Army.ca Forums

Navy.ca => Ships & Vessels => Topic started by: Ex-Dragoon on June 29, 2004, 13:13:59

Title: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 29, 2004, 13:13:59
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?
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: DJL on June 29, 2004, 16:19:31
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? 
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 29, 2004, 16:32:10
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.
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Sundborg on July 01, 2004, 12:26:29
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.
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 01, 2004, 12:50:50
Agreed just wishful thinking lol.
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Code5 on July 03, 2004, 21:56:51
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?



Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 04, 2004, 15:35:12
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.
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Code5 on July 04, 2004, 17:38:18
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 :)
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 04, 2004, 17:51:41
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?
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: NavyGrunt on July 04, 2004, 17:53:54
Maybe we could tie some of the old pig boat minesweepers togther and make it into a floating CF disco/med boat.  :o
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 05, 2004, 12:43:34
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.
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Sundborg on July 05, 2004, 15:00:24
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 :)

 :o   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.
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Lance Wiebe on July 06, 2004, 06:16:19
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!
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 06, 2004, 06:37:33
While things can change thankfully that's what it is a bad rumour, Lance.
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: canuck101 on July 19, 2004, 00:56:50
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.
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 19, 2004, 08:59:37
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.
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: canuck101 on July 21, 2004, 01:22:36
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.
Title: Re: JSS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 21, 2004, 06:29:38
The crew size won't change for whatever mission. Basic sailing requirements and minimum manning stay the same.
Title: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Green Lid on August 25, 2004, 23:25:55
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 ???
Title: Re: Loss of the 280s
Post by: Code5 on August 25, 2004, 23:44:13
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.

Title: Re: Loss of the 280s
Post by: whiskey601 on August 26, 2004, 00:01:51
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 ...

   
Title: Re: Loss of the 280s
Post by: Green Lid on August 26, 2004, 00:46:10
Has a thread for discussions on the JSS been opened in any of the forums, apart from the CPF 57 mm thread.

Title: Re: Loss of the 280s
Post by: Chris Pook on August 26, 2004, 00:57:53
http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,16528.msg71338.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.  ;)
Title: Re: Loss of the 280s
Post by: Green Lid on August 26, 2004, 21:45:43
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

Title: Re: Loss of the 280s
Post by: Chris Pook on August 26, 2004, 22:18:28
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.
Title: Re: Loss of the 280s
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 26, 2004, 22:28:01
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.
Title: Re: Loss of the 280s
Post by: Chris Pook on August 26, 2004, 22:29:22
You are correct EX-D. Sorry for the confusion.  Re-editing now.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Green Lid on August 26, 2004, 22:50:44
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!!
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 26, 2004, 22:52:41
Sorry guys I split this from the original 280 discussion to stay more on topic.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Green Lid on August 26, 2004, 23:27:43
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on August 27, 2004, 00:20:36
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?

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Green Lid on August 27, 2004, 00:55:09
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: canuck101 on September 17, 2004, 03:38:43
I was just wondering has anyone seen or heard anything new on the JSS ships since the election promises were made.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 17, 2004, 06:20:39
Until Parliament sits again in the fall there will be very little progress with any other project beyond the Cyclones.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: canuck101 on November 20, 2004, 23:21:16
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 21, 2004, 01:05:26
Similiar but all AORs have some degree of commonality world wide from my experience.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: mjohnston39 on November 21, 2004, 03:31:43
Some recent CG renderings of the proposed JSS from Fleetech news release and DND literature:

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcphotos.com%2Fpc_userimages%2F562%2Fgenerated%2Fimg562_21092004212303_3_350.jpg&hash=ae41de9f571591a7f06ac66e3c2b7200)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcphotos.com%2Fpc_userimages%2F562%2Fgenerated%2Fimg562_21092004212303_6_350.jpg&hash=a71f40530a9a97c49c094b97b91934b9)

Mike.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on November 21, 2004, 12:40:53
The locations of the two funnels suggests two independent machinery spaces, which is interesting. Is that an APAR mast structure?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 21, 2004, 13:33:37
Two machinery spaces isn't that odd as we have they on the CPFs, could be an APAR or just an enclosed mast.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on November 21, 2004, 17:59:48
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.

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: mjohnston39 on November 22, 2004, 02:05:38
KMM has a double acting design tanker:

http://www.masamarine.com/ship_tankers.html
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on November 22, 2004, 03:49:34
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on November 23, 2004, 19:18:27
Another perspective of what mjohnston39 posted above:





Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Storm on November 23, 2004, 19:42:41
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 23, 2004, 19:46:32
Now you are seeing with an amphib and an AOR combination will not work and a transport/AOR will.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Sam69 on November 23, 2004, 19:50:21
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
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Garbageman on November 23, 2004, 19:53:37
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Sam69 on November 23, 2004, 19:59:07
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
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Garbageman on November 23, 2004, 20:04:12
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Sam69 on November 23, 2004, 20:07:05
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.

 :salute:

Sam
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Jungle on November 23, 2004, 21:43:33
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 23, 2004, 22:07:33
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Jungle on November 23, 2004, 22:53:05
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. ;)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 23, 2004, 23:48:18
Kind of a different scenario don't you think?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Inch on November 24, 2004, 06:41:32
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Jungle on November 24, 2004, 07:35:23
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...
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on November 24, 2004, 08:58:46
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on November 24, 2004, 13:48:37
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.

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on November 24, 2004, 14:13:58
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 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lpd-17.htm)

Link posted under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 24, 2004, 16:25:27
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. ;)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Jungle on November 24, 2004, 16:48:44
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 24, 2004, 18:08:42
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Infanteer on November 24, 2004, 18:16:25
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on November 24, 2004, 19:44:18
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 :'(
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Jungle on November 24, 2004, 20:36:05
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: DJL on November 24, 2004, 20:39:53
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 24, 2004, 20:51:10
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Jungle on November 24, 2004, 21:08:41
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...
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 24, 2004, 21:24:06
Got ya...thought we were talking JSS :D
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on November 24, 2004, 22:43:33
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: mjohnston39 on November 25, 2004, 05:22:18
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on November 25, 2004, 11:27:36
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.     ???
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on November 25, 2004, 12:00:03
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on November 25, 2004, 12:27:18
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Mortar guy on November 25, 2004, 21:20:08
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

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: mjohnston39 on November 26, 2004, 02:16:03
Quote
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 26, 2004, 07:24:11
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on November 26, 2004, 13:34:04
Quote
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Disillusioned(Banned) on November 26, 2004, 17:14:26
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Mortar guy on November 26, 2004, 18:12:10
Quote
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
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on November 26, 2004, 19:39:51
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on November 26, 2004, 23:55:41
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.     ???
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: DJL on November 27, 2004, 01:16:44
Quote
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.


Quote
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on December 03, 2004, 19:45:04
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).




Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 03, 2004, 23:11:41
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on December 03, 2004, 23:55:19
Quote
Insert Quote
I think you are reading too much into it.

Probably.  But I enjoy speculating.

Cheers. ;)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: FSTO on December 04, 2004, 00:19:41
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.

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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on December 04, 2004, 00:36:27
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?   
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Inch on December 04, 2004, 00:51:29
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.

Quote

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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: FSTO on December 04, 2004, 11:27:13
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.

Quote

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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Inch on December 04, 2004, 11:37:46
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.
Quote

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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 04, 2004, 12:19:40
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: FSTO on December 04, 2004, 12:40:43
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.
Quote

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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Inch on December 04, 2004, 13:03:06
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.
Quote

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.


Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 04, 2004, 13:10:55
Quote
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Inch on December 04, 2004, 13:13:11
You know I do!  ;D
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: sledge on December 04, 2004, 14:23:14
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Inch on December 04, 2004, 16:12:51
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on December 04, 2004, 16:41:57
I believe the correct term is "press ganged."

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

     
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: FSTO on December 04, 2004, 18:18:44
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).
 
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Garbageman on December 04, 2004, 18:48:38
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: SeaKingTacco on December 04, 2004, 19:25:55
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: FSTO on December 04, 2004, 19:28:05
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!!!!
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on December 04, 2004, 20:10:05
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Sam69 on December 04, 2004, 22:25:16
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.  :salute:

Great post.

Sam
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on December 05, 2004, 00:10:34
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.
 
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Inch on December 05, 2004, 02:47:02
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: FSTO on December 05, 2004, 09:55:55
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.

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on December 05, 2004, 15:34:16
Quote
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 :salute:
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Jungle on December 05, 2004, 17:57:50
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...   :(
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on December 05, 2004, 18:37:38
Quote
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?

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on December 05, 2004, 19:58:53
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.  
 
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on December 05, 2004, 21:22:42
Quote
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.

Quote
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....
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on December 05, 2004, 23:09:31
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]  
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on December 06, 2004, 00:19:28
Now we start to agree Whiskey. ;) :) :salute:

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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: canuck101 on December 06, 2004, 00:40:38
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: SeaKingTacco on December 07, 2004, 01:49:36
Okay, I'm getting worried.   Kirkhill annd W601 are beginning to agree on things...

 ;)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on December 07, 2004, 02:34:00
Shhh.  Don't tell anyone else.

 ;)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: STONEY on January 09, 2005, 05:34:51
 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   
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: bossi on January 20, 2005, 07:29:59
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:  
Quote
"... 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

Quote
Wednesday, January 19, 2005 Back The Halifax Herald Limited

British ship to visit port

The Royal Navy's amphibious assault ship HMS Albion (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/5055.html) 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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on January 20, 2005, 12:07:16
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 20, 2005, 13:19:06
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on January 20, 2005, 16:35:21
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 20, 2005, 16:39:54
Usually get 2 or more amphibs a year.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on January 20, 2005, 16:53:23
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?

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 20, 2005, 18:57:02
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. :D
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: aesop081 on January 20, 2005, 19:35:05
.....   Can we infer, in Canada, increased political interest?


its nice to have dreams.........
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on January 20, 2005, 19:37:42
Quote
its nice to have dreams.........

Sometimes that is all that is left....
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: STONEY on February 06, 2005, 02:22:59
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
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on February 06, 2005, 02:59:05
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: bossi on February 06, 2005, 11:09:42
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)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: karl28 on February 07, 2005, 20:56:58
          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
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Infanteer on February 07, 2005, 21:14:44
That isn't a government site, it is an independant "think-tank".
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on February 07, 2005, 21:47:45
I thought we were a think tank.

