AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
- Thread starter Ex-Dragoon
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Just a point of interest on the Enforcer (Rotterdam) class LPD: they run about 200M USD ea (I would guess this depends on size etc.), are built to combined military/civilian standards and their hulls may have been built in eastern Europe????
Mike
Mike
- Reaction score
- 7,297
- Points
- 1,160
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lsda.htm
I haven't been able to find the price on the AOR but the link above tells the entire story of the Brit built versions of the Rotterdams - Basically bare hull versions with a limited "hotel" capability.
No hangar, no C4, no Hospital.
Unit price as of January 2004 and the UK version of the Auditor-General (the NAO) 91.5 MUKP or 214 MCAD at today's rate of exchange.
Question: Could the hulls be built bare-bones so as to receive mission dependent modules like the Danish Flex corvettes/frigates? Keep the costs down and make upgrades easier.
By the way hull steel was cut and modules assembled in the UK with some overload work going to a Dutch yard. No mention of East Europeans here. And while the Dutch may have parcelled out their construction I can't see the Spanish doing that with their yards. They have been getting a lot of the construction work that used to go to Northern European yards since they joined the EU.
I haven't been able to find the price on the AOR but the link above tells the entire story of the Brit built versions of the Rotterdams - Basically bare hull versions with a limited "hotel" capability.
No hangar, no C4, no Hospital.
Unit price as of January 2004 and the UK version of the Auditor-General (the NAO) 91.5 MUKP or 214 MCAD at today's rate of exchange.
Question: Could the hulls be built bare-bones so as to receive mission dependent modules like the Danish Flex corvettes/frigates? Keep the costs down and make upgrades easier.
By the way hull steel was cut and modules assembled in the UK with some overload work going to a Dutch yard. No mention of East Europeans here. And while the Dutch may have parcelled out their construction I can't see the Spanish doing that with their yards. They have been getting a lot of the construction work that used to go to Northern European yards since they joined the EU.
- Reaction score
- 9,152
- Points
- 1,260
As Kirkhill points out, would a "flexible hull" design maybe allow us to keep costs down and get more out of a serial run. Using the same basic hull allows us to spit out about 8 Common Hulls, with four being configured for Amphibious Force Projection and four being configured for Fleet Resupply and Sustainment.
I don't know, it seems the idea of the Single Ship Transition project leaves us maneuver room to handle multiple surface combat functions required by a capable fleet (mentioned on this thread: http://army.ca/forums/threads/26436.0.html); perhaps we can do the same with the larger "ferry" type ship (either Army plugs or fleet supplies).
Thoughts?
I don't know, it seems the idea of the Single Ship Transition project leaves us maneuver room to handle multiple surface combat functions required by a capable fleet (mentioned on this thread: http://army.ca/forums/threads/26436.0.html); perhaps we can do the same with the larger "ferry" type ship (either Army plugs or fleet supplies).
Thoughts?
- Reaction score
- 7,297
- Points
- 1,160
Just for completeness sake here is the site for the yard that built the Rotterdam and is building its younger sister the Johann de Witt. It also built the Amsterdam which is a Patino class AOR.
All of them are on this site.
http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/products.html
Note that the Rotterdam and the de Witt are similar but not identical - they complement each other rather than being totally interchangeable.
All of them are on this site.
http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/products.html
Note that the Rotterdam and the de Witt are similar but not identical - they complement each other rather than being totally interchangeable.
- Reaction score
- 841
- Points
- 1,060
Notice how the Dutch can lay down a new class of ship and commission it within three or so years?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Dutch yards didn't build her, the Johan de Witt's hull was built in Romania by Royal Shelde's Parent company, Damen, and then fited out in the Netherlands. Still impressive they can order, build and recieve a ship that quickly though. They are definitely doing something wrong
See page 7: http://www.ibiblio.org/maritime/Pdf/scheepvaartnieuws/2004/okt/218.pdf
As for the Brit built versions they have had many problems, as far as I under stand it, mainly involving the specs changing as they were being built.
