AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Cloud Cover]

Hmmm, why 12 minesweepers?  Seems to me we could do with less but I guess it depends on whether they work in pairs or 4’s.
I think there is an argument to be made for a high end missile corvette/light frigate in that mix, but not by taking away heavier AAD/ASW frigates and AAW/C2 destroyers (both of which should have a land attack cruise missile capability, IMO.)
Agree with all the rest, it will be interesting to see how/if AOPS performs outside of its primary role. Such a big ship ....

I always think about how much more potent the 330’s would be if during HCMP they could have quad packed the ESSM (8x4) and then made tube space (somehow) for ERAM missiles.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Hmmm, why 12 minesweepers?  Seems to me we could do with less but I guess it depends on whether they work in pairs or 4’s.
I think there is an argument to be made for a high end missile corvette/light frigate in that mix, but not by taking away heavier AAD/ASW frigates and AAW/C2 destroyers (both of which should have a land attack cruise missile capability, IMO.)
Agree with all the rest, it will be interesting to see how/if AOPS performs outside of its primary role. Such a big ship ....

I always think about how much more potent the 330’s would be if during HCMP they could have quad packed the ESSM (8x4) and then made tube space (somehow) for ERAM missiles.

Given that there’s maybe about 12-15 years left in the MCDVS, I think I’d extend the AOPS build to 9-10 units and start reducing the KINGSTONs down to 6. Refit and give those remaining 6 the full suite of mine sweep/hunt equipment and then back off their time at sea a bit. If they become dedicated mine warfare vessels, instead of doing all the other tacked on roles they have, those 6 could have a much longer shelf life. Have the AOPS take over as the primary coastal patrol vessels and free up the CPF’s/CSC for their Task Group deployments.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The AOPs will likely be able to support the Kingston minesweepers, much of the modern sweeping will be done with surface and sub surface AUV's and ROV's in the future. So yes you could cut back the Kingstons and still support that mission.

 

[Underway]

Given that there’s maybe about 12-15 years left in the MCDVS, I think I’d extend the AOPS build to 9-10 units and start reducing the KINGSTONs down to 6. Refit and give those remaining 6 the full suite of mine sweep/hunt equipment and then back off their time at sea a bit. If they become dedicated mine warfare vessels, instead of doing all the other tacked on roles they have, those 6 could have a much longer shelf life. Have the AOPS take over as the primary coastal patrol vessels and free up the CPF’s/CSC for their Task Group deployments.

If you are going to do that build something like River Class which is a proper OPV.  It would make more sense in my estimation to replace the Kingstons (whenever they need replacing) with a Minehunting/OPV with a bit better seakeeping and bit faster top speed. 

Hmmm, why 12 minesweepers?  Seems to me we could do with less but I guess it depends on whether they work in pairs or 4’s.

The navy likes multiples of 3 and 4 for platforms.  This is because of maintenance and refit.  If you have 3 platforms, one can be in refit, one in low readiness and one in high readiness. 

This is why the RCN really wants minimum of 3 JSS, preferably 4.  4 means each coast can have one ship in refit/maint while the other is available for operations. 

Same thing for AOPS, 6 means 2 per coast are available (assuming 3 per coast).  12 frigates similar numbers, 3 AAW destroyers, 4 subs....

So for MCDV's if you have 6 per coast 4 are available for operations almost at all times.  4 MCDV's per coast seems like a smaller number once you break it down from the 12 total.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Sure, but then you lose the economic benefit of building in the batch. With public interest being what it is, I’d say you stood a better chance of running through 3-4 more AOPS than getting a whole new platform of OPVs approved. Also, at that point every coastal patrol vessel is Arctic capable. I’d prefer something like an OTAGO or BECKETT too, but I doubt that’s even on the radar right now between CSC, AOPS, JSS and VIC upgrades.

 

[ModlrMike]

Senatory Kenny has another article over at the National Post.


Sen. Colin Kenny: There's only one right choice for the navy. Why not make it?
For a fixed price the government can acquire all four supply ships the navy needs from Davie for the $2.6 billion it has set aside

 

[Cloud Cover]

A slimmer, faster, up gunned version of AOPS perhaps in a Batch2?

