AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[whitehorse]

Ex-Dragoon:

I am not dissing the helicopter carrying destroyer or frigate, I am simply pointing out that historically they were used (in part) by the RCN as a cheap replacement for the BONAVENTURE when she was scrapped for economic/political reasons. The reality is compared to a modernversion of BONAENTURE they are simply less capable. Exactly the same process is going on today with respect to other capabilities like MCM. This is simply part of a long term trend in Canadian Naval capabilities and shows no sign of letting up. This government for all of its hot air has not signed a single warship building contract in the three years of its existence. What it has done is cancel without replacement the JSS project. That decision too place over six months ago and yet I have heard nothing official on either an AOR replacement, an amphib capability, the 280 replacement etc etc.

AS far as submarines go, if the SSKs are being used then it should be done so publicly. SO far as I know the Somali pirates dont appear to have ASW capabilities and as a result the usual submariners preference for secrecy shouldn't be necessary.

The point here is that submariners haven't sold their platforms to the public. That's why Chretien got away with not buying them for 5 years, no public pressure. Having said that I suspect that the Canadian public has no time for the usual cold war nonsense and vague generalities that one usually sees come from that community in justifying their costs and lack of operational usefulness. Let me blunt, an overwhelming majority of Canadians dont know about or care about SSKs, what little they do know, they don't like. If the submarine community wants to sell this capability (and its replacement) they have to sell themselves now or in 10 years or so they will be out of a job.

 

[dapaterson]

JSS has not been canceled; it's still in the capital plan.  It's being re-assessed in terms of what capabilities are affordable within the funding envelope available - or what other items can be delayed / deleted from the plan to free up additional funds.

It's perhaps not making speedy progress, but that's not unusual for DND projects.

 

[whitehorse]

Dapaterson:

In case I haven't said it cearly enough - I hope I'm wrong. But I think JSS (as we understand it) is effectively dead - too expensive. There may be an AOR replacement but in any event it will take a long time and remember we have been talking (and talking and talking ....) about this project for at least 6 years now with no results.

This is as you have pointed out is typical but for one factor. We are in or are about to be in a severe  economic downturn and this will slow or even stop an new navy programs for the simple reason that they don't produce many jobs in the short term. Jobs are the focus of every poltical party in parliament and are the absolute priority. We can and will stretch the AORs as long as we can but there will be a 'gap' and this should free up some sailors.


It's being re-assessed in terms of what capabilities are affordable within the funding envelope available

At some point in time progress on a project can be so slow that it will look for all practical purposes the same as a cancelled program. Promises are cheap - warships aren't. This process of promising something and delivering something late, small and inadequate has been going on since before you and I were born. There is no reason to beleive that it will change.

 

[dapaterson]

Go to the EMM, look up the JCRB and see what CFD is doing for the JSS - and also look in the CID.

And if you don't understand those acronyms, you're not really in a place to discuss the capital plan.


Slow is not cancelled.  Cancelled is an order of magnitude worse than slow.  Project staff is still in place.  Some work is progressing.  Ever seen a duck in the water?  Calm, serene, bobbing along - but the legs are paddling like the dickens underwater, where you can't see them.

We will not see the all singing, all dancing, fully pimped out JSS that was the product of naval architect's wet dreams.  But we will see a sea resupply platform with enhanced C2 and sealift abilities.

And never underestimate possibilities for rapid advancement of an initiative, particularly in this case when the MND is a Maritimer.

 

[whitehorse]

"We will not see the all singing, all dancing, fully pimped out JSS that was the product of naval architect's wet dreams."

What part of the words late small or inadequate were not understood?

"Have you ever considered the fact they might be there gathering intelligence?"

If they are they should be public about it, if only to sell themselves to the Canadian public. On the other hand why be secret? Are we afraid of their ASW capability?

I suspect its because they were never there, since there still tied up in Halifax and Esquimalt. In any event there are many cheaper ways of tracking these things that don't need a $250M asset. How many UAVs do you get for the same price?

