AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Kirkhill]

I thought we had factored OUT the through life costs and decided on a construction cost per hull of 573 MUSD?   For a tanker with a dry hold and a few derricks.

All of my cited costs were construction costs, actual, with the exception of the MARS project which has yet to be defined.

 

[FSTO]

Not sure I understand your meaning, but I think you're talking about the comparative costs.   You'd have to factor the through-life into that, as well - I suspect the "purchase" cost includes some expenses that discount the through-life costs in the JSS price above.   Also, the JSS will be much more than a Landing Ship - it will also be a combat replenishment vessel and C2 platform.   The ships you mention would be interesting for Amphib capability, though.

Guys, get this right. JSS and the Amphib will be two different ships! JSS primary role will be Fleet Replensihment and will completment the SCTF when required. The Amphib will be the centerpiece of the SCTF.

 

[Monsoon]

I thought we had factored OUT the through life costs and decided on a construction cost per hull of 573 MUSD?  For a tanker with a dry hold and a few derricks.

It's not as easy as it sounds - some things that might be considered part of through-life expenses in the foreign contracts might have been included in the baseline JSS price and vice-versa.  Warranty work is the grey zone where construction and through-life costs blur, and the amounts that can straddle both columns are surprisingly expensive.  Also, the plan for JSS is to serve as far more than "a tanker with a dry hold and a few derricks" - once you start adding combat systems the price steepens exponentially.

Guys, get this right. JSS and the Amphib will be two different ships! JSS primary role will be Fleet Replensihment and will completment the SCTF when required. The Amphib will be the centerpiece of the SCTF.

Agreed.  I was suggesting that the platforms Kirkhill mentioned might be better suited to the proposed Amphib programme rather than JSS.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Austin Class!?!   I hope not! Bloody things are 30+ years old   and the Americans do not take care of their equipement as well as we do (they know that they will be getting new stuff!   :crybaby

Also, if these are steam plants, we probably don't have enough spare stokers to maintain the beast. 

 

[Kirkhill]

FSTO:

I understand that it will be two different ships.  I am just having difficulty understanding how, no matter which combination of capabilities I look at, the Brits seem to be able to get them into the water for less than 573 MUSD per hull. (Choosing the Brits because they actually publish their construction costs)

OCEAN and Bulwark both transport troops and act as C2 centers and have medical facilities.  Ocean also supports helos while Bulwark supports LCUs.  These cost approximately 300 MUSD each (271 and 327).

The Bay Class LSDA's, which are pure transport vessels that can transfer troops and cargo to helos and LCUs supplied by other vessels cost 161 MUSD.

Someplace round about those two numbers seems like a reasonable number for a new build Transport Vessel.

The MARS project is allocating 235 MUSD - 444 MUSD per hull to build fleet replenishment vessels which seems to be the primary role of the JSS.  It will have a secondary role of transporting a company of troops and some gear as well as acting as a C2 centre.

I do understand that proposals often vary when it comes to stipulating what is included, what is warranty and what may be an ongoing operating cost.  I have written enough of them myself.  Those gray areas constitute the salesmanship .

I guess what is ultimately confusing me is that initially this was announced as a 2.1 BCAD project for 3 hulls and when that was questioned on these boards speculation was advanced that the reason for the apparently high price was through life costs.  This was particularly true when vessels like the Enforcers were debated.

Now the suggestion seems to be that 2.1 was just the cost of the hulls and that there is another 4 BCAD in through life costs?

Wouldn't it just be simpler all round for the Navy to buy the vessel it needs, a fleet replenishment vessel and buy a separate transport vessel for the army?  I know that the project has been split already.  I understand that.  What I am asking is, given the costs how does it make sense to combine what the navy needs and what the army needs in one platform?

2.1BCAD=1719 MUSD = some combination of 5 or 6 of the above vessels.  Doesn't it?

 

[Monsoon]

The MARS project is allocating 235 MUSD - 444 MUSD per hull to build fleet replenishment vessels which seems to be the primary role of the JSS.  It will have a secondary role of transporting a company of troops and some gear as well as acting as a C2 centre.

I do understand that proposals often vary when it comes to stipulating what is included, what is warranty and what may be an ongoing operating cost.  I have written enough of them myself.  Those gray areas constitute the salesmanship .

And there you have it - I just don't think the prices are comparable.  For instance, the required support infrastructure may not be included in the UK price (if only because the RN may already have it), or the warranty may be different, or the combat systems fit may be different, or the C2 fit may be different (task group C2, as opposed to land-oriented C2), etc.  The MARS will be part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary rather than the RN itself - that's not an idle observation:  RFA ships are simply not intended for combat and their capacity for self-defence is very limited.

