• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

Jimbolio

Guest
Reaction score
3
Points
130
More delays

Huh.

If you can "not guarantee Canada will end up with both support ships," don't even bother. What's the point of developing 1.5 x a capability? Two ships PLUS extending Asterix should be a priority (not only for the Navy, but for the government itself, unless it wants to keep sending frigates to deal with natural disasters)!
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,611
Points
1,040
More delays

Huh.

If you can "not guarantee Canada will end up with both support ships," don't even bother. What's the point of developing 1.5 x a capability? Two ships PLUS extending Asterix should be a priority (not only for the Navy, but for the government itself, unless it wants to keep sending frigates to deal with natural disasters)!
I don't really follow what you are trying to say.

Weirdly the price of complex programs will go up over a long period of time, particularly when the price estimate was based on best estimates in 2012 prices that didn't include massive inflationary pressures and huge cost increases in basics like steel and copper, or allow delays for things like building the experience up that we knew the shipyards needed time to do.

Things cost more. The NSS is taking longer than expected in the extremely optimisitic initial schedule the bidders were told to use. Canada's demands and changes have directly contributed to the delays, and a lot of that have nothing to do with DND or the CCG. The GoC will hum and haw and then approve the budget increase grudgingly, while also pushing the cost benefits of the program as PR and happy to get closer to the NATO 2%. It's like dealing with a psychotic ex.

ps the RCN had massive periods when only 1 AOR (or none) was available over the last few decades. The Asterix is a great but really expensive stop gap. 2 JSS will be a huge improvement over what we had at the tail end of the 2 AORs, when they were frequently down for repairs with extended DWPs.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,058
Points
1,090
Asterix provides more than ADM Mat has managed to sustain and provide.

Left to their own devices, ADM Mat and the RCN risked the lives of hundreds of Canadian sailors and aviators, then buried the Board of Inquiry.

So forgive me for preferring Asterix to their status quo of (checks the jetty) nothing at all.
 

Jimbolio

Guest
Reaction score
3
Points
130
I don't really follow what you are trying to say.



ps the RCN had massive periods when only 1 AOR (or none) was available over the last few decades. The Asterix is a great but really expensive stop gap. 2 JSS will be a huge improvement over what we had at the tail end of the 2 AORs, when they were frequently down for repairs with extended DWPs.
But as per the article, that's if we even get the 2 at this point. I think GoC should be pushing for 2 +1 with Asterix, but at this stage, apparently, the 2nd ship isn't guaranteed! It should be. 2 JSS plus Asterix should be a minimum... but we'll see if GoC agrees.

And yes, at times Canada has "gotten by" with 1 AOR or none. If you're not going to develop a proper contingent of support ships, why bother pretending? It will be a big expense for a capability that can't be sustained. It would be throwing good money after bad. I was suggesting that the GoC do at least 2 + 1, or admit that's not what you want the Navy to be doing.

ETA: I hope that "could not guarantee" is actually just a negotiating tactic, they just want Seaspan to stop asking for money, and that both ships will be completed.
 
Last edited:

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
489
Points
930
But as per the article, that's if we even get the 2 at this point. I think GoC should be pushing for 2 +1 with Asterix, but at this stage, apparently, the 2nd ship isn't guaranteed! It should be. 2 JSS plus Asterix should be a minimum... but we'll see if GoC agrees.

And yes, at times Canada has "gotten by" with 1 AOR or none. If you're not going to develop a proper contingent of support ships, why bother pretending? It will be a big expense for a capability that can't be sustained. It would be throwing good money after bad. I was suggesting that the GoC do at least 2 + 1, or admit that's not what you want the Navy to be doing.

ETA: I hope that "could not guarantee" is actually just a negotiating tactic, they just want Seaspan to stop asking for money, and that both ships will be completed.
I am guessing that getting two is a good possibility. And perhaps a third down the road a tad. Think about it. It is made it Canada, in a mainly left-wing i.e. potentially liberal riding, it isn't threatening and it contributes significantly to the 2%. To this government, that is a win-win-win
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,256
Points
1,260
Asterix provides more than ADM Mat has managed to sustain and provide.

Left to their own devices, ADM Mat and the RCN risked the lives of hundreds of Canadian sailors and aviators, then buried the Board of Inquiry.