Mike.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
THE CITIZEN
Latest News
Canadian military should be able to land troops on a hostile shore: analyst
John Ward
Canadian Press
Monday, February 21, 2005
OTTAWA (CP) -- The Canadian Forces of the future should have ships capable of landing peacekeeping or peacemaking troops on a hostile shore, a Senate committee was told Monday.
The ships might be obtained on a lend-lease or rental basis from the United States navy, Richard Gimblett told the senators.
Gimblett, a retired naval officer and now a research fellow at the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Halifax's Dalhousie University, said these vessels would give Canada a valuable versatility.
"I don't like to use the word marines, because that conjures up visions of the United States marines landing on Okinawa,'' he said. "These would be sea soldiers.''
He said his idea wouldn't involve troops storming ashore like something out of Saving Private Ryan. "For one thing, there aren't that many fortified beaches in the world.''
But he does envisage landing against some opposition.
"The troops should be prepared to meet and project violence when they land,'' he said.
Gen. Rick Hillier, the new chief of the defence staff, has spoken of giving the military a more flexible capacity to get to trouble spots. Gimblett said landing ships would do that.
The navy is already planning to replace its existing supply ships, which are basically tankers with some extra storage space for cargo. They cannot carry more than a handful of soldiers and a few small vehicles.
Gimblett's idea would involve vessels big enough to carry a battalion of troops, their vehicles and supplies to last a few days to let them get established ashore.
"That's what you need to go in and establish a presence.''
He said such a force might be used to seize and open an airport occupied by rebels in some troubled country. Reinforcements could then fly in.
Ships big enough to carry a significant force of troops aren't cheap, however.
Gimblett suggested that building one might cost $1 billion.
However, he said, the United States is building 12 San Antonio class ships known as landing platform docks. These 25,000-tonne vessels can carry 700 soldiers, helicopters and landing craft, as well as supplies and equipment.
The Americans want to slow the arrival of these ships, as the navy budget gets squeezed to pay for ground operations in Iraq.
Gimblett said they might be happy to lend or lease one or two to Canada on favourable terms.
The navy might also want to build its own ships, although he warned against trying to design a Canadian vessel from scratch.
"To try to design and produce our own, it adds years to the procurement,'' he said. "There are a lot of good designs out there.''
Gimblett said financing remains the main problem for the military. The best plans in the world are useless without the money to fund them.
He said he would like to see a big increase in defence spending in the budget which comes down on Wednesday, but admits he isn't optimistic.
"I have little confidence that the Canadian Forces will get the funding they need.''
© Canadian Press 2005
Latest News
Canadian military should be able to land troops on a hostile shore: analyst
John Ward
Canadian Press
Monday, February 21, 2005
OTTAWA (CP) -- The Canadian Forces of the future should have ships capable of landing peacekeeping or peacemaking troops on a hostile shore, a Senate committee was told Monday.
The ships might be obtained on a lend-lease or rental basis from the United States navy, Richard Gimblett told the senators.
Gimblett, a retired naval officer and now a research fellow at the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Halifax's Dalhousie University, said these vessels would give Canada a valuable versatility.
"I don't like to use the word marines, because that conjures up visions of the United States marines landing on Okinawa,'' he said. "These would be sea soldiers.''
He said his idea wouldn't involve troops storming ashore like something out of Saving Private Ryan. "For one thing, there aren't that many fortified beaches in the world.''
But he does envisage landing against some opposition.
"The troops should be prepared to meet and project violence when they land,'' he said.
Gen. Rick Hillier, the new chief of the defence staff, has spoken of giving the military a more flexible capacity to get to trouble spots. Gimblett said landing ships would do that.
The navy is already planning to replace its existing supply ships, which are basically tankers with some extra storage space for cargo. They cannot carry more than a handful of soldiers and a few small vehicles.
Gimblett's idea would involve vessels big enough to carry a battalion of troops, their vehicles and supplies to last a few days to let them get established ashore.
"That's what you need to go in and establish a presence.''
He said such a force might be used to seize and open an airport occupied by rebels in some troubled country. Reinforcements could then fly in.
Ships big enough to carry a significant force of troops aren't cheap, however.
