# LPD Lite



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Feb 2008)

From the Strategypage:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htamph/articles/20080210.aspx

LPD Lite For Peacekeeping
February 10, 2008:  For the last few years, Canada and Holland have both been developing an interesting variation on the LPD type amphibious ship. This is the 27,000 ton Joint Support Ship (JSS). It looks like an LPD (it has a helicopter deck aft, in addition to a well with some landing craft), but is basically a combination  tanker/cargo/vehicle transport (roll on/roll off) ship, with communications capabilities and space for a hundred or so staff personnel (for running a humanitarian operation ashore) and a small hospital. The ship is built to commercial, not military, standards. It carries some defensive weapons, but is not really built for combat. The crew of about 200 is there to support humanitarian or peacekeeping missions, but can also serve as a floating headquarters for any small scale military operation. The Netherlands and Canada are each planning to build one. The Canadian one is more expensive, because it is built (with a stronger hull) to deal with sea ice (up to two feet thick). The Canadian JSS would cost nearly $600 million each (for three), the Dutch one would cost 10-20 percent less. 


I did not know we were co-operating with the Dutch so much on this.


----------



## newfin (10 Feb 2008)

As far as I have read there is no coopration with the Dutch on the JSS.  I think the author is getting carried away.  He also states that the JSS is not being built to military standards but is being built to commercial standards.  I don't think that is true either.  This is another example of you can't believe everything you read.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Feb 2008)

They are not even being built as they are still on the drawing board...


----------



## Eggy (10 Feb 2008)

Strategy Page is not really a page you go to for well researched articles.


----------



## STONEY (7 Apr 2008)

The final JSS design  hasn't  been announced yet i don't believe but of the competing groups one of them is German and the other is of Dutch origin with Canadian Mods.  You didn't really think it was Canadian did you, we came up with the concept but a lot of the design work will be done offshore and then  it will be built here  with a lot of major items (power train) coming from Europe.

Cheers


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 May 2008)

Appears that the JSS may have hit a small snag. Apparently, the money allocated by the government is not enough and either more money is needed. 
The latest news is here:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=6af0d1a9-1aad-448e-ab21-a5eded6d2be3


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 May 2008)

More at this post at _The Torch_:

Joint Support Ship problems: No surprise
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/joint-support-ship-problems-no-surprise.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ironduke57 (19 May 2008)

Could be an good oppertunity for our navy to get in this program too, which could maybe lead to an reduced per ship price for all.

Last year Viceadmiral Wolfgang Nolting Inspector-General of our Navy had wrote in an article for the Magazin "Europäische Sicherheit" that we need something like the (verbatim!) "Joint Support Ship". He also added this "JSS" program to the "Bundeswehr Plan 2009" (fiscal plan for our Forces).

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (20 May 2008)

The requirements seem ambitious. Refuelling a Victoria _underway_? Has anyone ever pulled that off?


----------



## FSTO (20 May 2008)

I think that it is time for a serious rethink of the JSS. What the heck are we trying to do here? Provide food, fuel and stores only or all that plus command team, boarding party, umptenth line maintenance, ice breaker, landing support ship, air defense, etc, etc. As it has been said before there is no previous experience building a ship that provides all that the SOR laid out and we are now reaping the benefits. 

My feeling is that the AOR is a supply ship and that is all that it should do "supply", no more of this crap about close in ASW, having the command team and fighting the air war. It is a basic dual hull with loads of space for food and fuel, 2 king posts, a big flight deck, lots of elevators and fork lifts, everything that can be automated is, and is crewed by about 50 or 60 pers. You build 4 to 6 of them, split them evenly between the coasts and we have blue water capability with the required redundancy. Then we call up the Aussies and Spaniards and tell them that we want to piggy back on their program and we have 2 true LPD's instead of this bastardized JSS thing.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 May 2008)

Amen, Brother!

It is called "requirement creep" and is the bane of every project in DND.

Simple, robust AORs right now, please.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 May 2008)

FTSO - Bloody hell!!  I was here in 99 when we were promised 4 in the water by 05.  Then maybe 3 by ??? with one in 12.  These old girls won't be able to keep going beyond a "rethink" and the associated political delays.  

SKT, FTSO - I agree overall but they will not do what could be done.  Buy off the shelf overseas now, or get someone like Hyundai to make a design.  But requirement creep is real and you cannot escape it, I would rather have one JSS to come in 12 with the rest to follow even with a delay on the third.  We have always been asked to do more than just gas, bullets and beans.  I don't think it will change in the future.  Sure we are doing something that has not be done before, but someone has to for new ideas/proceedures to come along.  We are too small a Navy to crew much more than what is proposed.  I would love to see AOR's and LPD's both, but we cannot afford the luxury IMHO.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2008)

Is there something fundamentally wrong with the original Littoral Combat Ship concept of building a seaworthy hull capable of mounting a variety of mission sets?

Why not just build a hull with lots of deck and hangar space, and tankage, and then build ISO-can modules that can be grafted on to adjust to the current (and future) missions?


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 May 2008)

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

Preserver’s boiler needs work
http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1057689.html



> The navy’s sole East Coast supply ship is experiencing more leaky boiler problems.
> 
> HMCS Preserver,
> http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/preserver/home/index_e.asp
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (24 May 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is there something fundamentally wrong with the original Littoral Combat Ship concept of building a seaworthy hull capable of mounting a variety of mission sets?
> 
> Why not just build a hull with lots of deck and hangar space, and tankage, and then build ISO-can modules that can be grafted on to adjust to the current (and future) missions?



This is just my opinion, but if we can't really do it with trucks and simple add-ons, why would we think it would work with ships?

If you look at 99% of trucks, trial and error has proven that customized adjustment based on tasking is required as opposed to trying to use a one-size fits all chasis with interchangeable attachments.

My candid read is this is like a Lego experiment for naval engineers.  It likely will never as well as convention solutions, but they're more than willing to get paid to play with the concept because they enjoy the problem solving associated with the modularity....


Matthew.


----------