So forgive me for preferring Asterix to their status quo of (checks the jetty) nothing at all.

Well said.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
More delays

Huh.

If you can "not guarantee Canada will end up with both support ships," don't even bother. What's the point of developing 1.5 x a capability? Two ships PLUS extending Asterix should be a priority (not only for the Navy, but for the government itself, unless it wants to keep sending frigates to deal with natural disasters)!
Good, I can talk about it now. The PMO has of course known for a long time that the project will be pushed back. Anyone with half a brain can look at the Twitter feed from VSY and see that the ship will not be ready next summer.

As for ship two? They've started cutting some steel and ordered long-lead items. So if it gets canceled then it will be with a pile of steel sitting in the warehouse.

Unless its on the list of capability cuts that are being alluded to in some other articles.

Canada's demands and changes have directly contributed to the delays, and a lot of that have nothing to do with DND or the CCG.
Yes, forcing the shipbuilder to actually meet the requirements has contributed to some delays. Silly Canada, we should have just accepted solutions to problems that wouldn't work at all or worse created bigger problems. The biggest offender right now is COVID and subcontractor delay. But everyone was behind.

Left to their own devices, ADM Mat and the RCN risked the lives of hundreds of Canadian sailors and aviators, then buried the Board of Inquiry.

I know I'm going to regret asking this but please explain how you go from A to B on this one. JSS delay to a BOI and risking lives?
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,256
Points
1,260
We should see if the USN has a Supply class or two and a Henry J Kaiser class or two they would be willing to part with and follow their lead with most civilian crews.

Or just stick with the Kaiser as they could probably meet our material and petroleum resupply needs.

And in the future we should tac on replacements to USN orders.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,562
Points
1,010
We should see if the USN has a Supply class or two and a Henry J Kaiser class or two they would be willing to part with and follow their lead with most civilian crews.

Or just stick with the Kaiser as they could probably meet our material and petroleum resupply needs.

And in the future we should tac on replacements to USN orders.
Entirely politically impossible.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
81
Points
380
We should see if the USN has a Supply class or two and a Henry J Kaiser class or two they would be willing to part with and follow their lead with most civilian crews.

Or just stick with the Kaiser as they could probably meet our material and petroleum resupply needs.

And in the future we should tac on replacements to USN orders.
They are in fact in the process of divesting/decommissioning several KAISERS, it’s a very real option.
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
341
Points
730
Go for a lease if possible of the two or more of the Supply Class. I believe they were in originally designed to provide two complete replenishment's of a conventionally powered carrier and her escorts.
That and the ability to haul a** at 26 knots
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,802
Points
1,160
I have always advocated for 4 AOR's, by the time the two JSS are commissioned , Astreix and her sistership (had we ordered it) would both have needed extensive refits. Once those refits are done run the two Resolve Class as RFA like ships. If there is a Pacific conflict, your going to needed every AOR you can get your hands onto to support ourselves and allies. With 4 ships, that means two per coast, giving a lot of flexibility.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,611
Points
1,040
I'm not sure if I get the Mat linkage; it's the engineering side's job to make a recommendation, and when the RCN makes a decision, try and figure out how to do it as low-risk as practical. The RCN was the convening authority that buried the BOI, and still don't have an unclass version available for lessons learned. Similarly the RCN still has to other BOIs on the ALG collision, PRE allision, TOR GT fire and others still as 'Confidential, need to know' so they are basically lost unless you have a paper copy. Incredibly frustrating when something like the Westralia report would be possible by just substituting names with positions.

The actual failure that lead to the fire was a random gauge line that had been added on at some point breaking, and spraying hot lube oil onto hot components.

The fitted systems etc were available they just weren't used until way too late, but they sailed meeting SOLAS requirements for fire protection.

Share the frustration on the BOI; still trying to clean it up and hard to figure out where some of the recommendations came from; a few of them may have made sense on the PRO design but no longer do on JSS, and others were good ideas with no actual solution available. Fingers crossed we'll finally get the live fire trainer in a few years; that stalled for a decade but is finally moving forward.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,499
Points
1,060
Asterix provides more than ADM Mat has managed to sustain and provide.

Left to their own devices, ADM Mat and the RCN risked the lives of hundreds of Canadian sailors and aviators, then buried the Board of Inquiry.

