachment and mission personnel for a total of 239 onboard accommodations. The JSS will be capable of 20+ kts, with a range of 10800 nautical miles with ice edge capability to access Nanisivik Naval Facility in the summer navigation season. Its two dual-purpose RAS stations will provide 29 days support to a Canadian Naval Task Group for both fuel and supplies. The JSS will carry two organic CH 148 Cyclone maritime helicopters and will also provide second level maintenance capabilities for the Naval Task Group’s helicopters. It will be fitted with self-protection systems such as Degaussing, NIXIE torpedo decoy, Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear, Close-In Weapons Systems and Naval Remote Weapons System. The JSS medical facilites will include a NATO Role 2E capabilities to support an array of operations including humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. The JSS basic Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence systems will contribute to the maritime domain awareness. The JSS will also have robust cargo transfer systems for mission payloads to include cranes and a sea to shore connector system.
> 
> *Funding Ranges*
> 
> $1 billion to 4.99 billion
> 
> *Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)*
> 
> Past Start Options Anaysis
> Past Start Definition
> 2019 to 2020 Start Implementation
> 2022 to 2023 Initial Delivery
> 2023 to 2024 Final Delivery
> http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=949



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OceanBonfire

https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1002551915094396928

https://www.facebook.com/CanadianForces/photos/a.1524483394445524.1073741830.1522633664630497/2282588675301655/?type=3&theater


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I did the approval on that around a year ago as I recall.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> I did the approval on that around a year ago as I recall.



How many times did you have to send it back for edits?


----------



## Czech_pivo

News on the cost and new timelines for the JSS. 
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4693088

With these costs and timelines, we can kiss any chance of a third JSS good bye for certain.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Time to cancel and buy off shore. I was all for Canadian shipbuilding, but that price is stupid.


----------



## Stoker

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Time to cancel and buy off shore. I was all for Canadian shipbuilding, but that price is stupid.



That's never going to happen, the contract is signed and pulling out now will cost the government dearly.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Most expensive oiler ever  :rofl:

This is yet another confirmation for me why I don't invest in Canadian Companies and put all my money in to foreign and american investments.  We couldn't build a product anyone wants for a reasonable price if we tried.


----------



## FSTO

I wonder if anyone told the bright people at Treasury Board that this would happen when they denied any proposal to continue building government ships at Saint Johns Shipyards after the completion of the CPF Project.

Just a reminder
At her heyday.





And the result now after how many billions spent to get this place up to speed?


God-damn criminal as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FSTO said:
			
		

> I wonder if anyone told the bright people at Treasury Board that this would happen when they denied any proposal to continue building government ships at Saint Johns Shipyards after the completion of the CPF Project.
> 
> Just a reminder
> At her heyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the result now after how many billions spent to get this place up to speed?
> 
> 
> God-damn criminal as far as I'm concerned.



The problem with Saint John is it's a Tory city.  The Chrétien Government was never going to give them any money when all these decisions were made.  Actually, the Government gave Irving $200 million to decommission the Shipyard and there now sits two Irving Mills on the site.  We paid them to decommission a shipyard that had been building large vessels and Naval Ships for 100+ years.

We paid them again to build a new yard, in a new city that had never had a history of building large ships!


----------



## FSTO

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The problem with Saint John is it's a Tory city.  The Chrétien Government was never going to give them any money when all these decisions were made.  Actually, the Government gave Irving $200 million to decommission the Shipyard and there now sits two Irving Mills on the site.  We paid them to decommission a shipyard that had been building large vessels and Naval Ships for 100+ years.
> 
> We paid them again to build a new yard, in a new city that had never had a history of building large ships!



 :brickwall:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The accounting methods are half the problem, the Jetties needed rebuilding, no matter what new ship you docked there, stupidity. So 60% 0f 3.4Billion is roughly 1.9billion for the 2 ships, still pricey, but then what isn't in Canada. I respect what Davie has done, but starting a new build with 3/4 finished design specs, would their costs be much different?


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The problem with Saint John is it's a Tory city.  The Chrétien Government was never going to give them any money when all these decisions were made.  Actually, the Government gave Irving $200 million to decommission the Shipyard and there now sits two Irving Mills on the site.  We paid them to decommission a shipyard that had been building large vessels and Naval Ships for 100+ years.
> 
> We paid them again to build a new yard, in a new city that had never had a history of building large ships!



Pay to build a yard.

Pay to destroy a yard.

Pay to build a yard.....

Keynes is happy.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile Royal Navy is paying about $200 million each for four built quickly in South Korea by Daewoo Tides Class replenishment ships of 37,000t--may be less capable than JSS in some aspects but given that our cost is now $1.7 billion per ship (even if costings quite dissimilar) our paying almost nine times as much for each is insane:
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/tide-class-mars-royal-fleet-auxiliary-tankers/





Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO

It would be nice if the bureaucrats involved would itemize the costs of the project.
How much is for infrastructure? How much is wages to build the infrastructure. 

All we hear is 4 Billion dollars for 2 ships and people lose their minds.


----------



## Stoker

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Meanwhile Royal Navy is paying about $200 million each for four built quickly in South Korea by Daewoo Tides Class replenishment ships of 37,000t--may be less capable than JSS in some aspects but given that our cost is now $1.7 billion per ship (even if costings quite dissimilar) our paying almost nine times as much for each is insane:
> https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/tide-class-mars-royal-fleet-auxiliary-tankers/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Aren't we factoring in the cost of the JSS rebuilding new jetties and maintenance?


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> It would be nice if the bureaucrats involved would itemize the costs of the project.
> How much is for infrastructure? How much is wages to build the infrastructure.
> 
> All we hear is 4 Billion dollars for 2 ships and people lose their minds.



I am reasonably certain that those responsible for the many interrelated activities that make up that ~4B can tell you where the money is planned to be spent, but by necessity some things get simplified as they roll up (otherwise the level of detail risks obscuring things).


----------



## FSTO

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Aren't we factoring in the cost of the JSS rebuilding new jetties and maintenance?



Which is odd because isn't the J Jetty project in Halifax under the AOPS, and the A and B Jetty projects under their own project?

Adding the cost to make it seem worse?


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Meanwhile Royal Navy is paying about $200 million each for four built quickly in South Korea by Daewoo Tides Class replenishment ships of 37,000t--may be less capable than JSS in some aspects but given that our cost is now $1.7 billion per ship (even if costings quite dissimilar) our paying almost nine times as much for each is insane


Not $1.7 billion--$1.02 billion.  The ships are 60% of the $3.4 billion.  Five Tide-class ships will eventually be built.  The more ships built, the lower the cost per ship.  The further off into the future a ship is to be built, the higher the cost—increases are greater than the rate of inflation.
  
One Tide-class ship is already in service.  Construction has already started on the other four.  Construction, however, is yet to start on the Protecteur-class ships.  Not an apples-to-apples comparison.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I am reasonably certain that those responsible for the many interrelated activities that make up that ~4B can tell you where the money is planned to be spent, but by necessity some things get simplified as they roll up (otherwise the level of detail risks obscuring things).



Ship cost total = XXXX
Construction cost =XXXX
Systems costs = XXXXXX
Software & Licenses =XXXXX
Costs for support infrastructure that is unique for that design = XXXX

That is the level of detail most interested people are looking for. Regardless if the ships are built at Davie, Seaspan, South Korea or Germany, they will still need jetties to tie up to and maintenance contracts. Including those costs is just plain stupid and is one of the reasons why I have very low respect for TB and their minions. With the information above we can then see if we are getting value for money. If one design requires 200 million in infrastructure costs over the others, then that needs to be explained why.


----------



## dapaterson

There's actually a document within DND called the "Project Approval Directive" or PAD which details how things are approved and what costs are to be included (conversion training for operators and maintainers, new training materials required, personnel to deliver the project, initial spares, custom tooling etc etc).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The question is, how our those costs relevant to the ship purchase/build? If the capacity is required, then the only thing to be measured is the difference in those costs, if they are greater than a certain percentage. We ran 2 AOR's for years, those costs should be the baseline and then savings/extra costs can be highlighted.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu:



> ...
> Not $1.7 billion--$1.02 billion. The ships are 60% of the $3.4 billion. Five Tide-class ships will eventually be built...One Tide-class ship is already in service.  Construction has already started on the other four...



Actually four ordered, looks like two already in service:


> Third new Tide class tanker arrives in UK
> March 28, 2018
> 
> The third of four new support tankers to be delivered to the UK has arrived in Cornwall for customisation and trials before entering service with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and being deployed on operations with the Royal Navy.
> 
> The arrival of RFA Tidesurge comes just weeks after her sister ship, RFA Tidespring, met up at sea with aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth for the first time.
> 
> The 39,000-tonne tankers can carry up to 19,000 cubic metres of fuel and 1,400 cubic metres of fresh water in support of Royal Navy operations all over the world.
> 
> The detailed customisation work to prepare RFA Tidesurge and her sister ships for operations is being undertaken at the A&P shipyard in Falmouth, sustaining around 300 jobs...
> 
> While in Falmouth RFA Tidesurge will be fitted with UK specific armour, self-defence weaponry and communications systems, with the total UK work content, including A&P, in the Tide Class programme worth around £150 million and sustaining further jobs at 27 UK-based companies.
> 
> The customisation work is expected to take around four months after which RFA Tidesurge will begin final sea trials before entering service in Autumn this year.
> https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/third-new-tide-class-tanker-arrives-in-uk/



Good question whether those "customisation" costs are included in the $200 million each figure. If not at roughly $65 million per ship would raise cost to $265 million.  Still 1/4 of $1.02 billion per JSS you note.

More:



> UK’s fourth Tide-class tanker RFA Tideforce named in South Korea
> 
> RFA Tideforce, the final of four Tide-class tankers being built for the UK in South Korea, was named on January 24 in a ceremony at the Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering shipyard in South Korea.
> 
> The ceremony was attended by Royal Marine General Gordon Messenger, British ambassador to Republic of Korea Charles Hay and a number of shipyard and government officials.
> 
> The tanker is now set to undergo finishing touches before being officially delivered to Royal Navy in the first half of 2018, according to the shipbuilder.
> 
> Once it reaches UK waters after a two-month voyage, the ship will undergo further outfitting, to receive armor, self-defense weaponry and communications systems, and sea trials before entering service.
> 
> Future RFA Tideforce, along with sister ships RFA Tidespring, RFA Tiderace and RFA Tidesurge are designed to carry up to 19,000 cubic meters of fuel and 1,400 cubic meters of fresh water in support of Royal Navy operations the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
> 
> The Tide Class has a flight deck able to accommodate the large Chinook helicopter and offer significant improvements over previous RFA tankers such as double hulls and greater environmental protection measures.
> https://navaltoday.com/2018/01/24/uks-fourth-tide-class-tanker-rfa-tideforce-named-in-south-korea/



Capabilities vs JSS?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Actually four ordered


And one for Norway.


----------



## Dale Denton

Another missed opportunity:

https://navaltoday.com/2018/06/05/royal-navy-offering-wave-class-tanker-to-brazil-media/

I admit I know nothing on AORs and such, but consider this:

We buy 1 or 2 Wave-Class tankers, they're already ready to go. Shouldn't take long to throw some electronic/RCN interoperability systems on them that they already threw on the Asterix at Davie, + they have the recent xp. Use them as Interim AOR(s) until JSS comes online. Then throw some more money at them again to turn them into Davies "Peace Support Ships" for whenever the next (inevitable) gap in shipbuilding projects comes up. Then keep it for a new Peace Support/DART capability/role OR sell it to almost anyone and not worry about it being used to hurt civilians as its a support ship.


----------



## Stoker

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Another missed opportunity:
> 
> https://navaltoday.com/2018/06/05/royal-navy-offering-wave-class-tanker-to-brazil-media/
> 
> I admit I know nothing on AORs and such, but consider this:
> 
> We buy 1 or 2 Wave-Class tankers, they're already ready to go. Shouldn't take long to throw some electronic/RCN interoperability systems on them that they already threw on the Asterix at Davie, + they have the recent xp. Use them as Interim AOR(s) until JSS comes online. Then throw some more money at them again to turn them into Davies "Peace Support Ships" for whenever the next (inevitable) gap in shipbuilding projects comes up. Then keep it for a new Peace Support/DART capability/role OR sell it to almost anyone and not worry about it being used to hurt civilians as its a support ship.



You want us to buy more used garbage from the Brits?, no thank you!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> You want us to buy more used garbage from the Brits?, no thank you!



I toured RFA Wave Ruler in 2011.  She was not necessarily a bad boat, but the crewmember said there were issues right out of BAE 's yard when she was new.  She did look better than what we had at the time of my visit.  As they're pushing 20 years old (ish) now, l agree there wouldn't be much value for us.


----------



## STONEY

If you'd have read the whole article the defence department denied this as only a rumour and there was no intention to sell any wave class tankers. Wave Ruler is really only 15 years old and would have been a lot newer than the RCN'S average.  She is more of a tanker than a true AOR .


----------



## Dale Denton

STONEY said:
			
		

> If you'd have read the whole article the defence department denied this as only a rumour and there was no intention to sell any wave class tankers. Wave Ruler is really only 15 years old and would have been a lot newer than the RCN'S average.  She is more of a tanker than a true AOR .



You assume too much from my post. "Missed opportunity" in that there's no intention to buy her from the RN, not that she was sold already. 

My thought is that she'd be worth it as 15 is a lot newer than nothing and a leased civilian-ish ship. Might as well keep her for the interim, even if she's more of a tanker, better than nothing.

oh well.


----------



## Stoker

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> You assume too much from my post. "Missed opportunity" in that there's no intention to buy her from the RN, not that she was sold already.
> 
> My thought is that she'd be worth it as 15 is a lot newer than nothing and a leased civilian-ish ship. Might as well keep her for the interim, even if she's more of a tanker, better than nothing.
> 
> oh well.



The last thing we need is another civilian-ish ship. One's enough.


----------



## Czech_pivo

I've got a few questions, hopefully some of you can provide some educated guesses based on your previous experience and knowledge. I do realise that some of this will be WAG's. 

1) Does anyone know if Seaspan has the capacity (both in space and manpower) to be working on both JSS concurrently or will they have to substantially finish one ship before they can start significant work on the other?  

2) If they are talking about 2022/23 for the first ship to be 'in the water', how many months/years would it before the second JSS would be 'in the water?

3) Using the term, 'in the water', is it safe to say that it would be another 12 months, roughly, before the RCN would officially accept the ship?  So, the first JSS accepted by the RCN in 2024 and the second in ???

4) What is going to be built at Seaspan before the JSS start?  If the 2 remaining Fisheries ships will be turned over in the next 18 months, will they start on the JSS straight away or will the other research ship be started?  If the JSS will start first, then the last research ship start after?

5) Using the timelines above of 2022/23 for the first JSS to be in the water, when could the new Diefenbaker ice breaker be in water, 2029/30? That would make the LSL ice breaker over 70yrs old....

Thanks!


----------



## jollyjacktar

My son tells me they're powering up the low voltage systems on HdW tonight for the very first time.  Harry will hopefully come to life without much drama.


----------



## Underway

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My son tells me they're powering up the low voltage systems on HdW tonight for the very first time.  Harry will hopefully come to life without much drama.



I can see the ship from my apt balcony.  Hopefully I don't hear any bong bongs when they do!  

Question for you jollyjacktar (or anyone else who knows). HdW is a high voltage (for the RCN) propulsion system IIRC.  Low voltage would be everything but the engines?


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> I can see the ship from my apt balcony.  Hopefully I don't hear any bong bongs when they do!
> 
> Question for you jollyjacktar (or anyone else who knows). HdW is a high voltage (for the RCN) propulsion system IIRC.  Low voltage would be everything but the engines?



Actually its now being called medium voltage for the propulsion apparently.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The last thing we need is another civilian-ish ship. One's enough.



Chief, respectfully, we disagree right there.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Actually its now being called medium voltage for the propulsion apparently.



Based on industry standards it is; if you are used to 100k+ (or 1M+) volts, 4400 is a walk in the park.  Folks used to working on the high power side are interesting to talk to that way; there seems to be a certain elements of fatalism when you know a mistake will kill you, with the appropriate amount of dark humour.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Based on industry standards it is; if you are used to 100k+ (or 1M+) volts, 4400 is a walk in the park.  Folks used to working on the high power side are interesting to talk to that way; there seems to be a certain elements of fatalism when you know a mistake will kill you, with the appropriate amount of dark humour.



Yes that way we don't have to send all ships personnel to the UK for the HV course.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Based on industry standards it is; if you are used to 100k+ (or 1M+) volts, 4400 is a walk in the park.  Folks used to working on the high power side are interesting to talk to that way; there seems to be a certain elements of fatalism when you know a mistake will kill you, with the appropriate amount of dark humour.



And rightly so. The standard residential distribution system is 25Kva and considered medium. High voltage is considered as staring at the lowest "transmission" line level, which is 120Kva.

But it's the combination of Amps with Volts that is the real clincher. A physics prof of mine used to demonstrate this once a year when he would get "zapped" by 500,000 volts ... but at one tenth of millionth of Amp. Described it as no worse than sticking your tongue on a 9v. battery.  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Astreix is off the coast of California SW of LA with HMCS Ottawa nearby.


----------



## OceanBonfire

Steel-cutting ceremony today.







https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2018/06/minister-sajjan-marks-the-start-of-steel-cutting-for-the-first-joint-support-ship.html


----------



## Navy_Pete

A service life of up to 30 years?  That's just a foolish thing to say, when we all know that is the absolute minimum they will see.


----------



## Swampbuggy

OceanBonfire said:
			
		

> Steel-cutting ceremony today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2018/06/minister-sajjan-marks-the-start-of-steel-cutting-for-the-first-joint-support-ship.html



I see there’s no longer any pretence of opting for a third JSS.


----------



## Czech_pivo

The links don’t discuss when the CG research vessel will be built or when the Def will begin.  The RCN will most likely get (officially accept) the first JSS in 2025 and the second in 2026.  With this being said, I’m willing to bet that the Def is accepted in 2029 or 2030. The LSL be roughly over 60yrs old. Unreal.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The 2 remaining OFSV's will be done by the end of next year, the JSS #1 and the SV can be underway at the same time. Likely the plan will be for the Def to start and then the JSS #2 started shortly after. My best guess.


----------



## Uzlu

MV _Asterix_ at risk of being seized?  https://shipandbunker.com/news/am/660490-canada-navy-refueller-vulnerable-to-arrest


----------



## FSTO

Uzlu said:
			
		

> MV _Asterix_ at risk of being seized?  https://shipandbunker.com/news/am/660490-canada-navy-refueller-vulnerable-to-arrest



I doubt it. Long time in court before any seizures start.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Nothing unusual, or nothing that would be a big concern to the Government of Canada or the RCN.

There are ongoing payments due by the GoC. If the ship is arrested, the GoC will simply put an amount of money equal to he claim in escrow somewhere in exchange for a release of the arrest, with the money to be fought over by the Engineering firm and Davie in the mean time. All standard stuff in the maritime law world.

And FSTO: Wrong. In maritime law, you can ask for an arrest (as opposed to seizure) to be made upon your filing of a claim, so the ship is held until the matter is resolved.


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Nothing unusual, or nothing that would be a big concern to the Government of Canada or the RCN.
> 
> There are ongoing payments due by the GoC. If the ship is arrested, the GoC will simply put an amount of money equal to he claim in escrow somewhere in exchange for a release of the arrest, with the money to be fought over by the Engineering firm and Davie in the mean time. All standard stuff in the maritime law world.
> 
> *And FSTO: Wrong. In maritime law, you can ask for an arrest (as opposed to seizure) to be made upon your filing of a claim, so the ship is held until the matter is resolved.*



Good to know!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Excerpts from a piece for CGAI by Matthew Fisher, recently aboard MV Asterix:


> The MV Asterix Delivers: Canada’s Supply Ship Impresses at Sea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Image credit: Matthew Fisher_
> 
> Aboard MV Asterix and HMCS Charlottetown – The Trudeau government would have fits, but the Royal Canadian Navy should consider renaming the MV Asterix the HMCS Admiral Mark Norman.
> 
> The controversial new replenishment ship, which entered service on time and on budget this past January, has been performing brilliantly for the navy during sea trials. That was the unanimous opinion of sailors on HMCS Charlottetown and on MV Asterix after a series of refuelling exercises with the Canadian frigate and American destroyers during a hunt for three U.S. nuclear subs that I witnessed recently in the Caribbean...
> 
> The auxiliary oil replenishment ship was originally built as a container ship in Germany in 2009. Chantier Davie Canada Inc. began work in 2015 to convert it to carry 10,100 tonnes of fuel and jet fuel, which it can push across to a pair of ships simultaneously at a rate of 800 gallons a minute. At the same time it can transfer 400 tonnes of potable water that it can process from sea water. It is also equipped with self-loading cranes that can bring on board large quantities of food, military and humanitarian supplies, including 17-tonne army light armoured vehicles (LAVs), and sea containers carrying all the kit from the military’s Disaster Assistance Response Team.
> 
> The vessel was designed to sail with helicopters. It is already equipped with a 35-bed hospital with two surgical suites expandable to several hundred beds and a dental suite. Davie passed the ship to its sister company, Federal Fleet Services Inc., which has a five-year lease with the navy...
> 
> Helicopters may begin to fly within a year from Asterix’s landing pad at the stern, where the hangar can handle a pair of bus-sized CH-47 Chinook helicopters. However, they will usually shelter a pair of smaller CH-148 Cyclone anti-submarine warfare and utility helicopters that are finally about to replace Canada’s venerable, half-century-old fleet of Sea Kings.
> 
> The success of the Halifax-based Asterix has already prompted speculation about how advantageous it might be to have a similar vessel operating on the West Coast. Mooting this possibility leads to questioning the wisdom of proceeding with the purchase of two joint supply ships that are to be built by Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver. The government told Postmedia last month that the estimated cost of the pair of JSS had exploded to as much as $1.6 billion each. Under discussion since 2005, they are still not scheduled to join the fleet for at least four years. Although the first steel for the JSS was cut in British Columbia last month, some sailors based in Ottawa and on Asterix and Charlottetown reckoned that they would not be operational for some time after that...
> 
> Fraser Spencer, Federal Fleet Services’ chief executive officer, told me in Ottawa that the company can convert an identical container ship for the navy to lease or buy for a third of the cost of Seaspan’s JSS and that they can deliver it much quicker than if such a ship is built from scratch.
> 
> The Charlottetown’s skipper, Cdr. Nathan Decicco, did not want to delve too far into the debate about the relative merits of Asterix and the JSS but provided a balanced view of what they could bring to the navy.
> 
> “The question everyone has is: What permanent capability do we need?” Decicco said. “The tactical, strategic and political levels struggle with the question. It is above my pay scale to say we should do this or do that. Having a JSS would be a vast improvement because it can handle cargo, fuel, munitions and humanitarian missions and can also go out there as a warship. That is a breadth of experience we don’t now have.
> 
> “Asterix has a civilian master. The JSS would have a navy captain who would probably have had a frigate, destroyer or tanker command previously. With the Asterix you are not growing your bridge community. There are also different risks. We might need to send the ship to a war. A lot of smart people are thinking about this.”
> 
> Like his crew, Decicco was impressed with what Asterix was already doing.
> 
> “I am an advocate of capability,” the Charlottetown’s commander said. “I don’t care where it comes from. What I see now is a navy at sea with its own replenishment capability. We cannot be a blue-water navy without it. The time, speed and distance calculations are all different. What a tanker brings to us is greater manoeuverability options.
> 
> “Asterix is intended as an interim solution to fill a gap. That gap is now filled but there is still a gap. That is why I would advocate for two of them instead of one. We did not hear anything from the American commanders and that is a good thing. We would have if Asterix had not met their expectations. If you take your car to the gas station, you expect it to meet safety standards. Asterix met every requirement you would expect.”..
> 
> Like Decicco, the Charlottetown’s Lt. Bucky Branscombe explained both sides of the argument about whether to add another mixed-crew Asterix or go ahead with the acquisition of two or more JSS entirely crewed by the navy.
> 
> “You hear some people saying get two Asterixes and cancel the JSS,” the 27-year-old navigation officer said.
> 
> On the other hand, some RCN sailors considered “the juice” – in this case, Asterix – was “not worth the squeeze because what is the utility of a tanker without military specs and weapons,” he said. “Yet the USN and the Royal Navy, the most powerful navies, believe that auxiliary ships with civilian crews are good enough.
> 
> “As defined, the JSS can do more than the Asterix. It can be more than a stopgap measure. But depending on cost overruns it will cost two to three times what the Asterix does,” Branscombe said.
> 
> “What I know is that the navy leadership is clearly fighting to maintain a blue-water capability,” he added. Whatever the navy decided, being able to operate and support a task force of four surface ships and a submarine in distant waters was something supported by every sailor embarked on the two Canadian ships.
> 
> That is what Asterix has been doing. The replenishment ship is 80 days into what will be about an epic 400-day voyage...
> 
> *About the Author*
> 
> _Matthew Fisher is a Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He was born in northwestern Ontario and raised there and in the Ottawa Valley. He has lived and worked abroad for 34 years as a foreign correspondent for the Globe and Mail, Sun Media and Postmedia. Assignments have taken him to 162 countries. An eyewitness to 19 conflicts including Somalia, the Rwandan genocide, Chechnya, the Balkan Wars, Israel in Gaza and Lebanon, the two Gulf Wars and Afghanistan, Matthew was appointed as the first Bill Graham Centre/Massey College Resident Visiting Scholar in Foreign and Defence Policy in 2018._
> 
> @mfisheroverseas
> https://www.cgai.ca/the_mv_asterix_delivers_canada_s_supply_ship_impresses_at_sea



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Why does it say "Quebec" below its name?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Cdn Blackshirt:



> Why does it say "Quebec" below its name?



Perhaps that's where Federal Fleet has registered MV Asterix. CCG ships say "Ottawa" as that where they are registered as civilian vessels:






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

All the ATL ships were registered in Edmonton


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> All the ATL ships were registered in Edmonton



As were all the West Edmonton Mall submarines.  ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Port of registry Quebec City near where is was converted. The French express Quebec City as "Quebec"



Nothing to do with French, Chief. Even for us French Canadians, if there is a possibility of confusion between the city and the province, we will specify which one we are talking about by stating "le" or "au" before Quebec in the case of the province or "la ville de" before it for the city. When it is clear which one we are talking about, we don't bother specifying. 

ALL port registry indicated on merchant ships refer to the "port", or city, of registration. So you never specify "city" even when there could be some confusion.

For instance, a ship registered in New York City will only say "New York", since for ship registry there is no possible confusion with New York State.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Nothing to do with French, Chief. Even for us French Canadians, if there is a possibility of confusion between the city and the province, we will specify which one we are talking about by stating "le" or "au" before Quebec in the case of the province or "la ville de" before it for the city. When it is clear which one we are talking about, we don't bother specifying.
> 
> ALL port registry indicated on merchant ships refer to the "port", or city, of registration. So you never specify "city" even when there could be some confusion.
> 
> For instance, a ship registered in New York City will only say "New York", since for ship registry there is no possible confusion with New York State.



To the outsider its looks odd.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Thanks Mark.....


----------



## Good2Golf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> To the outsider its looks odd.



???

It doesn’t to this (retired air force) civilian.  I’ve seen enough ‘Panama’ that I don’t worry what happened to the “..... City” :dunno:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> It doesn’t to this (retired air force) civilian.  I’ve seen enough ‘Panama’ that I don’t worry what happened to the “..... City” :dunno:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



When the first pictures of Asterix came out on social media many people asked that question, some on RCN themed pages perhaps some because they saw it as some sort of slight against english Canada. Some thought it was a government owned ship and thought it should of said Ottawa. The question was asked and answered.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Vancouver Seaspan Shipyards now has a progress page on the JSS http://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries/nss-photo-gallery-jss-1


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Contract for deck equipment for the JSS awarded by Seaspan

https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/13497-Seaspan-Shipyards-Announces-Major-Contract-for-Joint-Support-Ships


----------



## JMCanada

Two and a half years from contract signatue to launch of first Aussie AOR. Pretty good schedule.

https://mobile.navaltoday.com/2018/11/23/first-australian-supply-class-aor-launched-in-spain/

On the other hand Turkish LHD Anadolu keeps on track. At the end of the day Navantia seems to be a reliable partner.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not a nice looking ship, the older AOR design and the bridge is small compared to the hanger


----------



## Sub_Guy

612 million (CDN) for two supply vessels.  

Once again the Aussies put our procurement system to shame.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> 612 million (CDN) for two supply vessels.
> 
> Once again the Aussies put our procurement system to shame.



That's not comparing apples to apples, as that is just for the ship.  They have another contract for another $250M for the first five years of sustainment. There are additional project costs for parts etc.

Still a good deal, but that's the benefit of buying something off the shelf (and current) and building it at the existing yard. Using an older design that needed updating, plus requiring 100% Canadian offset drove a bunch of costs and delays. Doing that on top of restarting a yard with a bunch of concurrent projects makes the whole thing pretty understandable.


----------



## Kirkhill

Maybe I'd be happier if somebody in Canada could just tell me the price of an apple.....like the rest of the world can.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Maybe I'd be happier if somebody in Canada could just tell me the price of an apple.....like the rest of the world can.



Is the apple a Canadian apple or a non-Canadian apple?

If the apple is Canadian, where was it grown?  

If grown in Ontario, the price of the apple will be the cheapest.  
If grown in Quebec then it will be double the cost of the apple grown in Ontario because of the need to label the apple in English and French.  
If the apple is grown in BC then the apple will be 50% more expensive than the apple grown in Quebec because of the requirement to use only organic growing methods.  
If the apple is grown in the Maritimes then it will be 75% more expensive than the BC apple because of the small-growers incentive plan, the heritage incentive plan to maintain a regionally culturally significant way of life and the national equality fairness act. 
If the apple is gown in the Federally funded and maintained High Arctic Greenhouse Experiment Programme, then said apple will not be sold to the Canadian public but will be given to specifically selected countries worthy to receive said apple as part of the CIDA programme delivery model. This apple will be counted as both a government expense and a revenue effectively cancelling each out.  The Auditor General will protest vigorously but no one will listen nor care.

The apple grown in the US will cost you .63 cents CAD by pound (or 1.38 by the kg), in the EU it will cost you 1.21 CAD by the kg, in South Korea the apple will cost .97 cents CAD by the kg and they will individually hand wrap each apple you buy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

JSS as of Oct


----------



## FSTO

Whatever your thoughts about iAOR and JSS, this shot across the bows by Chantier/Davie is damn funny!

https://www.facebook.com/CoultishManagement/videos/1172581732876205/


----------



## Czech_pivo

OMG that is too funny!

Kudos to these guys for dumming it down to a level that most (not all) Canadians can understand. Yup, I'll take the flak for this statement.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not to mention this...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Some more icing on Davie's cake

https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/for-crew-of-mv-asterix-return-home-means-a-chance-to-refuel-1.23546336?fbclid=IwAR1zJemhK1885rXirSRmDF9ubk6XDHwodymwODdwb6a8k7svyMDJE-md-lI


----------



## dimsum

One of the comments on Davie's video that made sense was that Asterix is purely an oiler, whereas JSS or whatever it's going to be called will carry ammunition, etc.  

So in reality, Canada needs both, unless we're planning on relying on partners for bullets and not just gas (and whatever Asterix can send).


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> One of the comments on Davie's video that made sense was that Asterix is purely an oiler, whereas JSS or whatever it's going to be called will carry ammunition, etc.
> 
> So in reality, Canada needs both, unless we're planning on relying on partners for bullets and not just gas (and whatever Asterix can send).



The Protecteur Class are supposed to carry 1,100 tonnes of ammunition.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> One of the comments on Davie's video that made sense was that Asterix is purely an oiler, whereas JSS or whatever it's going to be called will carry ammunition, etc.
> 
> So in reality, Canada needs both, unless we're planning on relying on partners for bullets and not just gas (and whatever Asterix can send).



Asterix has a magazine in the forward end of the ship for replenishing the frigates.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Asterix has a magazine in the forward end of the ship for replenishing the frigates.



Asterix has 20 ft ISO containers converted for magazine use.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I would take that article on the Asterix with a little grain of salt.

The writer says she was built from a tanker, which is not the case as she was converted from a container ship. Also, they call the cyclone a single-engine helicopter. While the Cyclone are single-rotor helicopters (as opposed to twin-rotor like the Chinook), they are definitely twin-engined, not single.


----------



## Loachman

FSTO said:
			
		

> Whatever your thoughts about iAOR and JSS, this shot across the bows by Chantier/Davie is damn funny!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/CoultishManagement/videos/1172581732876205/



Absolutely brilliant.

I hope that Davie's PR Guy/Girl is getting paid what he/she is worth, plus a huge tip.


----------



## garb811

Considering it's been out for over a year and people here with a keen interest in the issue have just come across it, I think the tip shouldn't be overly large...


----------



## FSTO

garb811 said:
			
		

> Considering it's been out for over a year and people here with a keen interest in the issue have just come across it, I think the tip shouldn't be overly large...



I had never seen it before. 
But the way its presented it was before the government said that they didn't need another iAOR.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> I had never seen it before.
> But the way its presented it was before the government said that they didn't need another iAOR.



Yes it did make the rounds on social media, Davie does have a good PR machine and the amount of promoting they are doing is evidence they are getting desperate especially as the PM has slammed the door on a second AOR.


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Maybe I'd be happier if somebody in Canada could just tell me the price of an apple.....like the rest of the world can.



For government accounting and budgeting purposes, it's far more important to know the entire cost of the 'apple'.


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I would take that article on the Asterix with a little grain of salt.
> 
> The writer says she was built from a tanker, which is not the case as she was converted from a container ship. Also, they call the cyclone a single-engine helicopter. While the Cyclone are single-rotor helicopters (as opposed to twin-rotor like the Chinook), they are definitely twin-engined, not single.



Considering they know what it is and does, that's better than articles about any green vehicle as a "tank" and an Aurora as a "spy plane".   :nod:


----------



## Baz

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Davie must really be desperate, think the PM will reverse his decision especially with the Admiral Norman trial going on? I wonder did Davie actually purchase the sister ship and counted on the government buying the second hull and now need the order?



I wouldn't read it that way.  The Asterix is being portrayed as a success story, they have the support of the Conservatives and the Province du Quebec, and their competition is not enjoying positive press right now.  Doesn't matter if what is being portrayed is completely correct or not, as a business they should be pushing and hope that something gives.

I would imagine that's what the shareholders want.

However, nothing is *likely* to give in the next year.

However... *if* Asterix continues to be seen as a success, *and* the province continues to back Davie, *and* the Conservatives make inroads in Quebec, *and* there is a change of government... the landscape would then look very different and Davie keeping the story out there would have a better chance of making something give.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Davie is privately-held, no share trading:



> ...Davie’s parent company [Inocea–“a privately held group of companies headquartered in Europe (Monte-Carlo)”] [ http://www.inocea.com/ ]...
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/mark-collins-davie-quebec-wants-to-build-icebreaker-for-unload-other-vessels-on-canadian-coast-guard/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Baz

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Davie is privately-held, no share trading:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



See now I feel dumb... I actually thought that might be the case so I typed TSX Davie into google and came up with https://ca.advfn.com/stock-market/TSX/DAV/stock-price.  I saw it was listed as DAV but didn't notice all the info was blank.

If I had of just looked three results lower
Then I would have seen https://www.newswire.ca/fr/news-releases/tsx-delisting-review---davie-yards-inc-dav-539474831.html and found out it was delisted in 2010.

Lack of google-fu on my part.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Baz: certainly not trying to make you feel dumb, good research. I just love the Monte Carlo angle, "the man who broke the bank at" angle (with a "Lawrence of Arabia" twist at the video!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJymx3UjWLo

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## brihard

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Yes it did make the rounds on social media, Davie does have a good PR machine and the amount of promoting they are doing is evidence they are getting desperate especially as the PM has slammed the door on a second AOR.



I wouldn't say it's 'desperation'. It's an election year and they know it. They also know that the issue is unusually prominent given the ongoing Norman case, which of course will come to trial shortly before the polls. This is basically the only time 'normal' Canadians are likely to notice or care about naval replenishment ships. It also puts the option out there as an alluring election plank for the Conservatives, who probably recognize the benefit of a nice cookie for Quebec. Particularly one a veritable stone's throw from Bernier's riding.

I doubt Davie expects the Liberals to buy another iAOR. I think they hope the Conservatives will be in a position to.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Just keep in mind Davie is a Very Big Thing in Quebec, federal election next year and all that (Dec. 7 release from Davie itself but...78 seats in House of Commons):



> Quebec's National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion in support of the Federal government's reform or 'refresh' of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
> 
> The motion called upon the federal government to endorse the House of Commons and Senate's recommendations to proceed immediately with the construction at Davie Shipbuilding of a second Resolve-Class Naval Support Ship as well as a new fleet of icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard...
> https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/quebecs-national-assembly-unanimously-adopts-a-motion-in-support-of-the-federal-governments-refresh-of-the-national-shipbuilding-strategy-702203571.html



And so far they have sold one supply ship and three CCG icebreakers (all re-builds) in the face of a negative bureaucracy. How wise to bet against some more work, esp. as Irving and Seaspan are oh so slow?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Stoker

Brihard said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say it's 'desperation'. It's an election year and they know it. They also know that the issue is unusually prominent given the ongoing Norman case, which of course will come to trial shortly before the polls. This is basically the only time 'normal' Canadians are likely to notice or care about naval replenishment ships. It also puts the option out there as an alluring election plank for the Conservatives, who probably recognize the benefit of a nice cookie for Quebec. Particularly one a veritable stone's throw from Bernier's riding.
> 
> I doubt Davie expects the Liberals to buy another iAOR. I think they hope the Conservatives will be in a position to.



From what I have been told they may actually own the second ship and did so with the expectation the government was going to build the second. I would expect they probably want to unload that hull. It is entirely possible they proceed to build a second Asterix type ship and offer it to another Navy.


----------



## kratz

[quote author=Chief Engineer]
From what I have been told they may actually own the second ship and did so with the expectation the government was going to build the second. I would expect they probably want to unload that hull. It is entirely possible they proceed to build a second Asterix type ship and offer it to another Navy.
[/quote]

Isn't that the sweet spot with the intent for the national ship building program?
If our ship yards are running 100% and selling to meet international demands, while meeting our needs...


----------



## NavyShooter

I have very little faith that ISI will ever be able to sell a warship to anyone other than the RCN - they are not competitive in the world market.


----------



## dapaterson

Not particularly competitive in the. Canadian market, for that matter...


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not particularly competitive in the. Canadian market, for that matter...





			
				NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I have very little faith that ISI will ever be able to sell a warship to anyone other than the RCN - they are not competitive in the world market.



I didn't think competitiveness was a requirement in Canadian ship building programs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

By the time the first JSS enters active service, Astreix is going to need a decent refit, when she is through that, we have 1 AOR for each coast for at least 2 years, then the next JSS comes online and will be bouncing from coast to coast as vessels go in and out of refit, unplanned events, etc.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> By the time the first JSS enters active service, Astreix is going to need a decent refit, when she is through that, we have 1 AOR for each coast for at least 2 years, then the next JSS comes online and will be bouncing from coast to coast as vessels go in and out of refit, unplanned events, etc.



You are assuming we will keep Asterix past the 5 year lease....


----------



## FSTO

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> You are assuming we will keep Asterix past the 5 year lease....



Because that would make total sense to get rid of an asset prior to the first JSS reaching IOC let alone FOC.

But then again, thats the Canadian way isn't it?


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:
			
		

> Because that would make total sense to get rid of an asset prior to the first JSS reaching IOC let alone FOC.
> 
> But then again, thats the Canadian way isn't it?



If the Libs are in power I cant seem then extending it or out right buying.  They already tried to kill it, and wont admit we need a second one;  this would be the perfect opportunity from their political standpoint.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> Because that would make total sense to get rid of an asset prior to the first JSS reaching IOC let alone FOC.
> 
> But then again, thats the Canadian way isn't it?



I know the civilian crew when hired were told to expect at least 7 years work, between now and then who knows. At the end of 7 years the hull will be reaching 20 years of age with very little downtime I expect.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I know the civilian crew when hired were told to expect at least 7 years work, between now and then who knows. At the end of 7 years the hull will be reaching 20 years of age with very little downtime I expect.



20 years is nothing for a hull in RCN    You know that as well I do Chief! lol


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> 20 years is nothing for a hull in RCN    You know that as well I do Chief! lol



Except its not a RCN hull, its a rental and will be used more than our own AOR's when we had them.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Except its not a RCN hull, its a rental and will be used more than our own AOR's when we had them.



I dunno our PRO Class did lots of sea time.  It was only the last 5-10 years where they became building with a commission and sea pay.  I did 3 years on PRE, lots of sea days there. 

Rental or our own 40 is our 20, just ask the IRO and Cadillac's lol


----------



## MilEME09

Maybe we will get lucky and BAE will buy Irving and restructure them. Davie seems to be doing better under foreign ownership.


----------



## NavyShooter

It could hardly be worse...


----------



## Uzlu

> Navy 'comfortable' with one temporary support ship: Commander
> 
> OTTAWA — The commander of the Royal Canadian Navy says he is "comfortable" having only one temporary support ship given the current timeline for the permanent vessels to start arriving.
> 
> The federal government is facing calls and pressure from Quebec and opposition parties to lease a second temporary support vessel from Davie Shipbuilding pending the completion of new ships to replace the ones that were retired in 2015.
> 
> However Vice-Admiral Ron Lloyd tells The Canadian Press the first ship is meeting the navy's requirements and that his focus is on the two permanent support ships currently being built in Vancouver.
> 
> While the scheduled delivery of those vessels has slipped several times over the years, defence officials say they are now reasonably confident the first will be delivered around 2023.
> 
> The federal government paid Quebec-based Davie nearly $700-million to lease a converted civilian vessel to be a temporary support ship and it is currently working in the Pacific with the navy.
> 
> Advocates for a second ship have said the plan is a win-win by arguing that the navy needs the vessel and the deal will support hundreds of underemployed Davie workers in the Quebec City area.


https://www.timescolonist.com/navy-comfortable-with-one-temporary-support-ship-commander-1.23611092


----------



## Kirkhill

> reasonably confident the first will be delivered around 2023.



Reasonably -  

By sensible standards of judgement; justifiably.
‘a constable who reasonably believes a breach of the peace is about to take place’ - _*although, in the event, no incidents occurred.*_
sentence adverb ‘it was assumed, reasonably enough, that the murder had taken place by the pond’ - _*although, it was later discovered that the victim had fallen in the bath tub.*_

Confident - 

Feeling or showing certainty about something.
‘this time they're confident of a happy ending’ - _*although their masseuse was less persuaded*_


around

(used with a number or quantity) approximately.

‘software costs would be around £1,500’
‘I returned to my hotel around 3 a.m’

TCEP - Temporal Circular Error Probable  - 1 year? 2 years?  5 Years?  Something around that?


----------



## Cloud Cover

In that case, what if the JSS is pushed back another 2-3 years. Still comfortable? ...  if so then scrap the JSS project entirely and use the money for something else or don't spend it at all.


----------



## Rifleman62

Political. It seems they all are at Flag rank with one possible exception. 

If comfortable, why build the other two?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Saying something like this makes the military looks stupid to anyone with a clue and leads to taxpayers/voters that have zero knowledge on the matters makes them think that the money is not required. While the political masters rule the military, one does not need to lick their boots. In the end the officer served only the himself, a politician and not the navy, country or taxpayer.


----------



## Stoker

I see Davie is upping their game.


Davie shipyard workers protest in Quebec City

https://globalnews.ca/news/4893671/davie-shipyard-protest-quebec-city/


----------



## Uzlu

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> https://globalnews.ca/news/4893671/davie-shipyard-protest-quebec-city/





> Trudeau said he is looking at ways to provide more work for the shipyard, but a second supply ship is simply not needed right now.


No MV _Obelix_, no _Aiviq_, no large ships for the Navy, no large ships for the coast guard, no refits of ships one sneeze away from falling apart, and no refits of _Halifax_-class ships until 2021.  It is going to be interesting to see what bones Trudeau is going to throw to Davie.  I get the feeling that if Davie disappears, Trudeau is not going to lose any sleep.


----------



## ModlrMike

The Davie yard is deep in the middle of a strong Torrie riding. This is purely partisan.


----------



## NavyShooter

ISI is located deep in Liberal territory, no wonder their incompetence keeps getting swept under the rug.


----------



## Monsoon

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The Davie yard is deep in the middle of a strong Torrie riding. This is purely partisan.


Partisan yes, but one correction - Davie is in deep "Max Bernier Party" territory. If it were a Tory riding, giving a contract to Davie would be a way of swinging some support from the Torys to the Liberals. As it is, Justin is happy to sacrifice their limited chances in that riding to shore up Mad Max's bid to divide the right in the next election.


----------



## Rifleman62

With the Liberals, Canada's policies, are always not what is good for Canada; what's good for the LPC.

Trudeau quotes:



> Trudeau said he is looking at ways to provide more work for the shipyard, but a second supply ship is simply not needed right now.
> 
> "Our Canadian Forces are in a state of stagnation," Trudeau said to a crowd of supporters at Pier 21 in Halifax, home to the Canadian Museum of Immigration.In its place, the Liberals said they would launch an "open and transparent competition" to buy more affordable planes to replace Canada's aging CF-18 jets. Trudeau said the money saved by scrapping the F-35 procurement would go primarily to increasing spending on the Royal Canadian Navy.  - 20 Sep 15
> 
> “They clung to a plane (F-35) that does not work and is far from working.”



I have numerous F-35's flying over my house day and night. None have fallen out of the sky, but we did have a sonic boom last month.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good thing we have that renowned international military aviation expert as our PM, saving us from a program that has delivered 355 fighters to 10 of our closest Allies and been used in combat twice, at unit cost below anything else currently on the market...

 :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Pity no one asked that particular flag officer what would we do if the Astriex was disabled, hit a reef, caught fire or was involved in a collision?


----------



## Uzlu

> Statement by Davie Shipbuilding regarding a second interim supply ship - MV Obelix
> 
> LÉVIS, QC, Jan. 28, 2019 /CNW Telbec/ - Last Friday, the Right Honourable Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau told an audience in Quebec City that the Canadian Armed Forces did an assessment and concluded that there was no need for the second supply ship proposed by Davie Shipbuilding. Based on media reports, this assessment was conducted in 2014, when the delivery date for the Joint Supply Ships was still 2019.
> 
> Davie Shipbuilding thanks the Prime Minister for his continued support for Davie workers and his commitment to making decisions based on facts and evidence.
> 
> To that end, we note that on 30 May 2018, the Acting Vice Chief of Defence Staff told a Parliamentary Committee, "We never really looked at the need for or validated the need for a second interim AOR."
> https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/Committee/421/NFFN/68ev-54120-e
> 
> Additionally, the requirement for a second supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy was studied by both the Senate and House of Commons permanent defence committees in 2017 and both committees unanimously concluded that Canada should procure a second interim supply ship from Davie to meet the operational requirements of the navy.
> 
> Given the statement from the Acting Vice Chief of Defence Staff, two parliamentary reports and documents provided by the Department of National Defence which confirm that the Joint Supply Ships will not achieve Full Operational Capabilities until 2025, there clearly remains a need for Obelix.
> http://forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2018-status-report-transformational-crown-projects.page#jointsupportship
> 
> To that end, we would request that the Prime Minister conduct an independent third-party analysis of the utilization rate of the current supply ship, MV Asterix, and the exact time when the Joint Support Ships to be delivered from the Vancouver shipyard will achieve Full Operational Capability. This analysis should be concluded in an expedited timeframe (30 days) so that we can get on with providing the women and men of the Royal Canadian Navy the equipment it needs to carry out the job the government asks them to do, both in Canada and abroad.


https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/statement-by-davie-shipbuilding-regarding-a-second-interim-supply-ship-mv-obelix-859714699.html


----------



## Rifleman62

> To that end, we would request that the Prime Minister conduct an independent third-party analysis of the utilization rate of the current supply ship, MV Asterix, and the exact time when the Joint Support Ships to be delivered from the Vancouver shipyard will achieve Full Operational Capability. This analysis should be concluded in an expedited timeframe (30 days) so that we can get on with providing the women and men of the Royal Canadian Navy the equipment it needs to carry out the job the government asks them to do, both in Canada and abroad.



Dream on. An independent third-party analysis by any government would take months just to define the aim. Then months to find the 
independent third-party, months to hire, staff, find accommodations, acquire eqpt, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Stoker

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Dream on. An independent third-party analysis by any government would take months just to define the aim. Then months to find the
> independent third-party, months to hire, staff, find accommodations, acquire eqpt, etc, etc, etc.




Just as I predicted Davie is pulling out all the stops to control the narrative on this. They must be getting pretty desperate.


----------



## dapaterson

True.  Unlike Irving or Seaspan, they don't have guaranteed money even if they deliver nothing.


----------



## Cloud Cover

dapaterson said:
			
		

> True.  Unlike Irving or Seaspan, they don't have guaranteed money even if they deliver nothing.



To witt: this thread was started 15 years ago, and the only AOR ship delivered has been Asterix. And that happened only by circumstance and political miscalculation.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Just as I predicted Davie is pulling out all the stops to control the narrative on this. They must be getting pretty desperate.



While you are constantly harping negative comments on Davie at the drop of a hat, you have (that I can recall, and I follow this thread pretty closely) never predicted anything involving "control of the narrative" by Davie (or anybody else for that matter) before.

If by control of the narrative you mean actually pointing out facts, such as statements of the VCDS to a parliamentary committee, complete with neutral reference to the actual parliamentary committee website, or that two committees on National defence, at the house of commons and Senate level reached the conclusion Obelix is needed, another fact easy to verify independently of the government, then yeah! Sure! Davie is controlling the narrative.

Some, however, would conclude that it is the Trudeau government that is trying to control the narrative when it states, without any supporting facts, the opposite. Especially when that same government is currently refusing to confirm to Parliament, upon repeated demands, the actual expected date of delivery of the two AORs to be built at Seaspan, ignoring the reports from those two Parliament defence committees and more likely than not, pressuring somehow a currently serving admiral into stating an absence of need for Obelix when everybody who has a clue states the opposite.

Just sayin!


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Just as I predicted Davie is pulling out all the stops to control the narrative on this. They must be getting pretty desperate.



Chief we see eye to eye on lots of stuff, but your perceived dislike of Davie's product is perplexing.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Chief we see eye to eye on lots of stuff, but your perceived dislike of Davie's product is perplexing.



Yes I don't like them, but I don't preclude they shouldn't be getting more work though if the government deems it a need. I also know plenty about the Davie product that influences my attitude towards them.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> While you are constantly harping negative comments on Davie at the drop of a hat, you have (that I can recall, and I follow this thread pretty closely) never predicted anything involving "control of the narrative" by Davie (or anybody else for that matter) before.
> 
> If by control of the narrative you mean actually pointing out facts, such as statements of the VCDS to a parliamentary committee, complete with neutral reference to the actual parliamentary committee website, or that two committees on National defence, at the house of commons and Senate level reached the conclusion Obelix is needed, another fact easy to verify independently of the government, then yeah! Sure! Davie is controlling the narrative.
> 
> Some, however, would conclude that it is the Trudeau government that is trying to control the narrative when it states, without any supporting facts, the opposite. Especially when that same government is currently refusing to confirm to Parliament, upon repeated demands, the actual expected date of delivery of the two AORs to be built at Seaspan, ignoring the reports from those two Parliament defence committees and more likely than not, pressuring somehow a currently serving admiral into stating an absence of need for Obelix when everybody who has a clue states the opposite.
> 
> Just sayin!




I didn't say it on this thread at all but on another concerning Davie. Just as some people on here are not Irving fans, I'm not a Davie fan but acknowledge they should still get more work however I don't like their constant maneuvering and publically asking whining how they're not getting Quebec's fair share. 

As for controlling the narrative absolutely they are as they are often the source of the story and are continuously making claims in the media to keep the focus on them to garner more work and at this point as predicted seems to have backfired on them for now. The theme for this narrative is either how good they are and how they should get more work, or how Irving and Seaspan are bad and how good a deal they can get the government. 

As for the comments by the VCDS who is still before the courts , we have the transport minister, the prime minister and head of the navy recently saying we don't have the requirement for a second Asterix type ship. These comments are in response to comments made by Davie on how they want to provide an unsolicited ship or other unsolicited work to the RCN. If the government and RCN is comfortable with an interim AOR lease with a military rental AOR on the opposite coast out that's their choice. Perhaps there's a reason other than political although I'm sure that that's part of it the RCN don't see a need for another Asterix type ship. They may also be getting tired for the unsolicited bids as I know if I was the government I would be.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Seen, Chief. And acknowledged. Thanks for the explanation.

Just a few small points: I certainly don't count the PM or the current Transport Minister as knowledgeable on the needs of the Navy. BTW, minister Garneau ceased to have any relations with the RCN before the Navy ever got it's first Halifax frigate. He is "steamer" era, an era when we had three AOR's and a single focus on ASW in the Atlantic, with few overseas deployment outside NATO.

Also, the VCDS who made the original point before the Senate committee was not the one in court, but his relief - an Army general.

Also, if any one here is interested in pushing the "oversea's yards are so much better" mantra, I suggest you follow the story of the Quebec ferry F. A. Gauthier. It is a brand new (launched in 2015) build from Fincantierri, in Italy, and has never worked properly from the start, with constant engine/gearing/control systems breakdowns. It has now been removed from service indefinitely in order to figure out what is wrong and try and fix it. The government of Quebec had to make an urgent acquisition of an old, smaller ferry from Nfld. And BTW, it had been certified for service by Lloyd's surveyors.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Seen, Chief. And acknowledged. Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> Just a few small points: I certainly don't count the PM or the current Transport Minister as knowledgeable on the needs of the Navy. BTW, minister Garneau ceased to have any relations with the RCN before the Navy ever got it's first Halifax frigate. He is "steamer" era, an era when we had three AOR's and a single focus on ASW in the Atlantic, with few overseas deployment outside NATO.
> 
> Also, the VCDS who made the original point before the Senate committee was not the one in court, but his relief - an Army general.
> 
> Also, if any one here is interested in pushing the "oversea's yards are so much better" mantra, I suggest you follow the story of the Quebec ferry F. A. Gauthier. It is a brand new (launched in 2015) build from Fincantierri, in Italy, and has never worked properly from the start, with constant engine/gearing/control systems breakdowns. It has now been removed from service indefinitely in order to figure out what is wrong and try and fix it. The government of Quebec had to make an urgent acquisition of an old, smaller ferry from Nfld. And BTW, it had been certified for service by Lloyd's surveyors.



You know you may be surprised but I do think personally we do have the need for a second AOR right now.  Regardless of my opinion, I follow what the RCN and government sets as our requirement's. I know Marc Garneau's knowledge as a CSE on HMCS Algonquin in 74 and his retirement from the Navy in 89 is from another era and he's a politician but still knows more about the subject than most.

As you have brought up overseas yards subject, Newfoundland has also bought offshore and has had problems with their ferries very similar to what you have mentioned. I think any yard could have the potential of having problems with designs and that goes for naval vessels as well as we often don't hear about those problems. I still like the offshore option that even though there probably will be issues to be addressed, its still cheaper and faster. As for the Lloyd's surveyors comment its interesting to note that the CCG is moving away from using them and are moving towards ABS to do their surveys.


----------



## FSTO

I may get into some trouble over this comment but whatever.

Our military leaders are good tactical thinkers but since our military history has been one of subservience to our colonial masters (France, then the UK and now the USA) we have left the hard work of strategic thinking to them. Coupled with a civilian political culture of providing the barest minimum of funding to stop the Americans from setting up bases in Canada its no wonder we turn ourselves into pretzels debating about having an AOR constantly available on each coast. Coasts that are separated by a couple of weeks of sailing!  

A mature, strategically thinking nation would have long ago decided that at a minimum we would have 6 AOR's in order to have one at sea or ready to sail on each coast. I could go on and on but everyone here knows my feelings about our defence needs.

Garneau and Leslie have both sold their souls to the political gods of Butts and Tedford (PMO office leaders who really run this government) so I really discount any public statements those two have towards defence. In defence of CRCN, I have a feeling that he was told in no uncertain terms to tow the Government line or the RCN will suffer the consequences.

Finally, events with China, India, UN (Mali) have proved to me that this PMO is so over their head when it comes to international relations that I'm surprised that any country's leaders answer the phone when they see Canada on the call display.


----------



## NavyShooter

I saw the (still unfinished) Davie Product when it arrived in Halifax.  I was concerned about the public 'it's done and ready to sail' vs the visible to me 'holy cow there seems like a lot of work to do still'.

That said, the work got finished, the ship left the wall, and from what I've seen and heard, seems to have done OK.  

