AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Kirkhill]

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?

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[RC]

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.

 

[jollyjacktar]

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

 

[The Bread Guy]

This just out from CF:

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:

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.

(....)

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

 

[MarkOttawa]

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

 

[MarkOttawa]

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

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

 

[MarkOttawa]

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

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Oldgateboatdriver: Excerpt from a June 4 post at the now-defunct Torch:

...
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

 

[jollyjacktar]

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.

 

[CougarKing]

The mods are welcome to move this to any appropriate older JSS thread:

Navy restarts plan for new support ships

33 minutes ago
By Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press
Canadian Press link

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.
 

 

 

[Infanteer]

Does anyone know if there are any Sailors that actually support this concept?

 

[Occam]

Does anyone know if there are any Sailors that actually support this concept?

Which concept is that, specifically?

 

[Sailorwest]

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.

 

[STONEY]

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

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

 

[Privateer]

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".