J
jollyjacktar
Guest
It's ambitious, certainly, but as long as money and time aren't too big a factor, it's not beyond Davies to do.
AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
- Thread starter Ex-Dragoon
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 7,693
- Points
- 1,160
There always seems to be a world of difference in price and value between a vendor driven proposal and a client driven proposal.
My personal bias, based on my years of experience, has me believe that a vendor driven proposal will deliver 80 to 90% of the requirement for 110% of the budget within the warranty period.
Conversely a client driven proposal will cost a fortune in preliminary engineering, run to many times the budget in cost over runs and may never get delivered. Engineers and architects make a fortune from bespoke solutions that never turn into bricks, mortar and steel.
Most projects that work seem to work because time and budget pressures demand making the best use of what is immediately available. Most projects that fail seem to fail because committees of young PhDs with nary a scar on their knuckles are determined that a rhombus makes a better wheel than a circle.
My personal bias, based on my years of experience, has me believe that a vendor driven proposal will deliver 80 to 90% of the requirement for 110% of the budget within the warranty period.
Conversely a client driven proposal will cost a fortune in preliminary engineering, run to many times the budget in cost over runs and may never get delivered. Engineers and architects make a fortune from bespoke solutions that never turn into bricks, mortar and steel.
Most projects that work seem to work because time and budget pressures demand making the best use of what is immediately available. Most projects that fail seem to fail because committees of young PhDs with nary a scar on their knuckles are determined that a rhombus makes a better wheel than a circle.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,667
- Points
- 1,010
Lets remember we are commenting on a rumour here.
We must also remember that Davie is not selling this thing to the government. It is proposing to build, own, operate (at least the driving around/load/unload part) and then lease it at an annual price. If that annual price is right for the government and Davie can deliver what we see in the picture with the described capabilities, then more power to Davie.
[Hey Kirkhill, are you not happy? Davie seems to want to be able to put up to two Chinook on that thing :nod:]
From an engineering, cost and time point of view, it is more than doable.
First (and quietly, unbeknownst to most people), Davie under the new British management is a great success story, now employing in excess of 850 people, which makes it currently THE largest shipyard in Canada both in size of facilities [always was] but in personnel also, and it just won the title of best shipyard in North America, a title granted by the North American association of shipbuilders. They have also completed the first - and are working on two more - of the most complex merchant ships ever built in Canada, built for Norwegian gas exploration companies which says something.
Second, it is smarter, in my book, to start from a container ship than a tanker. You save a lot of cleaning and decontamination work before start, for one thing. Second, because of their cargo being "piles" of containers, container ships tend to have a different and stronger internal structure and more separate holds than tankers or bulk carriers, where the mass is already spread evenly on the ship's bottom. They also have a better interior system of access to those compartments for inspection at sea. So it is a lot easier and faster to install all the piping, pumps and handling equipment and then enclose the future tanks or hold from within in a container ship than in a pre-built tanker. The superstructure looks impressive, but again, taking the old one out nowadays is easy: cut at base and crane out to shore and as impressive as the new one looks, it is a straightforward square box likely built to civilian standard: easy-breezy for a civilian yard, something they can do in their sleep. The stronger structure of a container ship also makes finding proper attachment points for the two large cranes (forward: for dry cargo and ammunition) and the four transfer posts very easy.
If Davie already has the merchant ship in its sight, I am still willing to bet they can do it in 12 to 16 months.
We must also remember that Davie is not selling this thing to the government. It is proposing to build, own, operate (at least the driving around/load/unload part) and then lease it at an annual price. If that annual price is right for the government and Davie can deliver what we see in the picture with the described capabilities, then more power to Davie.
[Hey Kirkhill, are you not happy? Davie seems to want to be able to put up to two Chinook on that thing :nod:]
From an engineering, cost and time point of view, it is more than doable.
First (and quietly, unbeknownst to most people), Davie under the new British management is a great success story, now employing in excess of 850 people, which makes it currently THE largest shipyard in Canada both in size of facilities [always was] but in personnel also, and it just won the title of best shipyard in North America, a title granted by the North American association of shipbuilders. They have also completed the first - and are working on two more - of the most complex merchant ships ever built in Canada, built for Norwegian gas exploration companies which says something.
Second, it is smarter, in my book, to start from a container ship than a tanker. You save a lot of cleaning and decontamination work before start, for one thing. Second, because of their cargo being "piles" of containers, container ships tend to have a different and stronger internal structure and more separate holds than tankers or bulk carriers, where the mass is already spread evenly on the ship's bottom. They also have a better interior system of access to those compartments for inspection at sea. So it is a lot easier and faster to install all the piping, pumps and handling equipment and then enclose the future tanks or hold from within in a container ship than in a pre-built tanker. The superstructure looks impressive, but again, taking the old one out nowadays is easy: cut at base and crane out to shore and as impressive as the new one looks, it is a straightforward square box likely built to civilian standard: easy-breezy for a civilian yard, something they can do in their sleep. The stronger structure of a container ship also makes finding proper attachment points for the two large cranes (forward: for dry cargo and ammunition) and the four transfer posts very easy.
