AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Ex-Dragoon]

Let's not reinvent the wheel:

There is a reason we move on to other designs, its usually because they are no longer feasible. Why would we use the single hull Protecteur class and be limited to most of the worlds ports because they do not meet enviromental concerns. The Protecteur class served the Navy well  but its high time we get new AORs. Two is not enough, look how much each coast suffers when that coast's lone AOR goes in for a refit. I will say it again and again. Get the AORs (not JSS) and come back to the amphib. We have so many other ships we need replaced before we should even consider an amphib.

 

[gvg]

.....
As for joint support, please pass on the Dutch JSS: All I can see so far is that they are a Landing Platform Dock with a Derrick stuck on one side to refuel her escorts. B.T.W. 129 soldiers carrying capacity: is that even one company? On the nice pictures, they have  landed a field hospital. How many people out of 129 are left to do something else? ..........
...........

It isn't a LPD, it has no well.
It has 2 RAS masts, one on the left and one on the right.
Troop transport was always a minor issue with the Dutch JSS, since they have 2 real LPD's that together can carry 1159 troops (apart from their crew).

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

 

[Otis]

From a purely selfish point of view:

Whatever they decide, I'D like the food spaces to be bigger and better configured!

Every time I had to go in the fridges / rations spaces on the Protecteur, it aggravated me that a SUPPLY ship had such constricted rations spaces. Now, I understand that the ships were designed to civvie standards, intended for a much smaller crew and that they go in to port far more often than a 'fighting' ship, but should the crew have to store rations EVERY time they go in because of that?

Otis the old Bin Rat and Victualler.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I was doing some research on another subject and found this diagram from the Russia's RIA Novosti news agency which shows the layout for the French MISTRAL class amphib/helo carrier. Thought you guys might be interested.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Psssst the problem with the Mistral though its not an AOR.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Might this warm and fuzzy approach be relevant to our governments--if we bought AORS?

Italy To Get New Amphibious Ships
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2010/06/01/DT_06_01_2010_p36-228013.xml

The Italian navy has received the go-ahead to procure two 20,000-ton amphibious assault ships (LHDs), with the possibility of a third ship, configured with extensive aviation facilities (LHA).

The preliminary LHD project is funded and will take 12 months for completion. It will be followed by a project definition phase requiring eight months and leading to a contract. Delivery of the first ship comes within 30 months after that. If everything goes to plan, the first LHD arrives in late 2014.

LHDs will replace two 8,000-ton San Giorgio-class LPDs, commissioned in 1987 and 1988. The LHA will eventually replace the carrier Garibaldi, which is being dedicated to amphibious and helicopter roles now that the Cavour carrier is in service.

The new LHDs will be 190 meters (623 ft.) long, feature a well dock that holds four LCACs (landing craft air cushions), and have a hangar with dedicated maintenance area where six medium-heavy helicopters can be recovered. The flight deck will provide six landing spots and be served by two elevators, one at the stern, the other forward of the island. It will thus be possible to launch air-assault operations, lifting a reinforced rifle company with each wave and rapidly moving personnel and equipment to the deck. Helicopter capacity will be 12-15, depending on mix.

Capabilities also include four smaller LCVP (landing craft, vehicle, personnel) vessels and two motorboats, all in dedicated spaces with cranes under the port flight deck.

The LHD can accommodate 760 troops, including an aviation detachment and staff personnel, in addition to a ship’s crew of only 200, a result of shipboard automation. The vessel will normally carry a reinforced marine battalion and aviation personnel, and be able to add an amphibious task force and landing force command, which will rely on extensive C4I spaces and systems. The basic space earmarked for the command staff is 500 sq. meters (5,380 sq. ft.)...

A peculiarity of the design is that the ships, at least the first, will have civil protection as the primary operational role. The requirement is taken seriously and dictates many capabilities—for instance, large electricity generation and water purification capacity, including deployment of flexible hoses for ship-to-dock or ship-to-ship water transfer [emphasis added].