"tanks ... I think?"
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Navalsnipr on February 08, 2005, 04:39:06
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: karl28 on February 08, 2005, 12:52:25
Oops sorry about that thought that the web site was Gov but does have some good info
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Navalsnipr on February 08, 2005, 13:48:22
Though it isn't a Gov't website, the website does have some good information.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 08, 2005, 15:54:31
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Navalsnipr on February 08, 2005, 16:25:22
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!
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on February 11, 2005, 12:09:45
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Grimey on February 11, 2005, 17:19:00
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on February 11, 2005, 17:22:12
Quote
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Grimey on February 11, 2005, 17:32:55
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 crap that our government purveys.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Jungle on February 11, 2005, 17:41:47
Part of the answer is likely here: http://www.vuw.ac.nz/css/docs/briefing_papers/ET.html
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on February 11, 2005, 19:21:30
Great reference Jungle, Thanks.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Grimey on February 12, 2005, 01:46:04
Good read, although they missed mentioning Protecteur's contribution and the company of Vandoos.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Jungle on February 12, 2005, 08:22:54
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: mjohnston39 on February 14, 2005, 19:08:44
From the National Post

Quote
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."
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on February 16, 2005, 11:31:39
I like the sounds of this....




Matthew.   ;D
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: thomastmcc on February 16, 2005, 11:40:44
Yeah I agree it is interesting maybe canada will do something along the lines of HMS ocean ,built with commercial building methods ,who knows .
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 16, 2005, 12:46:02
Our MCDVs were built to commercial standards and they are a mess. Pay the extra money and get it done right the first time.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: thomastmcc on February 16, 2005, 12:52:48
HMS ocean is ok for the royal navy ,and a good ship sorry if I upset you it was only a suggestion .
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 16, 2005, 13:07:39
No upset was given thomas, just relaying our experience with warships built to commercial standards.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: bossi on February 16, 2005, 13:43:14
Interesting comparisons ... USS Guam (http://USS Guam), HMCS Bonaventure  (http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/POWERFUL.html) and HMS Ocean (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3718.html)

Apparently the San Antonia  (http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/san-antonio.htm) class cost approx &815 million ... but they sure look good ...

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on February 16, 2005, 17:04:14
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/

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: canuck202 on February 16, 2005, 18:39:27
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/
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: FSTO on February 16, 2005, 18:45:17
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on February 16, 2005, 19:10:46
Quote
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Infanteer on February 16, 2005, 19:12:44
Aye
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Jungle on February 16, 2005, 20:06:42
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: canuck202 on February 16, 2005, 20:41:32
So we have two AORs on each coast right.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: mjohnston39 on February 16, 2005, 20:45:02
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
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: canuck101 on February 16, 2005, 20:48:13
That sounds like a good price does anyone know what the unit price of the AORs would be.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on February 16, 2005, 21:24:20
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Infanteer on February 16, 2005, 21:39:58
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/index.php/topic,26436.0.html); perhaps we can do the same with the larger "ferry" type ship (either Army plugs or fleet supplies).

Thoughts?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on February 16, 2005, 21:58:16
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on February 16, 2005, 22:13:42
Notice how the Dutch can lay down a new class of ship and commission it within three or so years?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on February 17, 2005, 01:17:48
Aint it marvellous?   What ARE they doing wrong?  -  Better send PWGSC over there to correct their mistakes before the Dutchmen get into real trouble.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: mjohnston39 on February 17, 2005, 03:23:57
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on February 17, 2005, 17:16:25
Quote
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.

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: big bad john (John Hill) on February 22, 2005, 07:08:03
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

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 22, 2005, 08:44:11
With a supposed extra of 750 million I won't hold me breath for an amphib capability any time soon.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2005, 01:57:39
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
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: mjohnston39 on February 28, 2005, 02:37:56
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2005, 03:17:02
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: mjohnston39 on February 28, 2005, 04:21:39
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: DJL on February 28, 2005, 04:30:43
Quote
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

Quote
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....

Quote
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".

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: DJL on February 28, 2005, 04:32:32
I think you beat me to it...........

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

Quote
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
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 28, 2005, 06:38:16
Quote
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: thomastmcc on February 28, 2005, 17:22:08
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 .
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on March 04, 2005, 13:14:12
JSS is moving forward: www.merx.com. (http://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!!
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Jungle on March 04, 2005, 15:20:27
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on March 04, 2005, 16:14:30
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. 
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: FSTO on March 04, 2005, 17:00:49
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 ???
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 04, 2005, 17:27:54
If its true I hope they keep the platforms seperate. *holds breath*
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: DJL on March 04, 2005, 17:31:51
Quote
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........ ???
 
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 04, 2005, 17:39:31
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on March 04, 2005, 17:47:41

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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on March 04, 2005, 17:54:12
I'm in "Wait, Out" mode on this one Whiskey.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: DJL on March 04, 2005, 18:17:50
Quote
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.

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on March 08, 2005, 13:27:18
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=83179&ran=138749

USN concepts on Sea-basing.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on March 08, 2005, 19:29:27
The gas guzzling, extenda-Tarawa got my attention!! 
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 08, 2005, 19:52:32
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: mjohnston39 on March 21, 2005, 02:32:24
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on March 21, 2005, 23:20:21

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."

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 28, 2005, 17:00:55
I'm just bumping this....

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

Thanks,



Matthew.    :salute:
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: mjohnston39 on June 28, 2005, 17:22:42
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 29, 2005, 12:22:48
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.   :salute:
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 29, 2005, 12:35:25
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.    ???

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scheldeshipbuilding.com%2Fenforcer%2Fpics%2FEnforc3.jpg&hash=b5dbcfcc2e2ecae735d50d65a9c3bbab)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 29, 2005, 12:39:34
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: FSTO on July 14, 2005, 13:50:23
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Roy Harding on July 14, 2005, 13:57:44
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: FSTO on July 14, 2005, 15:54:03
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 14, 2005, 17:29:45
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
Title: Re: JSS update
Post by: mjohnston39 on July 19, 2005, 03:39:17
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs/Closing_of_Solicitation_of_Letter_of_Interest.pdf

Mike
Title: Re: JSS update
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 20, 2005, 02:37:42
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.    ???
Title: Re: JSS update
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 20, 2005, 15:25:32
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: mjohnston39 on July 20, 2005, 19:38:20
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
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Allen on July 20, 2005, 21:49:31
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 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/schedule_e.asp)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on August 01, 2005, 14:24:18
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/
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on August 01, 2005, 14:33:48
PS what is the nbsp designator?  Have I contravened some new code imposed in my absence? ???
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Roy Harding on August 05, 2005, 12:27:47
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
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on August 05, 2005, 14:57:05
Thanks for squaring me away CC.

Cheers
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: bossi on August 12, 2005, 10:25:08
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)

Quote
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 (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=57722&print=true)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on August 12, 2005, 10:42:38
wait for it Bossi ... you never know what might happen. Maybe the Chi-Cheemaun  will come up for sale ..
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on August 13, 2005, 20:49:47
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.   :salute:

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

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 (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
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenseindustrydaily.com%2Fimages%2FSHIP_LHD_Navantia_lg.jpg&hash=4338d8ccef759af2c9e2278a5df91d5c)

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
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenseindustrydaily.com%2Fimages%2FSHIP_LHD_Mistral_lg.jpg&hash=756759ee64011b1e2864fabe1617a56b)

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.

============================================================================
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: bossi on August 13, 2005, 22:19:09
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 ... ?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 15, 2005, 11:14:22
That's very nice but we have a national (Liberal Party of Canada, anyway â “ 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 “ 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?

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Monsoon on August 15, 2005, 11:47:49
That's very nice but we have a national (Liberal Party of Canada, anyway â “ 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 “ 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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 15, 2005, 12:55:16
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on August 15, 2005, 13:08:25
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.











Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Monsoon on August 15, 2005, 14:05:40
I'll answer Kirkhill's question first:
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.

Quote
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:
Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on August 15, 2005, 15:19:09
Quote
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. 
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Monsoon on August 15, 2005, 15:36:15
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on August 15, 2005, 16:50:57
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.   :salute:


Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 15, 2005, 19:02:13
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on August 15, 2005, 20:23:51
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 :)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on August 17, 2005, 13:53:43
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

Quote
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)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 17, 2005, 13:57:12
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on August 17, 2005, 14:13:47
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
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on August 17, 2005, 14:40:43
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 17, 2005, 14:55:57
Quote
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on August 17, 2005, 15:09:18
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Monsoon on October 03, 2005, 10:54:05
This just in:

Quote
CANADA â “ 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 “ 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:

Quote
CANADA â “ 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 “ 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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 03, 2005, 11:11:55
Thanks for the update hamiltongs.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: FSTO on October 04, 2005, 13:58:32
Austin Class!?!  :o 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:)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on October 04, 2005, 17:33:24
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.


Quote
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?




 


 
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Monsoon on October 05, 2005, 09:53:27
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.

Quote
573 MUSD per hull AND 3.28 BUSD for through-life costs?
Sounds about right.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on October 05, 2005, 12:11:34
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?




Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Monsoon on October 05, 2005, 14:34:54
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on October 05, 2005, 15:17:42
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: FSTO on October 05, 2005, 15:55:30
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Monsoon on October 05, 2005, 17:08:01
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on October 05, 2005, 17:57:22
Austin Class!?!   :o 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. 
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on October 05, 2005, 19:18:43
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?

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Monsoon on October 06, 2005, 11:47:06
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on October 06, 2005, 12:57:08
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: daniel h. on October 07, 2005, 00:04:01
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?
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: whiskey601 on October 07, 2005, 01:00:25
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: daniel h. on October 07, 2005, 03:01:38
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....
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 07, 2005, 11:23:25

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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Monsoon on October 07, 2005, 11:28:53
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on October 07, 2005, 12:03:56
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.

Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 07, 2005, 12:28:26
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on October 07, 2005, 12:46:08
I agree with you Ex-Dragoon.  I was extrapolating from Hamiltongs suggestion:

Quote
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.



Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 07, 2005, 12:56:58
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on October 07, 2005, 14:01:33
Seems reasonable to me Ex-Dragoon.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 10, 2005, 19:18:52
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.   ???
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 10, 2005, 19:34:13
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"
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Monsoon on November 21, 2005, 10:47:42
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 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs_presentations/SRD_PD_SOW_e.asp)
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: STONEY on January 01, 2006, 06:23:21
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.   
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Chris Pook on January 01, 2006, 15:57:35
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 02, 2006, 20:37:01
Quote
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.
Title: Re: JSS Amphib Capability
Post by: cobbler on January 02, 2006, 20:49:22
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.
Title: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Allen on November 25, 2006, 22:39:07
I'm surprised nobody has commented on this yet:

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

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

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

So this means the ships will either be built by WMG in B.C., or Kiewit in Nfld.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on November 25, 2006, 23:33:39
It's a pretty bad sign when you're two finalists can't even keep a website up & running....


M.   ::)
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: ringo on November 25, 2006, 23:52:20
Royal Schelde is part of SNC they are currently involed with a very similiar ship for the Neterlands, I give SNC a slight edge.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Navy_Blue on November 26, 2006, 15:51:05
So Irving is not in this??

Kind of pleasantly surprised.