Gimblett suggested that building one might cost $1 billion.
However, he said, the United States is building 12 San Antonio class ships known as landing platform docks. These 25,000-tonne vessels can carry 700 soldiers, helicopters and landing craft, as well as supplies and equipment.
The Americans want to slow the arrival of these ships, as the navy budget gets squeezed to pay for ground operations in Iraq.
Gimblett said they might be happy to lend or lease one or two to Canada on favourable terms.
The navy might also want to build its own ships, although he warned against trying to design a Canadian vessel from scratch.
"To try to design and produce our own, it adds years to the procurement,'' he said. "There are a lot of good designs out there.''
Gimblett said financing remains the main problem for the military. The best plans in the world are useless without the money to fund them.
He said he would like to see a big increase in defence spending in the budget which comes down on Wednesday, but admits he isn't optimistic.
"I have little confidence that the Canadian Forces will get the funding they need.''
© Canadian Press 2005
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
With a supposed extra of 750 million I won't hold me breath for an amphib capability any time soon.
- Reaction score
- 7,297
- Points
- 1,160
Posting this on both this thread and on the Air Force board re helos.
JSSs as advertised with berths for 200 troops AND a leased San Antonio or two?
Military pores over options for new ships, helicopters
By STEPHEN THORNE
Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier comments on the 2005 federal budget in Ottawa Wednesday Feb 23. (CP/Fred Chartrand)
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's military planners say they might buy or lease surplus U.S. ships to transport troops and equipment to hot spots the world over.
They are also considering altering the design of new naval supply vessels to get the job done.
The effort to make Canada's military more mobile is part of the strategy for spending being laid out in a defence policy review that's not yet public.
Planners also want to purchase medium-lift helicopters to ferry troops and equipment around theatres of operation - but they're discovering the options are limited to some politically distasteful choices.
One is a reconditioned version of the same Boeing Chinook helicopter Canada unloaded on the Dutch in the early 1990s. Another is the Agusta-Westland EH-101 helicopter, a marine version of which the Liberals cancelled in 1993.
The chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, will discuss the future of the military Thursday at the Conference of Defence Association's annual meeting in Ottawa, Col. Brett Boudreau says.
The federal budget last week promised $12.8 billion in new military spending over five years, the bulk of it starting to flow in 2008-09 as the long-awaited policy statement takes hold.
Senior defence officials say some type of troop-carrying vessel - preferably between a carrier-like amphibious assault ship and a ferry-like roll-on, roll-off vessel - will form part of the $3.8 billion in policy-related expenditures promised but not detailed in last week's spending blueprint.
The officials, who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity, said amphibious assault vessels, designed for landing troops and equipment on a heavily defended shore, are more ship than Canada needs.
So-called ro-ro vessels, however, require port facilities to land their cargoes - no good in a tsunami zone, for example - and, alone, are not enough, the officials said.
One option Canada is considering is the new San Antonio Class ship, known as a landing platform dock, that can deploy a battalion of 700-800 troops, three air-cushioned landing craft and a handful of helicopters.
The Americans ordered a dozen of the vessels but may only use nine, said Stephen Saunders, editor of Janes Fighting Ships. They will build the other three anyway and may be inclined to sell or lease one or more to Canada.
"We are looking into that," said a defence official.
Another option being considered is enlarging the design of the joint support ships, which are barely off the drawing board, and tacking one or two more on the current plans to purchase three, said senior planners.
The joint support ships, whose primary role is refuelling and resupply, currently can carry up to 200 troops and a limited amount of equipment.
Saunders said there are drawbacks to both options that are of particular concern to a small military such as Canada's, including how much sea and air support each requires.
"Most nations that have gone into this expeditionary warfare business have realized that it doesn't just stop at the sharp end," he said.
"There is a follow-on in order to sustain operations. You need either ro-ro ships or whatever to back up with ammunition, stores, medical - you name it."
As for expanding the support vessels, "the more you try to squeeze into one ship, the less you get out of it," he cautioned.
Italy and Spain are among several countries, particularly in NATO, that are reconfiguring their forces to encompass expeditionary capabilities, Saunders said.
