AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[RC]

If someone came to you and said he needed three tanker trucks with small pony trailers and he wanted all the frills, but after looking at his budget and needs, you found that he couldn't afford it, would you:

A) Recommend that he think about cutting out the frills, buy a smaller tanker truck, and/or think about getting only two instead;

B) Try to sell him a Dutch designed flatbed trailer with a jerry can strapped to the back because, gosh darn it, it's cheap, it's Dutch so it must be good, and after all a truck's a truck, am I right?

Hopefully the parallel is clear here.

The Navy/government is forcing innovation in order to get what they want, instead of settling for something that they don't want.  This takes time, patience, and money, but it is this sort of innovation and leadership that will keep the Canadian Navy and Canadian industry, if not at the forefront, at least still in the race.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am not sure I see the parallel.

The original requirement of the government were not akin to a tanker truck with a pony trailer, it was akin to a tanker truck towing a 40ft container trailer, plus a 40 ft car trailer and then a full mobile home. Even up in the Australian Territories they would not allow such a road train. This is what killed it - not the "frills".

I agree however that the Dutch JSS is akin to a trailer with a (large) jerry can. That's why I do not see it filling the current bill.

And the current bill removed a lot of the "towing" requirement, so that  now your parallel works: its a tanker truck with a pony trailer.

I have great confidence in the innovative thinking of Canadian naval architects and  shipyards. After all they came up with the fastest Hydrofoil, the bear trap, the helicopter landing pad and hangar, the Variable Depth Sonar, the citadel and all sorts of other innovations that are now in current use by most navies around the world.

And here is my  2c worth on a suggested direction to explore for those innovators: Start from your current AOR general layout. Aft of the last tank, but before the hangar, add a 30-40 m long new section. this section is now your "non-naval" cargo hold. You make it a multi level warehouse and put a good elevator in the middle so that  electrical forklifts working on any level can quickly select, load and bring to the upper deck any piece stored therein. Just below the upper deck, you can insert a single deck of accommodation spaces, which if kept at current AOR standard, should give you approximately a hundred "spartan" bunks for short term passengers. On the upper deck, above, you store four LCVPs side by side. With the two on each side of the hangar, you now carry six. Locate the two cargo cranes so they can handle all LCVPs and load them from the hold and voila! you meet all the requirements. All you need to do is provide for either a third crane or some other way of loading/unloading Helicopters  from the hangar as may be required.

With the reductions in personnel we can expect from an automated modern design (for instance, going from a steam turbine and boiler to diesel - electric pods with a control room will greatly reduce the need for engineering watch-keepers), you can provide for much more comfortable accommodation spaces for permanent personnel  AND still provide extra room for temporary embarked mission specific personnel. Imagine being able to  carry and land the DART in places where C-17's can't go. This design could do it.

Just food for thoughts.

 

[jollyjacktar]

OGBD, being a TW, I can envision what you are describing.  But could one build on your thoughts and go slightly farther?  Your suggestions on landing the DART for example.  Is there a LVCP available and the cargo space to have perhaps a soft skinned vehicle or two which the DART teams could use for extra lift once they are on the ground.  Of course it would be better served to have some sort of Amphib as was once on the plate to deliver a better equipped landing force.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Well, If you make the elevator large enough to, say, accommodate the footprint of a HLVW, you could probably design the lower level of the hold to embark 10 to 15 of them or smaller vehicles. You then lower them in the landing crafts with the crane. It was done that way in the Pacific in WWII. You would probably have some restrictions on the sea state you can do this in, but then again, you have such restrictions for any cargo offloading not done at a pier unless you have a docking well as found in amphibs.

 

[George Wallace]

With absolutely no expertese in this matter, I wonder why an Amphib wouldn't be in the picture?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Manning and money.  They are chasing each others tails at the moment.

