# Alternative idea for the JSS etc.



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2006)

Since it will take the better part of a decade to get any sort of new ship (especially major units like the JSS or whatever name it will go under), this seems to be a way of killing several birds with one stone. A company called FastShip Atlantic is proposing a monohull cargo ship using a semi planing hull powered by gas turbine engines generating 250 MW driving waterjets. 

The design specs call for a 10,000 ton payload crossing the ocean at a speed of 38 Kts (44 mph for us land lubbers). The use of a turbine powerplant also allows essentially flat decks which can be accessed by a large stern ramp, simplifying cargo handling. Like most contractors, they offer a "defence" version (in this case able to carry the equivalent of two US Armoured battalions including logistics supplies) and offload by backing into the beach.

While a FastShip as outlined by the company is about 2 to 2.5 times bigger than we could use, cargo, logistics support or task force LPD ships using these principles (or alternative ship designs which offer the same combination of speed, seakeeping and "lift") should be of interest to us. If the ship can really perform as claimed, it would cut the time to deploy a complete battlegroup by about half, and if it has the enhanced ability to load and offload without a prepared port, then actually inserting a battlegroup and logistics support from the sea would be easier by orders of magnitude. There is a large flat deck which could be modified to support helicopter operations as well. (The time saving would include the ability to land as one complete and formed package, rather than the painful process of marrying everything up on the far end)

Of course the idea of the cargo ships outpacing the escorting frigates is a bit strange to contemplate, but the company does claim the hull form scales down. "Flying Fish" class frigates anyone?

Read here and decide if there is any merit to the idea. http://www.fastshipatlantic.com/index.htm The company claims the first ship will be operational in 2008.


----------



## GO!!! (12 Mar 2006)

The use of gas turbines would _seem_ to be rather short sighted, given the high (and rising) cost of that fuel choice, but other than that, the idea seems solid.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Mar 2006)

What would you suggest? Going back to oars and sails? Gas turbines are a needed reality for naval vessels and until we get something better are here to stay.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (12 Mar 2006)

"The ability to offload at austere ports or even directly over beaches with up to a 10 degree gradient."
Sounds like an amphibious-RO/RO ship... some picks on the site seem to indicate that those ships will be able to operate at least a few hellos if not more... sounds interesting.


----------



## NavyShooter (14 Mar 2006)

I think my concern would be seakeeping.   :

38 knots in crappy sea states wouldn't be much fun.  Or likely even attainable.

NS


----------



## Rhibwolf (14 Mar 2006)

Just to clarify, marine gas turbines do not use gasoline, they use Distillate Fuel Oil (essentially diesel). It is basically a turbine that converts the chemical energy of a liquid fuel into mechanical energy by internal combustion.  The gaseous products of the fuel (which is burned in compressed air) are expanded through a turbine to ultimately produce propulsion.  
While some of us do pine for the days of sail, some form of petroleum derived fuel is expected to be the standard fuel for years to come.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Mar 2006)

Rhibwolf said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, *marine gas turbines do not use gasoline*, they use Distillate Fuel Oil (essentially diesel).



This is what I was looking for. 

I thought it would be rather expensive powering ships with gasoline!

Is this something similar to JP - 8?


----------



## Rhibwolf (15 Mar 2006)

GO!, im not an engineer, but in a nutshell, one is jet fuel, the other aint.  Lots to be found on the net with a google or two.
Distillate Fuel Oil:  Diesel: low and ultra-low sulfur highway and high sulfur off-highway (or nonroad) 
Off-highway examples: locomotives, *ships*, farm tractors, bulldozers, forklifts, underground mining equipment, backhoes, cranes
Jet Fuel: Kerosene-type: commercial and Military Grades JP-5 and JP-8 Naphtha-type: Military Grade JP-4


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2006)

I can't say what the seakeeping ability of a FastShip would be (they haven't been built yet!), but they could hardly be casting about for investors if they hadn't done computer modeling and tank tests to demonstrate the seakeeping abilities of the proposed design. (big investors would insist on seeing the results and getting independent review, so it is not too likely to be a scam).

Turbine engines are fairly omnivorous in terms of fuel; that was one of the big attractions for the Germans near the end of WW II, since it was easier to make kerosene and low grade petroleum substitutes from coal. Conventional fighters like the ME-109 and Fock Wulf 190 series needed high octane gasoline for their piston engines, which *could not* accept any substitutes. Much of the German airforce was grounded near the end of the war for lack of fuel, even though aircraft production was actually increasing throughout 1944 and early 1945.

Like everything else, turbines are not perfect, and burn fuel at almost the same rate when idleing as at full throttle (a big minus in an M-1 Tank regiment), but this isn't a disaster on a ship; she can use one or two turbines to get in and out of port, and light up the others to get to cruise speed when crossing the ocean.