Looking at the other side of the coin, I have personal experience with ISI's standard of work having taken several ships through their 'tender' care, and based on things I have seen with my own eyes, I use the words 'wilful and deliberate' in describing some of their output.  I will also note that we have to strip pretty much every piece of visible brass off the ships we send in, otherwise it 'disappears' - fire hoses with ends cut off, bulkheads with talley plates missing, etc.  

I have very little faith in ISI products.  

I have slightly more faith in the limited products I have seen from Davie.

In my opinion, both are out looking for the dollars...it's all about the money.  *shrug*  they are both businesses, and that's what they do.  Nature of the beast I guess.

To consider, I was offered a job at ISI a couple of years back....they came looking for me...I responded with "I have too much pride in myself to have my name on the same business card as the word Irving."

Your individual opinions may vary based upon your own experiences and knowledge, however, I have my own based upon my experience.  I suspect we won't see eye to eye, and that's OK.  I'm not looking to change your mind.

NS


----------



## Czech_pivo

FSTO said:
			
		

> I may get into some trouble over this comment but whatever.
> 
> Our military leaders are good tactical thinkers but since our military history has been one of subservience to our colonial masters (France, then the UK and now the USA) we have left the hard work of strategic thinking to them. Coupled with a civilian political culture of providing the barest minimum of funding to stop the Americans from setting up bases in Canada its no wonder we turn ourselves into pretzels debating about having an AOR constantly available on each coast. Coasts that are separated by a couple of weeks of sailing!
> 
> A mature, strategically thinking nation would have long ago decided that at a minimum we would have 6 AOR's in order to have one at sea or ready to sail on each coast. I could go on and on but everyone here knows my feelings about our defence needs.
> 
> Garneau and Leslie have both sold their souls to the political gods of Butts and Tedford (PMO office leaders who really run this government) so I really discount any public statements those two have towards defence. In defence of CRCN, I have a feeling that he was told in no uncertain terms to tow the Government line or the RCN will suffer the consequences.
> 
> Finally, events with China, India, UN (Mali) have proved to me that this PMO is so over their head when it comes to international relations that I'm surprised that any country's leaders answer the phone when they see Canada on the call display.



Spot on - now just remember all of this when it comes time to vote later this year.....


----------



## Dale Denton

I'm curious as to the reason of 'why not' buy another interim AOR. Trying to think bigger picture.

There seems to be a shift of thoughts around potential future conflicts towards them being state v. state. I.E the building threat of Russia and China vs the talk of terrorism in the recent past, Correct?

These 2 countries (among many others) are capable of sinking naval ships, Correct?

So what happens when you build the absolute minimum (or just below it in this matter), and just 1 of our 3 AORs (assuming all 3 will be in service at the same time) is sunk? 

We lack the capability to build another as fast as we did in WW2, and a replacement would cost hundreds of millions and require a complete re-prioritization of any build schedule.

Or is there a thought somewhere that this is not possible?


----------



## CBH99

Not only that, but in any future state vs state conflict, just being able to provide an AOR to allied ships would be a good start in showing support for our allies.  Similar to the air force providing tanker support in a conflict where we don't have any fighters - a useful contribution that enables the assets in theatre to function.

That, and the fact that the RCN effectively has 2 fleets - one on each coast - means one of those fleets doesn't have an AOR as it currently stands.  An interim AOR would ensure both fleets have tanker support, and the RCN has one available if one needs repairs/refits.


With the exception of seeing a contract signed for FWSAR, and I don't see the current government really doing much of anything substantial in the defense portfolio.  The only reason we have a SINGLE AOR now is because a true former leader in the RCN pushed ahead & made sure the contract signed by the previous government didn't get cancelled, and he's been thrown to the wolves for it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Exactly, offering AOR's seems to be a perfect fit for the Liberal world concept, high value, low political risk, along with the ability to support peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief. It's a PR bonanza and using merchant sailors actually strengthens our whole maritime system and adds to the career stream for ships pilots and Deck/Engineering officers.

Incredibly short sighted


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> Exactly, offering AOR's seems to be a perfect fit for the Liberal world concept, high value, low political risk, along with the ability to support peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief. It's a PR bonanza and using merchant sailors actually strengthens our whole maritime system and adds to the career stream for ships pilots and Deck/Engineering officers.
> 
> Incredibly short sighted



LPC sight of eye ends at the Lachine Rapids to the east and the Niagara escarpment to the west.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Two spots where water abounds ... yet they don't get that Canada is a maritime nation.  :deadhorse:


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Two spots where water abounds ... yet they don't get that Canada is a maritime nation.  :deadhorse:


I shouldn't single out the Liberals. The Tories, NDP, Greens, PPC and pretty much all of our media don't get it either.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I wasn't singling them out as an exoneration of all the others. Trust me on that.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile look at what the French are getting, the cost (US$) and schedule:



> French navy to get four new logistics ships in $1.9 billion deal
> 
> The Organization for Joint Armament Co-operation, OCCAR, has signed a €1.7 billion contract on behalf of the DGA French procurement agency with Chantiers de l'Atlantique and Naval Group for four Italian-designed logistic support ships.
> 
> The vessels are meant to provide long-term support for France’s blue-sea combat fleet, supplying fuel, ammunition, spare parts and food. Each LSS can carry 13,000 cubic meters of fuel.
> 
> _Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri will supply part of the hulls and technical assistance, having designed and built the recently-launched Vulcano for the Italian navy as the design base for the vessels_ [emphasis added--no such help for Seaspan]. The ships will be built in Saint-Nazaire on France’s Atlantic coast, and the _first two will be delivered by 2025_ [emphasis added] to start replacing the last three Durance-class command and supply ships in line to be phased out of the French navy.
> 
> “Through this order, our expertise in the design and construction of complex ships, civilian or military, is acknowledged once again,” Yves Pelpel, senior vice president of naval programs at Chantiers de l’Atlantique, said. "After the construction of the Mistral, Tonnerre and Dixmude LHD platforms, we are proud to contribute again, in partnership with Naval Group, to the modernization of the French navy’s fleet.”..
> https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/02/01/french-navy-to-get-four-new-logistics-ships-in-19-billon-deal/



More details here:



> France Orders Four Logistic Support Ships
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.marinelink.com/news/france-orders-four-logistic-support-ships-462398



Then there are our two JSS, _on verra_:



> ...delivery of the first vessel, the future HMCS Protecteur, in 2022/23. Following delivery by Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd, the RCN will conduct a series of trials to ensure the ship meets operational requirements. The second ship, the future HMCS Preserver, is expected to be delivered sometime in 2023/24...
> 
> *Project costs*
> 
> The budget for the Joint Support Ship project is $3.4 billion (excluding taxes)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Artist rendering of the future Protecteur-class ship replenishing a Canadian vessel at sea._
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/joint-support-ship.page



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

Interesting that they feel they require 4 to maintain continuity.  Kinda puts the lie to the thought that we don't need a second ship now doesn't it?


----------



## Kirkhill

Also interesting that they are looking at 4 RAS masts (like Asterix and unlike "Preserver") and 2 cranes (again, like Asterix and unlike "Preserver")


----------



## JMCanada

And France is also a two- coasts country ( Atlantic & Med.), so they need 4 units. Interesting that Italy seems to have overtaken France in naval construction.


----------



## YZT580

labour costs  and social obligations have priced France out of a lot industries.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

JMCanada said:
			
		

> And France is also a two- coasts country ( Atlantic & Med.), so they need 4 units. Interesting that Italy seems to have overtaken France in naval construction.



True. But with the caveat that it takes only three days for France to swing one AOR from the Atlantic fleet home port to the Mediterranean one and vice-versa, as opposed to three weeks for us in Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> True. But with the caveat that it takes only three days for France to swing one AOR from the Atlantic fleet home port to the Mediterranean one and vice-versa, as opposed to three weeks for us in Canada.



So three days vice three weeks (21 days = 3x7) with four AOR coverage.....

So... Canada needs 4x7 AORs?


----------



## JMCanada

It's not just the days. The main point is the criteria behind: two fleets, one per coast. What if the Panama channel or the strait of Gibraltar were "blocked" in case of conflict?
On the other hand, France has overseas territories in the Caribe and the Pacific.


----------



## Czech_pivo

This just came out - JSS timelines 'moved up'  - though they DO NOT put a date/year on when this will occur - still not expecting one ready and delivered to the Navy before 2022/23 at the earliest.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/canada/ottawa-moving-up-construction-of-navys-new-support-ships-in-vancouver-281846/

Ottawa moving up construction of new naval support ship in Vancouver
TTAWA — In a move likely to send shockwaves through Quebec and its shipbuilding industry, the federal government has decided to speed construction of one of its permanent new naval support vessels.

The government's multibillion-dollar shipbuilding plan has long called for Seaspan Marine in Vancouver to build an ocean-science vessel for the Canadian Coast Guard before turning to the navy's two new support ships.

But the federal procurement department says the government will finish one of the support ships — which carry food, ammunition and fuel for fleets at sea — before moving onto the science vessel.


The second joint support ship, as the permanent vessels are called, will be built last. 

The government last year approved a plan for Seaspan to start some advance work on one of the joint support ships as the shipyard waited for the coast guard to finish designing the science vessel.

The decision to now finish the first ship will "build on the good momentum underway," said Public Services and Procurement Canada spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold.

It will also ensure the shipyard stays busy so workers aren't sitting idle or laid off while they wait for the ocean-science vessel, he added, and allow time for lessons to be absorbed before construction of the second joint support ship.

"This decision makes good sense and is a prime example of how the (national shipbuilding strategy) allows us to be flexible in meeting Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard requirements while finding efficiencies at shipyards."


----------



## MarkOttawa

And gov't now does not even have a timeline for Seaspan to build the Diefenbaker, the (one only) new polar icebreaker ( http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/rpp/2018-19/SupplementaryTables/mcp-eng.html ) for CCG, to replace 50 year-old Louis St. Laurent ( https://inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fdat/vessels/vessel-details/81 ). That ship is supposed to be final build in a firm series, maybe now sometime in 2030s?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

pardon my ignorance, but isn't it better to build all of one type before moving on to another?  That way you order multiple sets of the same item, reducing costs for suppliers who can set up to assemble in an assembly-line format rather than building one off's and then moving on to another?  Better to build both JSS or finish building the science ships with common hull and propulsion designs rather than jumping back and forth.  This brilliant move will only end up costing even more and for little if any gain.  Getting Davies into the equation would allow us to bridge over for the navy while providing a good back-up in the form of the second Asterix but more importantly get the coast guard the ship they absolutely need before the St. Laurent sinks at her anchor.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> This just came out - JSS timelines 'moved up'  - though they DO NOT put a date/year on when this will occur - still not expecting one ready and delivered to the Navy before 2022/23 at the earliest.
> 
> https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/canada/ottawa-moving-up-construction-of-navys-new-support-ships-in-vancouver-281846/
> 
> Ottawa moving up construction of new naval support ship in Vancouver
> TTAWA — In a move likely to send shockwaves through Quebec and its shipbuilding industry, the federal government has decided to speed construction of one of its permanent new naval support vessels.
> 
> The government's multibillion-dollar shipbuilding plan has long called for Seaspan Marine in Vancouver to build an ocean-science vessel for the Canadian Coast Guard before turning to the navy's two new support ships.
> 
> But the federal procurement department says the government will finish one of the support ships — which carry food, ammunition and fuel for fleets at sea — before moving onto the science vessel.
> 
> 
> The second joint support ship, as the permanent vessels are called, will be built last.
> 
> The government last year approved a plan for Seaspan to start some advance work on one of the joint support ships as the shipyard waited for the coast guard to finish designing the science vessel.
> 
> The decision to now finish the first ship will "build on the good momentum underway," said Public Services and Procurement Canada spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold.
> 
> It will also ensure the shipyard stays busy so workers aren't sitting idle or laid off while they wait for the ocean-science vessel, he added, and allow time for lessons to be absorbed before construction of the second joint support ship.
> 
> "This decision makes good sense and is a prime example of how the (national shipbuilding strategy) allows us to be flexible in meeting Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard requirements while finding efficiencies at shipyards."



Sounds like all the posturing by Davie has backfired on them, no chance of selling that second IAOR now. I would also imagine as soon as the first JSS is delivered the government if Liberal will cut Asterix loose.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Happy for Seaspan, I wish Davie would dial it back, I am happy about what they did and support a 2nd ship from them, because I want 4 AOR`s.


----------



## CBH99

More votes to be converted in Quebec than there were to be in Victoria, BC.  Unbelievably stupid move by the Liberals, all because of the pettiness of not wanting to accept that perhaps ALL of Canada's shipyards major should be included in the NATIONAL shipbuilding strategy...

I've witnessed first hand the latte sipping hippies that seem to land 'advisor' jobs at Global Affairs, and comments have been made about those individuals here also.  (I'm not speaking about the seasoned folks who have been there between political parties, but rather the lackies that follow around and 'advise' the ministers.)  I seriously wonder why some of our senior political appointments don't think about both sides of the coin, and try to come up with solutions to make their base happy, but also grow their base by converting folks who may otherwise vote for the other side of the coin.



In regards to this matter, the Liberals would have been far better off going along the lines of "The previous government didn't include Davies in the shipbuilding strategy due to the restructuring happening at the time.  However, as we re-evaluate the strategy and make decisions on how to proceed, Quebec should absolutely be included as we value the skill, hard work, and dedication these families bring to the country.  The recently acquired icebreakers were sorely needed, and Davie did an amazing job at getting the ships available on time and on budget.  It's a shame the previous government didn't see the value you bring to the country, but we do." -- or whatever other pandering nonsense they want to come up with.



By going about it slightly differently...

-  Davies is included.  The GoC gets another major shipyard producing ships it needs.  It possibly wins some votes in a predominantly Conservative region - which, you know, might be important given an election coming up.  Stabilizes employment in the region.  

-  It allows for the RCN to have 2 AORs.  1 per coast.  Allows the RCN to still deploy one, if the other has an accident, needs repairs, needs work, etc etc.  It also allows for a spare, which the GoC can lease to other countries when needed - ironic, since thats what we had to do not too long ago.

-  It allows the GoC to deploy a useful contribution in the form of a support ship to allied operations, where it may not want to deploy a fighting ship.  (Similar to us providers tankers & C-17's to an operation we don't deploy F-18's to -- still a useful contribution)

-  It allows the GoC to deploy a ship of this sort to emergency situations & disaster relief, which is always great for PR.



While most countries, organizations, and groups of sensibly minded people have a meeting to discuss "What can do we do maximize our options while staying within a certain budget?"   I swear our meetings must be like "What can we do to limit our options as much as possible, so we don't actually have to do anything?"


----------



## Cloud Cover

In the end, it's probably good for everybody that they moved the timeline up, even though it's a posterity move rather than common sense. Federal and Davie can move on to the next skirmish, the RCN might get a new ship and the poli's get to feel smug and clever.  :  As for Asterix, I hope they won't be cutting her loose until there are two JSS floating and working, which is probably still more than 5 years away for both, regardless of what the PR machine spits out.  When the JSS is in the water, and functioning, then that will be the day to acknowledge they did something useful in spite of themselves.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CCG's shipbuilding needs are not related to the RCN's; it's a great pity that civilian and naval requirements were bundled together by the Conservatives in the, ha, ha, "National Shipbuilding Strategy".  

It's almost as if the government's civilian and military aviation fleets were all procured under one over-arching "strategy" to build everything in Canada. With most of the necessary industrial plant having to be built first (Bell helicopters aside, boy they get a lot of sole-sourcing for CCG and RCAF with almost no political/media attention/controversy--wonder why).

Shudder. Gasp. Help. Madness. _Quel désastre_. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

YZT580 said:
			
		

> isn't it better to build all of one type before moving on to another?


Yes, this is how it is usually done in countries that have a clue about how to nurture a shipbuilding industry.  We, however, are now paying the heavy price for the gross incompetence of previous governments.  Please note that I am not suggesting that the present government is competent.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They are completing the 3 OFSV's now, something is wrong with the SV design I suspect, so this gives them a chance to get it sorted. Davie could be given a contract to replace the 1100 class bouy tenders and Seaspan the other larger breakers.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> They are completing the 3 OFSV's now, something is wrong with the SV design I suspect, so this gives them a chance to get it sorted. Davie could be given a contract to replace the 1100 class bouy tenders and Seaspan the other larger breakers.



That was the hidden message nicely hidden in the press release. This change in order of production has nothing to do with trying to satisfy urgent needs of the Navy. It has everything to do with keeping the yard busy while the Coast Guard sorts itself out on the Science vessel.

Colin is probably right that there is something wrong with the design of the OSV. However, I am not as nice as he is and I believe that the design problem is not from a "architectural" point of view but rather because the Coast Guard brass, after all these years of lead time, still haven't been able to decide for itself what it wants the vessel to be able to do. It's gross "brass" incompetence or bureaucratic anarchy in the team putting the reqs together that is slowing the process - and no-one with the balls to drive the damn process forward.

I could be wrong, but Coast Guard brass has never impressed me - seagoing personnel, yes, but their shore side brass? No!


----------



## Czech_pivo

If we are talking about 'some Brass having balls', then why not talk about giving Davie the building of the Def......As it stand now, that boat won't touch seawater until close to 2037-38 as it stands now.  

This is borderline criminal - or - normal for a 3rd world country.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Somebody obviously hasn't updated the Wikipedia page on The Def in years....

"CCGS John G. Diefenbaker[note 1] is the name for a Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker that is expected to join the fleet in 2021–2022. She was initially expected to be in service by 2017.

In May 2013 the Vancouver Sun reported that the Harper government acknowledged that both John G. Diefenbaker and the Royal Canadian Navy's new Joint Support Ships faced a scheduling conflict.[16] According to the Vancouver Sun, because both vessels were scheduled to be built in the same facility, the Harper government would have to choose which project had priority, and went first. The Canadian American Strategic Review argued that John G. Diefenbaker better served protecting Canadian sovereignty than the Joint Support Ships, and should therefore get built first.[17] However, on 11 October 2013 the NSPS Secretariat announced that the Joint Support Ships would be built first, followed by John G. Diefenbaker. This means that the new polar icebreaker was delayed and the Canadian Coast Guard will have to start necessary measures to keep Louis S. St-Laurent in service until 2021–2022.[3][18]"


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That was the hidden message nicely hidden in the press release. This change in order of production has nothing to do with trying to satisfy urgent needs of the Navy. It has everything to do with keeping the yard busy while the Coast Guard sorts itself out on the Science vessel.
> 
> Colin is probably right that there is something wrong with the design of the OSV. However, I am not as nice as he is and I believe that the design problem is not from a "architectural" point of view but rather because the Coast Guard brass, after all these years of lead time, still haven't been able to decide for itself what it wants the vessel to be able to do. It's gross "brass" incompetence or bureaucratic anarchy in the team putting the reqs together that is slowing the process - and no-one with the balls to drive the damn process forward.
> 
> I could be wrong, but Coast Guard brass has never impressed me - seagoing personnel, yes, but their shore side brass? No!



Fully in agreement, out here the brass wanted for years to close the 2 busiest SAR bases (Kits and the Hovercraft base) They got their wish on Kits which then blew up in the CPC face and cost them at least 2 seats. My guess is the OSV is badly top heavy and due to the brass wanting it to be to many things, I know Robbie Allen and he related to me his frustrations with that issue when designing the 500 class. They also want a 60 million dollar ship for 40 million and they often shorten designs leading to issues.


----------



## Stoker

The Davie info machine keeps going....

Asterix deploys for year-long world-tour 


https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/asterix-deploys-for-year-long-world-tour-822033638.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

On build-switch between CCG's OOSV and first JSS:



> New schedule will shave months off construction of navy support vessel: Shipyard
> 
> The Vancouver shipyard building the navy’s new support ships says the decision to push one of those vessels to the front of the construction queue will shave months, rather than years, off its expected delivered date.
> 
> The federal government revealed this week that Seaspan Marine will finish work on the first support ship before turning to a new oceanographic science vessel for the coast guard, which was originally slated to be built first.
> 
> _Seaspan vice-president of government relations Tim Page tells The Canadian Press that design work on the coast guard ship is taking longer than expected_ [emphasis added--in 2009 the ship was supposed to be delivered by an un-chosen shipyard in 2012!!! https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2009-2010/inst/dfo/st-ts08-eng.asp#OOSV CHARLIEFOXTROT] and changing the schedule will save money and time in the long run.
> 
> But anyone expecting the support ship to be delivered overnight will be disappointed as Page says the shipyard’s new schedule has it hitting the water in 2022, at which point it will still need to undergo testing at sea.
> 
> Prior to the new schedule, the Defence Department’s head of procurement said he expected the vessel to be delivered and ready for naval operations by mid-2023.
> 
> As for the coast guard’s new science ship, Page says the time gained by pushing it back in the queue will be used to perfect its design and ensure taxpayers get full value for money.
> https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2009-2010/inst/dfo/st-ts08-eng.asp#OOSV



"_In the long run_"...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Never got a clear answer for who was responsible for the design, PWGCS or the shipyard. The rumour I have heard is that the shipyard doing their checks on the design called into question it's stability, which would not surprise me at all.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Totally dreaming here ... but wouldn't it be nice if the ships at both ends of the fuel hose could be Canadian?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wish to subscribe to your dreams (the ones involving grey ships only!!)


----------



## Uzlu

> Lockheed Martin’s Ottawa-made tech tapped for navy’s joint support ships
> 
> The Vancouver-based shipbuilder tasked with providing Canada’s navy with a new fleet of support ships is turning to a defence giant’s local operations to power the brains of the vessels.
> 
> Seaspan Shipyards, the prime contractor for the Royal Canadian Navy’s next-generation joint support ships, announced at an event in Ottawa Wednesday that it will use Lockheed Martin Canada’s CMS 330 – a combat management system that controls a variety of a ship’s communications and commands – in the fleet.
> 
> The joint support ships will be used primarily in resupply missions that require transporting cargo such as fuel and ammunition. Considered the brain of the ship, CMS 330 integrates a vessel’s data collection, weapons systems and other planning functions into a single operating system.
> 
> “Whether it is enforcing sovereignty in Canada’s waters, operating in an international threat environment or engaging in humanitarian or disaster relief, CMS 330 will allow crews to counter threats faster and more efficiently, where and when necessary,” said Lockheed Martin Canada Rotary and Mission Systems vice-president and general manager Gary Fudge in a statement.
> 
> Lockheed Martin’s local operations in Kanata are the primary developers of the CMS, which is also used on Canada’s Arctic-Offshore Patrol Ships and HALIFAX class frigates. Foreign navies such as New Zealand’s and Chile’s have also made use of CMS 330 in their fleets.
> 
> Should Lockheed Martin’s group move forward as the ship designer for the federal government’s next-generation surface combatants, CMS 330 will also be used in those warships. A federal trade tribunal threw out a complaint earlier this month that called for the government to rescind the Lockheed Martin-led group’s status as the preferred proponent in the procurement process, citing missing requirements in the bidder’s proposed design.


https://obj.ca/article/lockheed-martins-ottawa-made-tech-tapped-navys-joint-support-ships


----------



## Uzlu

> RCN’s new Joint Support Ships to be outfitted with Lockheed Martin Canada’s CMS 330
> 
> In June 2018, construction began on Canada’s first Joint Support Ship (JSS) for the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN). The JSS contract is part of the non-combat package of the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS ), which was awarded to Seaspan Shipyards in 2011, for building four different types of large vessels for the RCN and Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> Through the JSS project, Seaspan will deliver two ships to the RCN under the Protecteur-class. “Once completed, the JSS will be the largest ships ever built on Canada’s West Coast,” said Mark Lamarre, Chief Executive Officer, Seaspan Shipyards at a news briefing. He explained that these 173-metre length ships will support the RCN’s work at home and abroad for both defence and humanitarian missions.
> 
> Through its work under the NSS, Seaspan has awarded over $850 million in contracts to about 540 Canadian companies to meet its commitments under this program. As part of its obligations under the JSS project, Seaspan announced yesterday, the award of a $118 million contract to Lockheed Martin Canada to provide the Command Management System for the new JSS. This system is based on Lockheed Martin’s CMS 330, which will integrate the JSS weapons, data, sensors and other equipment into a single operating system. The CMS 330 was designed and developed in collaboration with the RCN and optimized for Canadian Doctrine and Operating Procedures.
> 
> Gary Fudge, Vice President and General Manager of Lockheed Martin Canada Rotary and Mission Systems said that the Canadian-developed CMS 330 is now on five classes of ships across three different navies and can be considered as six classes if the future Canadian Surface Combatant, for which they are the preferred bidder, is included.
> 
> The CMS 330 performs four key functions: Situational Awareness – the collection of information about the surrounding environment through radars and sensors; Intelligence – converting data into actionable intelligence; Planning – presents the information in an intuitive format so the commander and crew can quickly develop a plan; and Command and Control – directs ship systems to engage and respond to incoming threats.
> 
> “Whether it is enforcing sovereignty in Canada’s waters, operating in an international threat environment, or engaging in humanitarian or disaster relief, CMS 330 will allow crews to counter threats faster and more efficiently, where and when necessary,” said Fudge.
> 
> Apart from the CMS 330, Lockheed Martin will engage suppliers to deliver an Electronic Support Measures (ESM) system. This system, according to the news release, will be “designed to detect electromagnetic signals, a surveillance radar system, an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system, an Electro-Optical Infrared sensor, and a Tactical Data Link.”
> 
> Lockheed Martin will provide the integration for all these systems in the JSS and will design the consoles and configuration of the Operations Room. Fudge explained at a news briefing that their team on the West Coast will work with Seaspan on the installation and during the test and trial phase at sea to ensure the system is operating successfully.
> 
> Capt James Salt, Director Naval Major Crown Projects at DND, who was also at the briefing, said that this contract will provide the RCN with a customized command suite to help enable their purpose to have military vessels to operate in any theatre including high threat environments. He explained that the JSS will be critical to the RCN and will do so much more than merely increasing the range and endurance of a naval task group. Its “contributions will go well beyond what a typical AOR (auxiliary oiler replenishment) might be expected to accomplish” which is why it is necessary to have such “a robust Command Management System.”
> 
> This announcement is another significant milestone in the NSS program to equip the RCN with modern vessels to meet its local and international obligations. “The future is bright for Canada’s marine sector and today’s announcement is just the latest example that the NSS is working,” said Lamarre.


https://vanguardcanada.com/2019/02/07/rcns-new-joint-support-ships-to-be-outfitted-with-lockheed-martin-canadas-cms-330/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SSS has updated their site, here is the current state of the first JSS, looks like the first turn of the bilge is started. https://nss.seaspan.com/project/joint-support-ship/


----------



## Jimbolio

Colin P said:
			
		

> SSS has updated their site, here is the current state of the first JSS, looks like the first turn of the bilge is started. https://nss.seaspan.com/project/joint-support-ship/



The renderings on the Seaspan site differ from those on the forces site (which themselves differ from each other), which all differ from photos of FGS Bonn.  Any idea if the Seaspan renderings are the most up-to-date?  How closely might they resemble the final ship?  You'd think with construction started, they'd have a good idea, but many projects get late design changes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The PR department might just use whatever they can grab.


----------



## Dale Denton

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Totally dreaming here ... but wouldn't it be nice if the ships at both ends of the fuel hose could be Canadian?



They will be... in 2045 when the RAN sells the rusting hull to us. Not to forget the $500M we spend to adapt it to Canadian standards. Irving will want a new ship to work on now that its got nothing to do after the NSPS is 'finished'.

RAN will sell it as they've recently commissioned their Light Space Carrier, packed with X-wings, making the Canberra useless. We will then sail the ship without any helicopters as the project to buy new ones specially for the LHD is still 2 years behind.


----------



## Uzlu

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> They will be... in 2045 when the RAN sells the rusting hull to us. Not to forget the $500M we spend to adapt it to Canadian standards. Irving will want a new ship to work on now that its got nothing to do after the NSPS is 'finished'.


Close-out for the surface combatants is late 2040s.  So Irving will probably still be building at least one surface combatant in 2045.  The National Shipbuilding Strategy was established to eliminate the boom-and-bust cycles.  So the National Shipbuilding Strategy never finishes.  My hope is that when steel is first cut on the fifteenth surface combatant, the design for a new class of at least twenty new surface combatants is ready.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Close-out for the surface combatants is late 2040s.  So Irving will probably still be building at least one surface combatant in 2045.  _*The National Shipbuilding Strategy was established to eliminate the boom-and-bust cycles.  So the National Shipbuilding Strategy never finishes.*_  My hope is that when steel is first cut on the fifteenth surface combatant, the design for a new class of at least twenty new surface combatants is ready.




Exactly! The NSPS is not about ships, it is about shipyards and jobs and capacity and so on ...

I share your hope dream.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That was the hidden message nicely hidden in the press release. This change in order of production has nothing to do with trying to satisfy urgent needs of the Navy. It has everything to do with keeping the yard busy while the Coast Guard sorts itself out on the Science vessel.
> 
> Colin is probably right that there is something wrong with the design of the OSV. However, I am not as nice as he is and I believe that the design problem is not from a "architectural" point of view but rather because the Coast Guard brass, after all these years of lead time, still haven't been able to decide for itself what it wants the vessel to be able to do. It's gross "brass" incompetence or bureaucratic anarchy in the team putting the reqs together that is slowing the process - and no-one with the balls to drive the damn process forward.
> 
> I could be wrong, but Coast Guard brass has never impressed me - seagoing personnel, yes, but their shore side brass? No!



Had to be polite, till today. I am fully in agreement with your assessment OGBD. They are incredibly bad at their job. Part of the problem is the fleet boots useless turds off the ship into the office, those turds float to the top using the only skill they are good at, then they are making decisions about the future of the fleet. Throw on top senior managers who know nothing about ships or the work the CCG does, PWGS that effs up most of what it touches and politicians that don't care.
Funny just talking about one particular effed up procurement, the 47' Lifeboats, as I recall SNC Lavilan won the contract and subbed it out to a company in Kingston that had never built a proper boat before (as told to me by the manager on the site), the first boat was so bad (despite being a USCG design) that they yanked the contract and gave it to Nanaimo Shipyards. Then there was the CG Commissioner that was caught in the park flashing people and hustled out to the West Coast to avoid embarrassment....


----------



## JMCanada

There are rumours in Spain about building a third AOR after the two being built for the RAN  (Australia). Then they might be already trying to sell Patiño, which is already known to RCN. A good chance for Davie to canadize it (a candidate for Obelix), should the government agree to the 2+2 JSS idea.


----------



## Good2Golf

JMCanada said:
			
		

> There are rumours in Spain about building a third AOR after the two being built for the RAN  (Australia). Then they might be already trying to sell Patiño, which is already known to RCN. A good chance for Davie to canadize it (a candidate for Obelix), should the government agree to the 2+2 JSS idea.



What’s with all this craziness with four RAS rigs?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

2 per coast, which means that one is always available on each coast and if one goes overseas, there is still another to cover domestic requirements.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> What’s with all this craziness with four RAS rigs?


Did I miss something here? I thought the plan was rent 1, build 2, then cease renting. I’m not getting where the 2 (+2) is coming from?


----------



## Stoker

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Did I miss something here? I thought the plan was rent 1, build 2, then cease renting. I’m not getting where the 2 (+2) is coming from?



That still is the plan, many on here however want 4 AOR's.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Because 2 more AOR's mean less button and bows and since their are civy run ships, no fancy Mess parties. It shows that the testicle clamps are firmly on when the Navy spokesperson says "oh one is enough"..... :

As I said before the Libs are stupid on this issue, 4 AOR's along with our C-17/C130J's would give Canada huge scope to assist our allies in a low risk manner and then they could despatch one as a disaster relief vessel resulting in major photops and feel goods, all of which will warm a Liberal politician heart. It would also help the Davie issue to go away, we give you a contract, you lay off the bad mouthing of the other shipyards. Plus they can show they care about jobs in Quebec not connected to SNC-Lavalin. Particularly if the case goes ahead. Maybe they can make that part of a deal with an Admiral Norman resolution.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Can we really could afford to gas up 4 AOR.  I can only see it once there are actually 15 CSC in commission along with all 6 AOP and whatever replaces MCDV (if anything). If all of that comes to fruition the RCN would have its largest surface fleet since the early 1960’s and by far it’s most capable fleet ever.


----------



## Kirkhill

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Can we really could afford to gas up 4 AOR?



How much do you charge to fill up a Yankee destroyer?  A Portuguese frigate? 

Money making proposition.

Check the oil for you, Sir?  Do you want fries with that?   ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover

I suppose it’s cheap if we use Alberta oil.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Actually, I will float this: why are we having tankers and stores ships in the combat fleet at all? Shouldn’t this service be pushed to a fleet auxiliary force and the slots for 2 large combatants be taken up by LPD (or something like the UK Littoral Ship) * or other similar capability. Or 2 more AOPs hulls with significant ELINT capability- Make EW Great Again!!

Task the fleet auxiliary with performing the function using its own or chartered ships and hold them to account for having ships on station where the RCN instructs them to be. 

That way, whether it’s 2 or 10 AOR ships is no concern to the RCN as long as they deliver to the RCN and other customers (as required).


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin P said:
			
		

> As I said before the Libs are stupid on this issue, 4 AOR's along with our C-17/C130J's would give Canada huge scope to assist our allies in a low risk manner and then they could despatch one as a disaster relief vessel resulting in major photops and feel goods, all of which will warm a Liberal politician heart. It would also help the Davie issue to go away, we give you a contract, you lay off the bad mouthing of the other shipyards. Plus they can show they care about jobs in Quebec not connected to SNC-Lavalin. Particularly if the case goes ahead. Maybe they can make that part of a deal with an Admiral Norman resolution.



Playing devil advocate, the conservatives, when signing for Asterix, could've added an option for 1 more, or just given a contract for 2 iAORs out the gate? Would've plugged the gap after Asterix and shut up Davie.

If they were being pragmatic, they coulda signed for 2 iAORs just before the election, and allowed a hefty cancellation fee in case they lost the election and a Liberal gov't unfriendly to Davie wanted to cancel. Would play right into a MH-Chretien comparison.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They were seriously considering the Mistrals as well, so likley they figured that was enough ship stuff for the moment.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> 2 per coast, which means that one is always available on each coast and if one goes overseas, there is still another to cover domestic requirements.



No, I meant somewhat ‘tongue-in-cheek’ AORs with four RAS stanchions (ASTERIX, PATIÑO, etc.) vice the two-stanchion configuration of JSS.


----------



## JMCanada

hahaha... I thought you meant that, but the  thread went on into another track...

Well, Davie might Canadize it, if desired, by removing two of those RAS (Replenishment at sea) rigs. I guess


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I don't know why we would be abandoning the four-stations (two masts per side) set-up. It is so much more flexible as an arrangement.

I have in mind a fairly recent picture that was on the RCN web site (but can't find it right now (taken down?). It showed one of our frigate operating with the RAN. She was fuelling on the port side of the RAN current AOR (based on the French Durance class) while a RAN ANZAC class was fuelling on the starboard. Our frigate was fuelling from the  port-forward mast while the Australian ship was fuelling from the starboard-aft mast. But both warships were level on either side.

This means that the ANZAC fuelling point is much further aft than a HAL's one. Had there been single mast on either side, you either would have one of the two ships (the ANZAC) further ahead - creating unbalanced forces on the AOR, and thus an unstable situation - or would only be able to have one refuel at a time. In other words, two masts restricts you to ships with reasonably the same set-up at each time if you want to refuel on both sides. That's just one more consideration in setting up the rotation that could easily be avoided by simply having four masts. Four masts means more flexibility when working with various partners instead of just your own Navy. 

Is there really a big cost increase in having four instead of two? I don't think so.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I have in mind a fairly recent picture that was on the RCN web site (but can't find it right now (taken down?). It showed one of our frigate operating with the RAN. She was fuelling on the port side of the RAN current AOR (based on the French Durance class) while a RAN ANZAC class was fuelling on the starboard. Our frigate was fuelling from the  port-forward mast while the Australian ship was fuelling from the starboard-aft mast. But both warships were level on either side.



Do you mean these pictures?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Them's the ones, DH. Thank you.

Look at the bottom one and mentally move the RAN frigate forward to RAS from the front rig and you can see how much further ahead of even the AOR she would stick out by and how unbalanced the various pressure zones around the AOR would then be.


----------



## Uzlu

> Navy deep-sixed Conservative plan to name naval vessels after War of 1812 battles
> 
> *Defence insiders say the navy didn't want ships with names that sound like 'wineries'*
> 
> What's in a name? When Shakespeare asked, he was talking about romance and roses. Apparently, the question applies to naval ships as well.
> 
> A series of internal briefing notes show the Canadian navy pushed back hard against the former Conservative government's plan to name the long-delayed, yet-to-be-delivered supply ships after War of 1812 battles.
> 
> In the fall of 2017, the Liberal government quietly announced that the new joint support ships would be named HMCS Protecteur and HMCS Preserver — a nod, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said at the time, to the recently-retired naval replenishment vessels that had refuelled and resupplied Canadian warships at sea for four decades.
> 
> Back in 2013, the government of then-prime minister Stephen Harper announced that the new ships would be named after key battles of the 1812 to 1814 conflict between the United States and Great Britain — specifically, the Battle of Queenston Heights and the Battle of the Chateauguay, both British victories.
> 
> Internal documents show those names were dropped not because of political pressure, but due to objections from naval brass.
> 
> "Although themes drawn from the War of 1812 were deemed viable, the naming of warships after historically significant land battles has not proven to resonate well with Canadians and is not consistent with Royal Canadian Navy practice," the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, told Sajjan on Aug. 26, 2016.
> 
> Vance may have been putting it diplomatically. Naval historian Marc Milner said he heard the criticism from within the military almost immediately after the new ship names were announced.
> 
> "The navy was very upset that they would start naming warships after army victories," said the University of New Brunswick academic, wondering aloud whether the army would start naming its bases after famous admirals.
> 
> The problem was simple. The Conservatives wanted to honour the legacy of the War of 1812, a key moment in Canada's evolution from a collection of colonies to a modern nation. But very few of the naval battles between 1812 and 1814 directly involved combatants from the colonies that would someday become Canada.
> 
> Harper's government poured a lot of time and money into celebrating the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, spending roughly $28 million on public celebrations, statues and commemorations.
> 
> "At the time, it was felt that a 'battles' theme would facilitate this broader linkage" to the country's military history, said one internal memo.
> 
> *'An affront'*
> 
> But the names chosen for the ships — HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay — were not popular with the navy, according to multiple defence insiders who noted few combat sailors wanted replenishment ships with names that sound like "wineries."
> 
> "There's all kinds of good reasons for naming them after naval battles that we were involved in," said Milner. "But to name them after early 19th century land victories in Upper and Lower Canada was just, I think, an affront to the Navy's sense of who they were and who they wanted to be."
> 
> Capt. James Salt, the director of major naval Crown projects at the Department of National Defence, said a lot of lessons were learned during the naming exercise — something that doesn't happen all that often.
> 
> In the past, Canada has named warships — such as the new Halifax-class frigates — after rivers and major cities.
> 
> It rarely names ships after battles or individuals. The exceptions, Salt said, are the upcoming Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, which will be known collectively as the Harry DeWolf-class after a famous Second World War commander, who was later promoted to admiral.
> 
> The navy has been very careful to choose names that resonate with the public, he added.
> 
> In the 1990s, as the frigates were launched out of the country's shipyard, the idea of naming them after major cities was seen as a way to connect ordinary Canadians with the work of the navy.
> 
> And in case anyone thinks this is a debate solely for sailors, academic and history geeks, Salt said Sajjan's office is already being hit with notes from the general public suggesting names for replacement frigates — which have yet to be designed and are not due to hit the water until the mid-2020s at the earliest.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-supply-ships-war-1812-1.5057292


----------



## AirDet

Thanks DH. Vancouver (pictured) and Calgary were my favourite boats. That was a good trip. Success's crew were a blast ashore.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Them's the ones, DH. Thank you.
> 
> Look at the bottom one and mentally move the RAN frigate forward to RAS from the front rig and you can see how much further ahead of even the AOR she would stick out by and how unbalanced the various pressure zones around the AOR would then be.



If you have a minute, can you elaborate/explain the part in yellow?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Sure thing, EITS.

I guess you air types would call it turbulence.  ;D

Here goes: As they move through water, ships push water out the sides and under the hull. When two ships in parallel lines come near one another, as ship one approaches ship two and the bow come roughly level with the stern of the other ship, the resulting flow of water creates a positive pressure zone that tends to push both ships away from one another. As the bow comes level with the mid portion of the other ship, the combined forces create a suction zone, which tends to bring the bow and mid-section together. Finally as both bow become level, there is another pressure zone created that push the ships apart. 

Now, as the ships go through the various phases, the combined effect affects both ships. The Frigates/destroyer drivers some times forget that because the AOR is the ship that is supposed to keep its course and speed constant while they manoeuvre in to position, but the helmsman of the AOR (and her OOW and Captain) know damn well that we are affected too. Once the ships are in position - that is they are parallel and centred on one another (as in the picture from above), steering becomes easier again, as the bow and stern of the ships are in each other's pressure zone while their mid-portion are in the suction zone and the various forces counter one another. That is why you usually want to get into position as fast as possible then stay there. The main worry then is getting too close to one another while parallel to one another, as this causes a Venturi effect that sucks both ship into one another and that suction cannot be broken until they come to full stop.

So, to get back to the situation I described from the picture, if the ANZAC class frigate was moved forward by the distance between the two RAS masts, it would stand in the forward pressure zone and suction zone  at her stern only - no equilibrium for her. But it would also similarly affect the AOR, even though to a lesser extent in view of her mass advantage.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Sheldon (https://youtu.be/Xl12Sp1KiEk)missed these in Fun With Flags:  http://navy.memorieshop.com/Replenishment/Control.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Saab to Deliver Radars for Royal Canadian Navy's Joint Support Ships. Sea Giraffe AMB will form part of the command management system for the new ships. Saab will undertake the work in Gothenburg, Sweden and Halifax, Canada with deliveries between 2020 and 2022.



http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/2650


----------



## calculus

Colin P said:
			
		

> Saab to Deliver Radars for Royal Canadian Navy's Joint Support Ships. Sea Giraffe AMB will form part of the command management system for the new ships. Saab will undertake the work in Gothenburg, Sweden and Halifax, Canada with deliveries between 2020 and 2022.
> 
> http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/2650



Is it my imagination, or is this an unusually capable radar for an AOR?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't know why we would be abandoning the four-stations (two masts per side) set-up. It is so much more flexible as an arrangement.
> 
> I have in mind a fairly recent picture that was on the RCN web site (but can't find it right now (taken down?). It showed one of our frigate operating with the RAN. She was fuelling on the port side of the RAN current AOR (based on the French Durance class) while a RAN ANZAC class was fuelling on the starboard. Our frigate was fuelling from the  port-forward mast while the Australian ship was fuelling from the starboard-aft mast. But both warships were level on either side.
> 
> This means that the ANZAC fuelling point is much further aft than a HAL's one. Had there been single mast on either side, you either would have one of the two ships (the ANZAC) further ahead - creating unbalanced forces on the AOR, and thus an unstable situation - or would only be able to have one refuel at a time. In other words, two masts restricts you to ships with reasonably the same set-up at each time if you want to refuel on both sides. That's just one more consideration in setting up the rotation that could easily be avoided by simply having four masts. Four masts means more flexibility when working with various partners instead of just your own Navy.
> 
> Is there really a big cost increase in having four instead of two? I don't think so.



It's also great for redundancy; there are a lot of moving parts, cables and hoses that could go wrong and take a station down. Less of a concern if you have two per side, and we've got a track record of doing the bare minimum at times to get ships to sea, so wouldn't be surprised to see a JSS leave with two 'workingish' stations and have a series of events leaving them unable to RAS. Also, our own ships have their own issues, and sometimes you head out only able to RAS on one side, so can be a challenge all around if the AOR can supply on one side.


----------



## Underway

Little old... engine supplier info

https://nss.seaspan.com/featured-news/man-energy-solutions-canada-to-provide-engines-for-the-joint-support-ships/


----------



## Stoker

Hepburn Engineering secures contract to provide replenishment systems for Canada’s Joint Support Ships
Toronto-based company to provide Replenishment-at-Sea systems for the Royal Canadian Navy’s new Joint Support Ships

NORTH VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Aug. 13, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Seaspan Shipyards (Seaspan) is pleased to announce that it has awarded Hepburn Engineering Inc. (Hepburn) of Toronto, ON, a contract for work on Canada’s new Joint Support Ships.

Hepburn will provide four Replenishment Stations for the Joint Support Ships, which will allow the vessels to transfer fuel, fresh water, and solid goods to and from other vessels. These Replenishment-at-Sea (RAS) systems will be fully compatible with NATO standards, thereby allowing the JSS to resupply and refuel Canadian and allied task force ships at sea, considerably extending their range of operations.

Hepburn is recognized as a world leader in the development, design and manufacture of RAS systems and has the most advanced digital control systems on the market. Hepburn is 100% Canadian owned and operated and has been providing these systems to navies worldwide for over half a century. As the only Canadian company designing and supplying such systems, Hepburn has built a global reputation based on the safety, performance, reliability, durability and ease of use of the equipment. This contract will support and sustain the creation of high quality mechanical, electrical and software engineering jobs here in Canada as well as highly skilled Canadian manufacturing jobs.

With its work under the NSS, Seaspan has issued more than $935M in committed contracts to approximately 630 Canadian companies. By building ships for the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) in Canada, Seaspan is helping to re-establish a sustainable marine industry here. As the company continues to make progress on its NSS commitments, this supply chain will grow as more Canadian companies realize new opportunities with a revitalized shipbuilding industry. It is through its work on the NSS that Seaspan is directly and indirectly helping to employ thousands of Canadians from coast to coast.

QUOTES

“This contract award is helping Seaspan Shipyards meet its economic benefit obligations to Canada on the Joint Support Ships Contract. The Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy helps create jobs and foster economic growth by requiring the company to undertake high value-added business activities and investments in Canada equal to the value of their contract.”

The Honourable Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility

“The partnership between Seaspan Shipyards and Hepburn Engineering demonstrates how defence procurement supports the growth of our innovative small and medium businesses. This investment will create good jobs for Canadians while providing the Royal Canadian Navy with the tools they need to succeed.”

The Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development

“Seaspan Shipyards is pleased to announce a major contract award for Hepburn Engineering to provide the Replenishment-at-Sea systems for the Joint Support Ships. The work taking place at Hepburn is indicative of the world class standard of products and services that Canadian companies are able to competitively deliver as part of the broader shipbuilding industry. As a result of contract awards like these the National Shipbuilding Strategy is creating well-paid, highly skilled jobs and supporting economic growth from coast to coast.”

Mark Lamarre, Chief Executive Officer, Seaspan Shipyards

“On behalf of Hepburn Engineering Inc. I am pleased to announce that we will be providing the Replenishment-at-Sea systems for the Royal Canadian Navy’s new Joint Support Ships currently under construction at Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards. Hepburn has been the supplier of RAS equipment to the Canadian Navy for more than 50 years. Hepburn is proud to be a 100% Canadian owned and operated company with a reputation for providing quality replenishment systems to navies around the world.”

John Hepburn, President, Hepburn Engineering Inc.

QUICK FACTS

    Seaspan operates three yards with a combined workforce of over 2,300 people across its yards in North Vancouver & Victoria.
    To date, Seaspan has awarded over $935M in contracts to approximately 630 Canadian companies.
    Hepburn Engineering, based in Toronto, has been providing solids, liquids and dual solids/liquids RAS systems to navies worldwide for over 50 years.
    Hepburn has been the supplier of RAS equipment and support services to the Royal Canadian Navy for more than 50 years.


https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/08/13/1901340/0/en/Hepburn-Engineering-secures-contract-to-provide-replenishment-systems-for-Canada-s-Joint-Support-Ships.html


----------



## Spencer100

That contract was kind of a given.  Lol

Did they even bother to get three quotes


----------



## Colin Parkinson

who made the Resolve RAS systems?


----------



## Spencer100

Colin P said:
			
		

> who made the Resolve RAS systems?



Same company.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Same as the old AORs as well.  Hepburn did the overhauls up until the end of service, so should be pretty comfortable to operate for anyone with tanker time.  Was glad to see this one went their way.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Looks like the Germans are building a new set of AOR's for their fleet.

Our Berlin Class plans are now looking a little long in the tooth.... Also, a civilian crew, where have we heard this before?  Wiki states that the Berlin class has a crew of 139?

"The German Navy has identified plans for the acquisition of its next-generation Type 707 Fleet Oilers – the two vessels will have a length of 170 metres, with an increased capacity, being able to carry 15,000 cubic metres of fuel. An option for the embarkation of up to 20 containers is also included. The new fleet tankers will also have a civilian crew. However, the size of the crew will decrease from 42 to around 20 people. The two double-hull tanker vessels type 707 are planned to stay in service with the German Navy fleet beyond the 2050s"


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The type 707 are not AOR's, they are AO's. In other words, purely tankers. And they do not replace the Berlin class but the old type 704 tankers.

Here's a reference: https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2019/july/7323-german-navy-has-approved-the-acquisition-of-two-new-ship-tankers-type-707.html


----------



## Gorgo

Any construction photos of the new AORs come out yet?


----------



## Spencer100

I don't think there is much yet.  Pieces of steels and assemblies.  I don't even think the final contract has been inked with Seaspan yet. (Could very much be wrong). I


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Any construction photos of the new AORs come out yet?



The Seaspan website has a series of progress photos from last year upto March this year.


----------



## Spencer100

Pieces of steal.


----------



## Spencer100

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/halifax/canadas-stopgap-supply-ship-mv-asterix-pumped-a-lot-of-gas-during-500-day-deployment-345747/?fbclid=IwAR1aoOp0WQTAjgcbpwJBHl_VrMYtIOZk3FpP2uQZnS03lttsBujUmqQkcAQ


 FYI


----------



## Underway

She sure did.  If there were awards on number of nations supplied and amount of fuel supplied that ship would hold quite a few of them.  Soft power indeed.  BZ Asterix and all of her various crews!


----------



## Stoker

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/halifax/canadas-stopgap-supply-ship-mv-asterix-pumped-a-lot-of-gas-during-500-day-deployment-345747/?fbclid=IwAR1aoOp0WQTAjgcbpwJBHl_VrMYtIOZk3FpP2uQZnS03lttsBujUmqQkcAQ
> 
> 
> FYI



Wasn't Asterix back to Esquimalt once or twice in that "500" day deployment with multiple crew changes.


----------



## Underway

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Wasn't Asterix back to Esquimalt once or twice in that "500" day deployment with multiple crew changes.



There were swap outs in a few places for both military and civilian crews.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> There were swap outs in a few places for both military and civilian crews.



Yes and they were in Equimalt at least once or twice during the time away. I was wondering where this 500 day deployment number comes from. The way it sounds they were away for 500 days which they weren't, perhaps away from Halifax?


----------



## NavyShooter

It's 500 days more at sea than anything that ISI has produced under NSPS...

And, for clarity, 500 days ago is Monday April 16th, 2018, so I suspect that they're counting the deployment time as their time away from their home port of Halifax.  That's not 500 days at sea, that's 500 days away from home port.  Seeing as the MV Asterix departed on 11 April 2018, it was 502 days.

In the same way that when I went to Libya in 2011, it was a 6 month deployment- we left on 02 Mar, and got back on 02 Sep.  That was 6 months.  During that time, we were alongside for about 10-12 port visits - roughly one every two weeks or so, with a longer RAMP in the middle.

Did we deduct those days from our deployment?  Not likely.


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> It's 500 days more at sea than anything that ISI has produced under NSPS...
> 
> And, for clarity, 500 days ago is Monday April 16th, 2018, so I suspect that they're counting the deployment time as their time away from their home port of Halifax.  That's not 500 days at sea, that's 500 days away from home port.  Seeing as the MV Asterix departed on 11 April 2018, it was 502 days.
> 
> In the same way that when I went to Libya in 2011, it was a 6 month deployment- we left on 02 Mar, and got back on 02 Sep.  That was 6 months.  During that time, we were alongside for about 10-12 port visits - roughly one every two weeks or so, with a longer RAMP in the middle.
> 
> Did we deduct those days from our deployment?  Not likely.



I just thought it was a bit misleading. Good work by all though.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

She was gone a long time;  we saw her during PROJECTION almost a year ago, and I've been back from that deployment long enough for the Christmas to happen, the year to change, and file my amended T4 for taxes late this summer.  Remembering back to the last time I saw her in person...yup...that's a long time.

 to the crews.


----------



## JMCanada

Off topic: yesterday, Stalwart, second AOR for the RAN, was launched at El Ferrol shipyards (Spain).


----------



## Underway

Ship to shore connectors bid awarded.

The Wartanker just can't be kept out of the fight.


----------



## Cloud Cover

MND says they are for JSS, but would these not also be useful to AOPs?


----------



## Underway

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> MND says they are for JSS, but would these not also be useful to AOPs?



These are going to be much larger than the ones for AOPS.  They should be able to carry ISO's and vehicles.  AOPS is mainly personnel and snowmobiles.


----------



## Kirkhill

> The modular and configurable ship-to-shore connectors will adapt to almost any mission. They could be used as a temporary jetty anchored to the shoreline, as a large barge to assist in ship maintenance and repair, or to perform evacuation operations.



This sounds more like a Mexeflote than an LCU/LCM.


----------



## Kirkhill

I believe this is the relevant Notice of Proposed Procurement.  Closed this May

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-JSS-009-27123


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good picture of the first full block https://twitter.com/MoreThanShips/status/1194372070181703680


----------



## Czech_pivo

Keel laying for the new JSS - 

This article has tomorrow's date on it - Jan 16/20 - jumping the gun a bit.

https://www.miragenews.com/ceremonial-keel-laying-for-future-joint-support-ship/


----------



## MarkOttawa

RCN's first JSS now supposed to be delivered 2023 (good luck) and the two will cost $1.7 billion (!!!) each:
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/joint-support-ship.html

Now Damen is building similar ship in Netherlands for their navy; contract just signed, delivery planned in just over four years, cost just some $540 million. Go flippin' shipbuilding figure:



> Damen Inks Contract for Royal Netherlands Navy new Combat Support Ship
> _The contract for the construction of the Royal Netherlands Navy's new Combat Support Ship, HNLMS Den Helder, was signed today [Febl. 19] between local shipbuilder Damen and the Dutch Defense Materiel Organization (DMO). _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding (DSNS) will supervise the project, together with DMO, as the main contractor. Damen will not do this alone; more than a hundred companies from the Dutch naval construction sector are involved in this ship. This means that a large part of the sector will be deployed to participate in this innovative new ship.
> 
> With HNLMS Den Helder, the maritime supply capacity of the Royal Netherlands Navy will be restored. The ship will operate alongside the Joint Support Ship HNLMS Karel Doorman. This vessel also forms the basis for the design of this Combat Support Ship. The new ship can be used worldwide and can operate under high threat, protected by frigates. In addition, she can be used in the fight against drug trafficking, controlling refugee flows and providing emergency aid...
> 
> The construction contract is not contracted out elsewhere in Europe. DMO wishes to keep the knowledge and skills of designing and building naval ships in the Netherlands. The armed forces thus invoked Article 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It states that Member States may protect essential security interests. This also relates to the production of defence equipment.
> 
> Completion is scheduled for the second quarter of 2024. A year later, in the second quarter of 2025, the Combat Support Ship must be operable. The size of the total project budget is 375 million euros...
> 
> The nearly 200-meter-long ship will have a 75-person crew and can also take an additional 75 people on board. The design can accommodate several helicopters and around 20 ISO containers. The construction cost of 375 million Euros is almost € 50 million higher than previously calculated. This is partly due to new standard requirements and developments in marine construction, energy, the environment and safety.
> 
> For example, the design has now explicitly looked at fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. The combination of diesel engines, hull shape and propeller design reduces fuel consumption by around 6 percent compared to the Karel Doorman JSS.
> 
> Delivery of the Den Helder is scheduled for the 2nd quarter of 2024. A year later, in the 2nd quarter of 2025, the CSS must be ready for duty with the RNLN.
> 
> During NEDS 2019, Damen was showcasing a scale model of the CSS (pictures above) featuring the following dimensions:
> 
> Length over all: 179.3 meters
> Beam: 26.4 meters
> Displacement: 22,400 tonnes
> https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/02/damen-inks-contract-for-royal-netherlands-navy-new-combat-support-ship/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> RCN's first JSS now supposed to be delivered 2023 (good luck) and the two will cost $1.7 billion (!!!) each:
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/joint-support-ship.html
> 
> Now Damen is building similar ship in Netherlands for their navy; contract just signed, delivery planned in just over four years, cost just some $540 million. Go flippin' shipbuilding figure:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



@Mark,  the ships are not even remotely similar aside from the fact they do the refueling mission.  Look more towards Asterix for a comparison.

