Author Topic: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)  (Read 761011 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jungle

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,186
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #50 on: November 23, 2004, 20:43:33 »
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.
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- John G. Diefenbaker. July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,995
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #51 on: November 23, 2004, 21:07:33 »
Quote
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?
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline Jungle

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,186
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #52 on: November 23, 2004, 21:53:05 »
Quote
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?
Of course not... just like the Navy is not flying, or maintaining, the Maritime Helicopters. ;)
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- John G. Diefenbaker. July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,995
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #53 on: November 23, 2004, 22:48:18 »
Kind of a different scenario don't you think?
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #54 on: November 24, 2004, 05:41:32 »
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. ;)
Quote

We're not under Navy command. Our command still lies at 1CAD. We're just attached to the Navy when we're embarked.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline Jungle

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,186
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #55 on: November 24, 2004, 06:35:23 »
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...
« Last Edit: November 24, 2004, 15:21:57 by Ex-Dragoon »
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- John G. Diefenbaker. July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,516
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #56 on: November 24, 2004, 07:58:46 »
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.

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,126
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #57 on: November 24, 2004, 12:48:37 »
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.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,516
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #58 on: November 24, 2004, 13:13:58 »
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.

« Last Edit: November 24, 2004, 13:39:19 by whiskey 601 »

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,995
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #59 on: November 24, 2004, 15:25:27 »
Quote
As usual Ex-Dragoon is ultra-protective of his Navy...   ;D
Someone has to be otherwise misconceptions and  misinformation about the Navy would abound.
Quote
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. ;)
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline Jungle

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,186
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #60 on: November 24, 2004, 15:48:44 »
Ex-Dragoon, why is it that you edited my post above ???
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.
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- John G. Diefenbaker. July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,995
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #61 on: November 24, 2004, 17:08:42 »
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?
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 133,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,663
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #62 on: November 24, 2004, 17:16:25 »
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....

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2004, 21:11:42 by Infanteer »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,126
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #63 on: November 24, 2004, 18:44:18 »
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 :'(
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Jungle

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,186
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #64 on: November 24, 2004, 19:36:05 »
Sorry Jungle when I was looking at your post I hit the Modify Tab vice Quote Tab, no worries nothing was changed.

No problem...

Quote
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.
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- John G. Diefenbaker. July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Offline DJL

  • Member
  • ****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 135
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #65 on: November 24, 2004, 19:39:53 »
Quote
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?

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,995
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #66 on: November 24, 2004, 19:51:10 »
Quote
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.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline Jungle

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,186
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #67 on: November 24, 2004, 20:08:41 »
Quote
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.

I was talking about the Tobruk...
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- John G. Diefenbaker. July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,995
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #68 on: November 24, 2004, 20:24:06 »
Got ya...thought we were talking JSS :D
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,126
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #69 on: November 24, 2004, 21:43:33 »
Quote
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline mjohnston39

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 10
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 83
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #70 on: November 25, 2004, 04:22:18 »
Quote
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.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,401
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #71 on: November 25, 2004, 10:27:36 »
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.     ???
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,126
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #72 on: November 25, 2004, 11:00:03 »
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,126
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #73 on: November 25, 2004, 11:27:18 »
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Mortar guy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 489
  • Eating and drinking for peace.
Re: JSS Amphib Capability
« Reply #74 on: November 25, 2004, 20:20:08 »
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/portalizar/jsp/contenidopopup.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1072571605.1101431893@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccccaddddjklkdkcfngcfkmdfgfdfgk.0&contentOID=10941&contentType=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

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori