AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Stoker]

It appears Federal Fleets propaganda apparatus is working over time at CANSEC to announce their new retain Asterix campaign. Not unexpected I suppose now that they see their 100M a year cash cow possibly coming to an end.

 

[Furniture]

It appears Federal Fleets propaganda apparatus is working over time at CANSEC to announce their new retain Asterix campaign. Not unexpected I suppose now that they see their 100M a year cash cow possibly coming to an end.
View attachment 100535

Until we have two AORs in the water and operational, it makes sense to keep the capability around.

 

[Stoker]

Until we have two AORs in the water and operational, it makes sense to keep the capability around.

I don't necessarily disagree. I would like to see a permanent option either with more JSS or leverage our relationship with South Korea and have several tankers built as a long term measure.

 

[Underway]

Until we have two AORs in the water and operational, it makes sense to keep the capability around.

PRO is delayed enough and PRE is ahead enough that they might be less than six months apart. Honestly this might turn into a Halifax/Vancouver situation at this point...

PRO also has way more first of class trials to do that PRE won't need to do.

The retain Asterix.campaign will fail based solely on crew availability. We have to stich together two tanker crews. That's going to be tight enough before we want to add a third.

 

[Stoker]

PRO is delayed enough and PRE is ahead enough that they might be less than six months apart. Honestly this might turn into a Halifax/Vancouver situation at this point...

PRO also has way more first of class trials to do that PRE won't need to do.

The retain Asterix.campaign will fail based solely on crew availability. We have to stich together two tanker crews. That's going to be tight enough before we want to add a third.

Seeing a lot of maneuvering to be the first crews on the tankers as it will no doubt a good go. For crewing I can see Federal Fleet stepping up with moe personnel to replace the naval crews, of course that comes with a price.

 

[Furniture]

Seeing a lot of maneuvering to be the first crews on the tankers as it will no doubt a good go. For crewing I can see Federal Fleet stepping up with moe personnel to replace the naval crews, of course that comes with a price.

If I'd had a chance I'd have been angling for Ops Chief in PRO, but beggars can't be choosers.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The best thing that could come out of the end of the "Asterix" leasing contract is the creation of a CFAV "supply" side.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The best thing that could come out of the end of the "Asterix" leasing contract is the creation of a CFAV "supply" side.

I think we were shortsighted; we should have built Oblix as well and bought both of them outright.

 

[dapaterson]

I think we were shortsighted; we should have built Oblix as well and bought both of them outright.

Buying them would have meant carving out capital (vote 5) from other projects; leasing means it's vote 1 (usually). Lots of bad decisions are driven by types of funding and when they are available.

 

[PrairieFella]

Buying them would have meant carving out capital (vote 5) from other projects; leasing means it's vote 1 (usually). Lots of bad decisions are driven by types of funding and when they are available.

For those not imvolved in procurement - whats the rationale behind divvied pots of money instead of one fund? Also - why is it called vote haha.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

For those not imvolved in procurement - whats the rationale behind divvied pots of money instead of one fund? Also - why is it called vote haha.

Not sure if you are being serious, but…

As I understand it:

Parliament “votes” the funding for DND (and every other Government Department) both annually and through supplemental votes during the year.

The funding is further sub-divided in to things like, pay, national procurement, Operations and Maintenance (etc- not an exhaustive list). That is set by Parliament. The CAF/DND therefore has no authority to alter those amounts and must stay within them. If DND/CAF thinks they are going to exceed something in-year, they need to go back and ask for authority to do so.

Since that authority is sometimes not granted (or deemed too difficult to ask for), it leads to weird decisions where maybe O&M funding gets used to “rent” a capability instead of buying it outright, because there was too much competition for National Procurement funding. Or maintenance gets deferred, even though everyone know an item will rot out, because the O&M budget is too small for a number of years in a row.

Happy to be corrected on any point above by our more ADM (Fin) adjacent members, here.

 

[dapaterson]

For those not imvolved in procurement - whats the rationale behind divvied pots of money instead of one fund? Also - why is it called vote haha.

Parliament votes to appropriate funding for the operation of th government of Canada.

Within DND, it's divided (big picture) into four types (with lots of sub-divisions that are not directly on Parliament's radar):

Vote 1: operations and maintenance. Includes most pay, low value items, and consumables. (The latter gets interesting, since a million dollar air to air missile is a consumable, while the $50k test rig for those missiles is not).

Vote 5: Capital. Acquisition of equipment and infrastructure with a useful life measured in years and a cost beyond a certain threshold (I think 30k, but it's been a few years since I've read up on it). These are assets that require lifecycle sustainment. Capturing costs like this ensures that the assets of the GoC are properly captured, and future costs can be estimated.

Vote 10: Grants and Contributions. Money given to third parties that may have indirect benefits to the CAF or DND. Think things like payments to NATO, or R&De Grants.

Vote 15: Employee benefits. At this time, vote 15 includes only payments for the employer share of Long Term Disability payments for CAF members. Other payments (employer share of EI, CPP/QPP, CFSA) are not included in vote 15.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I think we were shortsighted; we should have built Oblix as well and bought both of them outright.

I don’t especially agree, for a few reasons.

1.) Davie wanted an exorbitant amount of money to purchase both Asterix and her hypothetical sister ship outright, primarily because they wanted to long term business of the leasing agreement. The price in 2018 for the outright purchase of Asterix was $724m CAD (tax inclusive) while Obelix would have been similar, or even more expensive if procured later.

2.) The design is fundamentally a compromise in being a somewhat slapdash civilian conversion, it has notable survivability and redundancy issues in comparison with a ground up design while having its own unique issues like a lack of fuel tank baffles.