JSS has some significant differences from this ship starting with crew numbers (75?  when do they refuel?  From 10 to 2 only?), communications, combat management, sensors, defensive systems, medical staff etc... 

Once again JSS is a _*warship*_ with all the pros and cons that entails.

As for the timeline, it's actually closer to 2022 though I do expect it to slip into 2023 for acceptance by the RCN.  I do expect builders trials to be happening in 2022.  The ship is well underway right now from a block build perspective.  1/5th of the blocks have already been built from what I've been told.


----------



## MarkOttawa

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> RCN's first JSS now supposed to be delivered 2023 (good luck) and the two will cost $1.7 billion (!!!) each:
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/joint-support-ship.html
> 
> Now Damen is building similar ship in Netherlands for their navy; contract just signed, delivery planned in just over four years, cost just some $540 million. Go flippin' shipbuilding figure:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



New Combat Support Ship "Den Helder" for Netherlands navy will actually be built in Romania--earlier from Damen:



> ...
> The new Combat Support Ship (CSS) is based on the design of the Joint Support Ship Zr.Ms. Karel Doorman. By taking an existing design as a basis, it is possible to deliver the ship in 2024. The almost 200-meter-long ship will have a 75-person crew and can also take an additional 75 people on board. There is room for several helicopters and around twenty containers. The engineering of the CSS largely takes place in the Netherlands and a large number of components will be delivered by Dutch suppliers. The CSS is built by Damen in Romania, after which the ship’s final components and the combat management system will be installed in Den Helder [name also of shipyard in Netherlands]...
> https://www.damen.com/en/news/2019/12/dutch_cabinet_decides_to_build_combat_support_ship_zr_ms_den_helder



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Sub_Guy

Underway said:
			
		

> Once again JSS is a _*warship*_ with all the pros and cons that entails.



From the article about the Den Helder.  “The new ship can be used worldwide and can operate under high threat, protected by frigates. In addition, she can be used in the fight against drug trafficking, controlling refugee flows and providing emergency aid.”   

What makes the JSS different?  I assume the JSS will have a self-defence suite and that’s it.  The vessel won’t be entering high threat environments without protection.

 I don’t disagree with you, but what makes the JSS a warship and the Den Helder not?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Gov't classifies JSS as one of"Non-combat vessel shipbuilding projects" assigned to Seaspan:
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/grandnav-largeves-eng.html






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MTShaw

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Gov't classifies JSS as one of"Non-combat vessel shipbuilding projects" assigned to Seaspan:
> https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/grandnav-largeves-eng.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Hi Mark,

That’s the politics of shipbuilding. In an war these would be the first to be targeted. Canada needs oilers to make it to and from the war zone. The Dutch already live there. Having some Kevlar armour, HY80 and two independent drive lines costs money. Also, give Seaspan a bit of a break: they are learning how make war ships for the first time.  

Finally, 1.7bn covers infrastructure, training and in life service. It is very difficult to compare two different builds on money. 

Michael


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> RCN's first JSS now supposed to be delivered 2023 (good luck) and the two will cost $1.7 billion (!!!) each





> Finn said that the final contract to be signed with the builder will not be for $3.4 billion.  The cost of the ships represents only 60 per cent of the revised figure, said Finn


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supply-ships-cost-estimate-1.4693088



> The report said the main problem facing the industry is that foreign governments heavily subsidize their shipyards, leaving Canadians unable to compete.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/no-subsidies-for-shipbuilding-industry-says-tobin-1.270095


----------



## Sub_Guy

MTShaw said:
			
		

> give Seaspan a bit of a break: they are learning how make war ships for the first time.



Yet they will still produce a quality product.

Unlike Irving who continually deliver crap.


----------



## Underway

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> From the article about the Den Helder.  “The new ship can be used worldwide and can operate under high threat, protected by frigates. In addition, she can be used in the fight against drug trafficking, controlling refugee flows and providing emergency aid.”
> 
> What makes the JSS different?  I assume the JSS will have a self-defence suite and that’s it.  The vessel won’t be entering high threat environments without protection.
> 
> I don’t disagree with you, but what makes the JSS a warship and the Den Helder not?



A few things. Open source things JSS will have.  I doubt very much that Den Helder will have even a few of these:

CBRN capability (ie can operate in those environments)
Operations Room capable of supporting a Task Group Command Staff
Communications suite capable of supporting a Task Group Command Staff
2 Phalanx CIWS
4 Naval Remote Weapon Systems plus more 2 .50 cal mounts
Full damage control capability
Full support to Cyclone for all Cyclone operations including ASW
Air/Surface Surveillance radar (not just navigation radars) with of course a longer radar horizon than the frigates currently have due to height of eye...



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Gov't classifies JSS as one of"Non-combat vessel shipbuilding projects" assigned to Seaspan:



Yes, that's true.  A warship can operate in a war zone.  A combatant fights in a war zone.  (All cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats).  JSS weapon systems are defensive (excluding some helo ops.).


----------



## Sub_Guy

Underway said:
			
		

> Full support to Cyclone for all Cyclone operations including ASW



As soon as the MH community masters the ASP (Acoustic Processor) on the Cyclone they will own the UWW game.  A TG with a few frigates and the JSS could quite possibly have 3-4 cyclones... No where to hide.

I understand the CH-148 dipping sonar is probably the best out there right now.  I am very familiar with the with the acoustic processor and the passive tracking capability (operators need to know how to work it and understand the passive side, which can take a while) is quite remarkable.  Ping stealing from hull mounted sonar and other dippers, the ranges will blow you away. It can be done, I’ve seen it.

I couldn’t find the full specs on the Den Helder, but yes I doubt they will have the command and control capability of the JSS.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I couldn’t find the full specs on the Den Helder, but yes I doubt they will have the command and control capability of the JSS.



So is what being said is that the JSS will replace the command and control capability that our old Iroquois class had within a TF?  

Are we going down the path that an AOS provider is taking on the role of a Task Group Leaders?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Does it have the speed and maneuvering to fight like that.


----------



## Underway

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Does it have the speed and maneuvering to fight like that.



Fight like what?  



			
				Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> So is what being said is that the JSS will replace the command and control capability that our old Iroquois class had within a TF?
> 
> Are we going down the path that an AOS provider is taking on the role of a Task Group Leaders?



No.  JSS has a full command and control capability to be able to run a Task Group. What kind of TG I'm sure will depend on the mission.  For example, a Gulf War scenario where Canada ran the naval resupply and refuel part of the mission. It might be ideal for that sort of job. The AOR's historically have also participated in a number of boardings and interdictions over the years.  Might be great at directing and coordinating humanitarian missions with AOPS. the army and airforce combined.  Embarking and providing infrastructure for SOF is awkward on the frigates. Running a full naval combat task group in a war probably still falls to a frigate or destroyer.

The path going forward seems to me (speculation past here) to be that all new build major surface ships will have an ability to embark a Command Staff of some sort.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:
			
		

> Fight like what?
> 
> No.  JSS has a full command and control capability to be able to run a Task Group. What kind of TG I'm sure will depend on the mission.  For example, a Gulf War scenario where Canada ran the naval resupply and refuel part of the mission. It might be ideal for that sort of job. The AOR's historically have also participated in a number of boardings and interdictions over the years.  Might be great at directing and coordinating humanitarian missions with AOPS. the army and airforce combined.  Embarking and providing infrastructure for SOF is awkward on the frigates. Running a full naval combat task group in a war probably still falls to a frigate or destroyer.
> 
> The path going forward seems to me (speculation past here) to be that all new build major surface ships will have an ability to embark a Command Staff of some sort.



If we want to dominate remote and strategically vital parts of the globe more, and more durable, logistics platforms like the JSS, as opposed to bigger and better 'battleships', might be the best ploy...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What astounds me is that having a fleet of capable AOR's, is great way for a Liberal government to help our Allies, earning brownie points and yet minimize political risk in operations. One would think they be all over that idea.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> What astounds me is that having a fleet of capable AOR's, is great way for a Liberal government to help our Allies, earning brownie points and yet minimize political risk in operations. One would think they be all over that idea.



You aren't wrong.

For the same reasons you stated I find it odd that we don't have a ship like the Karel Doorman.   Yes our JSS can support various mission types, but let's not kid ourselves, it is just an AOR.  It is planned to have a crew of 199 (not including airdet) with space for 239.  How much of the extra 40 will be taken up by the airdet?  

Really doesn’t leave much space for anything else does it?  There certainly isn't space for an afloat JTFHQ...


----------



## Kirkhill

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> You aren't wrong.
> 
> For the same reasons you stated I find it odd that we don't have a ship like the Karel Doorman.   Yes our JSS can support various mission types, but let's not kid ourselves, it is just an AOR.  It is planned to have a crew of 199 (not including airdet) with space for 239.  How much of the extra 40 will be taken up by the airdet?
> 
> Really doesn’t leave much space for anything else does it?  There certainly isn't space for an afloat JTFHQ...



Same same.

And the Doorman type ships (or any other flat topped logistics vessel - civvy, militarized or military) would do a lot more in terms of gaining UN brownie points - Just like the C130s, C17s, CH-147s and CH-146s.  

1.9 BUSD buys you 10 Triple E Container ships, brand new from the yard (190 MUSD apiece) with two screws, two times 30 MW engines, a crew of 31 and 16 knots cruise (23 knots max).  That's a beast just shy of 400 m long and 60 m wide.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Prefer a couple of these with gantry style crane and some floating dock sections. https://www.macgregor.com/Products/merchant-cargo-and-passengers/deepsea-roro-ships/


----------



## daftandbarmy

$1 billion and counting: Inside Canada's troubled efforts to build new warships

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigates-joint-supply-ships-navy-procurement-canada-1.5474312


----------



## Underway

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> You aren't wrong.
> 
> For the same reasons you stated I find it odd that we don't have a ship like the Karel Doorman.   Yes our JSS can support various mission types, but let's not kid ourselves, it is just an AOR.  It is planned to have a crew of 199 (not including airdet) with space for 239.  How much of the extra 40 will be taken up by the airdet?
> 
> Really doesn’t leave much space for anything else does it?  There certainly isn't space for an afloat JTFHQ...



Actual crew numbers are still being decided.  Total bunk space has been decided.  The ship has a surprising amount of space. 

The Karel Doorman isn't really a great concept in practice.  Much better to go with the proper AOR's like other navies IMHO.  The Dutch were trying something to allow them to keep their Marines relevant.  We don't have that same historical/political pressure in Canada.  We have the Regimental System instead to handcuff us.


----------



## Sub_Guy

The most recent SOR I read had those numbers.

I figured a ship like the KD would be a fantastic humanitarian platform.  AOR duties would be secondary, I wouldn’t expect it replace the AOR, just complement the force.  

Instead of sending our AOR to humanitarian crisis areas we could send the KD.  Leaving the AOR where it’s needed, with the fleet.


----------



## dapaterson

Given the condition of the CPFs, keeping the JSS with the fleet likely means keeping them alongside in Halifax and Esquimalt...


----------



## Underway

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The most recent SOR I read had those numbers.



You are not incorrect, however, as much of the specific equipment onboard is still being finalized there will be changes to crew numbers for core crew, training billets, etc...


----------



## OceanBonfire

> First of two Grand Blocks for @RoyalCanNavy future Joint Support Ship HMCS Protecteur being welded together and @Seaspan team moving next Grand Block into position.
> 
> https://twitter.com/MoreThanShips/status/1234845920082178050


----------



## Colin Parkinson

RN looking for Support ships as well https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/28/british-spanish-naval-team-gunning-for-another-go-at-revamped-uk-carrier-support-program/


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> RN looking for Support ships as well https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/28/british-spanish-naval-team-gunning-for-another-go-at-revamped-uk-carrier-support-program/



Perhaps seaspan can bid to build them some support ships. Fuel the funds to have an expanded yard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Picture is from Nov 2019, but really shows the tankage and piping arrangement.


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.seaspan.com/wp-content/uploads/photo-6-scaled.jpg

Picture from the keel laying ceremony.

Interested Seaspan never announced a shut down due to covid, unlike Irving so as far as public information, HMCS protector is on schedule still.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> RN looking for Support ships as well https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/28/british-spanish-naval-team-gunning-for-another-go-at-revamped-uk-carrier-support-program/



Yes, I've heard they are casting around for info on AOR's in NATO to get some ideas on what is out there and what is possible.



			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Interested Seaspan never announced a shut down due to covid, unlike Irving so as far as public information, HMCS protector is on schedule still.



They are still building.  Much more of their build is outside so they are able to keep their staff distant from each other, and they changed up shifts to accommodate this as well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It's HMCS PROTECTEUR, not Protector.

An important nuance.


----------



## Spencer100

The RNZN got their new oiler at lightspeed comparably.

 https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/06/hhi-delivers-royal-new-zealand-navys-largest-ever-vessel-hmnzs-aotearoa/

Interesting bow first to naval ship to use it.

"Aotearoa will be the world’s first naval ship to adopt Rolls-Royce’s Environship concept design, which includes a new wave-piercing hull for reduced resistance and fuel consumption. The ship will also be ice-strengthened and winterised to facilitate operations in Antarctica’s extreme weather conditions"


----------



## MilEME09

The Parlimentry Budget officer has been called in now for to look into continued delays and escalating costs. Those reports are mostly public and the report is due Oct 15th. Should be interesting to read.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Found out today when my PDL is up I am posted to Asterix!  Reading an atricle today they seemed to be pushing for a second conversion.  

I have to say, I am jacked to be posted to Asterix.


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Found out today when my PDL is up I am posted to Asterix!  Reading an atricle today they seemed to be pushing for a second conversion.
> 
> I have to say, I am jacked to be posted to Asterix.



With continued delays to the JSS program, $500 million and 24 months for the second ship is a steal of a deal. Since the first conversion came in on time and on budget I have no reason to doubt it. We should do it asap, heck if we did it right away she would be in the water now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Big part of the delay was the science vessel, that design had some problems which turned out they could not easily be fixed, then they were supposed to start on the icebreaker, then that was taken away without notice. It was VSL that asked if they could start cutting steel early, not the government.


----------



## Dana381

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Found out today when my PDL is up I am posted to Asterix!  Reading an atricle today they seemed to be pushing for a second conversion.
> 
> I have to say, I am jacked to be posted to Asterix.



Congratulations, she looks like a very nice ship to be posted too. From what I have seen in the videos she looks roomy and bright inside.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Big part of the delay was the science vessel, that design had some problems which turned out they could not easily be fixed, then they were supposed to start on the icebreaker, then that was taken away without notice. It was VSL that asked if they could start cutting steel early, not the government.



That wasn't exactly the way things went or why.  They needed the JSS money.  It was all self-interest.

Let's also remember as well that VSY are tug boat and barge builders.  They have little experience of how to build a complicated large warship and are learning as they go. And COVID is guaranteed not helping right now.


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:
			
		

> That wasn't exactly the way things went or why.  They needed the JSS money.  It was all self-interest.
> 
> Let's also remember as well that VSY are tug boat and barge builders.  They have little experience of how to build a complicated large warship and are learning as they go. And COVID is guaranteed not helping right now.



It was pointed out up thread that Seaspan never shut down due to covid, though I bet some of their suppliers did. You are right though, we lost all experience building ships of this size, hopefully the NSPS will fix that in the long term so long as governments stick to it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> That wasn't exactly the way things went or why.  They needed the JSS money.  It was all self-interest.
> 
> Let's also remember as well that VSY are tug boat and barge builders.  They have little experience of how to build a complicated large warship and are learning as they go. And COVID is guaranteed not helping right now.



That applied to Irving as well, because they had basically gutted their capability to build ships, just as the ship builders in Vancouver had. I remember the launching of several of our current ice breaker from the yards here and ferries. Once they got up and going things improved, but the Science vessel hung up in the design stage.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> That wasn't exactly the way things went or why.  They needed the JSS money.  It was all self-interest.
> 
> Let's also remember as well that VSY are tug boat and barge builders.  They have little experience of how to build a complicated large warship and are learning as they go.



No one in Canada did, and that is why it's the National Shipbuilding *Strategy*. The entire reason for building them in Canada at two different yards is to develop the strategic resource of shipyards in Canada that can build our own ships, while modernizing them while we are at it.

What we understimated was the time it would take to modernize, and the learning curve. The experts told us it would be a 4 or 5 ship learning curve (with some caveats about the impact of changing designs etc) which is what we're seeing.  The non-combat package at VSY is almost all learning curve ships, and is a challenging bundle for even an experienced builder.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

VSY built themselves a good rep as a repair yard with little to no government support and they also got a overseas military contract to upgrade warships, no other ship repair company can boost that. Can they do better, likley yes, but they have done a decent job and continue to also solicit other smaller contracts from non-government sources to cover off work shortages. Does Irving have any work outside of the NSPS?


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> VSY built themselves a good rep as a repair yard with little to no government support and they also got a overseas military contract to upgrade warships, no other ship repair company can boost that. Can they do better, likley yes, but they have done a decent job and continue to also solicit other smaller contracts from non-government sources to cover off work shortages. Does Irving have any work outside of the NSPS?



Just to clean up some terminology so everyone isn't talking past each other.
VSY is Vancouver Ship Yards, located in Vancouver.  Victoria Shipyards is located in Esquimalt Hbr.  Both are owned by Seaspan.  The two are very much different in their jobs and expertise.

VSY never got the upgrade contract for Chilie or NZ.  Lockheed Martin Canada got the upgrade contract.  They then selected Victoria Shipyards as the yard in which they would do the upgrade, based on their HCM experience (HCM = FELEX). Most of the actual people who are doing that upgrade are contractors who do not work for Seaspan at all.  Victoria Shipyards facilitates the work and does a lot of the cable pulling but the main workers for that upgrade came from Lockheed, Saab, etc...

As for Irving, yes they do all the refits, in their drydock for the frigates.  Just like Victoria Shipyards does it for the Pacific Fleet.  So they have more experience dealing with naval ships then Vancouver Shipyards which have never ever dealt with a naval ship before.  Because Victoria Shipyards does that work.  And there is not a lot of cross polination between them, despite Seaspan owning them both.


----------



## Uzlu

> Government of Canada awards contract for construction of joint support ships for Royal Canadian Navy
> 
> Today, the Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of Public Services and Procurement, and the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, announced that Canada has taken an important step toward delivering the RCN's future fleet, by awarding a performance-based contract to Seaspan's Vancouver Shipyards for the full construction of two joint support ships (JSS). Valued at $2.4 billion (including taxes), this contract will allow the transition to full-rate construction of the first ship, the construction of early blocks for which began in June 2018, and then the second ship.





> The design contract for the JSS project was awarded in February 2017, and early build construction began in June 2018.
> The first JSS is expected to be delivered in 2023, and the second in 2025.
> The total JSS budget includes $3.1 billion for the purchase of the two ships and initial spares, as well as $1 billion for design and production engineering work, project management and associated contingency costs, resulting in a total value of $4.1B.
> Seaspan's Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. was competitively selected as a strategic source of supply under the NSS in 2011. Its work package includes the construction of the RCN's JSS.
> The Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy applies to this contract, ensuring that Seaspan will invest 100% of the value of the contract in the Canadian economy.
> NSS contracts issued between 2012 and December 2019 are estimated to contribute over $17.04 billion ($1.54 billion annually) to GDP, and create or maintain more than 15,521 jobs annually, through the marine industry and its Canadian suppliers from 2012 to 2022.


https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-canada-awards-contract-for-construction-of-joint-support-ships-for-royal-canadian-navy-823173653.html


----------



## MilEME09

So what does that mean? Vancouver shipyards now can do the final construction?


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> So what does that mean? Vancouver shipyards now can do the final construction?



I means they get all the monies, lol.  It's a large financial milestone and includes the funding for a second ship.  That second ship was not previously part of the early build money.  Full rate construction officially recognizes a certain maturity/finality to large parts of the design.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Here is the backgrounder https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/06/backgrounder---understanding-the-cost-of-the-joint-support-ship-project.html

The amounts listed also covers historical costs already spent on the project.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Here is the backgrounder https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/06/backgrounder---understanding-the-cost-of-the-joint-support-ship-project.html
> 
> The amounts listed also covers historical costs already spent on the project.



Did anyone notice the cost of JSS is now an extra 700M


----------



## Halifax Tar

This is great news!  Very happy to see this, the tankerman that I am


----------



## Cloud Cover

Good to see!!


----------



## Uzlu

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Did anyone notice the cost of JSS is now an extra 700M





> Canada to pay $4.1B for Navy support ships in latest cost increase
> 
> OTTAWA — Canada's national shipbuilding plan was rocked by yet another cost increase on Monday as the federal government revealed it will pay $4.1 billion for two long-overdue support ships for the navy — an increase of $1.5 billion from initial estimates.
> 
> The revelation came as Ottawa officially awarded a contract for the full construction of the two new Protecteur-class joint support ships to Vancouver's Seaspan shipyards, which has already started work on the first of the vessels.
> 
> Seaspan was first tapped to build the two ships and several coast guard vessels in 2011, at which point the supply ships were expected to cost $2.6 billion. The figure was later revised to $3.4 billion before another $700 million was added Monday.
> 
> The first of the support ships was to have been delivered by 2019. The government says it now doesn't expect the first ship before 2023, with the second due in 2025. Seaspan has been under contract to work on some parts of the first ship since June 2018.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy has been without a full-time support ship since 2014 and is currently relying on a converted civilian vessel that is being leased from Quebec's Chantier Davie shipyard to fill the gap.
> 
> That ship, the MV Asterix, was at the heart of the failed prosecution of retired vice-admiral Mark Norman.
> 
> The Liberal government was playing down the cost increase to the support ships on Monday, with senior ministers touting the importance of the vessels to the Royal Canadian Navy and the jobs that the project is creating in Vancouver and elsewhere.
> 
> "These new ships will provide a necessary capability for our Royal Canadian Navy, while providing significant economic benefits and jobs to Canadians, including thousands of jobs created or sustained," Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said in a statement.
> 
> Yet the cost increase is the latest to hit the shipbuilding plan, which has been plagued by delays and budget increases for years. The plan is intended to recapitalize the majority of Canada's naval and coast guard fleets.
> 
> The entire plan to buy new warships to replace the navy's frigates and destroyers, several Arctic patrol vessels, a polar icebreaker and four science vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard in addition to the two support ships was pegged in 2011 at $35 billion.
> 
> The warships alone are now expected to cost at least $65 billion while the rest of the projects have either seen similar budget increases or their budgets are under review. The delivery schedules for the projects have also been pushed back numerous times.
> 
> Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute noted the new cost for the support ships is almost exactly how much Parliament's budget watchdog estimated following an analysis in 2013.
> 
> The Conservative government at the time refuted the parliamentary budget officer's estimate, with then-public works minister Rona Ambrose saying appropriate safeguards had been put into place to protect taxpayers.
> 
> "There's not a lot of detail in this today so it's hard to do a line by line," Perry said. "But superficially at least, the PBO's report from 2013 — which I recall being pooh-poohed pretty extensively — has held up pretty well."
> 
> Ottawa has in recent years produced update cost estimates for most of the vessels being built through the federal shipbuilding plan. However, budgets for the polar icebreaker and an offshore science vessel for the coast guard are still under review.


https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/news/canada-to-pay-4-1b-for-navy-support-ships-in-latest-cost-increase-1.24153254



> Ottawa awards $2.4B contract to finish building navy's supply ships
> 
> *The decision signals the project won't be delayed by pandemic-driven deficit spending*
> 
> The Liberal government has awarded a $2.4 billion contract to finish the overall construction of the navy's long-awaited supply ships.
> 
> Today's announcement moves forward a Joint Support Ship program over a decade-and-a-half in the making. It also appears to signal the federal government remains committed to its multi-billion shipbuilding program despite record levels of pandemic-driven federal deficit spending.
> 
> The contract, with Seaspan's Vancouver Shipyards, is for the construction of two replenishment vessels, Public Services and Procurement Canada said in a statement.
> 
> Now that the construction deal has been signed, the overall price tag of the program — including design — is expected to be $4.1 billion, up from an earlier estimate of $3.4 billion.
> 
> Seven years ago, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) predicted the cost would end up where it has — an estimate that was roundly criticized and dismissed by the Conservatives, who were in power at the time.
> 
> "The government announcement today did not have a whole ton of detail, so it's hard to do an exact comparison, but I certainly think that PBO estimate from a long time ago has held up pretty well over time," said Dave Perry, an expert in defence procurement and vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
> 
> The first supply ship is to be delivered in 2023, and the second vessel is supposed to arrive two years later.
> 
> The yard started construction on certain portions of the first ship in 2018, while final design work was still underway — something that alarmed and even baffled some defence and shipbuilding experts.
> 
> *'Business as usual'*
> 
> With the federal deficit expected to swell to over $252.1 billion because of COVID-19 relief measures, many in the defence community had been speculating that existing spending plans for the supply ships would be curtailed or scaled back.
> 
> In a statement, federal Public Services Minister Anita Anand suggested the Liberal government is committed to staying the course.
> 
> "This contract award is yet another example of our ongoing commitment to the National Shipbuilding Strategy, which is supporting a strong and sustainable marine sector in Canada," she said.
> 
> Perry said he takes it as a sign the Liberals intend to proceed with their defence construction plans in the face of fiscal and economic uncertainty.
> 
> "It is an indicator that, despite being business under some very unusual circumstances, it is still government business-as-usual under COVID," he said.
> 
> In the same government statement, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan pointed out that an enormous amount of preparation work has been done already and he's pleased the project is moving forward.
> 
> "An impressive amount of work has already gone into the construction of these new ships, and I look forward to their arrival in the coming years." said Sajjan.
> 
> *Construction during COVID-19*
> 
> A senior executive at Seaspan said work to adapt the design from the original German plan (the Canadian ship is based on the German Navy's Berlin-Class replenishment vessel) was completed last year and work on the superstructure of the first Joint Support Ship — started in 2018 — has been proceeding apace, even through the pandemic.
> 
> "It is well advanced," said Amy MacLeod, the company's vice-president of corporate affairs. "We are ready to continue. We're very, very happy with the quality of the ship, the progress of the ship, the momentum that we have and the expertise we have gained."
> 
> The shipyard did not pause construction due to the pandemic — but it did have to figure out ways to carry on under strict physical distancing rules.
> 
> "We, like everybody else, had to understand how to run a business in a pandemic," said MacLeod. "We made a lot of changes on how we build our ships."
> 
> Turnstiles to enter and exit the yard were eliminated and the company went high-tech with a "heat map" that shows where everyone is working and how much space there is between individual workers.
> 
> "And where we couldn't ensure appropriate social distancing because of COVID, we stopped that work."
> 
> Perry said the gap between the construction of the two supply ships worries him to a degree. Seaspan intends to construct an ocean science vessel for the coast guard under a plan agreed to with the Liberal government in 2019.
> 
> Any delay or hiccup in the construction of that ship could mean the delivery of the second naval vessel is pushed back even further, Perry said.
> 
> *Extending the navy's range*
> 
> News of the contract will come as a relief to the navy.
> 
> Having replenishment ships to refuel and rearm frigates would allow the navy to deploy entire task groups to far-flung parts of the world.
> 
> "With these warships, the Royal Canadian Navy will be able to operate with even greater flexibility and endurance," said Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, commander of the navy.
> 
> "These ships will not only form part of the core of our naval task groups, they also represent a vital and strategic national asset that will enable the Navy to maintain its global reach and staying power."
> 
> *A tortured history*
> 
> It was 1994 when the replacement program was first discussed. The deficit-slashing years of that decade meant the plan was shelved.
> 
> Resurrected in 2004, the Liberal government of former prime minister Paul Martin hoped to have the ships in the water by 2008 to replace the three-decade-old supply ships the navy had been operating.
> 
> Faced with cost estimates well over what they had expected, the Conservative government of former prime minister Stephen Harper shelved the Liberal plan on the eve of the 2008 federal election.
> 
> More than five years later, the navy was forced to retire both aging supply ships after one of them was crippled by a devastating fire.
> 
> The absence of replenishment capability led the Harper government to lease a converted civilian supply ship from a private company, Federal Fleet Services, which operates out of the Davie Shipyard in Levis, Que.
> 
> That plan led to a political and legal scandal when the former commander of the navy, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, was accused of leaking cabinet secrets related to the plan. The Crown withdrew the charge a year ago after a protracted pre-trial court battle.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supply-ship-navy-seaspan-1.5612770


----------



## Dale Denton

Reminds me of when the AOPS ballooned in cost, only to end up being a partial loan/grant money. Sounds like Seaspan now got its free cash. Why not just buy a stake in the company at this point? 

$4.1B is a heck of a lot for 2 AORs, I can understand 2 destroyers or something costing that much... Not a very attractive figure in the industry should another country be shopping. The whole NSS was to rebuild the industry but nobody other than us is going to build a ship if our bill is this high.


----------



## Uzlu

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> The whole NSS was to rebuild the industry but nobody other than us is going to build a ship if our bill is this high.


If the government of Canada is not going to subsidize its shipbuilding industry to the point it is competitive with foreign yards, you got that right.


----------



## suffolkowner

of the $4.1B cost $1B is for engineering? ie Canadianization of the Berlin class?

an older post about cost discrepancies with the project

https://www.navalreview.ca/2013/11/a-reply-to-jack-granatstein-about-shipbuilding-in-canada/

So is Seaspan only building the 2 Protecteur class ships and maybe the Polar Icebreaker in Victoria and the OOSV and OFSV in Vancouver?


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> of the $4.1B cost $1B is for engineering? ie Canadianization of the Berlin class?





> •	Includes all supporting design and production engineering work for the ships, project management and associated contingency costs.
> •	Also includes historical costs associated with the project leading up to the start of design, including options analysis.


https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/06/backgrounder---understanding-the-cost-of-the-joint-support-ship-project.html

Because the project started in 2004, we could be talking about a lot of money for the historical costs associated with the project.  And does supporting design and production engineering work for the ships includes things like improvements to jetties?


----------



## MarkOttawa

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> of the $4.1B cost $1B is for engineering? ie Canadianization of the Berlin class?
> 
> an older post about cost discrepancies with the project
> 
> https://www.navalreview.ca/2013/11/a-reply-to-jack-granatstein-about-shipbuilding-in-canada/
> 
> So is Seaspan only building the 2 Protecteur class ships and maybe the Polar Icebreaker in Victoria and the OOSV and OFSV in Vancouver?



Unlikely Seaspan alone can also build the Polar icebreaker--after second JSS it then has to build the 16 badly-needed CCG vessels that the PM promised in May 2019 ( https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet ). It is expected Davie will get the icebreaker but Seaspan is still trying in proposed collaboration with Ontario's Great Lakes Heddle Shipyards:



> B.C., Ontario shipyards team up to seek multibillion-dollar icebreaker contract
> https://www.nsnews.com/b-c-ontario-shipyards-team-up-to-seek-multibillion-dollar-icebreaker-contract-1.24148984



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

Uzlu said:
			
		

> And does supporting design and production engineering work for the ships includes things like improvements to jetties?



No, all the shipyard improvements were out of their pocket. During the bid, they were planned and costed, based on what they needed to do to achieve this, and scored against the original Target State assessment done by FMI during the bid qualifying process (see link to article by Ian Mack below).

The yards agreed to do all the upgrades etc out of their own pocket and Canada agreed to the full work package of the combat and non-combat program. If Canada cuts the work package from the yard, then we owe them a pro-rated amount of their upgrade costs (which is totally reasonable as they did the upgrades budgeting against profits for the whole work package). 

The physical improvements took place in the first two years, and then there are also the process related ones around being proficient at the design/engineering, which takes some experience to build up. In theory, once they've hit target state, they have a modern facility and the know how to plan and build ships at the same level of efficiency as other shipyards.

A lot of their management overhead is actually specific to doing work for the government; if they were just doing commercial work they wouldn't need a lot of those people, and it would also be faster/cheaper for them to buy material as they would just use standard commercial terms.

Feeding the GoC beast is probably costing us hundreds of millions of dollars in the program over the 20+year life just in extra salaries alone, when you add up all the extra shipyard management, the GoC policy people (outside the core project team) as well as the indirect costs relating to the procurement rules and supplier negotiations. Asterix was outside of that, but would expect Davie would also have to do facility/process upgrades and have similar management overhead if they got actual shipbuilding contracts like the new icebreakers. 

Ian Mack's article;
https://www.cgai.ca/a_basic_primer_on_naval_shipbuilding


----------



## Uzlu

Uzlu said:
			
		

> And does supporting design and production engineering work for the ships includes things like improvements to jetties?





			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> No, all the shipyard improvements were out of their pocket.





> Other costs have now been added in, including the expense of refashioning the jetties where the ships eventually will dock.


https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4693088


----------



## CBH99

Just looking for a quick & simple answer, from someone in the know.  I apologize if it's been covered previous in the thread, I skimmed  few pages but couldn't really find what I was looking for definitely.


Question -- what kind of 'design' work is required for a project like this, when the ship selected is already designed & in service elsewhere?  (I suppose this question may be more applicable to the AOPS?)

If a ship is already designed, and was selected as the winner due to that design (amongst other factors) - I've never understood how HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS is required for further design work.


I know absolutely nothing about shipbuilding compared to a lot the folks here, so I am legitimately just curious about additional design work.


----------



## Kirkhill

Bueller? Anyone?


----------



## Good2Golf

60Hz systems instead of 50Hz for all systems, to begin, I’d think, and although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express, I’m not a naval engineer, so there’s likely for more needed to reasonably adjust the German Navy’s original base design.


----------



## Uzlu

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 60Hz systems instead of 50Hz for all systems, to begin, I’d think, and although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express, I’m not a naval engineer, so there’s likely for more needed to reasonably adjust the German Navy’s original base design.


Also a new command management system and lack of experience of the project managers.


----------



## lenaitch

Certainly not in the know but I recall reading that the original design (Danish?) for the AOPS had a cruising bow and an ice-breaking stern (it would reverse into the ice) and we changed that, so a significant hull re-design.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Also a change in say, a control station that changes the footprint, which in turn changes the voltage requirements, perhaps heavier cabling, meaning all the cable runs need to be checked for sufficient clearance and watertight glands changed and plans updated to reflect those changes. With changes in Footprint, may require a bulkhead being shifted, which then causes a lot of other changes and others, causing a ripple effect in the design. Enough ripples and then your at almost new design. Not to mention regulation changes since the original design, say operations in the Arctic will require a higher level of sewage treatment, meaning more machinery, piping and cabling. Etc, etc


----------



## Stoker

lenaitch said:
			
		

> Certainly not in the know but I recall reading that the original design (Danish?) for the AOPS had a cruising bow and an ice-breaking stern (it would reverse into the ice) and we changed that, so a significant hull re-design.



AOPS is quite different from its Norwegian counterpart internally.


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin P said:
			
		

> Also a change in say, a control station that changes the footprint, which in turn changes the voltage requirements, perhaps heavier cabling, meaning all the cable runs need to be checked for sufficient clearance and watertight glands changed and plans updated to reflect those changes. With changes in Footprint, may require a bulkhead being shifted, which then causes a lot of other changes and others, causing a ripple effect in the design. Enough ripples and then your at almost new design. Not to mention regulation changes since the original design, say operations in the Arctic will require a higher level of sewage treatment, meaning more machinery, piping and cabling. Etc, etc



I'm convinced, that's a lot of work $$$ to redesign.

But $1B worth of design work for an existing 20 year old design? Could we not pay Vard or whomever designed this for something alittle 'fancier' if our design budget was $1B? 3rd ship that could have another role or something?

The price balloon in this project sounds like we've been taken for a ride. Isn't there something, someway we could have stabilized the cost or at least gotten another hull out of this price?


----------



## MilEME09

I'd like to see the breakdown of the money, how much is the cost of labor and materials pre build vs steel being cut and the ship being made.


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I'd like to see the breakdown of the money, how much is the cost of labor and materials pre build vs steel being cut and the ship being made.


The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, on June 9, unanimously passed a motion to request the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to make a costing analysis of building the _Protecteur_s and the leasing of MV _Asterix_. It asked that the report be presented to the committee by October 15.  The PBO is going to do it.  I, too, am looking forward to this report.


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Question -- what kind of 'design' work is required for a project like this, when the ship selected is already designed & in service elsewhere?  (I suppose this question may be more applicable to the AOPS?)
> 
> If a ship is already designed, and was selected as the winner due to that design (amongst other factors) - I've never understood how HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS is required for further design work.
> 
> 
> I know absolutely nothing about shipbuilding compared to a lot the folks here, so I am legitimately just curious about additional design work.



A metric ****ton of design work.  The JSS baseline is the Bohn.  (very important because the Bohn and Berlin though look the same are very different internally).  Everything that can be used from the Bohn plans is used.  But here is a list of the probable differences between the Bohn and the Protecteur just from the differences in Canadian policy:

Combat systems
Communication systems
All emissions security
Radiation Hazards
Everything related to the helicopter
Magazine policies
Navigation requirements
IT security
Power provision
Fuel Spill, HAZMAT policy/cleanup

Here's a list of equipment that is likely different because of the project requirements:
Navigation system
2x CIWS vs 1 CIWS
Warship vice civilian ship
Warship damage control
RCN firefighting equipment
etc...

Then there is the list of equipment that the Bohn had which is either unavailable because they don't make that anymore, or sourced only in Europe which would change Canadian content rules.  Sure you might be able to get it but the Canadian supplier would have to buy it from a German supplier which would mean a 20% markup.

And then there are the 2nd and 3rd order effects of design change (Theoretical example: all this stuff needs power, but the Bohn didn't have all this extra stuff so the power calculations and cabling have to change.  This then changes the cooling of the power plant, which is different because the power plant is Canadian supplied instead of a 10yo German design.  Which changes the weight of the ship, in different places, which changes the ballast, which changes the maximum fuel carried.... etc....)

In summary, unless you are a buying a ship that is currently being built there is no such thing as Military Off the Shelf.


----------



## Underway

Cool video of a grand block being moved into place.

https://vimeo.com/430063914/aeb49a000a


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:
			
		

> A metric ****ton of design work.  The JSS baseline is the Bohn.  (very important because the Bohn and Berlin though look the same are very different internally).  Everything that can be used from the Bohn plans is used.  But here is a list of the probable differences between the Bohn and the Protecteur just from the differences in Canadian policy:
> 
> Combat systems
> Communication systems
> All emissions security
> Radiation Hazards
> Everything related to the helicopter
> Magazine policies
> Navigation requirements
> IT security
> Power provision
> Fuel Spill, HAZMAT policy/cleanup
> 
> Here's a list of equipment that is likely different because of the project requirements:
> Navigation system
> 2x CIWS vs 1 CIWS
> Warship vice civilian ship
> Warship damage control
> RCN firefighting equipment
> etc...
> 
> Then there is the list of equipment that the Bohn had which is either unavailable because they don't make that anymore, or sourced only in Europe which would change Canadian content rules.  Sure you might be able to get it but the Canadian supplier would have to buy it from a German supplier which would mean a 20% markup.
> 
> And then there are the 2nd and 3rd order effects of design change (Theoretical example: all this stuff needs power, but the Bohn didn't have all this extra stuff so the power calculations and cabling have to change.  This then changes the cooling of the power plant, which is different because the power plant is Canadian supplied instead of a 10yo German design.  Which changes the weight of the ship, in different places, which changes the ballast, which changes the maximum fuel carried.... etc....)
> 
> In summary, unless you are a buying a ship that is currently being built there is no such thing as Military Off the Shelf.



Thanks Underway it definitely helps to understand the scale of the process, although $1B still seems like a lot of money. What differences are there between the Berlin and Bohn that resulted in that choice?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Ammunition storage was also an issue; our rules our quit different from the Germans on what is allowed in magazines. We also buy a tonne of initial spares plus tech data, and things like training, infrastructure and other stuff is included in the overall ship budget.

If you look on the Auditor general site, there was a costing project on AOPs maybe about 5 years ago where they tried to compare the costs to other countries and ships.  It's a good read, but basically they concluded it was impossible to get an apples-to-apples comparison with any other comparable government procurement because countries include totally different things in their budgets and do the accounting differently, and also have different contracting rules (which impact price) so without getting access to the raw data from the projects, as well as the contract terms and conditions it's not possible to do. And even if you did, really doesn't matter, as there is a longstanding 'build in Canada' policy for all these ships.

Super frustrating though that when there are all these rules tacked on to any big dollar value procurement for Canadian content, IRBs etc that there isn't a project credit included somewhere when they report the budget.  For example, if a $1B dollar project creates $250M in clear economic benefits (or things like taxes that go directly back to the govt), it would be nice if that was included for context within the project updates.

Pretty ridiculous when it's a 70 year old, cabinet level 'Build in Canada' shipbuilding policy, combined with IRBs, VPs and other things that tack on to the overall project cost, but those benefits are not balanced into the project spreadsheets. You spend a whack of staff time arguing with folks in Finance etc on why it costs so much, when you had no option to do anything other then build it in Canada under those rules. Unless you run an open competition without any of those contract terms in play, it's also impossible to say what the 'premium' is for going this route with any real accuracy, but we can at least track the benefits down to a pretty reasonable number.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Without clear and open costing it also makes it hard to sell the design or build for others. They will hear X price was paid for X ship and then look elsewhere without taking the time to look at what may be their price.


----------



## Spencer100

Colin P said:
			
		

> Without clear and open costing it also makes it hard to sell the design or build for others. They will hear X price was paid for X ship and then look elsewhere without taking the time to look at what may be their price.



I doubt they really want to sell to others.  One big fat customer that pays is easy.  Sorry to be a downer but really.  How much did Irving really try to sell to the Saudi's the CPF's?  How much are they trying to sell the AOPS to RNZN?  Plus how much does the CDN Gov really help? Other nations really go out of their way to make deal, and a Canada deal does not help most countries geo politically (cough, cough SC Seat)  ....I know I'm being negative.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Without clear and open costing it also makes it hard to sell the design or build for others. They will hear X price was paid for X ship and then look elsewhere without taking the time to look at what may be their price.



Can you see the headlines if the Brits were to buy 4 1.4 BCAD ships for 400 MCAD apiece?


----------



## Uzlu

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Other nations really go out of their way to make deal


And sometimes a bit too out of their way.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I doubt they really want to sell to others.  One big fat customer that pays is easy.  Sorry to be a downer but really.  How much did Irving really try to sell to the Saudi's the CPF's?  How much are they trying to sell the AOPS to RNZN?  Plus how much does the CDN Gov really help? Other nations really go out of their way to make deal, and a Canada deal does not help most countries geo politically (cough, cough SC Seat)  ....I know I'm being negative.



they may make money by selling the updated design, I doubt we can directly compete with South Korea, however if the ships have minimal teething issues, it may make them more attractive. I would not be surprised if New Zealand, Chile or Argentina expressed interest in the AOP's, either built here or a licenced build.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> they may make money by selling the updated design, I doubt we can directly compete with South Korea, however if the ships have minimal teething issues, it may make them more attractive. I would not be surprised if New Zealand, Chile or Argentina expressed interest in the AOP's, either built here or a licenced build.



Naval allies always take a good look at what each other are building.  NZ has a desire for an ice-resistant patrol boat.  RNZN visits Canada and does an Irving tour, seeing what we are doing and the problems/solutions we have and developed.  RNZN goes home and uses that info to develop its own requirements.

Not that big of a deal.  There is a reason RNZN ANZACs did the upgrade they did.  Because they comparative shopped, looked at their own requirements and then chose a HCM type upgrade vs the Australian refit (with the CEAFAR etc...).   UK is looking at JSS for similar reasons. 

To say we are trying to sell the boat (as I may have stated earlier in this thread but have now changed my position) might be premature.  Happy to provide the glossy brochure but its more of a car show and less a dealership visit.


----------



## Dana381

I have not heard anything on this in a while but is the RCN still planning on ending the lease on MV Asterix when the JSS come online? I have been hoping they keep her and build the second ship that Davie proposed.

I see pictures of RCN vessels RASing (sp?) with foreign oiler ships frequently on combat camera. Would it not be more cost effective to provide our own support whenever possible? I'm sure RASing from foreign navy's must be expensive as we are slave to whatever they wish to charge for fuel and supplies. What do we do when our JSS need repairs or refits? Would MV Asterix and even the second ship that Davie proposed save us a lot of money in the long run?

Forgive me if these questions were asked and answered already but is the Protecteur class going to be ice capable? How do we support our shiny new AOPS ships if not? I did not see any mention of ice class on the wiki page. To me it would make little sense for Canada to build navy support ships that were not ice capable. But what do I know.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I doubt anyone knows for sure, by the time the 2nd JSS comes online, Astreix is going to need a good refit. I personally believe we need 4 AOR's. I believe it's time that we had a proper Fleet Auxiliary Arm like the RFA, and that manning model solves manpower issues for the RCN. I have heard that the Fleet Services deal is pricey, but they were the only Canadian option on the table. Once the JSS is online, then we can negotiate a better deal. I also think by the time the 2nd JSS goes into service, the preferred postings will be to the AOP's and AOR's as the Halifax's will be very long in the tooth and the bunking arrangement less than stellar compared to the newer ships.


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> I doubt anyone knows for sure, by the time the 2nd JSS comes online, Astreix is going to need a good refit. I personally believe we need 4 AOR's. I believe it's time that we had a proper Fleet Auxiliary Arm like the RFA, and that manning model solves manpower issues for the RCN. I have heard that the Fleet Services deal is pricey, but they were the only Canadian option on the table. Once the JSS is online, then we can negotiate a better deal. I also think by the time the 2nd JSS goes into service, the preferred postings will be to the AOP's and AOR's as the Halifax's will be very long in the tooth and the bunking arrangement less than stellar compared to the newer ships.



The bunking arrangements on Asterix are phenomenal! Every one gets their own pricate cabin, every cabin ha their own bathroom AND shower with heated floors. Every cabin has a tv and WiFi and all the cabins are networked so you can jsut sit in your cabin and skype with family, watch Netflix by yourself, or play video games against others around the ship. Or you could go to the mess, which are also as nice. The gym is HUGE, and the unclass internet is top notch. Not sure how good the food is though, just haven't heard about it.


----------



## Stoker

Dana381 said:
			
		

> I have not heard anything on this in a while but is the RCN still planning on ending the lease on MV Asterix when the JSS come online? I have been hoping they keep her and build the second ship that Davie proposed.
> 
> I see pictures of RCN vessels RASing (sp?) with foreign oiler ships frequently on combat camera. Would it not be more cost effective to provide our own support whenever possible? I'm sure RASing from foreign navy's must be expensive as we are slave to whatever they wish to charge for fuel and supplies. What do we do when our JSS need repairs or refits? Would MV Asterix and even the second ship that Davie proposed save us a lot of money in the long run?
> 
> Forgive me if these questions were asked and answered already but is the Protecteur class going to be ice capable? How do we support our shiny new AOPS ships if not? I did not see any mention of ice class on the wiki page. To me it would make little sense for Canada to build navy support ships that were not ice capable. But what do I know.



As it stands Asterix more than likely won't be retained, by the time the Protectueur Class is operational the ship will be nearing 20 years old and used extensively. As people have mentioned 3 AOR's would be great, I just don't see it happening given resources and political climate. There are other considerations that make Asterix different from a total RCN crewed vessel, one of which as its a civilian owned vessel you more than likely won't see it past 60 degrees north.


----------



## Dana381

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> As it stands Asterix more than likely won't be retained, by the time the Protectueur Class is operational the ship will be nearing 20 years old and used extensively. As people have mentioned 3 AOR's would be great, I just don't see it happening given resources and political climate. There are other considerations that make Asterix different from a total RCN crewed vessel, one of which as its a civilian owned vessel you more than likely won't see it past 60 degrees north.



I don't think I am the only one that hoped with how well Asterix has been performing the RCN would have a change of heart and either buy it or extend the lease. I know the Navy would never consider her a full Navy vessel so buying is likely out of the question, but the arrangement currently seems to be working very well. I believe many hoped to see Asterix and maybe her sister working alongside the Protectueur class someday. I am aware that she will never be sent north, I was asking about the ice class of Protectueur class. Is the plan to make it ice capable?


----------



## Stoker

Dana381 said:
			
		

> I don't think I am the only one that hoped with how well Asterix has been performing the RCN would have a change of heart and either buy it or extend the lease. I know the Navy would never consider her a full Navy vessel so buying is likely out of the question, but the arrangement currently seems to be working very well. I believe many hoped to see Asterix and maybe her sister working alongside the Protectueur class someday. I am aware that she will never be sent north, I was asking about the ice class of Protectueur class. Is the plan to make it ice capable?



It will have some ice rating but won't be able to operate in heavy ice. We don't RAS above 60 and we have a naval refueling depot in the Arctic to refuel AOPS and other vessels. 

The problem of a leased vessel is that its incredibly expensive and if the civilian master decides that his civilian crew has worked their max hours then operations could be shutdown. The kind of accommodations onboard are not realistic for RCN personnel and have issues when Jr personnel were posted pack to the fleet.


----------



## jmt18325

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Asterix different from a total RCN crewed vessel, one of which as its a civilian owned vessel you more than likely won't see it past 60 degrees north.



As I understand it, Asterix actually took part in Operation Nanook this year.


----------



## Stoker

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> As I understand it, Asterix actually took part in Operation Nanook this year.



It did, just not North of 60 which is Arctic waters. AIS tells the tale


----------



## jmt18325

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> It did, just not North of 60 which is Arctic waters. AIS tells the tale



Thanks - I wasn't sure exactly what taking part meant.


----------



## Underway

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> The problem of a leased vessel is that its incredibly expensive...



And its over budget.  Not the perfect success story Davie would have you believe.  Still, love to keep it or have something similar in the process.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> And its over budget.  Not the perfect success story Davie would have you believe.  Still, love to keep it or have something similar in the process.



Yes keep it but with a RCN crew so we don't keep paying through the nose. Davie is very deceptive with their PR, the latest is a graphic for their "national" icebreaking center. They claim AOPS won't be able to operate in the NWP.  They are more than likely a 7 to 8 years away from delivering a new vessel, kind of premature.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

A few things need clarification here, I believe.

First, as Chief Engineer pointed out, the RCN does not RAS in Arctic waters (to be in compliance with the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act). So the question becomes what is the point of even taking one up there at all then? And that is the reason they don't go past 60 degrees North.

This is not related to any capacity/incapacity to go. Asterix's hull is much more capable of taking hit s by ice than the frigates or MCDV's we send up there. There is no requirement for any specifically reinforced hull to operate there in the "ice-free" navigation season. The Arctic villages are resupplied in that navigation season by ships, mostly from the Desgagné group, and they use standard cargo ships with no special hull reinforcement of any kind.

Second, before we call leased vessels "expensive" or "over budget", we better be looking at true cost for the RCN. The leased vessel is known fixed price to start with and includes everything provided by the contract. It is only when the RCN choose to ask that the supplier exceed what is provided by the contract that the costs increases. So if you are over budget, it's probably because the RCN wants more done by the ship than what was originally negotiated.

As for being "expensive", you have to compare to a RCN owned and operated vessel on equal terms: you have to include the actual cost of the ship, all it's refits, the cost in salary and employment related costs (pension, medical, insurance, etc.) of the RCN crew, the cost of shore support facilities related t the ship, it's maintenance, upkeep and operation cost, calculated on an annual basis. You can't only look at fuel because all these other costs are "sunk" costs. When you do that, I am not convinced the leased vessel is more expensive than a RCN owned and run ship.

Finally, nobody in the thread is proposing that Asterix should remain a leased vessel. What I read above is that just about everybody proposes that Asterix be acquired (the fixed cost to do so is in the contract, should Canada want to exercise that option) by the GoC and turned over to the CFAV (CNAV today?), i.e. that it become operated by merchant mariner employed directly by the crown as employees of DND, who then answer to the RCN for support requirements. That would be cheaper in terms of personnel and operations costs than a RCN operated vessel.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> A few things need clarification here, I believe.
> 
> First, as Chief Engineer pointed out, the RCN does not RAS in Arctic waters (to be in compliance with the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act). So the question becomes what is the point of even taking one up there at all then? And that is the reason they don't go past 60 degrees North.
> 
> This is not related to any capacity/incapacity to go. Asterix's hull is much more capable of taking hit s by ice than the frigates or MCDV's we send up there. There is no requirement for any specifically reinforced hull to operate there in the "ice-free" navigation season. The Arctic villages are resupplied in that navigation season by ships, mostly from the Desgagné group, and they use standard cargo ships with no special hull reinforcement of any kind.
> 
> Second, before we call leased vessels "expensive" or "over budget", we better be looking at true cost for the RCN. The leased vessel is known fixed price to start with and includes everything provided by the contract. It is only when the RCN choose to ask that the supplier exceed what is provided by the contract that the costs increases. So if you are over budget, it's probably because the RCN wants more done by the ship than what was originally negotiated.
> 
> As for being "expensive", you have to compare to a RCN owned and operated vessel on equal terms: you have to include the actual cost of the ship, all it's refits, the cost in salary and employment related costs (pension, medical, insurance, etc.) of the RCN crew, the cost of shore support facilities related t the ship, it's maintenance, upkeep and operation cost, calculated on an annual basis. You can't only look at fuel because all these other costs are "sunk" costs. When you do that, I am not convinced the leased vessel is more expensive than a RCN owned and run ship.
> 
> Finally, nobody in the thread is proposing that Asterix should remain a leased vessel. What I read above is that just about everybody proposes that Asterix be acquired (the fixed cost to do so is in the contract, should Canada want to exercise that option) by the GoC and turned over to the CFAV (CNAV today?), i.e. that it become operated by merchant mariner employed directly by the crown as employees of DND, who then answer to the RCN for support requirements. That would be cheaper in terms of personnel and operations costs than a RCN operated vessel.



Its true that due to environmental considerations we don't RAS about 60 degrees, however apparently the reason why Asterix doesn't go above is because the company who owns the ship is not insured to go above. If the RCN owned the ship, the RCN would assume the risk and operate up there if needed ie filling up the tanks at the Arctic fueling depot. I imagine the insurance company not willing to insure a large ship filled with fueling in an environmentally sensitive area with ice.

As for cost, I suspect the cost wasn't as cheap as the RCN had hoped.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lack of planning on the part of DND and their political masters comes at a price.


----------



## Dana381

Ok. so I Just realized my notifications for this thread were going to my junk folder but all the other threads were not, Weird!

Thank you Oldgateboatdriver and Chief Engineer, your posts are very informative. 

When the original lease was drawn up the GOC was in a bind and Davie had them by the gonads, I bet when the JSS come online the lease could be renegotiated with much more favorable terms. Davie faced with selling the ship or taking a less profitable lease would likely choose the later. Does the GOC already operate ships like mentioned here?



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> i.e. that it become operated by merchant mariner employed directly by the crown as employees of DND, who then answer to the RCN for support requirements. That would be cheaper in terms of personnel and operations costs than a RCN operated vessel.



If not renegotiating the lease would likely be cheaper than setting up a new department and all the red tape that would go with it.

My main reason for asking the question was because people on here seem to be in the know of things early, I was wondering what the rumor mill was saying about it. If the DND likes what they see and are considering keeping Asterix on i'm sure we'll hear about it here first!


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Second, before we call leased vessels "expensive" or "over budget", we better be looking at true cost for the RCN. The leased vessel is known fixed price to start with and includes everything provided by the contract.



This is a provision of service contract not a lease, the distinction is important.  There was a budget in the RCN for that contract and it's been completely blown through. Much of that cost was the unfinished nature of the construction that the Asterix was in when she arrived and the fixes were paid for by the RCN. 
 Ship builders never ever pay for their own mistakes or errors.  Canada does.



> It is only when the RCN choose to ask that the supplier exceed what is provided by the contract that the costs increases. So if you are over budget, it's probably because the RCN wants more done by the ship than what was originally negotiated.



Given that its a provision of service contract yes I would agree with this to an extent.  And its a complicated one where I suspect the government hasn't done their homework as much as Davie had, which means we're probably overcharged for quite a few things.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> This is a provision of service contract not a lease, the distinction is important.  There was a budget in the RCN for that contract and it's been completely blown through. Much of that cost was the unfinished nature of the construction that the Asterix was in when she arrived and the fixes were paid for by the RCN.
> Ship builders never ever pay for their own mistakes or errors.  Canada does.
> 
> Given that its a provision of service contract yes I would agree with this to an extent.  And its a complicated one where I suspect the government hasn't done their homework as much as Davie had, which means we're probably overcharged for quite a few things.




Yes she was in quite a state when she came to Halifax and was no coincidence that she had to make it by the 31st of Jan as per the agreement, hell the painting wasn't all done. All to for Davie to proclaim "on time and on budget".