The LHD will have a hospital that treats 54, with 1,000 sq. meters of dedicated space. The hospital can expand by using space dedicated to the marines’ mess and loading medical containers in part of the hangar. The C4 spaces can be used as a command center for civil protection authorities...

To minimize costs, the LHDs will be built to commercial standards, modified somewhat to improve survivability, but without full military specifications. Tradeoffs between cost and survivability are being assessed. According to one estimate, the ship can be built for €300 million ($369 million), excluding combat systems [emphasis added--!?!].

 

Via New Wars, interesting blog focussed on USN reform:
http://newwars.wordpress.com/

Remember that the government classifies the JSS as a "non-combat vessel":
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do;jsessionid=ac1b105430d891a768c0b48a471388a9bb629767dd3e.e34Rc3iMbx8Oai0Tbx0SaxiKbxz0?m=%2Findex&nid=537419

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

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The description makes it look like a very slightly smaller version of the french Mistral class. So, there must be a small mistake in the capabilities described: Ships that size can only accommodate two (vice four) LCAC's, otherwise, the well would have to extend almost all the way forward, and you would not have any room left for troops or their equipment. However, a well that accommodates two LCAC's will accommodate four LCU's.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Mark, hoses for transferring of fuel and water is all well and good but we also use AORs to restock ammo, food, spare parts etc. These LHDs so not address our RAS needs.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Ex-Dragoon: I wrote "if we bought AORS?", meaning in addition to an LHD type.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Mark:
If you read back through this thread and through your own thread titled "New Canadian Shipbuilding Policy", you will notice that Ex-D. and I are of the same mind: Build four AOR's and two LHD's. Keep the fighting and fuelling separate.

'nough said.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Agree.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Mark:
If you read back through this thread and through your own thread titled "New Canadian Shipbuilding Policy", you will notice that Ex-D. and I are of the same mind: Build four AOR's and two LHD's. Keep the fighting and fuelling separate.

'nough said.

The JHSV program is procuring high-speed transport vessels for the Army and the Navy. These vessels will be used for fast intra-theater transportation of troops, military vehicles and equipment. The JHSV program merges the previous Army Theater Support Vessel (TSV) and the Navy High Speed Connector (HSC), taking advantage of the inherent commonality between the two programs.

JHSV will be capable of transporting 600 short tons 1,200 nautical miles at an average speed of 35 knots. The ships will be capable of operating in shallow-draft ports and waterways, interfacing with roll-on/roll-off discharge facilities, and on/off-loading a combat-loaded Abrams Main Battle Tank (M1A2). Other joint requirements include an aviation flight deck to support day and night air vehicle launch and recovery operations.

JHSV is a commercial-design, non-combatant transport vessel, and does not require the development of any new technology. JHSV is being built to American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) High Speed Naval Craft Guide. Systems onboard will be based on commercial ABS steel vessel rules. As such, it does not require the survivability and ability to sustain damage like the LCS. It has no combat system capability and no ability to support or use LCS mission modules. It will leverage non-developmental or commercial technology that is modified to suit military applications. Select military features include Aviation; Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and (Military) Intelligence; and Firefighting for the Mission Bay. NVR does not apply to any part of JHSV.

As a non-combatant sealift ship, the Navy variant of JHSV will be crewed by civilian mariners, either employed by or under contract to the Navy’s Military Sealift Command. U.S. Army vessels will be crewed by Army craft masters. Both versions will require a crew of approximately 22-40 people, but will have airline style seating for more than 300 embarked forces and fixed berthing for approximately 100 more.