 

[aesop081]

In any event there are many cheaper ways of tracking these things that don't need a $250M asset.

Realy ? What are they ? Have you seen the price tag on MPAs these days ?

How many UAVs do you get for the same price?

How many UAVs are capable of ASW ?

 

[whitehorse]

CDN Aviator;

Of course UAV's cant do ASW ... yet.

My point was that for the piracy issue and for the MIO issue (which are the two real world missions the navy faces today) the submarines are of very limited utility (even if they were working) and we can probably achieve most of this utility for these operations with UAVs at far lesser cost. Ditto for Canadian Coastal surveillance. Yes in the surveillance role subs do offer some advantages but are they worth it?

Where submarines do well is working against other submarines. The problem for Canada's submarines can be encapsulated in two words: Who and where?

Who is out there with such a significant submarine threat that it either can overwhelm the USN, RN and our NATO allies submarines or alternatively who's submarines pose a realistic threat to Canada's interests that is likely to use them at a time and place when our NATO allies would be unwilling or unable to intervene?

The answer to the first question is of course no one, not today. The answer to the second can become encapsulated in one idea: the Arctic. Even then this idea is curtailed by the idea of likelihood. Who is likely to use their submarines to undermine Canada's claims in our portion of the arctic? The only people who operate in the arctic are either our alllies or Russia. And so the question becomes even more reduced - How likely is Russia to use its submarines to interfere with Canada's claims to the Northwest passage and the arctic archipelago? I would suggest that outside of the noises Putin et al have been making of late (and they are just noises) the chances are extremely low. Russia's noises by the way are situated far away from Canada's claims.

Further Canada's claims are most likely to be settled in the courts and probably facing across the table with some of those allies of ours (e.g. the US). It seems ludicrous to me and 99% of the population that any Canadian government would use force to enforce environmental regs or to collect royalties on oil production.

But even if we accept that argument however the submarines we do have are of limited value as they do not operate under the ice. The cost of doing so would be prohibitive.

If the arctic sovereignty issue is largely a diplomatic and/or constabulary one would we not be better off using the AOPVs (obviously when the ice is gone) to do sovereignty patrols? DO you send a JTF2 commando when a Mountie will do?

And so we are led back to the initial questions, who, when, where? The few possibilities seem remote and unlikely (even if domestic politics effectively limited our ability to assist) and other NATO navies would seem to have more than enough assets to deal with the issues should they arise, even if we chose to become involved.

From this we are then forced to ask the question that given ever tightening operational, maintenance and capital budgets for Canada's navy for at least the next 5 years couldn't we spend the money better somewhere else?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

My point was that for the piracy issue and for the MIO issue (which are the two real world missions the navy faces today) the submarines are of very limited utility (even if they were working) and we can probably achieve most of this utility for these operations with UAVs at far lesser cost. Ditto for Canadian Coastal surveillance.

Whitehorse- it is clear from this comment that you do not understand the problem- UAVs are just another tool in the toolkit.  They are not a panacea. Nor, you will find, are they cheaper (the bandwidth and comms redundancy requirements alone would beggar most militaries).  They are currently severely limited by weather and regulatory requirements- neither of which can be wished away.  Now, does this mean UAVs should not be bought?  No- it is just that buying UAVs will not relieve a now or future government from having a mixed fleet of surface vessels, manned aircraft, satellites, (probably) submarines and dog sleds to maintain and enforce sovereignty.

My two cents.

 

[whitehorse]

Seaking Tacco:

I understand the problem, and no I don't think UAVs are a replacement for SSKs. I also agree with the toolkit analogy.

Here is the problem  - we cannot afford all the tools we want or need. We can buy the pricey all singing all dancing tool and not afford the ladder necessary to reach to work site or we can buy what we can while we can.

In our case I think DDH/FFH replacements are the priority followed by AORs. Also remember that at about the same time the government of the day will be looking onto replacing the F18s with hopefully the JSF, at $80-100M a copy. Add other big $ projects and you have a problem.