3.) Personnel requirements upon delivery would likely have been difficult for the RCN to entirely onboard on its own, the lease being majority civilian crewed assisted the RCN in getting these vessels operational to a notable degree.

In my opinion, the Canadian Govt should have recognized that they dropped the ball consistently on planning for replacements for the existing tankers and went abroad for interim replacements. Especially if we went to a nation like Korea, we could have received a more capable vessel on a similar timeline that was more suitable to long term Canadian use cases. This is doubly so when you also consider the money spent on the lease agreement itself.

 

[Stoker]

I don’t especially agree, for a few reasons.

1.) Davie wanted an exorbitant amount of money to purchase both Asterix and her hypothetical sister ship outright, primarily because they wanted to long term business of the leasing agreement. The price in 2018 for the outright purchase of Asterix was $724m CAD (tax inclusive) while Obelix would have been similar, or even more expensive if procured later.

2.) The design is fundamentally a compromise in being a somewhat slapdash civilian conversion, it has notable survivability and redundancy issues in comparison with a ground up design while having its own unique issues like a lack of fuel tank baffles.

3.) Personnel requirements upon delivery would likely have been difficult for the RCN to entirely onboard on its own, the lease being majority civilian crewed assisted the RCN in getting these vessels operational to a notable degree.

In my opinion, the Canadian Govt should have recognized that they dropped the ball consistently on planning for replacements for the existing tankers and went abroad for interim replacements. Especially if we went to a nation like Korea, we could have received a more capable vessel on a similar timeline that was more suitable to long term Canadian use cases. This is doubly so when you also consider the money spent on the lease agreement itself.

As I understand it, it was 20M to buy the ship and 200M to convert and a 100M a year to lease. Anything else outside the lease is extra incurred by the crown. How much to buy several oilers from Korea?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don’t especially agree, for a few reasons.

1.) Davie wanted an exorbitant amount of money to purchase both Asterix and her hypothetical sister ship outright, primarily because they wanted to long term business of the leasing agreement. The price in 2018 for the outright purchase of Asterix was $724m CAD (tax inclusive) while Obelix would have been similar, or even more expensive if procured later.

2.) The design is fundamentally a compromise in being a somewhat slapdash civilian conversion, it has notable survivability and redundancy issues in comparison with a ground up design while having its own unique issues like a lack of fuel tank baffles.

3.) Personnel requirements upon delivery would likely have been difficult for the RCN to entirely onboard on its own, the lease being majority civilian crewed assisted the RCN in getting these vessels operational to a notable degree.

In my opinion, the Canadian Govt should have recognized that they dropped the ball consistently on planning for replacements for the existing tankers and went abroad for interim replacements. Especially if we went to a nation like Korea, we could have received a more capable vessel on a similar timeline that was more suitable to long term Canadian use cases. This is doubly so when you also consider the money spent on the lease agreement itself.

I don't think we understand sustainment costs money, big money, and its not sexy.

It was a clear and present option at the time. But hey, I am all in on Korea.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I don’t especially agree, for a few reasons.

1.) Davie wanted an exorbitant amount of money to purchase both Asterix and her hypothetical sister ship outright, primarily because they wanted to long term business of the leasing agreement. The price in 2018 for the outright purchase of Asterix was $724m CAD (tax inclusive) while Obelix would have been similar, or even more expensive if procured later.

2.) The design is fundamentally a compromise in being a somewhat slapdash civilian conversion, it has notable survivability and redundancy issues in comparison with a ground up design while having its own unique issues like a lack of fuel tank baffles.

3.) Personnel requirements upon delivery would likely have been difficult for the RCN to entirely onboard on its own, the lease being majority civilian crewed assisted the RCN in getting these vessels operational to a notable degree.

In my opinion, the Canadian Govt should have recognized that they dropped the ball consistently on planning for replacements for the existing tankers and went abroad for interim replacements. Especially if we went to a nation like Korea, we could have received a more capable vessel on a similar timeline that was more suitable to long term Canadian use cases. This is doubly so when you also consider the money spent on the lease agreement itself.

Let's look at #1 differently.

In 2018 they asked for 724$m all in to buy it outright. So from 2018 until now, 2026, 8 yrs later that cost would have been 724/8yrs = 90.5m/yr. Stretch that out to say 2028 when both the JSS 'should' be both commissioned, and you have a 10yr timeline, or 72.4m/yr. In 2028 we could turn around and sell Asterix on the open market and recoup X% of our initial investment back, or, put it into a 'med/long term' readiness state in case of war or until we build the 3rd (4th?) JSS that virtually all of here acknowledge the need for.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don’t especially agree, for a few reasons.

1.) Davie wanted an exorbitant amount of money to purchase both Asterix and her hypothetical sister ship outright, primarily because they wanted to long term business of the leasing agreement. The price in 2018 for the outright purchase of Asterix was $724m CAD (tax inclusive) while Obelix would have been similar, or even more expensive if procured later.

2.) The design is fundamentally a compromise in being a somewhat slapdash civilian conversion, it has notable survivability and redundancy issues in comparison with a ground up design while having its own unique issues like a lack of fuel tank baffles.

3.) Personnel requirements upon delivery would likely have been difficult for the RCN to entirely onboard on its own, the lease being majority civilian crewed assisted the RCN in getting these vessels operational to a notable degree.

In my opinion, the Canadian Govt should have recognized that they dropped the ball consistently on planning for replacements for the existing tankers and went abroad for interim replacements. Especially if we went to a nation like Korea, we could have received a more capable vessel on a similar timeline that was more suitable to long term Canadian use cases. This is doubly so when you also consider the money spent on the lease agreement itself.

This post should be a sticky somewhere.