If Davie already has the merchant ship in its sight, I am still willing to bet they can do it in 12 to 16 months.
- Reaction score
- 7,693
- Points
- 1,160
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Why would I be happy? I'm Scots. ;D
PS - I agree with you. If Davie, the vendor, is saying such a thing is possible I would be inclined to agree with you. Equally, I am sure a BMT/STX AOPS built at Seaspan would be much closer in budget and timeline to a Svalbard.
- Reaction score
- 5,584
- Points
- 1,040
That proposal doesn't look like a ship that would be operated by Davie; there wouldn't be Chinook hangars and ammunition on board if that was the case.
Also it's a lot more then just replacing the superstucture if they want it to hold 350 pers; it would also require an upgrade to all the hotel services (black/grey water, hvac, galleys, etc) and be able to carry a lot more water/food. All doable, but it's a little more then a bit of steelwork, and would also probably mean an upgrade to the power distribution system and other auxiliary systems to accommodate the changes. Again, not rocket science, but not 'easy peasy'. Depending when the boat was built, they also would need to do some other updates to various navigation, comms, environmental and other systems to meet the changes to civilian standards that are grandfathered until you upgrade.
Also it's a lot more then just replacing the superstucture if they want it to hold 350 pers; it would also require an upgrade to all the hotel services (black/grey water, hvac, galleys, etc) and be able to carry a lot more water/food. All doable, but it's a little more then a bit of steelwork, and would also probably mean an upgrade to the power distribution system and other auxiliary systems to accommodate the changes. Again, not rocket science, but not 'easy peasy'. Depending when the boat was built, they also would need to do some other updates to various navigation, comms, environmental and other systems to meet the changes to civilian standards that are grandfathered until you upgrade.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
'easy peasy'--a phrase learned from my wife 
.
Mark
Ottawa
.Mark
Ottawa
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,667
- Points
- 1,010
As in: "You should remodel the bathroom this week-end. It's easy-peasy, you'll be done in no time at all".
And then, six months later ...
And then, six months later ...
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Armada de Chile supply ship arrives Esquimalt July 3--another tweet:
Mark
Ottawa
Timothy Choi
@TimmyC62
As noted last week, @Armada_Chile Almirante Montt arrives at @MARPAC for #AOR duties...
https://twitter.com/TimmyC62/status/617036907667525632
Mark
Ottawa
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,969
- Points
- 1,160
Newsflash: First world navy dependent on developing world navy to provide logistical support!
All kidding aside, not a bad idea, I wonder how much we are paying? The Chilean navy has some interesting history behind it as well and will be a good bonding exercise between our nations. No doubt at some point our subs will go down there to provide some "clockwork mice" training for them.
All kidding aside, not a bad idea, I wonder how much we are paying? The Chilean navy has some interesting history behind it as well and will be a good bonding exercise between our nations. No doubt at some point our subs will go down there to provide some "clockwork mice" training for them.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Este buque es el cuarto de la clase de petroleros de flota "Henry J. Kaiser" ,construídos para la Armada de Estados Unidos. A contar de 1996 se mantuvo en condición de reserva, hasta el año 2009 en que se inició el proceso de transferencia a la Armada de Chile, incorporándose oficialmente el 10 de febrero de 2010, para ser rebautizado como "Almirante Montt", con el objetivo de reabastecer en alta mar a las unidades de la Armada, en reemplazo del viejo petrolero "Araucano", dado de baja tras 43 años de servicio.
http://www.armada.cl/armada/unidades-navales/superficie/petroleros/ao-52-almirante-montt/2014-04-15/162530.html
http://www.armada.cl/armada/unidades-navales/superficie/petroleros/ao-52-almirante-montt/2014-04-15/162530.html
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,667
- Points
- 1,010
For the two or three people on this site that don't habla espanol, it roughly translates as:
"This ship was the fourth of the United States Navy Henry J. Kaiser class of auxiliary oiler resupply ship. It was put in reserve staring in 1996, until 2009, when the process of transferring it to the Chilean Navy began. The ship officially joined the fleet on February 10, 2010 and was renamed Almirante Montt. Its task is to provide the fleet units with refuelling at sea as a replacement for the old oiler Auracano, who will be retired after 43 years of service".