 

[jollyjacktar]

OGBD, have tried to post a reply several times now..... damn computers.  I did think of a docking bay and some sort of LCAC vs LVCP but did not mention it because of the technical/cost hurdles.  It would be making a swiss army watch out of her again and that seems to drive folks nuts.  It would be better to have as others suggested a dedicated AOR and AMPHIB (Harpers Ferry class?).  But as per my previous post I think we will have to make do with a more with less situation.  I do like your suggestion though.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

George: Jollyjacktar is right: Its a matter of money and manning. But also of political decision on what the powers that be want the Navy to be able to do.

You see, today's Amphibs could be operated by a permanent crew that is smaller then that of a frigate and they cost less than a frigate to put together. So in theory, Ottawa could decide to "reduce" the number of DDH/FFH replacements by, say two, and build two Amphibs: same cost and manning really. However, that would leave us with a surface combatant fleet of 12 only. Some countries that are equivalent in population/GDP do it with such low numbers (Australia, Netherlands) but unlike us, they have smaller coast line and ocean area of interest and in the case of the Netherlands, they only have one coast to worry about. Much more difficult for us to do with two greatly separated fleet.

12 Surface combatant means that only two ships could be deployed per coast in high readiness state. So if, for instance one is out with NATO on SNRFMG 1 duty, another one is out on UN anti-piracy ops in the Gulf of Aden and a third one is on exercise with the US in Hawaii on RIMPAC, that would leave a single one to patrol Canadian waters. That might be viewed as a little thin on the ... water.

PS: Since I breached a rule of these forums regarding acronyms, I'll make amend here for those not in the know: SNRFMG1 is the old Standing Naval Force Atlantic of NATO, it is now designated Standing NATO Reaction Force Maritime Group One.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If amphibs are to be in the equation maybe something like getting two Absalons might be the key. Versatile enough they can take on the patrol duties of a frigate.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Did you get a close look at her when she was in town?  She is indeed pretty and has more teeth than the USS Gunston Hall, but I expect she is more money too.  As for Amphibious being in the pic, I think sadly that ship has ironically sailed.  Things were indeed looking good and moving forwards which gave hope to those of us who wanted to apart of that off shoot.  But I believe it died in infancy and Mum and Dad don't feel like trying for another kid anytime soon.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Did you get a close look at her when she was in town?  She is indeed pretty and has more teeth than the USS Gunston Hall, but I expect she is more money too.  As for Amphibious being in the pic, I think sadly that ship has ironically sailed.  Things were indeed looking good and moving forwards which gave hope to those of us who wanted to apart of that off shoot.  But I believe it died in infancy and Mum and Dad don't feel like trying for another kid anytime soon.

I met a couple of their Ops Types and got to see the ship up close and personal. Very nice indeed. It made me a fan.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I only saw her from across the harbour, she is pretty indeed.  Nothing like a new car to get the blood flowing.  I was lucky enough to get a very good tour of USS SAN ANTONIO during fleet week 06 in Ft Lauderdale.  It too is a fantastic platform and made me a huge fan of what it can do.  More so because I also had a more extensive tour of USS SHREVEPORT, a AUSTIN class LPD.  She is of the same vintage as PRESERVER.  Just the crew accomodations alone made me go Ugggg.  The MSE messdeck was 100+. 

It is too late for me now, but I really was hoping we were going to run with the Amphib concept we had guys cross polled to the USS GUNSTEN HALL for the trip we "borrowed her" and had the starting core of folks setting up in Shearwater as you may remember.  The places we could have seen if it had taken off....

 

[RC]

I am not sure I see the parallel.

The original requirement of the government were not akin to a tanker truck with a pony trailer, it was akin to a tanker truck towing a 40ft container trailer, plus a 40 ft car trailer and then a full mobile home. Even up in the Australian Territories they would not allow such a road train. This is what killed it - not the "frills".

Of course you are right.

The one thing that really does annoy me about this project is that the government's expert consultants didn't take one look at the requirements, do a two minute back of the envelope sanity calculation, and laugh the government back to the drawing board, saving everyone a great deal of time and energy.