 :cdn:
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on November 26, 2006, 15:55:38
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
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Navy_Blue on November 27, 2006, 12:42:53
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.

 :cdn:
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on November 27, 2006, 14:35:08
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
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: FSTO on November 27, 2006, 14:36:33
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Torlyn on November 27, 2006, 14:42:11
It would be nice to see them rolling off out here...  Fingers crossed for WMG.

T
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: stfx_monty on November 28, 2006, 13:09:11
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.

Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: jollyjacktar on November 30, 2006, 18:00:47
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: STONEY on December 02, 2006, 05:19:41
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
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Gus on December 02, 2006, 10:45:36
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. 
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: FSTO on December 02, 2006, 11:53:19

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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on December 02, 2006, 12:35:42
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?
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Allen on December 02, 2006, 13:12:59
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: N. McKay on December 02, 2006, 15:21:51
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?
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Chris Pook on December 02, 2006, 15:35:43
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Gus on December 03, 2006, 11:36:40
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)

Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Willing Foe on December 12, 2006, 20:03:50
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on December 13, 2006, 10:09:36
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 13, 2006, 10:36:45
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on December 13, 2006, 10:47:44
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 $$.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Roadracer on December 14, 2006, 20:59:29
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.

Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on December 15, 2006, 22:02:50
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Roadracer on December 15, 2006, 23:53:41
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.


Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Willing Foe on December 16, 2006, 14:27:20
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: tasop_999 on December 16, 2006, 18:06:39
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?
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on December 16, 2006, 22:04:06
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on December 17, 2006, 00:14:38
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....................
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on December 17, 2006, 12:38:34
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?
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on December 17, 2006, 17:06:03
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
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on December 17, 2006, 22:16:27
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on December 18, 2006, 19:44:21
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??
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on December 19, 2006, 11:40:20
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
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Danjanou on December 19, 2006, 11:55:12
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)
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on December 19, 2006, 11:59:19
Heh.... an NDP
Title: JSS News
Post by: whiskey601 on June 29, 2008, 22:55:13
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on June 30, 2008, 14:56:06
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....

Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 30, 2008, 20:33:06
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on July 01, 2008, 11:24:53
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...
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: whiskey601 on July 01, 2008, 21:57:11
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: aesop081 on July 01, 2008, 21:59:53
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 03, 2008, 11:05:08
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. ::)
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: cheeky_monkey on July 03, 2008, 11:31:03
The bean counters could just say "Screw it!, we're keeping the AORs." Then we would be in trouble. JSS>Nothing/AOR.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: aesop081 on July 03, 2008, 11:34:42
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on July 03, 2008, 11:38:57
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
Title: THE JSS SAGA
Post by: 54/102 CEF on July 08, 2008, 13:52:54
Whats the latest on the JSS? Any pointers to open source websites?  Who's the front runner - scuttle butt etc?

Thanks in advance

Title: Re: THE JSS SAGA
Post by: FinClk on July 08, 2008, 14:55:08
Try the Navy sub-forum or even the search?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?board=43.0
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,53823.0/all.html
Title: Re: THE JSS SAGA
Post by: 54/102 CEF on July 08, 2008, 18:40:34
With the recent gravy handed out to BC and Nova Scotia I smell a NFLD award..... ;)
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on July 08, 2008, 20:05:52
Nah.... Ontario awards
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: N. McKay on July 08, 2008, 20:20:01
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?
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 09, 2008, 17:15:35
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: FSTO on July 10, 2008, 12:02:59
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on July 10, 2008, 14:18:35
Sure that is the better way to go, but I don't think we can afford to wait another 15 years.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 10, 2008, 14:52:43
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on July 10, 2008, 15:31:53
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 10, 2008, 15:48:50
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: FSTO on July 11, 2008, 00:50:13
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 11, 2008, 07:31:45
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.
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: geo on July 11, 2008, 10:16:26
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...
Title: Re: JSS FInalists Selected
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 11, 2008, 10:25:06
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/index.php/topic,77915.0.html
Title: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: FSTO on July 28, 2008, 16:39:38
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 28, 2008, 16:44:33
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on July 28, 2008, 16:54:23
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Blackadder1916 on July 28, 2008, 17:32:32
Navantia Launches Combat Replenishment Ship for the Spanish Navy (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=96509&session=dae.39858050.1216814153.n1rRDH8AAAEAAFgAGmEAAAAy&modele=release)
Quote
(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 (http://www.navantia.es/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/pcd!3aportal_content!2fes.navantia.prot.navantia!2fes.navantia.prot.nav_ca_paginas!2fes.navantia.prot.nav_ca_pa_productos!2fes.navantia.prot.pg_AOR)
 
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: NFLD Sapper on July 28, 2008, 18:05:33
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.  :-[ )
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: canuck101 on July 31, 2008, 23:06:05
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 31, 2008, 23:13:12
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: gvg on August 04, 2008, 21:10:13
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi266.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii249%2Fikkezzzzz%2Fzuiderkruis%2520vervanging%2FJSS20Karel20Doorman.jpg&hash=6b78fcbb9a21f1c861cbc86605f66ac7)
Around 25.000t displacement.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 04, 2008, 21:45:59
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on August 04, 2008, 22:54:53
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 04, 2008, 23:21:26
Then we may run into the GTS Katie scenario all over again.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on August 04, 2008, 23:25:11
Has anyone stolen a Glen tug lately?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 04, 2008, 23:27:09
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: SeaKingTacco on August 04, 2008, 23:31:41
Quote
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 04, 2008, 23:44:10
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 04, 2008, 23:56:11
Maybe its time for a cost-effective solution involving a military/civilian mix. Something along the lines of the RFA maybe ?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: cheeky_monkey on August 05, 2008, 00:38:03
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.

Quote from: Dutch JSS
carrying helicopters, hospital facilities, an embarked landing force, supplies, fuel and a suite of C4I facilities.
Quote from: Spanish JSS
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on August 05, 2008, 08:33:23
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 05, 2008, 09:01:50
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: SeaKingTacco on August 05, 2008, 09:25:20
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on August 05, 2008, 10:12:09
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 05, 2008, 10:41:40
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on August 05, 2008, 10:56:03
Are the Glen tugs chartered or leased? I thought they were DND property.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 05, 2008, 12:09:12
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: standingdown on August 05, 2008, 15:10:17
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.


Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on August 05, 2008, 18:23:55
Are the Glen tugs chartered or leased? I thought they were DND property.
They are DND property, manned by civilian aux crews.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on August 05, 2008, 19:23:00
Ok, thanks. I thought that was how it worked.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: gvg on August 06, 2008, 06:52:17
From the National Post (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=702657).

Quote
Navy looks to Europe for ships
Dutch Meetings; 'Ridiculous,' say Canadian shipbuilders
David Pugliese, 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.

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: canuck101 on August 06, 2008, 08:02:46
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 (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)
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 06, 2008, 11:21:30
Personally I am hoping the Navy goes overseas for the next generation destroyer as well.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: N. McKay on August 06, 2008, 11:36:40
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 06, 2008, 11:53:02
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Haletown on August 06, 2008, 16:16:43
or maybe the discussions are to license the Dutch design and build it here, or build the hull and equip it here or ???
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on August 06, 2008, 16:27:59
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 06, 2008, 16:31:30
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on August 06, 2008, 19:50:38
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/index.php/topic,18459.msg168365/topicseen.html#msg168365
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: gvg on August 07, 2008, 05:14:26
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on August 07, 2008, 08:36:04
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on August 07, 2008, 08:46:17
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on August 07, 2008, 10:21:34
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.

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: HalfmyLife on August 07, 2008, 14:06:30
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on August 07, 2008, 20:26:01
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: viper3ca on August 07, 2008, 21:33:17
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.   
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 07, 2008, 22:29:09
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: HalfmyLife on August 08, 2008, 13:41:07
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: canuck101 on August 23, 2008, 02:20:25
Navy's support ship replacement program scuttled

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080822.wscuttle22/BNStory/National/home (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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Bigrex on August 23, 2008, 03:50:50
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 23, 2008, 10:30:47
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! ::)
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Snafu-Bar on August 23, 2008, 10:52:39

 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.  :cdn:

Cheers.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on August 23, 2008, 11:26:09

 We need one government, one plan, one nation unified and outfitted to succeed.  :cdn:


Zu Befehl.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Monsoon on August 23, 2008, 12:34:27
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on August 23, 2008, 12:49:09
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).
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: The_Dictat on August 23, 2008, 13:25:52
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?

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on August 23, 2008, 14:02:47
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Bearpaw on August 23, 2008, 21:04:20
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.

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on August 23, 2008, 21:08:13
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: HalfmyLife on August 23, 2008, 22:16:54
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on August 23, 2008, 23:16:28
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: HalfmyLife on August 24, 2008, 18:16:56
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Pud on August 25, 2008, 00:40:55
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: N. McKay on August 25, 2008, 10:10:23
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: NavyShooter on August 25, 2008, 12:11:35
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: GAP on August 25, 2008, 12:49:03
I think it was mentioned here already, but the concept the Australians used seemed to keep the costs down....
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on August 25, 2008, 12:56:25
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on August 25, 2008, 15:02:03
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on August 25, 2008, 15:24:21
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 25, 2008, 15:30:33
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.......

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on August 25, 2008, 15:39:31
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.   
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on August 25, 2008, 15:41:09
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 25, 2008, 15:44:45
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Snafu-Bar on August 25, 2008, 15:59:46

 You missed an option...

Save up till you CAN afford one.  ;D

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 25, 2008, 16:02:54


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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: N. McKay on August 25, 2008, 16:04:36
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 25, 2008, 16:25:26
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... ::)
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Snafu-Bar on August 25, 2008, 16:25:38
 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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on August 25, 2008, 16:26:50
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 ???
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 25, 2008, 16:28:41


 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.......

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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: N. McKay on August 25, 2008, 18:40:25
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: viper3ca on August 25, 2008, 20:43:02
  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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 25, 2008, 20:47:49


 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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: gwp on August 25, 2008, 21:20:57
The Minister is taking a positive approach
Quote
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."


Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 25, 2008, 21:26:03
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???
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Retired AF Guy on August 26, 2008, 03:09:40
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.

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Snafu-Bar on August 26, 2008, 12:16:30

 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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 26, 2008, 18:41:07
  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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on August 26, 2008, 19:25:52
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 ???
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: sledge on August 26, 2008, 19:33:52
I would say forward. As both the Protectuer and Provider had the bridge forward.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 26, 2008, 19:38:16
I would say forward.

But why ?