I always like the Thetis class patrol ship, but it is way too much ship for our government to swallow if it is not a full on frigate. Some call it a light frigate, but really it is a long range patrol ship. Small crew, nicely sized, does not have the arctic capability like AOPS, as far as I know only up to about 24 inches of ice capable. Carries an MH60R in the hangar- obviously not good for the Cyclone.  An updated version of that would be a nice patrol ship but unfortunately crew is 65 all hands with aircrew, much more than an MCDV.  It does have 3 STANFLEX modules, which could be handy and handsome to some people, especially the ELINT modules....

Assuming 8-10 MCDV are required as a minimum to keep a couple operational on each coast, then maybe additional AOPS would be nice but is that way too much ship if there are already going to be 5-6 in the fleet? My understanding is that there are a number of reg force billets on MCDV's, will they swing over to AOPS in the next few years?  And how does the reserve fit into that picture, will they get their turn on AOPS?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Senatory Kenny has another article over at the National Post.


Sen. Colin Kenny: There's only one right choice for the navy. Why not make it?
For a fixed price the government can acquire all four supply ships the navy needs from Davie for the $2.6 billion it has set aside

Somehow I think that if Davie had the contract the price would be higher than 2.6 billion and would take longer. Better to keep the yards hungry and eager one ship at a time, rather than risk having another Irving CSC debacle on their hands.

 

[MTShaw]

Somehow I think that if Davie had the contract the price would be higher than 2.6 billion and would take longer. Better to keep the yards hungry and eager one ship at a time, rather than risk having another Irving CSC debacle on their hands.

What is the Irving CSC debacle?

 

[MarkOttawa]

When oh when will Seaspan start JSS?  And CCG icebreaker?

Seaspan Shipyards working to avoid more layoffs
Seaspan brass working with feds to shore up production gaps in multi-year shipbuilding contract

Seaspan Shipyards is waiting for the federal government to approve changes to its national shipbuilding schedule that would keep its workforce busy and avoid significant layoffs.

Seaspan bosses were recently in Ottawa asking federal officials to approve a plan which could see parts of the navy’s massive joint support ships started before an oceanographic science vessel is built in the shipyard.

Seaspan has been scrambling to find a fix that would avoid having to potentially lay off hundreds of workers this year after delays in the shipbuilding program pushed construction of an oceanographic science vessel back a year or longer.

Approximately 200 trades workers, including welders and electricians, were laid off at the shipyard in December, immediately following the launch of the first fisheries vessel. Seaspan confirmed the layoffs but did not give an exact number.

John Pesa, assistant business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 213, said, “It was to everyone’s surprise that the cuts were as deep as they were.”

Pesa hopes some of the laid-off workers will be called back this month.

Tim Page, vice-president of government relations for Seaspan, said work is continuing at the shipyard on the second and third fisheries vessels. Seaspan has also been awarded some refit work on federal vessels that is helping to fill the gap. Most of those refits are eight- to 10-week jobs.

Page said keeping skilled tradespeople at work is a priority for the shipyard. “The length of the downturn will determine how willing people are to stick around and wait for that downturn to pick up again,” said Page.

Delays in the design and engineering on the oceanographic science vessel mean that work on that ship – initially scheduled to start this spring – likely won’t get underway until spring 2019, at the earliest.

That has also raised questions about when the two massive navy joint support ships will be built. The original federal plan called for the first of the support ships to be delivered in 2020. Neither Seaspan nor the federal government have been willing to provide a revised timeline for the shipbuilding program to date [emphasis added].

Ottawa is also facing political pressure from Davie Shipyards in Quebec to allow them to build and lease additional supply ships like the one the shipyard recently provided to the federal government as a stopgap measure...
http://www.nsnews.com/news/seaspan-shipyards-working-to-avoid-more-layoffs-1.23162857

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Delays in the design and engineering on the oceanographic science vessel mean that work on that ship – initially scheduled to start this spring – likely won’t get underway until spring 2019, at the earliest.

So they are stuck in "committee stage"....

I want this lab.....but there isn't any room.

I want a stateroom above the waterline .... but she's already top-heavy.

I want a new atomic absorption spectrometer ... but she's already over-budget.

So we have to build a bigger ship..... hold on while I go back to Treasury Board for more money.  I'll be back to you next year.