"This ship was the fourth of the United States Navy Henry J. Kaiser class of auxiliary oiler resupply ship. It was put in reserve staring in 1996, until 2009, when the process of transferring it to the Chilean Navy began. The ship officially joined the fleet on February 10, 2010 and was renamed Almirante Montt. Its task is to provide the fleet units with refuelling at sea as a replacement for the old oiler Auracano, who will be retired after 43 years of service".
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Armada española loaner for MARLANT:
Cantabria webpage:
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/buques_superficie/prefLang_en/06_buques-logisticos--02_buque-aprovisionamiento-combate-cantabria
.
Cantabria design was once in running as basis for JSS:
Note from the DID article:
Good politics though--Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
Mark
Ottawa
Cantabria webpage:
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/buques_superficie/prefLang_en/06_buques-logisticos--02_buque-aprovisionamiento-combate-cantabria
Cantabria design was once in running as basis for JSS:
Note from the DID article:
Good politics though--Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
Mark
Ottawa
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
It makes me want to hurl, reading that article which is exactly what I've been saying for years that we should do. But, no....
Colin P said:
It would be great to have this level of capability with the RCN, particularly the Mistrals with their "Joint" capabilities. But I wonder if the RCN would be able to actually man a fleet of this size. (2 Mistrals, 3 Berlins, 12 CSCs, 4 SSKs, 5-6 AOPS, any remaining MCDVs, etc) Granted, with PRO, PRE, IRO, and ALG all retired in quick succession, there would presumably be a bit of excess crew capacity at the moment, but IIRC there was a deficit not long ago that had ships tied up alongside with no crews.
Any future plan that relies upon a massive recruiting effort seems doomed to fail in my opinion. With personnel costs the largest chunk of our budget (from what I understand - someone here might have the details), I can't see any government wanting an increase on that front.
Sure would be nice to have though, and I think the RCN is in the most dire need of new kit.
Harrigan
Ref: the Spanish and Chilean AORs,
How does the purchase of "at-sea days" work in practice? Do they deploy solely for RCN use for a set number of days, or do they go the "Eastern Pacific Station" and pass gas to all Navy ships that need it, with us "booked in" for a certain number of days? (or does it mean something else)
Harrigan
How does the purchase of "at-sea days" work in practice? Do they deploy solely for RCN use for a set number of days, or do they go the "Eastern Pacific Station" and pass gas to all Navy ships that need it, with us "booked in" for a certain number of days? (or does it mean something else)
Harrigan
- Reaction score
- 7,693
- Points
- 1,160
Harrigan said:
I'll harp on an old theme of mine. When you cant find bodies buy motors.
Some advantages of motors:
They come in all shapes and sizes and can move any load known to man
They follow orders
They are easy to communicate with
Groups are easy to coordinate
They dont talk back
They dont take up much space
They are easy to maintain
They are easily replaced
They dont require funerals
Their families dont vote.
On the downside they can be expensive.
Me, I would be buying AFVs designed for two man crews, log vehicles that can be operated in trains buy two to four men, LRPRS/GBAD batteries for supplying umbrellas -many of them ship mounted, ships with minimum crews, and aircraft of all sorts. Adjust TTPs to suit and hire them out to needy allies.
Boost defence to 2% of GDP and Aid to 0.7% and use them to make friends. I figure the massive boost in Aid along with a well managed publicity campaign would cover the rise in Defence.
Plan on supplying support that others can't afford themselves. Let the locals man the MGs and fill the trenches. Move the infantry to SOF light and have them focus on Sense operations with easily extactable small groups.
If we ever need to line the trenches ourselves well, there is always the Militia -who will need asmuch support and as many motors as the Regs can find.
Dont plan on trying to raise a bigger foreign service force. If you can only recruit 50,000 of the authorized strength of 65,000 then figure hoe you can make the available force as effective as possible by converting the unused FTEs to motors, sensors, munitions and comms.
- Reaction score
- 7,693
- Points
- 1,160
Back on June 24, when we were discussing the Davie AOR proposal Seaspan was announcing this:
The structure in the back ground, under the flag, appears to be the fairly well developed hull of an OFSV. That would lend credence to the claim:
After the similarly sized OOSV the JSS construction will start.
http://www.seaspan.com/building
The structure in the back ground, under the flag, appears to be the fairly well developed hull of an OFSV. That would lend credence to the claim:
After the similarly sized OOSV the JSS construction will start.
http://www.seaspan.com/building
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,667
- Points
- 1,010
Actually Kirkhill, you are the one that missed it.
We were all over it in the proper thread "New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy":
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1374273.html#msg1374273
We were all over it in the proper thread "New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy":
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1374273.html#msg1374273
Similar threads