Other classes of AORs have the superstructure aft.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 26, 2008, 19:41:26
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...
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: NFLD Sapper on August 26, 2008, 19:46:05
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7b%2FHMCS_Protecteur.jpg%2F800px-HMCS_Protecteur.jpg&hash=b02ec3f8bab93c5a2cc306f8407e7b01)
HMCS PROTECTEUR

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naval-technology.com%2Fprojects%2Fpatino%2Fimages%2FPatino_1.jpg&hash=64a1f9d6b2221357db66b968fea9ef1c)
B.A.C. "Patiño"

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpages.intnet.mu%2Fwarbirds%2Fwarships%2FBerlin080325a.jpg&hash=546c5bcfc12b12d2769d5c25cec6bdd5)
FGS Berlin

Does it really make a difference where the bridge sits?

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on August 26, 2008, 19:50:32
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 26, 2008, 19:56:40
*Snicker* I am an Operator so placement of the superstructure only matters on how it blocks my sensors
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on August 26, 2008, 21:26:46
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on August 27, 2008, 00:26:12
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.

[img=http://www.gpai.com/images/vessels/NorHawkSailSideLG.jpg]http://Northern Hawk[/img]

Edit - OK, I give up.  Could somebody please link to the image above and post it properly?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: HalfmyLife on August 27, 2008, 01:56:13
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!!!
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: NFLD Sapper on August 27, 2008, 02:51:13
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.

[img=http://www.gpai.com/images/vessels/NorHawkSailSideLG.jpg]http://Northern Hawk[/img]

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]
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: standingdown on August 27, 2008, 03:04:02
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpai.com%2Fimages%2Fvessels%2FNorHawkSailSideLG.jpg&hash=8d27599dcd5819138aba989a23459121)
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on August 27, 2008, 08:19:22
Thanks guys.

Still learnin'.
Title: DID's article on Canada’s C$ 2.9B “Joint Support Ship” Project Sinks
Post by: GAP on August 27, 2008, 10:27:40
Canada’s C$ 2.9B “Joint Support Ship” Project Sinks
26-Aug-2008 18:49 EDT
 Article Link (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-issues-rfp-for-cdn-29b-joint-support-ship-project-updated-02392/#more-2392?camp=newsletter&src=did&type=textlink)

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
Title: Re: DID's article on Canada’s C$ 2.9B “Joint Support Ship” Project Sinks
Post by: geo on August 27, 2008, 10:45:14
Quote
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: GAP on August 27, 2008, 22:39:15
Canada's Navy dodges a bullet
Posted: August 27, 2008, 5:30 PM by Kelly McParland
Full Comment, Matt Gurney
 Article Link (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/08/27/canada-s-navy-dodges-a-bullet.aspx)
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 27, 2008, 22:45:10
Praise the lord, someone said it out loud.......
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on August 28, 2008, 00:32:56
This article points out everything I have been saying about JSS for years.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: gwp on August 28, 2008, 12:52:32
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.   


Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on August 28, 2008, 13:06:09
Problem is - we need new ships for the AOR / Provider/Preserver role.....
can we wait for the additional $$ needed for the JSS... watcha ya gonna do ???
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: GAP on August 28, 2008, 13:14:02
Build 2.....order the 3rd as soon as $$$ can be budgeted....
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 28, 2008, 13:36:21
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.

Quote
the Joint Support Ship is essential to address Canada’s future needs.

Sealift is essential.........not JSS.


Quote
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Bearpaw on August 28, 2008, 14:51:45
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.   
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 28, 2008, 14:56:54
Great.......as if AOR + Sealift wasnt enough

you want AOR + CV + LCC + Hospital ship


Quote
8-12 UAH(CL-327) for surveillance, ASW sonobouy dipping,....

WTF is that ?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Bearpaw on August 28, 2008, 15:38:00
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
 (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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 28, 2008, 15:48:07
No Sealift above---basically an AOR + enhanced helicopter capacity.

What you described above is well beyond even an AOR +

Quote
CL-327 is a unmanned surveillance helicopter developed in Canada----USN did some tests on it in the

I'm aware thanks.....
Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote
LCC???--not sure what this is.

Well......
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 28, 2008, 16:01:03
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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....

Quote
Survivability:
Damaged Stability Enhanced Two Compartment
Can you explain what this means?

Ice Capability
First year Ice Capabiity

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
Medical support

30 bed and 2OR hospital capable of modular expansion
dental facilities
numbers...numbers and numbers...

Quote
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.

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Bearpaw on August 28, 2008, 16:46:25
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".
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Infanteer on August 28, 2008, 16:49:44
Do you have a model built from LEGOs so I can get a better picture of the thing?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 28, 2008, 16:56:55


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 crap to it.


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.......



Quote
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.......

Quote
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".
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 28, 2008, 17:04:14
Quote
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...

Quote
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...

Quote
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....

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 28, 2008, 17:17:01
no catapult, arresting gear.


Bear trap, tie down, room to refuel the helos, move them around since you have many of them.......
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 28, 2008, 17:17:41
not to mention torpedo handling facilities
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: NFLD Sapper on August 28, 2008, 18:46:42
Do you have a model built from LEGOs so I can get a better picture of the thing?

I really like that one  ;D
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 28, 2008, 18:49:29
Ummm we can get back on track right now...


Milnet.Ca Staff
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: NFLD Sapper on August 28, 2008, 19:05:42
Slightly off topic but does anyone know why only one ship HMCS PROVIDER was ever built out of the Provider class?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: GAP on August 28, 2008, 19:10:02
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....
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: NFLD Sapper on August 28, 2008, 19:13:19
I can only find reference to one every being built, but the PROTECTEUR Class has 2, PROTECTEUR and PRESERVER
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 28, 2008, 19:14:26
There are Provider was a seperate class and was taken out of service...Preserver and Protecteur are the two in service now
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: ArmyVern on August 28, 2008, 19:16:07
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) ... (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/current/protect/)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 28, 2008, 19:16:23
Provider was an orphan but in the navy you will find quite a few ships like that.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: NFLD Sapper on August 28, 2008, 19:20:31
Hmm... couldn't they have retrofitted her by covering in the "jungle" deck instead of building a new class of AOR's?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: ArmyVern on August 28, 2008, 19:22:05
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.  >:D
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 28, 2008, 19:26:39
Provider would be approaching 50 years old had we have kept her
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: N. McKay on August 28, 2008, 21:35:01
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on August 28, 2008, 22:41:40
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 28, 2008, 22:43:44
Maybe they are waiting to see what ideas we come up with here. ;)
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: HalfmyLife on August 30, 2008, 02:53:35
Maybe they are waiting to see what ideas we come up with here. ;)
sure they do. but maybe I'm a pessimist
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: gvg on August 30, 2008, 07:46:10
Quote
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 (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/08/29/6609381-cp.html)
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 30, 2008, 13:23:37
Quote
MacKay: Ottawa to restart process to replace navy ships

I figured we would not be waiting too long for it to start up again.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 30, 2008, 13:34:17
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 30, 2008, 15:01:11
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: gvg on August 30, 2008, 15:51:13
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 30, 2008, 16:41:33
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. 
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 30, 2008, 16:51:30
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on August 30, 2008, 18:41:00
When did a Canadian yard last launch a new build ship over, say,  5000 tonnes?

Here's the Aussie example - HMAS Sirius (http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/Sept05/hl6.cfm). 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.







Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: karl28 on August 31, 2008, 12:11:04
              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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 31, 2008, 15:50:20
              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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: karl28 on August 31, 2008, 17:38:17
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 ?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 31, 2008, 17:47:50
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!
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: karl28 on August 31, 2008, 19:18:19
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: N. McKay on September 01, 2008, 00:22:08
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chief Engineer on September 01, 2008, 00:39:17
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on September 02, 2008, 11:08:38
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on September 02, 2008, 22:28:27

Quote
but you won't find an ice strengthened hull that will fit that bill.

Stipulated geo.


Quote
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).
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on September 02, 2008, 23:17:51
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on September 03, 2008, 00:38:57
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on September 11, 2008, 11:04:41
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on September 11, 2008, 19:05:10
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Klinkaroo on September 11, 2008, 20:22:00
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...
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on September 11, 2008, 20:41:38
If you look as the Aussies, they bought their AOR hull outa Korea & finished em off at home... to OZ tastes
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: cobbler on September 11, 2008, 23:22:35
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on September 12, 2008, 00:23:54
Oi, Cobbler,

Seeing as how we've got your attention,  what's the word on Sirius? Is she getting the job done?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: cobbler on September 12, 2008, 05:27:54
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on September 12, 2008, 09:23:28
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 ???
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on September 12, 2008, 10:21:05
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 12, 2008, 11:00:49
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.)
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on September 12, 2008, 11:02:56
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: ringo on September 12, 2008, 13:44:24
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: GAP on September 12, 2008, 15:45:10
US Navy on the T-AKE As It Beefs Up Supply Ship Capacity (updated)
11-Sep-2008
 Article Link (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/us-navy-on-the-take-as-it-beefs-up-supply-ship-capacity-updated-01826/?camp=newsletter&src=did&type=textlink)

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

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on September 12, 2008, 19:05:07
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on September 14, 2008, 14:06:18
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 14, 2008, 14:56:01
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?

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 14, 2008, 15:28:12
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 14, 2008, 15:49:54

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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on September 14, 2008, 16:03:42
I agree.

Hospital ships maybe at the same time as an LPD. Unfortunately, you tend to need them at the same time.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 14, 2008, 16:14:44
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....
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on September 14, 2008, 16:46:44
Yes, I suppose that would be popular. Are there enough doctors and nurses in the CF to crew it?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 14, 2008, 17:00:08
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 14, 2008, 17:14:45
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?

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 14, 2008, 17:21:09
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Blackadder1916 on September 14, 2008, 18:11:06
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.

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Sailorwest on September 15, 2008, 12:22:40
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 15, 2008, 12:45:16
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Sailorwest on September 15, 2008, 13:27:45

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.


Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Navy Dave on March 01, 2009, 18:40:32
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on March 01, 2009, 18:57:11
preaching to the choir my friend.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 01, 2009, 20:02:06
You do know that HMCS Provider was a different class of AOR all together don't you?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on March 01, 2009, 20:03:49
Different ship from the same era though... most of the mechanicals that make the ship go shoulda been compatible - I woulda thought.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 01, 2009, 20:08:49
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....
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: NavyShooter on March 01, 2009, 20:25:30
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: ironduke57 on March 01, 2009, 20:25:39
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.)
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 01, 2009, 20:32:26
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: geo on March 01, 2009, 22:37:46
A1411 Berlin... Pretty ship... capabilities list is impressive - we could do a lot worse than buying into that design.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: whitehorse on March 02, 2009, 17:08:46
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Navy_Blue on March 03, 2009, 13:43:20
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.





Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: cobbler on March 03, 2009, 23:36:24

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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: whitehorse on March 04, 2009, 14:36:36
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 04, 2009, 16:34:32
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: whitehorse on March 04, 2009, 18:01:08
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: dapaterson on March 04, 2009, 19:22:07
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: whitehorse on March 04, 2009, 20:37:02
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: dapaterson on March 05, 2009, 00:15:37
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: whitehorse on March 09, 2009, 15:49:33
"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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on March 09, 2009, 16:15:43
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 ?