 

[MarkOttawa]

See what France and Italy look like doing and how fast French navy may get new supply ships:

Naval Group Fincantieri Merger on Track - French Navy to Get LSS Logistics Vessels

The merger between Naval Group and Fincantieri, two major naval shipbuilding gourps, appear to be well on track following a high level ministerial meeting held in Rome on February 1st 2018. The first concrete symbol from this merger is likely to be the procurement by France of Vulcano class LSS Logistic Support Ships originally designed for the Italian Navy.

French Minister of the Armed Forces and Minister of Economy and Finance, traveled to Rome on Thursday 1 February 2018 to discuss the project of alliance between Naval Group and Fincantieri with their Italian counterparts and CEOs of both groups. This meeting was an opportunity to recall the determined support of France and Italy to this project of alliance and strengthening of the French-Italian naval industry. This meeting was followed by a meeting of the CEOs of both shipyards and the heads of French and Italian major defense companies Thales and Leonardo in Paris on February 2nd 2018. The ultimate goal is to create a leading European naval defense giant.

According to a French MoD press release, this alliance will allow the construction of a solid industrial and commercial project. between the two groups. This will be achieved through the joint design and construction of surface vessels, of which the logistic support and refueling vessel should be a prime example. This alliance will also enable the two companies to present a united front for military exports on heavily armed surface ships, based on a coordinated product policy and benefiting from international locations complementary of the two companies.

It appears that the three remaining Durance-class replenishment oilers (Var, Marne and Somme) of the French Navy (Marine Nationale) will be replaced with four Vulcano-class LSS. French President Macron announced last month that the "replenishment oilers would be replaced and their number increased". This will likely be formally confirmed in the next French military planning law (Loi de Programmation Militaire). Construction of the first French LSS could start around 2020 at St Nazaire / STX shipyard for a delivery two years later [emphasis adde--when will Seapan deliver?].

Back in September 2017, the French procurement agency awarded a contract to Naval Group to "study the adaptation of the Italian Vulcano design to the French Navy needs"...

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/february-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/5917-naval-group-fincantieri-merger-on-track-french-navy-to-get-lss-logistics-vessels.html

The ship:

Vulcano Logistic Support Ship (LSS)
...
With a full-load displacement of 23,000t, the LSS can accommodate a total of 200 persons, including 167 crew members and special officers. Fully equipped hospital and healthcare facilities will be integrated in the ship to provide treatment for up to 12 injured personnel.

The logistics support ship will also have four replenishment stations amidships and one at the stern. Two special-purpose vessels will be carried on port and starboard sides in the middle of the ship to conduct search and rescue operations at sea.

The vessel will be able to embark up to eight residential and healthcare modules. A 30t capacity crane will be fitted to lift cargo into and out of ships.

The Vulcano will have a hangar towards the stern to house and maintain up to two EH101 Merlin utility helicopters. A flight will be placed next to the hangar to allow take-off and landing of a NH90 multi-role helicopter or an EH101 Merlin utility helicopter.

Self-defence for the LSS from surface targets is provided by two 25mm remotely controlled machine guns. The LSS can be optionally fitted with a 76mm main gun to engage air and surface targets [!!! emphasis added].

The vessel will carry diver detection sonar and obstacle avoidance sonar systems to detect, track and identify underwater threats and obstacles.

A modular, reconfigurable combat management system is installed to provide command and control for the onboard weapons and sensors. It also assists operators in situational awareness, planning and decision-making functions...
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/vulcano-logistic-support-ship-lss/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Cloud Cover]

Interesting.  I wonder what happened to the vaunted Brave class design, with its electric propulsion follow on.

 

[Uzlu]

Navy's new resupply vessel won't be able to deploy into war zones

OTTAWA — While the Royal Canadian Navy is chomping at the bit to start using the newest addition to its fleet, a senior officer says the MV Asterix has some limitations — notably that it can't sail into harm's way.

The Asterix's conversion from a civilian container ship to an interim naval resupply vessel is almost finished as weapons and other sensitive equipment are now being installed, said Commodore Craig Skjerpen, commander of Canada's Atlantic Fleet.

That work is expected to be finished in Halifax in March, at which point the vessel will undergo some final tests before heading to the Pacific to participate in a major, U.S.-led training exercise and then onward to the Asia-Pacific region.

The Asterix addresses a critical gap that emerged after the navy lost its previous resupply vessels in 2014, Skjerpen told The Canadian Press, and navy commanders plan to make heavy use of new ship in the coming years.

"If I wanted to draw an analogy of driving a car, we were always worried about where the next gas station was," he said of the impact of losing HMCS Protecteur and Preserver.