So forgive me for preferring Asterix to their status quo of (checks the jetty) nothing at all.


...I don't have the latest figures at hand, but the Maersk McKinney Moller was laid down three years ago almost to the day (27.11.2012) and was completed on 02.07.2013, or seven months later. I suspect that any yard capable of building one could do it in the same time frame. In fact I suspect that the design took longer than the construction since the the Maersk McKinney Moller was the first of the Triple E class.

Asterix ... went directly to Davie's yard at Lévis, Quebec, arriving in October.[1] On 10 August 2015, Chantier Davie signed an agreement for work on the conversion with Hepburn Engineering of Ontario who specializes in maritime underway replenishment equipment.[18] In September, it was announced that L-3 MAPPS (a subsidiary of L-3 Communications), was selected as partner in the conversion for its Integrated Platform Management System.[19] It is also planned to re-utilise the resupply equipment from Protecteur by installing it aboard Asterix.[20] OSI Maritime Systems was chosen by Davie Shipyards to install their integrated navigation and tactical system aboard the converted ship.[21]

In October 2015, the ... government finalized the plan, which would cost $700 million over seven years[7] including $300 million for the conversion itself ... The RCN also would have the option of buying the ship after completion.[23]

In November 2015 the ... government postponed the final authorization of the project for two months.[

On 30 November 2015, the ... government gave final approval for the project, allowing the conversion to go ahead.

As of October 2016, the conversion itself was ahead of schedule with 60% of the conversion completed. The ship was planned to be available for sea trials in September 2017.[31] On 20 July 2017 Davie Shipbuilding unveiled Asterix in a public ceremony

Sea trials were scheduled to begin on 16 November in Gaspé Bay.[33] The ship was accepted by the Royal Canadian Navy on 6 March 2018 at Halifax, Nova Scotia.[34]

A second ship, to be named Obelix was offered to the Canadian government but the offer was refused in December 2017.[35]

Federal Fleet Services attempted to sell the government the second ship again in December 2018, this time at a reduced price of $500 million.

So six to seven months to get a hull built in Korea. 20 months for outfitting. 9 months for sea trials and acceptance.

300 MCAD for the conversion and outfitting.
500 MCAD for a sister ship.

JSS Official Government Record

Project costs​

  • Construction of two new JSS, including all material, equipment, labour costs, and financial incentives based on achieving predetermined milestones: $3.1 billion.
  • Production engineering work, project management, and contingency costs (design, production engineering, project management, and contract management): $1 billion.
  • Total project cost for constructing, acquiring, and bringing the JSS into service: $4.1 billion.
  • Combined in-service support budget for JSS and AOPS (AJISS): up to $5.2 billion over 32 years.

4. Implementation​

  • Project approval for early block construction: April 26, 2018
  • Steel cut for first full ship: 2018
  • Project approval implementation: February 27, 2020
  • Contract award: June 10, 2020
  • Steel cut for second ship: 2021
  • Launch of the first ship: 2022
  • First delivery: 2023
  • Initial operational capability: 2024
  • Final delivery: 2025
  • Full operational capability: 2026

2010 to 2021

Project updates​

May 2021
More than 50 of the 123 blocks that make up the first JSS are substantially complete, with all remaining blocks expected to be under construction by June 2021.

October 2020
The bulbous bow for the first JSS arrived at Seaspan Vancouver Shipyards.

June 2020
A $2.4 billion contract (including taxes) was awarded to Seaspan Vancouver Shipyards to progress with full-rate construction.

March 2020
The critical design review for the JSS was completed as part of the design and production engineering contract. This is the second of three major reviews.

January 2020
A ceremonial keel laying for the first JSS, the future HMCS Protecteur, was held at Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards.

December 2019
More than 33 blocks of the JSS are under construction, with 16 blocks built.

November 2019
Assembly of the first “grand-block” of the JSS was completed.

August 2019
A contract for the acquisition of sea to shore connector systems was awarded to Navamar Inc. With these ship-to-shore connector systems, vessels such as our Joint Support Ships will have an enhanced and robust capability to transfer cargo and equipment from the ship to the shore, in locations with inadequate docking facilities. Canada will receive four sea-to-shore connectors and two additional propulsion unit sets as spares.