Quote
How many UAVs do you get for the same price?

How many UAVs are capable of ASW ?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: whitehorse on March 14, 2009, 16:41:15
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 14, 2009, 17:54:45
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: whitehorse on March 15, 2009, 22:15:30
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 16, 2009, 20:58:30
Quote
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).
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Navy Dave on March 26, 2009, 21:22:30
Whatever the decision, they should act fast. the AOR's aren't getting any younger. parts are becoming more diffficult to come by.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: CountDC on March 26, 2009, 22:26:35
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: The_Dictat on March 28, 2009, 12:49:24
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.

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 29, 2009, 13:17:32
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.   :salute:
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Haletown on March 29, 2009, 13:43:16
wonder if that design could be tweaked from handling a 10,000lb helicopter so that it could handle a 17,000 lb H-92?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Jungle on March 29, 2009, 16:08:13
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:
Quote
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...
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Haletown on March 29, 2009, 18:39:01
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  . . .
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Baz on March 29, 2009, 21:06:37
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)...
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Sailorwest on March 30, 2009, 11:09:25
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:
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: NFLD Sapper on March 30, 2009, 11:52:56
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Haletown on March 30, 2009, 12:02:17
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: CountDC on March 30, 2009, 12:51:26
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)
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: h3tacco on April 02, 2009, 19:27:32

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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on April 30, 2009, 15:53:03
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on April 30, 2009, 19:30:07
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?


Quote

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.


Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on May 01, 2009, 08:09:32
That would be FRP wouldn't it? There's no mention of helicopter munitions in the AOPS SOR.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on May 01, 2009, 14:29:38
That would be FRP wouldn't it? There's no mention of helicopter munitions in the AOPS SOR.

You're right.  My error.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 26, 2009, 15:11:15
Floundering along (usual copyright disclaimer):

Navy faces seven-year wait for new ships, Senate hears
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1123991.html

Quote
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on May 27, 2009, 11:08:07
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: ezbeatz on August 11, 2009, 00:11:43
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi266.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii249%2Fikkezzzzz%2Fzuiderkruis%2520vervanging%2FJSS20Karel20Doorman.jpg&hash=6b78fcbb9a21f1c861cbc86605f66ac7)
Around 25.000t displacement.

See that little red thing pointing out at the end of the ship. That's a well deck!
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: aesop081 on August 11, 2009, 00:30:41
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 .
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: gvg on August 18, 2009, 17:47:27

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)/
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 18, 2009, 19:53:48
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 23, 2009, 11:12:32
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: gvg on November 05, 2009, 06:03:40
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi266.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii249%2Fikkezzzzz%2Fzuiderkruis%2520vervanging%2FFact_file_JSS2.png&hash=0efd41e14dc19e05f200548a0edf2185)
from: www.dutchfleet.net

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi266.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii249%2Fikkezzzzz%2Fzuiderkruis%2520vervanging%2Fjlss_01_tcm46-138760.jpg&hash=593c3b7c3482be9a36f3e0f1f6614d7e)
www.defensie.nl

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi266.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii249%2Fikkezzzzz%2Fzuiderkruis%2520vervanging%2Fjlss_composite2_rev_02_tcm46-138761.jpg&hash=34ad35d1d90eb0b788fd2426bb109cfb)
www.defensie.nl
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 05, 2009, 12:48:16
Amazing what a country about as wealthy as Canada but with half the population is capable of doing.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: dapaterson on November 05, 2009, 13:09:31
Well, the vessel won't be built in Nova Scotia, so the MND would never approve...
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Haletown on November 05, 2009, 13:30:47
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on November 05, 2009, 14:36:44
Is that a Cyclone in the second CGI generated picture?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: dapaterson on November 05, 2009, 14:48:45
I'm more concerned by the Iltis in the last picture.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 05, 2009, 15:54:47
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: dapaterson on November 05, 2009, 16:02:07
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!
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: gvg on November 05, 2009, 17:55:09
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: tango22a on November 05, 2009, 18:20:13
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 06, 2009, 00:14:53
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: whiskey601 on November 15, 2009, 23:43:22
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. 
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 09, 2010, 15:30:56
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

Quote
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
Title: Rick Hillier is still right - we need the JSS Ships
Post by: 54/102 CEF on January 17, 2010, 12:56:35
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
Title: Re: Rick Hillier is still right - we need the JSS Ships
Post by: Colin P on January 17, 2010, 15:20:50
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.
Title: Re: Rick Hillier is still right - we need the JSS Ships
Post by: terminator50 on January 17, 2010, 20:17:22
yeah i read about a hypothetical senario like that in one of J.L Granastein's books
Title: Re: Rick Hillier is still right - we need the JSS Ships
Post by: Chris Pook on January 17, 2010, 22:29:05
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.
Title: Re: Rick Hillier is still right - we need the JSS Ships
Post by: George Wallace on January 17, 2010, 22:34:47
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?
Title: Re: Rick Hillier is still right - we need the JSS Ships
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 17, 2010, 22:37:49
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?
Title: Re: Rick Hillier is still right - we need the JSS Ships
Post by: aesop081 on January 18, 2010, 00:07:37
WRT to JSS, Hillier is as wrong today as he was then.
Title: Re: Rick Hillier is still right - we need the JSS Ships
Post by: Chris Pook on January 18, 2010, 00:09:58
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.





Title: Re: Rick Hillier is still right - we need the JSS Ships
Post by: 54/102 CEF on January 18, 2010, 06:42:38
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 :)
Title: Re: DID's article on Canada’s C$ 2.9B “Joint Support Ship” Project Sinks
Post by: GAP on January 21, 2010, 13:29:41
Dutch Order Multi-Purpose Support Ship
20-Jan-2010
Article Link (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Dutch-Order-Multi-Purpose-Support-Ship-06113/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=did&utm_medium=textlink)
 
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: FSTO on January 26, 2010, 22:55:41
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 02, 2010, 18:18:17
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.....
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 03, 2010, 15:56:44
 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. 
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 03, 2010, 16:31:02
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: gvg on February 05, 2010, 11:23:34
.....
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).
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 09, 2010, 12:58:48
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...

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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Otis on February 09, 2010, 14:20:13
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 10, 2010, 13:50:39
I was doing some research on another subject and found  this diagram  (http://visualrian.com/images/large/496299) 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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 11, 2010, 13:49:01
Psssst the problem with the Mistral though its not an AOR. ;)
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 02, 2010, 07:23:37
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

Quote
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).

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationweek.com%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fdefense_images%2FShips%2FLHD-Fincantieri.jpg&hash=1578882b77a0c9f7dd58e1daca32be5e)

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

Quote
...
Another competitively selected shipyard will build non-combat vessels, such as the Joint Support Ships (JSS) [emphasis added]...


Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 02, 2010, 10:07:07
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 02, 2010, 10:46:39
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 02, 2010, 11:35:22
Ex-Dragoon: I wrote "if we bought AORS?", meaning in addition to an LHD type.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 02, 2010, 12:09:12
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 02, 2010, 12:11:23
Agree.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on July 02, 2010, 12:45:06
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on July 02, 2010, 12:48:46
Source for the above quote  (USN Fact File) (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1400&ct=4)

Sorry for the addendum post but I am having problems with longer posts.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 02, 2010, 13:12:22
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 02, 2010, 13:21:17
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

Quote
...
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on July 02, 2010, 13:43:59
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 (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4484594) 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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 02, 2010, 19:54:51
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on July 03, 2010, 00:06:49
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: RV on July 05, 2010, 07:07:51
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on July 05, 2010, 11:53:41
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?
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on July 05, 2010, 20:40:24
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: RV on July 06, 2010, 03:02:36
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 14, 2010, 12:17:28
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
Title: CF Statement/Backgrounder
Post by: milnews.ca on July 14, 2010, 13:16:48
This (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=3463) just out from CF:
Quote
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 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=3464):
Quote
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.

(....)
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 14, 2010, 15:08:24
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. ;)
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 14, 2010, 16:13:32
Quote
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 14, 2010, 16:37:22
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 14, 2010, 18:09:20
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 14, 2010, 18:24:57
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.
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: Chris Pook on July 14, 2010, 18:37:33
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.

Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 14, 2010, 18:40:49
Oldgateboatdriver: Excerpt from a June 4 post at the now-defunct Torch:

Quote
...
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
Title: Re: Navy looking at AOR Options
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 14, 2010, 18:59:09
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.
Title: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: S.M.A. on July 15, 2010, 00:55:25
The mods are welcome to move this to any appropriate older JSS thread:

Quote
Navy restarts plan for new support ships  

33 minutes ago
By Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press
Canadian Press link (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100714/national/navy_ships)

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.
   
   
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Infanteer on July 15, 2010, 14:33:42
Does anyone know if there are any Sailors that actually support this concept?
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Occam on July 15, 2010, 14:41:27
Does anyone know if there are any Sailors that actually support this concept?

Which concept is that, specifically?
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Sailorwest on July 15, 2010, 14:46:22
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.
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: STONEY on July 15, 2010, 15:15:36
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
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 15, 2010, 15:52:11
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.
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Privateer on July 15, 2010, 16:18:51
Quote
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". 
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 15, 2010, 18:33:56
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.
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Infanteer on July 15, 2010, 19:17:38
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 15, 2010, 19:29:39
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.
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Infanteer on July 15, 2010, 19:57:45
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....
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Technoviking on July 15, 2010, 20:02:24
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....

Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 15, 2010, 20:27:47
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.
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: MrBlue on July 15, 2010, 20:41:54
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.
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on July 15, 2010, 20:52:00
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).

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.
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 15, 2010, 21:03:55
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.
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 15, 2010, 21:26:25
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.
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 15, 2010, 21:39:34
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?

Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Chris Pook on July 16, 2010, 00:02:36
and the MGS, and the CASW, and the....

Griffon?
Title: Re: Canada restarts plan for new support ships
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on July 16, 2010, 00:26:45
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Technoviking on July 16, 2010, 01:03:02
Screw "Sailor", "Seaman" and "Wren". I just call them all "Hairy Bags".  But affectionately, if that counts for anything ;D
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 16, 2010, 07:20:33
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 16, 2010, 13:01:46
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 :)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: N. McKay on July 16, 2010, 13:37:25
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!
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 16, 2010, 13:59:28
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/

Quote
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 16, 2010, 14:12:06
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: N. McKay on July 16, 2010, 14:17:19
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: RV on July 21, 2010, 05:15:21
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 21, 2010, 10:52:17
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 21, 2010, 11:57:34
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 21, 2010, 12:12:12
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: George Wallace on July 21, 2010, 12:28:31
With absolutely no expertese in this matter, I wonder why an Amphib wouldn't be in the picture?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 21, 2010, 12:30:23
Manning and money.  They are chasing each others tails at the moment.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 21, 2010, 12:34:20
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 21, 2010, 13:02:40
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 21, 2010, 16:29:37
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 21, 2010, 18:54:07
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 21, 2010, 23:10:57
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 22, 2010, 07:34:25
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....
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: RV on July 22, 2010, 09:47:03
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: N. McKay on July 22, 2010, 12:01:28
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Haletown on July 22, 2010, 12:17:23
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.