Also, MARS hasn't been built yet so the cost is projected: bear in mind that RN ship construction contracts are always - always - 50% over budget.  We seem to be able to define more realistic budgets in Canada, at least as far as ships go.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair enough Hamiltongs.   I guess we will see.

Though I am still left asking a question that seems to be in common currency in the States.   Given that lots of things are possible, and may be more possible in the future, but that all things cost money, is it appropriate to keep putting more and more capabilities into fewer and fewer platforms? Or is it equally valid to reduce the "wish list" to keep costs down and build more platforms?  

In the US case this is a matter of quality of the force.   They are debating whether to have 20 DDXs or only 10 DDXs for example.   Or 12 LPD17s or only 6 and a few more extended Tarawas.   The Government will have a full range of capabilities, it is only a matter of how much redundancy they can afford - the more the better.

In the Canadian context it is a matter of having any capability at all.

Is it more appropriate to say that we need   X-number of hulls to perform this task and Y-number of hulls for that task, we have Z-number of dollars for the project how much capability can you supply?   We will adjust our operations accordingly.

Isn't that what you are implicitly accepting when you state that the RN accepts operations with the civilianized RFA support fleet?   Aren't similar restrictions accepted when civilian vessels and aircraft are chartered to support operations - Falklands, both Gulf Wars, UK, US, Canada....?

In the absence of all the possible capabilities we may only be able to participate in 85-90-95% of operations because we would put our vessels, their crews and their cargoes and passengers at risk.

On the other hand in the absence of the primary capability - either RAS or Transport we may be unable to participate in any operations.

 

[daniel h.]

Also, if these are steam plants, we probably don't have enough spare stokers to maintain the beast.  

So if they are steam plants, do they still burn solid fuel?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Is that a joke, or are you asking if they atomize the fuel with super heated steam as the fuel is pumped through a nozzle? Stokers haven't used the shovel in the Navy for many decades.

 

[daniel h.]

Is that a joke, or are you asking if they atomize the fuel with super heated steam as the fuel is pumped through a nozzle? Stokers haven't used the shovel in the Navy for many decades.

Just wondering why they are still called stokers, and how steam compares to diese or gas with respect to efficiency, noise level etc....

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Just wondering why they are still called stokers, and how steam compares to diese or gas with respect to efficiency, noise level etc....

They are really Marine Engineering Mechanics...stoker is a hold over(tradition) from the days where we used coal. Steam is more labour intensive then presently powered ships as have have far fewer stokers onboard the CPFs then classes like the IREs had.

 

[Monsoon]

Is it more appropriate to say that we need  X-number of hulls to perform this task and Y-number of hulls for that task, we have Z-number of dollars for the project how much capability can you supply?  We will adjust our operations accordingly.

Isn't that what you are implicitly accepting when you state that the RN accepts operations with the civilianized RFA support fleet?  Aren't similar restrictions accepted when civilian vessels and aircraft are chartered to support operations - Falklands, both Gulf Wars, UK, US, Canada....?

I think that's a largely academic question - of course there's a certain amount of danger in rushing into a scheme of combining capabilities, but the technology has advanced so far that it doesn't make much sense to define new ships according to the old "tanker, frigate, destroyer" paradigm.  Today, 100 people can easily do what it took 200 or more to do just twenty years ago.  I think the point behind JSS isn't that it's a tanker with some fighting capability or a fighting ship with some replenishment capability, but that it's a warship that can fight and sustain.

Canada tends to push in this dierction more than other navies, if only because of budget restrictions: it's cheaper to buy and maintain one expensive platform that can do two things than it is to buy and maintain two moderately-priced platforms that can focus on one thing each.  You can argue that JSS might turn into a "jack-of-all-trades and master of none", but I think the state of the art is such that it won't.  People forget that the AORs were a huge (and criticized) step forward - a ship single that could replenish, offer hospital and repair services, and defend itself was inconceivable to many forty years ago.  It's telling that the RN is only today building ships (MARS) that look like that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well, academicallly speaking, if you are going to combine fighting and support capabilities why not combine them in such a manner that capabilities that are critical to particular evolutions are grouped together?  Vis:  A Naval Task Force - always needs fuel, ammunition and food.  It also always needs air defence and a C2 capability.  A vessel carrying fuel, ammunition and food is a high value target that needs to be defended. 