I think the logistical advantages of delivering a battlegroup as a formed "package" after a short transoceanic crossing would actually be a trump the fuel costs. While a FastShip would burn more fuel than an individual containership or LPD, you only need one FastShip for a Canadian deployment, rather than one or more cargo ships, and a fleet of Airbusses and C-130s etc. as required today. From their website it is claimed a FastShip can transit from the Atlantic coast to the Persian Gulf in 11 days, if we are organized in Canada, a battlegroup could be assembled in Halifax and half way around the world in three weeks, compared with almost a month just to cross the Atlantic today (not counting assembling the Battlegroup and loading/unloading).


----------



## Navy_Blue (17 Mar 2006)

What this ship seems to be is purely transport??  What our Navy needs more than anything right now is a quick replacement for our AOR's.
Even with all the red tape and bureaucratic crap, JSS will still most like end up being the quickest alternative.  

Our Navy from the looks of it thinks about fuel costs, its why our CPF's have a 20 cylinder PDE.  Of all the things we manage to screw up putting a cruise engine in our CPFs was the smartest thing they ever did.  In one night traveling 8 knots on one GT (because the PDE was down) we burned enough fuel to fill my car for 6 years.  @ 30 knots we could burn that in one hour.  Not only that water jets are even less fuel efficient than shafts.  The PDE can chug along for ages on next to no fuel.

We should be looking at Diesel Electric Support ships and if they can get pods that pump out the speed we need and the ability to run silent we should be putting them on SCSC too.

At this point Canada plans deployments pretty throughly and with the exception of the dart teams have a few months to get gear in theater.  Why waste money on fuel pigs to move a few weeks quicker.  If they really need Canada on the seen yesterday the world is pretty screwed.

My understanding of a task group is that they move as a group??  Why would we buys ships that go twice as fast as the escorts??


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Mar 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> *At this point Canada plans deployments pretty throughly and with the exception of the dart teams have a few months to get gear in theater.  Why waste money on fuel pigs to move a few weeks quicker*.  *If they really need Canada on the seen yesterday the world is pretty screwed*.
> 
> My understanding of a task group is that they move as a group??  *Why would we buys ships that go twice as fast as the escorts*??



Three really good points.  +3.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2006)

Not to engage in a naval battle here, but if we were to forgo the turbine powerplant  but keep the rest of the FastShip concept (i.e. easily accessable decks, the ability to load an entire battlegroup in one formed package andthe ability to load/offload in unprepared landings), is this not a concept worth looking at?

As for the "need Canada now", there are a lot of people both here and abroad who are asking for us to get that ability, (and indeed believe the World is pretty screwed), speed does give more options, I guess my point is how much should/could we pay for these options?

The Naval task force should move as a group, as noted the FastShip hullform is claimed to be scalable, so warships capable of crossing the ocean at high speed are also a possibility. In practical terms, a warship needs the ability to "sprint" as well as drift, based on Navy Blue's post a Fast WarShip needs a different engine layout than what is being offered here.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (17 Mar 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> What this ship seems to be is purely transport??  What our Navy needs more than anything right now is a quick replacement for our AOR's.
> Even with all the red tape and bureaucratic crap, JSS will still most like end up being the quickest alternative.
> 
> Our Navy from the looks of it thinks about fuel costs, its why our CPF's have a 20 cylinder PDE.  Of all the things we manage to screw up putting a cruise engine in our CPFs was the smartest thing they ever did.  In one night traveling 8 knots on one GT (because the PDE was down) we burned enough fuel to fill my car for 6 years.  @ 30 knots we could burn that in one hour.  Not only that water jets are even less fuel efficient than shafts.  The PDE can chug along for ages on next to no fuel.
> ...



With respect, cause this is not my part ship but I listen to the Grown ups...I think we are confusing two separate projects...someone correct me if I am wrong...
The JSS is the replacement for the AOR and the project office is fairly well along on defining that one...there is a website for the PMO on the DIN I don't have the link handy. there may be added capacity to transport pers but that is not the main thrust of the JSS.

The big honking Ship is another separate project which will give the capacity to transport a battalions worth of our green brethren and sistern.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Mar 2006)

Folks, remember the JSS will primarily be at AOR with some sealift capability. You won't see too many soldiers actually on them. Thats what the BHS is for.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Mar 2006)

Now that the Guvmint is talking about a BHS and Icebreakers/Ice capable vessels does that mean that the JSS can be reconfigured without transport space and 1st year ice capability without imposing another 10 year delay in the programme?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (18 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Folks, remember the JSS will primarily be at AOR with some sealift capability. You won't see too many soldiers actually on them. Thats what the BHS is for.



Ex....you and I are on the same page...he he

See this for clarification on JSS and Amphib ships

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=164


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Mar 2006)

I am wondering whether the BHS and the JSS will have a UAV detachment embarked. I figure these are the most logical platforms to embark the UAVs along with the usual Helos. Thoughts?