"I would entirely endorse it if that's the way Canada wants to go," he said. "Of course, whether Canada wants to pay for it is entirely another matter."
The budget includes $2.8 billion specifically for, among other things, 12-18 transport helicopters starting in 2007-08. Those would replace about 15 Chinooks that Canada sold off more than a decade ago.
Gunter Endres, editor of the online magazine Helicopter Markets and Systems, said the choice of lift helicopters is limited to the Chinook, the EH101 and Eurocopter's NH-90, unless Canada wants to buy Russian equipment.
In one of his first acts after becoming prime minister in 1993, Jean Chretien cancelled a Tory contract to buy several dozen 101s, mainly to replace aging Sea Kings.
After acquiring 15 Cormorants - a downscaled version of the 101 - for search and rescue, the Liberals finally committed last July to 28 Sikorsky H-92s to replace the Sea Kings.
Boeing's workhorse is the biggest of the non-Russian transport choppers, capable of carrying 30 to 50 troops, and may be the best buy of the three, Endres said. The only price he had was $18 million US for the EH-101
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/27/pf-944433.html
JSSs as advertised with berths for 200 troops AND a leased San Antonio or two?
Military pores over options for new ships, helicopters
By STEPHEN THORNE
Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier comments on the 2005 federal budget in Ottawa Wednesday Feb 23. (CP/Fred Chartrand)
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's military planners say they might buy or lease surplus U.S. ships to transport troops and equipment to hot spots the world over.
They are also considering altering the design of new naval supply vessels to get the job done.
The effort to make Canada's military more mobile is part of the strategy for spending being laid out in a defence policy review that's not yet public.
Planners also want to purchase medium-lift helicopters to ferry troops and equipment around theatres of operation - but they're discovering the options are limited to some politically distasteful choices.
One is a reconditioned version of the same Boeing Chinook helicopter Canada unloaded on the Dutch in the early 1990s. Another is the Agusta-Westland EH-101 helicopter, a marine version of which the Liberals cancelled in 1993.
The chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, will discuss the future of the military Thursday at the Conference of Defence Association's annual meeting in Ottawa, Col. Brett Boudreau says.
The federal budget last week promised $12.8 billion in new military spending over five years, the bulk of it starting to flow in 2008-09 as the long-awaited policy statement takes hold.
Senior defence officials say some type of troop-carrying vessel - preferably between a carrier-like amphibious assault ship and a ferry-like roll-on, roll-off vessel - will form part of the $3.8 billion in policy-related expenditures promised but not detailed in last week's spending blueprint.
The officials, who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity, said amphibious assault vessels, designed for landing troops and equipment on a heavily defended shore, are more ship than Canada needs.
So-called ro-ro vessels, however, require port facilities to land their cargoes - no good in a tsunami zone, for example - and, alone, are not enough, the officials said.
One option Canada is considering is the new San Antonio Class ship, known as a landing platform dock, that can deploy a battalion of 700-800 troops, three air-cushioned landing craft and a handful of helicopters.
The Americans ordered a dozen of the vessels but may only use nine, said Stephen Saunders, editor of Janes Fighting Ships. They will build the other three anyway and may be inclined to sell or lease one or more to Canada.
"We are looking into that," said a defence official.
Another option being considered is enlarging the design of the joint support ships, which are barely off the drawing board, and tacking one or two more on the current plans to purchase three, said senior planners.
The joint support ships, whose primary role is refuelling and resupply, currently can carry up to 200 troops and a limited amount of equipment.
Saunders said there are drawbacks to both options that are of particular concern to a small military such as Canada's, including how much sea and air support each requires.
"Most nations that have gone into this expeditionary warfare business have realized that it doesn't just stop at the sharp end," he said.
"There is a follow-on in order to sustain operations. You need either ro-ro ships or whatever to back up with ammunition, stores, medical - you name it."
As for expanding the support vessels, "the more you try to squeeze into one ship, the less you get out of it," he cautioned.
Italy and Spain are among several countries, particularly in NATO, that are reconfiguring their forces to encompass expeditionary capabilities, Saunders said.