----------



## Patski

For my personal info, and it might be interesting for some other people too I guess,  Is operating the Asterix more expensive than using the services of other countries for that kind of stuff?  I mean, obviously, we only have one of these, so we need to ask other countries for supplies on the way?


----------



## a_majoor

A bit out of left field, but perhaps a "small honking ship" might be worth considering. While the"Stem Landing Vessel" is really a landing craft, the idea of having a rear ramp leading into a clear deck space would make it much quicker and easier to load and offload a ship at dock, especially with containerized or modular cargos. The picture in the USNI article shows a large helicopter deck, so moving cargo around via helicopter becomes a possibility, or you could fit it with derricks or other devices to lift and transfer cargo as well.

This also becomes interesting since the USMC is also considering this for their Littoral Force, which is supposed to go ashore and fire long range anti ship missiles at enemy ships (preumably Chinese, in the current context). Being able to quickly load "containerized" missiles eliminates the middleman, and then the ship becomes a combatent - linking to off board sensors to aim and fire. Nothing to stop you from using anti air missiles, or rockets to launch long range torpedoes to make the ship more versatile.

The current design obviously has limitations, mostly becasue it is slow, but using a different hull form and engineering plant should net a modular hull capable of being used for multiple purposes.

https://news.usni.org/tag/stern-landing-vessel


----------



## Colin Parkinson

or a couple of these. They could support domestic training with LAV's and tanks. Loaned to NATO, PacRim events, supporting DND and other government agencies in the Arctic and the ever sellable UN  and Humanitarian ops. run them with a mix of Reg, reserve and civilian crews, slowly increasing the Reserve side as capacity grows. Plus you can use them for training Merchant Marine Cadets as well, helping to maintain Canada's rep for good Merchant Marine Officers. 

  Damen LST 120     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCTPSoaUtwk


----------



## FM07

Lumber said:
			
		

> The bunking arrangements on Asterix are phenomenal! Every one gets their own pricate cabin, every cabin ha their own bathroom AND shower with heated floors. Every cabin has a tv and WiFi and all the cabins are networked so you can jsut sit in your cabin and skype with family, watch Netflix by yourself, or play video games against others around the ship. Or you could go to the mess, which are also as nice. The gym is HUGE, and the unclass internet is top notch. Not sure how good the food is though, just haven't heard about it.



Hi there, as far as we know so far, will the new JSS ships have the same accommodations? 

Thanks,


----------



## Sub_Guy

FMoore7 said:
			
		

> Hi there, as far as we know so far, will the new JSS ships have the same accommodations?



No. I'm sure the accommodations will be better than the old replenishment vessels, but there's no way they'll match what is on the Asterix..


----------



## Stoker

FMoore7 said:
			
		

> Hi there, as far as we know so far, will the new JSS ships have the same accommodations?
> 
> Thanks,



They'll be nice but not that nice.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Merchant Marine world had to seriously up it's game to get people to go to sea and even with these nice accommodations they struggle to fill spots, at least pre-Covid.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Its true that due to environmental considerations we don't RAS about 60 degrees, however apparently the reason why Asterix doesn't go above is because the company who owns the ship is not insured to go above. If the RCN owned the ship, the RCN would assume the risk and operate up there if needed ie filling up the tanks at the Arctic fueling depot. I imagine the insurance company not willing to insure a large ship filled with fueling in an environmentally sensitive area with ice.
> 
> As for cost, I suspect the cost wasn't as cheap as the RCN had hoped.



I am pretty confident that the RCN could cover the cost of a limited duration Lloyds or DNV policy for a vessel if they wanted to.  Anything is insurable if you are willing to pay the premiums.

As for the overages - as OGBD speculates - I expect that the vessel was hired with low expectations and, like most things Canadian, ended up doing everything that was asked of her so she was asked for more.  

And one of the problems with leasing is the same problems that livery companies had - the horses get rode hard and put away wet.  And all FedNav needs is to get 5 years service out of that hull.


----------



## Underway

FMoore7 said:
			
		

> Hi there, as far as we know so far, will the new JSS ships have the same accommodations?
> 
> Thanks,


Can confirm its a no.  6 person messes for the MS and below.  4,3 pers cabins for PO's.  CPO's have 2 pers cabins.  Officers have 4,2,1 pers cabins.  Each Offcier and PO cabin has an onsuite heads/washplace shared with the one other cabin (ie each onsuite serves two cabins).  Messes have the same setup as a frigate right now with the communal heads/washplaces.

Of course XO, CO, SO, and CXN arrangements are more private.


----------



## FM07

Underway said:
			
		

> Can confirm its a no.  6 person messes for the MS and below.  4,3 pers cabins for PO's.  CPO's have 2 pers cabins.  Officers have 4,2,1 pers cabins.  Each Offcier and PO cabin has an onsuite heads/washplace shared with the one other cabin (ie each onsuite serves two cabins).  Messes have the same setup as a frigate right now with the communal heads/washplaces.
> 
> Of course XO, CO, SO, and CXN arrangements are more private.



Thanks for that, either way these ships are going to be awesome for our Navy, it would be an honor to serve on one.


----------



## Gorgo

Underway said:
			
		

> Can confirm its a no.  6 person messes for the MS and below.  4,3 pers cabins for PO's.  CPO's have 2 pers cabins.  Officers have 4,2,1 pers cabins.  Each Offcier and PO cabin has an onsuite heads/washplace shared with the one other cabin (ie each onsuite serves two cabins).  Messes have the same setup as a frigate right now with the communal heads/washplaces.
> 
> Of course XO, CO, SO, and CXN arrangements are more private.



I remember on the _Saguenay_ back in the late 1980s that the engineer junior ranks were in one big mess of about 40 bunks.  I myself was in the aftmost mess by the propellers and that had 24 spaces.  Hearing what's going into the new ships, I can say it'll be a luxury.


----------



## Spencer100

Davie hard at it.

https://www.facebook.com/chantierdavie/photos/a.507767432609909/3358740717512552

G-LAM.....Global Logistics Aviation and Medical ship

That thing doesn't look expensive at all. Lol (I love that it has a Cyclone, CV-22, UAV and Chinook)

To sell the Liberals they should have dropped the 57mm and add CNG or BE powered


----------



## Sub_Guy

Oh cool, it's the JSS (true JSS..) that was envisioned back in the mid-90's. It's been updated with fancier graphics and different aircraft...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Oh cool, it's the JSS (true JSS..) that was envisioned back in the mid-90's. It's been updated with fancier graphics and different aircraft...



The "Big Honking Ship"


----------



## MilEME09

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Oh cool, it's the JSS (true JSS..) that was envisioned back in the mid-90's. It's been updated with fancier graphics and different aircraft...



The one cancelled because it became a beast that would devour budgets? As much as a ship like that could be useful, we would never get one, with Astrix, two JSS being built by Seaspan, I doubt the government would commit to such an order. I would also wonder if even offered, would the navy want such a ship and this point? It seems to do a little of everything and excel at nothing.


----------



## FM07

Sorry if I am out of the loop on this guys, but when the JSS are delivered, are we going to still use the MV Asterix?


----------



## dapaterson

I admire your optimistic use of "when"...


----------



## Spencer100

FMoore7 said:
			
		

> Sorry if I am out of the loop on this guys, but when the JSS are delivered, are we going to still use the MV Asterix?



Are they not using her pretty hard?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They seems to be using her a lot, likely getting our monies worth out of her. Once the first new AOR comes online, likley Astreix will go into refit.


----------



## Cloud Cover

So Davie put this concept ship out on their feed today:  needs some time for comment but my first thought is it’s an LPH cross dressed as an extra large sized AOPS.


----------



## Good2Golf

The UAS rotor-discs overlap...


----------



## Stoker

FMoore7 said:
			
		

> Sorry if I am out of the loop on this guys, but when the JSS are delivered, are we going to still use the MV Asterix?



Hopefully not, she'll be worn out by then.


----------



## Stoker

CloudCover said:
			
		

> So Davie put this concept ship out on their feed today:  needs some time for comment but my first thought is it’s an LPH cross dressed as an extra large sized AOPS.



Cool concept but more flights of fancy from Davie. Whenever you see a negative story or no news about Davie they drop stuff on social media like declaring themselves the national ice breaking center or draft up a drawing of a ship we'll never buy.


----------



## Dale Denton

CloudCover said:
			
		

> So Davie put this concept ship out on their feed today:  needs some time for comment but my first thought is it’s an LPH cross dressed as an extra large sized AOPS.



We should have had LPH for decades already, considering how expeditionary we are. Harpers Ferry-class/Whidbey Island-class, Karel-Doorman - anything that gives us something close to a Mistral i'll take at this point. Probably the best time for industry to promote extra work/jobs. Make Davie the "orphan class/small batch/conversion" shipbuilder in the strategy, build 2.

I'm all for the growth and development of our domestic shipbuilding industry, even with its extras costs.

Could use something like this to sustain an exercise in the arctic (in AOPS seasons) without taking away/using local transportation infrastructure and logistics. Could disarm it and use it to transport civilian cargo when not in use by the RCN.


----------



## Cloud Cover

It’s just an eye candy design I believe for the reasons the Chief has pointed out. Also, elements of the design are questionable.  It’s ice capable and a refueler but we don’t RAS in the ice. Second, the illustration has a vehicle deck with a rather large LCVP, (or ship to shore connector in civvy speak)- a well deck is required for that.  The crew accommodations appear to be FFS crew spaces. The flight deck suggests a length of 350-450 feet, plus the other half of the ship!!

It would have to be a new build or a whopping major reconstruction of RFA Argus or an RFA Bay Class.

But still, LeadMark does call for this type of ship. SSE does not (AFAIK).


----------



## Good2Golf

CloudCover said:
			
		

> But still, LeadMark does call for this type of ship. SSE does not (AFAIK).



Being in Leadmark is all good, but if you’re not in SSE, or post-DRAP2 version of SSE2 (or whatever the magical green unicorns call the dere-funded Defence Policy, that and $2.19 will get you a Timmies XL double-double...


----------



## Underway

This look exactly like something they would put into Popular Science/Mechanics magazine when I was a kid. Super cool concept art for something that will never be built.



			
				CloudCover said:
			
		

> But still, LeadMark does call for this type of ship. SSE does not (AFAIK).



I believe 2020 does.  2050 however references a peace support ship and then infers that the AOR's and AOPS should be able to fill that gap without coming out and saying we want a HA/DR ship.  Not many may know this but Leadmark 2050 was out for initial review (ie: were sent to unit CO's for feedback) before SSE and the initial drafts were then recalled until SSE was published (it may have been due to the gov't change, I can't recall the timeline exactly).  It was subsequently updated with SSE in mind.  Can't have the RCN and Government saying different things.  



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The "Big Honking Ship"



The "Big Honking Ship" was a full LPD, LPH concept like a Mistral.  What is presented here is basically the Afloat Logistics Sea Control concept that was jettisoned because it's jack-knife nature was to expensive and didn't meet requirements.


----------



## Spencer100

Tour of the brand new HMNZS Aotearoa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qj3uHHA6Kg&ab_channel=NZDefenceForce

Ordered, designed and built.  As we are still design ours.

What does everyone think.  

Crew quarters are nice.  MV Asterix look nicer


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually modules are being put together for ours as we speak. https://nss.seaspan.com/project/joint-support-ship/#JSSGalleryAnchor


----------



## Cloud Cover

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Tour of the brand new HMNZS Aotearoa
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qj3uHHA6Kg&ab_channel=NZDefenceForce
> 
> Ordered, designed and built.  As we are still design ours.
> 
> What does everyone think.
> 
> Crew quarters are nice.  MV Asterix look nicer



Does this ship compare well or better than our JSS?


----------



## Underway

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Does this ship compare well or better than our JSS?



In what context.  Cost?  Ammo carried? Fire suppression? Damage Control? Task Group integration? Number of aircraft? Tonnage, speed  range, fuel carried, stores carried, endurance, ice capability, bridge layout, number of ships being able to be refueld at the same time, self defence capability? Flexibility, hospital arrangements, dental surgery. IFF? Combat systems? Comms systems?

One is a basic truck.  The other is the extended cab, extended bed, flex-fuel, roof rack and all the extras (including the floormats and nav system) model, with a bike in the back included.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The one thing the New Zealand ship brings is a Polar 6 ice capability as it has to service their Antarctica Station as well. It would be nice feature for a Canadian ship, but I would rather see a ice capable landing ship instead.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> The one thing the New Zealand ship brings is a Polar 6 ice capability as it has to service their Antarctica Station as well. It would be nice feature for a Canadian ship, but I would rather see a ice capable landing ship instead.



Unlike Asterix who can't go above 60 while owned by a civilian company.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Unlike Asterix who can't go above 60.



Could PRO and PRE?


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Could PRO and PRE?



Most certainly, they weren't rentals.

https://www.navalreview.ca/2014/11/deployments-by-ships-of-the-royal-canadian-navy-into-canadian-northern-waters-1949-2014/


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:
			
		

> In what context.  Cost?  Ammo carried? Fire suppression? Damage Control? Task Group integration? Number of aircraft? Tonnage, speed  range, fuel carried, stores carried, endurance, ice capability, bridge layout, number of ships being able to be refueld at the same time, self defence capability? Flexibility, hospital arrangements, dental surgery. IFF? Combat systems? Comms systems?
> 
> One is a basic truck.  The other is the extended cab, extended bed, flex-fuel, roof rack and all the extras (including the floormats and nav system) model, with a bike in the back included.



What arnaments are planned? Wikipedia says the Berlin class has 4 x 27mm. I believe you mentioned before that the ships will be based on the Bonn and not the Berlin and Frankfurt. The Bonn was the last made so that makes sense but what are the significant differences between the 3 subtypes? As far as Arctic operations go, I imagine just being double hulled will be a huge step forward.


----------



## calculus

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> What arnaments are planned? Wikipedia says the Berlin class has 4 x 27mm. I believe you mentioned before that the ships will be based on the Bonn and not the Berlin and Frankfurt. The Bonn was the last made so that makes sense but what are the significant differences between the 3 subtypes? As far as Arctic operations go, I imagine just being double hulled will be a huge step forward.


Some good information here: https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/BN26-JSS.pdf

And here: https://navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/jss_factsheet_8x11_eng.pdf

And here: https://nss.seaspan.com/project/joint-support-ship/

I don't remember where I saw it, but I believe the hull will be built to PC6 standard as well.


----------



## suffolkowner

Thanks calculus

The factsheet says 4 x 0.50 remote weapons stations and 2 CIWS, so kinda a step down from the German model but maybe more in keeping with the previous ships. I wonder if it is still accurate though with the frigate program moving away from CIWS?


----------



## Good2Golf

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> Most certainly, they weren't rentals.
> 
> https://www.navalreview.ca/2014/11/deployments-by-ships-of-the-royal-canadian-navy-into-canadian-northern-waters-1949-2014/



Chief, what would AST need to do so?  Navcom stuff?  I’m assuming ice rating isn’t a specific issue since it doesn’t look like PRO or PRE have any hardening?


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Chief, what would AST need to do so?  Nav I’m stuff?  I’m assuming ice rating isn’t a specific issue since it doesn’t look like PRO or PRE have any hardening?



Its a lease owned by a private company, insurance carried by the company won't allow to work in Arctic waters due to potential liability. If we owned it we would run it wherever.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

From 2007, brings up the mobile depot ship for the Arctic 

https://www.navalreview.ca/2007/03/what-about-sea-based-support-for-the-arctic-patrol-ship/


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> From 2007, brings up the mobile depot ship for the Arctic
> 
> https://www.navalreview.ca/2007/03/what-about-sea-based-support-for-the-arctic-patrol-ship/



Kind of a moot point when we have the Arctic fueling depot and the ship is large enough to carry enough spares to be self sufficient for 4 months.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Speaking of commercial ships in the Arctic, this article talks about insurance effects on shipping. https://gcaptain.com/insure-ships-arctic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29&goal=0_f50174ef03-92ef23397c-139922301&mc_cid=92ef23397c&mc_eid=c9f44d7f09


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Thanks calculus
> 
> The factsheet says 4 x 0.50 remote weapons stations and 2 CIWS, so kinda a step down from the German model but maybe more in keeping with the previous ships. I wonder if it is still accurate though with the frigate program moving away from CIWS?



There will also be 4 regluar 50 cal positions on 05 Deck of the house.  The NRWS are on 04 Deck aft and below the CIWS position forward of the breakwater on the foc'sle. Mounting CIWS is a much more serious armament than a 27mm.

So if you want to approach the ship with small boats you're looking at being in the minimum fire arcs of 4 50 cal and 1 CIWS.  Its all she really needs.  Anything greater will be provided by escorts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hopefully one day they add bolt on missile systems for self defense and counter measures, your escorts may be in the wrong place or burning, always nice that every ship can contribute to the defense of the whole.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Hopefully one day they add bolt on missile systems for self defense and counter measures, your escorts may be in the wrong place or burning, always nice that every ship can contribute to the defense of the whole.



Just under a million for a 11 cell SeaRam would fit nicely into that idea


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Along with an AIS spoofer that can disguise our AOR's as various civilian ships when they have to travel alone, hell if the illegal fishing boats can have 60 different aliases, then we can to.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Starting to look like a ship now

Seaspan takes a bow with delivery of foremost part of joint support ship

https://www.nsnews.com/news/seaspan-takes-a-bow-with-delivery-of-foremost-part-of-joint-support-ship-1.24230220


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:
			
		

> There will also be 4 regluar 50 cal positions on 05 Deck of the house.  The NRWS are on 04 Deck aft and below the CIWS position forward of the breakwater on the foc'sle. Mounting CIWS is a much more serious armament than a 27mm.
> 
> So if you want to approach the ship with small boats you're looking at being in the minimum fire arcs of 4 50 cal and 1 CIWS.  Its all she really needs.  Anything greater will be provided by escorts.



Thanks for the update


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Hopefully one day they add bolt on missile systems for self defense and counter measures, your escorts may be in the wrong place or burning, always nice that every ship can contribute to the defense of the whole.



I'm learning there is no such thing as a "bolt on (fill in the blank)" in shipbuilding.  Everything gets integrated somehow and comes with its own special headaches.  



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Along with an AIS spoofer that can disguise our AOR's as various civilian ships when they have to travel alone, hell if the illegal fishing boats can have 60 different aliases, then we can to.



Military AIS have functionality that civilian ones don't.  You may have seen that in your travels, with many warships just reporting as "(insert country here) Warship."


----------



## NavyShooter

Military ships are not required to operate AIS.

They are exempt.

They can also be individually reprogrammed to spoof - the inputs for this are, however, password protected.  And something that I found out as soon as we got them on our ship, and made sure did not get distributed to anyone by the NET(A) section and the NAVO/Combat Officer - and I was kinda shaky about giving it to the O level folks...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> Kind of a moot point when we have the* Arctic fueling depot *and the ship is large enough to carry enough spares to be self sufficient for 4 months.



Do we though ?  I think you should check on the state of that jetty.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> I'm learning there is no such thing as a "bolt on (fill in the blank)" in shipbuilding.  Everything gets integrated somehow and comes with its own special headaches.
> 
> "



Which is why I believe ships like the AOR`s and AOPS should have more designed in hard points for weapon and combat systems with all the cabling/comms or at least trunking for the cables in place during construction and design. So they can be fitted out quickly if required. 

Glad to hear that our military AIS has more interesting capabilities. AOR's are likely to be prime targets in any regional conflict with a adversary that has a long reach.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Do we though ?  I think you should check on the state of that jetty.



Aren't you on the VDQ? They were alongside the depot last year to conduct dry fits for the fueling, operational next year. The jetty is concreate dolphins that the former ore ships used, not a jetty like in Halifax but able to support ships none the less.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Which is why I believe ships like the AOR`s and AOPS should have more designed in hard points for weapon and combat systems with all the cabling/comms or at least trunking for the cables in place during construction and design. So they can be fitted out quickly if required.
> 
> Glad to hear that our military AIS has more interesting capabilities. AOR's are likely to be prime targets in any regional conflict with a adversary that has a long reach.



Do you really think AIS will be operational in time of war?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> Aren't you on the VDQ? They were alongside the depot last year to conduct dry fits for the fueling, operational next year. The jetty is concreate dolphins that the former ore ships used, not a jetty like in Halifax but able to support ships none the less.



Nope at MARLANT HQ now.  

Are we both talking about Nanisivik ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> Do you really think AIS will be operational in time of war?



Do we want to have AIS operational in a time of war ?  Aren't ships movements very hush hush, despite what FB and twitter accounts post ?


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Nope at MARLANT HQ now.
> 
> Are we both talking about Nanisivik ?



Yes was there a number of years ago, VDQ was there last year to check the refueling gear.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> Do you really think AIS will be operational in time of war?



Depends how you define "war", a regional conflict will likley see AIS continue, in fact "neutral" ships in the area will most definitely broadcast AIS in the hopes of not being targeted by long range weapons. AIS will be the new version of painting a national flag and spotlighting it on the side of the ship.

If you have a long running standoff with fleets at sea for an extended period of time, your AOR's are going to have to detach and make a run for supplies, with the limited number of escorts NATO has, they may end up sailing alone or with one escort. Sinking the AOR's is an excellent way to force a fleet to retreat without a direct conflict as fuel runs low.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Depends how you define "war", a regional conflict will likley see AIS continue, in fact "neutral" ships in the area will most definitely broadcast AIS in the hopes of not being targeted by long range weapons. AIS will be the new version of painting a national flag and spotlighting it on the side of the ship.
> 
> If you have a long running standoff with fleets at sea for an extended period of time, your AOR's are going to have to detach and make a run for supplies, with the limited number of escorts NATO has, they may end up sailing alone or with one escort. Sinking the AOR's is an excellent way to force a fleet to retreat without a direct conflict as fuel runs low.


 
Small Skirmishes warships certainly won't be squawking AIS and more than likely "neutral" ships will be vacating the area.  Full out conflicts the system will be taken down. AOR's are not going to be sailing alone and will be well protected.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> Small Skirmishes warships certainly won't be squawking AIS and more than likely "neutral" ships will be vacating the area.  Full out conflicts the system will be taken down. AOR's are not going to be sailing alone and will be well protected.



Hey!!! Congratulations on your retirement!!!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Imagine a stand off between China and the west over Taiwan, The west parks a fleet near there and needs constant resupply, the major assets are going to need most of the escorts. The USN has around 60 escort vessels for all it's operations and ship cycles, so you can likley count on 20-30 at best. Guessing that the combined allied fleet might generate 12 more. 

Just resupplying the fleet is going to take significant resources with the nearest safe port being near Manila some 570nm away. Likely you have resupply ships going to and from multiple ports, if they each need an escort for each, you run out of ships quickly. I suspect you would see 2 AORs protected by 1 escort with perhaps 1 attack sub patrolling the shipping lanes used by resupply vessel. 

If I was planner for the PLAN, I would have merchant ships at sea at the start, armed with anti-ship missiles to hunt the resupply ships and sink them without warning. Their massive fishing fleet would be their eyes and ears, along with other methods.


----------



## Underway

Well, since everyone posted what I intimated...

Warships AIS is modified.  It can be turned on and off first of all.  It never presents the destination, tonnage, cargo etc... of the ship, though it often has the length.  It also rarely presents the ships name.  It might just say Canadian Warship for example.

And yes its often turned off on operations and exercises.  As soon as you go into the box you turn it off.

@Colin P you are not wrong in your analysis

AOR's are High Value Units.  It would be the main target of many attacks, because it's loss significantly inhibits the strategic mobility of a task group.  It limits range and time on patrol.  This is why when you orient your task group you can leave the AOR outside of the threat box (in the rear with the gear) with minimal escort. The other option is protect it by placing it in the middle of the task group and orienting the task group along the threat axis with it being the furthest away).  This first is the choice for Asterix, and the second is the prefered option for Protecteur.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway is correct.

In Gulf War one, however, even with Protecteur, the USN ran the first option: Threat box for combat vessels and Rear area box for the supply train. The supply train had its own escort force fooprotection and the whole rear area, escort included, was run by Canada - the only non American command at sea.

So, in such case, Colin, it is the combat vessels that rotate in and out of the rear to refuel under protection, except unusual circumstances (such as getting caught in unexpected action and not having enough fuel to go to the rear) when a single support vessel, escorted appropriately, must go in the threat box to resupply someone. Happened twice in GW1  IIRC.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Underway is correct.
> 
> In Gulf War one, however, even with Protecteur, the USN ran the first option: Threat box for combat vessels and Rear area box for the supply train. The supply train had its own escort force fooprotection and the whole rear area, escort included, was run by Canada - the only non American command at sea.
> 
> So, in such case, Colin, it is the combat vessels that rotate in and out of the rear to refuel under protection, except unusual circumstances (such as getting caught in unexpected action and not having enough fuel to go to the rear) when a single support vessel, escorted appropriately, must go in the threat box to resupply someone. Happened twice in GW1  IIRC.



That doesn’t always work. IIRC, PROTECTEUR was so far forward sometimes in the lead up to Gulf War 1 that the “escorts” had to come up the Gulf to her to get fuel. In hindsight, it was a bit stupid...


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That doesn’t always work. IIRC, PROTECTEUR was so far forward sometimes in the lead up to Gulf War 1 that the “escorts” had to come up the Gulf to her to get fuel. In hindsight, it was a bit stupid...



509 and 510's use during Op Apollo also unofficially renamed them as "Battle-Tankers".


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> 509 and 510's use during Op Apollo also unofficially renamed them as "Battle-Tankers".



Why yes, having a floating gas station in the threat area is a great idea.   :

Did their COs not think it was ridiculous?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Why yes, having a floating gas station in the threat area is a great idea.   :
> 
> Did their COs not think it was ridiculous?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Why yes, having a floating gas station in the threat area is a great idea.   :
> 
> Did their COs not think it was ridiculous?



No idea.  They don't usually explain doctrine and use to OD storesmen.  At least back then they didnt...


----------



## Howie1

Kinda like sending the Huron through an active mine area to re-open the Canadian embassy in Kuwait without a minesweeper escort so they could have a good photo op. Good thing we had our fish finder...er i mean Mas sonar.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Just listening to a video where the US was considering turning one of the Iowa class into a "Battle tanker" with a weight reduction program so it could hold more fuel.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Just listening to a video where the US was considering turning one of the Iowa class into a "Battle tanker" with a weight reduction program so it could hold more fuel.



I am surprised a concept of a more armoured supply ship hasn't taken off to do forward support under hostile conditions with little escort. Especially in the modern battle space of BVR weapons.


----------



## quadrapiper

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> 509 and 510's use during Op Apollo also unofficially renamed them as "Battle-Tankers".


Didn't one or both also do a certain amount of pirate-chasing, somewhat more recently?


----------



## Underway

Howie1 said:
			
		

> Kinda like sending the Huron through an active mine area to re-open the Canadian embassy in Kuwait without a minesweeper escort so they could have a good photo op. Good thing we had our fish finder...er i mean Mas sonar.



Funny story about that. That fish finder was at the time the best mine detection sonar in the entire Collation of the Willing.  No one took mine warfare seriously in the later 80's early 90's except the Baltic states and the Belgians.  The bigger navies were 'blue water" who fought the cold war on the high seas.

If you can detect non-metallic morphic shoals of fish you can easily detect floating mines.


----------



## Underway

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Why yes, having a floating gas station in the threat area is a great idea.   :
> 
> Did their COs not think it was ridiculous?



Against what threat exactly.  They were doing interdiction operations to stop the flow of drugs and money into Afghanistan etc...  or they were supplying the US Navy Amphib ships in sending aircraft into Afghanistan.  

As for the JSS, it's designed to be the gas station in the threat area.  That's the entire doctrinal focus of the ship.  Where others can't/won't go, JSS will.  The strategic advantages may outweigh the risks in many situations.


----------



## Kirkhill

27 May 1941.

18 months into WW2.



> HX 129 left Halifax on 27 May 1941 as the first convoy to receive escort for the entire trip.[2] Escorts based in Halifax Harbour handed HX 129 off to escorts based in Newfoundland who subsequently transferred HX 129 to escorts based in Iceland who in turn delivered HX 129 to escorts based in the Western Approaches.


  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Ocean_Escort_Force

Halifax, St John's, Reykjavik and Londonderry acted as four refueling stations for four separate parcels of escorts for a single convoy.  The JSS allows one parcel of escorts to conduct the entire mission.  It also doesn't require Londonderry and Reykjavik to have fuel available.  Fuel being delivered by the escorted convoy in the face of enemy submarine activity.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The Joint Support Ship program and the MV Asterix: a Fiscal Analysis

https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/RP-2021-029-C--joint-support-ship-program-mv-asterix-fiscal-analysis--programme-navires-soutien-interarmees-nm-asterix-analyse-financiere

Here we go again.

The cost of the provision of service contracts of the Asterix or the potential Obelix cannot be directly compared to the project costs of the JSS. To enable a more apt comparison of the costs of these ships, we construct a scenario in which the Asterix and Obelix are both purchased at the end of the 2022-23 fiscal year, when the initial five-year contract of the Asterix expires. Net of any costs associated with this initial contract, we estimate a total cost of approximately $1.4 billion for the purchase of two Davie vessels. This is lower than the government’s JSS project cost of $4.4 billion ($4.1 billion plus a 7 per cent provincial sales tax), and our estimate of the JSS project of $4.1 billion.3
*An assessment of the capabilities of the Asterix and Obelix as commercial vessels converted for military purposes versus those of the built-for-purpose Joint Support Ship is outside the scope of this report.*


----------



## MarkOttawa

So for an extra $1.4B the RCN could have four vice two supply ships. Given the costs of build-in-Canada for everything that sounds like a real shipbuilding bargain to me--and Oblelix would help Liberals in Quebec.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

I thought the Davie order book was full with ice breaker conversions. Yes, 4 is better than 2 but where do the people come from??


----------



## Navy_Pete

CloudCover said:
			
		

> The Joint Support Ship program and the MV Asterix: a Fiscal Analysis
> 
> https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/RP-2021-029-C--joint-support-ship-program-mv-asterix-fiscal-analysis--programme-navires-soutien-interarmees-nm-asterix-analyse-financiere
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> The cost of the provision of service contracts of the Asterix or the potential Obelix cannot be directly compared to the project costs of the JSS. To enable a more apt comparison of the costs of these ships, we construct a scenario in which the Asterix and Obelix are both purchased at the end of the 2022-23 fiscal year, when the initial five-year contract of the Asterix expires. Net of any costs associated with this initial contract, we estimate a total cost of approximately $1.4 billion for the purchase of two Davie vessels. This is lower than the government’s JSS project cost of $4.4 billion ($4.1 billion plus a 7 per cent provincial sales tax), and our estimate of the JSS project of $4.1 billion.3
> *An assessment of the capabilities of the Asterix and Obelix as commercial vessels converted for military purposes versus those of the built-for-purpose Joint Support Ship is outside the scope of this report.*



For context, that's two used ships that were converted over to tankers (all with civilian standards) compared to two brand new JSS ships with more capabilities. It's not even an apples and oranges if you look at the projected lifespan for both options as there Asterix and Obelix will already start with 20+ years of wear on the hull, piping, wiring etc.


----------



## Uzlu

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It's not even an apples and oranges if you look at the projected lifespan for both options as there Asterix and Obelix will already start with 20+ years of wear on the hull, piping, wiring etc.


MarineTraffic.com claims that MV _Obelix_ was built in 2008.  Wikipedia claims that MV _Asterix_ was completed on 1 May 2010.


----------



## Stoker

Uzlu said:
			
		

> MarineTraffic.com claims that MV _Obelix_ was built in 2008.  Wikipedia claims that MV _Asterix_ was completed on 1 May 2010.



That's correct the ship started service in 2010, its still decade plus old hull that is only supposed to last 20-25 years. Not to mention they are driving it like they stole it. 500 to 600M to buy the thing after its been heavily used, no thanks. Regardless of what the PBO says the JSS are getting built regardless.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

But 2 AOR's will never be enough, 3 minimum and 4 better, even if they spend a good amount of time in hot layup.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> But 2 AOR's will never be enough, 3 minimum and 4 better, even if they spend a good amount of time in hot layup.



I guess you're missing the crewing and cost issues.


----------



## CBH99

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> I guess you're missing the crewing and cost issues.




Mind elaborating on the cost issues?  

Or are you referencing their procurement cost in general?


----------



## Navy_Pete

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Mind elaborating on the cost issues?
> 
> Or are you referencing their procurement cost in general?



Most of the total through life costs is crew and maintenance, not initial capital investment. We will struggle to get the bodies needed to keep 2 JSS to sea, along with the rest of the fleet, so more ships will just mean it will be more likely a few hulls will get tied up alongside, retired early, etc. No point having an oiler at the cost of an operational unit, and we don't have a big enough fleet where we would operate on our own anyway. We did manage to get gas for years with no AORs, and even with just Asterix there is usually a number of deployed ships operating on their own that stay gassed up with no major issues.

Sure, it'd be easier, but the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze unless we figure out retention and get a budget increase.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> I guess you're missing the crewing and cost issues.



No, hence I mention hot layup. With 3 ships you can have one in refit and one on each coast. With 4 ships, you can have two on each coast. One can be laid up or in refit while the other sails. Or if you have an over seas mission, you can have one relieve the other and still maintain one coast with two. You can also modify the Federal Fleet concept into a sustainable RFA type model. Yes it will cost more, but the ships would last longer and fleet support would improve drastically.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Most of the total through life costs is crew and maintenance, not initial capital investment. We will struggle to get the bodies needed to keep 2 JSS to sea, along with the rest of the fleet, so more ships will just mean it will be more likely a few hulls will get tied up alongside, retired early, etc. No point having an oiler at the cost of an operational unit, and we don't have a big enough fleet where we would operate on our own anyway. We did manage to get gas for years with no AORs, and even with just Asterix there is usually a number of deployed ships operating on their own that stay gassed up with no major issues.
> 
> Sure, it'd be easier, but the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze unless we figure out retention and get a budget increase.



I agree the Kingston Class can't RAS anyways and they operate without that capability, AOPS can but again don't need to RAS really and that leaves either 12 Halifax or CSC. Train more people and more resources for operating costs.


----------



## Underway

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> AOPS can't but again don't need to RAS really...



AOPS is rigged to do heavy and light jackstays for sure.  Not entirely sure about fuel/liquids.


----------



## YZT580

dnd
The authors of the report are both economists, one majoring in agriculture the other with the 
dnd.  Their comparison is strictly on cost of purchasing 4 hulls: 2 purpose built, the others modified.  And from what I recall, the purchase price of the AORs includes operating costs over an extended period which is not part of the purchase price of the other two.  It would be better to maintain the two conversions on a lease or lease back and utilize them as reserves and as response vessels for foreign interventions i.e. relief efforts and as off-shore supply vessels for UN assistance. But they are not suitable for any areas involving risk. Civilian hulls just don't work in wartime.  The Brits found that out in the Falklands


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> AOPS is rigged to do heavy and light jackstays for sure.  Not entirely sure about fuel/liquids.



My mistake they can indeed RAS, what I meant to say it can RAS but with its fuel capability, where they will be using it and storage they can get away with not needing that capability.


----------



## Stoker

YZT580 said:
			
		

> dnd
> The authors of the report are both economists, one majoring in agriculture the other with the
> dnd.  Their comparison is strictly on cost of purchasing 4 hulls: 2 purpose built, the others modified.  And from what I recall, the purchase price of the AORs includes operating costs over an extended period which is not part of the purchase price of the other two.  It would be better to maintain the two conversions on a lease or lease back and utilize them as reserves and as response vessels for foreign interventions i.e. relief efforts and as off-shore supply vessels for UN assistance. But they are not suitable for any areas involving risk. Civilian hulls just don't work in wartime.  The Brits found that out in the Falklands



Everyone says why not buy and keep them in reserve. For one thing I can't see the RCN or government having the resources to keep a ship alongside in the few times you may need it. A few years ago we had that massive Hurricane in the Caribbean and Asterix was in Halifax, guess what never sent. Where would you dock massive ships like that in reserve, pay a crew, maintenance etc. Sorry can't see that and I would never want to see the RCN with finite budgets having to look after them unless the fleet massively expands in the post Covid world. AOPS like them or hate them has a fair HDAR capability.


----------



## Dana381

YZT580 said:
			
		

> dnd
> It would be better to maintain the two conversions on a lease or lease back and utilize them as reserves and as response vessels for foreign interventions i.e. relief efforts and as off-shore supply vessels for UN assistance. But they are not suitable for any areas involving risk. Civilian hulls just don't work in wartime.  The Brits found that out in the Falklands



I was thinking along those lines also. What if the RCN kept the Asterix as a reserve crewed ship for AOR duties as well as sea lift and humanitarian relief. I remember seeing a graphic of her under deck vehicle and ammo storage and I think it was a pretty decent size considering sea lift is a secondary mission. In times of disaster response the cargo deck could be used for hospital duties. I understand a true hospital ship would have more specialized equipment however it would be better than nothing. Maybe removable mission kits could be developed to give her OR, lab and diagnostic imaging capabilities. Surly the government could get support for those mods, They could spin it as a humanitarian ship and use it to resupply Nanisivik, RAS, and sea lift most of the time.


----------



## Cloud Cover

When you guys talk about having a ship and crew in reserve, are you suggesting the ship on standby and a crew on standby or do you mean assign the ship to the naval reserve and crew it with reservists?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A ship in reserve could be kept in hot layup with a small crew who might be a mix of Fleet Aux./Reserve & Regular force. It could be used as a training tool for reservists as well, even just at the dockside.


----------



## PuckChaser

Dana381 said:
			
		

> I was thinking along those lines also. What if the RCN kept the Asterix as a reserve crewed ship for AOR duties as well as sea lift and humanitarian relief. I remember seeing a graphic of her under deck vehicle and ammo storage and I think it was a pretty decent size considering sea lift is a secondary mission. In times of disaster response the cargo deck could be used for hospital duties. I understand a true hospital ship would have more specialized equipment however it would be better than nothing. Maybe removable mission kits could be developed to give her OR, lab and diagnostic imaging capabilities. Surly the government could get support for those mods, They could spin it as a humanitarian ship and use it to resupply Nanisivik, RAS, and sea lift most of the time.



Not going to be an option based on the Government's response to the PBO: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/11/statement-by-the-department-of-national-defence-on-the-parliamentary-budget-officers-report-on-the-joint-support-ships.html



> The proposed life expectancy of MV Asterix of 40 years from the time of its conversion is unlikely to be realized without significant investments. The operational and maintenance costs that would be required to keep MV Asterix operating would not represent value for money.



My secret hope is that this new found respect for "value for money" permeates to all defense procurements in that we're wasting millions of dollars every year keeping 40 year old ships, aircraft and trucks on the roads with expensive parts and thousands of maintenance hours.


----------



## Dana381

CloudCover said:
			
		

> When you guys talk about having a ship and crew in reserve, are you suggesting the ship on standby and a crew on standby or do you mean assign the ship to the naval reserve and crew it with reservists?



I can only speak for myself but I was referring to a reserve force staffing the ship and operating it similar to the way the Kingston class are operated


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> My secret hope is that this new found respect for "value for money" permeates to all defense procurements in that we're wasting millions of dollars every year keeping 40 year old ships, aircraft and trucks on the roads with expensive parts and thousands of maintenance hours.



Plus if we have a National Ship Building program working properly, they would be pumping new ships out on a regular basis and we could sell our older ships to allies as they have not been totally run into the ground.


----------



## Underway

Dana381 said:
			
		

> I can only speak for myself but I was referring to a reserve force staffing the ship and operating it similar to the way the Kingston class are operated



Kinston class are now Reg F ships.  All ships have positions available for reservists (approx 10%).  That Reserve ship model was proven to be unsustainable and frankly most of those reservists crewing those ships were Reg F in all but name.


----------



## YZT580

My thoughts were in reserve, tied up and properly maintained with a qualified maintenance crew on board to ensure a reasonable response time: could easily be civilians as the vessels could be maintained as part of a federal fleet and brought out whenever one of the  AORs is needing work or in the event of a civilian emergency.  Pay for them partially out of the foreign affairs budget by allocating X number of days per year: creative bookkeeping 101.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

When the contract for the two Berlin-class were signed, does the contracting body as a rule negotiate guaranteed option pricing for follow-up vessels?  

It would seem wise so if need is identified you don't have to RFP the whole thing all over again.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I’m starting to think that no matter what, the RCN is going to be in need of some sort of enhanced civilian augmentation alongside and at sea in certain ships, far beyond what we have now.  There appears to be diminishing numbers of young people who are willing to make the sacrifices required to serve in the RCN full time or in the reserves. 
Specifically the living accommodations, lifestyle and treatment do not align with the evolving requirements of younger generations for privacy, space, lifestyle and work life balance. And good for them, BTW. 
Like it or not the RCN is going to have to evolve its fleet staffing arrangements and perhaps plan on fewer combat ships due to fewer available personnel. On the other hand a career with a unionized operator could be more attractive. No matter what, that future is expensive but with civilians the RCN does not have to offer a lifetime career- just a pay cheque. 
This brings me back to the support ships- do they need to be RCN assets or belong to another organization. Does every AOPs billet need to be RCN, is there a role for another category of sailor.


----------



## FJAG

CloudCover said:
			
		

> I’m starting to think that no matter what, the RCN is going to be in need of some sort of enhanced civilian augmentation alongside and at sea in certain ships, far beyond what we have now.  There appears to be diminishing numbers of young people who are willing to make the sacrifices required to serve in the RCN full time or in the reserves.
> Specifically the living accommodations, lifestyle and treatment do not align with the evolving requirements of younger generations for privacy, space, lifestyle and work life balance. And good for them, BTW.
> Like it or not the RCN is going to have to evolve its fleet staffing arrangements and perhaps plan on fewer combat ships due to fewer available personnel. On the other hand a career with a unionized operator could be more attractive. No matter what, that future is expensive but with civilians the RCN does not have to offer a lifetime career- just a pay cheque.
> This brings me back to the support ships- do they need to be RCN assets or belong to another organization. Does every AOPs billet need to be RCN, is there a role for another category of sailor.



Obviously not a sailor and have never really understood the career cycles involved but I have a hard time understanding how turning to civilians to fill certain billets when young people in general have issues with privacy, space, lifestyle and work life balance. I can only see that becoming more expensive and result in even higher turnover considering those folks too will need the training and get the same sea time with the same conditions.

I expect like the Army that the Navy cycles through a ship deployed on operations for x-months, another back home working up with their ship conducting exercises and otherwise preparing to deploy while a third ship and it's crew is in a maintenance and reconstitute cycle. Assuming that I'm correct with that then the manning issues aren't very different from the Army's and the issue is having a robust enough recruiting and training system with an adequate BTL and ATL to keep feeding the cycling ships with enough people to overcome attrition.

Wouldn't adding civilians into the mix complicate an already tough manning challenge not to mention raise the issue of their availability in time of hostile actions?

 :cheers:


----------



## Uzlu

How much credibility does Dave Perry have?





> Still, defence analyst Dave Perry, who has followed the program for a decade, wonders about value for money.
> 
> "What is the precise value of that [roughly] $3 billion difference?" he said, adding that DND's argument that the ships must be ready for war zones is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> He said history has shown that when the shooting starts, resupply ships are ordered out of the area "because they are floating gas cans."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-armed-forces-supply-ships-giroux-1.5805407


----------



## Good2Golf

Uzlu said:
			
		

> How much credibility does Dave Perry have?https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-armed-forces-supply-ships-giroux-1.5805407



He’s very well-regarded pretty much universally. His work and research is solid. He is likely one of the most knowledgable ‘outsiders’ (non-DND/GoC) when it comes to Canadian defence procurement.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> How much credibility does Dave Perry have?https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-armed-forces-supply-ships-giroux-1.5805407



The capability difference between say the Asterix and JSS is staggering.  Is it worth the cost?  Well that's a valid question to ask.  But it's missing the whole story.

If you can order something valuable out of the operational area you will.  Why take the risk?  But we aren't planning for Gulf War 3.0 (or is that 2.5).  We're planning for great power competition.  In that case, the safest place for JSS to be is under the defensive air envelope of the CSC SM2's.  And behind the screen of Cyclones looking for subs.

And the RCN logic that followed was since we have so few ships, add an OPS capability to the ship, with a proper comms suite, damage control, helicopter operations and 3D radar to detect and track threats.  And then have it Link that info out.  And have it be able to take command staff as well, because the ship is huge and in the center of the task group.  

Then the Gov't looks and says here is an opportunity to build Canadian industry, so they select a barge and tug company to build a 20,000 ton warship.  So what is the project actually paying for?  The ship?  Industry building? Capability?  

So the cost difference isn't just the capability difference.  It's the industrial difference as well.  That needs to be in the calculation.  The question should be "Is this cost worth the capability improvement in the ship and the industrial improvements?".


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That tug and barge company is part of a huge international company that includes container ships among others bits and the yard built a solid rep for ship repairs on the international market. As for crewing, the Coast Guard and the coastal fleet out here struggle to find crews and before covid hit, it was easy to walk from one job to another.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> That tug and barge company is part of a huge international company that includes container ships among others bits and the yard built a solid rep for ship repairs on the international market. As for crewing, the Coast Guard and the coastal fleet out here struggle to find crews and before covid hit, it was easy to walk from one job to another.



That tug and barge company was a tug and barge company. Where or how big their owner is has nothing to do with their day to day operations or in house expertise. It has nothing to do with any growing pains or learning curve they have to endure with their team and facilities or learning to work with the government, or on how to build a warship with no experience.  They are on their own.  Like most companies structured this way.


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:
			
		

> So the cost difference isn't just the capability difference.  It's the industrial difference as well.  That needs to be in the calculation.  The question should be "Is this cost worth the capability improvement in the ship and the industrial improvements?"


I agree that the boost to Canada's shipbuilding industry is very important.  But what was in the statement by the Department of National Defence on the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the Joint Support Ships?  It was mostly about how much more capable the _Protecteur_s are compared to MV _Asterix_ and how it was an unfair comparison of costs.  That statement should have also emphasized the importance of building up Canada's shipbuilding industry by providing many concrete examples.  The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is going to really milk this for all it's worth.


----------



## Uzlu

> Davie ship part of Navy's long-term plan to prevent 'capability gap': Documents
> 
> OTTAWA — The Royal Canadian Navy plans to continue relying on a converted civilian container ship owned by a Quebec shipyard for supplies at sea even after two new support vessels are built.
> 
> The revelation is in new documents obtained by The Canadian Press through the access-to-information law as the federal Liberal government is facing pressure to buy the MV Asterix from Chantier Davie.
> 
> The Liberals have been resisting such calls and are instead in the midst of a five-year, $700-million leasing arrangement with Davie for the Asterix, with an option to extend the deal for another five years.
> 
> Yet the documents suggest the ship is part of the navy's plan to ensure it has enough support ships to prevent a "capability gap" over the long term, such as when one of the two new joint support ships being built in Vancouver is out of commission.
> 
> The federal government originally planned to buy three new joint support ships for the navy when it launched the project more than a decade ago, before cost overruns saw the order cut down to two.
> 
> Navy officials have previously indicated that two joint support ships alone are not enough to meet the maritime force's long-term needs, and the parliamentary budget officer last week suggested Ottawa could buy the Asterix for $633 million.


https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/davie-ship-part-of-navy-s-long-term-plan-to-prevent-capability-gap-documents-1.24245341


----------



## Cloud Cover

But one of these ships is not like the others ...


----------



## CBH99

With the way the RCN has been driving Asterix like they stole it, I'd be surprised if she has any useful life in her after the first lease it up.  Definitely not the second.

I realize they are probably trying to get every dime of that lease worth out of her - plus showcasing to the government that replenishment ships REALLY ARE NEEDED - but man that ship has been driven hard since we got her!


----------



## Navy_Pete

CBH99 said:
			
		

> With the way the RCN has been driving Asterix like they stole it, I'd be surprised if she has any useful life in her after the first lease it up.  Definitely not the second.
> 
> I realize they are probably trying to get every dime of that lease worth out of her - plus showcasing to the government that replenishment ships REALLY ARE NEEDED - but man that ship has been driven hard since we got her!



We haven't had 3 AORs since the late 90s, and we frequently had periods where there was only one AOR of the two available (or none, before they were both paid off). It's not really a big deal, and we don't have enough of a mix of assets to operate one TG on our own, let alone two. 

It would be nice on paper, but if it means the crews never get any non-deployment time because we would have 2 crews spread between 3 ships, just makes retention worse. I think two oilers is enough for our pretty limited resources, and unless we figure out our recruitment/retention not really sure how we would keep the CSCs, AOPs and JSSs going at the same time anyway under the existing numbers of ships, let alone adding on more hulls.  :dunno:

Then again the people that want more hulls also don't like planning work periods that are long enough to actually get the planned maintenance done (let alone the major corrective maintenance required for 25 year old hulls) or doing things like load leveling the schedule so that the entire fleet isn't in a work period at the same time, so not really holding my breath. Does make coastal postings a bit less appealing though; as much as I like hands on work don't feel like volunteering to be Sisyphus.


----------



## CBH99

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> We haven't had 3 AORs since the late 90s, and we frequently had periods where there was only one AOR of the two available (or none, before they were both paid off). It's not really a big deal, and we don't have enough of a mix of assets to operate one TG on our own, let alone two.
> 
> It would be nice on paper, but if it means the crews never get any non-deployment time because we would have 2 crews spread between 3 ships, just makes retention worse. I think two oilers is enough for our pretty limited resources, and unless we figure out our recruitment/retention not really sure how we would keep the CSCs, AOPs and JSSs going at the same time anyway under the existing numbers of ships, let alone adding on more hulls.  :dunno:
> 
> Then again the people that want more hulls also don't like planning work periods that are long enough to actually get the planned maintenance done (let alone the major corrective maintenance required for 25 year old hulls) or doing things like load leveling the schedule so that the entire fleet isn't in a work period at the same time, so not really holding my breath. Does make coastal postings a bit less appealing though; as much as I like hands on work don't feel like volunteering to be Sisyphus.




I'm not a Navy type, but I do usually try to keep these points in mind.  Especially your first point, which I admit I hadn't even thought of.

You are right.  We will only deploying one TG, not two.  So as long as one vessel is available for the TG, it works.

You are also right about spreading the crews out amongst more ships, aka less home time, aka more retention issues.



Hadn't thought about any of those things.  All good points, thanks for making them


----------



## suffolkowner

CBH99 said:
			
		

> With the way the RCN has been driving Asterix like they stole it, I'd be surprised if she has any useful life in her after the first lease it up.  Definitely not the second.
> 
> I realize they are probably trying to get every dime of that lease worth out of her - plus showcasing to the government that replenishment ships REALLY ARE NEEDED - but man that ship has been driven hard since we got her!



5 more years for Asterix based on the current schedule seems like good value. 

Personally I would have Seaspan build the third ship in the class, which they originally quoted at $500M. Inflation has ballooned the shipbuilding programs costs of course so I would be curious what it would be today. 

The other problem being that the government has been unable to effectively negotiate with Seaspan and Irving and why I welcome the addition of Davie into the field so that hopefully in the next batch of shipbuilding contracts that come due, the projects can actually be bid on, instead of given away and then hoping for the vendor to hold themselves to account


----------



## CBH99

Do you mind expanding on the bit about the government being unable to negotiate with Irving or Seaspan?

Do you mean there wasn't much room to negotiate due to them being the only players when this program started?  Or are there regular difficulties between the government and shipyards?


----------



## suffolkowner

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Do you mind expanding on the bit about the government being unable to negotiate with Irving or Seaspan?
> 
> Do you mean there wasn't much room to negotiate due to them being the only players when this program started?  Or are there regular difficulties between the government and shipyards?



The first one except it's actually worse. It's not Irving and Seaspan the government is negotiating with it's only one of them. There is no competition once the yards were pre-selected. Seaspan and Irving and now Davie were given contracts to build ships without there actually being a contract or bid until after the fact. The only way to fix this is in the next batch of shipbuilding some 20 years from now if the approved shipyards bid on the actual ship contracts and a winning bid(s) selected. I've been put in this exact position in private industry and it was a disaster.


----------



## Navy_Pete

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> 5 more years for Asterix based on the current schedule seems like good value.
> 
> Personally I would have Seaspan build the third ship in the class, which they originally quoted at $500M. Inflation has ballooned the shipbuilding programs costs of course so I would be curious what it would be today.
> 
> The other problem being that the government has been unable to effectively negotiate with Seaspan and Irving and why I welcome the addition of Davie into the field so that hopefully in the next batch of shipbuilding contracts that come due, the projects can actually be bid on, instead of given away and then hoping for the vendor to hold themselves to account



The whole reason it's an NSS (and not individual projects) is that it is a strategic level project intended to result in two shipyards capable of making the combat/non-combat ships respectively though, so instead of a fixed cap for projects the idea was to partner with shipyards, give them enough work that it made sense to modernize, than build in performance expectations when they go through the negotiations for each phase of the contracts that all the projects are divided up into. At the time, there was exactly zero shipyards in Canada with the capabilities and experience to build anything.

That's the structure the three yards bid under, and Davie lost because they were a great facility but a corporate shamble at the time. They've really sorted themselves out since, but they still aren't doing a comparable level of work so it's not fair to compare their output to the NSS yards.

If Davie had to deliver Asterix as a new build under the NSS construct with all the IRBs and other requirements they also would have had to upgrade their shipyard, retool it for ship building, and not have been able to build the superstructure overseas. Also they had set ship performance requirements beforehand (vice all the other projects where the design requirements aren't fixed). Seaspan started the whole thing concurrently designing three new classes of ship while managing the builds on top of the upgrades and gaining experience. That's a big ask for even an established shipyard.

I think Davie is pretty capable and have a great facility, as well as really good PR, but it's really easy for them to sit outside the fence taking aggressive potshots when the other two yards have to coordinate their responses with the GoC. I'll withold judgement until they actually deliver something comparable, but suspect they would have run into a lot more problems if they had won the non-combat package then they ever saw with Asterix, and wouldn't be tooting their own horn for being on time or on budget (because I don't think anyone could have met those initial timelines or budgets with how the whole suite rolled out).

People get really wrapped around individual project performance and keep forgetting that wasn't the point of the NSS. We wanted to have two yards that could build ships, that takes time and means your first number of ships will take longer and cost more than if you got them built somewhere that had experience and an established supply chain. The additional icebreakers and other CCG ships that will get tacked on just weren't identified or planned at the time, otherwise the projects may have been grouped/sequenced differently.

The other big thing that gets forgotten is Canada doesn't know how to put together big projects, set up RFPs, negotiate contract terms etc for ships either. The CPF experience was gone, and there wasn't much in the CCG side either, so we were (are?) an inexperienced customer as well.

Not sure if it means we'll just get a bigger boom before a bust of two or three yards, or if this is a better approach then just running each project as a silo, but I don't think it's reasonable to dump on the projects without taking that NSS goal and context into consideration, or the context of where all the shipyards were in 2011.  :dunno:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> We haven't had 3 AORs since the late 90s, and we frequently had periods where there was only one AOR of the two available (or none, before they were both paid off). It's not really a big deal, and we don't have enough of a mix of assets to operate one TG on our own, let alone two.
> 
> It would be nice on paper, but if it means the crews never get any non-deployment time because we would have 2 crews spread between 3 ships, just makes retention worse. I think two oilers is enough for our pretty limited resources, and unless we figure out our recruitment/retention not really sure how we would keep the CSCs, AOPs and JSSs going at the same time anyway under the existing numbers of ships, let alone adding on more hulls.  :dunno:
> 
> Then again the people that want more hulls also don't like planning work periods that are long enough to actually get the planned maintenance done (let alone the major corrective maintenance required for 25 year old hulls) or doing things like load leveling the schedule so that the entire fleet isn't in a work period at the same time, so not really holding my breath. Does make coastal postings a bit less appealing though; as much as I like hands on work don't feel like volunteering to be Sisyphus.



I really think Canada is going to have to expand the Fleet Auxiliary (FA) model to look more like the RFA. Crewing is not only a DND issue, it's a Canada wide issue, in CCG, ferries, commercial shipping, Pilotage. The FA is an opportunity to provide Merchant Marine Cadets with valuable deep sea experience, the various marine schools on both coasts can feed into dedicated slots for Deck officers, Seaman and Engineers. These people will go to working deep sea ships, tugs, ferries, lakers and then become senior Engineers, Captains, Mates and finally Pilots providing a much needed resource to keep our marine economy running. 

The RCN and CCG can offer promising FA personal bonuses for jumping over into the services and the FA personal can flesh out the crews on the AOR's and perhaps even an AOP or Kingston if needed. They can even be a place to have a supplemental reserve for people who want to get out but still have lot knowledge/skills the RCN does not want to lose completely. Not to mention the Naval Reserves as well.

Some of the money for the above can also come from other non-DND Ministries (they have to be told to do so) Sort of like how SYEP was partly funded by HRDC back in the day.