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: STONEY on July 22, 2010, 17:47:21
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on July 22, 2010, 18:40:47
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 22, 2010, 20:23:36
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 23, 2010, 11:02:05
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 23, 2010, 12:24:35
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. 
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 23, 2010, 13:11:10
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on July 23, 2010, 15:44:04
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on July 23, 2010, 20:05:22
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:
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: cobbler on July 24, 2010, 02:24:16
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 24, 2010, 12:35:20
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: GAP on August 06, 2010, 08:29:49
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/ (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.

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 06, 2010, 11:16:47
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!!
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 06, 2010, 11:28:25
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 :) ).
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on August 06, 2010, 12:24:21
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). (http://naval.review.cfps.dal.ca/archive/7931905-1733000/vol4num2art11.pdf)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 06, 2010, 12:38:49
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: dapaterson on August 06, 2010, 13:15:56
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 06, 2010, 15:35:31
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?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: NavyShooter on August 06, 2010, 15:41:58
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: GK .Dundas on August 06, 2010, 17:29:43
  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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 06, 2010, 11:17:31
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/

Quote
...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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: canuck101 on September 24, 2010, 07:20:34
Found this article interesting it is what the French are planning too build
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=114066 (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

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 24, 2010, 10:25:18
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on October 01, 2010, 18:51:06
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/

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 02, 2010, 18:03:34
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: GK .Dundas on October 02, 2010, 21:14:21
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?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 02, 2010, 21:36:37
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: NavyShooter on October 02, 2010, 22:12:40
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 04, 2010, 07:34:33
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on October 04, 2010, 11:41:54
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 04, 2010, 12:38:49
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on October 04, 2010, 17:16:20
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: NavyShooter on October 05, 2010, 21:10:06
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
Title: Looking at German, Spanish Designs as Options
Post by: milnews.ca on October 08, 2010, 06:36:56
This (http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24JSS-002-20532&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=PAGE2&rowcount=291&lastpage=30&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=0&CLOSESORT=0&hcode=3h7D557a5AYiZcSPRvnUcQ%3d%3d) today in MERX (highlights mine):
Quote
.... 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_class_replenishment_ship) (usual Wikipedia caveats apply)
- ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. here (http://www.tkms.ca/company) and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems here (http://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/)
- Pantino/Cantavia class replenishment ships here (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/patino/)
- Navantia S.A. here (http://www.navantia.es/irj/portal/anonymous?lang=en)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 08, 2010, 09:39:38
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 08, 2010, 09:49:05
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Snakedoc on October 08, 2010, 18:24:16
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 08, 2010, 19:07:24
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: NavyShooter on October 10, 2010, 08:38:17
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: viper3ca on October 10, 2010, 10:21:05
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: canuck101 on October 10, 2010, 11:06:59
I say we get two Berlin class and if there is any money left over get two Endurance class landing platform dock ships  ;D
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 10, 2010, 11:12:38
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Haletown on October 10, 2010, 11:13:46
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?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 10, 2010, 11:18:08
The 2006 JSS specs contained this:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=1958

Quote
...
Capability to navigate in first-year arctic ice...

I would assume that has now been abandoned.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Haletown on October 10, 2010, 11:23:22
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.



Title: Re: Looking at German, Spanish Designs as Options
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on October 10, 2010, 11:28:00
This (http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24JSS-002-20532&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=PAGE2&rowcount=291&lastpage=30&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=0&CLOSESORT=0&hcode=3h7D557a5AYiZcSPRvnUcQ%3d%3d) today in MERX (highlights mine):
More on link and in attached if link doesn't work.

More on:
- Berlin class replenishment ships here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_class_replenishment_ship) (usual Wikipedia caveats apply)
- ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. here (http://www.tkms.ca/company) and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems here (http://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/)
- Pantino/Cantavia class replenishment ships here (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/patino/)
- Navantia S.A. here (http://www.navantia.es/irj/portal/anonymous?lang=en)
Good news.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 10, 2010, 11:35:53
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. 
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 10, 2010, 16:04:25
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?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 10, 2010, 18:53:01
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 :).
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on October 11, 2010, 10:11:13
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: RV on October 11, 2010, 14:06:18
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 12, 2010, 14:43:01
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?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 12, 2010, 15:41:10
If we go for the Berlin, surely our ships (2? 3?) should be the Kitchener class ;D.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: dapaterson on October 12, 2010, 16:13:51
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Privateer on October 12, 2010, 16:18:03
How about HMCS SWASTIKA, for Swastika, Ontario?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika,_Ontario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika,_Ontario)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 12, 2010, 16:48:08
Privateer: Now, now, now, S.M.S Berlin spent its service in the Kaiserliche Marine
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de%2Fwebpages%2FKaiserliche_Marine_Logo_unten.gif&hash=4eaf38127e820b945af541472e4c3b34)
and the Reichsmarine:
http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/sms_berlin.htm

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Haletown on October 12, 2010, 18:14:37
well if it is a naming coantest . .

HMCS Better Very Late Than Never

HMCS Broken Procurement System

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: RV on October 12, 2010, 19:47:51
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.

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 12, 2010, 21:07:30
At least the CCG has got already a contract to build Dutch-designed MSPVs, no installed weapons
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marinelog.com%2FIMAGESMMIX%2Fcandamen.jpg&hash=18bcac2246aa05c32552c7cf904c771a)
(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

Quote
...
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: RV on October 13, 2010, 09:09:20
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 14, 2010, 11:35:39
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/

Quote
    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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on October 14, 2010, 22:05:08
Plus dreaming on the part of the Navy.
I don't think JSS came from the navy...
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: RV on October 15, 2010, 09:16:24
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 15, 2010, 09:39:52
.......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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: RV on October 15, 2010, 10:36:11

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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 15, 2010, 11:49:19
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Snakedoc on October 15, 2010, 17:10:12
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: RV on October 15, 2010, 18:56:08
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.

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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on October 18, 2010, 17:33:28
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.
Title: New JSS
Post by: mad dog 2020 on March 09, 2011, 16:43:01
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
Title: Re: New JSS
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 09, 2011, 17:22:41
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/index.php/topic,17282.msg980449.html#msg980449

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: New JSS
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 09, 2011, 17:26:17
First post on the subject here--six months ago:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,17282.msg978257.html#msg978257

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: New JSS
Post by: milnews.ca on March 09, 2011, 20:30:04
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 (http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24JSS-005-21145&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=&rowcount=&lastpage=&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=0&CLOSESORT=0&hcode=IJ6WZpvYNcGmwisv30JRTw%3d%3d) (compared to the one issued in October of last year (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,17282.msg978257.html#msg978257)):
Quote
.... 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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 09, 2011, 21:28:28
So in fact rather than JSSs they will be really AORs

Quote
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Kalatzi on March 09, 2011, 22:12:02
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 09, 2011, 22:40:01
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: FSTO on March 10, 2011, 00:41:26
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Infanteer on March 10, 2011, 00:45:01
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....
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Kalatzi on March 10, 2011, 01:57:30
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Kalatzi on March 10, 2011, 02:05:12
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.

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: NinerSix on March 10, 2011, 09:09:08
Way out of my lane: the Berlin class looks interesting. Is it big enough? Wiki shows it is 4000tons lighter than the Protecteur.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: FSTO on March 10, 2011, 10:27:58
Fixed that for you....
:nod:
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Haletown on March 10, 2011, 12:08:42
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Infanteer on March 10, 2011, 13:28:33
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....
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Haletown on March 10, 2011, 16:23:59
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 !!
Title: "Shipyard extols domestic work"
Post by: milnews.ca on March 11, 2011, 06:57:26
This (http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1232443.html) from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29 (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-42/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:l_III-gb:s_29), of the Copyright Act.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: RV on March 11, 2011, 07:34:47
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 11, 2011, 10:52:38
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.  :salute:

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!
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 16, 2011, 10:45:35
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 17, 2011, 17:44:20
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

Quote
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/index.php/topic,99923.0.html

Chez nous:

How Slow Can One Procure Navy Ships, Part 2?
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=136

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 21, 2011, 11:26:30
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/

Quote
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:

Quote
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: NinerSix on March 21, 2011, 11:36:22
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 21, 2011, 14:35:49
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: FSTO on March 21, 2011, 14:43:29
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: ironduke57 on April 01, 2011, 10:32:55
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: milnews.ca on April 04, 2011, 09:38:10
Remember the latest call for professional services (8 Nar 11 here (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,17282.msg1024603.html#msg1024603))?

New bid deadline:  9 May 2011 - see attached.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Rifleman62 on April 06, 2011, 15:11:51
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/index.php/topic,99923.0.html
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 06, 2011, 15:58:04
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Snakedoc on April 06, 2011, 17:11:20
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 06, 2011, 17:17:54
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Good2Golf on April 14, 2011, 00:31:38
Folks, let's use our heads and refrain from discussing things from a Departmental internal system.

Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on April 18, 2011, 16:51:56
Well we can buy the Dutch AOR, it should fit in nicely considering it was built in 1975.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: gvg on April 27, 2011, 17:07:29
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 27, 2011, 17:47:25
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/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 27, 2011, 20:06:36
Just a quibbling point for accuracy -  Canada did not ship her Kosovo gear back on the Spanish Trawler Estai (http://tech.mit.edu/V115/N10/canada.10w.html).

Her problem was with the Ukrainian-American Ship GTS Katie (http://www.marinelink.com/news/article/canadian-navy-takes-control-of-u-s-cargo/319850.aspx)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Good2Golf on July 27, 2011, 20:09:40
Just a quibbling point for accuracy -  Canada did not ship her Kosovo gear back on the Spanish Trawler Estai (http://tech.mit.edu/V115/N10/canada.10w.html).

Her problem was with the Ukrainian-American Ship GTS Katie (http://www.marinelink.com/news/article/canadian-navy-takes-control-of-u-s-cargo/319850.aspx)

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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 27, 2011, 20:23:41
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Thucydides on January 19, 2012, 23:10:06
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/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 19, 2012, 23:34:20
Would this bubble machine not make more noise allowing an AOR (and its escorts) to be detected at an even greater range?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: GAP on January 19, 2012, 23:41:40
I would think it would definitely have a recognizable audio signature.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Occam on January 20, 2012, 00:08:13
I would think it would definitely have a recognizable audio signature.