February 2019
Construction of the first JSS was rescheduled ahead of the Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel (OOSV) at Seaspan Shipyards.

July 2018
The design and production engineering (D&PE) contract was amended to authorize the full scope of design work that supports the full production and construction of the JSS.

June 2018
The construction of the early blocks of our JSS, the future Protecteur-class ships, began.

May 2018
The Vancouver Seaspan Shipyard was awarded to being construction of the JSS.

The Government of Canada, in close collaboration with the prime contractor, Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd., investigated opportunities to improve the project schedule.

May 2017
A Request for Information (RFI) for industry feedback on the acquisition of a solution for transporting materials from the JSS at sea to shore was published.

January 2017
With completion of the Preliminary Design Review, the Initial Design Review Contract was completed allowing the transition of the design effort to the Design and Production Engineering Contract.

December 16, 2016
The preliminary design review (PDR) was completed as part of initial design review contract. PDR is the first of three intended design reviews before JSS construction.

The Design and Production Engineering contract was awarded to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. Under the contract, the shipyard and its partners will undertake the remaining design work to further develop the JSS design to a production-ready state.

February 2016
The shipyard began design work to incorporate modifications that meet Canada's requirements and allow construction in the Vancouver facility.

December 2015
Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. awarded the Long Lead Items contract to engage suppliers and select the equipment needed to finalize the design and to build the JSS, including items such as the propulsion systems and generators.

September 2014
Canada acquired additional design information from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada.

August 2014
An Initial Design Review contract comprised of three separate tasks awarded to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. The Initial Design Review aimed to review the off-the-shelf ship design from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada.

October 2013
The Joint Support Ship was scheduled for construction between the Canadian Coast Guard shipbuilding projects Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessels and the Coast Guard's Polar Icebreaker Project.

June 2013
Government of Canada announces selection of the Military Off-the-Shelf option from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada as the ship design for the future JSS. Based on the German Navy Berlin class offering the best value and overall combination of benefits in terms of capability, risk and affordability.

June 2010
The Joint Support Ship project was launched. Based on a revised project approval, two design options were developed for comparison. The procurement strategy considered a “Military-off-the-Shelf” (MOTS) design and a ‘New’ design options in parallel aiming to select a single design to be provided to the competitively selected shipyard under the National Shipbuilding Strategy non-combat package for completion of the design and construct the vessel.

 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
56
Points
430





So six to seven months to get a hull built in Korea. 20 months for outfitting. 9 months for sea trials and acceptance.

300 MCAD for the conversion and outfitting.
500 MCAD for a sister ship.

JSS Official Government Record





2010 to 2021



Commercial standards vice military. Also check out the Tide class.
Seaspan is probably struggling welding H80 or 100. They probably need some yard upgrades to weld large pieces of armour using machines.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
Commercial standards vice military. Also check out the Tide class.
Seaspan is probably struggling welding H80 or 100. They probably need some yard upgrades to weld large pieces of armour using machines.
No armour on JSS, though there is a space allowance for armour in the magazines should the RCN want to add that later. There was some math done on small arms penetration and the ships hull is actually pretty good for that. Thicker steel was used around the 50 cal positions and for the above deck magazines as well to increase the protection of those areas.

But if anything greater than or equal to 12.5 mm shows up then we're all about the active defence... (See CIWS Phalanx in surface engage mode, or the NRWS with gyro stabilized EOIR mounts).
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,499
Points
1,060
Seriously? You're adding a decade and a billion dollars for Military Standards? The Asterix and Obelix would meet 95% of your requirements and if nothing else would save your Prima Donnas of the fleet for when they are, in your view, absolutely necessary and the merchant ships you are escorting just won't do.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,499
Points
1,060
If the US army can contain the deflagration of 44 rounds of ammunition in close proximity to an Abrams Loader, with a vented bustle,

If I can buy spray dryers for milk, which create finely atomized powders and are subject to fires and dust explosions, and the dryers, like the Abrams contains and directs the blast

Then why can't somebody supply an ammunition Sea Can that could be carried on the Weather Deck and that could contain and direct the blast in the event the container is breached?

And while thinking about it - a Minimally Manned Ammunition Ship, or even a Lighter, doesn't sound like a bad idea.
 
Top