AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Good2Golf]

The IAOR is very capable however won't be allowed into threat zone with the civilian crew.

Chief, is that confirmed?  Could they not operate like the civilians aboard US Military Sealift Command USNS in combat zones?

Regards
G2G

 

[Stoker]

Chief, is that confirmed?  Could they not operate like the civilians aboard US Military Sealift Command USNS in combat zones?

Regards
G2G

I believe what I read is a "low threat environment", we are talking about civilian crews here and maybe unionized. I doubt if they will go in a war zone, as well the civilians do the firefighting there.

 

[captloadie]

In practical terms, what would be considered a war zone? Is it a certain distance from a hostile coast? Is it an area known or suspected to be mined? I'm just trying to see where these unionized employees potentially wouldn't/couldn't go in this leased to the CAF ship that they would be going if working on other commercial vessels.

 

[Kirkhill]

In practical terms, what would be considered a war zone? Is it a certain distance from a hostile coast? Is it an area known or suspected to be mined? I'm just trying to see where these unionized employees potentially wouldn't/couldn't go in this leased to the CAF ship that they would be going if working on other commercial vessels.

As in patrolling sea-lanes for pirates, or managing choke-points commonly transited by civilian carriers?

 

[Lumber]

Why does it have to be civilian crewed? Why can't we buy it outright and crew it with Navy?

 

[Stoker]

Why does it have to be civilian crewed? Why can't we buy it outright and crew it with Navy?

We sure could but I think the RCN sees this as a stop gap until be get the new purpose built AOR's.

 

[dapaterson]

Why does it have to be civilian crewed? Why can't we buy it outright and crew it with Navy?

Because that's not what Davie offered.  It looks like Davie understands that DND has pressure on vote 5 (capital) money, and thus offered DND a way to spend O&M to get the capability - renting instead of owning.

I do suspect that at the end of the lease (including the extensions, which will be necessary to cover off the learning curve to bring the two JSS to FOC) that the RCN will push to buy her and add her to the fleet, getting a third AOR...

 

[Good2Golf]

If I were King (or Sun Prince) for a day, I'd consider keeping it and having 2+1 AORs. :nod: Weren't PRO, PRT and PRE split configurations (2+1)?

Regards
G2G

 

[MilEME09]

Why does it have to be civilian crewed? Why can't we buy it outright and crew it with Navy?

Davie has stated previously that after the contract is over it may entertain the idea of selling the ship outright to the RCN, but that will be upto Davie and the GoC to work out. In my opinion though if we are only getting two Queenston class, then we should keep the Resolve as a third AOR, to cover our backs when one ship needs to be in dock for maintenance.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Davie has stated previously that after the contract is over it may entertain the idea of selling the ship outright to the RCN, but that will be upto Davie and the GoC to work out. In my opinion though if we are only getting two Queenston class, then we should keep the Resolve as a third AOR, to cover our backs when one ship needs to be in dock for maintenance.

Actually if they run the Resolve for a year and like it, build another one that is a RCN ship. Have one Resolve class and one Queenston class on each coast. That would mean we could operate further and for longer and always have a AOR. Run the Resolves for 10 years, sell them to another friendly 3rd world navy and have Davie build replacements in the same way. Sell the Queenstons after 20 years and have Seaspan build new AORs. 

 

[FSTO]

Actually if they run the Resolve for a year and like it, build another one that is a RCN ship. Have one Resolve class and one Queenston class on each coast. That would mean we could operate further and for longer and always have a AOR. Run the Resolves for 10 years, sell them to another friendly 3rd world navy and have Davie build replacements in the same way. Sell the Queenstons after 20 years and have Seaspan build new AORs.

Quit talking sense. It may become contagious.

 

[Kirkhill]

Because that's not what Davie offered.  It looks like Davie understands that DND has pressure on vote 5 (capital) money, and thus offered DND a way to spend O&M to get the capability - renting instead of owning.

I do suspect that at the end of the lease (including the extensions, which will be necessary to cover off the learning curve to bring the two JSS to FOC) that the RCN will push to buy her and add her to the fleet, getting a third AOR...

Agree entirely with para 1.