Ten years from now (when the SSKs need replacing) if no blatant obvious threat exists, which can only be dealt with by subs,  and which the public buys into - then the boats are gone.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Ten years from now (when the SSKs need replacing) if no blatant obvious threat exists, which can only be dealt with by subs,  and which the public buys into - then the boats are gone.

Of this, I will agree.

My reaction on the UAV front is part of my "one person war" to convince people that UAVs while sexy, useful, and (probably) where the future lies, are anything but a cheap replacement for any other capability.  Per flying hour, the most expensive aerial vehicle in the CF today is the Spewer (the next closest is not even close).

 

[navy Dave]

Whatever the decision, they should act fast. the AOR's aren't getting any younger. parts are becoming more diffficult to come by.

 

[CountDC]

Interesting posts.

JSS is dead??  Funny when we talked last week at work it was still alive. The problem is that the government approved a cost for the ships, the builders wanted to add in a lot of extras such as the cost of training staff, moving staff to the shipyards (IE hire a welder in Manitoba and pay to move him to Halifax), any facilities they would have to build, etc.  Basically the bidders wanted the government to pay all costs of them setting up to the job which was estimated to be approx an extra $8 billion if I remember correctly.  Did this kill the program?  No.  Options are being looked at including the possibility of joining the project with some other government agencies (perhaps coast guard??) projects to make a more inticing package for the bidders (which would hopefully result in lower bids) and sharing the extra costs. There is also the consideration of what do we actually need the outside agency to do and what can we actually do ourselves? Perhaps there are some possible cost savings there too.

Then again we will soon have a new CMS so anything is possible.

 

[The_Dictat]

I would support a joint venture with major shipbuilders, Industry Canada, Coast Guard and DND for a major refurbishment of the major shipyards to modernize their equipment, worker training, etc.  But that needs to come from elsewhere than the defence budget.  We need world class shipyards.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I'm sure some of the guys on the inside are familiar with this vessel, but I'd never seen it before.

Interesting design that's already ready to go....

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/BMT/bmt_media/bmt_media/33/2ppAegir-18R.pdf

On the design, as it's smaller than the original JSS design, I'd be curious if we can afford more units on each coast and additionally, if we were first to contract (assuming domestic production as manditory), it would put us in a great position to attempt to sell follow-on export units to eventually offset the domestic facilities investment.


Matthew. 

 

[Haletown]

wonder if that design could be tweaked from handling a 10,000lb helicopter so that it could handle a 17,000 lb H-92?

 

[Jungle]

wonder if that design could be tweaked from handling a 10,000lb helicopter so that it could handle a 17,000 lb H-92?

From the ship's specs:

Flight deck for 1 x 10 tonne helicopter with aircraft refuelling and hangar

Now unless I'm missing something, 10 tons is 20 000 lbs...

 

[Haletown]

From the ship's specs:Now unless I'm missing something, 10 tons is 20 000 lbs...

ahhhh  my bad  . . . .  more coffee rule has been enacted, might help clear out the obvious cobwebs

thanks  . . .

 

[Baz]

wonder if that design could be tweaked from handling a 10,000lb helicopter so that it could handle a 17,000 lb H-92?

If we're talking about the Cyclone, its in the 14 ton range (28,650lbs)...

 

[Sailorwest]

I think you need to 'metrify' that number. 10 tonnes is actually 10,000 kg. And that is approximately 22,000 lbs. I am always amazed that I can still remember these conversions, 30 years later.  :2c:

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Depends which ton we are talking about

long ton, weight ton, gross ton "ton" (UK) = 2,240 lbs = 1,016kg Used in countries such as United Kingdom that formerly used the imperial system

short ton, net ton "ton" (US) = 2,000lbs =  907kg Used in North America

tonne, metric ton "metric ton" (US) = 2,205lbs = 1000kg The Tonne is also known as the Metric Ton in areas which use the metric measurement system, such as the UK. Conveniently, the weight is less than 2% difference to the Long Ton.