"So what this does is that where we're able to program Asterix, we can be less concerned about that. So we can go where we need to go."

But the Asterix isn't a true military vessel, Skjerpen said, which is why it won't be allowed to operate in dangerous environments.

That may not be an issue now, as the navy is not operating in any areas that be classified as overtly dangerous, but Skjerpen said: "All of our capabilities and everything we design and everything we need is about operating in that threat environment."

Two true military resupply vessels are scheduled to be built in Vancouver and will include more powerful self-defence systems than the Asterix as well as better communications equipment and overall survivability against attack.

"That's a pretty important part when you start talking about a military vessel and something you're going to operate in a threat environment," Skjerpen said in explaining why those Vancouver-built vessels, known as the Protecteur class, are still needed.

"We want to provide the best capability possible to protect our people throughout. And that's some of the bigger things that we're going to get with the Protecteur class that you're not going to get out of Asterix or vessels like that."

The two new Protecteur-class vessels will also be crewed entirely by navy personnel, unlike the Asterix. It will have about 45 navy sailors responsible for resupply operations, while the captain and 30 crew members charged with actually sailing the vessel are all civilians.

"The civilian master is responsible for the safety of the vessel at all times," Skjerpen said. "At any time, like if the visibility is too low or the seas are too high ... the civilian master always has the right to not do something."

But the two new resupply ships won't be ready for several years, meaning the Asterix, which was converted by Quebec-based Davie Shipbuilding, will be the navy's only resupply ship for the foreseeable future.

"It's a pretty big step forward from not having something to having that capability," Skjerpen said.

The previous Conservative government awarded Davie a $700-million contract for the Asterix conversion and a five-year lease in summer 2015, with a five-year option afterward, after the navy's ancient resupply ships were forced into retirement.

The project gained notoriety in January 2017 after Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was suspended and court documents showed the RCMP suspected him of leaking secret documents to Davie over fears the Liberal government would cancel the project.

Norman remains suspended, but he has not been charged with any crime and has denied any wrongdoing.

http://www.timescolonist.com/navy-s-new-resupply-vessel-won-t-be-able-to-deploy-into-war-zones-1.23179752

 

[Halifax Tar]

http://www.timescolonist.com/navy-s-new-resupply-vessel-won-t-be-able-to-deploy-into-war-zones-1.23179752

Its not supposed to go into war zones.  And was never promoted as a fighting vessel.  It is not commissioned into the RCN.  This isn't news.  Its a move to stir up unfounded and ill informed negative sentiment.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.davie.ca/resolve-frequently-asked-questions/

Can The Resolve-Class Naval Support Ship (Asterix) Serve In Combat Operations?

Yes. The ship can go wherever the Canadian Armed Forces require it to go. Operationally it is able to perform an identical role to that of the potential future Joint Support Ships (now renamed the Protecteur Class).

The ship is fitted with the same integrated navigational and tactical system and platform management system as the rest of the future surface fleet will have. Also significant measures were included in the rebuild of the ship to integrate the highest levels of redundancy and watertight integrity in case of damage. Asterix carries specialist insurance for coverage in war risk areas and operations in high risk scenarios.



The Canadian Armed Forces and all foreign navies will always avoid taking supply ships into direct combat due to their vulnerability. Instead, they will remain at a safe distance from any direct combat situation. Supply ships are a vulnerable target, carrying over 10,000 tonnes of fuel and ammunition and with limited armaments. Both the JSS and Asterix are classified as ‘non-combatants’ and neither are fitted with the kind of countermeasures or offensive systems required to enter into a direct combat situation.



While Asterix is innovative in many ways, the concept of converting a containership into a naval auxiliary ship is tried, tested and proven. In fact, the US Navy and (UK) Royal Navy have been doing it for years and those ships remain active today and have served in every combat operation of the past few decades. For example, the UK’s RFA Argus – another converted containership – served in the Gulf War, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and both Iraq wars. The US navy’s Algol Class – also a fleet of converted containerships – served in the very same combat operations.

Can Asterix And The Potential Future Joint Support Ship Sustain A Direct Hit?

Both are effectively tankers. Neither JSS nor Asterix have anti-explosive hardening on them, so a direct hit could destroy either. That is why navies do not take such replenishment ships into battle. They fuel when it is safe, escorted by submarines and destroyers.