By contrast a Naval Task Force does not always need the ability to transport troops.  But any vessel that transport troops will always need the protection of a Naval Task Force.  Such a transport is also a reasonable place to locate medical, mechanical and functions that support the troops while in theatre, including C2.

Following from your logic then, why not combine RAS and Air Defence into one platform and leave the transport/support function to an entirely separate vessel?  Would it held any if the vessel were funded out of the budget of the army, air force or logistics and the crew were naval reservists?

I am pretty sure that the reason other navies aren't incorporating so many capabilities in single platforms is not primarily cost-saving but the "too many eggs in one basket" problem.  The center piece of any such force would become of too high a value and the loss of it would cripple the Task Force.  Redundancy matters.

In the non-academic world I invariably counsel my clients against investing in one piece of machinery, one system or one operator even though it is possible and often cheaper.  Instead of one system capable of 100% of the task I usually suggest 3 systems, each of which is capable of 50% of the task.  Then when one is down the other two operating at 100% of their individual capacities can maintain plant operations at planned capacity.  When all three are operating then each unit is only required to function at 66% of capacity thus extended their working life. 

The individual systems are less expensive.  The project cost is more expensive.  Operating costs maybe more or less expensive.  Losses from downtime though are drastically cut. 

What is the impact on operations of losing a JSS while on deployment?

Cheers.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I would never want to be on a ship that carries my ships gas and munitions and have it as a Area Air Defence Platform, that does not make sense to me, in fact I think it would be so unsafe it would border on crimminal. With SM2s or ESSMs you have made this ship an even bigger priority target to any bad guy out there. I have no problem combining support and auxillary roles but leave the war fighting to the escorts.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree with you Ex-Dragoon.  I was extrapolating from Hamiltongs suggestion:

I think the point behind JSS isn't that it's a tanker with some fighting capability or a fighting ship with some replenishment capability, but that it's a warship that can fight and sustain.

The JSS is to be warship that can fight and sustain.  It may contain troops and vehicles.  It will contain helicopters, fuel and ammunition, including I suppose replacement SM2s or ESSMs.

I certainly understand wanting to mount defensive systems on such a vessel.  I would also like it to be built in such a fashion that it is not going to disappear with the first impact.  As a troop being transported I would be inclined to think that would be a good thing.

Presumably you do as well.

Does that make it a warship (f-echelon in landlubbers parlance) or a support ship (a-echelon)?  The army's a-echelon vehicles are being armed and armoured for the same reason it makes sense to arm and armour an AOR or a JSS.  The Navy has always operated on a 360 battlefield with no secure lines of communication.

Cheers.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I agree with you Ex-Dragoon.   I was extrapolating from Hamiltongs suggestion:

The JSS is to be warship that can fight and sustain.   It may contain troops and vehicles.   It will contain helicopters, fuel and ammunition, including I suppose replacement SM2s or ESSMs.

I certainly understand wanting to mount defensive systems on such a vessel.   I would also like it to be built in such a fashion that it is not going to disappear with the first impact.   As a troop being transported I would be inclined to think that would be a good thing.

Presumably you do as well.

Does that make it a warship (f-echelon in landlubbers parlance) or a support ship (a-echelon)?   The army's a-echelon vehicles are being armed and armoured for the same reason it makes sense to arm and armour an AOR or a JSS.   The Navy has always operated on a 360 battlefield with no secure lines of communication.

Cheers.

The JSS is an Auxillary pure and simple, to me and many others in the navy to confuse it to be a warship only ends up doing one thing and that is getting sailors killed. I have no problems with the JSS being fitted with defensive systems (the more tungsten in the sky the better) but when you advocated making it the TG AAD platform thats when I stepped in. Again I say keep the warfighting seperate from the support/auxillary aspect, let the 280s/CPFs and replacements do the job they are suppose to do. If you want to put a C4I capability on the JSS so be it but have it for the landing force only, keep command and control of the warships onboard the destroyers and if necessary the frigates as they are the ones doing the fighting.

 

[Kirkhill]

Seems reasonable to me Ex-Dragoon.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Is there a reason why we just wouldn't have signed onto the UK's MARS program?

It appears to have nearly identical design requirements....




Matthew.  ???

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Is there a reason why we just wouldn't have signed onto the UK's MARS program?

It appears to have nearly identical design requirements....




Matthew.    ???

As Kirkhill has so rightly pointed out earlier..."we have our own way of doing things"

 

[Monsoon]

A Preliminary Design specification has gone out to the four JSS bidders - it can be got at the PMO JSS website: http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs_presentations/SRD_PD_SOW_e.asp