----------



## FJAG

Colin P said:
			
		

> I really think Canada is going to have to expand the Fleet Auxiliary (FA) model to look more like the RFA. Crewing is not only a DND issue, it's a Canada wide issue, in CCG, ferries, commercial shipping, Pilotage. The FA is an opportunity to provide Merchant Marine Cadets with valuable deep sea experience, the various marine schools on both coasts can feed into dedicated slots for Deck officers, Seaman and Engineers. These people will go to working deep sea ships, tugs, ferries, lakers and then become senior Engineers, Captains, Mates and finally Pilots providing a much needed resource to keep our marine economy running.
> 
> The RCN and CCG can offer promising FA personal bonuses for jumping over into the services and the FA personal can flesh out the crews on the AOR's and perhaps even an AOP or Kingston if needed. They can even be a place to have a supplemental reserve for people who want to get out but still have lot knowledge/skills the RCN does not want to lose completely. Not to mention the Naval Reserves as well.
> 
> Some of the money for the above can also come from other non-DND Ministries (they have to be told to do so) Sort of like how SYEP was partly funded by HRDC back in the day.



I've argued in several places that Canada's military, unless we are planning on fighting the Americans in North America or not fighting at all, is an expeditionary force that conducts all of it's operations overseas. Notwithstanding this, while our Air Force has some transport capability, our Navy has absolutely zero and, to the best of my knowledge our plan is basically to ad hoc transport when the time comes.

IMHO, we need a plan. I don't care if we own our own ships or rent them or have a contract with a sea-going ferry company or if they are run by reservists or a Fleet Auxiliary or a hybrid crew. The big issue is that we have a plan and exercise it regularly to ensure that it works smoothly from embarkation to escorted transit to designated disembarkation ports and assembly areas. Ad hocing only works in a very permissive peacetime environment. We need to do much, much better.

 :cheers:


----------



## Pelorus

Colin P said:
			
		

> I really think Canada is going to have to expand the Fleet Auxiliary (FA) model to look more like the RFA.



I agree. Notwithstanding recruiting and retention challenges in the RCN (which as you state is an issue across the entire Canadian marine sector), I will go on a tangent here to say that I think that it would also be an avenue to address cross-licensing issues that are wasting talent among the majority of seagoing trades in the RCN.

As it stands, personnel from RCN hard sea trades are typically offered a civilian licensing equivalent well below their qualifications and experience. For example, a senior NWO (i.e. D-Level/ORO) may be offered almost nothing of value by Transport Canada as far as TC/IMO-certified tickets go (often the equivalent of writing off 3 months' worth of off-the-street private marine institute coursing) due to a lack of understanding between DND and TC as well as a lack of institutional effort to rectify the issue. Speaking to others in the RCN, the issue seems to exist across all departments to include Bos'n's and Engineers.

I have met a number of skilled and experienced sailors over the years who ultimately released from the CAF as their family commitments couldn't handle the personnel tempo demanded by the RCN, but who would have still liked to serve the country in some capacity. They would have readily accepted employment within the Canadian Coast Guard's 1:1 time on, time off model of rotating crews (which is very similar to what Asterix is running and I would expect to be somewhat in-line with any sort of RFA crewing model), but due to a complete lack of institutional support to obtain equivalent mariner certifications that would be accepted by the rest of the GoC ultimately gave up and found employment ashore where their considerable seafaring skills and experience have gone completely to ground.

Perhaps an RFA crewing model for auxiliary ships could act as an initial bridge between the two worlds? Assuming that DND was able to influence hiring of the initial RFA crews, could they mandate a hiring pool which accepted a mix of both IMO-certified civilian mariners as well as RCN-certified ex-naval personnel?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CCG fleet is built around ensuring the "Fellowship of the ring" (CCG college) have a job  ;D
If it's any consolation, when CCG wanted to move a ship from the West coast to the East coast, they realized they no longer had anyone with the correct ticket, they were all college grads and their ticket was worthless outside of Canadian coastal waters, so had to have a civy skipper take them around. TC finally fixed that. TC Marine Safety is not exactly a progressive bunch, they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table and have grownup stare down at them to ensure they work with DND. DND, needs to sit down and write out in simple language how their qualifications matches equivalent Marine Safety requirements. Likely part of the problem is a "translation" issue and "burning issue" Having a clear path to civy tickets, makes RCN more attractive and it needs to work the other way. Making a guy with a 3000 GT ticket start from square one is not good either.


----------



## FSTO

FJAG said:
			
		

> I've argued in several places that Canada's military, unless we are planning on fighting the Americans in North America or not fighting at all, is an expeditionary force that conducts all of it's operations overseas. Notwithstanding this, while our Air Force has some transport capability, our Navy has absolutely zero and, to the best of my knowledge our plan is basically to ad hoc transport when the time comes.
> 
> IMHO, we need a plan. I don't care if we own our own ships or rent them or have a contract with a sea-going ferry company or if they are run by reservists or a Fleet Auxiliary or a hybrid crew. The big issue is that we have a plan and exercise it regularly to ensure that it works smoothly from embarkation to escorted transit to designated disembarkation ports and assembly areas. *Ad hocing only works in a very permissive peacetime environment. We need to do much, much better.
> *
> :cheers:



This sounds like our National Covid 19 response.


----------



## Underway

FJAG said:
			
		

> I've argued in several places that Canada's military, unless we are planning on fighting the Americans in North America or not fighting at all, is an expeditionary force that conducts all of it's operations overseas. Notwithstanding this, while our Air Force has some transport capability, our Navy has absolutely zero and, to the best of my knowledge our plan is basically to ad hoc transport when the time comes.



There is a plan.  It is and has been since GTS Katie to deploy everything by air (with follow on stuff shipped by sea traditional ways).  There is literally no situation outside of North America where Canada has a live or die must send troops geopolitical interest.  Therefore we will never have a proper expeditionary force because any conflict we get involved in outside of NA is a choice, not a requirement for the survival of the state.  This is why the military fights for every dollar in Canada.  There is no threat.  Everything we need for these choices can be deployed by air for the small/token forces we prefer to use to help allies out or to live up to treaty requirements.

Given this, I would double down on air deployable.  C17's and the like are extremely useful all the time and much more value for money than a naval expeditionary ship.  They can reach everywhere in Canada and improve the army's strategic mobility domestically as well as internationally.  

All this refers however only to the army/airforce.  The navy is expeditionary by nature, and AOR's improve that capability by orders of magnitute.


----------



## FJAG

Underway said:
			
		

> ...  There is literally no situation outside of North America where Canada has a live or die must send troops geopolitical interest. Therefore we will never have a proper expeditionary force because any conflict we get involved in outside of NA is a choice, not a requirement for the survival of the state.  This is why the military fights for every dollar in Canada.  There is no threat.  ...



Everything is a choice until it isn't anymore. There is no "live or die" situation, until there is one.

Strong, Secure, Engaged at p. 50 seems to think that there is a threat:



> The re-emergence of major power competition has reminded Canada and its allies of the importance of deterrence. At its core, deterrence is about discouraging a potential adversary from doing something harmful before they do it. A credible military deterrent serves as a diplomatic tool to help prevent conflict and should be accompanied by dialogue. NATO Allies and other like-minded states have been re-examining how to deter a wide spectrum of challenges to the international order by maintaining advanced conventional military capabilities that could be used in the event of a conflict with a “near-peer.”



How much of a deterrent is the Canadian Forces if it's opponents know it to be incapable of responding to major threats and only capable of responding on minor missions if there is time for a long, drawn out deployment?

It's very true that we only deploy when Canada chooses to deploy. But how much of a choice is it for our government when we have built a force structure that does not give it a capability to deploy if and when needed? Absolutely none. The CAF is supposed to be the insurance policy the country can rely on in extreme emergencies. Otherwise why spend tens of billions every year on it? If "[t]here is literally no situation outside of North America where Canada has a live or die must send troops geopolitical interest" then why don't we simply pack the whole thing in for a better coast guard and a cyber security defence and save ten to fifteen billion a year?

The GTS Katie should not be a lesson that leads to the conclusion that we need to deploy everything by air. The lesson is that Canada's Navy needs an expeditionary sea transport capability with it's own crews that are subject to the CSD. That capability also comes with a need for regular exercises even if only moving 5 CMBG from Quebec City to Halifax by sea for a subsequent road move for an exercise in Gagetown. 

Sorry. What we have is not a plan, its an excuse. Lets face it; the CAF is a bureaucracy that continues to set low goals for itself because that is all that it is capable of meeting.

 :brickwall:


----------



## Dale Denton

FJAG said:
			
		

> It's very true that we only deploy when Canada chooses to deploy. But how much of a choice is it for our government when we have built a force structure that does not give it a capability to deploy if and when needed? Absolutely none. The CAF is supposed to be the insurance policy the country can rely on in extreme emergencies. Otherwise why spend tens of billions every year on it? If "[t]here is literally no situation outside of North America where Canada has a live or die must send troops geopolitical interest" then why don't we simply pack the whole thing in for a better coast guard and a cyber security defence and save ten to fifteen billion a year?
> 
> Sorry. What we have is not a plan, its an excuse. Lets face it; the CAF is a bureaucracy that continues to set low goals for itself because that is all that it is capable of meeting.
> 
> :brickwall:



I agree with FJAG completely. CF should be able to provide more varied options for gov't in order to maintain its relevancy as well. The UK has recently fundamentally changed the way the Royal Marines operate, with forward-placed groups and 2 nearly-dedicated Amphib ships to provide a fast response to emergent threats. The thought behind it should be the same (while being executed differently with different assets) for us. If we had a LPD or LHA type, the benefit of having a joint rapid response group to respond to natural disaster (or even conflict) would far outweigh the costs. 

You gotta sell the organisation to the gov't of the day as worth the cost. If something happens and a new gov't down the line wants to respond with the CF, but we can only respond with "it would take us 3 weeks to get the equipment to [Caribbean/Pacific] for the disaster, we'd have to lease a commercial ship at exorbitant cost, and make a million C-17 trips" only begs the response "why are we spending $15B on something that can't do what it should?". You'd heavily defund the local fire dept if they strictly responded to house fires and nothing else. The more agile, versatile and specialized a dept is the more important it becomes.

Have HII design a Canadian San Antonio derivative (already being done LPD-29/San Antonio Flight II), build it here after the JSS/AOR. Make a Canadian "2RAR Amphib" and train it with RM, 2RAR, Korps Mariniers, USMC, etc... Turn the CAF into a USMC/RM type expeditionary organisation. Role in the Naval Reserve as small boat drivers and give some stone frigate units a CB-90 to drive that new Amphib/Riverine capability from the LPD/LDH to the beach. Now we can be one of the first to be on the news somewhere doing HADR in a big way.


----------



## Halifax Tar

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> I agree with FJAG completely. CF should be able to provide more varied options for gov't in order to maintain its relevancy as well. The UK has recently fundamentally changed the way the Royal Marines operate, with forward-placed groups and 2 nearly-dedicated Amphib ships to provide a fast response to emergent threats. The thought behind it should be the same (while being executed differently with different assets) for us. If we had a LPD or LHA type, the benefit of having a joint rapid response group to respond to natural disaster (or even conflict) would far outweigh the costs.
> 
> You gotta sell the organisation to the gov't of the day as worth the cost. If something happens and a new gov't down the line wants to respond with the CF, but we can only respond with "it would take us 3 weeks to get the equipment to [Caribbean/Pacific] for the disaster, we'd have to lease a commercial ship at exorbitant cost, and make a million C-17 trips" only begs the response "why are we spending $15B on something that can't do what it should?". You'd heavily defund the local fire dept if they strictly responded to house fires and nothing else. The more agile, versatile and specialized a dept is the more important it becomes.
> 
> Have HII design a Canadian San Antonio derivative (already being done LPD-29/San Antonio Flight II), build it here after the JSS/AOR. Make a Canadian "2RAR Amphib" and train it with RM, 2RAR, Korps Mariniers, USMC, etc... Turn the CAF into a USMC/RM type expeditionary organisation. Role in the Naval Reserve as small boat drivers and give some stone frigate units a CB-90 to drive that new Amphib/Riverine capability from the LPD/LDH to the beach. Now we can be one of the first to be on the news somewhere doing HADR in a big way.



Wasnt that one of the goals of uninfication ?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Halifax Tar: the government creates its own options. No explicit instructions have been given to the CAF to really do any of that. And I think the RCN would oppose it as there is no pressing need unless the government creates that too. If BBQAnon invade and take over Toronto Island then perhaps that might rapidly change.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The various branches and cabals within the forces will oppose any change to the status quo. The Van doos have already practiced some amphibious operations from a French Mistral, so our forces can certainly do it. I would happily give up a couple AOP's and one of the planned CSC for two amphibious landing ships which are ice strengthened. This allows them to support northern ops and huge variety of ops around the world. Frankly I am astounded that the Liberals don't understand the political capital they could milk from an extra AOR and a amphibious landing ship. Domestically there are jobs involved. An AOR can support various Allied efforts and exercises without any political risks. A amphip ship has huge "Canada helping the world" potentiel. They are certainly more attractive to their mindset then Fighter jets, subs and CSC.


----------



## suffolkowner

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The whole reason it's an NSS (and not individual projects) is that it is a strategic level project intended to result in two shipyards capable of making the combat/non-combat ships respectively though, so instead of a fixed cap for projects the idea was to partner with shipyards, give them enough work that it made sense to modernize, than build in performance expectations when they go through the negotiations for each phase of the contracts that all the projects are divided up into. At the time, there was exactly zero shipyards in Canada with the capabilities and experience to build anything.
> 
> That's the structure the three yards bid under, and Davie lost because they were a great facility but a corporate shamble at the time. They've really sorted themselves out since, but they still aren't doing a comparable level of work so it's not fair to compare their output to the NSS yards.
> 
> If Davie had to deliver Asterix as a new build under the NSS construct with all the IRBs and other requirements they also would have had to upgrade their shipyard, retool it for ship building, and not have been able to build the superstructure overseas. Also they had set ship performance requirements beforehand (vice all the other projects where the design requirements aren't fixed). Seaspan started the whole thing concurrently designing three new classes of ship while managing the builds on top of the upgrades and gaining experience. That's a big ask for even an established shipyard.
> 
> I think Davie is pretty capable and have a great facility, as well as really good PR, but it's really easy for them to sit outside the fence taking aggressive potshots when the other two yards have to coordinate their responses with the GoC. I'll withold judgement until they actually deliver something comparable, but suspect they would have run into a lot more problems if they had won the non-combat package then they ever saw with Asterix, and wouldn't be tooting their own horn for being on time or on budget (because I don't think anyone could have met those initial timelines or budgets with how the whole suite rolled out).
> 
> People get really wrapped around individual project performance and keep forgetting that wasn't the point of the NSS. We wanted to have two yards that could build ships, that takes time and means your first number of ships will take longer and cost more than if you got them built somewhere that had experience and an established supply chain. The additional icebreakers and other CCG ships that will get tacked on just weren't identified or planned at the time, otherwise the projects may have been grouped/sequenced differently.
> 
> The other big thing that gets forgotten is Canada doesn't know how to put together big projects, set up RFPs, negotiate contract terms etc for ships either. The CPF experience was gone, and there wasn't much in the CCG side either, so we were (are?) an inexperienced customer as well.
> 
> Not sure if it means we'll just get a bigger boom before a bust of two or three yards, or if this is a better approach then just running each project as a silo, but I don't think it's reasonable to dump on the projects without taking that NSS goal and context into consideration, or the context of where all the shipyards were in 2011.  :dunno:



Thanks Navy Pete, I don't disagree with much of what you've said but to there has to be an end date to the babysitting/subsidizing of the yards at some point. Right now Seaspan and Irving have 20 yrs booked and now we have added probably a good 10 years for Davie with the icebreakers. I think there were a lot of assumptions by people like Ian Mack about the behaviour of Seaspan and Irving that might have been naive (something he has commented on as well). In the end for this to work there will need to be a continued commitment to ongoing shipbuilding from the government, but for that to happen I think that we are going need the individual projects to be competively tendered at some point. If Seaspan, Irving, Davie and the government aren't capable of that by say 2030, then I would judge the NSS a failure and question its long term survivability no matter how many ships are delivered in the short term.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Had the NSS been invoked some 20 years ago, things would be much different, by the time it got done, both the RCN and CCG were in crisis mode as far as ship failures go and with more rust out looming.


----------



## FJAG

Semi kidding here but if we built a couple of ROROs we could always rent them out when we're not using them and earn some income for the Navy.

 ;D


----------



## Underway

FJAG said:
			
		

> Everything is a choice until it isn't anymore. There is no "live or die" situation, until there is one.



Point to one. Give me one non-continental live or die geopolitical critical situation for Canada's survival. Our continental security is guaranteed by the US.  Europe could burn, Asia could fall to warlordism again and the worst we would deal with would be a semi crappy economy and a refuge problem. There is nowhere we have to be militarily, but here, on our island continent. We choose to go other places and fight in other people's wars. Even WW2 was a European problem.  We could have pulled a US and stayed out of it until we were pulled in.

We always have the option of staying home.  Whereas most countries don't have that option.  They have to stand on borders or protect trade routes far from home.  And as such unlike the US, the Australians, the French or the British we don't _need_ to have a marine expeditionary capability.  It's a nice to have, not a need to have.  And so the government understands this, and most Canadians have no geopolitics muscle to think about these things.  Because we live in the most secure and most safe place in the world.  

Would I like to have an marine expeditionary force.  Hell yes.  Gives us options and more choices.  But we'll never have one.


----------



## YZT580

I would suggest that the Germans proved that we DO need a navy.  There was enough sub activity in the Gulf of St. Lawrence to certainly justify maintaining a fleet to protect our ability to ship goods out of country and it is definitely better to take the battle into the enemy's waters rather than limit your efforts to defending your own.  There is certainly an argument to be made that if we hadn't gone into the war with Great Britain we wouldn't have had to worry about subs in the Gulf.  However unless we wanted to limit our industry to this continent only, our ships would have needed protection as soon as they left sight of Cape Breton so escort vessels would also have been needed.  Hiding behind the skirts of the US is fine up until the moment that they are too busy to pay attention and at that moment, it is too late to build up our own capacity.  Witness Trudeau's statement that we are as a county incapable of producing our own vaccine.  Therefore we will have to wait in line along with Zambia, Venezuela and Lower Slobovia to receive the necessary doses.  Some of us will therefore die unnecessarily.  Not having a navy means that potentially, in the future, some of us will die unnecessarily.  IMHO


----------



## FJAG

Underway said:
			
		

> Point to one. Give me one non-continental live or die geopolitical critical situation for Canada's survival. Our continental security is guaranteed by the US.  Europe could burn, Asia could fall to warlordism again and the worst we would deal with would be a semi crappy economy and a refuge problem. There is nowhere we have to be militarily, but here, on our island continent. We choose to go other places and fight in other people's wars. Even WW2 was a European problem.  We could have pulled a US and stayed out of it until we were pulled in.
> 
> We always have the option of staying home.  Whereas most countries don't have that option.  They have to stand on borders or protect trade routes far from home.  And as such unlike the US, the Australians, the French or the British we don't _need_ to have a marine expeditionary capability.  It's a nice to have, not a need to have.  And so the government understands this, and most Canadians have no geopolitics muscle to think about these things.  Because we live in the most secure and most safe place in the world.
> 
> Would I like to have an marine expeditionary force.  Hell yes.  Gives us options and more choices.  But we'll never have one.



NATO Article 5 on collective defence says we are automatically involved although the level of such participation is up to us. It's why we went to Afghanistan which had significantly less importance to our national interest than Europe has. Not showing up has consequences as our young friend Trudeau is learning in his recent attempt to capture a seat on the UN Security Council. More importantly are trade arrangements and the like. Article 5 makes aggression in Europe "our" war, not "other peoples". 

More importantly is the fact that we want to deter active conflict. I'm a firm believer in the following:



> The gold standard of deterrence and assurance is a defensive posture that confronts the adversary with the prospect of operational failure as the likely consequence of aggression - David Ochmaneck



I expect that currently we are a line item far down on the Russian military's opfor order of battle as a Bn Hq and a single rifle company which will not be able to be reinforced, replaced or even have it's battle casualties replaced. We currently provide zero deterrence which is a very, very low defence output for some 20 plus billion dollars per year.

I'm not sure why you say that "unlike the US, the Australians, ... or the British we don't _need_ to have a marine expeditionary capability". All three of those countries, like Canada, are secure behind a watery moat. All three of them could cut themselves off from participating in the world's woes and go their own way as you suggest we do. Further, WW2 was not merely a "Europe" problem. It grew into a Middle East, and pan-Asia problem as well, and--like dominos--effected everyone. WW2 taught America, Australia, the UK and us that events may require us to take the option to be involved offshore and that this requires the capability to get to the fight (The US ended up building three cargo ships every two days to supply it's force). 

We've forgotten that lesson, or even worse, we've deliberately taken that options off the table for our Government. We usually cloak our negligence in saying that we just don't have the money for such "esoteric" capabilities. Personally, I think that is rationalization as we seem to be able to afford a national headquarters which contains some 20% of our full-time personnel pushing paper around from cubicle to cubicle. DND has as more people working in Ottawa than it's three full-time mechanized brigades.

Just to be sure we do not misunderstand each other, I'm not advocating for a "marine expeditionary capability" in the manner of a marine corps or an amphibious assault ship capability. That we don't need although it could help us deal with incursions on our coastlines. I'm simply referring to one or two Navy owned and operated RORO transport ship capable of carrying heavy Army equipment and containers and the like to foreign ports both to deploy and sustain a heavy force complemented with a system of joint plans and exercises to ensure that if and when required the system will function well.

The cost for this is relatively low (The capital cost for a commercial RORO capable of lifting a battalion's worth of personnel and vehicles comes in around $100 million - although I'm sure a Canadian shipyard could discount that to $300 million  ;D). The ships could truly be operated by reserve force crews and need only be active for a few months a year. They would, however, be a major force multiplier as it would actually give us the ability to transport and sustain up to three brigades into whatever incident that we want to be or must be involved in. We suddenly become a credible deterrent force.

 :cheers:


----------



## Underway

FJAG said:
			
		

> NATO Article 5 on collective defence says we are automatically involved although the level of such participation is up to us. It's why we went to Afghanistan which had significantly less importance to our national interest than Europe has. Not showing up has consequences as our young friend Trudeau is learning in his recent attempt to capture a seat on the UN Security Council. More importantly are trade arrangements and the like. Article 5 makes aggression in Europe "our" war, not "other peoples".



Treaty obligations are not a geopolitical necessity.  It's still not our war.  It's their war, which we as good allies choose to help in. I'm not trying to play semantics, it's a philosophical divergence.




			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why you say that "unlike the US, the Australians, ... or the British we don't _need_ to have a marine expeditionary capability". All three of those countries, like Canada, are secure behind a watery moat. All three of them could cut themselves off from participating in the world's woes and go their own way as you suggest we do.



All three of those countries have (or have had) national territory far from their home land mass. US with the Philippines, Australia multiple places in the South Pacific and the UK multiple places around the world.  Both Australia and the UK are absolutely dependant on the flow of resources from the ocean.  Without their ability to intervene both near and far to their home islands they would suffer enormously (aka starvation in the UK, economic collapse in Australia). Also Australia has been directly attacked and their territory violated by a northern Asian enemy.  Australia has experienced in their history a direct threat to itself both territorial and against their people.  They need to be able to intervene in their neighbourhood in order to protect Australia.

The US's national security requirements were globe-spanning.  They saw threats to themselves everywhere and thus require an expeditionary capability to keep the threats far from home.  The now that the Cold War inertia is over you're going to see a period of US retrenchment and a return to semi-isolationism.  But until recently the US had strategic interests in freedom of the seas to ensure their own security.  And that requires a water based heavy lift capability.

Canada has no such restrictions or requirements.  North America can, if it had to, could be completely self-sufficient.  And Canada is neither a threat nor in a strategic location (currently... global warming gets a vote here).



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> Just to be sure we do not misunderstand each other, I'm not advocating for a "marine expeditionary capability" in the manner of a marine corps or an amphibious assault ship capability. That we don't need although it could help us deal with incursions on our coastlines. I'm simply referring to one or two Navy owned and operated RORO transport ship capable of carrying heavy Army equipment and containers and the like to foreign ports both to deploy and sustain a heavy force complemented with a system of joint plans and exercises to ensure that if and when required the system will function well.
> 
> The cost for this is relatively low (The capital cost for a commercial RORO capable of lifting a battalion's worth of personnel and vehicles comes in around $100 million - although I'm sure a Canadian shipyard could discount that to $300 million  ;D). The ships could truly be operated by reserve force crews and need only be active for a few months a year. They would, however, be a major force multiplier as it would actually give us the ability to transport and sustain up to three brigades into whatever incident that we want to be or must be involved in. We suddenly become a credible deterrent force.



That's on me.  I used the shortand of marine expeditionary vs air expeditionary so any confusion is born by my choice of words.  I was trying to draw a distinction between air deployable and sea deployable and unintentionally muddied the waters.

My premise was that air deployable is better, more useful domestically and more value for money.  Until Canada extends our interests far from our shores (I'm looking at you potential annex target Turks and Cacos) to a place where we will need to operate independent of allies air deployable is best.

:cheers:


----------



## FJAG

We'll simply have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I'll just leave one final thought here on air deployment.

General Shinseki of the US Army developed the Stryker brigade combat teams (SBCT - essentially similar to our CMBGs) back at the turn of the century because the air transportable infantry brigade combat teams (IBCTs) were too weak and vulnerable once deployed and the heavy armoured brigade combat teams (ABCTs) were too heavy to deploy rapidly. The SBCT was to be light enough to deploy by air and yet robust enough to hold their own once deployed.

The principle aim of the SBCT was to be able to deploy one from the continental United States to anywhere in the world using the US Air Force's transport resources within 96 hours. There was also a provision for the follow on forces. There were numerous studies conducted at the time, most notably a  GAO one and a Rand one which clearly indicated that notwithstanding the use of all the US Air Force's vast transport capabilities, such an objective could simply not be achieved especially when one took into account the number of vehicles and personnel to be transported, the number of aircraft and crew available the transit and turnaround time involved in each sortie and the need to incorporate lift required to sustain the force.

I know that the rate of deployment is not an issue for the CAF which measures activities in months rather than days, however, the limited capacity of our 8 Wing's three CC-177, CC-130J and CC-150 squadrons to deploy and sustain any sized mechanized force severely limits our options. Both the RCAF and Navy continue to focus their attention on their principle weapons systems (fighter jets and surface combatants) rather than the tools needed to get the Army deployed and supported. Would we ever have gotten the CC-177 or the CC-130J if we hadn't been stressed out supporting our land operations in Afghanistan? How many decades did the AOR replacement cool it's heels until disaster finally forced it out of hibernation?

In the words of LGen (ret'd) Belzile:



> ... Another way of putting this is that no planning is being done for a major war. This is shortsighted in the extreme. A military that thinks in terms of turning itself into a great host in a crisis is very different from one that is small, thinks small, and plans for very little.The Canadian Forces needs a plan



 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover

Good article on the cost of a gator navy - and in a sideways manner explains I think how we can all see or at least envisage that our Canadian procurement and design processes would almost certainly fuck this up and deliver probably next to nothing useful to the army or the navy for that matter. 

http://cimsec.org/cost-and-survivability-acquiring-the-gator-navy/39784

We also don’t have the fleet train or spare escorts for such a ship to arrive on station and  then land and support forces ashore. Even if they are not amphibious assault forces but landing at a pier unopposed (initially).  

The estimate is that it takes 19 ships to transport and land a single MEB. I gather that an MEB is probably greater in strength than the entire Canadian army or close to it. 
It’s not as simple as buying a Mistral or an LPD- Have to sustain and support the forces in theatre.  Right now I suspect somebody else, at great cost, is doing this for our small Latvian deployment.


----------



## Spencer100

The CAF reason for being can be boiled down to one thing....The defense against "Help" 

After that there is SAR, civil help etc. but I see that the government main reason is if we don't do the very bare minimum the US will.  This is especially true with NORAD.  The whole mission screams the defence against "help"  If we did not put the minimum effort in the Americans would.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> The CAF reason for being can be boiled down to one thing....The defense against "Help"
> 
> After that there is SAR, civil help etc. but I see that the government main reason is if we don't do the very bare minimum the US will.  This is especially true with NORAD.  The whole mission screams the defence against "help"  If we did not put the minimum effort in the Americans would.



Indeed. In Canada there appears to be little serious political or media concern over our strategic outlook, what with the only major direct threats to North America–other than ICBMs/SLBMs–being related to NORAD in terms of Russian cruise missiles from bombers and from subs in the North Atlantic. That lack of concern is in fact not indefensible given our immediate defence and political realities but it does put us very much in the position of being essentially a defence free rider trying to get away with a bare necessary minimum.

Our security remains very much an important, direct interest of the Americans for the simple reason of geography. And keep in mind that if they finally get fed up with our free riding--if we do not do enough to “defend against help”--they may demand access to air and naval bases in Canada in order to defend themselves. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

Well guys it seems pretty clear that Canada *could* get by without standing military forces at all and simply add a medium weight constabulary to patrol the seas and hand SAR to CHC. That’s not what a responsible G7 country and founding NATO member would do, but it could be the officially stated policy instead of the stealthy outcome we are on course for, SSE notwithstanding.


----------



## FJAG

It keeps boiling down to this: national defence should meet multiple roles which can be conveniently broken down into 1) meeting immediate and ongoing peacetime defence missions and needs; 2) providing a credible deterrent to make potential opponents think twice about any acts of hostility against us; and 3) have a "break glass in case of emergency" capability to be able to quickly ramp up our defence forces in case deterrence fails to work.

Defence spending as well can be conveniently broken down into three categories as follows: 1) capital cost for acquiring new equipment; 2) personnel costs; and 3) costs for operations and maintenance of the force.

While I fully agree that the funding of the national defence forces is a discretionary political decision, one must never forget that the request for such funding, and, just as importantly, the rationale behind such funding is very much part of the internal decision making process and the advice which is provided to the political leadership by the civilian and military bureaucracy. Similarly, the strategic outlook that the political leadership adopts is based on the intelligence and evaluations provided by, in large part, that same bureaucracy.

My own feeling is that our current lack of operational defence outputs and capability gaps and our inability to properly grow a proper defence capability from the reserves in the case of an emergency is because for several decades our own bureaucracy has skewed defence spending in favour of too many full-time personnel (with by far too many of those eaten up by the central administrative headquarters) and thereby reducing available funding for operations and maintenance and equipment. 

The result is that while we have a modest capability to meet our current peacetime defence needs, we have very little credibility as a deterrent force and have virtually no capability to ramp up the force in the event of an emergency.

That has to change and, if our political leadership has no interest for a proper strategic outlook, then that change has to come from within DND/CAF. After all, the military leadership has both the responsibility and authority to properly assess and plan for our country's defence requirements. The country already gives DND $23.4 billion. Let's stop spending over half of it on full-time personnel.

 :cheers:


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just throwing out something I hope I haven't missed in previous pages....

What about mimicking the Private Finance Initiative that the UK is using with their Point-Class Ro-Ro's.

They have six owned and operated by a private cargo company with a contract to be able to buy access within fixed windows incase of national need.

Their model is based on 6 ships of which 4 are currently dedicated to the MOD and the other 2 are recallable with 20 and 30 days respectively.

As Canada does not have the same overseas commitments as the UK, we likely could build our own alternative.

Hypothetical Option:
1. In concert with a Canadian Private Cargo Company, spec out what is both commercially viable to operate and useful to the CAF in case of national emergency.
2. RFQ for minimum of four ships to be built sequentially in same yard to our newly equipped Canadian ship builders (building a long term strategic pipeline of construction, rather than our typical boom & bust methodology).  Of note, ships could either be new builds or retrofits of existing ships (like the Asterix) to ensure cost competitiveness.
3.  All four ships to start on civilian contracts with two based in Vancouver and two in Halifax, to limit DND expenses during non-emergency periods.
4.  First two ships recallable within 30 days.  Second two recallable with 45 days. (This would be longer than the UK contract as our ships would likely be further from home ports than their ships).


----------



## MilEME09

Hope for New Royal Navy Supply Ships Being Built in Britain
					

UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace brought hope to British shipbuilders that the £1.5billion deal to produce supply ships for the Royal Navy will stay




					www.warhistoryonline.com
				




Old article from earlier this year but interesting to see we are not the only ones in a supply ship bind.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seaspan reports that they ship is 40% complete and 90% of the blocks are under construction


----------



## Gorgo

That is a good sight indeed.


----------



## Dale Denton

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> Just throwing out something I hope I haven't missed in previous pages....
> 
> What about mimicking the Private Finance Initiative that the UK is using with their Point-Class Ro-Ro's.
> 
> They have six owned and operated by a private cargo company with a contract to be able to buy access within fixed windows incase of national need.
> 
> Their model is based on 6 ships of which 4 are currently dedicated to the MOD and the other 2 are recallable with 20 and 30 days respectively.
> 
> As Canada does not have the same overseas commitments as the UK, we likely could build our own alternative.
> 
> Hypothetical Option:
> 1. In concert with a Canadian Private Cargo Company, spec out what is both commercially viable to operate and useful to the CAF in case of national emergency.
> 2. RFQ for minimum of four ships to be built sequentially in same yard to our newly equipped Canadian ship builders (building a long term strategic pipeline of construction, rather than our typical boom & bust methodology).  Of note, ships could either be new builds or retrofits of existing ships (like the Asterix) to ensure cost competitiveness.
> 3.  All four ships to start on civilian contracts with two based in Vancouver and two in Halifax, to limit DND expenses during non-emergency periods.
> 4.  First two ships recallable within 30 days.  Second two recallable with 45 days. (This would be longer than the UK contract as our ships would likely be further from home ports than their ships).



I love this idea. A Non-DND Crown Corp could contract 1 or 2 to run food/fuel/medical equipment/etc... to help reduce the cost of living up north too. Use these summer delivery runs to train with AOPS, visit northern communities/build gov't-FN relations. Make these ships convertible hospitals, use them as hospital ships as needed (on 30D contract).


----------



## FJAG

LoboCanada said:


> I love this idea. A Non-DND Crown Corp could contract 1 or 2 to run food/fuel/medical equipment/etc... to help reduce the cost of living up north too. Use these summer delivery runs to train with AOPS, visit northern communities/build gov't-FN relations. Make these ships convertible hospitals, use them as hospital ships as needed (on 30D contract).


That would probably brown off civilian contractors doing the job now as well as make some log types warming chairs in a headquarters unhappy but all-in-all that would be a great idea to build relationships and a valuable info net.

🍻


----------



## Weinie

FJAG said:


> *That would probably brown off civilian contractors doing the job now *as well as make some log types warming chairs in a headquarters unhappy but all-in-all that would be a great idea to build relationships and a valuable info net.
> 
> 🍻


Which would be the death knell of this initiative, woe that we actually interject any new ways of thinking/service delivery.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AOR's coming along








						LinkedIn Login, Sign in | LinkedIn
					

Login to LinkedIn to keep in touch with people you know, share ideas, and build your career.




					www.linkedin.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

More AOR porn, future joke; "Is that bulbous bow or are you just happy to see me?"


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> More AOR porn, future joke; "Is that bulbous bow or are you just happy to see me?"


Or, if Greenpeace and PETA enforce their narrative......whale killer.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not a big fan of bulbous bows on AOR's - even if I understand they save fuel - for the following reason: PRESERVER vs PENELOPE:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I just realized people unaware of this little encounter may not get what I am driving at:

The old PROTECTEUR class did not repeat not have bulbous bows. PENELOPE was rolled over to a list of almost 60 degrees in the collision, which occurred near her middle. There were only minor injuries in her crew - none in PRESERVER. Had PRESERVER been a ship with a bulbous bow, PENELOPE's engine room and boiler room would have been opened like sardine cans and flooded in minutes. There is no recovering from that - she would have sunk like a brick with many sailors going down with her.

P.S. It's not a coincidence that replenishment-at-sea are quite rightly considered to be the most dangerous seamanship evolution.


----------



## Weinie

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I just realized people unaware of this little encounter may not get what I am driving at:
> 
> The old PROTECTEUR class did not repeat not have bulbous bows. PENELOPE was rolled over to a list of almost 60 degrees in the collision, which occurred near her middle. There were only minor injuries in her crew - none in PRESERVER. Had PRESERVER been a ship with a bulbous bow, PENELOPE's engine room and boiler room would have been opened like sardine cans and flooded in minutes. There is no recovering from that - she would have sunk like a brick with many sailors going down with her.
> 
> P.S. It's not a coincidence that replenishment-at-sea are quite rightly considered to be the most dangerous seamanship evolution.


From what I have been able to glean, one of Penelopes's throttles got stuck in the open position while she was coming alongside for a RAS, rendering her almost un-navigable. 

Does not change your point about bulbous bows.


----------



## Underway

They do more than save fuel.  They improve seakeeping and stability.  Also assuming PRESERVER had a bulbous bow, PENELOPE may have glanced off of it and not been driven underneath, but pushed aside instead.  Still would have been a bad collision but not as disastrous as you describe.  We'll never know of course, but I appreciate where you are coming from.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I don't think so, Underway. And to a certain extent, it will dispel Weinie's "glean".

The actual event was caused by a weird and extremely infrequent mechanical breakdown: The starboard engine telegraph from the wheelhouse (not located on the bridge, BTW) to the engine room broke down and when "slow astern both engines" was ordered, it swung and got stuck in the "full ahead" position. RN engineers being what they are (and any engineer in those days would have done the same ) they actually obeyed telegraphs as they were supposed to.

The result was they executed a "slow astern" on the inboard and a "full ahead" on the outboard engine. By the time the orders from command to disregard telegraphs and obey sound powered telephone was passed, it was way too late. PENELOPE's officer of the watch tried to counteract by using hard  starboard helm - which helped at first and made the original point of contact more parallel than would have been otherwise, but once contact with PRESERVER was made, the helm became of no use and the "full ahead" outboard engine took over to push PENELOPE across PRESERVER's bow.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I don't think so, Underway. And to a certain extent, it will dispel Weinie's "glean".
> 
> The actual event was caused by a weird and extremely infrequent mechanical breakdown: The starboard engine telegraph from the wheelhouse (not located on the bridge, BTW) to the engine room broke down and when "slow astern both engines" was ordered, it swung and got stuck in the "full ahead" position. RN engineers being what they are (and any engineer in those days would have done the same ) they actually obeyed telegraphs as they were supposed to.
> 
> The result was they executed a "slow astern" on the inboard and a "full ahead" on the outboard engine. By the time the orders from command to disregard telegraphs and obey sound powered telephone was passed, it was way too late. PENELOPE's officer of the watch tried to counteract by using hard  starboard helm - which helped at first and made the original point of contact more parallel than would have been otherwise, but once contact with PRESERVER was made, the helm became of no use and the "full ahead" outboard engine took over to push PENELOPE across PRESERVER's bow.


For ref of non-navy types, the whole issue of obeying telegraphs comes up every single time we do our annual 'officer of the watch- engineering officer' lecture/chat. Usually a moot point as it's now done by computers and automatically obeys whatever the bridge inputs, but in some situations the engineering officer will have to confirm it. Normally when you are doing RASs and similar you have extra people on watch (known as Special Sea Dutymen (maybe that changed?), and we always ran with just obey telegraphs while at specials, but use a bit of common sense for open ocean steaming and confirm if something weird comes in (especially overnight). When you are at specials, there isn't time to double check, but I guess that will be no longer an issue once they shift up to the bridge in the new ships (and assume your electronic signals to the engines are bulletproof I guess).

Normally the orders for each shaft are ganged together anyway, so the ship will only speed up or slow down (instead of turning from different shaft orders). It's an easy switch to do them independently but don't usually use engines for steering (except for situations like coming alongside, or if something is wrong with the plant).

Have seen all kinds of things lead to incorrect engine orders, not limited to people falling asleep, jackets on the console, and even a plate of cookies. None of that applies to PENELOPE but there was a whole thing going around on the West coast about 'phantom' orders from eddy signals or something until they pulled the IPMS logs that included buttons being pushed in every case on different ships.


----------



## Uzlu

The Canadianization of the Joint Support Ship: From Mature Design to a Unique Canadian Solution - Canadian Global Affairs Institute


----------



## dapaterson

Funny how Canadianized aircraft (Cormorant, for example) are late and costly, while un-Canadianized (Herc J for example) are not.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Funny how Canadianized aircraft (Cormorant, for example) are late and costly, while un-Canadianized (Herc J for example) are not.


Most Canadianized perhaps late...

CH-147F (heavily Canadianized) first delivery was one month early (month 47, vice 4 full years), and the last Chinook was delivered one month early (month 59, vice 5 years).  That said, Boeing was very supportive in Canada's Chinook program, as there was significant leveraging for folllow-on new-build MH-47G production, for which Canada received ISS credits for use of CH-147F design elements.


----------



## CBH99

"Unique Canadian Solution" ...

Because, you know, floating on water & driving around is 'sooooooo different' here


----------



## Underway

No, but using your AOR as a flagship certainly is...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nicer quarters for the Admiral and underlings?


----------



## Pelorus

Available space, mostly. Halifax-class were never designed to sail with staff, and it's always a squeeze to embark them, notwithstanding some meager "Command Platform" upgrades to a couple ships on either coast.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> Nicer quarters for the Admiral and underlings?





boot12 said:


> Available space, mostly.




Well, full Link Capability and full communications suite capability.  The Senior Officer has their own cabin/heads/office space which is much better than the frigates.  There is also an extra console in OPS for CMS, but that's just as much redundancy as it is for off watch work and the SO.

There are enough cabins to accommodate the SO's staff as well, with extra births over and above the crew compliment.  This includes with embarked airdet.  Nothing special, just normal cabins and messes.

There is a full proper briefing/planing/board room so you never need to take over a mess or ops to do a brief ever again.  There is also a secure crew computer room/library where there are multiple secure computer connections to check your DWAN, do DL, or just email home.  This will be  the space that is taken over by Sea Training or the SO's staff as their workspace, to keep them from co-opting the crews spaces and out of the hair of ships staff.

So like @boot12 stated, available space.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Jump to 1:20 to hear about problems with South Korean supplied AOR


----------



## Colin Parkinson

JSS Pump room module into position 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1374063464818282501


----------



## Colin Parkinson

_“It’s actually been advantageous for Canada to buy into the Berlin class at this stage, now that Germany has three in the water,” says Rear-Admiral (RAdm) Casper Donovan, Director General Future Ship Capability for the RCN. “We are able to capitalize on many of the lessons learned during previous iterations of the design, and apply those lessons to our Canadian version – the JSS. In other words, even though we are purchasing a mature design, there are necessary modifications required for JSS to meet Canada’s specific environment, needs and standards.”_





						Navy News | Canadianization of the Joint Support Ship – from mature design to a unique Canadian solution
					

Canadianization of the Joint Support Ship – from mature design to a unique Canadian solution




					www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca


----------



## FSTO

Colin Parkinson said:


> _“It’s actually been advantageous for Canada to buy into the Berlin class at this stage, now that Germany has three in the water,” says Rear-Admiral (RAdm) Casper Donovan, Director General Future Ship Capability for the RCN. “We are able to capitalize on many of the lessons learned during previous iterations of the design, and apply those lessons to our Canadian version – the JSS. In other words, even though we are purchasing a mature design, there are necessary modifications required for JSS to meet Canada’s specific environment, needs and standards.”_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy News | Canadianization of the Joint Support Ship – from mature design to a unique Canadian solution
> 
> 
> Canadianization of the Joint Support Ship – from mature design to a unique Canadian solution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca


What an unmitigated pile of horsewhollop! It should never have taken us 30 bloody years to come up with an AOR design. And this thing has even less capability than the PROTECTEUR class its replacing! Good god, its a gas station with dry storage and flight deck, how hard is that to design and build. But no, Canada has to come up with an unique and costly way to fubar that as well!


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> What an unmitigated pile of horsewhollop! It should never have taken us 30 bloody years to come up with an AOR design. And this thing has even less capability than the PROTECTEUR class its replacing! Good god, its a gas station with dry storage and flight deck, how hard is that to design and build. But no, Canada has to come up with an unique and costly way to fubar that as well!


 Concur.


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:


> What an unmitigated pile of horsewhollop! It should never have taken us 30 bloody years to come up with an AOR design. And this thing has even less capability than the PROTECTEUR class its replacing! Good god, its a gas station with dry storage and flight deck, how hard is that to design and build. But no, Canada has to come up with an unique and costly way to fubar that as well!


Well, it isn't easy.

Define capability.  In most categories, the JSS has more or ones that didn't exist at all on PROTECTEUR (the first one as JSS one is also called PROTECTEUR).  

The Bonn magazine standards are not military-grade, the cooling system can't go into tropical waters, its German communication suite can't do what we need it to do in a TG, and it doesn't have CIWS.  It can't operate a helicopter within RCN safety standards, nor did it have the ability to store and load torpedos on a helicopter.  There is little to no emissions security so red processing is a no-no.  Its halyard access is located in a RADHAZ zone and it has no EMS (ITD is very difficult).  Its power was European not NA.  The engines and generators that it used are no longer built.  It's cabling is a European standard, not NA which means cable changes. I could go on for a couple of pages just on requirements that are not even held by the RCN.

And of course, we're getting a ship built by a shipyard that has never done this before, who is designing and building at the same time (its own challenges) due to time constraints in a COVID environment.

What you think we should have bought and what we did buy are not the same thing.  

If you want to argue that we bought the wrong thing, or the requirements were written incorrectly then I would likely agree with you.  But the requirements were written by the RCN or imposed on us by outside organizations, and JSS is going to deliver on them.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> If you want to argue that we bought the wrong thing, or the requirements were written incorrectly then I would likely agree with you.  But the requirements were written by the RCN or imposed on us by outside organizations, and JSS is going to deliver on them.


Don't forget this is requirement set 3 or 4 after a few total resets on the project. The project was stood up sometime in the late 80s/early 90s and has had to go back to the drawing board a few times with GoC direction changing massively over the decades.

The big honking ship was totally different from the old AORs or the current JSS, and that procurement failed pretty hard due to impossible expectations.

There is a probably an interesting book there if anyone could dig out the story with all the politics and interference from other departments involved, but you'd have to talk to several generations of people to figure it out.

Glad we're finally getting something, but it does have three decades worth of compromise, cuts and mind changing built in, so people really need to temper their expectations.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> Don't forget this is requirement set 3 or 4 after a few total resets on the project. The project was stood up sometime in the late 80s/early 90s and has had to go back to the drawing board a few times with GoC direction changing massively over the decades.


No argument here.  I'm only speaking from the perspective of the current build.  Which was also delayed for years for political reasons...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> No argument here.  I'm only speaking from the perspective of the current build.  Which was also delayed for years for political reasons...


No for sure.  Really think it's a bit insincere though for the RAdm to say it's another Berlin class; aside from the hull form and pipe runs, there is more unique kit than there is common equipment, and it's effectively a bespoke design.  Guess that's all politics too though!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and going by my earlier video, the South Korean design seems to have some serious issues as well. If ours work out well, maybe we can licence the design to help recoup the costs?


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:


> Well, it isn't easy.
> 
> Define capability.  In most categories, the JSS has more or ones that didn't exist at all on PROTECTEUR (the first one as JSS one is also called PROTECTEUR).
> 
> The Bonn magazine standards are not military-grade, the cooling system can't go into tropical waters, its German communication suite can't do what we need it to do in a TG, and it doesn't have CIWS.  It can't operate a helicopter within RCN safety standards, nor did it have the ability to store and load torpedos on a helicopter.  There is little to no emissions security so red processing is a no-no.  Its halyard access is located in a RADHAZ zone and it has no EMS (ITD is very difficult).  Its power was European not NA.  The engines and generators that it used are no longer built.  It's cabling is a European standard, not NA which means cable changes. I could go on for a couple of pages just on requirements that are not even held by the RCN.
> 
> And of course, we're getting a ship built by a shipyard that has never done this before, who is designing and building at the same time (its own challenges) due to time constraints in a COVID environment.
> 
> What you think we should have bought and what we did buy are not the same thing.
> 
> If you want to argue that we bought the wrong thing, or the requirements were written incorrectly then I would likely agree with you.  But the requirements were written by the RCN or imposed on us by outside organizations, and JSS is going to deliver on them.


I'm not discounting what you're saying, but if we (RCN and GoC) had pulled their heads out or their asses in the 90's we would be on year 20 of having this thing in the water and operational by now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The engine room block coming together 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1382408548596998144


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Engines being fitted just makes it all the more real!

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1397657322143551490


----------



## MilEME09

Second engine arrived today, to be installed this summer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Getting bigger, modules being joined up









						Sign Up | LinkedIn
					

500 million+ members | Manage your professional identity. Build and engage with your professional network. Access knowledge, insights and opportunities.




					www.linkedin.com


----------



## Underway

The spaces in those blocks are stores, canteen, plenty of fuel tanks, the ammo magazines/transfer, pump room and most important of them all.... beer and pop stores  🍻


----------



## MarkOttawa

How to get a big support ship at a reasonable price:



> Damen lays keel for new RNLN support ship​
> Damen Shipyards held a keel-laying ceremony for the Royal Netherlands Navy's (RNLN's) new combat support ship (CSS) at its yard in Galati, Romania, on 2 June.
> 
> Under current planning the new ship, to be called HNLMS _Den Helder_, will be handed over to the RNLN in 2025.
> 
> Although construction of the CSS is taking place at Damen's Galati facility, _design and engineering activities were largely carried out in the Netherlands. Construction is expected to be completed in 2023, after which the ship will sail to the Netherlands for final outfitting in Den Helder. This will include installation of the combat management system and self-defence weapons _[emphasis added].
> 
> The CSS is based on the same design as the RNLN's joint support ship (JSS) HNLMS _Karel Doorman,_ but smaller and without a sealift capability.
> 
> Displacing around 22,400 tonnes fully loaded and with an overall length of 180 m, it will have a crew complement of 75, with accommodation for an additional 85 on board. The vessel will have two replenishment at-sea rigs and, in addition to space for fuel and munition to supply other ships, will be able to carry approximately 20 containers as deck cargo. It will also feature a helicopter deck and hangar and will carry two fast, raiding, interception, and special forces craft and two rigid-hull inflatable boats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damen lays keel for new RNLN support ship
> 
> 
> Damen Shipyards held a keel-laying ceremony for the Royal Netherlands Navy's (RNLN's) new combat support ship (CSS) at its yard in Galati, Romania, on 2 June.
> 
> 
> 
> www.janes.com



Mark Collins


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Engines being mounted on our AOR 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1412083692512612352


----------



## dapaterson

Somewhere on each of those engines is a miniscule valve that is positioned in just the wrong location so that every time it needs manual adjustment there will be a litany of cursing by the engineering department.


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> Somewhere on each of those engines is a miniscule valve that is positioned in just the wrong location so that every time it needs manual adjustment there will be a litany of cursing by the engineering department.


So serious question because I know schmick about this.  What happens if an engine catastrophically fails, and can't be rebuilt? Do we cut a hole in the side of the JSS?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Weinie said:


> So serious question because I know schmick about this.  What happens if an engine catastrophically fails, and can't be rebuilt? Do we cut a hole in the side of the JSS?


A similar thing happened on a big Stator on the one of the ice breakers built here in the 80's, it failed during sea trials and it was 6 months for the company in Germany to make a new one, cut a hole in the side and switch them out. Like the video below


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> A similar thing happened on a big Stator on the one of the ice breakers built here in the 80's, it failed during sea trials and it was 6 months for the company in Germany to make a new one, cut a hole in the side and switch them out. Like the video below


Cool!  Although I was disappointed not to see the welding it close…, 😔


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> So serious question because I know schmick about this.  What happens if an engine catastrophically fails, and can't be rebuilt? Do we cut a hole in the side of the JSS?



After a fire on board HMCS Toronto, we required an entire gas turbine replacement (the fire never left the GT enclosure).  This was done with a large crane and pulling the engine out through the stack, as well as putting the new one in through the same stack.

That being said it is not uncommon to make a "cutout" in the side of or top of the ship to place or remove equipment.  The diesel generator replacement for the frigates required this exact thing.  Sometimes you can break down and build, but other times it just easier and cheaper to cut and paste.


----------



## Weinie

Underway said:


> After a fire on board HMCS Toronto, we required an entire gas turbine replacement (the fire never left the GT enclosure).  This was done with a large crane and pulling the engine out through the stack, as well as putting the new one in through the same stack.
> 
> That being said it is not uncommon to make a "cutout" in the side of or top of the ship to place or remove equipment.  The diesel generator replacement for the frigates required this exact thing.  Sometimes you can break down and build, but other times it just easier and cheaper to cut and paste.


Underway,

Thanks for the insight. I was uncertain to what degree you could do "surgery" on a ship, and then sail her back into battle. Much appreciated.


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> Underway,
> 
> Thanks for the insight. I was uncertain to what degree you could do "surgery" on a ship, and then sail her back into battle. Much appreciated.


No probs.  The engineering spaces are generally the entire width of the ship, so if you can get them in drydock it's just a matter of cutting off the hull plate and then replacing it when you are done.  It's the same principle with putting up new drywall after tearing down the old stuff.  Just do your weld inspections and good to go.

For some spaces on the frigate, there are removable panels in the deck/deckhead.  This allows you to unbolt the panel, remove it, and then move equipment that is too large to fit through hatches.  Something as mundane as a large office printer or pop machine can't fit down a hatch very well.


----------



## Swampbuggy

The Danes have done something very clever with their engineering. If one of the engines require replacement on an ABSALON, there are rails built in over the engineering spaces that hoists can run on. They go all the way to the service elevator and allow access to flex deck. That way, the engine gets picked up, trundled off and swapped out without any holes or fuss.


----------



## Czech_pivo

From the same people that gave the world Lego.....


----------



## Maxman1

The engines are in place.


----------



## FJAG

Maxman1 said:


> The engines are in place.


Those do not look very large compared to the workers next to them. Is that just my imagination, or is there more to come, or are these just more efficient engines being put in these days?

🍻


----------



## MTShaw

FJAG said:


> Those do not look very large compared to the workers next to them. Is that just my imagination, or is there more to come, or are these just more efficient engines being put in these days?
> 
> 🍻


They are the smallest of MAN’s big line. 7200KW per is certainly enough.









						Building Ships - Seaspan
					






					nss.seaspan.com
				




PDF


			https://www.man-es.com/docs/default-source/marine/man-es_l3_man_v32-44cr-propulsion_preview.pdf


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> No probs.  The engineering spaces are generally the entire width of the ship, so if you can get them in drydock it's just a matter of cutting off the hull plate and then replacing it when you are done.  It's the same principle with putting up new drywall after tearing down the old stuff.  Just do your weld inspections and good to go.
> 
> For some spaces on the frigate, there are removable panels in the deck/deckhead.  This allows you to unbolt the panel, remove it, and then move equipment that is too large to fit through hatches.  Something as mundane as a large office printer or pop machine can't fit down a hatch very well.



Repairing hull welds can be fun; there is always at least some x ray inspections on top of the normal non destructive testing.

Usually there are enough bits that need replaced that it's not necessary, but not uncommon for the shipyard to cut access holes in the hull to make the tank repainting faster. It can save them weeks, and as long as they are between ribs, it's relatively easy.

Believe there are still some equipment where it's less work to move things out of the way and cut a hole in the side while it's in the dock than break it down to go through the soft patch. DWPs are weird that way, but sometimes you are looking at a few hundred hours of welding vs thousands of hours of rigging and removals, so kind of a no brainer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Coming together


----------



## Maxman1




----------



## Colin Parkinson

Couple of pictures I took this morning


----------



## Colin Parkinson

from one of my FB feeds


----------



## MilEME09

Photos: Navy's New Fleet Oiler USNS John Lewis At Sea for Builder's Trials
					

The lead ship in the U.S. Navy’s new class of fleet replenishment oilers, USNS John Lewis (T-AO 205), took to sea this month for initial builder’s trials before the ship’s...




					gcaptain.com
				




So a comparison here, US navy's New fleet oiler enters trials, contract signed in 2016, that's only 6 years from pen to trials.


----------



## dapaterson

Was it an existing design, modified design, or new design?  Was the shipyard tooled up, or were they retooling as well as building a heavily modified design?

Lots of elements factor into timelines.


----------



## MTShaw

dapaterson said:


> Was it an existing design, modified design, or new design?  Was the shipyard tooled up, or were they retooling as well as building a heavily modified design?
> 
> Lots of elements factor into timelines.


Commercial vs Naval standards.


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:


> Photos: Navy's New Fleet Oiler USNS John Lewis At Sea for Builder's Trials
> 
> 
> The lead ship in the U.S. Navy’s new class of fleet replenishment oilers, USNS John Lewis (T-AO 205), took to sea this month for initial builder’s trials before the ship’s...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gcaptain.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a comparison here, US navy's New fleet oiler enters trials, contract signed in 2016, that's only 6 years from pen to trials.