----------



## HDE (29 Mar 2006)

This may have been raised elsewhere.  How necessary is it to have a large troop carrying capacity aboard ship?  I guess I'm wondering if the more likely plan would be to airlift the bulk of troops fairly near to the destination, then hook them up with the ships for a short period of time.  This would likely have an significant impact on space required for accomodation.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Mar 2006)

> then hook them up with the ships



This is kind of the crux of the matter - where and how does the transfer from the aircraft to the ship occur.  And the other question is how short is short when thinking of time.  One of the advantages of a sea-based force is that it is a credible threat in being.  Its mere presence can change the other guy's mind so that force doesn't have to be used.  In that case a "3 Hour Tour" can rapidly degenerate into a Gilligan's Island adventure with no end in sight.  

As well troops are pretty light in comparison to their kit (1 LAV at 15 tonnes (15,000 kg) weighs as much as 150 troops at 100 kg).  They also pack well (like sardines) so they don't take up that much space.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2006)

I have read accounts throughout military history where the troops and the gear are packed separately and reuniting the bits and pieces in theater becomes a huge cluster. The Anzac's in Galipoli, the Americans deploying for Desert Shield/Desert Sabre (Desert Storm was the air battle, planes and pilots tend to come with each other), and some early deployments to Yugoslavia by ourselves come to mind. 

Whatever form the "Big Honking Ship" takes, the ability to arrive with a complete package will trump most other considerations. A ship full of kit without soldiers is not a "force in being", and the opposing force can safely ignore it if they are not actively trying to sink it. They would get more milage by preventing the aircraft from landing/deploying the troops anyway, and it is easier to do by just parking trucks across the runways.


----------



## HDE (30 Mar 2006)

I was just thinking of the logistics of putting several hundred troops on a ship and having them spend, potentially,  a couple of weeks getting to anywhere.  Would it be reasonable to fly most of them to an allied nation in the region, then mate them with the ship when it reaches the area?  By the time the ship actually reaches the coast of the area in question it'd be fully good to go.  From the perspective of offering a credible presence I think the issue is less about how the force got there there than that it has arrived.  I think this is along the lines of what the USMC does with the pre-positioned fleet, although we couldn't/wouldn't have our ships stationed overseas


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Mar 2006)

Chances are what is loaded on to the JSS will be offloaded when forces can sieze and maintain control of a port facility or in an allied country. Remember chances are the JSS will also be carrying fuel and ammunition for the escorting warships so you would not want to endanger it anymore then you would have to.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Mar 2006)

Just to be clear: as IHS points out above the JSS and the BHS are not the same thing AFAIK.   

The JSS will accompany the Navy and may carry some army vehicles and may carry some army troops.  The BHS will accompany the army and will carry vehicles and troops.  Also, if the budget follows the promises, there will be 3x JSS and 2x BHS.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (6 Apr 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Just to be clear: as IHS points out above the JSS and the BHS are not the same thing AFAIK.
> 
> The JSS will accompany the Navy and may carry some army vehicles and may carry some army troops.  The BHS will accompany the army and will carry vehicles and troops.  Also, if the budget follows the promises, there will be 3x JSS and 2x BHS.



I'm just ecstatic they're actually using BHS as a formal acronym for "Big Honkin' Ship".  That cracks me up....


M.   ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (6 Apr 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I'm just ecstatic they're actually using BHS as a formal acronym for "Big Honkin' Ship".  That cracks me up....
> 
> 
> M.   ;D



Well you know we're just quoting the CDS lol.
The thing is we don't know what we are buying or making yet so that's as good an acronym as any.
Will it be an LPD? or something else...San Antonio is an LPD but others have other designators.
Harper's throne speech seemed to support us so that's good


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Jul 2006)

I'll breathe some new life into this. It seems the RN Fleet Auxillary are also considering versions of the JSS concept as well. The ship will replace bulk cargo, re-fueling etc. They are calling it MARS. [Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability] Note however that MARS is not "a uniform class of ships" but is actually several different ships of varying configuration.

More Information is here: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/MilitaryAfloatReachSustainabilitymars.htm

and here: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/mars.htm

Requirement

The ‘force projection’ role of the Royal Navy requires three key tasks to be fulfilled by MARS: 

Fighting ships to be supplied with bulk consumables (BC) – fuel, food, ammunition, stores, water, and air stores to embarked forces. 
Joint sea-based logistics (JSBL) support and sustainment to be provided to land forces from the sea to locations potentially well inland from the beachhead and then sustain their operations.  
Forward Aviation Support (FAS) – the provision of support to maritime rotary wing operations. The ships would be able to act as a forward maintenance facility for helicopters. 
The forward aviation requirement was re-confirmed in late 2004 after the consideration of other options. 

Other MARS roles include supporting: 

A CVF centred carrier task group; 
An amphibious task group; 
Dispersed ships; 
A medium sized brigade ashore; 
Special forces; and 
Joint forces aviation. 
It's expected that the MARS ships will need to be able to operate in areas under threat, and some or all will be armed and therefore classed as ‘grey’ or ‘warlike’.  Individual MARS ships may operate alone in, for example they could be the assigned unit to Atlantic Patrol Task (North) in the Caribbean, undertaking drug interdiction roles and disaster relief.  

MARS will not consist of one uniform of class of ship, but a family of ships perhaps displacing as much as 40,000 tonnes deadweight.


----------