Asterix is uniquely designed with simultaneous multiple code requirements being applied from both Transport Canada and Lloyd’s Register. It has been designed and approved against the most stringent regulations across a myriad of vessel types including naval rules, tanker rules, passenger ships rules, cargo ship rules and special purpose ship code and in each case with the strictest requirements being applied. It is most likely the most stringent governing code requirements placed on any commercial vessel ever to be built in Canada.


The vessel has seven main vertical zones and innumerous sub divisional watertight and fire tight zones contained within each one. The vessel meets the highest standards of damage stability and has been checked and approved against over 2700 combinations of major, and progressive damage conditions, surviving all and staying within final floating equilibrium angles less than that required for a passenger ship evacuation.


In terms of surviving a military strike, the idea that no breach will occur to some extent within the hull form of any vessel, naval or otherwise, with modern high-yield weapons is not smart thinking. Weapons manufacturers do not design torpedoes and missiles to have a blast yield of just the required amount not to breach a vessel built to national naval code requirements! In fact, quite the opposite. Breach to some extent is a real possibility in all vessels. Survivability and the ability to subdivide and contain are considered and applied to a very high level in the design of Asterix.

Does Having A Merchant Crew In Any Way Restrict The Vessel’s Operational Use?

Absolutely not. The entire auxiliary fleets of the US Navy, Royal Navy (UK) and many other navies are wholly operated by merchant seafarers. By having regular naval staff operate its naval support ships, Canada is in fact in the minority of world navies.

Can Asterix Go To The Arctic?

Yes – Asterix is capable of sailing in the Arctic during summer and has ice strengthening. The vessel is designed and certified for unrestricted worldwide service.


The JSS and Asterix are identically classed for Arctic operations. Neither has icebreaker capabilities, and they both can only operate in the Arctic in summer conditions. Neither has an advantage over the other.

Does Asterix Have Ammunition Certification?

The vessel has Transport Canada and Lloyd’s certification to carry dangerous goods including DG-1 cargoes or ammunition. In fact, the cargo storage capacity is 30% greater than JSS.

Where Can Asterix Dock?

Asterix can be docked at any Canadian dockyard, commercial dock, NATO dockyard or at any port throughout the world. In fact, the ship’s retractable thruster means it is able to maneuver itself into certain ports, such as those in the developing world, even when tugs are not available. The JSS has no such functionality.

And many, many more answers on the above link.

 

[Halifax Tar]

http://www.davie.ca/resolve-frequently-asked-questions/

And many, many more answers on the above link.

"Can" and "Won't" are two very different things.

But the Asterix isn't a true military vessel, Skjerpen said, which is why it won't be allowed to operate in dangerous environments

Also I quote from your first reply:

http://www.davie.ca/resolve-frequently-asked-questions/

Both the JSS and Asterix are classified as ‘non-combatants’ and neither are fitted with the kind of countermeasures or offensive systems required to enter into a direct combat situation.

 

[Kirkhill]

What Upgrades Can Be Performed To Asterix And How Long Would They Take?

To equal the potential future Joint Support Ship design in terms of self-defence, Asterix could be fitted with a Close-In Weapon System (or Phalanx). These bolt-on systems could be installed in a matter of days and dedicated areas onboard have already been hardened to accommodate them

Same as the Joint Support Ship, Asterix is designed and fitted for, but not with a Close-In Weapons System. It is the decision of the Crown, and only the Crown’s to provide weapons system. As for installation, all CIWS are bolted on and installation of such a system is very straight forward. This is a controlled good that is only installed by the RCN, at a naval dockyard.


Other minor items such as installation of a different radar could be fitted within a single day, if required.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sadly both vessels are good and would be complimentary to each other rather than the stupid either or situation we are in. I understand that emotions get raw when jobs and large contracts are at stake. We can easily use 2 Resolve class AOR’s and 2 JSS ships and the crewing arrangements of the Resolve reduces the personal issues and provide a potential deep sea training opportunity for Canada’s Merchant Marine personal and Naval Reservists. Having 4 AOR’s would give Canada some very effective ways to support our allies with minimal political risk. Canada of course will be to focus on penny pinching, regional bitching and political one-upmanship to realize the opportunities.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Now you are speculating on future upgrades.  All Davies is saying is we hardened some spots on the deck(s) in case you ever want to fit a CWIS.