Only concern with para 2 is whether the Government of the Day at the time will sign off on the capability.  I sense some folks might feel that they have been railroaded into this.  And, mixing metaphors, the ground seems to be piling up with noses cut off from spited faces.

 

[Lumber]

Actually if they run the Resolve for a year and like it, build another one that is a RCN ship. Have one Resolve class and one Queenston class on each coast. That would mean we could operate further and for longer and always have a AOR. Run the Resolves for 10 years, sell them to another friendly 3rd world navy and have Davie build replacements in the same way. Sell the Queenstons after 20 years and have Seaspan build new AORs.

$500M CAD every 10 yrs is a much better deal than $2Bn CAD every 20.

 

[Kirkhill]

Re the 2 Bn CAD per vessel per the PBO report of 2013

The original DND estimate of 2004 was three vessels delivered between 2012 and 2016 for 2.1 BCAD (700 MCAD per hull average)

By 2009 the DND estimate was revised upwards to 2.53 BCAD and the number of hulls reduced to 2 (1260 MCAD per hull average) with the budget being revised upwards to 2.6 BCAD (1300 MCAD per hull average)

In 2013, after consulting with US experts and using US modelling, the PBO declared that their experts estimated the project at 3.28 BCAD for 2 hulls (1640 MCAD) and recommended a budget of 4.13 BCAD (2060 MCAD per hull average) to allow for a 25% contingency for cost over runs.

Thus we go from 700 MCAD per hull in 2004 (which could reasonably be seen as 900 MCAD for the first hull, 700 MCAD for the second and 500 MCAD for the third) to a well padded 2060 MCAD in 2013.

Now we have a ship built for 300 MCAD (conversion of a 20 MCAD hull) which I suggest might seem to indicate that the original 2004 Estimate had more of a grip on reality than the 2013 PBO budget.

In fairness to the PBO it had this to say about modelling and estimating:

There are four main approaches to costing: analogy,
parametric, build-up, and expert opinion. In cost
estimating, the phase of the project and the
availability of data drive methodology selection.
23
Given that the JSS is still in early design phase
(meaning that detailed specifications and actual costs
are unavailable) and there are no recent, analogous
acquisitions, parametric modeling is the most
appropriate method for estimating cost.24
Parametric modeling involves positing cost
relationships for a set of inputs and testing those
relationships using historical data.
Developing and validating a parametric model
requires a significant investment of time and access
to a data set of historical costs. For this reason, the
PBO used PRICE Systems’ TruePlanning®—a software
package used for estimating cost of hardware
platforms.

I suggest that PBO should be invited to revisit the findings of their 2013 report now that a "recent, analogous, acquisition" is available.

I also suggest that the PBO recalibrate their parametric models, which would also apply to the AOPS and the CSC, based on the new data.

http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/JSS_EN.pdf

 

[Kirkhill]

In a related vein the Seaspan OFSV project was originally estimated at 244 MCAD in 2004 for three hulls and has climbed to 687 MCAD.

The OFSV is essentially a factory trawler.  (And having been on board many of them I doubt that there are many "science tools" lacking on the modern factory trawler.

Here is one of the premier factory trawler fleets in the world

http://www.havfisk.no/no/flaten

https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2016/09/08/havfisk-adds-new-whitefish-factory-vessel-to-fleet/

http://www.havfisk.no/en/fleet/fleet-overview/gadus-neptun

https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/03/07/third-havfisk-trawler-baptised/

https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2016/02/22/havfisk-commissions-new-e34m-trawler/

Havfisk bought three 3400 tonne trawlers for 132 MUSD and have found money for a fourth this year.

It also bought another similarly sized trawler for mixed fisheries for 38 MUSD.

The OFSVs displace 3200 tonnes.

So, original estimate for three OFSV trawlers in 2004 - 244 MCAD
Current estimate for three OFSV trawlers in 2017 - 687 MCAD
Actual cost of three modern commercial trawlers - 180 MCAD

So why the "inflation"/"poor estimating"?

https://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries/nss-photo-gallery-ofsv3

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually if they run the Resolve for a year and like it, build another one that is a RCN ship. Have one Resolve class and one Queenston class on each coast. That would mean we could operate further and for longer and always have a AOR. Run the Resolves for 10 years, sell them to another friendly 3rd world navy and have Davie build replacements in the same way. Sell the Queenstons after 20 years and have Seaspan build new AORs.