Well the US has about 300+people working in that project office.  For JSS I think there is 40 total?  The combat systems section is four people and one person who splits time between JSS and AOPS. 

Things have a tendency to go much faster when you multiply the number of people by 8 and you are working with an experienced yard.

Now apply this to the Constellation class vs the CSC and you'll see why the timelines are much smoother in the US (not to mention they are just installing the exact same systems cut down as the newest Burke has, makes things a whole lot easier for tests and trials).


----------



## OceanBonfire

Engine room capped:


----------



## Jimbolio

OceanBonfire said:


> Engine room capped:


Did Seaspan change their site, and make it harder to find some of the older photos, or is it just me?


----------



## OceanBonfire

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498415124700442625


----------



## Navy_Pete

Hooray, that took a minute to get into contract for that one! I think the first Buy & Sell post was four or five years ago.


----------



## Underway

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498415124700442625


I've seen the trials they did on it.  Seems like they did a good job.  This is a key enabler for JSS humanitarian and support to forces ashore piece.


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> Was it an existing design, modified design, or new design?  Was the shipyard tooled up, or were they retooling as well as building a heavily modified design?
> 
> Lots of elements factor into timelines.


So there is no such thing as an "existing design" ship unless you buy it as part of a flight of ships.

In the JSS case we bought the "existing design" for the Bonn (which is significantly different from the Berlin in a number of ways) and gave it to Vancouver Shipyards with the Statement of Requirements and they are modifying the design to fit that SOR.  Bonn is similar to the Asterix for Germany, they don't have naval pers running the ship.

This means the design has a lot of changes from the original.  First is that VSY when they want a subsystem put it out for tender.  This means that whatever subsystem is selected is certainly not the same one that was on the Bonn.  Same function, different design/contractor.  HVAC, electrical, generators, navigation, RAS, all the systems suppliers, and subcontractors are different.  Which of course means different designs to fit that stuff in.

The SOR necessitated different radars, OPS Room, the movement of the MCR to depths of the ship (on Bonn it's beside the Bridge... weird), new two new magazines, 6 OPS controlled weapon systems (4 NRWS and 2 CIWS), hangar and flight deck to fly and do 3rd line maint on the Cyclone (such as an LSO compartment), different comms, actual red processing (thus EMSEC which Bonn did not have in all but one space) and many other things.

The requirements are written as "performance" standards.  This means the Gov't doesn't care what the solution is per se, just that it meets the performance standards.  This allows the industry to come up with solutions.  Which of course means the ship will be different than the Bonn.  Technology has moved on,  and other solutions for some problems are cheaper and/or better.

So when someone says "just build it like the Germans did" I kinda shake my head because you can't.  There is literally no way to reproduce the exact thing. It's not how engineering contracting is done, and how requirements are met.  Even if we paid Flensberger et al... (the original builders of Bonn) to build the ship for us it would be crazy different.  Like how the Bonn is different from the Berlin.  By using the German plans as a baseline we saved ourselves a lot of problems, but it's a baseline.


----------



## calculus

Interesting article in the Maritime Engineering Journal on how stress and structural fatigue will be measured on the JSS: 



			https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/mej/41-136-maritime-engineering-journal-100.pdf


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> So there is no such thing as an "existing design" ship unless you buy it as part of a flight of ships.
> 
> In the JSS case we bought the "existing design" for the Bonn (which is significantly different from the Berlin in a number of ways) and gave it to Vancouver Shipyards with the Statement of Requirements and they are modifying the design to fit that SOR.  Bonn is similar to the Asterix for Germany, they don't have naval pers running the ship.
> 
> This means the design has a lot of changes from the original.  First is that VSY when they want a subsystem put it out for tender.  This means that whatever subsystem is selected is certainly not the same one that was on the Bonn.  Same function, different design/contractor.  HVAC, electrical, generators, navigation, RAS, all the systems suppliers, and subcontractors are different.  Which of course means different designs to fit that stuff in.
> 
> The SOR necessitated different radars, OPS Room, the movement of the MCR to depths of the ship (on Bonn it's beside the Bridge... weird), new two new magazines, 6 OPS controlled weapon systems (4 NRWS and 2 CIWS), hangar and flight deck to fly and do 3rd line maint on the Cyclone (such as an LSO compartment), different comms, actual red processing (thus EMSEC which Bonn did not have in all but one space) and many other things.
> 
> The requirements are written as "performance" standards.  This means the Gov't doesn't care what the solution is per se, just that it meets the performance standards.  This allows the industry to come up with solutions.  Which of course means the ship will be different than the Bonn.  Technology has moved on,  and other solutions for some problems are cheaper and/or better.
> 
> So when someone says "just build it like the Germans did" I kinda shake my head because you can't.  There is literally no way to reproduce the exact thing. It's not how engineering contracting is done, and how requirements are met.  Even if we paid Flensberger et al... (the original builders of Bonn) to build the ship for us it would be crazy different.  Like how the Bonn is different from the Berlin.  By using the German plans as a baseline we saved ourselves a lot of problems, but it's a baseline.


Any sense what the top 3 'wins' for us would be concerning our 'Berlins' vs the originals?


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> Any sense what the top 3 'wins' for us would be concerning our 'Berlins' vs the originals?



Damage control capability is much better.  The ship is as close to a warship as an AOR can likely get.  The damage control capabilities are way ahead of the Bonn, including CBRN.
The communications suite is very good.  The ship is designed to be able to act as a flagship for a Task Group, or mother ship for forces ashore (likely humanitarian of some type).  It's got the same or better comms than a frigate, including deployed connectivity so you can skype home to the kids.
JSS will be a key enabler for Task Group helicopter operations.  Has the space to bring two more Cyclones to the TG, do VERTREP operations, in-depth maintenance tasks (3rd line... not a helo guy so might be wrong on that terminology) including a full engine swap out.

That's my opinion of the biggest "wins".


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> Damage control capability is much better.  The ship is as close to a warship as an AOR can likely get.  The damage control capabilities are way ahead of the Bonn, including CBRN.
> The communications suite is very good.  The ship is designed to be able to act as a flagship for a Task Group, or mother ship for forces ashore (likely humanitarian of some type).  It's got the same or better comms than a frigate, including deployed connectivity so you can skype home to the kids.
> JSS will be a key enabler for Task Group helicopter operations.  Has the space to bring two more Cyclones to the TG, do VERTREP operations, in-depth maintenance tasks (3rd line... not a helo guy so might be wrong on that terminology) including a full engine swap out.
> 
> That's my opinion of the biggest "wins".


* It's got the same or better comms than a frigate,*

Is that compared to our existing CPF or the new CSC's? 

Follow-up question, if our 'Berlins' will be as close to a warship as possible in terms of damage control capability, how will our suite of armaments compare to the original 'Berlins'?


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> * It's got the same or better comms than a frigate,*
> 
> Is that compared to our existing CPF or the new CSC's?
> 
> Follow-up question, if our 'Berlins' will be as close to a warship as possible in terms of damage control capability, how will our suite of armaments compare to the original 'Berlins'?


No idea what CSC has.  Its still being designed.  So CPF.

As for armaments.... we'll have some.  Bonn does not.  Defensive CIWS and NRWS only.  JSS has no effectors nor should it have any.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> No idea what CSC has.  Its still being designed.  So CPF.
> 
> As for armaments.... we'll have some.  Bonn does not.  Defensive CIWS and NRWS only.  It has no effectors nor should it have any.


Just curious because to a lay person like me, if we're building a ship that has such a robust combat damage control capability that the intent of this ship is to be an area where it may be in harm's way, and as a result, it would have the related defensive capabilities.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> Just curious because to a lay person like me, if we're building a ship that has such a robust combat damage control capability that the intent of this ship is to be an area where it may be in harm's way, and as a result, it would have the related defensive capabilities.


You rely on your escorts to protect you and they rely on you to keep them going in the fight longer.

As for robust, it's still a floating service station with ammunition behind the counter.  The DC is there to ensure a minor incident doesn't become a major incident.  It could get out of control real fast if you don't have good DC.


----------



## FSTO

Czech_pivo said:


> Just curious because to a lay person like me, if we're building a ship that has such a robust combat damage control capability that the intent of this ship is to be an area where it may be in harm's way, and as a result, it would have the related defensive capabilities.


The "Battle Tanker" is just a figure of speech. In a real shooting war, the AOR will be in a safe as place as possible.


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:


> The "Battle Tanker" is just a figure of speech. In a real shooting war, the AOR will be in a safe as place as possible.


Alongside in Halifax waiting parts?


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:


> Alongside in Halifax waiting parts?


You are in more danger from Halifax dockyard matey's than from Chinese hypersonic missiles at sea!


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:


> The "Battle Tanker" is just a figure of speech. In a real shooting war, the AOR will be in a safe as place as possible.


Yep. "The Battle Tanker" must be said with extra emphasis (for glory) or in hushed tones (like it might hear you).

The reason it's different than other AORs is that it's expected to be directly supporting a task group itself in a rougher neighborhood.  Whether it's employed like that or not we will see, but it gives some options to the AO commander that other AORs will not be able to provide.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's a good call because a smart enemy will kill the AOR's first, plus I believe that every ship should be able to contribute to the task force defense, even if only at close ranges.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> It's a good call because a smart enemy will kill the AOR's first, plus I believe that every ship should be able to contribute to the task force defense, even if only at close ranges.


CIWS doesn't contribute to TG defence, its self defence only from a kinetic perspective.  However, JSS does contribute to defense using its sensors and data sharing.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> CIWS doesn't contribute to TG defence, its self defence only from a kinetic perspective.  However, JSS does contribute to defense using its sensors and data sharing.


Hence the Sea Giraffe, I'd imagine. I wondered about it's inclusion, but I guess it contributes to overall RMP.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> CIWS doesn't contribute to TG defence, its self defence only from a kinetic perspective.  However, JSS does contribute to defense using its sensors and data sharing.


In decade from launch you might see more systems on her that can extend the self defense bubble. Did they every sort out the issue with the CIWS locking onto nearby ships, such as they did in GW1?


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> In decade from launch you might see more systems on her that can extend the self defense bubble.


Perhaps.  Ideally, the JSS will be so far inside the defensive bubble she won't need to worry about that.



Colin Parkinson said:


> Did they every sort out the issue with the CIWS locking onto nearby ships, such as they did in GW1?


CIWS is incapable of locking onto nearby ships so if this was the case before then it isn't now.



Swampbuggy said:


> Hence the Sea Giraffe, I'd imagine. I wondered about it's inclusion, but I guess it contributes to overall RMP.


The SG-AMB was selected just as much for our own aircraft control/detection as it was for the overall RMP.  As the frigates are moving to AMB the commonality was too much of a good idea to not do it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Go to "Second event" midway missile attack on battleship USS Missouri

_Using the LINK system, HMS Exeter notified the other ships that a probable missile was inbound. USS Missouri fired off SRBOC rockets to distract the presumed threat. The SRBOCs came down inbetween the battleship and USS Jarrett, quite close to the frigate, which had already set its Phalanx to auto-engage. The Phalanx immediately slewed to starboard, locked on to one of the SRBOC chaff clouds which it mistook as a threat, and fired a 220rds burst in the direction of the chaff cloud. A moment later, USS Missouri‘s next SRBOC chaff volley detonated in the sky, this time nearly directly on top of USS Jarrett. The frigate’s Phalanx again started firing to starboard, however this time a sailor aboard USS Jarrett shut the weapon off mid-burst, after 100 rounds had been fired.

This sequence and the placement of the ships resulted in a nearly straight line-of-fire 2¾ NM long from USS Missouri, through battleship’s chaff clouds, to USS Jarrett.

In almost all versions of the event, it is said that 20mm rounds from USS Jarrett‘s Phalanx impacted USS Missouri. The most commonly quoted number is 4 individual rounds, which (even given the dispersion field at the extreme end of the Phalanx’s range) seems very low given the hundreds fired by the frigate. One round penetrated a 3/8″ steel plate and one internal bulkhead into a bunking area. The most commonly repeated location is “…by the plaque” (the deck marker where WWII ended, starboard and slightly aft of the B 16″ turret). If so, the spot could only be compartments #1-74-1-L or #1-78-3-L which are actually directly under the plaque, and after the 1980s refits were junior officer living spaces. Less the captain’s stateroom (#1-89-1L) any other compartment is not a bunking space, not in that area, or under massive armor. At least in the unclassified realm, there is no known photo of the actual damage.

Another round apparently hit a piece of equipment stowed on deck, slightly injuring one sailor via a shard of flying plastic – although sometimes the injured sailor is recalled as being inside the ship, struck by shrapnel from the round that penetrated the bunking spaces. Other accounts mention 20mm rounds “bouncing off” which would likely mean hits to the belt or a 16″ turret._


----------



## Underway

I honestly can't talk about how CIWS works.  It doesn't lock onto ships though. Basically impossible.


----------



## OceanBonfire

A glimpse of a passageway and a 3D glimpse of the bridge?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1516880753510043649

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1517173896528674817


----------



## Underway

That isn't the bridge of the JSS, likely one of the CCG ships.


----------



## OceanBonfire

An update on the Sea-to-Shore Connector barge:









						From Sea-to-Shore: preparing for the Joint Support Ships - Pacific Navy News
					

The first of four Sea-to-Shore connector barges designed to serve the needs of the navy’s future supply ships has been delivered to Esquimalt.




					www.lookoutnewspaper.com
				








__ https://www.facebook.com/LookoutNewspaperNavyNews/posts/363306465838498
			





__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1521647796604047367

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1521897190263857158


----------



## Colin Parkinson

More bits added

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1521132758269108225


----------



## Colin Parkinson

And the RAS station is added


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> And the RAS station is added
> 
> View attachment 71404


Specifically, that's the RAS Control Station block. It also contains the service elevator machinery space for the RAS elevators. That's a nice block to see put on.  It's a critical space.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Man I'd love to be commissioning crew for these!


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> Man I'd love to be commissioning crew for these!


It would be the challenge of a lifetime for a Storesie!  2024-26 is the window for the commissioning crew (I expect 2025).  If it wasn't the west coast I would jump at it in a heartbeat!


----------



## Jimbolio

More delays

Huh. 

If you can "not guarantee Canada will end up with both support ships," don't even bother.  What's the point of developing 1.5 x a capability?  Two ships PLUS extending Asterix should be a priority (not only for the Navy, but for the government itself, unless it wants to keep sending frigates to deal with natural disasters)!


----------



## Navy_Pete

Jimbolio said:


> More delays
> 
> Huh.
> 
> If you can "not guarantee Canada will end up with both support ships," don't even bother.  What's the point of developing 1.5 x a capability?  Two ships PLUS extending Asterix should be a priority (not only for the Navy, but for the government itself, unless it wants to keep sending frigates to deal with natural disasters)!


I don't really follow what you are trying to say.

Weirdly the price of complex programs will go up over a long period of time, particularly when the price estimate was based on best estimates in 2012 prices that didn't include massive inflationary pressures and huge cost increases in basics like steel and copper, or allow delays for things like building the experience up that we knew the shipyards needed time to do.

Things cost more. The NSS is taking longer than expected in the extremely optimisitic initial schedule the bidders were told to use. Canada's demands and changes have directly contributed to the delays, and a lot of that have nothing to do with DND or the CCG. The GoC will hum and haw and then approve the budget increase grudgingly, while also pushing the cost benefits of the program as PR and happy to get closer to the NATO 2%. It's like dealing with a psychotic ex.

ps the RCN had massive periods when only 1 AOR (or none) was available over the last few decades. The Asterix is a great but really expensive stop gap. 2 JSS will be a huge improvement over what we had at the tail end of the 2 AORs, when they were frequently down for repairs with extended DWPs.


----------



## dapaterson

Asterix provides more than ADM Mat has managed to sustain and provide.

Left to their own devices, ADM Mat and the RCN risked the lives of hundreds of Canadian sailors and aviators, then buried the Board of Inquiry.

So forgive me for preferring Asterix to their status quo of (checks the jetty) nothing at all.


----------



## Jimbolio

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't really follow what you are trying to say.
> 
> 
> 
> ps the RCN had massive periods when only 1 AOR (or none) was available over the last few decades. The Asterix is a great but really expensive stop gap. 2 JSS will be a huge improvement over what we had at the tail end of the 2 AORs, when they were frequently down for repairs with extended DWPs.


But as per the article, that's if we even get the 2 at this point.  I think GoC should be pushing for 2 +1 with Asterix, but at this stage, apparently, the 2nd ship isn't guaranteed!  It should be.  2 JSS plus Asterix should be a minimum... but we'll see if GoC agrees.

And yes, at times Canada has "gotten by" with 1 AOR or none.  If you're not going to develop a proper contingent of support ships, why bother pretending?  It will be a big expense for a capability that can't be sustained.  It would be throwing good money after bad.  I was suggesting that the GoC do at least 2 + 1, or admit that's not what you want the Navy to be doing.

ETA: I hope that "could not guarantee" is actually just a negotiating tactic, they just want Seaspan to stop asking for money, and that both ships will be completed.


----------



## YZT580

Jimbolio said:


> But as per the article, that's if we even get the 2 at this point.  I think GoC should be pushing for 2 +1 with Asterix, but at this stage, apparently, the 2nd ship isn't guaranteed!  It should be.  2 JSS plus Asterix should be a minimum... but we'll see if GoC agrees.
> 
> And yes, at times Canada has "gotten by" with 1 AOR or none.  If you're not going to develop a proper contingent of support ships, why bother pretending?  It will be a big expense for a capability that can't be sustained.  It would be throwing good money after bad.  I was suggesting that the GoC do at least 2 + 1, or admit that's not what you want the Navy to be doing.
> 
> ETA: I hope that "could not guarantee" is actually just a negotiating tactic, they just want Seaspan to stop asking for money, and that both ships will be completed.


I am guessing that getting two is a good possibility.  And perhaps a third down the road a tad.  Think about it.  It is made it Canada, in a mainly left-wing i.e. potentially liberal riding, it isn't threatening and it contributes significantly to the 2%.  To this government, that is a win-win-win


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> Asterix provides more than ADM Mat has managed to sustain and provide.
> 
> Left to their own devices, ADM Mat and the RCN risked the lives of hundreds of Canadian sailors and aviators, then buried the Board of Inquiry.
> 
> So forgive me for preferring Asterix to their status quo of (checks the jetty) nothing at all.



Well said.


----------



## Underway

Jimbolio said:


> More delays
> 
> Huh.
> 
> If you can "not guarantee Canada will end up with both support ships," don't even bother.  What's the point of developing 1.5 x a capability?  Two ships PLUS extending Asterix should be a priority (not only for the Navy, but for the government itself, unless it wants to keep sending frigates to deal with natural disasters)!


Good, I can talk about it now. The PMO has of course known for a long time that the project will be pushed back.  Anyone with half a brain can look at the Twitter feed from VSY and see that the ship will not be ready next summer.

As for ship two?  They've started cutting some steel and ordered long-lead items. So if it gets canceled then it will be with a pile of steel sitting in the warehouse. 

Unless its on the list of capability cuts that are being alluded to in some other articles.



Navy_Pete said:


> Canada's demands and changes have directly contributed to the delays, and a lot of that have nothing to do with DND or the CCG.


Yes, forcing the shipbuilder to actually meet the requirements has contributed to some delays.  Silly Canada, we should have just accepted solutions to problems that wouldn't work at all or worse created bigger problems. The biggest offender right now is COVID and subcontractor delay.  But everyone was behind.  



dapaterson said:


> Left to their own devices, ADM Mat and the RCN risked the lives of hundreds of Canadian sailors and aviators, then buried the Board of Inquiry.



I know I'm going to regret asking this but please explain how you go from A to B on this one.  JSS delay to a BOI and risking lives?


----------



## Halifax Tar

We should see if the USN has a Supply class or two and a Henry J Kaiser class or two they would be willing to part with and follow their lead with most civilian crews. 

Or just stick with the Kaiser as they could probably meet our material and petroleum resupply needs.

And in the future we should tac on replacements to USN orders.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> We should see if the USN has a Supply class or two and a Henry J Kaiser class or two they would be willing to part with and follow their lead with most civilian crews.
> 
> Or just stick with the Kaiser as they could probably meet our material and petroleum resupply needs.
> 
> And in the future we should tac on replacements to USN orders.


Entirely politically impossible.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Halifax Tar said:


> We should see if the USN has a Supply class or two and a Henry J Kaiser class or two they would be willing to part with and follow their lead with most civilian crews.
> 
> Or just stick with the Kaiser as they could probably meet our material and petroleum resupply needs.
> 
> And in the future we should tac on replacements to USN orders.


They are in fact in the process of divesting/decommissioning several KAISERS, it’s a very real option.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Go for a lease if possible of the two or more of the Supply Class.  I believe they were in originally designed to  provide two complete replenishment's of a conventionally powered carrier and her escorts. 
That and the ability to haul a** at 26 knots


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:


> I know I'm going to regret asking this but please explain how you go from A to B on this one.  JSS delay to a BOI and risking lives?


Referring to MAT and RCN re: Fire aboard HMCS Protecteur 'worst-case scenario,' 20 injured


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have always advocated for 4 AOR's, by the time the two JSS are commissioned , Astreix and her sistership (had we ordered it) would both have needed extensive refits. Once those refits are done run the two Resolve Class as RFA like ships. If there is a Pacific conflict, your going to needed every AOR you can get your hands onto to support ourselves and allies. With 4 ships, that means two per coast, giving a lot of flexibility.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> Referring to MAT and RCN re: Fire aboard HMCS Protecteur 'worst-case scenario,' 20 injured


I'm not sure if I get the Mat linkage; it's the engineering side's job to make a recommendation, and when the RCN makes a decision, try and figure out how to do it as low-risk as practical. The RCN was the convening authority that buried the BOI, and still don't have an unclass version available for lessons learned. Similarly the RCN still has to other BOIs on the ALG collision, PRE allision, TOR GT fire and others still as 'Confidential, need to know' so they are basically lost unless you have a paper copy. Incredibly frustrating when something like the Westralia report would be possible by just substituting names with positions.

The actual failure that lead to the fire was a random gauge line that had been added on at some point breaking, and spraying hot lube oil onto hot components.

The fitted systems etc were available they just weren't used until way too late, but they sailed meeting SOLAS requirements for fire protection.

Share the frustration on the BOI; still trying to clean it up and hard to figure out where some of the recommendations came from; a few of them may have made sense on the PRO design but no longer do on JSS, and others were good ideas with no actual solution available. Fingers crossed we'll finally get the live fire trainer in a few years; that stalled for a decade but is finally moving forward.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:


> Asterix provides more than ADM Mat has managed to sustain and provide.
> 
> Left to their own devices, ADM Mat and the RCN risked the lives of hundreds of Canadian sailors and aviators, then buried the Board of Inquiry.
> 
> So forgive me for preferring Asterix to their status quo of (checks the jetty) nothing at all.











						How long does it take to build a 20000 TEU Capacity cargo ship?
					

Answer (1 of 3): It is at this point a bit of an unknown since no one has done it, but they have gotten close. I don't have the latest figures at hand, but the Maersk McKinney Moller was laid down three years ago almost to the day (27.11.2012) and was completed on 02.07.2013, or seven months late...




					www.quora.com
				






> ...I don't have the latest figures at hand, but the Maersk McKinney Moller was laid down three years ago almost to the day (27.11.2012) and was completed on 02.07.2013, or seven months later. I suspect that any yard capable of building one could do it in the same time frame. In fact I suspect that the design took longer than the construction since the the Maersk McKinney Moller was the first of the Triple E class.





> _Asterix_ ... went directly to Davie's yard at Lévis, Quebec, arriving in October.[1] On 10 August 2015, Chantier Davie signed an agreement for work on the conversion with Hepburn Engineering of Ontario who specializes in maritime underway replenishment equipment.[18] In September, it was announced that L-3 MAPPS (a subsidiary of L-3 Communications), was selected as partner in the conversion for its Integrated Platform Management System.[19] It is also planned to re-utilise the resupply equipment from _Protecteur_ by installing it aboard _Asterix_.[20] OSI Maritime Systems was chosen by Davie Shipyards to install their integrated navigation and tactical system aboard the converted ship.[21]
> 
> In October 2015, the ... government finalized the plan, which would cost $700 million over seven years[7] including $300 million for the conversion itself ... The RCN also would have the option of buying the ship after completion.[23]
> 
> In November 2015 the ... government postponed the final authorization of the project for two months.[
> 
> On 30 November 2015, the ... government gave final approval for the project, allowing the conversion to go ahead.
> 
> As of October 2016, the conversion itself was ahead of schedule with 60% of the conversion completed. The ship was planned to be available for sea trials in September 2017.[31] On 20 July 2017 Davie Shipbuilding unveiled _Asterix_ in a public ceremony
> 
> Sea trials were scheduled to begin on 16 November in Gaspé Bay.[33] The ship was accepted by the Royal Canadian Navy on 6 March 2018 at Halifax, Nova Scotia.[34]
> 
> A second ship, to be named _Obelix_ was offered to the Canadian government but the offer was refused in December 2017.[35]
> 
> Federal Fleet Services attempted to sell the government the second ship again in December 2018, this time at a reduced price of $500 million.



So six to seven months to get a hull built in Korea.  20 months for outfitting.  9 months for sea trials and acceptance. 

300 MCAD for the conversion and outfitting.
500 MCAD for a sister ship.

JSS Official Government Record



> Project costs​
> Construction of two new JSS, including all material, equipment, labour costs, and financial incentives based on achieving predetermined milestones: $3.1 billion.
> Production engineering work, project management, and contingency costs (design, production engineering, project management, and contract management): $1 billion.
> Total project cost for constructing, acquiring, and bringing the JSS into service: $4.1 billion.
> Combined in-service support budget for JSS and AOPS (AJISS): up to $5.2 billion over 32 years.





> 4. Implementation​
> Project approval for early block construction: April 26, 2018
> Steel cut for first full ship: 2018
> Project approval implementation: February 27, 2020
> Contract award: June 10, 2020
> Steel cut for second ship: 2021
> Launch of the first ship: 2022
> First delivery: 2023
> Initial operational capability: 2024
> Final delivery: 2025
> Full operational capability: 2026



2010 to 2021



> Project updates​*May 2021*
> More than 50 of the 123 blocks that make up the first JSS are substantially complete, with all remaining blocks expected to be under construction by June 2021.
> 
> *October 2020*
> The bulbous bow for the first JSS arrived at Seaspan Vancouver Shipyards.
> 
> *June 2020*
> A $2.4 billion contract (including taxes) was awarded to Seaspan Vancouver Shipyards to progress with full-rate construction.
> 
> *March 2020*
> The critical design review for the JSS was completed as part of the design and production engineering contract. This is the second of three major reviews.
> 
> *January 2020*
> A ceremonial keel laying for the first JSS, the future HMCS Protecteur, was held at Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards.
> 
> *December 2019*
> More than 33 blocks of the JSS are under construction, with 16 blocks built.
> 
> *November 2019*
> Assembly of the first “grand-block” of the JSS was completed.
> 
> *August 2019*
> A contract for the acquisition of sea to shore connector systems was awarded to Navamar Inc. With these ship-to-shore connector systems, vessels such as our Joint Support Ships will have an enhanced and robust capability to transfer cargo and equipment from the ship to the shore, in locations with inadequate docking facilities. Canada will receive four sea-to-shore connectors and two additional propulsion unit sets as spares.
> 
> *February 2019*
> Construction of the first JSS was rescheduled ahead of the Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel (OOSV) at Seaspan Shipyards.
> 
> *July 2018*
> The design and production engineering (D&PE) contract was amended to authorize the full scope of design work that supports the full production and construction of the JSS.
> 
> *June 2018*
> The construction of the early blocks of our JSS, the future Protecteur-class ships, began.
> 
> *May 2018*
> The Vancouver Seaspan Shipyard was awarded to being construction of the JSS.
> 
> The Government of Canada, in close collaboration with the prime contractor, Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd., investigated opportunities to improve the project schedule.
> 
> *May 2017*
> A Request for Information (RFI) for industry feedback on the acquisition of a solution for transporting materials from the JSS at sea to shore was published.
> 
> *January 2017*
> With completion of the Preliminary Design Review, the Initial Design Review Contract was completed allowing the transition of the design effort to the Design and Production Engineering Contract.
> 
> *December 16, 2016*
> The preliminary design review (PDR) was completed as part of initial design review contract. PDR is the first of three intended design reviews before JSS construction.
> 
> The Design and Production Engineering contract was awarded to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. Under the contract, the shipyard and its partners will undertake the remaining design work to further develop the JSS design to a production-ready state.
> 
> *February 2016*
> The shipyard began design work to incorporate modifications that meet Canada's requirements and allow construction in the Vancouver facility.
> 
> *December 2015*
> Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. awarded the Long Lead Items contract to engage suppliers and select the equipment needed to finalize the design and to build the JSS, including items such as the propulsion systems and generators.
> 
> *September 2014*
> Canada acquired additional design information from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada.
> 
> *August 2014*
> An Initial Design Review contract comprised of three separate tasks awarded to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. The Initial Design Review aimed to review the off-the-shelf ship design from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada.
> 
> *October 2013*
> The Joint Support Ship was scheduled for construction between the Canadian Coast Guard shipbuilding projects Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessels and the Coast Guard's Polar Icebreaker Project.
> 
> *June 2013*
> Government of Canada announces selection of the Military Off-the-Shelf option from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada as the ship design for the future JSS. Based on the German Navy Berlin class offering the best value and overall combination of benefits in terms of capability, risk and affordability.
> 
> *June 2010*
> The Joint Support Ship project was launched. Based on a revised project approval, two design options were developed for comparison. The procurement strategy considered a “Military-off-the-Shelf” (MOTS) design and a ‘New’ design options in parallel aiming to select a single design to be provided to the competitively selected shipyard under the National Shipbuilding Strategy non-combat package for completion of the design and construct the vessel.








						Joint support ship (JSS) - Canada.ca
					

The Joint Support Ships (JSS) will be built for the Royal Canadian Navy under the non-combat work package.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## MTShaw

Kirkhill said:


> How long does it take to build a 20000 TEU Capacity cargo ship?
> 
> 
> Answer (1 of 3): It is at this point a bit of an unknown since no one has done it, but they have gotten close. I don't have the latest figures at hand, but the Maersk McKinney Moller was laid down three years ago almost to the day (27.11.2012) and was completed on 02.07.2013, or seven months late...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.quora.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So six to seven months to get a hull built in Korea.  20 months for outfitting.  9 months for sea trials and acceptance.
> 
> 300 MCAD for the conversion and outfitting.
> 500 MCAD for a sister ship.
> 
> JSS Official Government Record
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010 to 2021
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joint support ship (JSS) - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> The Joint Support Ships (JSS) will be built for the Royal Canadian Navy under the non-combat work package.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca


Commercial standards vice military.  Also check out the Tide class. 
Seaspan is probably struggling welding H80 or 100. They probably need some yard upgrades to weld large pieces of armour using machines.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> Commercial standards vice military.  Also check out the Tide class.
> Seaspan is probably struggling welding H80 or 100. They probably need some yard upgrades to weld large pieces of armour using machines.


No armour on JSS, though there is a space allowance for armour in the magazines should the RCN want to add that later.  There was some math done on small arms penetration and the ships hull is actually pretty good for that.  Thicker steel was used around the 50 cal positions and for the above deck magazines as well to increase the protection of those areas. 

But if anything greater than or equal to 12.5 mm shows up then we're all about the active defence... (See CIWS Phalanx in surface engage mode, or the NRWS with gyro stabilized EOIR mounts).


----------



## Kirkhill

Seriously?  You're adding a decade and a billion dollars for Military Standards?  The Asterix and Obelix would meet 95% of your requirements and if nothing else would save your Prima Donnas of the fleet for when they are, in your view, absolutely necessary and the merchant ships you are escorting just won't do.


----------



## Kirkhill

If the US army can contain the deflagration of 44 rounds of ammunition in close proximity to an Abrams Loader, with a vented bustle,

If I can buy spray dryers for milk, which create finely atomized powders and are subject to fires and dust explosions, and the dryers, like the Abrams contains and directs the blast

Then why can't somebody supply an ammunition Sea Can that could be carried on the Weather Deck  and that could contain and direct the blast in the event the container is breached?   

And while thinking about it - a Minimally Manned Ammunition Ship, or even a Lighter, doesn't sound like a bad idea.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:


> Seriously?  You're adding a decade and a billion dollars for Military Standards?  The Asterix and Obelix would meet 95% of your requirements and if nothing else would save your Prima Donnas of the fleet for when they are, in your view, absolutely necessary and the merchant ships you are escorting just won't do.


Asterix is costing $691M for the capability over the 6 or so years, and it's just a lease so we don't own it. It does a good job at what it does but it does cost a lot more with less capability than JSS will deliver.


----------



## MTShaw

Kirkhill said:


> Seriously?  You're adding a decade and a billion dollars for Military Standards?  The Asterix and Obelix would meet 95% of your requirements and if nothing else would save your Prima Donnas of the fleet for when they are, in your view, absolutely necessary and the merchant ships you are escorting just won't do.


the quality of davie’s product is unknown to me, though they are overselling it. The GoC cannot insure any employee of Federal to be In any potential war zone. 

I’m sure that Davie’s costs haven’t gone up. We don’t have through life costs to operate because we don’t own it. 

I can’t F’ing believe we are back to debating full life costs versus a rental.  And the benefits of mil standards for something that — unlike Asterix — will be necessary wit the AOR and the admiral at the centre of a Canadian battlegroup.

Holy Christ man.


----------



## dapaterson

So, what's the annual full cost of a JSS (including payroll)?


----------



## MTShaw

dapaterson said:


> So, what's the annual full cost of a JSS (including payroll)?


I don’t know. That would be odd for a Government to release, but you could ask under a FOI  Might be quashed. Like I said, we only know full life costs.


----------



## Kirkhill

MTShaw said:


> the quality of davie’s product is unknown to me, though they are overselling it. The GoC cannot insure any employee of Federal to be In any potential war zone.
> 
> I’m sure that Davie’s costs haven’t gone up. We don’t have through life costs to operate because we don’t own it.
> 
> I can’t F’ing believe we are back to debating full life costs versus a rental.  And the benefits of mil standards for something that — unlike Asterix — will be necessary wit the AOR and the admiral at the centre of a Canadian battlegroup.
> 
> Holy Christ man.



You could have bought the Asterix outright for a year's operating costs and bought the Obelix for another year of costs.

Of course then you would have to pay for your own gas and grub .... and find your own sailors and cooks to man them.


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> So, what's the annual full cost of a JSS (including payroll)?


Won't really know the proper cost until we get the ship.  Are you including the Task Group stores, fuel and ammo?  Are you sailing at full load or just with fuel and dry stores (lighter ship cheaper fuel costs).  What about an airdet?  JSS has way more variables than a frigate does.

There are some estimates (I haven't seen them) but I'm not sure how valid they are now, given inflation, fuel price changes and the time between when they were created.


----------



## OceanBonfire

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1550473265604337664


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:


> You could have bought the Asterix outright for a year's operating costs and bought the Obelix for another year of costs.
> 
> Of course then you would have to pay for your own gas and grub .... and find your own sailors and cooks to man them.


If we did, we could stand up a Canadian RFA and also use it as a way for Canadian sailors to get their seatime for Ocean Navigator tickets and have slots for Merchant Marine Cadets as well.


----------



## MTShaw

I’m glad we are still worshipping Davie. We didn’t buy either because they didn’t meet our specifications.  It could gas up ships, but that’s it. No carrying anything invlding ammunition, vehicles etc etc. No CBRN. No warship things like fire suppression, 2 drivelines. No battleship and commodore function as the JSS will be the command center of a Canadian battlegroup. And the ability to sail in a Baltic Sea. 

Davie wanted Federal Fleet to be the RFA. Won’t happen

We cold have bought both for non-combatant areas. I don’t know if Canada could have used one if not both in that role. I would have like 2 JSS Atlantic and Asterix in the pacific. Asterix would have to be held back at Hawaii or Australia to keep it out of dangerous areas. So never a free launch.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In reality we really need 4 AOR's, a JSS on each coast backed up by a Resolve class as well. That way you can do training with the Resolve class, cover the JSS when in refit and hot layup the Resolve when not need. If you buy the ship outright, you can build a RFA from ground up and not have it tied to one company or coast.


----------



## MTShaw

Colin Parkinson said:


> In reality we really need 4 AOR's, a JSS on each coast backed up by a Resolve class as well. That way you can do training with the Resolve class, cover the JSS when in refit and hot layup the Resolve when not need. If you buy the ship outright, you can build a RFA from ground up and not have it tied to one company or coast.


I agree. Once the JSS program is complete, the government won’t give that a second look. Hopefully the government realize that icebreaking opvs on the west coast are absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MTShaw said:


> I agree. Once the JSS program is complete, the government won’t give that a second look. Hopefully the government realize that icebreaking opvs on the west coast are absolutely ridiculous.


Not really the CCG kept two ice breaker buoy tenders on the West Coast, of similar ice rating. In the summer months one would head north and do the Western Arctic. Likely one of the West Coast AOPs will do the same.


----------



## Jimbolio

MTShaw said:


> ...didn’t meet our specifications.  It could gas up ships, but that’s it. No carrying anything invlding ammunition, vehicles etc etc.


Is that true?  I know the Navy has gone on and on about how it's not supposed to be a warship, but I've read nothing suggesting it can't carry anything other than marine fuels.  In fact, I recently read the opposite!  Is this something that's known in some circles, but not widely publicised?  

That said, even if it were true, gassing up ships is no small feat, especially when the alternative is no capability whatsoever!


----------



## MTShaw

Jimbolio said:


> Is that true?  I know the Navy has gone on and on about how it's not supposed to be a warship, but I've read nothing suggesting it can't carry anything other than marine fuels.  In fact, I recently read the opposite!  Is this something that's known in some circles, but not widely publicised?
> 
> That said, even if it were true, gassing up ships is no small feat, especially when the alternative is no capability whatsoever!


I’m new here and i know I’ve beaten this issue to frickin’ death. It can do dry stores. If you have something to add other than  that, please  add it.

More people love Davie and Asterix than i could have ever imagined.


----------



## Jimbolio

MTShaw said:


> I’m new here and i know I’ve beaten this issue to frickin’ death. It can do dry stores. If you have something to add other than  that, please  add it.
> 
> More people love Davie and Asterix than i could have ever imagined.


I don't have anything to add, other than what's publicly available.  I know I've scoured some PDFs that many in the public won't read, but again, nothing that isn't publicly available with some searching.  That's why I was asking.  I was wondering if there was some story, where it was found to be not suitable for HADR, or carrying ammunition, etc. (ex. they were loading a vehicle, say, and the crane wasn't up to spec and collapsed).

I don't particularly love Davie, but I don't have a horse in the race.  JSS shouldn't be compromised in favour of some as-yet unbuilt Obelix, but Asterix must be better than the fat lot of nothing that was sitting there before!


----------



## MTShaw

Jimbolio said:


> I don't have anything to add, other than what's publicly available.  I know I've scoured some PDFs that many in the public won't read, but again, nothing that isn't publicly available with some searching.  That's why I was asking.  I was wondering if there was some story, where it was found to be not suitable for HADR, or carrying ammunition, etc. (ex. they were loading a vehicle, say, and the crane wasn't up to spec and collapsed).
> 
> I don't particularly love Davie, but I don't have a horse in the race.  JSS shouldn't be compromised in favour of some as-yet unbuilt Obelix, but Asterix must be better than the fat lot of nothing that was sitting there before!


It is very useful for the time being. It is limited to how far or in it can go in or near a potential war zone  So even in that it limits where Canadian interests lie. I don’t believe Asterix will last the JSS program because manning the ships with Canadian sailors is unlikely because thwy’ll be FAM’d on Asterix may lapse on Asterix as they are sailing on a JSS. And federal fleet is apparently quite expensive. 

The crane is deigned to lift 10, 20 or 40ft containers. I don’t know if it lifts vehicles. Amy vehicles carried on a JSS will likely be loaded a port.

Ammunition transportation is quite difficult  If my memory is correct, Davie tried to build a safe armoury, and failed. Transporting munitions by sea is by farrrrr more economical than by air  Though i don’t know how much more exactly.


----------



## Prairie canuck

And the answer is (drum roll) G-LAM
Well maybe not the complete answer but it does check off a lot of boxes. RAS capable, troops and equipment, looks like room for 3 S92 sized helicoptors, UAVs, large flight deck, ice capable (not sure to what class), etc. 3 or 4 of these could fill in a lot of gaps in multiple theatres.


----------



## FSTO

MTShaw said:


> It is very useful for the time being. It is limited to how far or in it can go in or near a potential war zone  So even in that it limits where Canadian interests lie. I don’t believe Asterix will last the JSS program because manning the ships with Canadian sailors is unlikely because thwy’ll be FAM’d on Asterix may lapse on Asterix as they are sailing on a JSS. And federal fleet is apparently quite expensive.
> 
> The crane is deigned to lift 10, 20 or 40ft containers. I don’t know if it lifts vehicles. Amy vehicles carried on a JSS will likely be loaded a port.
> 
> Ammunition transportation is quite difficult  If my memory is correct, Davie tried to build a safe armoury, and failed. Transporting munitions by sea is by farrrrr more economical than by air  Though i don’t know how much more exactly.


Having our AOR’s going directly into harms way is an uniquely RCN feature which is dumb dumb dumb! We should have 6 RFA types and if we want to properly do HRDR then build a small flat deck that can carry Chinooks and and launch landing craft from a well deck. Anything short of this is farting in the wind.


----------



## MTShaw

FSTO said:


> Having our AOR’s going directly into harms way is an uniquely RCN feature which is dumb dumb dumb! We should have 6 RFA types and if we want to properly do HRDR then build a small flat deck that can carry Chinooks and and launch landing craft from a well deck. Anything short of this is farting in the wind.


This is Canada. We are always farting into the wind. I’m overjoyed that we haven't cancelled the JSS half way through.


----------



## OldSolduer

Question from the resident crayon eater:

How long should it take to build this ship?


----------



## FSTO

OldSolduer said:


> Question from the resident crayon eater:
> 
> How long should it take to build this ship?


Well the Korean yards can do something like this in 20 to 24 months (likely even less). But Seaspan had to retool and the first of class is always the slowest. We've known we needed to replace the AOR's back in the 90's. We are just bad at planning and long range thinking.


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:


> Well the Korean yards can do something like this in 20 to 24 months (likely even less). But Seaspan had to retool and the first of class is always the slowest. We've known we needed to replace the AOR's back in the 90's. We are just bad at planning and long range thinking.


Thank you so 40-42 months would not be unreasonable?


----------



## FSTO

OldSolduer said:


> Thank you so 40-42 months would not be unreasonable?


If you were building from scratch, even longer. But this was a mature design (the AOR is very basic; gas, ammo, food and spare parts, living quarters, engine room, RAS deck and flight deck not much variations from that base requirements) so it should be quicker timeline.

Then again, I'm a MARS officer and our profession has a reputation of being unreasonable!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FSTO said:


> If you were building from scratch, even longer. But this was a mature design (the AOR is very basic; gas, ammo, food and spare parts, living quarters, engine room, RAS deck and flight deck not much variations from that base requirements) so it should be quicker timeline.
> 
> Then again, I'm a MARS officer and our profession has a reputation of being unreasonable!


Don't underestimate the ripple effect of "minor changes". Move a bulkhead, then you have to adapt all your cable runs, is that bulkhead load bearing and if so how are you dealing with that load. Even upgrading to modern equipment will mean different mounting points, new designed cable runs, maybe you need more or less ventilation in that compartment, fire hazards, RF interference, etc. Not to mention that favourite thing, stability calculations.
This is why I am a advocate of planning to upgun your naval vessels like the AOPs/AOR's with designed in hardpoints, cabling, space for magazines, ammunition hoists, armour, fire supprsion and spare power and cable runs for future sensors. You may never need to, but it will be a damm sight easier if you have to in the future. Not to mention if you calculate some future weight gain from weapons, it increases your stability fudge factor.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oh, you and your “stability”.

We used to sit in the Wardroom of ALG and make bets on whether she had enough righting moment to come back from her most recent roll…


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SeaKingTacco said:


> Oh, you and your “stability”.
> 
> We used to sit in the Wardroom of ALG and make bets on whether she had enough righting moment to come back from her most recent roll…


FSTO was probably there, too…


----------



## FSTO

^^
Yep


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FSTO said:


> ^^
> Yep


I guess that we both won, in that we are still alive…


----------



## Stoker

Prairie canuck said:


> And the answer is (drum roll) G-LAM
> Well maybe not the complete answer but it does check off a lot of boxes. RAS capable, troops and equipment, looks like room for 3 S92 sized helicoptors, UAVs, large flight deck, ice capable (not sure to what class), etc. 3 or 4 of these could fill in a lot of gaps in multiple theatres.


Ice capable but not allowed by her insurance to go above 60.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:


> Oh, you and your “stability”.
> 
> We used to sit in the Wardroom of ALG and make bets on whether she had enough righting moment to come back from her most recent roll…


I stood on a bulkhead on a R Class, that was unfun.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin Parkinson said:


> I stood on a bulkhead on a R Class, that was unfun.


I’ve done a few “bulkhead only” transits thru a frigate from the Ops Room to the Hangar in heavy seas, but I never worried about their stability…


----------



## Swampbuggy

Stoker said:


> Ice capable but not allowed by her insurance to go above 60.





Stoker said:


> Ice capable but not allowed by her insurance to go above 60.


That wouldn’t be the case if it was purchased outright and RCN manned, would it?


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:


> I guess that we both won, in that we are still alive…


Despite our, the Navy, and Naval Air’s best efforts!


----------



## Grimey

SeaKingTacco said:


> I guess that we both won, in that we are still alive…


Me too, but looking over the stability curves in the MCR it didn’t take much for that righting moment to disappear.  About half the AMR flooded out and she wasn’t coming back.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:


> That wouldn’t be the case if it was purchased outright and RCN manned, would it?


Probably but we don't RAS above 60 due to our own environmental regs.


----------



## MilEME09

Good progress video


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1551193163804581890


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> Oh, you and your “stability”.
> 
> We used to sit in the Wardroom of ALG and make bets on whether she had enough righting moment to come back from her most recent roll…


You say that like its a bad thing....


----------



## MTShaw

MilEME09 said:


> Good progress video
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1551193163804581890


Excellent. Thanks.

Cue someone opining about Asterix.


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:


> Good progress video
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1551193163804581890


An hour late and a buck short.


----------



## MilEME09

Weinie said:


> An hour late and a buck short.


I think we are a few hours late now, originally wasn't she supposed to join the fleet in 2014?


----------



## Halifax Tar

MTShaw said:


> Excellent. Thanks.
> 
> Cue someone opining about Asterix.



You really have a a bone in your craw about Asterix eh ?


----------



## Underway

OldSolduer said:


> Thank you so 40-42 months would not be unreasonable?


Honestly it depends on a whole lot. When you build something the first time how long does it take? Something as simple as LEGO (I think we can all relate). You follow the plan, you count the blocks it takes you half a day (Xmas morning) to build the spaceship.  You rip it apart and then some time later you try it again.  It goes twice as fast. You recognize the parts, you already presorted the bricks etc...

Korea can build tankers fast because they essentially have assembly lined them. JSS is a line of two ships.  It's basically artesian.  To actually make (not including design) it was supposed to take 3.5 years, then covid moved that up to 5 years (a delay of 18 months).   I don't think 3.5 years to build a moving, floating, fueling apartment complex is unreasonable.  5 years is too long but what are you going to do with a pandemic?  The subcontractors really had hard time meeting deadlines.  The yard had their own challenges (some self inflicted for sure)


----------



## lenaitch

Underway said:


> Honestly it depends on a whole lot. When you build something the first time how long does it take? Something as simple as LEGO (I think we can all relate). You follow the plan, you count the blocks it takes you half a day (Xmas morning) to build the spaceship.  You rip it apart and then some time later you try it again.  It goes twice as fast. You recognize the parts, you already presorted the bricks etc...
> 
> Korea can build tankers fast because they essentially have assembly lined them. JSS is a line of two ships.  It's basically artesian.  To actually make (not including design) it was supposed to take 3.5 years, then covid moved that up to 5 years (a delay of 18 months).   I don't think 3.5 years to build a moving, floating, fueling apartment complex is unreasonable.  5 years is too long but what are you going to do with a pandemic?  The subcontractors really had hard time meeting deadlines.  The yard had their own challenges (some self inflicted for sure)


Good post but I think autocorrect bit you.  Something that is "artesian" on a ship would be a bad thing.  'Artisanal' perhaps.


----------



## MTShaw

Halifax Tar said:


> You really have a a bone in your craw about Asterix eh ?


NoNe whatsoever. 

The problem is that people seem to unreasonably love that ship.  It is a slick ship that does almost none of what many governments over time said were needed. 

I’ll leave it that.


----------



## FSTO

MTShaw said:


> NoNe whatsoever.
> 
> The problem is that people seem to unreasonably love that ship.  It is a slick ship that does almost none of what many governments over time said were needed.
> 
> I’ll leave it that.


That's why its called interim AOR. It was acquired to fill a critical gap in our capabilities. And I would argue quite forcefully in the way we plan to employ our JSS's is not and would not be acceptable by our allies.


----------



## MTShaw

FSTO said:


> That's why its called interim AOR. It was acquired to fill a critical gap in our capabilities. And I would argue quite forcefully in the way we plan to employ our JSS's is not and would not be acceptable by our allies.


Why would it be unacceptable to our allies. Why would how we choose to employ our AORs and battle groups Need approval from our please? Why would they care in the first place.


----------



## Spencer100

FSTO said:


> That's why its called interim AOR. It was acquired to fill a critical gap in our capabilities. And I would argue quite forcefully in the way we plan to employ our JSS's is not and would not be acceptable by our allies.


Battle Tanker?


----------



## FSTO

MTShaw said:


> Why would it be unacceptable to our allies. Why would how we choose to employ our AORs and battle groups Need approval from our please? Why would they care in the first place.


In Gulf War 1 our AOR ran around the Gulf like it was bloody destroyer until the Combatant Commander ordered it into the AOR Box where it could be properly managed and protected.

If we want to use our AOR as we see fit during peacetime, fill our boots! But when the bullets fly and there is a dearth of supply ships (which there will be of course) getting our 1 AOR blown up because we were bloody fools is not a coherent course of action!


----------



## MTShaw

FSTO said:


> That's why its called interim AOR. It was acquired to fill a critical gap in our capabilities. And I would argue quite forcefully in the way we plan to employ our JSS's is not and would not be acceptable by our allies.


Interim AOR LOL. Davie will ride this forever. You asked me why i had a problem with Asterix and you got an answer.


----------



## MTShaw

FSTO said:


> In Gulf War 1 our AOR ran around the Gulf like it was bloody destroyer until the Combatant Commander ordered it into the AOR Box where it could be properly managed and protected.
> 
> If we want to use our AOR as we see fit during peacetime, fill our boots! But when the bullets fly and there is a dearth of supply ships (which there will be of course) getting our 1 AOR blown up because we were bloody fools is not a coherent course of action!


What does the 1st Gulf War have to do with SNMG 1 or 2, or operation Neon have to do with current doctrine?


----------



## FSTO

MTShaw said:


> What does the 1st Gulf War have to do with SNMG 1 or 2, or operation Neon have to do with current doctrine?


What do you want our AOR to do?

In my mind its this - Resupply the fleet safely and efficiently, and conduct HADR operations when required.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For something like piracy patrols, could not a AOR be deployed singly as a support and Task Force commander with other nation ships? For that role other than the sensors do you need a CSC?


----------



## MTShaw

FSTO said:


> What do you want our AOR to do?





FSTO said:


> In my mind its this - Resupply the fleet safely and efficiently, and conduct HADR operations when required.


I guess sucessive governments had bigger ambitions. I have no idea why they added Fleet command to them, but there it is. It has to had passed many review so. My point about Asterix is that it does not meet a number of requirements.

That’s it. No hate.  

Also if war their is another gulf war, no ships are going into the Persian gulf Until it’s almost over.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MTShaw said:


> NoNe whatsoever.
> 
> The problem is that people seem to unreasonably love that ship.  It is a slick ship that does almost none of what many governments over time said were needed.
> 
> I’ll leave it that.



The current sailors love it because it's a cruise ship compared to CPFs.  

I haven't meat a sailor who's sailed her that said anything bad.  And I can't blame them. 

It's a pure tanker.  And does that well.  And I've done jackstays for food as well with her. 

I started out on Preserver.  Battle tanker for life lol


----------



## MTShaw

Halifax Tar said:


> The current sailors love it because it's a cruise ship compared to CPFs.
> 
> I haven't meat a sailor who's sailed her that said anything bad.  And I can't blame them.
> 
> It's a pure tanker.  And does that well.  And I've done jackstays for food as well with her.
> 
> I started out on Preserver.  Battle tanker for life lol


I wonder if part of the displacement inflation in modern frigates is treating sailors like humans. Perhaps it will help in both recuitment and retention.


----------



## Navy_Pete

MTShaw said:


> I wonder if part of the displacement inflation in modern frigates is treating sailors like humans. Perhaps it will help in both recuitment and retention.


Nope, we've had the same guidelines for space allowances for about 50 years, it's just something you can't really accomodate on warships due to the equipment density.  Even though electronics have gotten smaller over time it hasn't gotten any better as we simply use the extra room to put in more kit.

Planning for bigger crews at the start is actually better from that perspective; when you sail the ships with less people you can spread them across messes so they get more personal space, but when the bunks are full at least everyone has designated space.

Lot better than realizing after the ship is built that you need more people, and you do things like convert double bunks to triples, sleeping on unsecured cots in weird spaces not meant to be occupied all the time and some other sketchy solutions.

Sailing on the 280s with 200 people when you have space for almost 300 was nicer than sailing on a CPF with 270 people when you have room for 250. So I'm sure we'll build CSC for 180 people (and no training bunks) and then deploy with 250, while wondering why we don't have enough bunks for people to get sea time.


----------



## MTShaw

Navy_Pete said:


> Nope, we've had the same guidelines for space allowances for about 50 years, it's just something you can't really accomodate on warships due to the equipment density.  Even though electronics have gotten smaller over time it hasn't gotten any better as we simply use the extra room to put in more kit.
> 
> Planning for bigger crews at the start is actually better from that perspective; when you sail the ships with less people you can spread them across messes so they get more personal space, but when the bunks are full at least everyone has designated space.
> 
> Lot better than realizing after the ship is built that you need more people, and you do things like convert double bunks to triples, sleeping on unsecured cots in weird spaces not meant to be occupied all the time and some other sketchy solutions.
> 
> Sailing on the 280s with 200 people when you have space for almost 300 was nicer than sailing on a CPF with 270 people when you have room for 250. So I'm sure we'll build CSC for 180 people (and no training bunks) and then deploy with 250, while wondering why we don't have enough bunks for people to get sea time.


Damn specifications.


----------



## MTShaw

HI Everyone,

Below is a local newspaper talking about the JSS with mentions of JSS2 and OSFV.









						Navy's joint support ship taking shape at Seaspan shipyard
					

Pandemic supply chain issues have pushed the delivery dates of both Navy ships back two years, but progress on the first joint support ship is unmistakable. from Vancouver Harbour.




					www.nsnews.com


----------



## BdaDug

MTShaw said:


> HI Everyone,
> 
> Below is a local newspaper talking about the JSS with mentions of JSS2 and OSFV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy's joint support ship taking shape at Seaspan shipyard
> 
> 
> Pandemic supply chain issues have pushed the delivery dates of both Navy ships back two years, but progress on the first joint support ship is unmistakable. from Vancouver Harbour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nsnews.com


Interesting to read that the second JSS is under initial construction as well ... good to read.  Thanks for sharing the article!


----------



## calculus

BdaDug said:


> Interesting to read that the second JSS is under initial construction as well ... good to read.  Thanks for sharing the article!


I don't believe construction has started on the second JSS. Glad to be proven wrong however!


----------



## OldSolduer

MTShaw said:


> HI Everyone,
> 
> Below is a local newspaper talking about the JSS with mentions of JSS2 and OSFV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy's joint support ship taking shape at Seaspan shipyard
> 
> 
> Pandemic supply chain issues have pushed the delivery dates of both Navy ships back two years, but progress on the first joint support ship is unmistakable. from Vancouver Harbour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nsnews.com


Question here:

Will these JSS be as capable as the old Provider etc? Forgive me but I am a crayon eating landlubber.


----------



## FSTO

OldSolduer said:


> Question here:
> 
> Will these JSS be as capable as the old Provider etc? Forgive me but I am a crayon eating landlubber.