One really has to question the expertise and/or motivation that led to this situation in the first place.

 

[Neill McKay]

The one thing that really does annoy me about this project is that the government's expert consultants didn't take one look at the requirements, do a two minute back of the envelope sanity calculation, and laugh the government back to the drawing board, saving everyone a great deal of time and energy.

Might have done.  Politicians don't always accept the advice they're given.

It's also possible that they were hoping for some industry innovation to make it happen.  That's not unreasonable as long as you're willing to drop it when the industry shows you that it's not feasible either by telling you outright, or by quoting a higher price than you're willing to pay.

 

[Haletown]

related . .  I caught part of this show last night on Discovery HD.

HMDS Absalon

It repeats at other times this week.

http://www.discoveryhd.ca/showpage.aspx?sid=19208

Not an AOR or JSS but an interesting design concept.

 

[STONEY]

The Absalon class while pretty has to looked at a little more critically.

She is built to Merchant ship standards not Naval.

As a Frigate she is too slow - Max speed 23 kts on diesels.

As an AOR this vessel receives oil does not despence it.

As an anphib its well deck holds only small boats and its passageways are narrow and only allow one person at a time to pass
and would be a problem for fully equipped soldier with ruck, a shock after being on USS Wasp with 12 foot wide ramps that you could drive LAV'S up . 

This is a very usefull ship to have but is it something Canada would want, would a closer look reveal other shortcomings or are we just looking for pretty.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

related . .  I caught part of this show last night on Discovery HD.

HMDS Absalon

It repeats at other times this week.

http://www.discoveryhd.ca/showpage.aspx?sid=19208

Not an AOR or JSS but an interesting design concept.

The Absalon class flexible support ship replaced the Falster class minelayer.  It is neither an AOR nor an Amphib.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The Absalon class while pretty has to looked at a little more critically.

She is built to Merchant ship standards not Naval.

As a Frigate she is too slow - Max speed 23 kts on diesels.

As an AOR this vessel receives oil does not despence it.

As an anphib its well deck holds only small boats and its passageways are narrow and only allow one person at a time to pass
and would be a problem for fully equipped soldier with ruck, a shock after being on USS Wasp with 12 foot wide ramps that you could drive LAV'S up . 

This is a very usefull ship to have but is it something Canada would want, would a closer look reveal other shortcomings or are we just looking for pretty.

I never said to use it as either but it brings a bit of versatility to the table that we would be foolish to ignore.

 

[Kirkhill]

If I'm not mistook the Danes took the Absalon hull for their frigates and doubled up the power plant to drive that maximum speed up from 23 knots to something in the 30s.  The Boat drivers and engineers are looking at the same controls and plant in both hulls.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You are not quite correct Kirkhill.

The upcoming frigates of the Danish Navy are indeed using the Absalon hull as a starting point (there are some minor variances and the frigates will be ever slightly longer) but, with double the number of Diesel Engines (Four MTU 8000 instead of two), they will increase speed from 23 to  28 knots only. As you have two more engines, there are now two more control boards in the ER control room and the plant is different. Also, they are ships, not boat, and the expression ship driver usually refer to the Captain, not the helmsman. In any case, I can guarantee you that the captains of the frigates will not be looking at the same things as the captains of the Absalon class. It is just the nature of the different jobs. 

Finally, I am not sure what point you were trying to make. If you wanted to make the point that they could be made to go faster, remember that the additional two engines of the frigates come at the expense of space for the extra engine room and extra fuel tank. The higher speed version can then probably not accommodate all that can be fitted in the Absalon, because it would not have the space for it. Those are the trade-offs.

Ex-D: I would love for Canada to have something like the Absalon, but as you know, they cannot substitute for a real Amphib. They would be a great complement to an amphib, but as we are not even getting those, its all a dream. I would not have them as a substitute for the "command" version of the SCSC, but if ice-strenghtened (not turned into an icebreaker - please) without loss of speed, I would seriously consider them as substitute for the AOPS.