Actually, Colin, I would go one better on that proposal: Since the Resolve are designed to be operated by a civilian crew of 36, the Resolve on each coast gets manned by the CFAV civvies. Then, on each coast, the Queenston class is your forward deployable asset - going with the CTF wherever it goes, while the Resolve sails local waters to provide for the fleet training - both for the specialized personnel on the Resolve, who then gets its training to get ready to deploy on the Queenston, and for the fleet remaining in Canada to train, who then never loses its UNREP training capability each time the fleet AOR is sent away. It then also provides coverage whenever the actual AOR is undergoing refits.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Is feeling of warmth and happiness i get from your post  :nod:

To much logic they will come and burn us all for being heretics.

 

[dapaterson]

Re the 2 Bn CAD per vessel per the PBO report of 2013

The original DND estimate of 2004 was three vessels delivered between 2012 and 2016 for 2.1 BCAD (700 MCAD per hull average)

By 2009 the DND estimate was revised upwards to 2.53 BCAD and the number of hulls reduced to 2 (1260 MCAD per hull average) with the budget being revised upwards to 2.6 BCAD (1300 MCAD per hull average)

In 2013, after consulting with US experts and using US modelling, the PBO declared that their experts estimated the project at 3.28 BCAD for 2 hulls (1640 MCAD) and recommended a budget of 4.13 BCAD (2060 MCAD per hull average) to allow for a 25% contingency for cost over runs.

Thus we go from 700 MCAD per hull in 2004 (which could reasonably be seen as 900 MCAD for the first hull, 700 MCAD for the second and 500 MCAD for the third) to a well padded 2060 MCAD in 2013.

Now we have a ship built for 300 MCAD (conversion of a 20 MCAD hull) which I suggest might seem to indicate that the original 2004 Estimate had more of a grip on reality than the 2013 PBO budget.

In fairness to the PBO it had this to say about modelling and estimating:

I suggest that PBO should be invited to revisit the findings of their 2013 report now that a "recent, analogous, acquisition" is available.

I also suggest that the PBO recalibrate their parametric models, which would also apply to the AOPS and the CSC, based on the new data.

http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/JSS_EN.pdf

I use the analogy of buying a house to look at how costs increase.

Buy a used house and move in - cheapest option.

Buy a used house and do some renos - more expensive (this is what we're doing with Resolve).

Buy a new house in a new development with standard layout and finishes.

Buy a new house in a new development with custom finishes.  (This is what we're doing with JSS)

Buy a new house with a new design in an existing development.

Buy a new house with a new design in a greenfield location where you're paying for 100% of servicing (most expensive).  (This is what some of the original concepts would have been)


DIfferent approaches wil lead to different cost models and factors- and if you go for custom build, it's almost always going to be more expensive.

 

[dapaterson]

Another take on Canadian shipbuilding: Why bother?

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/05/05/its-past-time-for-canada-to-get-out-of-the-shipbuilding-trade/

 

[Kirkhill]

I use the analogy of buying a house to look at how costs increase.

Buy a used house and move in - cheapest option.

Buy a used house and do some renos - more expensive (this is what we're doing with Resolve).

Buy a new house in a new development with standard layout and finishes.

Buy a new house in a new development with custom finishes.  (This is what we're doing with JSS)

Buy a new house with a new design in an existing development.

Buy a new house with a new design in a greenfield location where you're paying for 100% of servicing (most expensive).  (This is what some of the original concepts would have been)


DIfferent approaches wil lead to different cost models and factors- and if you go for custom build, it's almost always going to be more expensive.

While I agree with the concept I would argue that in the case of Resolve we are not so much taking a used house and doing some minor renos as buying a 5 year old house, knocking it back to grade, keeping just the basement and the utilities, and rebuilding the above-grade structure from scratch.

We could just as easily buy brand new hulls with motors fitted and ferry them to Canada for outfitting over here with Canadian workers at either Davie or Victoria Drydocks.