Yup.  It would likely sound like rain.

Same principle as the Prairie Masker (http://Prairie Masker).
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Thucydides on January 20, 2012, 00:14:54
You could always turn it off where the threat is high. I did not realize this was an update of  Prairie Masker
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Occam on January 20, 2012, 00:18:20
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 20, 2012, 06:23:34
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: GAP on January 20, 2012, 07:38:12
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...........
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 20, 2012, 08:56:33
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. ;)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 20, 2012, 11:45:03
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 :) .
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 20, 2012, 12:46:11
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Thucydides on January 22, 2012, 21:32:51
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.

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Occam on January 22, 2012, 22:02:20
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Thucydides on January 22, 2012, 22:32:02
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?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: RV on February 03, 2012, 01:28:37
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: whiskey601 on September 04, 2012, 00:32:02
Bump! I'm curious if this project has simply faded. August 30th marked 43 years since Protecteur was commissioned. 
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Occam on September 04, 2012, 01:16:02
Yes, the project is still ongoing.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 25, 2012, 12:12:03
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*  (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/138662/new-fault-found-in-australian-amphibious-ship.html)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7c%2FHMAS_Choules_starboard_bow.jpg%2F800px-HMAS_Choules_starboard_bow.jpg&hash=80ab4d7c70b7f570e29972e8a4014032)

*Alternate Headline: Britain Demonstrates Its Continuing Standard Of Excellence In Electrical Systems
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chief Engineer on September 25, 2012, 12:29:49
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*  (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/138662/new-fault-found-in-australian-amphibious-ship.html)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7c%2FHMAS_Choules_starboard_bow.jpg%2F800px-HMAS_Choules_starboard_bow.jpg&hash=80ab4d7c70b7f570e29972e8a4014032)

*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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 25, 2012, 12:45:18
Fair enough Chief, but it was the Brits that spec'd and installed the transformers.  Even good nails can be bent.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chief Engineer on September 25, 2012, 12:51:13
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: GK .Dundas on September 25, 2012, 14:45:10
I had no idea that Lucas Electrical was still in business ? ;D
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 25, 2012, 14:52:35
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).
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chief Engineer on September 25, 2012, 15:22:14
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 25, 2012, 15:49:32
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chief Engineer on September 25, 2012, 16:04:58
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Fishbone Jones on September 25, 2012, 16:09:05
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.

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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 25, 2012, 17:32:01
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chief Engineer on September 25, 2012, 19:06:40
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 25, 2012, 19:19:49
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: FoverF on September 28, 2012, 11:15:20
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'.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on September 28, 2012, 11:24:06
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 28, 2012, 12:02:04
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on September 28, 2012, 12:16:25
This was when she was brand new.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 28, 2012, 12:43:47
I'm sure that it's worse now then.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: mad dog 2020 on December 11, 2012, 07:30:05
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. 
Title: Joint Support Ships
Post by: creasy bair on January 06, 2013, 21:46:54
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
Title: Re: Joint Support Ships
Post by: Chris Pook on January 06, 2013, 23:40:52
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.  ::)
Title: Re: Joint Support Ships
Post by: Brihard on January 07, 2013, 00:00:41
Why did I start reading the comments?  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Joint Support Ships
Post by: ArmyDoc on January 07, 2013, 00:06:41
Why did I start reading the comments?  :facepalm:
I did it so that I could read strongly-held opinions from the poorly informed. ;D
Title: Re: Joint Support Ships
Post by: Get Nautical on January 07, 2013, 13:02:11
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.
Title: Re: Joint Support Ships
Post by: Pat in Halifax on January 07, 2013, 13:07:16
Someone with 'the power (aka Mod). you may want to merge this with:
http://forums.navy.ca/forums/index.php/topic,17282.0.html (http://forums.navy.ca/forums/index.php/topic,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.
Title: Re: Joint Support Ships
Post by: milnews.ca on January 07, 2013, 13:18:29
Someone with 'the power (aka Mod). you may want to merge this with:
http://forums.navy.ca/forums/index.php/topic,17282.0.html (http://forums.navy.ca/forums/index.php/topic,17282.0.html)
...Oh my; I have become one of 'them'!
Not at all - ask and you shall receive.

Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on January 07, 2013, 14:52:23
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.  (http://www.damennaval.com/nl/company_product-range_joint-logistic-support-ship.htm)

It is either a Dutch ship or a German ship (http://www.fsg-ship.de/102-1-Joint-Support-Ship.html) 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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 08, 2013, 02:04:10
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...
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: FutureSailor on January 08, 2013, 18:00:49
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-*** the job, but it'd be pointless.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on January 09, 2013, 12:21:17
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

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on February 21, 2013, 13:04:06
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 21, 2013, 14:55:46
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on February 22, 2013, 12:26:01
You are correct, my bad.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: AlexanderM on February 28, 2013, 22:57:25
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. 
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Lineman on March 05, 2013, 01:01:10
Brochure from BMT re: Aegir
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1057880/BMTDSL-Aegir-Brochure.pdf
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: NinerSix on March 05, 2013, 02:51:55
How much?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Lineman on March 06, 2013, 22:56:10
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on May 13, 2013, 11:12:17
Not sure how this Feb 2013 update (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=723029) 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 (http://redensign.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/joint-support-ship-stupidity/) - 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 (http://www.wd.gc.ca/images/cont/13753a-eng.pdf) showing Ice Breaker, OOSV, OFSVs and JSS.  The JSS image shown seems to be the AEGIR-26 from BMT (http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1057880/BMTDSL-Aegir-Brochure.pdf).

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

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Acer Syrup on May 18, 2013, 02:05:08
Decision made. Waiting for minister announcement.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MilEME09 on May 20, 2013, 17:27:50
The AEGIR-26 seems capable however I'm worried not enough budget is allocated for them and things may be cut
Title: JSS design chosen
Post by: S.M.A. on May 29, 2013, 17:43:15
A major update that also mentions the "Diefenbreaker"  :

National Post link (http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/29/canadian-navy-announces-designs-for-new-ships-says-the-military-has-placed-its-future-in-industrys-hands/)

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: JSS design chosen
Post by: Canadian.Trucker on May 30, 2013, 10:33:50
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.
Title: Re: JSS design chosen
Post by: jollyjacktar on May 30, 2013, 11:39:44
Yeah, IMHO we're screwed.
Title: Re: JSS design chosen
Post by: MilEME09 on May 30, 2013, 16:52:20
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
Title: Re: JSS design chosen
Post by: milnews.ca on June 02, 2013, 12:01:18
Highlights mine....
Quote
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 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4822)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Lineman on June 02, 2013, 12:01:54
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/
Title: Re: JSS design chosen
Post by: PuckChaser on June 02, 2013, 12:14:38
At least they're not reinventing the wheel here.
Title: Re: JSS design chosen
Post by: Chris Pook on June 02, 2013, 12:19:59
The best part about this: a decision has been made.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chief Engineer on June 02, 2013, 13:10:22
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 02, 2013, 14:12:11
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 (http://newwars.wordpress.com/warship-costs/).  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 (http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/dinsi-bkjss-eng.html) = 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.

 :pop:

Edit to add a better trace on the price (from the comments on the New Wars site)

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Haletown on June 02, 2013, 14:28:55
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. 





Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 02, 2013, 15:16:59
More info on the vessel from Flensburger Schiffgebau - the yard that built the Berlins.

EGV Berlin Type 702 (http://www.fsg-ship.de/101-1-EGV.html)

Another interesting product from Flensburger here (http://www.fsg-ship.de/102-1-Joint-Support-Ship.html)  as well as the Strategic Ro-Ros (http://www.fsg-ship.de/103-1-Strat-ocean-transporter.html) built for MOD charter (as adjuncts to the RNs LPDs/LHDs and the RFAs LSD(A)s).
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: AlexanderM on June 02, 2013, 15:17:21
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 02, 2013, 15:22:53
Alex:

I'm inclined to agree with you but we're not in a position to presuppose much of anything.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: AlexanderM on June 02, 2013, 15:30:25
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 02, 2013, 15:30:37
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.
 
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: AlexanderM on June 02, 2013, 15:37:19
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: GAP on June 02, 2013, 16:07:29
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.....
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 02, 2013, 16:17:50
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 02, 2013, 19:30:23
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: NavyShooter on June 03, 2013, 09:17:20
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 03, 2013, 10:31:34
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 03, 2013, 10:41:34
Really? 

Perhaps you should ask the RAN how happy they are with the "deal" they got on their Bay Class.

Hint- electrical problems, again.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Monsoon on June 03, 2013, 10:45:28
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).
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on June 03, 2013, 11:11:06
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 03, 2013, 11:13:26
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on June 03, 2013, 11:18:02
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on June 03, 2013, 11:21:08
Quote
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 03, 2013, 12:53:06
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Good2Golf on June 03, 2013, 13:03:00
Out of interest, how was the transformer insulation failure on Largs Bay/Choules the RAN's fault?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on June 03, 2013, 13:53:29
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.....
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Good2Golf on June 03, 2013, 13:57:13
Ah, seen.  Thanks DS.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Jacky Tar on June 03, 2013, 15:43:34
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? :)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: ironduke57 on June 03, 2013, 15:47:51
And shouldn´t something like that be written in some manual? Which would make this a clear "RTFM!!!!11!1111" moment. :facepalm:

Regards,
ironduke57
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Pat in Halifax on June 03, 2013, 19:20:16
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Lineman on June 03, 2013, 22:12:03
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: RV on June 03, 2013, 23:28:28
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Monsoon on June 03, 2013, 23:43:51
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 04, 2013, 00:12:22
TFTFY.....

Quote
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.......
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: HB_Pencil on June 04, 2013, 12:22:59
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?


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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: milnews.ca on June 10, 2013, 20:59:21
More info on the vessel from Flensburger Schiffgebau - the yard that built the Berlins.

EGV Berlin Type 702 (http://www.fsg-ship.de/101-1-EGV.html)

Another interesting product from Flensburger here (http://www.fsg-ship.de/102-1-Joint-Support-Ship.html)  as well as the Strategic Ro-Ros (http://www.fsg-ship.de/103-1-Strat-ocean-transporter.html) 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 (http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1078), attached.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Lineman on June 11, 2013, 20:01:08
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Monsoon on June 12, 2013, 00:07:03
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on June 14, 2013, 14:20:16
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 14, 2013, 15:31:30
Not too much fear of Irving's workers being worked to death (speed-wise) to successfully meet and deliver a ship to a customer...
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MilEME09 on June 14, 2013, 15:45:43
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..........
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: George Wallace on June 14, 2013, 17:49:33
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Monsoon on June 16, 2013, 19:10:53
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).
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: NavyShooter on June 16, 2013, 20:15:14
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chief Engineer on June 16, 2013, 20:25:09
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 16, 2013, 21:23:06
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   ::)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 23, 2013, 08:39:48
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
Quote
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Not a Sig Op on June 23, 2013, 11:46:46
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 23, 2013, 14:06:07
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 23, 2013, 14:08:17
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: ironduke57 on June 23, 2013, 15:41:34
Well TKMS would probably be happy to build one or both JSS for you.  :whistle:

Regards,
ironduke57 ;D
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Thucydides on August 07, 2013, 19:38:49
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 07, 2013, 20:43:08
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on August 12, 2013, 12:58:31
I wonder if they would lease us a support ship till ours get finished?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 12, 2013, 16:15:57
You could probably lease the services of the RFA entire.