From the ADM Mat Website

If you are on the DWAN





						Joint support ship (JSS) - Canada.ca
					

The Joint Support Ships (JSS) will be built for the Royal Canadian Navy under the non-combat work package.




					www.canada.ca
				




The Royal Canadian Navy needs support ships. The Joint Support Ship (JSS) project will deliver two new ships, as outlined in Strong, Secured, Engaged, Canada’s defence policy. These Joint Support Ships are being built for the RCN under the National Shipbuilding Strategy and will replace the auxiliary oiler replenishment (AOR) vessels that reached the end of their operational lives.

The future Joint Support Ship will provide:


Underway Support to Naval Task Groups: Underway support is best described as the re-supply of fuel, food, ammunition, spare parts and other supplies between ships at sea. This includes the operation and maintenance of helicopters, as well as task group medical and dental facilities;
Limited Sealift: JSS will be capable of transporting and delivering cargo both in support of task group operations and in support to operations ashore; and
Limited Support to Operations Ashore: To meet a range of possibilities in an uncertain future security environment, the JSS will leverage its onboard facilities to support operations ashore, including anything from combat to humanitarian and disaster relief.
Self-defence functions and the ability to respond to Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) threats to allow for operations in high threat environments.


----------



## suffolkowner

calculus said:


> I don't believe construction has started on the second JSS. Glad to be proven wrong however!


it says

"Steel for the second joint support ship was cut in May of this year – the large grey panels are visible in a number of the shipyard’s steel-cutting and early welding shops."

they should build a third AOR Provider and transfer the other Polar Icebreaker to Davie assuming Davie can get past what ever hurdles it has


----------



## dapaterson

Long lead items would have to have been ordered a few years ago to permit a third of class to be built without interruption.


----------



## suffolkowner

dapaterson said:


> Long lead items would have to have been ordered a few years ago to permit a third of class to be built without interruption.


Seaspan looks to be heading toward an interruption regardless as I haven't heard of anything with respect to the Polar icebreaker or the MPV. Irving at least has a clearer view of their next few years as they transition to the CSC


----------



## MTShaw

suffolkowner said:


> Seaspan looks to be heading toward an interruption regardless as I haven't heard of anything with respect to the Polar icebreaker or the MPV. Irving at least has a clearer view of their next few years as they transition to the CSC


One thing that caught my eyes is the delivery of the first MPV being 2029, so there build would dovetail with JSS2 and Polar icebreaker. One thing i don’t know is how fast a moderately efficient yard can build a 25,000 diesel electric ship. 






						Multi-purpose vessels - Large vessel shipbuilding projects – Shipbuilding projects to equip the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard – National Shipbuilding Strategy – Sea – Defence and marine procurement – Buying and Selling – PSPC
					

Information about the procurement of multi-purpose vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard.




					www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
				




One thing I’ve noticed about the Polar class build is that the design is being done by Seaspan exclusively. I’m still trying to find reliable design images. 






						Multi-purpose vessels - Large vessel shipbuilding projects – Shipbuilding projects to equip the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard – National Shipbuilding Strategy – Sea – Defence and marine procurement – Buying and Selling – PSPC
					

Information about the procurement of multi-purpose vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard.




					www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca


----------



## MTShaw

MTShaw said:


> One thing that caught my eyes is the delivery of the first MPV being 2029, so there build would dovetail with JSS2 and Polar icebreaker. One thing i don’t know is how fast a moderately efficient yard can build a 25,000 diesel electric ship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multi-purpose vessels - Large vessel shipbuilding projects – Shipbuilding projects to equip the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard – National Shipbuilding Strategy – Sea – Defence and marine procurement – Buying and Selling – PSPC
> 
> 
> Information about the procurement of multi-purpose vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I’ve noticed about the Polar class build is that the design is being done by Seaspan exclusively. I’m still trying to find reliable design images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multi-purpose vessels - Large vessel shipbuilding projects – Shipbuilding projects to equip the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard – National Shipbuilding Strategy – Sea – Defence and marine procurement – Buying and Selling – PSPC
> 
> 
> Information about the procurement of multi-purpose vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca


The last URL should have been:





						Polar icebreakers - Large vessel shipbuilding projects – Shipbuilding projects to equip the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard – National Shipbuilding Strategy – Sea – Defence and marine procurement – Buying and Selling – PSPC
					

Information about the procurement of polar icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard.




					www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca


----------



## MarkOttawa

MTShaw said:


> The last URL should have been:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polar icebreakers - Large vessel shipbuilding projects – Shipbuilding projects to equip the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard – National Shipbuilding Strategy – Sea – Defence and marine procurement – Buying and Selling – PSPC
> 
> 
> Information about the procurement of polar icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca


That 2029 date for first CCG MPV is fairy land if the polar breaker is built first. There's also the OOSV to come from Seaspan.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

View from the recently added bridge


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1555744973814996998


----------



## Underway

That first photo has the Project Manager, Blaine Duffley (foreground with the long sleeves).  The guy in the back is one of the Project Directing staff who represents the RCN at the project (I won't name him, he's a private guy).

I'll get my first (and likely final) visit to the shipyard on the 22nd.  I'll take lots of pics for you folks and share what they let me.


----------



## bLUE fOX

MTShaw said:


> I’m glad we are still worshipping Davie. We didn’t buy either because they didn’t meet our specifications.  It could gas up ships, but that’s it. No carrying anything invlding ammunition, vehicles etc etc. No CBRN. No warship things like fire suppression, 2 drivelines. No battleship and commodore function as the JSS will be the command center of a Canadian battlegroup. And the ability to sail in a Baltic Sea.
> 
> Davie wanted Federal Fleet to be the RFA. Won’t happen
> 
> We cold have bought both for non-combatant areas. I don’t know if Canada could have used one if not both in that role. I would have like 2 JSS Atlantic and Asterix in the pacific. Asterix would have to be held back at Hawaii or Australia to keep it out of dangerous areas. So never a free launch.


You're wrong about Asterix not carrying ammunition. It stops in Bedford at least twice a year to load up, and not just for the ships force protection.


----------



## Stoker

bLUE fOX said:


> You're wrong about Asterix not carrying ammunition. It stops in Bedford at least twice a year to load up, and not just for the ships force protection.


It carries limited ammunition in a few sea cans. It can't carry anything else.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

First of all, the ammunition we transfer at sea in the RCN is usually only small stuff like ammo for the various guns (the biggest one of which is the 57 mm gun on the frigates) and for the smaller "expandable" missiles, such as the Chaff, etc.. We don't transfer and reload the larger missiles at sea.

Second, how much ammunition are we expanding at sea these days?

There are no current needs for a large ammunition holding on the iAOR.


----------



## Spencer100

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> First of all, the ammunition we transfer at sea in the RCN is usually only small stuff like ammo for the various guns (the biggest one of which is the 57 mm gun on the frigates) and for the smaller "expandable" missiles, such as the Chaff, etc.. We don't transfer and reload the larger missiles at sea.
> 
> Second, how much ammunition are we expanding at sea these days?
> 
> There are no current needs for a large ammunition holding on the iAOR.


I was under the impression no one transfers larger missiles at sea.  The USN doesn't load SM into VLS.  I have seen pics of RAM being loaded.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Man some people really dislike Davies and Asterix eh ? 

Can we not just appreciate that we still have underway refueling and resupply capability until JSS comes online.  Asterix has done oodles of sea days and has given yeoman service on both coasts.  Is she perfect ?  Nope, but she is worlds better than no tanker.  Also wasn't this project delivered on time and on budget ?
I think we should have bought Asterix and Oblix for use as pure refulers and continued to use them in an quasi RFA role to augment JSS. 



Spencer100 said:


> I was under the impression no one transfers larger missiles at sea.  The USN doesn't load SM into VLS.  I have seen pics of RAM being loaded.



I am a tankerman, I have never seen missiles transferred at sea,  I have seen a helo transferred at sea; in fact PRE rarely carried more ammunition than she needed for he own tasks.  I cant remember a time her ammunition holds were packed.  Maybe Op Apollo, but that was a lifetime ago.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> Man some people really dislike Davies and Asterix eh ?
> 
> Can we not just appreciate that we still have underway refueling and resupply capability until JSS comes online.  Asterix has done oodles of sea days and has given yeoman service on both coasts.  Is she perfect ?  Nope, but she is worlds better than no tanker.  Also wasn't this project delivered on time and on budget ?
> I think we should have bought Asterix and Oblix for use as pure refulers and continued to use them in an quasi RFA role to augment JSS.
> 
> 
> 
> I am a tankerman, I have never seen missiles transferred at sea,  I have seen a helo transferred at sea; in fact PRE rarely carried more ammunition than she needed for he own tasks.  I cant remember a time her ammunition holds were packed.  Maybe Op Apollo, but that was a lifetime ago.


Op Friction. 

PRO was packed to the top of the ammo lift….


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> Op Friction.
> 
> PRO was packed to the top of the ammo lift….


 Interesting... I was 11 when Op Friction went down


----------



## Stoker

Regardless of what ships did in the past, the JSS will have the dedicated ammunition storage to support a CSC taskgroup at sea if needed. Asterix does not.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Stoker said:


> Regardless of what ships did in the past, the JSS will have the dedicated ammunition storage to support a CSC taskgroup at sea if needed. Asterix does not.



Ok, yup.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Halifax Tar said:


> Interesting... I was 11 when Op Friction went down


OK! It's official I'm old .


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:


> I was under the impression no one transfers larger missiles at sea.  The USN doesn't load SM into VLS.  I have seen pics of RAM being loaded.


The USN did experiment with a ship to ship missile reload, although I think it took place in a sheltered harbour at anchor.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Just thinking out loud here, but I always thought AST would make a great centrepiece for a Caribbean task force, for either HADR with AOPS supporting or a mothership for OP CARIBBE. She could carry a couple of LEDETS, intercept boats, two choppers and be able to refuel USCG vessels, but not really be in harms way, like a JSS is meant to be able to handle.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

GK .Dundas said:


> OK! It's official I'm old .


Me too.


----------



## Weinie

SeaKingTacco said:


> Me too.


You are a pup.


----------



## MTShaw

Spencer100 said:


> I was under the impression no one transfers larger missiles at sea.  The USN doesn't load SM into VLS.  I have seen pics of RAM being loaded.


I was thinking moving Canadian stores to Europe. They gave up on loading vls a while back.


----------



## MTShaw

Swampbuggy said:


> Just thinking out loud here, but I always thought AST would make a great centrepiece for a Caribbean task force, for either HADR with AOPS supporting or a mothership for OP CARIBBE. She could carry a couple of LEDETS, intercept boats, two choppers and be able to refuel USCG vessels, but not really be in harms way, like a JSS is meant to be able to handle.


As was discussed a while up, Canadian doctrine apparently doesn’t have a full AOR for HADR let alone for RAS chasing drug smugglers when every ship is very much close enough to land to RAS itself.


----------



## Swampbuggy

MTShaw said:


> As was discussed a while up, Canadian doctrine apparently doesn’t have a full AOR for HADR let alone for RAS chasing drug smugglers when every ship is very much close enough to land to RAS itself.


Of course, things could change (as unlikely as that may be) if someone decides the goodwill garnered from that sort of tasking is worth the cost. Point taken re:RAS, however the other benefits remain given the space/flexibility of the ship. 

I don’t believe any of this is likely, as I’m certain ASTERIX will be pretty played out by the time JSS number two gets commissioned.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Swampbuggy said:


> Of course, things could change (as unlikely as that may be) if someone decides the goodwill garnered from that sort of tasking is worth the cost. Point taken re:RAS, however the other benefits remain given the space/flexibility of the ship.
> 
> I don’t believe any of this is likely, as I’m certain ASTERIX will be pretty played out by the time JSS number two gets commissioned.


I should also say that I don’t believe any of this would happen for multiple other reasons as well…cost, personnel, political will etc..


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Swampbuggy said:


> Of course, things could change (as unlikely as that may be) if someone decides the goodwill garnered from that sort of tasking is worth the cost. Point taken re:RAS, however the other benefits remain given the space/flexibility of the ship.
> 
> I don’t believe any of this is likely, as I’m certain ASTERIX will be pretty played out by the time JSS number two gets commissioned.


When has "Played out" ever stopped us?


----------



## Rainbow1910

Halifax Tar said:


> Man some people really dislike Davies and Asterix eh ?
> 
> Can we not just appreciate that we still have underway refueling and resupply capability until JSS comes online.  Asterix has done oodles of sea days and has given yeoman service on both coasts.  Is she perfect ?  Nope, but she is worlds better than no tanker.  Also wasn't this project delivered on time and on budget ?
> I think we should have bought Asterix and Oblix for use as pure refulers and continued to use them in an quasi RFA role to augment JSS.
> 
> I am a tankerman, I have never seen missiles transferred at sea,  I have seen a helo transferred at sea; in fact PRE rarely carried more ammunition than she needed for he own tasks.  I cant remember a time her ammunition holds were packed.  Maybe Op Apollo, but that was a lifetime ago.


From what I have gathered from more "amateur" public discussion pages about the RCN, Davie and Asterix very much have a strange cult following that has seemingly sprung up around them. Davie had a very positive public spin by apparently putting Asterix through her conversion on budget and on schedule, people seemingly elevated them atop some pedestal as being the shining example of Canadian shipbuilders. The near constant fanboying that many people do to Davie, Asterix and her potential sister seem to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Especially when it seems that Asterix is raking in a pretty penny for a relatively austere capability provided to the RCN, it comes off as a bit shallow for people to assume Davie is some master shipbuilder with the best interests of the nations defense in mind. They are just another domestic shipbuilder, one that has seemingly been skating around on a lot of public goodwill compared to Seaspan and Irving (especially Irving who many seem to treat as the shipbuilders equivalent of the anti-Christ). In my own personal opinion, Asterix fills a temporary niche for the RCN until JSS but the overall lease cost and capability provided does not seem sustainable long term.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The price for Asterix will come down greatly when it's not the only game in town. She will need a good refit once the first JSS is service. My guess is Davie and Fleet Services will see the writing on the wall and want to unload her at that point. I suspect the Government will offer to retain her and the contract at a reduced price, then when JSS #2 comes along, they either run out the contract or negotiate to buy her outright. Davie will be in a tight spot then as the ship will need work and the market for used AOR's is not large. Canada really needs 4 AOR's, but 3 would do. Asterix could be the relief AOR, shuttling between coasts as needed.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Rainbow1910 said:


> From what I have gathered from more "amateur" public discussion pages about the RCN, Davie and Asterix very much have a strange cult following that has seemingly sprung up around them. Davie had a very positive public spin by apparently putting Asterix through her conversion on budget and on schedule, people seemingly elevated them atop some pedestal as being the shining example of Canadian shipbuilders. The near constant fanboying that many people do to Davie, Asterix and her potential sister seem to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Especially when it seems that Asterix is raking in a pretty penny for a relatively austere capability provided to the RCN, it comes off as a bit shallow for people to assume Davie is some master shipbuilder with the best interests of the nations defense in mind. They are just another domestic shipbuilder, one that has seemingly been skating around on a lot of public goodwill compared to Seaspan and Irving (especially Irving who many seem to treat as the shipbuilders equivalent of the anti-Christ). In my own personal opinion, Asterix fills a temporary niche for the RCN until JSS but the overall lease cost and capability provided does not seem sustainable long term.



Davie played a really good publicity and social media game, no doubt about that.  And they delivered a product, on time and on budget.  Asterix has been a busy bee since she came into service; personally I have RAS'd material and fuel from her on various occasions.  Yup she cant go into harms way, the reality is she shouldn't be going into harms way. 

Is the whole leasing idea costing more in the long run, maybe... probably... but they did offer to sell to us and *WE* made the decision to lease.  *We* also way under budgeted how much *we* would use her.  *We* should have bought both Asterix and Obilix.  They would have been a great compliment to the JSS when they come online.

The other issue is, on the east coast, if there is such a history of Irving producing piss poor work, poor quality control, some on this forum have used to the word _sabotage_, and down right theft that it will take generations of stellar products coming out of that yard to take the bad taste out of most people mouths. 

I am happy to see we have refueling capability, I am happy we have some sailors that get to go to sea or deploy in outstanding conditions.  I wish I would have had the chance to sail in her.

I've never sailed west coast and therefore wont talk about Seaspan.


----------



## NavyShooter

If you want specific examples of willful deliberate sabotage, let me know.  

If you want specific examples of outright thievery, let me know.

If you want specific examples of incompetence, let me know.

Suffice to say, there are reasons that unoccupied mess decks are padlocked during refits...catching folks sleeping in bunks while 'on the job' has happened...

The ships are stripped of all firefighting hoses and equipment...someone was cutting the brass hose connectors off...and using our fire extinguishers for their fire picket people...

Deliberately plugging a black water suction line on not one but two ships in succession...involving cutting a line, hammering it full of welding rod (or threaded rod on the other ship) and then welding the line back up and PAINTING IT...

Cut fiber optic cables...with tool marks...that are then tucked back into wireways...

Yeah...there's some significant lack of trust of certain ship yards that is well earned.


----------



## MTShaw

I must add that a person in the know upward in the forum said that the yearly cost to RCN is $700M. That would give it a 30 year of 21B. Another reason HMCG doesn’t like Davie: Federal Fleet price fixing.


----------



## Swampbuggy

MTShaw said:


> I must add that a person in the know upward in the forum said that the yearly cost to RCN is $700M. That would give it a 30 year of 21B. Another reason HMCG doesn’t like Davie: Federal Fleet price fixing.


According to a 2018 article by Matthew Fisher in the CGAI publication, the cost for the initial 5 years lease (including personnel) was to be $677 million. I can’t find it now, but I believe the extension costs per each additional 5 years were  progressively cheaper than that. So, if that is true, a 30 year service life should be less than $4 billion. I’ll try to attach the article I’m referencing, but I’m not up to speed on my new iPhone yet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That works out to $15,456 an hr. A small tug is $500 an hour. Civilian Crew costs for the Astreix is likley in the $2,000 (36x $40+) an hour range? Does DND pay for the fuel she burns or is Federal Fleet Services responsible for it?

edited to account for Swamp buggy's information


----------



## Navy_Pete

Davie isn't terrible, but they way oversell what they actually delivered with Asterix (which was a conversion, not a build, and all the construction for that happened over seas).

Their constant sniping at the NSS directly slows down everything, and some BGHs bought their slick BS. They are going to have the exact same growing pains as ISI and VSY when they start doing thing under the NSS rules with a couple of years to get up and running, and a few build cycles to get half competent, so looking forward to them getting a bit of humble pie when their actual construction projects run late and over budget.

Lot of moving pieces involved in building a ship, so takes a lot of skill, experience and coordination that they won't have until they've actually done it a few times, and they also need to do some infrastructure upgrades.

The reality is they aren't in NSS from the get go because they had the weakest proposal, so wish they would just quit lying and stirring the pot.


----------



## Dana381

Colin Parkinson said:


> That works out to $15,456 an hr. A small tug is $500 an hour. Civilian Crew costs for the Astreix is likley in the $2,000 (36x $40+) an hour range? Does DND pay for the fuel she burns or is Federal Fleet Services responsible for it?
> 
> edited to account for Swamp buggy's information



If a person makes $40/hr it costs the employer appx $60/hr depending on insurance costs and benefit packages.


----------



## MTShaw

Colin Parkinson said:


> That works out to $15,456 an hr. A small tug is $500 an hour. Civilian Crew costs for the Astreix is likley in the $2,000 (36x $40+) an hour range? Does DND pay for the fuel she burns or is Federal Fleet Services responsible for it?
> 
> edited to account for Swamp buggy's information


Actually employment costs at $40 earned can, depend go from &60 to $80.  Also $40 per hour would be a very low wage. So average $60x1.5x2000x36 for federal fleet. PLus Canadian Navy, plus fuel 
(she was docked at Esquimalt so I guess full FMFC) and it will be sent in for dep maintenance in a few years. The navy will pay for it. Plus the rental fees paid to Davie. 

And Davie will make money hand over fist thanks to their “rental.”

Davie took advantage of the French card and it make me sick. It’s telling that the RCN likely can’t wait to get this anchor off of their necks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MTShaw said:


> Actually employment costs at $40 earned can, depend go from &60 to $80.  Also $40 per hour would be a very low wage. So average $60x1.5x2000x36 for federal fleet. PLus Canadian Navy, plus fuel
> (she was docked at Esquimalt so I guess full FMFC) and it will be sent in for dep maintenance in a few years. The navy will pay for it. Plus the rental fees paid to Davie.
> 
> And Davie will make money hand over fist thanks to their “rental.”
> 
> Davie took advantage of the French card and it make me sick. It’s telling that the RCN likely can’t wait to get this anchor off of their necks.


Captain will make considerable more, but stewards less, I did add a fudge factor, but perhaps not enough.


----------



## MTShaw

Colin Parkinson said:


> Captain will make considerable more, but stewards less, I did add a fudge factor, but perhaps not enough.


I won’t release information directly about my former employer, but 3rd class eengineers (entry level officer) can make waaayyyyy more than $40/Day. I can’t  speak Federal Fleets rates.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MTShaw said:


> I won’t release information directly about my former employer, but 3rd class eengineers (entry level officer) can make waaayyyyy more than $40/Day. I can’t  speak Federal Fleets rates.


I meant $40 an hour


----------



## suffolkowner

I think Australia paid $20,000,000 to lease the Aiviq for the Antarctic season and is doing it again. So maybe leasing is expensive





						Contract Notice View - CN3827502: AusTender
					

AusTender provides centralised publication of Australian Government business opportunities, annual procurement plans and contracts awarded.




					www.tenders.gov.au
				




Davie did build the Cecon Pride and I thought one or two sister ships circa 2013 although I doubt much personel are left from that

Clearly there is some issues getting Davie into the NSS as nothing has been announce yet


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:


> I think Australia paid $20,000,000 to lease the Aiviq for the Antarctic season and is doing it again. So maybe leasing is expensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contract Notice View - CN3827502: AusTender
> 
> 
> AusTender provides centralised publication of Australian Government business opportunities, annual procurement plans and contracts awarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tenders.gov.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davie did build the Cecon Pride and I thought one or two sister ships circa 2013 although I doubt much personel are left from that
> 
> Clearly there is some issues getting Davie into the NSS as nothing has been announce yet


Likely they are doigesting just how much they have to do and spend to get there and wondering if they are regretting what they wished for....


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> Likely they are doigesting just how much they have to do and spend to get there and wondering if they are regretting what they wished for....


According to their site they are negotiating the umbrella agreement; there is a pretty good explanation of it in an in depth article by either Mr. Tom Ring or Mr. Ian Mack, but includes the work package, timeline, what kind of infrastructure the company is expected to have (ie Target State upgrades) etc.

They keep pushing the lie that their original NSPS bid wasn't selected because of their poor financial state; it was scored 3rd overall across the board because the other two bidders had better technical, IRB etc proposals. The financial bit was a simply guarantee that was part of being technically compliant, not part of the score.

No f*ing way though that they are going to get subs under NSS; there is a lot of completely unfounded BS in their little presser release. This kind of stuff is what pisses people off because it actually causes a huge amount of project churn and slows down everything, especially when they go crying to Ministers.

http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Davie-Shipbuilding-SJ_Final_EG_web1.pdf


----------



## Dale Denton

Aren't these things we should be aiming for? A Multi-Role Support Ship sure sounds useful in a crisis.

*UK Pursues Interim And Longer-Term Platform Options To Support Littoral Response Requirements*
The UK has announced that its casualty receiving and auxiliary ship RFA Argus will operate as an interim littoral strike platform to support the UK’s Littoral Response Group (LRG) requirement.

Dr Lee Willett  19 Aug 2022

UK pursues interim and longer-term platform options to support littoral response requirements - Naval News



> The decision followed a UK Royal Navy (RN) analysis of design and cost options for upgrading amphibious shipping to support UK commando forces, he continued.
> 
> 
> However, the minister confirmed that the _Argus_ and Bay-class LSD(A) combination will provide an interim capability only. _“The lessons from this analysis, and from operating these platforms forward in the coming years, will inform the procurement of the Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS), which will replace the capabilities embodied in these platforms in the future.”_
> 
> 
> On 5 July, the MoD hinted at the decision to downselect _Argus_. In oral evidence to a House of Commons Defence Committee (HCDC) hearing on the UK’s national shipbuilding strategy, UK Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace said _“Two years ago, [the RN] was of the view that it would convert a Bay class to give it a better capability to store helicopters. That has currently changed and I am expecting a proposal, although it has not been signed off, that Argus may fulfil that function.”_
> 
> 
> The navy’s decision may have been informed by wider developments in the ship’s capability. Vice Admiral Sir Chris Gardner, Director General Ships at the MoD’s Defence Equipment and Support procurement agency, told the HCDC hearing that _“we have just extended her in-service life in order to maintain our access to a Role 3 medical capability for the foreseeable future.”_


----------



## Edward Campbell

At the risk of being a geezer who is too far out of his lanes, I have always liked the idea of a large multi-role ship - probably, for Canada, three of them (one on each coast and one in refit) - big ships 20,000 tons+; fast ships - 25+ knots, with flat decks (not aircraft carriers but able to operate four to six big (_Chinook_) helicopters) and, simultaneously, able to operate several landing craft and/or hydrofoils AND carry_ n_ soldiers (_n_ >300  but <1,500) AND able to refuel and resupply its supporting escorts. But that's NOT the AOR/JSS we are building, is it?


----------



## FSTO

^^ 
Nothing wrong with getting a carrier. There are all sorts of sizes and capabilities. I really liked the Italian San Giusto when she was in Timor in 2000.









						Italian ship San Giusto - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## suffolkowner

Navy_Pete said:


> According to their site they are negotiating the umbrella agreement; there is a pretty good explanation of it in an in depth article by either Mr. Tom Ring or Mr. Ian Mack, but includes the work package, timeline, what kind of infrastructure the company is expected to have (ie Target State upgrades) etc.
> 
> They keep pushing the lie that their original NSPS bid wasn't selected because of their poor financial state; it was scored 3rd overall across the board because the other two bidders had better technical, IRB etc proposals. The financial bit was a simply guarantee that was part of being technically compliant, not part of the score.
> 
> No f*ing way though that they are going to get subs under NSS; there is a lot of completely unfounded BS in their little presser release. This kind of stuff is what pisses people off because it actually causes a huge amount of project churn and slows down everything, especially when they go crying to Ministers.
> 
> http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Davie-Shipbuilding-SJ_Final_EG_web1.pdf


Its a PR piece nothing more, something Davie seems to be pretty decent at. Building ships? Time will tell, but its not like Irving, Seaspan or BAE are setting a real high bar either. If they can't meet or won't meet the government standards for NSS inclusion than see ya. I would think they have a bit more urgency to nail down the work so they would have something to do but I guess if you are management getting paid no matter what there is no urgency. One thing Davie has is size and space, whereas Seaspan and Irving plan was to stretch this out as long as they can with minimal investment. Something Ian Mack details in one of his articles exposing his remarkable naivete, I guess he expected them to be motivated by huge profits, guaranteed work and the chance to do a public good. Well he was right on the first two.

The subs are obviously a pipedream right now. First we haven't even decided to replace them. 2nd we are more likely to assemble them vs build them if that. And 3rd I would think Babcock would have the inside edge there. 


Dale Denton said:


> Aren't these things we should be aiming for? A Multi-Role Support Ship sure sounds useful in a crisis.
> 
> *UK Pursues Interim And Longer-Term Platform Options To Support Littoral Response Requirements*
> The UK has announced that its casualty receiving and auxiliary ship RFA Argus will operate as an interim littoral strike platform to support the UK’s Littoral Response Group (LRG) requirement.
> 
> Dr Lee Willett  19 Aug 2022
> 
> UK pursues interim and longer-term platform options to support littoral response requirements - Naval News


right now its a big dream just to replace what we have. Have to eat our supper before we get dessert


----------



## Colin Parkinson

With the AOP's and AOR's coming online. They might be a nice break for sea going personal from the demands and living conditions of a Halifax.


----------



## Underway

Stoker said:


> Regardless of what ships did in the past, the JSS will have the dedicated ammunition storage to support a CSC taskgroup at sea if needed. Asterix does not.


Yes it will.  Smoke and Flare Mag, Hangar Torpedo Mag, Torpedo Magazine, Magazines 1 (ESSM), 2 (SM2), 3 (Harpoons), 4 and 5 (CIWS, 57mm, 127mm, small arms and other things that have proper compatibility).

Its expected that Torpedo and missile loading will be done by the ship alongside or at anchor in a very low seastate as the ships main crane is not rated to be swinging around crazily while underway.  Not to mention the challenge of operating the ammunition elevators for the missiles in that sea state.

The only concern is if JSS can carry a full fuel load, stores load, two helos and full ammo load.  It might be too much weight so some tradeoffs will likely depend on the mission.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> Yes it will.  Smoke and Flare Mag, Hangar Torpedo Mag, Torpedo Magazine, Magazines 1 (ESSM), 2 (SM2), 3 (Harpoons), 4 and 5 (CIWS, 57mm, 127mm, small arms and other things that have proper compatibility).
> 
> Its expected that Torpedo and missile loading will be done by the ship alongside or at anchor in a very low seastate as the ships main crane is not rated to be swinging around crazily while underway.  Not to mention the challenge of operating the ammunition elevators for the missiles in that sea state.
> 
> The only concern is if JSS can carry a full fuel load, stores load, two helos and full ammo load.  It might be too much weight so some tradeoffs will likely depend on the mission.


I’m out.


----------



## MTShaw

MTShaw said:


> I’m out.





Underway said:


> Yes it will.  Smoke and Flare Mag, Hangar Torpedo Mag, Torpedo Magazine, Magazines 1 (ESSM), 2 (SM2), 3 (Harpoons), 4 and 5 (CIWS, 57mm, 127mm, small arms and other things that have proper compatibility).
> 
> Its expected that Torpedo and missile loading will be done by the ship alongside or at anchor in a very low seastate as the ships main crane is not rated to be swinging around crazily while underway.  Not to mention the challenge of operating the ammunition elevators for the missiles in that sea state.
> 
> The only concern is if JSS can carry a full fuel load, stores load, two helos and full ammo load.  It might be too much weight so some tradeoffs will likely depend on the mission.











						NRU Asterix helps warships flex their naval might
					

T wo naval officers who recently commanded Naval Replenishment Unit (NRU) Asterix say the oiler has become a vital part of Canadian naval operations.




					www.lookoutnewspaper.com
				




Everything I’ve read says the Navy won’t use it for the carriage of ammunition. I’ve got a major, multi-day aphasia attack preventing me from properly naming the bunker that is at the bow of the JSS design, but is not at the bow of MV Asterix. The whole purpose is to direct a weapons explosion upward away from fuel  

I can’t remember why Davie couldn’t make it but they couldn’t. I can’t find anything about it online right now because the internet is full of people sniffing Davie’s farts.

It’s amazing a stroke survivor is the one with institutional knowledge on this.

I thought i was amateur hour, but this place has been hijacked by people copy-and-paste Davie’s press releases. And me ranting at people copy-and-pasking anyone’s PR kits.


----------



## MTShaw

I should calm down. II’ve already had one stroke.


----------



## NavyShooter

Well, as bad a Davie's press releases may be, at least they don't willfully and deliberately sabotage our ships in hopes of getting called over to do more work on them (that they can charge the government for) after they hand them back to the Navy. 

And then they get angry when we find the broken fiber cable ourselves and get FMF to fix it instead of calling them.  

Or something like that...

You would be amazed at the institutional knowledge that disappeared from the Navy in the past few years.  Losing 56% of your CSE Chiefs from one coast in a 24 month period might have some impact...not to mention what's gone on in the MSE world after the MARTECH solution to the manning problem.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MTShaw said:


> I should calm down. II’ve already had one stroke.



I thought you said you were out ?


----------



## Czech_pivo

NavyShooter said:


> If you want specific examples of willful deliberate sabotage, let me know.
> 
> If you want specific examples of outright thievery, let me know.
> 
> If you want specific examples of incompetence, let me know.
> 
> Suffice to say, there are reasons that unoccupied mess decks are padlocked during refits...catching folks sleeping in bunks while 'on the job' has happened...
> 
> The ships are stripped of all firefighting hoses and equipment...someone was cutting the brass hose connectors off...and using our fire extinguishers for their fire picket people...
> 
> Deliberately plugging a black water suction line on not one but two ships in succession...involving cutting a line, hammering it full of welding rod (or threaded rod on the other ship) and then welding the line back up and PAINTING IT...
> 
> Cut fiber optic cables...with tool marks...that are then tucked back into wireways...
> 
> Yeah...there's some significant lack of trust of certain ship yards that is well earned.


Time to fire and press charges against the scum that do those things, but I'm sure their union brothers would close ranks and say there's nothing to see here, move along.


----------



## Czech_pivo

suffolkowner said:


> I think Australia paid $20,000,000 to lease the Aiviq for the Antarctic season and is doing it again. So maybe leasing is expensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contract Notice View - CN3827502: AusTender
> 
> 
> AusTender provides centralised publication of Australian Government business opportunities, annual procurement plans and contracts awarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tenders.gov.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davie did build the Cecon Pride and I thought one or two sister ships circa 2013 although I doubt much personel are left from that
> 
> Clearly there is some issues getting Davie into the NSS as nothing has been announce yet


Assume politics is involved. Could be waiting to see if Charest manages to win the CPC leadership. Liberals clearly don't want to see 2 Quebecois as leaders of the 2 main parties as it would be good to them.  Announcing a large influx of cash/projects to Davie right at the same time the CPC leadership race completes would be prudent.


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:


> Well, as bad a Davie's press releases may be, at least they don't willfully and deliberately sabotage our ships in hopes of getting called over to do more work on them (that they can charge the government for) after they hand them back to the Navy.
> 
> And then they get angry when we find the broken fiber cable ourselves and get FMF to fix it instead of calling them.
> 
> Or something like that...
> 
> You would be amazed at the institutional knowledge that disappeared from the Navy in the past few years.  Losing 56% of your CSE Chiefs from one coast in a 24 month period might have some impact...not to mention what's gone on in the MSE world after the MARTECH solution to the manning problem.


When Asterix did their first trial for the RAS gear they found the piping full of garbage,welding rods etc to the point where the gear literally fell apart. Some of the hoists had cables damaged. This was when Asterix was delivered and the union was unhappy about the layoffs. Draw your own conclusions. You also have historical Davie where we on several occasions had to literally kidnap our ships in the dead of night due to Union bullshit. 

Incompetence and dockyard shenanigans is also in the FMFs as well which is why private contractor are the way to go in my opinion.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Czech_pivo said:


> Assume politics is involved. Could be waiting to see if Charest manages to win the CPC leadership. Liberals clearly don't want to see 2 Quebecois as leaders of the 2 main parties as it would be good to them.  Announcing a large influx of cash/projects to Davie right at the same time the CPC leadership race completes would be prudent.


That's far more complicated than the reality that anything with the NSS has to go through the giant DPS hoops and be vetted by a half dozen departments and then approved by TBS. Politics gets mixed in but there is such a massive amount of bureaucracy that it's unlikely to be the driver. Dept of Finance has been actively fighting NSS for years so lot of internal sniping on top of it too.

Figuring out the work package is a challenge though; if they officially take Polar out of the NC package they have to replace it with something of equivalent value. Not sure if any of the CCG projects are advanced enough to do that.

For Davie specifically they will likely need to get assessed against the specific work package carved out for them, so if it includes a new class of ship that comes into the mix as well.


----------



## MTShaw

Halifax Tar said:


> I thought you said you were out ?


I was going to run my mouth again but I’ll say this.
Frist, f@^king fanboys would lead casual army.ca visitors to believe Asterix as the best and only ship for the Navy. That is absolutely unequivocally untrue. Army.ca is entertainment but also educational.    For something to be educational it has to be true.

The Asterix is a great but limited ship. 

Y’all probably want me to shut up


----------



## Halifax Tar

MTShaw said:


> I was going to run my mouth again but I’ll say this.
> Frist, f@^king fanboys would lead casual army.ca visitors to believe Asterix as the best and only ship for the Navy. That is absolutely unequivocally untrue. Army.ca is entertainment but also educational.    For something to be educational it has to be true.
> 
> The Asterix is a great but limited ship.
> 
> Y’all probably want me to shut up



We have freedom of expression in Canada, so no I don't wish you too shut up.  

Why are you so emotionally concerned ASTERIX and her capabilities or lack there of ? 

You get very worked up about this.  Is it because you're attached to competing builder ?

No one here has claimed ASTERIX is perfect, but she's better than no tanker or bumming gas from a Chilean ship; and we have a bunch of sailors having a great experience and keep up RAS skills.


----------



## Rainbow1910

I will say that coming from some other largest amateurish and more public forums, it is very refreshing to see Davie worship being called into question here or even openly mocked. Personally I do not think Davie has done anything approaching enough good work to warrant such a reputation in the public. I don't think MTShaw is attached to any competing builder, that seems like an unwarranted cheap shot against their credibility. Somebody can get emotionally invested for other reasons besides some kind of corporate favoritism, being annoyed at "fanboying" around Asterix and Davie when in reality neither really deserve it seems like a potential reason.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'm not a fanboy of AST, but I have good reason not to trust things that come from the major Halifax based shipyard based on personal experience.

Having some ability to maintain capability, skills, training and sustain operations is better than not having it.  I had a tour of AST just after she arrived in Halifax - it was very clear where the 'old' and 'new' parts of the ship were, and there was still a lot of work happening onboard to get her ready/finished.

It wasn't a perfect solution.  Buying a new AOR back in about 2005 or so would have been the perfect solution, but no yard in Canada could build one back then, and the CAF's focus was AFG rather than AOR.  The BHS promised in 2006-7 fell away as well.  

In terms of what an AOR should be, the AST falls short.  

In terms of being better than nothing, AST succeeds.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Rainbow1910 said:


> I will say that coming from some other largest amateurish and more public forums, it is very refreshing to see Davie worship being called into question here or even openly mocked. Personally I do not think Davie has done anything approaching enough good work to warrant such a reputation in the public. I don't think MTShaw is attached to any competing builder, that seems like an unwarranted cheap shot against their credibility. Somebody can get emotionally invested for other reasons besides some kind of corporate favoritism, being annoyed at "fanboying" around Asterix and Davie when in reality neither really deserve it seems like a potential reason.



What are the amateurish forums I keep hearing being mentioned?

To me its important to know who I am talking too.  And when people don't fill out their profiles all one can do is ask questions.



NavyShooter said:


> I'm not a fanboy of AST, but I have good reason not to trust things that come from the major Halifax based shipyard based on personal experience.
> 
> Having some ability to maintain capability, skills, training and sustain operations is better than not having it.  I had a tour of AST just after she arrived in Halifax - it was very clear where the 'old' and 'new' parts of the ship were, and there was still a lot of work happening onboard to get her ready/finished.
> 
> It wasn't a perfect solution.  Buying a new AOR back in about 2005 or so would have been the perfect solution, but no yard in Canada could build one back then, and the CAF's focus was AFG rather than AOR.  The BHS promised in 2006-7 fell away as well.
> 
> In terms of what an AOR should be, the AST falls short.
> 
> In terms of being better than nothing, AST succeeds.



Bingo.  She's better than nothing.  And I can tell you the sailors we send to her absolutely love their time with her.


----------



## MTShaw

Halifax Tar said:


> We have freedom of expression in Canada, so no I don't wish you too shut up.
> 
> Why are you so emotionally concerned ASTERIX and her capabilities or lack there of ?
> 
> You get very worked up about this.  Is it because you're attached to competing builder ?
> 
> No one here has claimed ASTERIX is perfect, but she's better than no tanker or bumming gas from a Chilean ship; and we have a bunch of sailors having a great experience and keep up RAS skills.


When the first person came in here trying to trump the benefits of Asterix as better or even compatible than the JSS for I thought it was weird because it was untrue.

Whoever posted the fifth or sixth comparison: this time with ammunition, it is fanboyism.

There is no competing builder for JSS: the only yard building JSS is Seaspan.

It can work as a training ship to a point. The public does not know which position must be filled with Federal Fleet. I don’t know much about the Chilean other than the Navy Rents it too. Is their no Canadian training on the Chilean ship. If that ‘s the case than for the Navy’s purpose they are the same.


----------



## MTShaw

Halifax Tar said:


> What are the amateurish forums I keep hearing being mentioned?
> 
> To me its important to know who I am talking too.  And when people don't fill out their profiles all one can do is ask questions.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  She's better than nothing.  And I can tell you the sailors we send to her absolutely love their time with her.


MV Asterix; she’s at least better than nothing. 👍


----------



## Halifax Tar

MTShaw said:


> When the first person came in here trying to trump the benefits of Asterix as better or even compatible than the JSS for I thought it was weird because it was untrue.
> 
> Whoever posted the fifth or sixth comparison: this time with ammunition, it is fanboyism.
> 
> There is no competing builder for JSS: the only yard building JSS is Seaspan.
> 
> It can work as a training ship to a point. The public does not know which position must be filled with Federal Fleet. I don’t know much about the Chilean other than the Navy Rents it too. Is their no Canadian training on the Chilean ship. If that ‘s the case than for the Navy’s purpose they are the same.



Can you provide direct quotes to support your post ?



MTShaw said:


> MV Asterix; she’s at least better than nothing. 👍



Absolutely.


----------



## MTShaw

Halifax Tar said:


> Can you provide direct quotes to support your post ?


What post?


----------



## Halifax Tar

MTShaw said:


> When the first person came in here trying to trump the benefits of Asterix as better or even compatible than the JSS for I thought it was weird because it was untrue.
> 
> Whoever posted the fifth or sixth comparison: this time with ammunition, it is fanboyism.
> 
> There is no competing builder for JSS: the only yard building JSS is Seaspan.
> 
> It can work as a training ship to a point. The public does not know which position must be filled with Federal Fleet. I don’t know much about the Chilean other than the Navy Rents it too. Is their no Canadian training on the Chilean ship. If that ‘s the case than for the Navy’s purpose they are the same.



This post.  You make some claims about fanboyism; and that someone has claimed Asterix is comparable than JSS.  Can your provide quotes to support?


----------



## MTShaw

Halifax Tar said:


> Can you provide direct quotes to support your post ?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.





Halifax Tar said:


> This post.  You make some claims about fanboyism; and that someone has claimed Asterix is comparable than JSS.  Can your provide quotes to support?


I’m not going to repost mine and others post on army.ca. That would be poor form, might get me banned for a while, and it might create a black hole. Do what people do: read up the sub-forum. 

This last one, where people came down about ammunition, was the first time i used fanboy. It’s like a series of people come here to compare Asterix to JSS. But it comes down to Asterix not meeting the navy’s AOR Requirements. 

It’s a damning indictment when Asterix‘ major benefit that it’s better than Nothing.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MTShaw said:


> I’m not going to repost mine and others post on army.ca. That would be poor form, might get me banned for a while, and it might create a black hole. Do what people do: read up the sub-forum.
> 
> This last one, where people came down about ammunition, was the first time i used fanboy. It’s like a series of people come here to compare Asterix to JSS. But it comes down to Asterix not meeting the navy’s AOR Requirements.
> 
> It’s a damning indictment when Asterix‘ major benefit that it’s better than Nothing.



That's why the quote function exists.


----------



## suffolkowner

MTShaw said:


> I’m not going to repost mine and others post on army.ca. That would be poor form, might get me banned for a while, and it might create a black hole. Do what people do: read up the sub-forum.
> 
> This last one, where people came down about ammunition, was the first time i used fanboy. It’s like a series of people come here to compare Asterix to JSS. But it comes down to Asterix not meeting the navy’s AOR Requirements.
> 
> It’s a damning indictment when Asterix‘ major benefit that it’s better than Nothing.


I think it was underways but I honestly thought he was talking about the jss
So ? ?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, as I recall, it started because someone (I think MTS himself) indicated that Asterix couldn't carry ammunition. Then Chief noted that she can carry some sea cans for ammo (a limited capability) and I chimed in that we usually only transfer small missiles and gun ammunition, and on top of that weren't exactly expending same at any high rate these days, intimating that for an iAOR the sea cans were sufficient. Finally, Underway explained how much more complete and ranging the facilities of* the actual JSS's* are going to be for all types of ammunition. 

Nobody has pretended for a long time that Asterix is equal to the actual JSS's, when we get them.

This said, she can RAS fuel, avgas, water and food, and dry stores generally, the whole when operating in a safe area. Well, that's 90% of the job of an AOR right there. She also has facilities that are not being used to their full extent, such as medical and dental theatres, or used at all such as aviation maintenance/administrative/stores spaces for a full air detachment.

Is Asterix in the same league as JSS: No.

Is she a damn useful ship as is: Yes.

Is she useful enough so that the RCN might want to retain her (in any form: Full RCN operation, Federal Service lease or transfer to CFAV) so as to free the JSS to forward deploy everywhere in the world while still having a ship to support training along the coast - or as a gap ship whenever one of the JSS is in long refit? I would say yes, but it is for the currently serving admirals and HQ staffers to make that call.


----------



## OldSolduer

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Actually, as I recall, it started because someone (I think MTS himself) indicated that Asterix couldn't carry ammunition. Then Chief noted that she can carry some sea cans for ammo (a limited capability) and I chimed in that we usually only transfer small missiles and gun ammunition, and on top of that weren't exactly expending same at any high rate these days, intimating that for an iAOR the sea cans were sufficient. Finally, Underway explained how much more complete and ranging the facilities of* the actual JSS's* are going to be for all types of ammunition.
> 
> Nobody has pretended for a long time that Asterix is equal to the actual JSS's, when we get them.
> 
> This said, she can RAS fuel, avgas, water and food, and dry stores generally, the whole when operating in a safe area. Well, that's 90% of the job of an AOR right there. She also has facilities that are not being used to their full extent, such as medical and dental theatres, or used at all such as aviation maintenance/administrative/stores spaces for a full air detachment.
> 
> Is Asterix in the same league as JSS: No.
> 
> Is she a damn useful ship as is: Yes.
> 
> Is she useful enough so that the RCN might want to retain her (in any form: Full RCN operation, Federal Service lease or transfer to CFAV) so as to free the JSS to forward deploy everywhere in the world while still having a ship to support training along the coast - or as a gap ship whenever one of the JSS is in long refit? I would say yes, but it is for the currently serving admirals and HQ staffers to make that call.


You're gonna make a sailor out of me with these common sense comments .


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> Its expected that Torpedo and missile loading will be done by the ship alongside or at anchor in a very low seastate as the ships main crane is not rated to be swinging around crazily while underway.  Not to mention the challenge of operating the ammunition elevators for the missiles in that sea state.
> 
> The only concern is if JSS can carry a full fuel load, stores load, two helos and full ammo load.  It might be too much weight so some tradeoffs will likely depend on the mission.


It would be reckless to carry missiles and shells outside a magazine. I’d be stunned that a master would let that happened. If one goes off in a 40ft container, hopefully it is stack on more 40ft containers Or boom.

I don’t know about mk54 carriage, But if we need more LWT two things have occurred: we are fighting the entire Russian submarine force and the AOR will have been sunk.

So my point, is what has been posted above is so ridiculous is that it is for public consumption, marketing material and not for serious hobbyists and professionals


Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Nobody has pretended for a long time.


Except the people who are flirting with truth above.


Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Is Asterix in the same league as JSS: No.
> 
> Is she a damn useful ship as is: Yes.


sort of. She is only useful in most places the Pacific.


Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Is she useful enough so that the RCN might want to retain her.


should we keep her as a stand-in for JSS?

Where and who should refit her. Davie likely won’t pay for it. However, the only place that has dry dock space is Davie.


----------



## MTShaw

If you’re at all unconvinced about the need for a proper magazine, this is what happened when a magazine works: a MK41 vls.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I don't understand why you think Asterix is only useful in the Pacific. What keeps her from being useful in the Atlantic, or the Med or the Caribbeans?

As for refit, right off the bat I can think of three yards that could take her, i.e. have drydock facilities large enough: Seaspan Esquimalt's facility, Heddle Marine facility in the Great lakes and Groupe Maritime Verreault in les Mechins.

Finally, who said that the sea can for ammunition are just ordinary sea cans? They are specifically designed to act as magazines for small ammunition, and so is all the associated handling equipement. The RCN has been transferring at sea 3"50, 3"70 and 5 inch shells since the days of PRESERVER, maybe even before. Please allow that we may know a thing or two about transfering ammunition underway and their handling onboard a ship while out of their magazine.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> When Asterix did their first trial for the RAS gear they found the piping full of garbage,welding rods etc to the point where the gear literally fell apart. Some of the hoists had cables damaged. This was when Asterix was delivered and the union was unhappy about the layoffs. Draw your own conclusions. You also have historical Davie where we on several occasions had to literally kidnap our ships in the dead of night due to Union bullshit.
> 
> Incompetence and dockyard shenanigans is also in the FMFs as well which is why private contractor are the way to go in my opinion.


To be honest I was happy that we finally had an AOR and was giving Davie credit for getting her done. I had never heard of this wilful sabotage before and quite pissed. Really they should make it so the yard pays a hefty penalty and they lose contracts, unless the person(s) are identified and charges are laid. Maybe if their union brother realises these idiots are costing them their livelihood, then they pipe up. I should not have had to learn about this well after the fact, from a non-official source. It should have been broadcast far and wide and rewards offered for information immediately upon discovery. Hiding it just contributes to the issues.
What I see from the workers at VDC, is they know that the quality of their work is what keeps the yard full and them making an excellent wage. Yes they grumble and bitch about the company from time to time, but not out of the ordinary and most of it is about stuff they see preventing them from doing their work better.


----------



## MTShaw

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I don't understand why you think Asterix is only useful in the Pacific. What keeps her from being useful in the Atlantic, or the Med or the Caribbeans?
> 
> As for refit, right off the bat I can think of three yards that could take her, i.e. have drydock facilities large enough: Seaspan Esquimalt's facility, Heddle Marine facility in the Great lakes and Groupe Maritime Verreault in les Mechins.
> 
> Finally, who said that the sea can for ammunition are just ordinary sea cans? They are specifically designed to act as magazines for small ammunition, and so is all the associated handling equipement. The RCN has been transferring at sea 3"50, 3"70 and 5 inch shells since the days of PRESERVER, maybe even before. Please allow that we may know a thing or two about transfering ammunition underway and their handling onboard a ship while out of their magazine.


I know almost nothing about shells and there charges. It may be totally safe. But what I’m referring is that being in a magazine saved that German ship.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MTShaw said:


> Whoever posted the fifth or sixth comparison: this time with ammunition, it is fanboyism.


I could not understand your reaction to Underways post on what the JSS ammunition capabilities will be. It was not to later that I figured you likely mistook his post as referencing what the Astreix was capable of, when he actually was talking about the upcoming JSS, which he is involved in.


----------



## NavyShooter

Ah....the union....when one of their members got accused of an accident causing injury to another of their workers and was to be disciplined or possibly fired, they got very angry one day in about 2013...

Our Comm Techs had been given permission to go onboard while in a certain yard, and work on the PA system - at the time it was a "Safe Alongside" requirement that needed to be functional when we took the ship back.

Well, they had over 90% of the ship's speakers functional and tested going home that day, and we were just a couple of weeks away from getting the ship back into our control.  The last 10% had been identified, and there was a solid plan in place to fix them. 

The next morning?  Over half of their repairs were 'undone' in one way or another.  Cables cut, yanked out...etc.  We were livid.  Nothing we could do though except wait to do the repairs once we were handed over the ship.  

Willful and deliberate.  No one held to account.  

As for the MK.41 VLS, I believe you're thinking of the DELUGE system - it works well from what I was told by some 280 sailors.  I suspect that most of the missiles in the other cannisters were actually fire-able.  They're designed to be somewhat survivable. 

Looking at that video, I don't think it was an actual detonation of the warhead - it was a Restrained Firing.  

The MK.48 VLS cannister system on the Halifax Class is designed to protect against restrained firings as well - the J-Tube is designed to be able to survive 10 regular launches, or 2x restrained firings with no excessive heat exiting or damaging the ship.

Here's a comment found on the 'net' from someone who seems to know what they're talking about that viewed the original video from 2018:



> From the looks of the video, the boost motor fired (Orange flame) but the missile stayed in place. That would indicate that the missile restraining bolts did not release and the missile stayed put.
> That’s a Hang fire , not a Misfire. Misfires don’t ignite…Hang fires do.
> 
> The efflux will have vented from not just the efflux vents in the launcher but also out of the missile tube. From the video the white blobs flying around would indicate that the motor broke up as well and spread itself over the upper deck. Somewhere in that burning mess is also going to be the High Explosive warhead unless they had a telemetry pack fitted in place of the warhead (Doubtful). I talked to a “steely eyed missile man” US colleague and he told me an SM2 has a dual boost solid propellant rocket motor. This usually means it is a boost and sustainer motor in the same rocket tube. The boost part which burns first is a solid propellant which consists of lots of short lengths of cordite type explosive which has a high surface area. (It could look like say… star shaped macaroni or similar.) When ignited it burns quickly(High surface area) producing high volumes of gas which exits via the motor aperture giving you a high impulse thrust. When that burns out the sustainer motor (also solid propellant) takes over but burns at a slower consistent rate to give constant thrust over the range of the missile.
> 
> All missiles have restraining bolts that hold them in place on the launcher or vertically in place in a VL launcher. They are either mechanically actuated or shear bolts. It doesn’t pay to have a VL missile rattling around in a VL tube in rough weather with the vessel pitching and rolling. Same goes for the old beam type launchers (sea sea dart video!) as you don’t want the missile sliding off the beam in roughers.
> 
> The MK41 has a deluge system that sprays the tubes in case a hang fire like this happens. That was actuated. Missile tubes also have a lot of fireproof cladding in them to stop Hang fires burning through the deck below the rocket motor. I dont know from the reports if this cladding held.
> 
> The damage to the bridge will be due to the ship sailing into the wind at a set speed for the shoot which is standard practice. Any hot efflux from the Hang fire will have been blown back against the bridge burning the paint.
> 
> The door being closed probably just means the crew closed the door as best they could after the incident to stop heavy weather filling the MK41 tube with water. As it is the missiles around the damaged tube will, I expect, need to be removed and overhauled/disposed of as they have probably been exposed to excessive heat which can cause a chemical breakdown in the propellant and an increase in explosives sensitivity to shock and handling.
> 
> All in all a very nasty incident that did not result in serious casualties which was good to see.


----------



## MTShaw

NavyShooter said:


> As for the MK.41 VLS, I believe you're thinking of the DELUGE system - it works well from what I was told by some 280 sailors. I suspect that most of the missiles in the other cannisters were actually fire-able. They're designed to be somewhat survivable.


Rounds for the all up round.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NavyShooter said:


> Ah....the union....when one of their members got accused of an accident causing injury to another of their workers and was to be disciplined or possibly fired, they got very angry one day in about 2013...
> 
> Our Comm Techs had been given permission to go onboard while in a certain yard, and work on the PA system - at the time it was a "Safe Alongside" requirement that needed to be functional when we took the ship back.
> 
> Well, they had over 90% of the ship's speakers functional and tested going home that day, and we were just a couple of weeks away from getting the ship back into our control.  The last 10% had been identified, and there was a solid plan in place to fix them.
> 
> The next morning?  Over half of their repairs were 'undone' in one way or another.  Cables cut, yanked out...etc.  We were livid.  Nothing we could do though except wait to do the repairs once we were handed over the ship.
> 
> Willful and deliberate.  No one held to account.
> 
> As for the MK.41 VLS, I believe you're thinking of the DELUGE system - it works well from what I was told by some 280 sailors.  I suspect that most of the missiles in the other cannisters were actually fire-able.  They're designed to be somewhat survivable.
> 
> Looking at that video, I don't think it was an actual detonation of the warhead - it was a Restrained Firing.
> 
> The MK.48 VLS cannister system on the Halifax Class is designed to protect against restrained firings as well - the J-Tube is designed to be able to survive 10 regular launches, or 2x restrained firings with no excessive heat exiting or damaging the ship.
> 
> Here's a comment found on the 'net' from someone who seems to know what they're talking about that viewed the original video from 2018:


Hence the reason that yard gets blacklisted, once the rice bowel is empty or a threat of empty, you be surprised at how they can accommodate.


----------



## Good2Golf

MTShaw said:


> It’s a damning indictment when Asterix‘ major benefit that it’s better than Nothing.


That's not necessarily untrue, but damning of whom?

The same who, by my understanding from the educational aspects of this site, ran 280s until they fell apart and who appear to be riding the CPFs hard and putting them away wet, and by laypersons' understanding running the organization and kit hard as heck and at some not insignificant amount of risk?


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> That's not necessarily untrue, but damning of whom?


The leadership of the RCN and the CAF and GoC. 

I know its obvious.