Source USN

First: I am not advocating HSVs.  That is a separate issue.
The comment about separating fighting and fuelling caught my eye.  If the Canadian navy is willing to countenance a “non-combatant” AOR, just like the RFA fleet and much of the US fleet, and if the US is continuing to purchase logistical vessels built to civilian standards, and find employment for them, why should we not consider building transport vessels to commercial standards as well? 
I don’t believe that we need to purchase vessels capable of handling opposed landings just to improve the CFs deployment capabilities.  A couple of flat-top Ro-Ros with a helicopter hangar conversion would greatly increase the government’s options available. 
As far as Command and Control facilities are concerned: why not follow the Danish lead of the Absalon class and create a variant of the SCSC that includes a flex deck capable of handling a C&C centre, and maybe even the taskforce hospital.
If anything I would be in favour of spending money to increase the survivability of the AOR as it regularly deploys with the fleet and goes in contested waters.  The enemy usually gets to decide if a vessel is a combatant in those circumstances and punching a hole in your gas tank might be seen as an appropriate method of reducing your capabilities.
Meanwhile the government can choose to limit deployment of land forces to only those shores that are uncontested and still create many more policy options than it currently has with no logistic capabilities at all in that regard.

 

[Kirkhill]

Source for the above quote (USN Fact File)

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

Cheers.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Kirkhill:

If you read through the very same thread I mentioned, you will see that I also advocate turning the AOR's over to the CFAV's for the very same reason, and to alleviate the manning problems. I think I also mentioned the same in the thread that began as "6 MCDV's to be mothballed".

But it is an idea whose time has come, in my humble opinion.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile down south the USMC is getting closer to its own real carriers:

The USA’s America Class: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-new-lhar-ship-class-carrier-air-amphibious-assault-updated-0870/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=did&utm_medium=textlink

...
Designed to project power and maintain presence, LHA-Replacement (LHA-R, aka. LH-X  and now the America Class) large deck amphibious assault ships will replace the LHA-1 Tarawa Class. They’re based on the more modern LHD Wasp Class  design, but initial ships will remove the LHD’s landing craft and well deck. While its LHA/LHD predecessors were amphibious assault ships with a secondary aviation element, it’s fair to describe the LHA-Rs as escort carriers with a secondary amphibious assault role...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill:

If you read through the very same thread I mentioned, you will see that I also advocate turning the AOR's over to the CFAV's for the very same reason, and to alleviate the manning problems. I think I also mentioned the same in the thread that began as "6 MCDV's to be mothballed".

But it is an idea whose time has come, in my humble opinion.

OGBD

I didn't mean to slight anyone.  I have seen your posts and agree.  My apologies for not being more direct in giving credit where it's due.

As a tangential comment I will drag the AOPS into the fray by linkingthis article on the USN's plans to purchase more civilian pattern JHSVs as sea bases for troops engaged in "irregular warfare".  I guess I have always seen the AOPS in this light.  It is a platform for troops more than missiles. Its targets are the people on shore and not other vessels or even aircraft and tanks.  They are mobile islands designed to operate in "low risk" environments.  The JHSV operates in open, tropical waters. The AOPS operates in icy northern waters.

Let's spend the dollars on the SCSC fleet and make them  both flexible and capable of operating in a high risk environment.  That does not necessarily mean that every ship of the class should be able to do all tasks all the time.  But some hulls could be allocated fo Absalon type configurations while others are designed for AAW and the rest for a configuration more in line with our current General Duties type escort frigates.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

But some hulls could be allocated fo Absalon type configurations while others are designed for AAW and the rest for a configuration more in line with our current General Duties type escort frigates.

Which would require more hulls for us to meet our commitments. Remember the first 4 SCSC will be AAD/Flagships to replace our 280s. If you take away from the SCSC to make arctic patrol vessels you are cutting down the numbers of frigates we need for general warfare roles.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[RC]

The Svalbard was between 100 and 110 million euros.  Not sure where you got the 50 MCAD figure from, but it is incorrect.  The AOPS was modified to allow more flexibility and conform to Canadian standards, but fundamentally, it is not dramatically different from the Svalbard and the modifications are far more practical than costly.