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 06, 2013, 23:49:11
New Stuff.

The Dutch are flogging the ship we wanted to build 20 years ago - The Karel Doormann - a combination of AOR and LPH.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackseanews.net%2Ffiles%2Fimage%2F%2816-99-99-99%29%2Fkarel-doorman3.jpg&hash=20898285afb08d954eebfd463e0b3812)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.defenceindustrydaily.com%2Fimages%2FSHIP_JSS_Key_Features_Dutch_MvD_lg.jpg&hash=f0a0b56db19ff9887bf2fb48813f53ef)

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.

Quote
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: ringo on September 07, 2013, 10:46:25
Canada would be wise to snap this ship up, HMCS Vimy Ridge or HMCS Juno Beach perhaps?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: The_Dictat on September 07, 2013, 13:43:22
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...
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: tomydoom on September 07, 2013, 14:33:17
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 07, 2013, 14:38:01
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?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Underway on September 07, 2013, 17:51:33
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*

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: NinerSix on September 07, 2013, 20:27:16
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.)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Infanteer on September 07, 2013, 20:47:59
Just through it under the FPL.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 07, 2013, 21:12:28
In so many ways it makes good sense to obtain it, which is precisely why we won't.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 07, 2013, 23:09:47
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 
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Haletown on September 07, 2013, 23:16:24
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.

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: mad dog 2020 on September 07, 2013, 23:36:49
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!
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on September 08, 2013, 15:08:08
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!  :-)

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on September 09, 2013, 15:14:58
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: mad dog 2020 on September 09, 2013, 17:03:22
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!
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: sunrayRnfldR on September 09, 2013, 20:32:50
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.

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on September 10, 2013, 11:53:29
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Underway on September 11, 2013, 08:59:47
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). 
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 13, 2013, 14:42:01
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: GAP on September 13, 2013, 17:08:18
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Underway on September 14, 2013, 22:28:50
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Infanteer on September 15, 2013, 00:34:50
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?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 15, 2013, 12:59:57
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?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 15, 2013, 16:04:22
Related:  How many men can you stow in 4000 m2 of deck if you pack them in like this (http://rufus1912.blogspot.ca/)?

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-TEYx7gAr8Wk%2FUCvMz7HcZrI%2FAAAAAAAAAUg%2Foo-RgJusiIQ%2Fs320%2Fbunks.JPG&hash=9aea938782bcf3defe3464f612fbbbb1)

Or this? (http://home.pcisys.net/~pwebber/31_id/rtw_diary.htm)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pcisys.net%2F%7Epwebber%2F31_id%2Fimages%2Fberthing.jpg&hash=069824526a6b4797d510203e7f5c2475)(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pcisys.net%2F%7Epwebber%2F31_id%2Fimages%2Fbunks.gif&hash=30a22cb3280012d152f2b1f541fe043b)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Haletown on September 15, 2013, 16:21:48
Related:  How many men can you stow in 4000 m2 of deck if you pack them in like this (http://rufus1912.blogspot.ca/)?

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-TEYx7gAr8Wk%2FUCvMz7HcZrI%2FAAAAAAAAAUg%2Foo-RgJusiIQ%2Fs320%2Fbunks.JPG&hash=9aea938782bcf3defe3464f612fbbbb1)

Or this? (http://home.pcisys.net/~pwebber/31_id/rtw_diary.htm)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pcisys.net%2F%7Epwebber%2F31_id%2Fimages%2Fberthing.jpg&hash=069824526a6b4797d510203e7f5c2475)(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pcisys.net%2F%7Epwebber%2F31_id%2Fimages%2Fbunks.gif&hash=30a22cb3280012d152f2b1f541fe043b)

Well the First Class berths look marvellous but I bet the Baggage Class is more like an Air Canada flight.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 15, 2013, 17:12:39
And in looking further at this I stumbled across this article and video (http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/ftrStory.asp?id=72756) 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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Infanteer on September 15, 2013, 17:23:56
The bunks on a US LPD aren't much bigger.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Underway on September 15, 2013, 21:55:19
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...
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 18, 2013, 11:35:34
Quote
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 (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/148024/dutch-government-explains-f_35-decision.html)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Electric Ian on September 20, 2013, 14:28:27
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. 
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: S.M.A. on October 18, 2013, 14:56:40
An update that underlines the need for an AOR replacement:

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-icebreaker-delayed-as-tories-prioritize-supply-ships-1.1991522)

Quote

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?  ::)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Navy_Pete on October 18, 2013, 18:47:10
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 19, 2013, 09:11:04
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 20, 2013, 18:54:45
The impact the Canada-EU trade agreement might have on the RCN

Shipbuilding (http://eu-canada.com/european-economic-sectors/shipbuilding/)

Funny picture they chose to accompany their article.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Feu-canada.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FJSS-damen.jpg&hash=e7a32f0c611b374373a992bf5ba2f0ea)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: mad dog 2020 on October 20, 2013, 20:37:45
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 24, 2013, 19:46:00
Sun News is reporting that (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/10/20131024-160535.html): "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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: ModlrMike on October 24, 2013, 19:50:17
Sun News is reporting that (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/10/20131024-160535.html): "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:
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: mad dog 2020 on November 10, 2013, 06:12:05
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: ModlrMike on February 21, 2014, 21:30:02
A little bit more on the subject:

German supply ship gives navy peek at new design
CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/german-supply-ship-gives-navy-peek-at-new-design-1.2546496)

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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: NavyShooter on February 21, 2014, 22:49:55
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: AirDet on February 24, 2014, 17:30:28
That reminds me of the American Oilers. She sure has nice lines though.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Pat in Halifax on February 24, 2014, 20:46:12
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: FSTO on February 25, 2014, 11:01:01
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Pat in Halifax on February 25, 2014, 11:37:32
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!
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: FSTO on February 25, 2014, 12:15:53
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Occam on February 25, 2014, 12:25:41
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.   ;)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 25, 2014, 14:43:10
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?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Pat in Halifax on February 25, 2014, 17:12:13
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?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 26, 2014, 10:27:34
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!!!
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 26, 2014, 11:47:31
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 26, 2014, 12:45:50
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Pat in Halifax on February 26, 2014, 15:18:02
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on February 26, 2014, 16:14:25
Re: Fuel capacity

Does this help? From Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/berlin-class-fleet-auxiliary-vessels/)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: S.M.A. on September 24, 2014, 17:57:16
Cross-posting this update from another thread (http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,116375.msg1329486.html#new) to a topic where it's just as relevant:

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-navy-looks-to-fill-fleet-gap-with-purchase-from-u-s-1.2775533)

Quote
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)


Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: GK .Dundas on September 24, 2014, 19:43:45
http://www.usmilitaryart.com/Aoe8-dc-mini.jpg
 

 
  Behold in all it's resuppling awesomeness!!
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: ringo on September 25, 2014, 08:58:14
What names would you assign USNS Bridge and Rainier in RCN service HMCS Keystone and Hibernia perhaps?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Rifleman62 on September 25, 2014, 09:21:31
Excellent!
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 25, 2014, 09:55:06
No, no, no …

USNS Bridge -> HMCS Hearts
USNS Rainier -> HMCS Logan

:)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: suffolkowner on September 25, 2014, 10:10:26
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 25, 2014, 12:21:00
No.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Occam on September 25, 2014, 13:30:39
What names would you assign USNS Bridge and Rainier in RCN service HMCS Keystone and Hibernia perhaps?

HMCS Makedo and HMCS Tideusover.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on September 25, 2014, 14:02:59
Lol, best laugh of the day!  :nod:
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 25, 2014, 14:37:29
What names would you assign USNS Bridge and Rainier in RCN service HMCS Keystone and Hibernia perhaps?

HMCS Plugahole

HMCS Bridegethegap
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Jonsey on September 25, 2014, 14:54:31
HMCS Onemanstrash and HMCS Anothermanstreasure
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Journeyman on September 25, 2014, 15:04:49
With the current obsession with 'all things British antiquity,' they would likely be Rainbow and Niobe
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Pat in Halifax on September 25, 2014, 17:41:04
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!
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 16, 2014, 12:44:46
Gap-filler for Canada or permanent solution?

Quote
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 16, 2014, 12:51:35
And the Aussies again ..... dam the rabbit-poachers.

We're still trying to get a current solution.  They're looking at their next solution.

Quote
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on October 16, 2014, 12:58:52
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX7R2mGOA_M)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 16, 2014, 13:56:32
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on October 17, 2014, 11:09:22
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 :)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 17, 2014, 15:26:05
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusilier)......

Quote
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.  >:D

I can just see a Royal Marine with a 9mm sitting in a jump seat in those helicopters.....








Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on October 17, 2014, 15:38:54
Never a dull learning moment on Army.ca  :nod:
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: ringo on October 28, 2014, 20:14:30
Any RCN interested in lease or purchase of French AOR, FS Meuse?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on October 29, 2014, 12:47:08
Would still be one of the newer vessels in the fleet.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 05, 2014, 17:38:06
And there's a report (http://www.ibtimes.com/french-built-mistral-ships-russia-could-end-canadian-hands-1719438#.VFqSb5Hkls0.twitter) 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)

Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on November 05, 2014, 18:05:56
Rumours are the only hope I have left these days.  8)
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 05, 2014, 18:09:38
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 05, 2014, 18:29:42
And there's a report (http://www.ibtimes.com/french-built-mistral-ships-russia-could-end-canadian-hands-1719438#.VFqSb5Hkls0.twitter) 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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on November 06, 2014, 11:30:25
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: jollyjacktar on November 06, 2014, 11:40:13
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 06, 2014, 12:20:36
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on November 06, 2014, 12:53:23
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 06, 2014, 17:55:39
speaking of the mistrals, the International Business times is reporting Canada is a serious potential destination for the Mistral

Quote
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
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: whiskey601 on November 06, 2014, 18:48:35
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.   
   
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Furniture on November 07, 2014, 00:33:36
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 07, 2014, 05:15:16
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"
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Dimsum on November 07, 2014, 05:28:52
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?
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 07, 2014, 06:01:19
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Pat in Halifax on November 07, 2014, 08:57:26
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.
Title: Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
Post by: Colin P on November 07, 2014, 11:19:22
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