AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[NavyShooter]

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

 

[jollyjacktar]

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[jollyjacktar]

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[NavyShooter]

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

 

[The Bread Guy]

This today in MERX (highlights mine):

.... 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 (usual Wikipedia caveats apply)
- ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. here and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems here
- Pantino/Cantavia class replenishment ships here
- Navantia S.A. here

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

 

[jollyjacktar]

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.

 

[Snakedoc]

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.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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.

 

[NavyShooter]

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

 

[viper3ca]

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.

 

[canuck101]

I say we get two Berlin class and if there is any money left over get two Endurance class landing platform dock ships  ;D

 

[MarkOttawa]

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

 

[Haletown]

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?

 

[MarkOttawa]

The 2006 JSS specs contained this:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=1958

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

I would assume that has now been abandoned.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Haletown]

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.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

This today in MERX (highlights mine):
More on link and in attached if link doesn't work.

More on:
- Berlin class replenishment ships here (usual Wikipedia caveats apply)
- ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. here and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems here
- Pantino/Cantavia class replenishment ships here
- Navantia S.A. here

Good news.