"I would entirely endorse it if that's the way Canada wants to go," he said. "Of course, whether Canada wants to pay for it is entirely another matter."
The budget includes $2.8 billion specifically for, among other things, 12-18 transport helicopters starting in 2007-08. Those would replace about 15 Chinooks that Canada sold off more than a decade ago.
Gunter Endres, editor of the online magazine Helicopter Markets and Systems, said the choice of lift helicopters is limited to the Chinook, the EH101 and Eurocopter's NH-90, unless Canada wants to buy Russian equipment.
In one of his first acts after becoming prime minister in 1993, Jean Chretien cancelled a Tory contract to buy several dozen 101s, mainly to replace aging Sea Kings.
After acquiring 15 Cormorants - a downscaled version of the 101 - for search and rescue, the Liberals finally committed last July to 28 Sikorsky H-92s to replace the Sea Kings.
Boeing's workhorse is the biggest of the non-Russian transport choppers, capable of carrying 30 to 50 troops, and may be the best buy of the three, Endres said. The only price he had was $18 million US for the EH-101
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/27/pf-944433.html
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
One problem I see is that the San Antonio class ships need a crew of nearly 400, could the CF get away with less????
Mike.
Mike.
- Reaction score
- 7,297
- Points
- 1,160
Of that 400 how many might be Ship's Crew and how many might be part of the Command Group? Is that a possibility?
Actually, the more I think about it the more likely that seems. In Tom Clancy's book Marine there is a schematic picture of the Notional (at that time - 1996) LPD17 and it indicated that a large portion of the super structure was to be turned over to "Planning Spaces C3". Likewise, comparing Johan De Witt to Rotterdam, the JdW has considerably more top hamper than the Rotterdam and the yard (Royal Schelde) mentions that a Staff Group of 400 can be carried in addition to 540 troops with vehicles.
I might be inclined to think that a good chunk of that "Ships Crew" of 400 could actually include Joint HQ and Medical Staff in our case. Not necessarily required to drive the boat and therefore not necessarily Navy.
Actually, the more I think about it the more likely that seems. In Tom Clancy's book Marine there is a schematic picture of the Notional (at that time - 1996) LPD17 and it indicated that a large portion of the super structure was to be turned over to "Planning Spaces C3". Likewise, comparing Johan De Witt to Rotterdam, the JdW has considerably more top hamper than the Rotterdam and the yard (Royal Schelde) mentions that a Staff Group of 400 can be carried in addition to 540 troops with vehicles.
I might be inclined to think that a good chunk of that "Ships Crew" of 400 could actually include Joint HQ and Medical Staff in our case. Not necessarily required to drive the boat and therefore not necessarily Navy.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Perhaps, I don't really know. For what it's worth Globalsecurity.org breaks it down as follows
-------- Total/Ship/Troops/Surge/Transient
Officers 115 33 66 11 6
CPO/SNCO 82 34 42 6 0
Enlisted 1005 330 591 84 0
Total 1202 396 699 101 6
Mike.
-------- Total/Ship/Troops/Surge/Transient
Officers 115 33 66 11 6
CPO/SNCO 82 34 42 6 0
Enlisted 1005 330 591 84 0
Total 1202 396 699 101 6
Mike.
I would tend to think that any command staff would come out of the USMC number of 700-800 personnel.
Here's an intresting note from the USN LPD-17 site:
http://www.pms317.navy.mil/index2.asp
With that, I'd tend to think the number and compostion of command staff would depend on each given mission....
From looking at the crewing requirements from the DoD site, of both the LPD-17 and Austin class (and the above quote), added to the fact that I'd imagine that the majority of any command staff would be based upon the LHD, also the reduction in manning from ditching the steam plants, I'd tend to lean towards the 360 number as being "sans the command staff".
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Unless I am missing something we had only 7 Chinooks not 15 IIRC.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Hi it would be interesting to know what the outcome will be for the amphibious capability ,but does canada really need it ? would they tag on to the USN antonio class ,it is a good design ,or could it buy heavylift aircraft instead like the A400 or C-17 .
Similar threads