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> The leadership of the RCN and the CAF and GoC.
> 
> I know its obvious.


If a red crayon-eater sees it, then yup...it's not any kind of a surprise!


----------



## MTShaw

Good2Golf said:


> That's not necessarily untrue, but damning of whom?


The people who enable It. Davie the Navy and Her Majesty’s Government. 


Good2Golf said:


> The same who, by my understanding from the educational aspects of this site, ran 280s until they fell apart and who appear to be riding the CPFs hard and putting them away wet, and by laypersons' understanding running the organization and kit hard as heck and at some not insignificant amount of risk?


It was a jolly time when war was over and the order of all governments going back to at least 1993 we needed to reduce taxes (boost consumer spending) was the order of the day. People loved it.

I’m not sure the most conservative or the most liberal government will get it near 2%. All the American’s care about is NORAD and that we’re able to deploy in some force to Latvia,, and the North though i do note that HDW is back at Halifax. 

Being old and retired…


----------



## Swampbuggy

Well, you can damn David for cutting corners or sabotaging the ship in the ways noted above, but I’m not sure you can damn them for either the design of the vessel or the actual need for the vessel. 

If there were shortcomings in the actual design/capabilities of the proposed vessel, then that’s on the buyer more than the seller. You just say it’s not what we need and either make them change it or move on.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:


> That's not necessarily untrue, but damning of whom?
> 
> The same who, by my understanding from the educational aspects of this site, ran 280s until they fell apart and who appear to be riding the CPFs hard and putting them away wet, and by laypersons' understanding running the organization and kit hard as heck and at some not insignificant amount of risk?


The older ships also had a totally different philosophy for the DWPs; we used to to 'baseline' refits, where we would just systematically replace portions of the systems each refit. ie we would do the front third, middle, then back third over 3 refits (starting at I think the 10 or 15 year point. So at 25 or 30 years old piping for the major systems would be be replaced at least once. 

That changed around mid 90s for the 280s when we did the TRUMP program to condition based (basically check things and replace as necessary), but basically meant that the firemain (for example) was basically from the 90s, so when we retired them the oldest parts were about 25-30 years old. Still means you do some repairs but overall in decent shape.

A lot of the minor piping and domestic systems were still original, but generally the major bits were in decent shape for a 40 odd year old ship, so it was more on the old generators and engines that were way obsolete, plus the controls and wiring that was an issue.

The CPFs have always been condition based, and a lot of that has never been fully poked at, so we fix things as they break, and survey what we can for repair planning. Impossible to get  a lot of it though, so basically there is a huge mechanical repair deficit, and why the DWPs are two years long. Add to that not enough people/time for maintenance, and a high ops tempo that is doing the rental beating/put away wet, and the ships are in bad shape.

Sure, new combat gear, but it's a bit like the kid with a old car, that was fundamentally well built but needs repaired, driving around with bondo/hope, but fitted with rims, ground effects and a big stereo.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> The CPFs have always been condition based, and a lot of that has never been fully poked at, so we fix things as they break, and survey what we can for repair planning. Impossible to get a lot of it though, so basically there is a huge mechanical repair deficit, and why the DWPs are two years long. Add to that not enough people/time for maintenance, and a high ops tempo that is doing the rental beating/put away wet, and the ships are in bad shape.


Thanks for the info, @Navy_Pete, appreciate the insight.  How is structural steel assessed for "on condition'?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:


> Thanks for the info, @Navy_Pete, appreciate the insight.  How is structural steel assessed for "on condition'?


There is a whole program for that with rolling surveys through the 5 year cycle for areas they can get in while the ship is in the water, and then a lot of additional surveys during a DWP.  There are some known problem areas in each class you find over it's life so they get checked fairly frequently.

While in dock that's when you spend a lot of time looking at the underwater hull (once the paint is off) plus inside the tanks. The class societies add some additional checks to take spot checks of the hull thickness as well as the ship ages, so that's a new tool in our tool box.

Plus every time you replace tiles, doing work on insulation etc you always do spot checks. It's pretty robust, and one area where we can learn from the class societies and commercial practices to improve it.

Things still get missed, and sometimes you get things happen between checks, or you can't fix it right away so you monitor it and maybe have limits on what kind of sea state you can roll in. Not ideal, but it's where we are.


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:


> I think it was underways but I honestly thought he was talking about the jss
> So ? ?


Yes, I was talking about JSS, not Asterix, though on review of the post in question I can see how there might be some confusion.  

All my posts unless specifically stated are usually about JSS.  I used to work on that project so have some knowledge of it.  My knowledge of Asterix is limited to news clips and going alongside it once at the new AOPS jetty in Halifax to refuel.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> It would be reckless to carry missiles and shells outside a magazine. I’d be stunned that a master would let that happened. If one goes off in a 40ft container, hopefully it is stack on more 40ft containers Or boom.
> 
> I don’t know about mk54 carriage, But if we need more LWT two things have occurred: we are fighting the entire Russian submarine force and the AOR will have been sunk.
> 
> So my point, is what has been posted above is so ridiculous is that it is for public consumption, marketing material and not for serious hobbyists and professionals


I honestly don't understand what you are driving at here.  JSS won't need to store ammo in sea cans.  Also, most ammunition on missiles and shells these days does not sympathetically detonate like we are seeing in Russian ammo dumps on the news right now.  It's very inert and requires very specific energetics to explode.  I wouldn't have a problem with storing most missiles in a sea can assuming there are appropriate fire precautions taken.

If there is even a single submarine the RCN task group is hunting, given the last time a NATO country tried to find submarines (Falklands) we will be flinging torps at everything that even remotely looks like a sub on the sensors.  Which means JSS deep mag torps may be needed at sea.  Perhaps not RAS'd over though, just have the friendly helo come over and get bombed up.


----------



## suffolkowner

MTShaw said:


> should we keep her as a stand-in for JSS?
> 
> Where and who should refit her. Davie likely won’t pay for it. However, the only place that has dry dock space is Davie.


The government/CAF will pay for it one way or another that should be obvious


MTShaw said:


> The people who enable It. Davie the Navy and Her Majesty’s Government.


I'm not sure how Davie can be blamed for proposing something. That's their job. It is also their job to fulfil the contract and provide QA/QC but then thats something all our shipyards appear to have trouble with


----------



## Underway

OK so some images and discussion of my JSS tour I had a few days ago.  I have permission to share these photo's.
Be aware that its a very busy worksite and looks messy but that's where they are right now.


The ship is huge.  Bow shot.

This next two photos are aft, where they are working on getting the last blocks installed which included the steering arrangements up to the flight deck.


That photo directly above shows how they clamp a block together in preparation for welding it. Those clamps to two different types, one to make it line up and another to pull it tight.

Example of a one of the bays where they are working on the next blocks.  They are welded inverted and then flipped to proper alignment later.  Anything you see with grey coating is JSS, and anything with red coating is the CCG next vessel (OSSV I think?).


----------



## Underway

The aft of the ship as it is right now.  It ends currently where the hangar is supposed to meet the flight deck.  But there is no hangar or other house structures up there yet.  The flight deck is a complicated block because it houses the RAST system that will control the helo landing and movement.


Main mast which also includes the Radar rooms.  The geometry on top is odd to ensure that all the sensors and emitters have their best possible positions without getting in each others way.

Sitting on the bullring looking aft onto the foc'sle.  Thats the breakwater/windbreak (can't remember the real name for it).  The centerline platform is where the forward CIWS will be located.  The two smaller platforms that jut out from the sides are for the Naval Remote Weapon Stations.  The top walkway is for access to navigational lighting and ceremonial rigging IIRC.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> I honestly don't understand what you are driving at here.  JSS won't need to store ammo in sea cans.  Also, most ammunition on missiles and shells these days does not sympathetically detonate like we are seeing in Russian ammo dumps on the news right now.  It's very inert and requires very specific energetics to explode.  I wouldn't have a problem with storing most missiles in a sea can assuming there are appropriate fire precautions taken.
> 
> If there is even a single submarine the RCN task group is hunting, given the last time a NATO country tried to find submarines (Falklands) we will be flinging torps at everything that even remotely looks like a sub on the sensors.  Which means JSS deep mag torps may be needed at sea.  Perhaps not RAS'd over though, just have the friendly helo come over and get bombed up.


I guess I’m not clear: A number of poeple a few pages ago that ESSM and SM2 on Asterix. My point is that would be a horrible idea. If you’re going to carry them in a non existing magazine, where are you going to put them.  Because the poster who advocated put munitions in special containers, then I inferred that is where they thought SM2s should go.

we have magazines in the unlikely case something explosdes or ignites then they are less likely to kill or mission kill a ship.  The video shows that when something is in a bunker it can take that kind of heat. 

it’s Canada’s job to be good at sub hunting. I‘d imagine if you are busy fighting subs i don’t know if you’d have time to RAS I that anti torpedo manoeuvres would be going 24/7. 

I hope that helps.


----------



## Underway

Looking aft from the breakwater to the bridge.  Its very far away... lol

Speaking of the bridge, here it is.  Full of the bridge navigation equipment stored carefully to protect it (desiccant, wrapped in plastic, then secured in these boxes... we'll see how well this works...)

Looking down the stack from a couple decks up.  Its a very long way down to the engine room..

My heels are on the edge of where the hanger doors will eventually be looking forward to the forward bulkhead of the hangar.  The white paint on the port side is where the hangar torpedo magazine will be located.  The airlock just stbd of the centerline goes into the Role 2 medical.

This is the stbd passageway in Medbay.  The doors to my right are a surgery and x-ray.  In the middle is the stack.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway, I am glad you brought up the Falklands war.

Everybody remembers how that war, at sea, was an air war. But the Argentinians also had three (yes, just three - at least until one was destroyed in St-Georges Island) O-boats. There never was a shortage of  AA missiles, or of shells for the guns -  but the RN very nearly ran out of anti-submarine ammunition. As you indicated, anything remotely looking like a POSSUB got a torp/depth charge thrown at it. In those days, we called the tactic "classification by detonation".

So yes, carrying and transfering Mk 34/54 is an extremely important capability, even in a small war involving submarines. And MTS, you can transfer torpedoes at sea simply by sending your own frigate helicopter to the JSS, where they can load them on the helo, then return to the frigate, have them unloaded and put back in stores. It's slower than a transfer in harbour but if you need them, then you don't care that it's longer and more complicated.

P.S.: I don't recall anyone suggesting loading the larger missiles in the Asterix.


----------



## NavyShooter

Canada hasn't been good at sub hunting since LCdr Woodburn was the XO on CHA in the 90's.  No other Halifax class ship I've sailed on has had a Command Team that has paid proper attention to the time it takes to train and do ASW.  Jets, missiles, high speed, go fast....that's where the excitement is, that's where they spend their time.  Tail OPS at 24 knots...give it a try sometime.  I've seen it in person.  We spend more time launching and recovering the Array than we ever did with the tail wet and actually searching for something. 

Jumping back to ammo - There's no reason we cannot use any of our ships to transport containerized munitions - from the MCDV to the AOPS to AST to the new AOR, and the coming CSC.  All of them can transport sea containers.  (A Halifax Class can too if you're willing to give up the flight deck...)  That said - that doesn't mean it's a good idea to transport sea cans of ammo that way.  

Also, there is very little about a ship's magazine spaces that make them any more safe the other compartments on ship - no extra armour for sure.  That said, they do have automated sprinklers that are pretty good.  A fitted firefighting system is all that really differentiates the 57mm mag from the dry provisions stores.


----------



## Underway

Harpoon Magazine.  Notice the very heavy sliding blast door on top.  Harpoon fuel is exceedingly toxic, so keep all the fumes inside in case of damage to them.

One of the other missile magazines.  Notice there isn't a very heavy door on top.  Because we want the missiles to vent upwards if they start burning.  That opening goes to the missile handling deck and then to the outside.
I had one of the other magazines as an image but it seems to be corrupted.  Basically, it looks like these without the foundations.  It has rails instead where the ammo will be stored using cages. Open deckhead as well.





Wardroom servery and wardroom.  Both are very large.

MS and Below Mess. As you can see from the various bits of equipment it is massive.  The galley is opposite the JR's and is also very large.

That's pretty much all the photos that I took that are really of interest.  I wasn't allowed in engineering spaces that day because there was quite a bit of work going on and we would have gotten in the way.  Overall the ship's scale is just huge.  Very impressive.

@NavyShooter - With the Cyclone ASW is making a comeback right now, in my last deployment we did ASW exercises constantly.  Those Kilo's out of Syria are causing some concern...

 Also, the JSS has space reserved for small arms armour in the main magazines on the German designed magazines and the Canadian designed magazines have been designed with steel plating equivalent to the protected 50 cal positions (ie: stop small arms).  But certainly not old school WW2 type armour against naval guns and such.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Anti-submarine warfare takes patience and practice. I can't recall who it was but someone in hese forums once dubbed ASW as being Amazingly Slow Warfare. And it is true.

In my days, I think FRASER held the record, for a prosecution of a RN O-boat that lasted 39 hours during one of the Ocean Safari convoy Ex. The O-boat gave up and surfaced, having pretty well run out of breathable air and battery power.


----------



## NavyShooter

The crew from FRASER were the commissioning crew of CHA.  A great bunch.  We got a 'real world' detect on a sub during NATO '98 that kept us busy for a few days during STRONG RESOLVE.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> To be honest I was happy that we finally had an AOR and was giving Davie credit for getting her done. I had never heard of this wilful sabotage before and quite pissed. Really they should make it so the yard pays a hefty penalty and they lose contracts, unless the person(s) are identified and charges are laid. Maybe if their union brother realises these idiots are costing them their livelihood, then they pipe up. I should not have had to learn about this well after the fact, from a non-official source. It should have been broadcast far and wide and rewards offered for information immediately upon discovery. Hiding it just contributes to the issues.
> What I see from the workers at VDC, is they know that the quality of their work is what keeps the yard full and them making an excellent wage. Yes they grumble and bitch about the company from time to time, but not out of the ordinary and most of it is about stuff they see preventing them from doing their work better.


Never said it was sabotage, Federal Fleet owns her and is responsible for her upkeep and repair which is done by Davie. It was certainly sloppy work conducted at the time when the yard has labour issues. Hell the upper decks weren't even  painted when she was rushed to Halifax. Sloppy work and defects intentionally caused are not isolated to one yard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway, Seaspan has two other buildings a couple of km to the East where they built the Fast Cats, they use one for module construction and the other for receiving and sorting of fittings and piping for the ships. Very neat to walk through and see the massive amount of sub contracted parts that goes into these ships.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> If a red crayon-eater sees it, then yup...it's not any kind of a surprise!


Green crayons are ok too. Blue aren't very good.


----------



## Swampbuggy

@Underway…just wondering if the NSM uses the same fuel as HARPOON?


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> Yes it will.  Smoke and Flare Mag, Hangar Torpedo Mag, Torpedo Magazine, Magazines 1 (ESSM), 2 (SM2), 3 (Harpoons), 4 and 5 (CIWS, 57mm, 127mm, small arms and other things that have proper compatibility).
> 
> Its expected that Torpedo and missile loading will be done by the ship alongside or at anchor in a very low seastate as the ships main crane is not rated to be swinging around crazily while underway.  Not to mention the challenge of operating the ammunition elevators for the missiles in that sea state.
> 
> The only concern is if JSS can carry a full fuel load, stores load, two helos and full ammo load.  It might be too much weight so some tradeoffs will likely depend on the mission.





Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Underway, I am glad you brought up the Falklands war.
> 
> Everybody remembers how that war, at sea, was an air war. But the Argentinians also had three (yes, just three - at least until one was destroyed in St-Georges Island) O-boats. There never was a shortage of  AA missiles, or of shells for the guns -  but the RN very nearly ran out of anti-submarine ammunition. As you indicated, anything remotely looking like a POSSUB got a torp/depth charge thrown at it. In those days, we called the tactic "classification by detonation".
> 
> So yes, carrying and transfering Mk 34/54 is an extremely important capability, even in a small war involving submarines. And MTS, you can transfer torpedoes at sea simply by sending your own frigate helicopter to the JSS, where they can load them on the helo, then return to the frigate, have them unloaded and put back in stores. It's slower than a transfer in harbour but if you need them, then you don't care that it's longer and more complicated.
> 
> P.S.: I don't recall anyone suggesting loading the larger missiles in the Asterix.



Like i said, I’m skeptical of a helicopter being able to drop torpedoes onto to a very moving target safely no matter where the helicopter came from. The frigate would have to leave the area. And unlike lopsided like the first gulf war where you ca leave the battle area  for a while and come back in a while RAS’d. The enemy would have a say in the matter.

In a full-scale war in the Pacific we would lillely be ramming subs if we were to run out of torpedoes. You take your cobbled together/composite battle group and you fight with what you have and  that is that. Like a war with the Soviet Union in the Cold War No leaving the area to get more Ammunition. The ammunition dumps would be gone anyway.


----------



## MTShaw

Please forgive if some words i have chosen. They’re the best i could come up with on short notice.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Perhaps I am the one who is not clear.

MTS, our frigates (and AOR[old] and JSS) carry anti submarine helicopters. These helicopters hunt and sink submarines using topredoes (either Mk 46 or Mk 54 - my apologies for the number typo in my post yesterday calling the former a Mk 34). The helicopters have hard points to hang those torpedoes from. When the torpedoes are expended, the helicopter can come back to the frigate to re-load: the frigate carries special handling equipement to take the torpedoes from the torpedo magazine and safely bring them to the helicopter and hang them to the hard points. The reverse operation can be done to store the unused torpedoes back in the magazine. The JSS/Old AOR are similarily equiped to handle torpedoes from the magazine to the helicopter hard points and back. Using that process to tranfer torpedoes at sea from the JSS to the frigates is what I was describing. I never suggested "dropping" torpedoes on deck. 

And BTW, flying helicopters on and off a frigate while hunting a submarine is part and parcel of how we hunt them, so there are no combat limitations on using the helicopter deck during ASW ops.

Serious question here, and not meant to disrespect in anyway, but just for my understanding of the level of details needed when I try to make a point: Have you ever served onboard a Canadian warship?


----------



## Navy_Pete

@Underway, thanks for sharing the photos, it's nice to see how far along VSY has come on the mega block assembly side since the first CCG ship.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'm a former SONAR Tech, and a former Magazine Custodian.  I signed for a full complement of MK46 torps on a Halifax Class ship...I kind of understand how ASW OPS run and OGBD has a pretty good grasp of things. 

The ship has various sensors that can find subs - both Active and Passive SONAR.  The helo can fly out and both detect subs using it's onboard sensors (Sonobouys, Dipping SONAR, MAD sensor) to localize, track, and drop a torp on a bearing that will intersect with the sub's track. 

Having multiple ships with passive sensors means you can triangulate on a bearing, and place the helo on top of the sub to drop right on top with no warning. 

Using the helo to conduct inter-ship transfers of torps is do-able as well.  And it wouldn't need to be just using the hard-points with the new helos.  They have a cargo ramp.  You could probably fit at least 2 torps in their transport coffins onboard, plus 2 more on the hard-points, so you could probably transfer 4 at a time that way.

Jumping back to the AORs - very interesting to see that there is a dedicated storage space for the Harpoons - that is not something you can transfer at sea, but, if you were alongside there's no reason that you couldn't replace expended launch tubes in port if you have a suitable crane and the angle bracket for installation/removal. 

Thought - I know back in the 'old days' we used to send the Tankers down to Roosie Roads and other spots near the end of FY to top up with cheaper fuel that we'd bring home and use to gas up the fleet for a couple of months.  I'm wondering if there's a move afoot to use the AORs to transfer ammunition from Depot to Depot? 

By that I mean taking them off trains or trucks for long distance transport to CFAD Bedford and sending the AOR to Norfolk to pick them up...and then having the AOR drop them at our ammo depot ourselves...saving rail shipment problems and cross-border transport issues (not to mention perhaps 'easier' Dangerous Goods transport regulations?)

A concept - would the new AOR's become a form of cargo ship for the Navy, not just a supply ship providing a ship's tactical needs in theater?


----------



## Halifax Tar

MTShaw said:


> Like i said, I’m skeptical of a helicopter being able to drop torpedoes onto to a very moving target safely no matter where the helicopter came from. The frigate would have to leave the area. And unlike lopsided like the first gulf war where you ca leave the battle area  for a while and come back in a while RAS’d. The enemy would have a say in the matter.
> 
> In a full-scale war in the Pacific we would lillely be ramming subs if we were to run out of torpedoes. You take your cobbled together/composite battle group and you fight with what you have and  that is that. Like a war with the Soviet Union in the Cold War No leaving the area to get more Ammunition. The ammunition dumps would be gone anyway.



We load torpedoes on helos at sea and we can unload them at sea.  They land, we wheel them out, bim, bam, boom they are mounted to hard points the zoomies can go play again.  Its just reverse order; helo lands boom, bam, bim to unload.  

AORs and the sundry of support and logistics vessels will be prime targets in a Naval war, they massively extend range and war fighting. It will be the crazy country who sends them out well un protected.  Navies are one big Logistics FP organization. 

The bigger question we need to ask, is what are our plans when the CPFs loose their compliment of missiles and so have our allies ?  We dont have a whole thousands ready for use.  And if we are busy so are our allies who may be hesitant to give up their own dwindling stock. 

May I propose reintroducing:


----------



## Grimey

Navy_Pete said:


> The older ships also had a totally different philosophy for the DWPs; we used to to 'baseline' refits, where we would just systematically replace portions of the systems each refit. ie we would do the front third, middle, then back third over 3 refits (starting at I think the 10 or 15 year point. So at 25 or 30 years old piping for the major systems would be be replaced at least once.
> 
> That changed around mid 90s for the 280s when we did the TRUMP program to condition based (basically check things and replace as necessary), but basically meant that the firemain (for example) was basically from the 90s, so when we retired them the oldest parts were about 25-30 years old. Still means you do some repairs but overall in decent shape.
> 
> A lot of the minor piping and domestic systems were still original, but generally the major bits were in decent shape for a 40 odd year old ship, so it was more on the old generators and engines that were way obsolete, plus the controls and wiring that was an issue.
> 
> The CPFs have always been condition based, and a lot of that has never been fully poked at, so we fix things as they break, and survey what we can for repair planning. Impossible to get  a lot of it though, so basically there is a huge mechanical repair deficit, and why the DWPs are two years long. Add to that not enough people/time for maintenance, and a high ops tempo that is doing the rental beating/put away wet, and the ships are in bad shape.
> 
> Sure, new combat gear, but it's a bit like the kid with a old car, that was fundamentally well built but needs repaired, driving around with bondo/hope, but fitted with rims, ground effects and a big stereo.





Navy_Pete said:


> The older ships also had a totally different philosophy for the DWPs; we used to to 'baseline' refits, where we would just systematically replace portions of the systems each refit. ie we would do the front third, middle, then back third over 3 refits (starting at I think the 10 or 15 year point. So at 25 or 30 years old piping for the major systems would be be replaced at least once.
> 
> That changed around mid 90s for the 280s when we did the TRUMP program to condition based (basically check things and replace as necessary), but basically meant that the firemain (for example) was basically from the 90s, so when we retired them the oldest parts were about 25-30 years old. Still means you do some repairs but overall in decent shape.
> 
> A lot of the minor piping and domestic systems were still original, but generally the major bits were in decent shape for a 40 odd year old ship, so it was more on the old generators and engines that were way obsolete, plus the controls and wiring that was an issue.
> 
> The CPFs have always been condition based, and a lot of that has never been fully poked at, so we fix things as they break, and survey what we can for repair planning. Impossible to get  a lot of it though, so basically there is a huge mechanical repair deficit, and why the DWPs are two years long. Add to that not enough people/time for maintenance, and a high ops tempo that is doing the rental beating/put away wet, and the ships are in bad shape.
> 
> Sure, new combat gear, but it's a bit like the kid with a old car, that was fundamentally well built but needs repaired, driving around with bondo/hope, but fitted with rims, ground effects and a big stereo.


Controls and wiring wasn't helped by partial float tests either.  Don't carry out an inclining experiment with the tank covers off.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Grimey said:


> Controls and wiring wasn't helped by partial float tests either.  Don't carry out an inclining experiment with the tank covers off.



That is still talked about to this day.


----------



## MTShaw

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Perhaps I am the one who is not clear.
> 
> MTS, our frigates (and AOR[old] and JSS) carry anti submarine helicopters. These helicopters hunt and sink submarines using topredoes (either Mk 46 or Mk 54 - my apologies for the number typo in my post yesterday calling the former a Mk 34). The helicopters have hard points to hang those torpedoes from. When the torpedoes are expended, the helicopter can come back to the frigate to re-load: the frigate carries special handling equipement to take the torpedoes from the torpedo magazine and safely bring them to the helicopter and hang them to the hard points. The reverse operation can be done to store the unused torpedoes back in the magazine. The JSS/Old AOR are similarily equiped to handle torpedoes from the magazine to the helicopter hard points and back. Using that process to tranfer torpedoes at sea from the JSS to the frigates is what I was describing. I never suggested "dropping" torpedoes on deck.
> 
> And BTW, flying helicopters on and off a frigate while hunting a submarine is part and parcel of how we hunt them, so there are no combat limitations on using the helicopter deck during ASW ops.
> 
> Serious question here, and not meant to disrespect in anyway, but just for my understanding of the level of details needed when I try to make a point: Have you ever served onboard a Canadian warship?


I’ll grant that I know little about specific tactics for Cyclones. 

We’re dancing around that there is somewhere to go RAS. If i were the enemy I’d kill the logistics very soon in any true war. Especially beause we’d want to fight over there not over here. 

I’d hope that wed keep our as full of fuel and munitions at all times.

Nope. Very much retired Civilian marine engineer.  And serious hobbyist. I’m read and i guess i write a lot. Too.  HIstorian and Gear Head. 

I’m not sure how I got into this specific back and forth about specific tactics 

What i was trying to impress that i know very little except basic tactics from the Cold War that are still likely true today.

In the very beginning, people would come in and try to say that Aterix is equally or better than JSS. in meaningful way. I’d try to impress people that Asterix was not suitable for Canadian use long term. It had signifcant technical problems But people kept coming back with new ways to make it seem equivalent. 

In one of your previous posts you said nobody said anything about placing larger missiles.

I showed the one what said that and i will contend that AOR is going to be early targets. And every ship that carries large munitions ought to have them in a magazine.

That’s it.

~~~~~

I apologize for speculating without knowledge about tactics 

Facts Matter


----------



## MTShaw

I have no idea why I’m down this rabbit.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Thanks for coming clean MTS. It helps keep the converation going by avoiding skipping over what we take, here, to be common ground. We some time forget it isn't common for everyone.

Now there is no denying that in an all out war, the ennemy wouldn't mind taking out your supplies if they can. But it is not necessarily going to be the first or even primary target. For instance, during the cold war ( I was there - my war), we expected that the Soviet's first two targets would be the Carrier groups and the Reforger convoys. But we also knew that the whole ocean was the theatre - thus no safe rear area - and that we still needed fuel, ammo and food while at sea.

In Canada, it meant we elected to have the AORs tag along. On the East coast, one ot the PROTECTEUR class sailed with CANDESRON ONE, and the other one with CANDESRON FIVE. On the West coast, PROVIDER sailed with CANDESRON TWO. Training squadron was left to fend for itself. If we were doing escort work, the AOR could sail with the convoy and we would take turn to RAS within the convoy. If we sailed independantly, then the AOR was the protected high value unit in the centre and the destroyers basically provided escort around her to our destination.


----------



## MTShaw

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Thanks for coming clean MTS. It helps keep the converation going by avoiding skipping over what we take, here, to be common ground. We some time forget it isn't common for everyone.
> 
> Now there is no denying that in an all out war, the ennemy wouldn't mind taking out your supplies if they can. But it is not necessarily going to be the first or even primary target. For instance, during the cold war ( I was there - my war), we expected that the Soviet's first two targets would be the Carrier groups and the Reforger convoys. But we also knew that the whole ocean was the theatre - thus no safe rear area - and that we still needed fuel, ammo and food while at sea.
> 
> In Canada, it meant we elected to have the AORs tag along. On the East coast, one ot the PROTECTEUR class sailed with CANDESRON ONE, and the other one with CANDESRON FIVE. On the West coast, PROVIDER sailed with CANDESRON TWO. Training squadron was left to fend for itself. If we were doing escort work, the AOR could sail with the convoy and we would take turn to RAS within the convoy. If we sailed independantly, then the AOR was the protected high value unit in the centre and the destroyers basically provided escort around her to our destination.


That’s great information. I shall run with it. I knew about reformer the the purpose of a naval interceptor, and of course reforger, but i didn’t know about the Canadian STraatgey and tactics. Because canada doesn’t talk about our role in the Cold War, the only stuff easily available is Canada’s land and air contributions. 

Book?


----------



## suffolkowner

The AOR is going to be a target. Thats guaranteed. I don't see what the alternative is-not have AOR's? Any attempt to move people and equipment by land, sea or air is going to be vulnerable and there are going to be losses and they might be huge. Just look at the losses in the Ukraine war in the first 6 months. The war seems to be at a bit of a stalemate to some extent due to people and equipment limitations


----------



## Grimey

Halifax Tar said:


> That is still talked about to this day.


Right up until decommissioning, you could still see the tide line if you looked hard enough .


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> @Underway…just wondering if the NSM uses the same fuel as HARPOON?


No idea.  I only know open source stuff on NSM and usually, that doesn't include the fuel type.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was.  Both use a similar propulsion method.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> No idea.  I only know open source stuff on NSM and usually, that doesn't include the fuel type.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was.  Both use a similar propulsion method.


Just an idle curiosity. I was wondering how much (or little) that magazine may have to change when HARPOON gives way to NSM. I imagine there may come a time when they may have to share the same space in transport.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> Just an idle curiosity. I was wondering how much (or little) that magazine may have to change when HARPOON gives way to NSM. I imagine there may come a time when they may have to share the same space in transport.


It won't have to change much at all.  It's basically a big box with a lid and fire suppression systems inside.  The racking solution will be the only thing that changes.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> @Underway, thanks for sharing the photos, it's nice to see how far along VSY has come on the mega block assembly side since the first CCG ship.


Not a problem.  I quite enjoy doing that.  The tour was quite enjoyable. I could look at things I had worked on and see the results.


----------



## MTShaw

Given the JSS command facilities, I would assume that Sensor Netting would be a given. I can’t find any information indicating if  that is true. Any of you guys know?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If you mean by that "will she be connected to to other ships by  Link and have access to the recognized maritime picture, the the answrer is yes.

More than that , I would be surprised if anyone was at liberty to discuss.


----------



## MTShaw

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> If you mean by that "will she be connected to to other ships by  Link and have access to the recognized maritime picture, the the answrer is yes.
> 
> More than that , I would be surprised if anyone was at liberty to discuss.


The only reason i did ask is because the CSC has CEC.


----------



## NavyShooter

What is CEC?


----------



## MTShaw

Sensor netting and Cooperative Engagmenot are often used interchangeability in American sites and online journals, as well as CSC’s web page. 






						Cooperative Engagement Capability - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> Given the JSS command facilities, I would assume that Sensor Netting would be a given. I can’t find any information indicating if  that is true. Any of you guys know?





Oldgateboatdriver said:


> If you mean by that "will she be connected to to other ships by  Link and have access to the recognized maritime picture, the the answrer is yes.
> 
> More than that , I would be surprised if anyone was at liberty to discuss.


Here is what I can tell you.  Same LINK as Frigates currently have.  No CEC because there are no effectors on JSS (it doesn't operate offensive weapons only self defensive ones).  JSS is expected to act as TG commander in some cases.  So all the comms and data sharing are very robust.

What is new on JSS is LINK Space and Land track capability, which was added to the program's CMS 330 contract.  The reasons for this are twofold.  First JSS is designed to support to forces ashore in a permissive environment (read humanitarian operations).  The second is that this development drives CMS software development out of a different budget, which will eventually be implemented into the frigates and CSC CMS systems.

The end goal is to have a single CMS "suite" and when you install it on a ship you can pick and choose the options. JSS, CSC and CPF's will all have different weapons and sensors, so upon installation you just select the groupings that are pertinent to that particular platform. This will significantly reduce costs as the entire CMS suite can be controlled under a single contract and version.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> Here is what I can tell you.  Same LINK as Frigates currently have.  No CEC because there are no effectors on JSS (it doesn't operate offensive weapons only self defensive ones).  JSS is expected to act as TG commander in some cases.  So all the comms and data sharing are very robust.
> 
> What is new on JSS is LINK Space and Land track capability, which was added to the program's CMS 330 contract.  The reasons for this are twofold.  First JSS is designed to support to forces ashore in a permissive environment (read humanitarian operations).  The second is that this development drives CMS software development out of a different budget, which will eventually be implemented into the frigates and CSC CMS systems.
> 
> The end goal is to have a single CMS "suite" and when you install it on a ship you can pick and choose the options. JSS, CSC and CPF's will all have different weapons and sensors, so upon installation you just select the groupings that are pertinent to that particular platform. This will significantly reduce costs as the entire CMS suite can be controlled under a single contract and version.


Thank you. You connected some dots for me.


----------



## suffolkowner

Shipbuilding delays force Ottawa to spend $187M to extend lease on navy supply ship
		


187 million for another 2 years


----------



## FSTO

I wonder if I’ll be fully retired before the first JSS is operational. 

I harken back to Jan 2000 when VAdm Buck said “Hull in the water in 10 years!”. This is getting as bad (almost) as the Sea King replacement.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> I wonder if I’ll be fully retired before the first JSS is operational.
> 
> I harken back to Jan 2000 when VAdm Buck said “Hull in the water in 10 years!”. This is getting as bad (almost) as the Sea King replacement.



If we can't get a boot contact for the Army to work right...

Would nice if we had that 2nd iAOR for the sandy bottom fleet.


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:


> If we can't get a boot contact for the Army to work right...
> 
> Would nice if we had that 2nd iAOR for the sandy bottom fleet.


Ill say it again, Procurement is more about jobs then capabilities, seriously if this wasn't a government contract people would be getting fired for these delays. Why are we not handing down penalties or sanctions against these companies that cannot deliver as contracted? Threaten to go get south Korea to build ships, or even have them build a single ship, our industry needs a wake up call to police them selves a lot better.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> Ill say it again, Procurement is more about jobs then capabilities, seriously if this wasn't a government contract people would be getting fired for these delays. Why are we not handing down penalties or sanctions against these companies that cannot deliver as contracted? Threaten to go get south Korea to build ships, or even have them build a single ship, our industry needs a wake up call to police them selves a lot better.



You're preaching to the choir. 

I couldn't care less about Canadian industry or jobs when it comes to defence.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> You're preaching to the choir.
> 
> I couldn't care less about Canadian industry or jobs when it comes to defence.


 No government of any stripe is going to “care less” when it comes to Canadian Industry and jobs when speaking about defence spending.

You might as well stay in reality land.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> No government of any stripe is going to “care less” when it comes to Canadian Industry and jobs when speaking about defence spending.
> 
> You might as well stay in reality land.



I prefer my land of purple sky's and responsible citizenry and government. 

Now if youre done being a negative Nancy I'd like to get back to it.


----------



## FSTO

What I’d like for the government to do is that once a decision is made then stick with it. 

Also they should do a deep dive in how much  of Canada is involved in subcontracting of major defence projects and that we are already getting industrial offsets and don’t have to go through the Canadianization dog and pony show.


----------



## MilEME09

FSTO said:


> What I’d like for the government to do is that once a decision is made then stick with it.
> 
> Also they should do a deep dive in how much  of Canada is involved in subcontracting of major defence projects and that we are already getting industrial offsets and don’t have to go through the Canadianization dog and pony show.


You mean making sure the offsets are in the defense industry instead of a French fry plant in Alberta being an offset by Irving?


----------



## FSTO

MilEME09 said:


> You mean making sure the offsets are in the defense industry instead of a French fry plant in Alberta being an offset by Irving?


Yea, that.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:


> You mean making sure the offsets are in the defense industry instead of a French fry plant in Alberta being an offset by Irving?


Red Lobster, which arrived in Canada ‘pretty close to the delivery of the first CF-188’ enters the chat. 😉


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:


> Red Lobster, which arrived in Canada ‘pretty close to the delivery of the first CF-188’ enters the chat. 😉


And they used to be good.....


----------



## suffolkowner

any jobs created due to procurement that occur outside of government at least means that there has been progress on the file. Now if only we could reduce the time from 20 yrs to 15 yrs


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> And they used to be good.....



Red Lobster was never good... But I am spoiled living on the east coast.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> Red Lobster was never good... But I am spoiled living on the east coast.


Yup…McDonnell-Douglas HQ was in St.Louis, MO, not New England.


----------



## Halifax Tar

And extended: 






						Canada Extends Asterix Naval Support Ship Contract Until 2025, With Option to Buy
					

OTTAWA, Aug.  29, 2022  (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Federal Fleet Services (FFS) announced today that the Government of Canada has confirmed a two-year extension to the…




					www.theobserver.ca
				




OTTAWA, Aug. 29, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Federal Fleet Services (FFS) announced today that the Government of Canada has confirmed a two-year extension to the At-Sea Support Services Contract for the combat support ship, m/v Asterix. The m/v Asterix has been providing exemplary worldwide service to the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) since her deployment in 2018.

Over the past five years, Asterix has performed flawlessly in NATO and allied operations from the Arabian Gulf to East Africa and the Korean peninsula supporting a variety of missions from counterterrorism to sanction enforcement. The vessel has not experienced a single day of unscheduled downtime, testament to the high quality of the crew, the ship and its systems. Asterix has been widely lauded by global allied navies and described as setting the “gold standard” in naval procurement.

More on link above.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:


> Over the past five years, Asterix has performed flawlessly in NATO and allied operations from the Arabian Gulf to East Africa and the Korean peninsula supporting a variety of missions from counterterrorism to sanction enforcement. The vessel has not experienced a single day of unscheduled downtime, testament to the high quality of the crew, the ship and its systems. Asterix has been widely lauded by global allied navies and described as setting the “gold standard” in naval procurement.


Was this from the GoC infosystem, or FFS? If it was GoC that is one hell of a climb down from when they were railroading Norman! LOL!


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> Was this from the GoC infosystem, or FFS? If it was GoC that is one hell of a climb down from when they were railroading Norman! LOL!



Im just quoting the article.  I have no idea where the statement comes from.  Could be FFS its self.  

Here is a second article:









						FFS secures contract extension for MV Asterix at-sea support services
					

Federal Fleet Services (FFS) has revealed that the Canadian Government extended its at-sea support services contract for Resolve-class naval support ship MV Asterix.




					www.naval-technology.com


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The Globe Newswire presser, incorporated verbatim in the Observer article is the press release of FFS simply put in to generate content. The Gist of the article and the attribution of quotes to FFS CEO, together with the FFS CEO contact info at the end makes that clear.

Doesn't mean what is said is wrong ... nor does it means that it is all right either.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:


> Was this from the GoC infosystem, or FFS? If it was GoC that is one hell of a climb down from when they were railroading Norman! LOL!


That is definitely from Federal Fleets propaganda arm.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> The Globe Newswire presser, incorporated verbatim in the Observer article is the press release of FFS simply put in to generate content. The Gist of the article and the attribution of quotes to FFS CEO, together with the FFS CEO contact info at the end makes that clear.
> 
> Doesn't mean what is said is wrong ... nor does it means that it is all right either.



I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.  Either way, I am glad to see we will still have RAS capability moving forward while JSS continues being built.  

I notice in the original article I posted the title continues to state an option to buy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This strike by the Seaspan tugboaters is impacting the work on the AOR. I don't disagree on the Judge ruling as the logic is sound. I understand why the union is doing this as Seaspan Management has a rep for being a tough nut. I wonder how long it will last and if the government will pressure the Shipyard to negotiate? A judge did declare that the Union could not block the naval stuff in Esquimalt.









						Judge rejects Vancouver Shipyards' injunction request to bar pickets
					

Shipyard and drydock companies in North Van argued their work has been unfairly halted by the tugboat captains' strike. But a B.C. Supreme Court justice ruled the pickets can stay.




					www.nsnews.com


----------



## Underway

Not just the AOR.  The picket lines at Victoria Shipyard were not crossed for a week further delaying the delivery of HMCS Regina back to the fleet from her docking work period.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> Not just the AOR.  The picket lines at Victoria Shipyard were not crossed for a week further delaying the delivery of HMCS Regina back to the fleet from her docking work period.


I know know what you Naval folks mean by DWP...
   I have earned something today and now headed back to bed


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> I know know what you Naval folks mean by DWP...
> I have earned something today and now headed back to bed


Don't worry, soon we'll start calling them 'refits' again, because the ships are so worn out we need to change back to the older repair philosophies, and stop pretending it will be a 6-8 month time out.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> Don't worry, soon we'll start calling them 'refits' again, because the ships are so worn out we need to change back to the older repair philosophies, and stop pretending it will be a 6-8 month time out.


Regina was delayed 4 months.  Basically screwed the West Coast Opsched for the next three years.  Which is fine by me.  Fix the problems, then get the ship back.  Engineering has been complaining about half assed jobs for years.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> Regina was delayed 4 months.  Basically screwed the West Coast Opsched for the next three years.  Which is fine by me.  Fix the problems, then get the ship back.  Engineering has been complaining about half assed jobs for years.


Amateurs! The EWP1/DWP/EWP2 cycle is now taking 3 years on some ships.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> Amateurs! The EWP1/DWP/EWP2 cycle is now taking 3 years on some ships.


I'm only talking about their DWP.  Who knows where other delays/extentions may come from!


----------



## OceanBonfire

> The Royal Navy has had a similar capability for over 60 years and the UK team was able to provide expert knowledge and advice about the new equipment – from myriad operational uses to technical repairs.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1587818060173365249








						New barges bring exciting capability to the RCN
					

A ground-breaking capability for the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) is one step closer to reality as a new phase of training for four modular, self-propelled barges designed to support the future Joint Support Ships (JSS) was recently completed.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Navy_Pete

Game changer? Ground breaking? I like their enthusiasm but that's a bit much, lets save the superlatives for when it's more appropriate.

If their bar is that low have I got a floating box with a motor for you; now with LEDs for ground effects!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It is seriously cool looking.


----------



## MTShaw

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is seriously cool looking.


No Replacement for Displacement. Floating in 81 tonnes is really cool.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1587818060173365249
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New barges bring exciting capability to the RCN
> 
> 
> A ground-breaking capability for the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) is one step closer to reality as a new phase of training for four modular, self-propelled barges designed to support the future Joint Support Ships (JSS) was recently completed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca


Nice to see the RCN has caught up to the mid 20th Century.

Plus Combat Engineers laugh in your general direction


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> Game changer? Ground breaking? I like their enthusiasm but that's a bit much, lets save the superlatives for when it's more appropriate.
> 
> If their bar is that low have I got a floating box with a motor for you; now with LEDs for ground effects!



Unfortunately I don't have sound available.  Did it say how long it takes to put it together ? Or the draught ?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> Unfortunately I don't have sound available.  Did it say how long it takes to put it together ? Or the draught ?


No, there is just generic rock music.

I imagine doing it from JSS with waves will take longer, but is pretty handy once you get it put together (a day?). Curious to see how it will work IRL though; we changed the cranes around on JSS from the Berlin class setup so won't be as easy as with the jetty crane in a sheltered harbour.

It's nothing new, and the fact that it goes into standard 20' sea containers is great for only needing it onboard for a mission packup, but for something like HADR it's going to be incredibly useful. It has much more capacity compared to the old whaler, but doesn't take up a huge chunk of real estate all the time. only really a 'game changer' for the RCN though.


----------



## JLB50

Navy_Pete said:


> No, there is just generic rock music.
> 
> I imagine doing it from JSS with waves will take longer, but is pretty handy once you get it put together (a day?). Curious to see how it will work IRL though; we changed the cranes around on JSS from the Berlin class setup so won't be as easy as with the jetty crane in a sheltered harbour.
> 
> It's nothing new, and the fact that it goes into standard 20' sea containers is great for only needing it onboard for a mission packup, but for something like HADR it's going to be incredibly useful. It has much more capacity compared to the old whaler, but doesn't take up a huge chunk of real estate all the time. only really a 'game changer' for the RCN though.


Are they much different from the Mexeflotes used by the RN?


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin Parkinson said:


> Nice to see the RCN has caught up to the mid 20th Century.
> 
> Plus Combat Engineers laugh in your general direction


That’s fart in your general direction.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time…


----------



## MTShaw

JLB50 said:


> Are they much different from the Mexeflotes used by the RN?


One difference is it is carried as ISO containers. So it probably fits in with the logistics of the JSS rather than landing crafts hanging on side of the Ship.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> Game changer? Ground breaking? I like their enthusiasm but that's a bit much, lets save the superlatives for when it's more appropriate.
> 
> If their bar is that low have I got a floating box with a motor for you; now with LEDs for ground effects!


Game changer for the RCN for sure, groundbreaking might be a little much.  There is a lot of stuff that this can be used for, particularly if you consider it can be employed as a persistant floating platform.  Salvage and recovery operations, mine warfare, diving operations, ship repair functions, floating jetty, party barge (lol).  And then you add the ship to shore connnector capabilities.  

This is something the RCN has never had, so its interesting to see how the sailors are already looking at ways to take advantage with what is essentially a modular and portable barge.  There was some discussion on it at the seminar I was at today, the sailors are certainly having fun with it and enjoying learning to employ it.  And that's a huge win in my book.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes I was poking funny mostly at the PAO's. These and the little landing craft are baby steps to the amphibious capability that we need.


----------



## NavyShooter

Since these have horns, and are big....and are technically ships, does this mean that we now technically have BIG HONKING SHIPS as we were promised 15-ish years ago?


----------



## FSTO

NavyShooter said:


> Since these have horns, and are big....and are technically ships, does this mean that we now technically have BIG HONKING SHIPS as we were promised 15-ish years ago?


Shut up cod piece!


----------



## childs56

Underway said:


> Game changer for the RCN for sure, groundbreaking might be a little much.  There is a lot of stuff that this can be used for, particularly if you consider it can be employed as a persistant floating platform.  Salvage and recovery operations, mine warfare, diving operations, ship repair functions, floating jetty, party barge (lol).  And then you add the ship to shore connnector capabilities.
> 
> This is something the RCN has never had, so its interesting to see how the sailors are already looking at ways to take advantage with what is essentially a modular and portable barge.  There was some discussion on it at the seminar I was at today, the sailors are certainly having fun with it and enjoying learning to employ it.  And that's a huge win in my book.


It will make painting the hull much easier. Put some scaffolding up and you have a great platform.


----------



## Weinie

childs56 said:


> It will make painting the hull much easier. Put some scaffolding up and you have a great platform.


How hard can painting a ship be? Get some grey paint, a roller, and a long stick. Voila.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Weinie said:


> How hard can painting a ship be? Get some grey paint, a roller, and a long stick. Voila.


Visiting the navy base at Bremberton, two guys on a raft, painting the side of an aircraft carrier with rollers. I had to wonder what they did wrong to get that job.


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> Visiting the navy base at Bremberton, two guys on a raft, painting the side of an aircraft carrier with rollers. *I had to wonder what they did wrong to get that job.*


Or what they did right. Score.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Weinie said:


> How hard can painting a ship be? Get some grey paint, a roller, and a long stick. Voila.


I'm told that the real test of a naval officers not sea command exams ... it is simpler. He must stand in front of a wife, in December, and say, "Look, dear, I'm sorry, but we cannot paint ship in Halifax in winter. We* must *go the Caribbean; there's, not other way ... we all hate it, but that's how it must be."


----------



## Kirkhill

Turkey is rapidly becoming my new favourite country - real world innovation.

Rapidly building ships with powerplants on board for disaster relief.   Why didn't we think of that?  Back up power for the St Lawrence?  The Arctic?  The Caribbean?   Vancouver?


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/z8kk4x


----------



## GR66

Kirkhill said:


> Turkey is rapidly becoming my new favourite country - real world innovation.
> 
> Rapidly building ships with powerplants on board for disaster relief.   Why didn't we think of that?  Back up power for the St Lawrence?  The Arctic?  The Caribbean?   Vancouver?
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/z8kk4x


Hmm...doesn't look very carbon-neutral to me.  

Perhaps we could send them a couple of solar panels instead?


----------



## suffolkowner

I cant see what point in supplying these to Ukraine right now would be. Russia would just blow them up


----------



## Furniture

suffolkowner said:


> I cant see what point in supplying these to Ukraine right now would be. Russia would just blow them up


Russia isn't dumb enough to target Turkish ships... Attacking a ship flagged in a NATO country while it's providing disaster relief would be a quick way to opening the flood gates of NATO supply to Ukraine. 

Might even be enough to draw the Turks directly into the fighting.


----------



## suffolkowner

Furniture said:


> Russia isn't dumb enough to target Turkish ships... Attacking a ship flagged in a NATO country while it's providing disaster relief would be a quick way to opening the flood gates of NATO supply to Ukraine.
> 
> Might even be enough to draw the Turks directly into the fighting.


I dont know about that. One Russia has proven itself to be plenty dumb enough. Two it would be a legitimate military target, what would be the point of knocking out infrastructure only to not target its replacement?


----------



## lenaitch

Kirkhill said:


> Turkey is rapidly becoming my new favourite country - real world innovation.
> 
> Rapidly building ships with powerplants on board for disaster relief.   Why didn't we think of that?  Back up power for the St Lawrence?  The Arctic?  The Caribbean?   Vancouver?
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/z8kk4x


Interesting concept but we have a lot of landmass (and population) that is a long way from the sea (the Great Lakes, maybe, depending on the size of the ship), and every km of transmission adds losses.  The utility infrastructure would have to be located shore-side in sufficient capacity to accept and transmit a decent load, even if it was just to the surrounding community.  I don't think our problems are or would be related to generation, but distribution.  The Quebec/eastern Ontario ice storm didn't take out generation.  Having said that, there is room for creative thinking.  I recall one Quebec community where they parked a locomotive at a road crossing and tapped it to the grid.  I thought 'brilliant'.  There would be some obvious technical issues to work out but what better than to have several thousand potential generators spread across the country.


----------



## Furniture

suffolkowner said:


> I dont know about that. One Russia has proven itself to be plenty dumb enough. Two it would be a legitimate military target, what would be the point of knocking out infrastructure only to not target its replacement?


Any vehicle transporting war materiel to Ukraine is also a legitimate target, but I don't expect Russia to shoot down NATO transport aircraft flying to Poland. 

Legitimate target or not, it would be a crossing a line that I strongly suspect Russia has no appetite to cross.


----------



## Kirkhill

lenaitch said:


> Interesting concept but we have a lot of landmass (and population) that is a long way from the sea (the Great Lakes, maybe, depending on the size of the ship), and every km of transmission adds losses.  The utility infrastructure would have to be located shore-side in sufficient capacity to accept and transmit a decent load, even if it was just to the surrounding community.  I don't think our problems are or would be related to generation, but distribution.  The Quebec/eastern Ontario ice storm didn't take out generation.  Having said that, there is room for creative thinking.  I recall one Quebec community where they parked a locomotive at a road crossing and tapped it to the grid.  I thought 'brilliant'.  There would be some obvious technical issues to work out but what better than to have several thousand potential generators spread across the country.



I would dispute the lack of access by water.  

Prince Rupert
Victoria
Nanaimo
Vancouver

Thunder Bay
Sault Ste Marie
Windsor
Sarnia
Niagara Falls
Hamilton
Golden Horseshoe
GTA
Everything downstream 
Lac St Jean
All the Maritimes
All the Arctic Communities

In fact about the only place you couldn't drive a boat is Regina.  Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg would need a very shallow draft.


----------



## lenaitch

Kirkhill said:


> I would dispute the lack of access by water.
> 
> Prince Rupert
> Victoria
> Nanaimo
> Vancouver
> 
> Thunder Bay
> Sault Ste Marie
> Windsor
> Sarnia
> Niagara Falls
> Hamilton
> Golden Horseshoe
> GTA
> Everything downstream
> Lac St Jean
> All the Maritimes
> All the Arctic Communities
> 
> In fact about the only place you couldn't drive a boat is Regina.  Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg would need a very shallow draft.


Ya, fair point (although getting a ship near Niagara Falls might be tricky).  I qualified the Great Lakes as 'ship dependent' and the Arctic would be seasonally dependent.  My point of shore-side transmission remains valid.  There is little point in having a multi-megawatt generator parked at the pier when there is little or no capacity to get the power to the masses.  Large extension cords won't cut it.


----------



## Furniture

lenaitch said:


> Ya, fair point (although getting a ship near Niagara Falls might be tricky).  I qualified the Great Lakes as 'ship dependent' and the Arctic would be seasonally dependent.  My point of shore-side transmission remains valid.  There is little point in having a multi-megawatt generator parked at the pier when there is little or no capacity to get the power to the masses.  *Large extension cords won't cut it.*


What about lots of small ones from Princess Auto and Canadian Tire?


----------



## suffolkowner

Furniture said:


> Any vehicle transporting war materiel to Ukraine is also a legitimate target, but I don't expect Russia to shoot down NATO transport aircraft flying to Poland.
> 
> Legitimate target or not, it would be a crossing a line that I strongly suspect Russia has no appetite to cross.


The difference is those vehicles werent in the war zone they were in a NATO country. If it wasnt a big deal then why wouldnt we just fly into Kyiv? Anyway its a curious game of chicken and a no win prospect for Russia if it happens. Leave ship alone=lots of power for Ukraine. Blow ship up = huge PR win for Ukraine probably resulting in more assets transfered to Ukraine


----------



## Kirkhill

lenaitch said:


> Ya, fair point (although getting a ship near Niagara Falls might be tricky).  I qualified the Great Lakes as 'ship dependent' and the Arctic would be seasonally dependent.  My point of shore-side transmission remains valid.  There is little point in having a multi-megawatt generator parked at the pier when there is little or no capacity to get the power to the masses.  Large extension cords won't cut it.


Fair.


----------



## Dana381

lenaitch said:


> Ya, fair point (although getting a ship near Niagara Falls might be tricky).  I qualified the Great Lakes as 'ship dependent' and the Arctic would be seasonally dependent.  My point of shore-side transmission remains valid.  There is little point in having a multi-megawatt generator parked at the pier when there is little or no capacity to get the power to the masses.  Large extension cords won't cut it.



Power line transformers work both ways. This is why Utility workers get quite upset when you hook a generator to your house without cutting your connection to the grid. The pole transformer turns your 240v generator power to 16,000 volts and can light him up.

If you tap into the grid like the locomotive mentioned above the ship could power the local grid. You wouldn't need extension cords except to the nearest hookup point. If the storm took out transmission to a city area a ship could feasibly repower the area until the transmission lines are restored.


----------



## Spencer100

Dana381 said:


> Power line transformers work both ways. This is why Utility workers get quite upset when you hook a generator to your house without cutting your connection to the grid. The pole transformer turns your 240v generator power to 16,000 volts and can light him up.
> 
> If you tap into the grid like the locomotive mentioned above the ship could power the local grid. You wouldn't need extension cords except to the nearest hookup point. If the storm took out transmission to a city area a ship could feasibly repower the area until the transmission lines are restored.


Was that that not the plan on Y2K?  I thought I remember the Frigates were to be in Harbour and ready for hook up to the grid if there was problems on the date roll over.


----------



## lenaitch

Dana381 said:


> Power line transformers work both ways. This is why Utility workers get quite upset when you hook a generator to your house without cutting your connection to the grid. The pole transformer turns your 240v generator power to 16,000 volts and can light him up.
> 
> If you tap into the grid like the locomotive mentioned above the ship could power the local grid. You wouldn't need extension cords except to the nearest hookup point. If the storm took out transmission to a city area a ship could feasibly repower the area until the transmission lines are restored.


Transformers and cables don't care but a lot of the rest of the infrastructure does.  All the technology loaded into grids now makes it more complex including all of the self-protection technology required to be part of an international synchronous grid.  The grid was originally designed to take power from a relatively small number of big generators.  With solar and wind generators popping up on country roads, now there are multiple small generators scattered into the system and in some cases they've actual had to limit connections because the grid can't keep up.  You are right about stand-by generators.  Now, the farm down the road has a solar array feeding the grid.  if the grid goes down, it needs the tech to disconnect the farmer, not only to protect the grid protect itself and its crews but also the farmer's equipment because the existing load will try to suck the nuts out of the equipment.

I can only assume that a lot of isolation took place before that locomotive was connected.  A typical diesel-electric locomotive can put out a couple thousand kilowatts (I doubt it could do it for long at maximum rpm while stationary).  That's really not a whole lot.  When we're talking about a ship probably putting out multiple megawatts, that "nearest hookup point" would have to be well engineered, robust, and already in place.  I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but your not hooking up that kind of power to the nearest street pole mounting a 50kva transformer.


----------

